[Senate Hearing 105-817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-817, Pt. 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4193/S. 2237
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
General Accounting Office
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
Nondepartmental witnesses
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Energy
Smithsonian Institution
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-102 WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-057987-2
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
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
SLADE GORTON, Washington, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
CONRAD BURNS, Montana ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BARBARA BOXER, California
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Anne McInerney
Kevin Johnson
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 26, 1998
Page
National Endowment for the Arts.................................. 1
National Endowment for the Humanities............................ 27
Wednesday, April 1, 1998
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 39
Tuesday, April 21, 1998
General Accounting Office........................................ 231
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs............. 231
Thursday, April 23, 1998
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 309
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 443
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1998
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. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Cochran, Bennett, Gregg, and
Bumpers.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. KATHRYN O'LEARY HIGGINS, ACTING CHAIRMAN; DEPUTY
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SCOTT SHANKLIN-PETERSON, SENIOR DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
budget request
Senator Gorton. I would like to call this hearing on the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
the Humanities to order.
Those of you who are repeat visitors at these hearings will
note a slightly smaller attendance this year than last. Partly,
that is due to the fact that there are competing Appropriations
Committee hearings this morning, including one in which I am
interested, that have drawn others. Partly, I believe it stems
from the impression that the appropriation for the National
Endowment for the Arts this year, at least, is somewhat less
controversial than it was a year ago and maybe, I may say, due
to the fact that we do not have a permanent head of that
Endowment at this point.
That may be modestly good news for the defenders of the
National Endowment for the Arts, though it still is a
controversial agency out of all proportion to the share of the
budget that it occupies. I think that Jane Alexander and the
people who worked with her did a great deal of very good work
in meeting the objections of many thoughtful people to the way
in which the Arts Endowment was being handled and have
certainly dramatically reduced, together with instructions from
the Congress, the number of grants that were objectionable to a
large number of the American people.
I regard that as a major step forward in the work that we
do here, much of which has been left up to this subcommittee
and the fault of any action on an authorization bill for the
National Endowment for the Arts. So, I commend the Endowment
for the intelligent way in which it has operated over the
course of the last several years.
I can say that it will be very difficult to provide any
significant increase in the appropriation for either of the
Endowments this year. Last year, an agreement on the budget was
made with the President that froze discretionary spending
essentially over a 5-year period. The President has found a way
to wiggle out of that commitment, but he is not going meet
agreement on the part of the Congress in that connection. The
budget resolution that will be debated next week does, in fact,
call for a freeze.
I do not know yet what the precise allocation to this
subcommittee will be after the budget resolution is passed, but
we are operating on the assumption that it will be
approximately the same number of dollars as last year.
You can see, if your eyes are extraordinarily good
[laughter] the chart there on my left, which indicates the
general division of the amounts of money that are available to
this subcommittee. The long green line on the left represents
the various activities we fund in management of public lands:
our parks, our forests, our Bureau of Land Management. The blue
are the Indian activities that are funded through this
subcommittee. The purple, science activities. The orange, the
portions of the Department of Energy, mostly research, that
this subcommittee deals with. The next to the last one on the
right, the dark blue there, are the cultural activities,
including things like the Smithsonian, for which we are almost
solely responsible, and the Endowments.
That is perhaps the best illustration I can give of the
fact that the amounts of money that we are talking about are
very disproportionate to the amount of interest that they
create in the public as a whole.
But we do want to give an opportunity today for a report on
the stewardship of the Endowment in the last year and its plans
for the coming year.
prepared statement of senator barbara boxer
We have received a statement from Senator Boxer which will
be included in the record at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer
I am very pleased that the President has requested $136
million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for
fiscal year 1999. This reflects an increase of 39 percent--
approximately $38 million--in the Endowment's current budget of
$98 million. I strongly support this increased funding level.
This increase would be used to support programs to target
under-represented states, to support national leadership
initiatives, and to support partnerships with state and
regional arts organizations. They reflect the Endowment's
efforts to continue to bring the arts to Americans in every
state across the country.
Federal funding for the NEA is an investment in the
education of our children, the strength of our economy, the
preservation of our nation's cultural legacy, and the quality
of American life. The NEA makes the arts accessible to all
Americans, not just to those who are in cities or who can
afford it.
The NEA is a great investment. For less than 38 cents per
American each year--practically the price of a postage stamp--
the NEA helps bring culture, dance, music, and art to all
Americans.
For every $1 in grant awards, the NEA is able to leverage
$12 by requiring arts organizations and artists to match NEA
funds with funds from state and local agencies, foundations,
corporations, and individuals.
Public funding of arts is good for the economy. In San
Diego, California, arts and culture spending generated $6.4
million in taxes to the city and state, and contributed almost
$68 million to the San Diego economy. A recent study conducted
by McKinsey consultants for New York City concluded that more
government money should be spent on the arts because it
generates taxes, jobs and economic growth far in excess of the
amounts invested.
There are several projects in my state of California which
I believe represent the importance and promise of the NEA.
In Long Beach, NEA funding supports an initiative by the
city's Public Corporation for the Arts to identify local
traditional artists and to develop a series of folk arts
presentations in the Long Beach area.
A terrific example of public-private partnership launched
with NEA funding is the California Cultural Tourism Coalition
Initiative, an innovative program designed to promote San
Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco as cultural destinations
through three-to-five day itineraries in each city. This NEA
project is fostering exciting new collaborations among the
cultural community, the tourism industry, and local hotels and
restaurants.
In Los Angeles, a group called Inner-City Arts is creating
an arts education program for children in grades two through
six in the public schools.
In Pasadena, the Southwest Chamber Music Society is
developing a mentorship program with a local high school. This
project will provide coaching, private instruction, performance
experience and career advice to talented young people.
An Oakland Storybridge project is an inter-generational
arts and literacy initiative where low-income older adults
interact with at-risk children through a program of
storytelling in the schools and community.
NEA funding supports the Urban Renewal Laboratory Project
in San Francisco, in which artists, architects, urban planners,
computer programmers, and youth will collaborate to create a
virtual model city online as well as an actual model city.
As evidenced from this brief list from only one state, the
NEA is enhancing the lives of all Americans, and I urge this
committee to provide full funding to the NEA at the level
requested by the President.
summary statement of hon. kathryn higgins
Ms. Higgins. I am Kitty Higgins. I am the current Acting
Director of the Endowment. I am also the Deputy Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Labor. I would like to give a few brief
excerpts from my written statement, which I will submit for the
record.
Senator Gorton. We will include the entire written
statement in the record. So, why do you not go right ahead.
Ms. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I had mentioned, I am the current Acting Chair. I have
had this assignment for about 5 months, and it has really been
an education and a pleasure to work with these folks in the
Endowment and learn much more about the work that they do. I
have come to have enormous respect, as I know you do, for a
very small agency that has significant impacts by what they do.
They have managed to do a lot more with a lot less, which I
think is a credit to them.
We are all eager for Bill Ivey to be confirmed, and I think
you have had the chance to meet with him. He is very
impressive, and we are hoping that a confirmation hearing will
be set very soon.
new council members
A few weeks ago, the National Council on the Arts met. As a
result of changes last year, there are fewer members of the
Council--eight fewer voting members. We have six new members
who are colleagues of yours, three from the Senate, three from
the House.
We had a lively exchange with our new Council members and
your colleagues. There were two significant messages that they
delivered, one about the need to reach underserved
communities--and we want to talk today about how we are going
to do that--and also the priorities that they have--and I know
this is reflected also in the rest of the Congress--for arts
education. I think those are the two messages we heard loud and
clear.
nea presence in north dakota
I want to just give you my own sense of the role that the
arts can play in a community like Grand Forks, ND, which as you
recall, about a year ago at this time was really under siege.
After the heavy snows of last winter, the Red River overflowed
its banks. The city was literally drowning. And then the fires
came.
I was privileged to be able to join the President and
members of the North Dakota and South Dakota congressional
delegations, including Senator Dorgan from this committee, to
visit there. When we flew over that town, it was just amazing.
The whole town was literally flooded, but there were a few
survivors, one of which is the North Dakota Museum of Art.
We have for the record an article that appeared in the New
York Times. CBS ``Sunday Morning News'' also did a piece on the
role of this wonderful museum. I have had a chance to talk to
the director. I think it is emblematic of the role that the
arts play in communities like Grand Forks all around this
country where they provide an anchor, if you will. After the
floods--in fact they are still providing this service--the
museum became essentially a community center. They are a
gathering place now for the Bible Baptist Church, which holds
Sunday services there. The North Dakota Ballet is now
conducting rehearsals there. There are weekly meetings of
various community groups because it was really one of the only
places in the town that was spared from the flood. They hosted
free concerts and potluck suppers last summer as a way to bring
the community together and help them heal after the devastating
floods.
I think the director put it well when she said a museum is
like a church in that it is the center for the community. The
flood made people aware that cultural life and cultural
institutions can offer comfort and solace in a crisis.
The mayor of Grand Forks, Pat Owens, said, you need your
businesses, houses, churches, and schools, but you also need
something for the spirit and the mind that deals with culture.
I believe that the arts are the heart of our community and that
cultural life had become a way of life for our community. If
you do not have culture, you really are missing something
mentally and emotionally.
As I mentioned, the North Dakota Museum of Art is an NEA
grantee. The director of that museum is a wonderful advocate
for the Endowment and talks about the difference that the small
amount of NEA funding makes to the people of Grand Forks and
the people of North Dakota in terms of the kinds of exhibits
that can be brought there that would not otherwise be available
to that community.
[The information follows:]
[From the New York Times, Sunday, Nov. 23, 1997]
After Flooding, After Fire, Salvaging a Cultural Life
(By Ian Swanson) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ian Swanson is a staff writer for the Grand Forks Herald and
founder of the High Plains Reader, a newspaper covering arts in the
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It happened quickly. The snow and ice covering North Dakota
from the last and worst blizzard of the year was still melting
in April when sandbaggers in Grand Forks retreated and watched
their city fall to the flooding Red River.
Water spilled over the sandbags, overwhelmed temporary clay
dikes and shot up through storm sewers. In minutes people were
fleeing their homes as the river slowly rose and expanded over
the flood plain, overtaking neighborhoods one by one. It was
Friday, the 18th. The next day, the entire city of 50,000 was
evacuated, some in motorboats. As others drove away, they could
look in their rearview mirrors and see the smoke rising.
One calamity, they discovered, had produced another: fire
had erupted in the deserted downtown, apparently from short-
circuiting brought on by the flood. But with an icy river
running waist-deep through the streets, firefighters were
practically helpless. Fire hydrants--all underwater--failed.
Airplanes had to be called in to smother the flames with a
chemical liquid retardant, but not before the fire destroyed
two of the oldest blocks in the city. Almost overnight, an
America that had paid little if any attention to Grand Forks
was now hearing a lot about it--about how it was both drowned
and burned.
Seven months later, with the help of millions of government
dollars, the people of Grand Forks continue to rebuild the
essentials of their ravaged city: homes, businesses, schools,
churches. But in many quarters they are also asking a basic
question that could be posed to any community waylaid by
disaster and forced to rebuild almost from scratch: at what
point should it properly turn its attention to reviving its
cultural life? It's a question of priorities, and one that
reaches back, really, over the millenniums. For it speaks
directly to a fundamental and long-debated issue that any
people must address: the importance, and place, of art in the
life of a society.
The issue has come up in Grand Forks in newspaper opinion
pages and in coffee shops and taverns as people argue about how
the city should set priorities in spending its limited
resources. And while business and political leaders remain
publicly supportive, cultural groups wonder where they will fit
in.
``You need your businesses, houses, churches and schools,''
said Pat Owens, the Mayor of Grand Forks. ``But you also need
something for the spirit and the mind that deals with culture.
I believe the arts are the heart of our community, and that
cultural life had become a way of life for the community. If
you don't have culture, you're really missing something
mentally and emotionally.''
That may be, but homeowners still waiting for government
flood relief checks and business owners concerned about a
housing shortage and a tight labor market aren't always
thinking about the health of their minds and spirits. When they
are, they're more likely concerned with the public schools and
the churches, which also need to be rebuilt.
``Shelter is the first priority,'' said Eliot Glassheim, a
City Councilman from a mostly working-class district. ``You've
got to eat, and you've got to have a place to live. We've got
to make sure houses and businesses are taken care of because
otherwise the tax base won't be there.'' He said the city could
and should provide some financing for the arts, but in the long
run, he maintained, it could best insure a healthy arts
community by helping businesses and homeowners get back on
their feet.
Still, something important was lost in the flood and fire.
As the state's second-largest city and a regional center for
all of northeast North Dakota and northwest Minnesota, Grand
Forks has also been something of a cultural capital, supported
by the agricultural wealth of the Red River Valley, an area so
fertile that wheat, sugar beets and potatoes thrive here
despite the long and punishing winters of the northern Plains.
The city has been home to the North Dakota Museum of Art,
the state's only contemporary art museum; the Firehall Theater,
a profitable community theater group; the North Dakota Ballet
Company; the Greater Grand Forks Symphony; a city band, and a
master chorale. It has also drawn cultural sustenance from the
University of North Dakota, where 11,000 students can take
advantage of Broadway groups, dance productions and a wide
range of musicians who visit the campus, on the western edge of
town, every year.
``Historically Grand Forks has one of the strongest
humanities audiences on the Great Plains,'' said Bruce Gjovig,
a member of the board of the museum.
Indeed, in September of last year, the city was prepared to
take a leap forward with the opening of the downtown Empire
Arts Center, an auditorium, gallery and conference center for
arts groups rising from the remains of the abandoned Empire
Cinema, built in 1919. The arts center, along with a collection
of new cafes, restaurants and bars, was being looked on as an
emblem of rebirth for a downtown area that had lost much of its
vitality to outlying areas and was now beginning to bustle
again.
The flood changed that picture. About four feet of water
flooded the Empire's first floor, causing $150,000 in damage.
The North Dakota Ballet Company's offices, studio and
belongings disappeared in the fire, as did the quarters of two
major employers, First National Bank and The Grand Forks
Herald. The bank has since moved to an office building, while
the newspaper now operates out of a converted department store.
Firefighters stopped the fire 50 yards from the Firehall
Theater, but they could do nothing about the Red River, which
flooded the building and destroyed the theater's box office,
stage and seating. Only the North Dakota Museum of Art was
spared, miraculously escaping even basement flooding.
But the museum hasn't eluded the consequences of the flood.
Like every other arts institution in Grand Forks, the museum,
which had operated on annual budgets of $600,000 to $1 million,
faces a financial crisis. The people it had long depended on
for support--large donors and small--have been putting their
money elsewhere, in repairing their own homes, replacing
furniture and clothing ruined by flood waters and helping
others feed and shelter themselves. Now the museum is asking
where it can find the precious dollars to keep art on the walls
and electricity and heat in the building.
Financing the arts certainly isn't the top priority today
for Grand Forks citizens, most of them descendants of German
and Scandinavian immigrants who settled here in the last
century. As winter approaches, many continue to live in Federal
Emergency Management Agency trailers on the outskirts of town.
Some nervously await overworked contractors hired to install or
repair boilers or furnaces in apartment buildings and houses.
Owners of small businesses--if they're able to reopen at all--
worry about finding people to work for them in a job market
suddenly depleted by the flood.
People in the arts understand these concerns and
priorities; dance and museum directors also own homes, after
all, and their children attend the schools. And the arts groups
are encouraged when business and political leaders say that
cultural institutions won't be shortchanged in the rebuilding
of the city. But the arts organizations aren't taking any
chances. They're trying to prove their worth by collectively
broadening the scope and relevance of their work--and hoping
that that will bring new patrons and benefactors through their
doors.
In many ways they're taking a cue from a recent report by
the National Endowment for the Arts, which described the art
world as out of touch with the public. If artists want to
receive funds from the public or private sector, the report
suggested, they need to become more relevant to their
communities. They need to combat the public's perception that
art institutions are elitist and class-based.
Today, forced almost to start fresh, that's exactly what
many people involved in the arts here are trying to do.
``The first thing I thought was, Where am I going to find
the money to keep the place going?'' said Laurel Reuter, the
founder and director of the North Dakota Museum of Arts. ``Then
I thought about programming and how we could be useful at this
time.''
Her answer was to open the museum's doors to those in need
of a roof and a dry floor. The Bible Baptist Church, driven out
of its chapel after water had reached the roof, held Sunday and
Wednesday night services in the museum, setting up chairs right
under works by contemporary artists like Kiki Smith, Duane
Michaels and Jenny Holzer. Every two weeks during the summer
the museum held potluck dinners and free concerts that drew
hundreds of citizens. (Ms. Reuter said that as the summer
progressed the potluckers, often arriving straight from days
spent ``mucking out'' their basements and rebuilding their
homes, grew cleaner and cleaner.)
On Thursday nights, the North Dakota Ballet Company, forced
out of its studios when its building burned down, has been
conducting classes and rehearsals at the museum. And community
groups as disparate as the Firehall Theater and the Center for
Violence and Intervention used the museum for weekly meetings.
``A museum is like a church, in that it is a center for the
community,'' Ms. Reuter said. ``In all my history I'd never
thrown a potluck for anything. But instinctively I knew it was
the right thing to do. As every one of these events grew in
size, it amazed me how much people liked them.'' The flood, she
said, ``made people aware that cultural life and cultural
institutions can offer comfort, solace and a center.''
And the flood forced her to change her thinking, as well,
she said. She, too, now shares the worry that the art world has
become estranged from a general public that views it as elitist
and class-based.
``I think what we're doing absolutely counters that
problem, and without the flood I might not have learned that,''
Ms. Reuter said. ``We show art that is difficult--contemporary
art--and we work hard to make it accessible. The flood has
given us a wonderful opportunity to address our public through
contemporary art in a way that hits at the guts of the people.
It's not esoteric. It's not intellectual. It's real.''
And while eating hot dishes and singing hymns, a public
that had little interest in art has begun to appreciate the
paintings and sculptures that express ideas about alienation
and identity.
``I think people became comfortable when they began to
realize how much they understood about the works without a
formal art education,'' Ms. Reuter said. ``The comfort goes up
and the strangeness goes away as people begin to peel back the
layers of meaning. People were surprised at how much the works
related to their own lives.''
Other cultural institutions have changed their programs and
cut ticket prices to make themselves more accessible to the
public.
The Greater Grand Forks Symphony cut its ticket prices by
$10, to $15, for its annual Oktoberfest concert. And to appeal
to a wider audience it took an almost down-home approach in its
advertisements, showing the symphony's director, Timm Rolek, in
black tie and lederhosen and holding a German stein. But that
doesn't mean the symphony has gone pop or is dumbing down. The
Oktoberfest concert's program was entirely classical, with the
Metropolitan Opera tenor Dennis Petersen as the guest vocalist
performing the Prize Song from Wagner's ``Meistersinger'' and,
appropriately, ``Their Land Brought Forth Frogs,'' from
Handel's ``Israel in Egypt.''
On the other hand, the Firehall Theater decided to present
only musicals and comedies in its first postflood season,
staging them in the theater even while it undergoes renovations
(for seating, patio chairs have had to be dragged in from
outside). The executive director, Steve Saari, said the theater
was giving the audience what it wanted: a break from flood
recovery.
``We want to keep trying to challenge our audience,'' Mr.
Saari said. ``But this season we thought it was better to do
comedies and musicals and give our audience a chance to
laugh.''
The theater is lucky to be open at all. After initially
applying for a small-business loan, it received contributions
from theater companies across the county as well as grants from
the North Dakota Council on the Arts and the Minneapolis-based
Otto Bremer Foundation, which donated $2.8 million to flooded
communities throughout the Red River Valley. The theater was
then able to turn down the loan and still rebuild, using its
own staff instead of contractors. Mr. Saari himself hauled out
loads of water-logged sheetrock.
John Kostishack, the Bremer foundation's executive
director, said he believed that some of the organizations
Bremer had financed wouldn't survive their flood problems. But
the arts groups in Grand Forks are more optimistic. While the
North Dakota Ballet Company continues to meet, rehearse and
hold classes at the Museum of Art, it has received several
grants from regional foundations to replace costumes, equipment
and other materials lost in the fire.
``I have been encouraged by the phone calls we've received
from people who say we need this on such an important level,''
said the ballet company's director, Mary Ellen Weir. Saving the
ballet, she said, has been ``important for the overall health
of the community as an escape from the rest of their
problems.''
``I always felt we'd be back,'' she said.
The Empire Arts Center hasn't set a date for its grand
reopening, but Sheryl Smith, executive director of the North
Valley Arts Council, a regional group in charge of the center's
construction, is hoping for a spring debut. That chance
increased with the announcement of $350,000 in grants from the
Bush and Knight foundations.
Like other groups, the arts council has turned to private
foundations for support instead of local businesses and
individuals, who in a normal year provide 60 percent of the
council's budget. Besides providing workshops, meeting places
and marketing efforts for arts groups across the northern Red
River Valley, the arts council will dole out more than $60,000
in grants itself. In overseeing the creation of the Empire
center, a $1.5 million project, the arts council has tied
itself even more closely to the future of Grand Forks. And its
decision to choose the familiar old movie theater as the site
for the center only underscores this bond with the city.
``One of the reasons we selected the Empire is that there
are very few people around our community who haven't ever been
there,'' Ms. Smith said. ``It's an unassuming place where
people can feel comfortable--even if there is an art gallery
inside.''
A half-year after the flood, the Empire still looks
unhealthy. Its crumbling brick facade, heavily damaged by flood
water, makes one doubt the dogged determination of its marquee,
which promises ``We are coming back.'' But across the street
there are signs of rebirth. A favorite pub, destroyed by the
fire, reopened in November. Every night it fills with college
students and professors and lawyers still practicing near the
downtown courthouse. Conversations revolve around memories of
the old Grand Forks, and ideas about creating a new one.
proposed use of requested budget increase
Ms. Higgins. As you know, the arts help communities all
across this country. An estimated $37 billion of national
economic activity is generated through the arts, and about $3.4
billion in Federal income taxes each year. There are about 1.3
million Americans employed in nonprofit arts activities and
this is all as a result of a small agency budget of $98
million.
The President has asked for a modest increase of $38
million. Those additional funds will go for the ArtsREACH
Program which will serve underserved States, again a priority I
think for this committee and for others in the Congress. There
are about 20 States that are targeted for ArtsREACH. I would
just point out to the committee that there are a number of
members on this committee whose States would be served by an
expansion of ArtsREACH. I think we are reaching 11 additional
States that are represented by this committee, States that are
underserved.
artsreach initiative
There would be additional funding for the State arts
councils and also additional funding for arts education.
We have taken seriously the reforms that were put in place
last year. As I mentioned, ArtsREACH is one of those reforms.
We are trying also to reach out to communities by working with
the country's mayors. I think you were the recipient of an
award that the mayors presented in tribute to the work that you
have done on behalf of the arts, along with Congresswoman
Louise Slaughter.
importance of arts education
On arts education, we had a wonderful presentation recently
at the Council by Leonard Slatkin, who talked about what a
difference the arts made when he was growing up. He went to a
public high school in Los Angeles, and he said when he was in
high school, there were three choruses, two bands, one
orchestra, and a composer in residence. He said today the
school is an armed camp. He said for two generations children
have had no exposure to the arts in school.
We have a small Arts Education Program, $13.7 million last
year. As I mentioned, the President's budget would provide some
more funding there.
We are also trying to think about arts education in ways
that go beyond just funding for the Endowment. The Council on
Juvenile Justice, led by Attorney General Reno, is looking at
the arts as a way to deal with youth crime.
In the Department of Labor, for example, we are working on
a memorandum of understanding [MOU] with the Endowment. There
are now 30 MOU's, if you will, with other Federal agencies, as
ways to partner and expand the reach of the arts through other
Federal programs. We do a lot of work at the Labor Department
with disadvantaged young people, and we are looking to do more
in the area of the arts.
administrative budget
Management, I know, has been a big concern of the Congress.
I have been impressed, frankly, with how much the Endowment
does with a very small staff. As I mentioned, my day job is
managing the Labor Department. We have 17,000 employees and a
$35 billion budget. NEA has less than 160 employees and a $98
million budget, but last year they awarded 1,100 grants and
they manage, on an annual basis, about 4,200 grants. The Labor
Department is primarily an enforcement agency, but we also are
a grantmaking agency. We managed to deliver 1,300 grants. So,
you can see there is a significant difference in scale.
b-2 bomber grant proposal
I also was impressed by the proposal, which I am sure you
are aware of, that a number of your constituents from
Washington State submitted to the Endowment. They actually
proposed a grant for $98 million. [Laughter.]
Their idea was to essentially create a model of part of the
B-2 that they could then take around the country. I think it is
humorous and obviously we were not able to fund it. [Laughter.]
But I think it does point up and put in perspective the
small amount of money that goes into the arts when you think
that they could not even with that pay for all of the B-2. They
are not quite sure how much it would pay for. But one B-2
bomber, the estimates show, costs anywhere from $1.5 billion to
$2.2 billion. So, our little bit of $98 million--and we would
hope we could get some increase this year--does not even pay
for probably one-half or one-quarter of a B-2 bomber.
prepared statement
We are hopeful that the Congress will see fit to increase
our funding. We take heart in the fact that we are less
controversial this year. I think the NEA has come through, with
your support and the support of your colleagues, a tough year.
I think we have made some significant reforms. We are looking
forward to working with you to continue to implement those
reforms and to expand the reach of the Endowment in ways that
will benefit all of our citizens.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathryn O'Leary Higgins
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee. When the President asked me to serve as the Acting Chair
of the National Endowment for the Arts last fall, I was deeply honored.
I am equally honored to appear before you today. I've had a delightful
experience the last 5 months serving as Acting Chair of the Endowment.
It's been a pleasure to work with Scott and her dedicated team.
They have carried out the administration's commitment to make
government work better and cost less. The 40 percent cut in funding and
89-person cut in staff (in fiscal year 1996) have tested the patience
and fortitude of the NEA team. I think they've passed with flying
colors and with their sense of humor in tact.
As much as I've loved this assignment, I know we are all eager for
the Senate to confirm Bill Ivey as the new Chair. I know he has met
with you Mr. Chairman and with Senators Bennett and Stevens, and I
think you'll agree that he will be a great leader of the Endowment.
One of my assignments as Acting Chair of the Endowment is to help
convene meetings of the National Council. The Council met just two
weeks ago and, as a result of changes in last year's appropriations
bill, there are 8 (or 30 percent) fewer voting members than before; in
September of this year, that number will go down by 4 more (an
additional 15 percent reduction). The result of this downsizing already
is that not all of the creative disciplines are represented. We are
missing expertise in some key areas like design, dance and literature.
This is of great concern to the council and I hope we can work with you
Mr. Chairman to take another look at the size of the voting membership
of the council.
At this Council meeting, we welcomed six new members--three of your
colleagues from here in the Senate (Senators Durbin, Sessions and
Collins) and three Tom the ``other body'' (Representatives Nita Lowey,
Cass Ballenger and John Doolittle).
Four of our new members were able to personally participate in the
Council's meetings and, as you might guess, the exchanges were lively
and thought provoking. Two messages were offered by the new members:
--(1) The Endowment should do more to make funds available to
undeserved communities; and,
--(2) Arts education should be a higher priority and given more
prominence in the Endowment's agenda.
Both messages were well received by the Council. Today Scott and I
will address the actions the Endowment is taking to deal with these
concerns.
But first, I want to share with you a story that particularly
touched me and I believe reveals the essential and invaluable role that
the arts can play in bringing communities together and helping them to
heal when tragedy strikes.
Just one year ago, Grand Forks, North Dakota was under siege. When
spring came to North Dakota last year, after one of the worst winters
in memory, the Red River overflowed its banks, broke through the man-
made dikes and levies, and inundated this modest community of 52,000.
The city was literally drowning and its citizens had to be
evacuated--and then the fires came. Who can forget the tragic scenes of
those fires raging out of control, destroying several blocks of the
business district as the volunteers fought desperately but in vain to
save their downtown.
I visited Grand Forks last April with President Clinton and the
Congressional delegation, and the scenes of a flooded city and burned
out buildings are indelibly etched.
But all was not lost. There were a few miracles. The North Dakota
Museum of Art and all the art it holds survived. Even the basement was
dry. And because it was one of the few community facilities to come
through the floods and fires unscathed, the museum quickly became a
gathering place for displaced city residents.
Members of the Bible Baptist Church gathered at the museum twice a
week for services. The North Dakota ballet used the museum for
rehearsals and the Center for Violence and Intervention conducted
weekly meetings there. And last summer the museum hosted potluck
suppers and free concerts for the citizens of Grand Forks who came
every week, weary from digging their homes out from the muck and mire.
Ms. Laurel Reuter, the museum's director, put it this way: ``A
museum is like a church, in that it is the center for the community * *
*. [t]he flood made people aware that cultural life and cultural
institutions can offer comfort, solace and a center.''
Or as the indomitable Mayor of Grand Forks, Pat Owens, said ``You
need your businesses, houses, churches and schools. But you also need
something for the spirit and the mind that deals with culture. I
believe the arts are the heart of our community, and that cultural life
had become a way of life for the community. If you don't have culture,
you're really missing something mentally and emotionally.''
The North Dakota Museum of Art is an NEA grantee. And the Council
just provided additional funding to help the museum plan and manage an
endowment campaign. This will secure the museum's place and prominence
at the center and heart of the Grand Forks community I would ask that
the New York Times November 23, 1997 account be entered for the record.
comparative perspective
The Endowment helps communities like Grand Forks all across the
country. The Endowment generates an estimated $37 billion in national
economic activity and returns about $3.4 billion in federal income
taxes each year. More than 1.3 million Americans are employed in the
nonprofit arts industry. And all of this was accomplished, in this past
year, with a budget of $98 million--or at a cost of about one postage
stamp per taxpayer.
The President's budget request is $136 million for the NEA, a $38
million increase. By comparison, in constant dollars, this is less than
half what the NEA's budget was 20 years ago. So, as you can tell, the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget request is extraordinarily lean.
The additional $38 million requested for fiscal year 1999 will fund
the important $20 million ArtsReach program that Scott will discuss in
greater detail; provide $14 million to States Arts Councils; and,
provide $4 million to arts education.
key concerns
As I mentioned, the two issues discussed actively at the Council
meeting were: the reach or distribution of the NEA grants--in other
words, how do we help communities, specifically the undeserved; and,
the importance of arts education.
Let me touch on each.
Reaching out to all communities--getting to the undeserved
The NEA recognizes that too many states aren't participating as
fully as we'd like, but we are determined to correct that problem. As
Congressman Ballenger put it at the Council meeting, he is convinced
there is now a very strong effort on the part of the NEA to go, as he
said, ``into the boondocks.''
The ArtsReach program, which Scott will address, would specifically
target undeserved states, increasing the likelihood that we can reach
all 50 states--if we get the money to carry it out.
We also seek representation from all the states on the panels that
review grants; in addition, we've established a multi-state funding
category and this year 334 applications in this category were approved
by the Council; we're also asking grantees to let us know exactly where
projects occur--and with new software, tracking this by zip code.
We also have enlisted the help of our nation's mayors. Recently I
attended the awards dinner sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and Americans for the Arts: Over 650 people attended including 300
mayors and it was truly a celebration of the importance of federal
support for the arts and the NEA. Awards were presented to you Senator
Gorton, and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, from New York, in
recognition of your and her outstanding support of the Endowment. Your
comments, along with those of the mayors who participated in the
evening, were a strong endorsement of the importance of the arts to
communities across America.
The NEA, through the Mayors Institute on City Design, is helping
local governments do comprehensive planning and revitalize their
communities--Scott will tell you in more detail about Rock Hill, South
Carolina's Mayor Betty Jo Rhea's wonderful experience. When we broaden
how we think of ``art,'' we recognize that the creative talents the
arts engender, are talents that are invaluable in every element of
society, in every endeavor.
Arts education
I wholeheartedly agree with several of your distinguished
colleagues who pointed out to the full Council, that arts education is
critically important.
I'm reminded of what our second President John Adams wrote to his
wife Abigail in 1780: ``I must study politics and war that my sons may
have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to
study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval
architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give
their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture,
statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.''
When Maestro Leonard Slatkin recently spoke to the Council about
the importance of arts education, he noted that: ``we're close to two
generations of the public who have seen cutbacks in programs in
schools, public schools in particular.'' He told us how, when he was a
student in a public high school in Los Angeles, there were three
choruses, two bands, and one orchestra, and a composer in residence--in
a public high school. He said, ``today the school is an armed camp.''
The NEA does have an effective, albeit small, arts education
program, just $13.7 million last year. Of the additional monies in our
fiscal year 1999 request, an additional $4 million would go to expand
arts education.
The NEA helps educate youth through traveling programs in schools,
and through after school training programs, and community exhibits. The
NEA achieves this through a wide variety of partnerships, including 30
agreements with other federal departments.
I recently represented the NEA at the Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice, chaired by Attorney General Reno. Along with
Secretary Shalala, General McCaffrey and others, we discussed how arts
activities are a tremendously positive alternative for youth, helping
them avoid danger in the streets and the influence of drugs and crime.
At the Department of Labor, we now recognize the Arts can help us
do more to assist Americans, especially youth, in developing the skills
needed to succeed in the workplace. Arts programs help improve self
esteem, teach how to be more assertive in a positive way, improve
communication skills, and develop discipline while involved in
projects--all skills employers value!
In Poughkeepsie, New York, for example, the Job Training
Partnership Act and the New York State Council for the Arts, contribute
to Project ABLE (Arts for Basic Education, Life Skills, and
Entrepreneurship). Under the guidance of a carpenter, a retail design
specialist and artists, city youth have renovated a gift shop, an arts
gallery and a warehouse and have undertaken public arts projects. The
teens gain specific job skills, learn how to resolve conflict, work in
teams and exercise decision making abilities.
The Department of Labor is developing a Memorandum of understanding
with the Endowment--to learn from and expand on programs like Project
ABLE.
The benefit of arts education in promoting creative thinking, is
well as recognized. Harvard and many other business schools are
actually teaching creativity--and large companies sponsor conferences,
training and guest speakers that highlight thinking ``outside the
box.''
Strategic management
All this work is being done by the NEA, as I pointed out earlier,
with fewer people, and with less money than since the late 1970's.
I am impressed by the streamlined, cost effective and public way in
which the NEA manages--responding to what I would call both the
leadership and challenge of many in Congress.
In addition, the new strategic and performance plan process known
as GPRA, has helped the NEA to focus its efforts on tangible results.
It's been fascinating for me to contrast the NEA with my day job,
as Deputy Secretary of Labor. The Labor Department has about 17,000
employees and a budget of almost $35 billion. The NEA on the other hand
has just 150 employees and its budget last year was $98 million. In
grant activity last year, the NEA awarded 1 101 grants and continued to
manage another 4,200 or so. The Labor Department awarded approximately
1,300 grants last year. The NEA is a small, but very effective
organization.
To continue to be effective, I urge the you to forward an
appropriations bill for the NEA. CBO, according to a January 1997
report, is not aware of any case in which appropriations have not been
provided solely because a program or agency's authorization has
expired.
Closing
In his State of the Union address, the President asked how we would
mark our passage into the new Millennium.
At the NEA, we want to mark this passage with a more open, well
managed and enlightened effort to honor the past achievements of our
nation's creative and artistic talents--through museum exhibits,
traveling shows, and gala performances--so as to educate a generation
about all aspects of its culture.
And we shall also imagine the future, supporting new artists in all
fields, and thinking about art in a new way--a way that encourages a
generation to help shape its culture, as well as helps Mayors design
revitalized communities, and businesses compete better in the global
economy with creative talent.
I think the best way to reach undeserved areas, to promote arts
education, to enable all Americans to experience the richness of our
culture, is to continue to have an active dialogue with those we serve,
and to provide forums and opportunities for them to engage in that
dialogue, and in the programs and activities that share, celebrate, and
create anew this great culture.
The role of the NEA is not to steer that dialogue or those shared
experiences, but to continue to ensure they exist for as many Americans
as possible.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.
I'd like to introduce Scott Shanklin-Peterson, Senior Deputy Chairman
of the National Endowment and its chief operating officer.
------
Biographical Sketch of Kathryn O'Leary Higgins
Kathryn O'Leary Higgins was sworn in as Deputy Secretary of
Labor on July 2, 1997. Currently the second in command under
Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman, Ms. Higgins oversees policy
development and the day-to-day operations of the 16,000
employee Department.
Ms. Higgins brings nearly three decades of experience and
leadership to the job of Deputy Secretary. In her current role,
she manages the Department's 16 agencies helping to assure that
working Americans are paid a just wage, can depend on a secure
retirement, have a safe, healthy and fair workplace, and are
prepared for the highly-competitive global economy.
Joining the Clinton Administration immediately after the
1992 election, Ms. Higgins served as the Chief of Staff to
President Clinton's first Labor Secretary, Robert Reich. In
February 1995, she moved to the White House to serve as an
Assistant to the President and the Secretary to the Cabinet.
Ms. Higgins held this position until her July 1997 confirmation
as Deputy Secretary of Labor.
Kitty Higgins began her career in public service in the
summer of 1968 as an intern at the Labor Department. After
graduation from the University of Nebraska in 1969, she
returned to the Department and worked as a Manpower Specialist
until 1978. She then served on President Carter's Domestic
Policy Council as an Assistant Director for Employment Policy
from 1978 to 1981.
In January 1981, Ms. Higgins joined Senator Edward
Kennedy's staff as a Senior Legislative Associate for the
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and rose to
become the Democratic Staff Director, serving the Senator in
that capacity from September 1982 to January 1986. Ms. Higgins
then moved to the House of Representatives, becoming Chief of
Staff/Administrative Assistant to Representative Sander Levin
of Michigan, until joining the Clinton Administration.
In addition to her appointment as Deputy Secretary of
Labor, Ms. Higgins agreed in November 1997 to serve as the
Acting Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts until the
President's nominee for that position, William J. Ivey, is
confirmed.
Ms. Higgins is from Yankton, South Dakota, and attended
Mount Marty College in South Dakota from 1965-67 before earning
her B.S. in social science and education from the University of
Nebraska in 1969. She was married for 16 years to William J.
Higgins until his death in 1987, and has two sons: Liam, 23,
and Kevan, 19.
summary statement of scott shanklin-peterson
Senator Gorton. Ms. Shanklin-Peterson?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and also
appreciate the wonderful leadership which Kitty has provided to
our agency during this interim period.
Before joining Jane Alexander's staff in 1994, I was
executive director of the South Carolina Arts Commission for 13
years and on the staff for 8 years prior to that. So, I have
brought to this position 21 years of experience of working with
State and local leaders to develop the arts in South Carolina
and also to promote arts education in our schools. So, I know
firsthand how important the support of the Endowment is across
the country.
I am honored today to be here to represent the President's
request of $136 million. This $38 million increase will enable
the Congress and our agency to help preserve the cultural
heritage of America's communities. It will help us expand our
ArtsREACH Program. It will help us to enhance the learning
opportunities in the arts in our schools and help provide
access to the arts in communities across the country through
our partnerships with the State arts agencies.
I wanted to take this opportunity to bring you up to date
on several actions that we have taken to address three
important areas. One is the broadening of the distribution of
our grants. The second is the multistate projects that we are
funding, and third is arts education. I also want to assure you
that the Endowment is working to implement all of the important
directives which were included in the 1998 appropriations bill
and continuing the administrative reforms which our Chairman,
Jane Alexander, implemented.
We are very concerned--and I know Members of Congress are
concerned--about the inequitable geographic distribution of our
funds. We have taken a number of steps to broaden the
distribution.
artsreach initiative
The first is that we recently announced the ArtsREACH
Program which is a very promising new initiative and we are
beginning a pilot this year with 1998 funding. The ArtsREACH
Program is a new grants program for underserved States and it
will be accompanied by targeted technical assistance to those
same States from our staff. It was approved by the National
Council on the Arts at its last meeting 3 weeks ago, and the
new congressional members of the Council were very, very
enthusiastic about it.
We want to broaden the geographic distribution of our
funds. ArtsREACH will also help strengthen the role of the arts
in communities and increase support for the arts.
We have designated 20 States which we consider to be
underrepresented States. These are States that received five or
fewer grants either this year or last year. We have put
together an arts endowment technical assistance team. Our staff
will go out to these 20 States and conduct grants workshops,
talk about ArtsREACH, talk about the opportunities that are
available through the Arts Endowment and work with the State
and local arts agencies in doing this.
Some 2 weeks ago we had staff in Tennessee, and last week
in Delaware, South Dakota, and North Dakota. This week one of
our staff members is touring the State of Alabama with one of
Senator Sessions' staff members and conducting workshops
throughout Alabama.
ArtsREACH is also a grants program, and we will be
providing small grants to arts organizations and communities in
these targeted States for planning and for technical services.
We hope to provide around 75 to 100 grants through ArtsREACH
this year, and we hope that through ArtsREACH and the planning
process that is involved with it we will make these areas more
competitive not only for Arts Endowment funding, but also for
funding from their State arts agencies, from their local
communities, and from the private sector.
Americans for the Arts indicates, through some of the
research they have done, that local arts agencies that have
cultural plans developed for their community are able to raise
over 33 percent more in resources than communities that do not.
This is what we hope to accomplish through ArtsREACH.
One example is in my home State in Rock Hill, SC, which is
a small city. It is about 10 miles south of Charlotte, NC. In
the late 1980's, they had 17 percent unemployment because they
had 12 textile mills that closed. The mayor, Betty Jo Rhea,
brought the community together and they developed a plan to use
the arts and design to revitalize their downtown and the
economy of Rock Hill.
In 1991, based on the strong plan that they developed, the
Arts Endowment awarded a $150,000 grant to help them implement
some of the projects that they had designed. They matched that
with over $600,000 in support from the local government and
also from the private sector. Now today they have outdoor
sculpture throughout the community. They have a new arts
center. They have artist studios on Main Street. They have an
annual arts festival and performing arts series. They also have
two booming industrial parks, and they have an unemployment
rate of 2.2 percent.
So, Rock Hill has really become a community where people
want to live, where they enjoy living, a community where
industry wants to locate, and the former, Mayor Betty Jo Rhea,
really credits the Arts Endowment with being the catalyst for
this change in their community. That is the kind of initiative
that we want to see happen through ArtsREACH and through the
communities that we are working with.
We are proposing to allocate $20 million of the increase to
ArtsREACH, and this would help us expand the number of
communities that we are able to reach next year. It would also
help us to be able to provide grants for the specific projects
that are developed this year through the ArtsREACH planning
process and also help us to provide grants through our regular
direct grants program to organizations in these States. We
believe a result of our staff working directly with the States
and with the communities will assist them to develop
competitive projects.
We have taken a number of other actions. We are recruiting
very actively panelists from all of the underserved States. We
are making sure that the panel appointments that we make are
monitored on a State-by-State basis. We have added geographic
impact to our grant review criteria, and we are working with
the State arts agencies. This year we developed a new folk arts
initiative and we are providing grants to over 30 States for
folk arts projects.
In addition, our Millennium projects will be designed to
serve all 50 States.
multistate grants
We are also making sure of the grants that we do award, no
more than 15 percent of them are to any one State.
I also wanted to comment on our multistate grants. Congress
has asked us to establish a category of multistate grants that
serve more than one State or grants which have a national
impact. This is one of the very important roles that the Arts
Endowment can play. This year we will be providing
approximately 300 multistate grants to support activities in
more than one State, and these grants help support artists who
tour to other States, and also help support broadcast
opportunities.
One such example is the National Dance Project which was
awarded to the New England Foundation in Boston. It is a $1
million grant that appears to have gone to Boston but actually
supported 117 dance performances in 32 States last year.
arts education
Arts education, as you know, is one of our priorities. We
have a new brochure which you have in front of you that
explains the Arts Endowment's programs in arts education and
our position with arts education.
You also have a copy of Principal magazine which we would
like to enter into the record.
Senator Gorton. We will enter into the record that
magazine, and I assume you want the New York Times article
about Grand Forks and any of the other publications you would
like to be in the record will be included.
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Thank you very much.
[Clerk's note.--Due to its volume the above mentioned
magazine, Principal, is being retained in subcommittee files.]
prepared statement
Senator Gorton. We have a partnership with 140 different
organizations to promote arts education, and the Elementary and
Secondary Principals Organization is one of those
organizations. They have published this magazine that is
totally devoted to arts education this year as result of this
work.
So, we appreciate your support and hope that you will be
able to support the President's recommended increase.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Shanklin-Peterson
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Interior
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
about the importance of the National Endowment for the Arts.
As the Senior Deputy Chairman, I am the Endowment's chief
operating officer in the absence of a Senate-confirmed
Chairman. As you know, our distinguished former Chairman Jane
Alexander retired last October, and President Clinton has since
nominated William J. Ivey of Tennessee to take her place. Mr.
Ivey is the long-time Director of the Country Music Foundation
in Nashville. His appointment is currently pending before the
Senate, and we hope to have him on board very soon.
In the interim, a Federal law known as the Vacancy Act
requires the White House to appoint an Acting Chairman, and
that distinguished person is the current Deputy Secretary of
Labor, Kathryn (Kitty) O'Leary Higgins. She is with us here
today.
Before joining Jane Alexander's staff in 1996, I served as
the Executive Director of the South Carolina Arts Commission
for thirteen years, and was on the staff for eight years prior
to assuming the director's position. So I bring to the
Endowment 21 years of working experience with state and
community leaders, educators, artists, and arts organizations,
in a primarily rural state, working to develop the state's
cultural resources and helping to ensure that the arts are a
basic part of each child's education in South Carolina.
I am honored to be here today to support the President's
request of $136 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
in fiscal year 1999. This proposed funding increase will enable
the agency to move forward with three distinct initiatives: (1)
address serious concerns raised by Congress about the
geographic distribution of direct NEA grants, (2) strengthen
the Endowment's leadership efforts on behalf of arts education
and preserving our cultural heritage, and (3) help ensure broad
access to the arts, strengthen arts education programs and
celebrate our living cultural heritage through increased grants
to the states and regions. In the first instance, we are
requesting $20 million in new funds to support a major
expansion of the pilot program ArtsREACH, which will assure
much greater NEA support in the form of direct grants to
communities that have received limited funding in past years. I
will discuss this in more detail in a moment.
It is a fact that the geographic impact of direct NEA
grants has declined considerably in recent years because of
both reductions in our budget, and the increased amounts
allocated to the states. In fiscal 1998 for example, direct
funding available for arts organizations declined by more than
ten percent--from $54.2 million to $48.6 million. Even though
the overall agency budget declined by only $1 .5 million an
additional $4.1 million of the remaining amount was allocated
to the states, thus increasing their share from $28.3 million
to $32.4 million. The inevitable result of these cuts and
reallocations is that fewer and fewer organizations in all of
the states receive direct grants each year.
The increased competition for funding has caused many fine
organizations to stop applying, and this is a very serious
problem. There are excellent cultural resources in every state
which we should be supporting, but when they don't apply, we
can not assist them.
Mr. Chairman in an effort to remedy this problem, we have
created ArtsREACH. This year under ArtsREACH, we are providing
small grants to arts organizations and communities in targeted
states for planning and technical services. Arts Endowment
staff are traveling to each of these states to conduct grant
workshops, offer technical assistance, and provide other
advice. We are working closely with our state and local arts
counterparts. The overall program objective is to increase
direct NEA funding in under-represented communities. Grants
will be used to help local leaders develop plans to use the
arts to preserve their local heritage, strengthen their arts
education programs, revitalize their communities, and expand
support for arts organizations. You may be interested to know
that this week one of our staff people, accompanied by state
and local officials, as well as a staff member from the office
of Senator Jeff Sessions, conducted a series of ArtsREACH
training sessions in four Alabama cities.
Next year, the President's budget request would accommodate
a major expansion of ArtsREACH communities, and would reserve
new grant funds for specific project applications submitted by
those communities. Again, we are asking for $20 million dollars
in new funding to support projects in the targeted ArtsREACH
states.
ArtsREACH was recently approved by the National Council on
the Arts at their meeting a few weeks ago, and I am pleased to
report that the new Congressional members of the Council gave
their wholehearted approval to the program.
Mr. Chairman, the President's budget would also support the
opportunity for Americans of all ages to enjoy educational
experiences in the arts. This year, over 150 projects supported
directly by the Arts Endowment are enabling children in grades
K-12 to experience orchestral music, dance, theater, and other
performances. Through our partnerships with the state arts
agencies, we are helping to ensure that the arts become a basic
part of each child's education through curriculum development,
arts education research and teacher training. In addition, our
partnerships with the states support artist residencies and
artist-teacher collaborations in the schools of 2,400 separate
communities. Those initiatives are an essential piece of the
educational process, and they should be expanded.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the 1998 appropriation bill
contained a number of important structural changes in the way
the Endowment does business. Today I want to assure you that we
are working very hard to implement these changes.
First, regarding the issue of grant distribution, and the
directive to give greater priority to under-represented areas:
as the legislation requires, we are limiting awards to
organizations in any one state to 15 percent of the total
amount available, with the understanding that grants with
multi-state impact are accounted for separately and are exempt
from the limitation. As the legislation requires, we will
provide a complete report to Congress on these distributions at
the close of the fiscal year.
In addition to our ArtsREACH program initiative, the
Endowment is taking a number of other actions to assure broader
distribution of grants. Merit review panelists are being
actively recruited from under-represented states, and panel
appointments are being monitored on a state-by-state basis to
ensure all states are represented during the year. We have
added ``geographic impact'' to. our grant review criteria. We
created a new Folk Arts Infrastructure Initiative which will
provide fiscal year 1998 grants in more than 30 states, and our
fiscal year 1998 Millennium projects will be designed to serve
all 50 states.
One of the unique national roles of the Arts Endowment is
to encourage the sharing of artistic resources across state
lines through our multi-state grants. In 1998, we will award in
excess of 300 multi-state grants totaling approximately $17
million to arts institutions of all sizes located in most of
the states. These multi-state grants support national
broadcasts, dance and theater touring, and many other projects
bringing benefits to Americans all over the country. For
example, the National Dance Project, a $1 million Leadership
Initiative awarded to the New England Foundation for the Arts
based in Boston, Massachusetts, supported 117 dance
performances in 32 states last year. We are currently
developing a database that will enable us to do a better job of
tracking these multi-state grants, and to keep you better
apprised of the work we are supporting in your states.
Second, regarding the National Council on the Arts: the
reconstituted Council, complete with Members of Congress, met
in late February, and I am happy to report that all six
Congressional Members--Representatives Nita M. Lowey, John T.
Doolittle, and Cass Ballenger; and Senators Richard J. Durbin,
Susan M. Collins and Jeff Sessions--have now been appointed.
Four of the members participated in the meeting. We appreciate
having their advice and counsel, and we hope that their
involvement in the agency's operations will lead to the
development of constructive relationships between the agency
and Congress.
Third, within the administrative area of the agency: the
appropriations legislation directed the Endowment to develop a
proposed restructuring of the administrative budget. We have
identified certain activities which directly support our
interaction with the arts field and programmatic activities as
``Program Support.'' These include the costs of conducting
review panels, National Council on the Arts meetings,
application guidelines, programmatic research and accessibility
activity.
We are mindful of the concerns expressed by some in
Congress about the Endowment's expenditures on salaries and
expenses, and we have attempted to illustrate more clearly in
the budget the activities conducted by the agency. As an
independent Federal entity, the National Endowment for the Arts
is subject to all of the operating procedures and regulations
imposed on executive branch agencies to ensure the proper use,
control and accountability of taxpayer dollars. The agency must
retain sufficient professional staff to comply with the laws.
Fourth, regarding the directive that the agency give
priority to arts education and enrichment: the agency agrees
that the investment in arts education and educational
enrichment projects is a priority, and is requesting additional
funds for that purpose. This year, we are spending $9.3 million
through our Education and Access grant category. In addition,
we will allocate nearly $2.5 million to the state arts
agencies, over and above the 40 percent set-aside, to help make
the arts basic in pre-K to 12 education. They match our funds
with approximately $28 million. A recent survey shows that
together we supported 7,800 projects, in more than 2,400
communities, involving thousands of teachers and artists.
Finally, the appropriations legislation gave the Endowment
authority to ``solicit and invest'' funds. I am pleased to
report that the agency has established a separate interest
bearing account within the U.S. Treasury and continues to
receive private sector funds for projects jointly sponsored by
the Endowment and other organizations. In addition, agency
staff are examining funding augmentation strategies, and
evaluating the staff resources that would be required for
putting such strategies in place.
I wish to note for the record that the agency continues to
hear expressions of concern from representatives of arts
organizations about the prospect of the agency competing with
their own fund-raising and development efforts. Arts
organizations pay for their projects from a variety of funding
sources, and they view the Endowment in its historical context
as a source of assistance, rather than as a competitor. This
continues to be a sensitive issue in the nonprofit arts funding
field.
In their entirety, the structural changes enacted in the
fiscal 1998 appropriations legislation were quite substantial.
When added to the changes imposed both administratively and by
Congress throughout the 1995-1996 period, you can see that the
NEA is a very different organization from just a few years ago.
Mr. Chairman as you know, the National Endowment for the
Arts was created by Congress to ensure that our national
government would support the nation's culture in all its
richness, in concert with the private sector, the states and
communities across the land; investing in creativity and
imagination; leading in arts research, arts education,
convening and networking; and catalyzing private investment.
I urge you to make the Federal government a stronger
partner in this endeavor. With your help we will reach the
under-represented communities, providing access to the arts for
all citizens and encouraging creativity and artistic
inspiration among the nation's youth; and we will take the lead
in helping communities protect the nation's living cultural
heritage for the benefit of future generations. This has been
America's century after all, and we as a nation should take
time to reflect upon our achievements in the arts, and
celebrate America's cultural legacy at the turn of the
millennium.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I hope I can
count on your support. Again, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to speak with you.
------
Biographical Sketch of Scott Shanklin-Peterson
Scott Shanklin-Peterson has been named as the Senior Deputy
Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts and is
currently in charge of day-to-day operations at the Endowment.
She will act as Senior Deputy Chairman until a replacement for
former Chairman Jane Alexander is nominated by the President
and confirmed by the Senate. Ms. Shanklin-Peterson previously
served as the National Endowment for the Arts Deputy Chairman
for Grants and Partnership and was responsible for the agency's
grants to organizations, artist fellowships, leadership
initiatives, and partnership activities with state arts
agencies, regional arts organizations, and other federal
agencies. In addition, she worked closely with former Chairman
Jane Alexander on the reorganization of the agency following
Congressional budget cuts in 1996 and on the creation and
implementation of the American Canvas Initiative throughout the
past three years.
Prior to her tenure at the Endowment, Ms. Shanklin-Peterson
served as Executive Director of the South Carolina Arts
Commission for 13 years where she planned, developed, and
directed all program and administrative functions of the state
arts agency. Under her leadership, the South Carolina Arts
Commission received national recognition for their leadership
in arts education, rural arts development, and media arts. She
has also been the chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Southern Arts Federation, and on the boards of the National
Assembly of State Arts Agencies and the American Council for
the Arts.
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson received her B.A. degree in Visual
Arts from Columbia College and is a graduate of Harvard
University's Institute of Arts Administration. She is married
to Terry Peterson and has a son who is a professional musician
in Los Angeles and a daughter who attends the College of
Charleston.
national council on the arts
Senator Gorton. I assume that you told those imaginative
constituents of mine that regrettably the 15-percent rule
disqualifies them? [Laughter.]
Ms. Higgins. But we applaud their ingenuity.
Senator Gorton. I wonder if each of you could tell me a
little bit more about how the dynamics of the National Council
has changed with both the reduction in the number of its
members and with the six Members from the House and the Senate
it now includes. Did all six of them attend that first meeting?
Ms. Higgins. Actually four were able to attend for part of
the first meeting. Senator Durbin and Senator Sessions were
there. Senator Collins, unfortunately, was not. Congresswoman
Nita Lowey and Congressman Cass Ballenger also participated.
Frankly one of the concerns--I appreciate your question--
that was raised by some of the current members of the Council
was a problem that they saw in the reduction of size.
First of all, I think that the addition of the
congressional members is going to promote a very healthy dialog
on both sides. I think it is fair to say the members learned
some things in terms of how the Endowment operates that they
were not aware of before. They had some very good
recommendations about how we could make Congress more aware and
members in particular more aware of what was going on in their
districts, and I think we want to work more closely with you on
that.
One of the concerns that was raised about the reduction in
size was that some of the disciplines that the Endowment has to
deal with are now not represented on the Council. For example,
dance, literature, and design are not currently represented.
The Council is made up of people with a broad range of
expertise, but they now see some holes in the Council
membership. So, we were hoping that maybe we could take another
look at expanding the Council a little bit to try and address
some of that.
Senator Gorton. My suggestion would be that that would be
more likely to be found acceptable if the congressional members
of the Council were to advocate it.
Ms. Higgins. I think they were hearing that as well, but we
should talk further about that.
But again, I think the dialog was very constructive. There
was a little nervousness on both sides to begin with, but as we
have talked about it, I think there is a great benefit for
demystifying, if you will, the work of the Endowment, since in
fact, it has a very open process in the way that grants are
selected. They have panels made up of people from all around
the country who really go through a very thorough process. I
think that was new to the Members of Congress. I think they
appreciated that.
fifteen percent cap for states
Senator Gorton. Now, the 15-percent rule from the point of
view of reducing grants in a given area impacted only New York?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. New York had the largest percentage,
of course, because so many of the grants that are awarded to
New York are multistate grants that really serve many other
States as well. So, when you are figuring that percentage that
is taken into account. Of course, we are not yet at the end of
our year for awarding grants.
Senator Gorton. But you did not have any other States that
were over 15 percent before that?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Before that? California might have
been, but I do not think so.
Senator Gorton. Now, what kind of impact will that have on
New York and on New York arts agencies?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Well, when we get to the end of the
year, we can answer the question a bit better, but as I was
saying, many of the grants that are awarded to New York are
multistate grants. So, those are automatically subtracted from
the cap for New York. They are not counted in the 15 percent.
Senator Gorton. You are going to have to be very careful
with that in my view. How much even your people in South
Carolina are going to be impressed by a grant that goes to New
York, some of which ultimately finds itself to South Carolina,
is in my view an open question. That was not an argument that
impressed members when we were debating this whole issue last
year.
artsreach initiative
My own impression is that the way you have expanded your
outreach and you are dealing especially with these 20 States
that had fewer than 5 grants is something that can do nothing
other than to strengthen support for the Endowment. But I
believe you will get an awful lot more credit for one grant
that goes directly to an entity in the State than one where
even an equal number of dollars sort of trickle down from a New
York or a California grantee to someplace in one of these
smaller States.
Ms. Higgins. As Tip O'Neill would say, all politics is
local.
I think it might be useful, Senator, to include in the
record this chart which shows the States that are targeted for
outreach.
Senator Gorton. I think it would be very important to
include that in the record and it will be so inserted.
Ms. Higgins. It shows over the last 2 years those States
who are essentially underfunded and where the concentration is
going to be in terms of this new initiative.
[The information follows:]
Target States Eligible to Apply for ArtsREACH Grants in Fiscal Year
1998
Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee,
Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina,
Delaware, and Rhode Island.
underserved states
Senator Gorton. Now, a combination of that rule and of this
new emphasis obviously has shifted I think the kind as well as
the direction of your grants. Give me a brief summary of that.
There is only so much money, and as you have pointed out, it is
a relatively limited amount of money. If there is more outreach
to these underserved States, is there also a change in
direction as to the kind of grants there are, the elements
within the arts at which they are aimed, and if so, who are
losers in this process?
Ms. Higgins. Scott will know this better than I, but my
impression is that one of the objectives of ArtsREACH, probably
the principal objective, is to get more organizations to apply.
I think what we see in the States that are targeted for
ArtsREACH is in fact a smaller number of organizations
applying. So, the effort to go out and provide technical
assistance and to meet with local groups is really to say to
them, the funding has been cut but in fact there is money still
available and that we really need to encourage you to apply.
Senator Gorton. Make more work for yourselves.
Ms. Higgins. One of the things that frankly I have been
impressed by--we are talking about very small grants. I was
looking, for example, at the grants that were just recently
awarded in your State. We are talking about a variety of
organizations, everything from native American folk projects to
money going to Spokane for musical presentations there. But we
are talking about very small grants in many cases. It is really
money that is sort of a catalyst.
So, you are right. The pie is much smaller but I think
there is an effort----
Senator Gorton. To be an imprimatur of being able to say
NEA has helped us.
Ms. Higgins. Well, it gives them a national recognition
which it is my sense is very valued by these communities and
these local projects. So, there is still a wide diversity of
programs being funded.
This ArtsREACH initiative is a pilot. I think we are trying
some things this first year to see if we can stimulate some
more activity and more interest.
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. One of the major problems we faced
is, with the 40-percent reduction in our funding, many of the
organizations that had been applying to the Arts Endowment
primarily from the more rural States thought they would not be
competitive.
Senator Gorton. And so they just did not apply.
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. And so they did not apply, and so we
really need to generate applications from----
Senator Gorton. So, in a sense, you would rather have more
grantees even though it means somewhat smaller amounts.
amount of grants
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. This year we will be making more
grants. They are smaller grants, but we will be making more
grants to more organizations. And that is a very strategic
move.
Senator Gorton. Because the amounts going to the State
agencies has increased, has it not?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. It also has increased. That is
right.
state arts agencies
Senator Gorton. Do you have any idea when the money goes to
these State agencies, how they use it? Has that increase in
support for the State agencies had a positive result?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. I think it has had a very positive
result in that the States themselves are now allocating 12
percent more in appropriations this year to support the arts,
and we are working very closely with the State arts agencies in
their planning and their reporting procedures. Also, we do know
how their funds are spent in each of the States.
Senator Gorton. Do many of the State agencies communicate
with you with respect to applications from their own States? Is
there any coordination between what you do, say, in Iowa and
what the Iowa entity does?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. That is one of the things that we
are looking at with ArtsREACH because we will be working with
the State arts agencies when we visit those States. So, they
will be hearing what it is that their constituents might be
applying to the Endowment for at the same time that our staff
is working with them as well.
fiscal year 1999 funding priorities
Senator Gorton. As I said in my opening remarks, as much as
you would like it and as much as some members of this committee
might like it, the kind of increases in the President's budget
just simply are not going to be possible.
If you got, say, a $4, $5, or $6 million increase, what
would your highest priorities be?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Our first priority would be
ArtsREACH because we are stepping out there this year hoping
that we will be generating more applications from these areas,
and we want to be able to have the resources to support them.
So, I think it is very necessary that we have additional funds
to do that.
office of enterprise development
Senator Gorton. I have here a note about the Enterprise
Office. We have not seen anything with respect to that to find
other methods of support. What is happening there?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. As you know, Jane Alexander had
developed the Enterprise Office, and we do have one staff
person that is working there. Our legislation this year gave us
the authority to solicit and invest private funds, but we only
have one staff person there. We are looking at opportunities.
We have been looking at some of the things that the other
agencies do, particularly the Smithsonian, which I think raises
around $50 million a year, but they have 35 people in a
development office, plus they have other development staff in
each of the museums. So, it takes a lot of resources to raise
those additional funds.
Senator Gorton. Are you getting resistance from the arts
community on the ground that if NEA went out to raise money, it
would come out of the same pocket that would otherwise give
money directly to----
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. They are very concerned about that
and we are very concerned about that because what we need is
for the net amount that is available to increase. We do not
need to be taking money away from them. So, whatever we do in
this area, we need to do together. This is something that
hopefully----
Senator Gorton. I think you do. You do not really believe
that support for the arts in the United States as a whole is
inflexible, do you, and if one group gets a dollar, another
group is going to lose a dollar?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Hopefully together we will be able
to increase the net amount that is available for the arts.
Ms. Higgins. Senator, if I could comment as well. I think
this is a priority for the administration. We have had some
preliminary discussions on the best way to approach this. I
know there are members of the Council who are very interested
in helping to think this through. Bill Ivey has had
conversations with the White House on this. I think this is one
of those issues that is going to be a high priority for him as
the new Chairman when he is confirmed. There is, as you have
recognized, a sensitivity among some of the current grantees
and those out there who rely on the NEA that--because our
grants are so small, they do rely on many other sources of
funding.
But I think it is encouraging. Again, we are seeing
increased support for the arts at the State level and we may
want to make that part of the record as well. So, I agree with
you. This is not a zero sum game and the question is how we can
really create the kinds of partnerships that are going to
expand the participation at all levels for the arts.
Senator Gorton. What about Jane Alexander's comment last
year with respect to the commercial entertainment industry and
whether or not there was money available there? Has anything
been done to followup on that suggestion?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. I think this is one of the areas
that Bill Ivey will be interested in reviewing. This is an area
that he has experience working with, coming from the Country
Music Foundation. So, I think it is best to wait and see what
suggestions he has in that particular area.
house appropriations hearings
Senator Gorton. Now, you have had a hearing with the House
subcommittee, which obviously has been more troubling to you in
the past than this subcommittee has. Can you share with us--
were you optimistic in comparison to last year with the
reception you received there?
Ms. Higgins. It was my first hearing for the Endowment. It
was very, very cordial. Obviously, it was Sid Yates's last
hearing, so it was a bit nostalgic.
I think Congressman Regula was very supportive. I think
there is still a question as to whether they are going to
actually be able to report out an appropriation. He was a bit
noncommittal on that.
We had some very good questions from Congressman Miller
from Florida who was concerned about what was going on in his
district.
Again, I think the participation of members on the
Council--Congressman Ballenger in particular had some very
constructive suggestions--will be a positive benefit as members
look at the value of continuing this investment. So, I was
encouraged, yes.
Senator Gorton. Were you there?
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Yes; I was there as well and I was
encouraged as well. I think in general the House committee has
been supportive of the Arts Endowment, but of course, they face
concerns from the leadership of the House about the National
Endowment for the Arts. Whether they will be able to report out
funding for us, I think, is a question at this point.
Senator Gorton. Well, as you know, last year in the midst
of that controversy, I individually polled every member of this
subcommittee on the subject and found not a single member on
either side who wanted to zero out the agency. I have not done
that this year. I have not really seen the need to do it. The
membership of the subcommittee is the same, and I rather
suspect that the attitudes will be the same.
We would be helped greatly, however, if the House came over
with something other than a zero. [Laughter.]
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. We would be too.
Senator Gorton. With that, we are joined now by Senator
Cochran who has certainly been an eloquent supporter of the
Endowment, and I will ask him if he has either a statement or a
question for any of you. I am just about finished.
remarks of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply
want to encourage the administrators of the program to continue
to be helpful to those of us who try to ensure that there are
funds available for appropriate activities of the National
Endowment for the Arts, to be aware of the role that the State
and local agencies can play in this, and to keep an open line
of communication with those who know the local interests well
before making grants and selecting recipients for awards and
the like by the Endowment.
My experience is that in our State we have had some
outstanding leadership, very thoughtful leadership in the arts.
We are very proud of that and we would like to continue to see
the right kind of attitude reflected toward government support
for the arts.
Having said that, there is no easy answer to some of the
problems and dilemmas of the past. We regret so much the
controversies that have swirled around the Endowment in the
last several years, but we think that we are back on track now.
With your continued sensitivity to the problems and how to deal
with them, we will be able to see that there is appropriate
support where it is needed.
We appreciate your attention to education programs too in
our State that involve arts education. I know that is not a
principal responsibility of the Endowment, but nonetheless,
there are some opportunities where you can enhance learning and
enrich lives of students through appropriate program support
and that is very important too. I think the former Chairman did
an excellent job--Jane Alexander--in identifying some of those
activities and by her presence in our State, she was able to
illustrate how exciting learning can be through arts
appreciation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your thoughtful
leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with you
and trying to come up with the right level of funding and
language, if needed, in our bill. Thank you.
artsreach initiative
Ms. Higgins. Senator, if we could just comment. We were
talking before about the two priorities for the request for
increased funding are both ArtsREACH, which is an effort to do
more in States where we have not had as many grants funded. I
would point out that both Mississippi and Arkansas are two
States where we are going to have a special emphasis as part of
this initiative.
Senator Gorton. Well, very good. You just anticipated my
next question. [Laughter.]
Ms. Higgins. And also arts education. Those are the two
principal focuses of the request for increased funding.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. We are joined by Senator Bumpers on,
regrettably, his last round on these areas, and I would love to
hear from him.
remarks of senator dale bumpers
Senator Bumpers. Not so regrettable to me. [Laughter.]
Ms. Higgins, let me just echo what Senator Cochran said
about Jane Alexander. She was a superb person for this job and
she did, in my opinion, an excellent job in the face of a lot
of hostility from certain quarters in the Congress about the
National Endowment for the Arts. Based on what I know about
you, I am sure you will do an excellent job.
I really came by this morning, Mr. Chairman, not to delay
the hearing any but to show my strong support for both the
humanities and the arts. I am a great believer. There are very
few nations who spend such a minuscule portion of their budget
on arts and humanities.
In my first trip to the Soviet Union in 1971, I was
absolutely amazed by the extent of the government's involvement
in the arts. Of course, everything there was state funded, but
it was amazing how much of their budget they did put into the
arts, the restoration of their historical places and so on.
That is really the first brush I had with government being
involved in that kind of thing.
It is really a tragic thing that one person named
Mapplethorpe caused as much trouble for the Nation as he did
and for the programs that I really hold dear. I am a former
bandsman, glee club member, star in the senior-class play, all
those things. [Laughter.]
Senator Cochran and Senator Gorton have heard this speech
many times, but it is always worth repeating. When I was
Governor and went to the prisons, to visit with the inmates, I
never found anybody down there with a college education, nobody
that was a homeowner, nobody that played in the high school
band, and nobody that ever had any brush with drama. I am just
telling you that was a personal experience. Everybody does not
have that experience, but to me that spoke volumes. That is
really all I need to know about the value of those particular
things, education, the arts, and so on.
So, I would be willing to take some of the $10 billion
surplus--like one-half of it--and put it into the arts and
humanities. [Laughter.]
Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. You are very popular with this crowd today,
Senator Bumpers.
Well, I thank you both for being here. I join with you in
hoping that the authorizing committee will act promptly on Bill
Ivey's nomination and that we will have someone in charge.
As I told you at the beginning, we face the same
difficulties with the total amount of money the subcommittee
will have this year that we have had in the past. But we do
appreciate the NEA's prompt response to the concerns which
Congress showed in that bill last year. I think the value of
having Members of Congress on the Council is going to be
immeasurable from the point of view of the support that you get
here.
With that, I thank both of you. We will dismiss you and we
will call the humanities people up.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. FERRIS, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
Senator Gorton. We are now with the National Endowment for
the Humanities that has a newly appointed Chairman, Bill
Ferris, whom I met yesterday and who told me of his long
association with you, Senator Cochran. I wonder if you would
like to say a few remarks in introducing him to us.
Senator Cochran. That is very kind of you, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to welcome my good friend, Bill Ferris, to
his first hearing as Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities. It is a happy moment for all of us in Mississippi
to contemplate his elevation to this position of responsibility
and nationwide trust for guiding a very important activity,
important to everyone in America. He has some great ideas. We
have heard some of them and I am sure he will talk about them
in more detail this morning.
But he is so well qualified and such a good choice for this
important job at this moment, and we are delighted that he is
here and wish him every possible success and every degree of
satisfaction that is possible in carrying out the duties as
Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. We are
all honored by his acceptance of this position.
Senator Gorton. He has more money and less controversy than
his immediate predecessors here at this hearing, but still some
very serious challenges facing him.
So the first time around, Mr. Chairman, we would like to
hear from you.
summary statement of william r. ferris
Mr. Ferris. Thank you, Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator
Cochran.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
I am honored to come before you today as the new Chairman of
the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am very excited
because I feel this is a time of great opportunity for the
humanities, and we have much to offer at the Endowment.
Our lessons that we draw from literature, from history,
philosophy, archaeology, and folklore have much to teach us
about the world and about our place in it. We cannot help but
be inspired by ``Baseball,'' by ``The Civil War,'' by ``The
West,'' topics that every American loves, and these are but
three of the great stories that the NEH has shared with the
Nation through the magic of filmmaker Ken Burns and through the
generosity of Congress. These films will be played over and
over again in American classrooms and will continue to have
unlimited educational value. As we enjoy these films and learn
from them, it is important to remember that they are the
results of years of scholarship and of preservation, all of
which is supported by NEH.
As we move toward the millennium, NEH hopes to reconnect
the humanities with the life of every American through their
family history, their stories, their regional worlds. We want
to bring the humanities back home. This is what I have done for
over 30 years as a folklorist and this is what I will continue
to do as Chairman of the NEH.
As Director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture
at the University of Mississippi, I learned firsthand the
importance of preserving the stories of a region so that her
people do not forget their roots, and I also know the
overwhelming interest that people throughout the country have
in learning about their own regions.
As part of our rediscovering America initiative, we plan to
create 10 vital humanities centers that will be located in each
region of the Nation, providing a direct link between NEH and
every American. These centers will support teaching, research,
and public programs in their region. Some $5 million of our
total budget of $136 million will be used to create these
centers. These dollars will prime the pump for what I envision
as a strong public/private partnership.
I have seen how this can work. The Center for the Study of
Southern Culture, which began 21 years ago, would not have
happened without NEH support. With your support, you can ensure
that the same story will be told in every region of our
country.
This ``Encyclopedia of Southern Culture'' is a concrete
example of how we helped preserve the culture of one region.
After seeing over 100,000 copies sold, I cannot begin to
express the importance this book has in the hearts of
southerners and of all Americans.
Through this initiative, NEH will seek proposals from our
Nation's strong cultural institutions, museums, colleges,
universities, and libraries, that will become clearinghouses
for projects like encyclopedias, public programs for children
and the elderly, and cultural tourism opportunities.
There are other important initiatives described in our
budget that I would like to highlight. NEH will continue to
focus on education and technology. This last fall NEH, along
with MCI and the Council of Great City Schools, established
EDSITEment, a new website that identifies the 22 best
educational websites in literature, history, and other
humanities subjects. As you can see, you can quickly click on
an individual website and teachers and students can immediately
access the very best resources along with teaching guides and
curriculum resources that the Endowment has now made possible.
This is a project that will continue to grow in the coming
years and benefit teachers and students throughout the Nation.
Teachers are thirsty for this information and this site serves
over 20,000 users each month.
Another project of our Teaching With Technology Program
supports software projects on topics that range from the Civil
War to the Supreme Court to Ancient Greece and Rome that are
being used extensively in the classrooms and CD-ROM's like this
one on the ``Valley of the Shadow,'' which are accessible both
in CD form and on the website, introduce students to the Civil
War in a way that was never before possible.
Because teachers need to be trained in how to handle this
technology, our schools for a new millennium will help K
through 12 teachers use CD-ROM's and the Internet in their
classes, as well as videos like this wonderful new video on
``Liberty'' that focuses on the American Revolution and the
roots of our experience as Americans.
prepared statement
All of these projects are based on the scholarship that NEH
has supported for the last three decades. This is great work
and with your support we can continue to do it.
I am honored to be a part of this process and to be before
you today, and I want you to know that I look forward to
working personally and closely with you and all of your
colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. William R. Ferris
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: I am deeply honored to
appear before this distinguished Committee as the Chairman of
the National Endowment for the Humanities. I can assure you
that I share this Committee's abiding interest in the
Endowment's important mission, and I look forward to working
with you over the coming months and years to add to NEH's
remarkable record of achievement and service to the American
people.
I come before you today to testify on behalf of the
Endowment's fiscal year 1999 budget request. We at the
Endowment are, of course, greatly pleased that President
Clinton has demonstrated his continuing commitment to the
agency by requesting an appropriation of $136 million for NEH
for the coming fiscal year. Although this is an amount that
would increase our funding substantially over the current
year's budget of $110.7 million, it is a sum that would still
be significantly lower than the $172 million appropriated for
fiscal year 1995. Before turning to a discussion of specific
aspects of our budget request, however, I would like briefly to
discuss with you some of my plans and visions for the
Endowment.
Throughout my entire professional career as a teacher,
scholar, and administrator, I have been a strong supporter of
NEH, an institution that I am convinced makes immense
contributions to the educational and cultural life of our
nation. To a certain extent, my career also illustrates the
important role the Endowment plays in nurturing scholarship,
education, preservation, and public programming in the
humanities across the country. Please allow me a moment to
explain.
Over the years, I have applied to virtually every NEH grant
division, and I have been fortunate to win grants from a number
of them. As a young scholar and teacher fresh from my doctoral
studies in folklore at the University of Pennsylvania and as a
professor, first at Jackson State College in Mississippi, then
at Yale University, and finally at the University of
Mississippi, grants from NEH helped me focus and deepen my
teaching and research interests in the culture and folkways of
the American South. Later, along with my colleagues at the
University of Mississippi, I was successful in winning funding
from the Endowment to help establish the Center for the Study
of Southern Culture and then to use the Center to administer a
broad range of humanities programs concerned with the history
and culture of the South. With NEH funding, the Center was able
to establish an undergraduate degree program in Southern
Studies, to research and publish the Encyclopedia of Southern
Culture, to conduct seminars for teachers on the literature of
William Faulkner, to renovate an ante-bellum observatory on the
Ole Miss campus to use as the Center's main facility, and to
sponsor humanities programs for general audiences. Moreover,
because NEH's peer review system of assessing the quality of
grant applications is nationally recognized and respected, the
Endowment's grants also acted as a ``seal of approval'' that
helped us to attract additional money from corporations,
foundations, and other funders.
Over my career, I have also had the pleasure of working
with several of the state humanities councils--which, as you
know, work in tandem with NEH to bring the humanities to all
Americans. I have a deep appreciation of the important cultural
and educational role the state councils play, and I look
forward to continuing my close association with them during my
chairmanship.
The Center for the Study of Southern Culture is a dream
that has been realized, and it could not have been realized
without the support of NEH. Make no mistake: The Endowment was
absolutely crucial in helping an institution from a
predominantly rural state such as Mississippi build enduring
world-class humanities programs that reach a broad spectrum of
citizens--students, scholars, and the public alike. This is a
story that I intend to tell repeatedly during my tenure as
Chairman, and it is an outcome I will try to replicate
elsewhere in the nation as much as possible.
Now, as the Chairman of NEH, I would like to draw on my
nearly two decades of experience as director of a center
concerned with the study of the South to assist colleagues at
other institutions throughout the nation in developing
comprehensive humanities programs focused on the culture and
heritage of their regions. I have found that people everywhere
define themselves, at least in part, through the places where
they are born, where they grow up, and where they live. It is
this relationship--which the writer Eudora Welty calls ``sense
of place''--that shapes each of us in deep and lasting ways. As
President Clinton also reminded the nation recently in his
State of the Union address: ``Our culture lives in every
community, and every community has places of historic value
that tell our stories as Americans.''
The Endowment will help the people of the United States
learn more about the special heritage of where they live and to
reaffirm their common bonds as Americans by setting in motion a
new, broad-based initiative--called Rediscovering America
Through the Humanities. As we discussed in our budget
submission, this initiative will employ a variety of formats
and will involve all programming areas of NEH. Its primary
component, for which we are requesting $5 million in start-up
funds in fiscal year 1999, is a special grant competition for
projects to establish regional humanities centers around the
country. Each of these centers will be encouraged to support a
wide array of activities--education, research, programs for
public audiences, preservation--that bring the disciplines of
the humanities to bear in exploring the region's distinctive
culture. In developing their programs and resources, centers
will also be expected to place special emphasis on technology
to assure maximum access and impact. We hope that each center
that is established will ultimately serve as a kind of
``cultural hub'' for its region; in this way, the center will
help to broaden citizens' awareness of, access to, and
participation in the humanities--overarching goals that I
particularly wish to pursue during my tenure as NEH Chairman.
In framing this initiative, I have sought the advice of
many people within the humanities community, including, most
importantly, the National Council on the Humanities, the state
humanities councils, and the superb staff of the Endowment. In
addition, I plan to convene a small group of scholars who have
studied this subject closely to share their knowledge with us.
I also would greatly appreciate any suggestions the members of
this Committee have that will help the Endowment's new
initiative to prosper.
We realize, of course, that NEH cannot and should not be
the sole source of support for such an ambitious effort. This
is why I am insisting that the initiative move forward as a
public- private partnership. We plan to work in close
partnership with the state humanities councils, as well as with
public and nonprofit institutions and foundations, and with the
private sector to create a network of vibrant humanities
centers in every region of the nation.
In addition to establishing regional humanities centers,
there are a number of other special program activities that
will be a part of Rediscovering America Through the Humanities.
The objective of all the initiative's activities is to
encourage Americans to observe the dawning of a new millennium
by rediscovering the nation's history and culture and by
preserving this rich heritage for the benefit of future
generations. Among the program emphases planned for fiscal year
1999 that I would like to call to your attention are:
--American Legacy Editions.--A special effort in our Research and
Education division that will ensure the survival of scholarly
projects that are preparing documentary editions of the papers
and writings of a number of the nation's Presidents as well as
other important historical and literary figures. Because of
drastic cuts in funding for NEH over the last three years, the
agency was forced to deny grants to many worthy editions
projects. American Legacy Editions is designed to double the
amount of funding we are currently able to provide for such
projects;
--Schools for a New Millennium.--A special grant competition in our
Education Development and Demonstration program that will help
schools and their teachers become more competent in
incorporating new electronic humanities materials and
technologies into their classrooms;
--My History is America's History.--A special project that will
encourage Americans of all ages to commemorate the turning of a
new century and a new millennium by rediscovering their
family's history and linking this history to the broader sweep
of events and trends in American and world history;
--Great Books in the Humanities.--A special emphasis in our Public
Programs and Enterprise division that will support a high
quality, ongoing series of programs on public television
featuring great works of literature. NEH-funded reading and
discussion programs in libraries would be supported to
complement the television broadcasts; and
--A special emphasis in the Endowment's Preservation and Access
division in support of projects to digitize important materials
held by the nation's museums, libraries, archives, and
historical organizations.
These special Rediscovering America programming emphases will
complement our regular programs and operations. I am absolutely
committed to sustaining and increasing support for NEH's core
humanities programs. Indeed, the Endowment's $136 million budget
request is designed to begin the process of breathing some vital new
fiscal life into these important federal programs, which have not
recovered from the devastating reductions that were inflicted on them
three years ago.
While I have always been aware of the range of NEH's grant
programs, since becoming Chairman I have had the opportunity to observe
the work of these programs from a different perspective and to see
firsthand the remarkable breadth and depth of the projects they
support. As this Committee is well-aware, NEH's core grant programs are
time-tested vehicles for enabling high quality humanities projects to
take place across the nation, projects that enrich our educational and
cultural life and that benefit citizens in every state of the union.
Noteworthy humanities projects that annual Congressional appropriations
for the Endowment make possible include:
--Public education projects and programs sponsored by the 56 state
humanities councils that annually reach millions of Americans
from all walks of life in school auditoriums; museums and
libraries; community centers and court houses; church and
grange halls; and on college campuses. Appropriations for NEH's
Federal/State Partnership with the state humanities councils
have also recently supported a number of innovative state
council projects to develop reading and discussion programs for
newly literate adults and their children;
--Opportunities for school teachers and college teachers to improve
their instruction in the humanities, such as a major project
for teachers of grades four through eight in West Virginia that
is developing a CD-ROM, teachers' guide, and other curricular
materials on the history of coal mining in the state.
Approximately 70 teachers from across the state are
participating in this two-year project. Another recent project,
in Browning, Montana, is helping elementary and secondary
school teachers on the Blackfeet Indian reservation deepen
their understanding of Native American literature and learn how
to teach this subject matter more effectively to their
students. The hundreds of school teachers and college teachers
who participate in NEH seminars and institutes each year reach
hundreds of thousands of American students each year in rural,
inner-city, and other classrooms throughout the nation. The
summer of 1998 will mark the 25th anniversary of NEH's
pathbreaking summer seminars for college teachers program and
the 15th anniversary of the summer seminars for school teachers
program, both of which have had an enduring impact on the
quality of humanities education offered to the nation's
students;
--Collected editions of the papers, writings, and other materials of
historically significant figures and events important to our
cultural heritage. In fiscal year 1997, NEH funds supported the
preparation of editions of the papers of George Washington, the
Adams Family(which include the papers of ``First Lady'' Abigail
Adams), Andrew Jackson, and Dwight Eisenhower. Recent NEH
funding has also made possible the preparation of editions of
the papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the
journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the history of the
First Federal Congress (1789-1791), and four volumes of the
Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts. (As noted previously, because of
major budget cuts for NEH, we are no longer able to support a
number of these editions. We have also been forced to reduce
the amount of awards to projects we are able to fund, which has
caused many grantees to cut back their editorial staff and to
slow significantly their project production schedule. Our $136
million fiscal year 1999 budget request will permit us to
implement a special initiative--American Legacy Editions--that
will increase the funding we are now able to provide and ensure
the continuation and speedy progress of these important
projects.)
--Educational television documentaries that reach millions of
Americans of diverse social, cultural, and economic backgrounds
in all areas of the nation, such as last fall's highly
acclaimed six-part PBS series, Liberty!: The American
Revolution, which traced the birth of our nation from the
growing tensions and eventual break with Great Britain to the
drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The Endowment
also was chiefly responsible for the ``The Presidents'' series
on PBS's popular ``The American Experience'' program, which
recently rebroadcast twelve thought-provoking documentaries on
notable American Presidents. Liberty and ``The Presidents''
join other illustrious media presentations NEH has made
possible over the years, ranging from Ken Burns's epics, The
Civil War and Baseball, to portraits of such important
Americans as Frederick Douglass, Andrew Carnegie, Charles
Lindbergh, and George C. Marshall;
--Projects to preserve and increase the availability of important
cultural and intellectual resources held by the nation's
libraries, museums, and archives, such as fiscal year 1997
funding that was provided to the Southeastern Library Network
(SOLINET) in Atlanta in support of a major cooperative brittle
book microfilming project involving 14 university libraries
(East Carolina, Emory, Kentucky, North Carolina Central, North
Carolina State, Tulane, Florida, Georgia, Maryland Eastern
Shore, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Florida, and the
University of the South), the Georgia Department of Archives
and History, and the State Library of Florida. In 1997, the
Endowment also provided major support for a project at the
University of Southern Mississippi that is cataloging the
manuscript collections of 150 women authors and illustrators of
19th- and 20th-century children's literature. Over the years,
NEH-supported preservation and access projects have microfilmed
more than 773,000 embrittled volumes and 57 million pages of
historically significant newspapers and have stabilized the
condition of over 28 million objects of archaeological,
ethnographic, and historical importance;
--Innovative humanities projects employing the new electronic
information technologies, such as the new EDSITEment website,
which the Endowment launched last fall in partnership with the
MCI Corporation and the Council of Great City Schools, that is
providing teachers, students, and parents with immediate
electronic access to the best humanities education materials on
the World Wide Web. NEH is also helping educators introduce
into the nation's classrooms high quality websites and CD-ROMs
on diverse humanities subjects such as a project at
Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, to develop a
multimedia database on the history of the Supreme Court and a
project at the University of Virginia on the history of the
American Civil War. Another recent NEH grant, to the Denver
Public Library, is helping to catalog and digitize thousands of
important photographs on the history of the American West;
--Educational museum exhibitions for broad public audiences that
examine significant themes and ideas in the humanities, such as
the recent opening at the Oakland Museum of California of Gold
Fever! The Lure and Legacy of the California Gold Rush and the
major traveling exhibition, Barn Again: Celebrating an American
Icon, which examines the forces that have shaped the American
farmstead and the relationship between country and city. With
major funding from NEH and spearheaded by the Utah Humanities
Council in cooperation with a number of humanities councils in
the Northwest, Midwest, and the South, Barn Again is being
presented at thirty-two small rural museums in Alabama,
Georgia, Oregon, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, Utah, and
Missouri. In fiscal year 1997, NEH also supported the efforts
of the Anchorage History and Fine Arts Museum in Alaska to plan
a traveling exhibition, catalog, and educational programs
examining the early period of Russian exploration in the North
Pacific, 1728-1848;
--Research and scholarship that expand our knowledge and
understanding of the past,such as Stanford University professor
Jack Rakove's recent book, Original Meanings: Politics and
Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, which won the 1997
Pulitzer Prize in history; and the research that led to
discovery by an NEH-supported team of archaeologists of the
remains of the early seventeenth-century fort at Jamestown,
Virginia--the first permanent English settlement in America;
and
--Stimulation of private donations to humanities projects and
institutions, such as a recent $325,000 Challenge Grant to
Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, to endow a
professorship in classics and an annual classics lecture series
and a Challenge Grant to the A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage
in Zuni, New Mexico, that is helping to endow humanities
research and programming at this Zuni tribal museum. In fiscal
year 1997, NEH Challenge funds also helped the New Hampshire
Historical Society in Concord raise nonfederal funds to
renovate and equip its library for expanded public service.
Over the years, NEH Challenge Grants, which require $3 or $4 in
donations for every dollar awarded to a humanities institution,
have attracted more than $1.2 billion in private gifts; another
$343 million has been raised in one-to-one matches for specific
humanities projects supported by our other grant programs.
I am proud to be associated now with projects of such substance and
significance as these, and I pledge that in fiscal 1999 and in the
years ahead the Endowment will strive to add to this distinguished
record of achievement and service to the nation. We will work
particularly hard to encourage projects and programs that have the
capacity to reach people in towns, communities, and other areas of the
country who currently may have limited access to quality humanities
programming. Expanding the geographic and demographic breadth of NEH's
grants will be a central theme of our efforts.
In closing, I would like to return once again to my vision of the
future for both the Endowment and the humanities. Briefly put, I hope
that when I finish my work at NEH ``the humanities'' will have become
an everyday word to millions of Americans, that every American will
know about the work of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
that they will feel that they are better off for having this important
agency of the federal government working on their behalf to advance the
nation's educational and cultural well-being. Our plans for the coming
fiscal year--the regional humanities centers, the Rediscovering America
program emphases, the strengthening of our core grant programs--are the
first steps in making these visions a reality.
But I need your help. And so, I must also return to the issue of
money. As you know, as small as NEH's budget is, it is still the single
largest source of funding for the humanities in the United States.
While I plan to work actively to secure private and non-federal support
for our plans and initiatives, we must not underestimate the critical
nature of the federal role in helping the humanities to grow and thrive
throughout the United States. It continues to be very much worth the
nation's investment to keep this federal effort going at as high a
level as possible.
public/private partnerships
Senator Gorton. Thank you. That was a fine and
comprehensive opening statement.
Again, Senator Cochran, I will defer to you first if you
have anything that you would like to say, add, or ask.
Senator Cochran. Well, you are very kind, Mr. Chairman.
I think one thing needs to be emphasized and that is the
interest that the Chairman has shown in using the private
sector to supplement the effort made by government agencies,
whether they are national, State, or local agencies, because
the expense of some of these undertakings, like the Center for
the Study of Southern Culture, are too great for the National
Endowment for the Humanities to fund all by itself or for the
University of Mississippi to support by itself or for the State
budget to support. There are too many competing programs and
requirements of the governments' appropriations.
So, I would like for the Chairman to tell us how he sees
his role in trying to facilitate private sector support for
some of these ideas that he has about how to expand the
influence and benefits of a national humanities program based
on your experience with the Center for the Study of Southern
Culture.
Mr. Ferris. Well, thank you, Senator Cochran. My career as
an administrator and scholar has been entrepreneurial. As
Director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture, I
have aggressively sought and raised over $10 million that
matched NEH funding for projects like the encyclopedia, the
renovation of an antebellum observatory, and for an
undergraduate curriculum on southern studies.
The funds that we are requesting for the new initiative are
challenge grant in nature that will be matched at least three
and four to one by private dollars. Toward that end, I have
been already contacting and working with potential donor
groups. I met 2 weeks ago in New York at the Mellon Foundation
with the heads of all the major foundations in New York City
who have expressed great interest in becoming much more
involved in providing support for humanities projects.
This spring I will speak to the Council on Foundations here
in Washington.
We are also aggressively moving through our Enterprise
Office to build a coalition of private, corporate, and
individual donors who will be ongoing partners in what we plan
in the future.
Senator Gorton. Senator Bumpers.
summer seminars and institutes
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Ferris, in visiting with you
yesterday, I forgot one thing. We talked a little bit about the
summer institutes, but I forgot to ask you what the status of
those programs is and how many of them you have going. How many
did you have last summer? How many do you anticipate this
summer?
Mr. Ferris. We have 70 seminars and institutes coming up in
1999, which will involve 1,305 teachers, and they in turn will
be able to serve 196,000 students. That is 54,000 more students
than we were able to serve the previous year.
As I mentioned to you, I have personally taught in these
summer institutes with college teachers on three occasions. I
am absolutely committed to seminars and institutes on both the
secondary and college levels. I see this as maximizing the use
of funding because for every teacher we bring into an
institute, we are impacting classes of students for the rest of
their career. This is a way of rebuilding the quality of
education from the ground up, and I think that is where we have
to begin with K through 12 and with education at the college
level as well. That will be one of my highest priorities at the
Endowment.
Senator Bumpers. Well, of course, I am very pleased to know
of your commitment to this program. Mr. Ferris, as you know,
when I first discovered these summer institutes 12 years ago,
they were being privately funded by the Carnegie Foundation. In
my opinion whatever the educational shortfall in this country,
the summer institutes are the fastest and best way to rectify
it that I can think of, and yet we are really putting peanuts
into this program.
I can tell you that high school teachers in my little
hometown, population 2,500, would give anything in the world to
be able to attend one of those summer institutes. Yet, the
demand for them is probably 500 times greater than the
availability. As I told you, the first time I heard about that
was in a story in Time magazine where 4,400 teachers had
applied for roughly 225 positions at a summer institute at the
University of Texas. Teachers want mightily to upgrade their
skills, but very few of them without a stipend can afford to
take off and go to summer school to take some of the courses or
to study a particular subject that they can then pass off to
their students whether it is in their discipline or not. I
mean, it may be a math teacher studying Greek culture for that
matter. It might be an English teacher studying the
Constitution. But those things all mightily enhance the
teaching skills of teachers.
How much money are you putting into that program this year
in 1998, do you know?
Mr. Ferris. I will have to get those figures for you. Let
me say that we plan to work closely with the State humanities
councils and the new regional humanities centers to build a
common initiative to expand dramatically these summer seminars
and institutes. When teachers are out of the classroom, they
can effectively use that time to upgrade their classroom
skills. We are currently putting in $6 million into the
Seminars and Institutes Program. That is not enough, obviously.
Senator Bumpers. No; it is not nearly enough. I believe
that is a little improvement over what it has been in the past.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Clerk's note.--The information was provided in Mr. Ferris'
answer to Senator Bumpers' question.]
remarks of senator robert f. bennett
Senator Gorton. We have now been joined by Senator Bennett
and by Senator Gregg. The NEA portion of the hearing is
concluded and we are on NEH. But if either or both of you have
any statements that you would like to make orally or include in
the record, they will be included and you are free to question
our new NEH Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Do they have to be in iambic pentameter?
[Laughter.]
Senator Gorton. They will get more attention if they are.
Senator Bennett. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
for not having been here earlier. I was listening to Senator
Cochran wax eloquent about the Army Corps of Engineers and then
stayed in that hearing long enough to say a few well-chosen
things myself about this particular budget and the OMB and the
way it has, in my view, done serious damage to the Department
of the Interior's ability to do its job.
But I have to be on my way to a Banking hearing. I did want
to simply show up even though I am too late for the NEA
portion. The NEA and the NEH are sufficiently well-linked that
I can just say here once again that I support both of these
Endowments. I think it is important that we have a Federal
statement in the area of support for the arts as well as
support for the humanities. I did not want my absence to be
misread by anyone that my support had waned as I get closer to
election time. [Laughter.]
I want to make it clear that even though there are those in
my home State who disagree with me on this one, I feel strongly
enough that, even in an election year when I am up, I will show
up simply to demonstrate that support. So, that is my purpose
in being here and I am on my way to Banking.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Gregg.
remarks of senator judd gregg
Senator Gregg. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to listen
also to the testimony and I commend the chairman for his strong
support for both these Endowments, which I join him in. And
just keep sending money to Ken Burns. [Laughter.]
He funds an entire town in New Hampshire. [Laughter.]
funding of regional humanities centers
Senator Gorton. Let me ask you about the regional
humanities centers. If you do not get all or substantially all
of the additional requested budget, do they go by the board?
Mr. Ferris. No; but we would have to see how we would
allocate, given what Congress appropriates, those moneys. This
is a priority. It is prioritized partly because it is designed
to bring private support in a significant way to the
humanities.
Senator Gregg mentioned Ken Burns. He is one of our stars
obviously, and his great films have not only been loved by
every American viewer, but they have brought back to the
Endowment reimbursement of his grants, which we were then able
to use for other projects.
The overall picture of the humanities in this Nation is
that without the Endowment and the Mellon Foundation, there
would be virtually no national funding. I am going to change
that during my tenure at the Endowment. I have to have
congressional help because the public sector has never been
asked to help in this initiative.
I am going forth in an aggressive and convincing way to
corporate heads, foundation heads, and the message they have
responded with in the last 2 months is that ``we want to be
involved; we want to know how to help,'' and I am showing them
a list of our priorities. But we have to have congressional
support that indicates that our Nation is also going to be a
partner. You will be helping a federally assisted rather than
federally funded agency because we are going to use your
support to build in a way that will have impact on every
American in every one of your districts.
relationship with state humanities councils
Senator Gorton. Describe the relationship between the
National Endowment and the various State councils. Do they
support these regional centers? Do they play the same role in
the States that you play in the Nation as a whole? Does every
State have a council for the humanities?
Mr. Ferris. Every State has a State humanities council, and
during my tenure at the University of Mississippi, I worked
very closely with the State council there. They unanimously
endorsed my nomination last fall because they know that as a
folklorist and someone who has worked closely with my own
council, I understand their needs in special ways.
They complement the National Endowment. They are a vital
grassroots presence in every State. I recently met with all the
New England council heads when I was in Cambridge. I will be
meeting tomorrow in California with that council, and I will be
increasingly visiting in each State, in Arizona, Louisiana,
Maine, New Hampshire, and others during the coming months. I
want to work as closely as possible to strengthen each of those
councils and to wed them in ways that are appropriate with the
National Endowment and with the regional initiative as well.
This is a partnership. It is a kind of troika of three
different but absolutely vital relationships that the
humanities will bring to America in the future.
Senator Gorton. My notes for this hearing say that the
State councils, at least taken as a whole, are able to fund
just about one-half of the applications they have and the
National Endowment is way, way less than that. Is that because
they are less well-known or better funded? Why that tremendous
difference?
Mr. Ferris. Well, we at the National Endowment are the
source of support for figures like Ken Burns and for major
scholarly projects like ``Encyclopedia of Southern Culture.''
There are many, many projects that only can be dealt with at
the national level.
Senator Gorton. So, the larger ones come to you.
Mr. Ferris. The larger ones and many others like teacher
institutes, summer seminars. I think the best comparison for
the National Endowment for the Humanities would be the National
Science Foundation. We operate on so many levels, on so many
fronts that are truly national and in many cases international,
and the scale of need at the national level far exceeds and
outstrips our ability to fund adequately and deal with those
projects, many of which would be fully fundable if we had the
resources.
geographical distribution of grants
Senator Gorton. You heard some of the discussion earlier
this morning about NEA and the concentration of its grants in
New York and in a few other States. In fact, in the debate over
NEA last year in Congress, we literally took congressional
action to try to spread those grants more equitably across the
country.
Does that same challenge face NEH? Is there a
concentration? Is there a feeling that smaller and more rural
States are not getting an appropriate share of the grants? You
come from a relatively rural State. Do you intend any changes
in that connection, or do you think NEH has been doing a good
job there already?
Mr. Ferris. Well, as you point out, I do come from a small
rural State, and I understand those concerns. But I am
delighted that the Endowment currently has a very fair
geographical distribution. The highest percentage of our grant
funds awarded to any State last year was 12 percent. Our
regional initiative and our support of State councils are
designed to deliver in an equitable and focused way not simply
dollars but actual products that will be permanent, enduring
resources for all of our States that will make a difference in
the life of the average American wherever they may be.
I think the Endowment is in good shape on this question. We
are going to be in a lot better shape with your support in the
next few years because I am going to see that that happens.
Senator Gorton. I thank you. We want to welcome you on
board and wish you every success. We will try to provide you
with adequate support.
Mr. Ferris. Thank you very much.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
subcommittee recess
The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, April 1, when we will receive testimony from the
Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, April 1.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1998
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. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Cochran, Campbell,
Bennett, Domenici, Byrd, and Bumpers.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY
budget request
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR GORTON
Senator Gorton. The hearing will come to order.
We are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Secretary. I
think this is your fourth appearance before the subcommittee
during my tenure as chairman. This year's hearing is likely to
be popular with the members of the subcommittee, but perhaps
less so than in previous times because those of us who are
members of the Commerce Committee--and there are several on
this subcommittee--are due in the Commerce Committee markup on
tobacco legislation. There are also a number of other
appropriations subcommittee hearings taking place. So I will
have to leave, and leave this with someone else, after my own
set of questions. I apologize for that.
We scheduled you here before that tobacco hearing was set.
Nonetheless, it is a matter of great public interest.
Last year, the budget agreement, and Senator Stevens'
willingness to abide by the budget agreement, allowed us to
provide a substantial increase for Department of the Interior
programs. This included full funding for Everglades
restoration, a huge increase for land acquisition, and
increases over the budget request for operation of our parks
and refugees.
While the budget agreement will continue to lend general
support to natural resource programs in fiscal year 1999, there
are no specific protections for departmental priorities as
there were last year. More importantly, the overall amount of
discretionary spending available to the Appropriations
Committees will not increase as it did in fiscal year 1998.
In fact, the total amount of nondefense discretionary
funding available for the entire appropriations committee is
below a freeze level. The President has dodged the statutory
spending caps in his budget by establishing special funds,
proposing new revenue streams, and reclassifying certain
discretionary spending as mandatory. By virtue of these
bookkeeping maneuvers, the request blesses programs under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee with a $1 billion increase
over 1998. Programs within your Department get almost half of
that. I think that that is wishful thinking.
Though I hope to persuade Senator Stevens, who is here with
us, to provide the subcommittee with an allocation that is
something better than a freeze, there is virtually zero chance
we will receive an increase in our allocation anything like $1
billion. What is more, there will be fierce competition for any
increase that we do receive.
If we do not sell oil from the strategic petroleum
reserve--and there is little sentiment to do so with oil prices
so low--we will need to find $160 million that was not in our
base last year at all. We will also have to grapple with the
pressing needs of the Indian Health Service, which is
inexplicably the only major agency in this bill that did not
receive a significant increase in the budget request. The
administration has chosen to justify this, in part, by relying
on estimates of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements that are
fully double the estimates made by the Indian Health Service
itself.
There are a number of other fanciful scorekeeping estimates
in the budget request that the Congressional Budget Office
tells us it does not agree with. These will cost us additional
tens of millions of dollars.
Lest you feel slighted, Mr. Secretary, I am laying these
cards on the table as much for my colleagues, benefit as for
your own. Just as I will plead with them to be reasonable in
their requests of me, so I will plead with you to reevaluate
your budget request and engage my staff and me in a serious
discussion over the coming months about the real priorities of
the Department of the Interior. We need your candor and
cooperation in this process to make wise choices.
On a final note, I want to let you know in advance that
tomorrow, or perhaps even this evening, I will be introducing
legislation on the subject of the Elwha dams, a matter that we
have discussed on countless prior occasions. I will not dwell
particularly on the subject at this time, as you already know
its outline. But I hope you will take a close look at the bill
and give it careful and thoughtful consideration.
I may say also, in consulting with my staff, we have moved
very slowly on the money in the land and water conservation
fund, partly at least because of reluctance of the members of
the comparable subcommittee in the House in dealing with it and
partly because obviously there are far more demands on it than
there is money in it. That will have a relationship with the
Elwha removal.
For example, I believe it is perfectly appropriate, and
will have as a high priority, to use that money for the
acquisition of the Elwha dams. I have serious questions about
the validity of using it for a capital expense in connection
with taking those dams down. So we are going to have to figure
out a way, if this Elwha legislation passes, to fund it.
Because as I have come to what I think is a middle-line
agreement on it. There is no point in doing it unless we have
the money to carry out the job.
So your help on that, your prompt response to it, will be
greatly appreciated.
And with that, I will turn to my friend and colleague,
Senator Byrd.
opening remarks of senator robert c. byrd
Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join Senator Gorton in providing a warm welcome to you,
Mr. Secretary, as you appear before the subcommittee to discuss
the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department of the
Interior. Your job is a difficult one, and you are to be
commended for your extraordinary efforts to balance the
competing interests within the Department.
We will be seeking your assistance, Mr. Secretary, as in
prior years, in identifying priorities among the various
initiatives proposed for the Department. Your budget is a
fairly healthy one for fiscal year 1999, but I would be remiss
if I did not point out that some of the increases may have been
made possible by troubling reductions elsewhere in the
President's budget.
I find it difficult to believe that the Congress will stand
idly by and accept such things as the President's proposed
reduction of nearly 50 percent for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Thus, it is unlikely that the subcommittee will receive an
allocation that will accommodate all of your proposed increases
for fiscal year 1999.
I take it, Mr. Chairman, we are not asking questions at
this point.
Senator Gorton. No.
Senator Byrd. OK.
Well, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, to
identify the most critical programs.
Senator Gorton. Senator Stevens.
And if you do not mind, Senator Byrd, I will let Senator
Stevens make both an opening statement and submit any questions
he has now. He is a Commerce Committee member, and he needs to
be at that markup as soon as he possibly can.
opening remarks of senator ted stevens
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. And I hope
Senator Byrd will understand.
I also have to open the defense appropriations subcommittee
hearing and get back with you to markup the tobacco bill.
I am here, Mr. Secretary, to--I do have two questions, but
I do want to thank you again publicly for your cooperation with
us in this past year on the subsistence issue that is really
perplexing for Alaskans, since before statehood, we have prided
ourselves, as you know, in our ability to provide sound care
and management for our fish and wildlife resources. And,
really, statehood was really about whether we were capable of
doing just that, whether we were capable of providing sound
management for fish and wildlife resources across the whole
State.
There have been years of uncertainty now. Actually, in
1980, Congress asserted this constitutional power over the
public lands, and created or expanded two national forests, 10
park units and 16 refuges. And at that time, it also set into
law a preference for those who use these lands for subsistence
purposes. In 1989, that subsistence preference was found by our
State supreme court to be at odds with our State constitution.
But last spring, a task force was formed, of Alaskans, to try
and come up with a way to reconcile the Federal subsistence law
with our State supreme court's holding.
Incidently, the ratio of that task force, despite the fact
that our Governor is a Democrat, was 4 to 3, Republicans to
Democrats. We had the Republican House Speaker and Senate
President, as well as former Governor Hammond and Attorney
General Cole, also both Republicans.
And, Mr. Secretary, at that juncture last summer, you came
to Alaska and met in Senator Murkowski's house with the
subsistence task force, our complete congressional delegation
and members of the Governor's staff, and the Governor. We
discussed the subsistence deadlock, and you said you would
help. And you have kept that promise. You have helped. With
that help, we modified the 1980 Federal law, as the bipartisan
task force recommended, in the last part of last year's
Congress. And our common hope was that the Alaska Legislature
would make the changes in the Alaska Constitution and the
Alaska laws needed to restore comprehensive management.
Now, I have two questions for you this morning, Mr.
Secretary. And I thank the chairman for allowing me to ask them
now.
Will you help us again, and direct at the very highest
level of the Interior Department, the review and comment on the
proposals that are now before the Alaska State Legislature?
And, second, as the person vested with implementing the
Federal subsistence law, will you also tell us your thoughts on
the draft bills that are now before the State House of
Representatives Judiciary Committee? That is the latest
version, known as the Green version, named after the chairman
of that judiciary committee. And we are very interested that
the Alaskan people would know your thoughts at this time on
that draft.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be very happy to do
that. I share your feeling that we have come a remarkable
distance in the last year in bringing very disparate groups
together toward some common ground on this issue. And of
course, now that we are down on the 10-yard line, it seems to
me even more important that we work together to try to get this
issue resolved.
Now, I would point out just two things. We are working on
these subsistence regulations. Because if we cannot get this
resolved, I think we have a clear legal obligation, in due
course, by the end of this year, to take steps to put those
regulations into effect.
In the meantime, it would be much preferable to get an
acceptable result through the Alaska Legislature, out to the
ballot, and get this issue resolved.
I think that any proposal that involves major revisions to
ANILCA is not going to fly, and that we must look at all of
these proposals with an open mind, but against a background
which says major revisions of ANILCA are not in the cards. The
Governor's proposals, which involve significant concessions to
the State of Alaska, are the appropriate framework in which to
discuss this issue.
And in that context, I am ready and willing to respond by
return mail to the Alaska Legislature and the Governor with
respect to any proposals. Because I want to be a part of the
solution.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young and I have told our
legislature that we are prepared to review those drafts also,
once the Governor and the legislature concurs in what they
seek, in terms of modifications to ANILCA, if they seek any
modifications. I would prefer that they proceed now on the task
force recommendations.
But my two colleagues, who are each chairman of the
committees involved, have indicated they will hold hearings if
it is necessary. But your concurrence is absolutely essential,
as we all realize, because you are the person that is going to
recommend to the President whether he signs a bill that would
effect some changes in ANILCA. So we all hope that the Governor
and the legislature will be guided by the comments you have
just made.
I thank you for them again.
And I thank you, too, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to do
this, so we can get your position back to Alaskans today. Thank
you.
Senator Gorton. With that exception because of commerce, we
are still just on opening statements.
Senator Campbell.
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I know we have all
got busy mornings. Let me make mine very brief.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We may not get time to ask some
questions, because this may be a very short hearing. But I hope
perhaps that you can address the question of the BLM. They are
trying to reinventory more land, and the possibility of it
being designated as a wilderness area. That is becoming a very
hot issue in Colorado, and I know in my colleague's State of
Utah, too.
Our State legislature, in fact, is trying to address this
issue by passing a joint resolution, requesting Congress to
clarify whether the BLM has the authority to reinventory the
land managed by the agency, and ask them to continue to allow
multiple uses on that land.
In 1991, it was recommended in the last inventory that
400,000 of the 800,000 acres that was looked at in Colorado be
recommended for wilderness. And I am interested in knowing what
has changed since then that they would want to reinventory that
much land.
In addition, I would hope perhaps you could address--or if
you do not I will submit questions if I cannot ask them--the
lack of increase in PILT money. Although you are asking for
over $490 million of additional money, the PILT money seems to
remain the same. And if you could deal with that, I would
appreciate it, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Bennett.
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the hearing held today. I welcome the
Secretary. He has administrative responsibility for close to 30
million acres in the State of Utah. So he and I have become
good friends over the years, as we have discussed--not always
agreed--on issues relating to those acres.
reinventorying of lands for wilderness
The areas that I would hope we could get into today--
echoing the comment of my good friend from Colorado--dealing
with re-inventorying of lands for wilderness. We had an
inventory in Utah. It was done during the Carter
administration, I remind everyone who likes to say this was
done under the heartless Republicans. And now there has been an
attempt on the part of the Department to go back and
reinventory, non-WSA areas.
The reinventory was struck down by the court as being
beyond the Department's authority. Interior appealed. Now the
tenth circuit court has agreed with the Department. There
undoubtedly will be another appeal. I would like to know what
the Secretary plans to do about this in the present muddled
legal situation.
I think if the Department is intent on finding 5.7 million
acres of wilderness in Utah, which has become the rallying cry,
they ought to do it in the proper way, using the BLM wilderness
manual, and inventorying all public lands, including the
current wilderness study areas. They might find that certain
existing wilderness study areas now do not meet the criteria of
the manual.
But there are groups out there doing their own inventorying
right now. They come to see me, and say we have interns from
the universities that are falling in love with the land.
Taxpayers have already spent millions and millions of dollars
in the standard procedure to do this. And why we have to do it
all over again escapes me. But I would like the Secretary to
address that.
san raphael swell heritage area
I would be interested in the Secretary's reaction to the
Emory County proposal to create the San Raphael Swell National
Heritage Area. And there are people, including the Director of
the BLM, who will be in Utah this weekend to physically visit
that area. I would like to invite the Secretary to join them.
And if he does, I will cancel my schedule to join him.
grand staircase escalante national monument
Then, of course, we still have the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument. I have introduced legislation to
codify the President's promises relating to this monument into
law, so that we will not have to depend on the memory of some
administration official in some future time. And I am willing
to be as patient about that as it takes, to see to it that
those promises are codified. The Secretary and I have had a
conversation about that. But I would hope he could respond,
either here or later.
I am concerned about the lack of movement of the Department
with respect to a land exchange on school trust lands. The
trust in Utah has put together what at first look appears to me
to be a reasonable proposal. I hope that we can move forward on
that. I know there are some environmental groups who do not
want to exchange school trust lands. They want to keep those
trust lands locked up in the monument, where, if they are
completely surrounded by Federal lands, have no economic value.
But it is a violation of the trust that is given to Utah
school children that says those lands belong to Utah school
children. If they cannot be operated and used inside the
monument, they must be swapped for land of equal value outside
the monument so that the school children are not shortchanged.
Everybody agrees with that, but nothing ever seems to
happen about that.
I remember my father worrying about school trust lands 40
years ago, and getting promises that, oh, we will work out an
exchange. The President specifically promised that when he
created the Grand Staircase Monument. That is moving much too
slowly for me.
Then we have to address the management issue with respect
to the monument. It would not serve this administration or this
Congress well to spend $20 million or so over the next 5 years
on a management plan that does not work on making the monument
a tourist attraction. That is what monuments are. And again,
there are environmental groups, particularly in Utah, who get
horrified at the idea that we need to appropriate some money to
build some rest rooms and pave some roads so that the tourists
can enjoy the monument. They seem to think that the monument
somehow is automatic wilderness.
The President, whatever his powers, cannot create
wilderness by fiat. Wilderness is created by the Congress. And
the Congress has not created this land as wilderness. We want
to be sure that it is not managed as if it were wilderness by
an executive branch that wants to override congressional
opinion.
I know that none of these issues comes as a surprise to the
Secretary. He and I have had a number of conversations about
them. But I would not be true to my trust if I did not raise
them in this arena and every other until we get them moved
towards the direction of resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
summary statement of hon. bruce babbitt
Now, Mr. Secretary, we will be delighted to hear from you.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be
back. I guess this is the fourth appearance with you in the
chair, stacked on top of several appearances with Senator Byrd
in the chair. And I just want to acknowledge at the outset that
I think we have had an exceptionally productive working
relationship. And I am very grateful to all of the members. I
recognize from time to time we have differences, that from time
to time the public might draw the impression that we are bitter
adversaries, instead of the truth, which is that we have
established I think a really good record of collaboration on
progress. I am very grateful for that.
I understand that there are budget issues this year. And
obviously I am ready and willing to work with you to address
these priorities issues. But I cannot pass this up without
making a plea to the chairman of the Appropriations, Senator
Stevens, to be a bit more generous. It seems to me that now
that we have reached a balanced budget and now that this body
has authorized the expenditure of, I believe, an additional $5
billion a year in discretionary funding for highways, we ought
to be able to find a----
Senator Gorton. That is more a tribute to the skills of
Senator Byrd. [Laughter.]
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I think my point is made.
What we are talking about here is a minuscule piece to
protect the resource base that these extra $30 billion are
being authorized to do--to pave roads, to put people in touch
with this country of ours in every single State.
Senator, I appreciate the progress we have made on the
Elwha Dam issue. I just want to say that I realize that this is
still a hot topic. There are still lots of differing views. But
it is my sense that we have come a long distance. And I simply
pledge to you that I am ready and willing to discuss this
issue, be flexible and pragmatic, and see if we can define both
objective timetables and address fiscal issues that obviously
are a significant part of this.
What I would like to do, and I will try to work through
this rapidly, is talk about some of the large issues in the
budget. First, I would like to step back and say a word about
construction and maintenance on public lands throughout the
entire system of refuges, BLM lands, and park lands. Working
with this committee staff and with the House committee, I think
we are really starting to nail this issue down.
Our construction and maintenance request this year will be
submitted in the context of a rigorous ranking system and set
of criteria that Mr. Berry has very ably developed, which say
the No. 1 priority is health and safety. No. 2, we obviously
have to finish up existing projects. No. 3 are critical
resource needs. That results in a shift in the construction and
maintenance budget toward an additional $82 million for
maintenance and a decrease of about $14 million in the
construction budget.
Let me say that I would like very much to work with both
committees to see if we can keep the wheels on this wagon and
not load it down with too many other construction starts. And I
am ready to engage in that process.
The National Park Service has been scrutinizing its
procedures with respect to construction because of some press
relating to cost overruns on a number of projects around the
country. The issue here is the Denver Service Center. We have
commissioned a study by the National Academy of Public
Administration. We will share those results with you and your
staff.
I think they are going to call for a significant change in
the concept and organization of the Denver Service Center and
the way in which it has inadvertently divided accountability
between park superintendents and the Service Center, with the
result that an awful lot of decisions and management oversight
tends to get lost in the gap between the two.
The budget this year continues work on the forest plan in
the Pacific Northwest. I believe that is all moving. We are
working very closely to get a 4(d) rule out to small private
landowners. The Bureau of Land Management has met its timber
targets both last year and again this year.
The Everglades issues are represented in a total request
for $144 million, spread among agencies, spread among areas and
projects and land acquisition, all of which I believe is
proceeding very, very well.
The California Bay delta project is now emerging, I think,
as a very important emerging success. What it illustrates is
the importance of dealing with water issues comprehensively. In
this case, virtually on a statewide basis, with the entire
central valley--the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The
process that we are using, a partnership between the State, the
Federal Government, and localities, has already resulted in the
so-called bay delta accords, establishing a base of standards,
environmental standards, in the delta system, to which the
restoration efforts are directed.
And I think we are really within striking distance of a
comprehensive, complete resolution of 30 years of warfare
between northern California, southern California,
environmentalists, agriculture, and urban areas. We are, again,
about down to the 10-yard line. And I would call your attention
to that issue.
The Columbia basin I am going to pass by, because I suspect
Senator Gorton will bring me back to it. I would just say that
this is admittedly and concededly a large and ambitious effort
to try to use the same principles to integrate our priorities
and management decisions across a landscape. It has not picked
up many fans and supporters so far, unlike Florida and
California. This one is in danger of becoming an orphan.
Now, my response to the critics is: What are the
alternatives?
The alternatives, as I see them, are all worse. And I would
encourage the committee's attention to that. And I am ready and
willing to work. But I think that abandoning this project would
be a mistake; that we will collapse back into a long track of
litigation.
We are behind the curve in the Southwest. This is Arizona
and New Mexico, particularly. But it is lapping over into
southern Utah and Nevada. And I just want to note that. There
are budget ramifications from that, in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, BLM, and the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. So I would
just say we are slightly behind the curve there, and it is my
intention, in the coming year, to get ahead of the curve.
I would call your attention to two or three science issues
that I think are important. The first is a $15 million request
for bringing up a disaster information center in Reston on an
interagency basis. What that is about is simply this.
We have learned, in the last 4 or 5 years, an enormous
amount about good emergency prediction, management, and
followup. I believe it is one of the great successes of this
administration, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
We are learning as we move along that we are still not
utilizing all of the advance information that we can get to
predict emergencies, disasters, and to deploy resources to
minimize damages.
We had some important experience out in California this
year. It comes back to one gap in the process. And that is our
ability to take satellite information, both classified and
unclassified, GIS information from scores of sources, agency
information, integrate it together, do the necessary
declassification and be, in a real-time basis, out with the
information. Not because we manage disasters, but because this
is the right information point.
The USGS budget has a variety of lines relating to water
research. And I would just flag this as a concept. We used to
think of the water problem as Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico--
maybe Nevada and a little bit in California. It is now a
nationwide issue, in terms of contamination of groundwater
supplies, in terms of bacterial problems, like the pfisteria
outbreaks that we are now seeing along the Atlantic Coast, and
interestingly enough, increasing supply problems east of the
Mississippi, as well as in the more traditional areas.
The last science issue I would flag is the issue of fire
ecology. In the BLM budget and, to some degree, in the GS
budget, there are line items that relate to our increasing
confidence in our ability to manage prescribed fires as a
restoration tool, and to deal with the interface between fire,
selective thinning, mechanical thinning, and overall forest
health issues.
Last, a brief word about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
have a very important $25 million increase for law enforcement
services, criminal investigation, uniformed officers, and
several other items. It is a critical issue. It is the No. 1
issue in Indian country. It is matched by a request of about
$80 million from the Department of Justice, to see if together
we can deploy some more resources.
I believe that we have the Indian trust accounts issue
under control and a tortuous, long-term path toward resolution
of what is surely the most complex and frustrating management,
record assembly, litigation, information system design that I
have ever come near in my life. We have an increase in the
budget for that. And I believe that we are now ahead of this
one.
prepared statement
With that, again, I would simply say it has been a great
experience working with you. As frustrated as we sometimes get
in authorization fights with the authorization committees, I
have got to say that this relationship has been very different
and very productive.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Babbitt
I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 1999 budget for the
Department of the Interior.
This budget is a significant one for the Department. It will mark
and celebrate the Department's 150th year. It will also set the course
for the Department's entry into the 21st Century.
The history of the Department of the Interior has been one of
change. In 1849, the Department was established to be the country's
Home Department--a miscellaneous collection of domestic agencies,
including the Patent Office and the Census Bureau. The largest, and
most expensive, agency was the Pension Bureau. As the country developed
and the needs of the American people changed, the Department assumed
new functions and shed others. At least seven of the current Cabinet
departments can trace their lineage, in whole or significant part, to
functions at one time conducted by the Department of the Interior.
Today the principal missions of the Department are the conservation
and management of America's natural and cultural resources, the
protection and encouragement of Indian self-determination, and the
fulfillment of Federal trust responsibilities to American Indians.
These missions originate with two of the Department's original
components--the General Land Office and the Indian Office. However,
they have evolved dramatically since 1849.
Frederick Jackson Turner declared the frontier closed in 1893 and
the last great wave of homesteading ended by 1920. The automobile, and
later the Interstate highway system, have brought increasing numbers of
visitors to parks, refuges and public lands. Development has pushed
right up to the boundaries of many reserves and the interrelationship
of the components of ecosystems that John Wesley Powell identified a
century ago have become increasingly obvious. The land management
challenges we face today are far different and more complex than those
of 1949, let alone 1849. When Chester Lindsley was appointed as
Superintendent after the establishment of the National Park Service in
1916, Yellowstone may have been the uncomplicated place pictured in
Northern Pacific Railroad tourist posters. The Yellowstone of today
receives nearly three million visitors annually, six times the number
who visited the entire National Park system in 1916. The Park has an
aging infrastructure and is profoundly affected by developments
throughout the 11.7 million-acre Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.
The evolution of Indian programs has been equally dramatic. The
Indian Reorganization Act of the 1930's and the Indian Self-
Determination Act of the early 1970's have given Tribes their rightful
role in the management of Federal Indian affairs. Our challenge today
is to deliver services and operate trust activities within the context
of a program that promotes self-determination and protects tribal
sovereignty.
The budget that I present today reflects the continuing evolution
of the Department's mission. As have each of President Clinton's
budgets, the 1999 budget protects base operating funds for the
Department's programs, including parks, refuges and public lands,
natural resource science, reclamation programs, and Native American
programs, while providing the funding needed to meet increasingly
complex challenges. The budget:
--Continues funding for landscape scale restoration partnerships and
includes increases to help States and local communities restore
watersheds and fisheries.
--Adds funds to build on our successful efforts to make the
Endangered Species Act work.
--Begins a five-year program to fund critical maintenance and
construction needs.
--Funds an initiative to strengthen law enforcement functions in
Indian country and continues our progress on trust management
reform.
Budget overview.--The President has proposed a balanced budget for
1999, three years earlier than agreed to in last year's Bipartisan
Budget Agreement. Within the framework of the balanced budget, the
President's request seeks a total of $8.1 billion for the Department in
funds subject to annual appropriation by the Congress. An estimated
$2.4 billion will be provided by permanent appropriations.
For Department programs under the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee, the request for annual appropriations is $7.1 billion for
1999. This is a decrease of $71 million in current budget authority
from total appropriations provided in the 1998 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act. It is an increase of $461 million in
current authority if the Department's $532 million share of the special
1998 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation is excluded. More
than 20 percent of this increase will go for pay and other
uncontrollable cost increases.
Our ability to propose a budget that includes programmatic
increases is due to the President's commitment to the environment and
programs for Native Americans and to our aggressive efforts over the
last five years to streamline the Department, reducing headquarters
staffs and management layers, and to reengineer our processes and
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our customer services. As
of the end of fiscal year 1997, we had reduced our overall employment
level by over 15 percent below the 1993 baseline.
Landscape focus.--The President's Northwest Forest Summit in April
1993 opened a new chapter in conservation and resource history. For 150
years, the Nation has been caught between two polar visions. One vision
was of the great natural resources of our country as commodities to be
exploited for economic gain. The other vision was of a deep ethical
obligation to preserve and care for nature's creations. The new vision
that crystallized in Portland in 1993 serves both nature and our
economic future. By understanding that landscapes are complex, living
and integrated systems, we can find better ways of living on, and
prospering from, the land, while at the same time protecting species
and preserving nature's special places.
We learned three lessons in developing the Forest Plan. We cannot
solve pressing natural resource problems by focusing on postage stamp
size management units. We must treat them on a landscape scale. Second,
in seeking solutions we must look across, and beyond, agency
boundaries. We need to involve all the relevant Federal agencies, as
well as States, local and tribal governments, industry, non-profit
groups, and concerned ordinary citizens in efforts to move from
conflict to cooperation. Third, our goal should be restoration, so as
to ensure the long term ecological and economic health of communities.
The 1999 budget continues support for the Forest Plan, as well as
for the landscape scale restoration of the Everglades.
Our request for the Forest Plan is $68 million. That this is a
slight decrease from 1998 reflects the success of the Forest Plan. We
have in place the structure to maintain and restore late successional
and old-growth forests, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat,
while allowing a sustained timber harvest of 1.1 billion board feet per
year. An aquatic conservation strategy has been implemented to maintain
the health of watersheds. We are working with non-federal land owners
to balance species protection through habitat conservation plans and
planned implementation of the 4(d) rule.
For the Everglades, we propose an appropriation of $144 million,
including $12 million for scientific research, $14 million for the
Modified Water Delivery System, and $81 million for land acquisition.
This request is an increase of $8 million over 1998. Total Federal
funding requested for the Everglades is $282 million, an increase of
$54 million. This funding, together with the contributions of the State
of Florida, will keep us on track to solutions that restore the
Everglades in ways that recognize the inextricable link between the
health of the natural watershed and the growth and continued prosperity
of Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and all of the cities of the coastal ridge.
Based on lessons learned in the Pacific Northwest, South Florida
and California, the budget for the Interior and Related Agencies bill
also contains modest increases to address landscape scale issues in two
other areas of the country.
At the 1993 Forest Summit, the President directed BLM and the
Forest Service to develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based
management strategy for Federal lands east of the Cascades in the
Columbia River Basin, the upper Klamath Basin and the northern Great
Basin. Two EISs and preferred management alternatives are nearing
completion. To begin to implement whichever management alternative is
selected to restore the long-term ecological integrity of the Federal
land within the 144 million acre region, we are asking for increases of
$7 million in BLM and $1.5 million in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The BLM increases will support implementation of integrated weed
management plans, fish and wildlife habitat restoration projects, and
use of prescribed fire to restore range and forest land, among other
projects. The FWS increase will support streamlined ESA consultations
on the model of the Forest Plan.
In the desert Southwest, increases totaling $4 million in BLM and
FWS will support efforts to unsnarl the tangle of litigation
surrounding conflicts between traditional industries such as logging
and grazing, the resource demands of explosive urban and suburban
growth, and the survival of a number of species, including the Mexican
spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, and cactus pygmy owl. This
funding is critical to preempting gridlock that will benefit neither
the species or the economy of the region.
The budget for the Energy and Water Development bill contains a
request of $144 million for California Bay-Delta restoration
activities, the full amount authorized by the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement Act.
Watershed restoration.--It is not a coincidence that the
restoration projects I have discussed revolve around watersheds. Water
connects the landscape. Rivers link upland forests and meadows to river
valleys and lowlands. The water reveals everything, right or wrong,
that we do within the entire watershed. The health of the headwaters
affects the biological and economic health of communities below.
In celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the
Vice President is leading an effort to fulfill the Act's commitment to
protect and restore the Nation's waters. The effort is grounded in a
powerful new concept. Communities have begun to see that their river is
not just a little slice of reality at the end of town, but that the
river reflects everything that happens in the entire watershed; is a
communicator, if you will, of actions taken hundreds of miles away.
Many of these communities have begun to recapture their history and
heritage--and secure their economic future--through rebuilding of
abandoned waterfronts and restoration of fisheries, whether salmon,
shad, or striped bass. On the Stonycreek River in Pennsylvania, the
efforts of local citizens, working with State and Federal agencies to
address acid mine drainage, are credited with the first reported
holdover trout fishery in the river in 80 to 90 years.
In support of the Vice President's initiative, the 1999 budget
contains increases in several of our bureaus. If I can generally
characterize these increases, they involve helping local communities
and watershed councils to find solutions to watershed restoration.
Specific program increases totaling $16.5 million in USGS will
focus on enhancing the understanding and data available to Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, local governments and private citizens that
will be working together to improve watershed conditions throughout the
Nation. Improved availability of landscape information coupled with
hydrologic and biological data are critical to the success of a
watershed-based approach of water restoration. Among other projects,
USGS will develop new data handling and serving capabilities including
the use of geographic information systems for decision support;
evaluate the impacts of pollution sources and non-point pollution
management practices in critical watersheds; provide information to
assist remediation of acid mine drainage; conduct research on hypoxia
in the Gulf of Mexico and pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay; and
encourage research oriented toward restoring aquatic system health in
degraded watersheds through competitive grants to Water Resources
Research Institutes. The National Water Quality Program will begin work
in two new study units and USGS will conduct cooperative research for
the Bureau of Reclamation, NPS, BLM and other Federal agencies.
In BLM, OSM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, we are requesting
new funding for partnerships and restoration projects. A proposed
increase of $16 million in BLM includes funding for cleanup of drainage
from abandoned hardrock mine sites in partnership with Colorado,
Montana and other western States and additional funding for riparian
restoration projects throughout the West. For OSM, we propose to
increase the very successful Clean Streams initiative to $7 million. At
this level, OSM will provide seed money for approximately 23 more
partnerships to clean up rivers and streams polluted by contaminated
runoff from abandoned coal mines. OSM will also use a small amount of
funding to transfer the lessons that it has learned in the East to
hardrock acid mine drainage projects in the West. The Fish and Wildlife
Service will implement additional voluntary watershed health projects
with private landowners with a $2.5 million increase in the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program and a $3 million increase in the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund.
Fisheries restoration.--A key to the puzzle in many watersheds is
private hydro-power dams built in an era when the native fish supply
was assumed to be indestructible. Over the next 15 years, one quarter
of the private hydro-power dams in America will come up for Federal
relicensing. This presents an unparalleled opportunity for communities
to work with industry to develop innovative solutions to fish passage.
A model for these efforts is the Menominee River, which forms the
border of Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula north of Lake
Michigan. For decades the river and its tributaries have generated
electricity through more than 13 dams, but those same dams have
disrupted fish migration and spawning runs, degrading the river
experience for white water enthusiasts and fishermen alike. The people
of Florence and Marinette Counties in Wisconsin and Iron, Dickinson and
Menominee Counties in Michigan saw that the strength of their river was
more than the sum of its kilowatt hours. It could draw boaters and
anglers to broaden and stabilize the tax base. As the deadline for
relicensing the dams approached, citizens and elected officials came
together with industry to hammer out a landmark plan to balance
watershed values of a wilder, more natural river with continued
electric power generation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a critical, supportive role in
these locally based efforts. On the Menominee, the Service showed how
and where the most cost-effective fish barriers could be installed,
protecting not only bass and northern pike, but the hydro projects
themselves. For 1999, we propose modest, but important, increases
totaling $2 million for the Service to hire additional biologists and
hydrological engineers and to demonstrate fish passage restoration
techniques.
Endangered Species Act.--Just as we have learned better ways to
work with natural systems, we have also learned better ways to work
with the Endangered Species Act. Five years ago, there was a national
perception that the Act was broken. There was a complete impasse in the
old growth forests of the Northwest, an impending crisis threatening to
shut down home-building in southern California, and another timber
industry standoff looming in the longleaf pine forests of the South.
We dusted off the Act and found that it contains much flexibility
and potential for innovation. For five years, we have been out on the
landscape, working with States, Tribes, communities and private
landowners. Habitat conservation plans covering approximately 7.3
million acres have been put in place or are under development. We have
developed the ``No Surprises'' policy and have negotiated ``Safe
Harbor'' agreements with private landowners to encourage them to
enhance or improve habitat by providing assurances that their voluntary
conservation actions will not result in imposition of additional
restrictions.
We have found that these tools can both protect species and permit
sound economic development. Why? Because they provide: incentives for
landowners to protect and even attract rare native species on their
property; certainty for businesses to move ahead; and ways to restore
rare and declining species in time to keep them off the endangered
list.
I hope that 1998 will see enactment of ESA reauthorization that
builds on the lessons that we have learned. For 1999, the President
proposes a $39 million ESA increase to expand our use of these tools to
more effectively and efficiently implement the ESA and to position the
FWS to comply with a reauthorized ESA, should that happen.
Among other things, the increased funding will be used to implement
additional candidate conservation agreements to protect 80 species and
keep 20 species from being listed; to implement more than 100
additional Habitat Conservation Plans; enter into 100 to 150 safe
harbor agreements; and implement an additional 75 recovery plans. Even
in the absence of reauthorization, we will need to do these things, as
well as to address a growing consultation workload; consider up to 30
additional species reclassifications or delisting actions; and provide
support to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, the
Southwest Ecosystem initiative; consultation efforts with Indian
tribes; and conservation of threatened and endangered species in the
Platte River basin.
Science.--The initiatives that I have discussed today all have
science as an integral component, as do many other aspects of the
ongoing operations of the land management agencies. Whether it is
improving our knowledge of the hydrology of the Everglades or
developing a scientific understanding of the biological, chemical,
physical and historical factors leading to avian and fish mortality in
the Salton Sea, the work of the U.S. Geological Survey is critical to
sound resource management decisions.
The 1999 request for USGS includes a net increase of $49 million
over 1998. The request includes the increases supporting the Clean
Water initiative that I mentioned earlier, as well as an additional $7
million for greater public access to water quality information, $11
million for species and habitat research and $2.5 million to expand the
EROS Data Center's archiving capacity. I am pleased to report that
these increases reflect improved orientation of USGS to the research
and data needs of land managing agencies, as well as of other Federal,
state and local agencies and the public, and expanded synergy between
the biological and earth sciences in the ``new'' USGS.
One increase that I want to discuss specifically is a $15 million
request in our budget to implement a Disaster Information Network. The
USGS is the national leader in both managing and disseminating spatial
data and earth-science information and in monitoring natural hazards
such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and coastal
erosion. This new network will be built on existing resources by a
multi-agency Integrated Program Office hosted by USGS. The network will
ensure that the timely, reliable information is available to a wide
range of users so that losses due to natural disasters can be
minimized. The network will take full advantage of new communications
technologies and the rapidly growing capabilities of the information
superhighway to help communities become more resilient to natural
disasters.
Safe visits.--The Department manages an extensive infrastructure in
parks and refuges and on public lands and Indian reservations. Many of
our facilities are over 100 years old; some were built by the Civilian
Conservation Corps in the 1930's; and some were erected in the 1950's
and 1960's as part of the Mission 66 program. As use and visitation
increases, these aging facilities present serious rehabilitation and
repair needs.
To meet these needs, the 1999 budget proposes the first year of a
five-year program to address critical health and safety needs in
maintenance and construction, as well as needs for ongoing natural and
cultural resource protection. This funding will help ensure safe visits
for visitors to parks, refuges and public lands. It will also make sure
that the 45,000 employees who work daily in NPS, BLM, FWS and BIA
facilities have safe work environments and that the 53,000 students who
attend BIA schools have safe school environments.
The 1999 budgets for maintenance and construction will total $849
million, which represents a net increase of $68 million over the 1998
enacted level. For maintenance programs, it represents an increase of
$82 million, or 18 percent, over 1998 to tackle the most pressing
deferred maintenance needs. For construction there will be a decrease
of $14 million to better focus efforts during the first year of the
five year program. Construction funding will increase in the outyears.
Over five years, we will propose maintenance and construction increases
that will total $700 million over a straight-lined 1998 base. These
amounts will be supplemented by fee revenues. Under the current Fee
Demonstration program, NPS will be able to keep $136 million in fee
receipts in 1999. The budget proposes to build on this success by
permanently authorizing a new fee program. The budget also proposes
park concessions reform legislation that will allow NPS to enhance
performance and use franchise fee receipts for park improvements.
As the first step of the five year program, we have developed
uniform criteria and prioritized lists of critical health and safety
and resource projects for 1999. Our goal is to fund the projects posing
the greatest risks to the public and employees.
As the next step, the Department will begin to develop a five-year
plan to meet maintenance and resource needs to be used to formulate the
2000 budget request. Using agreed upon definitions, we will better
identify and categorize our deferred maintenance needs and begin to
schedule and fund the highest priority needs. We will also be looking
at the appropriate funding levels for routine and cyclic maintenance to
ensure that the inventory of deferred maintenance does not continue to
grow.
Law enforcement in Indian country.--The 1999 budget for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs is $1.84 billion, an increase of $142 million above
the 1998 enacted level. Included within the increase are funds to pay
the costs of increasing school enrollment, to replace three schools,
and to support various self-determination programs. Of great importance
is a $25 million increase to strengthen core law enforcement functions
in Indian country by increasing the number of uniformed police officers
and criminal investigators and by strengthening basic detention center
services. This initiative responds to the current public safety crisis
in Indian country. Crime rates on Indian lands have increased
significantly, hindering the efforts of Tribes to establish stability
in their communities. The homicide rates on some reservations have
equaled or surpassed levels in many large cities. To respond, Indian
communities have only 1.3 police officers per 1,000 citizens, compared
with an average of 2.9 per 1,000 in non-Indian areas with similar
population density. Many Tribes lack adequate funding to provide a
basic level of security in their communities, such as 24 hour police
coverage.
The law enforcement increase for BIA is part of a larger effort
that will provide $182 million in new and redirected Federal funds to
support Indian country law enforcement, a 100 percent increase over
1998. To encourage clear communication and continuity between the
Federal government and Tribes, BIA will maintain primary responsibility
for law enforcement, with important technical assistance and support
from the Department of Justice. The Justice budget proposes an increase
of $51 million for additional FBI agents and assistant U.S. Attorneys,
as well as for several targeted programs on reservations, such as drug
testing and treatment, juvenile justice, and assistance to tribal
courts. Justice also proposes to direct $52 million in correctional
grant funding for detention center construction in Indian country and
dedicate over $54 million for Community Oriented Policing Services on
reservations.
Trust programs.--The request for the Office of the Special Trustee
is $42.0 million, a $8.1 million increase over 1998. The request
supports the implementation of portions of the Special Trustee's
Strategic Plan that focus on improving the performance of our current
responsibilities: acquisition of trust systems, records clean-up, and
elimination of trust asset processing backlogs. I'm pleased to report,
that significant progress in these areas has occurred over the past
year. A comprehensive high-level implementation plan for the Trust
Management Improvement Project is being finalized and several sub
projects are well underway. In January 1998, OST commenced an 18 month
individual Indian money account data clean up contract and this month
will award a contract for a commercial off-the-shelf trust fund
accounting system.
In BIA, the budget includes an increase of $5 million to address
probate and land records processing backlogs. The budget also proposes
$10 million for BIA to initiate a pilot program on one or more
reservations to consolidate fractional interests in allotted land. It
is not uncommon for as many as 100 to 300 individuals to hold undivided
interests in a single allotment. This fractionation taxes the ability
of the Government to administer and maintain records and accounts. It
also makes it increasingly difficult for Indian owners to put their
lands to productive use.
On the authorizing side, the budget assumes enactment of the
Administration's tribal trust fund settlement process legislative
proposal, which is expected to be submitted to the Congress this month.
The proposed legislation is the culmination of a five-year, $21 million
effort to reconcile tribal trust fund accounts. The legislation will
lay out a process designed to acknowledge and respect tribal
sovereignty by using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
MMS.--The resurgence in Gulf of Mexico leasing activity that we
reported in the 1998 budget will continue into 1999. There have been
four record-breaking lease sales in the Gulf over the past year and a
half and a sustained level of exploration and development activity.
Industry's interest and investment in the Gulf are spurred by dramatic
advances in technology; the discovery of extremely prolific reservoirs;
reductions in exploration and development costs; and the economic
incentives provided by the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act.
In response to this resurgence, we have requested a 1998
supplemental appropriation of $6.7 million and an annualized increase
of $7.5 million for 1999. I am pleased and gratified that the
Subcommittee chose to include the $6.7 million in the supplemental bill
that passed the Senate last week. These increases will put MMS on firm
footing to effectively perform its regulatory responsibilities to
ensure continued safe and environmentally sound development of the OCS.
This investment, which will be fully offset by increased offsetting
receipts, is modest compared to the return it will generate. OCS
bonuses, rents and royalties constitute the largest category of the $7
billion in receipts (equivalent to 90 percent of the Department's
budget) that the Department collects.
The Millennium Fund.--The initiatives that I have discussed all
respond to immediate 1999 needs, but also position the Department to
meet the challenges of the 21st Century. One proposal in the budget is
explicitly a proposal for the 21st Century. The legacy of defining
moments in American history is literally fading away in deteriorating
archives, crumbling monuments, and moldering leather. The celebration
of the turn of the century is an opportunity to showcase the
preservation of America's history and culture for ourselves and for the
world. To seize this opportunity, the budget proposes a $50 million
grant fund to preserve the fabric of America's heritage, ensuring that
the citizens of the 21st Century have the same opportunity that we have
had to observe and enjoy the Star Spangled Banner, objects gathered by
the Lewis and Clark expedition, and instruments in the laboratory of
Thomas Edison.
Using the existing legal framework of the National Historic
Preservation Act, $25 million is proposed to be distributed to States,
Tribes and territories. With the exception of grants to Tribes, this
amount will be matched on a 60/40 basis by non-Federal funding. The
remaining $25 million is proposed to be made available to Federal
agencies for the preservation of artifacts of national scope and
significance.
Conclusion.--I believe that the 1999 budget for the Department of
the Interior addresses the challenges that we will face in our 150th
year. I look forward to working with you on these challenges and on the
challenges we will face in the 21st Century.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
fee demonstration project
Senator Gorton. I probably have about 2 hours worth of
questions, Mr. Secretary. You will get maybe 10 minutes of them
before I have to leave for the Commerce Committee markup,
because I do want others to--I will go then to Senator Byrd and
whichever is the last Senator here can adjourn the meeting, if
he will. And every member, whether present or not, will be
authorized to submit written questions.
I would like you to give me a brief briefing on what I hope
has been one of the real success stories, and that is the fee
demonstration project. How much money are you bringing in? What
is it being used for? And when are we going to get an
administration recommendation as to how to make it permanent?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think this program has been
an outstanding success, visibly in the Park Service, but in the
other land management agencies, as well. I believe, in this
fiscal year, the Park Service anticipates collecting, net of
collection costs, close to $132 million. I actually thought it
was closer to $300 million. Well, my trusted source says $140
million.
Now, virtually all of that money is going back into this
issue of repair and maintenance and upkeep. And I think it is
making a very significant difference that you can actually see.
We have said to park superintendents: We want you to do what
some States do with their highway money. For every dollar they
spend, there is a billboard on the site, saying: Courtesy of
your elected representatives and the wisdom of your political
leaders, this money is now moving out. We want to advertise the
success. And I think we are doing it.
Now, when do we submit a bill?
I think it has been the view of OMB that that should be a
fiscal year 1999 project. That is a judgment call. I guess I
would rather have a bird in the hand. But, in any event, no
later than January we will have a draft legislative proposal
for you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
columbia basin ecosystem management plan
You mentioned in your opening statement the frustrations in
the Columbia basin ecosystem management plan as against some of
the things that you are doing elsewhere. Personally, I think,
from my contacts with my own constituents, that a large part of
that lack of success is that both the people who live in the
Basin and Congress were assured that this large-scale planning
would result in a prompt determination of final land management
decisions. So far, what it has done is to add a huge amount of
interagency consolidation in a bureaucratic process that seems
to be in addition to a cumbersome local planning process.
Once the consultation process is completed in the Columbia
basin study, is there any assurance that the subsequent
consultation at the local level will be eliminated or
substantially reduced?
Secretary Babbitt. I understand that that question is not
exactly unsubstantiated by some of the stuff that has gone on.
But there are two things, I think. The first is, at the point
that a plan is signed off, it then needs to be wrapped into the
74 separate land management plans. Now, we have had a lot of
discussion about that, and I believe that can be done quickly
and that it should obviate the need for a lot of flow-down
decisionmaking.
The other issue that people are worried about is
consultation under the Endangered Species Act, which often
turns out, at least in the eyes of many, to be the problem. In
the forest plan, I think we have really spiked that problem. We
now have consultations on timber sales coming out routinely in
less than 60 days. And I think we can do that under this plan.
presidio
Senator Gorton. Just one more from me. Now that we have a
Presidio Trust, why is the amount of money you are asking to
spend going up rather than down?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the extra $25 million is in the
form of a request from the Presidio Trust for the equivalent of
bonding authority, to be exercised through the Treasury to
begin the rehab and repair of a lot of those buildings that
they believe there is a rental market for. That is the bottom
line. They say they want to issue bonds so we can amortize them
with rental proceeds. That is the entire increase.
Senator Gorton. What will the likely request be for next
year, then, in the next budget cycle? Will it go down?
Secretary Babbitt. Only the Presidio Trust can answer that
question, Senator. I remind you that this is now an independent
body, which does not take lightly excessive intermeddling from
the Secretary of the Interior. But I believe that the answer is
yes, that it should go back down. This is a one-shot bonding
authority request.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary. I apologize again for the
almost inevitable conflict, in this case with the tobacco
markup. Senator Byrd is next, and then Senator Bumpers, who has
just come. Let me tell you, Senator Bumpers, I have to go and
Senator Stevens has already had to leave for the tobacco
markup. So the questions will simply follow in order of the
last Senator here and adjourn the hearing with the Secretary.
And each Senator, of course, will have the right to submit
questions in writing in addition to those that he or she has
asked in person.
And with that, thank you very much.
Senator Byrd, it is your turn.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
corridor h
Mr. Secretary, pursuant to the Historic Preservation Act,
the National Park Service has responsibility for evaluating the
potential impact of Federal highway projects on historic
sources. As you may know, efforts to construct and complete
corridor H in my State of West Virginia have been subjected to
litigation and delay ad nauseam by opponents of this highway.
My support for corridor H is no secret. I have also been
steadfast in my desire to see that appropriate procedures are
followed in a timely manner. Specifically, I am concerned that
opponents of this project--and there is a small group, highly
vocal opponents, most of which I suppose are West Virginians,
some of whom are from out of State and some who have just
recently come to West Virginia possibly--I am concerned that
the opponents of the project may be causing undue delay through
repeated requests for extensions of comment and review periods
by the keeper of the National Register.
I wrote to you on November 25 of last year and again on
March 1 of this year regarding these concerns. I have not yet
received a response to my March 1 letter. I have been very
careful not to question the substance of the issues involved,
but rather to raise concerns regarding the time and the delays
that have plagued this process.
What can you tell me about these review periods and the
extensions thereto, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, like you, I have been
exceedingly careful not to voice or even intimate an opinion on
the merits. As you know, I have been burdened with a special
counsel over entirely false allegations that I intervened in a
regulatory decision. And so I too am quite sensitive about
this.
The time periods for decision are an appropriate issue of
inquiry. And I have in my hands a draft letter, with a
handwritten note on it from my staff, saying: ``To be signed
today.'' I suspect that note may or may not have been written.
But, at any rate, it is now to be signed today, and says as
follows:
We expect the information, the documentation, from the
Federal Highway Administration early in April. Now, that is No.
1. We have got to get the material from them. Perhaps they will
get wind of this hearing and what I take to be your strong
desire that they submit this promptly.
After that, I will lean on the keeper and make certain that
a decision is made within 45 days from the date of submission
from the Federal Highway Administration.
Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Secretary. You have
always been very responsive to our needs and our requests.
To date, the National Park Service has not kept to its own
deadlines in responding to requests from State officials. Can I
be assured that the Department and the National Park Service
will complete their work expeditiously, within the timeframes
that the National Park Service itself established?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, this is with respect to many
projects, a particular project?
Senator Byrd. I am talking about this particular project.
Secretary Babbitt. Oh, this particular one. Yes; the answer
is ``yes.''
Senator Byrd. The submissions by the State in April, can we
be sure that the review will be within the 45-day period?
Secretary Babbitt. I vow to you that you will have a
response in the form of a decision within that timeframe.
role of state historic preservation officer
Senator Byrd. Another concern that has surfaced in West
Virginia is that the professional judgment and considerations
of the State Historic Preservation Office are not being fairly
treated and reviewed by the keeper of the National Register.
What is the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer and
the keeper in reviewing the impact that a project will have on
cultural resources, listed or eligible, to the National
Register of Historic Places?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would have to answer
specifically in writing after looking at the statute. But I
believe, generally, the question is, does the keeper decide
based upon the recommendation or does the keeper concur? I
believe it is the former. I believe the keeper actually has
jurisdiction to make a de novo decision after considering the
recommendation of the State Officer. But I would like to
confirm that in writing.
Senator Byrd. Very well.
[The information follows:]
The National Register of Historic Places--Determinations of Eligibility
National Park Service regulations (36 C.F.R. 63) assign the
Keeper of the National Register responsibility for determining
whether properties that may be affected by Federal or federally
assisted projects meet the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. If properties listed in the National Register or
found eligible for listing are to be affected, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation must be given an opportunity
to comment on the project.
Paragraph 2 of the regulations specifies that ``The
Department of the Interior will respond within 45 days of
receipt of a documented request for a determination of
eligibility from a Federal agency when it is submitted in
accordance with the following regulations and is accompanied by
documentation that clearly portrays the nature and significance
of the property.'' If the documentation is ``not sufficient to
make a professional evaluation of the significance of the
property,'' the Keeper is directed to request additional
information. The regulations then provide that the Keeper will
respond to the agency's request within 45 days of receipt of
the requested documentation.
Since 1983, the National Register has received five
requests for determinations of eligibility, including 57
properties in West Virginia and 2 properties in Virginia that
might be affected by Corridor H. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHwA) was asked to submit additional
information on three of these requests. Corridor H
Alternatives, an official consulting party, asked that the
review periods for two requests be extended to enable them to
prepare comments on FHwA's recommendations concerning
eligibility. In view of the importance of having all possible
relevant information before making decisions on this important
project, the National Register staff concluded that it was
appropriate to extend the review periods for a reasonable time.
The additional material submitted by the FHwA and by Corridor H
Alternatives and other members of the interested public has, in
fact, provided important information that needed to be taken
into account in making decisions about eligibility. In all
cases, the National Register staff has made its determinations
within 45 days of receiving the information necessary to permit
informed evaluation of the properties involved.
The National Register staff has been informed that the FHwA
will be submitting requests for determinations of eligibility
for a number of additional properties that may be affected by
the Corridor H project over the next few months. The Department
of the Interior is committed to making all decisions concerning
determinations of eligibility as expeditiously as possible
consistent with the National Park Service's responsibility to
base these decisions on the most complete and accurate
information available.
the role of the state historic preservation officer and the keeper of
the national register of historic places
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
assigns the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) an
important role in consulting with Federal agencies on their
undertakings that may affect historic properties and on the
content and sufficiency of any plans developed to protect and
manage or to reduce or mitigate harm to such properties
[Section 101(b)(3)(I)]. The Keeper of the National Register
also asks the opinion of the SHPO concerning the eligibility of
the properties on which Federal agencies have requested a
determination of eligibility and gives that opinion careful
consideration in evaluating the properties. Under the statute,
however, the responsibility for making determinations of
eligibility rests with the Department of the Interior.
Department of the Interior regulations assign that
responsibility to the Keeper of the National Register of
Historic Places.
In the case of properties that might be affected by
Corridor H, the Keeper has agreed with the West Virginia State
Historic Preservation Officer's opinions on the eligibility of
51 of the 57 West Virginia properties for which determinations
of eligibility were requested. All of the properties on which
the National Register and the SHPO disagreed were related to
the site of the Civil War Battle of Moorefield and the Old
Fields Historic District, in the Middle South Branch Valley, in
Hardy County. A variety of interested individuals and
organizations, including but by no means limited to Corridor H
Alternatives, questioned the opinions of the FHwA and the SHPO
concerning the eligibility of these two areas and asked that
both questions be referred to the Keeper for a final
determination.
state historic preservation office
Senator Byrd. Let me just say again that the concern that
has surfaced in my State is that professional judgment and the
considerations of the State Historic Preservation Office are
not being fairly treated and reviewed by the keeper of the
National Register. Under what circumstances would the keeper
overrule the recommendations of the State Historic Preservation
Officer?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think I need to go back and
look at the statute, and I will respond. And this response will
not take 45 days.
Senator Byrd. All right.
Is it your view that the keeper must take extraordinary
steps to remain impartial and objective in these reviews?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, as I intimated earlier, yes. I
mean, when this Congress passes a regulatory statute, requiring
or authorizing decisionmaking on specific issues that are
regulatory and quasi-judicial, I think that is important.
Senator Byrd. Well, the perception is that, as I understand
it, based on my conversations with my constituents, that the
keeper is not always impartial and objective in the reviews
that affect this particular highway. What steps can the
Department take when there are concerns that one side or
another may be receiving more favorable treatment?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I would of course be willing to
restate to the keeper her obligation to be fair and impartial,
and I think also to re-examine and make certain that the
process is as transparent as possible, in terms of having
public input and making certain that there are not any
substantive communications going on outside of the record or
outside of whatever public process is established.
Senator Byrd. When you make that clear--and perhaps you
have done so before; I do not know--when you make that clear,
will you do that in writing?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will.
Senator Byrd. Would you supply the subcommittee with a copy
of your letter?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will.
[The information follows:]
The Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places Need for
Objectivity
The Keeper of the National Register is well aware of the
importance of fairness and objectivity in all decisionmaking,
including determinations of eligibility. The Keeper and other
appropriate National Register staff members carefully review
all available information to ensure that these decisions are
based solely on a professional, disinterested evaluation of the
historical significance and integrity of the properties
involved. Secretary Babbitt has written a memorandum to the
Keeper re-emphasizing the importance of objectivity and
impartiality in making decisions about eligibility, as he
committed to do in response to Senator Byrd's expression of
concern about this matter. If questions are raised about the
Keeper's ability to make a fair and objective decision in a
particular case, the matter can be referred to the Department
of the Interior Ethics Office for an opinion. A copy of this
letter will be provided to the Committee.
completing the necessary review
Senator Byrd. I cannot stress to you enough, Mr. Secretary,
the importance of completing the necessary reviews within the
time specified. And I think you personally feel that way about
it. I have not seen anything to the contrary ever. The State is
doing everything that it can to be cooperative in responding to
repeated requests for more and more information. The least that
the Department can do is to respond to these requests in a
timely manner.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I will look forward to receiving a copy
of that letter. And I, again, thank you.
reductions in heritage efforts
I understand your commitment to providing resources for
important administrative initiatives. I am troubled by some
reductions in the budget which appear to be targeted at
congressional priorities. In my State of West Virginia, for
example, the National Park Service budget eliminated funding
for ongoing support of heritage efforts in Wheeling. And
comparable efforts in Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Washington are
also targeted for elimination.
With all of the increased funding proposed in the budget, I
wish that the Department could have found a way, at a minimum,
to continue these ongoing programs. Last year's funds were not
for one-time activities in Wheeling. The city and its partners
have been working cooperatively with the National Park Service,
consistent with the plan jointly developed several years ago. I
have been very supportive of this initiative, and I remain so
committed. I intend to work closely with Senator Gorton to
ensure that there is no disruption to the ongoing program in
Wheeling, and that funds are restored, if not enhanced.
Mr. Secretary, I, like others, have some other commitments.
But I want to thank you again for your appearance here and for
your cooperation. I have always found it to be excellent, and I
am proud to say so publicly. I was glad to see you up at the
dedication last fall of the training center at Terrapin Neck. I
hear many good things about that national conservation training
center. And it is truly a spectacular facility, and one for
which I believe all in the Service and in the Department can be
proud.
I may have a few additional questions which I will submit
for the record.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would just like you to know
that with respect to that training center, I canceled out of a
trip to Argentina with the President in order to honor your
request to be there. [Laughter.]
Let me just say it was the right decision. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Campbell [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, I believe it
is my turn. I will not ask you a bunch of questions because I
have to run, too. But let me thank you on the record for your
involvement last year in what we call the Rim Rock Run in
Colorado. It was a marathon run through Colorado National
Monument. And with your personal input, that run was a very big
success.
It is my understanding that the Park Service is now very
close to a suitable compromise between protecting the integrity
of the Park and allowing the organizers to have another one.
And I am looking forward to them doing it. They have worked all
year on it--both sides have. And so I just wanted to thank you
for that.
sand creek massacre site
And also I would ask you if you would look, when you have
time, at S. 1695, a bill I just introduced, that would allow
the Park Service to purchase a small area in Colorado that is
called the Sand Creek Massacre Site. The problem with it is we
do not know exactly the location of the site. We know very
closely where it is. But for about 3 years, the State of
Colorado Historical Society has been researching that area.
They do not have the expertise, equipment, or the kinds of
things they need to actually measure some of the underground
contents, you know, being able to find shell casings and so on.
And when we did a hearing on this about a week ago, Ms.
Katherine Stevenson, she did testify on the part of the Park
Service, and called it an extremely worthy project. And we are
hoping that maybe the National Park Service will be able to
help the State of Colorado define exactly where that is before
we actually move forward with that purchase. So if you would
kind of look at that bill, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to do so.
presidio buildings status
Senator Campbell. And just let me also say that, since
Senator Gorton mentioned the Presidio, that I was the chairman
of the Park subcommittee a couple of years ago, and I
understand the request for some money. Over half those
buildings qualify on the National Historic Registry, as you
know. Some of them are in pretty bad disrepair. And I know that
without some money going there, they will just have to be torn
down. In order to get them rentable, we have to fix them up. So
I do understand that request.
And I thank you for your appearance today.
Secretary Babbitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bumpers. I am sorry, were you here when I came in?
Senator Bennett [presiding]. I was. And I would normally
yield without any problem except I have to chair another
subcommittee in about 5 minutes. So if I may, Senator, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Secretary, two quick things. In my opening comment, I
gave you an invitation to come to Utah and visit the San
Raphael Swell this weekend. And that stands. If it is
impossible for you to rearrange your schedule that quickly, I
would be happy to find a time, sometime in May, where you and I
could go visit that, where Pat Shea is going to visit.
I think this represents the best opportunity for resolution
of Utah wilderness issues. The approach of the Emory County
group, working in the San Raphael Swell, seems to have the
approval of just about everybody reasonable on every side of
this issue. And if you could come with Pat Shea on Saturday, as
I say, I will rearrange my schedule and be there. If you cannot
make it on Saturday, let us see if we can find a time where we
can jointly be there.
I found, when the two of us show up together, things
usually are a little better than if one or the other of us is
standing there.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, people are always surprised, are
they not?
Senator Bennett. Yes. Yes.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I can just respond to your
invitation.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Secretary Babbitt. I cannot go on Saturday. And one reason
is because I am going to be in Utah tomorrow.
Senator Bennett. Oh, OK.
Secretary Babbitt. But I would like very much to accept
your invitation to go out perhaps sometime during April. I have
accepted an invitation from Congressman Hansen to go in search
of the Bonneville cutthroat.
Senator Bennett. I see.
Secretary Babbitt. And perhaps we could, back to back, on
successive days.
Senator Bennett. That is a fish, for those who do not know.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Babbitt. I have never seen the San Raphael Swell.
And yes, I accept.
Senator Bennett. All right, fine. We will find a date. And
I appreciate your willingness to do that.
virgin river
The other issue I would like to raise with you is a year
ago, roughly, Assistant Secretary Bob Armstrong issued a
decision regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers designations in
Arizona. And much to our surprise and chagrin, because we were
neither consulted nor notified in advance, he saw fit to
include the tributaries of the Virgin River as part of that
recommendation.
This threatens the delicate balance of the Virgin River
habitat management plan that we have been working so hard with
your Department to hammer out. And the members of the Utah
delegation sent a letter to you on October 22, 1997. As of
today, we have yet to receive a response.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will look into that. Because
I readily acknowledge that we have made a lot of progress
together, with the State and the local communities, on the
Virgin River. What is emerging there, we have already actually
accomplished some of it in terms of the Zion settlement, with a
lot more to come. And if this is viewed as destabilizing all of
that progress, I will look at it and get back to you.
Senator Bennett. We would appreciate it. It is
uncharacteristic, I must say, for the record, for us not to
receive a proper response from your Department. I have not had
exactly that experience with the Council on Environmental
Quality. And we have had some rather heated exchanges in this
room on that issue.
But your Department, even when the response has not been
what we have wanted, has always been responsive. And so I
wanted to call to your attention the fact that this letter from
last October has been there, and I would appreciate a response.
And I appreciate the spirit of your comment here, and hope we
can work this out.
Thank you.
Senator Bumpers, I now have to leave, and it is all yours.
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
esa and money for private landowners
Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the so-called Chaffee-
Kempthorne-Baucus-Reid Endangered Species Act?
Senator Bennett. Add Bennett to that list.
Senator Bumpers. The bill would provide money for private
landowners who are willing to take certain steps to protect
various species. Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am.
Senator Bumpers. Are you also familiar with the language in
the budget resolution conference report which says that this
program will cost $70 million a year over 5 years, so we are
talking about $350 million?
Secretary Babbitt. I am.
Senator Bumpers. And I am sure you are also familiar with
the proposal of the budget committee to pay for that by selling
off BLM lands?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes; I am.
Senator Bumpers. Tell us, in 1 hour or less, how you feel
about that. [Laughter.]
Secretary Babbitt. I am strongly opposed. I do not believe
that it is good policy to finance ongoing responsibilities of
my Department by a sale of Federal assets.
Now, in addition to that, I think the proposal, even were
it to be conceptually acceptable, is totally unrealistic. And
why is that? Because this idea that there are a lot of excess
BLM lands out there that can be auctioned off is not a
realistic view of the BLM land base. BLM, in its land use
plans, identifies surplus lands. And there is in fact a list of
them. And they are potentially available for consolidation or
other purposes.
What kind of lands are they? They are bits and pieces, here
and there, from land conveyance policies of the past. They tend
to be rangelands--a bunch of them on our family's ranch. And I
will tell you how my family feels about that. They feel the way
that most ranchers in Arizona do. And that is, they do not have
the slightest interest in purchasing lands that they now get
discount grazing deals on and pay no taxes on. Why in the world
would they want to purchase them and start paying taxes on it?
There is no market for the land that people usually think
of as being surplus. The only way to dispose of them in most
cases is through land consolidation, where you arrange mutually
beneficial land exchanges. And in fact, there are ongoing
programs to do that.
Well, I guess you have by now divined where it is I stand
on this issue.
Senator Bumpers. Yes; well, we have an amendment pending
right now on the budget resolution. Senator Reid and I have a
minor disagreement. He has an amendment which says that the
money for the bill, S. 1180, the so-called Endangered Species
Act, the money would come from dedicated revenues.
And I had understood you were looking for some source. I am
not sure I am so hot on that. It just seems to me like a $1.7
trillion budget, we ought to be able to find that money
somewhere to pay for that.
The other point I want to make for the record, and for any
comment you might have, is I think James Watt, who wanted to
selloff everything, from the Nation's Capitol down to the
rangelands of the West, prepared some BLM lands for sale with
the consent of the Congress. And it turned out it was a loser.
It cost more to prepare the sale and advertise and so on than
the land actually brought. I am not sure what the prices were,
but they get less for the land than it cost to prepare for the
sale.
But as you say, most of these lands are under grazing
permits--why would anybody buy land that they already have and
are not paying taxes on and so on?
One other point. This afternoon, the Energy Committee is
holding a hearing on a very extensive bill by Senator Craig
Thomas. And that bill changes rather dramatically a lot of
national parks and the way they operate.
concessions reform
Now, as you know, I have been discussing trying to reform
the concession laws in the national parks for 16 years. And
Senator Bennett, when he came to the Senate, became an ally of
mine on that. And I remember one day in the Energy Committee,
he lectured the Republicans, who were taking strong opposition
to my position on it. And he said, you know, we are
Republicans, we are supposed to believe in competition and the
free enterprise system. What is this first right of refusal and
all this stuff?
And we passed the bill. After his lecture, we passed the
bill out of the committee. And it passed the Senate 90 to 9,
and promptly died in the House. That is as close as I have ever
come to getting a major reform in the park concessions.
But, in any event, there is also a provision in the bill--
and we are going to have four or five hearings on it, because
it is a very comprehensive bill--but there is a provision in
the bill where increased revenues--you remember we raised park
fees--and there is a provision in this that we take some of the
increase of the park fees to put into some sort of a ranger
training program.
Now, I am not opposed to training park rangers. But it was
the absolute understanding of the Members of Congress that
those fees were being raised to do maintenance work in the
parks--a lot of maintenance work that, you and I both know,
probably runs into the billions, that needs to be done. And I
am going to try to attend a part of that hearing this afternoon
and take exception to that. Though I do want to compliment
Senator Thomas for at least coming up with a parks concession
proposal. And he and Senator Bennett and I are going to sit
down very shortly and try to work something out.
I would like to leave some legacy here, after 16 years of
effort, of doing something on parks concessions. I do not know
whether I will succeed or not.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I may, just a word on the
concessions issue. I am in a very cautious mood about
concessions reforms, because most of the proposals that are
floated I think are, in many ways, worse than the present
situation. In the meantime, the Park Service has made
considerable progress in getting a return on concessions into
the support of the park system. Basically, that began with
Secretary Lujan, in the Yosemite concession.
So I think we are skeptical, or at least in a kind of a
Missouri frame of mind, about proposals.
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Secretary, let me interrupt you at
that point. I recognize that revenues have been going up for
the Park Service. I think maybe $50 million last year. But a
big portion of that was because of one contract that was let
competitively. And that was Yosemite. Thirty-five percent of
your revenues are coming from Yosemite.
And my other point is we have narrowed this down to three
propositions. No. 1, right of first refusal, or first right of
refusal. That is an anachronism in this day and time. No. 2,
possessory interest. These things are not well known to other
Senators who do not deal with this issue, but possessory
interest is crazy. And those are two of the things. And of
course the exemption. And we are talking about exempting
roughly all but maybe--I forget how many--but if you exempt
everybody that has revenues of $1 million or less, you wipe out
most everybody except some of the bigger parks. And we have
agreed to do that. I mean we have already reached an agreement
on that.
But possessory interest first right of refusal, as far as I
am concerned, those are anachronisms from the dark ages.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I agree with all of that. We
can address those issues, to some degree, through
administrative reform. There is no legal requirement for right
of first refusal. We can do competitive bidding. Competitive
bidding is chilled, if not frozen, by the concessionaire's
possession of a large possessory interest. We are doing
possessory interest buy-downs in our new concession contracts.
Legislation would be helpful, but not the wrong
legislation. Now, for example, the proposal that the hearings
are being structured on privatizing the management of Park
Service concessions.
Senator Bumpers. Well, now, you and I are in agreement on
that. And that is the sticking point between Senator Thomas and
me. And I hope we can work something out.
Secretary Babbitt. OK. Well, it would be unacceptable to
the Park Service, and I think it is a bad idea.
Senator Bumpers. Well, I have taken up too much time. I
have a couple of other questions. I may submit a couple of
questions in writing.
Senator Cochran, if you are the last, you get to adjourn
the hearing.
Senator Cochran [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your cooperation
with our committee. I have enjoyed very much having the
opportunity, as a member of this appropriations committee, to
work on solving a lot of problems in our part of the country
that come under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior. And as you know, we both serve on the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission, and we have worked to try to help make
the national wildlife refuge system an important and an
enlarged part of our conservation resource effort.
yazoo complex nwr
We have one part of the refuge system in Mississippi that
needs some attention right now because of a fire that occurred,
and destroyed one of the multiuse buildings at the refuge
headquarters. It is at the Yazoo complex, which is the largest
national wildlife refuge in Mississippi, comprising over 70,000
acres in five different units.
I bring this up because this is an event that occurred just
recently. And I am not sure, and the local managers are not
sure, about access to funds that would permit them to rebuild
that multiuse building a that refuge. I raise it in hopes that
you will support providing funds in our appropriations bill to
take care of that. It probably should have been put in the
supplemental. But everybody says the supplemental is being used
for all manner of things that are not emergencies. And so we
decided to wait and submit that. We hope we can have the
support of your office to get that appropriation approved.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to have a look
at that. It seems to me that replacement falls in a high
priority category, no matter how you stack it up. In any event,
I will respond in writing to you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Fire Damage at the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge
On March 6, 1998, a fire destroyed the multi-use shop
building at Yazoo Refuge Complex in Mississippi. The refuge's
mechanical and wood working shops, tools, and other equipment
stored in the building need to be replaced. The estimated cost
is $621,000.
The fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions Act (Public Law 105-174), signed by President
Clinton on May 1, 1998, provides the $621,000 for building and
equipment replacement.
natchez trace parkway
Senator Cochran. One other point I wanted to make this
morning, and one of the reasons I came over, was to remind the
committee and also the Department of the importance in our
State of completing the Natchez Trace Parkway. I have been in
Congress long enough to see a lot of new and ambitious
undertakings by the Department of the Interior and the National
Park Service to the detriment of some of the older and earlier
authorized projects. The Natchez Trace Parkway was authorized
for construction in 1937, the year I was born. And it is not
yet complete.
When it was authorized, the States of Mississippi, Alabama,
and Tennessee all agreed that the States would acquire the
right-of-way along the trail that was then the Natchez Trace
Trail that traverses the area from Natchez, MS, to Nashville,
TN. And in exchange for the States going to the expense of
obtaining right-of-way and then deeding that to the Federal
Government, the Federal Government and the National Park
Service would construct a roadway along this historic trail.
You know as well as anyone what an interesting historical
area this is. Meriwether Lewis died on the parkway. As a matter
of fact, I was talking with officials just recently about
trying to have some kind of appropriate historical exhibit
there at that place, and to try to work to do that. That part
of the parkway is across the line, over into Tennessee.
All of the parkway is completed now in Tennessee and in
Alabama. Some of the most expensive appropriations were
required in that area, because of the terrain and the bridges
that had to be constructed. But it is also arguably some of the
most scenic because of that terrain.
But there is very little that needs to be done now. But we
see such small, little increments of funds being made available
that it just keeps remaining the same--the costs continue to be
the same or even get higher, even though each year we add a
little more to it. With those funds, we make a little more
progress.
But now it is getting to the point where we are running
into situations where there are maintenance requirements that
we have got to deal with. Here is one example:
In the metropolitan Jackson, MS, area, the Natchez Trace
Parkway crosses over U.S. Highway 51, just north of the city
limits in Jackson. At that time, U.S. Highway 51 was the major
transportation corridor, north-south corridor, between Jackson,
MS, Memphis, TN, St. Louis, on to Chicago. That was the major
midcontinent highway. Well, that has been replaced now with an
Interstate System; I-55 traverses parallel to U.S. Highway 51.
But the point of my story is U.S. Highway 51 has now become
a four-lane and, in some places, a six-lane artery for
vehicular traffic coming into the city of Jackson from the
suburbs that have developed in the metropolitan area north of
the city. The problem is the Natchez Trace Parkway bridge that
crosses over old U.S. Highway 51 still accommodates that two
lanes of U.S. 51. So you have got all these people riding along
on U.S. 51, and all of a sudden from six lanes, it goes to four
lanes, and then, you are in a two-lane situation.
You can imagine the backup of traffic into the Jackson City
limits area, south, and then into the residential and business
areas that lie north of that area. It is a terrible bottleneck.
It has gotten to be somewhat of an emergency, and we must get
the attention of the National Park Service and put this as a
priority again, It is a dangerous situation. It contributes to
accidents and a lot of other problems.
We do not want to shut down the parkway there. There is no
way to really relocate it and avoid this area. The thing to do
is build a new bridge and have it accommodate the four-or six-
lane artery that passes underneath the bridge. But that is not
even on the schedule. And there is no request from the
administration or the Park Service for funds to deal with that.
federal highway system funds
Now, we have the Federal highway system that has a category
of funding that helps provide additional funds, separate and
apart from the direct appropriations of the National Park
Service, through the Interior subcommittees, that is available
to us. I hope that the Department, and your office, will
undertake to look at this situation. It is a special problem. I
have talked with local government officials--the county and
municipal officials in this area--and they are rather helpless
to deal with it.
So I hope that we can find some way to have the Federal
officials cooperate with local and State highway and
transportation officials to solve this problem. That is kind of
beside the point on finishing the parkway. Here is a part that
is already finished. It has been completed for a good while
now; but, it is in need of some attention.
When I look here in the bill and your statement, and hear
about the Everglades project, which I am all for--that is a
wonderful thing; and the California Bay environmental thing,
which is important; and then recently we adopted here
legislation to create this massive California desert area,
under the jurisdiction of the Department, and funds have to go
to that--some funds have to. All of these other things--the
forest plan, which is important--you know, millions of dollars
in the bill and in your statement about all these other things,
and some of the older and earlier commitments of the Department
of the Interior and the Federal Government are just sitting
there without any funding and any support.
There is no constituency anymore. See, I am the only one. I
mean the Alabama Senators, you are not going to hear from them
on this. The Tennessee Senators, or the Vice President, I do
not think you are going to hear from them. But once upon a
time, I can remember when we had a coalition of support for the
Natchez Trace Parkway. Now we are down to just one State that
has a need for funds, and we cannot seem to get much attention.
We appreciate the attention we do get, though. I do not
want to complain too loudly or we will not get anything.
Everybody is looking around for offsets for this and that. So
who cares about the Natchez Trace Parkway?
Well, the people of Mississippi do, and those who come
visit the State appreciate it. And it is a wonderful resource
and an asset. But it is being given short shrift and the short
end of the stick. I do not know what we do about it except talk
about it and try to offer amendments and urge the committee to
provide the funds to deal with the problems. That is what we
are going to continue to do as long as we have a responsibility
here to represent the interests of the State and the Nation in
this committee.
Could you give us some assurance that there will be an
effort made to look into these things and try to help us
complete the parkway and attend to these other problems that
exist down there that need early attention?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have two comments and a
suggestion. First of all, any trail that includes the gravesite
of Meriwether Lewis is obviously of great interest to me
personally.
No. 2, you are correct that the U.S. Highway 51 bridge is
not on the priority list submitted by the National Park
Service. And, you know, you can go back to these priority lists
forever. We have a huge problem, and that is that most of the
funding that we request is for maintenance and upkeep of roads
which are literally falling apart.
My suggestion is this: It seems to me that in the context
of an ISTEA bill, with the amount of money that is in that
bill, and that if you could possibly obtain the assistance of
the majority leader, Mississippi might be heard. And I do not
say that lightly. Because I cannot promise you that I can
restructure the priorities. But the funding for this in the
context of that bill ought to be, it seems to me, something
that we could talk about.
I would be happy to meet with you and your colleagues to an
extent that we can pursue it.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici, you not only are recognized, but you are
given the honor of chairing the committee.
Senator Domenici [presiding]. I have the honor of managing
the bill on the floor of the Senate. I do not have a lot of
time, but I am glad that you are giving me this title.
Mr. Secretary, I apologize for being late. The budget
resolution is on the floor, and that is my job. I found
somebody to takeover it for me for awhile.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, let me say that, in your
absence, this has been an extraordinary mellow, positive and
mutually agreeable session.
Senator Domenici. By that, are you leaving any inference or
assumption that it might have been otherwise had I been here?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Babbitt. I am voicing my sentiment that may it
continue.
Senator Domenici. It will. It will. I have enough problems
on the floor that I have not thought about giving you any
problems today.
indian school repair
The GAO report about Indian school repair concludes that
$754 million are needed to clear up an entire backlog of BIA
repair needs and bring these schools into code and
instructional compliance. In a footnote to that figure in the
GAO report, it is noted that eight schools on the construction
priority list would cost $112 million to replace.
I have also heard that if we replace the 50 percent of the
BIA schools that are over 30 years old, the replacement costs
would be about $1 billion--and I am not suggesting that--
leaving about $200 million in repair costs for the other half
of the schools. Since the GAO did this study, I am wondering if
you might, for the record, give us your Department's best
estimates about what it will cost to repair and get these BIA
Indian schools up to the standard that I have just described.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not challenge those GAO
estimates. The difficulty is this: We do have increases in the
BIA budget, but obviously there are limits. I think, for new
school construction, we have two schools.
Senator Domenici. That is right.
Secretary Babbitt. I think there is one in Arizona and one
in South Dakota. And I think one of the New Mexico Pueblos
would then be at the top of the list.
Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Secretary, I am aware that you
put in some additional money. I am very pleased about that. I
did write a letter to the OMB Director and to the President
with reference to the Indian schools. I believe, shortly after
that, I was told by the OMB people that $38 million, or some
such number, was added to school construction. I am very
pleased that that is the case.
But, Mr. Secretary, when you say that there is just so much
we can do, I want to just share a thought with you. Since you
have been a very strong advocate for the Indian people, and you
remind us of that and them of that, I just wonder why the U.S.
Government can start a new public school program in an area
that we have never been in before--or at least attempt to; I do
not think it is going to happen--and find money to spend on
schools that are not ours. Yet we sit here today with you
acknowledging that the schools that we own, where there is
nobody else to build them and nobody else to repair them, that
there is sort of a lack of urgency, when we would only build
two out of a waiting list of scores?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Senator, I think that is a
productive line of inquiry. I at least have given some thought
to the President's proposal for assisting school districts, in
general, through adding the deductibility of municipal bond
interest as a Federal contribution. Obviously that particular
financing device does not work on reservations for these tribes
that have no way of issuing bonds.
Senator Domenici. They are our schools, the Federal
Government's, so you cannot.
financing mechanism
Secretary Babbitt. But we could still give the same subsidy
if you could issue bonds.
But what that means, it seems to me, is an inquiry as to
whether or not we could not find some analogous financing
mechanism that would automatically be available to tribes.
Maybe we should discuss that with the Treasury Department,
because we ought to be providing some analogous assistance at a
bare minimum. I am not suggesting that any of these things will
solve the problem entirely. But it seems to me we may be
missing an opportunity there.
Senator Domenici. Well, if you want to explore it with
Treasury, and if I can be of any assistance, I will join you.
Secretary Babbitt. OK.
Senator Domenici. But my real point is--and, frankly, I
will make this now and I will make it whenever I have a chance
to speak on the floor in the next 24 hours, when I am going to
be joining Senator Johnson in trying to get more money for this
part of the budget--but I believe, Mr. Secretary, that it is
incumbent upon those who represent the Indian people in the
U.S. Government to state loud and clear that we ought to take
care of our Government's responsibilities first, before we go
out and start new programs. I am not asking for you to comment.
You work for a President. He puts a budget together.
If we do not build these schools, no one will. It is
getting close, if it is not already, disgraceful as to the
condition of the Indian schools in the United States. I will
continue to do what I can. It is not inconceivable, looking at
new money that has been put in the budget over the last 4 or 5
years, that had we started a program for $150 million to $250
million in new money a year for Indian schools, we could have
afforded it. We would not have had to hurt very many programs
of the Federal Government, and we would be living up to a
responsibility.
It is very hard to find that kind of money when it is not
in the President's budget. I am just merely stating a fact.
I have two other quick comments with reference to Indian
schools--these are both parochial in a sense. I wonder if you
might clarify the BIA's responsibility for tribally controlled
community colleges in terms of repair, rehabilitation and
replacement. While I say it is parochial, there are many of
these--in fact, I think there might be 26. I would also like to
know about the Government operated post-secondary schools--
namely, Haskell and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute [SIPI]; you know about SIPI in Albuquerque--and on
the latter two, your plans for the campuses. What is our
responsibility in this area?
tribally controlled colleges
Secretary Babbitt. Well, with respect to the tribally
controlled colleges, they are tribal institutions. I believe
that there is a formula that was kind of a consensus
development among tribes, committees, and others about the
appropriate level of congressional support. The fact is we have
never even come close to that.
So rather than focusing just on construction or
maintenance, I think what we ought to do is drop back and ask:
How would it be possible to meet the implicit commitments that
were in that formula?
haskell versus sipi
Now, with respect to Haskell and the one in Albuquerque,
those have a very different history and are much more closely
tied, in my judgment, to a Federal nexus. I do not know the
details, but I would be happy to write you a letter about that.
Senator Domenici. I think it would be interesting for you
to note, as you do that, that there is a very big disparity in
the per capita allocation to Haskell versus SIPI. I know of
only one major difference, and it may be the total answer, but
I doubt it. The difference is that Haskell has more boarding
students than SIPI. SIPI has some; Haskell has many, and the
allocation includes both, board and room.
Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to look into it and
respond.
Senator Domenici. Would you.
[The information follows:]
Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute
Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in New Mexico
offer a variety of junior college level education programs to
Indian and Alaska Native students to help prepare them for
four-year colleges and universities or employment. Haskell and
SIPI were established by the BIA prior to enactment of the
Tribally Controlled Community College Act and have always been
Federally operated schools.
Funding levels for SIPI and Haskell are based on a formula
that takes into consideration staff costs, facility costs, and
the room and board costs of the campus-housed student
population. Using this formula, Haskell receives a higher level
of funding than SIPI, largely due to two differences between
the schools. First, Haskell has significantly more dormitory
students--eight hundred students as compared to four hundred at
SIPI. Secondly, Haskell is authorized to offer several
baccalaureate degree programs which require higher staff costs
than associate programs. SIPI only offers community college and
technical degree programs.
Haskell and SIPI have been directed to evaluate and suggest
improvements to the current funding methodology to ensure that
equitable funding is provided. The schools plan to complete
this process within the next year.
indian colleges
Senator Domenici. Now, let me for purposes of making sure
that we understand about our Indian colleges--not the ones you
just referred to, but the tribal ones--state that Indian
colleges now have an average operating cost budget of $2,900
per student. The average American college has an annual $6,200
per student operating cost.
Now, I merely lay that before you because the issue is
quickly coming: Can we maintain Indian colleges that are a
credit to the U.S. Government and pay this small amount, or
should we not be taking a position that here, too, these are
our Indian people, Indian colleges, and either they have enough
money to run or we are going to get less than an adequate
college education?
Might you just give us your thoughts about that.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, obviously, I think we share the
judgment that we ought to be providing a higher level of
support. The President's budget does have a $5.5 million
increase for the 26 tribally controlled colleges. I am not
suggesting that that amount is entirely adequate, but at least
it is a step in the direction of acknowledging the problem and
doing something about it.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, I do not know that this is
anything close to an appropriate offer that would be accepted
by you. I stand ready, Mr. Secretary, to join you and the new
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in trying to get the
attention of everyone, including the administration, about the
possibility of establishing a 5- to 10-year plan that will
bring the Indian colleges up to some standard that we can all
be proud of in terms of funding, and thus expect good
education.
As part of that, to start an effort to acknowledge that
nobody is going to repair the Indian schools if we do not, and
that they are probably in a worse state of repair and of
physical plant need than any college, any high schools and
schools in the worst parts of America in terms of construction
and maintenance. I stand ready to do that.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am ready and willing. I
accept that offer. Because it seems to me that with the budget
now in balance, with this Senate passing an ISTEA bill with an
additional $30 billion of additional discretionary spending,
that it ought to be possible to devote an additional amount to
this issue. I am certainly willing to discuss that.
Senator Domenici. I think, Mr. Secretary, what we have to
do is we have to join together and set forth a plan--
acknowledge the goal and set forth a plan, and say that we are
not getting there with $20 million or $30 million added to a
budget that is just totally out of line. We have to have $200
million a year, trying to get $1 billion, to get something done
in both these areas as soon as practicable. I am more than
willing to join in that, and I would recruit some Senators to
join us in a real effort.
I have talked with our new Assistant Secretary in charge of
Indian Affairs. You have got a good man there. He is going to
do a wonderful job. He is very, very concerned about Indian
education.
I would tell you that in the Senate, with reference to this
infrastructure bill, called ISTEA, we have done a very
significant thing for the Indian people, in that infrastructure
bill for highways and mass transit. We have dramatically
increased the Indian roads funding, Mr. Secretary, to somewhere
around $230 million a year. Just 6 or 7 years ago, it was about
$20 million.
And so we are beginning to build some roads where you and I
both know you cannot have any growth and prosperity without
roads in America today. This is going to be catchup. In 5
years, we are going to have well over $1 billion spent. I am
very praiseworthy of that, and hope, throughout the House and
the ultimate signing of the bill, that we can keep that funding
in there.
You would acknowledge that this is another one of the
deplorable situations of our Indian people on the reservations.
Secretary Babbitt. I do acknowledge that. And I acknowledge
your efforts in getting that kind of increase. It is very
helpful.
mescalero elementary school
Senator Domenici. Let me have one more question if you
will. This is truly very parochial. The Mescalero Elementary
School was built with BIA funds. It became a BIA-funded public
school through the Tularosa Public School System, a K through
six elementary school that was destroyed by arson in 1990. This
is the K through six school that was destroyed. The Tularosa
system collected the insurance, and the BIA helped with
temporary facilities.
Now, the Mescalero Apache Tribe is seeking funds for the
construction of a new K through 12 school to serve the entire
reservation. I understand that the BIA, again, is responsible
for the school, and I am very interested in verifying its
status as a BIA school, and the possibility of its becoming a
priority for replacement with BIA new construction funding.
Around here, it is interesting that we have a big battle
going on in the appropriation bill about disaster relief. This
is not a national disaster, but I assume a fire that destroys
an Indian school is a disaster to the Indian children and to
that particular tribe. Could you supply us for the record what
status that school has now. It seems to be a little bit in
limbo because of the facts I just gave you.
Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to do so.
[The information follows:]
The Mescalero Apache School Situation
The Mescalero Tribe leased land for a nominal fee ($1.00) to the
State of Mexico for a 25 year period. During this period, the local
school district located, constructed, and operated a public K-6 grade
elementary school on this reservation land. The annual lease
subsequently expired with no new lease agreement being reached. To
provide a thorough review of the situation, a chronology of events
follows:
February 18, 1990.--The Mescalero Public School burned down.
February 19, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution No.
90-5 in support of the Tularosa Public School Board of
Education and requested portable classrooms from BIA and the
State.
May 20, 1990.--The Albuquerque Area Education Administration notified
the Tribe that no funds were available from Office of Indian
Education Programs (OIEP) for the emergency.
August 6, 1990.--The Office of Construction Management (OCM) met with
Tribal Representatives and agreed to have a Technical Team
determine whether the Tribal community center was suitable for
conducting classes in school year 1990-91. The Tularosa School
District had used the community center during part of school
year 1989-90. The building was found to be seriously deficient
for use as a school. The Facilities Management and Construction
Center (FMCC) looked at options to upgrade tribal buildings or
acquire portable classrooms.
August 6, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passes Resolution No. 90-
28, indicating that the Tribe and school district have failed
to reach an agreement on location and operation of a public
school. The school district proposed to build a new school
located off tribal lands, which would have required student
busing and included other public students. The Tribe asked BIA
to assume operational responsibility for a proposed tribal
school in 1990-91.
August 15, 1990.--Plans for a steel building to be purchased and
erected by the Mescalero Tribe were transmitted to FMCC for
review.
August 16, 1990.--A meeting was held regarding the school between the
Secretary of Interior, Manuel Lujan; Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, Eddie Brown; and President of Mescalero Apache
Tribe, Wendell Chino. The Department/BIA position was that BIA
would not support taking over the education program from the
Mescalero Tularosa School District until an agreement was
reached to operate an accredited public school.
August 22, 1990.--Letter to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
from Albuquerque Area Director requesting $387,000 to renovate
tribal building for classrooms (building purchased by Tribe).
August 24, 1990.--The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs sent a
letter to the President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe
specifying conditions for granting assistance to tribal school.
The Tribe independently obtained facilities and hired teachers
for the 1990-91 school year.
October 9, 1990.--Mescalero Apache Tribe submits interim application
for Tribally Controlled Grant School (Public Law 100-297).
April 4, 1991.--A letter was sent from the Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget to the Appropriations Committees
bringing the committees up to date on school. At this time, no
agreement existed between the Tribe and public school district
and the Tribe had obtained and erected a building for 250
students.
April 11, 1991.--OIEP approves Mescalero School to become a BIA
funded school, effective July 1, 1991. BIA requires that safety
deficiencies be corrected at the school prior to occupation.
November 25, 1991.--Mescalero Apache submitted an application to BIA
for new school construction.
January 6, 1993.--Federal Register Notice for ``Education Facilities
Construction Priority List of fiscal year 1993'' was published.
Mescalero's application for fiscal year 1993 was considered,
however, because the school was not a Bureau owned or operated
facility when it was destroyed by fire, the application did not
receive a high ranking on the priority system. The application
was evaluated along with 66 other requests. Only the top five
schools were added to the 1992-93 priority list which resulted
in 16 schools total.
The Bureau is concerned about Mescalero and other schools where
students are being educated in classrooms that do not meet code
requirements or modern standards. In recognition of the Mescalero
Tribal School's needs, the BIA's Education and Facilities programs
provide funding for the annual operation of the school. However,
because the replacement school priority list was frozen by Congress in
fiscal year 1993, the BIA cannot provide replacement school funding at
this time.
The BIA anticipates completing the list of 16 prioritized schools
in the year 2001 or 2002. The Facilities Management and Construction
Center and Office of Indian Education Programs, at the direction of the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, are currently reviewing
completion of the replacement school projects and looking at a new
replacement school application process. Depending on appropriation
levels, the Bureau anticipates being able to solicit replacement school
applications when the new process is established in 1999. This will
provide Mescalero with the opportunity to compete for a replacement
school in a national prioritized ranking process.
southwest fisheries technology center
Senator Domenici. The Southwest Fisheries Technology
Center--I am jumping ahead, away from Indian issues to another
issue in our State--since 1993, we have been supportive of this
center. When it is completed, it will be the only facility in
the Nation dedicated to breeding and stocking of native
threatened and endangered fish. To date, we have appropriated
$20 million to rehabilitate Dexter and to construct the Mora
unit.
In 1998, this subcommittee provided $2 million to complete
phase 3 construction in Mora, and $500,000 in operational
funding. At the Dexter unit, there remains a need for $3.3
million to bring the facility completely online. This means
$2.9 million to complete phase 3 construction, $200,000 for
laboratory equipment, and $227,000 in additional operational
funding to fully staff it.
Would you give the subcommittee an update on the status of
these units, and does the administration foresee completion of
the rehabilitation of the Dexter unit this year?
Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to respond in writing.
Senator Domenici. I thank you.
[The information follows:]
Southwest Fisheries Technology Center
The status of construction for the Mora and Dexter units of
the Southwest Fisheries Technology Center is presented below.
In fiscal year 1998, the $2,000,000 provided for the
Southwest Fisheries Technology Center is being used to complete
construction at the Mora unit. In addition, $500,000 in
operating funds were provided for start-up operations at Mora.
These operating funds have been annualized in Service's fiscal
year 1999 budget request. The Mora management plan, however,
assumes $650,000 in annual optimal operating expense to fully
staff the facility in the future. However, this additional
funding was not included in the President's Budget request for
fiscal year 1999 and is not a priority for the Department.
SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--MORA UNIT, STATUS--APRIL 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Construction Optimal
Construction/operations year Appropriations completed funding Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I and II, planning, site 1990 $1,000,000 Yes .......... $15,720 sequestered in
work, well fields, and 1991 3,000,000 fiscal year 1991;
building shells for fish 1992 5,000,000 $63,000 sequesterd in
production and storage. fiscal year 1992.
Phase III, equipping buildings 1997 2,705,000 No .......... To be completed in the
and related facilities. fall of 1998.
Phase III, hatchery and wet lab 1998 2,000,000 No .......... Construction to begin in
building, equipment, and fiscal year 1999.
paving.
Operating funds to fully staff. 1998 500,000 ............... $150,000 ........................
---------------- ------------
Total.................... ........ 14,205,000 ............... 150,000 ........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for the third and final phase of the construction
at the Dexter unit is not included in the fiscal year 1999
President's Budget. Currently, the FWS estimates that
$2,863,000 would complete rehabilitation of the facility, as
well as $200,000 to purchase laboratory equipment. However, the
Department has placed a priority on using limited construction
funding to reduce existing inventories of critical health and
safety projects or for mission critical priorities. The FWS
estimates that $227,000 in annual operating funds would fully
staff the facility. However, this additional funding was not
included in the President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999
and is not a priority for the Department.
SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--DEXTER UNIT, STATUS--APRIL 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Construction Optimal
Construction/operations year Appropriations completed funding Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I, and part of phase II 1993 $1,428,000 Yes .......... $12,138 was sequestered
hatchery building, and 1994 .............. in fiscal year 1993.
administration/lab building. 1995 2,200,000 Yes
Balance of phase II storage/ 1997 961,000 No .......... Construction to begin
maintenance building. fall 1998.
Phase III, outdoor fish ........ .............. No $2,863,000 Phase III will complete
raceways, earthen research construction.
ponds, paving/landscaping at
buildings.
Specialized lab equipment...... ........ .............. ............... 200,000 Equipment needed to
identify and maintain
biodiversity.
Operating funds to fully staff. ........ .............. ............... 227,000 ........................
---------------- ------------
Total.................... ........ 4,589,000 ............... 3,329,000 ........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vanishing treasures initiative
Senator Domenici. There is an initiative with reference to
some of our park-like treasures that is called vanishing
treasures. Are you aware of that?
Secretary Babbitt. I am.
Senator Domenici. This is a very, very excellent approach,
of trying to put some emphasis on some very serious diminishing
assets. Last year, the administration proposed this new
initiative, to assist 41 park units in the Nation. I assume you
were supportive of that, if not the one who came up with the
idea and proposed it. This was for the stabilization and
maintenance of ruins and cultural resources within the park
units.
I worked with this committee to secure funding for this
initiative, and Congress provided $1 million in 1998, to get
the initiative started, and $2 million for historic structure
stabilization. This year, I do not find the vanishing treasures
initiative among the administration's funded priorities. Does
the administration continue to fund the vanishing treasures
initiative?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to respond in
writing. I suspect that what may happen is that this particular
program was merged into some other line item. But I do not know
that for a fact. So let me look at it.
Senator Domenici. It would sure be helpful if there is some
money in the budget, because I am assuming we start with zero
as we talk to this committee in its appropriations.
Secretary Babbitt. I will have a look at it.
[The information follows:]
Vanishing Treasures--Fiscal Year 1999
The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for the
Vanishing Treasures Initiative of $3.5 million was reduced in
the Appropriations Act to $1.0 million. The fiscal year 1999
budget request continues funding at the $1.0 million level for
Vanishing Treasures. Of the total, $453,000 has been included
in the base operating budgets at eight parks and $547,000 will
be used for project preservation, training, and project
management. The NPS has not yet selected the specific projects
to be accomplished with the available fiscal year 1999 funds,
but the Service expects to fund about six of the 38 emergency
projects identified for the Vanishing Treasures program with
the available money.
Senator Domenici. Of the 1998 funds, which I just described
to you, I would like to know, if those 1998 funds, have been
obligated in relationship to this initiative? And if so, how
much and for which parks?
Secretary Babbitt. Sure.
[The information follows:]
Vanishing Treasures--Fiscal Year 1998
The $1.0 million in funding provided for the Vanishing
Treasures Initiative in fiscal year 1998 was spent as follows:
$453,000 was transferred to base operating budgets of eight
parks to hire eleven permanent individuals; $40,000 was devoted
to training expenses; $497,000 was utilized to fund six of the
44 projects which had been identified as the most acute needs;
and $10,000 was used to provide project management, monitoring,
and a peer review system to evaluate program efficiency and
effectiveness. The following table itemizes the distribution of
operations and project funding by park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations Project
Park unit funding funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aztec Ruins National Monument........... $84,000 $75,000
Mesa Verde National Park................ 67,000 ..............
Salinas Pueblo Missions National
Monument............................... 33,000 25,000
Chiricahua National Monument............ 34,000 ..............
Navajo National Monument................ 33,000 ..............
Tonto National Monument................. 51,000 125,000
Tumacacori National Monument............ 91,000 22,000
Flagstaff Areas (Wupatki, Walnut Canyon,
Sunset Crater)......................... 60,000 125,000
Chaco Culture National Monument......... .............. 125,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 453,000 497,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
surplus blm land
Senator Domenici. I missed the discussion of the issue of
disposing of surplus property in the Department of the
Interior's public domain real estate, the BLM. I gather you
were opposed to tying this to the Endangered Species Act in the
manner suggested, but are you opposed to starting a
comprehensive national effort to go ahead and get the surplus
property out of the Federal inventory, or at least find out
what can be done about ridding ourselves of some of this?
I note that while some of it may have little value, Mr.
Secretary, there are a lot of acres that are currently
denominated surplus. In fact, my recollection is that in the
Southwest, it is more than 2 million acres--maybe 2\1/2\
million or 3 million. In New Mexico, it is an astronomical
number. It is about 900,000 acres that are surplus and so
designated.
If we leave the ESA out of this, can you discuss with me
whether the administration would like to join in starting an
effort with reference to this surplus land?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am skeptical. Let me explain
where I begin, and then we could entertain some thoughts. Most
of this land that has been identified in the Southwest by the
BLM is rangeland. Most of it is in holdings inside existing
ranch units. Now that means, as a practical matter, that these
lands cannot be disposed of at auction. It is not going to
happen. I am not going to go out to either Joe Skeen or Sam
Donaldson, although I might like to do it on Sam Donaldson's
spread out there--actually, I am starting to warm to this. I
would like to go out to Donaldson's spread and say, There are
some BLM leases or inholdings, and they are going to be put up
to auction to the highest bidder. [Laughter.]
You get my point.
Now, the ranch owners themselves are not very keen about
this. And the reason is that they are getting a good deal. That
includes my relatives. When I say my family, I am no longer
part of my family for these purposes. My relatives get a good
deal. They have grazing fees, which we have talked about, and
they pay no taxes.
And I have got to tell you that among my rancher friends in
Arizona, there is not much interest in going to the bank and
borrowing a bunch of money to buy land from the BLM. Now, those
are the problems.
What we have tried to do, I think with great success in
many States, is use these surplus lands to block up and
consolidate land management units. This inholding problem works
both ways. There are private lands inside of BLM, and BLM lands
inside of private lands. And I believe that the primary
emphasis and the best land management alternative is to work on
blocking these things up to the mutual satisfaction of the
ranchers and other landowners and the Federal agencies.
Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Secretary, I do not know that
that was a fair question, because actually the administration
does have a task force working on this.
Secretary Babbitt. But the surplus land issue, we define
somewhat differently. I mean there are all sorts of GSA lands
and other lands.
Senator Domenici. I am talking now about the fact that--and
I do not know whether the ranchers are opposed to this at all--
but there are some--not this Senator--who say, for every new
acre of Federal land to be acquired for whatever purpose--
parks, BLM and Interior--there ought to be land disposed of. I
am not one of those.
But we are always in the business of buying more Federal
land or proposing that we buy it--sometimes very large tracts
and sometimes in States that are already in excess of 60
percent owned by the Federal Government. I have come to the
conclusion that we ought to start a national program and put
some money in it, so the excuse that is normally there, that we
cannot get rid of surplus property because we need some money
to do appraisals, we need some money to get a plan together
that won't delay us. I have come to the conclusion that a fair
middle ground with reference to the position on new properties
is to get a program going that, once and for all, analyzes and
begins a multiyear disposal program that is thought out, well
thought out, and worked on, with a lot of input.
I hope that we are proceeding on that basis. We are working
to get a statute written, and I am sure it will, at some point,
work its way up to your office. I would hope that you would
give it your every consideration, in an effort to satisfy a
number of constituents who do concern themselves about us
having land we do not need.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will certainly look at it.
You may count me from Missouri on this one. I am a skeptic,
because I believe that these lands have already been
identified. We do not need to reidentify them. And we have an
effective, ongoing historic process for dealing with this,
through exchanges and consolidations. And I believe it is an
effective policy. I would be happy to look at a proposal, but I
have heard these proposals before and I do not think they are
in the public interest.
Senator Domenici. Well, frankly, Mr. Secretary, I do not
think anybody, to my knowledge--since I have been in the
Senate--and I hate to mention how many decades that spans
today, because it is more than this young groups of New
Mexicans back here in their 4-H coats would even think because
I look so young they could not believe that. [Laughter.]
In any event, I do not think there has been a genuine
proposal--and I just make this as a statement, not to argue
with you or make this an unpleasant day; it has been a very
nice day between you and me--but I do not believe there has
been a comprehensive effort to see what can be done about it.
The ongoing program that you speak of, of blocking out and the
like, has not been very effective.
Nonetheless, we will get legislation up to you in due
course. It is a commitment I have made to the people of New
Mexico, that I am going to make sure this is answered--and you
may be right, that there is nothing to it and you are just
going to keep the land.
I hope the opposition is not from those who take the
position that the Federal Government can do better with this
land than anybody else. I did not say you were that person, but
there are some. I hope it is not generally environmentalists,
who just think this is something that will harm the public
domain. If it is surplused property, it seems to me we ought to
have a pretty broad consensus to try to do something with it.
additional committee questions
Thank you very much. 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:]
Additional Committee Questions
maintenance backlogs
This committee has placed great emphasis in recent years on
addressing the multi-billion dollar maintenance backlogs that
exist within the various agencies funded in the Interior bill.
This has been difficult given funding constraints, but we have
been able to make progress supporting maintenance accounts, and
by initiating the fee demonstration program.
The Committee's support for these efforts cannot, however,
be sustained if there is a perception that the backlog
estimates are being ``gamed,'' or if we make no progress in
reducing those backlogs no matter how much is appropriated for
that purpose.
Question. What progress has the Department made in making
maintenance backlog lists more consistent and reliable across
the various bureaus?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 maintenance and construction
project lists submitted to the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee in February 1998 are qualitatively a big step
forward. Common criteria of critical health and safety and
critical resource protection were used for the first time.
Question. How long will it be before you will be able to
provide accurate, reliable, backlog lists to the Committee?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget submission will provide
a 5-year listing of the highest priority maintenance and
construction projects for the bureaus using Department-wide
common maintenance and construction terms. This list will be
updated annually to reflect completed projects, prior unknown
critical projects, and the normal re-prioritization that occurs
when managing any large volume of work items. This annual up-
dating will keep the lists accurate and reliable.
Question. What have you learned as you have engaged in this
process?
Answer. Rather than obtaining major new insights, the
knowledge concerning the individual bureau processes for
maintenance, construction, and the information systems used has
been deepened.
Generally in the past, maintenance has been a field-
oriented priority setting process largely dependent on the unit
and maintenance manager's criteria of need.
The construction priority setting processes have been
reviewed by headquarters and as a result have applied more
consistent criteria within a bureau.
The information systems used by the bureaus vary widely.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a complete inventory and
maintenance management system for education and administrative
facilities used for setting priorities. Other bureaus, like the
National Park Service, maintain several non-integrated systems.
everglades/south florida restoration
The Administration is requesting $81 million for land
acquisition in the South Florida ecosystem, a $5 million
increase over the amount provided in fiscal year 1998.
Question. What is the obligation status of the land
acquisition funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998, and for
what specific purposes will these funds be expended? Does the
Department expect that these funds to be obligated and/or
expended by the end of fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Of the $76 million appropriated to NPS in fiscal
year 1998, a total of $46 million will be used to fund a grant
to the South Florida Water Management District for the purchase
of lands in Storm Water Treatment Area 1-East (STA 1-E); of
that amount $19.0 million has been obligated to date, with the
remaining amount to be obligated during fiscal year 1998.
Acquisition of lands in STA 1-E will improve the quality of
water entering Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Of the
remaining $30 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998, $26
million is committed for acquisitions in the East Everglades
Addition to Everglades National Park and $4 million is
committed for acquisitions in Big Cypress National Preserve. As
of May 15, 1998, $4.0 million has been obligated for Everglades
and $970 thousand has been obligated for Big Cypress. The
Department is working consistently to conduct negotiations so
that all NPS land acquisition funds could be obligated this
fiscal year.
Question. If South Florida is funded at the request level
in fiscal year 1999, how much in additional acquisition funding
does the Department estimate will be required to complete
acquisitions in the East Everglades? How much has been
appropriated for this purpose to date? By what date does the
Department feel these acquisitions must be completed? On what
schedule are these funds likely to be requested?
Answer. If the land acquisition request for South Florida
is funded at the $23 million level as requested in the fiscal
year 1999 President's Budget, ($20 million for Everglades and
$3 million for Big Cypress), the Department estimates that the
National Park Service will require an additional $20 million in
fiscal year 2000 to complete acquisitions in the East
Everglades Addition to Everglades National Park. To date, the
Congress has appropriated $64.2 million for acquisitions in the
East Everglades, including $26 million that was allocated by
the Department to the Park Service last year. Because
completion of the East Everglades Addition is one of the
Administration's highest priorities for land acquisition and
assuming that funds are available and current acquisitions
remain on schedule, it is likely that the remaining funds for
the East Everglades Addition will be requested in fiscal year
2000.
Question. How much of the $200 million provided for South
Florida in the 1996 Farm Bill has been spent thus far, and for
what projects?
Answer. To date, the Department has obligated $65 million
in grants to the State of Florida. Two grants were awarded to
the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and one
grant was awarded to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to acquire a total of 28,197 acres of lands
critical to the Everglades restoration effort. The Federal
funds were leveraged by $137 million of State funds for a total
land acquisition investment of $202 million. The overall
Federal share of the acquisitions associated with these three
grants is about 32 percent.
Following is a summary of the three grants provided by the
Department to the State:
SUMMARY OF THE THREE GRANTS PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE STATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant title Date/recipient Acres Federal cost State cost Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East coast buffer................... Dec. 12, 1996 & June 6,714 $36,909,740 $40,000,000 $76,909,740
27, 1997 \1\.
Carrol property EAA................. Feb. 28, 1997 & May 27, 1,233 3,090,260 ( \2\ ) 3,090,260
1997 \1\.
Golden Gate Estates................. Apr. 17, 1998 \3\...... 20,250 25,000,000 97,000,000 122,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ....................... 28,197 65,000,000 137,000,000 202,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ South Florida Water Management District.
\2\ Included above.
\3\ Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
In addition to the funds provided to the State, the
Department has expended $926 thousand on administrative
expenses. These expenses include the preparation of a
programmatic Environmental Assessment for land acquisition in
the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), as well as staff
expenses to administer and review the grants to ensure the
consistency of the grant with Everglades restoration. The FWS
and Solicitor's Office staff, in the form of one field
biologist, one realty specialist, one economist, and two
attorneys will ensure that the lands acquired with Farm Bill
funds will assist in the restoration through the development
and monitoring of the necessary agreements between the grant
recipient and the Department.
The budget request includes $14 million for continued work
on modified water delivery projects. The Federal Government
will be responsible for 75 percent of the operating costs of
these systems.
Question. Will any of these operating costs be the
responsibility of the Department of the Interior? If so, when
will these costs begin to be incurred?
Answer. In 1989, the Congress enacted the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act (Public Law 101-229)
to authorize the construction, by the Army Corps of Engineers,
of a modified water delivery project for Everglades National
Park. The purpose of the project is to reverse the decline of
the park's natural resources due to the effects of nearly 50
years of alterations to the natural water system from the
Central and South Florida Project, providing flood control,
municipal, industrial and agricultural water use. Completion of
the modified water delivery project is currently scheduled for
fiscal year 2005 and should result in a more natural sheet-
water flow to the park. The Federal Government's share of the
operating costs will be 75 percent and the Department expects
that the Army Corps of Engineers will incur the operating
costs, with the remaining 25 percent the responsibility of the
local project sponsor.
department of the interior--fixed costs
The Subcommittee is concerned by what appears to be
continuously increasing fixed costs among land management
agencies which keeps funds from getting to the ground level. It
seems there are services provided by the Department of the
Interior which are duplicative of those provided by the Forest
Service. In many ways the respective missions of the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service are identical. In
several on-the-ground activities, the Department and the Forest
Service have co-located offices, assumed each others land
management responsibilities, and generally cooperated. However,
these have been predominantly local efforts. The following
questions pertain to what could be accomplished if major
national programs could be consolidated.
Question. Although fire operations between the Forest
Service and the BLM are integrated in many ways, could one
agency completely assume fire suppression responsibility for
the other agency?
Answer. The fire management programs of the five federal
agencies, (BLM, BIA, FWS and NPS of the Interior, and the
Forest Service of Agriculture) represent what may be the most
integrated interagency operation in the federal government. It
is crucial that federal agencies, states and local governments
cooperate because wildland fires respect no boundaries and the
fire suppression resources of any one agency may be
insufficient to meet the workload.
It should also be recognized that fire suppression is only
one aspect of the total fire management program. Fire
management is an integral part of each agency's land and
resource management programs, and as such cannot be a separate
stand alone support function similar to a ``fire department''.
The same personnel and preparedness resources used in
suppression and rehabilitation are also used in land use
planning, aviation management, prescribed fire, prevention,
weed control, general field operational support, and field
communications.
While there are some similarities among the federal
agencies involved in fire suppression, there are also vast
differences in the laws and regulations governing these
agencies and different ownership patterns, dominant uses, and
vegetation. The recent Federal Fire Management Policy and
Program Review focused on the need to further integrate fire
and resource management and to balance the continued need for
suppression with fire use. It has been correctly stated that
resource management includes fire management. Therefore, the
suppression portion of fire management programs should not be
separated from the rest of the land management activities. The
three tiered interagency fire management coordination process
(national, geographic and local) has improved the effectiveness
and efficiency of emergency operations without jeopardizing
this critical fire and resource management relationship. Shared
fire caches, dispatch and logistic centers, training centers,
national resources such as aircraft specialized crews, modules
and support contracts along with common operational policies
and processes facilitate joint field operations.
Through years of experience, we have learned that it is
critical to maintain close ties between the fire programs and
their respective agencies, while at the same time integrating
operations on an interagency basis. This approach promotes
innovation and is key to ensuring the best financial, program,
and administrative controls. This has allowed BLM and the other
Interior agencies with wildland fire management programs to
receive ``unqualified audit opinions'' for the last several
years. While there are additional opportunities to improve
interagency fire operations, and we are committed to
aggressively pursue continuous improvement, we do not believe
that one massive wildland fire department would be more
effective or efficient or be in the best interest of the public
for quality land management.
Question. Could all mapping activities for the Department
[Interior] and the Forest Service be completely assumed by the
U.S. Geological Survey?
Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI) believes that
the current division of mapping responsibilities within and
between Department bureaus and with the Forest Service is
appropriate. Existing cooperative programs in both agencies
achieve mission-specific goals, timely response to customer
groups, and economy of effort. For example, an interagency
agreement between DOI (USGS, BLM) and U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Forest Service) guides the coordination of
production and maintenance of a single-edition primary series
map for quadrangles containing Forest Service areas of
interest. The Forest Service and USGS have a long history of
cooperation in the production of maps and associated digital
data products. Previous agreements between the two bureaus have
resulted in improved service to the public through significant
reduction in duplication of effort and the sharing of maps and
digital data products meeting common standards. At the same
time, the division of specific responsibilities between the two
agencies ensures that each has the ability to decide on program
priorities to accomplish their missions.
Question. Could major information systems for resource
management and infrastructure be consolidated into one system?
Answer. In keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, a
benefit/cost analysis should be funded and developed to answer
this question. Consolidating all resource management
requirements into one system is costly, time consuming, and may
even require changes in legislation that may affect programs in
the Minerals Management Service, the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Forest Service. Numerous General Accounting Office and
General Service Administration studies caution against these
``grand design'' system efforts. However, it is important to
note that the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service are working together to improve efficiency by exploring
the opportunity to consolidate BLM's Automated Land and Records
System (ALMRS) with the Forest Service Automated Land Project
(ALP).
everglades-research
The justification (p. 37) notes that the Everglades science
working group has been developing an overall science plan
``incorporating future funding requirements and schedule for
completion * * *.''
Question. Has this plan been completed? If so, what is the
estimated run out for the Everglades science program?
Answer. Science planning, coordination, and integration is
and has been an integral component of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) Program dating back to the early
1990s. This science-related activity was conducted under the
auspices of the SFER Working Group (WG) through the Science
Sub-Group. A summary update of the Science Sub-Group's
``Science Plan'' (currently referred to as a Report entitled
Science Planning and Implementation: 2000 & Beyond) has been
included in previous publications of the SFER Program ``Cross-
Cut Budget.''
In 1996, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
expanded the SFER Program to include both federal and non-
federal participation. In addition, the SFER WG realized a need
to integrate managers and scientists through a formal mechanism
in order to improve the communication of managers' information
needs to scientists and science-results back to managers. To
address this need, in the Fall of 1997, the SFER WG
reformulated the coordinated science program under a new
structural and functional sub-group renamed the Science
Coordination Team. The team is comprised of both scientists and
managers who work closely with the resources in South Florida.
An updated, long-term report (``South Florida Ecosystems
Restoration Science Planning and Implementation: 2000 & Beyond)
is being developed by the Science Coordination Team. This
report will more formally integrate all federal and non-federal
science needs and science activities into one coordinated and
integrated program. It will strengthen the communication
between management-related science information needs and the
science being conducted to address those needs. It will also
codify procedures for conducting science reviews and workshops
to continually address the question: ``Are we doing the right
science?''
A draft outline of the updated Report was presented to and
approved by the SFER WG and Task Force in early spring 1998. A
draft of the Report is scheduled for submittal to the WG in
June 1998 with final draft for WG/TF consideration in September
1998. It is important to note that science planning,
coordination and integration is continuing (with WG oversight)
at the same time the text for the report is being generated. In
other words, the Science Coordination Team and WG are not
`standing still' while the report is being formalized.
Question. How does the ``Ecosystem Science Planning and
Peer Review'' project, identified as a new start within the
science program (p. 39), differ from the ongoing ``Ecosystem
Restoration Planning'' project (p. 37)? ``Landscape Patterns,
Processes, and Modeling'' (p. 39) and ``Ecological Modeling--
Refinement and Applications'' (p. 37)?
Answer. One of the initial products of the ``Ecosystem
Restoration Planning'' project as identified above is the
publication entitled ``An Integrated Plan for South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration and Sustainability: Success in the
Making'' (April 1998). This publication and additional
``planning'' and outreach documents relate to the overall South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program generated under
``Ecosystem Restoration Planning.'' Science (as in ``Science-
Based Decision Making'' and science planning, coordination and
integration) is but one of the many areas addressed in this
``integrated plan.''
However, the ``Ecosystem Science Planning and Peer Review''
project identified as a new start in fiscal year 1999 deals
specifically with providing funding for implementing the
science review/workshops process currently being implemented
and expanded by the Science Coordination Team (as per the
evolving Strategic Science Plan). Currently, there is an active
process for science oversight and topical review for Florida
Bay science. This ``oversight'' and ``topical'' review/workshop
process is being expanded to include the ``whole'' Greater
Everglades and Coastal Ecosystems, specific major regions of
South Florida (such as central Everglades, Big Cypress, etc.)
as well as specific major topical subjects (e.g., ecological
modeling, hydrological modeling, landscape dynamics,
contaminants, etc). The science reviews/workshops will be
conducted through the Science Coordination Team under the
auspices of the Working Group via funding, in part, from the
``Ecosystem Science Planing and Peer Review'' project.
An increase of $249,000 is requested to support the Office
of the Executive Director, South Florida Ecosystem Task Force.
Question. Is the need for this increase related to the
increases requested for other South Florida activities (such as
land acquisition)?
Answer. No, this increase is necessary to meet the new
requirements for support to the task force and working group.
The requirements of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 1996 expanded the membership and scope of duties of the task
force to include State, Tribal, and local government entities
and also directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure a high
level of public participation and access to records. This
modest budget increase will allow the task force and its
working group to meet these requirements.
Question. Is this increase needed even if funding for other
South Florida activities is closer to the fiscal year 1997
level rather than the fiscal year 1999 request?
Answer. Yes, this funding increase is based on the new
requirements contained in the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 and has no direct relationship to the funding
requirements for specific restoration projects and initiatives.
interior columbia basin ecosystem management plan
This subcommittee has major reservations about the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Study. When this project was first
undertaken by the BLM and FS, Congress was assured that
planning over large areas such as the Columbia Basin would
promptly result in making final land management decisions. It
is very frustrating, that due to the process of consultation,
the Columbia Basin study has become little more than a
bureaucratic process that appears to be in addition to a
cumbersome local planning process.
Question. Do you foresee that the record of decision could
prevent further species listing relative to actions on federal
lands? What will it take in the record of decision to
accomplish this goal?
Answer. We hope to build into the Final EIS and Record of
Decision the necessary analysis and direction to avoid the need
to list additional species where all or a major portion of the
species population resides on federal lands. Furthermore, it is
our intention to provide the necessary direction to ensure that
no listing of additional species occurs as a result of
management actions on Forest Service or BLM lands. This intent
is clearly written into the goals for the Project. However, it
may be necessary to list species which occur on federal lands
because of adverse actions occurring on other parts of the
species range. By implementing the Final EIS and Record of
Decision, we will have done our part to prevent further species
listing.
Question. Beyond the requirements for consultation, when
and if a Record of Decision is issued for the Columbia Basin
Study, how can we get the decision fully implemented without
local unit planning efforts?
Answer. The Record of Decision will amend Forest and
Resource Management Plans across the project area. It is
intended to provide broadscale direction on issues that cross
administrative boundaries. It will also provide goals for
management activities that are more consistent between
administrative units.
Local unit planning efforts will be necessary to fully
implement management direction from this Project. We are not
substituting broadscale direction for local land management
plans. On-the-ground implementation decisions will continue to
be made by local land managers using direction provided in the
amended plans. Additional collaboration, public comment, and
analysis may be required in some areas during the local
planning process.
Question. How much of the funds in the President's budget
that are directed towards implementation of the plan will
actually go to implementing local plans?
Answer. All of the new funding proposed in the President's
budget is directed towards implementation of the decisions of
the Project. Some of the funding will be utilized for certain
process requirements such as sub-basin review and ecosystem
analysis at the watershed scale or tribal coordination and
collaboration. All are essential steps in meeting the direction
of the Project, and assuring that the actions taken by the land
management agencies meet ecosystem restoration goals.
Question. What is the impact of the plan on private
property?
Answer. Decisions made in the Final EIS and Record of
Decision will not apply to private or other non-federal lands.
Decisions made by the Project will only apply to the 72 million
acres of Forest Service or BLM administered land within the
project area. How those lands are managed could affect other
lands; just as current management of federal lands affects
other lands, and private management affects federally
administered lands.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal
land managers consider the effect of their resource management
activities on surrounding lands as well as federal lands.
Chapter 4 of the DEIS outlines what the cumulative effects
might be.
Question. What would be your reaction to language in the
Interior Appropriations bill which states that the plan shall
in no way adversely impact private property owners?
Answer. The 1996 Interior Appropriations Act included
language that expressly prohibited the use of recommendations,
regulations, or requirements included in the Final or Draft
EISs or Records of Decision to regulate the use of, or actions
occurring on, non-federal lands. The language further specified
that the products of the Project shall not provide any legal
basis for imposition of such recommendations, regulations, or
requirements on non-federal lands by any court or regulatory
agency, federal or state.
The Department opposes the inclusion in appropriations
bills of language extraneous to the appropriations process,
such as that suggested in the question. Further, since the
project does not apply to non-federal lands within the project
area, such language would not clarify impacts to private
property owners.
Question. The Columbia Basin Study has been extremely
expensive, with the BLM and Forest Service spending over $15
million on the study alone and estimating up to approximately
$150 million to operate under the plan. To what degree is
success of the plan dependent on these agencies receiving the
funding increases requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget?
Answer. Funding for implementation of the Project would
result from three approaches: (1) redirecting the capability of
our existing field organization; (2) requesting new funding
from Congress; and (3) developing partnerships. If full funding
is not provided, the rate of implementation of the final
alternative will be decreased appropriately and
proportionately.
National Park Service
construction management
Pursuant to language contained in the fiscal year 1998
Conference report, the Park Service--with the help of an
outside panel--has been engaged in a bit of ``soul searching''
with regard to its construction program. This was prompted by
the public outcry over the $300,000 outhouse at Delaware Water
Gap NP, and some very expensive employee housing that was built
at other park units.
Question. What is the status of the outside panel's review
of Park Service construction management? When will the panel's
report be completed?
Answer. The National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) began their review of NPS construction management in
January of this year. NAPA researchers have visited the Denver
Service Center, selected parks, and regional offices. Their
discussions at each office have focused on understanding how
the NPS currently manages the construction program. They were
provided information on funding cycles, flow of funding from
Congress into construction projects, checks and balances within
the system for accountability of fiscal expenditures, the
selection of the professional office to perform the work, and
detailed project management procedures. NAPA's final report of
their findings is to be submitted in June, 1998.
Question. Can you give us any hints as to what the panel
may recommend, or what your own views are regarding management
of the Park Service construction program?
Answer. As of this date no official information is
available to the NPS regarding NAPA's findings. The Service is
aware of the program's shortcomings. In support of the
Administration's initiative to improve government operations,
the Denver Service Center implemented some changes in the
beginning of fiscal year 1996. These changes created a totally
reorganized office, revamped office practices, and reduced the
work force by nearly one third. Implementation of all these
changes continues and the Department and the NPS welcome the
insight of the NAPA findings to aid in further improvements to
the construction program.
The fiscal year 1999 line item construction list for the
Park Service was delivered to the Committee only recently, as
the Park Service was engaged in a careful scrub of the
individual projects.
Question. Are you confident that the projects on the fiscal
year 1999 construction list represent only the most critical
health and safety and resource protection needs?
Answer. Yes. In February of 1998, NPS and Departmental
representatives met to thoroughly review the fiscal year 1999
NPS construction program request. All potential projects from
fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001 were screened and assessed.
Only those projects that possessed the strongest health and
safety, resource protection requirements, or continuing
projects were recommended for inclusion in the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request.
millennium program
The Administration is requesting $50 million within the
Park Service budget for a new program to help public and
private entities preserve historic sites and cultural artifacts
important to America's heritage. Half of this funding would be
used for grants to States and tribes, half would be used for
projects of ``national scope'' to be selected by the White
House.
Question. If the grants to states are to be made according
to existing allocation formulas, and the national funds are to
be allocated under existing grant programs, why has the
Administration chosen to establish an entirely new program and
screening process?
Answer. In point of fact, the Administration is not
proposing establishing an entirely new program. The Historic
Preservation Fund is a 30-year old Federal grant program with
well-established administrative processes and professional
performance standards. The Millennium program to Save America's
Treasures would increase the fund for two years to make a
special effort to preserve our history and culture as we enter
a new Millennium, but in a manner that is already familiar to
the existing partners, and does not add administrative expense.
Question. Why shouldn't individual projects of national
worth simply be identified and funded through existing programs
or line-item appropriations for the relevant agencies?
Answer. The goal of the Millennium program is to raise
national awareness of the importance of preserving our key
national treasures for future generations. Quoting First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton, ``It is the turn of the century. It is
the turn of the millennium. But more than that, it is an
opportunity for us to take stock of who we are as Americans,
what we believe in and what we want to carry into the next
century.'' Pre-targeting specific projects would diminish the
potential national awareness and desired grassroots
involvement. The magnitude of our nation's most urgent
preservation needs is not fully known. Predetermining projects
may miss key national treasures sorely in need of assistance.
The Administration's proposal provides for more open
competition and public access on behalf of the full breadth of
our Nation's historic and cultural treasures.
Question. Why should the grants to States and tribes be
separate from the regular Grants-in-Aid to State programs?
Answer. As noted above, the proposal is not separate from
the existing program per se, but rather effectively uses an
already existing program while augmenting it to celebrate the
millennium and to highlight this important need. The proposal
neither undermines nor diminishes the existing programs to
States and tribes; it is simply a program of limited duration
with specifically targeted goals but within an already existing
program. Too, the Millennium Grants have a slightly broader
focus that the routine Historic Preservation Fund program with
the additional and allowable--emphasis on collections and
archives. The program should be held separate with specific
regard to tribes; targeting tribal grant funds through states
would violate the nation's government-to-government
responsibilities to Indian Tribes.
Question. Why should Indian Tribes be given a blanket
exemption from cost share requirements for the purposes of this
program? Shouldn't exemption from cost share requirements at
least be contingent upon a judgment that the tribe in question
does not have the resources available for matching funds?
Answer. The National Park Service's 10-year experience with
the Historic Preservation Fund of providing assistance to
tribes has shown that, with few exceptions, tribes simply
cannot provide match. Were this made a requirement, few could
participate in the national program and we would all be
diminished for it. In addition, there is precedent. Most
Federal grant making typically exempts tribes from matching
requirements or, conversely, authorizes tribes to use other
Federal funds as matching share. Given the short and targeted
duration of the Save America's Treasures Grants, the former
approach was deemed the best administrative approach.
yosemite recovery
Last year Congress approved close to $200 million in
emergency funding for restoration and rehabilitation of
Yosemite National Park.
Question. Can you update us as to the status of the
recovery?
Answer. The recovery effort is fully engaged. Most projects
are on schedule with the Yosemite Flood Recovery Action Plan
submitted to Congress in November, 1997. That plan outlines a
4-year timetable for substantial completion of flood related
repairs. Throughout the past year, most NEPA compliance,
emergency repairs, and preliminary planning for permanent
repairs have been completed. A flood recovery management team
is established in the park and reports to the Superintendent. A
support and oversight process is established at the Regional
Office and Washington levels, with quarterly review by the
Office of the Secretary of the Interior and House and Senate
appropriations Committees through the Flood Recovery Quarterly
Reports.
One major project, the permanent rebuilding of the El
Portal Road (7.5 miles of Highway 140 within the park), was
delayed from January until September, 1998. The delay was due
to project bidding that reflected contractor anxiety about
beginning a major earth-moving project in the middle of an El
Nino winter. A rebidding process is now concluded, with
expected award on June 1, 1998.
Day use visitors will experience only minor disruptions
from recovery work this summer. Overnight accommodations remain
essentially at 1997 levels. The 250 lodge units and 350
campsites destroyed by flooding are not yet replaced. Lodge
construction is scheduled to start in June of 1998. Campground
reconstruction is pending a Record of Decision on the Valley
Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
expected by December 1998.
Concessioner service levels continue to be impacted by the
loss of 439 bed spaces in Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Concession
Services, the park's main lodging provider, has chosen to use
150 overnight visitor rental units to house employees and has
also installed 84 temporary dormitory beds. This results in
another 150 units being unavailable for overnight visitors, but
continues the strategy established in the summer of 1997.
As of March 31, 1998, $44.4 million has been obligated on
the recovery effort. Current projections call for obligations
of an additional $50 million this calendar year. Current
estimates are generally running within 10 percent of original
estimates. One project, the rebuilding of El Portal Road
(Highway 140 within the park), has exceeded the original cost
estimate by approximately 30 percent or $8 million. Natural and
cultural preservation concerns, coupled with the precipitous
nature of this Merced River canyon construction, have escalated
project costs beyond the original estimate. At this time, we
expect to manage the shortfall within the context of the entire
$186 million recovery authorization, applying savings from
other projects wherever possible. This is a design/build
project and has been through a negotiated bidding process with
three of the country's largest road building firms. The Federal
Highway Administration is in the process of certifying the
``Best and Final Offers'' and expects to award the contract on
June 1, 1998.
headwaters protest
Media reports recently described ongoing protests against
the proposed deal to preserve the Headwaters Forest and other
redwood groves in California. One of those reports described a
sit-in taking place on a tree that was on land owned by Pacific
Lumber Company. The story went on to acknowledge that the sit-
in was a case of criminal trespass, and that one of the
participants was a Park Service employee.
Question. While we can all appreciate the rights of your
employees to exercise their first amendment rights, does the
Department have any recourse when employees are engaged in a
criminal activity--presumably off hours--that directly
contradicts a departmental initiative?
Answer. Redwood National Park and State Park law
enforcement have a cooperative relationship with the Del Norte
County Sheriff and the Chief of Police for Eureka, California.
The Sheriff and the Chief have jurisdiction for such an
incident described. No National Park Service employee was
arrested on charges of criminal trespass, therefore, we dispute
the media report. Regardless, we would be guided by the Federal
Government Code of Ethics and Conduct in reviewing any incident
which calls into question an employee's rights and which might
jeopardize the government's business.
gpra
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals
linked to the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program
activities in its budget request?
Answer. Because of the way the NPS developed its goals,
there is a direct relationship between the agency's mission,
its strategic goals, and annual goals. NPS is also examining
the relationship of goals and program activities in the budget
request. The National Park Service developed a ``stack'' of
five annual goals in order to successfully reach each five year
strategic goal. The five year goals come directly from the NPS
mission goals in its Strategic Plan.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The performance measures were developed as part of
the process of developing the goals themselves. The National
Park Service found that incorporating the performance measures
into its goals, and stating goals as the desired condition
(such as 50 percent historic structures are in good condition)
forced clarification of the goal itself. The performance
measures were chosen for relevance to the goal itself--they
measured success in meeting that goal; availability--where
possible, existing data was used; and accessibility--data could
be collected without incurring major new costs. The NPS sought
to find the most economical and least burdensome way possible
to measure its goals. At the same time, because the NPS sees
GPRA as a management system, and not simply a reporting
requirement, performance measures were chosen to be as
meaningful as possible--measuring condition of resources or
visitors wherever possible.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data
collection and verification with the need for reliable and
valid performance data?
Answer. In its process of developing the goals which
incorporate the performance measures into them, the NPS
discarded numerous goals/measures because they were too
subjective, too expensive to collect, or too subject to
manipulation. The NPS sought to find the most economical and
least burdensome way possible to measure its goals in a way
that was also reliable and verifiable. For example, the visitor
survey cards which measure visitor satisfaction will be
returned to a central, non-park location for electronic
processing before being returned to parks to analyze specific
comments. Parks need to have the written, qualitative comments
in order to manage better; the NPS needs the Servicewide
quantitative data in order to be able to report Servicewide
performance externally.
park operations initiative
In addition to a number of increases requested for system-
wide initiatives, the Park Service is requesting a $6.79
million increase for the ``Park Operations Initiative.'' The
funds would be used to provide increases for 45 park units and
one heritage area to meet high-priority operating needs.
Question. Would you supply for the record a list of
projects that would be completed if the increase for the Park
Operations initiative were $15 million? $10 million? Only $3
million?
Answer. The following table entitled ``Park Specific
Increase Proposals, fiscal year 1999, Various Funding Levels''
provides a list of project proposals by park under the
suggested funding scenarios including the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget request of $6.79 million for 46 areas. It
lists the proposals alphabetically by park, the dollar amounts
proposed under different funding levels, the reason for the
increase and the increase objective. At a funding level of $15
million 83 parks would receive funds to meet high-priority
operating needs. A funding level of $10 million would reach 60
parks. Funding at $3 million would aid 16 parks.
PARK SPECIFIC INCREASE PROPOSALS, FISCAL YEAR 1999, VARIOUS FUNDING LEVELS
[Proposal amounts in thousand dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Other funding scenarios--total in millions
fiscal year ------------------------------------------------
Park unit 1999 request Reason for increase and objective
$6.79 million $15 $10 $3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams National Historic Site, MA.......... .............. 250 .............. .............. Increased workload: Maintain museum
collections.
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, TN. 75 75 75 .............. New facilities: Upgrade Maintenance Program
to Enhance Visitor Experience.
Antietam National Battlefield, MD......... .............. 193 .............. .............. Restore programs: Enhanced seasonal
maintenance and interpretive programs.
Appomattox Court House National Historical .............. 335 150 .............. Threats to resources: Develop Resource
Park, VA. Management and Preservation Capabilities.
Arkansas Post National Memorial, AR....... 55 55 55 .............. Threats to resources: Provide resource
preservation.
Assateague Island National Seashore, MD... .............. 150 150 .............. Threats to resources: Improve Safety and
Resource Management.
Cache La Poudre Heritage Area, CO......... 150 150 150 125 New Area: Provide Technical Assistance for
New Heritage Area.
Cane River Creole National Historical 100 100 100 .............. New Area: Upgrade Maintenance Program to
Park, LA. Provide Resource Preservation.
Canyonlands National Park, UT............. .............. 203 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Improve visitor and
resource protection.
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, .............. 125 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Preventive
NC. preservation maintenance.
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, AZ... 72 72 72 .............. Threats to resources: Upgrade maintenance
program to provide resource preservation.
Catoctin Mountain Park, MD................ .............. 157 .............. .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Maintain
historic/public use buildings.
Chattahoochee River National Recreation .............. 60 60 .............. Increased workload: Provide technical
Area, GA. assistance.
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 140 140 140 .............. Health and safety: Provide visitor and
Historical Park, DC-MD-WV. resource protection.
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National .............. 200 200 .............. Resource preservation: Address maintenance
Military Park, GA. needs and resource threats.
Chiricahua National Monument, AZ.......... 110 110 110 .............. Threats to resources: Provide resource
preservation.
Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, .............. 600 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Maintain and provide
OH. interpretation of the Cuyahoga Valley
Railroad.
Denali National Park and Preserve, AK..... .............. 160 .............. .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Implement road
dust palliative program.
De Soto National Memorial, FL............. 50 50 50 .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Upgrade
maintenance program to enhance visitor
experience.
Effigy Mounds National Monument, IA....... 107 107 107 .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Upgrade
maintenance program to enhance visitor
experience.
El Morro National Monument, NM............ 52 52 52 .............. Threats to resources: Provide resource
preservation.
Fire Island National Seashore, NY......... 250 250 250 200 Deteriorated Infrastructure: Provide visitor
and resource protection.
Fort Davis National Historic Site, TX..... .............. 105 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Initiate cultural
resource management program.
Fort Donelson National Battlefield, TN.... .............. 57 57 .............. Threats to resources: Maintain cultural
resources.
Fort Frederica National Monument, GA...... 60 60 60 .............. Threats to resources: Enhance maintenance
program to provide resource preservation.
Fort Larned National Historic Site, KS.... 70 70 70 .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Enhance
maintenance program to provide resource
preservation.
Fort Pulaski National Monument, GA........ .............. 100 .............. .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Maintain
historic structures.
Fort Stanwix National Monument, NY........ 50 50 50 .............. Deteriorated infrastructure: Enhance
maintenance program to provide resource
preservation.
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County .............. 298 .............. .............. New lands: Manage new lands acquired since
Battlefields Memorial National Military 1989.
Park, VA.
George Washington Memorial Parkway, MD-VA. 143 143 143 .............. New facilities: Enhance maintenance program
for a newly-acquired responsibility.
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, AK .............. 387 347 .............. Health and Safety: Maintain park facilities
and utility systems.
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, UT.. .............. 50 .............. .............. Health and safety: Protect human health and
improve water quality.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, CA.. 500 500 500 450 New facilities: Enhance maintenance program
for a newly-acquired responsibility.
Grand Portage National Monument, MN....... .............. 56 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Protect and define
cultural resources.
Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, 107 107 107 .............. Threats to resources: Enhance maintenance
MT. program to provide resource preservation.
Guilford Courthouse National Military 100 100 100 100 Increased visitation: Enhance education
Park, NC. programs and provide resource preservation.
Hampton National Historic Site, MD........ .............. 78 .............. .............. Restore programs: Enhance visitor services
and upgrade curatorial program.
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI........ 275 275 275 205 Threats to resources: Provide resource
preservation.
Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National 80 80 80 80 New facilities: Enhance maintenance program
Historic Site, NY. for a newly-acquired responsibility.
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and .............. 60 60 .............. Threats to resources: Provide increased
Preserve, LA. resource management and maintain visitor
center/headquarters building.
John Muir National Historic Site, CA...... 168 168 168 168 Threats to resources: Upgrade maintenance
program to enhance visitor experience.
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, .............. 250 250 .............. Threats to resources: Improve park
HI. operations and protect resources.
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 80 80 80 .............. New facilities: Enhance education programs
Park, GA. and provide resource preservation.
Keweenaw National Historical Park, MI..... .............. 200 .............. .............. New area: Provide Critical Resource
Management Capability.
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, IN..... 50 50 50 .............. New Program: Enhance Education Programs.
Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site, .............. 293 225 .............. New facilities: Maintain Rehabilitated
VA. Buildings and Operate Site.
Manassas National Battlefield Park, VA.... 250 250 250 200 New Facilities: Enhance Education Programs
and Provide Resource Preservation.
Manzanar National Historic Site, CA....... 137 273 273 .............. New Area: Enhance Maintenance Program for a
Newly-Acquired Area.
Marsh-Billings National Historical Park, 244 244 244 244 New area: Operate New Unit.
VT.
Mesa Verde National Park, CO.............. 204 304 204 .............. Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
Preservation.
Minute Man National Historical Park, MA... 250 250 250 200 Health and Safety: Provide Visitor and
Resource Protection.
Mississippi National River and Recreation .............. 300 300 .............. New area: Develop Partnership Programs.
Area, MN.
Natchez National Historical Park, MS...... 300 300 300 300 New Facilities: Enhance Education Programs
and Upgrade Maintenance Program.
National Capital Parks-Central, District 250 250 250 200 New Area: Upgrade Maintenance Program to
of Columbia. Enhance Visitor Experience.
National Capital Parks-East, District of 87 87 87 .............. Health & Safety: Upgrade Safety Program.
Columbia.
New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park, 100 100 100 .............. New Facilities: Enhance Education Programs
LA. and Upgrade Maintenance Program.
Niobrara/Missouri National River, NE...... 100 100 100 .............. New Area: Commission Support for New Unit.
Northwest Alaska Areas, AK................ .............. 183 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Develop Professional
Archaeological Program.
Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN............ .............. 50 .............. .............. New facilities: Provide Visitor Services.
Oklahoma City National Memorial, OK....... 200 200 200 175 New Area: Technical Assistance for New Unit.
Olympic National Park, WA................. 88 88 88 .............. Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
Protection.
Pea Ridge National Military Park, AR...... 62 62 62 .............. Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
Preservation and Enhance Education
Programs.
Point Reyes National Seashore, CA......... .............. 314 150 .............. Threats to resources: Protect Critical
Natural Resources.
Puuhonua o Honaunau National Historical 240 240 240 .............. Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
Park, HI. Preservation.
Rock Creek Park, District of Columbia..... 126 126 126 126 New Facilities: Upgrade Maintenance Program
to Enhance Visitor Experience.
Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, NH.. .............. 167 .............. .............. New facilities: Protect, preserve and
interpret park resources.
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, .............. 105 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Enhance ruins
NM. preservation.
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, .............. 458 .............. .............. Threats to resources: Mitigate natural
CA. resources threats.
Sitka National Historical Park, AK........ 255 255 255 .............. Increased Visitation:Enhance Education
Programs and Provide Resource Protection.
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, KS... .............. 200 .............. .............. New area: Provide Operational Funding for a
New Park.
Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National 50 50 50 .............. Deteriorated Infrastructure: Enhance
Historic Site, NY. Maintenance Program to Provide Resource
Preservation.
Thomas Stone National Historic Site, MD... .............. 300 300 .............. New area: Maintain and operate restored
historic structures.
Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, 133 133 133 .............. Increased Visitation: Enhance Education
AL. Programs and Upgrade Maintenance Program.
U.S. Park Police, VA...................... .............. 650 650 .............. Health and Safety: Increase Law Enforcement
Presence on GWMP.
Valley Forge National Historical Park, PA. 356 356 356 .............. Threats to Resources: Upgrade Maintenance
Program to Enhance Visitor Experience and
Provide Visitor Protection.
Washita Battlefield National Historic 110 110 110 110 New Area: Operate New Unit.
Site, OK.
Weir Farm National Historic Site, CO...... 87 87 87 .............. New Area: Enhance Education Programs.
White House, District of Columbia......... .............. 70 .............. .............. New facilities: Provide Controlled Climate
for Museum Collection.
William Howard Taft National Historic 189 189 189 189 New Program: Enhance Education Programs and
Site, OH. Upgrade Maintenance Program.
Women's Rights National Historical Park, .............. 55 .............. .............. New facilities: Operate and Maintain
NY. Restored M'Clintock House.
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 128 128 128 128 New Facilities: Upgrade Maintenance Program
Preserve, AK. to Enhance Visitor Experience.
Yellowstone National Park, WY............. .............. 755 175 .............. Threats to resources: Ensure Resource
Preservation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cultural resource management
Page 47 of the justification indicates that 2,000 structures will
be added to the List of Classified Structures in fiscal year 1998 and
1999. That page also indicates that approximately 20,000 of the
estimated 22,000-25,000 structures in parks have been inventoried.
Question. Does this indicate that the inventory of historic
structures in the park system is close to completion? If so, do you
anticipate a reduction or reallocation of resources required for this
purpose in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes, the classified structures inventory should be
substantially complete by the end of fiscal year 2000. However, after
that date, work will be needed, and continued, to keep current the
basic management information concerning significance, threats, impacts,
condition, use, and approved treatment of these resources. Funding, if
any, which is not needed for the classified structures inventory might
be reallocated and used to inventory cultural landscapes within the
NPS.
inventory and monitoring
The request includes a more than 30 percent increase ($2 million)
for the Inventory and Monitoring program, which would enable applicable
parks to acquire twelve basic data sets in 12 years as opposed to 17
years.
Question. Is it anticipated that the data acquired with this
increase will have a significant beneficial impact on park management
during the 5-year period by which data collection will be advanced?
Answer. Yes. These are data that are often needed now if impacts to
resources are to be avoided, so advancing to any degree is helpful. The
inventory program is moving into the collection of data on endangered
species and other species of special concern. To meet Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) baselines and goals, protect species
from further losses, and to identify and protect sensitive cave and
resources, basic data are needed.
Question. Why shouldn't this increase instead be used to meet the
large quantity of known and unmet needs within the park system?
Answer. The lack of this information is one of the important unmet
needs within the park system. In a survey conducted by the National
Parks and Conservation Association in 1994, park superintendents rated
``adequacy of natural resource base data'' third, behind only ``overall
park budget'' and ``adequacy of workforce size'' as one of the most
critical needs. As such, it rated higher than 45 other needs including
those such as campgrounds, transportation services, ranger tours/talks,
park housing, employee morale, structure or ruin stabilization, and
endangered species. The General Accounting Office and many others have
also evaluated lack of baseline data as a critical outstanding park
need.
An increase of $500,000 is requested for the Interior Museum
Property Program, part of which appears to be for the purpose of
covering shortfalls within individual bureau budgets.
Question. Is the Park Service performing functions that apparently
are not a high enough priority within the other bureaus to warrant
allocation of adequate resources? If so, why?
Answer. No, the National Park Service is not performing functions
for other bureaus. The National Park Service has the largest holdings
of museum collections at Interior and retains the funding mechanism to
support the Departmentwide museum property activities. Interior's
Museum Property Program was restructured in fiscal year 1998 to clarify
roles and lines of authority and to improve the Department's museum
services. To foster a strong and coordinated management structure for
all Interior Museum Program operations, the Office of Museum Services
was created to provide advice, guidance, technical assistance and
training to all Interior bureaus with museum collections. The Office of
Museum Services coordinates closely with the Office of Acquisition and
Property Management, which continues to have responsibility for
managing Interior Museum Program policies. The increase of $500,000
will provide critical funding for this Office to address the management
weaknesses and deficiencies in the accountability and control over
museum property.
Interior has museum collections at 739 units throughout the
Department and at more than 400 nonfederal institutions. Each bureau
has prepared a strategic plan for bringing the management of its
collections into compliance with the Department's standards for
managing museum collections. Bureaus have begun to hire curators and
other professional staff, and have identified a critical need for
training to effectively carry out their program responsibilities. The
Office of Museum Services will provide Departmentwide training on how
to care for and properly store museum collections, in addition to other
areas including program planning, cataloging, public access, use and
interpretation, and environmental monitoring. The Office will promote
an understanding of Interior's mission and activities; develop,
demonstrate and test museum techniques and services; consolidate
collections management activities; and manage all museum services in
the Main Interior Building Complex. The Office will manage cross-
boundary partnerships with museum and educational institutions to
increase access to specialized skills and improve the effectiveness of
the program. To increase appropriate access to our museum collections,
the Interior Museum Property Program has developed an Internet home
page to provide up-to-date information to scientists, educators,
researchers, and members of the general public.
Visitor Services
visitor use management
The justification notes the work being performed by the National
Center on Accessibility.
Question. How much is the Park Service currently spending annually
on accessibility, both in retrofitting existing facilities and as
additional incremental work for new construction?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, $595,000 is funded for program
direction and assistance. That figure includes the $208,000 allocated
for the Accessibility Management Program and the $287,000 allocated to
Indiana University for the work of the National Center on
Accessibility. The NPS does not currently compile total expenditures
for accessibility work being accomplished in projects undertaken at the
individual parks. Most of the work is accomplished as part of the
repair and rehabilitation program, the cyclic maintenance program, or
the new construction program. In some areas, the entire project is
devoted to accessibility concerns; in other instances, only a portion
of a project cost encompasses accessibility issues. Federal law
mandates that all construction and renovation projects be completed in
compliance with current accessibility codes and standards. Research has
shown that when access is considered in the design of new projects, the
cost is very small.
Question. Is this amount increasing, declining, or about level?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes
significant increases in the NPS Repair/Rehabilitation and Cyclic
Maintenance programs, which will result in considerable increased
expenditures for accessibility work by the Service in fiscal year 1999.
We are currently exploring a means to conduct a more comprehensive
condition assessment of our access deficiencies, so we can more
effectively program corrective actions.
Question. How much accessibility work does the Park Service perform
for other Interior bureaus, other agencies, and nonfederal entities?
Answer. In general we do not perform accessibility work for other
bureaus, agencies, and non federal entities. The only exception to that
would be the technical assistance and in-service education programs and
services provided by the National Center on Accessibility (NCA). While
the primary objective of NCA is to provide assistance to the National
Park Service, they also make their services available to other agencies
and organizations in the park and recreation field.
Question. Is any of this work reimbursable?
Answer. Yes, a large share of the work performed by the NCA is
reimbursable. The NCA is funded partially by the Cooperative Agreement
with the National Park Service, but their program is also funded
through the provision of in-kind costs provided by the University, by
fee for service activities, by other grants and cooperative projects,
and by tuition fees generated by the continuing education programs. In
almost all instances these other agencies pay for those services.
The justification indicates that the amount of appropriations from
the Operation of the National Park System account that will be required
for fee collection will drop from $2.9 million in fiscal year 1998 to
$1.5 million in fiscal year 1999 (p. 79).
Question. Why is this $1.4 million reduction not reflected as a
program decrease in the Visitor Use Management activity?
Answer. The NPS Budget Justification states that the estimated $1.4
million not needed for fee collection at demonstration parks would be
reprogrammed for other park uses. Accordingly, the NPS did not propose
a budget reduction as it was unclear as to what use or uses for which
the funds would be reprogrammed. Since the submission of the fiscal
year 1999 budget, the NPS has begun the process of reevaluating its
course of action as regards to the ONPS fee collection monies and how
``non- demonstration'' parks will cover the cost of fee collection in
fiscal year 1999. Once a final decision is made, the NPS will submit a
reprogramming as required.
Question. To what types of other activities will these funds be
reprogrammed?
Answer. Should the funds be reprogrammed for activities other than
fee collection costs, the activities would cover the basic park
operational responsibilities of resource stewardship, visitor services,
and park maintenance. The funds could remain in the park that currently
has control of the funds or be shifted from one park to another to
cover operational requirements that are unmet at the other park.
Question. Assuming these funds are included in the fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act, does the Park Service anticipate submitting a
reprogramming request for these funds to the Committees on
Appropriations?
Answer. Should the NPS anticipate using the funds for an activity
other than fee collection, a reprogramming request will be submitted to
the Committees, as required. $1.5 million is being requested for the
costs of background checks for law enforcement officers, in part to
reduce the burden these costs place on individual park units.
health and safety
Funds were provided in fiscal year 1998 for a Workers' Compensation
Initiative. According to the justification (p. 81), these funds are
supporting nine positions Servicewide.
Question. Are these funds being used for retraining, actual
salaries and benefits, or both?
Answer. The Department of the Interior initiated a program to
create opportunities so that persons on long-term disability could
return to work. The National Park Service agreed to participate by
providing temporary funding for nine positions as part of its risk
management initiative, with the intent of bringing eligible employees
who experienced employment-related injuries back to work. As this
program began being implemented, however, it became apparent that
coordinating this kind of job placement was difficult. Since it has
also been found that training Workers' Compensation coordinators,
evaluating each case file, and funding fraud/abuse investigations as
planned is proving more effective, fiscal year 1998 program resources
have been redirected to these efforts in order to maintain progress
towards the NPS fiscal year 1999 risk management goals. The program is
still being reevaluated, and a redesigned program reflecting these
changes will be submitted this summer to the Appropriation
Subcommittees.
Question. Are the positions being supported all within the Visitor
Services activity?
Answer. The plan had been to support all risk management activity
associated with this initiative out of the Visitor Services subactivity
of the Park Management activity.
Question. If not, will funding for these positions be transferred
into other program areas? If so, when?
Answer. It had never been the plan of the National Park Service to
transfer funds to other subactivities to temporarily support positions
in those functional areas.
Question. Will new positions be supported with the Workers'
Compensation Initiative funding as these positions are transferred?
Answer. As previously stated, the National Park Service is working
on redesigning their program to emphasize investigations and training,
which are proving to be more cost effective than the temporary
subsidization of positions.
The Service is requesting an increase of $2 million for Risk
Management, which will be used to contract with a consulting firm to
assist parks in reducing employee accidents and related costs.
Question. What work would the Park Service be able to perform with
only a $1 million or $500,000 increase?
Answer. The original request for $2 million is to assist at least
12 to 15 park units (and perhaps as high as 20 parks) with poor
accident/injury rates that are not able to reduce the number of
employee accidents/incidents by 10 percent per year through the year
2002. A reduction of 50 to 75 percent will result in a corresponding
reduction in the number of parks that will benefit from this
initiative.
Question. Will the $2 million be a one-time cost, a recurring cost
for a definite period, or an ongoing cost?
Answer. The NPS anticipates this level of funding as recurring for
a period of five years.
Question. What are the estimated savings in workers' compensation
that would be achieved if the Park Service were to meet its safety
goals for fiscal year 1998? fiscal year 2002?
Answer. We estimate that only approximately 40 percent of our
annual OWCP costs can be reduced through active OWCP case management. A
realistic expectation of a reduction may be as high as 10 percent of
the current and projected costs. We also believe that all Continuation-
Of-Pay (COP) costs, which are paid for from the park base ($987,000 in
fiscal year 1997), can be reduced by 10 percent each year. Potential
savings are shown below. Since billings cover actions two years in
arrears, the earliest the savings might be realized would be fiscal
year 2000.
ESTIMATED SAVINGS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Continuation-of-
reduction pay Long-term costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year:
1..................................................... 10 $98,700 $650,000
2..................................................... 20 197,500 1,300,000
3..................................................... 30 296,000 1,950,000
4..................................................... 40 395,000 2,600,000
5..................................................... 50 493,500 3,250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amount of $1.5 million is being requested for the costs of
background checks for law enforcement officers, in part to reduce the
burden these costs place on individual park units.
Question. Why are these funds being managed Servicewide as opposed
to being included in the operational budgets of the park units that
consistently have the greatest requirements?
Answer. These funds for background checks on law enforcement
rangers are managed Servicewide in order to provide the flexibility
necessary to match National Park Service needs. The needs of individual
park units vary significantly from year to year due to fluctuations of
seasonal staff. Oversight at the national level provides funding to the
appropriate parks on a consistent basis. Including these funds in the
operational budgets of individual parks could lead to shortfalls in
park units having an increased need in a particular year.
Question. Have any park units received increases in recent years to
offset the costs of background checks?
Answer. Additional funds have not been previously requested to
address this specific concern. Parks have covered these costs from
funding already within their park base budget.
The justification states that the $400,000 increase requested for
``Airspace Issues over National Parks'' will be used for one FTE to
``enable national park units to participate in [the] joint FAA-NPS
process which requires extensive coordination and guideline
development.''
Question. How will the funding requested be used beyond salaries
and benefits for the one FTE?
Answer. Beyond salary, benefits, and support for the one FTE, these
funds will be used to contract acoustic and aeronautical expertise for
parks participating in the joint FAA-NPS process. Resolution of local
issues will be facilitated by providing studies, research, or expert
guidance needed in this extremely complex and technical process. The
range of expertise required make contracting the only practical avenue
if the NPS is to participate in this process.
Question. In the out years of this program, how will implementation
costs be divided between the program and the budgets of the individual
park units requiring assistance?
Answer. This proposal addresses only the provision of technical
services, coordination, and guidance to the parks. All other costs,
principally the costs associated with the joint planning process, would
need to be born by the individual parks and, to some extent, by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
u.s. park police
The Park Police received a $12 million appropriation in fiscal year
1998 as part of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act.
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of how these funds
will be used. Additional needs for the Park Police have been identified
to this Committee, including the need for a new helicopter and
additional funding for training and filling vacant positions.
Answer. The U.S. Park Police received one-time funding in fiscal
year 1998 as part of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act in the
amount of $12 million. A breakdown on how funds are used is as follows:
Repair and Rehabilitation of the Anacostia Operations Facility (AOF),
$7,750,000; provide and enhance routine assistance to the District of
Columbia, $1,248,400; operation of the Aviation Unit, $597,900;
background investigations for onboard personnel, $760,000; and
equipment replacement program for 54 percent of existing fleet,
$1,643,700.
Question. What is the Department's assessment of the Park Police's
need for a new helicopter to be based in Washington, D.C.?
Answer. The U.S. Park Police operate the only police aviation unit
within the District of Columbia. The Park Police Aviation Program is
operational for law enforcement, medical evacuation and rescue, and
other emergency services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are
two helicopters in the Aviation Program, one single engine helicopter
(Bell 206LR) and one twin engine (Bell 206L3) helicopter. In 1992, the
Park Police purchased the twin engine to replace an outdated single
engine helicopter (Bell 206L). Currently, the single engine (206L3)
helicopter has in excess of 7,600 hours of flight time and the twin
engine has in excess 3,200 hours of flight time. The Department of the
Interior's Office of Aircraft Services states that helicopters used for
law enforcement and/or safety missions should be replaced at 5,000
hours flight time. Funding requests to replace the outdated helicopter
have been identified and submitted, but have not ranked high enough
(within available funding allowances) when competing against other NPS
needs.
Question. Do the helicopters currently operated in Washington, D.C.
meet operational and safety requirements?
Answer. Yes, the U.S. Park Police helicopters currently operating
in Washington, D.C. meet operational and safety requirements. The U.S.
Park Police Aviation Unit is regulated by Part 91 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations. These regulations require that each aircraft be
certified to meet certain safety and maintenance codes. Part 91
requires strict maintenance records and accountability as well as the
additional need to meet passenger aircraft certification.
Question. Does the Department anticipate requesting funds for a new
helicopter(s) at any time in the foreseeable future?
Answer. The U.S. Park Police continues to submit funding requests
each fiscal year for two new helicopters. The NPS will submit this
request for funding to the Congress when it is ranked as a high
operational priority for the NPS and falls within allowance levels
allowed for the NPS request.
Question. What would be the cost of a replacement helicopter?
Answer. The total cost of a replacement helicopter is approximately
$10.4 million. This includes an annual recurring cost of approximately
$1.8 million. The base cost of a twin engine helicopter is
approximately $7 million. Additional completion cost for rescue/medivac
configuration and necessary hangar modifications, which include a new
above ground fuel delivery system, would cost approximately $1.6
million. The Department of the Interior, Office of Aircraft Services is
paid annually for hourly flight costs, daily availability rates, and
catastrophic coverage for the aircraft at an approximate total of $1.75
million. An additional $50,000 is needed annually to hire a full time
mechanic to maintain both aircraft.
Question. With the Park Police now having the only law enforcement
aviation program in the District of Columbia, what is the estimated
increase in costs to the Park Service of providing aviation services
that are wholly or primarily for municipal purposes?
Answer. The U.S. Park Police Aviation Unit is funded at $600,000
annually. In fiscal year 1997, the Park Police Aviation Unit reported
that 33 percent of all missions and 26 percent of all flight hours were
devoted to the District of Columbia. Therefore, approximately $152,000
of the annual operating budget was spent in providing non-reimbursable
aviation services primarily for municipal purposes. Since the
elimination of the Metropolitan Police Department's Aviation Unit,
requests for assistance from the District of Columbia have increased
approximately 40 percent over the last 22 months.
Question. Has the Park Service received any increase in services
from the District government in exchange for these increased aviation
costs?
Answer. The relationship between the United States Park Police and
the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia is
unique among Federal and municipal agencies. The Park Police have the
same power and authority within the District of Columbia as the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Because of this relationship, the
MPD and the Park Police have always used in-kind services to reimburse
each other for services provided. While there has been no increase in
services that can be directly related to our increase of aviation
services, the interaction between the two departments occurs daily. The
MPD has always assisted the Park Police with demonstrations and public
events that occur in the many park areas within the District. This is
especially true of the myriad demonstrations and special events that
occur in the vicinity of the White House.
Question. What are priority operational needs for the Park Police
that the Park Service would fulfill if it had additional resources?
Answer. The priority operational needs for U.S. Park Police are as
follows:
--Personnel: recruit and hire sufficient officers to address the
current shortfall of personnel.
--Communications: address the mandated conversion to a narrow band
radio system by the year 2005.
--Equipment: replace outmoded and worn equipment, including vehicles,
defensive equipment, uniforms, and Automated Data Processing
(ADP) equipment.
--Aviation: replace two helicopters, including rescue/medivac
configuration costs.
--Pension: ensure that the Park Police Pension system, which is
administered by the District of Columbia government, is
sufficiently funded to meet the requirements of this legally
mandated program.
Question. What is the cost of filling additional positions
and providing appropriate training (in appropriate increments)?
Answer. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
sets the size of a training class at 24. The cost of salaries
and benefits will vary according to the month in which the
class starts in the fiscal year. Startup costs for new officers
include applicant processing, background investigation,
physicals, uniforms and equipment, travel to and from the
FLETC, and training. The following breakdown includes salaries
and startup costs:
COST OF FILLING ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Class size Total cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January................................. 24 $1,129,012
June.................................... 24 736,176
August.................................. 24 583,677
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is the Park Service confident that the Park
Police are given the opportunity to compete fairly with other
park service programs and park units for budget increases?
Answer. Yes. The U.S. Park Police budget requests are
considered at each level of the budget process along with all
other requests. The Park Police submit their requests to the
National Capital Region's (NCR) budget office for inclusion in
the NCR budget submission. NCR's budget request is then
prioritized and forwarded to the Washington Office for
inclusion in the National Park Service's budget request. At
each step of this process, priorities are set for budget items
by each entity. Thus, an item that is the top priority for the
U.S. Park Police may fall as a much lower priority on the NCR
request and this prioritization is repeated throughout the
process. The U.S Park Police have received funding increases
for needs comparable to other NPS operations, including a
fiscal year 1997 increase of $600,000 for new operational
responsibilities associated with Pennsylvania Avenue and the
Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial in the District of Columbia; in
fiscal year 1998, $500,000 was provided on an ongoing basis to
establish an equipment replacement fund; and the Park Service's
fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an operational increase of
$843,000 and an increase of $2.479 million for the Park Police
Pension Fund. In addition, in 1997 the NPS received $2.3
million, including $1 million in recurring operational costs,
through a supplemental appropriation for anti-terrorism needs
at three parks and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. An
additional $1 million was also provided to the U.S. Park Police
for added security measures and operations at the Statue of
Liberty. All of the operational funding has been continued as
part of the base budget.
concession management
$1.5 million is being requested to support concession
management reform.
Question. What would be the impact on the Park Service if
these funds are not provided?
Answer. If the funding is not made available, the Service
would be unable to expand use of the private sector to perform
various concession functions and take other steps to improve
concession management.
Question. What is the total estimated cost of the
concessions management support contract that the Park Service
expects to issue in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Administration is planning to establish an
advisory group soon that would review the NPS concessions
management operation. This programmatic review of concessions
management would help determine what will be suitable for
contracting out. The total estimated cost would be based upon
an evaluation of options to be provided in the review by the
outside advisory group.
Question. Would the Service be inclined to proceed with
this contract were the $1.5 million increase not provided?
Answer. If the Service and the outside advisory group find
that concessions management could be improved by contracting
out specific functions to the private sector, then we will
proceed with such a contract in fiscal year 1999. If no
additional funds are provided, however, that contract would be
limited to funds available through savings or reductions in
existing concessions management. In the near term, additional
funds are needed for the transition to relying more on private
firms with business and professional experience to handle
whatever concession management functions that the Service and
the outside advisory groups identify as appropriate for
contracting out. In the longer term, improved concessions
management, along with concessions reform legislation, should
provide for a net increase in returns to the government that
exceed the near term costs.
Question. The justification states that recent changes in
concessions management have resulted in increased revenues to
the Park Service and improved services and facilities. Does the
Service anticipate that significant additional incremental
improvements would result from the requested increase?
Answer. The potential for improvements in revenues and
services will be evaluated by the aforementioned review of
concessions management support options. Though we expect
additional improvements, it is not possible to say exactly what
additional incremental improvements will result from the
requested funding until the planned review determines the
appropriate scope of a support contract.
maintenance
The Administration is requesting a $60 million increase for
Park Maintenance, which would be split between Repair and
Rehabilitation (+$37.5 million) and Cyclic Maintenance (+$22.6
million). This would more than double funding for the
maintenance account.
Question. Are you confident that the Park Service has the
ability to manage such a large increase in a manner that
ensures that funds are used for the most critical projects?
Answer. We are confident the Service will be able to manage
the requested increase for critical health/safety projects in
our nation's national parks in a manner that ensures that the
funding addresses the most critical projects. Considerable
effort by the National Park Service and the Department has gone
into formulating a prioritized list of more than 400 critical
health and safety projects at park units across the country,
which was provided to the Committees in early March. This, we
are confidant, will ensure that this badly needed increase is
directed to those projects identified as most critical.
Question. How would reducing the size of the increase (by
half or two thirds) impact Park Service performance measures
for the Maintenance account?
Answer. Reducing the requested increase for park
maintenance by a magnitude of half or two thirds would severely
impact the ability of the National Park Service to achieve
established performance measures or to comply with
Congressional direction to reduce the Service's maintenance
backlog. A significant number of the more than 400 critical
health and safety projects identified and submitted to the
Committees in early March would have to be deferred for
accomplishment in future years, contributing to a NPS
maintenance backlog.
year 2000 computer problems
The Service is requesting a $760,000 increase for non-
financial systems year 2000 date conversion.
Question. Is this expected to be a recurring cost for
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This will not be a recurring cost for fiscal year
2000. The funds will be used in fiscal year 1999 to assist
small parks in two critical phases of the Year 2000 conversion
program: (1) help small parks replace Year 2000 non-compliant
equipment; and (2) assist small parks in procuring Independent
Verification and Validation software and the training of staff
in the use of this software. The software is necessary to
inventory and repair Year 2000-related problems.
diversity
A $450,000 increase is being requested for an employment
database and cultural diversity recruitment pursuant to the
Department's strategic plan for improving cultural diversity in
the workplace.
Question. How does the Department's current diversity
initiative differ from past efforts and commitments to enhance
diversity?
Answer. Past commitments to improve and enhance cultural
diversity within the NPS have focused primarily on efforts to
broaden participation in developmental programs by women and
minority group members. These include the Servicewide Intake
Program, the Women's Executive Leadership Program, the
Executive Potential Program, and other developmental
opportunities. These programs help to prepare personnel for
advancement once in the system and will be continued as
important management tools for the NPS. Diversity is critical
in NPS because all of the NPS programs reach all segments of
society.
The Service, through this request, would use $100,000 to
initiate programs to attract a more diverse applicant pool from
which to select future employees and $350,000 to upgrade the
Service's employment databases so that employee movement
through the organization may be tracked. Categories which need
to be tracked include developmental assignments, management
succession, career progression, and other activities that lead
to advancement within the National Park Service. The system
currently used to produce data on career progression is manual,
inefficient, and inadequate in terms of successfully planning
and managing our workforce. Moreover, these systems are labor
intensive and drain FTE and other resources that could be used
for other functions.
The Department continues to give high importance to
diversity programs and is encouraging all agencies to take
major, proactive steps to address diversity and move the
Department forward. The Department has worked alongside the
senior level executives and managers on diversity measures to
be implemented throughout the Department.
Question. Are corresponding increases requested in the
other Interior bureaus' budgets? If so, please provide a
Department-wide summary for the record.
Answer. Four Interior bureaus are requesting budget
increases associated with diversity efforts in fiscal year
1999. The funding requests differ from bureau to bureau based
on specific needs relative to goals set out in the Strategic
Plans and Diversity Action Plans for each bureau. The summary
of these increase requests is as follows:
Interior bureaus requesting budget increases
Bureau Increase request
Bureau of Land Management..................................... +$539,000
Bureau of Reclamation......................................... +525,000
Fish and Wildlife Service..................................... +31,000
National Park Service......................................... +450,000
All other Interior bureaus are continuing their diversity
efforts at the same level of funding as in fiscal year 1998.
Question. If not, what special need for additional funding
does the Park Service have in this regard?
Answer. The effective recruitment and placement of quality
personnel throughout an organization is fundamental to the
achievement of the authorized mission of that organization. A
recent analysis conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Office identified underrepresentation of minority group members
in eight of the Service's most populous job classifications in
both the seasonal and permanent employment categories. Working
toward goals that will effect noticeable improvement in these
areas will require initiatives to address the very different
requirements of seasonal and permanent recruitment. Further,
the Service has an organizational interest (both short and
long-term) in the development and career advancement of all
employees. This initiative moves the NPS forward in the
achievement of goals outlined in the Department and the
National Park Service Strategic Plans.
external administrative costs
The justification notes that a fixed cost increase of $1.6
million for GSA space rental is requested, along with a $1
million programmatic increase.
Question. The fixed costs increase appears to be more than
five percent. Why is this increase so high?
Answer. The increase for anticipated rate adjustments was
calculated at approximately three percent of the fiscal year
1998 base. A separate portion of the increase ($700,000) is due
to the higher security costs that GSA has incurred following
the Oklahoma City bombing. The increased security costs are now
starting to be passed through to their tenant agencies.
Question. For the portion of the programmatic increase
designated for new parks for which space requirements have not
been budgeted, why are these costs not made part of the base
budget for the park unit? Are GSA space costs funded through
the consolidated account in all cases within the Park Service?
Answer. It is more efficient to consolidate all GSA space
rental funding into one account, since GSA sends us a
consolidated quarterly bill. The bill is then paid centrally.
Management of the GSA Space Program also is centralized. All
operational space that is rented and managed through GSA should
be budgeted in the GSA Space Rental Account. This includes that
portion of a new park's programmatic increase that requires
space rental through GSA. If the increase was not budgeted, or
budgeted but not funded, in the GSA Space Rental Account, then
the park does absorb the cost until a budget increase is
approved. Accordingly, in fiscal year 2000 we have requested
funds (approximately $1.3 million) to bring all outstanding
space accounts under this single managed budget.
Question. What has the Service done to respond to the
recommendations made in the 1997 GAO report on
telecommunications systems that was referenced in the Senate
report on the fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act?
Answer. The May 1997 General Accounting Office report
entitled ``Telecommunications Management: More Effort Needed by
Interior and the Forest Service to Achieve Savings'' concluded
that, while the Department of the Interior had undertaken a
number of telecommunications initiatives that have resulted in
significant financial savings, the Department is not
systematically identifying and acting on other opportunities to
consolidate and optimize telecommunications resources within
and among its bureaus or its 2,000 plus field locations.
The NPS has responded to the GAO report in several ways.
The NPS uses and contributes management and technical resources
to the shared Department of the Interior telecommunications
network called DOINET. The Forest Service has become a customer
of this DOI Telecommunications service. This means, for
example, that NPS and the Forest Service now share some radio
dispatch services, and the North Cascades National Park and the
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest share telephones services.
The NPS has also worked to develop other intradepartmental
resource sharing. The Service has established sharing
agreements with the Office of the Secretary, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) for telecommunications resources. The NPS is in
the process of concluding additional agreements with the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the USGS, and the NPS is sharing
connections with these agencies at 12 DOI hub locations,
resulting in a significant savings to the Service at 25 sites.
At one hub in the Hawaiian Islands, the NPS worked extensively
with USGS and the Department of Defense to join a DOD coalition
that provides Automated Teller Machine (ATM) access to the
mainland and high speed access to the ``Hawaiian,'' the local
inter-island network. The Service is also using a USGS-provided
router and sharing circuits with USGS at Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park and at the terminating circuit on the USGS router
in Maui. Approximately five NPS sites will be up and running on
May 1, 1998, and other NPS and USGS sites will be supported by
this new connection as well.
The Service will continue to look for cost effective
opportunities to share telecommunications resources and where
appropriate request shared and or coordinated appropriations
requests to fund these cost saving opportunities.
Land Acquisition
stateside program
The Administration has submitted to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees its proposal for the distribution of
the $362 million in `special' land acquisition funds that were
not allocated to specific projects in the fiscal year 1998
bill. The Committees are currently reviewing this proposal.
Question. Why did the Administration not request any funds
for the ``Stateside'' grant program as part of this process?
Answer. ``Stateside'' grants were not requested because the
Federal need for land acquisition is so great and therefore of
a higher priority.
Question. Do you feel that every one of the Federal
acquisitions that the Administration is requesting are of
greater importance than the projects that would be conducted by
the states through the Stateside program?
Answer. No, we do not think that every proposed Federal
acquisition is more important than potential projects in a
possible renewed Stateside program. However, we do continue to
request funds for specific known Federal needs.
Question. Does the Administration continue to support the
Stateside program in concept?
Answer. The Department continues to support the Land and
Water Conservation Act with a Stateside program concept.
However, since the Congressional hiatus in Stateside funding
has provided a period of analysis of the program, we would
prefer to assure that Stateside projects focus more on funding
natural recreational opportunities in place of a perceived
growing emphasis on building more structures like swimming
pools.
national recreation and preservation
The budget request includes an increase of $3 million and
30 FTEs for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program.
Question. Assuming that the purposes for which the increase
is proposed are justified, wouldn't the $3 million have greater
impact if given to local communities in the form of matching
grants, rather than spending a large portion of the increase on
salaries and benefits for 30 FTEs?
Answer. The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program (RTCA) is a technical assistance program and does not
provide grants. In fact, the National Park Service believes
that the program's value to the communities it assists is
actually enhanced by the fact that it makes no grants. Since
the main element of value that NPS can offer through the
program is the time and attention of its staff, the NPS staff
is able to help their partners focus on quality planning and
entrepreneurial approaches to funding their implementation.
RTCA projects have a strong history of leveraging the
relatively small investment by NPS many times over; RTCA
partners and communities go on to obtain needed financing from
a wide range of sources and programs some Federal, many state
and local, and others non-governmental. More partners will be
able to do far more with $3 million worth of NPS assistance
than would be the case through single one-time grants.
Question. Is there any evidence an additional Federal
`coordinator,' as opposed to additional financial resources, is
what is needed to accomplish the objectives of this program?
Answer. The RTCA staff will not have official Federal
`coordinator' roles outside the Park Service; they will seek to
coordinate and thereby maximize the benefits available through
the assistance of the Service's various programs. This staff
also will act as catalysts to identify community needs and work
with communities to develop action plans addressing
conservation and recreation needs.
Every evaluative effort undertaken to help shape the
program has identified a similar response: RTCA partners report
that the program's assistance in helping them examine their
options, organize effective public involvement, and strengthen
local institutions and organizations was what they needed.
Furthermore, partners report that NPS has been the one Federal
agency where those kinds of resources could be found.
revolutionary war and war of 1812 study
The Omnibus Parks and Land Management Act of 1996
authorized a Revolutionary War and War of 1812 historic
preservation study.
Question. Why have funds not been requested to conduct this
study?
Answer. Given the current fiscal constraints level, the
National Park Service was forced to prioritize its identified
budgetary needs. The NPS did not include funds for this study
in the fiscal year 1999 request to Congress as this was a lower
priority item than issues for which funds were included.
Question. How would this study differ from inventory and
planning activities undertaken generally with funds provided
for Resource Stewardship?
Answer. The requirement for this study is specifically
authorized in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act
of 1996 (Title VI, Section 604, Public Law 104-333). The NPS
has limited funds available for required cultural resource
studies within its central office base budget. The scope and
cost of this study is beyond the amount of funds generally
available.
heritage partnerships
The Administration is requesting an additional $1 million
for Heritage Partnership Programs. The funds are to be
allocated on a competitive basis to the five heritage areas and
one historic district that are not already receiving the $1
million maximum funding.
Question. Does the Service feel the three areas that are
already receiving $1 million are necessarily more justified
than the other areas in continuing to receive that funding in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The three areas that received the $1.0 million were
in a state of readiness to spend the authorized funds
effectively. Several of the other areas were, and remain, at
initial stages in their process and would be unable to
effectively spend $1.0 million.
Question. Would the Service prefer to see the $5.5 million,
if funded, available for distribution to any of the authorized
areas based upon the quality of the proposals submitted?
Answer. If the $1.0 million increase requested is
appropriated, the Park Service expects to distribute the $1.0
million increase based upon the quality of the proposals
submitted. The Park Service does not expect to reduce the
amount of funds now currently being provided to areas.
statutory or contractual aid
An increase of $20,000 is requested for the Roosevelt
Campobello International Park Commission in order to maintain
the 50 percent cost share requirement.
Question. What process is used to set the overall budget
for the Commission? For what purpose will the apparently
$40,000 increase be used?
Answer. Public Law 88-363, the Roosevelt Campobello
International Park Act, authorized establishment of a
commission to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International
Park as a memorial to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The legislation
states further that * * *. ``There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of the Interior without fiscal
year limitation such sums as may be necessary for the purposes
of this Act and the agreement with the Government of Canada
signed January 22, 1964, article 11 of which provides that the
Governments of the United States and Canada shall share equally
the costs of developing and the annual cost of operating and
maintaining the Roosevelt Campobello International Park.''
Based on specifics of the legislation and the 1964
agreement, the budget for the site is prepared by the
commission and submitted to the governments of each country.
The budgets for the Roosevelt Campobello International Park
Commission for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 consist of the
following.
BUDGET FOR THE ROOSEVELT CAMPOBELLO INTERNATIONAL PARK COMMISSION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year budget--
Receipts -------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. grant.............................. $650,000 $670,000
Canada grant............................ 650,000 670,000
Provincial grants....................... 3,000 3,000
Conference income....................... 20,000 20,000
Sale of memorabilia..................... 9,000 9,000
Other income............................ 40,000 30,000
Donated assets.......................... 5,800 5,800
Visitor donations....................... 5,000 5,000
Program assistance...................... 24,003 24,804
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,406,803 1,437,604
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding provided in fiscal year 1999 will be used for
personnel services ($1,050,676), other operating expenses
($299,928), and equipment replacement ($87,000). The net
personnel increase of $32,000 over fiscal year 1998 is for pay
and other benefits of the administrative, security,
maintenance, guide, and gardening staff. The net operating
increase of $7,120 above fiscal year 1998 is attributable to
the increased costs for commission expenses, publications,
utilities, insurance, cottage and grounds maintenance, and
supplies.
Historic Preservation Fund
historically black colleges and universities
The Administration is requesting a $9.8 million increase
for Grants-in-Aid to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
Question. What success has the Park Service, the individual
schools and cooperating entities had in generating non Federal
cost share for projects for which monies have been allocated in
fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Within the $5.422 million appropriated in fiscal
year 1998 for restoration at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, $4.0 million is being awarded directly to five
schools at $800,000 each: Fisk University (TN), Knoxville
College (TN), Allen University (SC), Selma University (AL), and
Tougaloo College (MS). An additional $1.4 million in fiscal
year 1998 HBCU grants is being awarded to the United Negro
College Fund (UNCF). The UNCF has, in turn, subgranted these
funds to Morehouse College (GA) and to Hampton University (VA)
to repair Graves Hall and Virginia Hall, respectively. The UNCF
will assist Morehouse and Hampton in obtaining the required
matching share. The matching share must be contributed during
the grant period. However, to ensure that the matching share
requirement is met, the Park Service will only reimburse 50
percent of the costs incurred as the projects proceed. To date,
every school funded appears to be able to contribute the
required nonfederal share.
Question. Does the Park Service feel there is capability to
match a significant amount of funds requested for fiscal year
1999?
Answer. Yes; to the best of our knowledge, HBCUs can
provide the required nonfederal matching share over the three-
year period of the grant.
Question. Does the Park Service anticipate making any
grants in fiscal year 1999 to schools not specified in the
Omnibus Parks Act (up to the authorized level of $6.1 million)?
Answer. Section 507 of the Omnibus Parks Act authorizes $29
million for the preservation of HBCU buildings. Specific
amounts totaling $22.9 million were allocated in the Act for
each of 12 HBCUs identified in Section 507--leaving $6.1
million of the authorization level not earmarked. $4.0 million
of the authorization in the Omnibus Parks Act was used by the
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998, so $25 million remains.
The Park Service does not anticipate awarding grants to any
HBCU not specified in the Omnibus Parks Act until the $22.9
million earmarked for the twelve identified HBCUs is fully
appropriated.
Under the authority of Section 101(e)(3)(B) of the National
Historic Preservation Act, an additional $1.422 million has
been included in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
request to provide the final funding needed for a grant to the
United Negro College Fund to complete the Secretary's HBCU
Preservation Initiative begun in fiscal year 1995. The $1.422
million would complete work at Hampton University and fund
repairs at Spelman College and Delaware State University as
well.
The Park Service was provided with $200,000 in the fiscal
year 1998 appropriation to conduct onsite assessments of the
twelve HBCUs identified in Section 507 of the Omnibus Parks
Act. A contract with the Georgia Institute of Technology has
been executed by the NPS, and a report assessing and ranking
the significance and structural condition of the major
historical buildings on the campus of each of the twelve HBCUs
will be issued by June 1998. This report will be used to guide
future budget requests.
It should be noted that there are 103 HBCUs. The General
Accounting Office recently completed a survey of all HBCUs and
the schools' responses estimated that $755 million is needed to
repair all of the HBCUs' historic buildings.
Construction
federal lands highways program
The Senate has passed an ISTEA reauthorization bill that
includes funding for the Federal Lands Highway Program. The
House is expected to pass a reauthorization bill this week.
Question. Based on the funding levels included in each bill
for the Federal Lands program, how would funds be allocated for
specific Park Service projects?
Answer. A list identifying the Administration's proposed
funding of projects for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
at $161 million annually was provided to the Committees with
the NPS fiscal year 1999 Budget Justifications pages 280 to
283. At the lower funding levels proposed by the House and
Senate passed bills, roughly half of the projects planned for
fiscal year 1998 would have to be deferred to fiscal year 1999.
That, in turn, would delay the start of projects planned for
fiscal year 1999, deferring them to out years. The Service
would conform to the current Servicewide priority list in
determining what projects would be deferred to future fiscal
years.
Land Acquisition
civil war battlefields
A number of Senators have expressed an interest in
providing funds for land acquisition to protect Civil War
battlefields. While in many cases a straight Federal
acquisition is the logical and appropriate choice, there is
also interest in providing funds for non-Federal acquisitions.
Funds would be used by preservation groups to leverage private
funds, particularly at important sites that are not part of a
Federal park unit.
Question. In your view, what would be the most appropriate
mechanism for executing this type of program assuming funds
were to be provided?
Answer. The National Park Service's American Battlefield
Protection Program (ABPP), funded in the Cultural Programs
activity of the National Recreation and Preservation
appropriation, would be the most appropriate mechanism for
administering such a program. The ABPP is specifically mandated
by Congress under Public Law 104-333 to assist non-Federal
public and private entities in identifying, evaluating,
interpreting, and protecting historic battlefields. The ABPP is
also specifically authorized to use cooperative agreements,
grants, contracts, or other means of financial assistance in
order to carry out its mandate. Current law authorizes
appropriations of $3 million per year for the ABPP, but the
program does not include assisting in land acquisitions at
present. In fiscal year 1997, ABPP distributed $745,775 in
various grants; ABPP distributions in fiscal year 1999 will be
about the same. If current grant levels continue into fiscal
year 1999, that would leave slightly over $2 million in
authorized funds for other purposes, including land
acquisition. Any programs requiring funds in excess of that
amount, which is a likely scenario in the case of land
acquisition, would require a change in the authorizing language
to raise the statutory ceiling.
Fish and Wildlife Service
general
government performance and results act
Question. Does the agency's performance plan link
performance measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, the FWS fiscal year 1999 annual performance
plan links performance goals and performance measures to the
FWS fiscal year 1999 budget request. The annual performance
plan provides a crosswalk that aligns each activity for each
appropriation or fund account with each annual performance
goal. In addition, the Budget Justifications provide additional
breakdowns of the performance goals associated with various
budget activities and subactivities, accompanied by a short
discussion of the goals.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Currently, each account does not have annual
performance measures. The FWS collects and uses a large amount
of performance information at various organizational levels.
Selecting the right performance goals and measures is an
iterative process that will improve with each planning cycle.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Performance measures were chosen using the
following guidelines:
--Measures were developed hierarchically so FWS managers and staff
would know how their daily activities contributed to
achievement of performance goals.
--Measures were limited to the ``vital few'' that covered the key
performance dimensions for the FWS.
--Measures were tied to a mission or program goal in the FWS
strategic plan.
--Measures had to be flexible and adaptable to changing imperatives.
For example, the measures had to be effective, yet simple to
understand and credible and readily available to those who
would need them.
--Measures had to be cost-effective and easy to collect; whenever
possible, existing performance measures and data were used.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data
collection and verification with the need for reliable and
valid performance data?
Answer. The FWS is developing a performance data management
evaluation model to ensure that all performance data is
reliable and valid. Of the 96 performance indicators currently
in the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan, all but 9
indicators have defined performance measurement data,
verifiable data sources, and program data managers. The FWS is
currently developing baseline data for the remaining 9
indicators.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for
which reliable data are not likely to be available in time for
your first performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The FWS is confident that performance data
essential to assessing the progress the FWS is making in
achieving the strategic goals will be available by March 2000.
The FWS considers the implementation of the performance
management system an iterative process and, for this reason, is
conducting an intensive review of the strategic and annual
performance plans to improve and streamline goals and measures.
new california regional office
Question. Given the denial of the reprogramming request,
does the Service have an alternative plan that might be less
cost prohibitive such as a modest enhancement of key staff
(including a high level person with Regional Director
authority) at the California Office?
Answer. On April 17, 1998, the Department proposed a scaled
back operations office consisting of 9 FTE to provide line
management and supervision of all field offices in California
(including the Klamath ecosystem) and Nevada. The annualized
costs of the office will be $1.2 million and the funds and
staffing to establish and operate the office will be
transferred from the regional office in Portland, Oregon. By
letter of April 23, 1998, the House Appropriations Subcommittee
approved this new office. By letter of May 6, 1998, the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee approved this new office.
Question. Is creation of a new Regional Office with
associated costs of staffing and moving employees warranted
during times of streamlining and flat budgets? Would
restructuring of the existing regions be more feasible?
Answer. The Department strongly supports the establishment
of a senior level management position in California to provide
hands-on leadership and improved service to the public for the
Bay/Delta ecosystem restoration initiative, the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, the ongoing Salton Sea effort,
endangered species issues, the public demand for habitat
conservation planning assistance, and meeting the rapidly
increasing expectation of refuge and fisheries facilities in
California and Nevada. At the same time, the new office will
allow the Portland Regional Office to be more responsive to the
public and the Department's partners in the Pacific northwest
and the Pacific basin. The Department thoroughly evaluated the
costs of restructuring the existing FWS regional offices and
they exceeded the costs of the alternative selected and thus
were not proposed.
Question. What other strategies that do not involve major
restructuring has the Service explored to meet the needs
identified in Region 1?
Answer. The FWS has taken several steps in recent years to
meet growing workloads in Region 1 (and all its regions)
without involving restructuring. First and foremost has been
the increased collaboration with other Federal agencies to
implement the President's Forest Plan through streamlined
Section 7 consultations. This approach has reduced the amount
of time previously required for timber sale consultations from
over 130 days to under 45 days, on average. Second, the FWS has
published an HCP handbook to guide private landowners who seek
to implement a Habitat Conservation Plan which would allow
economic development (such as timber harvest) to proceed while
at the same time conserving habitat and species. The
development of multi-species HCPs has also facilitated greater
impacts. Third, the FWS has vastly improved its data collection
abilities and has been able to document operational and
maintenance requirements--particularly for the refuge system--
which have been used to justify funding needs in the budget.
This approach will also come on-line in the near future for the
hatchery system and will be used to help guide future budget
formulation processes and support potential budget requests, if
approved.
ecosystem management review
We understand the Service recently contracted with Ohio
State University to review the ``ecosystem management
approach'' as currently implemented within the Service. The
results of the Survey indicate a need for more consistency and
clarity Service-wide as well as better leadership and program
representation. It is clear changes are needed, however, the
creation of new positions at high levels concerns us given that
the Service currently has over 200 facilities either unstaffed
or below adequate levels. It seems questionable that creating
new positions has a higher priority than say, directing funds
to the field.
Question. Will this require any new FTE's?
Answer. No additional staff will be required to implement
this approach. The FWS is not expected to realize a net
increase in staffing as a result of the ecosystem approach,
though the FWS will fill vacant field positions as funds become
available to address expanding workload requirements in the
field.
Question. How much will this plan cost and how does the
Service plan to pay for these positions? Will existing programs
(core programs) be ``assessed?'' If so, how will these programs
be impacted?
Answer. The FWS plans to implement this effort through the
use of funds which currently exist in regional offices. The FWS
underwent a downsizing during the mid-1990's that
disproportionately affected its regional offices, adversely
affecting some regional program staff and management. The FWS
intends to rectify these over-corrections as necessary;
however, this effort is ongoing and distinct from the
stabilization efforts being employed under the ecosystem
approach implementation. The FWS has no reason to believe that
continuing to implement the successful ecosystem approach that
had already begun years ago will require additional funds. No
existing programs (core programs) will be assessed.
Question. What is the rationale for funding these positions
rather than recruiting the right kinds of staff (with specific
program expertise) more able to provide better leadership and
program direction?
Answer. The FWS strongly supports expanded career
opportunities, such as upward mobility career tracks, to best
prepare promising employees and new hires for future senior
management positions. One of the criticisms leveled at the FWS
in the past had been that employees remain ``locked'' in their
respective programs for most of their careers and when--and
if--promoted to senior positions they had not been exposed to
the very broad FWS mission responsibilities. Charging
enterprising ``rising stars'' in the agency with broader
landscape-based responsibilities will allow them to call on
their in-depth knowledge of one program while coordinating all
of the FWS programs towards an integrated accomplishment of the
agency's goals. It will also help the various programs
communicate better and focus efforts on overall
responsibilities instead of fragmenting program implementation.
Question. Given the level of frustration, lack of success,
lack of support of rank and file, and general ineffectiveness
of the Ecosystem Approach (as implemented in the Service), is
the Service willing to reconsider further implementation of
this process?
Answer. The FWS is committed to effectively implementing
the Ecosystem Approach to manage the nation's wildlife and
fisheries resources.
The FWS formally adopted an Ecosystem Approach to Fish and
Wildlife Conservation in the Spring of 1994. This calls for a
landscape approach to resource management decision-making,
emphasizing cross-program collaboration, and increasing
attention to the establishment and nurturing of partnerships
with other agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
landowners. To fully implement this approach, the FWS realigned
its operations at the level of the Assistant Regional Director,
and these individuals were given responsibility for leading one
of three programs (Refuges and Wildlife, Fisheries Resources,
or Ecological Services), and asked to supervise all individuals
(except the law enforcement program) within a geographic
ecoregion.
As is the case with all organizational changes, some
friction has occurred in the field during the transition
period. In general, implementation of the Ecosystem Approach
has improved collaboration between the various FWS programs and
significantly enhanced partnerships with other groups. However,
regional offices have developed organizational schemes that
differ from one another, and from the headquarters office
organization. This organizational inconsistency has yielded
confusion in line supervisory relationships and raised concerns
about consistent implementation of nationwide program policies.
The solution to this problem is to implement the Ecosystem
Approach consistently Servicewide.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure a cost
effective approach and that resource benefits will actually
accrue when the recommendations made by the Survey and by the
Directorate of the Service are implemented?
Answer. The FWS has taken several steps to ensure a cost
effective approach and to ensure that resource benefits will
actually accrue. First, no additional headquarters or regional
staff will be required to implement the ecosystem approach.
(However, the FWS intends to fill vacant positions as funds
become available to address expanding workload requirements in
the regions). Second, while staffing levels are expected to
vary as a function of regional workloads, leadership positions
will be consistent across regions to ensure strong programmatic
and geographic management capabilities to best support field,
headquarters, and external partnership needs. Also, expanded
career opportunities, such as upward mobility career tracks,
will help align the FWS for the future by increasing the pool
of talent to help fill any leadership vacuums.
brown tree snake
I am increasingly concerned by reports that, despite
efforts by your Department and DOD, the brown tree snakes have
gotten entirely out of control on Guam and are a very serious
threat to Hawaii and some of our close friends and neighbors in
the Central and South Pacific Ocean.
Question. What are you doing to eradicate this pest on Guam
and prevent its spread to Hawaii and other U.S. territories and
commonwealths?
Answer. The control of the brown tree snake is a major
priority of the Department and we continue to increase the
resources we devote to this problem. We requested and received
a $1 million increase in the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and
we are requesting an additional $1 million increase for fiscal
year 1999. At a March conference in Hawaii chaired by Assistant
Secretary John Berry, we clarified our priorities for the brown
tree snake program. The first priority is to contain the snake
on Guam and prevent dispersal to other areas. More than $2
million is dedicated this year to this effort in the form of
inspecting cargo leaving Guam or arriving on other islands from
Guam. Our research program also complements these operational
efforts by improving engineering and development of snake
barriers, attractants for traps, and toxicants.
Our second priority is to develop a capability to eradicate
new incipient populations of snakes when detected so that what
has happened on Guam is not repeated anywhere else. Our third
priority is to reduce existing brown tree snake populations
over large geographic areas on Guam. We see this as a long term
effort as we search for a toxin or biological control that is
effective and environmentally acceptable. Reducing snake
populations over large geographic areas is also a necessary
step to our other major priority, which is to protect
endangered species and other wildlife from brown tree snake
predation. Through efforts coordinated under an interagency and
intergovernmental memorandum of agreement on brown tree snake
control, we are also trying to get state and local governments
and other Federal agencies to commit more resources to this
effort and become more active in the program.
Question. What are you doing to raise awareness and
coordinate actions regarding such pests with our allies and
international organizations?
Answer. Last December (1997) we worked with the Department
of State to have United States diplomatic missions throughout
the Central and South Pacific contact all host countries,
including small island developing States, to alert them of the
environmental crisis on Guam as a result of the infestation by
the Brown Tree Snake (BTS). We explained our desire to work
with them in coordinating activities, collecting and sharing
information, increasing public awareness, and other actions
aimed at protecting the ecology and biological diversity of the
region from the threat of BTS and other invasive alien species.
We followed this up in April by proposing that a U.S.
delegation headed by the Department of the Interior travel to
(Western) Samoa to meet with the South Pacific Regional
Environment Program (SPREP), and to New Caledonia to meet with
the South Pacific Community (SPC), to inform each of these
organizations of our desire to work more proactively with them
to heighten international awareness and to promote cooperation
in meeting the threat posed to fragile island environments in
the region by invasive alien species.
We are also working with other agencies and non-government
organizations (NGOs) to help bring more international focus to
this issue. In addition, the draft Executive Order that we are
presently coordinating with other agencies in response to Vice
President Gore's initiative on invasive alien species will
address our desire to pursue international cooperation on a
global basis.
Congress included the Brown Tree Snake among the species
covered in the ``Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990.'' An interagency Brown Tree Snake Control
Committee was formed in 1993; and in 1996 the Brown Tree Snake
Control Plan was issued by the Department.
Question. Is this plan still current? What is the current
estimated budget requirement for the Plan's implementation?
Answer. The framework of the approved Brown Tree Snake
Control Plan remains appropriate and useful, but specific
actions and tasks need to be updated and refined, additional
actions added, and cost estimates revised. Substantial
additional research and studies suggesting new avenues for
addressing this problem and refinements of previously
identified approaches has been completed since the plan was
formulated. In addition, experience implementing the existing
plan has resulted in refinements of on-going activities and
tasks and provides an improved basis for estimating their
costs.
The Department and other State and Federal agencies
continue to use the Brown Tree Snake Control Plan as the guide
for control and research activities. The plan outlines total
funding needs for five years. Through fiscal year 1999, those
needs are as follows:
BROWN TREE SNAKE CONTROL PLAN FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year:
1................................... 1997 $4.48
2................................... 1998 4.70
3................................... 1999 4.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If funding requested is appropriated, the current plan is
likely to be fully funded in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Last year, Vice President Gore called on the
Administration to mount efforts to address the threat posed by
the inadvertent spread of non-indigenous pest species. Could
you provide the Committee with a status report on this
initiative?
Answer. On June 17, 1997, Vice President Gore directed
preparation of the Administration's strategy to combat
introduction and spread of plants and animals that are not
native to ecosystems in the United States and which are now
causing or could potentially cause great economic and
ecological harm to our nation. The Vice President asked the
Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce to
prepare the strategy in consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology
Policy in the Executive Office of the President.
A draft Administration action plan (``Draft Action Plan'')
has been prepared which responds to the Vice President's
request and recommends steps to address all invasive alien
species (``IAS''). The Draft Action Plan is the work product of
the Administration's ad hoc Invasive Alien Species Task Force
(``Task Force''). The Task Force members represent the federal
agencies above and other federal agencies with interests in
invasive alien species. Most of the participants are already
involved in one of two standing federal committees addressing
invasive alien species: the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task
Force and the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management
of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW).
The Draft Action Plan briefly describes the problems caused
by IAS and reviews needs, shortcomings, and key issues. It then
sets forth goals, objectives, and principles for actions to be
taken. Next are eight recommendations addressing management and
policy, followed by a list of recommendations organized by
types of actions needed to address IAS. These are (1) listings,
(2) preventing entry, (3) detection, (4) rapid assessment and
eradication, (5) control, restoration, and monitoring, (6)
cross-cutting research and technology, (7) national information
needs, (8) partnerships, education and outreach, (9)
international cooperation, and (10) fund raising and financial
responsibility. A draft summary of legal authorities follows at
the end of the document.
The Draft Action Plan has been prepared by the Task Force
with anticipation of public dissemination and comment through a
national council called for in Recommendation 1.
To accelerate action and increase awareness, the Task Force
is recommending that an executive order on the topic be issued
in the next few months. We expect that the executive order will
establish a national council on invasive alien species and will
mandate several tasks, including preparation and annual
revision of an interagency management plan. The plan will
specify actions and resources needed for implementation and is
to be submitted to OMB for consideration in the budget process.
The order is expected to set specific due dates for completion
of the management plan and for review of authorities and
recommendations to agencies on priority actions to be taken
within existing authority. The council will produce an annual
report and advise Congress of gaps in authority which may
hinder accomplishment of the management plan goals and
objectives.
fws veto power over states in issuance of point source discharge
permits
In July, 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA
released a draft Memorandum of Understanding which would
require all states with delegated National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs to enter formal
Section 7 consultations with FWS prior to issuing any NPDES
permits. As a result, the fear is that FWS is gaining a veto
power over the issuance of point source discharge permits in
every state.
Question. Is that what the FWS intends to do? Under what
authority?
Answer. The draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), was based
on interagency negotiations between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Negotiations
were conducted over six months and the draft was sent to the
regional offices of FWS, NMFS, and EPA for internal review. A
number of misconceptions about the document, which is still
under negotiation, have since emerged. There was never any
intention on the part of FWS and NMFS to establish any ``veto
power'' over state-issued NPDES permits. The draft MOA is
strictly a coordination mechanism between federal agencies and
does not impose any obligations or requirements on states,
tribes, or permit holders.
The role of FWS and NMFS is to comment on state-issued
draft permits under existing Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations
as part of the federal review necessary to avoid substantial
impairment of fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources,
including threatened and endangered species, under 40 CFR
124.59 (b). EPA may object to a permit under existing CWA
authority if a permit does not support the objective of the CWA
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters, including the goal of
providing water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Where a federal action occurs, such as the EPA approval of
a state's assumption of NPDES permitting authority, EPA
approval of new or revised water quality standards, or EPA's
issuance of NPDES permits where state assumption has not
occurred, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
consultation with the FWS and NMFS if listed species may be
affected by the action. The ESA further prohibits all federal
agencies from taking any action that will likely jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species. EPA has consulted
numerous times with the FWS and NMFS on this basis in relation
to CWA programs.
Separate consultations on state-issued NPDES permits is not
the goal or the purpose of negotiations on the MOA. Where
endangered species impacts are identified, the FWS and NMFS
will work with the state and EPA to lessen such impacts. If the
FWS and NMFS determine that a NPDES permit is likely to
jeopardize a listed species and EPA agrees, EPA may use its
existing authority under the CWA to review the permit and
federalize it.
Question. What is the status of the MOU between FWS and
EPA?
Answer. The draft MOA (July 1997) is still being
negotiated. At the present time, the federal agencies are
focusing on coordination procedures for EPA approval of state
assumed Section 402 (NPDES) and Section 303 (Water Quality
Standards) of the Clean Water Act, the review and comment on
draft permits under existing CWA regulations, and a joint
research initiative to better evaluate risks to endangered
species posed by activities authorized by water quality
programs. The EPA, FWS, and NMFS hope to conclude the
negotiations on these sections of the CWA soon and then in
turn, the coordination procedures for EPA approval of State
assumed Section 404 (Wetland Dredge and Fill program) and
Section 405 (Sewage Sludge program).
Question. What sort of public participation or outreach
does the Department/FWS intend to use to educate state or other
impacted stakeholders?
Answer. The EPA, FWS, and NMFS are considering the
possibility of publishing a joint Notice of Availability and
perhaps a revised MOA in the Federal Register to facilitate
public review and comment on the agreement. We understand that
EPA has coordinated extensively with state and tribal CWA
program partners to fully explain the agreement and to clarify
the implications (which the federal agencies believe are
minimal) for state assumed NPDES programs.
Question. Isn't this contrary to Congress' intent to
delegate permitting authority to the States?
Answer. The states unquestionably have the authority to
issue Clean Water Act program permits once EPA has approved
their application to assume the program. The FWS and NMFS
provide input to EPA in two circumstances:
(1) under existing CWA regulations, by reviewing and
providing comments on state-issued draft NPDES permits as part
of the federal review envisioned as necessary to avoid
substantial impairment of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
resources, and
(2) under existing ESA regulations, when EPA undertakes a
federal action, such as approval to permit program assumption
by a state or tribe, approval of new or revised state water
quality standards, or EPA's issuance of NPDES permits where
state assumption has not occurred.
Both statutes complement each other and are intended to
assure that sensitive wildlife resources, including biological
communities in the aquatic environment, are adequately
addressed. The draft MOA does not add any new requirements
beyond what is already present in existing CWA and ESA
regulations and it will provide for consistency in federal
interagency coordination under ESA and CWA programs. Finally,
the MOA should provide for more effective protection of listed
species during the review and comment process under CWA
permitting programs, as well as for EPA approval of State Water
Quality Standards.
Fisheries
fisheries program--general
Question. How much of the increase received in fiscal year
1998 for Refuge operations has been used specifically to
improve fishery resources, fishery management, and fishing
access on refuges? Will this situation continue in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The Refuge Operations budget was increased $19.75
million in fiscal year 1998 over the President's Budget request
to complete specific projects. Of that amount projects with a
combined value of $2.25 million are oriented predominately to
fishery benefits. In addition, because the majority of the
remaining $17.75 million in projects combine a mix of visitor
improvements, comprehensive planning, enhanced biological
surveys, wetland management, habitat restoration, or facility
improvements, they have multiple benefits that include
fisheries and aquatic resources. It is conservatively estimated
that a minimum of 10 percent of the value of these projects
contribute directly to fisheries conservation and enjoyment.
Combining these two elements ($2.25 million predominantly
fisheries projects plus 10 percent of $17.75 million in
remaining projects) results in a total of $4 million or 20
percent of the value of the projects accruing to fisheries
benefits. It is expected that approximately this same
proportion will continue in fiscal year 1999. Projects
currently underway include initiating instream and riparian
habitat improvements for Columbia River Basin salmonids,
improving water management in the Klamath Basin and Central
Valley of California, assisting in the recovery of endangered
Colorado River fishes, conducting fisheries studies at several
Alaska refuges, and expanding the number of access sites and
facilities to increase angling opportunities in all Regions.
An aquatic resources challenge cost share component is
funded at $600,000 to provide access and facilities for
increased recreational fishing and improvements to aquatic
habitats on refuges through expanded partnerships (50 percent
cost share) with cooperating non-Federal agencies and
organizations.
Question. How much of the increase received in fiscal year
1998 for listing and recovery under the ESA has been used
specifically to support involvement of the Fisheries Program in
these activities? Will this situation continue in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. None of the increase received in fiscal year 1998
for listing and recovery under the ESA has been used to support
the Fisheries program. None of the increases requested in
fiscal year 1999 for listing and recovery will support the
Fisheries program.
The FWS was appropriated an increase of $190,000 in fiscal
year 1998 for the listing program, an increase of 4 percent.
This increase has been critical to help the FWS dig out of the
backlog created by litigation resulting from the fiscal year
1995-1996 listing moratorium and reduction of listing funding.
Listing is the mechanism through which plant and animal species
are afforded the full range of protections available under the
Endangered Species Act including: prohibitions on taking,
import/export and commerce, and possession of unlawfully taken
endangered species; recovery planning and implementation; and
Federal agency consultation requirements.
During fiscal year 1998, the listing appropriation of $5.2
million will be used to: propose approximately 70 species for
listing; add 100 species to the list; and process approximately
25 petition findings. The FWS will also reduce its outstanding
obligation under the settlement agreement in Fund for Animals
vs. Babbitt by resolving the conservation status of many high
priority candidate species through the issuance of proposed
listings or findings that proposed listing is not warranted.
The Department has requested a general increase of $1.7
million for the listing program in fiscal year 1999. None of
this funding will support the Fisheries program. The FWS
requires this increase in fiscal year 1999 to return to a more
balanced listing program and to complete overdue listing
actions that are prompting lawsuits, many the continuing result
of the listing moratorium and elimination of funding. During
1999, the FWS expects to add approximately 100 species to the
lists of endangered and threatened species, issue proposed
findings for approximately 100 species, and process petition
findings for 30 species. The Department has also requested an
increase of $0.4 million for the listing program to support the
Southwest Ecosystem Initiative; this is one component of a
package totaling $3.0 million which includes an increase of
$0.7 million for the Fisheries program.
The FWS was appropriated an increase of $2.8 million for
the recovery program for fiscal year 1998, or 7 percent. The
ultimate goal of threatened and endangered species conservation
is to recover listed species to levels where protection under
the Endangered Species Act is no longer required and they can
be removed from the list. During fiscal year 1998, the recovery
appropriation of $42.5 million will be used to develop some 25
Safe Harbor Agreements, complete draft and final recovery plans
for at least 50 species, and evaluate and propose for delisting
some 29 species.
The Department has requested a program increase of $10.5
million for the recovery program in fiscal year 1999. None of
this funding will be used to support the Fisheries program. The
FWS requires this increase in fiscal year 1999 to more
efficiently and effectively implement the Endangered Species
Act reforms to increase stakeholder involvement in both
recovery planning and implementation and by increasing recovery
actions by involving more private land owners through the Safe
Harbor program. In addition, the Department has also requested
an increase of $0.7 million for the Southwest Ecosystem
Initiative discussed above and an increase of $1.0 million for
a Platte River Recovery Implementation Program; both of these
increases are included in the recovery program.
The FWS Fisheries program supports the recovery of nearly
one third of 108 fish species listed under the ESA. Program
activities include stock assessment/identification, habitat
restoration, captive propagation, and refugia for at least 32
aquatic species listed under the ESA. These activities are
specified in approved recovery plans. Fisheries biologists also
serve as members of Recovery Teams for listed fish species.
This will continue in 1999.
The Department has requested increases for the Fisheries
program in fiscal year 1999 that directly support the recovery
of listed species. For example, an increase of $0.5 million
will support on-the-ground projects that restore and enhance
native trout habitats on Federal, state, and private lands
nationwide. Many of the target species are listed or under
consideration for listing. An increase of $0.7 million will
support the Southwest Ecosystem Initiative to reestablish
native vegetation, restore pool habitats, improve water quality
and quantity to support endangered fish species such as the
loach minnow, spidedace and Gila topminnow; the threatened
Apache Trout, endangered Gila trout and at-risk Rio Grande
cutthroat trout. An increase of $0.9 million will fund on-the-
ground fish passage in high migratory corridors for proposed
and listed species including the Atlantic Salmon and Pacific
Northwest anadromous species; this increase is tied to a
parallel increase in the project planning function for
additional FERC relicensing evaluations to support fish passage
solutions. The Department also notes that a modest amount of
base Endangered Species program funding ($10,000 to $20,000) is
made available to support specific fisheries projects.
hatchery operations
Question. How much of the increase received in fiscal year
1998 for recovering species listed under the ESA was allocated
to the National Fish Hatchery System to expand and improve
production of listed species? How much of this funding will the
System receive in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The National Fish Hatchery system has not received
any portion of the fiscal year 1998 increase for recovery under
the ESA and there are no plans to transfer recovery funding to
the fisheries program in fiscal year 1999. As discussed above,
the funding appropriated to the recovery program is used for
very specific purposes and is critically needed to recover
listed species to levels where protection under the Endangered
Species Act is no longer required and they can be removed from
the list.
However, the National Fish Hatchery System is working with
30 species listed under the ESA, representing over one quarter
of listed North American Fish species. There are currently 75
approved recovery plans, many of which specify developing
captive propagation and refugia technology at fish hatcheries.
There are 20 FWS hatcheries involved in these efforts, along
with the FWS's Fish Technology and Fish Health Centers, which
provide technology support to the hatcheries. Currently, 19 of
the listed species held within the Hatchery System are being
propagated for release into the wild. The fiscal year 1999
President's Budget requests an increase of $0.5 million, or 7
percent, to implement projects to reduce the backlog of
critical health and safety projects. In addition, the
President's Budget requests full pay and uncontrollable cost
increases for the hatchery program.
Question. How will the FWS's hatcheries, as well as State
and Tribal hatcheries, be affected by the proposal of the
Biological Resources Division of the Geological Survey to
terminate its drug and chemical registration research?
Answer. Of the twelve drugs and chemicals that have been
identified as essential to FWS Fisheries operations, only three
are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use
in aquaculture. BRD is performing the research, in cooperation
with states, necessary for approval of several of the drugs
that have been identified as essential to FWS Fisheries
programs. As part of this research effort, the FWS is using
these drugs under FDA authorized Investigational New Animal
Drug (INAD) exemptions to provide field efficacy data on use of
these non-approved drugs. This data is being provided as part
of the BRD drug approval research package.
Curtailment of research could decrease chances of interim
use of essential unapproved drugs during the annual process.
If the Biological Resources Division (BRD) terminates its
aquaculture drug and chemical approval research, it may be
difficult for FWS to obtain approval for drugs necessary for
fish production programs, including its endangered and
threatened fish production and refugia programs. Fish
production at most National Fish Hatcheries could be reduced,
including production at hatcheries involved in the restoration
of nationally significant fishes such as Atlantic and Pacific
salmon, striped bass, sturgeon species, and endangered and
threatened fish species. State, Tribal, and private producers
will be similarly affected.
Question. We understand the Fisheries Program is developing
a Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS) similar to the RONS
used by Refuges. How will the Fisheries Program use this
information and, assuming there is a compelling need to create
this System, why hasn't the FWS requested additional operating
funds for its hatcheries in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The FWS has documented the operating needs of the
National Wildlife Refuge system through the Refuge Operating
Needs system. The FWS has begun to use a similar tool called
the Fisheries Operational Needs System as a systematic method
for collecting data on unmet federal fishery resource needs.
The FWS plans to begin using the FONS to collect data on unmet
fishery resource needs by midsummer 1998.
Once the FONS is in place and unmet needs are identified
and prioritized, the FWS will use the FONS-generated data to
identify and support additional funding needs and requests for
internal budget formulation priority setting and for possible
documentation of fisheries increases if the FWS leadership
includes fisheries increases in future budget requests to the
Department. These operational needs would then be evaluated
against all the other priorities and all the other unmet needs
in the FWS, including the endangered species program, when the
Department formulates future budgets. This same evaluation will
then be conducted by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Department did not request additional operating funding
for the National Fish Hatchery system in 1998 for several
reasons, primarily:
The Department placed a higher priority on the need to more
efficiently and effectively implement the Endangered Species
Act and on the needs of the National Wildlife Refuge system.
In regards to fisheries restoration, the Department placed
a higher priority on on-the-ground habitat restoration
activities. The fisheries specific restoration increases
included in the FWS budget are for native trout restoration,
fish passage, FERC relicensing, etc. Other FWS increases for
fiscal year 1999 directly support the restoration of fisheries
resources, notably the FWS component of the Administration's
``Clean Water and Watershed Restoration'' initiative. This
includes a $2.5 million increase for riparian habitat
restoration projects in the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program and an increase of $3.0 million in the North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund.
Question. The National Wildlife Refuge System received
substantial increases for its operational needs in fiscal year
1998. How is the National Fish Hatchery System addressing these
same kinds of needs in the absence of any substantial increases
in appropriations?
Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge system received
substantial increases for its operational needs in fiscal year
1998 because there was a national consensus that the refuge
system was broken and needed fixing. Both the Administration
and the Congress recognized this by working together to pass
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and
to secure additional operations and maintenance funding.
The National Fish Hatchery system has not received major
funding increases in recent years (nor, for that matter, have
the majority of the programs in the FWS or the Department).
Given ongoing budgetary pressures, the hatchery system worked
during fiscal year 1996 and 1997 to align fish production with
Federal priorities and transferred to the respective states six
National Fish Hatcheries that primarily produced fish in
support of state programs. By the end of 1998, the production
of the remaining 65 NFHs will be aligned with Federal
responsibilities. Savings realized by the transfer of these
hatcheries totaling $1.1 million were left in the hatchery
program to provide some operational relief.
The savings from hatchery transfers has been reinvested
into the fisheries program in an effort to restore the FWS's
ability to meet high priority Federal responsibilities. Had the
FWS not done this, the Fisheries Program would have continued
to fall substantially short of fulfilling its core
responsibilities.
The Department has requested full funding for pay and other
uncontrollable costs for the hatchery system for both 1998 and
1999; this funding was appropriated in 1998 and is pending for
1999.
The National Fish Hatchery system is currently addressing
its operational needs by ensuring that its various warm, cool,
and cold-water Hatcheries, Fish Health Centers, and Fish
Technology Centers are fully integrated and are aligned with
Federal responsibilities and priorities. This is now being
accomplished by a Three A's survey (alignment, appropriate,
adequate) of its 80 facilities.
The Fisheries program is also nearing completion of its
Fisheries Operating Needs System to identify the most critical
operational needs for Fisheries facilities, with quantified
benefits identified at the outset. Data entry is planned to
begin this summer. This tool will help in future priority
setting within the FWS and the Department.
Question. How many positions are vacant in the National
Fish Hatchery System because of insufficient funding? Identify
them by job series and location, and explain how those
vacancies have affected the operation and performance of the
System?
Answer. There are no vacancies in the hatchery system
because of insufficient funding. Vacancies that do exist are
because of the priority placed on the needs of the Endangered
Species program, the National Wildlife Refuge system, and on-
the-ground fisheries restoration projects. The hatchery system
is able to meet its highest priority mission needs with the
funding included in the President's budget.
fish health program
Question. Provide a detailed accounting of how the FWS is
spending the $1.8 million it received for whirling disease in
fiscal year 1998, and identify specific progress made in
combating this disease.
Answer. The funds received for fish health in fiscal year
1998 are being spent as follows:
--$300,000 to the USGS Biological Research Division and the
University of California-Davis to improve detection techniques
and conduct strain susceptibility studies;
--$100,000 to support cooperative studies at the FWS Bozeman
Fisheries Technology Center focusing on whirling disease
control;
--$700,000 to support the activities of the National Partnership for
the Management of Wild and Native Cold Water Fishes housed at
Montana State University;
--$600,000 to support the National Wild Fish Health Survey operated
by the FWS nationwide; and
--$100,000 to support the compilation and maintenance of an Internet
accessible National Fish Health Database.
While the effects of whirling disease are both significant
and widespread, multi-agency resources are being rallied to
eradicate and control it. The scientific community and fishery
resource agencies have made impressive strides in their efforts
to combat whirling disease, but lack the means to easily
control the disease. For example, with the $300,000 allotment,
the Biological Resources Division and its partners developed a
new, more precise detection technique to assist in identifying
the distribution of the disease. The method is also used as a
research tool. A significant portion of the $1.8 million
allocation is devoted specifically to whirling disease projects
with another portion addressing the larger issues of pathogens
and parasites in wild populations.
The National Wild Fish Health Survey was initiated in
response to our lack of information about diseases and
pathogens in wild fish. This was glaringly apparent in the
whirling disease crisis seen in the intermountain west. The
National Wild Fish Health Survey, while begun only last year,
has proven remarkably successful. State and Tribal fishery
management agencies have applauded the FWS's leadership in
stepping forward and establishing the Survey as a critical link
necessary for effective management of wild stocks. Last year,
over 5,000 fish were sampled from over 190 sites on Federal,
State, Tribal, and private lands across the country. This was
accomplished by forming collaborative partnerships with more
than 72 different groups, through which States, Tribes, and
private groups participated in determining sampling sites and
providing resources for fish collections. The FWS has requested
an increase of $200,000, or 33 percent, for this survey for
fiscal year 1999.
Question. Why hasn't the FWS requested additional funding
so its fish health capabilities can be brought to bear on the
Pfiesteria problems in Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina?
Answer. The lead for Pfiesteria activities in DOI resides
with the Biological Resources Division of the United States
Geological Survey.
The FWS has been and will be contributing significantly to
the management of this particular fish health problem by
supporting other DOI and state Pfiesteria activities. For
example, the devastating whirling disease crisis of the
intermountain west prompted the FWS to initiate a National Wild
Fish Health Survey in 1997. The Survey has the potential to
help fishery management agencies understand and control a
number of diseases afflicting wild fish stocks, including
Pfiesteria. The FWS has requested an increase of $200,000 for
the Wild Fish Health Survey in 1999.
Question. The FWS budget request suggests the FWS is not
interested in providing the same kind of aggressive leadership
in combating Pfiesteria as it has in addressing whirling
disease. Why?
Answer. The Department is actively involved in the overall
effort. Because of the nature of the disease (its affect on
humans as well as wildlife, and ties to agricultural practices)
the Pfiesteria effort is managed collectively by several
federal agencies. The DOI lead rests with our science agency,
the United States Geological Survey. The FWS is an active DOI
cooperator and had had critical input into DOI plans and budget
initiatives.
fish technology program
Question. Why does the FWS need three Fish Technology
Centers in the Southwest United States? What actions would be
required to place the former San Marcos National Fish Hatchery
and Technology Center in caretaker status as a unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge System?
Answer. The FWS presently has two Fish Technology Centers
in Region 2, the Southwest Region, which consists of the States
of Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. San Marcos is a
warm-water Fish Technology Center located in central Texas. The
Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center has two units in New
Mexico: Dexter, a cool-water facility in southern New Mexico
and Mora, a cold-water unit in northern New Mexico.
The Southwestern Region encompasses a diverse and broad,
expansive area that contains at least eight dynamic ecosystems.
Aquatic habitats range from warm to cool and cold-water.
Terrestrial habitats range from arid deserts to moist Rocky
Mountains, with many stages in between. Additionally, many of
the ecosystems in the Southwest are extremely altered by
perturbations ranging from construction of dams on the Colorado
River to agriculture and urbanization in Texas and Oklahoma.
Also, the Southwest Region has a very large number of
threatened and endangered species and the FWS recognized early
on that progressive recovery efforts and water conservation
development would require additional facilities.
In the early 1990's the FWS had only San Marcos FTC and
Dexter FTC. Realizing the need for water conservation and
related technology development, the FWS developed a plan to
construct Mora FTC, which has been fully funded and almost
completed. The Dexter, San Marcos, and Mora Units were planned
to be combined under one administrative unit, the Southwestern
Fisheries Technology Center. At about the same time, the
Biological Resources Division assumed operational
responsibility for the San Marcos facility. The Dexter and Mora
FTCs were combined into the Southwestern Fisheries Technology
Center. The FWS and the Biological Resources Division have
subsequently entered into an agreement whereby the FWS will
resume the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
the San Marcos FTC facility.
Placing San Marcos into caretaker status as a unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge System would diminish the abilities of
the FWS to use the facility for resource conservation,
restoration, and recovery. Historically, San Marcos has made an
important contribution to the FWS Fish Technology Development
program. In addition, San Marcos has a court ordered mandate of
being a refugium for endangered species of central Texas and
conducting technology development studies.
hatchery maintenance
Question. Is the maintenance situation on National Fish
Hatcheries, in general, more urgent than that on National
Wildlife Refuges? Compare the capitalized values of both
systems to their maintenance backlogs and maintenance
appropriations.
Answer. By several standards, most National Fish Hatchery
and National Wildlife Refuge facilities (as well as National
Park units and facilities managed by the BLM) are in need of
additional funds for their maintenance needs. While industry
standards call for funding maintenance at 2 percent to 4
percent of the replacement value of facilities, over the last
decade Hatcheries and Refuges have received only about 1
percent of the replacement value of their facilities for their
maintenance needs. As a result, the lists of deferred
maintenance projects in both Hatcheries and Refuges have grown
substantially.
Using a Facility Condition Index (FCI), which is the cost
of deferred maintenance projects as a fraction of the total
capitalized value of a facility, the average facility in both
the Hatchery and the Refuge system must be characterized as
being in poor condition. Facilities are judged to be in good
condition if their FCI is 0 to 5 percent, in fair condition at
5 to 10 percent, and in poor condition if over 10 percent With
a fiscal year 1998 backlog of $599 million and a capitalized
value of approximately $4.5 billion, the National Wildlife
Refuge System has an aggregate FCI of about 13 percent. The
National Fish Hatchery System, with a re-estimated $151 million
backlog and a capitalized value of approximately $800 million,
has an aggregate FCI of about 19 percent. Given this overall
situation, the Department has proposed a 5-year plan to
systematically address the maintenance backlogs in the three
land management agencies. This includes the FWS refuge and
hatchery systems, and is discussed in detail below.
Question. The National Wildlife Refuge System received
substantial increases for maintenance in fiscal year 1998 to
attend to unmet needs. How is the National Fish Hatchery System
addressing those same kinds of needs in the absence of
substantial increases in appropriations?
Answer. The National Fish Hatchery System is currently
provided $6.9 million annually for maintenance needs. The
Department has requested an increase of $0.5 million, or about
7 percent, for the highest priority critical health and safety
and natural resource maintenance backlog needs in the fiscal
year 1999 budget. The Department will evaluate the needs of the
hatchery system against other priorities during the fiscal year
2000 budget formulation process.
Question. Why is the Fish and Wildlife Service spending so
much more on maintaining its refuges than its hatcheries at a
time when the FWS's own data indicate that its hatcheries are
in far worse shape physically than its refuges? Aren't the
operating needs of refuges also getting much more attention
than those of hatcheries? Why?
Answer. The maintenance funding levels for both the
National Fish Hatchery System and the National Wildlife Refuge
System are both under 1 percent of the capitalized value of the
facilities in each System. The FWS is cooperating with the
Department in the development of standardized definitions and
consistent criteria for tracking and evaluating the maintenance
needs of all its facilities. The FWS is confident that these
efforts will help identify critical FWS maintenance needs.
Regarding the operating needs of Refuges and Hatcheries,
both Systems are struggling to use their finite financial
resources effectively in managing natural resources under their
stewardship.
The operating needs of the refuge system have been treated
as a higher priority by the Administration and by the Congress
because there was a national consensus that the refuge system
was broken and needed fixing. Both the Administration and the
Congress recognized this by working together to pass the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and to
secure additional operations and maintenance funding. This
priority is also reflected in the fiscal year 1999 President's
budget request.
Question. We understand that the most recent estimate of
the hatchery maintenance backlog is $151 million, and that
hatcheries as a whole are in far worse shape physically than
refuges. Why then is the Fish and Wildlife Service claiming
that the hatchery maintenance backlog is only $115 million, and
more important, why isn't the FWS requesting increases for
critical hatchery maintenance rather than refuge maintenance
that isn't in as bad shape?
Answer. As discussed previously, the National Wildlife
Refuge system received substantial increases for its
operational and maintenance needs in fiscal year 1998 because
there was a national consensus that the refuge system was
broken and needed fixing. Both the Administration and the
Congress recognized this by working together to pass the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and to
secure additional operations and maintenance funding. This
priority is also reflected in the fiscal year 1999 President's
budget request.
Both the refuge system and the hatchery system--as well as
the Park system and the public lands--face maintenance backlogs
beyond current funding levels. However, the Department is not
engaged in a ``dueling'' match among the various backlog needs.
As in any budget, priorities are set within the Administration.
For fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the Department has
considered the needs of the refuge system as a priority.
For fisheries programs, the Department has focused on
habitat restoration and on-the-ground activities as a priority,
which are not funded through the hatchery system.
The President's Budget was submitted to the Congress in
February 1998, and at that point in time the estimated hatchery
backlog was $115 million. In the months following the release
of the President's Budget, and as part of the follow-on effort
to formulate the fiscal year 2000 budget and five-year plan
Departmentwide, the hatchery system has estimated a new backlog
inventory of $151 million. The other programs in the Department
have also reestimated their identified backlogs during this
time frame.
The President's Budget includes $7.4 million for hatchery
maintenance, an increase of $500,000 over the fiscal year 1998
enacted level.
Question. We understand that refuges received $10 million
in additional maintenance appropriations under Title V in
fiscal year 1998, while hatcheries received no additional
maintenance funding. Given that the current hatchery
maintenance backlog exceeds $150 million and involves more than
1,700 projects, why didn't hatcheries receive some of the $10
million available under Title V?
Answer. Faced with burgeoning backlogs in all three land
management agencies, the Department prioritized bureau critical
health and safety projects as priorities for the fiscal year
1999 budget and the use of the fiscal year 1998 Title V
Funding. The Department's limited construction, maintenance and
Title V funding was targeted to this inventory. This
combination of 1999 construction and maintenance funding and
1998 Title V funding will eliminate 98 percent of the inventory
of FWS critical health and safety projects.
The Department decided to focus on critical health and
safety projects first to ensure safe visits for the visitors to
the national parks, refuges, fish hatcheries, and public lands,
and to make sure that the 45,000 Department employees who daily
work at BLM, FWS, and NPS facilities have safe working
environments.
For the hatchery program, the $7.4 million requested for
hatchery maintenance will fund all critical health and safety
maintenance projects and the first increment of natural
resource projects. The $7.7 million requested for hatchery
rehabilitation and construction will fund the three critical
health and safety projects that require construction funding as
well as natural resource projects. Combined, these requests
address the critical health and safety projects at hatchery
facilities that had been identified in the most recent listing
of MMS projects.
For the refuge system, the $46.6 million requested for
refuge maintenance will fund all critical health and safety
maintenance projects as well as the first increment of natural
resource projects. The $10 million in Title V funding and the
$12.5 million for refuge construction projects will fund all
but two construction projects identified in the backlog of
critical health and safety projects.
The Department plans to aggressively address the remaining
backlogs in the FWS and the rest of the Department through a
five-year plan which will be first addressed in the fiscal year
2000 budget. The three land management bureaus are currently
working closely with the Department on this process.
Question. President Clinton's Executive Order on
Recreational Fisheries challenges all Federal agencies to do
more to conserve and restore fishery habitat and promote
recreational fisheries. How can the Fish and Wildlife Service
meet this challenge when its Fisheries Program continues to
have a much smaller budget than the Refuges and Ecological
Services Programs, whose budgets have increased dramatically in
recent years?
Answer. Every year the Department has to prioritize its
limited funding to meet national level policy goals. For the
FWS, these priorities have been, and will more than likely
continue to be, centered on the effective and efficient
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. That said, over
the last five years, the Department has implemented three large
scale watershed restoration efforts using new methods,
partnerships, and renewed public participation which directly
restore fisheries habitat and promote recreational fisheries.
The 1999 budget continues implementation of the California-
Bay Delta Ecosystem Restoration program--which directly
benefits anadromous fisheries resources--with a request of
$143.3 million, an increase of $58.3 million over the 1998
enacted level. Central to this effort is significant funding
for fish screen improvements ($19 million); improved instream
flows ($20 million); and fish passage improvements ($3 million)
and fisheries hatchery support $3 million); as well as
significant funding of river channel changes ($58 million) and
habitat restoration ($27 million).
The Everglades watershed restoration effort continues in
1999 with a request of $144 million to reverse manmade changes
to waterflows which have had deleterious effects on native
flora and fauna and fisheries resources. And, the Department
continues to support the President's Forest Plan with a request
of $68 million to allow for sustainable timber production on
Federal lands while fully protecting and restoring critical
wildlife and fisheries resources. In fact, much of the focus on
the Forest Plan has shifted to aquatic conservation efforts for
anadromous fisheries, and the BLM Jobs in the Woods program is
being directed at coastal coho habitat projects.
Within the FWS budget, the fisheries program has a smaller
budget than the Refuges and Ecological programs because it is
less costly to conduct. The National Wildlife Refuge system
manages over 93 million acres on 514 refuges, 38 wetland
management districts, and 50 coordination areas; as discussed
previously, recreational programs on the refuge system have
been targeted for increased funding. The Fisheries program, by
contrast, manages a system of 65 National Fish Hatcheries, 64
Fish and Wildlife Assistance Offices, 9 Fish Health Centers,
and 6 Fish Technology Centers, with much less land and
property. Ecological Service requires much higher staffing
levels, with the correspondingly higher personnel costs,
particularly in the Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation
programs.
Several FWS programs contribute to the Executive Order on
Recreational Fisheries. Since 1994, the FWS Fisheries program
has redirected nearly $6 million toward its highest priority
programs, many of which support recreational fisheries. These
funds were made available by transferring several National Fish
Hatcheries to States, recovering mitigation costs from project
beneficiaries where feasible, completing portions of major
programs such as restoration of Atlantic coast striped bass,
and internal management decisions. The funds are being used to
improve restoration and recovery programs for recreational
salmon, migratory striped bass other than the Atlantic coast
population, lake trout, and shad, and mitigation programs using
inland trout.
Some of the fiscal year 1998 budget increases that were
appropriated to the Refuges and Wildlife program and to the
Ecological FWS program support recreational fisheries.
Approximately $1 million of the Refuges and Wildlife increase
and $540,000 in Refuge MMS projects contribute to improving
recreational fishing on refuges. The increase of $750,000 for
Ecological Services to improve passage of fish beyond FERC
licensed dams will increase both the number and range of fish
available to recreational anglers.
In 1999, among other increases in the fisheries program, an
additional $900,000 is requested to improve fish passage in
high migratory corridors for important recreational species
including shad and stripped bass; an additional $900,000 will
support additional FERC relicensing; an additional $500,000
will support native trout reintroduction efforts; an additional
$700,000 will support fisheries reintroductions in the
Southwest; an additional $200,000 will support the Wild Fish
Health Survey; and an additional $1.0 million will support
increased aquatic nuisance species control efforts to in part
protect recreational fisheries values. In addition, the FWS
will participate in the Administration's Clean Water and
Watershed Restoration Initiative with an increase of $5.5
million to restore riparian habitat through the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program and the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund.
Question. On the basis of the budget increases requested
for the Refuges and Endangered Species Programs in the Fish and
Wildlife Service budget for fiscal year 1999, what reason would
Americans have for believing the FWS is prepared to put ``the
fish'' back into the Fish and Wildlife Service?
Answer. The Department would argue that not only has this
Administration put the ``fish'' back into the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Administration has revolutionized the stewardship
of aquatic landscapes: the rivers, lakes and wetlands that link
and nourish the watersheds we inhabit.
As discussed above, the Department's first priority was to
restore the Everglades ecosystem by reconnecting the hydrologic
arteries by bringing all the Federal agencies together behind a
common restoration plan. This effort continues today.
The watershed restoration of California joined together
state agencies, irrigation districts, farmers,
environmentalists, and fishermen to negotiate a restoration
framework--known as the Bay Delta Accord. Coordinating efforts,
the legislature in Sacramento placed a restoration bond issue--
almost one billion dollars--on the ballot in 1996. Armed with
such strong public support, the Department went to the Congress
which in 1997 provided matching funds. The result was, again, a
massive restoration program to bring California rivers and
wetlands back to life by dedicating water to restore and
maintain stream flows, re-watering wildlife refuges, moving
levees back so that rivers can flow free across their natural
floodplain, and screening irrigation canals to protect
migrating fish.
In the Pacific Northwest the Department has aggressively
participated in the President's Forest Plan to replenish trout,
coho, chinook and sockeye salmon by looking past the water's
edge to create large connective forested buffers along banks of
streams and tributaries in 14 million acres. The Department is
also negotiating large scale multi-species Habitat Conservation
Plans with nonfederal landowners towards the same purpose.
In the Sierra, Rockies, and Appalachians the Department is
replenishing native aquatic species in a quarter of a million
miles of streams by matching federal funds and land management
experts with local private and nonprofit projects to restore
the damaged mountains which bleed into them.
On western rangelands, the Department is working to bring
back rare native trout in cooperative range partnerships to
modify livestock grazing rotations, build riparian fences, and
replant willows and aspen.
The Department has also evaluated the systemic costs of
building more than 75,000 dams in this country in this century
alone with the concurrent destruction of salmon runs in New
England and the West and the crashing shad and herring runs of
the Susquehanna, for example. For these reasons it is
appropriate to think of dams as having a ledger with both
benefits and environmental costs. And as part of watershed
restoration efforts it is always appropriate to ask whether a
given dam can be operated in a more river friendly mode.
The Grand Canyon is one place where we have asked that
question and answered in the affirmative. The Bureau of
Reclamation opened the gates and sent a huge surge of water, an
artificial flood, crashing down through the Colorado River. The
idea behind that was to mimic the natural spring flooding of
the pre-dam river so as to stir sediment up and rebuild eroded
beach habitat downstream in the Grand Canyon.
In 1992 Congress authorized a study of the removal of two
small 70-year-old dams at the mouth of the Elwha River. These
dams blocked salmon runs of 300,000 from spawning up 70 miles
into the heart of Olympic National Park. The Park Service,
after careful study, has concluded that, forgoing a small
amount of energy in an area where electric power is now in
surplus, would be a small price to pay for restoring one of the
great wild salmon runs.
And, the Department has moved to engage the hydro-power
industry in developing fish passage solutions through the FERC
relicensing process and the implementation of on-the-ground
fish passage projects.
The Department has requested increases for all of these
programs in the fiscal year 1999 budget or held funding
constant from 1998, and stands by its demonstrated commitment
to the American public to protect and restore the nation's
fisheries resources.
Question. We understand the Fish and Wildlife Service is
undertaking a critical ``Three A's'' evaluation of its
hatcheries to more accurately document their operating needs,
which preliminary estimates place as high as $50 million. Given
the magnitude of those needs and the questions surrounding
hatcheries, why hasn't the FWS requested more funds in fiscal
year 1999 to ensure its hatchery programs are based on the best
possible science available?
Answer. The FWS has initiated a ``Three A's'' evaluation
(alignment, appropriate, adequate) of all production programs
in the National Fish Hatchery (NFH) System. The evaluation will
be used in ensuring that production programs conducted by the
FWS are aligned with one or more of the Fisheries program
priorities; are appropriate for meeting the desired fishery
management objective; and are supported by adequate facilities,
equipment, and personnel.
The ``Three A's'' evaluation program will assess if each
production program has been preceded by analyses indicating
whether it is the appropriate management tool for achieving the
stated fishery management objective. A key element of the
assessment will determine whether a program will cause unwanted
ecological harm. It will also assess if production programs
have adequate support in planning, implementation, and
evaluation for the present and the future. By the end of fiscal
year 1998 production programs at all 65 facilities will be
aligned with the FWS Fisheries Program Priorities and all
production programs initially will have been evaluated for
appropriateness and adequacy.
The results of the ``Three A's'' evaluation will be
integrated into the existing Fisheries Information System (FIS)
during fiscal year 1999 to enhance and complement ongoing
efforts to ensure that the NFH System fulfills federal fishery
responsibilities. Completion of the 3A's process in fiscal year
1999 will provide the FWS with the tools and capabilities to
identify potential budget needs for the NFH System in a more
reliable manner.
Question. What involvement does Fish Hatcheries have in the
restoration and recovery of imperiled sea-run fish species,
most notably Atlantic and Pacific salmon and several sturgeon
species?
Answer. The National Fish Hatchery system contributes to
the restoration and recovery of at least 12 imperiled
anadromous species (3 endangered, 3 threatened, 2 proposed, 4
state-protected). For some of these species, such as the
endangered shortnose sturgeon and threatened Gulf sturgeon,
fish hatcheries and technology centers are developing
techniques for holding and spawning. These hatchery tools are
being developed for use in conjunction with habitat restoration
to recover listed populations. Hatcheries are also producing
several listed anadromous species for release into the wild, as
called for in recovery plans, including the Snake River and
Sacramento River strains of sockeye salmon.
Restoring imperiled populations of anadromous fish not yet
listed under the Endangered Species Act is critical to
precluding further listings and is an important aspect of the
FWS's Fisheries Program. The FWS works closely with the states,
tribal governments, and other federal agencies to evaluate and
restore habitat, and to produce captively propagated fish to
assist in restoring wild populations and prevent these species
from being listed. Atlantic salmon restoration in New England
and chum salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest are
examples of this effort. Other imperiled species, such as the
Atlantic sturgeon, have been produced by FWS hatcheries for
experimental release into the wild in cooperation with the
States of Maryland and New York.
Question. What is the FWS doing to recover sturgeon? Is
there cost sharing with the Endangered Species Program for
these activities? How much of the increase received in fiscal
year 1998 for listing and recovery under the ESA has been used
specifically to support involvement of the Fisheries Program in
these activities? Will this situation continue in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The Fisheries Program is working on projects to
benefit sturgeon populations in the Pacific Northwest, the
Mississippi and Missouri River basins, the Gulf of Mexico, and
Atlantic coast. There is no need for cost sharing between the
FWS's Fisheries and Endangered Species Programs for sturgeon
recovery. The sturgeon programs are funded at an adequate level
within the Fisheries program appropriations.
FWS Fishery Resources Offices work with state, tribal, and
other federal agencies on coordinated recovery actions and
management plans for the recovery and restoration of 8 of the
10 North American sturgeon species and sub-species. FWS fishery
biologists assess fish passage and habitat needs of imperiled
and listed sturgeon species, monitor population size and
distribution, and identify stocks and critical spawning and
feeding habitat.
The National Fish Hatchery System is working with 3 of the
5 species of sturgeon listed under the ESA (the pallid, the
shortnose, and the Gulf sturgeon), developing captive
propagation and holding techniques as specified in approved
recovery plans. In fiscal year 1998, the Gavins Point National
Fish Hatchery in South Dakota will introduce captively-reared
pallid sturgeon into restored habitat in the Missouri River in
Montana, representing an important step in the recovery of this
species. The FWS's Warm Springs Fish Technology Center in
Georgia has made similar progress in developing captive
propagation techniques for the shortnose and gulf sturgeon, and
stands ready, along with the Bears Bluff National Fish Hatchery
in South Carolina, to produce these species when habitat
conditions become favorable. Several fish hatcheries are also
working with four non-listed sturgeon, to help preclude further
ESA listings. The FWS has also worked with the states of
Maryland and New York in an experimental program to release
FWS-produced Atlantic sturgeon, an imperiled species, into the
wild.
The FWS is also participating in international efforts to
protect wild populations of sturgeon. The FWS's Division of Law
Enforcement monitors shipments of caviar to ensure that they
are accompanied by valid import and export permits as issued
under the rules of the Convention on the International Trade of
Endangered Species (CITES). The type of caviar in the shipment
must be from the same species listed on the permit. If not, it
can be seized. The FWS's Forensics Laboratory is also
participating in this effort, and has developed a method of DNA
analysis which can be used to identify the species of sturgeon
which produced the caviar being shipped. The FWS plans to share
the DNA analysis techniques to other countries to assist them
in their efforts to recover declining sturgeon populations.
Question. What is the FWS doing to restore other coastal
fisheries and which of those actions are unique to the Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Answer. The FWS Fishery Program has responsibility for
management of interjurisdictional migratory species such as
American shad, herring species, Atlantic salmon, Pacific
salmon, and striped bass. Legislation such as the Atlantic
Striped Bass, Anadromous Fish Conservation, Great Lakes Fish
and Wildlife Restoration, Chehalis River Basin, Water Resources
Development, and Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Acts direct the FWS to protect, conserve, and
enhance coastal fisheries, including habitat. The Fisheries
program assesses fish populations, evaluates and identifies
quantity and quality of critical habitats for different life
stages of our trust species, develops techniques to propagate
imperiled species, and propagates fish for stock
supplementation and evaluation of wild fish stocks.
The FWS plays a variety of roles critical to the
restoration of fisheries, often working in coordination with
other fisheries entities and strengthening overall efforts on
common goals of protecting, enhancing, and restoring our
nation's fishery resources. Aspects which set the FWS apart
from other agencies include:
(1) A fiscal year 1999 proposed fish passage initiative of
$0.9 million which benefits priority coastal species by opening
access and improving spawning and nursery habitats for
anadromous species;
(2) Mass marking of salmon and other species where data
obtained from these Cooperative Tagging and Regional Mark
Center programs is used to determine status of important
economic fisheries on both the eastern and western coasts;
(3) Genetic evaluations performed on hatchery fish help
ensure that wild stock recovery is supported;
(4) The National Fish Hatchery facilities produce fish for
recovery of listed stocks and restoration of depleted
interjurisdictional fisheries;
(5) Administration of the Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan and its associated hatcheries;
(6) The Fisheries and Ecological Services programs provide
a unique expertise in assessing the impacts of land use
activities on aquatic health, within the watershed recovery
framework. For example, the FWS has employees devoted full time
as river coordinators who often act as catalysts to bring
multi-user groups together to achieve common goals; and
(7) FWS employees are instrumental in writing Atlantic
State Marine Fisheries Commission plans where they provide
anadromous fisheries leadership regarding management and
habitat.
Question. There is a name change in the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program (formerly Partners for Wildlife). Does
this mean we can expect more fisheries related projects? Will
this program now include some fisheries oversight?
Answer. The name change does not change the basic program
tenets, priorities, or direction, but rather reflects an
enhanced relationship between the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program in aquatic
restoration. It is intended to better reflect the program's
accomplishments in the fisheries and aquatic resources arena
and to emphasize the FWS watershed/ecosystem approach to
restoration. Fisheries and aquatic habitat restoration projects
have been and will continue to be an important part of the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. The FWS intends to
increase the involvement of the Fisheries Program biologists
and hydrogeomorphologists to expand instream habitat
restoration capabilities and efforts. Improved coordination and
technical information exchange in the field will result in
additional opportunities and partnerships to restore aquatic
habitats beneficial to Federal trust fishery resources.
executive order on recreational fisheries
Question. What was the outcome of the fiscal year 1997
stakeholder meetings?
Answer. At the Stakeholder Meetings held across the country
in 1996-1997, about 100 Fish and Wildlife Service employees met
with more than 430 non-FWS fishery stakeholders. Non-FWS
attendees included nearly 140 State representatives (including
many heads of State fishery agencies), more than 90
conservation group representatives, more than 40 business
people, about 30 representatives each from Tribes and other
Federal agencies, and several members of the media. The
purposes of the Stakeholder Meetings were to define the FWS
roles and responsibilities for fishery resources; to establish
priorities for the FWS Fisheries Program; to set goals and
objectives in FWS Regions; and to develop cooperative
approaches to accomplishing these goals.
Based on information from the stakeholder meetings and
considering authorizing legislation, the FWS identified seven
roles and responsibilities for fishery resources.
FWS roles and responsibilities for fishery resources:
--Restoring depleted nationally significant fishery resources;
--Fulfilling mitigation obligations;
--Managing and helping manage fishery resources on FWS and Tribal
lands;
--Providing technical support and research;
--Continuing to administer the Federal Aid in Sport Fisheries
Restoration program;
--Providing aquatic education and outreach; and
--Enforcing Federal fishery laws.
Within the seven roles and responsibilities, the FWS identified six
priorities for the Fisheries Program:
Priorities for the Fish and Wildlife FWS Fisheries Program:
--Recovery of listed and candidate aquatic species;
--Restoration of interjurisdictional fisheries and aquatic
ecosystems;
--Management of interjurisdictional fisheries;
--Fulfilling mitigation obligations;
--Restoring depleted aquatic populations to preclude listing; and
--Providing fish and wildlife management assistance to Tribes and on
Fish and Wildlife Service lands.
The relative importance of the six priorities in different
parts of the country was considered in setting goals and
objectives in each FWS Region.
Question. Has the FWS implemented any of the stakeholders
priorities?
Answer. The FWS considered the Roles and Responsibilities
for Fishery Resources and the Fisheries Priorities in
developing the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Based on this input, the FWS has requested an additional
$500,000 to improve critical health, safety, natural resource,
and cultural resource protection projects throughout its
National Fish Hatchery System; an additional $900,000 to
improve the passage of salmon, trout, shad, and herring beyond
dams and other barriers to migration; an additional $500,000 to
restore and enhance declining populations of native trout; an
additional $200,000 to identify threats to the health of
valuable wild fish stocks; and an additional $700,000 to
protect fish and their habitats in the Southwest.
Question. How do the current fishery Roundtable Meetings
differ from the stakeholder meetings that were held last year?
Answer. The Stakeholder Meetings held in 1996-1997 were the
beginning of sustained communications with recreational
fisheries stakeholders. The Stakeholder Meetings were hosted by
the Fish and Wildlife Service and organized by FWS Region. The
purposes of the Stakeholder Meetings were to define the FWS
roles and responsibilities for fishery resources; to establish
priorities for the FWS Fisheries Program; to set goals and
objectives in FWS Regions; and to develop cooperative
approaches to accomplishing these goals.
The Recreational Fishery Roundtable Meetings build on the
Stakeholder Meetings by developing cooperative approaches to
accomplishing the goals established in 1996-1997. The
Roundtables are hosted cooperatively by States and Federal
agency members of the National Recreational Fisheries
Coordination Council established under Executive Order 12962:
Recreational Fisheries. The Roundtables are organized by
State or watershed. The purpose of the Roundtables is to
improve recreational fishery resources on the ground through
identification and commitment of resources for specific
projects. To achieve near-term results, participants are asked
to use managerial latitude to redirect existing capabilities to
cooperative projects and to provide a focal point for partners
(e.g., local groups with challenge grant money) looking to
commit existing funds. A secondary mechanism is aimed at mid-
term results: identify opportunities that require changes to
policies or additional resources.
endangered species
Question. Why the need for more money in Habitat
Conservation Planning? Does Habitat and Conservation Planning
contribute to the recovery of or the long term conservation of
species? Can you provide some examples?
Answer. The Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) program has
grown rapidly in recent years. During 1983-1992, only 14
incidental take permits were issued under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Over the past five years, 216 incidental
take permits had been issued. By the end of 1998, HCPs are
projected to cover some 7.3 million acres. The FWS anticipates
more than 400 new and ongoing HCP consultations by the end of
fiscal year 1999, covering some 9.2 million acres.. In just a
few years, the HCP process has been transformed to one of the
most important and innovative conservation programs under ESA.
Additionally, HCP development has become a collaborative
process between applicants and the agency with the FWS
providing technical assistance to the applicants. Funding is
critically required to meet this explosive growth in demand
from private landowners.
An HCP may contribute to species recovery by providing
conservation measures for unlisted species that would otherwise
not be protected. The FWS reviews an incidental take permit
application and the associated HCP to determine if the taking
will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery of the species in the wild. Thus, recovery is often an
integral product of an HCP but it is not an explicit statutory
requirement.
Desert Tortoise HCPs, for example, use the guidelines in
the recovery plan to direct mitigation of recovery tasks such
as habitat acquisition and habitat management/enhancement.
Also, large scale HCPs under California's Natural Community
Conservation Planning program collectively cover virtually the
entire range of the coastal California gnatcatcher and provide
recovery actions for that species. Additionally, red-cockaded
woodpecker safe harbor agreements provide incentives to
maintain and enhance its populations which augment recovery
efforts, particularly those populations on federal lands.
Question. What is the Department/FWS doing to respond to
the need to expedite consultation in areas like the Southwest
where potential conflicts may impact timber and grazing
interests?
Answer. The FWS has done, and is undertaking, many actions
to expedite consultations that may impact resource uses, like
timber harvesting and grazing, while ensuring that threatened
and endangered species are not jeopardized. In the Southwest,
for example, the FWS recognized that a backlog of consultations
in one of the field offices that were not being processed in a
timely manner because of the sheer workload and insufficient
personnel. The FWS formed a team of consultation experts drawn
from offices throughout the nation to eliminate most of the
backlog in six weeks. Consequently, in fiscal year 1998, the
Director provided additional endangered species funding so that
field offices could hire needed consultation biologists.
The Department has also recognized the critical need for
timely resolution of many issues surrounding resource use and
conservation in the Southwest. The President's fiscal year 1999
budget includes a $3 million increase for the endangered
species programs in the Southwest to increase the FWS capacity
to work with other agencies to solve consultation issues and to
conserve species before they decline to the point of needing
the Endangered Species Act's protection. The increased funding
will hasten the recovery of listed species and remove the need
for federal agencies to consult on projects they permit, fund,
or carry out.
In October 1997, Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman, and
Under-Secretary Underwood, initiated the Southwest Strategy.
The purpose of this strategy is to first, bring all federal
agencies together to craft a better way of doing business when
dealing with natural resource issues in the Southwest; and
second, to bring all willing nonfederal partners into the
process. The federal agencies involved in the Southwest
Strategy have completed assigning priorities to Section 7
consultations to ensure the most critical consultations get
completed first. They have developed methods for streamlining
the consultation process in the near term and they are now
developing methods for long-term efficiencies among agencies in
the consultation process.
A strategy has been developed by the Forest Service and the
FWS for handling two pending lawsuits involving compliance with
the Endangered Species Act and grazing in the southwest. Under
the strategy, a team of species experts, other biologists, and
at least one range specialist has been assembled to conduct the
Section 7 consultations that will cover the allotments
currently in litigation. This team is working to streamline the
consultation process on these allotments.
Question. How many habitat conservation plans exist, and
how many more does the FWS anticipate in the next year?
Answer. As of January 30, 1998, there were 230 approved HCP
permits. The FWS anticipates there will be more than 400 new
and ongoing HCP consultations by the end of fiscal year 1999,
and has requested a corresponding budget increase to meet the
needs of these nonfederal landowners.
Question. How does habitat acquisition under Section 6 fit
with carrying out Habitat Conservation Plans?
Answer. The Section 6 HCP land acquisition program is a
cornerstone of carrying out Habitat Conservation Plans. Under
the Land Acquisition Program, the FWS provides grants to states
or territories for land acquisitions to implement HCPs. States
and territories are in a unique position to support HCPs
because of their authorities and close working relationships
with local governments and landowners. The FWS considers state
land acquisition for habitat protection within and adjacent to
HCP areas to be an important and effective mechanism to promote
the recovery of threatened and endangered species.
These land acquisitions and exchanges complement, not
supplant, private and/or local governmental responsibilities
required for mitigation related to implementing HCPs. This
support ensures that urban development and other economic
activities can continue while providing adequate conservation
measures for listed species. The FWS works closely with local
government and other groups to establish HCPs to protect
species and, at the same time, allow development activities to
continue.
A number of ongoing HCP efforts such as the Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) in Southern California,
the Balcones Conservation Initiative in Texas, and the Brevard
County Scrub Jay Initiative in Florida have validated the pilot
$6.0 million HCP land acquisition grants-to-states concept.
These locally-driven initiatives have identified land
acquisition priorities that will support overall conservation
strategies. The 1999 President's Budget includes a requested
increase of $3.0 million--or 50 percent--for this growing
program.
One of the advantages of the ``no surprises'' coordination
with the public is that it's supposed to decrease or avoid the
need for listing species.
Question. If monitoring shows species are still in decline
with the no surprises policy, what measures will the FWS take?
Answer. The FWS intended the No Surprises rule to provide
regulatory assurances to private landowners with approved HCPs.
Under the No Surprises rule, the Federal Government will not
require the commitment of additional land, water, or financial
compensation or other restrictions on the use of land, water,
or other natural resources otherwise available for development
or use under the original terms of a properly implemented HCP
without the consent of the permittee.
The FWS allows unlisted species that are adequately
addressed in an HCP to be listed on a permit with a delayed
effective date tied to the date of any future listing. Unlisted
species include candidate, proposed, and any other species
mutually agreed to by the applicant and FWS. The FWS recognizes
that the primary jurisdiction over candidate and unlisted
species generally rests with the state fish and wildlife
agencies, thereby prompting the need for close coordination and
active cooperation with state agencies in the HCP process.
While unlisted species can benefit by being covered in HCPs,
their inclusion does not necessarily mean that they may not be
listed in the future if scientific information indicates that
listing is warranted.
Within a species range, a number of HCPs may cover a
species. In addition, each individual HCP will vary in its
scope and minimization/mitigation measures. An HCP may also
incorporate measures that in the event of changed
circumstances, such as species decline, may adjust the
mitigation strategy to preclude jeopardizing that species. If
such circumstances were not addressed within an approved HCP,
the permittee may voluntarily implement measures to reduce the
species decline. If a species continues to decline, the FWS may
utilize a number of tools for the conservation and recovery of
species in decline, including land acquisition, cooperative
efforts with other federal, state, and local agencies, tribal
governments, conservation groups, and private entities, and
other conservation efforts within the scope of the Department
of the Interior's authorities.
Question. How does the pilot Safe Harbor Landowner
Incentive Program achieve resource conservation?
Answer. The FWS proposes a pilot grant program, the Safe
Harbor Landowner Incentive Program, to foster private landowner
recovery efforts for listed species by implementing the Safe
Harbor policy. The Department has requested $5.0 million for
1999 for this program. Safe Harbor agreements are voluntary
agreements between the FWS and nonfederal property owners
designed to encourage landowners to restore, enhance, manage,
or improve habitat for listed species on their property. The
Safe Harbor concept, along with this grant program request,
responds to the needs of private landowners who are managing
their lands in an environmentally friendly manner. It aims to
alleviate their concerns about the potential of future land,
water, or resource-use restrictions that may result because of
their proactive initiatives.
Currently, nonfederal landowners participating in Safe
Harbor agreements receive no incentives other than the
assurances provided that their regulatory burden will not
increase through managing their property for the benefit of
endangered species. In order to fully implement the Safe Harbor
policy and increase property-owner participation, the FWS
proposes to assist nonfederal landowners through the Safe
Harbor Landowner Incentive Program. This program will provide
funding to landowners with critical land holdings to conserve
important habitat for endangered species.
These agreements will contribute significantly toward the
recovery of some listed species, especially when it is
considered that more than half of the species listed have 80
percent of their habitat on nonfederal lands. For example, the
Southeastern Atlantic coastal plain was once dominated by vast
forests of longleaf pine. Only 10 percent of these forests now
remain. Many of the species that once were abundant in such
habitats are now endangered or threatened, including the red-
cockaded woodpecker, the St. Francis satyr butterfly, the
gopher tortoise, and American chaffseed. The Safe Harbor
agreements and the grants will be incentives to maintain the
longleaf forests by providing resources for the controlled
burning, and other on-the-ground actions that are essential for
the preservation of this ecosystem.
This program will be significant to the recovery of many
species. It will help facilitate and foster partnerships
between the FWS and nonfederal entities in recovering listed
species, as well as providing benefits for proposed,
candidates, and unlisted species that share the same habitat.
The Administration's success with such creative tools as Safe
Harbor agreements have renewed cooperation among private
landowners in aiding threatened and endangered species.
Question. For every dollar spent in Candidate Conservation
planning, how much is saved in the listing and recovery
programs?
Answer. While such a broad question cannot be answered
specifically because the complexity of conservation varies
among species, the Department is confident that candidate
conservation can be less costly and more effective than listing
and recovery, especially when costs to landowners are
considered. For example, the conservation of mammals may differ
in complexity from that of plants. Furthermore, conservation of
a mammal with a small range may differ from that of a mammal
with a large range. Conservation of a wide-ranging species
occurring on private land, federal land, and tribal land across
several states would be much more expensive than would
conservation of a rather isolated species occurring only on
federal land in a single state.
Certain general conclusions, however, can be drawn
regarding the costs of conservation of a candidate species
compared to the costs of listing and recovery of that same
species. The earlier species conservation begins, the more
efficient and effective it will be. Early conservation
maintains land use and development flexibility for landowners
and preserves conservation options for the FWS. Many of the
costs and regulatory restrictions associated with listing can
be avoided including: the administrative costs of listing; the
costs of law enforcement; the costs to landowners resulting
from restricted land use; and the costs to landowners and
resource users for compliance with Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the
Endangered Species Act.
The early establishment of partnerships for conservation of
candidate species puts in place a network of willing partners
to address any future conservation needs of the species. States
and private landowners support the candidate conservation
program because it gives them opportunities to maintain current
land uses and to employ innovative approaches to species
conservation without the burden of regulatory restrictions. By
addressing the needs of species early, before a species and its
habitat are critically imperiled, potential conflicts
associated with listing may be avoided.
Question. Will litigation cause the Department to change
the current approach of using Candidate Conservation agreements
as a tool to avoid listings under the Endangered Species Act?
Answer. No, litigation will not cause the Department to
change the current approach of using candidate conservation
agreements to preclude the need to list the species. The Fish
and Wildlife Service will continue to use candidate
conservation agreements as a proactive conservation measure
where appropriate. Candidate conservation guidance is under
development that will clarify the steps necessary to
successfully participate in conservation partnerships and to
complete candidate conservation agreements that most
efficiently and effectively reduce or eliminate threats and
preclude the need to list.
The Department is concerned about the court ruling in the
Barton Springs salamander case that the conservation agreement
among the FWS and conservation agencies in the State of Texas
(which would have conserved the salamander without Federal
listing) was not adequate because it had not been proven
successful for a period of two years. The Department does not
agree with the court's order, because an arbitrary period of
two years is not necessary to prove that a candidate
conservation agreement is or will be successful in meeting its
goals. The process of reducing or removing threats to a species
is typically a gradual process; however, each candidate
conservation agreement varies depending on the complexity of
the species. The FWS relies on the best available scientific
and commercial data to determine if a candidate conservation
agreement is adequate and if it will reduce or eliminate
threats to an imperiled species. The FWS subjects all candidate
conservation agreements to public review and solicits comments
regarding the document. Finally, the FWS typically examines
candidate conservation agreements to ensure that the signatory
parties have the authority and funding to fulfill the
commitment of the agreement.
Question. Over the years, how many species have been
delisted? Is our endangered species program working?
Answer. Yes. The ultimate goal of threatened and endangered
species conservation is to recover listed species to levels
where protection under the Endangered Species Act is no longer
required and they can be removed from the list. Since 1973, 27
species have been delisted or removed from the lists of
threatened and endangered species. In addition, the FWS has a
``waiting list'' of approximately 40 species that are recovered
or whose status has improved and are awaiting reclassification
and delisting actions.
On May 6, 1998, the Secretary proposed that 29 of these
species (or segments of these species) be proposed to be
removed or downgraded from the Endangered Species list over the
next two years.
Animals/Birds: American Peregrine falcon (North America);
Bald Eagle (48 coterminous states); Aleutian Canada goose
(Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Canada); Columbia
white-tailed deer (Washington, Oregon); Tinian monarch
(Northern Marianas Islands); Guam broadbill (Guam); Mariana
mallard (Northern Mariana Islands); Hawaiian hawk (Hawaii);
Brown pelican (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida); Gray timber wolf (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin);
Dismal Swamp Southeastern shrew (Virginia, North Carolina); Ash
Meadows Amargosa pupfish (Nevada); Tidewater goby (California);
Oahu tree snails (Hawaii); Pahrump poolfish (Nevada); Virginia
Northern flying squirrel (Virginia, West Virginia); and Island
night lizard (California).
Plants: Hoover's wooly-star (California); Truckee barberry
(California); Three Ash Meadows plant (Nevada); Eureka Valley
plants (2) (California); Chamaesyce skottsbergii (variation
kalaeloana) (Hawaii); Loch Lomond coyote-thistle (California);
Lloyd's hedgehog cactus (New Mexico, Texas); Running buffalo
clover (Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, West
Virginia); Virginia roundleaf birch (Virginia); Robbin's
cinquefoil (New Hampshire, Vermont); Heliotrope milk-vetch
(Utah); and Missouri bladder-pod (Missouri).
Since fiscal year 1996, the FWS has prioritized its
resources so that the majority of the listing resources goes
towards finalizing proposals to list species and more recently,
resolving the conservation status of candidates and processing
petition findings, because such actions provide the most
conservation benefit. Delisting is a Tier 4 activity and the
lowest priority under the current Listing Priority Guidance
issued in fiscal year 1997. The FWS acknowledges the
conservation benefit of delisting actions (this includes
reclassifications from endangered to threatened status) and has
moved delisting and reclassification actions into Tier 2 under
the fiscal year 1998/1999 Listing Priority Guidance. The FWS
anticipates publishing seven delisting or reclassification
proposals in fiscal year 1998 and 20 delisting/reclassification
proposals in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 1999, the FWS
anticipates finalizing five delisting actions. These species
are indicated above.
The endangered species program is working. In fiscal year
1997, 156 final determinations were published and 23 new
listing proposals were published. The backlog of proposals was
reduced from 243 to 100 species, including the 23 new
proposals. The listing process has been slowed by numerous
litigation cases resulting from missed statutory deadlines and
takes precious resources away from the task of returning to a
balanced listing program. It is important to note that
delisting statistics do not necessarily indicate the recovery
of listed species and should not be used as a yard stick to
measure the success of the endangered species program. The
recovery program estimates that 36 percent of listed species
were improving and/or stable in fiscal year 1997, and 44
percent will be improving and/or stable in fiscal year 1998.
multinational species conservation rhino-tiger fund
The Committee understands that the Rhino-Tiger Conservation
Act was expanded to include Tigers at the Secretary's personal
request.
Question. Do you consider the current level of funding
adequate to meet the demands for worthy tiger and rhinoceros
conservation projects?
Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 1999 request of $400,000 for
tiger and rhinoceros projects is sufficient to make a real and
effective difference for conservation of these species,
especially because of the favorable financial exchange rate and
the low costs of operations in the foreign countries. While
there will always be more project proposals submitted than can
be funded in any given year (as in most other FWS programs),
the President's Budget request of $400,000 will allow the
highest priority projects to be implemented.
Sixty eight proposals were received for consideration
during the 1996-1997 grant cycle; and 80 proposals have been
received in the 1998 grant cycle. Grant awards have been
limited to an average of $20,000 to maximize the number of
suitable projects. Of 148 proposals received, 32 have been
funded thus far in 10 African and Asian countries, at a cost of
$613,962. Another 40 grant applicants have been provided
suggestions about how their proposals can be modified so that
they might meet the criteria for approval. Remaining balances
will fund half of these pending proposals for priority
conservation actions. The FWS expects to receive 80 or more new
proposals during the 1999 grant cycle.
Question. There is a disparity between the request for
rhinos and tigers and the request for Asian and African
elephants. Do you feel there should be greater parity among the
funds?
Answer. There is a great need for the funding levels
requested in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for all
three programs. The programs are managed to ensure that the
projects complement each other. There are 14 Asian countries
with tigers, 9 Asian countries with rhinos (which coincide with
the tiger range countries) and 11 African countries with
rhinos. The African Elephant Conservation Projects, for
example, frequently provide significant secondary benefits to
African rhinos. In several African range countries, anti-
poaching or habitat protection projects for elephants also
benefit rhinoceros which share the same habitat. The new Asian
Elephant Conservation Projects will provide even greater
possibilities for significant collateral benefits to Asian
rhinoceros and tigers sharing the same habitat. Thus, a single
project has the potential to provide benefits for more than one
of the target species.
The need for the new Asian Elephant Conservation Projects
is critical because the species have been seriously neglected.
Despite all the publicity about the decline of the African
elephant, the Asian species, numbering only 35,000 to 45,000,
is sparsely distributed over a huge range encompassing thirteen
different countries from India through Southeast Asia to
Indonesia. The decline of Asian elephants due to the ever
increasing human population of the Asian continent has been
relatively undocumented. The Asian elephant must share its
habitat with some of the largest and poorest human populations
in the world. The combination of pressures on the environment
brought on by these conditions has resulted in the conversion
of forest cover to agriculture and villages, fragmenting
elephant habitat and populations. The Asian elephant is in real
trouble and the $1 million requested will fill the significant
void in the current conservation programs for this species
Continuation of funding for the African elephant at the $1
million level is essential to maintain the population gains
that the species is just beginning to show after a dramatic
decline in the 1980s. This decline has been stabilized largely
by a successful international effort led by the United States
to stop the ivory trade and provide anti- poaching assistance.
Addressing the conservation needs of this species is
complicated by the complexity of ivory trade issues and efforts
to work with the 37 range countries with elephant populations.
Projects made possible by this Fund have been critical in
assisting rangers fight poaching and maintaining current
population levels of the species.
The situation with most of the world's remaining rhinos in
Africa and Asia is also serious. Poaching for rhino horn is the
major threat for all five species, and habitat degradation is
also a significant threat for the Asian species that live in
tropical rainforests. All three species of Asian rhinos are in
danger of extinction, two critically so. In Africa, the
situation for the black rhino and the Northern white rhino is
similar. Over the past few decades, black rhino populations
have declined by at least 96 percent due to poaching. The
Southern white rhino has been well managed in South Africa and
is not in danger of extinction.
Wild tigers are in perhaps worse peril. The best estimate
is that there are no more than 5,000 to 7,500 remaining tigers.
The $400,000 requested for the Rhino and Tiger Conservation
Projects, combined with the collateral benefits to these
species provided from the African elephant and Asian elephant
conservation projects, will make a real contribution to helping
range countries deal with the species' conservation needs.
Question. What would a better split of funding be? Equal
parts?
Answer. The Department supports the allocation of funding
included in the President's Budget request: $1.0 million for
African elephants; $1.0 million for Asian elephants; and $0.4
million for rhino and tiger conservation. Rhinos, tigers, Asian
and African elephants all have threats to their continued
existence and all are in trouble. Addressing their needs
includes providing sufficient funds as well as ensuring that
the funds are used effectively. The President's budget request
will make a significant contribution to the conservation of all
rhinos, tigers, and elephants, particularly in view of the
collateral benefits for other species occurring in the same
area.
Question. What accounts for the more than doubling in
administrative costs for Multinational Species Conservation? It
is at $30,000 for fiscal year 1998 and proposed at $72,000 for
fiscal year 1999.
Answer. Each of the three authorizing statutes provides a
very modest three percent of the appropriation for
administrative costs. For fiscal year 1999, the Service is
requesting $72,000 for administrative expenses, or three
percent of the combined $2.4 million that would be appropriated
under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund for the
African elephant, Asian elephant, and rhinoceros and tiger
conservation programs. This request will provide for the
equivalent of a full-time staff position (1 FTE) to administer
and coordinate the three programs, including the recently
authorized Asian elephant conservation program, in an effective
and efficient manner.
In fiscal year 1998, a technical error in the budget
request resulted in $12,000 less than the $30,000 authorized
for administration of the African Elephant Conservation Fund.
The fiscal year 1999 request corrects this error and restores
African elephant program administration to the three percent
level of previous years. The rhinoceros and tiger programs are
being administered in fiscal year 1998 on a part-time basis as
collateral duties by International Affairs program personnel.
Question. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service
may not solicit for proposals for the Rhino-Tiger fund in
fiscal year 1998 because of a large backlog of worthy projects
that are currently unfunded. Are there any plans to internally
redirect other funds to reduce this backlog?
Answer. The FWS has already solicited fiscal year 1998
proposals for the rhinoceros and tiger conservation program. Of
the 148 proposals received to date, including the 80 received
in fiscal year 1998, 32 projects have been funded at a cost of
$613,962. Another 40 proposals are under consideration with
requests for additional information to meet criteria for
funding.
In fact, the call for fiscal year 1999 rhino and tiger
conservation program proposals has also been issued. It is
necessary to issue a call for proposals in advance of actual
appropriations because of the long lead time required to
develop projects and secure sponsorship by the foreign
governments.
The FWS has no plans to administratively redirect
Multinational Species Conservation Fund appropriations from the
African and Asian elephant conservation programs to the rhino
and tiger conservation program. The fiscal year 1999 budget
request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund clearly
identifies the amounts that would be available for the separate
African elephant, Asian elephant, and rhino and tiger
conservation programs. As is the case with most Departmental
programs, each of these conservation programs receives more
project proposals than can be awarded. The President's Budget
includes funding for the highest priority projects.
Bureau of Land Management
wildland fire operations
The BLM budget justification states that it and the Forest
Service could feasibly treat (burn or other treatment) up to 5
million acres annually to address the approximately 95 million
acres requiring treatment. However the fiscal year 1999 budgets
for both agencies will result in treating 2.4 million acres.
Question. What would be the cost of treating the full BLM
portion of the 5 million acres identified in the BLM budget
justification?
Answer. The new funding source to perform prescribed fire
and mechanical treatments (the Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Subactivity) has only been available since the fiscal year 1998
appropriation was passed. It will take several years to build
the level of expertise needed to develop burn plans, implement
the burns, monitor and evaluate results, and work out smoke
management issues with state air quality regulatory programs.
It will take several years of increased level of operations to
refine practices and cost estimates. Current cost estimates by
the five federal agencies (BLM, BIA, FWS, NPS and FS) are based
upon past operations. For example, while the BLM averaged about
60,000 acres of prescribed burning annually over the past
decade, current estimates indicate approximately 500,000 acres
need to be treated each year based on ecological and resource
management needs. The Bureau's current cost per acre treated
varies from approximately $10/acre on less complex burns where
terrain and burning conditions are relatively easy to over
$500/acre on complex situations. As the BLM workload is better
defined, we will be able to refine program cost estimates.
The average cost per acre treated for BLM's fiscal year
1998 workload is estimated at $23. The current per acre
treatment cost for the four Interior agencies in fiscal year
1998 is also $23. To treat 2 to 2.5 million acres per year,
estimated to be DOI's share of the 5 million acre total, would
cost between $46 million and $57.5 million. To treat the BLM's
share (about 500,000 acres per year) would cost $11.5 million.
A more scientific determination of treatment needs,
location of activities, impacts, sequencing and scheduling
treatments, and comparison of alternative practices, impacts,
and costs, will become available as we gain more experience.
More information will also be available when the products of
the Joint Fire Science Program, that Congress initiated in
fiscal year 1998, become available along with revised land use
plans that more fully address the role of fire in resource
management.
Question. What is the BLM annual treatment share (acres) of
this five million acres?
Answer. The BLM Wildland Fire Management budget request
includes the four Department of the Interior agencies with
wildland fire management programs (BLM, BIA, FWS, NPS). The 95
million total acreage figure and the 5 million acre per year
treatment figure are interagency estimates that include the
U.S. Forest Service and that were made nearly two years ago.
They should be viewed as early estimates of the potential
workload. Interior's share of that estimated workload ranges
from 2 to 2.5 million acres per year. The BLM portion of this
workload is estimated to be 500,000 acres per year. We
recognize that this is an estimate and that additional planning
and analysis, being conducted through the Joint Fire Science
Program, will refine this figure.
The agency is changing its overall fire emphasis from fire
control to fire management.
Question. How will the emphasis on fire management likely
affect annual suppression costs in the context of the ten year
average which the agency regularly refers to?
Answer. In the last decade, the ten year average of fire
suppression costs has been increasing due to the increased
incidence of larger, more severe and more costly fires. Over
the long term (more than a decade), we expect to see a leveling
off of the suppression costs. This should occur as hazardous
fuel reduction operations begin to break up large continuous
bodies of fuels, improve the general health of forest and
rangelands to resist the negative effects of wildfires, and
improve our ability to keep up with the ever increasing number
of human caused fires.
The agency proposes a smokejumper workforce of 120 during
fiscal year 1999 with half stationed in Alaska. The Forest
Service has proposed a similar workforce (with none in Alaska).
The smokejumper program has a long and proud history.
Question. Has the agency, either cooperatively with the
Forest Service, or on its own, evaluated the cost effectiveness
of this program?
Answer. The BLM and the Forest Service have jointly studied
and reviewed the national need for smokejumpers several times.
Through the fire planning process, a qualitative analysis of
state and local needs are also periodically reviewed. The two
agencies hold a joint post season program review each year. The
interagency national smokejumper numbers, operational
locations, and the numbers and types of aircraft have been
coordinated and established as a result of these national
studies and plans. The two programs are designed for ``total
mobility'' and integration. As a result BLM and FS jumpers
often end up at the same bases and jumping out of the same
aircraft as the season progresses. These mixed operations
generally occur when there is a concentration of dry lightning
storms and the number of new ignitions overwhelms local initial
attack remote operations. The few program differences that do
exist are a result of the land ownership and differences in the
dominant fuels and terrain.
In addition, some BLM smokejumpers are diversifying their
skills so that they can assist in other aspects of the fire
management program, e.g. prescribed fire, fire management
training, fire and resource plan development involving fire
ecology, and detail assignments when critical field vacancies
occur during the fire season. Expanding the use of these smoke
jumpers is a cost effective way to increase program
capabilities.
Question. With the current transportation system and its
significantly greater access than existed during the early
history of the smokejumper program, has the agency considered
reducing its smokejumper forces in favor of less expensive
alternative personnel resources?
Answer. Without a doubt the amount of roads in the country
has improved the ability to take rapid initial attack actions.
The majority of the increasing number of ignitions occur where
humans work and recreate. But the vast roadless areas of Alaska
and in parts of the western US still dictate the need for a
highly mobile, rapid attack skilled workforce best served by a
combination of smokejumpers and helitac crews. Changes in
technology in the past fifteen years have actually increased
the ability for jumpers to respond in even the most rugged
terrain. The total numbers of smokejumpers in the US is
basically static. The BLM and the Forest Service continue to
look at alternatives through the fire planning process, but to
date this technique fills a niche in the total workload and has
proven to be reliable, safe, effective, and cost efficient.
infrastructure
The BLM proposes an increase of $6.5 million for facility
maintenance. This is in addition to infrastructure related
improvements funded by Construction and O&C accounts.
Question. Will these program increases reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog or only slow the growth in the size of the
backlog?
Answer. Accomplishing the deferred maintenance projects
identified in the 1999 budget request will reduce the critical
health and safety deferred maintenance backlog by about $12.5
million.
Question. When new facilities are constructed where there
were none previously, the need for maintenance expenditures
will likely increase. How much of the construction line item is
geared to reconstruction or the construction and replacement of
facilities, versus construction of new facilities where there
were none previously?
Answer. The BLM's total construction request is for
$4,175,000 or 13 separate projects. Of this amount only two
projects are new construction: El Camino Real International
Heritage Center in New Mexico and Devil's Elbow Recreation Area
in Montana. El Camino funding is the final phase of
construction of a 50/50 cost share project with the State of
New Mexico where the State will fund over 75 percent of the
operation and maintenance costs. Devil's Elbow is a challenge
cost share project with Montana Power and fulfills the
requirement of a FERC re-licensing agreement. All of the
remaining projects are reconstruction or replacement
construction and are targeted at reducing the risk to public
health and safety or decreasing environmental degradation and
will reduce future maintenance needs.
Question. How is BLM reducing deferred maintenance backlogs
through disposal or vacating facilities? Please provide
specific historical data on the number of facilities
eliminated?
Answer. The BLM has several projects, mainly roads, that
should be abandoned. These projects are in competition with
other public health and safety and/or environmental protection
projects and generally do not successfully compete for funding.
The BLM will generally abandons a site for public safety or
environmental considerations. The BLM does not have a list of
facilities that have been disposed of or vacate.
Question. Director Shea, in his statement at the recent
House hearing on deferred maintenance refers to the Facilities
Inventory Maintenance Management System (FIMMS). Why does the
agency maintain a system separate from other Bureaus?
Answer. The BLM developed FIMMS in response to
Congressional direction to improve our ability to track and
report our facilities maintenance needs. FIMMS was developed in
concert with Congressional review to best meet BLM's mission
needs. The maintenance system is maintained at our field
offices where maintenance needs are coordinated with local
governments and user groups.
The BLM is working with the Department and the other
bureaus to develop common facilities maintenance terminology
and definitions. The BLM is an active member of the
Department's deferred maintenance working group which is
developing guidelines and procedures for standardizing
Departmental systems requirements and developing the five-year
maintenance and construction project list. In addition, the BLM
is working with the Department to develop suggestions for
improving BLM's budget structure in order to improve the
financial tracking of our deferred maintenance accomplishments.
Question. Does the Department intend to centrally combine
infrastructure data into a single data base? If not, why? If
so, when?
Answer. As part of facilities maintenance and capital
improvements initiative, the Department is reviewing bureau
facilities information systems. The Department hopes to reach
conclusions on the current adequacy of these systems and any
needs to reengineer, replace, or consolidate the systems prior
to the final decisions on formulation of the fiscal year 2000
budget.
realty and ownership management
The agency refers to an Alaska lands transfer re-
engineering effort that will be implemented in fiscal year
1999.
Question. What specific efficiencies will result from this
effort?
Answer. Recommendations from the land transfer re-
engineering effort included the development of geographically
related project areas through regional strategic management
plans. Working in project areas should reduce time and
resources needed to complete Native allotments, ANCSA
entitlements, and State entitlements.
Question. What are estimates for improved unit costs? How
much more production can be expected assuming unit costs
improve?
Answer. Working in project areas will reduce the number of
trips to the field and reduce redundant and overlapping review
processes. This should reduce the estimated unit cost by 10 to
20 percent.
The budget justification refers to ``better land
acquisition priorities'' which will be established in fiscal
year 1999.
Question. Please explain these new priorities. Why are the
new priorities needed? What was wrong with the old priorities?
Answer. The ``priorities'' mentioned in the budget
justification refer specifically to the long-term goal in the
BLM's Annual Performance Plan of ``Establish land acquisition
priorities to conserve and protect heritage resources.'' This
goal is specific to acquisitions within special designated
areas. In the past, BLM has not defined land acquisition
priorities in this context.
A recent report by DOI OIG, concerning the Del Webb land
exchange in Nevada, states that the BLM failed to ``fully
conform to established standards, procedures, and controls for
appraisals and land valuations and did not justify or document
the propriety of its actions.'' It further stated that only
after external pressure, BLM obtained a second appraisal,
saving the government $9.1 million. The OIG recommended a
moratorium which was objected to by BLM.
Question. What specific policies have been changed to avoid
similar practices in the future?
Answer. BLM fully conformed to established standards,
procedures and controls for appraisals and land valuations and
did document our actions for the Del Webb land exchange. There
was no loss of $9.1 million because BLM management decided
early in the process to obtain additional appraisals.
Question. Why did BLM use an appraiser recommended by the
company involved in the exchange? Why was this problem not
intuitively determined to be inappropriate (if not completely
contrary to policy)?
Answer. The appraiser the BLM used is a nationally
recognized authority on the appraisal of Master Planned
Communities. The BLM determined independently that this
appraiser was qualified.
Question. Has this circumstance occurred previously?
Answer. We always strive to obtain the best appraisal
services available. In order to be approved by BLM for use in a
land exchange, an appraisal must conform with the regulations
in 43 CFR 2201.3. The appraisals approved for the Del Webb land
exchange met these requirements.
government performance and results act
The agency provided its annual performance plan for fiscal
year 1999. However there is no crosswalk displaying how the
President's budget is represented in total for the goals and
performance indicators, unlike what has been supplied by other
agencies.
Question. Has the BLM developed such a display? If so,
please provide it to the committee. If not, when does it intend
to do so?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management has not developed
such a table at this time. Two budget crosswalk tables are
included in BLM's fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan. The
first table crosswalks program and financing Activities for
fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 funding levels to strategic
goals. The second table crosswalks performance goals and
indicators to program and financing codes.
The BLM is still refining and improving its Annual
Performance Plan and the linkage to the current budget
structure. As we work to make the plan more comprehensive, we
will be better equipped to develop a performance goal budget
crosswalk. If such a table is needed, BLM could develop one
after the 1999 Appropriation Act has passed.
Question. Does the agency foresee any changes in budget
structure as GPRA is further implemented within the
organization?
Answer. As implementation of GPRA progresses and the Bureau
gains more experience with the goals and measures that are
agreed to by BLM, the Department, OMB, Congress, and customers
and stakeholders, it is possible that the Bureau will propose
changes in the activity structure to better reflect performance
goals. At this time, however, the Bureau does not have specific
changes to propose.
ward valley land transfer
For the last five years, the Department has refused to
transfer the Ward Valley site to the State of California for a
low-level radioactive waste disposal site claiming that the
science doesn't support such a transfer. A 1995 National
Academy of Science report, which you requested, concluded that
the site could be operated safely as a low-level waste disposal
site. Nonetheless, the Department has continued to refuse to
transfer the property requesting another Environmental Impact
Statement be prepared and more testing be completed even though
there has been more than a decade of scientific testing at the
site, and three NEPA documents.
Question. Why has the Department not proceeded with the
transfer of the site?
Answer. The Department's responsibilities under NEPA and
FLPMA require us to ensure that the public lands requested by
the State are safe for the use intended, i.e. a low-level
radioactive waste facility. Currently, except for finishing
work already started, we are suspending further work on the
SEIS and its associated onsite drilling, until the question
raised by the majority leadership of the California State
Legislature regarding the legality of the California Department
of Health Service's land sale application under State law has
been resolved.
Question. Why is more testing necessary?
Answer. The National Academy of Sciences recommended
further testing at the site to address conflicting data about
the rainfall infiltration characteristics of the site and
resolve the issue of the potential for migration of stored
waste residue as far as the Colorado River. Both the Department
of the Interior and the State of California plan to conduct
separate testing to address this issue. The data will be
analyzed in the SEIS and made available for public review.
Question. When does the Interior Department plan to begin
its field tests?
Answer. The Department will decide when to proceed on the
field testing following resolution of the legal issue explained
above.
Question. How much has the Department spent since 1995 to
plan and implement the new Ward Valley tests and prepare the
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)? Please
include in the answer the amount spent on the preparation of
the SEIS and new tests for each fiscal year since fiscal year
1995 expenditures.
Answer. The following table summarizes actual and expected
costs related to tests and SEIS preparation at the Ward Valley
site. No funds were spent on these activities prior to 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items Activity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 costs:
Contract supplement (EIS)........... .............. $427,000
Contract protocol for tritium
testing............................ .............. 64,000
Field inspection of site (Army Corps
of Engineers)...................... .............. 20,000
1998 costs:
Conduct tritium drilling............ .............. 1,322,000
Laboratory Analysis and testing
report............................. .............. 500,000
Independent review of analysis and
report (peer review)............... .............. 50,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. .............. 2,383,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Where are these tests and costs associated with
the supplemental EIS found in your budget? Please include in
the answer the specific accounts, and amounts from those
accounts, which will be used to fund the preparation of the
supplemental EIS and completion of the new tests.
Answer. Ward Valley and other land transfer or exchange
proposals are funded in the Realty and Ownership Management
Activity in the Management of Lands and Resources Appropriation
and in the Acquisition Management Activity in the Land
Acquisition Appropriation. However, Ward Valley is not
specifically mentioned by name. Congress has provided BLM with
the flexibility to work on the highest priority lands issues
recognizing that they generally take several years to complete.
Anywhere along the process issues can arise that could modify,
delay, or terminate a realty action. If a specific lands action
were delayed, BLM would proceed to the next highest priority
project. The Land and Realty subactivity received $28,622,000
in the fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act and $29,395,000 in
the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act. The Acquisition
Management Activity received $2,500,000 in the fiscal year 1997
Appropriations Act and $3,000,000 in the fiscal year 1998
Appropriations Act.
Question. What contracts, and for what amounts, has the
Department entered for the development and implementation of
the test protocol and preparation of the SEIS?
Answer. Contract costs are summarized in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items Activity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 costs:
Contract supplement (EIS)........... .............. $427,000
Contract protocol for tritium
testing............................ .............. 64,000
Field inspection of site (Army Corps
of Engineers)...................... .............. 20,000
1998 costs:
Conduct tritium drilling............ .............. 1,322,000
Laboratory Analysis and testing
report............................. .............. 500,000
Independent review of analysis and
report (peer review)............... .............. 50,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. .............. 2,383,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the current cost estimate to complete the
testing and the SEIS?
Answer. The current cost estimate to complete the tritum
study and the SEIS is $2.4 million.
Question. On what date does the Department now anticipate
transferring the Ward Valley site?
Answer. Pending resolution of the legality of the State's
application, we are unable to project a transfer date at this
time.
Meanwhile, protestors who were issued a permit by the
Bureau of Land Management to occupy the site refused to leave
when the permit expired on January 17. Rather than removing the
trespassers, BLM law enforcement officials have been ordered
away. Now the Subcommittee is told that the protesters have
taken to deciding who may enter the area and who may not. These
protesters refuse to allow Interior Department access to the
site, which is Federal land, in order to conduct additional
tests on site's safety.
Question. The question must be asked; who is in charge on
our federal lands?
Answer. These are public lands under the jurisdiction of
BLM and the Department of the Interior. BLM, with the
assistance of the Department and BIA, is working diligently
with the Native American Tribes involved to bring their protest
into compliance with the existing permit.
Question. When, by what means, and at what cost will the
Department clear protesters from the Ward Valley site in order
for testing to commence?
Answer. As stated earlier, BLM is expecting to resolve the
onsite situation soon and bring the Native American Tribes (led
by the permittee, the Fort Mojave Tribe) staging the protest
there into compliance with their existing permit. In addition,
since the planned drilling activities are suspended pending
resolution of the question of the legality of the State's
permit, BLM has also decided to rescind the five-day relocation
notice given to the Fort Mojave last February, which will allow
the Tribe to come back into compliance with their existing
permit. Therefore, no action to remove the protesters will be
necessary and no additional costs are expected to be incurred.
Question. There is some indication that government
equipment is being used by the protesters at Ward Valley. Has
this allegation been investigated?
Answer. Yes, BLM has conducted an inquiry in response to
this allegation. The Inspector General is conducting a separate
investigation.
Question. What has been found?
Answer. The BLM has found that Government Vehicles with
State of Arizona license plates were being operated at the Ward
Valley Site. No Federally owned equipment was found to be used
at the site.
Question. What action will be taken if this information is
substantiated?
Answer. No further action is now planned.
backyard discoveries
The BLM supports a cooperative program through the
Anchorage Field Office called Backyard Discoveries.
Question. What are the objectives of this program?
Answer. Backyard discoveries is a public outreach
initiative by the Anchorage Field Office to educate current and
future publics about natural resources management. Additional
objectives are to provide opportunities for the public to learn
how to gather resource data and monitor the health of public
land and to have the data gathered by volunteers available for
students, teachers, and the general public to use and
interpret.
Question. What are the program's components?
Answer. The program has several components: it allows the
public to learn how resource data can be used to manage public
land and gives the public the opportunity for hands-on
experience.
Question. How has the program been funded in the past?
Answer. The outreach effort was funded at $12,000 in fiscal
year 1997 from within the BLM's base funding level.
Question. How does the BLM propose to support this program
in the future?
Answer. In the future, support would come from the
Management of Lands and Resources (MLR) activities dollars and
from local partnerships.
Question. Based on the agency's experience from this
program, what long-term benefits and goals does the agency
intend to pursue for this program?
Answer. The primary benefit of Backyard Discovery is to
provide assistance to local school districts in environmental
education and to provide an understanding of public land
management programs. The outreach efforts educate the public
and help recruit volunteers to assist BLM. The initiative will
continue as a part of public outreach with the goal to educate
and involve the public in land management.
grand staircase--escalante national monument
An October 1997 GAO report quoted state sources to estimate
mineral values and economic effects of developing minerals in
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The report
states that the Interior Department took strong exception to
estimates reflected in the GAO report.
Question. What are the Departments estimates of mineral
value and economic effects?
Answer. The Department has made no comprehensive estimates
of mineral values and economic effects from developing minerals
in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The
Department's objections to the estimates used in the GAO
report, Federal Land Management: Estimates of Mineral Values
and of the Economic Effects of Developing Minerals in the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, were based on the
report's reliance on two estimates prepared by the State of
Utah, one by the Utah Geological Survey and the other by the
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, without assessing the
validity of those estimates. These estimates are significantly
inflated and overstate the economic effects of developing
minerals in the Monument. As we stated in our letter to the
General Accounting Office concerning this report, we believe
the GAO erred by using this flawed information.
Recently published information, Kaiparowits Coal Supply and
Demand, BXG, Inc., (1997), shows that coal resources in the
Monument could not begin to compete in the coal market until at
least the year 2020, drastically reducing the present value of
coal in the Monument. Similarly, estimates for oil and gas in
the Monument are highly speculative. Yet, the Utah Geological
Survey values those potential resources as though they were
guaranteed to exist, were being produced today, and every drop
could be extracted and sold. Reliable estimates of mineral
values and economic effects of developing minerals in the
Monument have not been developed. Using the State's estimates
without addressing the appropriateness or reasonableness of
these estimates did not provide Congress with useful
information on this question. The Utah Geological Survey has
since decided to revisit the basis of its theories, and now
believes that far less potential exists than it previously
believed.
Question. What is the status of the land exchange program
relative to ``school trust lands.''
Answer. On May 8, 1998, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
and Utah Governor Mike Leavitt signed an agreement concluding
negotiations between the Interior Department and the State of
Utah concerning state school trust land inholdings throughout
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the National
Park system, National Forest system, and Indian reservations in
Utah. That agreement has been incorporated in H.R. 3830, which
was introduced in Congress on May 12, 1998.
pm-10 air quality study
The BLM budget justification states that it will continue
involvement in the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Air Quality Study
in fiscal year 1999.
Question. What level of funding is planned?
Answer. The President's budget request for the Soil, Water
and Air program is $31,031,000. Of this amount, $20,000 is
available for the California Regional PM-10 Air Quality Study.
The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study is a
cooperative partnership formed in 1990 among Federal, state,
and local governments, private industry, and other regional
organizations. The study is intended to provide information for
the development of an effective plan for the San Joaquin Valley
to attain the small particulate (PM-10) national and state
ambient air quality standards. Eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley are in a serious non-attainment area and must
meet the ambient PM-10 standards by 2001. Several study
initiatives were continued in fiscal year 1997 and 1998, e.g.,
further study planning, technical support studies, modeling and
emissions studies. In 1998, as part of the PM-10 Air Quality
Study in the San Joaquin Valley, the BLM helped develop the
Federal Clean Air Partnership (FCAP). This partnership is a
coordinating and technical advisory group on air quality issues
in the Sierra Nevada. The FCAP partnership consists of
representatives from the BLM, U.S. National Park Service, and
U.S. Forest Service. The partnership pools personnel,
resources, and expertise to improve, maintain, and protect the
air quality and associated air quality values of lands managed
by the FCAP agencies. FCAP also seeks to prevent or minimize
the threat to public health and safety, damage to natural site
characteristics, and economic losses due to degraded air
quality.
oil and gas management
The Department's 1998 report on Oil and Gas Management
states that ``to ensure accurate royalties for oil and gas
production on lands under BLM's supervision, the agency is
implementing plans to re-emphasize and improve its production
verification program.'' However the Oil and Gas management line
item reflects a decrease of $2.1 million. Elsewhere in the
Department's document there is reference to streamlining and
simplifying oil and gas processes and developing cooperative
relationships with the States.
Question. How will the agency reemphasize and improve its
production verification program while cutting back on funding
of the overall program?
Answer. The overall oil and gas program outside of the NPR-
A effort is not being reduced in 1999, but rather is remaining
level. The $2.1 million was a congressional increase in fiscal
year 1998 to complete the environmental review and analysis of
management alternatives for the Alaska National Petroleum
Reserve No. 4 (NPR-A). This effort will be completed during
fiscal year 1998 and additional funding is not required for it
in fiscal year 1999. The improvements in production
verification are based on an increased program emphasis on
review of production records.
Question. What controls and safeguards will the agency
maintain during reengineering processes or in developing
partnerships with states to assure that production verification
and income to the government will not suffer?
Answer. BLM's reengineering efforts have focused on
ensuring the protection of the Federal resource and providing
full return to the government while implementing measures to
streamline and simplify the oil and gas program. As noted
above, the BLM has increased its review of production records.
Any under-reported production volumes are resolved and are
shared with MMS to ensure the collection of royalties due to
the U.S. Other efforts have focused on developing partnerships
with the States to reduce duplication and increase efficiencies
in the program for both BLM and the States. Currently, BLM has
Memoranda of Understanding with the State regulatory agencies
of Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and
Utah. Any delegations or partnerships involving the performance
of BLM functions by States require the State program to meet
Federal standards to assure that proper royalties are received,
as well as producing long term efficiencies.
almrs
The BLM proposes $34.6 million for the Automated Land and
Mineral Record System (ALMRS), which is an increase of $1.6
million.
Question. It appears that ALMRS is intended to contain a
full range of land and minerals data. Will all resource layers
be contained in the system including timber, range, wildlife
habitat, etc. when Release 2 is finalized? If not, what plans
does the agency have to add this information?
Answer. ALMRS Release 2 will include the ability to overlay
a number of reference layers that are geographically
referenced, such as hydrography, roads, timber, range, and
wildlife habitat. However, these resource layers will not be
included and maintained by ALMRS. Each program area in the BLM
will develop and maintain the resource layers for which they
are responsible. The schedule for the availability of each
resource layer will be determined by the responsible program
area. The BLM will use its ALMRS web pages to indicate the
availability of resource layers which can be overlaid with
ALMRS and provide access to the resource data along with land
and mineral data.
Question. Will BLM accomplish its goal of every BLM office
having access by 1999?
Answer. Yes. BLM is on track to provide access to ALMRS
from every BLM office in 1999.
Question. What plans are envisioned for future releases if
any?
Answer. Deployment of ALMRS Release 1 is scheduled to begin
in 1998, and substantial progress has been achieved for Release
2. A BLM Business Practices Group has been formed which is
integrating ALMRS with ongoing business processes. This group
is also assessing how the capabilities of ALMRS Release 1 and
Release 2 can be leveraged with future enhancements to achieve
BLM goals for quality, performance, and information
availability. This assessment is still in its early stages, and
the nature, schedule, and cost of future releases have not been
fully addressed.
Question. Will the ALMRS system be directly utilized by
other agencies or bureaus to manage their land and minerals
information? What other agencies currently utilize ALMRS? What
long term cooperative plans exist?
Answer. A key goal for ALMRS has always been to become the
primary system for managing federal land and mineral
information. Minerals Management Service (MMS) currently uses
the BLM legacy system, Case Recordation, for managing their
land and mineral information and is transitioning this use to
ALMRS. Cooperative plans are being pursued with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service to interface
and, where possible, integrate ALMRS with their management of
land and mineral information.
noxious weeds
The BLM proposes an increase of $3.3 million for noxious
weed programs.
Question. Based on current projections for the spread of
noxious weeds, what are projections over the next five years
for program needs to fully address the problem?
Answer. To fully address the noxious weed problem on public
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management would
require a funding level of approximately $26 million within the
next five years, based on our present understanding of the
problem. This money would increase our ability to work with our
partners-private land owners, counties, states and other
federal agencies--to further accomplish goals identified in the
weed management program to prevent and control the spread of
weeds. This would include prevention and detection, education
and awareness, inventory and mapping, and project coordination.
In addition it would provide support for integrated weed
management, biological control, research, monitoring and
evaluation, and restoration of priority sites. Future budget
requests, however, would be fully dependent on a carefully
considered process of establishing and evaluating priorities,
determining trade-offs between programs, and making difficult
decisions in proposing funding allocations.
Question. The budget justification states that it will have
cooperative management agreements for the control of invasive
weeds in place with 46 percent of the counties that have
invasive weed programs. What are future expectations for such
agreements with other counties?
Answer. The BLM's long-term goal is to have cooperative
weed management agreements by 2002 with 50 percent of the
counties (with BLM managed Federal lands) that have invasive
weed programs.
portland co-location
The BLM and Forest Service have been in the process of co-
locating their offices in Portland, Oregon. Despite an
appropriation of $5.1 million in fiscal year 1996, this
collocation has yet to occur.
Question. There is some indication that BLM is dragging its
feet and stalling co-location. Is this true?
Answer. This is not true. Shortly after the 1996
Appropriation Act, the BLM assigned a full-time project manager
to the co-location and has actively pursued this project since
that time. There has been extensive planning and coordination
between the BLM, Forest Service, and GSA's local and regional
office which continues to this day.
Question. Why has the agency not co-located its Portland
Office?
Answer. In late 1996, at a time when the BLM and Forest
Service were close to submitting their construction package to
the GSA and building owner for the beginning of the physical
changes which are necessary for this project to occur, we were
informed by the GSA that the language in the fiscal year 1996
Interior Appropriations Act did not exempt the agencies from
the limitations in the 1959 Public Buildings Act and subsequent
amendments. This act requires further Congressional
authorization if changes are made to a leased facility which
exceed $905,000. The changes are expected to exceed $3 million.
Progress on the co-location project has been halted while
awaiting this further authorization.
Question. A briefing paper provided by BLM states the
agency must seek approval from two Congressional committees to
make modifications before the co-location can occur. Has BLM
sought this approval? If not, when will it do so? Is BLM
aggressively working with GSA to accomplish this move?
Answer. The BLM has been aggressively pursuing this further
approval. In early 1997, the proper documentation was forwarded
through the GSA's Regional Office to their National Office.
This authorization package was forwarded by the GSA National
Office to the proper Congressional committees but was not
considered last year. Currently, the authorization package is
bundled with the GSA's Capital Improvement Program and is
before the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic
Development. Approval is needed there and in the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure before
forwarding to the Senate. Approval is needed by the Senate
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. The BLM has actively
partnered with the GSA regional office to pursue these
approvals.
wild horse and burro program
The agency is requesting an increase of $2.4 million for
management of the Wild Horse and Burro program.
Question. With adoption declining and the population
increasing, is the agency contemplating new approaches in this
program?
Answer. The demand for animals through the adoption program
declined during the first part of this fiscal year. As a
result, the BLM had to hold more animals in our facilities for
a longer period of time than planned. The BLM took the steps
described below to address this situation.
In December 1997, the states were asked to add more
adoptions to their existing schedule. The six western states
added ten additional adoption events (both facility and
satellite adoptions) to increase their adoption goals in fiscal
year 1998. To further increase adoptions, a Western States
Adoption Strategy was developed to share personnel for gathers,
preparation, adoptions, and compliance. Sharing personnel
during peak workloads will enable the states to place
additional animals this fiscal year. Together, these actions
increased the adoption goal for fiscal year 1998 to 10,225
animals. This level of adoptions would clear the holding
facilities in sufficient time and provide sufficient capacity
for the planned gathers in fiscal year 1998 to proceed.
Additional promotion of adoptions in the west is necessary
to achieve adoption goals. A public outreach plan is being
developed to locate and take advantage of new markets. A
marketing analysis will include a long term plan to increase
the number of adoptions and then maintain that increased level
in the west.
The BLM is experimenting with wild horse and burro
adoptions over the Internet, and the idea of gentling wild
horses and then adopting them through competitive events to
enhance their adoptability. The Director is also requesting
recommendations from the newly chartered Wild Horse and Burro
Advisory Board.
The BLM continues to pursue fertility control research as a
means to deal with the increasing populations. We are focusing
on an immunocontraceptive vaccine that is proving to be a
viable, economically effective, and humane tool for reducing
wild horse reproduction.
Question. What are the prospects for efforts to reduce
fertility among the population?
Answer. Currently the prospects for fertility control of
wild horse populations look very good. A pilot study of an
immunocontraception vaccine to prevent pregnancy in mares was
implemented in northeast Nevada in December 1992. The results
of this pilot study to date have shown immuno-contraception
could be a viable, economically effective, and humane tool for
reducing wild horse reproduction.
--Researchers have reformulated the vaccine and now have developed a
single-injection vaccine, which does not require a booster
shot, that will last for approximately one year.
--A second pilot project, with a redesigned vaccine that has the
potential to last for more than one year, was initiated on the
Nevada Wild Horse Range/Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range in
January 1996.
--Field application of the single-injection, one year vaccine began
in Nevada this January and February. Application of the vaccine
will be expanded and additional herds will be treated in
subsequent years.
--The BLM plans for wild horse and burro immuno-contraception
research to continue at about $200,000 in fiscal year 1999.
This research is funded by the Biological Research Division of
the U.S. Geological Survey, not BLM.
Question. Based on the sensitivity of this issue, assuming
the population continues to increase and fertility is not
reduced, what changes are contemplated to manage this program?
Answer. Based on the results from the ongoing fertility
research involving the immunocontraceptive vaccine, the Bureau
feels that we will be able to use fertility control as one
tool, together with other management practices, to manage
animal population increases.
In addition, based on recommendations of the August, 1996
Emergency Evaluation, the Director reestablished the Wild Horse
and Burro Advisory Board. This board is provided for in Section
7 of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The Bureau
believes that the use of the Advisory Board will help by making
recommendations to manage this program in a way that will
better reflect the wishes of the American people.
U.S. Geological Survey
government performance and results act [gpra]
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year
1999 budget?
Answer. The USGS Strategic Plan laid out the direction and
long-term goals of the Survey through the year 2005. These
goals were the basis for defining the annual incremental
performance goals required in fiscal year 1999 to attain these
long-term goals. Review and analysis of program status
identified certain milestones met from which funding could be
decreased in order to direct funding to other program phases
that were scheduled to begin.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or
down, by this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the
likely impact the change would have on the level of program
performance and the achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes, the Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year
1999 was developed on the basis of the GPRA Strategic Plan. The
strategic business activity goals and performance goals were
sorted by budget activity before preparation of the Annual
Plan. The budget presents the Strategic Plan goals with the
fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan goals, indicators, and
goal attainment levels in tabular form. These tables are sorted
by budget activity (P&F Code) to clearly link both Strategic
and Annual Plans with the fiscal year 1999 Budget
Justification. In this way, the relationship of annual
milestones to strategic goals and the impact of funding changes
can be readily tracked.
new director
Question. Gordon Eaton retired as director of the Survey
this past fall. When do you expect to appoint a new director?
Where are you in the selection process?
Answer. The process of selecting a new Director to lead
USGS into the next century began shortly after Dr. Eaton's
retirement began. Because of the peer consulting associated
with the selection of a new Director, the completion of this
process can take a number of months. In the intervening months,
the USGS has not been a rudderless organization. Dr. Thomas
Casadevall was named to the position of Deputy Director of the
Survey. In addition to his new duties, Dr. Casadevall, formerly
Regional Director of the USGS Western Region in Menlo Park, has
temporarily assumed the role of Acting Director of USGS. His
enthusiasm, academic achievement and wise management expertise
keeps the Survey on a strong and vibrant course as we seek to
appoint a new Director before the end of the year.
core programs versus new initiatives
The fiscal year 1999 USGS budget justification includes
approximately $50,000,000 designated for new program
initiatives; $22,772,000 in reductions to existing programs;
and $17,495,000 in uncontrollable cost increases.
Question. Why are special initiatives taking precedence
over support for core programs?
Answer. Science is not static, it continually evolves and
new priorities are established. In order to be useful, the
questions of science must be constantly rephrased and adapted
to our changing world. The 20th century was a period where
physics was the discipline of the day. As we move closer to the
21st century, our survival becomes more dependent on
understanding issues related to the natural and biological
sciences. As our world and its need for knowledge changes,
scientific research needs to change as well. As such, the USGS
budget for the last year of the 20th century provides a bridge
to new science, to understanding how to achieve and maintain
sustainable development as it relates to our watersheds and
ecosystems. A redirection of $23 million in a $800 million
total budget is a relatively small (less than 3 percent) shift
in the budget priorities of a research organization.
Question. Given proposed reductions of nearly $23 million
to existing programs, is it fair to assume that these programs
are more than sufficiently funded at their fiscal year 1998
levels?
Answer. The increases included in the President's Budget
for special initiatives are reflective of the Administration's
priorities for the USGS science needs in fiscal year 1999.
Reductions include a $1.37 million across-the-board cut in
the Biological Resources Division, a $1.1 million reduction to
unspecified science programs for absorption of a potential
increase in GSA rent payments, half a million dollars in
``miscellaneous'' reductions to the water program, and
approximately $5 million in savings from largely undefined
``reinventing government'' measures.
Question. How do you justify program cuts that are defined
so unclearly that the impact to specific programs cannot be
readily determined?
Answer. Given a constrained funding environment, program
reductions were necessary in order to provide the flexibility
to address other high priority needs of more immediate concern.
disaster information network
$15,000,000 in new program funds are proposed for a
national Disaster Information Network. These funds would be
intended to enhance coordination among Federal agencies and
other organizations, standardize information collection, and
improve organization and access to disaster information. A
multi-agency ``integrated program office'' hosted by GS will
manage Federal coordination efforts.
Question. By law, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
is the entity responsible for coordinating disaster response.
This would seem to be the logical home for a multiagency
program office intended for that purpose. Why is GS the lead
agency?
Answer. The USGS is the national leader in research,
monitoring, and warning of most natural hazards. Information on
hazards, their likelihood, and how to prepare for them are the
primary products of the scientific research programs that are
critical missions of the USGS. It has:
--Primary national responsibility for research and for providing
real-time information and warnings for earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, landslides, and wildlife disease outbreaks.
--Primary national responsibility for stream-flow data and works
closely with NOAA to assist in their role of forecasting
floods.
--The USGS works with NOAA and other agencies in monitoring and
providing warnings for geomagnetic storms (space weather),
tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds, wildfires, and coastal storms.
--The USGS is undertaking a major pilot research effort in monitoring
wildfires and volcanoes using advanced monitoring systems.
--The USGS programs are divided into four themes: hazards,
information, environment, and resources. A disaster information
network brings the first two themes together and plays a
significant role in many aspects of the latter two themes.
The USGS is a national leader in the dissemination of disaster
information:
--The USGS responds to the requirement for maps and digital data in
times of natural disasters and other crisis situations through
a well-coordinated delivery network.
--The USGS, as the lead civilian mapping organization in the United
States, is responsible for providing maps and digital data to
the Department of Defense in times of national security or
other national crisis.
--USGS maps are used throughout the country and USGS digital data are
becoming equally ubiquitous.
--The Secretary of the Interior chairs the Federal Geographic Data
Committee.
--The USGS chairs the Civil Applications Committee and operates the
Advanced Systems Center for the proper utilization and
distribution of classified data.
--The USGS operates the EROS Data Center for delivery of mapping and
imagery products.
Strategic Performance Goal BA3-M3 of the USGS GPRA
Strategic Plan states that ``the Earth Science Information
Management and Delivery Program will manage and deliver an
increasing volume of geospatial data, including from classified
sources, to enable policy officials and program managers to
make wise and informed decisions when facing critical national
issues.'' Geospatial data constitute a major part of disaster
information and mitigating the effects of disasters is a
critical national issue.
The disaster information network initiative was developed
by all appropriate agencies and will involve all of these
agencies in the operation of an Integrated Program Office
staffed by detailees from each of the agencies. The USGS will
host this office and provide national leadership in an area
that is critical to the utilization of USGS research. The
proposed disaster information network will not supersede any
existing roles or responsibilities of the agencies. The
disaster information network will add value by coordinating and
integrating critical disaster information so that users can
quickly locate the information they need without having to
identify which agency is providing it or where it resides.
USGS, as host agency, will expend the funds as it does with
its other programs--in a manner that most cost-effectively
meets the program mission requirements, including the use of in
house research, private sector support, and interagency
expertise.
Question. What outyear costs are anticipated in the
implementation of this program?
Answer. The feasibility study by the Disaster Information
Task Force suggested a total cost over several years of $50
million to develop the network and outyear operating costs of
$10 million per year paid in part from private sources through
the public/private partnership to be developed. KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP prepared a benefit-cost analysis based on these
assumptions and concluded that the ratio of costs to benefits
over 10 years would be in the range of 12 to 25:1 for Federal
benefits and 15 to 31:1 for national benefits.
Question. Approximately $5,000,000 of the total amount
requested is intended for equipment upgrades. What will the
remaining $10,000,000 be used for?
Answer. The budget proposed for the Disaster Information
Network breaks down as follows:
--5 million. Establish the Integrated Program Office and address
primary issues. Staff office with full-time detailees from
Federal agencies with major rsponsibility for providing or
utilizing disaster information (Departments of Interior,
Commerce, Defense, and State, FEMA, and the DCI Environmental
Program) and with part-time liaison staff from other concerned
agencies including the NSF, NASA, EPA, and USDA. Develop an
integrated approach within Federal agencies for providing all
types of information relevant to disasters in forms most useful
to the users such as emergency managers and business and
community leaders concerned with building disaster resilient
communities. Foster policies and procedures that assure timely
access to relevant data from all sources. Implement a public-
private partnership that involves representatives of all stake-
holders in the specification and implementation of the Disaster
Information Network. Convene working groups of all stake-
holders to develop ways to organize and search for information,
standardize and harmonize data and information, visualize and
combine data, provide reliable dissemination during disasters,
specify and assure data quality, and handle sensitive
information.
--$3 million. Implement pilot demonstrations of how the Disaster
Information Network can be used effectively to reduce disaster
losses and develop prototype training and outreach efforts.
--$3 million. Adapt, integrate, and leverage new information
technologies to enhance the quality and reliability of the
Disaster Information Network and software tools that help
decisionmakers access and integrate the data and information to
make decisions critical for reducing disaster losses.
--$4 million. Assure reliable operation during emergencies by
connecting key providers and users through existing Federal
intranets and implementing alternative dissemination strategies
using such technologies as satellite broadcast.
Question. The $5 million for equipment upgrades points to a larger
issue GS faces in its need to keep pace with technological advances
that have produced new tools with enhanced capabilities. Is the
Department looking at these potential requirements of GS? Is there a
comprehensive plan for periodically updating systems independent of any
new initiative proposed by the agency?
Answer. Many of the monitoring networks that the GS depends on are
becoming outmoded because they have not been upgraded for decades. The
USGS and the Department are looking at options for future budgets to
provide for enhanced infrastructure.
drug registration partnership
The Biological Resources Division has proposed to save $899,000 by
withdrawing from the agreement it has with 37 States to conduct
research aimed at developing safe and effective FDA-approved drugs
required for use in Federal, State, and private fish culture
operations. GS has acknowledged that the program will be terminated if
its support is withdrawn, although work is far from completed at this
time.
Question. The original agreement called for a 5-year commitment
terminating at the end of fiscal year 1999. As the lead agency
responsible for conducting the research at one of its own labs, why
doesn't GS feel obligated to honor the terms of the agreement it made
with the States?
Answer. The USGS has honored the terms of the agreement it made
with the States for development of FDA-approved drugs for fish culture
operations. As a partner in this effort, USGS' Biological Resources
Division (BRD), budgeted funding starting in fiscal year 1994 for drug
and chemical registration as a 5-year program. For fiscal year 1994-
1998, BRD continued support for the program in partnership with the
States and has successfully registered some of the therapeutic drugs.
In developing the fiscal year 1999 budget, this program was
proposed for reduction as the 5-year program was slated to end. After
completing the budget, the BRD became aware of additional research
needed to meet FDA requirements to complete registration of all the
required drugs. Additionally, the original scope of work for a 5-year
program anticipated $1 million in contributions annually from the 50
States. Actual contributions have not met this target, thereby slowing
the process for completing the work and extending the timeframe needed
for drug approvals. Another factor contributing to this delay in drug
and chemical registration, has been cooperator-approved changes to the
original scope of work after the project began (e.g., a better
anesthetic came on the market and was substituted for the one on which
work already had been done). Additionally, modifications to the
original data requirements for other drugs in the study were made after
the project began.
Question. States have invested a total of over $700,000 annually
for work in large part not complete at this time. Does GS plan to
reimburse the States for dollars expended on products not delivered?
Answer. No. The USGS does not plan to reimburse the states because
all parties are committed to seeing the goals of this unique
cooperative agreement achieved in full measure. Substantial progress
already has been achieved in the IAFWA Project. For example, FDA has
approved the use of formalin for the treatment of parasites on fish,
hydrogen peroxide for use as a fungicide, and copper sulfate as an
external microbicide. However, completing the full scope of work on all
eight priority drugs will require an additional three years of effort.
The extension is needed because the original scope of work was based on
an expected contribution of $1 million annually from USGS and $1
million annually from the 50 states. Actual contributions fell far
below those originally envisioned, with $760,000 annually from the
federal government and approximately $500,000 to $740,000 annually from
the states. Moreover, changes in the original scope of work have been
required as data were reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration and
new drugs came on the market. Recognizing the need for additional time
and funding, the 30 states present at the IAFWA Inland Fisheries
Committee meeting in September 1997 agreed to support a three-year
extension to the project.
Question. Many State fish and wildlife agencies have expressed
concern over the BRD's proposal to terminate this project. Some have
suggested that the Federal agreement be fulfilled by appropriating
resources to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for contract with
another lab capable of completing the work. Since GS has demonstrated a
serious lack of commitment to the program, should this alternative be
explored?
Answer. USGS remains committed to the program. The leadership for
the IAFWA Project should remain with BRD in order to provide continuity
and efficient use of appropriations. BRD facilities for conducting the
laboratory studies and clinical field trials are among the only ones of
their kind in the Nation. Transferring the project to a contract-basis
managed by FWS would be significantly more costly, in both time and
money.
general statement
Question. In the General Statement you propose to make development
of monitoring tools to evaluate Habitat Conservation Plans a major
focus area. What kinds of tools do you envision in this effort? Aren't
there many tools already available for this?
Answer. The USGS proposes three approaches: (1) providing more
information on a landscape scale which encompasses assemblages of
species; (2) developing decision support systemstools such as expert
computer systems or geographic information systems that allow managers
to easily access information needed for decisions; and (3) employing
adaptive resource managementa process by which researchers and managers
work together to measure the effectiveness of management strategies and
then alter those strategies if the desired response is not observed. It
is with respect to the latter item (adaptive management) that specific
projects will be designed to evaluate Habitat Conservation Plans in
close partnership with FWS, NPS, and State conservation agencies in
California and Hawaii. Migratory bird management is at the leading edge
of adaptive management initiatives. Research conducted by USGS
scientists will strengthen new management initiatives of the FWS in
monitoring migratory birds using wetlands and grasslands on Refuges in
the Northern Great Plains and Alaska.
Land managers in our partner bureaus do not have the tools needed
to implement management strategies that are ecologically and habitat-
based, and have requested that the USGS develop them. The USGS has
responded to this need with a proposed budget increase that supports
the goal of providing information on the biology and ecology of species
at risk of highest concern to resource managers. The proposed increase
will support development of decision support systems related to
threatened biological communities of southwestern and southeastern
ecosystems, identification of landscape features important to
biological communities in grassland ecosystems, and development of
monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness of habitat
conservation measures.
Question. Please describe in more detail the kinds of information
that would be included in ``Aquatic Gap Analysis.'' Why were
southeastern aquatic habitats selected for the initial focus? Would
this be a result of existing resources available there suggesting this
to be the most cost effective area for focus?
Answer. The information developed in Aquatic Gap Analysis will
answer these basic questions: How are important aquatic biological
resources distributed across the landscape? What types of aquatic
habitats and species are found in a particular area? Are these
resources being most effectively managed?
Are there gaps in our knowledge that significantly limit our
ability to manage aquatic biological resources? Is there some watershed
activity that is impacting particularly valuable aquatic habitats.
The information that will be displayed in the aquatic gap products
includes:
--GIS mapping and documentation of land cover compatible with
terrestial GAP;
--A nationally standardized depiction of streams and rivers and
watershed boundaries;
--Incorporated National Wetlands Inventory digital mapping;
--Distribution of aquatic species--fish, freshwater mussels, other
invertebrate species;
--Amphibians, aquatic vascular plants, aquatic mammals, waterfowl and
wading birds;
--Water management information, such as State or EPA outstanding
water designation;
--Soil and water conservation district plans, Forest Service or other
Federal agency;
--Management plans, etc.; and
--Habitat quality data.
This information displayed geospatially will assist land
and water managers in their management and stewardship
activities. Portions of this information have already been
developed through terrestrial Gap Analysis.
The southeast was selected primarily because it has the
greatest diversity of aquatic species in the Nation. This
quality, however, also makes it the area with the greatest
number of extinctions as well as endangered and threatened
aquatic species. The data available varies widely among the
southeastern States; those with the best existing information
resources offer the opportunity of the most efficient
development of Aquatic Gap Analysis programs. However, those
States with aquatic resources and with significant gaps in
their knowledge base may have the greatest need for Aquatic Gap
Analysis.
clean water and watershed restoration initiative
Question. How will activities under the President's Clean
Water Initiative be coordinated with other Federal agencies to
ensure cost effectiveness and avoid duplication of efforts?
Answer. The Clean Water Action Plan was conceived and
developed as a collaborative project among a number of Federal
agencies, to build on their existing watershed assessment and
management programs in a coordinated manner. A Federal
Interagency Steering Committee, with representation at the
Assistant Bureau Chief level, was established to oversee the
coordination. This Committee currently meets two to three times
each month. In addition, 11 interagency topical work groups
were set up during development of the Plan to integrate
activities from the various agencies. Implementation of the
Plan is being overseen by another set of 11 interagency work
groups. Each of the work groups has responsibility for a
certain group of key actions from the Plan. In addition,
several of the Departments have their own interagency
coordinating committees for the Plan. At the State level and
Regional level, seven regional meetings are being held during
April-May 1998 to familiarize regional and local Federal
officials with the Plan. State-level implementation teams will
involve coordination of multiple Federal agencies.
Question. What is the proposed Federal/public interface for
dealing with watershed councils? How will this be funded?
Answer. Chapter III of the Clean Water Action Plan lists
the following key actions to support watershed councils:
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, Federal agencies will
coordinate with States and Tribes to provide small grants to
enable organizations to build watershed partnerships and
advance watershed restoration efforts.
To support local organizations and citizens in locally
based watershed protection efforts, and to encourage the
organization of such groups nationwide, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other Federal agencies
will increase information and technical assistance available to
these groups.
USEPA, USDA, DOI, NOAA, and other Federal agencies will
work with the present sponsors of the national watershed awards
to review options for broadening and expanding the awards
program, including a watershed award in each State and awards
for innovative solutions to specific problems.
The Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture,
Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and the Administrator of
USEPA, in cooperation with States and Tribes, will convene a
National Watershed Forum to coordinate watershed assessment,
restoration, and protection.
By July 1999, Federal agencies will use Watershed
Assistance Grants or other appropriate means to support local
watershed coordinators and will identify agency staff who can
help coordinate Federal programs for watershed restoration and
protection.
In addition to these specific key actions, watershed
councils are likely to be represented on State implementation
teams for the Plan.
Question. You state that the Federal-State Cooperative
Water Program will be used to operate and monitor programs,
pollution sources, etc. and that a $16.5 million increase is
necessary. What was the previous function of this program? How
will this new focus affect previous activities?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, USGS is requesting $23.5
million for the Clean Water Initiative and the Water Quality
Information Initiative. These funds are requested in a variety
of programs to fund a variety of activities:
Funds requested for the clean water initiative and the water quality
information initiative
Millions
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program................. $6.0
Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program.......................... 3.5
Water Information Delivery Program................................ 3.0
Federal-State Cooperative Water Program........................... 4.0
Water Resources Research Act Program.............................. 1.0
National Mapping Geographic Research and Applications Program..... 1.0
Geologic Division Mineral Resources Program....................... 3.0
Biological Resources Division Research and Monitoring Program..... 2.0
The $4 million requested for the Federal-State Cooperative
Water Program (Coop Program) includes $2 million for the Clean
Water Initiative and $2 million for the Water Quality
Information Initiative. These funds would support the following
activities:
--Increase water-quality monitoring stations; evaluate the relative
effects of various pollution sources to determine Total Maximum
Daily Loads, as required by the Clean Water Act.
--Provide information about source water protection areas and improve
approaches to protecting drinking water sources.
--Target watersheds in NAWQA study areas with follow-up work to
better: (1) link agricultural practices and pesticides in
ground water; (2) quantify sources of nutrients entering
streams; (3) assess impacts of historic land use on water
quality; (4) understand relations between water quality and
health of aquatic organisms; and (5) evaluate the effectiveness
of nonpoint source pollution management practices.
The increase proposed for fiscal year 1999 will not change
the function of the Coop Program or affect previous activities.
Rather, the increase will expand and enhance the types of data
collection efforts and interpretive studies needed to support
the two initiatives. By conducting this work through the Coop
Program, USGS can effectively partner with State and local
water resource agencies in addressing clean water issues
important to all levels of government and the public. As with
all Coop projects the cooperating agencies will provide at
least half the funding; USGS will do most of the work. The
result is an effective cost sharing arrangement enabling the
use of consistent techniques of data collection, archiving, and
analysis so vital to a national resource assessment.
Question. You have been investigating the hypoxic zone in
the Gulf of Mexico for a number of years. How much longer do
you expect to continue this activity and what products will
result?
Answer. USGS investigations have produced a framework for
understanding the relationships between nutrient loadings and
delivery in the Mississippi River Basin and hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico. Most of the nutrient load is generated in
agricultural watersheds of the Upper Mississippi Basin, and
additional inputs occur in the Lower Mississippi River Valley
downstream of the Mississippi/Ohio River confluence. It is now
suspected that the past loss of flood plain wetlands has
reduced the level of nutrients retained in the river system,
and has contributed substantially to the transport of nutrients
to the Gulf. However, scientific understanding of the source,
fate, and transport of nutrients driving Gulf hypoxia is
incomplete, and investigations into the role of flood plain
wetlands in the removal of nutrients from surface waters within
the Mississippi River system are in their infancy.
USGS will continue studies related to Gulf hypoxia as long
as there are significant questions concerning the source,
within-basin transformation, and transport of water quality
constituents driving the problem, and sufficient concern to
warrant funding. For fiscal year 1999, USGS proposes initiation
of a 5-year investigation to determine the contribution of
flood plain wetlands to nutrient reduction in the Mississippi
River Basin. The following products will result: (1)
information on the retention, transformation, and transport of
nutrients in flood plain wetlands; (2) decision-support models
for use by river and habitat managers to predict the best
hydraulic practices to promote nutrient retention by wetland
vegetation; (3) a landscape-level model of interactions between
wetland and non-wetland habitats and water quality to evaluate
the acreage, relative location, and type of habitat necessary
to achieve desired nutrient reduction loads.
Question. Will information gathered in this study be
relevant or useful in addressing the over enrichment problems
in Chesapeake Bay?
Answer. The primary cause of nutrient enrichment problems
in both the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico is nonpoint
source inputs from the surrounding watersheds. Consequently,
information generated within the Mississippi River Basin on
nutrient source, retention, transformation, and transport will
be extremely relevant and useful in addressing similar concerns
within the Chesapeake Bay. In particular, the increase in
fundamental understanding of these processes generated by USGS
studies on Gulf hypoxia will be directly transferable to the
Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the models and decision support
systems that will be generated for the Mississippi River Basin
can be adapted to Chesapeake Bay watersheds for use by local
managers.
continuing programs
Question. How long has USGS been investigating endocrine
disrupting synthetic compounds? How are the compounds selected
for testing? What effects have been documented? How have the
data been used?
Answer. Because DDT is a classical endocrine disrupting
compound, the USGS and its precursor organizations have been
working on these compounds for over 50 years. While the concept
of endocrine disruptors is relatively new compared to the
toxicological history of DDT, it establishes a basic premise of
our contaminant research--there is not a focus on any
particular mode of action, such as endocrine disruption, but
more on the ability of a compound to affect fish and wildlife
resources. The recent emphasis on endocrine disruption, and a
fiscal year 1998 funding increase, has allowed us focus on some
of the endpoints and measurements associated with the endocrine
disruption mode of contaminant action.
We do not particularly select compounds for testing. Much
of the work done is field based where the health of wildlife in
a contaminated environment is examined, or a known health
problem in a species is investigated to see if contaminants are
a probable cause. In these cases there are usually multiple
compounds involved. In laboratory testing scientists use a
compound that is known to cause an effect, these positive
controls assure that the experimentation is sensitive. For
example, in developing a model to test the effects of potential
endocrine disrupting compounds on fish development, a compound
such as DDT which has estrogenic properties, would be tested in
validating the model.
Definitive evidence of effects caused by endocrine
disruptors has been limited. USGS scientists have documented
physical anomalies in reproductive tissues of river otters and
fish. Observations of altered reproductive hormones and the
presence of the female egg protein (vitellogenin) in male fish
have also been made. Neither the cause of these anomalies, nor
the ramifications to any population have been identified.
Reduced reproductive success of several species of birds,
mammals, and fish have been documented that correlate with
exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds, but specific
compounds and mechanisms have yet to be determined.
Based on the results from these initial investigations USGS
helped identify physiological tests that may be useful for
identifying endocrine disrupting compounds, and highlighted
geographic areas where the risk of problems from these
compounds is high.
Question. Many of your fisheries projects (Salton Sea,
Southwest strategy) involve extensive interaction with other
Federal agencies. How are the needs of other agencies
identified, prioritized, and selected by USGS? Are the Federal
agencies satisfied with the process and satisfied their needs
are being met?
Answer. The USGS currently uses several approaches to
identify, prioritize, and address science information needs.
Biological information needs are addressed through the Bureau
Information Needs process which compiles information needs from
annual regional meetings with Interior partner bureaus. To the
degree that funding is available research efforts are directed
based on these identified information needs. In addition, other
Federal agencies contract with us for research support through
cost-reimbursable agreements. Geologic needs are addressed
through coordination and consultation mechanisms to identify
the priority needs of its constituents which include Department
partner bureaus and others. Mapping needs are addressed through
the role of the USGS as chair of the Interior Geographic Data
Committee's Base Mapping Working Group, which coordinates the
identification and collection of digital geospatial base data
requirement among Interior bureaus through the Department High
Priority Digital Base Data Program. Priority water information
needs are identified via the Water Resources Investigations
Cost-Share Program conducted with Department Bureaus and
others.
The processes by which the USGS meets customers needs
continues to evolve, as they should, to be more responsive to
customer needs. As an indication of the responsiveness of the
USGS, Federal agencies are satisfied with the performance of
the USGS in meeting their needs. For example as shown in the
USGS' ``Report to Our Customers'' covering fiscal year 1997, 98
percent of the customers surveyed indicated they were very
satisfied with the biological resources program products
addressing research on management needs and technical
assistance. Similar endorsements are also provided by customers
whose information needs are addressed by the other USGS
disciplines.
Question. Toxic algae-How does the work investigating
environmental conditions contributing to toxic algae blooms
correspond/intersect with EPA's EMAP (Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program)?
Answer. USEPA's EMAP program focuses on the condition of
estuaries as evidenced by water-quality and ecological
monitoring within the estuary. Much of the USGS work on
environmental conditions contributing to toxic algal blooms
focuses on conditions in the watersheds upstream from the
estuaries, as evidenced by land-use factors and water-quality
monitoring and modeling in rivers and their watersheds. For
example, the USGS SPARROW (SPAtially-Referenced Regressions On
Watershed attributes) model used thousands of historic water-
quality analyses, streamflow data, time-of-travel data, and
watershed characteristics to simulate the source, occurrence,
and transport of nutrients that contribute to algal blooms
downstream.
biological research
Question. Besides continually documenting the spread of
zebra mussels, what purpose does this research serve? Have any
useful control strategies been developed? How much money has
been spent on zebra mussel research?
Answer. USGS research is part of a coordinated effort
involving Federal and state agencies, universities, affected
industries, and Canadian agencies to assess pathways for the
spread of zebra mussels, monitor existing populations, develop
control methods, and reduce the ecological damage and economic
costs of zebra mussel invasions. USGS contributions (see below
highlights) focus on understanding the ecology of zebra
mussels, including competition with native species, in order to
identify characteristics useful in developing approaches for
preventing the establishment of new populations, including the
spread to the western states, and lessening ecological impacts.
To date, effective controls for zebra mussels have been
developed only in association with engineered structures such
as water intakes and hatchery raceways. Although much is now
known about the complex factors influencing the spread of zebra
mussels, no physical, chemical, or biological control, or
combination of methods, has yet been discovered that is
effective and economical for use in the environment. In
addition to the research efforts, the USGS also provides
documentation on the distribution and spread of zebra mussels
through the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Database,
which is a widely used source of reliable data and information
on invasive aquatic organisms.
The annual research budget (through the transfer of
research programs from FWS to the National Biological Service
and ultimately to USGS) has remained at about $2 million, with
the largest programs conducted by the Great Lakes (GLSC), Upper
Mississippi (UMSC), and Florida-Caribbean (FCSC) Science
Centers, and the Environmental Management Technical Center
(EMTC).
Question. In the recent accomplishments section of
Biological Research and last year's budget justification you
describe findings of mercury in tissues of fish and wildlife.
However, in the program decrease section of Water Resources
Assessments and Research, Toxic Substances, mercury studies are
slated for a program decrease with justification that it would
be a new start. Please explain.
Answer. The mercury study affected by the proposed
reduction in the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program is a
separate effort from the work described in the Biological
Research Activity. The USGS/Biological Resources Division
research on mercury in tissues studies is an ongoing program
based on previous BRD research determining conditions under
which environmental mercury becomes bioavailable and toxic. BRD
research and monitoring indicates that when mercury becomes
bioavailable, it can become bioaccumulated, as it has in
national parks and refuges in the Northeast, Florida, and the
Great Lakes. Elevated levels of mercury are found in fish and
wildlife tissues of species where mercury has become
bioavailable, and is especially concentrated at the tops of the
food chains.
Work described in the budget justification under the Water
Resources Investigations Activity would be a separate effort
with a different slant. In recent years, USGS has recognized
increased public concern for effects on fish, wildlife, and
human health from environmental mercury contamination, and has
acknowledged that contamination of aquatic ecosystems by
mercury is an important and complex global problem. In July
1996, USGS sponsored a multi-agency workshop to transfer
information and technology, to identify data and information
gaps, and to identify specific areas of investigation. Since
then, USGS scientists investigating the geology, chemistry, and
biology of this problem have been coordinating with others to
design a comprehensive investigation of mercury contamination
of aquatic ecosystems that will provide scientific information
to fill current critical information gaps. USEPA recently
released a comprehensive review of the mercury contamination
problem that identified priority research needs. The USGS
investigation being designed as part of the Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program will address an important subset of these
needs.
Approximately $90,000 has been invested in information
reconnaissance, interagency coordination, and planning each in
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. USGS will complete the
design of this investigation in fiscal year 1999, as planned.
However, the need to limit spending requires us to either stop
research that is in progress before its planned completion or
to postpone starting new studies. We believe that the latter is
more prudent. The planned mercury assessment is certainly
important, and as other projects within the Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program come to a close and free up program
resources, it is likely that we will begin the planned mercury
assessment. When it is finished, the regional assessment will
provide information on the occurrence of mercury in water
sediment and fish in a broad range of representative
ecosystems, and will provide focused investigations.
Question. Please provide specific details on the programs
and activities that are proposed for decreases in Biological
Research and Monitoring (-1.37M). Broad based cuts. Answer: The
across-the-board reduction impacts all activities funded in the
Research and Monitoring subactivity. Given a constrained
funding environment, these reductions were necessary in order
to provide the flexibility to address other high priority needs
of more immediate concern. Specific impacts at each of the
major research centers include the following:
National and Regional Programs (-$482,000).--This will
result in reduced support to the National Park Service for the
study of fisheries nursery habitat in the San Juan and Colorado
Rivers; support to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Black
Duck Joint Venture; support to the Bureau of Land Management
for the development of wildhorse immunocontraception
techniques; and a study of predation-caused population declines
among Hawaiian forest bird species. Reductions to the
maintenance of facilities will delay the completion of repairs
to facilities and equipment, which are needed to ensure
employee and public safety. A reduction to the operational
budget of the research centers will result in greater
reductions to science programs, as there are certain fixed
costs that have to be paid such as utility bills, telephone
costs, workers compensation, postage, etc.
Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Washington
(-$30,000).--Reduced genetic fish stock examination, wetlab
trials in support of National Fish Hatcheries, and research on
aquatic epizootics.
Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska (-$64,000).--
Reduced the development and application of inventory and
monitoring protocols in National Parks in Alaska, the science
program at the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, and large
mammal and predator/prey research on National Wildlife Refuges.
Pacific Islands Ecological Research Center, Honolulu,
Hawaii (-$29,000).--Reduced cooperative efforts with NPS, FWS,
State and private entities for the recovery of imperiled
species on Hawaiian National Wildlife Refuges.
California Science Center, Davis, California (-$54,000).--
Reduced support for recovery of imperiled species in
California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah.
Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis,
Oregon (-$76,000).--Reduced protocol development for Northwest
Forest Plan Effectiveness Monitoring and rangeland management
and restoration needs on BLM lands.
Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins,
Colorado (-$94,000).--Reduced research on terrestrial habitat
models used by land managers to develop mitigation and
management plans.
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North
Dakota (-$33,000).--Reduced research for DOI bureaus on
management of predator populations and best management
practices for migratory birds.
Environmental and Contaminants Research Center, Columbia,
Missouri (-$64,000).--Reduced research on causes of
environmental degradation in the Lower Rio Grande River.
National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana
(-$56,000).--Reduced research on the importance of fresh and
saline wetlands for migratory birds.
Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, Florida
(-$39,000).--Reduced studies of the life history and habitat
requirements of Gulf sturgeon.
Upper Mississippi Science Center. LaCrosse, Wisconsin
(-$35,000).--Reduced ecological studies of imperiled species
and habitats in the Upper Mississippi River basin.
Leetown Science Center, Leetown, West Virginia
(-$79,000).--Reduced ongoing evaluation of freshwater mussels
in Appalachian streams.
National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, Wisconsin
(-$30,000).--Reduced work in support of DOI bureaus including
wildlife health disease research.
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
(-$137,000).--Reduced research on coastal habitat requirements
to restore Atlantic coast populations of black ducks.
Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
(-$68,000).--Reduced research and populations assessment of
Great Lakes lake trout.
Question. Given the apparent increase in fish and wildlife
mortality occurring in many areas of the U.S. (e.g., whirling
disease, Salton Sea fish and bird kills, Pfiesteria, eagles,
coots), what is the USGS doing to determine the causes of these
outbreaks and what research is being conducted on understanding
factors that control fish and wildlife diseases?
Answer. The USGS has research programs addressing fish and
wildlife health problems underway at two fisheries laboratories
and one wildlife center. The geographic scope, environmental
complexity, biological impact, and economic consequences of
fish and wildlife diseases are enormous. The following are but
a few examples of USGS' fish and wildlife disease research
efforts:
Whirling Disease.--The USGS' Western Fisheries Research
Center (Seattle) is engaged in cooperative research on whirling
disease with scientists at its Leetown Science Center (Leetown,
WV) and the University of California, Davis. Whirling disease
on a national scope is a re-emerging problem, particularly in
the West. Current research is directed toward breaking the life
cycle of this parasite. Both molecular and conventional
methodologies are being used in ongoing research directed
toward understanding the mechanisms of disease pathogenesis.
Except for small portions of Principal Investigator salary and
some technician time, all of this project ($300,000 per year)
is funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. When this
project ends (1999), essentially no USGS money will be
available to support this work.
Salton Sea.--Over the last five years the Salton Sea has
been the site of several major die-offs. Disease problems in
birds have included avian cholera, Newcastle disease, avian
botulism and undiagnosed mortality in eared grebes. The USGS
has conducted field and laboratory investigations of the many
disease outbreaks occurring at the Salton Sea. These studies
have been brief and in response to specific disease events
rather than comprehensive research studies because of lack of
funding specific for the Salton Sea.
In January 1998, a new outbreak of bird diseases killed
more than 5,600 birds at the Salton Sea. The USGS diagnosed
avian cholera, a bacterial infection, as the killer of more
than 1,800 ducks and geese. More recently, USGS isolated and
identified Newcastle's Disease virus as the suspected cause of
death in an estimated 1,600 double-crested cormorants taken
from the Sea during a die-off. Certain forms of Newcastle's
Disease are highly pathogenic to poultry and could pose a
significant economic threat to Southern California's poultry
industry. USGS and FWS personnel are cooperating with other
Federal, State, and local agencies to identify the cause of the
mortality and initiate containment procedures.
With respect to fish die-offs and disease outbreaks in the
Salton Sea, USGS spends the majority of its efforts to help
ameliorate disease problems rather than in more basic research
to increase understanding of the causes of disease. The Western
Fisheries Research Center (Seattle) did the initial
investigation of the Salton Sea fish kills. In fiscal year
1998, this Center is cooperating with the USGS' National
Wildlife Health Center (Madison--NWHC) on a 1-year project to
examine the role of Vibrios spp. (a type of bacteria) in some
of the massive fish mortalities and its possible link to the
occurrence of avian botulism at the Salton Sea.
Dr. Milton Friend, formerly Director of the NWHC, has been
named to serve as Chairman of the Salton Sea Science
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee, with representation from 14
different federal, state, local and tribal organizations, will
provide the scientific evaluations and recommendations needed
to help restore the health of the troubled Salton Sea
ecosystem. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests $500,000 for
Salton Sea to conduct research to understand the ecology of
disease causing agents for fish and wildlife in the Salton Sea
including avian botulism. Studies will investigate the causes
of mass mortality among fishes and responses of birds and
native vegetation to biological and physical disturbances.
Pfiesteria.--As part of its Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Program, USGS has begun investigations to determine factors
contributing to fish lesions in the Chesapeake Bay. USGS
studies will: characterize the types and causes of fish
lesions; evaluate fish health with a variety of physiological,
histological, and immunological techniques; and assess possible
linkages of fish health problems to land use, history, and
water quality.
Eagle and Coot Deaths.--The USGS provides considerable
technical and diagnostic assistance in response to the major
mortality occurring in bald eagles and coots in Arkansas, and
recently discovered in North Carolina and Georgia. The disease
apparently affects the brain and nervous system by creating
holes in the myelin layers that insulate the nerve bundles.
Myelin coats the nerve bundles much like the plastic coating
around electrical wire, and when the coating is damaged it can
short-circuit the nervous system. Despite the exhaustive
efforts of federal, state and private-sector scientists, the
cause or source of the disease remains a mystery. Field
investigations led by the USGS' NWHC are under way, and
scientists are hoping that clues from the new locations will
help to reveal the cause of the disease. The public is being
urged to report observations of sick or dead eagles or coots to
the NWHC.
Question. Critics of fish hatcheries are saying a major
problem is that hatcheries produce fish that are not equivalent
to their wild counterparts, in terms of genetics, behavior, and
disease. What research is the USGS doing to help hatchery
managers produce fish that can be used to supplement natural
stocks without harm--particularly imperiled or listed
populations?
Answer. USGS is engaged in research to address this issue.
The Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC) in Seattle
evaluates the costs and benefits of using alternative sources
of broodstock--other than traditional domesticated strains--for
supplementation. Specifically, the study tests for genetic
differences in the growth, survival, and reproductive success
of hatchery and wild steelhead and of hatchery and wild spring
chinook salmon in both natural streams and hatcheries. Other
research helps guide hatchery managers in identification of
hatchery practices that produce juvenile salmonids that are
more like the wild fish and can be used to supplement wild
stocks that are declining or listed.
Scientists at the Leetown Science Center are determining
the effectiveness of alkalinity on the survival, growth, and
physiological condition of Atlantic salmon. Low pH, coupled
with high aluminum ion concentrations in low alkalinity waters
are suspected as causes of mass mortality of fry at the
hatchery. Atlantic salmon are an imperiled species currently
being restored through a joint Conservation Plan administered
by the State of Maine, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Researchers are also
investigating the genetics of several imperiled, declining,
threatened or endangered species for broodstock development at
national fish hatcheries including the shortnose sturgeon, an
endangered species, and the Atlantic sturgeon, a species
recently proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
A considerable body of genetics research is now available for
the imperiled Atlantic salmon. Scientists at the Conte
Anadromous Fisheries Laboratory in Massachusetts are working in
partnerships with hatcheries on the Connecticut River and in
Maine to develop river-specific broodstocks that maximize
variability in declining populations of this species.
Scientists at Leetown are determining the effectiveness of
raising sterile, triploid Atlantic salmon for use by the
commercial aquaculture industry in Maine. The use of sterile
fish in aquaculture has been recommended as an alternative to
rearing genetically distinct salmon of European origin in Maine
waters. Production characteristics of two sterile hatchery
stocks reared in the lab and at a commercial aquaculture
facility in Maine are being compared. Disease research at
Leetown is developing improved ways for monitoring the presence
of pathogens in Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon to reduce
the chances of spreading disease organisms in the wild.
Treatments of returning sea run Atlantic salmon have been
improved that will help reduce mortality of these adults until
gametes can be taken for restoration efforts. A recent CD-ROM
produced by USGS researchers in Wellsboro, PA provides genetic
and performance characteristics of various strains of rainbow
trout to assist hatchery managers in selecting appropriate fish
for stocking.
Question. The decline and listing of salmon in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California is of concern to the Nation. What
research is the USGS doing to assist in the recovery efforts?
What work is the USGS funding in the Columbia Basin on this
issue?
Answer. USGS scientists at the Western Fisheries Research
Center, Seattle, Washington are conducting research to address
declining populations of Pacific salmonids. The Center's Fish
Health research group is helping managers of both hatcheries
and wild stocks address disease concerns such as bacterial
kidney disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, infectious
hematopoietic necrosis, and whirling disease. Genetic studies
help fisheries managers distinguish stocks of concern and help
in captive breeding of listed species. Research directed at
improving salmon habitat includes assessment of toxic threats
posed by heavy metal contamination from acid mine drainage and
by agrochemicals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is our
primary partner in these studies.
There are a number of studies and data collection
activities that USGS is conducting to support information needs
of agencies addressing salmon restoration in the Pacific
Northwest. In the lower Columbia River, USGS is measuring total
dissolved gas saturation, an important indicator for fish
survival. Also, in Washington State on the Elwha River, USGS
has recently completed a study related to the possible
restoration of salmon habitat through the removal of two dams.
The Elwha River study used GIS and digital elevation models to
determine river reaches that would be assessable to salmon, and
also evaluated the impact of restored runs on nutrient dynamics
in the river. Ongoing steelhead research on the Wind River (a
tributary of the Columbia River) is examining whether steelhead
fry and parr must grow to a critical size during summer to
survive harsh winter conditions. A bioenergetics model will be
developed using the results to help managers better assess the
effects of future human impacts and the effectiveness of
alternative management actions.
In addition to these studies, USGS produces data on: (1)
river flows or stream gaging, (2) temperature and dissolved
oxygen, and (3) land-use which can be related to river habitat
information. All of these data can be useful in determining
requirements for salmon population restoration. Also, USGS
scientists provide technical and scientific assistance to
Department of Interior bureaus, tribal and state fisheries
agencies, and non-DOI bureaus such as the Bonneville Power
Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Technical assistance needs range from
management of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, to
recreational species and management of major projects (dams)
and fish passage facilities. A wide variety of technical
fisheries and ecological issues include such topics as fishery-
related telemetry and acoustics, laboratory services, salmonid
physiology (e.g., gas bubble trauma), alien invasives (e.g.,
introduced predatory game fish), aquatic invertebrates, and
large river ecosystem issues. Substantial funding to address
specific issues such as passage at individual dams is provided
by the Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power
Administration (about $6 million in fiscal year 1998). However,
holistic basin-wide fisheries research studies, as requested by
our partner agencies to address the larger population decline
questions and identify factors limiting reproduction and
survival, have not been funded.
Question. How does your budget compare to that of the land
and resource management agencies that you support?
Answer. The budget for biological research (BRD) decreased
from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998 by 12 percent. This
compares to the average increase of 11 percent for this same
time period for the three land and resource management agencies
that the research programs primarily support: the National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management.
The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes to begin to bridge the
gap in funding for science support for DOI bureaus. The budget
requests increases of $11 million for research programs to
address issues that are a high priority to DOI bureaus. If the
fiscal year 1999 President's budget is enacted, the change in
funding from fiscal year 1994 is a decline of 4 percent as
compared to the average increase during this same time period
for the land and resource management bureaus of 21 percent.
Question. How does this compare with private industry
investments in research?
Answer. A conservative or minimum estimate of what most
corporations spend on research and development is 10 percent of
the total business. Using this as the goal, the BRD budget
would be $265.7 million for fiscal year 1998 instead of $145
million. The enacted appropriation for biological research
(BRD) is 5.5 percent of the operational portions of the budgets
for the three land and resource management agencies: the
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Bureau of Land Management.
Question. Are the research needs of the land and resource
agencies being met?
Answer. Through effective resource management, the USGS/BRD
has ensured that the land management bureaus' highest priority
research needs are met despite the budget reductions in fiscal
year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. There is substantial evidence
that USGS/BRD scientists have been able to mobilize greater
scientific resources in support of land managers, especially
the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service,
than these managers were getting prior to the formation of NBS.
Furthermore, there is evidence that USGS/BRD scientists are
doing a better job of focusing their remaining research
capability on the high priority resource management issues
through a concerted effort at all levels to coordinate,
cooperate, and collaborate with the parent bureaus.
Nevertheless, the increasing responsibilities and complex
challenges confronting our land managers continue to increase
their demand for science support. The fiscal year 1999 USGS
budget request seeks to address this need with the proposed $11
million increase for species and habitat research.
facilities maintenance
Question. What is the deferred maintenance backlog for
Biological Resources Division facilities?
Answer. The deferred maintenance listing for the U.S.
Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (BRD) is $35
million, which is part of the $58 million listing of deferred
maintenance projects identified for the U.S. Geological Survey
in December, 1997. The $58 million listing includes a
comprehensive inventory of projects for BRD, and a preliminary
inventory of the deferred maintenance needs for the other
divisions in USGS. The USGS is in the process of generating a
comprehensive listing of deferred maintenance projects for the
entire bureau.
Question. Is funding included in the budget adequate to
address maintenance needs?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Biological
Research and Monitoring (BRD) includes $2.9 million for annual
maintenance, which will enable BRD to address the most urgently
needed health and safety repair projects. The budget request
includes an additional $1 million to replace incinerators that
are in violation of state air quality standards at the National
Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. The incinerator
project is the number one priority on the bureau-wide listing
of deferred maintenance projects.
Prior to BRD-wide rescissions and budget reductions in
fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996, the annual budget for
maintenance was $5.3 million, which funded annual maintenance
requirements, but did not address the deferred maintenance
projects. internal and external customer service
Question. Why are overhead costs charged for moving money
between Divisions (not the case in interagency agreements)?
What is the charge? Is this more than most institutions charge
scientific agencies with the Federal Government?
Answer. Effective October 1997, there are no overhead
charges by the division transferring funding to another
division. Only the division doing the work charges overhead.
Question. Recently many complaints have surfaced from
customers developing MOU's, interagency agreements, and
research work between their agency and USGS divisions.
Previously in BRD, these administrative functions were handled
expeditiously. Now, customers complain that there is an
exorbitant increase in time it takes for these matters to be
handled. Please respond.
Answer. We have not heard any complaints regarding the
timeliness of interagency or MOU execution and do not believe a
change has occurred. Authority to approve reimbursable
agreements continues to be delegated by Division Chiefs to
their managers. There is no bureau involvement in this process,
and as such, timeliness should not be impacted for BRD
customers. There have been no additional requirements imposed
by the USGS.
Question. Please explain why assessments charged to BRD by
USGS for administration and housing exceed costs incurred for
this agency when they were a separate entity. (6.2M)
Answer. Upon the merger of the former National Biological
Service and the USGS, agreements were fashioned to ensure that
the administrative structure and costs of the merged bureaus
would not result in a net loss to the funds available for
science. Since the merger of NBS and USGS, bureau-level costs
have increased due to the continuing rise in fixed costs such
as salaries, Departmental services, and unemployment
compensation. The bureau-level costs are paid for by all USGS
programs based on a percentage of their total resources. In
fiscal year 1996 prior to the merger, BRD's administrative
costs were approximately 8.2 percent of their total resources.
Currently BRD's administrative costs are estimated to be 8.0
percent of their total resources. BRD was formerly a bureau
with no subsidiary divisions or large organizational
components. As such, all appropriated funding for
administration paid all indirect costs. When BRD joined the
USGS, they were required to fund a portion of bureau level
costs (which include costs previously paid by BRD when they
were a separate Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior)
in addition to their division level administrative costs. As
far as housing (space), each division, including BRD, pays for
their own space costs.
office of the inspector general
Question. Does your fiscal year 1999 performance plan
briefly or by reference to your strategic plan identify any
external factors that could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Section 4 of our strategic plan references and
synopsizes the external factors that influence our performance
goal achievement as follows:
Budget Constraint.--For several years, the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) has been subject to severe financial
constraints because of a constant erosion of its funding base.
This erosion has resulted from a series of unfunded or
partially funded pay increases such as ``availability''
payments to criminal investigators and other uncontrollable
costs that the OIG has absorbed over the years. The erosion of
funding has created tremendous operational challenges for the
OIG because the challenges have occurred notwithstanding ever-
increasing statutory demands on our work load.
Legislatively Mandated Work.--Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act requirements, which are legislatively mandated, have
increased steadily since 1993. The personnel-intensive nature
of the CFO audits has caused a strain on audit resources, while
the demand for CFO audit work continues to increase, including
the implementation of the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Statements No. 6 and No. 8, Office of Management and Budget
Bulletin 97-01, and the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act.
Decentralized Department of the Interior Operations.--The
fulfillment of our statutory mandate is extremely difficult
given our limited resources (personnel and travel funds) in an
agency of nearly 70,000 employees located in approximately
2,000 locations. Because the Departmental offices are highly
decentralized, the amount of available OIG staff and travel
funds has a significant impact on the number, scope, and types
of audits and investigations the OIG can perform.
Technological Advances.--With continually changing
technology, the importance of staying up to date is critical
but costly.
Negotiation of Indirect Cost Rates.--In addition to our
statutory responsibilities, audit resources are used to
negotiate indirect cost rates with state, local, and tribal
activities for administering Federal programs, which is a
program function that reduces the resources available for
discretionary performance audits.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. The OIG has and will continue to take a number of
steps to compensate for the external factors identified
previously as follows:
The OIG has absorbed/will absorb cost increases and
budgetary constraints through a variety of streamlining and
cost-cutting measures, including not filling vacancies;
reducing or co-locating office space; and reducing equipment
maintenance agreements, printing and postage costs, and costs
for acquisition services and General Service Administration
(GSA) vehicles.
The OIG provides comments on proposed legislation that
affects its resources, but once legislation is enacted, the OIG
must comply. As a result, resources allocated to discretionary
audits (economy and efficiency and program results) of
Department of the Interior programs and operations have been/
will be reduced to accommodate these mandated requirements.
To compensate for reduced budgets and the decentralized
operations of the Department, we have/will reduce the scope of
our audits from that of Departmentwide or bureauwide coverage
to field office coverage. As such, we will be frequently unable
to project audit results nationwide. Instead, we will report
the monetary and other impacts for the locations visited. In
addition, we will ensure that the staff have updated computer
equipment which allows for increased OIG and Departmental
regional and bureau intercommunications, and when appropriate,
we will take advantage of the teleconference and video
conference technology to reduce travel costs.
We attempted to transfer the indirect cost rate negotiation
responsibility to the Department in 1989. The Indian tribes
strongly disagreed with the transfer of this responsibility and
Congress did not appropriate funds for the transfer. The
Committee on Appropriations in House Report No. 101-120
recommended that ``the function remain with the Inspector
General. Staff from the Inspector General's office can carry
out this function as part of their other functions.'' As such,
we continue to perform this program function. We have not made
subsequent attempts to transfer the function because of the
Congressional prohibition, continued tribal opposition to a
transfer, and the Ramah/Navajo litigation. In addition, an
April 29, 1994 memorandum from the President of the United
States requires consultation with all tribes before actions
impacting contracting under Public Law 93-638 take place.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your
resource estimates?
Answer. Because OIG expenditures are personnel intensive,
the absorption of uncontrollable costs necessitated by
budgetary constraints has the effect of a reduction-in-force,
which impacts our mission accomplishment. The mandated
requirements for both audits and investigations have caused
resources to be shifted from discretionary or planned reviews.
Audit staff have been reviewing the financial statements for
all eight bureaus in addition to auditing the Department's
consolidated financial statements since 1995, and the
requirements for financial audits are steadily increasing. In
addition, audit staff have been performing reviews in response
to Congressional and Departmental requests. While benefit is
gained from these reviews, the number of economy and efficiency
and program results audits performed has declined and will
continue to decrease as mandated requirements and requests
increase.
The Office of Investigations is frequently requested by the
Department of Justice to participate in matters involving the
alleged underpayment of millions of dollars in oil, gas, and
coal royalties and on task forces relating to Indian gaming or
to allegations of the misappropriation of Federal and tribal
funds. These are areas that have been determined to be highly
susceptible to fraud and could potentially result in a
significant loss of revenues to the Department and the tribal
organizations. Our investigations in these areas are labor
intensive and travel intensive; thus, limited travel funds have
a detrimental impact on the number of investigative activities
conducted by our agents. Also, the Department's pursuit of
state-of-the-art systems results in the OIG having to convert
to compatible technology to communicate and operate effectively
in conducting reviews of the Department's programs, automated
systems, and activities, which is expensive.
Question. For every dollar spent in conducting audit
activities that identify cost savings, improve efficiency of
Department of the Interior agencies, measure and detect waste,
fraud and abuse, how many dollars are saved or recovered as a
result of these actions?
Answer. For fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997, the Office
of Audits made recommendations that identified total savings in
excess of $1 billion, or approximately 24 times the OIG audit
budget of $42.2 million for those three fiscal years. These
savings consisted of $382 million of funds recommended for
better use, $548 million of potential additional revenues, and
$78 million of questioned and unsupported costs identified by
our audits of Department of the Interior contracts. Regarding
OIG investigations, we provided assistance that resulted in
recoveries of about $3 million in fiscal year 1997.
Since 1990, OIG resources dedicated to mandated audits have
been increasing. The number of audits requested by Congress and
DOI management has also increased. We have honored these
requested audits, subject to resource availability, consistent
with the National Performance Review. Thus, the mandatory and
requested audits, which have not typically identified monetary
savings, have reduced the resources available to conduct
discretionary or planned audits, which historically have
resulted in significant savings.
The savings and program improvements reported in the
semiannual reports are a ``snapshot'' of OIG activities for
that period. As such, all the savings associated with OIG audit
activities are not captured because audit recommendations often
result in recurring savings, cost avoidances and increased
future revenues, which we do not routinely measure and report
on except through cyclical followup reviews. For instance, we
issued a March 1998 report entitled ``Followup of Offshore
Minerals Leasing Activities, Minerals Management Service,''
which showed that implementation of our recommendation in a
1993 report entitled ``Offshore Minerals Leasing Activities,
Minerals Management Service'' generated additional oil and gas
lease revenues estimated at $141 million for the Department
between 1993 and 1997. We also estimated that implementation of
the recommendation would generate another $194 million between
1998 and 2001. Also, although we reported on savings identified
at the audit sites we visited, Departmentwide or bureauwide
savings resulting from implementation of those recommendations
could not be readily determined. Finally, OIG proactive efforts
result in cost avoidances rather than measurable savings.
Question. Do any of the Interior agencies have the
expertise or capabilities to ensure proper audits and detect
waste, fraud and abuse within their own agencies?
Answer. Although two Departmental bureaus have auditors
(the Minerals Management Service has 201 auditors and the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has 41
auditors), we believe there would be a lack of organizational
independence that is necessary to conduct ``proper audits.''
The Congress created the Offices of Inspector General to be
independent offices within their agencies for the purpose of
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, the auditors'
function in the bureaus has been limited primarily to fee and
royalty compliance reviews to detect underpayments of royalties
and fees.
Question. As ``agents of positive change'' in what ways do
you guide agencies to remedy problems you identify?
Answer. To guide agencies in remedying identified problems,
the Office of Audits (1) makes specific recommendations in our
reports to address each identified weakness and performs
cyclical followup reviews to assess implementation of the
recommendations; (2) participates on task forces and working
groups such as the Travel Re-invention Lab, Y2K committees, and
the Management Control Council, that are designed to improve
Government operations; and (3) responds to requests for advice
and assistance, such as implementing new financial statements
requirements. We continue to receive and respond to an
increasing number of requests from auditees to lend our
expertise proactively to various projects, programs, and
activities with which the auditees are involved. In that
regard, we are providing, or have provided, assistance in a
variety of areas, including participating in Indian Self-
Determination Act rulemaking, providing oversight of the
correction of financial accounting system deficiencies,
participating in Departmental reinvention efforts, and
providing an assessment of the Minerals Management Service's
Royalty Gas Marketing Pilot Program. Also, our audit followup
program allows us to determine how effectively Departmental
agencies have implemented our audit recommendations and to
provide further guidance on needed improvements in program
operations.
The information relating to problems identified during the
course of investigations is communicated to agency officials in
briefings, management implication memoranda, and reports of
investigations. Additionally, we have proactive initiatives to
identify programs that may be vulnerable to fraud, waste, or
abuse and in many cases have initiated proactive investigations
designed to detect fraud in these programs. Some of our
proactive initiatives involve the areas of coal reclamation
fees, environmental crimes and the government purchase card. We
also developed an Outreach Program and an Affirmative Civil
Enforcement (ACE) Program which focus on informing and
educating Departmental personnel in recognizing and reporting
suspected fraudulent activity related to their specific program
areas. We have conducted two nationwide conferences on the ACE
program, which were attended by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, other
Department of Justice staff, OIG staff, and Departmental
program personnel, including the Office of the Solicitor. Also,
during fiscal year 1997, our special agents made 32 fraud
awareness presentations to employees in various program areas
within the Department. Further, the OIG has participated and
will continue to participate on National Performance Review
reinvention teams, such as those for travel, Y2K, human
resources strategic planning, and tenant users activities
covered by the working capital fund.
Question. Please explain the cost saving measures that led
to ``less expensive'' access to the National Crime Center? Has
this changed or compromised your abilities in anyway?
Answer. Until 1995, the OIG had direct access to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) through the Department of Justice (DOJ). However,
in late 1995, DOJ wanted agencies to use standard equipment
which would be leased from the DOJ for approximately $15,000 a
year. At that time, the OIG discontinued its direct access with
the National Crime Information Center data base. Subsequently,
we entered into agreements with both the Rocky Mountain
Information Network and the Regional Organized Crime
Information Center (ROCIC) to obtain law enforcement data. Our
current costs of approximately $250 annually provide us with
the ability to continue to obtain law enforcement information
without incurring the NCIC costs of approximately $15,000 a
year with DOJ. The disadvantage of using these services are
that (1) the data bases have less current information than the
NCIC database and (2) on occasions, there are delays in the
response times to queries.
Office of the Solicitor
gpra
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency
leadership to guide decision making? Will this use increase in
the future and if so in what ways?
Answer. As a support organization within the Department,
the Office of the Solicitor's mission is to work to ensure the
success of departmental and bureau goals and objectives. The
Office provides legal advice to ensure that positions taken by
the Department are legally defensible, and it provides legal
representation to advance the Department's goals in
negotiation, litigation, and other contexts. The Office does
not have its own GPRA plan, but it is guided by the bureaus'
GPRA plans and discussions with departmental and bureau
officials in setting priorities for the Office's legal work.
This use of GPRA will continue in the future.
computer system
Question. The OTS requests $520,000 to replace outmoded
computer and networking equipment. How much additional cost
either in lost productivity, repairs, or additional resources
to complete tasks, is associated with outmoded systems, no
access to DOINET, and system failures?
Answer. A conservative estimate is that each employee in
the Office of the Solicitor loses an average of one to two
hours a week due to the Office's outmoded information
technology. That lost time translates into a direct salary and
benefit cost of $0.8-$1.6 million per year, and the amount is
increasing over time. Not included in these figures are more
intangible costs such as less complete research and
communication to assist decision makers, employee frustration
with system limitations and breakdowns, and the lack of
computer specialists' time to develop databases and other
system enhancements rather than having to work full-time just
to keep the system operational.
Particularly in the regional and field offices, system
failures typically mean two to three days of ``down time'' as
problems are diagnosed, solutions are decided upon, and
replacement equipment is configured, shipped, and installed. If
a single workstation fails, one employee will be adversely
affected during that period; if network components fail, the
entire office will be adversely affected. Unfortunately, such
failures are becoming more common as our equipment ages.
Even when the Office's computers and networks are
performing to full capacity, productivity is lost in a number
of ways. Most of our computers are very slow, with limited
memory. As a result, they often have difficulty even with the
outmoded (and less demanding) versions of standard software
used by the Office, and they cannot process at all the current
(and more demanding) versions of software used by some of
Interior's bureaus and by organizations outside the Department.
Solicitor's Office computers frequently cannot ``read''
documents being forwarded to Office staff for legal review; and
converting the documents to older software typically causes
formatting problems that take considerable time to fix.
The lack of DOINET connections means that most Office
employees do not have ready access to the growing number of
Department-wide administrative systems or the Internet. Thus
the many research and transactional opportunities provided
through these systems are simply unavailable to most employees.
Examples include congressional and other agency Web pages,
GSA's procurement system for supplies, and departmental
personnel and management systems. In some cases, the Office has
to do double data entry for the same transactions (e.g.,
employee time and attendance reporting), with one person who
lacks DOINET access compiling the data for his/her location in
one form to send to someone in another location who has DOINET
access, and the second person re-entering the same data into a
system connected to DOINET.
microbes taken from yellowstone national park
Question. What is the status of the NPS efforts to develop
a system to control the use of microbes taken from Yellowstone
National Park?
Answer. To date, NPS has entered into a single Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Diversa
Corporation. Under the terms of this CRADA, Diversa will be
permitted to collect small quantities of microbial samples for
laboratory analysis. If, after replication and testing in the
laboratory, any enzymes, elements of genetic code, or other
substances derived from Yellowstone microbes prove to be
commercially valuable, the NPS will receive royalties from
Diversa.
The rights being conveyed under the CRADA with Diversa are
not exclusive. Approximately 20 other firms have expressed
interest in similar arrangements at Yellowstone, and NPS will
consider each research proposal and evaluate the opportunity to
enter into a CRADA. In the case of the Diversa CRADA, research
contributing to the understanding and preservation of park
resources will be conducted and shared with Yellowstone.
NPS has primarily relied on the Federal Technology Transfer
Act (FTTA) as legal authority to enter into the Diversa CRADA.
We anticipate continuing to use the FTTA as a basis for future
agreements. This position is currently under review in federal
district court as a result of a lawsuit filed by The Edmonds
Institute and others, against the NPS, Edmonds Institute v.
Babbitt, Civ. No. 98-0561 (D.D.C. filed March 5, 1998).
Under the direction of the Science Advisor to the
Secretary, the Department of the Interior has established a
task force to examine issues relating to bioprospecting and
technology transfer. Future NPS agreements will reflect any
departmental policies that may be developed to govern
technology transfer on the various public lands managed by the
Secretary.
filming on private lands
Question. Will the Office of the Solicitor be involved in
determining if or how private industry will pay the Federal
government for filming on public lands?
Answer. The BLM, through its rulemaking process, determines
who pays for filming on lands administered by BLM (public
lands), what type of payment is due, when payment is due, how
payment is made, and cost recovery requirements (43 CFR Part
2920). The Solicitor's Office provides legal advice to the BLM
in the formulation of these regulations. The Solicitor's Office
does not get involved in determining if or how payment is due
in a specific case unless the BLM seeks legal advice in
interpreting or implementing its regulations. No fees are
currently assessed for filming on other lands administered by
the Department (e.g., Park System units and wildlife refuges).
The Department has supported legislation that would authorize
fees in these cases, and the Solicitor's Office has
participated in drafting this legislation.
clean water initiative
Question. What is the OTS role in Vice President Gore's
Clean Water Initiative?
Answer. The Solicitor's Office has assisted with the Vice
President's Clean Water Action Plan by participating, along
with its departmental clients, in various interdepartment
workgroups involved in the development and implementation of
the Clean Water Action Plan. Such assistance has included
advice with respect to the preparation of workgroup papers to
assure that such papers are consistent with applicable legal
requirements. We anticipate that Solicitor's Office staff will
continue to assist the Department through similar efforts on
workgroups charged with implementing the Clean Water Action
Plan.
Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services
program requests an increase of $2.5 million for increased
Habitat Conservation Planning in the President's fiscal year
1999 budget. Will any of this increase be allocated to the
Solicitor's Office for the increased workload resulting from
increased numbers of HCP's?
Answer. No. The President's Budget requests increases
totaling $12.6 million for the FWS to more efficiently and
effectively implement the Endangered Species consultation
program. This includes a general increase of $9.9 million for
the FWS consultation program to conduct additional Section 7
consultations and to work on additional Habitat Conservation
Plans; $1.5 million to support the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project; $0.5 million to negotiate Tribal
Treaty rights; $0.8 million for support for the Southwest
Ecosystem Initiative; as well as uncontrollable costs. The
President's Budget requests increases totaling $1.8 million for
the highest priority needs of the Solicitor's Office. This
consists of $1.0 million for uncontrollable costs (primarily
mandated pay raises); $0.3 million for critical legal services
in the areas of Indian trust fund management and litigation,
tribal resource protection and management, Federal oil and gas
development and revenue enhancement, and personnel-related
matters; as well as $0.5 million to replace obsolete hardware
and software for use in automated legal research, Local Area
Networks, electronic mail, and document processing.
office of insular affairs
The CNMI government appears to be fully supportive of the
present situation regarding the use of non-citizen labor for
garment manufacture and other services. In view of the fact
that this workforce is almost three times the size of the CNMI
population, this seems inconsistent with the best interests of
this country. While it is proper to fulfill the terms of the
Covenant, this subcommittee is not inclined to provide taxpayer
funds for any program or purpose that would tend to support the
current situation.
Question. How did we get in this situation?
Answer. In developing their Covenant agreement with the
United States, the Northern Marianas negotiators expressed
concern that the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act would
permit excessive immigration to the islands from neighboring
Asian countries that would permanently overwhelm the local
culture and community. The Federal government, therefore,
agreed to not immediately extend Federal immigration control.
Ironically, CNMI policies have resulted in aliens becoming a
majority of the island's population. These policies include use
of low-wage temporary alien workers for permanent jobs and
aggressive promotion of garment manufacturing.
Question. What action is the Department taking to deal with
these issues in the Marianas?
Answer. The Department is taking action on three fronts.
First, we are working with other Federal agencies to increase
the Federal presence in the Northern Mariana Islands to deal
with violations of Federal labor, civil rights, and criminal
statutes. Second, we are providing technical assistance to the
CNMI to improve their capacity to deal with these problems
internally and to track and control the movement of alien
workers in and out of the Commonwealth. Finally, we are
supporting reasonable legislation to deal with the fundamental
problems without causing irreparable harm to the CNMI economy.
Question. The Insular Affairs budget proposes to earmark $5
million of the $11 million in Construction funds for a prison
in the CNMI. Do you expect the need to make further earmarks in
future budgets to assure funds will be properly spent?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget also proposes to
earmark $500,000 for a crime laboratory to improve the CNMI's
capability to enforce criminal laws. Earmarks can be an
effective tool to ensure effective use of appropriations, but
we are not contemplating any additional earmarks at this time.
Question. What action do you believe this Subcommittee
should take to deal with these issues?
Answer. We would like the Subcommittee to support our
request to earmark funds for the prison and crime lab. We also
would like the Subcommittee to continue supporting the terms of
the Special Representatives Agreement for Covenant grants as
included in Section 118 of Public Law 104-134. We understand
that officials of the CNMI government are seeking exemption
from the matching requirement contained in the Agreement and in
the law. We would like the Subcommittee to support proposed
funding levels for the Office of Insular Affairs and the work
it performs, even if its policies may sometimes be unpopular in
the insular areas, such as is the current situation with the
CNMI. Finally, we would like Members of the Subcommittee to
support legislation to correct the problems that currently
exist in the CNMI.
Question. Why is the CNMI government taking the current
posture relative to reform?
Answer. There are a number of reasons, including the fact
that the CNMI is a small community that can be influenced, and
possibly manipulated, by a large and economically powerful
business, such as the garment industry. We think opponents to
reform are using misinformation and playing on themes such as
Federal intrusiveness to rally local officials and the public
and keep facts from the public and the issues from being
objectively assessed and debated.
Question. What is the local unemployment situation in the
CNMI?
Answer. The 1995 census registered an unusually high
unemployment rate for U.S. citizens of 14.2 percent, more than
double the 6.6 percent rate in neighboring Guam and nearly
triple the rate in the United States. Over 90 percent of
private sector jobs in the CNMI are held by alien workers. This
virtually unlimited supply of alien workers drives down wages
in the private sector and discourages local citizens from
seeking entry-level positions anywhere except government.
Although unemployed temporary alien residents are technically
illegal, the 1995 census showed 1,167 unemployed temporary
residents, and documentation in the CNMI legislature indicated
that the true figure of unemployed illegal aliens may be as
high as 7,000.
Question. Do you expect the legislation currently being
considered by Congress to substantially improve the situation?
Answer. Yes. Experience has shown that the CNMI cannot
adequately track and control the large number of alien workers
coming into the Commonwealth. This has led to numerous problems
including public health problems, human rights abuses, violent
crime, drug abuse, prostitution, poor living conditions, and
high unemployment. The low minimum wage is a direct cause of
high unemployment among young local workers, who are leaving
the CNMI for higher paying jobs in Guam or the mainland or are
opting for unemployment and food stamps.
Residents of Enewetak state their desire to be independent
of the current food support process. To do so, they state a
need to purchase and maintain three backhoes in order to
improve their ability to develop a local food source.
Question. What action is the Department taking to
facilitate improved self sufficiency of the Enewetak people?
Answer. The Department is providing the resources to the
people of Enewetak to carry out their long-term plan to
increase food production. The Enewetak-Ujelang Local Government
Council is implementing its Plan for the Improvement of Food
Production on Enewetak Atoll. A recent performance review
conducted by the USDA shows that food security from locally
grown foods has improved markedly since the plan's adoption.
Question. Based on population growth and the difficulty in
developing adequate local agriculture, can it reasonably be
expected that the food subsidy program can ever be eliminated?
Answer. The Enewtak-Ujelang plan, initiated in 1993,
concluded that self-reliance in food production was a realistic
long-term goal, and could be achieved in about ten years. While
this goal may not be met by 2003, it is reasonable to expect
the subsidy will be eliminated at some time. The review of
activities on Enewetak suggests that increased commitment of
the community to plan implementation will allow the plan to
succeed. Although the population of Enewetak grows at a high
rate, its rate is less than that of the Marshall Islands as a
whole. The solutions to population growth and agricultural
production obstacles are for the Republic of the Marshall
Islands government to carry out.
Minerals Management Service
offshore leasing activity
The agency leasing program continues to bring increasing
bids for offshore resources.
Question. Has this demand for leases been affected by the
present reduced prices for oil?
Answer. In early 1998, oil prices fell to levels that had
not been reached since the mid-1980's. However, as indicated by
industry's response to Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 169 that was
held on March 18, 1998, low current oil prices did not appear
to inhibit bidding activity or demand for leases. In this sale,
a total of 1,188 bids were received on 794 blocks with high
bids totaling $810.4 million. This was the fourth largest sale
ever held in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of number of tracts
receiving bids and number of bids received.
In an auction of rights to explore, develop, and produce
Outer Continental Shelf oil resources, production of any
discovered hydrocarbon resources does not occur quickly after a
sale, but rather with a time-lag of five or ten years or more.
Therefore, future price expectations are much more important in
determining demand for leases and tract values than the oil
price at the time of the sale.
Question. What are the long term projections for continued
high interest in offshore oil and gas resources?
Answer. Long term projections are difficult to make
accurately, due to the uncertainties regarding future prices,
geologic potential, and cost trends.
Oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf offer the
oil and gas industry perhaps the most stable leasing process in
the world. Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf are
virtually free of political risk. The Government is unlikely to
nationalize oil and gas activities. The lease terms and
conditions that a lessee receives at the time a lease is issued
stay in effect through the life of the lease, as opposed to
some countries where the central authority may adjust terms to
meet its changing revenue and energy objectives. This factor
will be a positive indicator for continued high interest in
Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources.
The absolute number of tracts leased in future sales is
likely to decline because fewer tracts will be available to
acquire. However, if the past is an indicator of the future, as
leases expire or are relinquished, there is a relatively high
probability that the previously leased tracts will be re-
acquired when they later become available for leasing. Although
the number of tracts receiving bids in Outer Continental Shelf
lease sales likely will decline somewhat because fewer tracts
are unleased, interest is expected to remain relatively high
for bonus projections from future Gulf of Mexico lease sales.
The agency has recently implemented its current five year
plan for leasing.
Question. Based on current demand or other reasons, does
the agency expect any change in the current five year plan?
Answer. Our current 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Leasing Program was approved in November 1996, and includes
16 sales in 7 areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. To date, we
have held two sales in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico,
respectively. We have delayed Sale 173, Cook Inlet/Shelikof
Strait from late 1999 to 2001. The Department has determined
under section 18(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
that this delay is an insignificant revision of the 5-Year
Program. The delay allowed the Minerals Management Service
Alaska Region staff to complete work on the environmental
impact statement for assessing the impact of oil and natural
gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The
first annual review of the current 5-Year Program is scheduled
for July 1998 and is not expected to result in any significant
revisions to our current program.
west delta field
The relationship between the Federal government and the
State of Louisiana over the West Delta field continues to be a
matter of contention.
Question. What is the present situation regarding the
extraction of natural gas from the West Delta Field?
Answer. Both Federal and State lessees are currently
producing natural gas and condensate from the West Delta Field.
To date, Federal leases have produced 63,551 million cubic feet
(MMCF) of gas and 725,071 barrels (Bbls) of condensate. State
leases have produced 89,955 million cubic feet (MMCF) of gas
and 1,468,134 barrels (Bbls) of condensate.
Question. The State of Louisiana is requesting a $32
million allocation to repay what it contends is the amount
owed, with interest, for the drainage of natural gas from the
West Delta fields. What is the Department's position in this
matter?
Answer. When Congress set the level of payment to States
under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
Congress intended that the payment would compensate the State
for drainage, if drainage were to occur. This is an important
issue and one that affects all States with offshore areas that
border leased acreage. We believe that the law is clear on this
matter and the courts have upheld the position that 8(g)
payments compensate States for all losses they may incur,
including drainage.
national petroleum reserve--alaska
During fiscal year 1998, MMS employees were supposed to be
used to support the Bureau of Land Management in preparing an
integrated activity plan and environmental impact statement for
4.6 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve.
Question. What is the status of that effort?
Answer. Minerals Management Service personnel are
developing answers to comments on the draft environmental
impact statement (EIS). They also are writing and editing text
for the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). In
addition, the coastal zone consistency determination is being
prepared based on the description of the proposed action and
the draft text of the final environmental impact statement. The
Minerals Management Service's Resource Evaluation personnel are
loading and reviewing National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
geological and geophysical data.
Question. Have any MMS programs been delayed or eliminated
as a result of this support?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service delayed work on the
Cook Inlet Sale 173 (originally scheduled for 1999) to
accommodate the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) work.
The Department wanted the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
effort to be performed using the best available scientists with
knowledge of this part of Alaska. We are trying an innovative
``good government'' approach by teaming Minerals Management
Service experts with the experience for evaluating such a
project with staff in the Bureau of Land Management. Sale 173
can still be held within our current 5-Year Plan and is
tentatively scheduled to be held in the year 2001.
Question. Will a similar level of assistance be required in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The final economic impact statement is scheduled to
be completed in July 1998, so the economic impact statement
writers will be through with their work in fiscal year 1998. If
the Secretary decides to conduct an oil and gas sale, some
Minerals Management Service personnel will continue to work on
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska activities into fiscal
year 1999. The Minerals Management Service will assist with
pre-sale, sale, and post-sale leasing activities. Minerals
Management Service personnel also will continue evaluating the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska geological and geophysical
data to prepare for the sale and would work after the sale to
insure that fair market value is obtained for leases receiving
bids. Most of the Minerals Management Service's fiscal year
1999 National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska work probably will be
completed in the first half of the fiscal year.
royalty management program reengineering
The agency proposes to reduce its Royalty Management
Program by $2.4 million. Concurrently it is embarking on a
major reengineering process of the program.
Question. What safeguards will be in place to assure that
the necessary controls and standards are retained to assure an
accurate and responsive program?
Answer. The proposed budget reduction of $2.4 million will
be fully achieved with no adverse effects on program accuracy
and responsiveness. This will be accomplished through reduction
of the Royalty Management Program's financial services
contract. While the Minerals Management Service proceeds with
the reengineering project, it will continue to safeguard its
ongoing controls and standards.
The process improvements envisioned by the Royalty
Management Program's reengineering initiative are being
designed to ensure that overall program performance is improved
while continuing to provide the highest levels of operational
integrity, stability, and internal controls.
The Royalty Management Program also maintains an aggressive
control evaluation effort which will routinely examine
reengineered processes to ensure the adequacy of controls and
standards. Additionally, the Interior Office of Inspector
General has plans to audit the reengineering effort beginning
in fiscal year 1999 as well as to continue its heavy emphasis
on various aspects of the program.
Question. What is the total estimated cost of the
reengineering effort?
Answer. The Royalty Management Program, in conjunction with
its technical support contractor Performance Engineering
Corporation, developed a preliminary estimate of about $26
million for the systems modernization contemplated by the
reengineering effort. Implementation of the Royalty Management
Program's new business processes and automated support systems
is expected to begin in fiscal year 1999. The reengineering
changes will be phased in over a two or three year period
depending upon the implementation strategy selected.
The Royalty Management Program has begun prototyping and
testing its proposed new business processes. The final
reengineering design concepts will be completed in the summer
of 1998.
Question. Can the effort be escalated?
Answer. We are expecting a 2-3 year implementation schedule
beginning in fiscal year 1999. This plan is quite ambitious
given the complexity of the current computer system and the
far-reaching nature of reengineering. Escalation of the
timetable could risk program integrity.
Further decisions regarding implementation depend partially
upon the results of current prototyping and piloting efforts
that will be completed in the summer of 1998.
The 2-3 year implementation schedule provides the basis for
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposal of $5.0
million for reengineering. We estimate that additional funding
of about $21 million will be needed to complete the
implementation.
workforce retention
The agency is experiencing some attrition of its workforce
due to recruitment by the industry.
Question. What steps is the MMS taking to retain its
workforce in the face of this recruitment?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service grants retention
allowances (up to 25 percent of basic pay) to a limited number
of employees who possess unusually high/unique qualifications,
or meet special needs of the agency, and who are likely to
leave Federal service if the allowance is not given.
The Minerals Management Service's awards program is used to
recognize employee accomplishments. The bureau has authority to
grant cash awards of up to $5000. Time off awards are also
granted frequently.
Some new employees from outside Government are hired at
salaries above the minimum rate of the grade. Justification is
based on superior qualifications of the individual or special
needs of the agency. This authority is referred to as the
Superior Qualifications Appointment authority. Employees hired
under this authority are more likely to stay in their positions
because of higher than minimum rate salaries.
College students have been converted from the Student
Career Experience Program to permanent positions following
graduation.
Family Friendly initiatives are in place which enhance the
quality of work life of employees and, therefore, aid in
retention. Employees are encouraged to use programs such as
Family Friendly Leave, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and
the Voluntary Leave Share Program.
Telecommuting is being used increasingly in offices where
the duties of the positions lend themselves to an alternative
work site.
Alternative Work Schedules are in use by many employees.
One such schedule allowing employees to work 5-4-9, meaning
they work 5, 9 hour days one week, 4, 9 hour days the second
week, with one day off. However, one of the days is an 8 hour
day so that the hours equal out. Some special case offices
allow 4, 10 hour days.
Question. Has MMS pursued, or is it considering pursuit of
new authorities to aid in workforce retention?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service has considered
across the board salary special rates but did not pursue,
opting instead for more focused retention allowances.
royalty-in-kind program
The 1998 Interior Appropriations report language directed
the MMS to continue to test its royalty-in-kind program.
Question. When does MMS expect to make a final decision on
development of a RIK program?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service has decided to
launch three royalty-in-kind pilot projects, which will involve
crude oil leases in Wyoming, 8(g) leases offshore Texas, and
leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
The start up date for the Wyoming and Texas pilots is
October 1998; the Gulf of Mexico is October 1999.
government performance and results act
Fiscal year 1999 is the first year of planning under the
Government Performance and Results Act. The Minerals Management
Service budget justification displays its strategic goals and a
performance plan summary.
Question. Are significant changes expected in the agency
budget structure to be more reflective of the strategic goals?
Answer. Currently, minimal changes have been incorporated
to facilitate the transition from the ``traditional'' budget
structure to a performance-based budget, and the Minerals
Management Service has integrated both approaches into its
fiscal year 1999 budget document. While the Minerals Management
Service presents its budget in terms of activity and
subactivity categories (e.g. Outer Continental Shelf Lands/
Regulatory), this presentation is complimented by listing
strategic objectives associated with each activity and further
relating these objectives to enacted and requested
appropriations and full-time equivalent (FTE) levels. We
believe this approach is responsive to Government Performance
and Results Act requirements while retaining a familiar context
for evaluating the budget submission. A Government Performance
and Results Act crosswalk is also presented in summary fashion
at the outset of the budget document in addition to being
interwoven at appropriate intervals throughout the text. This
overall approach emphasizes the relationship of and acts as a
bridge between activities, strategic objectives, and funding.
As the Minerals Management Service becomes more efficient
in strategic planning and results oriented budgeting processes,
we will share information, and work with the Department, the
Office of Management and Budget, and Appropriations committees
to develop the most effective way to present the agency budget.
Question. As strategic goals and objectives become more
integrated with day-to-day operations, what efficiencies in
operations are estimated to occur?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service has a clear and
distinct mission and mission statement. The Minerals Management
Service from its inception has embraced the strategic planning
process in guiding, budgeting for, and executing program
evolution and development. The Minerals Management Service
strategic goals and objectives therefore are more reflective of
meeting mission requirements rather than focusing on greater
operational efficiencies. For example, some strategic
objectives relate to insuring that fair value is received for
public Outer Continental Shelf energy resources and to properly
protecting Outer Continental Shelf environments--basic mission
elements in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. However,
reinvention and reengineering teams are analyzing aspects of
these mission processes to determine what operational
improvements and efficiencies can be achieved.
These efforts are likely to produce recommendations that
could result in future strategic plan objectives and
performance plan targets or ``stretch goals'' aimed at
realizing significant gains in operational efficiency. The
leasing, resource evaluation, and bid auction processes are
among those being evaluated for improvement potential. The
royalty management program is also deep into a reengineering
effort which will result in a more highly integrated, process
and outcome focused, and less costly program that is fully
supported by state-of-the-art technology and would be viewed by
customers and stakeholders as the best in the business.
technology and processing enhancement
The agency has made extensive efforts to replace and
significantly enhance its technology and processing
capabilities.
Question. What is the status of this technology upgrade
effort?
Answer. The Royalty Management Program has completed its
technology upgrades to support compliance activities both in-
house and with our State and Tribal partners. Through the
Royalty Management Program's extended network, all State,
Tribal, and remote Royalty Management Program auditors now
share the same desktop applications and accessibility to online
information as their coworkers located in Lakewood, Colorado.
In addition, the Royalty Management Program has completed
upgrades to its Lakewood network that has allowed it to
consolidate its many divisional Local Area Network's into a
more cost effective centralized facility.
geological and geophysical data acquisition
The acquisition of geological and geophysical data was an
issue during the fiscal year 1998 appropriation process.
Question. What is the status of agency actions to finalize
a proposed rule?
Answer. The final rule for 30 Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 251, Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Exploration of the
Outer Continental Shelf was published in the Federal Register
on December 24, 1997, with an effective date of January 23,
1998.
Question. How has industry been involved in this effort?
Answer. Industry was involved in two ways. The first was
through the public comment period for the proposed rule which
was extended twice in order to ensure receipt of industry's
comments. The first extension was from the original due date of
April 14, 1997, to May 30, 1997, and the second extension was
from May 30, 1997, to July 29, 1997. The second way that
industry was involved was through two public meetings, the
first of which was held on May 15, 1997, in Washington, D.C.,
and the second which was held on July 10, 1997, in New Orleans,
Louisiana. We also continue to have discussions with both trade
associations and individual companies to make sure
implementation of the rule is working smoothly.
offshore mineral activity
The MMS has responsibility for offshore minerals
management. To date, this activity has been a minor part of
overall MMS operations.
Question. Does the agency expect to assess fees against
local governments for sand and other minerals to be extracted
from the OCS? If so, what are the projections?
Answer. Yes, the agency expects to assess fees for sand
from the Outer Continental Shelf. On October 31, 1994, H.R.
3678, Section 1, Amendments. (2)(B),(a) Section 8 Amendments--
Section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337 (K)), authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
negotiate agreements (in lieu of the previously required
competitive bidding process) for use of Outer Continental Shelf
sand, gravel, and shell resources for certain specified types
of public uses. It states:
``In carrying out a negotiation under this paragraph, the
Secretary may assess a fee based on an assessment of the value
of the resources and the public interest served by promoting
development of the resources. No fee shall be assessed directly
or indirectly under this subparagraph against an agency of the
Federal Government.''
Representative Gerry Studds, Chairman of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, summed up the intent of the law
regarding fees during his remarks on H.R. 3678 Outer
Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Resources, House of
Representatives--October 3, 1994, H.10592.
``The bill accomplishes two important things. First, it
makes OCS hard minerals available for public projects without
requiring that the State, local, or Federal agency seeking use
of the resource participate in a competitive lease sale. Under
current law, these resources could only be made available to
State and local governments through such a lease sale, which is
too costly and too cumbersome. However, the minerals are not to
be given away. The bill authorizes fees to be charged based on
the value of the resources and the public interest served in
developing them. This allows a tradeoff between fair market
value of the resources and the public benefit of the projects
for which they will be used. Second, the bill clarifies the
jurisdiction of the Department of Interior over OCS hard
minerals as was contemplated by Congress in 1953. However,
Federal Agencies are not to be assessed a fee for the use of
these resources.''
The Minerals Management Service has prepared guidelines for
its use in determining fees for Outer Continental Shelf sand,
gravel, and shell resources. In October 1997, the Outer
Continental Shelf Policy Committee adopted a resolution
confirming their support for the negotiated agreement process
and advised that the Minerals Management Service guidelines
provide an acceptable approach for determining fees and is
consistent with the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act.
At this time, the Minerals Management Service expects that
each year, on average, one ``medium size'' shore protection
project would need access to Outer Continental Shelf sand. This
project size would probably need between 600,000 and 1,500,000
cubic yards of sand. With these volumes requested for a typical
storm damage reduction project, Minerals Management Service
fees generated could be about $100,00 to $300,000 per year. In
fiscal year 1998, a fee of $198,000 was assessed for 1.1
million cubic yards of sand for nourishment of Sandbridge
Beach, Virginia.
Additionally, it should be noted that a barrier island
restoration project under consideration for Louisiana (Isles
Dernieres) could be funded for construction under the Coastal,
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act. If so, a
one-time, large volume of Outer Continental Shelf sand could be
requested sometime between 1999 and 2001. This would be a very
unusual project because of its size and could result in
additional Outer Continental Shelf sand fee collections of
$600,000 to $1,100,000 in one year only.
Question. Does the agency expect an increased workload in
offshore mineral activities?
Answer. The Agency to date has an exceptionally large
workload relative to the use of Federal sand for beach
nourishment. Non-competitive negotiated agreements to use Outer
Continental Shelf sand to restore coastal beaches already have
been accomplished with Duval County, Florida, the Cities of
Myrtle Beach and Virginia Beach, and the U. S. Navy. This work
has involved the review and preparation of National
Environmental Protection Agency documents and, in the case of
Virginia Beach, the conduct of a 3-year environmental study to
assess potential impacts prior to issuance of a lease.
Beach restoration/coastal replenishment projects have
traditionally relied upon the sand resources which were
available in coastal/near shore waters. However, in recent
years such supplies have diminished due to repeated use and
pollution. Continual dredging in the coastal area, within the
influence of the near shore wave base, has also resulted in
adverse changes in the local wave climate and physical
oceanographic regime. This has resulted in increased demand by
coastal States, local communities, and Federal agencies for
access to Federal sand resources. In addition, in the last
several years, coastal storms traversing up the east coast of
the U. S. have caused severe beach erosion and economic losses.
The severe storm damage inflicted upon the east coast of
the U.S., along with the environmental implications associated
with the use of near shore sand and its diminishing supply,
have increased the demand for offshore sand suitable for beach
nourishment. Since studies have indicated that there is a
plentiful supply of clean, compatible sand for beach/coastal
restoration on the Outer Continental Shelf and that this sand
is located in areas well beyond the local wave base and near
shore wave climate/oceanographic regime, the Agency expects a
significant increase in demand for access to these resources,
and consequently, a significant increase in workload related to
these activities.
production delivery infrastructure
In addition to on-site production and exploration
activities, there is an extensive pipeline infrastructure that
has been in place for years.
Question. What is the overall condition of this production
delivery infrastructure?
Answer. The overall condition of this production delivery
infrastructure is very good. There are about 22,000 miles of
active pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. About two-thirds of
this mileage represents natural gas pipelines and one-third
represents oil pipelines. In all, about 26,600 miles of
pipelines have been approved for construction, and about 4,000
miles of pipelines have been decommissioned in accordance with
Minerals Management Service operating regulations.
Some have expressed concern that many pipeline segments in
this infrastructure have outlived their original design life;
but experience has shown that the older pipeline systems are no
more susceptible to major failure than more recent systems.
This is not to say that we do not need to improve pipeline
inspection, leak-detection, or repair systems. But there
currently does not appear to be any evidence that we should
have major concerns about the condition of the offshore
pipeline infrastructure.
The greatest likelihood of a spill from any offshore
pipeline system is from ship-pipeline interactions. These are
usually caused by anchors being dropped on or dragged over
pipelines. Ship-pipeline interactions usually result in very
large spills that heavily influence spill statistics. For
example, one such incident, February 1988, resulted in a spill
of 15,576 barrels of oil, or about 38 percent of the volume of
all spills of 50 barrels or greater for the period 1981 through
1990.
Corrosion related spills--the most frequent type of spill
caused by aging--tend to be small. Such leaks are usually
detected by the presence of gas bubbles or oil slick sheens
that are highly visible. Pipeline failure statistics since 1973
show only one spill of more than 50 barrels that was attributed
to internal corrosion caused by aging. That spill occurred in
1973 and was estimated to have released 5,000 barrels of oil.
No corrosion-related spills of that size have been reported
since, probably because of increased regulatory attention to
operator inspections and more frequent aircraft observations to
detect gas bubbles and oil slicks.
Question. Are monitoring and inspection activities
associated with these systems adequate to safeguard against
deterioration and general hazards caused by aging?
Answer. Yes. The Minerals Management Service closely
monitors the leak or failure rates of all Outer Continental
Shelf pipeline segments and may require additional inspections,
tests, and maintenance procedures for any segment if it appears
that the segment poses an environmental or safety risk. The
Minerals Management Service operating regulations under 30 Code
of Federal Regulations 250.150-164, Subpart J, contain a number
of requirements for pipelines that serve to safeguard against
deterioration and general hazards caused by aging.
First, pipelines must be provided with an external
protective coating capable of minimizing under film corrosion
and a cathodic protection system designed to mitigate corrosion
for at least 20 years. When pipelines are protected by
rectifiers or anodes for which the initial life expectancy of
the cathodic protection system either cannot be calculated, or
for which calculations indicate a life expectancy of less than
20 years, such pipelines must be inspected annually by taking
measurements of pipe-to-electrolyte potential measurements.
Second, the Minerals Management Service Regional Supervisor
may require that oil pipelines be equipped with a metering
system to provide a continuous volumetric comparison between
the input to the line at offshore production facilities and the
delivery points onshore. Such systems must include alarm
systems that have adequate sensitivity to detect variations
between input and discharge volumes. Other systems capable of
detecting leaks in the pipeline may be approved by the Regional
Supervisor.
Third, prior to returning a pipeline to service after a
repair, the pipeline must be pressure tested with water or
processed natural gas at a minimum stabilized pressure of at
least one and one quarter (1.25) times the pipeline's maximum
allowable operating pressure for at least two hours. This
serves to prove the adequacy of the repair and to test the line
for other areas of weakness.
The Regional Supervisor may require pressure testing of any
pipeline to verify the integrity of the system when the
Regional Supervisor has reason to believe that the line has
been damaged or weakened by external or internal conditions.
Finally, the Regional Supervisor may prescribe that
pipeline operators inspect pipeline routes at regular intervals
for evidence of leakage. The operators must maintain the
results of these inspections for at least two years and must
make them available to the Regional Supervisor upon request. On
April 18, 1991, the Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico
Region issued a letter to lessees and operators that provided
guidance on various aspects of pipeline installation and
operation. It specified that each pipeline route under the
Minerals Management Service's regulation in the Gulf of Mexico
must be inspected at least monthly for indications of pipeline
leakage using a helicopter, marine vessel, or other approved
means.
Because corrosion tends to occur in certain areas of
offshore pipelines, such as in risers and small well flow
lines, specific local inspection measures and repair techniques
have proven to be highly effective in maintaining the integrity
of offshore pipeline systems.
incidents of noncompliance
The agency-provided information to the Subcommittee during
the fiscal year 1998 appropriation process on Incidents of
Noncompliance (INC) shows that incidents have been increasing
steadily since fiscal year 1994.
Question. What is the 1997 data for INC's?
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, total incidents of
noncompliance is 5,265, an increase of 439 over fiscal year
1996.
Question. What is the future projection for noncompliance?
Is it expected to continue to increase?
Answer. Over the past four years, the number of incidents
of noncompliances issued has increased. The Minerals Management
Service has not made future projections; however, the current
trend suggests that an increase is possible.
As larger operators continue to move to deeper waters,
properties in shallower waters are assigned to smaller
operators, many who have not previously operated on the Outer
Continental Shelf. Unfamiliarity with the operating environment
and the operating regulations on the part of these ``new''
operators is expected to result in a higher level of
noncompliance. As a result of downsizing and restructuring over
the past several years, the industry has come to rely
increasingly on contracting. This results in another layer of
company policies, procedures and practices, that may or may not
comply with the operating regulations. We have a concerted
effort underway to impress upon the operators that they are as
responsible for the performance of their contractors as they
are for their own employees. Finally, the Minerals Management
Service has been taking a more proactive role in promoting safe
practices. We are committed to taking whatever steps we can as
a regulator to prevent a serious accident on the Outer
Continental Shelf which would undermine the confidence the
American public has in the integrity of the program.
Question. How many additional agency personnel will be
assigned directly to inspection of operations particularly
prone to be in non-compliance?
Answer. We have been attempting to focus our inspection
resources on the basis of risk. The Minerals Management Service
inspects problem operators' facilities more often than others
by redirecting current inspection resources. Conversely, the
Agency intends to reduce the inspection frequency for the top
performers.
At this time, the level of additional follow up inspections
of less prudent operators requires a minor number of personnel,
and is being accommodated within the current workforce.
Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
clean streams initiative
The agency proposes to increase its Acid Mine Drainage
remediation and prevention by $2 million.
Question. How many more Clean Streams projects will be
accomplished with this increase?
Answer. It is estimated that up to 30 new Clean Streams
projects could be initiated if the proposed budget increase is
provided. In addition, several prospective projects that
received partial funding in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 could be
completed with additional funding from the proposed $2 million
increase.
Question. With OSM's proposal to fund the Clean Streams
Initiative from interest on the Abandoned Mine Land fund, does
the agency expect greater support for this effort from State
and Tribal interests?
Answer. The States and Tribes are generally supportive of
the proposal to fund activities related to the Clean Streams
Initiative from interest on the AML fund. While States support
the goals of the Clean Streams Initiative, they are concerned
that funds for the program may affect their present and future
``regular'' abandoned mine reclamation efforts. By taking these
funds from the interest remaining after meeting the
requirements of the United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefit Fund, the State and Tribal share of the AML fund will
not be impacted by the Clean Stream initiative.
Question. As experience with the Clean Streams activities
increases, can a more beneficial leveraging ratio be
anticipated?
Answer. Yes. OSM anticipates a more beneficial leveraging
of Federal funds as experience with Clean Streams activities
increases. There are many variables which may determine the
ratio of leveraging. These factors include the ability of
cooperating agencies and organizations to share costs from
their budgets, continued community support for projects based
on improvements to their local economies and the environment,
and the diversification of funding sources by local groups and
associations. Increased cost-sharing and leveraging of
appropriated funds also depends on the success of Clean Streams
Initiative projects. Based on recent experience, it is believed
that improvements can be made to the ratio of non-Federal to
Federal funding.
Question. The agency proposes to use some of the $7 million
for other than grants to States. How much of these funds will
be used for this purpose and what benefits can be expected?
Answer. Of the President's request of $7 million for Clean
Streams, $5.9 million is requested for State grants and $1.1
million for the following purposes:
--$650,000 for direct cooperative agreements with local groups,
especially watershed organizations, to support local acid mine
drainage reclamation projects;
--$100,000 for non-coal mining related reclamation work under the
Western Mine Land Restoration Partnership;
--$150,000 for a position and support costs to aid State and local
watershed groups in partnering and leveraging human and fiscal
resources for stream restoration projects; and
--$200,000 for the National Mine Reclamation Center for work on the
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative, a cooperative effort of
industry, government, and academia to compile ``best science''
solutions to acid mine drainage problems and to refine methods
for predicting acid mine drainage.
western mine land partnership
The OSM proposes to initiate the Western Mine Land Partnership with
a budget request of $100,000. This program is modeled to a large degree
after the Clean Streams Initiative.
Question. How will other agencies such as the Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, and Forest Service be involved in,
and contributing to, this effort?
Answer. On June 22, 1996, the Department of the Interior and the
Western Governor's Association agreed to work together to develop the
Western Mine Restoration Partnership (WMRP) to jointly pursue the
restoration of abandoned hardrock mines. Members of the WMRP include
representatives of OSM, BLM, National Park Service, the Forest Service,
the USGS and EPA. Since June 1996, the WMRP has developed a Partnership
Agreement and an Action Plan that calls for coordination among all
parties. This coordination will be continued through the development of
projects pursuant to this proposed funding.
Question. How will project funding occur?
Answer. The funding will be used for practical, effective on-the-
ground reclamation of abandoned mines. Efforts will be made to leverage
funds with private interests and local governments and State AML
programs. The objects for each project will be to eliminate safety,
health and environmental hazards.
Question. What are future budget request projections for this
program?
Answer. The $100,000 proposed for fiscal year 1999 is a relatively
small amount. OSM will attempt to demonstrate effective results
achieving reclamation and involving State and local entities in each
project. The results will be assessed toward consideration of future
funding.
minimum state program
The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990 establishes a minimum
State grant funding level of $2 million per State. However, since
fiscal year 1995 funding for the program has been limited to $1.5
million per State. Several States point out that the AML fund balance
is increasing.
Question. What is the Department's position on increasing the
funding level to the authorized minimum of $2 million?
Answer. OSM is confident that the Minimum Program States could put
any such increase to good use doing additional reclamation projects.
The States support such an increase, but only if the funding for the
Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program is increased at least to cover the
increased minimum program funding. If the minimum program level were
raised without increasing the AML grant appropriation, non-minimum
program States and Tribes receiving Historic Coal Share funds would be
impacted. The four States with the largest historic coal production
percentage which would suffer the greatest negative impact are
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
applicant violator system
Last year the agency had to curtail its use of the Applicant
Violator System.
Question. How has OSM modified AVS procedures to make the system
operational?
Answer. Use of the AVS was not curtailed as a result of a recent
court decision, only the application of recommendations in some
instances. The State and Federal permitting authorities continue to use
information available only by way of the AVS on all permitting
decisions. OSM provides over 4,000 recommendations from the AVS to
permitting authorities annually.
The court decision directed OSM to discontinue providing permit
``DENY'' recommendations to permitting authorities based on entities
linked to violations ``upstream'' from the applicant. On May 14, 1997,
OSM issued a System Advisory Memorandum explaining the change and
effects of the court decision on AVS recommendations. Since that date
OSM has determined that 1,187 recommendations were based on violations
linked by ``upstream'' relationships to applicants and informed the
requesting permitting authority of these findings.
Question. When will final regulations be in place?
Answer. OSM has assembled a team of employees to re-design
ownership or control and related regulations. This team has conducted
extensive outreach with OSM's stakeholders and has completed a first
draft of the regulatory changes. OSM plans to complete its review of
the draft, incorporate modifications as required, and issue a proposed
rule by the summer of 1998. A final rule will be published as soon as
possible following normal rulemaking procedures.
impact of coal production decrease
Decreasing coal production has apparently affected the State's
ability to fund their regulatory programs.
Question. How has this affected OSM programs?
Answer. Since OSM must match State program regulatory costs, there
is continual coordination with individual States. OSM utilizes the
States' grant requests to develop its annual budget request for State
regulatory grants. As a result of the program coordination and OSM's
re-engineered grants and performance review processes, OSM is able to
meet the States' grants needs.
gpra impact
The OSM was a leader in integrating its budget structure with GPRA
strategic goals.
Question. How is this new structure working?
Answer. Very well. During fiscal year 1997, OSM dual-coded its
obligations. Obligations were coded under the existing budget structure
as well as the proposed budget structure. Questions as to which program
activities certain workloads and efforts should be classified under
were resolved, the need for additional account codes was identified
where appropriate, and minor adjustments to the accounting system were
made to simplify coding and reporting obligations under the new budget
structure. This effort allowed OSM to resolve any problems before the
new budget structure became effective in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Does the agency expect to recommend changes in the GPRA
or the structure in the near future to more closely represent the
agency mission?
Answer. At this time, OSM expects to make no significant changes in
its strategic goals or budget structure. Based on actual data collected
in fiscal year 1998 and questions raised by outside readers during the
fiscal year 1999 Budget Justification/Annual Plan review, OSM may
clarify some of its performance measurements and adjust some of the
outyear estimates for some of its goals, but not the overall goals
themselves. OSM strategic goals are reflective of the Bureau's mission.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
A major contribution to domestic energy security could come from
the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which the Energy Department
estimates could hold 5.5 billion barrels of reserves. In February of
1997, your Bureau of Land Management sought comment on a draft
environmental impact statement and a plan of action for leasing up to
4.2 million acres in what is known as the northeastern planning area of
NPR-A. At that time BLM also said that a final record of decision on
leasing in the planning area would be made by August 1998.
Question. Are you and the Department still committed to that August
1998 deadline for making a final decision on leasing in NPR-A?
Answer. The current schedule calls for the Final EIS by the end of
July with the ROD by the end of August. The comment period for the
Draft EIS was extended from 30 days to 60 days.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
Your Department, namely the Bureau of Land Management, has been
discussing the possibility of purchasing a private property and a
conservation easement north of Yellowstone National Park. In fact, $13
million has been included in the supplemental LWCF account for this
property. ($6.5 million within the Forest Service and $6.5 million
within the BLM). Last month, the White House Council on Environmental
Quality hosted a meeting with livestock producers and animal health
authorities from various states to discuss this issue and how it
relates to the management of the brucellosis infected Yellowstone
National Park Bison herd. At the meeting, federal authorities stated
that this land acquisition would be a major part of the solution to the
bison situation.
Question. How does this land acquisition address eradication of the
disease, something your department has advocated for decades?
Answer. The Department of the Interior is currently involved in
negotiations to acquire a portion of the Royal Teton Ranch (RTR) which
lies directly north of Yellowstone National Park and is owned by the
Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). This potential acquisition is
part of an overall scheme for the long-term management of bison in the
greater Yellowstone area. The development of a long-term bison
management plan was necessitated by several factors, most notably, the
need to provide adequate winter range for bison while simultaneously
protecting Montana's brucellosis class free status, and working toward
the eradication of brucellosis.
The Department of the Interior has been working closely with the
State and remains committed to continue working with the State toward a
mutually acceptable manner of reaching these objectives. To that end,
on June 5, 1998, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
and the U. S. Department of Interior (USDOI) intend to release for
public comment a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
Long-Term Bison Management Plan. This EIS was mandated by a settlement
agreement in Montana v. U.S. which was signed by the State Montana,
USDOI, and USFS on November 2, 1995. The draft EIS includes various
alternatives that would provide bison winter range, protect the State
of Montana's class free status, and move toward the eradication of
brucellosis.
The draft EIS Preferred Alternative anticipates the acquisition of
lands both north and west of Yellowstone National Park for special
management areas (SMAs) and the Department, therefore, is working with
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USFS, the
State, and the CUT to develop an acquisition proposal that will also
meet the dual goal of providing bison winter range while protecting
Montana's brucellosis class free status which will directly enhance the
eradication of brucellosis.
It should be further noted that the Department of the Interior
remains completely committed to working toward the eradication of
brucellosis irrespective of the EIS, and is currently reviewing all
possibilities for an increase and acceleration of research on the
development of a safe and effective vaccine that would prevent
brucellosis in wildlife. We are also coordinating with USFS, APHIS, and
the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Bison Committee to make certain
that all of our resources are utilized in the most efficient and
expedient manner.
Your agency's discussion about the land north of Yellowstone
National Park does not simply deal with an acquisition of fee title.
The proposed package includes purchase of land, exchange of lands, and
a conservation easement for wildlife. The details of these are not
clearly defined. I have two questions:
Question. How is the Gallatin National Forest going to pay for the
increased amount of responsibilities of the new land, especially in
light of Region One's current budget constraints?
Answer. This question would be more appropriately answered by the
Forest Service as part of its hearing record.
Question. How do you plan on including the Montana delegation and
the Governor in these discussions?
Answer. The draft Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and
the Forest Service indicates that the Forest Service will continue as
the lead Federal agency in maintaining contacts and discussions with
the Montana congressional delegation and the Governor.
Question. What authority does the Bureau of Land Management or the
Forest Service have for the purchase of this land?
Answer. The BLM's authority for its Royal Teton Ranch acquisitions
comes from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Land and
Water Conservation Act. Both laws provide for the acquisition of lands
which are primarily of value for outdoor recreation.
The Royal Teton Ranch project clearly furthers outdoor recreation
purposes by supporting crucial habitat for antelope, bighorn sheep,
bison, elk, and grizzly bear. The anticipated purchases would offer
critical public access to the Gallatin National Forest from the west
side of the Yellowstone Valley.
Question. It is my understanding that states still own the water in
their states, yet I recently heard that your agency has decided to
change that.
The Bureau of Reclamation recently filed a quiet title suit in
federal court related to the Elephant Butte project in New Mexico and
Texas. In that suit, the Bureau asserts that they not only own the
water rights associated with this project, they also assert that they
are sovereign owner of waters flowing in the Rio Grande in both Texas
and New Mexico. Is this correct?
Answer. While it is correct that, in June 1997, the United States
filed a civil action to quiet title in its water rights for the Rio
Grande Project, your description of the Bureau of Reclamation's
position in that lawsuit is incorrect.
The Rio Grande Project, which was authorized in 1905, extends from
the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico to Fort
Quitman in Texas. In operating the Project for the purposes authorized
by Congress, the United States relies upon water stored in Project
facilities, return flows, and inflows to the Rio Grande in both New
Mexico and Texas. When water stored in Elephant Butte Reservoir is
released, it is intermingled with project return flows and with inflows
to the Rio Grande. These intermingled sources of water are then
diverted for use in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. These sources
together enable the United States to meet the Project delivery
requirements of approximately 931,841 acre-feet per annum under normal
conditions, including the United States' treaty obligation to Mexico.
The operation of the Project is further subject to the requirements of
the Rio Grande Compact of 1939 between the United States, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas.
In January 1906, in accordance with Section 8 of the Reclamation
Act of 1902, the United States filed notice with the New Mexico
Territorial Irrigation Engineer of its appropriation of water for the
Rio Grande Project. Thus, the United States' claim to ownership was
acquired through appropriation, filed in conformity with the laws of
the then Territory of New Mexico, and, with the exception of the water
for Mexico, not as a consequence of the sovereignty of the United
States. Reclamation's position in the lawsuit is that the United States
is the legal title holder of the water rights appropriated for the
Project, subject to the rights of the water district and the
landowners. The users of such water own a beneficial property interest,
provided their use is consistent with the terms of their contracts and
applicable law.
Question. In July of last year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the EPA released a draft MOU which would require all states with
delegated NPDES permit programs to enter formal Section 7 consultations
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife prior to issuing any NPDES permits.
This would appear to give Fish and Wildlife Service veto power over the
issuance of point of source discharge permits in every state. Is that
what your agency intends to do?
Answer. The draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), was based on
interagency negotiations between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), and U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service). Negotiations were conducted over six months and the
draft was sent to the regional offices of FWS, NMFS, and EPA for
internal review. A number of misconceptions about the document, which
is still under negotiation, have since emerged. There was never any
intention on the part of FWS and NMFS to establish any ``veto power''
over state-issued NPDES permits. The draft MOA is strictly a
coordination mechanism between federal agencies and does not impose any
obligations or requirements on states, tribes, or permit holders.
The role of FWS and NMFS is to comment on state-issued draft
permits under existing Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations as part of the
federal review necessary to ``avoid substantial impairment of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife resources'', including threatened and
endangered species, under 40 CFR 124.59 (b). EPA may object to a permit
under existing CWA authority if a permit does not support the objective
of the CWA ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters'', including the goal of
providing water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Where a federal action
occurs, such as the EPA approval of a State's assumption of NPDES
permitting authority, EPA approval of new or revised water quality
standards, or EPA's issuance of NPDES permits where state assumption
has not occurred, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
consultation with the FWS and NMFS if listed species may be affected by
the action. The ESA further prohibits all federal agencies from taking
any action that will likely jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species. EPA has consulted numerous times with the FWS and NMFS
on this basis in relation to CWA programs.
Separate consultations on state-issued NPDES permits is not the
goal or the purpose of negotiations on the MOA. Where endangered
species impacts are identified, the FWS and NMFS will work with the
state and EPA to lessen such impacts. If the FWS and NMFS determine
that a NPDES permit is likely to jeopardize a listed species and EPA
agrees, EPA may use its existing authority under the CWA to review the
permit and federalize it.
Question. Under what statutory authority did they claim this?
Answer. As stated in the answer to the previous question, there was
never any intention on the part of the FWS to establish any veto power
over state-issued DES permits.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
the mescalero apache school situation
In 1954, the Mescalero Elementary School was built with BIA funds.
It became a BIA funded public school through the Tularosa Public School
system. This K-6 elementary school was destroyed by arson in 1990. The
Tularosa school system collected the insurance and the BIA helped with
temporary facilities.
The Mescalero Apache Tribe is now seeking funds for the
construction of a new K-12 school to serve the entire reservation. I
understand that the BIA is again responsible for the school, and I am
very interested in verifying its status as a BIA school, and the
possibility of its becoming a priority for BIA replacement and new
construction funds.
The destruction by fire is normally a cause of high priority
consideration by the BIA, and I do not yet understand why the Mescalero
Apache school has not been made a priority in the BIA replacement
school construction program.
Question. Your assistance in clarifying this matter will be greatly
appreciated.
Answer. The Mescalero Tribe leased land for a nominal fee ($1.00)
to the State of Mexico for a 25 year period. During this period, the
local school district located, constructed, and operated a public K-6
grade elementary school on this reservation land. The annual lease
subsequently expired with no new lease agreement being reached. To
provide a thorough review of the situation, a chronology of events
follows:
February 18, 1990.--The Mescalero Public School burned down.
February 19, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution
No. 90-5 in support of the Tularosa Public School Board of Education
and requested portable classrooms from BIA and the State.
May 20, 1990.--The Albuquerque Area Education Administration
notified the Tribe that no funds were available from Office of Indian
Education Programs (OIEP) for the emergency.
August 6, 1990.--The Office of Construction Management (OCM) met
with Tribal Representatives and agreed to have a Technical Team
determine whether the Tribal community center was suitable for
conducting classes in school year 1990-91. The Tularosa School District
had used the community center during part of school year 1989-90. The
building was found to be seriously deficient for use as a school. The
Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) looked at options
to upgrade tribal buildings or acquire portable classrooms.
August 6, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passes Resolution No.
90-28, indicating that the Tribe and school district have failed to
reach an agreement on location and operation of a public school. The
school district proposed to build a new school located off tribal
lands, which would have required student busing and included other
public students. The Tribe asked BIA to assume operational
responsibility for a proposed tribal school in 1990-91.
August 15, 1990.--Plans for a steel building to be purchased and
erected by the Mescalero Tribe were transmitted to FMCC for review.
August 16, 1990.--A meeting was held regarding the school between
the Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan; Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, Eddie Brown; and President of Mescalero Apache Tribe,
Wendell Chino. The Department/BIA position was that BIA would not
support taking over the education program from the Mescalero Tularosa
School District until an agreement was reached to operate an accredited
public school.
August 22, 1990.--Letter to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
from Albuquerque Area Director requesting $387,000 to renovate tribal
building for classrooms (building purchased by Tribe).
August 24, 1990.--The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs sent a
letter to the President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe specifying
conditions for granting assistance to tribal schools. The Tribe
independently obtained facilities and hired teachers for the 1990-91
school year.
October 9, 1990.--Mescalero Apache Tribe submitted an interim
application for Tribally Controlled Grant School (Public Law 100-297).
April 4, 1991.--A letter was sent from the Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget to the Appropriations Committees bringing
the committees up to date on the school. At this time, no agreement
existed between the Tribe and public school district and the Tribe had
obtained and erected a building for 250 students.
April 11, 1991.--OIEP approves Mescalero School to become a BIA
funded school, effective July 1, 1991. BIA requires that safety
deficiencies be corrected at the school prior to occupation.
Nov. 25, 1991.--Mescalero Apache submitted an application to BIA
for new school construction.
January 6, 1993.--Federal Register Notice for ``Education
Facilities Construction Priority List of fiscal year 1993'' was
published. Mescalero's application for fiscal year 1993 was considered,
however, because the school was not a Bureau owned or operated facility
when it was destroyed by fire, the application did not receive a high
ranking on the priority system. The application was evaluated along
with 66 other requests. Only the top five schools were added to the
1992/93 priority list which resulted in 16 schools total.
The Bureau is concerned about Mescalero and other schools where
students are being educated in classrooms that do not meet code
requirements or modern standards. In recognition of the Mescalero
Tribal School's needs, the BIA's Education and Facilities programs
provide funding for the annual operation of the school. However,
because the replacement school priority list was frozen by Congress in
fiscal year 1993, the BIA cannot provide replacement school funding at
this time.
The BIA anticipates completing the list of 16 prioritized schools
in the year 2001 or 2002. The Facilities Management and Construction
Center and Office of Indian Education Programs, at the direction of the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, are currently reviewing
completion of the replacement school projects and looking at a new
replacement school application process. Depending on appropriation
levels, the Bureau anticipates being able to solicit replacement school
applications when the new process is established in 1999. This will
provide Mescalero with the opportunity to compete for a replacement
school in a national prioritized ranking process.
southwest fisheries technology center
Since 1993, this Subcommittee has been supportive of this Center.
When completed, it will be the only facility in the nation dedicated
exclusively to the breeding and stocking of native, threatened, and
endangered fish. To date, Congress has appropriated $20 million to
rehabilitate the Dexter Fish Technology Center, and to construct the
Mora unit. It is time to complete these facilities.
In fiscal year 1998, this Subcommittee provided $2 million to
complete phase three construction at the Mora unit, plus an additional
$500,000 in operations funding to open the facility. At the Dexter
unit, there remains a need for $3.3 million to bring the facility
completely online. This includes $2.9 million to complete phase 3
construction, $200,000 to purchase laboratory equipment, and $227,000
additional operations funding to fully staff the facility.
Question. Please give the Subcommittee an update on the status of
these two units. Does the administration foresee completion of the
rehabilitation of the Dexter unit this year?
Answer. The status of construction for the Mora and Dexter units of
the Southwest Fisheries Technology Center is presented below.
In fiscal year 1998, the $2,000,000 provided for the Southwest
Fisheries Technology Center is being used to complete construction at
the Mora unit. In addition, $500,000 in operating funds were provided
for start-up operations at Mora. These operating funds have been
annualized in Service's fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Mora
management plan, however, assumes $650,000 in annual optimal operating
expense to fully staff the facility in the future. However, this
additional funding was not included in the President's Budget request
for fiscal year 1999 and is not a priority for the Department.
SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--MORA UNIT STATUS--APRIL 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In thousands
Fiscal -----------------------------------------------
Construction/operations year Construction Optimal Remarks
Appropriations completed? funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I and II, planning, site 1990 $1,000 Yes............. ........... $15,720 sequestered
work, well fields, and 1991 3,000 in fiscal year 1991
building shells for fish 1992 5,000 $63,000 sequestered
production and storage. in fiscal year 1992.
Phase III, equipping buildings 1997 2,705 No.............. ........... To be completed in
and related facilities. the fall of 1998.
Phase III, hatchery and wet lab 1998 2,000 No.............. ........... Construction to begin
building, equipment, and in fiscal year 1999.
paving.
Operating funds to fully staff. 1998 500 ................ $150 .....................
---------------- -------------
Total.................... ......... 14,205 ................ 150 .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for the third and final phase of the construction
at the Dexter unit is not included in the fiscal year 1999
President's Budget. Currently, the FWS estimates that
$2,863,000 would complete rehabilitation of the facility, as
well as $200,000 to purchase laboratory equipment. However, the
Department has placed a priority on using limited construction
funding to reduce existing inventories of critical health and
safety projects or for mission critical priorities. The FWS
estimates that $227,000 in annual operating funds would fully
staff the facility. However, this additional funding was not
included in the President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999
and is not a priority for the Department.
SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--DEXTER UNIT STATUS--APRIL 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In thousands
Fiscal -----------------------------------------------
Construction/operations year Construction Optimal Remarks
Appropriations completed? funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I, and part of phase II 1993 $1,428 Yes............. ........... $12,138 was
hatchery building, and 1994 .............. sequestered in
administration lab building. 1995 2,200 fiscal year 1993.
Balance of phase II storage/ 1997 961 No.............. ........... Construction to begin
maintenance building. fall 1998.
Phase III, outdoor fish ......... .............. No.............. $2,863 Phase III will
raceways, earthen research complete
ponds, paving/landscaping at construction.
buildings.
Specialized lab equipment...... ......... .............. ................ 200 Equipment needed to
identify and
maintain
biodiversity.
Operating funds to fully staff. ......... .............. ................ 227 .....................
---------------- -------------
Total.................... ......... 4,589 ................ 3,329 .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
indian school construction
Question. Mr. Secretary, the recent GAO report about Indian
school repair needs concludes that $754 million are needed to
clear up the entire backlog of BIA school repair needs, and
bring these BIA schools into code and instructional compliance
with modern standards. In a footnote to that figure in the GAO
report, it is noted that eight schools on the construction
priority list would cost about $112 million to replace.
I have also heard that if we replace the 50 percent of BIA
schools that are over 30 years old, the replacement costs would
be about one billion dollars, leaving about $200 million in
repair costs for the other half of newer BIA schools. I am
seeking your assistance in verifying these estimates.
Answer. If $37.4 million is appropriated in fiscal year
1999 for the three replacement schools requested in the
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget, five schools will remain
on the current school replacement priority list at an estimated
cost of $89.4 million.
The Bureau estimates that it would cost, at a minimum, $1.0
billion to replace the 50 percent plus of Indian schools that
have exceeded their design life, are in various stages of
deterioration, and do not meet modern educational needs nor
current building codes or standards. Further, it is estimated
that it will take an additional $200 million to bring the
schools that would not be replaced up to present standards. We
are in agreement with the figures that you are using, however,
once the modernization effort the Facilities Management and
Construction Center has undertaken to update the facilities
backlog and validate information is completed, more accurate
cost estimates and other statistics relating to building repair
and replacement will be available.
Question. I am also interested, Mr. Secretary, in
clarifying the BIA's responsibility for the Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges (26) in terms of repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement. I would also like to know more about the BIA
operated post-secondary schools, namely, Haskell and SIPI (the
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute) and your plans for
their campuses.
Answer. Title 1 of the Tribally Controlled Community
College Assistance Act, as amended, authorizes grants to the
TCCC's to defray expenditures for academic, educational and
administrative purposes, and for the operation and maintenance
of all the TCCC's. However, given the funding constraints, the
Department's priority has been the safety of elementary and
secondary school students in schools funded by the BIA. The
Bureau's facilities program does not provide construction
funding for repair or rehabilitation of the 26 Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges. Due to the large backlog in
facilities improvement and repair, as well as for replacement
school construction, the Department must continue to focus on
improving elementary and secondary schools.
Haskell and SIPI were operated by the BIA prior to
enactment of the Tribally Controlled Community College Act and
have always been Federally operated schools, and therefore the
responsibility of the Secretary. As Federal installations, each
school has had facility improvement projects approved by the
Secretary and funded by Congress. Both Haskell and SIPI are in
the process of improving and implementing master facility plans
for their respective campuses. In fiscal year 1998, Haskell
received over $7 million in FI&R funding, and for fiscal year
1999 FI&R funding has been requested for several buildings on
the SIPI campus.
Question. It has been my experience that Crownpoint
Institute of Technology (CIT) has had a most difficult time
qualifying for either operational or capital funds from the
BIA. Your assistance in bringing CIT into the normal budgeting
process of Interior would be most helpful to CIT's future
stability.
Answer. Crownpoint Institute of Technology is not presently
being funded by either OIEP or the Bureau's facilities program.
The Bureau has not funded CIT to date, because the BIA's
limited amount of tribal college funding may be used to support
only one college per tribe. The BIA already funds Dine College
on the Navajo Nation.
Question. My current estimates for physical improvements at
all BIA school facilities total $1.5 billion. This includes the
$1.2 billion I mentioned for elementary and secondary schools.
At this time, I believe the BIA is estimating about $300
million for the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, SIPI
and Haskell (no estimates exist to my knowledge for CIT). I
would appreciate your assistance in updating these estimates,
both for the elementary and secondary schools and for the post-
secondary Indian colleges and vocational schools I have
mentioned.
It is difficult, Mr. Secretary, for us to budget for these
schools without the full picture of their relationship with the
BIA and the outlook for their future funding.
Answer. The estimates noted in the question are, in
general, accurate at this time. In December 1997, the
Facilities Management and Construction Center ran a summary of
backlog items that address the estimated cost necessary to
bring the existing facilities up to current national codes and
standards (national fire code, electrical codes, etc.). This
summary does not include the cost of replacing facilities. In
the case of education facilities, the summary shows a backlog
of $695 million for elementary and secondary, plus $64 million
for education quarters, or a total of nearly $760 million for
education facilities. However, more than 50 percent of our
existing schools are 30 years old or older, and have exceeded
their design life expectancy. It is anticipated that many, if
not all of these schools, will need to be replaced in the near
future. The Bureau's facilities program does not provide
construction funding for repair or rehabilitation of the 26
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges. However, the Bureau's
facilities program has funded repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement construction for Haskell and SIPI, which are
included in the above estimates.
FMCC is currently modernizing the computerized facilities
backlog program and has also begun an effort to pilot test
sites as part of a total validation effort to update code and
standard items contained in the backlog. Once these exercises
are completed in the next several years, the Bureau will be
able to provide Congress with more accurate and current
statistics and costs. The Bureau will also be better able to
determine which schools need to be replaced and which can be
repaired and rehabilitated based upon cost benefit
considerations.
One of the issues BIA faces is expanding student
enrollment, which has necessitated immediate solutions in most
cases, such as the provision of portable classrooms. This, of
course, is a temporary fix and does not address permanent
requirements at the schools. Since the early 1990's, enrollment
and new program requirements are increasingly reflected in
hundreds of thousands of additional square feet of education
space being added to the construction and maintenance
inventory. As a consequence, when replacement schools are
constructed, they require a substantially larger footprint than
existing schools. This scenario is reflected in part by the
current estimate of $1.0 billion for replacement construction
versus $695 million to bring existing schools up to current
standards and codes.
Question. In addition to the physical facilities, I am
anxious to know about BIA plans for improving the per pupil
expenditures at BIA schools. As you may be aware, Indian
colleges average $2,900 per student for operating costs,
compared to $6,200 for most American colleges. Your suggestions
and assistance to help us bring these Indian colleges up to a
higher level of reliable funding would be most helpful. There
is a similar situation among the elementary and secondary
schools, and your plans for improving the educational situation
for Indian children are of great interest to me.
Answer. The Bureau plans to increase per pupil expenditures
in elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools, while, at
the same time, requiring more accountability in the management
of school programs. In terms of improving per pupil
expenditures at the Tribal Colleges, the Bureau is proposing a
$5.5 million funding increase in its fiscal year 1999 budget
request for operating grants from $28.8 million in fiscal year
1998 to $34.3 million in fiscal year 1999. If the $5.5 million
increase is appropriated in fiscal year 1999, the Bureau
estimates that students will be funded at approximately $3,600
per student.
At the elementary and secondary school level, BIA schools
are in the forefront in implementing school reform and
accountability, as required by the Improving America's Schools
Act and the President's Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Each
school has developed a school improvement plan. This school
improvement plan is a long term planning framework that
contains specific goals and strategies for meeting those goals.
Each school will be held accountable for meeting their goals
which address student learning. In terms of improving the per
pupil expenditure at elementary and secondary school levels,
the fiscal year 1999 budget request proposes a Weighted Student
Unit (WSU) value of $3,124, an increase from $3,062 per WSU in
fiscal year 1998.
Question. The highest drop out rate (36 percent) in this
country is among Indian students. They also have the lowest
graduation rate from high school and the lowest attendance
rates for college. With the current studies about the poorest
facilities in the nation and the lowest per capita
expenditures, we can only begin to address these vital concerns
if your Department begins to take the lead in fully explaining
this situation to us.
Answer. Education research verifies that the physical
condition of a school does affect the students' performance.
Factors, such as inadequate heating systems, inadequate
lighting and unsafe classroom buildings, all have a negative
effect on student learning and performance. However, in spite
of the poor condition of school facilities in Indian Country,
the Bureau has taken steps to improve academic programs at BIA-
funded schools. For example, the Bureau is fully implementing
the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the Improving
America's School Act (IASA) and the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act within its school system.
In accordance with GPRA, Goals 2000, and IASA, BIA schools
are in the process of reforming their instructional programs.
Each BIA school has developed and is implementing a
Consolidated School Reform Plan (CSRP) and is collecting the
baseline data necessary to establish good annual performance
indicators. Each CSRP provides a detailed, strategic framework
for instituting more challenging curriculum standards and
assessment procedures; creating better governance,
accountability and management processes; and implementing
benchmarks, timelines and other monitoring tools. In fiscal
year 2000, the schools will fully implement their CSRPs and be
held accountable for their progress.
BIA schools are also implementing new content standards
that match national standards, the standards of the state in
which the school is located or a combination of state,
national, and locally developed standards. Each school will
have new standards and a new assessment system in place by the
Year 2000. BIA schools will follow their state assessment
system or adopt a system that utilizes authentic assessment and
the California Learning Record.
These changes are expected to result in improved student
attendance and retention, and better overall student learning
in Indian Country.
surplus land disposal
For several months, I have been working on a proposal to
provide an incentive for the BLM to sell or exchange lands
which have been identified as ``suitable for disposal''
pursuant to section 202 of FLPMA. The vast majority of these
lands are in small, hard-to-manage tracts, and their disposal
would benefit the Bureau, as well as the surrounding
communities.
In early February, I met with representatives from the
administration, including the Department of the Interior, the
Department of Agriculture, the Council on Environmental
Quality, and the Office of Management and Budget to discuss
this proposal. At the meeting, I received a very favorable
response, and I informed those present that I wanted to
continue to work with the administration on this proposal, to
ensure not only that it would be a workable proposal, but that
it would be a program that the administration would support.
Since that meeting, my staff met with Assistant Secretary
John Berry, and BLM Director Pat Shea, to review legislation
that I intended to introduce, and to ask for comments and
suggestions. To date, I have received no response.
Question. Do you have any suggestions for developing a
program to begin the process of selling or exchanging the 4 to
6 million acres of land that the BLM has identified as
``suitable for disposal'' across the west?
Answer. FLPMA Section 102(a)(1) requires the BLM to retain
public lands in public ownership unless, as a result of land
use planning, it is determined to be in the public interest to
dispose of the lands. The lands you refer to as ``suitable for
disposal'' are those lands identified through land use planning
for disposal. Those lands can be exchanged using a public
interest determination as the guide. The lands can be sold if
they are determined to be (1) difficult to manage based on
location; (2) acquired for a purpose no longer needed; and (3)
more important for local economic development which cannot
occur on private lands. Based on these legal requirements, the
BLM is currently selling and exchanging these lands. BLM sells
an average (3 year average) of 5,000 acres annually generating
receipts of $2.5 million and exchanges an average of 150,000
acres valued at $60 million each year.
It is important to note that those lands identified as
``suitable for disposal'' are within areas where the BLM has
generically determined that Federal ownership is not beneficial
to the public. The lands identified are not ready to dispose of
without completing the required resource clearances, hazardous
materials review, NEPA analysis, appraisal and public review.
Upon a more detailed review, some of those lands will be
determined to be better suited to remain in Federal ownership
due to critical resource values discovered. It may also be
determined that the lands should be conveyed to local
government through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act for
schools, ball fields, parks, hospitals, etc. The remaining
lands will be considered for disposal after consultation with
local government. Under current funding this is all of the land
disposal actions BLM can accomplish in a given year. It is
important to note that given additional funds land exchanges
could increase somewhat but land sales can not increase.
Question. Could the administration support the use of
proceeds from surplus land sales to fund initiatives such as
endangered species?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Department
of the Interior oppose the concept of using proceeds from land
sales to fund the landowner incentive program of the Endangered
Species Act. It has been estimated that the receipts needed to
fund the incentive program amount to $70 million per year for
five years, totaling $350 million. BLM's current land sale
program generates $2.5 million annually or $12.5 million over
five years. To increase the number of land sales to generate
receipts of $70 million annually would have extreme
consequences on both public and private land values in the
western United States.
Additionally, an increase of sale activity of this
magnitude (a 30 fold increase) would seriously erode BLM's
ability to complete other priority work and divert resource
professionals from processing and issuing important land use
authorizations and managing other critical resource programs.
The cost of clearances for cultural resources, hazardous
materials, and other resource values for much of this land is
prohibitive to such a sale program. Isolated acreage with no
access will not only have very low competitive values but will
have very few, if any, interested purchasers.
The BLM has a responsibility to the taxpayer to manage the
public lands for multiple use management. We must assure that
the natural resources as well as the health and welfare of
public land users are protected as a part of our day to day
work. Spending public funds to sell large amounts of public
lands is in direct conflict with this responsibility. BLM's
organic act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, requires these public lands to be retained in Federal
ownership unless identified through land use planning for
disposal. A massive sell off of these lands will devalue the
public's assets. A nation with a growing population can ill
afford to sell its legacy and its future.
vanishing treasures
Last year, the administration proposed a new initiative
called Vanishing Treasures, to assist 41 park units in the
Southwest in the stabilization and maintenance of ruins and
other cultural resources within the park units. I worked with
this subcommittee to secure funding for this initiative, and
Congress provided $1 million in 1998 to get the initiative
underway, and $2 million for historic structures stabilization.
This year, I do not find the Vanishing Treasures initiative
among the administration's funding priorities.
Question. Does the administration continue to support the
Vanishing Treasures initiative?
Answer. Yes. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget
continues funding at the $1 million level for the Vanishing
Treasures initiative, the level appropriated in fiscal year
1998. Of the total, $453,000 has been included in the base
operating budgets at eight parks and $547,000 will be used for
project preservation, training, and project management.
Question. Have fiscal year 1998 funds been obligated in
relation to this initiative? If so, how much, and at which
parks?
Answer. The $1 million in funding provided for the
Vanishing Treasures initiative in fiscal year 1998 is being
spent as follows: $453,000 was transferred to base operating
budgets of eight parks to hire eleven permanent individuals;
$40,000 was devoted to training expenses; $497,000 was utilized
to fund six of the 44 projects which had been identified as the
most acute needs; and $10,000 was used to provide project
management, monitoring, and a peer review system to evaluate
program efficiency and effectiveness. The following table
itemizes the distribution of operations and project funding by
park.
DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATIONS AND PROJECT FUNDING BY PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations
Park unit funding Project funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aztec Ruins National Monument....... $84,000 $75,000
Mesa Verde National Park............ 67,000 ................
Salinas Pueblo Missions National
Monument........................... 33,000 25,000
Chiricahua National Monument........ 34,000 ................
Navajo National Monument............ 33,000 ................
Tonto National Monument............. 51,000 125,000
Tumacacori National Monument........ 91,000 22,000
Flagstaff Areas (Wupatki, Walnut
Canyon, Sunset Crater)............. 60,000 125,000
Chaco Culture National Monument..... ................ 125,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 453,000 497,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
Question. This Appropriations Subcommittee funds Natural
Resource Damage Surveys for the purposes of Superfund
evaluations. The funding has been considerable. Please supply
for the Subcommittee a breakdown of this funding for the past
five years that includes the specific geographic area surveyed,
the monies expended by agency with a breakout of any monies
that were distributed to other entities for survey or other
work, and the categories of work (water surveys, land surveys,
remediation work, litigation work, etc.) for which the monies
were expended, the filing of any claims resulting from these
evaluations and the settlement of these claims.
Answer. The purpose of Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Fund (NRDA Fund) is to provide funding necessary to perform
natural resource damage assessment activities which provides
the basis for claims against responsible parties for the
restoration of injured natural resources. The NRDA Fund
provides funding to support damage assessment activities for
the bureaus in the Department with management responsibility
for natural resources under the trusteeship of the Secretary.
Assessment activities may include injury determination, injury
quantification, and a determination of the appropriate
restoration measures or costs to restore the injured resources.
Funding provided by the NRDA Fund is restricted to natural
resource damage activities and is not used to perform response
activities. Assessments and the development of claims through
the assessment process ultimately lead to the restoration of
injured resources and reimbursement of reasonable assessment
costs from responsible parties through negotiated settlements
or other legal actions by the Department. To date, the majority
of natural resource damage claims developed by the Department
have been settled through negotiated settlements. The only
claims that the Department has assessed that currently are in
litigation are U.S. v. ASARCO (Whitewood Creek, South Dakota),
U.S. v. Montrose Chemical Corp., (Montrose, California), and
U.S. v. Homestake Mining (Coeur d'Alene Basin, Idaho). The
following table presents the funding for the past five years,
fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997, along with the other
information requested. U.S. v. ASARCO is not shown on the table
as it was first funded in fiscal year 1998.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND
[Project allocation of appropriated funds for the past five years, fiscal years 1993-97]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration settlement--
Settlement amount received into court
Fiscal Type of work DOI bureaus Restoration amount registry accounts
year Site and State Amount conducted involved at site settlement received Dates received -----------------------------
into NRDAR Other (in-kind
fund Dollars contributions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993American Trader $98,000 Damage FWS............. Shared $3,017,304 1995 and 1998 ........... ...............
oil spill, assessment. settlement
California received in
1995 and 1998.
1994...do 30,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 128,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Apex Houston 36,000 ...do........... ...do........... Shared 5,013,930 1994 ........... ...............
oilspill, settlement
California received in
1994.
=================================================================================================================================
1993Cantara Loop 79,000 ...do........... ...do........... Restoration ........... ................. $19,000,000 ...............
train settlement in
derailment, Court Registry
California Account.
1994...do 25,000 ...do........... ...do........... DOI Fund 61,093 1996 ........... ...............
received
payment for
past costs.
-------------
Subtotal 104,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Cherokee County 30,000 ...do........... ...do........... Case ongoing, 2 ........... ................. ........... ...............
NPL Site, partial
Kansas settlements
reached.
1994...do 150,000 ...do........... ...do........... Received 1,672,038 Received 1994-97 ........... ...............
proceeds from
2 bankruptcy
settlements.
-------------
Subtotal 180,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Coeur d'Alene 1,168,000 ...do........... FWS, BLM, USGS.. Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
Basin (Bunker
Hill), Idaho
1994...do 3,000,000 ...do........... ...do........... Partial 500,000 ................. 8,000,000 ...............
settlement
(bankruptcy)
with one PRP.
1995...do 2,650,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 6,818,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Commencement 297,450 ...do........... FWS............. Restoration ........... ................. 12,000,000 ...............
Bay, Washington settlement in
Court Registry
Account.
1994...do 300,000 ...do........... ...do........... ...do.......... ........... ................. 1,000,000 Plus
approximately
$6,377,000 in-
kind
1995...do 299,000 ...do........... ...do........... DOI Fund 538,489 ................. ........... ...............
received
payment for
past costs.
1996...do 230,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 1,126,450
=================================================================================================================================
1995Clark Fork 200,000 ...do........... NPS, BLM, FWS... Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
(Grant Kohrs
Ranch), Montana
=================================================================================================================================
1994Elliott Bay, 50,000 ...do........... FWS............. Restoration ........... ................. 17,125,000 Plus $7,000,000
Washington settlement in in-kind from
Court Registry PRP's (land
Account. and services)
1995...do 55,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 105,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Fox River/Green 105,000 ...do........... FWS, BIA........ Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
Bay, Wisconsin
1994...do 235,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1995...do 830,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1996...do 1,476,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1997...do 1,783,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 4,429,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Hudson River, 77,000 ...do........... FWS, NPS........ Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
New York
1994...do 20,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1995...do 175,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1996...do 60,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 332,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Indiana Harbor/ 100,000 ...do........... ...do........... Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
Grand Calumet
River, Indiana
1994...do 135,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1995...do 205,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1997...do 280,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 720,000
=================================================================================================================================
1994Iron Mountain 34,000 ...do........... FWS, BLM, BOR... Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
Mine,
California
1995...do 50,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1996...do 100,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1997...do 149,500 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 333,500
=================================================================================================================================
1993Jamaica Bay/ 600,832 ...do........... FWS, NPS........ Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
Gateway
National
Recreation
Area, New York
=================================================================================================================================
1993Montrose, 973,832 ...do........... FWS............. Case settled ........... ................. ........... ...............
California with one PRP
group--.
1994...do 476,000 ...do........... ...do........... Shared ........... ................. 12,000,000
restoration
settlement in
court registry
account.
1995...do 87,203 ...do........... ...do........... DOI fund 1,200,000 1993-94 ...........
received
payment for
past costs.
1996...do 365,000 ...do........... ...do........... 2d settlement ........... ................. ........... ...............
of $23.7
million being
challenged by
group of
nonsetting
parties.
1997...do 85,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 1,987,035
=================================================================================================================================
1997Niagara River, 145,000 ...do........... FWS............. Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
New York
=================================================================================================================================
1996Penabscot River, 185,000 ...do........... BIA............. Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
Maine
1997...do 10,000 ...do........... ................ ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 195,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Saginaw River 89,781 ...do........... FWS, BIA........ Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
and Bay,
Michigan
1994...do 300,000 ...do........... ...do........... Agreement in 230,000 1997 ........... ...............
principle w/
PRP for
dredging work.
1995...do 391,000 ...do........... ................ ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1996...do 280,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 1,060,781
=================================================================================================================================
1995Santa Clara 40,000 ...do........... FWS............. Shared 7,285,585 ................. ........... ...............
River oilspill, settlement
California received April
1997.
=================================================================================================================================
1993St. Lawrence 20,000 ...do........... FWS, BIA........ Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
environment,
New York
1994...do 10,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1995...do 65,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1997...do 175,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 270,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Tenyo Maru 94,000 ...do........... FWS............. Restoration ........... ................. 5,116,000
oilspill, settlement in
Washington Court Registry
Account.
1994...do 417,000 ...do........... ................ DOI fund 161,991 1995 ........... ...............
received
payment for
past costs.
-------------
Subtotal 511,000
=================================================================================================================================
1993Upper Arkansas 183,000 ...do........... FWS, BLM, BOR... Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
River/
California
Gulch, Colorado
1996...do 161,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1997...do 220,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 564,000
=================================================================================================================================
1995Venac/Bayou 185,000 ...do........... FWS............. Partial 126,000 ................. ........... ...............
Meto, Arizona settlement
(bankruptcy)
with one PRP.
1996...do 220,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
1997...do 290,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
-------------
Subtotal 695,000
=================================================================================================================================
1997Westinghouse 5,000 ...do........... FWS............. Case ongoing... ........... ................. ........... ...............
PCB's, Indiana
=================================================================================================================================
1994Yavapai-Prescott 120,000 ...do........... BIA............. Tribe has ........... ................. ........... ...............
site, Arizona settled with
PRP, DOI
negotiating
repayment of
DOI-funded
assessment
costs from
tribe.
1995...do 60,000 ...do........... ...do........... ............... ........... ................. ........... ...............
=================================================================================================================================
Subtotal 180,000
------------- ------------- -------------
Total funds 20,765,598 ................ ................ ............... 19,806,430 ................. 73,241,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
overall budget
The proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department of
the Interior, for those programs which fall within the
jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee, recommends increases
totaling some $473 million above the fiscal year 1998 enacted
level. Overall, the President has proposed increases across the
breadth of the Interior bill of nearly $1 billion above the
comparable fiscal year 1998 levels. (This comparison in terms
of total changes treats the special $699 million land
acquisition program as the ``one-time'' initiative it was
considered to be in the budget agreement.
Question. If only a small portion of the proposed increases
can be provided where would you place the Department's
priorities?
Answer. The President's budget for fiscal year 1999 was
carefully crafted to fund important priorities for the
environment and for Indian people, and it fits within the
context of the President's proposal to balance the budget for
1999. These priorities include preserving and restoring our
natural resources and ensuring good science is used in managing
these resources, ensuring safe visits to national parks,
refuges, and other public lands, and maintaining our
commitments to Native Americans, including law enforcement,
education and trust responsibilities. It provides a blue print
that if followed by the Congress, will allow the Congress to
join in supporting these vital programs.
Question. How much of the proposed increase for fiscal year
1999 is linked strictly to maintaining current levels of
service (fixed costs) and is not associated with new or
enhanced programs?
Answer. The Department's request for uncontrollable cost
increases (fixed costs) totals $105 million. The largest item
in this total is the amount associated with pay raises, $72.8
million. Other fixed cost increase items include federal
retirement system costs, workers and unemployment compensation,
rental payments, facility security, and working capital fund
charges.
Question. Are fixed costs a higher priority than new
initiatives or program expansions?
Answer. The Department of the Interior is the third most
personnel intensive agency among all the major cabinet
departments. It has reduced staff by 15 percent over the past
four years (1993 through 1997). Covering pay costs to maintain
our basic operations is one of our highest priorities. On the
other hand our programmatic responsibilities have grown and
pressures on the environment have also grown. It is important
for our Nation and our children's future that in addition to
continuing to operate our current programs, we make progress in
restoring and protecting the environment and our heritage
through our land acquisition programs, Everglades restoration,
innovative partnerships to protect endangered species, saving
our historical and cultural treasures, investing in the
education of Indian children, and providing a scientific basis
for our land management decisions.
Question. What does it mean to the Department's field
units--the parks, refuges, BLM field areas, Indian schools and
the like--when fixed costs are not addressed?
Answer. When fixed costs are not specifically funded,
Bureaus and Offices must reduce programs supported by their
respective appropriations, with consequent impact on program
performance. In some cases the only way to meet these increased
costs will be to reduce employment beyond the 12,000 positions
already eliminated over the last three-and-one-half years. The
personnel intensive nature of our mission responsibilities
makes the lack of funding for uncontrollable costs particularly
devastating. If uncontrollables are not covered, program
performance is reduced, often resulting in reduced services to
the visiting public, natural and cultural resource degradation,
as well as health and safety concerns at schools, facilities
and other infrastructure.
Specific examples of the impact of not funding
uncontrollables follows:
In the Office of the Secretary, where the salaries and
expenses account has absorbed over $23 million in
uncontrollable cost increases over the past 15 years, absorbing
an additional $1,860,000 in 1999 will force additional FTE
reductions. In 1984, 725 FTE were paid from this account; in
1997 that number had dropped to 389 FTE. Such drastic
reductions impairs the Secretary in the performance of his
mission responsibilities.
In the Bureau of Indian Affairs the effect of absorbing pay
costs strikes hardest at those programs that are the most
people-intensive. For example, about 75 percent of the
operating cost of the BIA law enforcement program supports the
law officer and detention facility staffs. To offset the
effective reduction in program funding resulting from absorbing
pay cost adjustments, reservation police departments will have
to reduce the patrol hours that they currently log. Other BIA
personnel-cost sensitive programs are road maintenance
programs, housing, and natural resource development, all of
which already have backlogs that will now only get worse.
The reduction in uncontrollable costs would seriously erode
program productivity as managers offset the reduction by
lowering personnel usage in the Bureau of Land Management. Such
a reduction will affect the timeliness of mining plan reviews
and oil and gas lease issuance. Fewer rights-of-way and
withdrawal review cases will be processed. The miles of
cadastral surveys accomplished will fall. Smaller numbers of
wild horses will be removed from public lands, thereby
stressing the health of animal and plant populations sharing
these lands. In the Wildland Fire Management Program the lack
of funding for uncontrollables translates into fewer resources
for fighting fires.
The impact will be severest on those programs for which
managers must have staff flexibility at some point in the year
to carry out. One example of this type of program is BLM's
Challenge Cost Share program. The reduction in funds through
failure to offset uncontrollable cost increases will diminish
the opportunities field managers have to assign staff to this
program to work along side local-government employees and the
public, weakening the strong relationship that has been built
between BLM and the communities that border public lands.
In the FWS and NPS, the absorption of the federal pay and
retirement cost increases will make it very difficult for
programs to maintain their 1998 performance levels in addition
to new requirements mandated by the 1999 annual plan. Visitor
contact hours would be reduced and other operational
requirements would not be met.
Absorption of uncontrollable costs in the USGS would
adversely impact ongoing operations and anticipated activities
and investments. For example, USGS would stop, or not start,
cooperative hydrologic studies supporting State and local
agencies and it will shutdown streamflow gaging stations. The
effective funding reduction would delay by one year completion
of national coverage of geospatial data. The USGS would also
reduce field work in all programs, including planned
installation, maintenance, and upgrading of hazard monitoring
devices and telemetry systems and reduce ongoing research,
including research on invasive species. The absorption of
uncontrollables may also impede Congressional intent in
providing a programmatic increase for the Cooperative Research
Unit program to fill vacancies.
Question. If the Subcommittee is held at an allocation that
is roughly comparable to the fiscal year 1998 base program,
what would you consider to be the highest priority issues that
need to be addressed when the Subcommittee considers your
proposed fiscal year 1999 budget.
Answer. If the overall mark were held to fiscal year 1998
levels, we would still have to cover increased pay costs,
effectively reducing overall programs by over $105 million. As
mentioned above the quality of services in parks, refuges, and
recreation sites would deteriorate, as would the condition of
facilities. The implications of a continuing decline in park
and refuge staff, teachers in Indian schools, law enforcement
personnel, scientists, and land managers would be staggering.
The Department could not meet its statutory mandates. We are
hopeful that the President's request can be considered as a
whole, rather than having to make these difficult choices among
competing needs.
Question. What will it mean to the Department of the
Interior's presence in my State of West Virginia if the funding
requested in fiscal year 1999 is not appropriated? Do you
anticipated any changes in staffing, or office closures, or
program terminations?
Answer. In our April 1998 ``Distribution of Budget
Authority by Congressional District/State Report'', the
Department estimates the State of West Virginia will receive
$92.5 million in fiscal year 1999, as compared to $102.0
million in fiscal year 1998. fiscal year 1999 funding is less
than fiscal year 1998 primarily due to the difference in
construction and land acquisition project funding in the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service.
The Department's request would primarily provide
uncontrollable cost increases, refuge operations increases, and
increases in OSM's AML fund. Funding is also included for land
acquisition at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge and New
River Gorge National Recreation Site. If the Department
receives fiscal year 1998 enacted funding plus funding to cover
uncontrollable costs in fiscal year 1999 in its operating
programs, we would not anticipate office closures, staffing
changes or program terminations, except as proposed in the
fiscal year 1999 President's Budget. Funding below this level,
however, could lead to such actions, depending upon the
magnitude of the cuts and the specific programs targeted.
fiscal year 1998--title v land acquisition funding
Pursuant to last year's budget agreement, the fiscal year
1998 Interior bill included a special one-time $699 million
land acquisition account. While some of the funds were
identified for particular purchases (Headwaters Forest, CA and
New World Mine, MT), the remaining funds are to be used for
traditional land acquisition projects.
The Administration has forwarded a proposed distribution of
funding to the Appropriations Committees for review, and the
next step will be for the House and Senate Interior
Subcommittees to determine a final approved list of
expenditures, pursuant to the terms contained in Title V of
Public Law 105-83.
Question. Are there any proposed acquisitions in the
Department's list that are particularly time-sensitive? If so,
what are the circumstances that would jeopardize the
acquisition if the list is not approved soon?
Answer. Yes, a total of $60.9 million in 28 projects on the
lists of three bureaus are time-sensitive. Often, acquisitions
have options that will expire, are subject to development, have
willing sellers who will not wait indefinitely, or will require
new costly re-appraisals if the delays continue.
The six BLM projects totaling $8.5 million are Bodie Bowl
in California, Sacrifice Cliff in Montana, La Cienega in New
Mexico, Lopez Island in Washington, Upper Snake/South Fork
Snake River in Idaho, and Three Island Crossing/Oregon NHT in
Idaho. Additionally, acquisitions at these sites will be
complete except for La Cienega and Upper Snake/South Fork Snake
River.
The four FWS projects, totaling $17.4 million are Balcones
Canyonlands in Texas, Cabo Rojo Salt Flats in Puerto Rico, Don
Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR (Bear Island purchase) in
California and Great Meadows NWR (O'Rouke Farm). The Bear
Island purchase completes acquisition on the Island.
The 18 NPS projects totaling $35.0 million are Acadia NP in
Maine, Channel Islands NP in California, Chattahoochee River
NRA in Georgia, Cumberland Island NS in Georgia, Delaware Water
Gap NRA in Pennsylvania, Ebey's Land NH Reserve in Washington,
Gettysburg NMP in Pennsylvania, Haleakala NP in Hawaii,
Hopewell Culture NHP in Ohio, John Day Fossil Beds NM in
Oregon, John Muir NHS in California, Monocacy NB in Maryland,
Olympic NP in Washington, Pecos NHP in New Mexico, Salt River
Bay NHP & Ecol. Pres. in Virgin Islands, Santa Monica NRA
(Completes Backbone Trail), Stones River NB in Tennessee, and
Voyageurs NPS in Minnesota.
Question. To what extent do you anticipate any additional
operational or staffing requirements with the projects that
have been identified?
Answer. Each bureau plans for any new operational or
staffing for identified projects on an annual basis within
overall funding levels. Often acquisitions add an additional
parcel of land to an existing unit and may not require new
operational funds or staff. In some cases, consolidation of
ownership may save costs that result from fragmented ownership
patterns. When new staff are required to be added, bureaus
often assign staff from other existing units.
Question. Are any of the funds proposed to be used to
establish new units?
Answer. Two BLM acquisitions and four FWS acquisitions on
the Title V lists represent requests for new appropriated
funding, though not necessarily new units. No funding is
requested for new National Parks but funds are included for
acquisition management over the four years that funds are
available.
In BLM, Lechguilla in New Mexico is a proposal to acquire
oil and gas lease interests beneath existing BLM lands; while
the acquisition at Three Island Crossing/Oregon NHT in Idaho
would represent a new start.
In FWS, funding for the North Dakota Prairie and the South
Dakota Prairie would be for new areas, like a wetlands project,
but are not new refuges. The Black River proposed acquisition
is a unit in the Nisqually NWR in Washington. The request for
the Fort Pierre Eagle Roost in South Dakota would establish a
new refuge.
One of the allowable purposes of this account, as provided
for in the appropriations language, is to address maintenance
backlogs of the public land agencies. Yet in the proposal, the
Administration has recommended that just $20 million of the
$362 million not specified for particular projects be spent on
maintenance.
Question. With backlogs for the Department estimated to be
in the hundreds of millions of dollars, why did you choose not
to recommend more of the funding for these purposes?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests an increase of
$82 million over the $464 million appropriated in fiscal year
1998 for maintenance. In addition, tens of millions of dollars
of recreation fee demonstration funds collected at NPS units in
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 are available to be used
for maintenance.
Question. How does the estimated cost of the backlog of
land acquisitions, defined as inholdings within established
boundaries, compare with the maintenance and major repair/
rehabilitation backlogs?
Answer. We are working to develop more exact numbers for
maintenance and major repair/rehabilitation infrastructure
needs. For land acquisition, NPS maintains a list of estimated
needs that totals $1.3 billion, excluding acquisition needs in
Alaska. This list is compiled and maintained using a
computerized database and value estimates submitted by Regional
personnel. FWS estimates that it has approximately $2.4 billion
in acquisition needs registered on the Land Acquisition
Priority System (LAPS) list.
Question. When there are so many parcels with willing
sellers at established parks or refuges, what is the
justification for proceeding with new units? Doesn't this just
add to the backlog problem?
Answer. The National Park Service in recent years has been
concentrating its efforts increasingly on acquiring lands
within established parks. Only Congress can add new units to
the NPS system.
The Fish and Wildlife Service acquires land or interests in
land to protect wildlife habitat when other options are not
available. Time delays result in a greater threat to the
resource and a greater final cost.
Acquiring new units does add to the backlog of properties
to be maintained, but sometimes the historic or natural
resource is of such importance that to fail to secure it for
future generations of Americans would be an irreversible and
regrettable action.
national conservation training center
Mr. Secretary, on a glorious Saturday last fall, you and
Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Clark joined me in
dedicating the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC). It
is truly a spectacular facility and one for which I believe all
in the Service and the Department can be proud.
Question. What has been the experience since the facility
opened last year? Has the NCTC met expectations?
Answer. Since the facility opened in October 1997, over
5,000 participants from the United States and a dozen countries
have attended training programs at the Shepherdstown campus.
There is a continuing high level of interest in planning and
scheduling NCTC programs during fiscal year 1999. The FWS
believes that the NCTC has already exceeded expectations and
has established itself as a premier conservation training
facility.
Question. What response and use of the training center is
the Service receiving from other entities? Has the Center been
able to respond to demand?
Answer. Since the facility opened, over 60 organizations
have sent students to NCTC. Among the other organizations that
have programs at the NCTC are the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, The Land Trust
Alliance, and The Conservation Fund.
Demand for use of the NCTC has been strong. So far, the FWS
has managed the many requests for use of the facility, although
the 100 beds currently available have not been sufficient to
address lodging needs for all NCTC participants. The NCTC has
worked closely with area hotels to place overflow business
offsite. The completion of the third lodging unit will
accommodate 50 more participants on campus. On campus residence
is preferable because it promotes communication and networking
among participants which leads to increased problem solving and
cooperation on resource issues.
Question. To assist with phasing of funding, the third
dormitory is presently under construction and anticipated to be
completed this winter (February). Are things still on schedule
for this completion? Are sufficient funds available to furnish
and equip the dorm once completed?
Answer. Construction for the third lodging unit is on
schedule and sufficient funding is available to complete
construction and furnish the dormitory.
Question. The fiscal year 1999 budget for the training
center is essentially level with last year, except for
adjustments for fixed costs. Will there be additional costs to
NCTC associated with completion of the third dormitory, thus
increasing the overnight capacity by a third?
Answer. No additional appropriations for NCTC operations
will be required to accommodate the planned increase in
residential students when the third dormitory becomes
available. These students will be charged for room and meal
expenses.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that the
Service remains ``ahead of the curve'' at the NCTC in terms of
maintenance, upkeep, and fully addressing the operating
capacities of the Center?
Answer. The FWS is amending the Maintenance Management
System to include the NCTC facility and is conducting a study
to determine the specific maintenance needs of the facility.
Without giving away the ``inner workings'' of the Department's
fiscal year 2000 budget formulation process, it is safe to say
that the Department will be including the NCTC in the
development of the five year plan for maintenance needs and
evaluating the needs of the NCTC against other maintenance
priorities.
Question. Will BLM and NPS continue their support in fiscal
year 1999 at a level of $500,000 each, as was first
appropriated in fiscal year 1997, and continued in fiscal year
1998? Should the money stay in the bureaus, or be transferred
to FWS budget so all NCTC funds are in one place?
Answer. Yes. The FWS anticipates receiving $500,000 each
from BLM and NPS in fiscal year 1999. This funding is used for
operational costs of the NCTC facility and to fund liaison
positions from BLM and NPS. The Department plans to use this
protocol in the future as well.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
land acquisition
Mr. Secretary, to date, Congress has provided a total of
$11 million for land acquisition at Canaan Valley. The
Department also has identified an additional $1 million for
Canaan Valley as part of the Title V, $699 million proposed
list, and $1 million is included in the Department's fiscal
year 1999 budget request.
Question. If I recall correctly, Mr. Secretary, the
boundaries of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
encompass some 24,000 acres. How many acres have been acquired
and are expected to be added to the refuge with the funds
provided in the fiscal year 1998 regular bill?
Answer. Through fiscal year 1997, the FWS has acquired 825
acres. The fiscal year 1998 planned acquisitions total 1,875
acres, including lands purchased with North American Wetlands
Conservation grant funds.
Question. So, there is still plenty of acreage within the
boundary that has not yet been acquired. Has the Fish and
Wildlife Service identified other important properties with
high resource values for which there are willing sellers?
Answer. Yes, the FWS has identified a number a important
properties with high resource values for which there are
willing sellers. For example, and for the long-term, the FWS is
currently negotiating with ten landowners of 1,800 acres with
an estimated value of $8.5 million. These acquisitions would
help consolidate and protect the most threatened area of the
valley and are part of the long-term strategy for land
acquisition at the refuge. However, the Administration has
requested $1.0 million for fiscal year 1999 for the highest
priority acreage, due to competing demands elsewhere.
Question. How much additional funding could FWS spend for
land acquisition at Canaan Valley in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999
requests $1.0 million to acquire an additional 265 acres at the
Canaan Valley NWR. In addition, the Administration has
requested a further $1.0 million as part of the Title V funding
appropriated in fiscal year 1998. This request is also pending
Congressional approval.
Last year, as a result of the significant operational
increase provided for the national wildlife refuge system, the
FWS received sufficient funds to establish a refuge staff and
to locate an office near the refuge, in the valley, rather than
30 miles away.
Question. What progress is being made to hire a staff at
the refuge and locate office space in the valley?
Answer. A maintenance worker was hired and has been on site
since October 1997. Selection of a manager is imminent. The
advertisement for an office automation assistant has closed and
a selection is imminent. A biologist position will be
advertised for a three week period beginning on May 4, 1998.
The FWS will establish a local address in the valley in
June 1998. If a property cannot be purchased, temporary
quarters will be established in a rental unit; however, a
property is under consideration for purchase. The property
includes a residence that can be converted to office space and
a structure that can be used as a maintenance shop. An offer to
purchase the property is about to be submitted by The
Conservation Fund. If the offer is accepted, the closing on the
property could occur by June 22, 1998. To expedite procurement
of office furniture and equipment, purchase orders are prepared
and will be submitted when office space is obtained.
Question. At the end of last year, the previous refuge
manager retired. Are efforts underway to hire a permanent
replacement?
Answer. Yes, a new manager is expected to be in place by
August 1998.
Question. How many refuges are now part of the system? How
many of these have no or only custodial staffing levels?
Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes 514
National Wildlife Refuges and 37 Wetland Management Districts.
There are 320 staffed National Wildlife Refuges and 27 staffed
Wetland Management Districts. There are 194 National Wildlife
Refuges and 10 Wetland Management Districts with no staff on
the site to manage wildlife resources or public use.
Approximately 114 of these stations should remain unstaffed
because they are either a mix of remote islands, small sized
refuges that lack major resource threats, or refuges that are
in close proximity to other staffed refuges and can be
effectively monitored from those locations.
While there is no standard definition of custodial status,
many refuges are currently only able to provide the most basic
services. In addition to the 194 unstaffed National Wildlife
Refuges, many refuges have fewer than five staff. At the
beginning of this fiscal year on refuges outside of Alaska,
there were: (1) 580 refuge managers (1.8 per staffed field
office or 1 refuge manager per 28,200 acres); (2) 576
maintenance workers (1.8 per staffed field office or 1
maintenance worker per 28,500 acres); (3) 305 wildlife
biologists (1 per staffed field office or 1 biologist per
53,000 acres); and (4) 254 public use and law enforcement
specialists (.8 per staffed field office or 1 public use
specialist per 120,000 visitors).
Staffing needs have been addressed in both the 1998 and
1999 President's Budgets, with operations increases targeted
towards the highest priority on-the-ground needs. Part of these
projects have involved the hiring of on-the-ground staff. The
1999 President's Budget includes an operations increase of
$15.0 million and 84 FTE for the highest priority projects.
proposed new fws regional office
Last summer, Mr. Secretary, you put forward a proposal to
establish a new regional office for the Fish and Wildlife
Service in California. The objective of this proposal was to be
able to respond better to the many endangered species and
resource issues in California.
However, there were numerous concerns raised regarding the
cost of this proposal and whether a regional office would be
the most effective way to solve the problems.
Recently, the House Appropriations Committee rejected a
reprogramming proposal that would have initiated this regional
office in fiscal year 1998. Additional funds for implementation
are contained in the fiscal year 1999 budget proposal.
Question. What are your current thoughts on this matter
given the House's action?
Answer. On April 17, 1998, he Department proposed a scaled
back operations office consisting of 9 FTE to provide line
management and supervision of all field offices in California
(including the Klamath ecosystem) and Nevada. The annualized
costs of the office will be $1.2 million and the funds and
staffing to establish and operate the office will be
transferred from the regional office in Portland, Oregon. By
letter of April 23, 1998, the House Appropriations Subcommittee
approved this new office. By letter of May 6, 1998, the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee approved this new office.
Question. Have you considered an alternative proposal that
would be a smaller regional office, but put more people ``on
the ground'' to address the problems?
Answer. As discussed above, the Department proposed a
scaled back operations office consisting of 9 FTE to provide
line management and supervision of all field offices in
California (including the Klamath ecosystem) and Nevada.
Question. What do you see as the consequences if a new Fish
and Wildlife Service regional office is not established for
California and Nevada?
Answer. The California/Nevada operations office is critical
to provide hands-on leadership and improved service to the
public for the Bay/Delta ecosystem restoration initiative, the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the ongoing Salton Sea
effort, endangered species issues, the public demand for
habitat conservation planning assistance, and meeting the
rapidly increasing expectation of refuge and fisheries
facilities in California and Nevada. At the same time, the new
office will allow the Portland Regional Office to be more
responsive to the public and the Department's partner's in the
Pacific northwest and the Pacific basin.
Question. Why do you view a regional office as more
important than assigning persons ``on the ground'' to the
various ecological services offices and affected refuges?
Answer. The Department considers the regional offices as
one component of an effective three-pronged strategy to
accomplish the FWS mission. The headquarters office, the
regional offices, and the various field stations all perform
important roles. Thus, the Department carefully evaluates the
needs of the three interdependent organizational levels within
the FWS and has requested the preponderance of increased
funding for fiscal year 1999 for field station level program
implementation among the various programs.
In regards to the refuge program, the Administration's
fiscal year 1999 budget includes a requested increase of $25.9
million and 84 FTE for the refuge system for critical on-the-
ground operations and maintenance needs. Refuge staffing has
gone from 2,224 in 1996 to 2,306 in 1997 to 2,458 in 1998 to a
proposed level of 2,542 in 1999 to keep pace with burgeoning on
the ground implementation needs.
The ultimate goal of threatened and endangered species
conservation is to recover listed species to levels where
protection under the Endangered Species Act is no longer
required and they can be removed from the list. The Department
has spent five years improving the ESA through a series of
administrative reforms which resulted in the recent
announcement to move 29 species off the Endangered Species list
or to the less critical ``threatened'' category during the next
couple of years. The Administration's budget for fiscal year
1999 includes a requested funding increase of $35.8 million and
327 additional FTE (to a total of 1,197) to allow further
progress with the ESA program to support both economic
development and species conservation.
For fisheries programs, the Department has requested an
increase of $4.4 million and 13 FTE to implement on-the-ground
fisheries restoration actions including fish passage projects
in high priority migratory corridors, native trout restoration
projects, hatchery maintenance, and additional efforts to halt
the spread of aquatic nuisance species.
By contrast, the Department has only requested pay and
uncontrollable cost increases for existing regional offices.
Question. How much has been spent to date on division of
the FWS Pacific Region Office?
Answer. No funding has been spent to date to implement the
new California/Nevada operations office. As discussed above,
the annualized costs associated with the nine person office is
$1.2 million, which will be reprogrammed from the Portland,
Oregon office. A onetime reprogramming of $0.9 million from the
Portland, Oregon office will also be effected for relocation,
furniture, and equipment costs.
Question. What are your planned outyear expenditures,
beyond fiscal year 1999?
Answer. For planning purposes, the California/Nevada
operations office would need increased funding to meet common
``uncontrollable'' cost increases such as pay and retirement.
There are no plans to expand the office at this time.
Question. What are the staffing requirements of the new
office(s)? Will the creation of the Pacific Southwest Regional
Office require additional FTE's? If so, how many?
Answer. As discussed above, the office will be established
with nine FTE, transferred from the current Portland, Oregon
office.
disaster funding
Last week, the Senate completed action on the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill for disaster relief. The
Senate bill recommends some $46 million for disaster recovery
for your Department. Most of this is due to winter storms,
flood damages from El Nino, and storm recovery from tornadoes,
typhoons, and other weather-related events.
Question. The Senate bill declares these funds to be an
emergency, and does not identify offsets to pay for these
unanticipated costs. What would be the consequence to the
Department of the Interior if offsets from within the
Department are necessary to deal with the damages?
Answer. The Department proposed fiscal year 1998
Supplemental contained rescissions totaling $9.4 million.
Offsets were proposed to the non-emergency elements of the
supplemental request. The $9.4 million represented the entire
amount identified through a thorough review of the Department's
available balances. Further offsets would cause viable projects
for which Congress previously appropriated funds to be reduced.
Question. Are there damages in excess of what the Senate
recommended funding level will address? If so, how much?
Answer. The Department's current assessment of its storm
related damage to date totals $67,748,000. S. 1768 approved
$46,424,000 for the Department. The difference will be managed
through shifting maintenance priorities or stabilizing sites
until a regular appropriation can be requested.
Last year, funds were provided to address damages at
Yosemite National Park, considered to be one of the ``crown
jewels'' of the system.
Question. How is the recovery effort progressing? Will
there be any disruptions for visitors this summer?
Answer. The recovery effort is fully engaged. Most projects
are on schedule with the Yosemite Flood Recovery Action Plan
submitted to Congress in November, 1997. That plan outlines a
four-year timetable for substantial completion of flood related
repairs. Throughout the past year, most NEPA compliance,
emergency repairs, and preliminary planning for permanent
repairs have been completed. A flood recovery management team
is established in the park and reports to the Superintendent. A
support and oversight process has been established at the
Regional Office and Washington levels, with quarterly review by
the Office of the Secretary of the Interior and House and
Senate appropriations committees through the Flood Recovery
Quarterly Reports.
One major project, the permanent rebuilding of the El
Portal Road (7.5 miles of Highway 140 within the park), was
delayed from January till September 1998. The delay was due to
project bidding that reflected contractor anxiety about
beginning a major earth-moving project in the middle of an El
Nino winter. A rebidding process is now concluded, with
expected award on June 1, 1998.
Day use visitors will experience only minor disruptions
from recovery work this summer. Overnight accommodations remain
essentially at 1997 levels. The 250 lodge units and 350
campsites destroyed by flooding are not yet replaced. Lodge
construction is scheduled to start in June of 1998. Campground
reconstruction is pending a Record of Decision on the Valley
Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
expected by December 1998.
Concessioner service levels continue to be impacted by the
loss of 439 bed spaces in Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Concession
Services, the park's main lodging provider, has chosen to use
150 overnight visitor rental units to house employees and has
also installed 84 temporary dormitory beds. This results in
another 150 units being unavailable for overnight visitors, but
continues the strategy established in the summer of 1997.
Question. What is the status of obligations for the funds
provided in the fiscal year 1997 supplemental? How do current
estimates for repairs compare to the estimates used in last
year's appropriation?
Answer. As of March 31, 1998, $44,400,000 had been
obligated on the recovery effort. Current projections call for
obligations of an additional $50,000,000 this calendar year.
Current estimates are generally running within 10 percent of
original estimates. One project, the rebuilding of El Portal
Road (Highway 140 within the park), has exceeded the original
cost estimate by approximately 30 percent or $8,000,000.
Natural and cultural preservation concerns, coupled with the
precipitous nature of this Merced River canyon construction,
have escalated project costs beyond the original estimate. At
this time, we expect to manage the shortfall within the context
of the entire $186,000,000 recovery authorization, applying
savings from other projects wherever possible. This is a
design/build project and has been through a negotiated bidding
process with three of the country's largest road building
firms. The Federal Highway Administration is in the process of
certifying the ``Best and Final Offers'' and expects to award
the contract on June 1, 1998.
construction/maintenance backlogs
Mr. Secretary, in recent months, there has been
considerable attention paid to the infrastructure of the
Interior Department and the efforts of the various bureaus to
protect and maintain the resources which have been entrusted to
the Department's care.
In response to concerns raised by Congress, and others, the
Department has undertaken an effort to identify clearly its
backlog problems and to develop a systematic means of seeking
funding to address these issues.
Question. Can you provide a brief overview of what steps
have been taken thus far, and what you perceive the necessary
next steps to be, for this process?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget established the first Department-wide criteria for
prioritizing the fiscal year 1999 maintenance and construction
lists. With critical health and safety and critical resource
protection as highest priority for funding, bureaus submitted
lists that were reviewed by the Department and were submitted
to the Appropriations Committees.
A Departmental working group with bureau representatives
has just completed establishing criteria for the 5-year Plan
and for meeting the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
directions for reporting on Standard No. 6 in the annual
financial report concerning deferred maintenance. These
criteria have been provided to the bureaus in the fiscal year
2000 budget formulation guidance from the Department.
The bureaus will submit five years of projects with their
fiscal year 2000 budgets and will be reviewed by the Department
and OMB.
As part of the overall 5-year process, the Department and
bureaus also will work on improving the quality of the data
concerning the condition of the infrastructure.
Question. What success are you having with the bureaus in
seeking to implement a new approach to review these projects--
are they ``buying in'' and participating fully?
Answer. Yes, the bureaus are fully ``buying in'' and
participating in the Maintenance and Construction Working Group
that has developed the guidance for the five year plans.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, there are many projects each
year that are brought to the attention of Members of Congress,
oftentimes by the Department's on-the-ground managers and
superintendents.
Question. How do you propose to deal with pressures to
substitute, or add at the expense of other initiatives,
alternative projects for items which may be identified in your
5-year plan?
Answer. The Department hopes that, by laying out a 5-year
Plan based on clearly articulated criteria, consensus can be
achieved on an orderly, efficient approach to funding line-item
projects. There will, of course, be emergency and unforeseen
requirements that emerge over the five year period, which will
have to be accommodated within the plan.
Question. How are the special recreation demo fee revenues
helping the bureaus to address critical requirements?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the National Park Service is
beginning its program to use the fee demo revenues to benefit
the parks including for visitation and maintenance needs. For
example, in the list of 20 percent fees managed nationally that
was submitted to the Subcommittee staff in February 1998, 33.5
percent of the projects address health and safety items.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
extinction
It has been reported to me that during the recent North
American Wildlife Management Institute meeting in Orlando you
stated that no species will go extinct during your watch. I
very much appreciate your optimism and dedication.
My area of concern, of course, is Hawaii and the Pacific
islands. Reports from this region are that more extinctions are
imminent. Nobody can argue the environmental crisis that is
ongoing in Hawaii. Over the past decades, endemic species of
birds and plants have been lost and we may be in the process of
losing more. Important work in recent years by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other agencies of the Interior
Department has started the process toward conserving these
species.
Question. Can you outline some of your conservation plans
and priorities for prevention of extinctions in Hawaii and the
Pacific?
Answer. Habitat destruction and modification, along with
subsistence hunting, introduced diseases, and other direct
causes, were the main causes of species declines and
extinctions in past centuries. More recently, extinctions and
declines in the native flora and fauna of Hawaii are directly
attributable to impacts from introduced species. Strategies to
stem the tide of extinctions in Hawaii are, therefore, aimed
first and foremost at the control of threats from alien
organisms in the wild.
Efforts to fence and remove ungulates (pigs, goats, sheep,
deer, and cattle) from large tracts of native forest and
replant such forests with native species are ongoing as are
efforts to remove introduced predators (rats and mongoose). In
the past few years great strides have been made in obtaining
authorization to use rodenticides in the form of bait blocks to
control rats and mongoose in the forests of Hawaii and larger
scale methods of control are being developed. Specifically,
research is underway to determine if it will be feasible to
pursue a future registration to aerially broadcast pelleted
forms of rodenticides in Hawaii. Research is also underway to
determine appropriate control methods for the introduced
mosquitoes that are the carriers of avian malaria and pox, the
main threats to the survival of Hawaii's forest birds.
Much of Hawaii's endangered flora and fauna are in such
critically low numbers that the above habitat based efforts
alone will likely not prevent their continued decline and
ultimate extinction. Therefore another major component of the
FWS conservation strategy for Hawaii's endangered and
threatened species is captive propagation to bolster their
numbers and reintroduction of these species into areas that are
managed to control known threats. Captive propagation is a tool
that is used, or is being developed, for many of Hawaii's
endangered forest birds and plants, the nene, Oahu tree snails,
and the Blackburn's sphinx moth. Research to develop the means
to promote immunity to malaria and pox in Hawaii's native birds
is also underway.
Recovery plans identifying the FWS recommendations for
Hawaii's plants and wildlife and the priorities assigned to
these actions are available for nearly all of the listed taxa
in Hawaii. In addition, the FWS has convened expert Recovery
Teams to assist in developing and implementing actions for
recovery of Hawaii's native flora and fauna. The `Alala
Recovery Team, which includes private landowners, offers expert
advice on how to prevent extinction and promote recovery of the
`Alala. The Hawaii Forest Bird Recovery Team provides advice
for all other endangered Hawaii forest birds and is currently
preparing a revised recovery plan for these species. The Hawaii
and Pacific Plants Recovery Coordinating Committee is in its
final stages of developing a Plant Conservation Strategy for
the islands.
secretarial commission
On February 3, 1997, the Hawaii Congressional delegation
wrote you a letter outlining the problems associated with the
recovery of many of the endangered Hawaiian forest birds. As
you have seen first hand, the State of Hawaii is experiencing
an extinction crisis. Half of the State's endemic bird species
are gone and most of the remaining are endangered, some
critically.
In our letter we requested your leadership to deal with
problems associated with this extinction crisis. Specifically,
the recovery of these species will not succeed unless we
institute a habitat management program that will deal with the
adverse effects of alien species and predators (e.g. Miconia,
rats, mongoose, mosquitoes, ungulates).
It has been suggested that a Secretarial Commission should
be formed to take a close look at the situation and make
recommendations. This sounds like a positive step to me. I
understand that the Department has already responded to other
Congressional inquiries along these lines.
Question. What steps has the Department taken with respect
to this issue and the Hawaii delegation's inquiry of February
3, 1997?
Answer. At his confirmation hearing, and in response to a
question by Senator Kempthorne, Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, Don Barry, responded that he would support
a Secretarial Commission to study Hawaii's declining
ecosystems. The FWS is actively considering the Hawaiian
delegation's proposal to establish a Secretarial Commission or
similar organization that could function as an umbrella
organization capable of taking a broad look at the enormous
task of setting priorities and restoring parts of Hawaii's
natural environments. This commission could be established
under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act and function
as a recovery team for Hawaiian ecosystems, consisting of both
resource professionals and other individuals with the necessary
expertise to guide the recovery process. The Commission could
become a successful partnership of public and private entities
who share a common concern for the welfare of Hawaii's unique
flora and fauna.
administration of funding
Another important topic is the funding for Hawaii for the
recovery of species. Specifically, the amount of funding
necessary, the current uses of existing funding, and how
funding priorities are established.
The Keauhou Bird Conservation Center was built on the
recommendation of the National Research Council report that two
bird propagation facilities in Hawaii are necessary; one on
Maui (existing) and another on the Big Island (Keauhou).
Question. What are the operational costs of each facility
for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999? Are both
facilities fully funded in Fiscal years 1998 and 1999? Is the
FWS funding both facilities?
Answer. Yes, both facilities are fully funded in fiscal
year 1998 and 1999. The operational costs of the Maui Bird
Conservation Center (MBCC) and Keauhou Bird Conservation Center
(KBCC) for 1996 through 1999 are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBCC........................................................ 400 402 \1\ 400 \2\ 400
KBCC........................................................ 500 529 \1\ 610 \2\ 750
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 900 931 \1\ 1,010 \2\ 1,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.
\2\ President's budget request.
Through the Recovery Program, the FWS provides $500,000 per
year to The Peregrine Fund for operation of the KBCC facility.
Section 6 Cooperative Agreement Funds are also provided for
MBCC, as follows:
Fiscal years:
1996...................................................... $300,000
1997...................................................... 301,000
1998...................................................... 302,025
It is my understanding that the FWS is under a court order
to focus more on endangered plants, particularly their critical
habitat.
Question. How does the FWS plan to address the court order?
How has the court order impacted other FWS programs in Hawaii?
How are these impacts addressed in the budget before the
subcommittee today?
Answer. The FWS filed a declaration with the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii on April 14, 1998 in
response to the court order. In the declaration, the Service
presented two options for compliance with the Court's order to
reconsider decisions that designation of critical habitat was
not prudent for 245 plant taxa in the Hawaiian Islands. The
Court is currently considering the proposed schedule for
remand.
The first option proposed would require the FWS to assign
four listing biologists to the remand thereby allowing the FWS
to complete the reconsideration of all 245 not prudent findings
by November 30, 2000. Under this option, all other listing
activity in the Pacific Islands Ecoregion would be suspended
until November 30, 2000. The second option would allow the FWS
to assign only two listing biologists to the remand, with the
other two continuing to work on high priority listing
activities in the Ecoregion. Under this option, the
reconsideration of the not prudent findings would be completed
by April 30, 2002.
There has been no impact to any other FWS programs in
Hawaii as a result of the court order, as the final decision of
the Court has not yet been reached. The impacts that will
result from the court order are not addressed in the FWS fiscal
year 1999 budget. The order had not yet been issued when the
budget request was developed and the final decision of the
Court has not been made.
The Alala (Hawaiian crow) is the species that really
brought us to where we are today with endangered species
recovery in Hawaii. As a result of this successful work,
propagation of other Hawaiian forest birds has occurred.
Question. Please provide me with an update on the Alala and
other species that are the subject of recovery work. What are
these species' biggest threats? Please provide a breakdown
(propagation, releases, monitoring, etc) of the funding the FWS
will spend in fiscal year 1998 on this work?
Answer. `Alala--The current `Alala population consists of
16-17 individuals in the wild (4-5 of the original wild birds
and 12 released) and 18 captive birds (consisting of 7 pairs, 3
single males, and one imprinted female). Reproduction by the
surviving wild birds appears to be at a standstill. In 1997,
only one viable egg was produced by the only reproductive wild
pair, and was collected and hatched in captivity. This same
pair has not completed a nest or bred this breeding season.
One of the most significant events to have occurred during
the past year is the formation of a breeding pair made up of
birds produced in captivity and released during the first year
of the `Alala restoration project in 1993. These two birds have
established a pair bond and have been placed in a field aviary
for protection during this critical, first breeding phase.
Chances are good that these birds will produce young either
this season or the next. Some significant losses occurred in
1997, as well. There were five confirmed deaths, all of which
showed signs of predation, either mammalian or raptor. An
additional two `Alala are missing and presumed dead. Thus far
in 1998, two additional deaths have occurred, both of which
were caused by a bacterial infection that appears to be E.
coli.
The FWS has developed a productive partnership with the
private landowner involved in `Alala recovery. The development
of mutual trust within the group serves as a model for other
such efforts nationwide.
In December 1997, the Kona Forest Unit of Hakalau National
Wildlife Refuge was established, based on recommendations from
the National Research Council and the `Alala Recovery Team. The
Refuge consists of 5,300 acres of former Kai Malino Ranch land
that is essential habitat of the `Alala and other endangered
birds and plants. The acquisition process is also underway for
potential purchase of an additional 12,000 acres. The refuge
will become the cornerstone of potential agreements with other
landowners in the area to manage the Kona forest on an
ecosystem basis. Efforts are also underway to identify another
site on the Big Island for the establishment of a second
population of `Alala. The Service hopes to begin releases of
`Alala at a second site in 1999. The biggest threats to the
continued existence of the `Alala are (1) predation by
introduced mammalian predators and by the native Hawaiian hawk,
(2) disease, and (3) the potential for a catastrophic
extinction event as a result of the population's small size and
limited distribution.
In 1998, the Service will spend approximately $260,000 in
recovery funds on the field project for the `Alala. The costs
of raising the `Alala in captivity at Keauhou Bird Conservation
Center (KBCC) and Maui Bird Conservation Center (MBCC) and
hacking them into the wild as fledglings is included as part of
the costs to operate KBCC and MBCC discussed in detail above.
Po'ouli.--After nearly two years of intensive field efforts
to locate and monitor remaining individuals of this species,
all indications are that there are only three birds remaining.
Although sexing results have not yet been confirmed,
preliminary results indicate that these are two females and one
male. Discussions are being held with the Hawaii Division of
Forestry and Wildlife to determine the next course of action.
Options include attempting to establish a pair in the wild
through translocation and, possibly, capturing the remaining
birds and bringing them into captivity for attempted
propagation.
The decline of the Po'ouli is likely the result of a
combination of factors, including avian disease, predation by
introduced mammalian predators, habitat loss and degradation,
diminishing food sources, and competition with introduced
birds.
Thus far in 1998, the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent
$150,000 in recovery funds on the Po'ouli recovery project.
Puaiohi.--The Puaiohi population on the island of Kauai is
believed to number approximately 200-300 in the wild. The
recovery project is aimed at identifying the threats to this
population, working out methods of captive propagation,
identifying other areas of suitable habitat, and expanding the
Puaiohi's range through release of captive produced young into
such areas. The field effort consists of locating and
monitoring birds and nests, controlling predators, and
monitoring for avian disease. Eggs were collected from wild
nests in 1996 and 1997 and hatched at KBCC by The Peregrine
Fund. The young that were produced were held at KBCC to
establish breeding pairs. Currently, there are five breeding
pairs and one single bird (11 birds) at KBCC. Thus far in 1998,
three of the five pairs have produced eggs. Of these, two eggs
have been fertile and were successfully incubated and hatched
by The Peregrine Fund. Releases of young produced this year
should begin in early 1999.
The fiscal year 1998 budget for this project is $50,000.
The costs for propagation of Puaiohi at KBCC are included in
the overall operational costs of the facility discussed above.
The FWS is also coordinating, participating in, and/or
funding recovery projects for several other species, such as
the Hawaiian hawk, Laysan duck, palila, Oahu tree snails,
hundreds of Hawaiian plants, hawksbill sea turtle, Mariana
crow, Rota bridled white-eye, and Blackburn's sphinx moth, and
habitat restoration projects, such as the Kona dryland forest
project, Ola'a-Kilauea project, and Palawai Gulch restoration
project.
landowners
Question. You have provided leadership in seeking to
address some of the landowners' concerns with recovering
endangered species. After watching the bird recovery process in
Hawaii, it is clear to me that landowners need to be part of
the solution. How do you see the Administration proceeding in
Hawaii on these landowner issues? What can be done to encourage
and make it attractive for landowners, private and public, to
participate in the species recovery process?
Answer. Hawaii possesses one of the most unique assemblages
of plants and animals in the world. Nearly 40 percent of all
endangered plants and animals listed under the Federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) are native to Hawaii. Since 1991,
over 200 Hawaiian plant species have been listed under the
Federal ESA. Approximately 50 percent of all endangered and
threatened species in Hawaii occur on private lands. Recovery
of these species is, therefore, dependent on the cooperation of
private landowners and the willingness of agencies to meet the
needs of both the listed species and the property owners.
Recognizing that the protection and recovery of such an
overwhelming number of listed species would require creative
and flexible mechanisms, the State of Hawaii Legislature
approved House Bill 1292 in 1997. This Bill later became Act
380, which changed the Hawaii Revised Statute 1950. Act 380 is
designed to reduce conflicts between land uses and listed
species and to provide incentives for private landowners to
protect and promote the recovery of endangered and threatened
species. This Act establishes a provision within State law for
the development of habitat conservation plans and issuance of
incidental take licenses, similar to the provisions of section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal ESA. It also establishes procedures
for Safe Harbor Agreements and ``no surprises'' (incentives),
closely patterned after Federal procedures by those names.
Since the passage of Act 380, the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Pacific Islands Office has been working closely with
the State of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW)
to develop a joint State/Federal process for the development
and issuance of Safe Harbor Agreements, HCPs, and Incidental
Take permits. Draft fact sheets, applications, and instructions
have been developed and are currently being refined for
distribution to private landowners throughout the State. In
addition, the Service is actively working with DOFAW on what
will likely be the first Safe Harbor Agreement for
reintroduction of the endangered Hawaiian goose, or nene, on
Molokai. In this case, an agreement is being worked out between
the private landowner and the State and Service to promote
recovery of the nene while providing assurances that the
landowner's desired future actions on the land will not be
hindered by the presence of this endangered species.
The FWS intends to continue and expand its efforts to
encourage the maintenance, restoration, and/or protection of
private lands for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species, while allowing the lands to bring economic benefit to
the individual landowners. There are now more tools available
within the State of Hawaii to accomplish recovery objectives on
private lands, and the Service intends to be creative and
flexible in its use of as many tools as possible to collaborate
with private landowners in Hawaii for the recovery of
endangered and threatened species.
predator control
Question. It is my understanding that New Zealand has a
very successful predator control effort. How is the FWS
utilizing this expertise? Are we implementing in Hawaii the
successful actions of New Zealand? How have you utilized the
expertise of USDA Wildlife Service with predators in Hawaii?
Answer. The FWS Pacific Islands Office has developed and
maintained contacts within the New Zealand Department of
Conservation and remains abreast of their predator control
efforts. The FWS has funded visits by New Zealand biologists
responsible for predator control to Hawaii for purposes of
sharing information and providing advice on specific projects
and methods. Along with the State of Hawaii, Biological
Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of Agriculture-Denver Wildlife Research Center and
Wildlife Services, The Nature Conservancy, National Park
Service, and several private landowners, the FWS is a member of
a working group devoted to obtaining the best possible methods
for predator control in Hawaii.
In the past few years, this Toxicant Working Group applied
for and obtained a registration for the use of peanut butter/
molasses flavored Diphacinone bait blocks for use in bait
stations in the forests of Hawaii. This product is readily
available and is currently widely used to control rats,
particularly black rats, in areas inhabited by endangered and
threatened forest birds, snails, and plants. In January 1998,
approval was obtained for this same product in a fish flavor.
It is hoped that the additional flavor will enhance the
product's effectiveness against the Polynesian rat.
Research is underway to support a registration for a
larger-scale method of rodenticide dispersal in Hawaii--
specifically, for aerial dispersal. There are currently two
products being considered for registration, both with
Diphacinone as the active ingredient. These products are
Eaton's 8 gram, fish-flavored, wax-based pellet and Ramik
Green's 10 gram, fish-flavored, grain-based pellet. Additional
research needed to support an application to the Environmental
Protection Agency for an aerial broadcast registration of a
Diphacinone-based rodenticide has been identified, and the FWS
and State of Hawaii are working closely with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture--Denver Wildlife Research Center to
complete the research and application package for funding
consideration within the next year.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer
salton sea
Question. The House and the Senate concurrently are
preparing legislation to save the Salton Sea. While I am
certain that we are all interested in expeditiously
implementing a plan to rescue the Sea, it is important that
such a plan be both scientifically sound and politically
viable. Are their any aspects of either version of the
legislation at this stage that you believe to be of particular
concern or merit?
Answer. While the Department supports the need to restore
the Salton Sea, the House Bill (HR 3267) includes several
aspects that are of concern to the Department, as identified in
testimony given by David Hayes, Counselor to the Secretary, for
the H.R. 3267 hearing March 12, 1998. Excerpts of his testimony
follow:
The NEPA scoping process described in Title I, Section 101
(c)(2) would limit EIS focus to three types of remedial
actions. These would include the use of impoundments, pumping
out water, and augmentation of inflows. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is concerned that this set of options will not
adequately address the problems associated with fish and
wildlife in the Salton Sea, and the project will not attain the
goals described in Sec. 101 (b) Project Requirements. A broader
set of alternatives should be considered in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and provide a more
objective evaluation to address all of the identified Project
Requirements.
The time frame described in Section 101 (c)(4) does not
appear to be adequate to meet the needs of the project. This
time frame is to be concurrent with the research described in
Section 102 (a). As the required research has not actually been
identified at this time, it is not possible to determine if
completion of the research would be possible within 12 months.
As described in Sec. 101 (c)(4)(B), the environmental
compliance and permitting is to be completed within that same
12 months. Because some of the environmental compliance
documentation and permitting are reliant on the completion of
the research at the Salton Sea, these processes may not be
totally concurrent. This could result in the completion of the
environmental compliance and permitting processes taking well
in excess of 12 months.
Section 101 (f)(3) contains language that could result in
legal action. Specifically, the provisions relative to
environmental compliance under the National Environmental
Policy Act and the limitations on judicial review in the
issuance of permits or other authorizations by Federal agencies
could result in litigation.
Title II, Section 202, which deals with emergency actions
required by the Secretary, raises several concerns. There is no
discussion of the destination for the waters to be removed from
the Salton Sea. This determination is called for in Title I,
Section 101(e), but it is not clear how that determination is
to be made and what biological and/or NEPA study will be
conducted in support of that process. Section 202 also calls
for diversion of Colorado River water into the Salton Sea.
There are no biological and/or NEPA studies described for this
aspect of the emergency action, and it is not clear how that
will be carried out with the requirements of Title I, Section
101(f)(3) regarding the existing treaty/law/agreements relative
to the use of the Colorado River water and the proposed rule
for interstate water transfer. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
concerned that this could result in unacceptable impacts to
natural resources and/or litigation.
The Senate Bill alleviates some of these concerns by
extending the time frame to 18 months (although this is still a
very ambitious schedule), calling for full environmental
review, and not limiting the options for restoration. The
Senate Bill calls for the scientific study to indicate what
restoration options should be considered. Previous alternative
screening efforts that have identified diking and/or
evaporation ponds as preferred options may not have been
comprehensive enough to identify options that can address all
objectives outlined for the project.
Question. As you know, scientists predict that the Salton
Sea will be a dead sea if we don't take action soon. As
Congress continues to work on legislation, what steps can you
take administratively to prevent further disaster at the Salton
Sea?
Answer. The Salton Sea will not be dead in the near future,
but it will change. As the salinity rises, foraging habitat for
fish eating birds in the Salton Sea will be lost. This is a
problem because alternative habitat is severely restricted in
the Pacific flyway. This will have the greatest impact on
species such as the American white pelican, the endangered
brown pelican, and the double-crested cormorant. Salinity
increases may ultimately impact the Salton Sea population of
the endangered desert pupfish. Invertebrates will likely be
available for some time, so shorebird and waterfowl use is
likely to continue for decades, similar to that which occurs at
Great Salt Lake and Mono Lake.
The more immediate issue is wildlife disease. Currently,
bird losses are occurring at the Salton Sea from at least three
separate disease events. The Fish and Wildlife Service will
continue to utilize its resources to carry out carcass
recovery. This is the most effective means we have available to
limit the spread of disease at the Salton Sea. Additionally,
the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge is currently
strengthening its infrastructure to respond to disease
outbreaks. Additional staff biologists are being hired, a field
rehabilitation center is being constructed, and an emergency
response team of FWS personnel from several offices is being
developed to assist Refuge staff in responding to large disease
outbreaks. The fiscal year 1999 President's Budget includes a
refuge operations increase of $240,000 for the refuge.
endangered species act
I look forward to reviewing your soon to be proposed five
point initiative regarding HCP's. I understand that all five
provisions in your initiative (biological goals, adaptive
management, biological monitoring, public participation, and
permit duration) were identified by the scientific and
environmental communities in comments submitted on the recently
finalized no surprises policy, as the bare minimum necessary to
ensure the scientific validity of the HCP program, including no
surprises.
Question. Why then were these provisions not incorporated
as part of your final no surprises rule?
Answer. The 5-point policy initiative addresses concern
over HCP development and implementation. The No Surprises final
rule was limited to the narrow issue of the no surprises
guarantee itself. The Administration decided not to broaden it
to include more general HCP issues because we had not provided
for notice and comment on the broader issue.
Question. Do you believe that these provisions are less
important than your no surprises policy?
Answer. The No Surprises rule is a regulatory mechanism
that codifies permit assurances through the section 10(a)(1)(B)
process. The 5-point policy initiative, however, largely
clarifies and provides more detail to existing HCP development
guidance contained within the HCP handbook. Expansion and
clarification of the HCP guidance to the FWS and public will
strengthen HCPs, the process, and improve national consistency,
such as allowing for increased public input.
Question. If you believe that they are just as important,
do you agree that they should undergo a rulemaking and be
incorporated into the regulations governing the approval of
HCPs, just as you've done with no surprises?
Answer. The FWS considers the 5-point policy initiative to
be an internal guidance document further explaining concepts
that help strengthen the HCP process, such as the use of
adaptive management strategies. This guidance supplements the
HCP handbook, rather than providing additional regulatory
requirements. Since HCPs are increasingly used by the public as
a means to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the FWS is
providing a 60-day public comment period on the draft 5-point
policy initiative, even though it is not a proposed rule.
Question. Can you speak to the need for increased funding
for the Endangered Species Act and other Interior Programs, and
inadequacy of such funding in the Senate Budget Resolution?
Answer. The Senate Budget Resolution Chairman's mark
assumes the landowner incentive programs of the proposed
Endangered Species Recovery Act will be enacted. For 1999, this
funding would total over $80 million for the FWS. The proposed
landowner incentive program includes safe harbor agreements, a
habitat conservation plan loan program, recovery plan
implementation agreements, a habitat conservation insurance
program, habitat reserve agreements, and assistance to states.
Under the Chairman's mark, funding would be made available to
pay for the landowner incentive programs from the gross
receipts realized in the sales of excess BLM land, ``provided
that BLM has sufficient funds to conduct such sales.''
While the Department strongly supports incentives to
encourage private landowners to work on endangered species
issues, the Department strongly opposes the ESA funding
arrangements contained in the Chairman's mark. First, the
Chairman's mark freezes funding for the FWS operating account
at the 1998 enacted level, which would not allow increases
critically needed for ESA program implementation. Second, the
Chairman's mark proposes that the Department sell off
``excess'' BLM lands to pay for private landowner incentives.
The Department is currently working with the Congress on
the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Given the
limited funding available within the President's Budget, the
Department has placed a priority on more effectively and
efficiently implementing the ESA program. The President's
Budget includes a requested increase of $38.8 million to
implement additional candidate conservation agreements to keep
species from being listed; to implement more than 100
additional Habitat Conservation Plans; to enter into 100 to 150
Safe Harbor Agreements with private landowners; to develop and
implement multi-species conservation plans; and to continue to
streamline Section 7 consultations with the Federal agencies to
allow economic development activities to proceed.
As part of this overall approach towards implementing the
ESA, the budget includes a modest increase of $5.0 million to
provide Safe Harbor Grants to small landowners. The Department
believes that the Safe Harbor Grants program is the most
logical area to ``pilot'' the landowner incentive concept.
Freezing the FWS operating program at the 1998 enacted level
will not allow responsible implementation of the Endangered
Species Act and the Department strongly supports the operations
increases for the FWS included in the President's Budget.
Question. Currently there is language in the Senate Budget
Resolution that calls for the sale of BLM land to pay for
operations of other Interior Department programs. What is the
Administration's position on the sale of federal assets to
support operations?
Answer. The Department strongly believes that there is no
such thing as ``excess BLM land'' that could be sold off to pay
for the landowner incentive program or other operating programs
in the FWS or Department. The Department holds the public land
in trust for all Americans and the Department manages this
public estate to protect lands of national interest for their
conservation, recreation, and taxpayer asset values. For
example, the 264 million acres of public land annually host
some 74 million recreation visitors while at the same time the
public lands support grazing allotments for 3.7 million head of
livestock, some 20,000 active oil and gas leases, as well as
coal mining, timber production, and other commercial uses. That
said, the Department recognizes that over time, land ownership
patterns have developed in some areas that make little sense.
That is why the Department continues to aggressively work with
the States and local governments on land exchanges to
concentrate State ownership in urban areas while the BLM
focuses on holding rural land with significant conservation
values. For example, during 1998 the BLM will complete sixty
land exchanges involving some 125,000 acres.
land and water conservation fund
The State of California has some very important land that
needs to be conserved. With the exception of last year, the
Land and Water Conservation Fund has been underfunded for over
a decade.
Question. Realizing that LWCF is financed primarily from
oil royalty receipts and that the offshore oil and gas
royalties increased significantly in fiscal year 1998, will the
Administration prioritize efforts to acquire land and increase
funding to LWCF?
Answer. Throughout this Administration, the Department has
consistently prioritized land acquisition. In addition, the
fiscal year 1999 budget identifies an additional $1.3 billion
in outyear funding for LWCF through fiscal year 2003.
klamath national wildlife refuge
Question. The Klamath Basin of northern California has some
of the oldest and most import National Wildlife Refuges in the
country. I have been very concerned to hear that the wetlands
ecosystems and the wildlife within these refuges have been
declining due to problems of water quality, water quantity, and
other similar problems that our refuges in the Central Valley
have faced in the past. Can you tell me what the Interior
Department is doing to acquire water rights, clean up the
water, or purchase land for the Klamath Basin refuges?
Answer. There are several ongoing proposals which should
significantly improve the habitat and water quality conditions
at the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge.
These are as follows:
1. Wetland/cropland rotation
The Refuge is entering its fourth year of a multi-year study with
the University of California at Davis, University of Washington, and
Interior's Biological Resources Division. We are looking at the
benefits and possible problems with converting currently farmed lands
to wetlands and moving the commercial agricultural lands to what are
currently degraded wetlands. Over the past three years, the Refuge has
created nearly 600 acres of seasonal marsh habitat as part of this
study that has resulted in a tremendous increase of waterbird use on
those areas. This year we hope to begin conversion of a 300 acre
degraded marsh area to agricultural use. This concept of wetland/
cropland rotation holds great promise to reverse the long term trend of
declining wildlife values at Tule Lake NWR. A similar approach is used
at Lower Klamath NWR and last fall that Refuge peaked at approximately
1.8 million waterfowl and exceeded 100 million waterfowl use days, the
highest use recorded in nearly four decades.
2. Sump 1B conversion to seasonal marsh
The fiscal year 1999 President's Budget includes $600,000 to assist
with the development of this project. When completed, this project will
be the largest wetland restoration project in the western United
States, with approximately 3,500 acres of restored wetlands. We believe
this project will significantly improve the waterfowl and wetland
dependent species use of Tule Lake NWR and reduce overall project water
demand by approximately 5,000 acre feet.
Sump 1B conversion to seasonal marsh is a partnership effort
between Ducks Unlimited, the FWS, and Tule Lake Irrigation District. In
addition, funding proposals have been submitted for Upper Klamath Basin
Working Group (Hatfield Working Group) funds as well as California Duck
Stamp funds. The FWS expects to complete this project in fiscal year
1999.
3. Unit 13 water storage
The fiscal year 1999 President's Budget includes $3,000,000 to
construct a storage site in Unit 13 on Lower Klamath NWR. This area
will store approximately 25,000 acre feet of water that will help
ensure a water supply for Lower Klamath NWR. The National Wildlife
Refuges within the Klamath Basin have been identified as last in
priority for water delivery within the Klamath Project. Water stored
within Unit 13 will be used to offset evaporative losses within the
permanent marshes on Lower Klamath NWR. This effort will also benefit
other project users by lessening the amount of water needed from Upper
Klamath Lake during the summer period, saving from 20,000 to 25,000
acre feet in the Upper Klamath Lake during most years.
4. Acquire water from underground wells
The FWS currently is negotiating with an adjacent landowner to
purchase water from his underground wells. The landowner feels his
water should be valued as in the Central Valley. If we are unable to
reach an equitable agreement the FWS will explore the possibility of
developing its own groundwater pumping.
5. Land acquisition efforts
The Trust for Public Lands is working with two local landowners to
acquire 2,100 acres of land and hold it for the FWS. This location may
also enhance our ability to develop and store additional water supplies
for use on Lower Klamath NWR. The FWS has previously expressed interest
in acquiring acreage within the Klamath Straits area, adjacent to Lower
Klamath NWR. Currently, landowner asking price and appraised value are
far apart. The FWS will continue to pursue acquisition of adjacent land
parcels that will assist in meeting the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes of the Tule Lake and Lower
Klamath NWR's.
blm wild horse and burro program
Question. What percentage of the program budget, or actual
dollar figure, is dedicated to the roundup and adoption program
versus range management?
Answer. Expenditures (in thousands) in fiscal year 1997 are
as follows by program element (these expenditures include
unobligated balances from prior year appropriations):
Thousands
Program management............................................ $8,272.7
Animal removal................................................ 2,643.2
Animal preparation............................................ 1,514.7
Animal adoption............................................... 5,699.2
Adopter compliance............................................ 96.9
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 18,226.7
Question. Is it true that holding facilities are over
crowded, adoptions are down and outbreaks of illness keep
cropping up in holding facilities and at adoptions? What
further problems are there with management of the program?
Answer. It is normal for BLM to fill its holding facilities
at the end of the capture season in February/March of each
year. We then process and ship animals to adoptions throughout
the country during the late winter, spring, and early summer.
During the summer, wild horse gathers are halted for the
foaling season. This year the facilities reached capacity
earlier than planned. Due to this situation, some gathers
planned for December and January had to be canceled. There were
5,743 animals in BLM facilities as of February 24, 1998 in
facilities with a total holding capacity of 6,570 animals. By
April, the number held was reduced to about 4,400 animals.
The current problem we are faced with is that the number of
animals adopted at each event is lower than planned, which
means that we are moving animals out of our facilities slower
than normal, and we are holding animals longer than expected.
There are a number of factors that are contributing to this
slow down in adoptions including the unusually wet and severe
winter in the mid-west and the concern over illnesses of some
the animals coming out of some BLM facilities.
In December 1997, the states were asked to add more
adoptions to their existing schedule. The six western states
added ten additional adoption events (both facility and
satellite adoptions) to increase their adoption goals in fiscal
year 1998. To further increase adoptions, a Western States
Adoption Strategy was developed to share personnel for gathers,
preparation, adoptions, and compliance. Sharing personnel
during peak workloads will enable the states to place
additional animals this fiscal year. Together, these actions
increased the adoption goal for fiscal year 1998 to 10,225
animals. This level of adoptions would clear the holding
facilities in sufficient time and provide sufficient capacity
for the planned gathers in fiscal year 1998 to proceed.
Additional promotion of adoptions in the west is necessary
to achieve adoption goals. A public outreach plan is being
developed to locate and take advantage of new markets. A
marketing analysis will include a long-term plan to increase
the number of adoptions and then maintain that increased level
in the west.
The BLM is experimenting with wild horse and burro
adoptions over the Internet and the idea of gentling wild
horses and then adopting them through competitive events to
enhance their adoptability. The Director is also requesting
recommendations from the newly chartered Wild Horse and Burro
Advisory Board.
Isolated and sporadic occurrences of illness among animals
in holding facilities are a seasonal occurrence and are related
to extremes in outdoor temperature and precipitation. Another
contributing factor is the movement of animals from one climate
to another in a short period of time. It takes a few days for
an animal to acclimatize to the local climate and microbes of
that specific locality. BLM has implemented procedures related
to facilities design and animal care for disease control under
State and Federal veterinary guidelines to prevent the
spreading of disease from animal to animal. All BLM-funded
facilities have existing quarantine pens and barns to isolate
sick and injured animals. All BLM-funded holding facilities,
off-site adoption events, and the sanctuary are under contracts
for local veterinarian routine and emergency services. The
health of all wild horses and burros is closely monitored while
they are in the BLM's possession, and appropriate care is
provided promptly if they become ill. BLM is proposing a plan
to enhance the facility at Elm Creek, Nebraska, by raising the
fences of the pens that are partitioned for new arrivals to
prevent direct contact of animals already there with new loads
of animals. BLM is supporting a research project on a vaccine
for equine distemper [strangles] at Elm Creek, Nebraska.
Several internal and external reports have identified
issues and made recommendations for wild horse and burro
program management improvements. These include the Wild Horse
and Burro Evaluation (Pierson report) and the Wild Horse and
Burro Adoption Program Policy Analysis Team Report (Culp
report), three separate Office of Inspector General audits, the
Wild Horse and Burro Steering Committee (comprised of BLM
Associate State Directors) conclusions, the BLM Director
appointed fact-finder team assessments, and the Animal
Protection Institute (API) Settlement Agreement. Many of the
recommendations of the Pierson and Culp reports were confirmed
in the findings of other external reports. Beginning in fiscal
year 1997, the BLM began implementing the recommendations to
improve management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program.
Recommendations included in these reports address establishing
and achieving appropriate management levels of wild horses and
burros on the range, fertility control research, and improving
and expanding compliance inspections of adopted and untitled
wild horses and burros.
Question. How does the Bureau determine the appropriate
number of horses in each management area that should remain on
the range or be removed from the range? How does the Bureau
determine the Appropriate Management Level for private
livestock in relation to horses and burros on public lands?
Answer. In the development of a Resource Management Plan
(RMP), all herd areas that were occupied by wild horses or
burros at the time the Wild Horse and Burro Act was passed in
1971, are considered for management for wild horses and burros.
The decision is made based on environmental and social factors,
such as land ownership patterns, resource conflicts, etc. Once
a herd area has been designated for wild horse and burro
management, that area becomes a Herd Management Area (HMA).
Through an interdisciplinary process, specific environmental
analysis of the rangeland resources is conducted using resource
inventory and monitoring data, resource potential/productivity
data, and existing planning decisions. This process provides
for public participation. The results of this process are
specific decisions that allocate the available rangeland
resources for various uses (including livestock grazing,
wildlife, and wild horses and burros). The actual per cent of
available forage that goes to the individual uses is normally
defined in the land planning decision.
Question. Does the demand for burros exceed the actual
supply of BLM burros? Is the National Park Service authorized
to shoot and kill burros?
Answer. In past years the Bureau has been able to adopt all
of the burros it removes from public lands. This year the
demand is down and so we are holding burros in our facilities
longer than normal. It is felt that the reduced demand is in
part due to the increased adoption fee that was finalized per
regulations in April of 1997.
The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 does not
protect wild horses and burros on lands managed by the National
Park Service. The disposition of those animals is a decision
made by the National Park Service. In many cases the BLM does
work in conjunction with the National Park Service to manage
their wild horse and burro populations. This is especially true
where BLM herd areas overlap onto National Park Service lands.
Currently the Bureau is holding over 300 burros removed from
NPS lands in southern California at our Ridgecrest facilities.
Question. Does the Bureau round up older horses (those as
old as 20 years)? If so, are these horses often adopted at a
reasonable price?
Answer. The Bureau removes horses over nine years of age
only under unusual, emergency conditions. In November of 1997,
the BLM re-issued its selective removal policy which states:
a. Wild horses removed from all public or private lands
that are to be placed into the national adoption program, will
be limited to adoptable animals aged 9 years and younger.
b. The authorized officer may elect to remove wild horses
of any age from public or private lands provided that the
animals are to be adopted in-state. Wild horses aged 10 years
and older may not be placed into the national adoption program
except as noted in paragraph ``d''. The Forest Service and
National Park Service may elect to remove animals of any age
provided that the animals are adopted by that agency.
c. All wild horses, regardless of age, that in the judgment
of the authorized officer are deemed unadoptable because of
defects, previous injuries, recent but not life threatening
injuries, or other factors that may limit their adopt ability,
will be returned to the public lands or adopted in-State.
d. During emergency situations, when the long-term survival
of a wild horse population is threatened, the prohibition on
removing wild horses aged 10 years and older and placing them
in the national adoption program may be amended. The Wild Horse
and Burro National Program Office must approve amending
selective removal criteria prior to initiating the emergency
gathering. Approval to amend the selective removal criteria
will only be authorized in rare instances when other options
are not viable.
The regulations establish a minimum adoption fee of $125
per head. The BLM usually adopts these older animals at or
above the minimum fee. The Authorized Officer has the authority
to reduce the fee on unadoptable horses on a case by case
basis, but age alone is not a criteria for fee reduction.
Question. Have you considered a one-year moratorium on
round-ups (except for purposes of contraception and for
bonafide emergencies)?
Answer. A one-year moratorium on round-ups would compound
the problem of reaching Appropriate Management Level's (AML's)
on public lands. The wild horse and burro reproduction rate of
24 percent would increase the herd size within the Herd
Management Areas, causing a ripple effect on adoptions, gathers
and holding capabilities into the future gathering seasons. The
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended,
mandates that we achieve and maintain a thriving natural
ecological balance on the public lands. While the BLM does not
support a moratorium on round-ups, we are reducing removal
numbers in fiscal year 1998 in response to larger than planned
numbers of animals currently in holding facilities for the
reasons listed in the response to the second question under
this section.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
bureau of indian affairs
Question. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs are currently in the process of cleaning up
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contamination caused by leaking
light fixtures. Does the Department have plans to examine
buildings on other reservations for possible contamination by
PCBs and other toxic substances? I am particularly concerned
with contamination in schools and recreation facilities.
Answer. The BIA is currently responding to known PCB
contamination caused by leaking light fixtures. All Areas are
being instructed by BIA Facilities Management and Construction
Center memorandum to complete a 100 percent inventory of all
reservation buildings and facilities to determine date of
manufacture (pre-1977 to contain PCBs) and condition of light
fixtures. The Bureau will continue to properly dispose of PCB
containing light ballasts. All schools and recreation
facilities will be examined for PCB and other toxic substance
contamination (asbestos and lead paint) as the BIA conducts an
environmental audit, now underway.
Question. The BIA and GAO have reported that the cost of
repairing (not replacing) educational facilities at all BIA
schools is $754 million. While I appreciate that the
Administration in its fiscal year 1999 budget request has
provided for an increase in the school construction budget
sufficient to complete construction on the 16 schools remaining
on the Priority List, what steps is the Administration going to
take to ensure that the other 150 or so BIA schools in need of
repair or replacement are taken care of? What creative
financing mechanisms could be used to meet these needs in a
more timely manner? When can we expect the Administration to
send an Indian school construction proposal to Congress?
Answer. The Bureau requested $37.4 million in the fiscal
year 1999 President's Budget for Seba Dalkai Boarding School,
Sac and Fox School, and Pyramid Lake High School which are
ranked 9, 10, and 11 on the BIA's replacement school
construction priority list. If funded, construction of these
schools would start in the early spring of CY 1999 and be
completed in the fall of CY 2000. The Bureau is aware that the
condition of many of the remaining schools is poor, however,
the Bureau continues to work with respective tribes and school
boards to identify any immediate dangerous safety and health
conditions which can be corrected with Minor Improvement and
Repair or Emergency funds.
Current procedures have identified 16 schools for
construction. Eight of these 16 schools have been funded. The
planning, design and construction activities of the BIA are
established through the facilities improvement and repair
(FI&R) and new construction nationwide priority setting
process. The Bureau has convened a committee, including tribal
representatives, to recommend changes, if any, to the
replacement school priority setting process. Further
consultation with the tribes is planned for this summer. The
Bureau plans on soliciting new applications early in fiscal
year 1999.
The Department is exploring a number of alternatives that
may in the future provide a viable means to facilitate more
construction and repair of high priority BIA ranked projects.
These alternatives include: lease-purchase programs; cost
sharing of construction expenses by the Tribes/schools and BIA
for repair or replacement of existing facilities; the use of
bonds; and expansion of BIA's current portable classroom
program. However, the Department's efforts to develop these
alternative financing options has had limited success due to
Budget Enforcement Act scoring difficulties. Lease
arrangements, loans, and revenue bonds require repayment, which
is subject to appropriation.
The rate of deterioration of facilities, and the limited
resources available to address needs, require that BIA allocate
funding to the most critical health and safety deficiencies.
The chief way to limit growth of the backlog and help ensure
that education facilities in Indian Country are satisfactory is
to provide the $32.2 million increase requested in the
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
The FWS has for many years pursued the purchase of wetlands
easements within the State of North Dakota. More recently, the
FWS has begun to pursue the purchase of perpetual prairie
easements as well. There continues to be concerns and
frustration regarding the lack of flexibility that these
easements offer. These concerns may make it difficult for
acquisition of easements to proceed.
Question. What is the FWS doing to develop a more flexible
policy on wetlands and prairie easement purchases?
Answer. The FWS has used easements throughout the prairie
pothole region to provide wetland habitat for waterfowl and
other wetland species. These wetlands also provide conservation
benefits like water storage for flood management, water quality
improvement, recreation/tourism, and economic diversity in an
area. In the Devils Lake Basin, FWS wetland easements are
storing approximately 169,000 acre/feet of water for flood
protection in that area.
The FWS is continuing to introduce more flexibility in
administering the easement purchases for the Waterfowl
Production area program by issuing permits for removal of water
on easements to prevent flooding of roads, to prevent flood
related health and safety issues around farmsteads and homes,
and to remove ``sheetwater'' on flooded agricultural lands as
long as the integrity of the wetlands are not compromised. We
are also working with local water boards to facilitate legal
drain projects though easement lands and utilizing innovative
mitigation banking ideas. On grassland easements, grazing is
not restricted and FWS managers issue permits for haying for
cover rejuvenation purposes.
The FWS has been extremely helpful in developing water
storage areas on wildlife refuges in the Devil's Lake Basin.
Such projects are an important part of a comprehensive flood-
fighting strategy for Devil's Lake. Given that the lake level
is expected to continue to rise, we expect a continuing need
for water storage projects. Don Barry, Acting Assistant
Secretary, has expressed interest in organizing a summit to
discuss the potential for Fish and Wildlife Service projects to
contribute to upstream management of water in the Devil's Lake
basin in North Dakota.
Question. What plans do you have to allocate additional
operations and maintenance funding to properly manage newly
developed water storage projects in North Dakota?
Answer. The FWS has developed the Maintenance Management
System (MMS) and the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) to
address the backlog of operations and maintenance funding for
the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge Managers will
identify funding needs for the newly developed water storage
projects in North Dakota and this information will be used to
address operations and management needs in North Dakota and
throughout the Refuge System.
Question. What plans do you have for pursuing a summit?
Answer. The FWS has ongoing local coordination efforts to
protect, restore, and manage wetlands in the Devils Lake basin.
Coordination is already occurring with a wide variety of
entities. No plans have been made for a summit at this time.
Question. What other initiatives is FWS undertaking to
ensure continued development of wildlife habitat and protection
of existing habitat?
Answer. The FWS is committed to providing wildlife and
their habitats for people to enjoy in present and future
generations. We will continue to seek innovative ways to meet
the wildlife-oriented interests of the public. Through
coordination with Congress, the states, and private interests
we hope to continue America's wildlife legacy.
The FWS has several initiatives to develop and protect
habitat. In response to Federal requirements such as NEPA and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the FWS reviews
projects that are Federally sponsored or require permits
administered by the Federal Government. This review ensures
that fish and wildlife resources are considered in the
development of the project. Technical assistance is offered to
project sponsors for ways to avoid impacts or to enhance
habitats for wildlife.
The FWS has a private lands initiative that works with
private landowners to develop habitats on private lands in key
areas. In addition, the FWS has been working with numerous
partners under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and
has been able to acquire nonfederal dollars to match with the
North American Wetland Conservation Act funds to perform large-
scale habitat projects. These projects work with private
individuals, local, state, and federal agencies to do landscape
level projects that benefit numerous parties.
The FWS is also looking at innovative ways to work with
Refuge neighbors and has formed several partnerships. This has
included working with local agricultural neighbors to farm,
graze, or hay on FWS lands and receiving assistance with
roadside mowing and weed control. The FWS is also forming
partnerships with educational interests to promote outdoor
classrooms, student research, and to provide a stimulating
learning environment for visitors. We are receiving assistance
from user groups to develop new programs and initiatives for
public use, wildlife development, tourism attractions, and
wildlife orientated recreation. Our Refuge programs also may
include fee or easement acquisitions to store water for
wildlife and flood control, for eco-tourism development,
habitat development, and endangered species recovery. The
Refuge System also collaborates with the Fisheries program to
stock area lakes for recreational fisheries, perform endangered
species recovery, and carry out fishery mitigation to make
federal projects workable.
Question. What consideration have you given to forming a
task force with the Department of Agriculture and the State
Water Commission to complete current and pending wetland and
water storage projects in the Basin and develop an upper basin
storage strategy?
Answer. The FWS is participating in a group made up of the
Governor's office, State Water Commission, NRCS, FWS,
Congressional office representatives, local elected officials,
the Devils Lake Joint Water Board, Corps of Engineers, North
Dakota Game and Fish, farm groups and environmental groups.
That group has recently identified two priorities for water
storage in the Devils Lake Basin, Conservation Reserve Program
lands and public lands. It is still difficult to implement
water management and storage activities in the Devils Lake
Basin and, until we get support from local and State
representation, progress may be slow. The FWS will continue to
be a partner in this effort and work toward a comprehensive
solution to the water management and flood issues in the Devils
Lake Basin.
There is considerable concern about the FWS purchasing more
land in North Dakota. Many local Governments' tax bases have
already been substantially eroded by the outmigration of
farmers and ranchers. This becomes an even greater burden when
the federal government purchases the land and pays less than
full tax value. In 1996, this shortfall for the entire state of
North Dakota came to approximately $366,000. Consequently,
country commissioners have been forced to prohibit the sale to
FWS of flooded farmlands by willing sellers who have been hard
hit by flooding at Devil's Lake.
Question. What steps are being taken by the FWS to secure
more equitable payments in lieu of taxes to counties in North
Dakota?
Answer. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, as amended,
provides the authority for the FWS to make payments to counties
containing FWS fee lands based on the greatest of the
following: 75 cents per acre of FWS land; three-fourths of one
percent of the appraised value of the FWS land; or 25 percent
of net receipts of revenue from the FWS land. In addition, the
FWS pays counties 25 percent of net receipts for FWS-managed
public domain lands within those counties. If receipts and
appropriations are insufficient to meet full payments, each
county receives a pro-rata share. According to current
estimates, payments in fiscal year 1998 will be made at 70
percent of full entitlement. The FWS views revenue sharing
payments in North Dakota as being equitable since the monies
available for these payments are distributed on a pro rata
basis, nationwide. However, the issue of shortfalls in refuge
revenue sharing payments is receiving increased attention. The
FWS is currently considering options to address the shortfall.
Question. There is a need to improve weed management,
roadside mowing, and insect control on FWS wildlife refuges in
North Dakota. The inability of the FWS to meet these needs is
very frustrating to area landowners. What steps is the FWS
taking to address these needs?
Answer. The FWS managed noxious weeds on 9,022 acres on 542
separate tracts in 1997. This is an increase over the acreage
treated in 1994, 1995, and 1996. The FWS treated about 25
percent of these areas with herbicides. The acreage treated
with haying, grazing, and biological control increased
slightly. A dramatic change in the control of noxious weeds is
the increased use of biological controls. In 1997, the FWS
released over 1.1 million insects on 320 new locations. This is
similar to the 1996 releases and a three-fold increase over the
1995 insect release.
The FWS mows the roadsides along its properties in
accordance with local and county regulations, which generally
require roadsides to be mowed by mid or late September. Some
neighbors want roadsides mowed several times during the growing
season to present a more managed, less weedy appearance.
The principle insect problem in North Dakota is
grasshoppers, typically associated with drought and dry
periods. Many landowners perceive that grasshopper infestations
originate on FWS lands. Typically, grasshoppers lay their eggs
on bare soil or areas with sparse vegetation, not areas with
vegetative cover. FWS lands are managed to enhance vegetative
cover.
The FWS generally will not spray insecticides on its lands
since FWS lands are managed for wildlife. Most insecticides
suitable for grasshoppers kill all insects, terrestrial and
aquatic, which is the main food source for most birds, or are
toxic to wildlife.
National Park Service
The spread of noxious weeds is increasingly a serious
ecological problem on wildlife refuges in North Dakota. The
spread of leafy spurge on Theodore Roosevelt National Park is a
particularly alarming example. To date, the Park Service has no
comprehensive program for addressing this problem.
Question. What plans does the Park Service have to develop
and fund a comprehensive program for control of noxious weeds
at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota?
Answer. Leafy spurge is a definite problem at Theodore
Roosevelt National Park and on the surrounding National
Grasslands and private lands. Leafy spurge is doubling in
acreage every 10 years and now occupies 4,000 acres reducing
available habitat/forage for the ungulates and threatened plant
species. The park is currently implementing an integrated pest
management approach using chemical, mechanical, and biological
controls as well as prescribed fire to battle this aggressive,
invasive weed. However, the current level of effort is not
enough to contain the leafy spurge. Studies have shown that
unless a minimum of 70 percent of a spurge infestation is
treated annually control would not be achieved. At current
funding levels the park is treating only about 12 percent of
the acreage infested with spurge. The National Park Service has
identified an additional requirement of $275,000 to protect
park resources at Theodore Roosevelt National Park for control
and containment of exotic species, with emphasis on leafy
spurge. With this level of funding all 4,000 acres affected
could be treated. However, funds are not requested in the
fiscal year 1999 budget due to competing priorities.
The park has tried many programs to contain leafy spurge.
In 1993, the park was granted approval to use Tordon and 2,4-D
for Leafy Spurge. Through 1997, the park has sprayed Tordon, a
restricted herbicide, on approximately 1,300 acres of spurge.
For this herbicide to be effective, the same acreage has to be
sprayed for 3-5 consecutive years to contain the spurge and
cannot be used within 100 feet of a riparian area or on
excessive slopes. In 1997, the park joined in a partnership
with American Cyanamid and sprayed 55 acres with Plateau
herbicide. This herbicide holds great promise because it can be
used right up to the edge of water and in areas with woody
vegetation. The results of the fall spraying will be evaluated
this year.
The park started placing bio-controls in the form of flea
beetles in the park in limited numbers in 1987 through 1991.
Large releases occurred beginning in 1992. Since 1987, the park
has released seven different species and more than three
million insects on over 1800 sites. The population levels of
these bio-controls are only now building to such a level on the
earlier release sites that some positive results can be seen.
Starting in 1996, the park started harvesting flea beetles and
giving them to adjacent ranchers. In 1997, more than half a
million insects were given away to approximately 60 private
individuals. This program shows great promise for the future,
but it takes five to six years after release for a beetle
population to build to such a level that results can be
measured.
In 1997, Agricultural Research Service in Sydney, Montana
was successful in obtaining a multi-year funding package to
attack spurge in the entire Little Missouri River watershed.
Over the next five years there will be approximately five
million dollars available for numerous agencies, counties, and
states. However, this program will be spread over the entire
Little Missouri Watershed. While the funding is significant, it
still will not be sufficient to completely contain leafy
spurge.
Question. What are your plans in the coming couple of years
for recognition of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial?
Answer. Activities for recognition of the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial are necessarily intertwined with the day to day
operations of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and
other park units. The Lewis and Clark Expedition occurred from
1804-06; planning for activities has already begun for an
observance which will last through fiscal year 2007. In fiscal
year 1998, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail is
increasing the level of partnership involvement in planning and
implementing activities to protect, interpret, and maintain the
trail for public use and enjoyment. The trail staff is
providing extensive technical assistance and guidance to local,
State, and Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations that
are beginning to plan new and renovated interpretive
infrastructure on the trail, and/or that are planning major
events during the bicentennial. Specific NPS projects include
development of educational and interpretive initiatives, and
development of Federal interagency cooperation and coordination
for the Bicentennial, including recent formation of a Federal
interagency Bicentennial steering committee.
The parks that have involvement with the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial recently completed a planning meeting for the
Bicentennial Observance of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The
National Park Service will continue to work with all entities
during the upcoming years to assist with planning special
events, completing infrastructure projects related to the
Bicentennial, and other items associated with the expected
tourism increase.
Question. What are your particular plans for participation
by the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Foundation in North Dakota?
Answer. The three North Dakota parks, Theodore Roosevelt
National Park, Knife River Indian Villages National Historic
Site, and Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, are
working closely with their respective communities to help them
gear up for the Bicentennial which is largely in the planning
stages at this early date. The Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Foundation in North Dakota is one of many organizations with
which the Park Service has interacted to begin planning for the
Bicentennial observance. NPS has also been in contact with the
North Dakota Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Advisory Committee (to
which the governor of North Dakota has appointed park
personnel) and the three North Dakota park superintendents
recently attended the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Council meeting in Bismarck which included a tour of the Knife
River Indian Villages NHS.
Question. What amount of funding do you expect will be
allocated to the Foundation in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998 the National Park Service was
granted an increase of $100,000 for the Park Service trails
office in support of Lewis and Clark National Historic Trails
activities, and $400,000 for technical assistance and challenge
cost share grants related to sites, activities, and events
along the length of the Lewis and Clark National Historic
Trail. The Park Service was encouraged to work with the Lewis
and Clark Bicentennial Council in allocating the funds
provided. In fiscal year 1998, $35,000 was transferred to the
Foundation and it is expected that a similar amount will be
transferred in fiscal year 1999.
U.S. Geological Survey
The Biological Resources Division of USGS has ongoing and
new programs focusing on several areas that are important to
the people of North Dakota. These include evaluation and
restoration of wetlands, Missouri River assessment, and
research on grasslands ecosystems, grassland bird use of CRP
lands, and exotic weed control methods.
Question. What are the results of evaluation of wetlands
restored as mitigation for Garrison Diversion? What are the
results of evaluation of wetlands restored through USDA's
Wetland Reserve Program? Can you identify opportunities to
apply this program to help provide upper basin water storage
opportunities in the Devil's Lake Basin?
Answer. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S.
Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck
Office, conducted a multiple year study of Garrison Diversion
wetland mitigation efforts that is just now coming to
conclusion. Three mitigation sites were paired with natural
sites in the Cottonwood Lake wetland complex in Stutsman
County. The oldest site was 10-12 years post mitigation,
another was 7-8 years post mitigation, and the third was black
dirt in an open field--0 years post mitigation. The quality of
plant life greatly increased on the sites with time and
breeding birds responded by using this habitat almost
immediately. Although not as well-developed ecologically as
more natural sites, the mitigation sites all have many
similarities to sites with native cover, and the lag in
development of the plant communities can be attributed entirely
to the severe disturbance on the sites at the start of
mitigation. Hydrologically, they are functioning as wetlands
within wetland complexes, with recharge and discharge basins
working in tandem. The approach used to restore a complex of
wetlands instead of individual basins permitted development of
natural complexes that should be self-sustaining. Continued
work on this study involves analysis of water samples taken
over a period of five years.
The Wetland Reserve Program is not active everywhere. For
example, in North Dakota, it cannot be used because it must be
attached to permanent easements. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center realized the benefits of the Wetland Reserve
Program could be much broader by evaluating all types of
wetland restorations. USGS has looked at a sample of 204 basins
restored by a number of federal, state, and private agencies,
all of which are similar to those that will be restored in the
Wetland Reserve Program. Two treatments (drained and non-
drained analogues in agricultural sites) were compared with
pristine wetlands appropriately referenced in the Missouri
Coteau, the Prairie Coteau, and the Glaciated Plains. These
data are now being used by Northern Prairie in an effort funded
by the USDA Wetland Science Institute to develop siting
criteria for restoring wetlands. Lands from Montana to Iowa
will be divided into sub-watersheds, within which USGS will
provide information on impacts to wildlife, water quality,
water retention, etc. to restore wetlands as proposed in the
Wetland Reserve Program. The information will be available to
all parties considering restoration as a mitigation tool, or
who wish to develop wetlands for their own sake. The guidelines
are sufficient to guide selection such that maximum wetland
values for flood retention, water quality, wildlife, and other
uses are maximized.
Yet, any program restoring natural wetland function can be
expected to have positive effects in the Devil's Lake Basin. In
particular, restoration of wetlands and the development of
wetland complexes will restore the natural hydrology. This, in
turn, guarantees maximum retention of water in basins on the
landscape while providing numerous ancillary benefits for
private landowners and the public. All data collected to date
show that maintenance of natural hydrological systems in the
Dakotas is the best means to retain water on the landscape,
slow its flow to major drainage channels, and thereby reduce
the extremes in oscillations in stream and river levels.
Question. How will your new program of research into
grassland ecosystems evaluate the positive effects of
agricultural practices along with the negative effects?
Answer. Grassland systems are maintained by disturbance,
which, before European settlement, was provided by bison,
drought, and fire. Modern disturbances including livestock
grazing, drought, and mowing are still in effect, even though
fire, a major determinant of grassland health, is largely
controlled. Some negative impacts of concern include invasive
exotic plants, overuse of chemicals, fragmenting large patches
of wildlife habitat, and general loss of species diversity. New
research at the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
will be investigating means to maintain viable plant
communities and thereby viable animal communities, especially
migratory birds, within the context of the agricultural
community of the Great Plains. For example, properly managed
grazing can increase plant diversity and develop habitat for
shorebirds. Fire can be used to rejuvenate senescent
grasslands, and choices can be made which maintain grasslands
in large enough tracts to support wildlife. Although USGS
treats migratory birds as a major focus, the results of studies
designed to identify best management practices for them will,
in fact, identify best management practices for many other
wildlife species and the entire grassland ecosystem. These best
practices will incorporate the entire range of current human
use of the grasslands, providing private landowners and
government agencies information on means to optimize values for
themselves and the entire system.
Question. Rising water levels in the Devil's Lake Basin
constitute a chronic emergency for the citizens of the basin.
Predictions are for a continued trend towards wet weather which
will further aggravate this situation and cause continued
property loss. What work is the USGS doing in support of
studies related to an emergency outlet from Devil's Lake?
Answer. During fiscal year 1998, USGS will complete one
major interpretive study and a water-quality monitoring program
in support of studies related to the emergency outlet. USGS has
developed a statistical model to simulate possible future lake
levels with and without an emergency outlet. As part of the
emergency outlet studies, the Corps of Engineers has asked USGS
to modify the model to evaluate the potential effects of bottom
sediment flux and in-lake processes on major ion and dissolved
solids concentrations of Devils Lake, and on downstream water
quality under operation of an emergency outlet. USGS made
10,000 simulations, each 50 years in length, to estimate the
full range of future water-quality and lake level conditions
and their probabilities. The simulations are used by the Corps
of Engineers and their contractors to determine the economic
feasibility of the emergency outlet and to evaluate the
environmental impact of the proposed outlet both within Devils
Lake and downstream of the outlet location.
The interaction between the bed sediments and water in
Devils Lake is not well understood. Assuming no interaction
between the bed sediments and the lake bottom, the model
indicates a slowly increasing trend in sulfate mass in the lake
from 1988 to 1997; however, the mass calculated from water
samples from the lake shows a much larger and more complex
trend. USGS is conducting a water-quality monitoring program
during 1998 to help improve model estimates made in support of
the emergency outlet studies.
USGS also operates eight streamflow gauging stations and
three lake level stations under the Federal-State Cooperative
Water Program. These data collection activities support the
studies related to an emergency outlet from Devils Lake.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert Bennett
wild and scenic rivers
Almost a year ago, Assistant Secretary Bob Armstrong issued
a record of decision regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers
designation for Arizona that included the tributaries of the
Virgin River. We were not pleased with that decision as we were
not consulted, nor notified about the designation which
threatens the delicate balance of the Virgin River Habitat
Management Plan that was created in partnership with your
Department. In response, members of the Utah Delegation sent a
pointed letter to Assistant Secretary Armstrong dated October
22, 1997.
We have, unfortunately, not received a response yet which
leads me to assume one of two things. Either Mr. Armstrong does
not enjoy receiving and answering our letters, or he does not
intend to answer that letter. While this has become the
standard procedure with our friends at the Council on
Environmental Quality, it has been to this date
uncharacteristic of your Agency.
Question. I ask you to please provide me with a response to
our letter as soon as possible. I know that it will be
responsive and I look forward to working closely with you and
Mr. Armstrong to resolve Utah's concerns.
Answer. Please accept our sincere apology for our untimely
response to the letter from members of the Utah Delegation. Mr.
Armstrong did send a response, dated April 17, 1998, to the
Honorable James V. Hansen.
grand staircase-escalante national monument
Representatives from the School and Institutional Lands
Administration have met with your representatives concerning a
reasonable proposal to trade out most of the Trust lands within
the Monument. Surprisingly, representatives of the
environmental community have received SITLA's proposal very
well. A group of 20 representatives of the Utah Wilderness
Coalition were in my office about four weeks ago, and expressed
their support for prompt action of a SITLA exchange.
Question. I am curious to know what you think of the SITLA
proposal? If we were to introduce legislation to implement the
exchange, would the Administration offer its support and assist
us in moving it?
Answer. The SITLA proposal served as the basis for
beginning discussions on the exchange of Monument inholdings,
which concluded with the agreement signed on May 8, 1998.
Legislation ratifying that agreement is now before the House of
Representatives. Secretary Babbitt gave his full support to the
legislation as he testified with Governor Leavitt on May 19,
before the Chairman Jim Hansen's House Resources Subcommittee
on Parks and Public Lands.
Mr. Secretary, visitation to the area now known as ``The
Monument'' has quadrupled in the last 18 months. Though there
is no effective means in place to register the number of new
visitors, I know from my County Commissioners and State Park
Supervisors that the increased number have had far reaching
impacts. This influx of visitors to the Monument has made
campgrounds continually full and as a result provided a need
for other new services. Garfield County needs a new garbage
truck to handle the increased trash left by visitors and Kane
County needs additional sheriffs deputies. I want to help them
somehow.
Question. What would your response be should I seek to
provide additional funds above what is requested through the
BLM budget to Kane and Garfield Counties to alleviate some of
the infrastructure problems associated with the increased
visitation?
Answer. In 1998, BLM funds have been provided to assist
Garfield and Kane Counties with planning, law enforcement,
trash collection, and other needs associated with the startup
of the Monument. New cooperative agreements have recently been
established that provide flexibility for each county to use
$250,000 to meet needs such as those described in the question.
Together with funds provided in 1997, these federal
appropriations have helped absorb short-term impacts associated
with the Monument. It should be noted, however, that both
counties have carried over funds from the 1997 cooperative
agreements into 1998. Moreover, the newly signed 1998
agreements provide for the use of this funding through fiscal
year 1999, and it appears that a significant portion of the
1998 funds will be carried forward into the next fiscal year.
Thus, additional fiscal year 1999 funding for Kane and Garfield
Counties is not now warranted.
Going beyond this ``front-end'' assistance to a long term
commitment raises a different set of policy and budgetary
issues. Other counties, in Utah and elsewhere, would oppose
selective, ongoing assistance to two counties, as they argue
that many are significantly more impacted by federal
conservation units and associated visitation. Both Secretary
Babbitt and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress have
been reluctant to support individual county appropriations for
exactly this reason of precedent and perceived unfairness.
Question. Will the Planning Team meet the deadline of
September 18, 1999 to have a completed planning document and a
management plan in place? What assurances will you give me that
the Administration accept the planning document?
Answer. The planning team is currently on schedule to
produce a Monument Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement Record of Decision that will be signed by the
Secretary by September 18, 1999 as directed by the President.
Implementation of the Monument Management Plan would begin
immediately after the Secretary signs the record of decision
for the plan. We anticipate that a Draft Monument Management
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be available in
the Fall of 1998.
utah wilderness
Question. Recently a court ruled that the State of Utah did
not have standing to challenge your efforts to find 5 million
acres of wilderness. What are your plans now with regards to
proceeding with the Babbitt wilderness reinventory?
Answer. There has never been any effort to ``find 5 million
acres of wilderness.'' The wilderness reinventory is simply a
fact-gathering, and does not itself change the management or
use of public lands. The Bureau of Land Management is assessing
the recent court decision to determine possible future actions.
However, the court-ordered injunction is still in place,
pending further legal proceedings, and no decision about how to
proceed has been made, nor will be made until after the
injunction is lifted.
san rafael swell heritage area
Mr. Secretary, we will hear a great deal about the need for
balance today. To help resolve the impasse on wilderness in
Utah, the County Commissioners from Emery County, Utah have
been working on a proposal to create a million acre San Rafael
Swell Heritage Area. This proposal will designate over 360,000
acres of true wilderness and protect an additional 300,000
acres of primitive and semi-primitive areas including tens of
thousands of acres of bighorn sheep preserve.
I believe that this local, on-the-ground approach is the
best and probably only way to resolve the wilderness issue.
Congressman Cannon and Congressman Hansen will introduce
legislation today to create the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area.
I will introduce a similar bill with Senator Hatch when we
return from our April recess.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I will invite you to come to Emery
County with me and visit these areas with the County
Commissioners. I have some free time at the end of May. Will
you please come and spend a day in the proposed San Rafael
Swell Heritage Area with us and explore the proposed areas
further?
Answer. I look forward to a visit to the area with you. I
also understand that the Bureau of Land Management Utah State
Office has been working with Emery County officials to develop
a plan for surveying historical and cultural sites in the
county as a necessary first step to determining the actions
that need to be taken by various government entities to assure
the proper identification and protection of those sites.
draining of lake powell
In case my colleagues on the Committee are not aware, last
year the Sierra Club Board passed a resolution to support the
decommissioning of the Glen Canyon Dam, the draining of Lake
Powell and the restoration of Glen Canyon to its former state.
Question. Mr. Secretary, please elaborate for the Committee
the short and long term impacts of this action, if it were to
occur. What is the Administration's position on the
decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell? Will you
join us in developing a strategy to educate the public on the
benefits of the dam and the lake?
Answer. The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 and
the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 provided for the
comprehensive development of the Colorado River Basin. The
Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) furnishes the long-term
regulatory storage needed to allow States in the Upper Basin to
develop their share of Colorado River water and meet their flow
obligation at Lees Ferry, as defined in the Colorado River
Compact of 1922. In addition, as a result of the storage of
water in CRSP reservoirs, a significant amount of electrical
energy is produced to meet the needs of the Upper Basin and
adjacent areas, flooding is better controlled, and significant
recreation benefits are provided.
The primary short term impact of draining Lake Powell would
be its cost. No estimate has been developed, but it is safe to
assume it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Long-term
impacts might be described as follows:
Water Resources: Historical records show that, at the 1997
level of Colorado River water use, both Lake Powell and Lake
Mead would have been needed during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's,
and 1960's to store the water needed to make the deliveries to
the Lower Basin guaranteed by the 1922 Compact. In all such
periods, recorded annual flows at Lees Ferry were less than 7.5
million acre-feet (maf) during one or more years, with a low of
4.4 maf in 1934. Without carry-over storage in Lake Powell, the
Upper Basin States would not only experience significant water
shortages if a drought like that in 1934 were to occur today,
but they would also have to forgo approximately 1.7 maf of
future development.
In addition, in the absence of Lake Powell, the level of
Lake Mead would fluctuate greatly and there would be more
frequent and greater floods below Hoover Dam. Reclamation would
have to study the safety of dams below the Grand Canyon, modify
flood control operations at Hoover Dam, and study modifications
to the floodway from Hoover Dam to the Southerly International
Boundary to accommodate more frequent floods.
Power Resources: The Colorado River system, including Glen
Canyon Dam and other CRSP powerplants, generates enough power
to meet the needs of 3 million people, or to partially meet the
needs of 9 to 12 million people. Net generation by all CRSP
powerplants was 7.3 billion kilowatt-hours in fiscal year 1996,
and Glen Canyon Dam accounts for about 75 percent of the total.
If Lake Powell were to be drained, not only would the loss of
Federal revenue be significant--about $98 million in fiscal
year 1996--but the power generated at Glen Canyon Dam would
have to be replaced from some other source or sources.
Recreation Resources: The Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area (NRA) attracts over 2.5 million visitors per year. Over
700 houseboats and small boats are rented on a daily or weekly
basis, nearly 2,000 private boats are berthed, and over 2,500
dry storage spaces are used each summer. Accommodations within
Glen Canyon NRA include 400 hotel rooms and 600 campsites,
while thousands more camp on boats and on shoreline beaches.
Economic impacts associated with the loss of this industry,
which is dependent upon the existence of Lake Powell, would
exceed $400 million per year, and the reservoir fishery would
be lost.
In addition, the white water rafting industry has evolved
into a nearly year-round tourist-based economy for Page and
Flagstaff, Arizona. The Dam provides stable and predictable
flows during both high runoff and low runoff and/or drought
periods. About 42,000 people float the calm waters between the
Dam and Lees Ferry annually. Without the Dam, the rafting
economy would be limited to the runoff period in the spring and
early summer, with flows greater than 45,000 cfs typically
lasting only six to ten weeks.
Visual Resources: When drained, the upper end of Lake
Powell would contain silt as well as some amount of waste left
by water users. The canyon walls would be stained white from
the water stored since 1963. No one knows for sure, but it is
anticipated it would take centuries for the canyon floor to be
cleaned up and for the natural color to reappear on the canyon
walls.
In summary, the proposal to decommission Glen Canyon Dam is
not realistic. To assist in making decisions on operation of
the Dam in a manner that balances the impacts on and benefits
to all resources, an Adaptive Management Program has been
established. In addition, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center has been established to collect and analyze
scientific data related to operation of the Dam and protection
of related resources. The Adaptive Management Work Group, which
includes representatives of State, Federal, Tribal,
environmental, power and recreational interests, has been
meeting and has made significant progress on addressing the
complicated issues related to these resources.
concessions reform
Mr. Secretary, as you know, I have now worked with Senator
Bumpers for almost four years on reforming the concessions
policy for the National Park Service. We have made progress,
but we still have a considerable way to go. As you know,
Senator Thomas has introduced legislation that lays out a
vision of where the Park Service can and perhaps should be in
twenty years.
Question. I would appreciate your insight on the bill as
introduced with regards to the section on Concession Policy
Reform.
Answer. The administration's position on Title IV of S.
1693 (concession reform), as proposed by Senator Thomas, was
presented in testimony prepared for the April 30, 1998 hearing
before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic
Preservation and Recreation. The following is a synopsis of
that testimony.
The administration opposes Title IV of S. 1693 as it
appears to work under the assumption that many areas of the
existing law need to be changed for the benefit of
concessioners. This notion does not comport with the many
independent studies conducted by GAO, the Inspector General's
Office, and others that have concluded that Public Law 89-249,
the existing law which governs concessions contracting, gives
undue benefits to park concessioners at the expense of park
visitors and the taxpayer. Specifically, NPS is concerned that
(1) the standard it adopts for locating new concessions or
expanding existing operations might threaten park resources and
nearby businesses by encouraging unnecessary concessions, (2)
the Concession Manager it would place in charge of all aspects
of concessions development and operations could act in its own
commercial interest to the detriment of resources, (3) the bill
does not offer adequate protection from concessioners price
gouging visitors, and (4) the clause concerning maintenance is
ill-conceived both in placing a ceiling on maintenance
requirements and allowing the maintenance fund to be tapped for
capital improvements. NPS does support the aspect of the bill
that would eliminate the right of preference in contract
renewal, but would advocate a lower dollar threshold for those
contracts subject to competition. In conclusion, NPS is
concerned that Title IV of S. 1693 would place commercial
interests ahead of park protection and the visitor experience.
shivwit indian water rights settlement
The State of Utah and the City of St. George, along with
several irrigation companies holding water rights for the Santa
Clara River, have been negotiating to settle ``Federal Reserved
Water Rights'' for the Shivwits Band of the Southern Paiute
Indian. The State of Utah, St. George City, irrigation and the
Shivwits Band have reached an agreement in principal as to the
amount and source of ``wet'' water for the Band to use for
economic development.
This agreement was submitted by the Band to the Federal
Water Negotiation Team on October 9, 1997. This proposed
settlement agreement negotiated by all of the involved local
entities was rejected by the Federal team on December 9, 1997,
based on environmental concerns. This was done despite the fact
that no environmental assessment or Section 7 consultation on
which to base such a decision has been completed or even begun.
Question. Mr. Secretary, why should the Federal Negotiation
Team, consisting of people living in the area, be in a position
to reject this proposal without going through the proper
process?
Answer. As the federal entity charged with assisting the
Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians with the negotiation and
settlement of its federally reserved water rights, the Shivwits
federal negotiating team was asked to review and comment on the
``Summary of Shivwits Settlement Proposal'' provided to the
Department by Band Counsel on October 9, 1997. In a response
letter dated December 9, 1997, the federal team, composed of
representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior
Solicitor's Office, and the US Department of Justice, offered
its concerns and comments to the proposal. One aspect of the
proposal involves the construction of a water reuse project
(consisting of a waste water treatment plant and pipeline in
St. George, Utah) to provide approximately one half of the
water allocated to the Band under the Settlement.
The federal team stated in its response that ``serious
endangered species concerns * * * would most likely undermine
the construction and operations of the water reuse project, and
thereby prevent the Band from realizing the benefits of such a
water source.'' The federal team recommended that because of
the serious endangered species concerns, it would be a
disservice to the Band for the team to consider further the
reuse water and its associated construction and delivery costs
as part of a water settlement package. The team based its
concerns and comments on a draft of the Virgin River Management
Plan dated January 15, 1997, letters authored by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service regarding the St. George waste water
treatment plant, and verbal discussions with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding increased consumptive depletion from
the Virgin River under the reuse proposal.
In its December 9th response letter to the Band, the
federal team was not formally rejecting the settlement proposal
or the water reuse project without going through an
environmental assessment or Section 7 consultation. The federal
team was acting pursuant to its negotiation authority under 55
F.R. 9223 and offering its legal and technical advice to the
Band as to the advisability of continuing to pursue the water
reuse project in settlement negotiations as a source of water
for the Band in light of the serious endangered species
concerns. The Department and the Federal team remain committed
to working with the Band and non-Indian water users in the
Santa Clara and Virgin River basins, including the State of
Utah and the City of St. George, to seek a negotiated
settlement of the Band's federally reserved Indian water rights
that allows the Band to realize the benefits of its water
rights.
U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS engages in cooperative activities with other
Federal agencies, State and local government and foreign
governments in water resources, mapping and remote sensing
through the Water Resources Division, national Mapping
Division, and Biological Resources Division, respectively. The
annual Interior Appropriations bill provides authority for up
to 50 percent cooperative funding with State and local
government for water resource investigations and topographic
mapping.
Question. For each of the past three fiscal years, with
which entities you have such agreements, what services did you
perform for them, what was the dollar value of your
contribution and the cooperator's contribution, and was a
private contractor or in-house resources utilized in the
provision of each cooperative services?
Answer.
FISCAL YEAR 1995 CO-OP AGREEMENTS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State State and Services performed USGS Cooperator Contract
local co-op contribution contribution amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska............................. 1 digital data $33 $33 $51
collection and
topographic mapping.
Arkansas........................... 1 digital data 15 15 ...........
collection.
Connecticut........................ 1 ...do................ 13 17 4
Florida............................ 3 digital data 454 454 662
collection and
topographic mapping.
Georgia............................ 3 digital data 7 7 ...........
collection.
Idaho.............................. 2 ...do................ 2 2 ...........
Illinois........................... 7 digital data 59 59 ...........
collection and
topographic mapping.
Indiana............................ 1 ...do................ 124 124 102
Iowa............................... 2 ...do................ 17 17 ...........
Kansas............................. 2 topographic mapping.. 22 22 ...........
Kentucky........................... 2 digital data 76 76 ...........
collection and
topographic mapping.
Louisiana.......................... 1 topographic mapping.. 98 98 ...........
Michigan........................... 1 digital data 5 5 ...........
collection.
Minnesota.......................... 1 ...do................ 447 473 694
New Jersey......................... 1 aerial photography... 18 33 51
Nevada............................. 2 digital data 3 9 6
collection.
North Carolina..................... 2 digital data 180 180 ...........
collection and
topographic mapping.
New Mexico......................... 1 digital data 9 9 ...........
collection.
North Dakota 2 ...do................ 7 35 28
Ohio............................... 1 ...do................ 91 91 ...........
Oklahoma........................... 1 digital data 65 65 98
collection and
topographic mapping.
Pennsylvania....................... 1 ...do................ 312 341 73
South Carolina..................... 1 digital data 237 237 434
collection.
South Dakota....................... 2 ...do................ 41 41 ...........
Texas.............................. 2 digital data 92 257 349
collection,
topographic mapping,
and aerial
photography.
Utah............................... 1 digital data 13 13 ...........
collection and
topographic mapping.
Virginia........................... 1 ...do................ 21 21 ...........
Wisconsin.......................... 3 digital data 37 37 ...........
collection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 48 2,493 2,766 2,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1995 STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State State and Services USGS Cooperator Contract
local co-op performed contribution contribution amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ 26 ( \1\ ) $765 $827 ( \2\ )
Alaska......................................... 13 ( \1\ ) 1,038 1,300 ( \2\ )
Arizona........................................ 24 ( \1\ ) 1,046 2,046 ( \2\ )
Arkansas....................................... 11 ( \1\ ) 725 784 ( \2\ )
California..................................... 81 ( \1\ ) 3,912 5,981 ( \2\ )
Colorado....................................... 80 ( \1\ ) 2,007 2,072 ( \2\ )
Connecticut.................................... 7 ( \1\ ) 440 1,218 ( \2\ )
Florida........................................ 50 ( \1\ ) 5,114 8,348 ( \2\ )
Georgia........................................ 34 ( \1\ ) 1,400 1,650 ( \2\ )
Hawaii......................................... 18 ( \1\ ) 1,231 2,619 ( \2\ )
Idaho.......................................... 12 ( \1\ ) 1,127 1,470 ( \2\ )
Illinois....................................... 26 ( \1\ ) 1,027 1,099 ( \2\ )
Indiana........................................ 8 ( \1\ ) 931 1,965 ( \2\ )
Iowa........................................... 15 ( \1\ ) 833 833 ( \2\ )
Kansas......................................... 21 ( \1\ ) 1,159 1,341 ( \2\ )
Kentucky....................................... 14 ( \1\ ) 887 1,107 ( \2\ )
Louisiana...................................... 16 ( \1\ ) 1,131 1,133 ( \2\ )
Maine.......................................... 10 ( \1\ ) 308 356 ( \2\ )
Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware... 10 ( \1\ ) 1,113 2,043 ( \2\ )
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island................ 18 ( \1\ ) 1,193 2,756 ( \2\ )
Michigan....................................... 27 ( \1\ ) 718 1,537 ( \2\ )
Minnesota...................................... 15 ( \1\ ) 1,028 1,124 ( \2\ )
Mississippi.................................... 10 ( \1\ ) 880 1,098 ( \2\ )
Missouri....................................... 14 ( \1\ ) 697 1,171 ( \2\ )
Montana........................................ 18 ( \1\ ) 1,159 1,204 ( \2\ )
New Hampshire, Vermont......................... 5 ( \1\ ) 520 1,100 ( \2\ )
Nebraska....................................... 27 ( \1\ ) 731 884 ( \2\ )
Nevada......................................... 20 ( \1\ ) 1,846 2,375 ( \2\ )
New Jersey..................................... 21 ( \1\ ) 2,030 3,003 ( \2\ )
New Mexico..................................... 26 ( \1\ ) 1,616 2,000 ( \2\ )
New York....................................... 28 ( \1\ ) 2,422 4,257 ( \2\ )
North Carolina................................. 23 ( \1\ ) 1,457 1,712 ( \2\ )
North Dakota................................... 16 ( \1\ ) 682 682 ( \2\ )
Ohio........................................... 19 ( \1\ ) 1,083 1,707 ( \2\ )
Oklahoma....................................... 15 ( \1\ ) 843 856 ( \2\ )
Oregon......................................... 25 ( \1\ ) 1,253 1,360 ( \2\ )
Pennsylvania................................... 34 ( \1\ ) 1,565 3,545 ( \2\ )
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands................. 9 ( \1\ ) 1,557 3,305 ( \2\ )
South Carolina................................. 22 ( \1\ ) 1,400 1,406 ( \2\ )
South Dakota................................... 30 ( \1\ ) 1,076 1,136 ( \2\ )
Tennessee...................................... 37 ( \1\ ) 1,021 1,033 ( \2\ )
Texas.......................................... 60 ( \1\ ) 2,840 4,698 ( \2\ )
Utah........................................... 26 ( \1\ ) 1,227 1,358 ( \2\ )
Virginia....................................... 17 ( \1\ ) 618 967 ( \2\ )
Washington..................................... 39 ( \1\ ) 1,425 1,729 ( \2\ )
West Virginia.................................. 5 ( \1\ ) 529 529 ( \2\ )
Wisconsin...................................... 66 ( \1\ ) 1,573 1,873 ( \2\ )
Wyoming........................................ 22 ( \1\ ) 929 978 ( \2\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 1,170 63,112 90,575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Services performed: investigations that focus on the areas of water availability, flood hazards,
contaminated environment, and water data & information.
\2\ Contract: utilize private contractors to conduct approximately 5 percent to 10 percent of the work
performed. Contractors are primarily used to provide support services.
FISCAL YEAR 1996 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State State and Services performed USGS Cooperator Contract
local co-op contribution contribution amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska............................. 1 digital data $19 $19 27
collection and
topographic mapping.
Arkansas........................... 1 digital data ............ 9 9
collection.
California......................... 4 ...do................ 76 76 124
Colorado........................... 1 ...do................ ............ 33 33
Florida............................ 4 digital data 1,293 1,319 2,193
collection and
topographic mapping.
Georgia............................ 4 digital data 884 916 1,489
collection.
Illinois........................... 5 topographic mapping 222 236 14
and digital data
collection.
Indiana............................ 1 ...do................ 74 74 ...........
Iowa............................... 1 ...do................ 6 32 27
Kansas............................. 1 topographic mapping.. 8 8 ...........
Kentucky........................... 2 topographic mapping 7 32 25
and digital data
collection.
Louisiana.......................... 1 topographic mapping.. 112 112 ...........
Michigan........................... 1 digital data 17 17 ...........
collection.
Minnesota.......................... 1 ...do................ 23 54 31
Missouri........................... 2 ...do................ 3 27 25
Mississippi........................ 1 aerial photography... 44 132 176
Montana............................ 3 digital data 16 16 18
collection.
Nevada............................. 1 ...do................ ............ 2 2
North Carolina..................... 2 topographic mapping 603 603 834
and digital data
collection.
New Hampshire...................... 1 digital data ............ 7 7
collection.
New Jersey......................... 2 ...do................ 140 140 212
New Mexico......................... 2 ...do................ 8 8 ...........
North Dakota....................... 2 ...do................ ............ 17 17
Oklahoma........................... 1 topographic mapping 115 154 39
and digital data
collection.
Pennsylvania....................... 1 ...do................ 366 366 376
South Carolina..................... 1 digital data 349 349 532
collection.
Texas.............................. 5 topographic mapping, 221 379 472
digital data
collection, and
aerial photography.
Utah............................... 1 digital data 177 177 262
collection and
topographic mapping.
Virginia........................... 1 topographic mapping 49 76 27
and digital data
collection.
Wisconsin.......................... 3 digital data 11 16 20
collection.
West Virginia...................... 2 aerial photography... 38 110 144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 59 4,881 5,483 7,135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1996 FEDERAL STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State State and Services USGS Cooperator Contract
local co-op performed contribution contribution amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................... 25 ( \1\ ) $800 $818 ( \2\ )
Alaska....................................... 11 ( \1\ ) 1,038 1,359 ( \2\ )
Arizona...................................... 24 ( \1\ ) 1,080 2,034 ( \2\ )
Arkansas..................................... 10 ( \1\ ) 755 888 ( \2\ )
California................................... 84 ( \1\ ) 3,912 5,690 ( \2\ )
Colorado..................................... 85 ( \1\ ) 2,009 2,034 ( \2\ )
Connecticut.................................. 9 ( \1\ ) 537 815 ( \2\ )
Florida...................................... 53 ( \1\ ) 5,189 7,708 ( \2\ )
Georgia...................................... 31 ( \1\ ) 1,475 1,829 ( \2\ )
Hawaii....................................... 19 ( \1\ ) 1,197 2,623 ( \2\ )
Idaho........................................ 12 ( \1\ ) 1,138 1,469 ( \2\ )
Illinois..................................... 30 ( \1\ ) 1,007 1,080 ( \2\ )
Indiana...................................... 9 ( \1\ ) 926 2,175 ( \2\ )
Iowa......................................... 20 ( \1\ ) 765 852 ( \2\ )
Kansas....................................... 15 ( \1\ ) 1,182 1,387 ( \2\ )
Kentucky..................................... 14 ( \1\ ) 887 961 ( \2\ )
Louisiana.................................... 17 ( \1\ ) 1,163 1,174 ( \2\ )
Maine........................................ 10 ( \1\ ) 320 419 ( \2\ )
Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware. 15 ( \1\ ) 1,108 1,782 ( \2\ )
Massachusetts and Rhode Island............... 15 ( \1\ ) 1,213 2,687 ( \2\ )
Michigan..................................... 43 ( \1\ ) 743 1,346 ( \2\ )
Minnesota.................................... 16 ( \1\ ) 1,035 1,145 ( \2\ )
Mississippi.................................. 13 ( \1\ ) 930 1,376 ( \2\ )
Missouri..................................... 13 ( \1\ ) 705 1,181 ( \2\ )
Montana...................................... 16 ( \1\ ) 1,076 1,155 ( \2\ )
New Hampshire and Vermont.................... 6 ( \1\ ) 504 1,184 ( \2\ )
Nebraska..................................... 24 ( \1\ ) 738 932 ( \2\ )
Nevada....................................... 20 ( \1\ ) 1,846 2,448 ( \2\ )
New Jersey................................... 22 ( \1\ ) 1,980 3,162 ( \2\ )
New Mexico................................... 26 ( \1\ ) 1,590 2,466 ( \2\ )
New York..................................... 32 ( \1\ ) 2,435 4,575 ( \2\ )
North Carolina............................... 23 ( \1\ ) 1,575 2,213 ( \2\ )
North Dakota................................. 24 ( \1\ ) 706 712 ( \2\ )
Ohio......................................... 22 ( \1\ ) 1,082 1,582 ( \2\ )
Oklahoma..................................... 13 ( \1\ ) 950 962 ( \2\ )
Oregon....................................... 24 ( \1\ ) 1,253 1,265 ( \2\ )
Pennsylvania................................. 35 ( \1\ ) 1,565 4,174 ( \2\ )
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands............... 7 ( \1\ ) 1,525 2,869 ( \2\ )
South Carolina............................... 23 ( \1\ ) 1,300 1,342 ( \2\ )
South Dakota................................. 25 ( \1\ ) 1,084 1,173 ( \2\ )
Tennessee.................................... 34 ( \1\ ) 800 800 ( \2\ )
Texas........................................ 60 ( \1\ ) 2,849 4,430 ( \2\ )
Utah......................................... 21 ( \1\ ) 1,227 1,249 ( \2\ )
Virginia..................................... 20 ( \1\ ) 598 896 ( \2\ )
Washington................................... 38 ( \1\ ) 1,413 1,466 ( \2\ )
West Virginia................................ 6 ( \1\ ) 487 487 ( \2\ )
Wisconsin.................................... 67 ( \1\ ) 1,558 1,765 ( \2\ )
Wyoming...................................... 22 ( \1\ ) 874 879 ( \2\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 1,203 62,129 89,018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Services performed: investigations that focus on the areas of water availability, flood hazards,
contaminated environment, and water data and information.
\2\ Contract: utilize private contractors to conduct approximately 5 percent to 10 percent of the work
performed. Contractors are primarily used to provide support services.
FISCAL YEAR 1997 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State State and Services performed USGS Cooperator Contract
local co-op contribution contribution amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska............................. 1 digital data $4 $4 ...........
collection and
topographic mapping.
Arkansas........................... 1 digital data 1 1 ...........
collection.
California......................... 4 ...do................ 6 6 $2
Florida............................ 5 digital data 809 809 7
collection
topographic mapping.
Georgia............................ 1 digital data 102 102 161
collection.
Idaho.............................. 5 ...do................ ............ 19 19
Illinois........................... 4 digital data 39 39 ...........
collection and
topographic mapping.
Iowa............................... 1 ...do................ 1 1 ...........
Kansas............................. 2 topographic mapping.. 15 30 15
Kentucky........................... 1 digital data 172 209 334
collection,
topographic mapping,
and aerial
photography.
Louisiana.......................... 2 topographic mapping.. 131 149 18
Minnesota.......................... 2 digital data 392 392 686
collection.
Missouri........................... 5 ...do................ 330 330 581
Mississippi........................ 1 ...do................ ............ 2 2
Montana............................ 2 ...do................ 2 2 ...........
Nevada............................. 1 ...do................ 1 ............ ...........
North Carolina..................... 2 digital data 302 302 565
collection and
topographic mapping.
North Dakota....................... 1 digital data 01 11 21
collection.
New Jersey......................... 1 ...do................ 3 3 ...........
New Mexico......................... 2 ...do................ 74 74 128
New York........................... 1 ...do................ 32 32 61
Ohio............................... 1 ...do................ 4 4 ...........
Oklahoma........................... 2 digital data 360 360 507
collection and
topographic mapping.
Pennsylvania....................... 1 ...do................ 250 250 427
South Carolina..................... 1 digital data 74 74 95
collection.
Texas.............................. 1 digital data 18 18 ...........
collection
topographic mapping.
Utah............................... 1 ...do................ 57 57 105
Virginia........................... 1 ...do................ 78 78 ...........
Washington......................... 1 digital data 60 60 ...........
collection.
Wisconsin.......................... 2 ...do................ 30 30 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 56 3,350 3,449 3,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1997 FEDERAL STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State State and Services USGS Cooperator Contract
local co-op performed contribution contribution amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................... 28 ( \1\ ) $860 $860 ( \2\ )
Alaska....................................... 13 ( \1\ ) 1,058 1,281 ( \2\ )
Arizona...................................... 25 ( \1\ ) 1,101 2,127 ( \2\ )
Arkansas..................................... 11 ( \1\ ) 818 903 ( \2\ )
California................................... 81 ( \1\ ) 4,275 6,973 ( \2\ )
Colorado..................................... 86 ( \1\ ) 2,130 2,318 ( \2\ )
Connecticut.................................. 11 ( \1\ ) 540 731 ( \2\ )
Florida...................................... 49 ( \1\ ) 5,338 8,031 ( \2\ )
Georgia...................................... 29 ( \1\ ) 1,575 1,962 ( \2\ )
Hawaii....................................... 17 ( \1\ ) 1,220 2,550 ( \2\ )
Idaho........................................ 16 ( \1\ ) 1,143 1,628 ( \2\ )
Illinois..................................... 30 ( \1\ ) 1,042 1,374 ( \2\ )
Indiana...................................... 10 ( \1\ ) 981 1,818 ( \2\ )
Iowa......................................... 26 ( \1\ ) 803 849 ( \2\ )
Kansas....................................... 13 ( \1\ ) 1,221 1,484 ( \2\ )
Kentucky..................................... 19 ( \1\ ) 912 912 ( \2\ )
Louisiana.................................... 19 ( \1\ ) 1,207 1,333 ( \2\ )
Maine........................................ 8 ( \1\ ) 270 291 ( \2\ )
Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware. 14 ( \1\ ) 1,190 1,670 ( \2\ )
Massachusetts, Rhode Island.................. 19 ( \1\ ) 1,248 2,400 ( \2\ )
Michigan..................................... 35 ( \1\ ) 778 1,293 ( \2\ )
Minnesota.................................... 20 ( \1\ ) 1,063 1,131 ( \2\ )
Mississippi.................................. 12 ( \1\ ) 955 1,244 ( \2\ )
Missouri..................................... 14 ( \1\ ) 797 1,512 ( \2\ )
Montana...................................... 16 ( \1\ ) 1,021 1,033 ( \2\ )
New Hampshire and Vermont.................... 8 ( \1\ ) 545 1,173 ( \2\ )
Nebraska..................................... 26 ( \1\ ) 771 842 ( \2\ )
Nevada....................................... 21 ( \1\ ) 1,882 2,229 ( \2\ )
New Jersey................................... 21 ( \1\ ) 2,155 3,335 ( \2\ )
New Mexico................................... 27 ( \1\ ) 1,628 2,824 ( \2\ )
New York..................................... 35 ( \1\ ) 2,460 4,530 ( \2\ )
North Carolina............................... 21 ( \1\ ) 1,650 2,426 ( \2\ )
North Dakota................................. 23 ( \1\ ) 684 711 ( \2\ )
Ohio......................................... 27 ( \1\ ) 1,118 1,620 ( \2\ )
Oklahoma..................................... 17 ( \1\ ) 1,017 1,077 ( \2\ )
Oregon....................................... 27 ( \1\ ) 1,272 1,318 ( \2\ )
Pennsylvania................................. 36 ( \1\ ) 1,585 3,973 ( \2\ )
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands............... 8 ( \1\ ) 1,550 3,094 ( \2\ )
South Carolina............................... 22 ( \1\ ) 1,350 1,427 ( \2\ )
South Dakota................................. 27 ( \1\ ) 1,148 1,179 ( \2\ )
Tennessee.................................... 31 ( \1\ ) 850 850 ( \2\ )
Texas........................................ 58 ( \1\ ) 2,909 4,773 ( \2\ )
Utah......................................... 23 ( \1\ ) 1,250 1,279 ( \2\ )
Virginia..................................... 19 ( \1\ ) 691 956 ( \2\ )
Washington................................... 46 ( \1\ ) 1,462 1,608 ( \2\ )
West Virginia................................ 9 ( \1\ ) 499 499 ( \2\ )
Wisconsin.................................... 60 ( \1\ ) 1,603 1,741 ( \2\ )
Wyoming...................................... 23 ( \1\ ) 937 937 ( \2\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 1,236 64,562 92,109
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Services performed: investigations that focus on the areas of water availability, flood hazards,
contaminated environment, and water data and information.
\2\ Contract: utilize private contractors to conduct approximately 5 percent to 10 percent of the work
performed. Contractors are primarily used to provide support services.
OMB Circular A-76, governing performance of commercial
activities, limits the use of Inter-service support agreements,
whereby one agency provides a commercial activity to another
Federal agency. Architect-engineer services (as defined in 40
U.S.C. 541 et. seq., and Part 36 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations), including water resource investigations, mapping,
and remote sensing, are clearly commercial activities. Under
the Circular, and the ``Economy Act'', an agency may not
provide services to another agency unless the ``provider''
agency has conducted a cost comparison under Circular A-76 and
justified in-house performance.
Question. To what extent does USGS provide water resource
investigations, mapping and remote sensing services to other
Federal agencies?
Answer. To assist in meeting its mission requirements
related to assessing the Nation's water resources, USGS
partners with about 30 other Federal agencies having needs for
water resource data, assessments, and research. Much of the
mapping and remote sensing activities for which the USGS
receives reimbursement are cost shared by the Federal partners
and accomplished by private sector partners through contract
with the USGS. Because the USGS has the contractual instruments
in place to undertake this mission-essential work, needs
identified by other Federal agencies can be fulfilled
concurrently with the needs of USGS, and the Federal Government
saves taxpayer dollars through efficiency, avoids duplication
that would result if the reimbursable agreements were not in
place, and provides the mechanism for appropriate functions to
be undertaken through the private sector.
Funds provided to USGS by other Federal agencies to address
water resources issues totaled $90 million in fiscal year 1997.
This funding is expected to be about the same in fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999. Prominent water resources activities
for which USGS receives funding from other Federal agencies
include the following:
Land management bureaus within the Department of the Interior
(DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service: USGS collects basic
hydrologic data, including streamflow data, water quality data,
and data on the levels and quality of ground water. This
monitoring supports the Federal land and water management
agencies in:
--ensuring safe and efficient dam operations;
--evaluating mining permits;
--quantifying water rights on Native American Tribal lands;
--responding to decrees of Federal courts, river basin compacts; and
international treaties regarding water rights and allocation
--resolving land and resource management issues in which a strong
Federal interest is evident.
USGS also conducts water resources research and investigations on
federally managed lands or Tribal lands--for example, research in Grand
Canyon National Park, in preparation for the release of water from Glen
Canyon Dam, and evaluation of the effects of the resulting ``flood'' on
habitat restoration within the Park.
Department of Energy (DOE): USGS provides hydrologic expertise to
DOE to address environmental and scientific issues at the Nevada Test
Site and vicinity, and also works with DOE to evaluate the suitability
of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a potential repository site for the
disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. Investigations include
regional studies of streamflow, runoff, and ground-water flow.
Department of Defense (DOD): USGS has a long history of providing
technical support to assist DOD in fulfilling its responsibilities
related to water issues. For the military agencies of DOD, USGS
provides scientific and technical assistance with respect to studies of
ground-water contamination problems and ground-water/surface-water
interactions on military installations as part of DOD's Installation
Restoration Program. Also, data collected from USGS streamgages funded
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide information needed to
regulate releases from flood control and water supply reservoirs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): USGS has a long history
of providing technical support to assist EPA in fulfilling its
responsibilities related to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Food Quality Protection Act, and the Superfund program.
Current examples include:
--Multi-state surveys of arsenic, radium-224, volatile organic
compounds (including the gasoline additive MTBE), and microbial
pathogens and indicators in ground water and/or surface water;
--National water-quality data for EPA's National Contaminant
Occurrence Database for drinking water;
--A national digital map of ground-water aquifers;
--Simulated yields of nitrogen and phosphorus from every watershed in
the contiguous 48 States;
--Linked web pages providing real-time USGS streamflow data to users
of EPA's Surf Your Watershed Program;
--Information on the occurrence and characteristics of various
pesticides; and
--Investigations, technical advice, and reviews of documents related
to Superfund sites.
Funds provided to the USGS by other Federal agencies to address
mapping and remote sensing issues totaled $34 million in fiscal year
1997. This funding is expected to be about the same in fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999. Prominent mapping and remote sensing activities
for which USGS receives funding from other Federal agencies include the
following. Although the information and data vary in format, content,
and applicability, all are used in differing contexts to support
natural disaster and hazards monitoring, land and resource analyses,
mapping applications, resource management, crop studies, and soils
evaluations.
Consortium of Federal agencies:
--The USGS administers contracts, manages an imagery archive, and
provides program administration to acquire aerial photography
of the Nation under the National Aerial Photography Program.
--The USGS administers contracts, performs limited data production,
manages a data archive, and provides program administration to
acquire digital ortho-imagery of the Nation under the National
Digital Orthophoto Program which is jointly overseen with
Department of Agriculture agencies. Digital ortho-imagery is
produced through reimbursable agreements with a broad spectrum
of Federal agencies.
--The USGS gathers and applies multi-temporal and multi-resolution,
baseline land characteristics data sets of land cover,
elevation, and soils, in integration with other data, to
characterize land surface and environmental data, track
environmental change, and to forecast impacts of events on land
surface characteristics.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of
Commerce: The USGS administers contracts for and provides storage,
preservation, timely access, and public distribution of global Landsat,
Earth Observing System (EOS), MODIS, ASTER, and other satellite data,
as well as older, declassified data from intelligence and military
systems through the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data
Archive.
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Interior: The USGS
administers contracts, performs limited data production, manages a
series of data and map archives, and provides public access and
distribution of digital elevation data, digital line graphs,
topographic maps, and special interest maps and publications.
Agency for International Development and other State Department
offices: The USGS provides remotely sensed environmental geospatial
data, geographic information systems (GIS) analytical services of land
characteristics and topographic data, decision support tools, and
training and technology transfer to enable foreign governments to
develop and use GIS technologies and geospatial data to solve
environmental problems.
National Science Foundation (NSF): USGS provides surveying
and topographic mapping services in support of the NSF's
mission in the Antarctic.
Question. On what water resource, mapping and remote
sensing activities has USGS conducted an A-76 cost comparison?
Answer. The USGS has not conducted an A-76 cost comparison
on its mapping and remote sensing activities, because those
activities are inherently governmental. Some of these
activities have functions that have commercial characteristics,
and the USGS has worked closely with Congress to develop a
privatization approach for those commercial aspects. Language
in the report accompanying the House Interior Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1998 commends the USGS for the efforts
made to date to increase contracting of topographic map and
digital data production and that current policies and use of
the private sector in this area will be continued.
The USGS has not conducted an A-76 cost comparison on its
water resources activities because the USGS Water Resources
Investigations Activity is inherently governmental. It is the
primary source of scientific information on one of the Nation's
most important natural resources--water. The Activity fulfills
a unique Federal role by providing standardized, objective
information for the entire country through long term hydrologic
data, interpretive reports, and new analytical methods. Under
the authority of OMB Memorandum 92-01, USGS has the primary
responsibility for coordinating water data activities in the
Federal Government. Because river basins and aquifers cross
many jurisdictional boundaries there is great efficiency in
having one national agency, USGS, provide standardized regional
water information to all interested groups through cost-sharing
arrangements.
In addition, because many water issues involve
interjurisdictional disputes, it is very important that the
data and conclusions be viewed as credible and impartial by all
parties involved. This includes adjudication of water rights
within a State, among States, or at international boundaries.
USGS is accepted as a credible and impartial source by parties
involved in disputes. USGS provides standardized information to
all, making it unnecessary for each State or locality to create
its own infrastructure for data collection, data handling,
interpretation, and information dissemination.
Question. Does the USGS use in-house capabilities or
private contractors to perform these activities for other
agencies? If so, please describe for each of the past three
fiscal years, the agencies with which you provide such
services, what services you perform for them, the dollar value
of your contribution and the cooperators' contribution, and the
extent to which private contractors have been utilized in the
provision of such services.
Answer. The USGS is transitioning from a previously large
Federal work force to increasingly more reliance on the private
sector to provide mapping and remote sensing products and
services. The USGS work force for mapping and remote sensing
has been reduced from 989 in fiscal year 1990 to 396 in fiscal
year 1998. Concurrently, funds allocated for mapping and remote
sensing contracts have increased from $7.1 million in fiscal
year 1990 to $38.9 million in fiscal year 1998. New program
activities are developed for performance by the private sector,
rather than a Federal work force. In general, attrition in the
mapping and remote sensing work force is not replaced, except
for the most critical and inherently governmental functions.
The current work force is being transitioned to a focus on
inherently governmental activities.
Within the overall scope of the water resources
investigations activity, USGS uses contractors for certain
support functions such as construction and printing.
Question. OMB Circular A-97, governing intergovernmental
cooperation, and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, limits
the use of federal in-house capabilities in providing services
to State and local government. It requires a certification that
the service cannot be reasonably and expeditiously obtained
from the private sector before a Federal agency may perform the
service for the State or local government. How does USGS and/or
its cooperators comply with this requirement? What
certifications have been made with regard to water resource,
mapping and remote sensing activities?
Answer. As authorized by 43 U.S.C. 50, the USGS conducts
topographic and water resources investigations in cooperation
with States and municipalities. These cooperative programs
allow the USGS to share with States and municipalities the cost
of work that meets mutual Federal, State, and local governments
needs. In these efforts, the USGS is not performing services
that are exclusively directed toward the needs of States and
municipalities; rather the USGS, the States, and municipalities
are sharing the cost of meeting mutual needs. The provisions of
43 U.S.C. 50 limit the share of the USGS to no more than 50
percent of the cost of these mutually advantageous topographic
and water resources investigations. No certifications are
prepared for these mutual activities.
Question. What activities in water resources, mapping and
remote sensing does the USGS currently perform in-house, for
its own program or with cooperators, that are considered
inherently governmental in nature?
Answer. In the GPRA strategic planning process, USGS
categorized its functions into eight business activities
described below. All are inherently governmental as determined
by:
Circular A-76
5b * * * ``Certain functions are inherently Governmental in nature,
being so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate
performance only by Federal employees
6e(1) * * * management of Government programs requiring value
judgments.
Circular A-76 Revised Supplemental Handbook, Appendix 5
5(c) Significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private
persons.
And established by Public Law and codified in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 31a--
31f.
Further, a recent study by the National Academy of Public
Administration, Geographic Information for the 21st Century Building a
Strategy for the Nation, 1998, p. 53, found that the Geographic
Information Roles Most Appropriately Provided by the Federal Government
are to:
--Ensure geographic information availability to support Federal
policymaking and operational responsibilities;
--Ensure that Federal geographic information requirements imposed on
State, local, and tribal governments are reasonably attainable
and consistent; and
--Help improve geographic information data quality, coverage, and
accessibility to benefit an expanding array of users through
national standards, a national clearing house, data archiving,
and basic geoscience support.
Business activity No. 3.--Geographic and Cartographic Information--
however, does include some functions with commercial characteristics
which have been increasingly privatized over the past several years in
consultation with the Congress. Language in the report accompanying the
House Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 commends the
USGS for the efforts made to date to increase contracting of
topographic map and digital data production and that current policies
and use of the private sector in this area will be continued.
USGS STRATEGIC PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business activity Description Role of the USGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water availability and quality...... Manage the Nation's water resources Provide reliable, impartial, timely
wisely for present and future data & understanding of the
generations. quantity and quality of the
Nation's water resources to enable
decision-makers to plan, operate,
and regulate the water resources
infrastructure of the Nation, and
to undertake cost-effective
programs to preserve and enhance
water quality.
Hazards............................. Reduce the loss of life and property Advance our understanding of the
from natural hazards. fundamental processes that control
or trigger hazardous events or
situations; lead in developing real-
time monitoring and warning
systems; and enhance the use of
hazards assessments by decision
makers, in order to improve
disaster response and mitigation
planning.
Geographic and cartographic Provide maps and map data for the Acquire, produce, manage, and
information. Nation. disseminate geospatial data;
cultivate partnerships with other
governmental organizations,
academia, and the private sector
for those activities; provide
leadership in establishing national
geospatial data policies and
standards; and conduct a geographic
research and development program
focused on interpretation and
application of geospatial data.
Contaminated environments........... Reduce both environmental Identify and define the occurrence
contamination and the cost of and effects of contamination,
cleaning up existing contamination. broaden our basic understanding of
contaminant hazards, and provide
pertinent information to those
concerned with mitigation and
prevention.
Land and water use.................. Improve the land and water use Provide integrated earth science
decisions made by the public and information about land and water
private sector. use in support of management and
other policy decisions, develop
analytical tools for improved
decision making, and enhance the
understanding of how natural
processes at the Earth's surface
are affected by changes in climate
or land/water use.
Nonrenewable resources.............. Enhance economic development and Determine the location, quantity,
growth. and quality of nonrenewable
resources both internationally and
domestically; determine the
environmental effects of resource
extraction and use; and improve
assessments of resource potential,
making possible the formulation of
the best strategies for development
of future resource supplies.
Environmental effects on human Reduce risks to human health from Provide information on the
health. hazardous chemicals and disease- occurrence of environmental toxins
causing organisms. and pathogens and the factors
affecting fate and transport of
these agents from their sources to
humans.
Biological resources................ Conserve and manage the Nation's Provide reliable, impartial and
biological resources for present timely data on the status and
and future generations. trends of the Nation's biological
resources, to provide an
understanding of biological
systems, and to assess natural and
human induced changes to those
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What activities in water resources, mapping and
remote sensing does the USGS currently perform in-house, for
its own program or with cooperators, that are considered
commercial in nature? What plan does the USGS have to contract
those activities to the private sector?
Answer. Commercial activities within mapping and remote
sensing include map production, map revision, digital data
collection, digital data revision, aerial photography
acquisition, and satellite data acquisition. With the exception
of map revision, all of these activities are contracted to the
private sector, either wholly or in large part. A new contract
has been developed for fiscal year 1998 to allow for
contracting of map revision.
Question. To what extent does the Biological Resources
Division have in-house capability in such activities as GIS
data production, Remote Sensing Data Production and
Photointerpretation production?
Answer. The USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD) has
geospatial capabilities related to ongoing research and
scientific programs and responsibilities including GIS research
activities, remote sensing research activities, and
photointerpretation research activities. The geospatial efforts
are involved with the research and development of protocols and
standards or direction, coordination, administration and
quality assurance/quality control of contracted data
production. In those cases where the research and scientific
programs require the production of data, GIS data and remote
sensing, this is being accomplished by contractors through a
competitive process. In addition, the BRD relies heavily on
outsourcing with State agencies and universities to conduct the
data production and interpretation research activities. For
example, geospatial efforts for the Gap Analysis Program are
conducted by State agencies and universities or through the
research centers that have geospatial capability.
Question. What is the nature of the photointerpretation
production services the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center
is providing the National Park Service and the National
Wetlands Research Center is providing photointerpretation paid
for by Florida Department of Environmental Protection?
Answer. The National Wetlands Research Center and the
Midcontinent Ecological Science Center do not provide
photointerpretation production services.
Question. How was the determination made that the private
sector could not provide these services?
Answer. As stated above, no determination was necessary
because these services are not provided.
Question. Executive Order 12615 requires each Federal
agency to ``ensure that new Federal Government requirements for
commercial activities are provided by private industry, except
where statute or national security requires government
performance or where private industry costs are unreasonable.''
Inasmuch as the Biological Resources Division is a new entity
(created since Executive Order 12615 was issued on November 19,
1987), all its commercial activities are new and are subject to
the aforementioned requirement. How has the BRD complied with
this requirement?
Answer. The Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S.
Geological Survey would not be subject to the stated
requirements as the agency did not promulgate new Federal
government requirements for commercial activities. The BRD was
formerly the National Biological Survey (later renamed the
National Biological Service), which was created in 1994 by
consolidating research functions already in existence and
residing within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Office of Surface
Mining. In this merger of research functions, authorizing and
enabling legislation remained unchanged, leaving BRD with the
same responsibilities that each of the predecessor bureaus had.
Further, the BRD does not perform any commercial activities.
Further, the BRD is not a new Federal entity.
Question. With specific regard to engineering, mapping and
remote sensing-related activities, how has BRD either made a
determination of national security or unreasonable private
sector costs for such services?
Answer. The BRD has not made such determination. In fact,
BRD relies heavily on outsourcing for engineering, mapping, and
remote sensing related activities.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Campbell
pilt
Question. With your requests for funds, the Administration
is asking for an additional $490.8 million over last year's
appropriations, but with the increase I noticed that there was
not an increase in PILT payments for the local counties. Many
counties in Colorado are experiencing higher and higher demands
on them for the services they provide. What is the
justification for not increasing the amount of PILT payments to
them with your request of an additional $490.8 million?
Answer. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are Federal
payments to local governments that may be used for any
governmental purpose. The payments provide additional support
to local governments that have certain Federal land within
their boundaries. Payment eligibility is reserved for local
governments (usually counties) that provide services such as
those related to public safety, environment, housing, social
services, and transportation, and that contain nontaxable
Federal lands.
The PILT program is administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). BLM's responsibility is to calculate the
payments according to the formula established by law and to
distribute the funds appropriated by Congress. Since PILT's
inception in 1977, payments have averaged a total of about $102
million annually. To date (including the 1997 payments), over
$2 billion in payments has been made. The fiscal year 1999
request is $120 million, the same as the appropriated level for
fiscal year 1998. This represents the largest administration
request in the history of the PILT program and is $18.5 million
over last year's requested level.
The BLM recognizes the value of PILT payments to counties
for the services that these funds provide. The request for
additional funds in natural resource programs by the
administration will also benefit states and counties by
improving the quality of lands and resources that in turn help
support their economic well being by providing jobs, higher
visitation, recreation values, and a sustainable supply of
resource products. The BLM is committed to protecting and
restoring the Nation's water, wildlife, fisheries, and
habitats. Healthy lands will provide economic benefits for the
public and private land users alike.
wilderness study areas
Question. It has been suggested that the Colorado
Environmental Coalition (CEC) was given access to BLM offices
to research the proposed re-inventory of roadless areas in
Colorado. Their purpose was to recommend certain areas for
wilderness designation. Is it true the CEC was given special
access to your offices? If so, is it BLM policy to provide
access to any interest group for this purpose?
Answer. All materials, including maps, field notes from on-
the-ground roadless reviews, and previous resource management
planning documents, are public information and available for
review at local BLM offices by any interested party.
Question. The BLM completed the Colorado inventory in 1991
and recommended about 400,000 acres of the 800,000 studied for
wilderness designation. What authority does the BLM have to re-
study these areas? If such areas were found not suitable in
1991, what would make them suitable now?
Answer. Section 201 of FLPMA is the BLM's general authority
to conduct all public land inventories, including wilderness
inventories. Section 201(a) states: The Secretary shall prepare
and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public
lands and their resource and other values * * * giving priority
to areas of critical environmental concern. This inventory
shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions
and to identify new and emerging resource and other values.
(italic added).
Section 603 of FLPMA, which provided a 15-year wilderness
review and recommendation process, does not limit the BLM's
general and continuing authority under Section 201 to conduct
inventories of public lands, including wilderness
characteristics (the Section 603 process was completed by BLM
1991).
A variety of changes may have occurred ``on the ground,''
since collection of the Colorado inventory data in 1980 for the
Section 603 process. Resource conditions are dynamic and
physical conditions change. For example, over time existing
roads naturally become obliterated with non-use. Additional
inventories, in compliance with Section 201, could therefore
result in the identification of some additional areas with
wilderness characteristics.
Question. There are ongoing oil and gas activities along
with mineral exploration in some of these areas. It has been
reported that leases were withdrawn upon the request of the CEC
when oil companies were prepared to commence with exploration.
Is this true? How are the financial commitments that the oil
companies paid to the BLM being handled?
Answer. In response to requests to halt oil and gas leasing
of tracts within the CEC's proposal, the State Director in 1995
agreed to hold further leasing within these areas in abeyance
pending clarification of BLM policy. This informal policy was
continued by three subsequent State Directors or Acting State
Directors.
In 1996, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Bob Armstrong
responded to a letter from Congressman David Skaggs by stating,
``The Bureau is concerned about appropriate management of areas
which have not been included in its land use plans as
wilderness or wilderness study areas but which have been
nominated for that status by various interested parties.'' The
letter further stated that the Colorado State Director agreed
to hold in abeyance leasing within the areas proposed by the
Colorado Environmental Coalition, pending clarification of the
Bureau's policy on this issue.
In 1996, Marathon Oil field filed a lawsuit and an appeal
with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) claiming harm
from the withdrawal. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by
the District Court, citing the Department's discretionary
authority for leasing. An appeal by Marathon to the Circuit
Court is pending. The IBLA also ruled in favor of BLM, but
directed that a site specific analysis be conducted for tracts
that are not offered in a lease sale when they have been
appropriately nominated, and the tracts are in areas open to
leasing under current land use planning. The tracks in question
were withdrawn from the lease sale and no financial commitment
was paid to the BLM by Marathon Oil.
Question. All of the CEC proposed areas have management
plans that allow for multiple use (livestock grazing,
recreation, oil and gas production). Is it the intent of the
BLM to continue the management plans in these areas currently?
Answer. Six of the areas proposed in the CEC's report have
been reviewed to determine if they meet the definition of
roadless used in the 1980 wilderness inventory. Parts of each
of the six areas were found to be roadless. The parts that did
not meet the roadless definition are being managed according to
existing plans. For the areas that are roadless, BLM asked for
public comments on the adequacy of the plans to manage the
areas. The recently closed public comment period resulted in
nearly 2,000 comments received by BLM; over 1,200 supported
additional land use planning to consider additional protection.
A decision is expected in June regarding which, if any, of the
six areas will be subject to plan amendments. No changes in
management can be made without amending the current plans. Plan
amendments take approximately one year to complete.
For other CEC proposed areas, the BLM Colorado has adopted
a policy to hold discretionary actions that might have
irreversible or irretrievable impacts temporarily in abeyance
until the wilderness issues raised by the CEC are addressed and
resolved through the BLM planning process.
Question. Does the BLM have plans to re-study or review
additional areas for wilderness designation? If so, which ones?
Answer. In Colorado, we are currently involved in a
wilderness inventory limited to six areas totaling fewer than
200,000 acres. The Colorado inventory process includes many
opportunities for public comment. When the public comment
period closes in April, decisions will be made as to whether or
not land use plans should be amended.
The Colorado State Office has identified a few additional
areas totaling less that 100,000 acres that may require
wilderness inventory. We do not anticipate completing a state
wide inventory in Colorado.
Question. What is the long term strategy for management on
BLM lands? In other words, can we expect to have more review or
is there some certainty that this is the last effort to
designate more wilderness or will this be an ongoing process?
Answer. Since completion of the Section 603 wilderness
review process in 1991, the BLM has been complying with FLPMA's
mandate under Section 201 to ``prepare and maintain on a
continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their
resource and other values'' (emphasis added). The BLM has
conducted wilderness inventories under the authority of Section
201, as needed, in at least seven states. These Section 201
inventories have resulted in identification of some areas with
wilderness characteristics and other areas without. Congress
has included some of the areas inventoried under Section 201 in
proposed wilderness legislation and has designated some of
these areas as wilderness.
The BLM will continue to comply with Section 201 of FLPMA.
As resource conditions change, BLM will address those issues in
an ongoing, case-by-case basis.
sand creek
On March 24 the Senate Energy Subcommittee on National
Parks and Preservation held a hearing on S. 1695, the Sand
Creek Massacre Site Historic Preservation Bill.
During that hearing, Ms. Katherine Stevenson, of the
National Park Service, characterized S. 1695 as ``extremely
worthy.'' She also recommended that the Senate require ``the
National Park Service to conduct a study to confirm the exact
location of the massacre'' site.
Question. Do you agree with Ms. Stevenson's assessment of
the merits of S. 1695?
Answer. Ms. Stevenson's testimony was on behalf of the
Department.
Question. What can the Park Service do to get the site
study underway and concluded quickly, even this year?
Answer. The National Park Service has reviewed files on
Sand Creek, identified employees and others who possess
particular expertise or have experience relevant to a Sand
Creek study, begun consultation and collaboration with the
Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribe, established close communication and
cooperation with the Colorado Historical Society (which has for
some time been engaged in its own project to locate the site),
and is developing plans, strategies, and cost estimates to
carry out the very formidable task of locating the site. The
NPS will do all that it can within the present funding levels,
but there is no possibility of concluding the study this year.
If funds were appropriated, though they are not requested,
and if cooperation were gained from landowners in allowing
access to their properties, the NPS believes the site might be
identified with one to two years of work. A sound study of the
resources and possible preservation and management alternatives
could be completed within three years. In the meantime, the
National Park Service will do what is possible--especially in
cooperation with the study the Colorado Historical Society has
under way.
Question. Are you committed to this course of action?
Answer. The National Park Service is not only committed to
the course of action just described, it is doing all that it
can within funds and authorization available at present.
While the exact location of the Sand Creek Massacre Site
has been questioned by some, we know this sacred site is out
there and deserves to be preserved with dignity. I am quite
confident that the National Park Service, with its capable
staff of historians and archeologists, will be able to locate
the exact site on the banks of Sand Creek. After all, Park
Service personnel have already started the process by
conducting research at Sand Creek.
Question. Are you committed to locating this important
historical site once and for all?
Answer. The NPS is deeply interested in locating this
important historic site and will consider this during the
formulation of the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Question. Once we find it, to acquire it, and then preserve
it for the Cheyenne, Arapahoe and American people?
Answer. The National Park Service testified that it
believes it is likely that the correct site can be located, and
that there is reason for optimism that the site would possess
the necessary degree of historical integrity and be suitable
and feasible for park purposes, but NPS cannot with certainty
assure that outcome. Once those things have all been
established, however, it would still require an Act of Congress
to authorize the National Park Service to acquire and preserve
the site for the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and American people.
Question. What resources, especially on-hand expertise,
does the Park Service currently have that enables it to
continue the process of locating the Sand Creek site through
the rest of this year?
Answer. NPS has historians, archeologists, ethnographers,
tribal cultural heritage staffs, planners, cartographers,
geographic information systems staffs, remote sensing experts,
data systems experts, and Native American Liaison experts, and
others who might play certain roles. NPS has identified most of
the individuals whom could best do their parts of the total
job. However, the work will be limited as other priorities are
utilizing available resources.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 21, when
we will receive testimony from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the General Accounting Office.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Wednesday, April 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
April 21.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:26 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Domenici, Burns, and
Dorgan.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF VICTOR S. REZENDES, DIRECTOR, ENERGY,
RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE ISSUES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SUE NAIBERK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENERGY, RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE
ISSUES
JENNIFER DUNCAN, EVALUATOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
INDIAN AFFAIRS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
HILDA MANUEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOANN SEBASTIAN MORRIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens [presiding]. I do apologize. I have had a
series of problems this morning trying to get supplemental
appropriations off the dead center. The subcommittee chairman
is on the floor with amendments on the ocean bill.
We do have a scheduled hearing here for the 1999 budget
request and I am notified that all other members of the
subcommittee are either in other committees or on the floor.
I want to welcome Kevin Gover for your first hearing, Mr.
Gover, as Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. We are very
delighted to hear that you will be visiting Alaska in May and I
hope to have a chance to visit with you while you are there,
too.
Senator Gorton invited the General Accounting Office to
provide testimony on the work it has done at his and my request
with respect to the Bureau's tribal priority allocation system.
The GAO asked if it could testify first and Senator Gorton
agreed to that request. I expect there will be some questions
for GAO after they finish and I hope our colleagues who are on
the floor will be here by that time.
I will have additional questions from Senator Gorton. He
said to me just as I left the floor that he, too, would try to
join the subcommittee sometime before we end this hearing this
morning.
After we have had an opportunity to ask the GAO some
questions on TPA, we will then go to testimony of Secretary
Gover and his colleagues from BIA. Although the GAO asked to
testify first, I do ask that you remain, at least some of you,
during the presentation of the BIA, if that is possible,
because we might have some additional questions after the BIA
testimony to ask the GAO witnesses.
Senator Gorton made some comments when Secretary Babbitt
was here 3 weeks ago, that I should repeat now. This year, the
overall amount of discretionary spending available to the
Appropriations Committee will not increase as it did in fiscal
year 1998. In fact, the total amount of nondefense
discretionary funding available for the entire appropriations
bill is less than a freeze, less than the amount of money we
had last year taking into account the inflation figures.
The President has not lived up to the spending caps in his
budget because there are special funds and new revenue streams
that are proposed, which we know will not be approved by
Congress. As a matter of fact, they were requested by President
Bush and they were not approved then.
Some of the discretionary spending accounts have been
reclassified as mandatory and Congress will not agree to that.
By virtue of these disagreements, the President's requests
for programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee have
to deal with about a $1 billion increase, as compared to the
1998 level.
Now the program within the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
slated to receive $142 million of the increase that was in that
$1 billion. As Senator Gorton told Secretary Babbitt, that was
wishful thinking. And as chairman, I can back up what the
Senator says. We just do not have that money to allocate
because revenue streams will not be there.
I hope that we can, however, deal with this problem of the
allocation for the subcommittee so that it will not be less
than it was in this current fiscal year.
We are in a tough situation. I think anybody who knows and
has looked at this budget will realize there is going to be a
tremendous collision here in the Congress with the
administration before September.
But I am concerned about the pressing needs for the Indian
Health Service. It is, by the way, the only major agency in the
bill that did not receive an increase even under the
President's budget request.
There are some problems in Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement for the Indian Health Service that add to the
difficulties of this subcommittee bill and we will get into
that later.
We also have another problem with this bill and that is the
proposal to sell oil for the strategic petroleum reserve at a
time when prices are so low. We just are not justified in doing
that and, under those circumstances, we have to find money to
make up for the loss of that money that would have come into
this budget.
CBO tells us that they do not agree with the estimates that
have been given to us by the OMB and that, too, is going to
lead to some severe difficulty with this bill.
I am really restating what Senator Gorton said before, when
the Secretary was here, for the benefit of those witnesses who
may not have heard that exchange. We do ask the BIA to
reevaluate its budget request and to work with Senator Gorton
and the subcommittee staff over the next few weeks and months
to determine what are the real priorities for the BIA. And if
we don't get an agreement on that, I think that is just another
battle that is going to go on even before we get into battle
with the House over this bill.
There is a whole series of battles--a battle within this
subcommittee itself, then with the House, then with CBO, and
then with the administration. I really don't see a very easy
path for this bill this year, and this used to be one of the
bills that we could deal with and be reassured that we would
have support for the agencies involved.
prepared statement
As one who spent 5 years in Interior, I really find it very
hard to understand how this whole area of this budget has
literally come apart. I think that is why Senator Gorton
invited the GAO to testify today, because we want to know what
the GAO's opinion is with regard to the fairest method for
distributing BIA tribal priority allocations. This accounts for
half of the Bureau's operating budget and it is best that we
get to it and find out what they have to say.
I will put the rest of Senator Gorton's statement in the
record here at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Gorton
Good morning. The subcommittee meets today for the third of
its hearings on the 1999 budget requests for agencies funded by
the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
This morning we will hear testimony regarding the 1999
budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I want to
welcome Kevin Gover to his first hearing before this
subcommittee as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
Before the Bureau presents its testimony, however, I have
invited the General Accounting Office to testify on the work it
has been doing at my request, and that of Senator Stevens, with
respect to the Bureau's Tribal Priority Allocations system. The
GAO asked if it could testify first, and I agreed to the
request. I expect I will have some questions for the GAO after
they finish, and I hope that my colleagues will, also.
Following the GAO, I ask that the witnesses switch with the
BIA, which has several people on hand to deal with specific
issues. I would ask the GAO to remain for the duration of the
hearing, if their schedules permit. Members of the subcommittee
may have additional questions for the GAO regarding their
findings following the BIA's testimony.
Before we begin, though, let me repeat the remarks that I
made when Secretary Babbitt testified before this subcommittee
three weeks ago. This year the overall amount of discretionary
spending available to the Appropriations Committee will not
increase like it did in fiscal year 1998. In fact, the total
amount of non-defense discretionary funding available for the
entire Appropriations Committee is less than a freeze.
The President dodged the statutory spending caps in his
budget by establishing special funds, proposing new revenue
streams, and reclassifying certain discretionary spending as
mandatory. By virtue of these bookkeeping maneuvers, the
President's request graces programs under the jurisdiction of
this subcommittee with a $1 billion increase over the
comparable 1998 level. Programs within the Bureau of Indian
Affairs are slated to receive $142 million of this increase.
Regrettably, as I told Secretary Babbitt, all of this is
wishful thinking.
Though I hope to persuade Senator Stevens to provide this
subcommittee with an allocation that is better than a freeze,
there is no chance that we will receive a $1 billion increase--
or anything close to it. What's more, there is competition for
any increase that we do receive. I am concerned about the
pressing needs of the Indian Health Service, which is,
inexplicably, the only major agency in this bill that did not
receive a significant increase in the President's budget
request. I note that the Administration has justified this, in
part, by doubling the estimates of medicare and medicaid
reimbursements made by the Indian Health Service itself. In
addition, if we do not sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve--and there is little sentiment to do so with oil prices
so low--we will need to find $160 million that was not in our
base last year. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that
they do not agree with other fanciful score keeping estimates
in the budget request that will cost us tens of millions of
dollars.
I am stating this as much for my colleagues' benefit as for
the agency. Just as I will plead with them to be reasonable in
their requests of me, so will I ask the Bureau to reevaluate
its budget request, and work with me and my staff over the next
few months to determine the real priorities of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. We need your cooperation in this process.
On a final note to help explain why I invited the GAO to
testify today, it is my hope that what the GAO shares with the
subcommittee today will contribute to devising a new, fair,
method for distributing BIA Tribal Priority Allocations. TPA
alone accounts for nearly half of the Bureau's operating budget
today. Right now, TPA dollars are distributed based on
historical distributions, with no consideration of a tribe's
ability to finance these services from other funds. And each
year, the sophisticated tribes with the best lobbying efforts
request that more and more of BIA operations money be
transferred into the TPA function. Until and unless we can
develop a method for distributing these monies better, I
hesitate to even consider the $33.8 million increase requested
this year.
With that, I invite the witnesses from the GAO to identify
themselves and then proceed with their testimony.
introduction of associates
Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd will not be here. But we will
obviously submit the questions that he may have to offer at a
later time.
Now it is my understanding, Mr. Rezendes, that we will hear
from you. Would you please come up to the witness table and
whoever else is with you.
Mr. Rezendes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me introduce my colleagues here. On my left is Sue
Naiberk, our Assistant Director, and on my right is Jennifer
Duncan, who is the evaluator responsible for a good part of
this work.
Senator Stevens. What was the first name, please?
Mr. Rezendes. We have here Jennifer Duncan (indicating) and
here (indicating) is Sue Naiberk.
Senator Stevens. Duncan and Naiberk. Thank you. I did not
hear the first name.
summary statement of victor s. rezendes
Mr. Rezendes. Sorry.
As you know, these are preliminary observations on the work
that we have done for you and Senator Gorton on the TPA
account. As you know, those funds represent the largest portion
of BIA's appropriation, about 45 percent of the $1.7 billion.
To put that in perspective, TPA represents about 10 percent
of the $7.5 billion that the Federal Government spends on
Indian programs.
In summary, we found that two-thirds of the $757 million in
TPA funds were distributed primarily on the basis of historical
levels and tribes may shift these base funds among activities
according to their needs. For example, a tribe needing more
funds for law enforcement than for education may move these
funds to meet those needs. The remaining one-third is known as
nonbase funds and are used for such activities as road
maintenance and housing, and are generally distributed under a
more specific formula.
Average TPA distributions varied widely. On a per capita
basis, those ranges went from $121 per tribal member in BIA's
Muskogee area to over $1,000 in the Portland area.
Let me emphasize that this analysis is only for information
purposes. BIA does not distribute these funds on a per capita
basis nor do they recommend that those funds be distributed
that way.
According to Interior--and I am sure that they will talk to
you about that as well--they think that there are reasons for
the differences and that the basic numbers on populations are
not reliable.
In addition, as you know, non-Federal entities, including
Indian tribes, meeting certain financial assistance thresholds
must submit audited financial statements annually under the
Single Audit Act. We reviewed all of the statements most
recently filed by the tribes. While some reported only their
Federal revenues, others included revenues from State, local,
and private sources.
In total, the statements reported that these tribes
received more than $3.6 billion in revenues. These revenues
include such things as taxes and fees, lease and investment
income, and funds received through Government grants and
contracts. Some tribes also reported income from their
businesses. Ninety-eight tribes reported about $1.2 billion in
operating profits and another 70 tribes reported operating
losses of about $50 million.
However, the quality of the data submitted varies. Only
half of the statements received unqualified audit opinions. The
remaining statements had various degrees of deficiencies.
Mr. Chairman, you also asked us to look at some options in
terms of additional information that might be useful to the
Congress in deciding whether TPA funds should be distributed on
a different formula or whether business revenues should be
included in there.
prepared statement
Some of the issues or some of the additional information we
think might be helpful is financial information for all tribes,
including those tribes submitting reports under the Single
Audit Act, more complete information on the financial resources
available to tribes from tribal businesses, including gaming,
and, finally, more reliable data on tribes' financial
positions.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are several impediments to
getting this information. It won't be easy.
With that, I will stop and maybe we can go into some
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victor S. Rezendes
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the preliminary results of our review of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) distribution of Tribal Priority
Allocation--or TPA--funds. BIA began efforts that evolved into TPA in
the early 1970's as a way to pursue Indian self-determination by giving
tribes the opportunity to set priorities and allocate funds for those
activities they wanted to fund, in consultation with BIA. We are
conducting this review at your and Chairman Stevens' request, and we
will issue our report on TPA-funds distribution by June 1. Today I will
discuss (1) BIA's basis for distributing 1998 TPA funds; (2) total
distributions of TPA funds in fiscal year 1998 and a per capita
analysis of those distributions; (3) revenue and business income
information reported by tribes under the Single Audit Act; and (4) what
additional revenue and income information might be useful to the
Congress in deciding whether to distribute TPA funds considering the
total financial resources available to tribes, including possible
barriers to collecting this information.
As of October 1997, 556 tribes had been recognized by the federal
government and are eligible to receive financial assistance through
BIA. Each of these tribes may receive funds for activities such as law
enforcement, social services, adult vocational training, child welfare,
and natural resource management through TPA; specific activities and
priorities may vary from year to year. BIA provides TPA funds to tribes
either by funding tribally operated activities or through services
provided by BIA. \1\ TPA funds are also used to support some of BIA's
management and administrative costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this report, subsequent references to
``tribes'' that receive TPA funds also include BIA offices that receive
TPA funds on the tribes' behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPA funds are the largest portion of BIA's direct appropriation in
fiscal year 1998, representing 45 percent--or $757 million--of the $1.7
billion total. To put this in perspective, TPA represents 10 percent of
the $7.5 billion in federal funding that the Office of Management and
Budget reports was appropriated for Indian programs in 1998. This
funding was for a wide variety of programs, such as food distribution
and rural business opportunity grants through the Department of
Agriculture, environmental restoration through the Army Corps of
Engineers, and library services through the Department of Education.
In summary, we found:
--Two-thirds of the 1998 TPA funds were distributed primarily on the
basis of historical levels, and tribes may shift these ``base''
funds among TPA activities according to their needs. For
example, a tribe needing more funds for law enforcement than
for adult vocational education may move funds to meet those
needs. The remaining one-third, known as ``non-base'' funds,
are used for such activities as road maintenance and housing
improvement and were generally distributed on the basis of
specific formulas.
--In total, 95 percent of the TPA funds appropriated in fiscal year
1998 have been distributed. Average TPA distributions varied
widely among BIA's 12 area offices when analyzed and compared
on a per capita basis; the per capita averages ranged from $121
per tribal member within BIA's Muskogee area to $1,020 per
tribal member within BIA's Portland area. Mr. Chairman, let me
emphasize that we present this analysis for your information
only--BIA does not distribute TPA funds on a per-capita basis,
nor does BIA recommend that such a distribution method be used.
According to Interior officials, there are reasons for
differences in TPA distributions, and they do not consider the
population estimates to be reliable. Appendix I contains
additional information on total TPA distributions by area
office and a per capita analysis of these distributions.
--Nonfederal entities--including tribes--meeting certain federal
assistance thresholds (those receiving $100,000 or more in
federal funds before 1997, and those expending $300,000 or more
in 1997 or later) must submit audited financial statements
annually under the Single Audit Act. We reviewed all 326
financial statements on file with the Department of the
Interior that were most recently submitted by tribes; the
statements generally covered fiscal years 1995 or 1996. \2\
While some tribes reported only their federal revenues, others
included revenues from state, local, and private sources. In
total, the statements reported that these tribes received more
than $3.6 billion in revenues during the years covered by them.
These revenues included such things as taxes and fees, lease
and investment income, and funds received through governmental
grants and contracts. Some tribes also reported income from
their businesses for the periods covered by the statements: 98
reported about $1.2 billion in operating profits, and another
70 reported operating losses of about $50 million. However, the
quality of the information reported in the statements varied;
only about half of the statements received ``unqualified''
opinions from auditors, while the others were deficient to
varying degrees. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Appendix II provides additional details of our scope and
methodology.
\3\ An unqualified opinion on the financial statements generally
means that the auditor concludes the financial statements and
accompanying notes present fairly, in all material respects, the
assets, liabilities, and net position of the entity at the end of the
period; and the net costs, changes in net position, and csh flows for
the period are in conformity with the entity's basis of accounting or
generally accepted accounting principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In deciding whether to consider tribal revenues or business income
in distributing TPA funds, information that might be useful to
the Congress could include more complete and reliable financial
information for all tribes. However, there are several
impediments to obtaining this information. For example, under
the Single Audit Act, financial statements must be submitted
only by those nonfederal entities (including tribes) expending
at least $300,000 of federal funds in a year and may not
include income from tribes' businesses.
background
In the early 1970's, BIA began giving tribes more training,
involvement, and influence in BIA's budget process, in efforts that
evolved into TPA. \4\ At that time, according to BIA officials, few
tribes were experienced in budgeting or contracting, and most depended
on BIA for services. Over the years, tribes have become more
experienced and sophisticated in TPA budgeting, are more involved in
directly contracting and managing their TPA activities, and have more
flexibility in shifting funds between activities within TPA. Since
1991, through amendments to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, 206 tribes have entered into self-governance agreements
with the federal government. Under the terms of these agreements, the
tribes assume primary responsibility for planning, conducting, and
administering programs and services--including those activities funded
under TPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Tribal Participation in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget
System Should Be Increased (GAO/CED-78-62, Feb. 15, 1978) and Indian
Programs: Tribal Influence in Formulating Budget Priorities Is Limited
(GAO/RCED-91-20, Feb. 7, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bia's basis for distributing tpa funds
Of the $757 million in TPA funds that the Congress appropriated in
fiscal year 1998, about $507 million was for base funding, and about
$250 million was for non-base funding. Base funding was distributed in
three components: $468 million generally on the basis of historical
funding levels, $16 million to supplement funding for ``small and
needy'' tribes, and $23 million in a general funding increase.
According to Interior officials, how TPA base funds for tribes were
initially determined is not clearly documented, and adjustments may
have been made over time in consideration of specific tribal
circumstances. While most increases in the TPA budget prior to the
1990s resulted from congressional appropriations for specific tribes,
subsequent increases have generally been distributed on a pro rata
basis. The $468 million in base funds may be used by tribes for such
activities as law enforcement, social services, and adult vocational
training. Tribes may move these funds from one TPA activity to another.
In 1998, the Congress appropriated TPA funds for BIA to supplement
historical distribution levels for ``small and needy'' tribes; as a
result, $16 million in additional base funds was distributed to 292
tribes. The designation ``small and needy'' was developed by the Joint
Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs
Reorganization in 1994. \5\ The task force recommended that tribes with
service populations of less than 1,500 have available minimum levels of
TPA base funds--$160,000 in the lower 48 states and $200,000 in
Alaska--to allow them to develop basic self-government capacity. \6\
Because some small tribes were receiving less than $160,000, the
Congress directed BIA to supplement TPA base funds with the 1998
distribution so that each of these tribes would receive $160,000. For
fiscal year 1999, BIA has requested an additional $3 million to move
the ``small and needy'' tribes in Alaska closer to the task force-
recommended minimum funding level of $200,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Tribal Budget System: Preliminary Assessment of Most Needy
Small Tribes, Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of
Indian Affairs Reorganization (Apr. 1994).
\6\ ``Service population'' refers to the numbers of Indians
eligible to receive services from BIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $23 million general increase in base funds was evenly
distributed among BIA's 12 area offices, as recommended in January 1998
by a special task force assembled under the 1998 Interior Appropriation
bill. Each equal portion was subsequently distributed to tribes and BIA
offices according to various considerations. For example, the tribes in
BIA's Sacramento area each received an equal share of the area office's
$1.95 million allocation. The tribes in BIA's Juneau area each received
$4,000, and the remainder was distributed on the basis of population
and TPA base funding levels.
The remaining $250 million is non-base funds and is generally
distributed according to specific formulas that consider tribal needs.
In general, tribes may not shift these funds to other activities
without special authorization. Road maintenance, housing improvement,
welfare assistance, and contract support are all included in this
category. For example, road maintenance funds are distributed to BIA's
area offices based on factors such as the number of miles and types of
roads within each area. Housing improvement funds are distributed to
area offices on the basis of an inventory of housing needs that
includes such things as the number of units in substandard condition
and the number of units needing renovation or replacement.
distribution of fiscal year 1998 tpa funds and per capita analysis
As of March 1998, 95 percent of the $757 million in TPA funds had
been distributed among the tribes and BIA offices. Our per capita
analysis shows that the distributions ranged from a low of $121 per
tribal member within BIA's Muskogee area to a high of $1,020 within the
Portland area. However, according to Interior officials, there are
reasons for the differences in TPA distributions and the differences
should not all be perceived as inequities. For example, BIA is required
to fund law enforcement and detention in states that do not have
jurisdiction over crimes occurring on Indian lands, so tribes located
in those states may receive more TPA funds for these purposes than
tribes located in other states. Similarly, BIA has a trust
responsibility for natural resources on reservations, so tribes that
have large land bases may receive more TPA funds for this purpose than
tribes with small land bases. Furthermore, tribes with self-governance
agreements may include funds in their TPA base amount that are not
included for tribes without self-governance agreements. BIA officials
also noted that they do not consider the service population figures,
which are estimated by tribes, to be reliable--although they did not
offer other figures that they believed to be more accurate. They also
noted that TPA funds are distributed to tribes, rather than
individuals, and that a lower per capita figure may reflect that tribes
in one area have larger memberships but smaller land bases than tribes
in another area. Appendix I presents the distributions and per capita
analyses for BIA's area offices.
The remaining 5 percent of TPA funds not distributed to tribes
includes $30 million, primarily for welfare assistance and contract
support, that will be distributed later in the fiscal year on the basis
of tribal need. While most of the contract support and welfare
assistance funds are distributed on the basis of the prior year's
expenditures, between 15 and 25 percent is withheld until later in each
fiscal year, when tribes' actual needs are better known. An additional
$9 million not distributed to tribes is for other uses, including
education funding to non-tribal entities (such as states and public
schools) and payments for employees displaced as a result of tribal
contracting.
revenues and income reported under the single audit act
Nonfederal entities--including tribes--meeting the federal
assistance thresholds for reporting under the Single Audit Act (those
receiving at least $100,000 in federal funds before 1997 and those
expending at least $300,000 in 1997 or later) must submit an audited
general-purpose financial statement and a statement of federal
financial assistance. \7\ We examined all 326 financial statements on
file with Interior that were most recently submitted by tribes; these
statements generally covered fiscal years 1995 or 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Single Audit Act is intended, among other things, to
establish uniform requirements for audits of federally awarded
contracts or assistance administered by no federal entities, including
state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and Indian
tribes. Prior to fiscal year 1997, such entities receiving $100,000 or
more in Federal assistance annually were required to have an audit for
that year. The 1996 Single Audit Act amendments changed the reporting
threshold: Beginning in fiscal year 1997, entities with annual
expenditures of $300,000 or more in Federal funds are required to have
an audit for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tribes' financial statements varied in the type and amount of
information reported. While some statements included only federal
revenues, others also included revenues from state, local, and private
sources; some included financial information only for tribal
departments that expended federal funds, while others provided more
complete reporting on their financial positions. In total, the
statements reported that these tribes received more than $3.6 billion
in revenues during the years covered by them. These revenues included
such things as taxes and fees, lease and investment income, and funds
received through governmental grants and contracts.
About half of the financial statements we examined also included
some information on tribal businesses. Tribal businesses include, for
example, gaming operations, smokeshops or convenience stores,
construction companies, and development of natural resources such as
minerals or timber. The tribes that reported the results of their
businesses had operating income totaling over $1.1 billion. Not all of
these tribes reported a profit, however--about 40 percent reported
operating losses totaling about $50 million.
The reliability of the general-purpose financial statements we
reviewed varied. Of the 326 we reviewed, 165--or about half--of the
statements were certified by independent auditors as fairly presenting
the financial position of the reporting entity and received
``unqualified'' auditors' opinions. However, auditors noted that 38 of
the ``unqualified'' statements were limited to certain funds and were
not intended to represent the financial position of the tribe as a
whole. The independent auditors' opinions for the remaining financial
statements indicated that the statements were deficient to varying
degrees.
Tribes with gaming operations are required under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act to submit annual financial reports to the National
Indian Gaming Commission. In 1997, we reported that 126 tribes with
class II and class III gaming operations (which include bingo, pull-
tabs, slot machines, and other casino games) reported a total of about
$1.9 billion in net income from their gaming operations in 1995.\8\
About 90 percent of the gaming facilities included in that report
generated net income, and about 10 percent generated net losses.
Because the financial statements we examined covered different fiscal
years and did not always include gaming revenues, we did not attempt to
reconcile them to information reported to the Gaming Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Tax Policy: A Profile of the Indian Gaming Industry (GAO/GGD-
97-91, May 5, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional tribal revenue information that could be useful and barriers
to collecting this information
In deciding whether to consider tribal revenues or business income
in order to determine the amount of TPA funds tribes should receive,
information that might be useful to the Congress could include (1)
financial information for all tribes, including those tribes not
submitting reports under the Single Audit Act; (2) more complete
information on the financial resources available to tribes from tribal
businesses, including gaming; and (3) more reliable data on tribes'
financial positions. However, there are several impediments to
obtaining this information.
For fiscal year 1997 and later, nonfederal entities (including
tribes) expending less than $300,000 in federal funds are not covered
by the Single Audit Act. Tribes reporting under the act do not have to
report financial information for their tribal businesses if those
businesses do not receive, manage, or expend federal funds. Interior
officials also noted that under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, Congress established for-profit native corporations as
separate legal entities from the non-profit arms that receive federal
financial assistance; for this reason, financial information on the
for-profit arms would not be reported under the Single Audit Act.
Further, financial information submitted by Alaskan villages that
have formed an association or consortium or operate under self-
governance agreements reflect only the operations of the umbrella
organization and do not provide information regarding the separate
tribal governments. Interior officials further noted that some tribes
that meet the reporting threshold of the act have not submitted
financial statements annually as required, or have not submitted them
in a timely manner, and that BIA has few sanctions to encourage these
tribes to improve their reporting.
Finally, the financial statements we examined included a range of
auditors' opinions, and the reliability of the information in the
statements varied.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
APPENDIX I--DISTRIBUTION OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 TPA FUNDS AS OF MARCH 25, 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA service Per-capita
BIA area TPA funds population \1\ analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen........................................................ $76,099,497 128,412 $593
Albuquerque..................................................... 41,797,628 59,598 701
Anadarko........................................................ 24,105,317 45,535 529
Billings........................................................ 40,783,297 42,427 961
Eastern......................................................... 37,161,454 50,272 739
Juneau.......................................................... 80,523,960 85,259 944
Minneapolis..................................................... 48,483,202 76,883 631
Muskogee........................................................ 34,514,007 284,740 121
Navajo.......................................................... 100,098,796 225,668 444
Phoenix......................................................... 89,480,881 100,854 887
Portland........................................................ 106,977,145 104,841 1,020
Sacramento...................................................... 38,263,720 55,717 687
-----------------------------------------------
Distributed subtotal...................................... 718,288,904 1,260,206 \3\ 570
Not distributed \2\............................................. 39,059,096 NA NA
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 757,348,000 1,260,206 \3\ 601
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Service population is the number of Indians eligible to receive services from BIA as of 1995, which were the
most recent data available. Source: Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimates (BIA, 1995).
\2\ These include TPA funds for other BIA offices or non-tribal entities (e.g., funds for BIA's Central Office,
funds for employees displaced due to tribal contracting, and education funds for non-tribal entities), as well
as funds that will be but have not yet been distributed to tribes or area/agency offices (e.g., funds for
contract support and welfare assistance).
\3\ Per-capita figures were calculated by dividing the subtotal and total TPA funds by the total BIA service
population.
Source: GAO analysis based on BIA-provided data.
Appendix II--Scope and Methodology
We obtained information about (1) BIA's bases for distributing 1998
TPA funds; (2) distributions of TPA funds in fiscal year 1998; (3)
revenue and business income reported by tribes under the Single Audit
Act; and (4) additional revenue and income information that might be
useful to the Congress in deciding whether to distribute TPA funds
considering total financial resources available to tribes. We contacted
officials with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Office of Audit and Evaluation, and Office of Self-Governance
in Washington, D.C., and its Office of Audit and Evaluation in
Lakewood, Colorado. We analyzed distribution data provided by BIA and
Office of Self-Governance officials to determine specific amounts
distributed to area offices and tribes in fiscal year 1998. We did not
independently verify the distribution or population data.
At Interior's Office of Audit and Evaluation in Washington, D.C.
and Lakewood, Colorado, we examined all 326 of the most recent
financial statements on file that were submitted under the Single Audit
Act by tribes, tribal associations, and tribal enterprises. We excluded
statements for some entities, such as tribal housing authorities and
community colleges, because they are financially separate from the
tribes. Of the 326 financial statements, 290 were for federally
recognized tribes, 20 were for tribal businesses or components of
tribes, 14 were for consortia or associations representing over 170
individual tribes, and 2 were for tribes not federally recognized. From
each of the financial statements we examined, we obtained information
about the independent auditor's opinion, revenues for all fund types
reported, and operating income for tribes that included tribal business
information in their statements.
We performed our review from November 1997 through April 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
impediments to getting information
Senator Stevens. Tell me the impediments you see to getting
the information we need.
Mr. Rezendes. There are a number of them. One is under the
Single Audit Act, tribes are only required to submit an audited
financial statement when they have expended $300,000 worth of
Federal assistance. Tribes that expend less than that would not
be covered in the audits and that information would not be
coming forward.
Senator Stevens. Will you deal with that in your final
report in terms of recommendations?
Mr. Rezendes. We will talk about it and we will talk about
more of the impediments and what that means, as well as what
could be done about that. It seems to me, if you are really
interested in getting this, the easiest way to do it, as the
Federal Government does acquire information routinely from the
private sector that they are not authorized to receive, they
usually get that as a precondition of either a grant or a
contract. Making that sort of information as a precondition to
receiving funds might make this more palatable or might make it
more workable, I should say. ``Palatable'' is probably going to
be a totally different story.
Senator Stevens. Do you have enough information yet to
determine whether or not the current distribution method for
TPA is fair. Does meet the needs of the individual tribes?
Mr. Rezendes. We don't know that yet.
Basically, the other component that is missing here is,
basically, what is the Federal obligation to the tribes either
under law or by treaties; second, how are we spending the money
and how does it match up to that; and, third, what are the
total needs of the Indian tribes--in total?
So until those pieces are there, it is kind of hard to say
right now, just looking at the distribution angle, whether that
is the right distribution or the fairest distribution until it
is taken in total.
Senator Stevens. In my State, this administration
recognized 227, I believe, villages as tribes----
Mr. Rezendes. Right.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. And declared they were tribes
for the first time. The method of dealing with them has been to
just give them each a small amount, without regard to the
population.
Is there any other area of the country that has the same
type of distribution, just a flat rate per village?
Mr. Rezendes. Not that I am aware of. Are you talking about
the small and needy tribes? There are 292 there in total. The
remainder are mostly in the Sacramento area, I believe, and are
outside of Juneau.
I am not aware--do you mean are there other Federal
programs out there that target these?
Senator Stevens. Are there other tribes within the BIA area
that have the same type of distribution? It is my understanding
that, as a matter of fact, we provided that just for this
current year, about $200,000.
Mr. Rezendes. Right. But they have not received the
$200,000, I mean, they have asked for additional funds to get
them up to $200,000. I think last year the distribution was
$160,000.
Senator Stevens. You indicate a range of from $104 to--
what?
Mr. Rezendes. $121 to over $1,000.
There is an attachment to my statement which includes the
breakout for all 12 BIA area offices.
Senator Stevens. Do you break it down on an acre basis of
the land involved or on the basis of the population?
Mr. Rezendes. It was strictly based on population. That is
what we were asked to focus on for this hearing so that is what
we did, using the tribal populations from 1995 data and
dividing that into the TPA funds for 1998.
Senator Stevens. We are going to be very interested in your
report, obviously. I am quite worried about what to do about
1999 for the Alaskan area. It is not going to be easy to do.
Do you have the capability of identifying need on the basis
of these charts?
Mr. Rezendes. We haven't and that was not the focus of this
request. We were focusing strictly on the distribution, how the
distribution was made, and the justifications for the
distribution.
One of the things that does give us a little concern is a
good part of the base funds in the TPA account, as you know,
are based on historical distributions. There was not much
documentation, or rationale, as to why they were at the levels
that they were.
It could be that there is a sense of equity there. We don't
know. But there was little documentation as to how everybody
got what they received in terms of the base funds.
Senator Stevens. What basis is the historical level? How
far back are you going?
Mr. Rezendes. I think we are going right back to Day 1.
We did ask and they were able to provide us on the base
funds that they were historically based and had just
reoccurred, and any additions, particularly prior to the
1990's, were really a result of congressional increases per
tribe, specifically targeted. But then, after that, any general
increases were usually distributed on a more pro rata basis.
So there was not really much behind that we could get in
terms of documentation, at least to date, unless BIA has
something new that they have not shared with us right now, as
to what the rationale was for the various funding levels.
Senator Stevens. I am told that on a tribe basis, the TPA
funding ranged from an average of $219,700 for Alaska tribes to
$49 million for the Navajo. Is that correct? Is that the range?
Mr. Rezendes. Do we have that?
Ms. Naiberk. We don't have the per tribe information yet.
We will have that in our report.
Senator Stevens. Have you had a chance to look at how the
BIA has interpreted our small and needy tribe mandate for last
year, for this current fiscal year?
Mr. Rezendes. Do you mean in terms of how they are
distributing the funds?
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Rezendes. Yes; we did. We did look at that.
Do we know what the numbers are? Is it $160,000?
Ms. Duncan. [Nods affirmatively.]
Mr. Rezendes. I believe each of the tribes received
$160,000, even though, as you know, Alaska is targeted to
receive $200,000. But there was a shortage of funds, so
everyone got the same thing regardless of whether in Alaska or
in the lower 48.
They are asking for additional funds this year to increase
the allocation to those Alaskan tribes to the $200,000 level.
Senator Stevens. This allocation, have you looked at this
formula? Is it just a structural thing? I mean, do they get so
much money and once a tribe gets an increase it becomes
structural and it never gets back below that? What is the
historical basis for this?
Mr. Rezendes. It is really more complex than that.
Take, for example, Juneau, in which I am sure you have some
interest. Last year, the Congress gave the BIA for the TPA
program a general increase of $23 million.
Senator Stevens. Right. That was supposed to cover that
Alaska addition.
Mr. Rezendes. Right. But what happened, though, was that
was distributed to each of the BIA offices and each of the
tribes, in working with BIA, then decided how to distribute
that money among the tribes. In some areas, the tribes decided
to each get a pro rata allocation, to just divide it up.
Alaska was a little different. They decided in Juneau, for
example, that they would give each of the tribes $4,000 and the
remainder would be distributed based on the amount that that
tribe receives of TPA funds plus a population factor.
Senator Stevens. They didn't carry out what Congress told
them to do, right?
Mr. Rezendes. Well, basically, that is correct. What they
are basically saying is that while a BIA task force recommended
$200,000 per Alaskan tribe, they thought the money should be
spent on a different priority basis rather than on meeting the
$200,000 recommendation first.
Senator Stevens. But we were following the 1994 task force
recommendation that every tribe in Alaska should receive not
less than $200,000 and we thought we funded that last year.
That was specifically stated in our report, as I recall.
Mr. Rezendes. It did not happen.
Senator Stevens. Do you know what the smallest population
tribe is that receives TPA?
Mr. Rezendes. I think they are down to, there is one with
one.
Senator Stevens. One person?
Mr. Rezendes. Is that correct?
We believe there is one tribe with one.
Senator Stevens. One tribe with one person?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. How much did that tribe receive?
Ms. Duncan. In terms of the tribal distribution
specifically, we did not go through and identify specifically
which tribes got exactly--excuse me. We identified which tribes
got how much money. For the purposes of this testimony, we
don't have that information available.
However, based on the information in the Bureau's listing
of Indian service populations, there are some tribes--and I
cannot tell you off-hand how many--that have very small
enrollments. In fact, a couple here report zero. I don't know
how reliable those numbers are.
In the event that there are tribes with very small
populations like that, they would be small and needy if they
received less than $160,000 in TPA funds.
Senator Stevens. But you don't know how much they actually
received for those small populations?
Ms. Duncan. All of the tribes that were identified by the
Bureau as being small and needy received $160,000 pursuant to
the direction in the appropriation.
Mr. Rezendes. I would add to that also, to give you a
little more information, some tribes that were not even
federally designated tribes received some funds.
Senator Stevens. Now Ms. McInerney-Comstock pointed out to
me that at least two entities received funds that were not
listed in the tribal list.
Mr. Rezendes. That's correct, the Valdez and Kodiak. We
were told, and Interior is checking this out, that there may be
four others that received TPA funds also that were not on the
tribal list.
That occurs--and BIA I am sure is going to speak to this
also--because they were part of a compact and the compact
received TPA funds and distributed it to its members.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Stevens. One second, please.
I don't know of a worse mess than the way they have handled
the Alaskan tribal situation in this administration. We are
setting a precedent here of anticipation of continued funding
which just cannot be sustained unless we get some rational
formula that applies to tribes based upon population plus need,
some allocation of need.
I hope that you can come up with some type of
recommendation to Congress as to what kind of information we
should have before we attempt to legislate such a formula.
Yes, Senator?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on your
question, is it possible that a tribe with an enrollment of one
received the $160,000 of TPA funds?
Mr. Rezendes. Oh, it's quite possible. Yes.
This is still preliminary. It is still ongoing. We have not
checked all of the information out. We are just using BIA data
and BIA reported service populations. That data is not very
good, so we still have additional work to do.
Senator Stevens. It is obvious that we do not impose audits
where it is perhaps more costly to have the audit than the
funds involved. But it appears that we are getting into a
situation where we don't have the financial information that is
necessary. Are you looking at that, too, in terms of what level
of funds should be covered by an audit?
Mr. Rezendes. GAO has already taken a position on that.
As you know, the Single Audit Act applies to all entities
that are expending Federal assistance. Basically, the threshold
was just raised from $100,000 to $300,000 in 1997.
Senator Stevens. But where there is compacting, it would
seem to me that the compact would be covered, even though the
individual entities within the compact were not receiving more
than $300,000. The compact itself should cover all of those
within the compact.
Mr. Rezendes. Only to the extent that they are expending
Federal assistance. Now they can get income from other sources
and those can be comingled, either from their private
businesses or for profit entities which are structured within
those compacts.
In fact, we found that that was one of the reasons why half
of these reports that we looked at received qualified opinions
from the CPA firms, because there was not a complete disclosure
of the entire entity.
Senator Stevens. I am monopolizing this and I'm sorry. My
colleagues are going to have some questions. But I want to get
to one other aspect, which is this.
You indicated that 98 tribes reported a total of $1.2
billion in business operating income. Did those tribes that had
that income also receive TPA funds?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes; I am trying to figure out where our
numbers are right here.
Do you remember what they are?
Ms. Naiberk. For those tribes that report operating income
and also receive TPA funds?
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Rezendes. Yes.
Ms. Naiberk. We identified, I think, 98 tribes that
received operating income.
Senator Stevens. I'm told there is a Washington Post
article just recently that indicates that some of these tribes
are already distributing profits to their members on a per
capita basis and are still receiving TPA funds. Is that
correct?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes; we found 43 tribes that reported
payments to their members, totaling $324 million.
Senator Stevens. That is allowed under the current law,
isn't it?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. So there are 43 tribes that paid a total,
I am told, of $324 million, which range from $25,000 to $38
million, the average being $7.5 million?
Mr. Rezendes. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. We have a vote on. I didn't realize that.
Would you take over for me, please?
Senator Burns. Are we a rudderless ship?
Mr. Rezendes. I would only point out that we are going to
be around. BIA is going to testify next and we will stick
around if you want to ask more questions later.
I don't want you to feel pressured. We will be here.
Senator Domenici [presiding]. Oh, don't worry. I won't feel
pressured. [Laughter.]
I may do something else, but don't worry about that.
Did you have any further questions, Senator Dorgan?
Senator Dorgan. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Why don't you proceed.
Senator Dorgan. I don't want to apply any pressure to the
chairman or the witnesses. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. I am unaccustomed to chairing committees,
as you know. [Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. Let me understand just for a moment the
discussion you had with Chairman Stevens about tribes with
either no enrolled members or one enrolled member receiving a
minimum allocation of TPA.
Can you review for me again why a TPA minimum allocation of
$160,000 would go to a tribe with no enrolled members or one
enrolled member?
Mr. Rezendes. Basically, the rationale for the program is
to help those tribes in terms of governance and organization.
There is a certain threshold, I believe tribes with less than
1,500 members, who are to receive a minimum allocation of
$160,000 in the lower 48 and $200,000 in Alaska to help them
with their governance and organizational structure.
Some of the numbers we looked at also show there are some
rather minimum numbers of members.
I have to say, though, that we are not confident in the
population data that we have, whether it is accurate. I know
that BIA has some concerns about the data also.
I think by everybody's admission, there are certainly
tribes out there with low populations. The exact numbers may be
in question here.
Senator Dorgan. But one or zero is not low. That is not
confidence.
Mr. Rezendes. What I am saying is we don't have any
confidence that the zero is accurate or the one is accurate.
But there are probably some out there in the teens.
Senator Dorgan. But at least with respect to the one, you
could just send someone to the area and say is there one here?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes, right.
Senator Dorgan. I had a hearing on the Turtle Mountain
Indian Reservation on TPA. The reason I am asking these
questions is 3 or 4 years ago I had a hearing on the Turtle
Mountain Reservation. This is a reservation that is small in
square miles but very dense in population. It is our largest
tribe in terms of population and it has desperate poverty, just
desperate poverty.
I was trying to understand how the TPA funds were
allocated. I had folks fly in from the BIA. They came up from
Aberdeen and elsewhere. There was a lengthy hearing where I was
able to question them at length. It was determined that none of
us, including those who administered the TPA funds, could tell
me the formula with which the TPA program was administered.
No one understood it.
Mr. Rezendes. I agree. They get three-quarters of $1
billion for the program. Most of that, about two-thirds of it,
about $500 million is what is called base funds. We have been
working diligently to ask what are their justifications or
rationales as to how the base funds are distributed. We are
told, clearly, that there is no documentation. It is based on
historical levels and these things just have grown over the
years to that level and no one can really articulate clearly as
to why each tribe gets that amount.
Senator Dorgan. That is what I discovered in these
hearings. I mean, it is an unforgivable lack of accountability,
it seems to me, in a program like this to not be able to
develop some stream of paper on why this money is allocated a
certain way.
I have one final question. You referred to a de minimis
level for auditing purposes.
Mr. Rezendes. Yes; in the Single Audit Act, any entity
expending over $300,000 in Federal funds must be audited and
submit a certified financial statement on an annual basis. What
we did is we looked at all of the statements, 326, that were on
file from the tribes at the Department of Interior.
Senator Dorgan. Would a statement have been submitted for
someone under $300,000?
Mr. Rezendes. No.
In 1997, the threshold changed. Prior to 1997, it was
$100,000. After 1997, it became $300,000.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, you know, $160,000 is still a
lot of money where I come from. It seems to me the question the
chairman asked about aggregation with respect to these compacts
is important. But even if such aggregation was not triggering
such a report, it seems to me we ought to revisit that.
Thank you for allowing me to ask my questions.
Senator Domenici. Let me proceed in the absence of Senator
Stevens with some of the questions he would have. I do think it
is very important that at the earliest practical time, today if
possible, that we get to the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs, who is new on the job, committed to trying to fix some
of these things and others. There are many problems at the BIA
besides this one. We ought to hear from him as much as we can.
Could I ask you, if you know, of these so-called profits
that the Indian tribes have realized and from whence
distribution has occurred, as you have described it, do you
know the kind of businesses that have yielded that? Is it
predominantly gambling money?
Mr. Rezendes. No; it is across the board. It includes
everything from the amounts that they have received from taxes
and leases, money they received from settlements--it covers
everything.
As you know, the Indian Gaming Commission requires tribes
to report Indian gambling and that is reported separately. But
some tribes also reported it. It depends on how their
organization and financial structure is arranged as to whether
it is also reported on their financial statements under the
Single Audit Act.
Senator Domenici. We know that 43 tribes paid out an
average of $7.5 million in profits on a per capita basis. What
we don't know is how many more tribes paid out that much or
more because they don't have to provide this information.
Mr. Rezendes. That's correct, yes.
Senator Domenici. Why don't they?
Mr. Rezendes. Well, under the Single Audit Act, the only
requirement there is is that part that relates to the Federal
Government.
Senator Domenici. Gotcha.
Mr. Rezendes. If their books are comingled, in fact, a lot
of the financial statements did not receive--received a
qualified audited opinion, which means the CPA firm had a
problem. It was because those pieces were not included or
disclosed and they view them as an integral part of the
organizational structure.
Senator Domenici. Do we have any way of knowing how much
profit flowed back into their tribes before they made the
distributions to members?
Mr. Rezendes. We have not looked at that.
Senator Domenici. OK.
Yes?
Ms. Duncan. The information that we obtained from the
financial statements, those operating profits were taken before
there were transfers to other parts of the tribe. We did that
so that we were not taking into account money transferred in
from another section.
So that information would be--or may be--reflected in the
financial statements if there was such a distribution.
Senator Domenici. Do all of the 43 tribes that made
distributions receive full BIA funding, including TPA?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes; just about all tribes listed on BIA's
list received TPA funds.
Senator Domenici. You have noted in your report, your
statement, that some tribes reported more complete information
in their single audit standard than others. Is that correct?
Mr. Rezendes. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Do we have any reason?
Mr. Rezendes. Again, this gets to an arcane accounting
thing. It depends on how their books are structured.
For example, let me give you a more real example. Suppose
some tribes had a little convenience store as a business. If
that was an integral part of the tribe's activities, those
incomes and expenses should have been included in their
financial statement because of the potential liability.
Suppose someone fell at this convenience store and there
was a liability that would have a call on the assets of the
tribe. That should be disclosed there. So it depends on how
they were structured and how the controls of the financial
arrangements were made.
Senator Domenici. How many of the 326 financial statements
received qualified auditors' opinions?
Mr. Rezendes. About half.
I should also mention that just because you received an
unqualified opinion, which meant that the CPA firm thought
everything was OK, all he is attesting to is that the
presentation that the tribes are making as to how they spent
their money is fully disclosed. It does not mean that the
expenditures were OK. It is just that they are disclosing
whatever kind of problems they have.
Senator Domenici. Do the 326 financial statements actually
represent 326 tribes?
Mr. Rezendes. No; they represent more than that, probably
about 400 tribes of the over 500 that are actually recognized.
The reason for that is because of consortia and various
groupings of how they keep their books.
Senator Domenici. Unless Senators at the dais have further
questions, I think we are going to take you up on your offer.
As I gather, what we are really trying to do is to come up
with something that is more equitable than what we have been
doing, and you are helping us in that regard by finding out
information. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Rezendes. That is a fair assessment.
I have to tell you, though, that we are having a difficult
time because of the information that is out there, either in
terms of the lack of justifications or historical information
or the quality of the information that we are receiving. So
that will put a limitation on.
Senator Domenici. So maybe I should ask the question this
way. In that context, is there anything we as a committee, or
as a Senate, can do to help you in that regard?
Nobody is refusing to give you information, I hope.
Mr. Rezendes. Oh, no. Exactly. In fact, I think BIA sees
the same problems with the information that we do. I think they
see them clearly. I think what their problems are is the lack
of leverage, particularly under the Single Audit Act, in terms
of making tribes do them as they are required to do. Apparently
not all of them are submitting it, even though it is a Federal
requirement. And once the information does come in and does
show problems, you must get those corrective actions taken so
that you have adequate and fair presentation of the financial
expenditures that were done with the Federal funds.
Senator Domenici. From my standpoint, I want to just state
for the record as one Senator from Indian country--and I have
the largest population percentage in any of our States and more
individual Indian entities than any other State; we have 19
pueblos in the State and have only three U.S. Representatives,
so we are not a big State--I would wish that the Indian people
did not have to divulge any of their proprietary business
information. I assume that is impossible so long as we are
contributing significant amounts of money to the Indian tribes
and reservations in various forms because Congress will want to
know, and that is what has led us to this audit by you.
Mr. Rezendes. Exactly.
Senator Domenici. I hope the Indian people understand that
we were on the threshold of having a brand new arbitrary
formula which just said how much money do you make and if you
make more than another tribe, you get less of the Federal
Government's money. One could think of all kinds of reasons why
that may very well have been very arbitrary.
So, rather than do that, we are in the midst of trying to
find out a better way.
We thank you all very much.
Now would the Assistant Secretary please come to the table
and bring with him whomever he needs for his testimony.
Welcome, Mr. Assistant Secretary. Do you have some opening
remarks and would you introduce the people you have with you,
please?
summary statement of hon. kevin gover
Mr. Gover. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
To my left is Hilda Manuel, the Deputy Commissioner of
Indian Affairs. To my right is Joann Sebastian Morris, the
Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you.
Let me sort of summarize briefly. We have a statement for
the record. Let me highlight a few items and then turn to a
discussion about some of the things that the committee has just
heard about.
Our budget request for fiscal year 1999 reflects basically
three priorities and three major differences from our current
operating budget. The first is education. We are requesting an
increase both in school construction and facilities improvement
and repair, and in operating funds for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs schools.
Second, we are asking for a $25 million increase in law
enforcement funds to address a problem of growing crime on the
reservations, increasingly violent crime, and increasing youth
crime, all three of which have become painfully clear.
This is part of an overall administration initiative
involving the Justice Department and the Department of Interior
that would increase the resources available to reservation law
enforcement programs by over $180 million.
The third item I wish to emphasize is the request for
additional funding to finance our efforts at trust management
improvement. As you well know, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
had some very serious problems in the past in the management of
Indian trust assets, primarily the trust funds. The special
trustee has developed and the Secretary has modified and
approved a program for the improvement of the Bureau's
administration of trust funds and trust assets generally.
prepared statement
In fiscal year 1999, we anticipate that we will need
additional funds in order to do some of the sort of backfilling
that needs to be done to clean up the system so that after the
year 2000, we will have nothing but good data going into a good
system and producing a good outcome.
With that, Mr. Chairman, those are our primary points to
make today. We would be happy to answer questions, particularly
regarding the tribal priority allocations.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Gover
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Kevin
Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the
Interior. It is my pleasure to be here today to present the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
While I have been the Assistant Secretary only four months, I must say
it has been an exciting and educational time. In addition to presenting
the BIA budget today, I want to expand on a few of the issues that
concern me and to emphasize some that I believe will provide us with
opportunities to assist Indian people.
bia's programs
In the last two centuries, the Congress has passed more Federal
laws dealing with Indian tribes and Alaska Natives than any other group
of people in the United States. While the Snyder Act, the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, and the Indian
Education Amendments of 1978 provide the primary budgetary authorities,
numerous statutes, court decisions, treaties and other authorities
(including those passed in the early 1800's regulating trade with
Indians) continue to guide the BIA's mission and administration. The
diversity of these mandates frequently requires the BIA to balance the
inherent conflicts and problems created by more than 200 years of
shifting and evolving Federal-Indian policy.
The BIA's most basic responsibilities are its trust obligations and
facilitating tribal self-determination. However, while the protection
of trust resources is a fundamental responsibility, tribes struggling
to meet the basic needs of their communities must compete for the same
limited resources the BIA uses to protect trust resources. The BIA's
success relies on judiciously balancing these competing mandates.
The BIA provides services directly, or through Self-Determination
contract, grant and compact agreements with tribes, to more than 1.2
million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 31 states. The scope of
BIA programs is extensive and covers virtually the entire range of
state and local government services. BIA's programs are funded and
operated in a highly decentralized manner with 90 percent of all
appropriations expended at the local level with an increasing amount
operated by tribes and tribal organizations under contracts or self-
governance compacts. In addition, the BIA administers more than 43
million acres of tribally-owned land, more than 11 million acres of
individually owned land held in trust status and 443,000 acres of
Federally owned land.
While the BIA's role has changed significantly during the past two
decades with an increasingly greater emphasis on Indian self-
determination; Indian tribes still look to the BIA for a broad spectrum
of critical and complex programs administered either by the tribes or
the BIA. Among these are an education system for an estimated 53,000
elementary and secondary students; 26 Tribally controlled community
colleges; law enforcement and detention services on more than 200
reservations; social service programs for children, families, the
elderly, and the disabled; management of the forest, mineral, fishery
and farmland resources on trust land; the maintenance of more than
25,000 miles of roads on rural and isolated reservations; economic
development programs in some of the more depressed areas in the U.S.;
the implementation of legislated land and water claim settlements; the
replacement and repair of schools and detention centers; and the repair
of structural deficiencies on high hazard dams.
bia's constituents
The BIA's programs serve communities that face great challenges.
According to the 1990 census, the American Indian population increased
to more than 1.2 million, four times the population reported in 1960.
While part of this increase is due to an increase in self-
identification, a large portion is the result of a natural population
increase. Based on this rapid rate of growth, the Census Bureau
estimates that the American Indian population will reach 4.3 million,
representing just over 1 percent of the population, by the year 2050.
Geographically diverse, almost half of American Indians reside on
approximately 300 reservations and other restricted and trust lands
located throughout the United States. Reservations can vary in size
from a few acres, such as the rancherias in California, to the 17.5
million-acre Navajo reservation. Approximately 63 percent of American
Indians reside in urban areas--half of whom are concentrated in a
relatively small number of cities. According to the 1990 census, more
than one-half of the American Indian population live in six states:
Oklahoma, California, Arizona, Alaska, Washington and New Mexico.
The census also reports that the median age of American Indians is
26 years, compared to 33 years for the population at large. This young
population is in part the result of mortality rates that are higher for
American Indians than for the U.S. population. Cardiovascular disease
is the leading cause of mortality among American Indians. Other leading
causes of mortality are homicide, suicide and accidents, alcohol-
related and primarily affecting Indians in their teens through mid-
20's. It is estimated that alcohol-related deaths among American
Indians are four times greater than the national average.
By any socioeconomic measure, American Indians trail the general
U.S. population. According to the census, an American Indian's family
median income was 61 percent when compared to the total U.S.
population. The per capita income was 54 percent for American Indians
residing on all reservations and trust lands when compared to all
American Indians. In addition, American Indians are nearly two and one-
half times as likely to be living below the poverty level as the U.S.
population in general.
According to research, two factors account for the decline in
American Indians' overall income. While American Indian men's
educational progress has improved with tangible results, it did not
contribute to a relative gain in income, because non-Indian men also
improved their skills and education. The U.S. economy contributed to
this situation because the least skilled and least educated were
rewarded less and found it harder to remain employed. Since American
Indian men were disproportionately represented, the overall income of
American Indian men fell. (American Indian women witnessed increased
incomes; however, this was largely attributable to an increase in
annual hours worked.) In other words, improvements in education levels
or labor market experiences of American Indians had little impact on
gains in relative incomes.
In summary, American Indians are younger and have higher levels of
poverty, unemployment, single parent families, fertility and mortality
than the U.S. population at large. Tragically, trends are deteriorating
for this highly vulnerable population.
While all these conditions are deplorable, I want to emphasize the
problems of alcohol, substance abuse and the incidence of suicide.
These issues deeply troubled me before I came to the BIA and I remain
especially concerned about the current state of our Indian youth. I
have already taken two steps to confront these widespread and deeply
rooted problems. While touring Indian schools in North Dakota, at the
request of Senators Dorgan and Conrad, I met with tribal leaders,
students, parents, and others about an epidemic of suicide among the
youth of the Standing Rock Reservation. I urged the tribe and the
community to develop a plan to combat this problem using all of the
traditional and current wisdom that can be tapped. I believe each tribe
must do this in order to form tribal solutions to tribal problems. I
firmly believe that solutions to community problems must come from
Indian Country, not from Washington. I have pledged federal resources
when they can assist these local efforts to stop this loss of young
life. I hope that efforts to help the young people at Standing Rock can
be an inspiration to other tribes facing similar problems.
I have issued a similar request to tribal leaders and members at
the National Congress of American Indians meeting in New Mexico in
November. Tribes must conquer our crippling problem of alcohol and drug
abuse among American Indians, especially our young people. Again, I
firmly believe this must be a tribally created program and not a
federal program. However, I believe it is wise and appropriate to use
Federal expertise and resources to assist this tribally driven effort.
Already, I've received a resoundingly strong response to this call and
look forward to the creation of a steady and successful effort to
educate Indian people about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse. I
have also met with an Indian Education Advisory Group promoting an
Indian Education Executive Order that would facilitate a comprehensive
education effort.
In summary of this critical need, I would like to ask that you
support the other agencies' funding requests relative to future
efforts. There are proposed increases for funding alcohol and substance
abuse prevention activities in both the Indian Health Service and the
Department of Justice budget proposals. I strongly support these
proposals and would appreciate your support as well.
fiscal year 1999 special initiatives
BIA schools restoration
Eighty-two percent of the BIA's building square footage is
educational space. These buildings are old and often in poor condition.
Two percent are more than 100 years old, 20 percent are more than 50
years old, and 50 percent are more than 30 years old. Yet most
educational facilities are built for functional uses for an average of
only 25 years.
This initiative is to provide for the increased construction,
equipment and rehabilitation of school facilities for more than 53,000
Indian students who attend the 185 Indian schools. The BIA seeks a $32
million increase to provide safe, functional and economical educational
facilities in Indian communities. This construction program provides
for the construction of new facilities to replace existing facilities,
and the rehabilitation, upgrade, or repair of the existing facilities
where feasible. Schools may be operated directly by the BIA or by
tribal organizations under the contracting authorities.
Research has demonstrated that placing instructional and
residential programs in facilities that do not meet health and safety
codes distract from the educational program. The cost estimate of the
BIA's backlog work needed to abate such health and safety code
deficiencies in education facilities currently exceeds $695 million.
This initiative provides for one additional replacement school, the
completion of two schools that were started this year, and a nearly 50
percent increase over the fiscal year 1998 education facilities
improvement and repair funding.
Law enforcement in Indian country
Crime is a seriously increasing problem in Indian Country. A
reported crime in Indian Country is twice as likely to be violent as
compared to crime reported elsewhere in the United States. However,
there are fewer than half as many law enforcement officers per capita.
The purpose of this initiative is to improve law enforcement and
detention services in Indian Country.
Tribal leaders consistently express concern for the poor quality of
law enforcement services provided to Indian Country. This is
exemplified by worn-out equipment, dilapidated police and detention
facilities, reduced law enforcement staff and limited financial
resources. The poor quality of law enforcement services is directly
related to the inadequate level of funding available to the BIA and
tribes for law enforcement and detention programs.
Pursuant to President Clinton's directive of August 25, 1997, the
Secretary of the Interior and the United States Attorney General worked
with Indian tribal leaders to analyze the law enforcement problems and
to provide options to improve public safety in Indian Country. The
resulting initiative consolidates the existing three major law
enforcement areas (uniformed police, criminal investigation and
detention) under the line and budgetary authority of the BIA's Office
of Law Enforcement Services (OLES), and provides for a considerable
increase in the number of on reservation officers. Additionally, it
continues the good work the DOJ has commenced through grant programs
such as the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and expands
other DOJ grants. It is my intent to see that public safety is
significantly improved.
The Bureau's share of this initiative will be used to finance
officers for tribes that choose not to contract law enforcement
programs and to support the DOJ grant programs. DOJ grants such as COPS
can be made available for law enforcement staff, but not for training
and equipment. DOJ and the Bureau are preparing an implementation plan
to assure that the combined funds for the law enforcement initiative
are optimally used.
clean water and the environment
Water quality is a prime indicator of the quality of the
environment and the quality of life. The Water Quality Management
Planning initiative ($5 million) is to improve the quality of water and
the environment on reservations in the Missouri, Rio Grande, Columbia,
Upper Mississippi and Colorado River basins. The initiative is to
develop a comprehensive analysis of reservation water quality and
tribal watershed management planning, and to relate these activities to
the overall water quality concerns and other watershed management
planning efforts of the river basin in question. Information developed
through this project can be used to help target BIA funding for
environmental protection and guide resources management planning
efforts and opportunities. The results of the analysis will permit
better focus of environmental protection efforts and cleanup efforts on
and off the reservations. The larger result will be a higher quality of
life.
The BIA's environmental compliance program has been under funded
for many years. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun
assessing penalties against BIA for noncompliance with environmental
requirements: most recently, EPA has proposed to fine BIA $937,000 for
violations of the underground storage tank regulations. EPA has also
issued an enforcement action against BIA for RCRA reporting violations,
which resulted in BIA agreeing to penalties, audits and training
expenses that will exceed $600,000. BIA must begin to address its
environmental obligations, and I am taking internal steps to assure
that this occurs. However, additional funding is needed to correct
years of noncompliance. Therefore, I ask you to support BIA's fiscal
year 1999 budget request of $11,790,000 for BIA's environmental
management program (currently split between the Office of Trust
Responsibilities ($6,780,000) and the Facilities Management and
Construction Center ($5,010,000). This amount is $6,010,000 more than
was appropriated for environmental projects in fiscal year 1998, and
will allow BIA to begin to address a $100 million backlog of
environmental cleanup work that BIA is aware exists in Indian
communities throughout the country and to initiate baseline
environmental audits of BIA facilities which are required by the
Department of the Interior to be completed in 2002. I believe that the
$100 million of known clean up costs represent only a fraction of the
existing contamination, and that the figure will increase substantially
as the baseline environmental audits take place. BIA's request,
although an increase over fiscal year 1998 funding levels for
environmental compliance, is merely the first step in a multi-year
process to bring BIA into full compliance with environmental
regulations. In addition, some of this funding will be provided to
tribal governments to assist them in their efforts to bring tribal
facilities into compliance with applicable environmental standards.
indian land consolidation pilot
The successive inheritances of allotted Individual Indian lands
held in Trust by the Federal Government have led to individual land
parcels held by a large number of people with a small fractional
interest. This initiative provides for the establishment and
implementation of a land acquisition program to consolidate the
fractionated ownership of trust and/or restricted Indian lands. The
funds will be used to establish an Indian Land Consolidation Pilot
within the BIA to acquire the fractional interests of Indian
individuals. The primary emphasis of the acquisition fund will be to
acquire those interests that represent 2 percent or less of the
ownership interest; however, consideration will be given to acquiring
interests greater than 2 percent. Fractionated ownership of allotted
Indian lands is a pervasive problem which is seriously deterring the
Federal Government's ability to administer and manage the trust/
restricted lands, maintain accurate and up-to-date ownership records,
and trust fund accounts. It also limits tribes and tribal members from
realizing the full economic potential of their lands. Therefore,
funding is critical in assuring the optimum integrity and usefulness of
systems in terms of trust asset management.
More than half of the BIA's current Real Estate Services program
budget is spent on administering 20 percent of the trust and restricted
lands. Implementation of a fractionated interest acquisition program
will assure the reduction of the number of fractionated owner interests
which, in turn, will enable the BIA to more timely process real estate
services transactions (leases, sales, rights of way, etc.) as well as
maintain current ownership and title records. This reduction of owner
interests in trust and restricted lands will facilitate the timely
distribution of trust income. The results will be savings to the real
estate services, land titles and records and trust fund programs
administered by the Federal Government and better ensure that the
Federal fiduciary responsibility is met.
In addition to the Land Consolidation Pilot, the BIA request
supports two of the Administration's major efforts to reform the
management of Indian trust funds and address deficiencies of the past.
The BIA has a significant role in the Trust Management Improvement
Project being overseen by the Office of Special Trustee. Efforts are
required to ensure data housed in existing or new systems are accurate;
and to eliminate trust processing backlogs to ensure records are up-to-
date, particularly land ownership records. An increase of $5.2 million
is requested for probate and land records backlog reductions. The
Bureau will also work jointly with the Office of Special Trustee to
acquire a comprehensive Trust Asset and Accounting Management System
(TAAMS) to replace components of BIA's currently inadequate, and not
uniformly used, Integrated Resources Managements System (IRMS). TAAMS
will include master lease, billing and accounts receivable, collection,
and resource management subsystems. TAAMS components are also expected
to be off-the-shelf systems, maintained and operated by contractors.
fiscal year 1999 budget summary
The 1999 budget request for BIA is $1,844,136,000 in current
appropriations, an increase of $142,145,000 above the 1998 enacted
level. The budget stresses the resources tribes need to provide basic
reservation programs and develop strong and stable governments, ensure
accreditation of BIA schools, address critical infrastructure needs,
and meet the Secretary's trust responsibilities. The BIA continues to
keep administrative costs low.
In fiscal year 1999, the BIA will continue to operate as a highly
streamlined and decentralized agency with maximum resources going to
Tribal programs. The BIA anticipates that more than half of the fiscal
year 1999 operating and construction budget will be spent directly by
tribes that elect to operate various BIA programs under self-
determination contracts, grants, or self-governance compacts.
operation of indian programs
For fiscal year 1999, the total request for the Operation of Indian
Programs is $1,638,681,000, an increase of $110,093,000 over the fiscal
year 1998 Enacted level.
Tribal priority allocations (TPA)
TPA provides the principal source of funds for local units of
government, most of which are small and lack independent resources to
meet the increasing costs of Tribal government operations.
Congressional funding levels in 1996 and 1997 forced Tribal governments
and the BIA to fall behind in their ability to maintain services to
Indian communities and families, necessitating full funding of the
fiscal year 1999 request. Tribes depend on the TPA budget activity for
basic necessities and services such as law enforcement, child welfare,
scholarships, natural resource management, and other programs critical
to improving the quality of life and the economic potential of the
reservations. Congress has given the tribes the flexibility to
prioritize funds among TPA programs according to their unique needs and
circumstances. TPA supports the goals of Indian self-determination by
providing tribes with the choice of programs provided as well as the
means of delivery, either by the tribe or the BIA.
For fiscal year 1999, the TPA activity is funded at $791,210,000,
an increase of $33,862,000 over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level,
which will help tribes address the unmet needs in these basic programs.
Program increases proposed in this budget submission include $640,000
for New Tribes to support an anticipated four newly acknowledged tribes
as they begin to establish viable Tribal government operations.
An increase of $4,015,000 is requested for Contract Support which,
when coupled with the $5 million internal transfer from the Indian
Self-Determination Fund, will provide $9,015,000 over the 1998
requested level, helping to fulfill BIA's goal of encouraging tribal
self-determination through increased contracting and compacting. An
increase of $3 million is proposed for Small and Needy Tribes to
support the operation of viable Tribal governments. With the
Congressional action during the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations process
of funding Small and Needy with the TPA increase, these funds will go
entirely to Alaska to move those Native Alaskans toward the Task Force
recommended level of $200,000.
An increase of $5 million is requested for Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention so that tribes can establish or enhance
existing child abuse and neglect prevention, substance abuse prevention
(a significant direct cause of the Indian child abuse that exists) and
family violence prevention programs. Tribes from across the country
voiced deep concern about child abuse at the National Budget Hearing in
May 1997. Child abuse and neglect referrals for 1992-1996 average
almost 30,000 annually. An increase of $2 million is requested for the
Tribal Work Experience Program in order to assist tribes with the
resources they need to develop a comprehensive welfare reform program,
and $2 million is requested for Adult Care Facilities Rehabilitation,
which will result in savings to the BIA when these facilities meet
State standards.
Other recurring programs
The priority for the new millennium described as first and most
important by the President in his August speech is the education of our
children. The BIA is responsible for the only major domestic elementary
and secondary education system operated by the Federal Government. As
such, it is incumbent that this system reflects the high standards
President Clinton has set for all education. In support of this
Presidential priority, the BIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request
includes a significant investment in Indian education. The request for
School Operations, which will fund schools and dormitories serving more
than 53,000 elementary and secondary students in 23 States, is
$486,885,000, a program increase of $26,498,000 over the fiscal year
1998 enacted level. The increase will ensure that schools can deliver
quality education, and provide safe and adequate transportation for the
estimated 3 percent increase in enrollment. Increases are also proposed
in facilities operations and maintenance, administrative cost grants,
and employee displacement costs to encourage the continuation of
schools going into grant status and under tribal control.
The budget request increases operating grants to the 26 Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges by $5,500,000 over fiscal year 1998. The
colleges have been extraordinarily successful in providing pre-college
adult education to Indian students that enables them to earn college
degrees and eventual professional employment. They also promote
entrepreneurship on reservations.
Non-recurring programs
The budget includes trust investments crucial to program
performance in the out years. The request level for the BIA's
environmental management program is $6,780,000, the same as the fiscal
year 1998 President's budget request, but $3 million more than
appropriated in fiscal year 1998, to begin to address an estimated $200
million backlog of environmental cleanup work in Indian communities
throughout the country. An additional $1 million is requested for
endangered species to support tribal participation in species recovery.
An additional $1,100,000 is requested for the Navajo-Hopi Settlement
Program to provide services in areas that have been under served as a
result of the Navajo-Hopi disagreement.
Other program increases include $1 million for Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission re-licensing activities, and $3 million for
Probate Backlog Reduction efforts. The probate backlog reduction effort
is necessary to meet the Secretary's directive to eliminate backlogs
and make timely distributions of funds derived from trust and
restricted lands.
Another of my highest priorities is the $3.5 million increase for
the Water Rights Studies and Negotiations program. This program,
critical to fulfilling the basic Federal trust responsibility, funds
negotiating teams that help individual Tribes settle their water rights
claims through the negotiating process. The lack of adequate funding
for this program will result in diminishment of reservation water
entitlements and increased litigation, which is always more costly to
the Federal Government.
construction
The request for the BIA Construction appropriation is $152,054,000,
with $86,612,000 for Education Construction. The BIA will continue to
make progress in eliminating the unobligated balances in Construction
facilities projects. Increased emphasis on tribal contracting for
projects will be supported by awarding and approving officials being
located within Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC)
until the tribes and Agencies are fully trained to take over the
construction contracting challenge.
The Replacement School Construction program funds replacement of
older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools on reservations following a
Congressionally approved priority list which is currently limited to 16
schools. In fiscal year 1999, $37,400,000 is requested to complete
construction of the Seba Dalkai School in Arizona, the Sac and Fox
Settlement School in Iowa, and the Pyramid Lake High School in Nevada.
These schools are numbers nine, ten and eleven, respectively, on the
priority list and necessary planning and design work is complete. The
Education Facilities Improvement and Repair Program is funded at
$46,212,000 and includes an increase of $14 million over fiscal year
1998 to address the $695 million backlog of repair work in existing
education facilities, a focus of considerable concern within the BIA,
the Department, the Administration and Congress.
The budget requests no new funding for Public Safety and Justice
construction within the BIA request. It is proposed that new detention
centers on reservations will be funded in the Department of Justice's
appropriation as recommended by the President's initiative on law
enforcement in Indian Country, and strongly supported by the
Administration.
The budget requests $22,024,000 for the correction of structural
deficiencies of high hazard dams on Indian lands. The backlog of
repairs to hazardous dams currently exceeds $400 million. The BIA is
responsible for 115 of the 420 high and significant hazard dams on the
Department's Technical Priority List. These dams pose significant
potential loss of life or, at a minimum, significant economic damage
with liability resting with the Federal Government, both on and off
Indian reservations and for both Indian and non-Indian communities. In
fiscal year 1999, BIA will begin correction of high risk problems on
dams in Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota and Montana.
indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians
This program provides payments to meet Federal requirements for
legislated settlements. The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes
$38,396,000 for payments for settlements resolving long standing tribal
claims to water and lands. A large share of the fiscal year 1999
program continues to be dedicated to the Ute Indian Rights Settlement,
in order to move closer to the funding schedule set forth in the
Settlement Act. In addition, the fiscal year 1999 request includes
funding for resolving the Rocky Boys Water Rights settlement claims.
government performance and results act
As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of
1993, the BIA has submitted a strategic plan as a component to the
Department of the Interior's strategic plan. Based on addressing high-
priority tribal needs amid a multitude of statutes, court rulings and
treaty obligations, the BIA's Strategic Plan defines the BIA's long-
term mission and general goals. The performance goals reflected in the
1999 Annual Performance Plan support these broad goals. Achievement of
these annual performance goals will mark the BIA's progress in meeting
its mission as set forth in the Strategic Plan.
The BIA's 1999 Annual Performance Plan meets the fundamental GPRA
requirements, as well as those required by the Office of Management and
Budget. First, it describes the mission statement and general goals. To
show the linkage between the long-term and short-term goals, the
general goals are described with the associated annual goals. The
related annual performance goals are described with 1999 indicators;
descriptions of the operational processes, skills, and technologies,
and the human, capital, information and other resources necessary to
meet the performance goals; and a description of the means that will be
used to verify and validate measured values. The annual performance
goals are consistent with available funding expected to achieve the
designated targets and are consistent with and integrated with the
BIA's President's budget request.
Performance measurements will require the collection of baseline
data from which to assess progress. Information collection will be an
important activity for the BIA to fill a gap that exists for two
primary reasons. First, BIA in the past emphasized program delivery
over collecting information on how to improve the programs. Second, BIA
tribes have not developed the means to collect relevant information for
compacts and contracts. Consequently, baseline data does not exist for
most programs. OMB guidance on meeting GPRA requirements allows
agencies to develop baseline data and describe how it will be defined
and collected with the initial Annual Performance Plan.
This concludes my remarks about the BIA budget request for fiscal
year 1999. I will be happy to answer any questions.
______
Biographical Sketch of Kevin Gover
Mr. Gover is the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the
Department of the Interior. As the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Gover
provides executive leadership to the Department's activities and
programs for the federally recognized Indian Tribes, and is responsible
for promoting Indian self determination. These programs are carried out
by a number of Department Offices, especially by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, Office of American Indian
Trust, and the Office of Self Governance. In addition, Mr. Gover is one
of the Secretary of the Interior's primary advisors on policy and
issues dealing with American Indian people.
Prior to this appointment as the Assistant Secretary Mr. Gover was
a partner in a law firm in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Gover began his
professional career with the Washington, DC. law firm of Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shiver & Jacobson, where he specialized in environmental and
natural resources law as well as federal Indian law. He later formed
his own law firm with several partners in Albuquerque, New Mexico that
specialized in federal Indian, environmental, natural resource, and
housing law with an extensive legislative practice. Mr. Gover has
served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of
Dallas, the Southwestern Association for Indian Art, and the Land and
Water Fund of the Rockies. Mr. Gover has a B.A. in Public and
International Affairs from Princeton University and a J.D. from the
University of New Mexico Law School. Following law school, he served as
law clerk to the late U.S. District Judge Juan G. Burciga of
Albuquerque. Mr. Gover is a member of the Pawnee Tribe and is native of
Lawton, Oklahoma.
______
Biography Sketch of Hilda Ann Manuel
Ms. Manuel is the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs organization. As the Deputy Commissioner, Ms.
Manuel provides executive leadership to all major functions of the
Bureau by exercising line authority over headquarters staff offices,
area offices and field operations. Prior to her appointment as the
Deputy Commissioner Ms. Manuel served as the Staff Director of the
Indian Gaming Management staff office (IGMS). Under her direction the
IGMS was responsible for the oversight and implementation of the
Secretary's responsibilities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of
1988. Ms. Manuel also served as the Chief, Division of Tribal
Government Services prior to being hired as Staff Director of IGMS. Ms.
Manuel was initially hired as the Chief for the Branch of Judicial
Services in February 1990.
Ms. Manuel, a graduate of the University of New Mexico, School of
Law, (1976) began her career as a juvenile court judge for the Tohono
O'odham Nation in Arizona. During her tenure as juvenile judge, Ms.
Manuel established a Children's Court system which became a national
model for other Indian Tribes. In 1980, Ms. Manuel was appointed
Presiding Judge of the Tohano O'odham Court. After serving her term,
Ms. Manuel moved to the Executive Branch of the Tohono O'odham Nation
serving first as Legislative Aide to the Council and then as Director
of the Tribal Management and Support Services Department. In 1986, Ms.
Manuel left the Tohono O'odham Nation to work for the Pima County
Attorney's Office as a Deputy County Attorney, primarily handling
juvenile cases.
In addition to serving as a judge for the Tohono O'odham Nation,
Ms. Manuel also served as a judge Pro Tem for the Colorado River Indian
Tribes, Hualapai Tribe, Pascua Yaqui, Gila River Indian Community,
White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Salt River Pima
Maricopa Community and the Hopi Tribe between 1978-1987.
Ms. Manuel is a member of the State Bar of Arizona; she has also
been a member of the Tohono O'odham Police Commission, Indian Oasis
School District Board of Trustees, Arizona State Advisory Committee to
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Juvenile Justice Committee to the
Arizona State Justice Planning Agency, Indian Youth of America.
Ms. Manuel is a member of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Chukut Kuk
District. She has received numerous recognition awards including
Outstanding Young Woman of America in 1987, YWCA Woman on the Move in
1988, and a Special Achievement Award in 1993 from the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs.
______
Biographical Sketch of Joann Sebastian Morris
Ms. Joann Sebastian Morris is the Director, Office of Indian
Education Programs, effective March 1 , 1996. Prior to that assignment,
she was the Acting Director for the Office of Tribal Services since
August 1994, and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary--Indian
Affairs on education and social service issues since May, 1994. Ms.
Morris joined the Department on an IPA agreement between a regional
educational laboratory of the Department of Education and the
Department of the Interior.
Ms. Morris began her career as a social worker then moved into
education, going from teaching to administration and finally on to
research. She brings 27 years of experience in Indian education to the
position. She has worked primarily in the U.S. but also spent 6 years
in research and development work in Canada.
Ms. Morris is a Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa of Michigan, her state of
birth, and Cayuga of the Six Nations Reserve in Ontario. Her B. Ed. is
from the University of New Mexico and her M.A. in anthropology is from
U.C.L.A.
education
Senator Domenici. Let me ask this. You mentioned $25
million, which will be leveraged to $100 million for law
enforcement, but you did not mention the dollar number that the
President has sought for increases to education.
Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that we are
asking for approximately $32 million more for education
construction and that includes facilities improvement and
repair.
Senator Domenici. What is the operating increase?
Mr. Gover. We are requesting an additional $8 million for
the operation of the schools.
Senator Domenici. OK. Let me just lay before you, Mr.
Secretary, a couple of questions and observations that I have.
Then, obviously, Senator Stevens will return or Senator Gorton
will arrive. I have a meeting scheduled in my office.
I would ask somebody to call my office to tell them that I
will be a few minutes late.
And here is our chairman now.
unemployment in indian country
Let me lay before you a couple of things. The country right
now is in a state of economic euphoria. We have never had a
stronger consumer reaction in the United States to the well-
being of the economy. We have the lowest unemployment rates in
many States in decades. Do you ever ask yourself, with that
being the case, why we have such high unemployment among the
Indian people?
Now I don't expect a big answer, in detail. But does that
not concern you, that we are all missing the boat in some way
or another? The Indian people are not unable to work and get
jobs. What is wrong? What is the disparity that you see out
there?
Mr. Gover. Obviously, it concerns us very deeply. I will
say that per capita income, a lot of the measures of social
well-being are actually on the rise, along with the rest of the
country. It is just that Indian country started so very far
behind that at a time when the economy is producing only 5
percent or so unemployment, in Indian country it is 5 to 10
times that.
Ironically, or tragically, that is a considerable
improvement over the way it has been in the past. So things are
improving slowly. But still the tribes lag far behind.
The reasons why are many. They are historical, they are
institutional. There are problems, obviously, with the
isolation of the reservations.
In our own New Mexico, as you well know, the tribes used to
be very isolated from the major economic centers in the State.
That is less and less true, and I think because of that, their
prosperity is on the increase as they sort of get a portion of
the commerce that really has always gone around them.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, I am going
to give this hearing back to you. I have not asked any
questions of him except I put the one question to him which you
heard as you came in, which is why, with America in full
employment, why are the Indian people so heavily unemployed and
does that bother them. It bothers me. It bothers you. Something
is not going right.
While I think your answer is a reasonable one, I don't
think it is enough. There is something basic going on that is
much more than that they started behind it all.
education
Anyway, the other point I was going to make to you is this.
I make it very clearly and very forcibly. I am not the least
bit impressed with the President's budget on education. It is
$32 million up on school construction and we have been on the
floor talking about a backlog of over $750 million for schools
that we would not send non-Indian kids to. He gave us only $32
million more, and $8 million more for the education system
itself, while the President has asked for billions for other
schools in the United States, with which we have nothing
whatsoever to do, other than that the President would like us
to. We must do these Indian schools because nobody else will do
them. I mean, if we don't fix the Indian schools that we run,
who is going to fix them?
Also, why should we be building schools in the United
States with income taxes for the American people and having a
responsibility that is purely ours go unnoticed, almost
undetected? I don't think that is a very good policy.
I am very hopeful that, if we are doing education bills and
they are putting a lot of money elsewhere in the United States,
we can come along and put some into Indian education. It is one
of the clues as to why we have this disparity in employment.
I just want to make one other point. Clearly, Indian health
programs are going to have to be looked at carefully because
the costs are going up so fast because of things like diabetes.
To have small increases will not be sufficient. We have to find
some other very major, major approaches to Indian health.
I yield at this point to the chairman.
Senator Stevens [presiding]. Thank you very much. I am
sorry if I fouled things up. I did not notice that vote.
Senator Domenici. Yes; you were way past the time on it.
Senator Stevens. Yes; and I am one who usually complains
when people are late.
Senator Domenici. Did your vote count? I mean, was it the
deciding vote? It was close.
Senator Stevens. No; I don't think so.
tpa task force distribution
I am a little bit disturbed about what happened this last
year. We did have a $24 million increase. It was split evenly
between 12 BIA areas.
Now we intended that that was to be used to try to bring
about greater equality in the way that the TPA had been
allocated in prior years.
Why did you decide to just split it 12 ways to the regions,
rather than to deal with the needy tribe concept which was
spelled out in the report?
Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the committee last
year chose to require us to set up a task force for the
allocation of those resources involving four people from each
of the 12 BIA areas.
Putting that many people in a room, each with a particular
point of view and particular interests to advance, it simply
was not possible to develop an allocation that would have
reflected that, quite frankly.
Had the decision been left to myself and the deputy
commissioner, it would have been much different.
Senator Stevens. You had the authority, the basic
authority, under the compromise we reached at our conference
last year for the Secretary to make the distribution if the
task force recommendations were unacceptable.
I should think anyone would have called that unacceptable,
to just take $24 million and divide it up into 12 areas without
regard to need.
Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, we interpreted the requirement
differently.
What we understood the statute to be saying is if a
majority of the task force identified a particular allocation,
then we did not have the discretion to say no. We had to
allocate it that way. It was only if the task force failed to
produce a majority interpretation that we could have, that the
Secretary could have taken the task on himself. And, as I say,
the allocation would have been much different.
Senator Stevens. I warned at the time the BIA decided that
there were 227 tribes in Alaska that we were in a new era of
rising expectations. Each one of these groups now expects to be
treated the same as the Navajos.
Are they going to be treated the same as the Navajos?
Mr. Gover. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Why?
Mr. Gover. The reason the Navajo Nation gets the percentage
of BIA funds that it does--and I should add that the Navajos
don't feel that they get a fair percentage of the BIA funds--is
because they are the largest reservation in the country. They
have a variety of land-based allocations and they have the
largest service population.
Senator Stevens. They don't have the largest amount of
land.
Mr. Gover. Yes; they do, Senator. In terms of actual
reservation land, the Navajo is the largest reservation.
tribes in alaska
Senator Stevens. It is the largest reservation land, yes.
But if you recognize all of these 227 villages as being tribes,
they have a lot more land than the Navajos do. But it is not
reservation.
Mr. Gover. That is correct. It is not considered Indian
land.
Senator Stevens. But their needs, in terms of unemployment,
in terms of isolation, in terms of education, health, and
travel, are a lot worse. I really think that you ought to go
back and look at the definition of tribes for Alaska. Those
individual villages were never recognized as tribes even by the
Alaskan natives themselves. Several villages made up one tribe.
But you have recognized each village as being a tribe, and
now each village expects to get money from the Tribal Priority
Allocation Fund. Have you looked at that? Are they going to get
that money? Is it going to be based on need or just upon the
fact that they are a tribe?
Mr. Gover. Right now, each of the tribes in Alaska receives
funding on the basis that they are considered, that they fall
under the small and needy designation.
Now I would remind the committee that the small and needy
designation was not a creation either of the committee or of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but of a task force that Congress
required to be established to look at issues of this type and
for the BIA to implement those recommendations.
What the task force recommended was that we created a
designation called ``small and needy tribes'' and specifically
said that each tribe should get $160,000 as the bare minimum
funding required to establish a tribal government but that in
Alaska they should get $200,000.
Now last year in the appropriations bill, what the bill
said was each small and needy tribe shall receive at least
$160,000. So that is precisely what we allocated to Alaska.
Now with the additional $23 million that the task force was
allowed to allocate, that resulted in an additional $4,000 per
village in Alaska. Our request for next year would increase the
total for each village in Alaska to approximately $175,000.
I agree with you that the need is profound there and that
we do not do an adequate job at this time. The problem is, as I
am sure you have heard before, there are so many other needs in
Indian country as well that basically, we leave everybody
short.
Senator Stevens. Have you taken any money away from the
tribes that are getting all of this money from gambling?
Mr. Gover. We have not, sir. We lack the authority,
frankly, to go out and say you must give us your money back
because these are awarded on the basis of formula and the
formula at this time does not include any accounting for
revenue of any type that the tribe might receive.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. I have taken too much time.
Senator Dorgan.
tribal priority allocation system
Senator Dorgan. Would you conclude, based on the
information that you have and the discussion you heard earlier
with the GAO that the TPA system is a mess?
Mr. Gover. Well, I think that for a solid majority of the
tribes it somehow reflects an equitable distribution. There are
undoubtedly anomalies and they were created in many different
ways. A good many of them, frankly, involve various line item
appropriations that were made over the years.
Remember if the Congress were to tell us to give an extra
$20,000 to tribe X to conduct a nutrition program, we give them
the $20,000 in the fiscal year and it becomes a part of their
base. So they get it year after year after year. There are so
many examples of that sort of appropriating that, to the extent
that these anomalies are carried forward, that is the genesis
in many cases.
Senator Dorgan. You know, having had a hearing on this and
having tried to understand who gets what, I'll tell you, I
think the fact that no one can explain the basis for the base
funding of the TPA suggests to me that there is something
horribly wrong with it.
I am supposed to be on a conference call right now with the
BIA and the Indian Health Service on a different issue. So I am
going to just be brief.
school facilities
The Senator from New Mexico asked the question about
unemployment and so on. I just wanted to say that the
conference call I am going to be on is about a school down in
Standing Rock that is closed. The sign outside says ``Caution,
Contains PCS's.'' The kids have been in a gymnasium now for 2
months and the light fixtures are leaking PCS's. They have also
found dioxins. This is quite a mess.
I am trying to sift through all of that.
I say to the Senator from New Mexico that I was on two
Indian reservations last week and toured a number of schools,
one of which I spoke about on the floor yesterday, Cannonball.
It is a public school but is on a reservation, a public school
district. This is a school that is 90 years old. It has been
condemned. The central building has been condemned. Classes are
crowded. There is not 1 inch between the desks. The desks have
to be flush. There are 8 foot by 12 foot classrooms.
The choir room has to be abandoned a couple of times a week
because sewer gas backs up and the stench is too bad. There are
145 kids and 40 workers in the school. There are two bathrooms
and one water fountain.
It is in deplorable condition.
Now one asks about a second grader in that school. Is the
second grader in that school system having the same access and
same opportunity as a second grader in some other school? No; I
don't think so.
So that is part of my question and it gets to the point we
made. We must do better to invest the resources to fix these
schools, the BIA schools and the other schools around the
periphery that do not have the tax base.
Let me just finish with one question, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. The conference call I am supposed to be on
is supposed to have started 5 minutes ago. It's on this PCB
question. We have worked through this for a couple of months
now.
I know you are trying hard, but it is so hard to get
through the bureaucracy of the BIA and the Indian Health
Service on some of these issues. You are new to this job, but
do you understand the critical need that exists in some of
these areas? I think you do because you have taken some tours
and you seem concerned about it.
For example, we must get the Standing Rock Reservation
school fixed. These kids should not be in gymnasiums. They
ought to be in schools. The school's front door ought not be
boarded up. If there are light fixtures leaking PCS's, which is
a carcinogen, we should get in, fix it, do the testing and get
it done.
Can you respond to that because, as I said, I am going to
be on a conference call trying to coordinate between you and
the Indian Health Service on this issue?
Mr. Gover. Obviously, I agree with all of that. Now my
understanding is that they pulled all the ballasts in that
school and have replaced each and every one of them. I think
there may be some remaining questions about whether in doing
the sampling there are any remaining PCS's in the building. But
I think the Bureau actually responded quickly to that one.
Senator Dorgan. It did and then said it was done. But, in
fact, they came back in and moved the kids back in. Then they
moved them back out. Then they are saying there needs to be
testing and the IHS says it is not our job. The BIA also says
it is not our job. In the meantime, the kids are in the
gymnasium and the school still has a sign at the door, and
apparently there are still light fixtures leaking PCS's.
Mr. Gover. Senator, I will look into that but that is not
my understanding. We replaced all of them as soon as we heard
about it. Not only that, we have directed our facilities
management people to go check all of the other schools of that
vintage to be sure it is not happening anywhere else.
Senator Dorgan. I know you did that. I am just saying
that--and this is a problem we constantly have--I am not sure
the area office actually followed through to make sure that the
problem got resolved finally.
I understand that I am dealing with a specific issue and
you are up here on the largest question. But let me add my
voice to the concerns of the chairman and the Senator from New
Mexico. We need to address these issues of education
investment. You cannot invest money we don't give you and we
need to do better than we have done. The administration needs
to do better not just in education investment but if you take a
look at the health care side that they sent up here, it is
pitiful. It is so far short of the need.
Now that is not what this hearing is about, but we need to
do better in these areas.
I appreciate your coming here today. You are new, and I
want very much to help you succeed in your job. I hope I can be
a part of that success and that we can do the right things for
you.
Mr. Gover. Thank you, Senator.
tribes with small populations
Mr. Chairman, could I add just one other comment. I know
Senator Dorgan had a particular interest or concern about the
one and zero member tribes.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Gover. GAO would have seen our allocations to the areas
and, indeed, for each of those tribes we send money to the area
office indicating that there is an allocation for each of those
tribes.
Before those tribes can receive the money, they have to
submit a plan on how it is all going to be spent and it all has
to be spent within certain parameters. In fact, the tribes with
few members or no members have not received any of the funds
because they are not acting as governments. So we are not
sending money out to individuals. I just wanted to assure you
of that.
We were aware of the existence of those and long before I
arrived the Bureau had developed procedures for seeing that
money was not sent to those individuals where there was only
one or two people on the reservation.
Senator Dorgan. We can maybe resolve that today. The GAO
seemed to say no, that was not the case, that they felt in
circumstances with few or one they would get a minimum
allocation. You are saying that this is not the case?
Mr. Gover. As I say, we send money to the area office, and
were that individual to organize that situation and give us a
plan for spending those funds on appropriate purposes----
Senator Dorgan. What if they do?
Mr. Gover. Then we would approve the funds and allow that
person to run the tribal government.
Remember, we are not in a situation where we can look at a
federally recognized tribe and on our own say you are no longer
a federally recognized tribe.
Senator Dorgan. But there would be a pretty powerful
incentive for one, two, or four people being able to do that,
wouldn't there?
Mr. Gover. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. Do they do that?
Mr. Gover. They have not done it. They have not done it
because it would be unlikely to be approved. I mean, what they
would have to do to establish an actual working tribal
government is probably more trouble than it is worth.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
school facilities
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was up to Brockton, MT, the other day. That is up on the
Fort Peck. We have the same situation at Fort Peck that he has
over in North Dakota, where we have a school that has just
fallen down around the heads of the students there. They are
crowded and there is a library that both the elementary and the
high school students use. They don't even have chairs and are
sitting on the floors.
I am wondering and am concerned about the amount of money
we are spending on education. Personally, I think we waste so
much money on other areas on the reservations that it is
unbelievable. It is not a shortage of money. It is just a
shortage of priorities of where we put the money.
I don't know whether that could be done at the BIA level or
whether it is going to have to be done at the congressional
level in order to address that. We have two schools that have
completely outgrown themselves. One is at Boxelder, and, of
course, that is pretty close to the Rocky Boy. And one is up
there in Brocton. Whenever you send your budget down, it really
grieves me that we just got a $24 million increase as far as
education and education facilities.
Mr. Gover. Senator, I wish we could have asked for more. I
wish that the IHS budget were more as well. I guess I would not
agree that we are wasting money elsewhere. But clearly we don't
get enough resources for these schools.
I did not have an opportunity earlier, but I know that the
Budget Committee, under Senator Domenici's leadership, has made
a suggestion that the amount devoted to Indian schools be
doubled.
I will just say that we will spend every dollar well that
you send us in that regard.
Senator Burns. I am going to be very supportive of his
suggestion because I know that we are still, in Montana, part
of the isolated part of it. We are not next to a big commercial
operation, as far as that goes.
I think we have to look at the operations of our
reservations and say OK, the amount of young people coming out
of those schools and how they are educated is way below the
standards of the United States of America, as are the
facilities in which they are going to school and how they are
living.
We have to look at ourselves and ask is it working. Is it
working and do we have to make some changes, maybe even some
structural changes as far as the way we deal with this problem,
in some way or other?
education instructional programs
Mr. Gover. Senator, this may be one of those rare cases
where the structural changes have been made and the educators
have developed the education program. I think the actual
instructional programs at the schools are strong.
From what I saw out there, these schools are
indistinguishable from elementary and high schools in any other
part of the country except that the buildings they are in are
deteriorating badly.
Senator Burns. Have you run through any figures? What are
we spending per student on our reservations for education?
Ms. Morris. It is a little over $3,000, and this is
according to a formula which is called a weighted student unit.
So it is about $3,000, a little over that. The national average
is actually much higher than that. The national average is
close to $6,000 for academic programs, not dealing with the
construction issues.
Senator Burns. That is outside of construction issues?
Ms. Morris. Yes; excluding construction dollars. Yes.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton [presiding]. Thank you.
I understand that Senator Stevens has another question.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I welcome you back and I am
sort of glad that this is your headache first. [Laughter.]
tribal priority allocations
Let me say before I leave that I hope we will agree there
will be no more task forces, that we are going to change this
law regarding tribal priority allocations, and that we will not
provide any money for tribes that are obviously self-
supporting. There is no demand that is legitimate on the
Government and taxpayers for tribes that have adequate money.
That ought to be determined by whether or not there is any per
capita distributions.
I really cannot believe we should be providing tribal
allocations to tribes that are already having per capita
distributions of surplus funds derived from functions such as
gambling.
I congratulate you for getting into this, Senator Gorton,
and I think we ought to have a meeting with the Indian
Committee to resolve some of our differences before we go to
the floor with a major bill this year.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Senator Domenici, have you had a chance to complete your
questions?
Senator Domenici. No; I have not.
Senator Gorton. Then please go ahead.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, I did not mention, other than inferentially,
that you were not only new on this job but that I saw a kind of
spirit developing around the BIA that reflects your enthusiasm
and hope that we can do a better job. I hope this year that we
can work constructively together. I don't think you can get
everything you want, but I think some of us want to get you
more than the President asked for, especially in the education
field, and I think we can find some ways to work on that.
water rights negotiations
I would ask you if you would not mind looking specifically
at this issue. Some of the New Mexico Pueblos are very upset
about the lack of funding in the Albuquerque office for water
rights negotiations. I don't want to go into a long litany,
but, as you know, we are allocating money for water rights
negotiations to other States. It looks like four of our Pueblos
are in dire straits. They are going to be right in the middle
of some negotiations that are going to determine their future,
and there are no resources in the Albuquerque office for that.
I would just ask if you would take a look at that situation and
I will insert my question into the record and the details of
it.
Mr. Gover. Yes, Senator. We will look at that.
We know that the allocation to Albuquerque is not
sufficient, and we have been supplementing that with some
central office funds for that specific purpose. We know as you
know the Jicarrilla case has just settled and there has been a
lot of opportunity to settle the Taos case as well. I would
just emphasize that when we are able to settle tribal water
rights in a basin, that creates certainty for everyone, not
just the tribes.
education
Senator Domenici. I have a whole series not only of
questions but of statements that would precede questions
regarding the entire gamut of education. I think we all
understand that for a very long period of time we have been
encouraging, and have succeeded to some extent, the getting of
our Indian young people into public schools. That was difficult
at first, but it is working reasonably well.
That is reality and the problems there are generic, rather
than just Indian problems. These students are in the public
schools, the problems with the schools that we are left with
running, both the public schools, the Indian colleges, and the
community colleges that are Indian driven--I think, Mr.
Secretary, the whole thing needs a tremendous analysis from
somebody on what in the world we are doing.
You mentioned the disparity of what we are spending per
public school pupil in Indian country versus the public school
system and you mentioned $6,000 versus $3,000. Those are almost
the identical numbers which show what we are spending on Indian
colleges for Indian students in Indian colleges versus what
other students in America are receiving, and what we are paying
for students in non-Indian colleges.
How are we going to continue this approach? It seems that
somebody has to sooner or later say that we either cannot run
the colleges this way and we have to find another way to
educate our children, or we have to assume that they can be
educated on $3,000 when their counterparts are costing
everybody else to educate the same kind of person in the same
fields twice as much. In some cases it is more than twice as
much.
We are going to try to get more money, but I think there
has to be an analysis of just where are we going. Are we
kidding ourselves that some of our Indian youngsters are not
going to get a good education if we are going to continue with
this sham of half-funding in a sense?
needs based analysis
Mr. Gover. Senator, one of the things we are undertaking is
to do a needs based analysis on the reservations.
Now the witnesses from GAO pointed out that neither the
Congress, nor the administration, nor the courts, nor anyone
else has ever really said here is what we are trying to
accomplish with this Federal funding in Indian affairs in terms
of at what point have we succeeded, at what point are these
communities receiving services that are deemed adequate, and
where, under the treaties, when compared to other rural
jurisdictions and compared to the Nation at large, where do we
draw that line. That is one of the things we are going to try
to do, to analyze that and try to establish sort of a mark that
we are shooting for.
Now in the case of the students, you were asking earlier
why is there this endemic problem of poverty. Well, part of the
reason it seems to me and in watching these tribal programs
operate is we give them just enough to keep them alive, just
enough to keep them alive and never enough to prosper. That is
true not just for education but for every element of the
various programs that the Bureau has administered.
That is not just true now; it has been true as far back as
we care to trace it, really. So we do have to ask some real
basic questions about what we are trying to accomplish in
Indian policy and have those objectives reflected in our
financial decisions.
tribal community colleges and vocational schools
Senator Domenici. I wonder if, as part of that, you might
have somebody objectively analyze what kind of education they
are getting in these community colleges and Indian colleges. We
keep trying to get them funded. We get a little bit more here
and we add a building there, and even EDA has built some of
their vocational buildings because there is no other place to
get money.
I think it would be good to know whether the education that
our Indian people are getting in those institutions is up to
par, or is it the most inferior in the country. Why would we
keep on doing this to the Indian people if, in fact, the system
is not a worthwhile system?
We cannot keep saying that we are going to double the
amount of money. Where are we going to get the doubled amount?
Sooner or later some of us are going to try to double the
amount.
education and unemployment
Do you know why we are keeping good teachers there? It is
amazing, but that is one area where there still is some
credibility. It is because we passed a statute not too many
years ago that pegged what we pay the teachers to what we are
paying teachers in our Government schools overseas that educate
our military kids. We said whatever we are paying them, let's
pay the Indian teachers. If we had not done that, we would
still be running around with 50 percent less than parity and
asking what is happening to our Indian kids.
Maybe some of those arbitrary things that neither Slade
Gorton, as a legislator, nor Pete Domenici likes to do--we like
to do it in a more rational way--have to be done. Sooner or
later we have to face up to this kind of situation, and part of
the unemployment problem is because of what we are discussing
here. It's not the whole thing, of course. Part of it is, too,
that the private sector cannot operate on Indian reservations.
It is very hard for them, and the Indian leaders do not quite
understand how they have to adjust or they refuse to. So we
have two societies. We have a private sector society 15 miles
away from an Indian reservation with 3,000 unemployed people,
and nobody is going to go and locate on the reservation with
private money. We don't know whether the Indian people want
that yet.
Those are dichotomies that are just obvious to anybody
around--if they are not educated, it does not matter because
they cannot get jobs. So we are going in a vicious circle.
I have detailed the needs in statements that I am putting
in the record. I hope you will look at them and give us some
answers. They are about both public K through 12, they are for
colleges, for community colleges and vocational schools. Sooner
or later we have to make some sense out of it with the Indian
leadership joining right along with us.
There are a number of specific areas we just have to
consider. For example, we have a school that burned down and we
cannot get its replacement on the priority list. Kids are being
bused way over to a public school and have been for 4 years.
They are housed in some makeshift building, and we cannot get
it on the priority list because you don't have enough money.
The priority is already there. You have 12 schools waiting and
they have been waiting for 10 years.
So those are things that are not working, Mr. Secretary.
I applaud you for leaving your previous life to take this
on for a while, and I did not in my statements intend to make
your job harder. I think you know that in no way am I trying to
do that. I am trying to be helpful. Let's see if we can get
something done.
Thank you.
Mr. Gover. I have always appreciated your support, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator Domenici.
First, I want to apologize for the time that we have cost
all of the witnesses here, first by votes that were scheduled
after our starting time and then for other matters that
occupied my own time. I do greatly appreciate your tolerance
and your waiting.
Second, I have a printed opening statement here. It may
already have been included in the record. If it has not been,
it will be.
We are not going to keep you much past noon, so I am going
to have to submit a number of questions to you as well. But I
would like to talk about a couple of philosophical questions,
not dissimilar to what Senator Domenici has asked. You already,
in part, have answered one of them.
indian affairs leadership
I want to say that I really appreciate your candor. We are
getting straight answers now in a way that has not always been
the case in my experience with this. I am delighted that you
are on the job, and everything I hear tells me that you are
doing very well in a situation that cannot help but be
tremendously frustrating to all concerned.
federal funding for indian programs
A year ago, when we were last here, Senator Bennett, who is
not here now, recounted a moving personal experience he had as
a foster parent to an Indian foster daughter. He posed a series
of eloquent questions with respect to the Bureau and to Indian
policy in general. I am going to, if I can, simply repeat the
questions that Senator Bennett asked last year to see what kind
of answers we have from Ada Deer's successor.
I start from the proposition that with all of these
shortages we give the BIA some $2 billion a year. In total,
according to the Office of Management and Budget, Federal
spending on Indian programs is about $7.5 billion a year,
funding that serves about 1.2 million Indians who are also
eligible for most other State and Federal programs.
If my arithmetic is correct, that is something over $6,000
per capita in these programs, and it is in addition to other
fundings that they are eligible for simply as American
citizens.
Senator Bennett asked Secretary Deer last year what she
thought the result of all the spending is or should be. Her
response was essentially that she envisioned the Indian tribes
as having the basic standard of living comparable to the rest
of the U.S. population. She remarked that we need to invest
more in education and health services so that the tribes will
be able to march into the 21st century with hope.
Now I agree with those statements and I think Senator
Bennett did with respect to living like, for that matter, all
Americans. In response, Senator Bennett asked, and I quote him
from last year:
So the long-term goal is to raise the standard of living
without making any attempt to bring the Indian population into
any kind of integration with the rest of the population of the
country?
What would your answer be to that question of Senator
Bennett last year?
Mr. Gover. My answer is that these communities have to make
that choice for themselves. I think that they are increasingly
integrated just by the nature of the encroachment, if you will,
of the surrounding communities. Indians no longer live quite in
the isolation that they once did.
federal indian policy
But the one thing that we promised them and the whole
centerpiece of Federal policy from the very beginning is that
these communities would be allowed their existence. If they
should choose to give it up, if they choose to integrate with
the rest of the population, so be it. But I believe strongly
that it is their choice to make.
Senator Gorton. That is their choice to make, but that even
if they make the choice to remain in their own communities,
there is an obligation to try to see to it that their standard
of living is roughly equal to the average of other Americans.
Mr. Gover. I think that is a fair measure. Yes.
Senator Gorton. But we are faced with the fact--you have
this challenge, we all have this challenge--that, in fact,
their standard of living is probably the lowest of any
distinguishable socio-economic group in the United States. Does
that indicate to you, as I must say it does to me, that 150
years of American Indian policy have been an overwhelming
failure?
Mr. Gover. Clearly. Clearly 220 years of Indian policy has
been a failure.
I was thinking as you were speaking, Senator, that the
governmental resources that go into an Indian community may or
may not be roughly the same as would go into a non-Indian
community. What is missing on the reservation is a private
sector contributing to the well-being of the population. So
$6,000 per capita into a non-Indian community is an awful lot
more money when it is on top of a very active and vibrant
private sector. Those private sectors for the most part do not
exist on the reservations.
Senator Gorton. But might it not be appropriate to say that
the private sector has a much more difficult time on an Indian
reservation in the absence of private property in the sense
that we know it on the outside?
Mr. Gover. It depends on what you mean. I think Senator
Domenici was talking about the reluctance of the private sector
to invest on Indian lands.
I was a lawyer for a number of tribes for a number of years
and I understand that reluctance. It all has to do with the
special legal status that the tribes have.
Now what I found in dealing with those folks is, once they
understood what the problems were and that they could be dealt
with in a very predictable way, they were willing to invest
and, in fact, would invest. But the sort of great mass of the
private sector simply does not know. And why go to a remote and
somewhat mysterious little community that you don't know very
much about as opposed to going to places that you know and
where you do understand all the rules? It takes a unique
entrepreneur to want to do that.
Senator Gorton. But presumably if the social and political
circumstances are favorable, it can be very profitable for that
entrepreneur. It can be a win/win situation for both sides of
the situation.
Mr. Gover. It can and it has in a number of situations.
I should answer, respond to one element about private
property. There have been efforts throughout history,
throughout the history of Federal Indian policy to privatize
tribal assets. The results have never been very good. In fact,
as bad as things went at various points in the more--I'm not
sure how to characterize it, let's call it the experimental
times in Indian policy, the Indian Reorganization Act, the
Indian Self-Determination Act--things did not go well. But they
went an awful lot better than they did in the termination era
or in the allotment era.
So every time we have tried to detribalize the Indians, we
have made matters worse.
Senator Gorton. Following up with Ms. Deer, Senator Bennett
asked about the possibility that separate Federal funding of
tribes would ever cease. Senator Bennett compared the situation
to the role of the United States in Europe following World War
II under the Marshall Plan, when we invested a lot of money and
then left economically.
I guess I ask you will tribes ever embrace self-sufficiency
as an element of self-determination?
Mr. Gover. I think a number of them do. The answer is yes,
in my opinion.
I think right now one of the problems, not to get too
philosophical, is the tribes right now and for the last century
have lived in an era of scarcity. So any single Federal dollar
or any dollar of any type, it is very frightening to them to
lose it. And even those who are finding enormous success right
now are probably finding it a little bit hard to believe and
are worried that it may be gone tomorrow.
indian gaming
In fact, in the case of gaming, it could be gone tomorrow
were the Congress to change its policy in that regard.
But I think as the tribes begin to sort of enjoy prosperity
and we have a generation of people who have seen nothing but
success, I could easily imagine a day where a tribe just says I
don't think we need this money anymore, or at least that there
are places that need it more than we do.
I am working with some of the tribes that are doing well at
the moment in sort of making that request of them to allow us
to spend that money in places where it is much more needed than
it is in their community.
Senator Gorton. We are getting to the next series. I think
it was a week ago yesterday that the Washington Post reported
on a dispute involving an Indian casino and noted that the
Shakopee-Sioux of Minnesota each earn an estimated $600,000 a
year from their gambling operations. The Pequots in Connecticut
are another example.
Do you know how many tribes make per capita distributions?
Mr. Gover. It's under 30. That is our latest information.
Mr. Chairman, I will answer it that way, but I will also
reserve the right to go back and add to that answer.
Senator Gorton. Please do so. It is a serious question and
it would be good to have it in the record.
[The information follows:]
Indian Tribes Making Per Capita Distributions
Based on information obtained from the General Accounting Office,
there are 44 tribes that make per capita distributions. These tribes
are listed below. The per capita distributions are made from a variety
of sources, ranging from trust fund expenditures, general fund
expenditures, litigation awards, enterprise distributions, and gaming
revenues.
Area and Tribe
Minneapolis:
Saginaw Chippewa.
Sac and Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa.
Ho-Chunk Nation.
Prairie Island Community.
Lower Sioux Indian Community.
Stockbridge-Munsee Community.
Phoenix:
Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache.
Ute.
Las Vegas Paiute.
Cocopah.
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone.
Ak-chin Indian Community.
Fort Mojave.
Eastern:
Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Coushatta Tribe of LA.
Eastern Band of Cherokee.
Penobscot Indian Nation.
Seneca Nation of Indians.
Passamaquoddy, Joint Tribal Council.
Portland:
Yakama Indian Nation.
Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation.
Confederated Tribes, Warm Springs Reservation.
Cow Creek Umpqua.
Sacramento:
Barona Group Capitan Grande.
Soboba Band of Mission Indians.
Morongo Band, Mission Indians.
Table Mountain Rancheria.
Trinidad Rancheria.
Self Governance:
Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe.
Confed Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
Cabazon Band, Mission Indians.
Bois Forte Reservation Tribal Council.
Redding Rancheria.
Squaxin Island.
Aberdeen:
Standing Rock Sioux.
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe.
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
Winnebago Tribe of NE.
Albuquerque:
Ute Mountain Ute.
Mescalero Apache.
Southern Ute.
Pueblo of Laguna.
Anadarko: Cheyenne-Arapaho.
Billings: Eastern Shoshone, Wind River.
profits from business ventures
Senator Gorton. I asked your predecessor and I ask you now
why it is not appropriate for Congress to consider the profits
that tribes make from each of their business ventures in
determining how much money the taxpayer should distribute to
those tribes for their basic governmental activities.
funding for indian programs
Mr. Gover. As to certain matters, Senator, it clearly is
appropriate. It already is done. One-third of tribal priority
allocations are not distributed on a formula basis. They are
distributed on a need basis. So a community that has no need
for general assistance, or for housing improvement, or does not
meet the criteria for our roads program, does not receive any
of those funds.
There is another category of expenditures that goes
directly to the Federal trust that is acknowledged, basically
our responsibility for trust property, be it money, water,
land, et cetera. Clearly, that should not be withdrawn simply
because it is a Federal obligation to do that.
That leaves a third category of funds that I believe really
are discretionary and do not necessarily reflect a legal
obligation of the United States but, instead, are sort of based
on historical factors and historical conditions that may no
longer exist.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Yes?
Senator Domenici. Would you yield for an observation and a
question?
Senator Gorton. Of course.
private sector business on indian reservations
Senator Domenici. First of all, I think you are familiar
with the lengths we went to to try to encourage the private
sector to establish itself on Indian lands and hire Indian
people. Five years ago in a tax bill we passed for the first
time a major incentive package for Indian country.
I have tried it on with private sector people who were
thinking of moving to a city that is not Indian. I say: if you
had these credits--accelerated depreciation, 20 percent credit
on your corporate tax for salaries paid to employees earning
$25,000 or less so long as the business was in this town--would
you move here?
Nobody will turn you down. That is beyond anything anybody
is offering businesses to move from one location to another or
to expand.
There is another benefit in there also that I have missed,
but those two are enormous.
Now it is very interesting to me. In fact, as you speak
here, I am wondering if I might impose on the Secretary. I
wonder if you might try to find out--though I don't think you
can--how many businesses and Indian tribes have availed
themselves of this law. It was in one of the Omnibus tax bills.
The reason I raise this is because I do believe that when
you see such a generous incentive for private sector movement
to the reservations--and this is my assumption with you and my
enlightened guess--the use is going to be found to be
principally, Mr. Secretary, the building of facilities and
using the accelerated depreciation, so that they are building
an office center next to a city and that is going to yield
rent. They get to accelerate the depreciation so significantly
that they will choose an Indian reservation or between
Albuquerque and Santa Fe. If you build one of those trading
marts and you build that on Indian land, you get almost double
the depreciation, so that is a very attractive place to move
it.
When it comes to a call center that might need 150 people
to use telephones, even if we had 700 qualified Indian people,
the question is would they consider it with the accelerated
depreciation and the overwhelming credit against income tax
that nobody else gets. The answer is probably no. That is what
we have to look at.
Senator Gorton. The difficulty there, of course, is the
difficulty that we have in State competition for new
enterprises.
Sure, people will take that. But in a sense it is a zero-
sum game. The business that takes advantage of these tax
advantages is not located somewhere else where it is going to
contribute to the tax base of a community. True development is
going to come when you can win on the basis of equal
opportunities in both places.
Senator Domenici. What I am suggesting is that none of this
is going to work to pull a business out of a place and move it
to another. It is going to be where they want to expand. That
expansion is occurring all over the country. Some are choosing
your State, my State, and you offer incentives as we offer
incentives.
I know you would like to have zero incentives on the tax
side and have it all stand on its own, or maybe you would, I
gather.
Senator Gorton. We have just gone through debate over this
Nucor Steel Corp., that is playing Washington and Oregon, and I
think also Idaho and California, like a drum over who will give
it the greatest number of incentives. Interestingly enough, our
legislature decided to tell them to go somewhere else, that we
were not going to give them a competitive advantage over
others. It's easier to do when you are doing very well, as we
are.
Senator Domenici. Yes; I was just going to say that.
Senator Gorton. There is no question about that.
Senator Domenici. But, Mr. Chairman, the point I am making
is that Congress did decide and there were very few objectors
to a 10-year program--it is not forever--to see whether this
would work.
Senator Gorton. Your question as to let's see how it will
work is a very good question.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Can you try to do that, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Gover. We will try to do that.
Senator Gorton. I think that will be a fascinating answer,
to see what, in fact, has taken place as a result of it.
[The information follows:]
Incentives To Encourage Private Sector Business on Indian Reservations
Issue: Can the Bureau report how many non-Indian business
enterprises have taken advantage of tax incentives in an
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation bill by relocating to Indian
reservations?
Response: The most recent compilation of returns on IRS
Form 8835, showing employment tax credits, totaled 88 returns.
Accelerated depreciation is not broken out to show which
enterprises are on Indian reservations. This information came
from Brian Francis at the IRS Statistical Information Service,
202/874-0410.
tpa task force distribution
Unfortunately, I have another 12 o'clock appointment and I
have not gotten into tribal priority allocations except
incidentally. But you know how disappointed we were, and I
think you were disappointed, in what took place last year with
the division of the $24 million general increase when, in
effect, we just finessed need and divided up evenly. That is an
issue that is not going to go away, Mr. Secretary, as you know.
And you have described three different ways in which we deal
with some of these moneys, depending on their source and the
degree of obligation in connection with them.
But I do not think it is supportable at this point in our
history, and with the needs that Senator Domenici has talked
about for education and the like that do not deal directly with
the governmental activities of Indian tribes, where we are
going to come up with that extra money for education is
something I would like very much to do, but I don't know.
Senator Domenici, with my strong support, has not passed a
budget resolution that is going to allow us to come up with the
President's recommended budgets. I am not going to get an
allocation for this subcommittee that equals what the President
has come up with.
Senator Domenici. In its totality.
Senator Gorton. Yes; in its totality. That's right.
That seems to me to tell us that we need to be spending our
money more wisely and on more urgent priorities than we have
done in the past. In this respect, we are not going to be able
to do it right unless you, in the position you are in, give us
a way to distribute money for TPA in a more equitable fashion
than we have in the past--equitable among the various Indian
tribes and Nations, where history has led us to a position that
is truly irrational. We must determine whether or not either
some of that money that is going where it is not so greatly
needed should go to other TPA needs or whether it should go to
another Indian program, like those that Senator Domenici is
talking about.
We don't have an awful lot of time to do that and to do it
right. To go through another year in which we just squeeze
everything down and have the same kind of conversations we have
had here today, as we had a year ago, another year from now I
don't think is serving the taxpayers well, I don't think it is
serving the Indian community well, and I don't think it is
serving anyone well.
So I am going to have to submit the rest of these questions
to you in writing. But to help us come up with a way to take
this large amount of money--obviously you cannot necessarily
talk about the $7.5 billion, but the $2 billion or so--and see
to it that it gets spent to meet the goals that you outlined in
an answer to my earlier question, or comes closer to meeting
it, in my opinion is the highest priority we have.
Mr. Gover. Senator, we will look forward to doing that. We
would like to work with you on some short-term priorities for
fiscal year 1999. I think there are a few small things that we
can do to begin to make TPA more clearly reflect the need out
there.
For the long-term, before you arrived, we described an
effort we are undertaking to conduct this study of need and now
to evaluate need on a consistent basis across the country. Once
we know what that figure is, we can, I think, better understand
what our priorities ought to be.
Senator Gorton. I must say that I have a great deal more
confidence in the BIA under your leadership than I had
previously seriously to address that subject and seriously to
come up with that. If I get the commitment in the course of the
next year that we will get that broad set of recommendations, I
will be happy to work with you on the small, temporary fixes
this year. We will try to come out at the same point.
Senator Domenici, if you have anything more, you can stay
and ask as many questions as you want.
Senator Domenici. I have no more. I just wanted to stay
around and listen to your last remarks that you just made. They
are wonderful.
In Indian country, they are going to be very excited to
hear what you just said.
We thank you very much.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gorton. All right, thank you. 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.]
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Additional Committee Questions
In your statement you said that Congress might want to consider (1)
financial information for all tribes, (2) more complete information on
the financial resources of the tribes, and (3) more reliable
information.
Question. How can Congress collect this information? What changes
to the law would allow this?
Answer. Congress could enact legislation to collect more complete
information. Such legislation could require each federally recognized
tribe to annually provide an audited comprehensive financial statement
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as a pre-condition of receiving
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). These statements could be required
to conform to generally accepted accounting principles, include
operations of all activities and programs directly or indirectly
controlled by each tribe and its sub-units, and report income from
business enterprises. Such information could be made available to the
Congress when needed.
The GAO regularly evaluates and comments on Federal programs at
Congress' request.
Question. Is the GAO confident about Congress' expenditure of about
$800 million per year for the BIA TPA program? Is this a good program?
Answer. Although these questions are beyond the scope of the work
we conducted, our work does raise concerns because BIA could not
articulate reasons for how the base funds--about $500 million last
year--were distributed. And while the non-base funds--about $250
million last year--were generally distributed on the basis of specific
formulas, we did not evaluate those formulas to determine how
effectively they addressed tribal needs and relative priorities. To
further address these questions, we would want to better understand the
goals and performance measures that BIA has identified for TPA, as well
as the tribes' needs and relative priorities for TPA funds. BIA sees
TPA as a way to pursue Indian self-determination, and we did not try to
determine how well it is succeeding in this regard.
Question. What constitutional or other legal barriers are there to
Congress legislating financial reporting by the tribes?
Answer. Congress has the authority to enact legislation requiring
federally recognized tribes to annually provide financial statements as
a pre-condition to receiving TPA. Before enacting such legislation,
Congress may want to carefully analyze and consider its impact on other
legislation and, if appropriate, the process by which TPA funds are
presently distributed.
bia method of appraising rent value of indian lands
The Committee is concerned that the BIA process for appraising the
rental value of Indian lands fails to appraise accurately those lands
at the preset fair annual rental value. In particular, a previous GAO
study reported that the BIA appraisals of the rental values of idle
lands within the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington State were
unrealistically high. These appraisals undermine the ability of Indian
tribes wishing to rent lands to market their lands at competitive
prices. Further, these flawed appraisal practices place unwarranted
financial hardship on lessees. Last year, the Committee included report
language directing GAO to conduct an audit and provide recommendations
on the BIA method of appraising the rent value of Indian lands by April
1--three weeks ago.
Question. Has the GAO completed that audit?
Answer. GAO has not begun this audit, due to staffing constraints.
We discussed our staffing constraints with congressional staff in
November 1997 and again in January 1998; we agreed at those meetings to
defer the start of this work until after we finish our current review
of TPA or additional staff become available. Additional staff did not
become available, and we now plan to begin this work in June 1998,
shortly after our TPA report is issued.
Question. When can we expect to receive the completed study?
Answer. After GAO begins its work in June and gains enough
knowledge to develop our proposed audit approach, we will meet with the
congressional staff to discuss our preliminary observations and to
determine our reporting timeframes.
Question. Do you know what the GAO's recommendations will be?
Answer. Not at this time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
Question. In determining how the Tribal Priority Allocations have
historically been distributed, what criteria did you find for defining
``need'' in a tribe?
Answer. Determining criteria for defining tribal needs was beyond
the scope of our review. While Interior officials noted that
adjustments to TPA base funds may have been made over time in
consideration of specific tribal circumstances--which could include
identifying tribal needs--criteria for making such decisions were
unclear. Non-base funds consider tribal needs through distribution
formulas identifying factors such as the number of miles of roads (for
road maintenance funds), but we did not evaluate those formulas to
determine how effectively they addressed tribal needs and relative
priorities. The 1994 BIA task force recommended that tribes with fewer
than 1,500 members receive at least $160,000 in TPA funds (or $200,000
in Alaska), which in effect used these dollar criteria to define the
``needs'' of small tribes to develop basic self-government capacity;
however, we did not find any analysis regarding the appropriateness or
basis for these criteria.
Question. Are factors such as land value, population, law
enforcement, and schools variable enough among tribes to be considered
in addition to revenue?
Answer. Of these factors, our statement addressed only variances in
service populations, which ranged from a low of about 42,000 Indians in
the Billings area to over 225,000 Indians in the Navajo area. Interior
officials told us that differences in TPA funds between areas could
reflect differences between tribes in the extent of their land
holdings, their responsibilities for law enforcement, the scope of
government services they provide, and their tribal memberships.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Burns
Question. What can we, as Congress, do to ensure that funding uses
are being reported correctly by the BIA and the tribes themselves?
Answer. Congress can continue to encourage accurate reporting by
BIA--and, in turn, by the tribes--through its budget and oversight
hearings. In addition to reporting under the Single Audit Act, tribes
are also monitored by BIA to assure compliance with contract
provisions, where applicable.
______
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Additional Committee Questions
protest in ward valley
In February 1996, Deputy Secretary Garamendi announced that the
Department intended to conduct additional testing on BLM land in Ward
Valley before deciding whether to transfer the property to California
for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. These tests have
now been indefinitely postponed because of the illegal occupation of
the Ward Valley site by protesters, who are alleged to be members of
the American Indian Movement.
All Federal rangers have been withdrawn from the area. For the past
six weeks, the protesters have refused the BLM access. Senator
Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, has sent two letters to Secretary Babbitt, inquiring of him
the details of the Department's plans to resolve the matter. As I
understand it, the responses have been less than enlightening.
Question 1. What role has the BIA had in any of the activities
going on at Ward Valley?
Answer. Assistant Secretary Gover is conducting government-to-
government consultations with the tribal leadership of the Quechan,
Colorado River Indian Tribe, Cocopah, Fort Mojave, and Chemehuevi
Tribes.
Question 2. Who are the protesters, and are they recognized Tribes?
Answer. Aside from members of the five Tribes listed above, the
Department cannot confirm the identities of the protestors. However,
individuals identifying themselves as representatives of the American
Indian Movement and environmental organizations are known to be among
the protesters on site at Ward Valley. The Department is in government-
to-government consultations only with the leadership of the five Tribes
mentioned above.
Secretary Babbitt, in his letter to Chairman Murkowski dated April
20, 1998, said we are engaging in ``government to government
consultations'' with the criminal trespassers on federal land.
Question 3. Why are we negotiating with criminal trespassers on
federal land?
Answer. The Department supports a peaceful resolution to the
conflicts at Ward Valley that avoids confrontation and will allow
permitted activities to proceed. The Department believes every effort
must be made to resolve the situation peacefully, through means which
do not raise the potential of physical confrontation and possible
violence and injury.
Question 4. Is any of the land at issue recognized by the federal
government as tribal land?
Answer. The land at issue in Ward Valley is owned by the federal
government. None of the land is tribal land.
Question 5. Why has Assistant Secretary Gover been called to the
site to negotiate?
Answer. Assistant Secretary Gover is assisting the Department to
reach a peaceful resolution to the conflicts at Ward Valley in a way
that avoids physical confrontation.
Question 6. Has the Department consulted with, or sought the
assistance of, the Department of Justice?
Answer. No assistance has been requested from the Department of
Justice. The Department has provided information on the status of the
situation to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the context of DOJ
representation in several lawsuits related to the Ward Valley site. The
Department did have informal contact with the Community Relations
Service of the Justice Department and advised them of the situation.
BLM also has notified the office of the United States Attorney, Central
District of California, and the FBI to inform them of the trespass
situation. Again, the Department desires to resolve the situation in a
manner that avoids confrontation through government-to-government
consultations. Under these circumstances, the Department believes that
the situation does not require at this time the assistance of the DOJ.
A copy of a memo prepared by a staff person with the California
Department of Health Services was forwarded to my staff. In that memo,
the staff person said he had been to the site twice, and was
accompanied at least once by a BLM Ranger, who identified at least one
of the vehicles being driven on and off the protest site by protesters
as a BIA vehicle.
Question 7. Are BIA vehicles being used by the protesters?
Answer. No, to our knowledge, BIA vehicles are not being used by
the protesters on the Ward Valley site.
Assistant Secretary John Berry sent a memo to the Acting Inspector
General on March 27 requesting an immediate investigation into the
tribal protests at Ward Valley. Mr. Berry specifically noted that there
might be legal limitations applicable to appropriated funds. I can
assure you that there are limitations on what Federally appropriated
funds can be used for.
Question 8. What is the status of the Inspector General's
investigation?
Answer. The Inspector General is actively pursuing the
investigation requested by Assistant Secretary Berry. Because the
investigation is currently open, the Inspector General is not in a
position to comment further at this time.
tribal priority allocations (tpa)
As Federal resources decline, the other resources of the tribes
might have to be considered when Congress is forced to choose among
them for Federal funding. As the Federal discretionary budget shrinks,
I believe the Tribes with the least and the fewest opportunities should
get the most Federal assistance.
Last year, I tried to direct the BIA to develop a new allocation
method for TPA funds, which are distributed based on historical funding
levels bearing little if any relation to current needs. In the end, the
Congress agreed to a compromise in which the increase was distributed
based on recommendations of a Task Force of tribal leaders from each
BIA area.
It was disheartening to learn that the Task Force recommended
splitting the $24 million general increase equally 12 ways among the 12
BIA areas. Thus, for example, the 227 tribes of Alaska had $2 million
to spend and the only Tribe in the Navajo Area, the Navajo Nation, had
$2 million to itself. I was hopeful that the Task Force would have
developed some better recommendations.
Question 9. The Secretary had the authority under the compromise
language in section 118 to make the distribution if the Task Force was
unable to get support from a majority of Task Force members. Although a
majority did agree to the split, not all members support the split. Did
the 1/12th split make sense to you?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary understood section 118 to say if a
majority of the Task Force identified a particular allocation, we did
not have the discretion to say no. It was only if the Task Force failed
to produce a majority interpretation that the Secretary could have
taken the task on himself. Had the decision been left to the Assistant
Secretary and the Deputy Commissioner the distribution would have been
much different.
I understand that a number of other proposals were discussed by the
Task Force, although none were adopted.
Question 10. Did the BIA or the Task Force keep records of these
proposals and the factors that the area representatives suggested be
considered?
Answer. The Bureau taped the initial Task Force meeting.
Question 11. Do you believe that consideration of some of the
factors, like population, land base, joblessness, and other tribal
financial resources, would make good sense in developing a new
distribution method?
Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the TPA work group have
discussed each of these factors as variables to consider in a new TPA
allocation system. It is important that we realize this situation is
complex. While it seems to make sense to relate job training or adult
vocational training to joblessness, if the reservation is remote
relative to job opportunities, the success of training may be limited.
With the other variables such as land base and population, what is
important for program funding distribution is what is on the land base
and the composition of the population. It does not make sense to give
forestry program funding on land base, if the land has no forests.
Likewise, it does not make sense to distribute housing improvement
funding on population, when a tribe does not have housing improvement
needs.
The relevance of other tribal financial resources is also complex.
In the case where the Tribe's wealth comes from a legislated settlement
that states the settlement is not to be considered in future
appropriations, the Bureau intends to follow that law. However, the
Assistant Secretary is attempting in fiscal year 1999 to get certain of
the most prosperous Tribes to voluntarily return their allocations of
TPA funds to be redistributed to the most needy Tribes. The Committee
can assist by including language in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations
bill that assures Tribes that the return of TPA funds in no way
diminishes a Tribe's rights and relationship with the Federal
government.
contract support costs
Following enactment of the Indian Self Determination Act, it became
the policy of the government to contract to the Tribes that want to
participate the functions of the Bureau that are not inherently
Federal. Later, it was decided that Tribes should get, in addition to
the funds that would have gone to the agency to provide the service,
additional overhead money--hence ``contract support.'' So, today, it
costs the Federal government more to have the Tribes provide BIA
services than if the BIA had provided these services--significantly
more. The BIA has requested $114.9 million for contract support costs
in the fiscal year 1999 budget, a $9 million increase over fiscal year
1998 funding.
Question 12. Is the request sufficient to fully fund contract
support costs, and if not, what is the estimated shortfall?
Answer. On page BIA-59 of the Bureau's fiscal year 1999 Budget
Justifications, is a table that displays the estimated shortfall
expected in fiscal year 1999. The total need for fiscal year 1999 is
estimated to be about $128.3 million while the amount requested for
contract support is $114.9 million. This leaves about a 10 percent or
$13.4 million shortfall.
The budget request includes an increase of $4 million and includes
an internal transfer of $5 million from the Indian Self-Determination
Funds, for new and expanded contracts.
Question 13. Is the estimated shortfall related totally to existing
contracts for ongoing programs, or is the Bureau anticipating entering
into new contracts with Tribes to take over Bureau programs, despite a
growing shortfall?
Answer. The estimated shortfall is related totally to existing
contracts for ongoing programs. Tribes contracting new or expanded
contracts receive their contract support funds from the Indian Self-
Determination (ISD) Fund. The ISD fund is distributed on a first-come,
first-served basis, until exhausted. If funds are not sufficient in a
particular fiscal year, the new contractor must wait until the next
year to receive their contract support funds from the ISD Fund. Funds
are transferred annually from the ISD Fund to the contract support line
item for existing contracts for ongoing programs.
It now costs the United States more to pay for the programs for the
Indians than it did when the Bureau provided the services to them. Most
people, it seems, have come to grips with this fact, although they may
not agree with it. However, most accept it, having been led to believe
that, at some point in the future, costs will come down--the Indians
will have taken over all of the programs, and will be running them
smoothly and efficiently.
Question 14. As discussions among lawyers for the Tribes, the
Bureau and Committee staff have grown in response to the crisis, that
certainty--that ultimately this is a good deal for the government in
that the total costs will come down--has evaporated. Do you think that
the policy of providing contract support costs over and above the
program funding is fiscally responsible? Will costs to the Federal
government ever decrease?
Answer. Providing contract support costs over and above the program
funding is fiscally responsible, as recognized in the 1988 amendments
to the Indian Self Determination Act. Congress recognized that the
funds the Tribes were receiving for running the same programs were less
than what the the Department was using overall to administer the same
programs. Bureau-operated programs are supported by other programs
within the Bureau budget. The direct program funds for Bureau operated
programs do not include the cost of GSA rental space, telephones,
postal costs, insurance, retirement, etc. These are the types of costs
Tribes receive through contract support.
Question 15. Despite being unpopular, why doesn't it make fiscal
sense to stop extending new contracts if the Bureau doesn't have the
money, and knows it doesn't, to support them?
Answer. Such a decision is not within the authority of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Congress enacted Public Law 93-638 as amended, which
allows Tribes to contract Bureau programs at any time. Promoting self-
determination is the core of the Bureau's mission and the first and
most important of its Strategic Plan Goals. To deny Tribes the
opportunity for self-government/self-determination goes against the
government-to-government policy the federal government has with Indian
Tribes. Such a policy change would deteriorate or destroy the
government-to-government relationship the federal government has
developed with the Indian Nations of this country.
The Bureau is in litigation on several fronts regarding shortfalls
in contract support costs funding. Recent Federal court decisions from
the D.C. Circuit, the Tenth Circuit and the Oregon District Court have
held that contract support costs are an entitlement of sorts. One case,
in particular, Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, in the 10th Circuit, has
been brought to the Committee's attention. In part, the holding
required BIA to pay contracting and compacting Tribes support cost
shortfalls of other Federal or State programs. Thus if a state or
another Federal agency does not fully fund contract support, BIA has to
make up the difference.
Question 16. What is the status of the contract support cost
litigation? Is BIA appealing these decisions?
Answer. There are currently two pending cases involving contract
support. In the first case, Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, the
Department did not appeal the decision rendered by the US Court of
Appeals, 10th Circuit. The Department is currently in partial
settlement negotiations with the class of plaintiffs in Ramah Navajo
Chapter. In the second case, the Department has requested that the
Department of Justice support an appeal of the decision by the Interior
Board of Contract Appeals (IBCA) in the consolidated appeals of Alamo
Navajo School Board, Inc. and Miccosukee Corporation. In Alamo Navajo
the IBCA ruled that the language included in the DOI Appropriations
Bills in fiscal year 1994-1998 capping contract support costs did not
limit the Department's liability to fully fund contract support costs.
Question 17. What is the status particularly of the Ramah case? Why
did the BIA and the Justice Department decide not to appeal the
decision? How much is a settlement of Ramah going to cost the
government?
Answer. The Government is now in the process of negotiating a
partial settlement agreement with the plaintiff class which will settle
the claims from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 1993. Plaintiffs
have reserved their claims from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year
1998 pending a final determination in Miccosukee Corporation. The
Department estimates that the partial settlement agreement will be
completed this summer. Because settlement negotiations are ongoing and
because the class has reserved some of its claims, the cost of settling
the case is currently unknown.
The law requires that the settlement come from the Judgment Fund.
Further, the law provides that the Judgment Fund be reimbursed from the
operating funds of the Federal agency found liable--in this case, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Question 18. From the BIA's perspective, were the Tribes well-
informed by their attorneys or the Bureau that the settlement of a
lawsuit for contract support costs would ultimately come from the
budget of the very agency on which they rely for the bulk of their
Federal support? Who is going to get rich from this litigation?
Answer. The Bureau assumes that Plaintiffs' attorneys were well-
informed that under the Contract Disputes Act the Department may be
required to reimburse the Judgment Fund either from available funds or
by obtaining additional appropriations for this purpose. Plaintiffs'
attorneys were also informed that if the Department is required to
reimburse the Judgment Fund without a supplemental appropriation for
this purpose, appropriations for the Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Priority Allocations will be impacted. No one is expected to get
rich from this litigation.
Question 19. The law is settled in this area, wouldn't you agree,
that the settlement must be repaid from the Bureau budget?
Answer. Under the Contract Disputes Act, a judgment against the
United States that is paid out of the judgment fund shall be reimbursed
``by the agency whose appropriation were used for the contract out of
available funds or by obtaining additional appropriations for such
purposes.'' 41 U.S.C. Sec. 612(c).
Question 20. How is BIA dealing with the crisis?
Answer. Because Ramah Navajo Chapter deals with other agency short-
falls in the payment of contract support, not BIA short-falls, the
Department is exploring various avenues for determining the extent to
which other agencies may need to share in reimbursing the Judgment
Fund. In addition, the Department has discussed with Treasury the
option of repaying the Judgment Fund over a period of years instead of
out of a single year's appropriation budget.
Question 21. Do you believe the Bureau has an obligation to bring
to Congress a proposal on how the government will deal with contract
support in the future?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary is addressing the issue of contract
support funding and plans to present a permanent solution to Congress
in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Question 22. Do you have a proposal for the Committee? Will you be
able to provide one to us for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Please see the answer to question 21.
Question 23. Does the BIA intend to submit a request for new bill
language that it feels will be sufficient to reduce its liability? What
is the status of a long term solution from the Department or the
Bureau? In the absence of a solution or knowledge of the total
liability for past and current shortfalls, why shouldn't contracting
and compacting be held flat?
Answer. Yes, new bill language is included in the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget to reduce liability exposure. The Assistant
Secretary is forming a work group to develop options for a long-term
solution to the issue of contract support funding. Holding contracting
or compacting flat or placing a moratorium on new contracting under
Public Law 93-638 is not possible under current law. Public Law 93-638
gives Tribes and tribal organizations the option of whether and/or when
to contract. Any limitation of that would not only be seen as counter
to the Administration's policy of supporting and strengthening tribal
self-determination, but would require substantive amendments to Public
Law 93-638.
In your testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee in February,
you noted that there are ``some disparities in the contract support
requests that are made by the Tribes.''
Question 24. Could the BIA be more specific about what disparities
exist?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary was referring to the disparity
found in the wide range of indirect cost rates that Tribes and tribal
organizations have negotiated. The issue of how indirect cost rates are
estimated and negotiated will be examined by the Assistant Secretary's
work group referred to in the answer to question 23.
Question 25. What is the current method for determining contract
support costs?
Answer. The Bureau utilizes tribal indirect cost rates negotiated
with the Office of the Inspector General to determine the amount of
contract support recipients are eligible to recover. In a very small
percentage of cases where Tribes or tribal organizations cannot
negotiate rates, the Bureau negotiates lump sum amounts.
Question 26. Is a single formula applied to all Tribes? To all
programs? What are the factors considered?
Answer. No single formula is applied to all tribal contractors.
Rather, indirect cost rates as negotiated by the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) are used as the basis for determining contract
support costs. Once the OIG negotiates a rate with each Tribe, this
rate (percentage) is applied to the direct program amount. In instances
where the appropriated amount available for contract support costs does
not meet the overall contract support needs for the fiscal year, each
contract support recipient shares in that shortfall on a pro-rated
basis.
Question 27. What government branch, if any, assists the Bureau in
evaluating contract support costs?
Answer. The Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector
General independently negotiates the indirect costs rates which are
used as the basis for estimating contract support requirements.
law enforcement in indian country
The Administration has identified law enforcement in Indian Country
as a top priority. Secretary Babbitt addressed the need in his remarks
to this subcommittee several weeks ago. The Administration is proposing
$182 million in new funding for several initiatives--most of it in the
Department of Justice accounts. The Department of Justice has proposed
$157 million for targeted law enforcement programs in Indian Country
($105 million) and for Indian detention center construction ($52
million).
Funding in the BIA budget for general law enforcement initiatives
for fiscal year 1999 is proposed at $116.9 million, including a $25
million new initiative and $71.5 million in TPA.
Attorney General Reno and Secretary Babbitt submitted the Final
Report of the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law Enforcement
Improvements to the President on January 20, 1998. In that report they
recommended the removal of law enforcement funds from the TPA accounts
and establishment of law enforcement as a distinct line item in the
Interior budget. The President's budget was completed before the
submission of the recommendations of the Attorney General and the
Secretary, and so, could not reflect the recommendations of Attorney
General Reno and Secretary Babbitt.
Question 28. Does the Bureau support the recommendations regarding
the removal of law enforcement funding from TPA and establishment of a
protected line item in the Bureau budget?
Answer. The intent behind the joint position of the Secretary of
the Interior and the Attorney General as outlined in the January 20,
1998, correspondence to the President was to ensure that funds
specifically provided for the law enforcement line item were not
redistributed to other competitive TPA programs during a given fiscal
year. The Bureau supports this position. However, rather than transfer
funds from the TPA Law Enforcement line item, the Bureau proposes to
implement administrative controls on fund allocation by making the
Office of Law Enforcement Services (OLES) responsible for the
distribution of funds. In this regard, OLES, will have budgetary
control of funds to ensure that law enforcement funding levels in
fiscal year 1999 are only utilized for law enforcement needs and
priorities. Tribes are supportive of this approach, which would
preserve TPA funding and yet provide necessary line authority and
budget control to OLES.
Additionally, this procedure is also in line with Option A of the
Final Report of the Executive Committee on the Presidential Initiative
on Law Enforcement in Indian Country to consolidate the budgetary
authority under OLES. Utilizing this administrative procedure--which is
currently followed by the Bureau in the distribution of other TPA funds
as Contract Support and Welfare--will accomplish the intent of the two
Cabinet members to ensure that law enforcement funds remain allocated
for law enforcement purposes as well as modifying the budgetary
authority as proposed under Option A.
Question 29. How does the Bureau intend to implement the
recommendations that law enforcement funding be removed from TPA and
consolidated in a separate line item?
Answer. As stated previously, to ensure that TPA law enforcement
funds are utilized for law enforcement purposes, the budgetary
authority for distribution of these funds will be consolidated under
the OLES as outlined in Option A of the Final Report of the Executive
Committee on the Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian
Country. Many Tribes have expressed concern for any movement of funds
out of TPA. We believe the Bureau will accomplish the goal of ensuring
that law enforcement funds are utilized for law enforcement purposes
through the aforementioned administrative control of fund allocation
through the OLES. Distribution of TPA law enforcement funds will then
be under the direction of experienced, professionally trained law
enforcement personnel who can provide professional law enforcement
assessments of relative needs and priorities. Therefore, this change in
administrative procedure will accomplish the goal of ensuring that law
enforcement funds are utilized for law enforcement needs and priorities
as well as implementing the consolidation of budgetary authority as
included under Option A.
The Final Report from the Secretary and the Attorney General stated
that ``mechanisms must be put into place to ensure that law enforcement
funds are used only for law enforcement purposes.
Subcommittee staff have informed me that the Office of Management
and Budget have said that ``no TPA is protected.'' In other words, if
law enforcement funds are provided in TPA, Congress cannot dictate that
the Tribes actually use the funds for law enforcement. I understand
also that Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, John
Berry, was asked about this and he agreed with the OMB.
Question 30. What ``mechanism'' does the Bureau intend be employed
to ensure that the law enforcement funds are used for law enforcement?
Answer. The Bureau will implement administrative procedures to
consolidate the budgetary authority under the OLES similar to the fund
control procedures in place for distribution of other non-base TPA
programs such as Contract Support and Welfare. The OLES will be
responsible for distribution of all law enforcement funds appropriated
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
In addition to the TPA funding, the Bureau has requested $25
million in the Special Programs and Pooled Overhead Activity for a new
initiative on ``improving law enforcement in Indian Country.''
Question 31. Does the Bureau support moving the TPA funding to the
Special Programs account? Is this what Secretary Babbitt and Attorney
General Reno had in mind in their recommendation?
Answer. As stated previously, the intent behind the joint position
of the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General as outlined
in the January 20, 1998, correspondence to the President with regards
to removing funds from TPA was to ensure that funds specifically
provided for the law enforcement line item were not redistributed to
other competitive TPA programs during a given fiscal year. The Bureau
supports the position of ensuring that law enforcement funds provided
under Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are utilized for law
enforcement needs and priorities. It is felt this can be accomplished
by implementing the consolidation of the budgetary authority of these
funds under OLES as outlined in Option A along with administrative
controls which restricts movement of these funds out of the TPA law
enforcement line item. These controls will be similar to those
currently in place for non-base TPA programs like Contract Support and
Welfare. Additionally, in keeping in line with Option A, the Bureau is
consolidating the remaining law enforcement funds currently at the Area
\1\ and Central office \2\ levels to the Special Programs activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds currently at the Area level in the budget category, Area
Office Operations are as follows: Law Enforcement.
\2\ Funds currently in other accounts than Special Programs at the
Central Office level are as follows: Non-Recurring Operations: Special
Law Enforcement and Central Office Operations: Law Enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal year 1999
budget, Assistant Secretary Gover stated: ``We haven't fully determined
how we'd allocate the funds for law enforcement, but we suspect that it
would not be unlike the way we're allocating the other funds in the
Tribal Priority Allocations.''
Question 32. In light of the Attorney General's and Secretary's
recommendations, does the BIA now have a different plan for the
intended use of BIA law enforcement funding it can share with the
Committee?
Answer. With attention currently focused on improving the
distribution methodology of Federal monies to Indian Tribes, the BIA
plans to distribute the $25.0 million request based on analysis of law
enforcement and detention needs in Indian Country. Combined efforts by
the BIA and the DOJ are underway to contact Tribes to obtain the latest
data available to analyze and evaluate need, focusing in such areas as
population, land base, crime statistics, training, manpower/staffing,
and equipment. This data will allow the BIA to complete a professional
law enforcement assessment of relative needs and priorities. The
assessment will allow funding decisions to be made based on identified
law enforcement and detention needs. The Initiative is a multi-fiscal
year effort and, considering the extreme needs at some locations,
priorities will be established.
Question 33. Will Tribes in Alaska, which is a Public Law 280
state, be able to take advantage of the Administration's focus on law
enforcement for Natives?
Answer. Alaska Native Tribes may apply for grants offered by the
DOJ. Village public safety personnel are eligible for training programs
offered through the Indian Police Academy. Currently, the Bureau does
not provide any law enforcement services in Alaska. In fiscal year
1999, the Bureau will address the severe shortages in Indian Country
where there are tribal or Bureau law enforcement and detention programs
and where there is clear tribal/Federal criminal jurisdiction. Many
tribes in Public Law 280 or like jurisdictions have expressed their
desire to have their own police, courts and jails. While we certainly
agree that criminal justice systems are a part of tribal government,
the reality is that public safety is extremely costly, particularly in
280 jurisdictions which lack entire systems.
education construction
The President's budget request includes $86.6 million in education
construction, an increase of $32.2 million. Within that, the budget
proposal includes $37.4 million for Replacement School Construction, an
$18.2 million increase, and $46.2 million for Facilities Improvement
and Repair, a $14 million program increase.
Funds are requested for three Replacement Schools, Sac and Fox,
Pyramid Lake, and Seba Dalkai.
Question 34. The backlog for school repair and replacement work is
$695 million. How long does the Bureau anticipate it will take to get
through the backlog at the rate we're going?
Answer. The Bureau's Facilities program backlog of repair and
rehabilitation was $695 million at the beginning of 1998. However,
``replacement'' of existing schools that have exceeded their original
design life are not considered in the $695 million figure. Rather, the
facilities backlog figure of $695 million is based on repair and
rehabilitation of existing facilities to meet current health and safety
related codes and standards such as fire, electrical, mechanical, etc.
However, over 50 percent of the Bureau funded schools exceed 30 years
in age, and a large percentage need to be replaced as a result of age
and condition, but also because of increased student load and the fact
that schools do not meet modern education needs. The Bureau estimates
that it would cost, at a minimum, $1.0 billion to replace the Bureau
schools that have exceeded their design life, and further, it would
take an additional $200 million to bring the other schools up to
present standards.
Excluding replacement, it would take over 15 years to address the
existing education backlog of $695 million at the proposed fiscal year
1999 budget request level of $86.6 million. If replacement of all
schools qualifying was considered, it would exceed 20 years. This
estimate takes into consideration that additional backlog deficiencies
will continue to be added to the backlog annually as new needs are
identified and as current backlog items in the BIA's database for
funded replacement schools are totally eliminated from the backlog once
the replacement construction is completed.
Question 35. How many schools are still on the Replacement School
Construction Priority List?
Answer. There are eight schools on the BIA's Replacement School
Priority List which remain unfunded. Three of these eight schools, Sac
& Fox, IA (No. 10), Pyramid Lake, NV (No. 11), and Seba Dalkai, AZ (No.
9) are being requested in the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
Question 36. Does the Bureau intend to get all the way through the
priority list before publishing a subsequent list?
Answer. The Bureau is reviewing a plan to recommend to Congress for
new applications for replacement school construction in early fiscal
year 1999. Newly prioritized schools under this application process
will be added to the existing list of unfunded replacement schools. The
Bureau plans on consulting with Tribes and school boards during the
summer of 1998 regarding changes to the priority setting process with
proposed rulemaking planned for the latter part of 1998. It is
anticipated that approximately 10 schools will be added to the
replacement school priority list.
Last year, we added bill language permitting the Tribes to use
Tribal Priority Allocations funds for the replacement and repair of
school facilities so long as the work is approved by the Secretary and
completed with non-Federal or TPA dollars so that the Federal
government isn't later responsible for finishing something started with
other, more plentiful, resources.
Question 37. Do you know if any Tribes have taken advantage of that
language, which the Bureau retained in its request for this year?
Answer. FMCC conducted a poll of the Area Facilities Offices
regarding any contribution made by Tribes of TPA funds toward a major
facility replacement or repair project. No instance of TPA funds having
been contributed was determined at either FMCC or the Area Office
level.
When Congress pays for a Replacement School, it is because the
existing school has been used beyond its life expectancy? Usually, the
school facility is in deplorable condition by the time funding is
available. However, after the Replacement School is built, in many
instances the Tribe wants to keep using the old building for other
purposes.
Question 38. In the instances where a Tribe chooses to keep an
obsolete school building even after a replacement is built, is the
Bureau still responsible for upkeep?
Answer. In instances where a Tribe chooses to keep an obsolete
school building after it has been replaced, the Bureau is not
responsible for the building's upkeep (i.e., facilities operation and
maintenance). Buildings declared ``excess to Bureau needs'' are either
sold, demolished or transferred to tribal ownership on an ``as-is''
basis. When buildings are sold or transferred, the Bureau relinquishes
its liability for the building.
The budget request for Education Construction also includes $3
million for Employee Housing Repair.
Question 39. The budget justifications state that corrections are
necessary for about 300 housing units. How many Bureau employee housing
units are there, in total?
Answer. There are a total of 4,031 Bureau housing units.
Question 40. How many of the Bureau school employees are tribal
members?
Answer. The table below is an analysis of teaching professionals
employed at Bureau schools.
TEACHING PROFESSIONALS EMPLOYED AT BUREAU SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Percent
Indian Indians Total Indians
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers (1710 series)...... 767 935 1,702 55
Substitute teachers (1712
series).................... 32 79 111 71
Teachers aides (1702 series) 36 1,332 1,368 97
-------------------------------------------
Totals................ 835 2,346 3,181 74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total number of Indians within the Bureau school system is 74
percent, with non-Indians representing 26 percent as of June 9, 1998.
Question 41. What percentage of Bureau employees live in local
community housing?
Answer. Of 10,000 Bureau employees, 2,700 live in Bureau employee
housing units and 7,300 (or 73 percent) live in local community
housing. Local community is defined as all locations where bureau
Central, Area, Agency or School personnel reside, not limited to those
communities where Bureau employee housing is available. Housing for the
7,300 employees not in Bureau employee housing units is obtained and
paid for by those employees. Bureau employees are defined as all
education and non-education full time equivalent personnel. Not
included are tribal contract, grant or compact personnel.
We have required agencies to certify that there is no housing
available in the local community before allowing the agencies to
construct government housing.
Question 42. Does the Bureau require any certification that there
is not housing available in the local community before building or
leasing housing?
Answer. The Bureau requires an approved certification and
justification prior to any new housing construction. The Bureau also
complies with the requirement under OMB Circular A-45 for a housing
needs assessment prior to any new construction. Because of the remote
nature of many locations such as those in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana,
North Dakota, and South Dakota, there is often little or no private
housing available.
tribally controlled community colleges
The President's budget request includes an increase of $5.5 million
for Tribally Controlled Community Colleges operating grants, for a
total of $35.4 million. This would represent an 18 percent increase.
At the Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the BIA fiscal year 1999
budget in February, Mr. Gover referred to the tribal colleges program
as being one of the ``most effective programs that the Bureau funds''.
Question 43. How does the Bureau measure the effectiveness of the
tribal colleges program? Does it consider how many students graduate
with marketable degrees? Placement rates?
Answer. As part of the Bureau's strategic plan, performance
indicators were established for Tribal Colleges. The indicators are
student graduation and student enrollment rates. A measure of
institutional effectiveness is the annual accreditation process each
college must successfully complete and sustain. To be accredited,
tribal colleges must meet general institutional standards established
by the Commission on Institutions of the Northern Central Association
of Colleges and Schools. These requirements include having: legal
authorization to grant degrees, governing boards that possess legal
powers to establish policies, qualified faculties appropriate to the
level of instruction offered by the institution, a certified financial
system and an audit every two years; and conferring degrees based on
recognized fields of study at the higher education level. An accredited
college must also disclose its standing with accredited bodies with
which it is affiliated. An independent team appointed by the Commission
reviews the school's programs and decides on a school's accreditation
status. The Office of Indian Education Programs does not collect
college graduate placement data.
One of the Bureau's Performance Goals in ``Goals 2000'' is to
increase student graduation rates from Tribally Controlled Community
Colleges. For fiscal year 1998, the statistics show that there will be,
roughly, 21,000 enrolled students. The Bureau expects to graduate a
total of 932, according to the budget justifications.
Question 44. Shouldn't about one-quarter of the student body be
graduating in any given year? That would be over 5,000. Why are less
than 5 percent graduating?
Answer. In any given institution of higher education, less than 25
percent of a given year's student body will be graduating. TCCC
students have similar reasons for not graduating as students enrolled
in comparable two-year institutions. Some of these reasons range from
indecision on college majors, early employment opportunities,
inadequate financial aid due to student enrollment classification of
less than 12 credit hours per semester, or change of family
responsibilities. Many TCCC students enroll in their tribal colleges
for specific course work to enhance and improve their job skills and
not necessarily desire to or obtain a college degree. TCCCs enrollments
reflect a significant level of part-time enrolled students causing an
extended graduation date other than an anticipated two-year academic
plan.
In past years, I have asked the BIA to comment on the standardized
test taking (SAT, ACT) of Indian students at the high school level--
which BIA has called ``optional''.
Question 45. Do the TCCCs require standardized test scores for
admissions? How do the schools screen potential students? Are they
graduating students who will succeed in America?
Answer. Standardized test scores are not required of students
enrolling in TCCCs. Most colleges have an open admission policy. This
means that all persons who are graduates of accredited high schools or
have received GED Certificates and are at least 18 years of age are
eligible for admission. Students who have not attained a GED or high
school diploma may seek provisional admission under the ability to
benefit status. Since the goal is to prepare students for work or
higher education, they are evaluated on their level of performance and
then take classes to prepare them for their goal.
Question 46. Are all the tribally controlled community colleges
accredited by the States where they're located?
Answer. Tribal colleges comply with strict standards of mainstream
accreditation associations. The TCCCs are accredited by regional
accrediting organizations such as the North Central Accreditation
Association. Several colleges, including Turtle Mountain Community
College and Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, have reached the
highest standards set by the accrediting agencies that enable them to
be placed on a 10 year cycle for accreditation.
Defenders of larger increases to funding to the Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges bring up the comparison of $2,800 spent per tribal
student compared to roughly $4,200 spent per student at non-tribal
community colleges.
Question 47. Is the comparison fair, when non-tribal community
colleges collect the amount they spend on each student from, in
addition to the state, the communities they serve and students who
attend? About what percentage of tribally controlled community
colleges' funds come from federal funding alone? How many tribally
controlled community colleges have a tuition comparable to that of non-
tribal community colleges?
Answer. The comparison of per student expenditures for tribal and
non-tribal community colleges is complicated. While both types of
schools compete for teachers and seek to provide quality programs,
tribal colleges face many unique challenges, including being located in
geographically isolated areas serving low-income communities.
The intent of Public Law 95-471 was to provide base funding for
tribal colleges. The colleges have always been allowed to seek
additional funds for their operation. In fact, to stay competitive,
tribal colleges charge tuition and seek other funds to provide quality
education services and meet accreditation requirements. On average,
when a TCCC charges tuition it is far below that charged by non-tribal
community colleges. Also on average, approximately 50 percent of the
operational funds for TCCCs are from the Federal government.
Question 48. Tribes are permitted to allocate TPA dollars to the
tribal colleges. If it's important to them, would you recommend that
they do so? Hasn't the BIA told the Navajo to do just that for the
Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico?
Answer. In the spirit of tribal sovereignty and self-determination
individual Tribes establish individual priorities for their own
communities to distribute their TPA funds. Congress also provided
Tribes complete reprogramming flexibility with revised reprogramming
guidelines beginning in fiscal year 1993. If asked to make a
recommendation, OIEP would encourage the expenditure of funds on
education programs.
united tribes technical college
At the Indian Affairs Committee hearing in February, 1998, Senator
Conrad asked Mr. Gover about his commitment to the tribal community
colleges program, which Conrad identified more specifically by noting
that the BIA is requesting a $5.5 million increase for fiscal year
1999.
Mr. Gover responded not by talking about the tribally controlled
community colleges for which the increase is requested but about the
United Tribes Technical College, which does not meet the requirements
for funding under title one of the TCCC Act. The Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges Act limits funding under the BIA TCCC program to ONE
school per Tribe. United Tribes Technical College is owned by five
owner Tribes, each of which already has a funded Tribally Controlled
Community College.
Question 49. Would the Bureau please discuss the funding issue of
the United Tribes Technical College relative to the Tribally Controlled
Community College program? How much earmark funding has the UTTC
received over the years? What is its BIA funding history?
Answer. Unlike Tribally Controlled Community Colleges that are
funded under the authorization of Titles I-IV of the Tribally
Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, UTTC is an
independent vocational training institution funded by the Bureau under
its Special Programs/Pooled Overhead activity. For the past twenty
years, UTTC has received a total of approximately $31 million in Bureau
appropriations. This equates to roughly $1.5 million annually, not
including contract support funds.
The United Tribes Technical College is in the fiscal year 1999
budget request for $1,810,000. The UTTC program provides services
beyond post-graduate education, including child care, a residential
setting, and elementary education services to students' families. I'm
not certain that's a proper use of funds.
Question 50. Would the Bureau comment on the purpose of the funding
for the United Tribes Technical College?
Answer. Funding for UTTC supports a tribally-controlled residential
vocational school which offers vocational education courses and
training at the one-year certificate and two year technical degree
level. UTTC is a state chartered, non-profit corporation owned by five
tribes (The Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold, the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux, the Spirit Lake Dakota
Nation, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa) located in whole or
in part within North Dakota. The corporation is administered by a Board
of Directors composed of two members of each of these five Tribes.
Located three miles south of Bismarck, North Dakota, the campus
includes on-campus student housing for singles and families and on-
campus day care and elementary school (K-8) services for student
dependents.
My staff tell me that the funding request for the United Tribes
Technical College was not part of the original Bureau request submitted
to the OMB.
Question 51. If the United Tribes Technical College is a good
program, why doesn't the Bureau request funding for UTTC in its initial
budgets submitted to OMB?
Answer. The Bureau has supported the United Tribes Technical
College for 20 years. UTTC has helped numerous adult Indians who reside
on or near reservations to secure employment in economically depressed
areas. The Bureau supports the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
request which includes $1.81 million for UTTC.
In a 1997 report to the Committee, GAO identified UTTC as one of
only three programs it recommended for rescission of BIA funding.
Committee staff further understand from talking to staff at BIA, OMB
and GAO that UTTC doesn't graduate very many students.
Question 52. What is the United Tribes Technical College's rate of
graduation? What programs does it have? Is it a state accredited
school?
Answer. The United Tribes Technical College is accredited by the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools at the Certificate
and/or Associate of Applied Science level. It offers eight certificate
programs and eleven Associates of Applied Science Degrees. In fiscal
year 1996 and 1997, the graduation rate at UTTC has been approximately
46 percent based on 125 students who have completed their second and
final year of training from enrollment of approximately 300 vocational
students. It should be noted that many students have jobs and are
enrolled part time, and thus require longer to graduate.
Question 53. In the BIA's opinion, is this a successful program for
which BIA funding should continue?
Answer. As the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request
indicates, the Bureau believes the United Tribes Technical College
provides valuable services and recommends continued funding of UTTC in
fiscal year 1999.
Question 54. Does the Bureau now disagree with the GAO, where it
agreed before? Why?
Answer. The Bureau supports the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
which provides $1.81 million for United Tribes Technical College. The
Bureau fully supports the continuation of support for UTTC in fiscal
year 1999. The Bureau would not support a change to the funding level
requested in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget.
crownpoint institute of technology
At least one other school, the Crownpoint Institute of Technology,
in New Mexico, is essentially in the same position as UTTC--another
tribal college already receives funding for the Tribe it serves, the
Navajo Nation, so no TCCC funding is available. The Navajo and
Crownpoint have been told by the Bureau that the Navajo can allocate
TPA dollars to the school if that's a priority. Each year, for the last
several, Senator Domenici has requested funding for the Crownpoint
Institute. And each year, I've sent him away without funding because it
has been the policy of the Bureau and of the Committee not to earmark
but in extreme circumstances--like in the instance of rebuilding a
school destroyed by fire or other disaster. Then I learn that, for
years, we've been funding an earmark for a tribal college.
Question 55. Why should one school be given an earmark and not the
other one?
Answer. The establishment of Special Programs for United Tribes
Technical College, National Ironworkers Training Program and United
Sioux Tribes Development Corporation under the Bureau's Community
Development Subactivity was the result of Congressional action. Given
current fiscal constraints, the Bureau cannot support the addition of
funds for any program or project that would result in the reduction of
funding for other programs or projects in the President's budget. We
generally oppose tribal-specific earmarks as these are usually provided
at the expense of programs that benefit all Tribes.
Question 56. UTTC has five owner Tribes. Shouldn't they be given
the responsibility, per the goals of self determination, of deciding to
allocate TPA dollars to UTTC, if the Navajo have been told that for
Crownpoint?
Answer. The Bureau supports the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
which provides $1.81 million for United Tribes Technical College. The
Bureau would encourage the Tribes to dedicate funds from other sources
to UTTC. The Bureau supports the United Tribes Technical College at a
minimal level. Working in collaboration, the college and Tribes must
secure significant additional funding to maintain quality education
programs.
Question 57. Why is the Bureau still requesting earmark funding for
any program?
Answer. The Bureau supports the program funding levels in the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Generally, the Bureau does
prefer to fund programs that benefit all Tribes.
According to the GAO, which identified UTTC for elimination of
funding, UTTC's funding comes at the expense of funding for programs
which would serve a wider population of Indians.
Question 58. Also according to the GAO, the Bureau agreed with its
comments in the report. Where's the disconnect? Does the Bureau now not
agree with those comments?
Answer. The Bureau supports the program funding levels in the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Generall, the Bureau does
prefer to fund programs that benefit all Tribes.
other bia earmarks
The BIA budget for the last few years has contained requests for
funding for two other earmark programs, the United Sioux Tribe
Development Corporation and the National Ironworkers Training Program.
The United Sioux Development Corporation is a job placement program and
the Ironworkers Program is a vocational education program. This year,
the request includes a request of $524,000 for the Ironworkers Program
but nothing for the tribe job placement program.
The GAO report which identified United Tribes Technical College for
elimination also identified the United Sioux Tribes Development
Corporation and the National Ironworkers Training Program and stated
that the BIA agreed with that assessment:
``These officials [at BIA] agreed with the proposed elimination of
the National Ironworkers Training Program, United Sioux Tribes
Development Corporation, and United Tribes Technical College,
believing, in part, that it is much more effective to fund programs
that benefit as many Tribes as possible rather than a limited number of
the Indian population. They also noted that, where warranted, the funds
should be provided to the Tribes.''
Question 59. Do you agree with that evaluation now? If not, what
has changed your mind? If so, why do these programs, with the exception
of the Sioux Development Corporation, continue to appear in the budget
request?
Answer. Many of these programs have been a part of the Bureau's
budget for over 20 years. The Congress has provided appropriations to
the Bureau for these programs over time. The Bureau supports the
funding requests in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, and will
continue to examine its funding needs and priorities.
Question 60. Why have these programs been included in the requests
from BIA in the past? Why did the Sioux Development Corporation
suddenly lose favor? Are these programs that should receive earmarks?
Answer. Due in part to strong support from Congress, many of these
programs have been a part of the Bureau's budget for over 20 years. Due
to the limited availability of funds and the Bureau's many critical
responsibilities for fiscal year 1999, the President's fiscal year 1999
budget does not include funding for the Sioux Development Corporation.
In the Bureau's budget justifications, the United Sioux Tribes
Development Corporation is described as a program that tribes can
support by deciding to allocate their TPA ``Direct Employment program
funds and other funding sources''. The Bureau request contains nothing
for this program which received $108,000 for fiscal year 1998.
Question 61. Can't the same thing--that Tribes can decide to
support them with TPA and other funds--be said of the other earmarks--
UTTC and the Ironworkers Training Program?
Answer. Tribes may choose to dedicate TPA funds toward UTTC and the
Ironworkers Training Program.
indian arts and crafts board
The Indian Arts and Crafts Board is in the Bureau budget with a
request for $932,000, a $35,000 decrease--$50,000 program decrease
offset partially by a $15,000 increase for fixed costs. One of the few
programs in the Bureau budget for which a decrease is requested, the
Indian Arts and Crafts Board was featured in a USA Today article on
February 12, 1998.
The article said that Assistant Secretary described the collection
of over 23,000 pieces of pottery, sculpture, paintings, basketry and
dolls as a ``national treasure''. Yet the article also said that
thousands of the pieces of artwork are stored in the Department of the
Interior headquarters--``stacked by water pipes, air ducts and
electrical lines''--so close together they cannot even be moved to
inventory them for fear of damaging them.
Question 62. If these artifacts are so important to this Nation,
and to the Department and the Bureau which hold them, why are they
stored this way?
Answer. Contrary to the February 12 USA TODAY article, these
collections are not in danger. Approximately two-thirds of the Indian
Arts and Crafts Board collections are located at the Board's three
regional museums: the Southern Plains Indian Museum, Anadarko,
Oklahoma; the Sioux Indian Museum, Rapid City, South Dakota; and the
Museum of the Plains Indian, Browning, Montana. Approximately one-third
of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board collections are located in the main
Interior building. A portion, predominantly paintings, of the
Washington, D.C., headquarters collection is currently stored in a
secured and monitored area on the mechanical floor of the main Interior
building. At the time this area was created as an annex for selected
items from the headquarters collection. In the early 1970's, it was
common practice for Interior offices to use the mechanical floor to
house office equipment, supplies, furniture, and the like. When the
space was created for the Board, it was furnished with what were then
considered to be museum-quality painting racks, shelving, and cabinets.
Over the years, the furnishings have remained functional.
Over the last several years, recognizing the need for improved
space and increased access of the collections, new storage space for
the collection items has been one of the Board's priorities. In 1993,
the Department began work on a comprehensive plan to renovate the main
Interior building from 1996 through 2003. Early on, the Board worked
with the renovation planners to develop appropriate space for the
Board's headquarters collections, exhibition area, and staff offices.
In the renovation plans, the Board was allocated ample and ideal space
to increase visitor access, collection visibility, and promotional
economic development opportunities for Indian artists and crafts
producers. The new space was designed to meet the highest museum
standards and plans were made to move the collections following
completion of the renovated space.
In mid-1996, due to federal budget cuts, plans for the Interior
renovation project were put on hold indefinitely. Thereafter, the Board
began exploring interim solutions for temporary storage space. The
Board asked for additional space in the building, and explored the
possibility of using private art storage companies. At that time,
additional space was not available in the Interior building and
estimates for rental of commercial storage space were not feasible
within the Board's budget. Therefore, the Board renewed its request for
alternative space within the Interior building to relocate the
collections from the mechanical floor.
With growing interest and support from the Department, which was
advanced further by the formation and findings of a 1996 task force to
study the Board's overall collections, the Board's latest request for
additional space was approved. Steps are currently underway to move the
collections on the mechanical floor to a superior location within the
main Interior building where the collections can be properly stored,
processed, and accessed. The new space is being prepared to receive the
collections, which are expected to be relocated in July/August. The new
space and furnishings will meet current museum standards and will
provide greater visibility and access to these unique examples of
American Indian and Alaska Native culture, heritage, and artistic
vision. For the longer term, the Department has begun a dialogue with
the Smithsonian Institution about display arrangements and the storage
of this valuable art currently in the Interior building.
Question 63. Why is the Bureau proposing a decrease to the Board's
budget?
Answer. This modest reduction reflects the tight budget environment
for federal expenditure as well as the concomitant efforts by the Board
to reduce reliance on federal funding through the Board's user fee
program utilizing its museums and collections. Estimated revenue for
the Board's recently instituted user fee program is approximately
$50,000 for fiscal year 1999. It is anticipated that the revenues from
private sources will continue to grow in the future as the Board
expands its user fee program utilizing its museums and collections.
Question 64. What exactly is the Board? Why isn't the collection
housed by an appropriate museum?
Answer. Although requests for the Indian Arts and Crafts Board's
appropriations appear in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budgets, under
the Operation of Indian Programs appropriation account, the Board is a
separate agency under the Office of the Secretary. It was established
in 1935 (Public Law 74-355) to promote the development of the creative
work of American Indian and Alaska Native people to (1) improve the
economic status of Native Americans, (2) ensure the continuing vitality
of a valuable American heritage, (3) increase Native American
participation and control in the growing Native American fine arts and
handcrafts business; (4) enable Native Americans to realize their full
potential for employment and income from the demand for their creative
work, and (5) assist Native American cultural leaders who are
developing an institutional framework to support the preservation and
evolution of tribal cultural activities. The Board's activities are not
duplicated in either the federal or private sector, and its policies
are determined by its five commissioners, who serve without
compensation.
The Board administers the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-644) that regulates the marketing of Indian arts and
crafts to protect producers and consumers. Annual sales of Indian
handcrafts and other artwork are over $1 billion.
The Indian Arts and Crafts Board owns and uses for economic
development, promotional, educational, and research purposes
outstanding collections of contemporary and historic American Indian
and Alaska Native art (23,000 objects) which represent over 50 percent
of the artwork (painting, sculpture) administered by the Department of
the Interior nationwide.
Approximately two-thirds of these collections are located at the
Board's three regional museums in Oklahoma, Montana, and South Dakota.
These museums serve as key economic and cultural cornerstones for their
communities and the surrounding areas, enjoy significant tribal
support, and host 150,000 visitors annually. The remaining works are
located in the headquarters collection, which serves as a resource for
promotional museum exhibitions, other promotional presentations, and
economic development activities.
The museums and collections also play an important role in the
Board's mission by fulfilling the express Congressional authorization
for the Board to impose a range of user fees in Board museum and
collection activities. These museums and collections, through admission
fees, rental fees from Indian owned shops at the museums, and licensing
the images of the collection objects, provide the main source of
revenue for the Board to transition away from complete reliance on
federal funding. Without these museums and collections, the Board would
have no independent source of revenue.
The primary purpose of the Board's headquarters collection is
providing the public with ready access to a pool of objects from which
promotional/educational exhibitions and economic development activities
can be created.
Some objects from the headquarters collection are exhibited in the
Board's headquarters offices and in the Department of the Interior
hallway exhibit cases on a rotating basis to impress upon official and
public visitors the breadth, quality, and appeal of Native American
creative work. To further increase public access to the Board's
headquarters collections, three new mobile Indian Arts and Crafts Board
exhibit cases, featuring a selection of headquarters collection
masterpieces, have been placed in the main Interior lobby.
In addition to the Board's own promotional activities, objects from
the Board's collections are loaned through formal written agreements to
established and accredited museum facilities for exhibition and
educational purposes. For example, work from the headquarters
collection is currently included in two traveling exhibitions--Memory
and Imagination: The Legacy of Maidu Indian Artist Frank Day, which
premiered at The Oakland Museum in Oakland, California, and Pottery by
American Indian Women: The Legacy of Generations, which premiered at
the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C.
The article suggested that the artwork ought to be transferred to
the Smithsonian. The article also suggested that Interior wants to keep
the art--as a sort of ``turf war''.
Question 65. What's BIA's response?
Answer. The Department of the Interior recently re-affirmed the
central role of the Board's museums and collections with respect to the
Board's mission. In support of one of the Department's core missions,
its commitment ``* * * to carry out trust responsibilities of the U.S.
Government with respect to American Indians and Alaska Natives * * *'',
and in acknowledgment of the U.S. Government's obligations under the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-
601), the Department re-examined the role of the Board's collections in
1996. At the request of the then-Assistant Secretary--Policy,
Management, and Budget, a task force was assembled to recommend actions
for the long-term preservation and protection of the Board's
collections.
Following careful and extensive study, analysis, site visits, and
discussions with the Tribes and surrounding communities, the task
force, which included a representative from the Smithisonian Institute,
recommended that Interior retain ownership of the Board's collections,
that the Board's three museums remain in their respective communities,
and that access and use of the Board's collections be increased. The
Board supports these recommendations and has undertaken the task of
increasing access and use of its collections. Currently, the
Commissioners are exploring preliminary opportunities to partner with
other institutions to expand access to the collections for promotional,
economic development, and educational purposes.
Despite the suggestion contained in the February 12, 1998, USA
TODAY article, the Department of the Interior is not engaged in a
``turf war'' with the Smithsonian. In fact, the Board considers the
Smithsonian to be a respected partner in the field of Indian art and
cultural preservation.
Question 66. Two years ago, the House recommended elimination of
funding for the Board. The Senate put funding back in. What are we
accomplishing by continuing to fund it?
Answer. Within its limited budget of $967,000, the Board has
continued to achieve significant accomplishments.
Among the key reasons to continue funding the Board are:
enforcement of a federal law--the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Public
Law 101-644); operation of three museums that serve as major economic,
cultural, and educational attractions in their regions; stewardship of
23,000 historic and contemporary American Indian and Alaska Native art
and craft work; compliance with the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601); the U.S. Government's
commitments to Indian Tribes; related cultural heritage preservation,
cultural patrimony, education, and other intellectual property
purposes; and promotion of tribal economic development and self-
reliance.
In the past two fiscal years, the Board's work included completing
the final regulations for the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Public Law
101-644); initiating a user fee program to help offset budget
reductions and reduce reliance on federal appropriations; updating the
widely distributed ``Source Directory'' of Indian owned and operated
arts and crafts businesses; promoting over 160 artists and craftspeople
through individual, group, and special museum exhibitions; promoting
approximately 300 Indian art businesses; and promptly and thoroughly
responding to all complaints of misrepresentation. Other activities
included moving the Sioux Indian Museum and collections into new and
expanded facilities provided by the City of Rapid City, South Dakota.
These new facilities represent a model private-local-state-federal
partnership. During this time, the Board's accomplishments also
included making artwork available for nearly 300,000 visitors who have
visited the Board's museums; providing loans of its artwork collection
to major touring museum exhibitions; providing collection images to
authors and publishers; assisting in the establishment and development
of Indian art and craft businesses; serving as an information
clearinghouse and liaison between Indian artists and artisans and
businesses looking for work to purchase; and providing a wide range of
advice to Indian museums, cultural centers, heritage preservation
organizations, and related projects seeking to establish or expand
their programs.
The Board will continue to develop and expand these and other
economic development activities, with a strong commitment to build up
an aggressive Indian Arts and Crafts Act enforcement program. The
Congress charged the Board with the responsibility to enforce this
truth-in-advertising law, which helps protect American Indian and
Alaska Native artists and artisans from unfair competition from
counterfeits. Under the Act, the Board may receive complaints of
misrepresentation of art and craft work in the marketplace. The Act
provides both civil and criminal provisions and combats consumer fraud
that unfairly reduces income of Native Americans in competition with
cheap imitations. This misrepresentation of Indian art and craft work
can also seriously erode consumer confidence in Indian arts and crafts
products and can have wide-reaching negative economic effects. There is
no other effective enforcement mechanism to ensure such truth-in-
advertising and the Act's enforcement activities cannot be conducted by
non-federal entities.
Under the Act, the Board may also register, without charge,
trademarks of genuiness and quality on behalf of Indian Tribes, arts
and crafts organizations, and individuals. This important trademark
provision is intended to build market visibility and promote genuine
Indian handcrafts. It is also intended to ensure that Indians receive a
greater share of the industry profits and to preserve the integrity and
marketability of authentic Indian arts and crafts products. Through
these and future programs, the Board protects Indian artists and
artisans, businesses, and Tribes, as well as consumers, and encourages
the move by the Tribes and their members toward economic self-reliance.
Question 67. This Committee is struggling to find funding for
programs that have marginal success but plenty of potential. Why
shouldn't we cut the $932,000 for this program, which seems to be a
dismal failure, and transfer the artwork to an existing museum?
Answer. We are confident that greater knowledge about the Board,
its accomplishments, and its role in promoting economic development in
Indian Country would lead the committee to reject the notion that the
Indian Arts and Crafts Board is a ``dismal failure''. Its activities
fully justify the $932,000 proposed in the President's fiscal year 1999
budget. The Board is the only federal program that is concerned with
increasing the economic benefits of American Indian and Alaska Native
creative work in the $1 billion arts and crafts industry. Many
producers participate while residing on their reservations; however,
American Indians and Alaska Natives control only a limited portion of
the marketing of their art and craft work. The Board engages in a
variety of promotional efforts to change that. For example, the Board's
``Source Directory'' publication is the primary means of establishing
direct contact between consumers and Indian producers.
In addition to terminating the Board's current activities and
future agency economic development plans for American Indians and
Alaska Natives, elimination of the Board's budget would create a
significant hardship for Indian arts and crafts producers and
businesses and would be a considerable setback for consumers. It would
also undermine the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and essentially eliminate
the trademark provision of the Act. Implementation of the Act is an
inherently governmental function, and this law will not be enforced in
any meaningful way if the Board is abolished. The Board's regional
museums and collections will be in jeopardy, and damage to the existing
relationship(s) between the U.S. Government and Tribes could result.
The Department would continue to have fiduciary responsibilities for
the care and preservation of the Board's collections.
Two years ago when the Board's funding was in question, the Board
estimated that the cost of closing the agency would be $3.5 million,
and would require two years to complete. The majority of this cost is
for the specialized services required to pack the valuable collections
at their current locations and move them to a suitable repository,
while maintaining adequate accountability throughout the process. There
presently is no other suitable facility to display these works and
hence they would have to be stored indefinitely.
Continued federal funding of the Board in fiscal year 1999 is very
important to the Department of the Interior in order to protect the
considerable national assets administered by the Board, to permit the
Board to implement the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Public Law 101-644),
to fulfill the Department's commitments to Indian Tribes, and to
continue to assist Native Americans in the move toward economic self-
reliance through the marketing of their work in the lucrative American
Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts market.
family violence prevention
The budget request for fiscal year 1999 contains $5,000,000 for
Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention.
Question 68. Does the Bureau intend that some of the $5,000,000 be
used to address the growing problem of teen suicide in Indian Country
and in Alaska Native villages?
Answer. Under 25 CFR 63.35, Tribes have the ability to establish
family violence prevention and treatment programs and some Tribes may
implement treatment programs specifically designed to address possible
teen suicide risks. However, part 63 gives Tribes considerable choice
in terms of the focus of their family violence prevention program so it
is premature to predict how they might structure their programs. The
needs of the tribal members and the availability of mental health
services would affect how Tribes design these programs.
Bureau programs are not the same as the programs offered by the
Indian Health Service (IHS). Bureau programs are directed at the
prevention of child abuse and family violence, while the IHS programs
address the treatment of child abuse and family violence. Funding is
available in the IHS budget to support treatment activities. Currently
there is no funding to support the Bureau prevention programs that
Tribes could initiate. The $5,000,000 requested in the Budget is
intended to allow Tribes to begin developing and operating Child Abuse
and Family Violence Prevention programs.
I believe that the Indian Health Service is the more appropriate
agency to be providing family mental health counseling.
Question 69. Would the Bureau support the Indian Health Service
getting whatever funding was available for those services?
Answer. The Bureau continues to support the request of $5,000,000
for Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention for the Bureau for
which programs are separate and apart from the Indian Health Service
request for mental health counseling services. The $5,000,000 is not
intended for mental health counseling services which is the specific
responsibility of the Indian Health Service. Under 25 CFR 63.35, Tribes
may use the funds to operate a variety of programs which can include
child protection and family violence prevention programs, development
of methodologies for multi-disciplinary investigations, development of
tribal codes and regulations for child protection and family violence,
and design and implementation of training programs for prevention of
child abuse and family violence.
This Committee has not been able to provide funds for the Family
Violence Prevention line item in the TPA activity in the past. Given
the budget constraints, it is highly unlikely that we will provide
funding for any new items this year, without some offsetting cut to
another program in the Indian programs.
Question 70. Does the Bureau have a suggestion for an offsetting
program cut?
Answer. With the need so great in Indian Country due to such
factors as high unemployment rates, alcoholism, and the lowest life
expectancy of any other category of Americans, it is difficult to
propose an offset for any one program which benefits Native Americans.
The need is so great in Indian Country that programs are so
intermingled and dependent on one another, that ``robbing Peter to pay
Paul'' would not benefit the Indian community in the long run as the
net effect would be zero.
indian land consolidation pilot project
The Bureau has requested $10 million to fund a new initiative, the
Indian Land Consolidation Pilot Project. In your prepared remarks, you
outlined the problem of fractional interests in land and the emphasis
of this land acquisition program to consolidate ownership of Indian
lands. You did not, however, detail what the $10 million is for or how
much, in total, the Administration intends to spend on this program.
Question 71. Could you tell the Committee how much this is going to
cost--in total?
Answer. It is currently estimated that it would cost a total of
$300 million to acquire all fractional interests which represent less
than 2 percent interest in an allotment. However, an integral component
of the proposed program is recoupment of the purchase price through
placement of an encumbrance on the interest. Ultimately, the net cost
to the government will be much lower. ``Real'' costs would include:
theoretical interest costs, shortfalls attributable to overestimates of
fair market value, and costs related to acquisition of lands with
administrative costs which exceed their value. Acquisition of these
interests is also expected to provide savings in the costs to
administer Indian lands.
Question 72. The Administration sent up authorizing legislation
last year, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 2743, on October
24, 1997. Have any hearings been held? A markup?
Answer. No hearings or markups have been held on H.R. 2743.
However, enactment of the Department's legislative proposal is not
required to implement the pilot program in the fiscal year 1999 Budget
request.
Question 73. Do you think this legislation will be enacted this
Congress, which has about four months of legislative activity left?
Answer. Both the leadership of the House Resources Committee and
the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have expressed interest in
addressing this longstanding problem. The Department believes that the
likelihood of enactment of the legislative proposal would be greatly
increased if funds were provided for the pilot proposed in the fiscal
year 1999 Budget request. Because the Department's legislative proposal
only includes an authorization for appropriations, Tribes may be
skeptical that funding would ever be appropriated for this program. In
addition to the acquisition program, the legislative proposal includes
important inheritance limitations that will help curb further
fractionation of Indian lands. The inheritance limitations are somewhat
controversial, and without funding for the acquisition program, may not
have adequate support from Tribes and their members.
Question 74. Is the expenditure of $10 million on Indian land
consolidation authorized, absent enactment of the Indian Land
Consolidation legislation that is in the House?
Answer. Appropriations language in the fiscal year 1999 Budget is
sufficient to authorize the pilot program. Without this appropriations
language, the Department has an annual cap of $2 million for general
Indian land acquisition under 25 U.S.C. sec. 465, however, additional
authority may be available under tribal-specific statutes. The
Department does not have any current authority to recoup the purchase
price as provided for in the proposed appropriations language, nor to
perform reservation-wide appraisals.
Question 75. What activities does the Bureau intend to undertake
with $10 million this year?
Answer. The requested funding will primarily fund the acquisition
price and related land acquisition costs of purchased lands. Requested
funding is estimated to be sufficient to execute a substantial program
on one or more reservations to effect a measurable reduction in the
costs of administering these Indian lands and their related trust fund
accounts. A Departmental task force is preparing for implementation of
the pilot.
The task force has developed pilot selection criteria, and has
solicited and received nominations from Bureau Area Office Directors
for pilot sites. Site selection is scheduled for early June, 1998.
Pilot selection criteria include: Tribal interest/willingness to
participate in pilot; significant level of highly fractionated land
ownership interests; a location where the trust resources do not have a
great deal of development; a location with up-to-date land records
information; consent of any allottee association; and capability to
make a substantial reduction in the number of highly fractionated
interests at the requested funding level of $10 million. Proposed sites
do not have to meet all selection criteria.
tribal water rights
The budget request contains $5 million for a water rights
settlement with the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys Reservation
in Montana. The authorizing legislation for that settlement has not
been passed by Congress.
Question 76. What is the status of the legislation?
Answer. Authorizing legislation for the Rocky Boys settlement, the
first Congressionally-authorized settlement in several years, was
introduced in both the House (H.R. 3658) and the Senate (S. 1899) on
April 1, 1998. The members of the Montana Congressional delegation are
working with the respective committees in an effort to arrange a joint
Senate-House hearing on the identical bills. A hearing before the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is scheduled for June 24, 1998.
Question 77. The Committee does not usually fund settlements for
which there is no authorization. Can the first appropriation wait until
there is authorization?
Answer. If implementation of the Rocky Boys settlement is not
initiated in fiscal year 1999, the momentum that has been generated in
support of this legislation may be lost. Providing the funding needed
for this settlement in fiscal year 1999 will signal the United States'
commitment to meaningful protection of the Tribe's water rights in
particular and of Indian water rights in general.
Question 78. Does the proposed settlement legislation contain
penalty provisions, as some settlements have, which will result in
higher appropriations needs if Congress does not appropriate funds for
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The only penalty in the settlement is a provision that if
the Congress does not provide required settlement funds, the Tribal
waiver and release of breach of trust and other claims against the
United States will not be effective.
The Bureau has requested a $3 million increase to the $500,000
probate backlog reduction program.
Question 79. Would you explain that in greater detail?
Answer. The regulations contained in Title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 4 (25 U.S.C. 372) mandates that the Bureau provide
family heirship data to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Office of
Hearings and Appeals, within 90 days from the date an individual's
death has been reported. Further, the Court cases of Dull Knife v.
Morton, U.S.D.C., South Dakota, 394 F. Supp. 1299 (1976) and Lee v.
Andrus, U.S.D.C., New Mexico, Civil No. 81-052-C (1981) directs the
Department to probate Indian trust estates in conformity with existing
law and regulations in order to avoid probate backlogs.
In fiscal year 1992, funds were appropriated to eliminate a pre-
1991 backlog of approximately 4,600 estates that had not been submitted
to the ALJ for probate. Significant strides were made in reduction of
the backlog until 1996. The Bureau was on the average reducing the
backlog by approximately 700 estates annually. However, Congressional
budget reductions for fiscal year 1996 (loss of funding and staffing)
and the elimination of some field ALJ offices resulted in a setback in
the elimination of the pre-1991 backlog. While the Bureau was
concentrating its efforts on eliminating the pre-1991 backlog, a new
backlog was growing and is referred to as the post 1991 backlog of
estates needing to be submitted to the ALJ for probate.
In February, 1998, the Bureau gathered data by name of the deceased
Indians who owned an interest in trust or restricted land and whose
estate had not been submitted for probate to the ALJ in accordance with
the regulations contained in Title 43 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The data revealed that there were 7,772 estates that were
pending submission to the ALJ for probate. This figure includes
approximately 1,600 pre-1991 estates and approximately 6,100 post 1991
estates. The Bureau is confident that the number of estates identified
will increase. The reason is that during the process of probating the
identified estates there will be subsequent deaths (death of heirs
within an estate being prepared) identified due to the age of some of
the estates that have not been probated. The Bureau estimates that the
subsequent deaths will be 20 percent of the identified estate cases, or
approximately 1,600 additional estates. Therefore, the grand total for
estates that need preparation of family histories and property
inventories for submission to the ALJ for probate is approximately
9,300 estates.
It is estimated that it requires an average of 40 hours for one
person to research and prepare one non-complex estate for submission to
the ALJ for probate at a cost of approximately $1,000. The average cost
can increase to as much as $1,500 to $2,000 per estate depending upon
the complexity and age of the estate. This does not include those costs
associated with obtaining the property inventories which are obtained
from BIA's Land Titles and Records Office or appraisals that are
required in some states when the value of the estate exceeds a
specified dollar threshold. Since the Federal Government does not have
an inheritance code, state inheritance laws are utilized for the
probating of Indian trust estates.
The additional $3 million will be used to address the backlog, both
the remaining pre-1991 backlog as well as the post-1991 backlog.
Initial emphasis to eliminate the backlog will focus on the remaining
pre-1991 estates because these are the oldest cases. Due to the age of
the estates, these estates will be more difficult to obtain the
required family history data needed to submit to the ALJ and the
associated costs to complete the data gathering will be greater for
each probate. It is anticipated that the pre-1991 backlog could be
eliminated with the additional $3 million.
According to the 1996 preliminary figures obtained from the
National Center for Health Statistics, the national death rate is 448
per 100,000 persons. Considering that, the Bureau can expect that on
the average there will be approximately 1,483 new deaths per year of
individuals owning trust or restricted land or trust income. However,
we believe that the death rate among American Indians would be slightly
higher than the national death rate because of environmental and health
conditions associated with American Indians. Also, it should be pointed
out that on the average, there are seven heirs to each estate. This
means that we can roughly expect an additional 7,000 new persons to
inherit an interest in trust or restricted land during 1998. As the
number of owners of trust or restricted land increases, there will be a
continual growth in the number of estates that will need to be
probated. This increase will only further complicate the ownership of
trust or restricted land. The fractionated ownership is already
overtaxing the ability of the Federal Government to properly manage the
trust resources, maintain ownership in the land titles and records
systems and timely distribute trust funds. These new heirs create the
need for the establishment and maintenance of additional records
(ownership and Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts) as well as
making completion of trust resource transactions more difficult to
complete because of the need to acquire consent from all of the heirs
to the trust/restricted land under consideration for a transaction.
The costs identified only relate to those dealing with the
preparation of documentation for submission of the estates to the ALJ.
Not included are costs associated with posting of Bureau records after
issuance of the Orders Determining Heirs or Devisees by the ALJs. Such
records include, but are not limited to, changing land ownership
records in the Bureau's Land Records Information System (LRIS) as well
as Bureau agency office land records, i.e., changing payment records
for leases, lease records, notification to lessees, preparation of
documents to close estate accounts and distributing the estate's funds
to the heirs or devisees, etc.
Failure to obtain additional funding to address the estate backlog
that has been identified as well as assuring that sufficient funding is
provided to assure that new deaths are timely submitted for probate
will result in the continual growth and existence of an estate backlog.
Further, it is important to point out that eliminating and maintaining
the probating of Indian estates in a timely manner only treats one of
the symptoms of the problem. The only way to assure elimination and
non-recurrence is to address the cause--fractionated ownership. The
Department has proposed legislation to address the problem, and a
request for a pilot program is included in the Bureau's fiscal year
1999 budget request. This legislation proposes to correct and reverse
the trend of fractional ownership of Indian owned trust and restricted
lands.
The Bureau is requesting significant new funding for two programs
that were not funded in fiscal year 1998, $3 million for Environmental
Cleanup and $5 million for Water Quality Management Planning.
Question 80. If the Committee is able to provide only flat funding,
are either of these a priority over existing programs?
Answer. Assistant Secretary Gover testified before the House
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in late March. In his testimony he
recognized the difficult budget climate we face when the Congress and
the President have really accomplished something very significant in
the form of a balanced budget. While the Bureau's fiscal year 1999
budget request includes increases over the fiscal year 1998 enacted
level, it only begins to reflect the needs in Indian communities.
American Indians are younger, have greater poverty levels, higher
unemployment, a greater number of single parent families, and they die
younger than the U.S. population at large.
The budget request is a delicate balance. It recognizes the climate
of limited budgetary resources, focussing limited budget increases on
critical programs. The Bureau has failed over many years to comply with
Federal environmental laws. We now have a number of serious situations
on the reservations and while we are not aware of any that are
immediately life-threatening, there is no question that we have failed
over the years to deal with environmental issues, especially involving
underground storage tanks and landfills. In the 1970s and 1980s, we did
not do a very good job of identifying the scope of needs that we had,
and we have just begun a process with EPA to identify the entire range
of environmental compliance issues, to prioritize them and then come up
with a plan to present both to EPA and to the Committee for how we are
going to attack this problem. EPA has begun and will continue to fine
the Bureau for noncompliance with environmental laws. The budget
request for these programs is extremely modest if compared to the known
need on reservations. The funds would be used to address this serious
situation in a more orderly fashion rather than trying to stay ahead of
EPA fines, as well as to find the resources within existing, ongoing
programs to pay these fines year after year.
endangered species act
In fiscal year 1998, the Committee expressed its strong views on
the manner in which the secretarial order issued by the Department of
the Interior and the Department of Commerce regarding the
administration of Endangered Species Act [ESA] in relation to Indian
tribal lands purported to change the administration of the ESA in ways
flatly inconsistent with the statute. The Committee further stated its
expectation that the Department would adhere to the ESA as written.
On page 154 of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 1999
Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, the Department
proposes a $1 million increase in Endangered Species funding to be used
for the ``satisfactory implementation'' of this very secretarial order.
Question 81. As the Committee's direction on the Department's
administration of ESA on tribal lands was clear and firm, please
explain the justification with which this funding request is made.
Furthermore, please detail any steps or actions the Department, alone
or in conjunction with the Department of Commerce, has taken pursuant
to this secretarial order, and with what justification such actions
were made in light of the Committee's clear direction on this matter.
Answer. The budget request of $1 million will not be used
exclusively for implementation of the Secretarial Order; only 3
percent, or $33,000, is anticipated to be needed to implement the
order. The request includes funding for such things as compliance with
the ESA, habitat surveys and inventories, support for the development
of Integrated Resource Management Plans for tribal trust resources, and
training for Bureau and tribal personnel. Thus, implementation of the
Order is a small part of the requested increase.
The Department believes that the requested increase for
implementation of the Secretarial Order is a legitimate and worthwhile
use of funds for several reasons and strongly disagrees with the
Committee's assessment. The Department believes that the Secretarial
Order appropriately implements the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
consistent with the statute.
The Department strongly believes the recent Secretarial Order
simply recognizes the trust responsibilities and treaty obligations of
the United States toward Indian Tribes and tribal members. The Order
does not circumvent the requirements of the ESA in favor of Indian
Tribes and does not give preferential treatment for Indian activities
over those of private landowners.
In the past, actions have been initiated and decisions made that
were viewed as disproportionately burdensome to Tribes, in violation of
treaty and trust obligations, and not in the spirit of government-to-
government communication. The Secretarial Order was created to rectify
this while also complying with the ESA.
The success of the Secretarial Order depends on a clear
understanding of the Order by both the Tribes and the federal employees
who deal with Tribes while implementing the ESA. Because much of the
ESA compliance must be carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on
behalf of the Tribes, it is important that Bureau employees become
familiar with the Order. The requested funding would provide training
to Bureau employees and tribal representatives on carrying out the
Secretarial Order and implementation of the ESA.
To date, the Department of Interior has hosted three forums on
implementation of the Secretarial Order. These forums were held in
Phoenix, AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Portland, OR. The Portland session
was co-sponsored with the Department of Commerce. The audience included
federal employees and tribal members. The intent of these sessions was
to familiarize federal employees and tribal members with the contents
of the Order and begin discussion of the most effective ways to
implement the Order.
unresolved hunting and fishing rights
On page 151 of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 1999
Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, the Department
states that $320,000 of the $372,000 of the funding for Unresolved
Hunting and Fishing Rights program will be used by Boldt Tribes for
shellfish issues.
Question 82. Please provide the Committee with the specific
activities to which the Boldt Tribes dedicated these funds in fiscal
year 1998, as well as the activities to which the fiscal year 1999 will
be dedicated.
Answer. Meetings with the Tribes on how to spend the $320,000 in
fiscal year 1998 have recently been concluded. The Tribes have decided
to allocate $270,000 for shellfish work as follows:
--The Lummi Tribe will produce and provide nursery for clam and
oyster larvae to seed size for distribution to various western
Washington Tribes;
--The Port Gamble, Lower Elwha, Jamestown and Skokomish Tribes will
conduct surveys and collect biological data to determine
distribution and stocking density of various shellfish species;
--The Quileute Tribe will conduct monitoring work with the Washington
Department of Health to determine if shellfish is safe for
consumption; and
--The Squaxin Island and Suquamish Tribes will conduct marine
surveys, collecting data necessary to comply with the court's
implementation order;
The Tribes further requested that the remaining $50,000 in
fiscal year 1998 be allocated in support of a newly established
tribal hunting committee created for the purpose of developing
an Intertribal Wildlife Coordination Program to better
coordinate hunting issues with the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife as a follow-up to the August 1997 ruling in
Washington versus Buchanan.
Expenditures for fiscal year 1999 will be determined in
tribal meetings scheduled for next year.
------
Question Submitted by Senator Cochran
Question. Recognizing that the waiting list for school
construction is very long, and in the interest of finding ways
to move schools off the list by accomplishing the needed
construction, I suggested last year that BIA look into
developing a pilot project that would allow Tribes to match
funds for this purpose. Please provide a status on that
project, and particularly the prospect for implementation.
Answer. In mid-April 1998, the Navajo Nation President and
tribal representatives from the Crow Creek and Mississippi
Choctaw Tribes met with key staff from the Bureau's Office of
Indian Education Programs and Facilities Management and
Construction Center. The purpose of this meeting was to begin
preliminary discussions regarding tribal/BIA funding
partnerships for replacement school construction and to discuss
potential revisions to the priority setting process for
replacement school construction which will take into
consideration the funding partnership concept. The Bureau
intends to consult with Tribes and school boards during the
summer of 1998 regarding the revisions and the funding
partnership concept. The Bureau will consider implementation of
a pilot project or projects to test the validity of the
concept.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
Indian water rights funding
Several New Mexico Indian Pueblos are very upset about the lack of
funding in the Albuquerque Area Office for water rights negotiations.
What bothers me about this situation is the fact that I am hearing
about funds going to Minnesota and Montana while Arizona and New Mexico
Tribes--where the vast majority of pending cases are--see declining
resources while the national total goes up.
The Zuni, Acoma, Laguna, and Taos Pueblos have made strong appeals
to me to try and secure water rights funding for their on-going water
negotiations.
The first problem in tracking this funding is that the money comes
from two sources in non-recurring funds at the BIA. The first source is
Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, which has an Administration
request for an increase of $3.5 million over 1998 or a new total of
$14.5 million. The second source is Water Management, Planning, and
Pre-Development, level funded by the Administration at about $8
million.
From both sources, New Mexico Tribes received $3.48 million in
1996; $2.87 million in 1997; and $2.38 million in 1998--clearly a
steady decline while demand for these funds is on the increase due to
active negotiations in the Rio San Jose, the Rio Grande, the Little
Colorado, and other water basins around New Mexico.
Despite the supposed high priority for active negotiations in both
sources, New Mexico definitely is being short-changed for reasons that
I simply do not understand. I have no quarrel with the formal BIA
priorities, but I do have a quarrel with the application of these
priorities in New Mexico.
Question 1. Please explain these disparities to me, but, more
important, please help me to see that the BIA follows its own
guidelines in distributing this vital water resource funding in the
Southwest, and especially in New Mexico.
Answer. The Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation Program is a
critical component of the Bureau's efforts to carry out the United
States' responsibility to protect, defend, and manage American Indian
reserved water rights and other related issues in accordance with the
highest fiduciary standards. Reductions in funding over the past
several years have seriously affected the Bureau's ability to fund, or
fully fund, many requests. Thus it is becoming increasingly difficult
for the Bureau to meet its trust responsibilities. The $3.5 million
increase requested would restore funding for the Water Rights
Negotiation/Litigation Program to the fiscal year 1995 level.
When funding requests are received for both federal and tribal
activities, they are evaluated using established national ranking
criteria to address the highest priority of both litigation and
negotiation needs. For fiscal year 1998, an evaluation panel of Bureau
area office program personnel was established. The panel was comprised
of representatives from Area Offices with some of the most active water
rights issues, including the Albuquerque and Phoenix Area Offices. This
panel worked diligently to review all funding requests and to apply the
established criteria for ranking each request.
For fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Albuquerque and Phoenix
Area Offices have consistently received 60 percent of the water
resources funds available while overall program funding levels have
decreased. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the Minneapolis Area Office
did not receive Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation funding and their
fiscal year 1998 funding from the Water Resources Management, Planning
and Development Program was reduced by almost 50 percent from fiscal
year 1997. The Billings Area Office has not received funding in excess
of the Albuquerque or Phoenix Area Offices since fiscal year 1996.
The Bureau will continue every effort to ensure that the funds
available are distributed to address the higher priorities and provide
adequate funding for worthy projects in support of Indian water
resource activities.
new mexico indian school requests
Navajo preparatory school (BIA contract school)
Navajo Prep is requesting $1.4 million for replacement of utility
infrastructure. This request includes costs for sewer, water,
electricity, storm drainage, natural gas, and communications needs.
Navajo Prep is located in Farmington, NM, serves 190 students, and
is eligible for BIA Facilities Repair and Improvement (FI&R) funds.
They are seeking funds to build a new campus to serve 300 students.
Answer. The Bureau requested $37.4 million in the fiscal year 1999
President's Budget for Seba Dalkai Boarding School, Sac and Fox School,
and Pyramid Lake High School which are ranked Nos. 9, 10, and 11 on the
Bureau's replacement school construction priority list. If requested
funds are provided, construction of these schools would start in the
early spring of CY 1999 and be completed in the fall of CY 2000. The
fiscal year 1999 budget request does not include any funds for the
Navajo Preparatory School. The replacement school construction needs
have been determined through a nationwide priority setting process
directed by the Congress. The Bureau will continue to utilize the list
until the last school is funded for construction.
Canoncito community school (BIA school)
This Pre-K-12 school was designed for 225 students. Current
enrollment is 471 students. To alleviate overcrowding, they are seeking
funds for six portable classrooms at about $210,000. They would also
like to see a new school on this site. Their current basic structure
was built in 1935.
Answer. On March 31, 1998, the Bureau called for new applications
for portable classrooms which are planned for funding in fiscal year
2000, 2001 and 2002. The applications are due on June 1, 1998. An
application package for portable classrooms has been sent to the
Canoncito Community School, as well as all other eligible Bureau funded
schools, for their use in applying for any additional justifiable
portable classrooms. Bureau staff have discussed this need for
additional classrooms with school board representatives and is aware of
the overcrowded conditions. If the Canoncito School board applies for
portable classrooms, the Bureau will consider the application based on
the established needs-based criteria provided to all schools and will
rate and rank the application accordingly. If the application is ranked
high relative to other applications, the BIA will consider funding the
need in future budget requests.
With regard to the school's desire for a new school, the Bureau's
current plan includes a call for new applications for replacement
school construction in early CY 1999. Newly prioritized schools under
this application process will be added to the existing list of unfunded
replacement schools. The Bureau plans on consulting with Tribes and
school boards during the summer of CY 1998 regarding changes to the
priority setting process, with proposed rulemaking planned for the
latter part of CY 1998. Approximately 10 schools will be added to the
existing replacement school priority list.
Isleta Elementary School (BIA School)
This K-6 school was built in 1930. There are thirteen (13) portable
classrooms on site. There are 236 students and 17 staff members. 62
students are taught in the main building with the remaining 174
students in portable classrooms. The main building is an old adobe
building with few of today's classroom necessities. The auditorium is
too small to be used for physical education, there is no storage space
in its three classrooms, windows do not open, and the roof continues to
leak.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $3.2 million
for Portable Classrooms. The Bureau will continue to repair education
buildings as funding is appropriated. The existing health and safety
criteria-based ranking system will be used to determine project
ranking.
Mariano Lake Community School (BIA School on Navajo Nation)
This school is in transition from a BIA operated school to a BIA
contract school. Their FI&R needs exceed $390,000 including the
replacement of two 1,000 gallon propane tanks that are not in
compliance with codes. They need three three-bedroom staff quarters for
an additional $195,000, and their top priority is a 10,880 square foot
gymnasium.
Current enrollment is 281 with 64 boarding students. This school
serves the Crownpoint area.
Answer. This school is not on the Bureau's Replacement School
Construction priority list established in 1993. The Bureau will
continue down the list until the last school is funded for
construction. To fund this request would circumvent the priority
setting process and longstanding policy of using the existing
replacement school priority list approved and frozen by Congress.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Education Facilities
Improvement and Repair is $46.2 million. The Bureau uses the automated
priority ranking method to establish the list from which to determine
what projects can be funded for FI&R work. This school is not on the
Facilities Improvement and Repair list. The Bureau determines critical
life safety issues and addresses them as a first priority. The
planning, design, and construction activities are established through
the facilities improvement and repair (FI&R) nationwide priority
setting process. The Bureau is encouraged by recent Presidential
initiatives to increase funding for the Nation's school infrastructure
including increases in Bureau school construction funding levels. The
Bureau is aware that the condition of many of the existing schools
remains poor, however, the Bureau continues to work with respective
Tribes and school boards to identify any immediate dangerous safety and
health conditions which are eligible to be corrected with Minor
Improvement and Repair or Emergency funds.
Shiprock Alternative Schools (BIA Schools)
This school has 182 high school students; 200 elementary students;
a special education program for 20 students; and a residential facility
with 85 students. At-risk youth who are having social or academic
problems in conventional settings make up the student body.
This school is number 12 on the national replacement school
priority list. Planning is complete and design is funded. Most
buildings are over 50 years old.
Answer. This project is currently ranked number 12 on the Bureau's
replacement school construction priority list. The planning phase of
the project is complete and the School Board, using a Public Law 100-
297 grant, is scheduled to start the design phase of the project in the
summer of 1998. The Bureau anticipates requesting funds for
construction of this project in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
The Mescalero Apache K-12 School
In 1954, the Mescalero Elementary was built with BIA funds. It
became a BIA funded public school through the Tularosa Public School
system. This K-6 elementary school was destroyed by arson in 1990. The
Tularosa school system collected the insurance, and the BIA helped with
temporary facilities.
Question 2. The Mescalero Apache Tribe is now seeking funds for the
construction of a new K-12 school to serve the entire reservation. I
understand that the BIA is again responsible for the school, and I am
very interested in verifying its status as a BIA school, and the
possibility of its becoming a priority for BIA replacement and new
construction funds.
The destruction by fire is normally a cause of high priority
consideration by the BIA, and I do not yet understand why the Mescalero
Apache school has not been made a priority in the BIA school
construction program?
Answer. The Mescalero Tribe leased land for a nominal fee ($1.00)
to the State of Mexico for a 25-year period. The local school district
then located, constructed (in 1958), and operated a public K-6 grade
elementary school on the reservation land. The annual lease
subsequently expired with no new lease agreement being reached. A
chronology of events on this school follows:
February 18, 1990.--The Mescalero Public School burned down (K-6).
February 19, 1990.--Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution No.
90-5 in support of the Tularosa Public School Board of Education and
requested portable classrooms from BIA and the State.
May 20, 1990.--Albuquerque Area Education Administration notified
the Tribe that no funds are available from the Office of Indian
Education Programs (OIEP) for the emergency.
August 6, 1990.--The Office of Construction Management (OCM) met
with tribal Representatives and agreed to have a Technical Team
determine suitability of a tribal community center for conducting
classes in school year 1990-91. The Tularosa School District had used
the community center part of school year 1989-90. The building was
found to be seriously deficient for use as a school. The Facilities
Management and Construction Center (FMCC) looked at options to upgrade
tribal buildings or acquire portable classrooms.
August 6, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution No.
90-28, indicating that the Tribe and school district have failed to
reach an agreement on location and operation of a public school (school
district proposed to build a new school located off tribal lands, which
would require student busing). Also, the school would include other
public students. The Tribe requested BIA to assume operation
responsibility for a proposed tribal school in 1990-91.
August 15, 1990.--Plans for a steel building to be purchased and
erected by the Mescalero Apache Tribe were transmitted to FMCC for
review.
August 16, 1990.--A meeting was held regarding the school between
the Secretary of Interior, Manuel Lujan; the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, Eddie Brown; and the President of the Mescalero Apache
Tribe, Wendell Chino. The Department/BIA position held was that the
Bureau would not support taking over the education program from the
Mescalero Tularosa School District until an agreement was reached to
operate an accredited public school.
August 22, 1990.--Letter sent to the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs from the Albuquerque Area Director requesting $387,000 to
renovate tribal building for classrooms (building purchased by Tribe).
August 24, 1990.--Letter sent from the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs to the President of the Tribe specifying conditions for
granting assistance to tribal school. The Tribe was independently
obtaining facilities and hiring teachers for school year 1990-91.
October 9, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe submitted interim
application for Tribally Controlled Grant School (Public Law 100-297).
April 4, 1991.--Letter sent from the Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget to the Appropriations Committees bringing
the committees up to date on the status of the school. No agreement was
reached between the Tribe and the public school district, and the Tribe
obtained and erected a building for 250 students.
April 11, 1991.--OIEP approves the Mescalero School to become a
Bureau-funded school, effective July 1, 1991. Safety deficiencies are
required to be corrected at the school before occupation.
November 25, 1991.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe submitted an
application for new school construction.
January 6, 1993.--Federal Register Notice for ``Education
Facilities Construction Priority List of fiscal year 1993'' was
published. Mescalero's application for fiscal year 1993 was considered,
however, because the school when destroyed by fire was not a Bureau
owned or operated facility, the application did not receive a high
ranking on the priority system. The application was competed and
evaluated along with 66 other requests. Only the top five schools were
added to the 1992-93 list which contained 16 schools in total.
The Bureau Education and Facilities programs provide funding for
the annual operation of the Mescalero Tribal School. The Bureau
recognizes the needs of the Mescalero School and other schools in
Indian Country. However, the fiscal year 1992-993 Education Facilities
Construction Priority list of 16 schools was frozen by the Congress in
fiscal year 1993. Through fiscal year 1998, the Bureau has received
funding for the first eight schools on that list. In fiscal year 1999,
funding for three additional schools is requested which will leave five
schools remaining. With our fiscal year 1999 projected annual rate of
appropriations, we anticipate completing the list of 16 prioritized
schools in the year 2001 or 2002. The Bureau is concerned about
Mescalero and other schools where students are faced with being
educated in classrooms that do not meet code requirements or modern
standards. The Facilities Management and Construction Center and the
Office of Indian Education Programs, at the direction of the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, are currently reviewing completion of the
replacement school projects and looking at a new replacement school
application process. Depending on appropriation levels, the Bureau is
anticipating being able to solicit replacement school applications when
the new process is established in 1999. This will provide Mescalero
with the opportunity to compete for a replacement school in a national
prioritized ranking process.
Crownpoint Institute of Technology
BIA operating funds of $1.8 million plus contract support costs of
$400,000 are needed to stabilize the operating funds for CIT. Sixty-one
percent of CIT graduates have jobs in the private sector. It is the
only vocational education school on the Navajo Nation and enrolls 426
students.
Acoma-Laguna-Canoncito High School
We have been asked for a special appropriation of $14 million for
this new high school. Indian school repair, renovation and
replacement--a crisis in three R's in Indian country S. Con. Res. 86
concurrent resolution on the budget
Answer. This project is not currently on the Bureau's replacement
school priority list. The fiscal year 1998 Interior Appropriation Bill
language prohibits the Bureau from expanding grades for any school or
dormitory beyond the grade structure in place or approved by the
Secretary of the Interior at each school in the Bureau school systems
as of October 1, 1995. The Acoma-Laguna-Canoncito High School is not
presently in the Bureau school system.
Overall assessment of Indian school physical conditions
Today there is a $1.5 billion backlog of repairs, renovation, and
replacement for all federally owned and operated BIA schools, including
elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.
A December, 1997 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
concluded that ``the cost of the total inventory of repairs needed for
BIA education facilities (elementary and secondary only) is $754
million. This includes $693 million for repairs to school buildings,
including dormitories for students. It also includes $61.7 million in
repairs needed for education quarters such as employee housing.
The footnote to this estimate notes that $754 million ``does not
include the costs of replacing school buildings. BIA's priority list
for constructing education facilities includes eight unfunded school
replacement projects with a total estimated cost of $112 million.''
The BIA construction priority list
Mr. President, we in the Senate who pay close attention to this BIA
priority list for school construction are well aware that this list has
been frozen for several years now. This means that the eight school
scheduled for replacement are the ones on this frozen priority list. I
am attaching this list of 16 total BIA schools from the
Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Record.
Obviously, a school that is replaced would be deleted from the list of
school needing repair. The GAO report includes the costs of schools
scheduled for replacement. In short, the GAO estimate does not fully
estimate the costs of replacement schools.
To get a rough idea of the costs of replacing these schools,
including those that are not on the frozen priority list, I have
checked with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover.
His office informs me that 50 percent of the 185 BIA schools are over
30 years old and fail to meet current codes and standards.
The GAO, has noted that 25 percent of BIA schools are over 50 years
old, and, of course fail to meet the same standards for safety and
teaching.
Total BIA schools needing replacement and repair
There are 93 BIA schools that should be replaced--well beyond the
current priority list of 16. At an average cost of $180 per square
foot, these 93 schools would cost one billion dollars to replace.
Replacing these 93 oldest BIA schools would leave about $200
million in repair and renovation costs for the remaining 92 BIA
schools.
This simple arithmetic gives us a current estimate of about $1.2
billion to bring all federally operated BIA schools up to par.
Indian community colleges
These Indian community colleges fall into two categories: those run
by the BIA and those that are tribally controlled community colleges.
In the first category, those run by the BIA, Haskell (Kansas) and
SIPI (Albuquerque) are the only two that are fully federally operated
by the BIA. The BIA now has 26 tribally controlled community colleges
eligible to receive funds through the Tribally Controlled Community
Colleges Act, and one more, United Tribes Technical College, funded
through the BIA's Community Development funds.
In total, then, there are 29 Indian Community Colleges with direct
BIA funding, and one, Crownpoint Institute of Technology, that is
funded primarily through the Carl Perkins Vocational Education program
of the U. S. Department of Education.
These Indian community colleges have an estimated repair and
renovation cost of about $310 million. Replacement costs, such as the
Shiprock branch of Navajo Community College, are not included. The
Shiprock branch is estimating the costs for a new campus at about $28
million. The need for married student housing at Crownpoint Institute
of Technology is also not included.
Total BIA schools and Indian community colleges
For the sake of simplicity, we can easily estimate that total
repair, renovation, and replacement costs for all elementary,
secondary, and post-secondary BIA schools and tribal schools eligible
for BIA funds, exceed $1.5 billion.
gao report on bia schools
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to submit an
edited version of the GAO study on Indian school repair needs.
Please keep in mind that this report is focused on elementary
and secondary schools only.
The GAO finds that 47,200 Indian students are served by 173
schools. The BIA count is 185 schools and over 50,000 students.
The BIA schools range in size from 15 to 1,144 students, with
about half of these schools enrolling fewer than 200 pupils.
Growth is very high in these schools with an increase in
student enrollment of 25 percent since 1987. Most of this
growth has occurred in the last 5 years.
About 10 percent of all Indian students attend BIA schools,
funded or operated by the BIA. The vast majority or 90 percent
of Indian students in America attend regular public schools.
BIA schools are located in 23 states, but are highly
concentrated in 5 states--North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Washington.
BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition that
even central city schools and lack more key facility
requirements than typical American schools.
The BIA schools are older and less able to support computer
and communications technology than average American schools.
Conclusion (S. Res. 100 on Education of American Indians)
In addition to the physical needs of our federally operated
Indian schools and colleges, there is a parallel crisis in
operating funds for Indian schools nationwide.
American Indian students have the highest dropout rate of
any racial ethnic group (36 percent) and the lowest high school
completion and college attendance rates of any minority group.
Average annual funding for Indian college students is
$2,900 compared to $6,200 for Americans as a whole.
Senate Resolution 100, introduced in the First Session of
this Congress which I introduced with the cosponsorship of
Senators Campbell, Inouye, Johnson, Dorgan, and Wellstone,
discusses the overall situation of Indian education and calls
upon the 105th Congress to address these issues through major
education bills under consideration.
I urge my colleagues to review Senate Resolution 100, and
support its passage by this body in order to draw more needed
attention to the major problems we face today in Indian
education.
I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 100 be made a part of
the Record, along with the BIA school construction priority
list, and my summary of the GAO report on Indian school
repairs.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
Question 1. What can we, as Congress, do to ensure that
funding uses are being reported correctly by the BIA and the
Tribes themselves?
Answer. The Bureau has its finances audited annually by the
Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General (IG).
Tribes that receive more than $300,000 annually in Federal
funds are required under the Single Audit Act to have an
independent audit that is reviewed by the Inspector General.
All of these audits are currently required because of laws that
Congress enacted to safeguard federal appropriations. In
addition, the Bureau adheres to the guidelines for
reprogramming imposed by the Appropriation Committees and
reports to Congress both on the reprogramming of funds managed
by the Bureau (quarterly) and reprogramming of tribal funds
from Tribal Priority Allocations (semi-annually) in accordance
with those guidelines. It is the position of the Bureau that
these laws are adequate to ensure that funds are being
correctly reported.
The Bureau has received qualified options from the IG for
the last two years. The qualifications are not related to the
execution and reporting of appropriated dollars. The
qualifications are primarily related to collection and
accounting for revenues and debts owed to the Bureau and
accurate accounting and depreciation of property.
On the tribal side, most Single Audit Act audits are found
to be acceptable and accurate. The primary issues on tribal
audits relate to timeliness of filing and the needs for
improvements in accounting systems as tribes take on additional
programs and add tribal business operations. When abnormalities
in fund management are discovered, the Tribes are directly to
correct the problems.
Question 2. How do you plan to decrease unemployment and
increase economic growth by increasing funding to the Tribes?
Answer. While the Bureau's fiscal year 1999 budget request
includes increases over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, it
only begins to reflect the needs in Indian communities. It
remains true that American Indians are younger, have greater
poverty levels, higher unemployment, a greater number of single
parent families, and they die younger than the U.S. population
at large. Unhappily, these trends are actually deteriorating at
this time. The budget request is a delicate balance. It
attempts to address only a small portion of need Tribes have to
bring programs for Indian communities anywhere near neighboring
non-Indian communities. Tribes want to decrease unemployment
and desperately desire opportunities for economic growth so
that they can even consider becoming less dependent on the
federal government for resources, as much as the Bureau does.
The Bureau's appropriations included resources for several
programs directly related to economic development, including a
Direct Loan program, a Guaranteed Loan program, an Indian
Business Development Grant program, a Community and Economic
Development Grant program, and Technical Assistance to Indian
(business) enterprises. Budget reductions over the last several
years have eliminated all but the guaranteed loan program, even
while Tribes have voiced needs in this area and the Bureau has
requested and justified funding. In the guaranteed loan
program, the fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $4.5 million
will subsidize $34.6 in guarantee loan commitments. The fiscal
year 1999 proposed appropriation of $4.5 million will subsidize
up to $59.7 million in guarantee loan commitments, an increase
of over 70 percent.
The only thing that will help Tribes attempt to resolve the
problems of unemployment and lack of economic development is
devoting more resources to close the gap between the well-being
of non-Indian and Indian communities.
Question 3. What exactly does the BIA see as its long term
goal to be achieved by the year 2000?
Answer. The Bureau has a number of long term goals
identified in its Government Performance and Results Act
Strategic Plan. These goals range from emphasis on improving
and increasing Indian Self-Determination to increasing the
efficiency of administrative support services within the Bureau
and to the Tribes. One goal is ``to provide quality
investigative and police services and technical expertise to
Indian Tribes.'' This goal is receiving the greatest emphasis
in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget request. The goal is
supported by the multi-year Presidential Initiative on Law
Enforcement in Indian Country which includes joint funding
requests in fiscal year 1999 for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of
Justice. The combined funding will make significant progress
toward resolving the crime problems in Indian Country in its
first year (of the four year Initiative) by improving the
delivery of law enforcement services through increased law
enforcement personnel available ``on the street'' and
additional training being provided to Tribal and Bureau law
enforcement personnel.
Question 4. What short term fixes do you think need to be
done this year in order to move us toward this long term goal?
Answer. With regard to the Bureau's strategic goal on law
enforcement the most immediate need is to put additional
trained, uniformed officers in Indian Country and eliminate
dual roles of personnel at detention centers whose daily job
requirements currently range from jailer, dispatcher, to cook.
This goal can be achieved by supporting the funding increase
proposed for law enforcement in the President's budget request
so that additional personnel may be hired and additional
training courses may be provided to ensure quality service.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
Question 1. On March 31 of this year, you had a meeting
with USDA officials and representatives of the Three Affiliated
Tribes concerning the Tribes' request to have Farm Service
Agency farm loans transferred from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to the Department of Interior as authorized by
section 638 of the 1996 farm law. Such an action would protect
the trust status of these lands. What decision has been made
regarding this inter-agency transfer request? If no decision
has been reached, when can such a decision be expected? If the
request of the Three Affiliated Tribes is being turned down,
please explain your reasoning for this decision.
Answer. The decision is under review but is not final. The
process of transferring these debts is being studied and a
draft transfer agreement is being prepared. We expect to reach
a decision by September 30, 1998.
Question 2. Therapeutic Model Schools, such as the Circle
of Nations School in North Dakota, were established to serve
children having a wide range of needs not able to be met in a
traditional school setting. Therefore, these institutions
require specialized personnel and other resources to created
comprehensive programs to meet a wide variety of needs from
counseling to substance abuse to learning disabilities. Would
you support special appropriations to these designated
institutions to evaluate students and develop and deliver
services which recognize the special needs of their students?
Answer. To date, the Bureau has provided a total of
$767,600 additional dollars to the Circle of Nations School in
an effort to implement the therapeutic model, beginning in
School Year 1993-94. As a result of our efforts, earlier
problems with the school administration and the implementation
of a specific therapeutic model have been resolved and the
overall educational program at the school improved
considerably.
In addition, we have requested $550,000 in fiscal year 1999
for the training of residential and instructional staff in all
Bureau-funded schools. Approximately half of that amount will
be spent specifically for training of the dormitory and
boarding school staff who spend the greatest amount of time
with the residential students. Building on our experience at
Circle of Nations School and hearing directly from other on-and
off-reservation schools and dormitories, the Bureau recognized
the need for intense training in counseling techniques and
other skills for all residential staff, including those at
Circle of Nations School.
Question 3. I am also concerned that formulas for
allocating special education funding under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act may not recognize the particular
scope of services provided by therapeutic model schools. Can
you assure me that the Department will look into this matter
and report back to me with regard to its options under this
program?
Answer. The formulas for allocating special education
funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
have been sent to Tribes, tribal organizations, school boards
and parents for comment in the Tribal Consultation Booklet. The
Consultation meetings were held between April 22, 1998 and May
14, 1998. All comments and options are now being reviewed
before any decision on a formula is made final. A report will
be submitted outlining special education funding allocation
options.
Question 4. As you know, for the last two months my office
has been involved with the Department and numerous other
federal agencies in trying to reach a solution to the problems
of PCB contaminated schools on the Standing Rock Reservation.
What actions are you taking to identify other schools and
facilities under your control in North Dakota which may be
similarly contaminated?
Answer. The Bureau became aware of PCB contamination at
Standing Rock in early February, 1998. Soon thereafter, the
Aberdeen Area Director sent a letter educating all the Agency
Superintendents and Education Line Officers in the Area,
including North Dakota, about the issue of PCB light ballasts,
and directing them to conduct PCB ballast inventories. Fort
Totten Agency has reported that they do not have PCB-containing
light ballasts. The other Agencies in North Dakota (Fort
Berthold and Turtle Mountain), and elsewhere in the Aberdeen
Area, are currently compiling their PCB inventories.
The Aberdeen Area is treating all reports of leaking PCB
ballasts as emergency abatements, even if PCBs have not leaked
into the occupied space of the buildings. Non-leaking ballasts
are being scheduled to be retrofitted under the Bureau's Minor
Improvement and Repair program.
In North Dakota, the Bureau has been participating in the
PCB remediation at Ft. Yates on the Standing Rock Reservation.
At this time all that remains to be completed at that project
is the installation of new ceiling tiles and carpet in the
administration building and elementary school and carpet in the
high school library. Ceiling tile installation began in the
administration building on May 11, 1998. The carpet for the
elementary school and high school is on site. Despite extensive
post-remediation PCB sampling conducted by the Bureau's
contractor, the Tribal school board has indicated that it would
like to perform additional PCB testing in the elementary
school. The installation of the carpet must wait until that
testing program is complete. The Bureau has also obtained
quotes for replacing light ballasts that may contain PCBs in
schools that are on the Standing Rock Reservation but are not
in Ft. Yates.
In addition to these efforts in North Dakota and the
Aberdeen Area, the Bureau is also developing a nationwide PCB
inventory and phase-out program. All Areas are being instructed
to determine the date of manufacture of light ballasts (most
manufactured prior to 1978 contain PCBs) and their condition in
all Bureau buildings, including schools and recreation
buildings. Once this inventory is complete, the Bureau will
develop a long range plan and budget proposal to phase out all
PCB light ballasts. In addition, all Bureau facilities will be
examined for PCB and other environmental contamination as part
of the Bureau's environmental auditing program.
A formal report was submitted to the Committee on the PCB
issue, action taken and future plans for testing other school
facilities.
Question 5. The Spirit Lake Nation, the Turtle Mountain
Band of Chippewa, and the Three-Affiliated Tribes at Fort
Berthold are all party to an agreement with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture for a Rural Area Economic Partnership (REAP)
pilot program which is designed to mitigate the negative
effects of out-migration and lack of employment opportunities
and job losses in rural communities. President Clinton, in
making a commitment to the REAP program, indicated his intent
that an interagency working group be committed to addressing
the issue of revitalizing rural communities. How is BIA
participating in the REAP pilot program?
Answer. The Bureau is not yet involved in this effort. We
are aware that Fort Berthold is in the Southwest REAP Zone and
that Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain are in the CONAC REAP
Zone.
Question 6. If BIA is not yet involved, tell me how the
agency will work with the Tribes mentioned here, and the USDA,
to provide technical and financial assistance devoted to
success of the REAP program in Indian country?
Answer. Upon requests from the Tribes, the Bureau will
provide technical assistance to the extent we are capable and
will provide financial assistance if available.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gorton. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess until 10:30 a.m., Thursday, April 23, when
we will receive testimony from the Forest Service.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Thursday, April 23.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Cochran, Domenici, Burns,
Bennett, Gregg, Campbell, Byrd, and Bumpers.
Also present: Senator Craig.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENTS OF:
JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT
MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RANDLE PHILLIPS, BUDGET COORDINATOR
DR. ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
FRANCIS PANDOLFI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF
BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Gorton. I will call the meeting to order and want
to apologize to all of our witnesses for the chaotic schedules
the Senate follows with its votes.
We have Mr. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, Mike Dombeck, the Chief of the Forest Service,
and many of their staff here with them.
A year ago, the budget agreement and Senator Stevens'
generosity allowed this subcommittee to provide a substantial
increase of well over $100 million for Forest Service programs.
That will not be the case this year. The total for nondefense
discretionary funding available for the entire Appropriations
Committee under our budget resolution is less than a freeze
level.
I will, of course, try to persuade Senator Stevens to
provide the subcommittee with an allocation that is somewhat
better than a freeze, but success in that question is dubious
and we certainly will not have anything like the $1 billion
contemplated in the President's budget.
So our outlook would be a pessimistic one as we look at the
Forest Service budget in spite of the President's request for
$150 million more.
It is more pessimistic and more negative for the witnesses
here today because I detect almost no sentiment favoring
increases for the Forest Service. Several members of this
subcommittee and many other members who have spoken to me
believe the fiscal year 1998 level is excessive based on the
performance and behavior of the Forest Service.
During last year's hearings, I expressed my own concerns
about the Service and what seems to be its departure from any
kind of wise, multiple use mission to one almost exclusively
devoted to preservation. If, in fact, preservation and
preservation alone is the goal of the Forest Service, there is
little sense in funding the agency at levels that are higher
than when true multiple use management provided a significant
commodity output in addition to providing quality noncommodity
benefits, such as recreation.
roads moratorium
I want to briefly discuss some of the recent events that
highlight my concern. First, in January, Mr. Dombeck, you
issued unilaterally a significant new proposed policy on forest
roads. Despite the expressed request of a number of Members of
both the House and the Senate, myself included, to work with
the Forest Service in developing a revised roads policy, you
ignored those requests and, instead, issued a policy
unilaterally that would impose a moratorium on road
construction in roadless areas.
This action will only further reduce your planned timber
sale target, which has already been on a steady decline since
1990, by 100 million board feet based on your own estimates and
significantly more over the long-term based on information from
other knowledgeable sources.
In addition, I believe that your action endangers the
critical road construction program essential for preserving
environmental and economic health.
communications plan
Last month, Chief Dombeck, you announced your natural
resources agenda. As a part of the communications plan for the
agenda and your proposal to stabilize county payments, which is
a part of that agenda, you had directed all line officers to
initiate a massive public relations campaign that appears to
violate laws against lobbying to influence legislation on the
part of the executive branch.
gao accountability report
In yet another case, just last month, before a combined
House oversight hearing on the Forest Service, Representative
Norm Dicks suggested that the Forest Service should be put
under the management of a control board until its
accountability and performance could be improved. At that
hearing, the General Accounting Office reported that, after a
decade of conducting more than 45 audits and reviews that made
hundreds of recommendations for improvement, and despite
recommendations from numerous internal task forces:
The agency has not acted on some recommendations, has
studied and restudied others without implementing them, and has
left the implementation of others to the discretion of its
independent and autonomous regional offices.
Additionally, the GAO stated that the Forest Service is
possibly, ``a decade or more away from being accountable for
its performance.''
Well, if it is a decade or more away from being accountable
for its performance, perhaps it should be a decade or more away
from getting any additional appropriations.
The GAO reported on other significant performance problems,
including a steadily increasing amount of overhead expenditures
and an inability to account for more than $215 million in its
fiscal year 1995 budget.
Chief Dombeck, I understand that you have brought your
assistant, Francis Pandolfi, with you. The prospect of putting
the Forest Service under a control board leads me to want to
ask him several questions about these issues. As a long-time
corporate businessman who has been with the Forest Service for
little more than a year, I am quite interested in Mr.
Pandolfi's perspectives on whether or not the Forest Service is
even capable of cleaning up its accountability mess without a
major and potentially painful restructuring.
For both Mr. Lyons and Mr. Dombeck, as I and several of my
colleagues examined the record over the past year, it seems
clear that the agency's performance and behavior represent an
institutional arrogance that Congress must take strong action
to correct. I expect during this hearing that significant
emphasis will be placed on this problem.
I now reserve time for Senator Byrd who is not here yet. He
will be asked to give his opening statement as soon as he
appears.
I am sorry that I don't have a list. I see a tremendous
amount of interest here on the part of my members, so I think I
will just work my way down the line and start with Senator
Cochran.
opening remarks of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I welcome the
witnesses and express my personal appreciation for the
cooperation of Secretary Lyons and Mike Dombeck on some
initiatives that we are undertaking in my State of Mississippi
in the national forests. We, for a long time, have found that
it is a good place to experiment with wildlife habitat
enhancement initiatives. We have some programs underway there
which I have visited and become aware of for which I want to
compliment you.
franklin county lake
We hope to get more cooperation in the future on the
development of the Franklin County Lake on the Homochitto
National Forest. I have tried to visit all the forests and stay
in touch with what is going on there, not only in terms of the
programs for managing the timber resources but also in the
management of the entire natural resource that the forests
provide in our State.
So with those, I think, more kind and gentle words, which
may be refreshing to hear, we look forward to continuing to
work with you and trying to solve the problems that we face in
our State and in the Nation as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Campbell.
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I also welcome Chief Dombeck. I am not going to belabor
this, but I also had expressed some concern and opposition to
that roadless moratorium to which you spoke.
ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST WIND STORM
We have had a lot of calls from our constituents,
particularly in western Colorado, concerned about that. I am
sure we will get into that. But I did want also, on the other
hand, to thank Chief Dombeck for helping us get that emergency
appropriation for what was called the blow down. We lost
something like 13,000 acres of trees and we did get some help
from the Forest Service manager and the local economies. But
also it appears that the Forest Service is going to allow some
limited logging, maybe of about a third of it or so. I think
that is very timely because once those trees are down and dead,
as you know, they don't last too long before the bugs get them.
So I appreciate your looking into that and trying to move
that logging forward as quickly as you can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Craig has asked to join us here
today. He is a member of the full committee, though not a
member of this subcommittee, as I remember. But he is the
chairman of an analogous subcommittee of the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Senator Craig.
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy. I
do appreciate it and am pleased to be here to question the
chief and the secretary this morning as we deal with their
budgets.
As you know and as many on this committee know, for the
last 2\1/2\ years I and my Subcommittee on Forestry have held
probably the most extensive series of oversight efforts--now I
believe over 20-odd hearings or more--on the U.S. Forest
Service. We have looked at it from top to bottom. We have gone
through two chiefs and all the retired chiefs. Mr. Lyons has
been before us on numerous occasions.
I am told that it is probably now one of the more extensive
reviews of the Forest Service since the days of Hubert
Humphrey, when we did the National Forest Management Act in the
1970's. From that we have attempted to produce some legislation
that addresses some of the problems that all of us are
concerned about today.
The difficulty with all of that, Mr. Chairman, is that,
while the Forest Service has been a cooperating agency to
provide us with the information, they and the administration
have staunchly resisted any effort to change, to adjust, or to
even work in a way with Congress that would assist in bringing
about some of these concerns that are now being expressed.
And, of course, as we know, the GAO on I don't know how
many occasions now has looked at the Forest Service with great
detail only to say just exactly what you said, Mr. Chairman,
and that is that this is an agency with great problems that
cannot fix itself.
Now I had an opening statement prepared. But let me say to
the chief this morning what I am about to do. I noticed that
the President yesterday, on Earth Day, suggested that our
national forests are more than a mere paper plantation. Then he
went on to talk about what they ought to be.
management problems
Chief, the problem is not that we want to cut trees and the
President doesn't get it. The problem is you. The problem is
Mr. Lyons. The problem is the management of the U.S. Forest
Service. It is not an agency in the red for the first time in
its history. Its budgets are in shambles.
So, Mr. Chairman, what I will do this morning is only read
what the Christian Science Monitor said this morning.
Now that is not a conservative paper. It is not a liberal
paper. It may be slightly center of green on its positions as
relates to the environment. It said this: ``Behind the
beguiling public service ads featuring Smokey the Bear and his
woodland friends lies an unpleasant story of bad management.
For more than 10 years * * *'' and I will have to recognize
that you have not been there for 10 years, Chief. So all the
blame cannot totally rest on your shoulders. But fixing it has
to.
``For more than 10 years now, the U.S. Forest Service has
been promising everybody--itself, its parent, Department of
Agriculture, and Congress--that it would get its act together.
But recent testimony by the General Accounting Office,
Congress' investigative arm, reveals its inability to collect
revenues, its inefficiencies, its outright waste that have cost
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
``The Forest Service often doesn't get fair market value
for goods. Private concessions, resource lodges, marinas,
guides, services aren't paying what they should. The service
does not collect enough from rights-of-way, pipelines, power
cables, communication wires. Instead of sealed bids for timber,
it relies on oral bids, losing some $50 million a year.''
Well, I may agree with some of that. I don't agree with all
of that. But there is a problem there.
``The agency has done little to reduce costs. The 1995
internal report showed it was losing up to $100 million a year
from inefficient decisionmaking. It took 10 years and $13
million simply to revise the management plan of Alaska's
Tongass National Forest.'' I mean, 10 years.
``It loses money because it often doesn't comply with
environmental and planning requirements. It's financial
statements are unreliable and cannot account for millions in
spending. It has weak contracting practices. It put $443
million at risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. Field offices don't
comply with Federal purchasing requirements.
``In Fiscal 1995, the service could not figure out how it
spent $215 million of its $3.4 billion in operating and program
funds. It doesn't know what its assets are worth or the actual
value of its multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog.
``Amazingly, its 4-year-old computerized accounting system
can't cope with the year 2000 problem.
``The GAO estimates it could take 10 years,'' as the
chairman referenced, ``to fix the basic problems. The time to
start is now.
``The White House, the Agriculture Secretary and Congress'
oversight and Appropriations Committees must act. The Forest
Service should be held accountable if it doesn't improve soon.
Senior personnel should be replaced if progress isn't evident.
Congress must structure the service's budget to get results.
``America's precious forests and the wildlife they shelter,
a resource that belongs to all of us, deserve no less.''
That is the Christian Science Monitor this morning, in part
in response to what the President said yesterday.
The Congress has acted: 2\1/2\ years, 20-plus oversight
hearings, all of us pleading for cooperation and help to get
this job done.
Mr. Lyons, you promised to help us 3 years ago. Yes; we've
got a problem. Yes; it needs to be fixed.
bipartisan solutions
I don't know how many times I have asked you to come and
sit down and build a congressional-administrative bipartisan
effort to solve the problem. And we have been turned down
flatly.
The problem is not cutting too many trees. The problem is
not the people of my State and the school districts that now go
wanting because of your mismanagement.
I met with all of the school superintendents in 10 northern
forest bound counties that are having to consider next year's
school budgets, cutting them, maybe going to 4 day weeks, or
dramatically taxing the very limited private base that they
have. Why? It is because the Forest Service cannot manage. That
is why.
Am I concerned today? I came back from my State steaming--a
State that is so beautiful it raises now hundreds of times more
trees than it even considers cutting; a State this morning
where the skies are filled with smoke over Boise because now
you are burning.
Idaho is very frustrated. I am very frustrated. And the
Forest Service is in shambles.
We deserve better. The forest deserves better. And the
professional people of the Forest Service deserve better than
what they are getting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. I have some questions and I will hold off
until then.
Thank you very much.
Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.
prepared statement of senator burns
Senator Burns. I have a statement. I will just put it in
the record and I will make my statement as we ask questions.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. That's fine.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this to be one of the most
important hearings we have in the Appropriations process. The
state of Montana has a great deal of land under the authority
of the National Forest Service. So any decisions made in
Washington have a direct impact on the citizens of Montana, and
their ability to do live and do business. Unfortunately in
recent years those decisions have had a very negative impact on
the people in Montana.
Due to the decisions of this Administration in relation to
the Forest Service, I have had to come to this and other
subcommittees asking for assistance for communities that have
seen their way of life threatened. These decisions ranging from
the Northwest Forest plan to the recent moratorium on roads
have placed many of the communities in Montana in a very
delicate situation. They are living on the edge and their
ultimate survival is threatened by these decisions and actions.
I remember a time when the Forest Service was very highly
looked upon in the field. The staff and the people in the field
were a real part of the land and their communities.
Unfortunately this is no longer the case. People now look down
upon the Forest Service. This places those people in the field
and on the ground in a very difficult position in dealing with
their neighbors.
The future of the Forest Service is about as dark as I have
ever seen it. People just don't seem to think that this agency
can do it's job in a reasonable and workable manner. This of
course should not be seen as a reflection on the people in the
field, but instead a condemnation of the decision making
processes and the management decisions made in Washington.
The recent decision on the moratorium of road construction
is just one example. This decision has placed the people on the
ground to make decisions and react to this plan in a manner
which has complicated the life of people out there just trying
to make a living. Without consultation with either Congress or
the population, in the areas effected, the Washington office
made a decision which does effect us all in various ways.
Recently, Chief Dombeck came before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee to defend his budget. Throughout this
hearing the Chief emphasized his desire to consult and work
with Congress and it's committees on land use policy. I have
not seen any real evidence of that action yet. Which makes me
wonder just how committed this Administration and this Chief
are to making this all work.
Even more recently Senator Baucus, Congressman Hill and I
introduced legislation to complete the final phase of the
Gallatin National Forest land consolidation. We worked on this
with the understanding that the Forest Service had completed a
great deal of the work on the appraisal necessary to equate the
lands to be exchanged.
During the recent recess I found that this work was far
from being completed. This lack of action on the part of the
Forest Service places the completion of this land exchange in
peril. This is unacceptable considering the time they have had
to work on this very land exchange. I have discussed this with
the Chief during a recent meeting, in my office, and it is my
hope that this will speed up the process and get this action
moving.
Since I am on the topic of land exchanges, let's move on
the Royal Teton Ranch exchange in Montana. This is the land
located directly north of Yellowstone National Park. The
Administration included this land acquisition in the $699
million package which came to this committee earlier this year.
A sore topic with both this committee and the committee which
has authorization authority over most of this land
acquisitions, but let's get beyond that. On this list the
Forest Service was committing a total of $6.5 million to the
purchase of this land. I am concerned how negotiations for this
land are moving forward.
Chief Dombeck I am sure you are aware of the concerns I
have about this land exchange. It is imperative that the State
of Montana continue to have authority over the wildlife that
come into this area, and believe it or not it is my opinion as
well as that of Governor Racicot that the Forest Service is in
the best position to manage this land area.
What I am hearing from numerous sources however, is that
the Department of the Interior wants to keep authority here. I
need you Chief Dombeck, to step up and work with the Governor
and the people of the state to protect the interests of the
state. As I have stated your agency is in the best position to
manage these lands and make sure that Montana is protected.
I could continue on but think it is important that we hear
from the Chief before we all have to move on to other
responsibilities. I am committed to working with both the
Chairman and the Ranking Member to put together an
appropriations bill that we can all get behind and support.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this hearing and for the time this
morning.
summary statement of hon. james r. lyons
Senator Gorton. We will have statements now from our two
chief witnesses.
Secretary Lyons, you are first. As always, your full
written statements will be included in the record.
You have gotten sort of a hard time up here. So if you want
to start out informally and use your oral time in that respect,
you are, of course, free to do so.
Mr. Lyons. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate the opportunity to appear once again before the
subcommittee.
Senator Craig, let me just say that I would be pleased to
meet with you at any time. And, in fact, you may not be aware,
but I recently accepted an invitation to join you and Ms.
Chenoweth in Idaho, I believe on May 17, to look at forest
management issues there. It is something we have tried to set
up for about a year. So I would be glad to come out and join
you.
Senator Craig. It's one thing we are doing there that is a
good thing both you and I have done.
Mr. Lyons. Good. I will look forward to that trip, then.
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chief and Francis and I are
prepared to address all the questions that have been raised
today in your opening statements. What I would like to do in my
opening time, however, is to focus in on some of the issues and
controversy obviously surrounding the Forest Service budget,
particularly related to correspondence that we have received
from Chairman Murkowski, subcommittee Chairman Craig, Chairman
Young, and subcommittee Chairwoman Chenoweth on the House side
related to our budget and concerns related to how we are
investing taxpayer dollars in the management and stewardship of
the national forests.
As I said, recently we received a letter regarding agency
management direction. That letter raised the specter of funding
the national forest management at what was termed a custodial
level.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, Chief Dombeck has already
provided a response. What I would like to do this morning is
offer some of my own perspectives on that letter. I would like
to submit the letter as well as the Chief's response for the
record.
Senator Gorton. The letter will be included in the record.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Senator Frank H. Murkowski, Senator Larry E. Craig,
Representative Don Young, and Representative Helen Chenoweth
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, February 20, 1998.
Hon. Mike Dombeck,
Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Dombeck: As you know, there is presently very little
agreement on a discrete mission for the National Forest System.
Consequently, there is no consensus on appropriate governing statutes,
nor any real collaboration within government or among competing
interests in setting management goals. Neither Congress, the
Administration, nor the Forest Service have been able to consider
together, let alone find, cost efficient and effective ways to
streamline the legislative, regulatory, and legal morass in which the
Agency currently finds itself. In the face of continuing controversy
over Forest Service management, it is increasingly clear that the costs
of managing the National Forest System are increasing (in some cases
dramatically) and may, in the view of some, outweigh the benefits being
received by interest groups, communities, and the public. While it is
painful for us to contemplate, the time may have come to instead
consider ways to reduce the investment of billions of dollars each year
in light of the increasingly diminished returns on that investment.
This is not our preferred course. But the trend of present events--
accelerated by some of the Administration's own initiatives--suggests
we may be moving in this direction irrespective of our preferences.
Consequently, we would like your assessment of the costs and savings
from converting to custodial management of the National Forest System.
We also would like your assessment of the savings that might be
available--through down-sizing the agency, out-sourcing some management
functions, or other alternatives--to match such a management approach.
In order to accurately and thoroughly assess what a conversion to
custodial management might mean--particularly if events are already
moving in this direction--we need to more fully understand both the
biological and financial implications of this management strategy.
Most Americans believe that each generation should leave the public
resources in a better condition than they received them from their
parents. Thus, we first want you to generally assess: (1) how past
management has changed the condition of the federal lands in the last
100 years; (2) the condition they are in today, compared to what the
current forest plans call for; and (3) the ecological condition of
those lands if no vegetative management or man-induced, prescribed fire
are practiced on the National Forests System for the next 100 years.
As you are aware, many forest ecosystems in the West are currently
severely overstocked, and becoming progressively more so. The age-class
distribution of their forests suggests they are increasingly
susceptible to natural pathogens and catastrophic fires. If Congress
were to direct the Forest Service to manage National Forest System
stands under only custodial management--with only the most limited
active management intervention and fire suppression limited to avoiding
spread to other ownerships--what will be the biological conditions of
these forests in one hundred years? Specifically, how much less
productive would soils be due to severe erosion after fire? How will
wildlife and fisheries resources be affected by radical changes to
habitat conditions?
Turning to the financial part of the question, we recognize there
are a limited number of activities which must continue under even a
custodial management regime. For example, some fire suppression must be
continued (to avoid spread to other ownerships). We also understand
that a limited amount of land line location and survey work must be
carried out to ensure the integrity of National Forest boundaries.
Additionally, the Forest Service will incur costs to maintain right-of-
way access to private lands within the National Forests. There will
also be some costs associated with wildlife and fisheries restoration
and enhancement work which must be carried out in the National Forest
System under any fully approved Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery
Plan (this is distinguishable from the costs of any restoration and
enhancement work which is discretionary, whether or not that management
is prescribed in existing forest plans, which would not be part of a
custodial management regime and would occur naturally more slowly).
Additionally, funds will be needed to administer existing contracts,
permits, leases, or other instruments--through the termination date of
these instruments. Finally, funds will be needed to cover the cost of
maintaining only those roads in the National Forest System which are
currently designated as a Federal, State, or County highway, road, or
right-of-way, and any recreation facility that is accessible from such
a road. We assume continued management of any recreation facility that
is still accessible and would want to evaluate the costs and how they
should be borne, including management by other entities.
Please provide an estimate of what the above efforts would likely
cost on an annual basis. Additionally, if you feel any other work will
be required to properly discharge custodial responsibilities, please
provide us with the legal citations which list the work you believe
will be needed, along with the specific legislative language which
directs the additional management.
In addition to the above information, please provide specific
answers to the following questions and transmit your response no later
than March 20, 1998. We intend to discuss these issues with you in a
preliminary way at our budget oversight hearings in late February and
early March. Your prompt and more detailed response will help us
develop our final Committee recommendations for the Forest Service
fiscal year 1999 Budget.
1. Please provide the total amount of acres in the National Forest
System as of October 1, 1997.
2. Please provide the total number of acres, under the existing
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) forest plans, available for
active management for the production of commodity and non-commodity
goods and services in the National Forest System as of October 1, 1997.
3. Please list all management activities which will have to be
carried out under a custodial management regime. Please also provide
the statutory citation which requires this work to be carried out in a
specific area or areas (please be specific and quote the actual
language which requires this work to be carried out).
4. Please provide the current number of Full Time Equivalent
(FTE's) positions employed by the U.S. Forest Service in all three arms
of the Agency.
5. Please provide the number of the employees, the salaries, and
other compensation which could be saved by shifting to custodial
management, as described above, with any additions you believe
necessary. Include savings in support functions which would no longer
be necessary. Exclude from these savings the estimated cost of
providing the following management activities: (1) the decadal per acre
average cost of providing fire protection (pre-suppression and
suppression) times the number of acres so treated per decade to prevent
the spread of fires to adjacent ownerships; (2) the cost of any land
line surveys planned over the next decade; (3) the expected annual cost
of administering existing grazing, mining permits, and mining claims
and special use permits; (4) any costs for maintaining roads needed to
maintain access to private in-holdings; and (5) the minimum cost of
stream or habitat rehabilitation work required under existing, approved
ESA Recovery Plans.
6. Please provide the fiscal year 1998 per-acre cost of management
of the lands entrusted to the Forest Service. This cost should be
computed based on the funds appropriated for the National Forest System
and the authorized expenditures of trust funds in fiscal year 1998
divided by the number of acres entrusted to the U.S. Forest Service.
7. Please estimate any additional or reduced costs of fighting
wildfire in the National Forest System given the more limited road
access mentioned, and a de-emphasis on suppression that does not
threaten other ownerships.
8. Please describe the number of person days and the associated
cost in the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, Department
of Justice, and the Council on Environmental Quality that have been
expended each of the last five years related to conflicts over current
management. Please also estimate how much money was spent, in each of
the last five years, to deal with appeals and lawsuits over National
Forest System management. Include costs associated with support
functions and a description of how these costs were calculated.
9. Please estimate the cost of reducing the number of FTE's to a
level needed to carry-out custodial management on all National Forest
System acres (comparable to 1950's management). Assume that the Agency
will only be able to use existing early-out authority or Reduction in
Force (RIF) authority. Also, assume that the Agency will have to absorb
the cost of these reductions. In calculating these cost estimates,
assume necessary reductions would occur early in fiscal year 1999 or
early in fiscal year 2000 using orderly RIF or other appropriate
procedures.
10. According to the fiscal year 1998 Presidential Budget Request,
driving for pleasure is the most popular recreational use of the
National Forest. In a recent Journal of Forestry article, the President
of the Society of American Foresters is quoted as saying less then 4.5
percent of the recreation use on the National Forests occurs in the
congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Please describe the
reductions in on-road and off-road visitor use which are likely to
occur as a result of a custodial management regime which allows only
those roads currently listed as part of the Federal, State, or County
road systems to remain open. Assume other agencies will shoulder the
administrative responsibility and cost of road maintenance.
Additionally, estimate the loss in recreation user fees which will be
experienced as a result of such a policy.
11. Please provide an analysis of the portion of the fiscal year
1998 Forest and Environment Research budget that is spent in direct or
indirect support of National Forest System management programs. Please
specify what percentage of this would be necessary to support a
custodial management regime.
12. Similarly, please provide an analysis of the portion of the
fiscal year 1998 State and Private Forestry budget that is spent in
direct or indirect support of National Forest System programs. Please
specify what percentage of this would be necessary to support custodial
management.
As you might guess by these questions, we are trying to respond to
questions about whether it is financially or environmentally prudent to
continue to shift to management regimes that are more costly and
produce less benefits. Since you seem bent on producing fewer and fewer
results from the National Forests at rapidly increasing costs, many
will press Congress to seriously consider the option to simply move to
custodial management of our National Forests in order to stem the flow
of unjustifiable investments. That will mean the Agency will have to
operate with significantly reduced budgets and with far fewer
employees. Before taking this step though, it is only fair to let the
Forest Service articulate how our National Forests and the various
constituencies might fare under a carefully considered custodial
management regime.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Larry E. Craig, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and
Public Land Management.
Don Young, Chairman,
House Committee on
Resources.
Helen Chenoweth, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health.
______
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,
Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: Thank you for your letter of February 20,
1998. Like you, I am deeply committed to the wise and careful
management of our national forests for the use and benefit of present
and future generations. Your letter recognizes that achieving this
objective can sometimes be controversial. As our first Chief, Gifford
Pinchot, stated over 100 years ago, management of the national forests
involves ``many great interests, which sometimes conflict a bit.''
Your letter implies that the mission of the Forest Service has
somehow changed, presumably because of the decrease in commercial
timber harvest. As a consequence, you suggest the Forest Service has
taken on a ``custodial'' role in management of the national forests and
the Agency's budget and funding should be reduced. I take a different
view.
I believe that the reduction in timber harvest and the dramatic
increases in use and demand of the national forests for other values
such as recreation, drinking water production, and fish and wildlife
habitat does not translate to a changed mission for the Agency. Rather,
it speaks to the increased importance of national forests to the lives
of all Americans. Certainly, timber harvest and the production of other
commodities will continue on national forests. But these activities
must take place within the context of maintaining and restoring
watershed health and sustainability.
Indeed, the use and management of national forests has changed
significantly in recent years. Such change is inevitable as we respond
to different social values, new scientific knowledge, and renew our
commitment to ensuring the long-term health, diversity, and
productivity of the land. These changes do not reflect a ``new
mission.'' In fact, over 100 years ago, Congress wisely defined the
mission of national forests to go far beyond timber and other commodity
production. In 1897, Congress defined the purpose of the national
forests through the Organic Act:
``[To] improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for
the purposes of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to
furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of
the citizens of the United States.''
The three primary goals of the Organic Act, protecting the forest,
protecting watersheds, and providing sustainable supplies of timber,
parallel the Forest Servicer's recently announced natural resource
agenda for the 21st century. The natural resource agenda focuses on
four key areas: watershed health and restoration, sustainable forest
ecosystem management, forest roads, and recreation. The agenda was
developed by my leadership team and, I believe, is squarely in line
with both Congress' goals in establishing the national forests and the
conservation values of mainstream America.
Our agenda, the Strategic Plan we are developing under the
Government Performance and Results Act, and our 1999 budget request
reflect a vigorous program of active management of the national
forests. In the coming years, we look forward to working with you and
your colleagues, local communities, and all who use and care for
national forests to further refine and implement our agenda. We do not
believe that the American people would expect, or deserve, any less.
Our answers to your specific questions are enclosed. I have sent an
identical response to Chairmen Craig, Young, and Chenoweth and a copy
to each of the respective ranking Democratic members.
Sincerely,
Mike Dombeck, Chief.
Enclosure.
responses of u.s. forest service
I. In response to the questions in the third paragraph on the first
page of your letter, we have briefly summarized some of the
history and ecological changes on National Forest System (NFS)
lands:
Evolution of Federal land management.--During most of the 19th
Century, it was national policy to transfer substantial portions of
Federal (Public Domain) lands to private use and ownership. During this
period, more than 1 billion acres, or over half the land area of the
United States was transferred from Federal to non-Federal ownership.
The period from 1900 to World War II was one of consolidation and
limited management for most Federal land management agencies. From 1896
to 1910 the area of forest reserves (national forests) rose from 18 to
168 million acres.
By the late 1800's. tens of millions of sheep and cattle were being
grazed on these Federal lands. Efforts to bring livestock numbers down
to the carrying capacity of the land were a primary focus of Forest
Service managers during the pre-World War II period. Nationally,
another main focus of Forest Service efforts was the control of
wildfire. Prior to the 1930's, uncontrolled wildfire annually
devastated large areas of public and private wildlands. Wildfire
prevention and suppression became the focus of highly successful
cooperative efforts among Federal agencies and State and private
landowners. By 1960, the average annual area consumed by wildfire was
reduced by more than 90 percent.
The expanding economy following World War II created a substantial
increase in the demand for timber. National forest and Bureau of Land
Management timber sale levels increased from 2-4 billion board feet per
year in the late 1940's to 11-14 billion board feet in the 1960's and
beyond. By the 1960's, Federal forests were meeting almost 20 percent
of the Nation's total consumption of wood volume. National forest
recreation visitation also increased dramatically; annual visits
increased from about 5 million in the early 1920's to 18 million in
1946, 93 million in 1960 and 233 million in 1975.
The use of clearcutting as a forest management tool increased
dramatically on the national forests after World War II. Much of the
public concern over national forest land management practices was
focused on the visual and ecological effects of clearcutting. These
conflicts led eventually to the passage of the National Forest
Management Act of 1976. The level of national forest timber sales has
declined from an annual average of 10-12 billion board feet during the
1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, to 3-4 billion board feet today.
Current Condition of NFS lands.--Given the varied history of NFS
lands, it is difficult to summarize their current condition. There are
substantial differences between NFS lands in the East and South, those
in the interior West, and those on the Pacific Coast and Alaska. The
condition of NFS lands in the East and South has improved dramatically
over the last century. After millions of acres of abandoned and
depleted farm and forest lands became NFS lands, feral cattle, dogs,
and goats were eliminated and the land rehabilitated. Today, these
areas provide superb habitat supporting rich populations of many
wildlife species.
Many ecosystems within the national forests were originally subject
to relatively frequent low-intensity wildfires as well as occasional
stand-replacing conflagrations. The forest ecosystems most in trouble
tend to be those formerly subject to a frequent, low-intensity fire
regime, particularly forest ecosystems of western national forests
where fire frequency has been substantially reduced. When fires do
occur in these areas today, they are often destructive, soil and
watershed damaging, stand-replacing fires. Strategies for the
restoration of ecosystem health in such areas often involve the use of
prescribed fire, frequently in conjunction with mechanical treatment.
In higher elevation forests, which tend to be cooler and moister,
the ecological effects of fire exclusion are typically less profound
than in the lower elevation forests, at least over the short term. But
even in these forests, reduction in fire frequency has had substantial
ecological effects. Aspen communities have been reduced substantially,
and many meadows and openings have diminished in size or have
disappeared altogether. The ecological diversity and ``patchy-ness'' of
the forest landscape has been reduced. Such forests are subject to
increased insect epidemics and to larger and more intense stand-
replacing conflagrations than typically would have occurred in the
past.
Introduced exotics also present major biodiversity and ecosystem
health problems in some areas, especially on rangelands in the West and
forestlands in the East and South.
II. The following information is provided in response to the numbered
questions commencing near the bottom of the second page of your
letter:
Question. Please provide the total amount of acres in the National
Forest System.
Answer. The National Forests and Grasslands encompass 191,644,936
acres.
Question. Please provide the total number of acres, under the
existing National Forest Management Act (NFMA) forest plans, available
for active management for the production of commodity and non-commodity
goods and services in the National Forest System.
Answer. Commodity and non-commodity goods and services encompass a
myriad of activities including, but not limited to recreation,
wilderness, grazing, timber and mineral production, fishing, water
supplies, heritage, and other aesthetic values. All 191.6 million acres
of Forest Service lands produce commodity and non-commodity goods and
services related to these benefits.
Question. Please list all management activities which will have to
be carried out under a custodial management regime. Please also provide
the statutory citation which requires this work to be carried out in a
specific area or areas.
Answer. We are not certain what ``custodial management'' means. In
your letter you outlined some of the components that you would include
under a custodial regime. Your partial list includes a limited number
of activities to be implemented under your custodial regime. We would
not be able to limit our management to such a narrow list given the
vast body of laws and statutes that guide our work. We would need
specific direction on which of the laws would not require enforcement
under your interpretation of custodial management.
Question. Please provide the current number of FTE positions
employed by the Forest Service in all three arms of the agency.
Answer. Based on information provided in the fiscal year 1999
President's Budget for the Forest Service, the total number of FTE
positions for fiscal year 1998 is 36,311 in the three arms of the
Agency.
Question. Please provide the number of employees, the salaries, and
other compensation which could be saved by shifting to custodial
management as described above, with any additions you believe
necessary. Include savings in support functions that would no longer be
necessary.
Answer. As in the response to question 3, we have only a limited
understanding of what you mean by ``custodial management.'' Forest
Service actions are guided by many laws, and we are mandated to carry
out a range of activities under those laws. It is impossible for us to
identify which activities we would not undertake.
Question. Please provide the fiscal year 1998 per-acre cost of
management of the lands entrusted to the Forest Service. This cost
should be computed based on the funds appropriated for the National
Forest System and the authorized expenditures of trust funds in fiscal
year 1998 divided by the number of acres entrusted to the U.S. Forest
Service.
Answer. Based on information provided in the fiscal year 1999
Explanatory Notes to Congress, the fiscal year 1998 budget directly
impacting Forest Service lands is approximated below:
Fiscal year 1998 budget directly impacting Forest Service lands
NFS..................................................... $1,348,377,000
Wildland fires.......................................... 584,707,000
Reconstruction/construction \1\......................... 162,308,000
State and private forestry \2\.......................... 16,500,000
L&WCF \3\............................................... 52,976,000
Other \4\............................................... 5,090,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal appropriated............................... 2,169,958,000
Permanent appropriations \5\............................ 260,098,000
Trust funds............................................. 261,885,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Grand total......................................... 2,691,941,000
The cost per acre of management would be calculated as $2,691,941,000
divided by 191,644,936 acres, or about $14 dollars per acre.
\1\ Excludes $2,737,000 for Research Construction.
\2\ Only includes the insect and disease prevention and suppression
portion of the Forest Health Management budget line item.
\3\ Excludes special one-time Title V Land Acquisition amount of $167
million.
\4\ Excludes $92,000 for Gifts, Donations and Bequests.
\5\ Excludes Payments to Counties and States.
Question. Please estimate any additional or reduced costs of
fighting wildfire in the National Forest System given the more limited
road access mentioned, and a deemphasis on suppression that does not
threaten other ownerships.
Answer. As stated in our response to questions 3 and 5, we do not
have enough information to develop or evaluate a ``custodial
management'' scenario. We do note that our current preparedness
organization is designed around protecting high value resources,
including lives and private property. Shifting to a less active
management regime might increase, rather than decrease, fire
suppression costs if access was more limited and vegetation was not
managed to reduce fire spread and intensity.
Question. Please describe the number of person days and the
associated cost in the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture,
Department of Justice, and the Council on Environmental Quality that
have been expended each of the last 5 years related to conflicts over
current management. Please also estimate how much money was spent, in
each of the last 5 years, to deal with appeals and lawsuits over
National Forest System management. Include costs associated with
support functions and a description of how these costs were calculated.
Answer. Based on estimates from the Forest Service regions and
Washington Office, the Forest Service spent an average of $5.1 million
annually on processing appeals in the last 5 years, and $4.9 million
annually on litigation. The Office of the General Counsel estimates it
spent an average of $0.3 million annually on appeals and $2.2 million
on litigation in the same period. We have no information on
expenditures of the Department of Justice or the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Question. Please estimate the cost of reducing the number of FTE's
to a level needed to carry-out custodial management on all National
Forest System acres (comparable to 1950's management). Assume that the
Agency will only be able to use existing early-out authority or
Reduction in Force (RIF) authority. Also, assume that the Agency will
have to absorb the cost of these reductions. In calculating these cost
estimates, assume necessary reductions would occur early in fiscal year
1999 or early in fiscal year 2000 using orderly RIF or other
appropriate procedures.
Answer. As in the response to question 3, we are unclear as to the
definition of custodial management. Forest Service actions are guided
by just under 200 laws, and we are mandated to carry out a range of
activities under those laws. It is not possible for us to identify
which activities we would not undertake.
As for the changes in FTE totals, the fiscal year 1999 President's
Budget reflects a total of 35,526 FTE's. Barring other changes, such as
an authorized buyout, we would estimate that fiscal year 2000 would
reflect a similar total.
Question. According the fiscal year 1998 Presidential Budget
Request, driving for pleasure is the most population recreational use
of the national forests. In a recent Journal of Forestry article, the
President of the Society of American Foresters is quoted as saying that
less [than] 4.5 percent of the recreation use on the national forests
occurs in the Congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Please
describe the reductions in on-road and off-road visitor use which are
likely to occur as a result of a custodial management regime which
allows only those roads currently listed as part of the Federal, State
or county road systems to remain open. Assume other agencies will
shoulder the administrative responsibility and cost of road
maintenance. Additionally, estimate the loss in recreation user fees
which will be experienced as a result of such a policy.
Answer. Again, answering this question with precision is difficult
because we do not understand what is meant by ``custodial management.''
Would all 373,000 miles of forest roads be closed, or would the 20
percent of the roads that handle an estimated 80 percent of the
recreation use remain open?
Question. Please provide an analysis of the portion of the fiscal
year 1998 Forest and Environment Research budget that is spent in
direct or indirect support of National Forest System management
programs. Please specify what percentage of this would be necessary to
support a custodial management regime.
Answer. The Forest Service conducts research in accordance with the
authorities described in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Research Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 353, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600 (note),
1641 (note), and 1641-1648. There is no reference in the 1978 Act to 16
U.S.C. 1609, which defines the National Forest System, nor does the
1978 act contain any direction or limitation, expressed or implied,
that research shall only pertain to national forests. Rather, the 1978
act explicitly states purposes and authorizations that apply to all the
Nation's forests:
--Section 2(a)(1) states, ``Congress finds that scientific
discoveries and technological advances must be made and applied
to support the protection, management, and utilization of the
Nation's renewable resources * * * .''
--Section 3(a) states, ``The Secretary is authorized to conduct,
support, and cooperate in investigations, experiments, tests,
and other activities the Secretary deems necessary to obtain,
analyze, develop, demonstrate, and disseminate scientific
information about protecting, managing, and utilizing forest
and rangeland resources in rural, suburban, and urban areas.''
--Section 3(a)(5) provides for the Forest Inventory and Analysis and
Forest Health Management programs as does Section 3 of the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.
--Section 4(c) states, ``In implementing this Act, the Secretary may
cooperate with international, Federal, State, and other
governmental agencies, with public or private agencies,
institutions, universities, and organizations, and with
businesses and individuals in the United States and in other
countries.''
--Each of the four program areas in Forest Service Research and
Development simultaneously support management activities on
private lands, State and other Federal lands, as well as the
national forests. For example, research addressing wildland-
urban interface management issues is useful to the residents
and local governments at the interface, without respect to
whether the wildlands are national forests, State forests, or
privately owned forests. Providing research results to private
landowners and State and local governments is how forest
research began in the Department of Agriculture. In fact,
forest research within the Department of Agriculture began in
the mid-1870's--30 years before the forest reserves were
transferred to USDA in 1905. Since then, research results have
often benefitted private, State, and Federal resource
management simultaneously. Attempting to distinguish research
specific to the national forests from research applicable to
the Nation's forests creates false distinctions because the
same cover types and ecological conditions exist on a variety
of land ownerships.
--There is an increasing demand for intensive forest management
research that benefits the national forests and grasslands,
along with other Federal, State and private lands. These
landowners have traditionally obtained this information from
Forest Service Research and Development. As ecological
conditions change, new knowledge and technology will be needed
to track and predict forest conditions and effects at the
stand, watershed, and landscape levels. These will be truly
unique research and development needs the Forest Service is
best suited to provide.
Question. Please provide an analysis of the fiscal year 1998 State
and Private Forestry budget that is spent in direct or indirect support
of the National Forest System programs. Please specify what percentage
of this would be necessary to support custodial management.
Answer. About $16.5 million (45 percent) of the Federal lands
expanded budget line item of the Forest Health Management budget line
item directly or indirectly supports NFS programs through insect and
disease prevention and suppression. (The remainder supports activities
on other Federal and State and private lands.) This support includes:
--forest insect and disease survey and monitoring to detect and
evaluate pest outbreaks,
--financial and technical assistance for prevention and suppression
treatments for native and exotic pests,
--technical assistance to land managers in insect and disease
prevention, pesticide use, hazard tree recognition, and
biological control of noxious weeds,
--participation of insect and disease specialists in forest plan
development and implementation,
--development of pest-resistant trees to restore species that have
been seriously impacted by exotic diseases (for example western
and eastern white pines and Port-Orford cedar).
Again, without a clear definition, we are unwilling to engage in a
speculative exercise to define or evaluate a hypothetical custodial
management scenario.
national forest system management
Mr. Lyons. The letter states, ``There is presently very
little agreement on a discreet mission for the National Forest
System.'' Obviously, I disagree with that.
Both the Forest Service mission and the mission of the
National Forest System are clear and well defined in statute
and regulation and in agency policy. As an administration, we
have worked hard within the parameters of current law to try to
resolve many resource management issues--everything from
conflicts over old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest to
concern about agency consultations under the Endangered Species
Act.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked through a
number of difficult issues over time and I appreciate your help
and guidance as we have tried to deal with those issues.
While values differ and the interests of one constituency
may, at times, be at odds with the desires of another, we have
tried to seek balance, reason, and dialog among those interests
as a means of resolving these difficult issues.
We continue to be guided by sound science and professional
judgment while placing greater emphasis than others may have on
seeking local input and advice.
The national forests are managed by law for multiple use.
This requires, by statute, that these lands be managed for the
production of wood, water, fish and wildlife, range, and
recreation, without concern for the use that returns the
highest profit.
We continue to work to seek efficiencies. But the returns
on investment cannot and should not be measured by net revenues
returned to the Treasury or board feet produced.
In fact, the Multiple-Use, Sustained Yield Act of 1960
calls for:
Harmonious and coordinated management of the various
resources, each with the other, without impairment of the
productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
relative values of the various resources and not necessarily
the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar
return or the greatest unit output.
natural resources agenda
Seeking the highest net social public benefits from
national forests requires that these other benefits are
considered and addressed.
In February, Chief Dombeck made a presentation to agency
employees regarding his view of the agency's mission. His
natural resources agenda included a focus on watershed health,
sustainable forest management, the critical issue of forest
roads, and the values of outdoor recreation. I know that Mike
will provide you more detail in his remarks. But I believe that
what Chief Dombeck stated clearly and unequivocally is his view
of the agency and national forest mission, to answer the
specific and primary concerns in the letter that he received.
Although the Chief's agenda has generated some controversy,
I would assert, Mr. Chairman, that what Mike has rolled out is
really the result of the evolution in thinking of the agency
and of its leadership over the past decade or so.
national recreation strategy
For example, former Chief Dale Robertson distinguished
himself as a leader in promoting recreation on the national
forests. During his tenure, the Forest Service announced its
National Recreation Strategy, which was the forerunner of the
outdoor recreation strategy which is focused and refined in
Mike's agenda. In fact, Chief Robertson's strategy was in
response to the work of the President's Commission on America's
Outdoors, which was initiated by President Bush.
Chief Dombeck's focus on watershed health and sustainable
forestry are also the product of an evolution in the thinking
of the forestry community and Forest Service leadership about
key natural resource issues.
course to the future
You may recall that Mike's predecessor, Jack Ward Thomas,
issued a document he called ``The Forest Service Ethics and
Course to the Future,'' in which he outlined an agency agenda
that included many elements similar to Chief Dombeck's natural
resources agenda. Among the priorities set by Jack were:
Protect ecosystems; restore deteriorated ecosystems; and
provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of
ecosystems.
sustainable forestry principles
Now I do not mean to suggest that Mike is not an original
thinker. I would suggest, as well, that Mike's emphasis here
reflects the coming together of many ideas related to the
present and future management of the national forests. In fact,
I would suggest that the sustainable forestry element of Mike's
agenda is fully consistent with the sustainable forestry
initiative launched by the timber industry's American Forest
and Paper Association. In fact, that document refers to
sustainable forestry in this way, and this is a quote from
American Forest and Paper Association's ``Sustainable Forestry
Principles and Implementation Guidelines.'' ``Sustainable
forestry is to practice sustainable forestry to meet the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs by practicing a land
stewardship ethic, which integrates the reforestation,
managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for
useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water
quality, wildlife, fish habitat, and esthetics.''
I think that sounds like a fairly good mission statement.
I should also point out in the industry's ``Sustainable
Forestry Principles,'' Mr. Chairman, that attention is given to
the need to protect special sites--in fact, principal forest
States--to manage their forests and lands of special
significance--i.e., biologically, geologically, or historically
significant--in a manner that takes into account their unique
qualities.
I think that sounds very similar to something that Chief
Dombeck has initiated recently.
So many of the ideas and objectives regarding the future of
forestry and forests in the United States are really the result
of an evolution in thinking over time. And, in fact, I would
suggest that our goal is to ensure the most productive use of
our lands in terms of all its possible uses for the greatest
number of Americans.
roads moratorium
The one area of strong disagreement among some in the
Congress clearly is over this matter of roads and the future of
road building policy for the Forest Service. There, too, I
would suggest that, frankly, there is more that we agree on
than on which we disagree.
If you would not mind, I would like Brooks Preston from my
office to help me. We will just run through a couple of charts
that quickly illustrate some of the points I want to make this
morning.
Mr. Lyons. In the national forests, we have 386,000 miles
of road, enough to circle the globe 16 times. Most of these
roads are poorly maintained or, frankly, not maintained at all.
This is not the result of intentional neglect, but simply the
lack of resources and a clear strategy for maintaining the
transportation infrastructure we need and, frankly, for
eliminating what we do not need, and what we agree we do not
need.
Some 20 percent of this road system--actually 22 percent,
which we call our arterial and collector system--gets 80
percent of the public use on the national forests. It is used
for rural commerce, for access to recreation, hunting, and
fishing, for management, and for commercial activities, like
logging.
recreation use roads
The fastest growing use of National Forest System roads is,
in fact, for recreation. That is illustrated by this next
chart.
You can see that use of the national forests for recreation
is skyrocketing, and each and every one of you sees this in the
forests in your States. Idaho and Washington are excellent
examples.
Of that portion of the road system that gets the most use,
we only have sufficient funds to maintain 40 percent of the
mileage to the standard for which it was built. I would suggest
that with growing recreation use, those standards are
inadequate. Roads that were built to standards to meet the
needs of logging trucks are not going to meet the needs of Ford
Explorers, and we see that. That is a problem.
bridge safety
The problem is compounded by the fact that nearly 1,000 of
the 7,000 bridges that we administer are deemed structurally or
functionally deficient by the engineers who monitor them. In
short, they are unsafe.
As a result, more and more we are being forced to limit
road use because of concern for public safety on a rapidly
deteriorating road system.
So how do we deal with this dilemma? What is the prudent
way to approach it? I would suggest two ways.
roads moratorium
The first is to call a time-out on new road building until
we understand the dimensions of our problem and what resources
we can muster to deal with it. This time-out, as Mike has
called it, has stirred a great deal of controversy. But the
fact is that we have not proposed a permanent moratorium on
road building and we continue to reconstruct roads to improve
forest access for many uses, including timber.
The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes reconstruction of 584
miles of road by the Forest Service, primarily to address
environmental impacts of these roads, and reconstruction of
nearly 3,000 miles of road by timber purchasers to access
proposed timber sales. Timber purchasers would also build 403
miles of road in already roaded areas.
So you can see this time-out on road building in roadless
areas is not about cutting off access to the national forests,
as some would have you believe. In fact, it is about taking a
thoughtful and prudent look at our policies regarding the entry
and management of roadless areas.
Road construction and reconstruction in roaded parts of the
forest will continue as needed. The moratorium proposal is part
of a broader strategy to better manage forest roads by deciding
which roads must be maintained and which can be decommissioned.
roads decommissioning
As you can see from this chart, Mr. Chairman, we began
decommissioning roads back in 1991 under authority provided by
the Appropriations Committee. But if you look at the numbers,
you can see that, although we have increased decommissioning,
in fact we are decommissioning roads at a rate more quickly
than they are building new roads. If you add up the miles of
reconstructed roads in addition to those that we are
constructing, you will find out that, in fact, improving access
in that manner actually exceeds what we are doing in terms of
decommissioning roads.
I should also point out that the decommissioning is of
roads that were called for to be decommissioned in existing
land and forest management plans.
roads maintenance and reconstruction backlog
Now, the second thing we need to do is to begin to deal
with the tremendous backlog of maintenance and reconstruction
needs that we have on the road system, a $10.5 billion backlog.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of road maintenance and
reconstruction of roads and bridges, those that get extensive
public use, is and should be a national priority.
High-use roads on the national forests represent 55 percent
of the total public lands highway system, as illustrated here
(indicating). And we have identified the other elements that
belong to our sister agencies involved in land use management.
Although we have proposed an increase in road maintenance
funds in this budget, appropriations will never get the backlog
of current road reconstruction and maintenance needs addressed.
As I said, it is $10.5 billion.
The consequences of this backlog are: Decreased safety for
forest roads and bridges; degradation of watersheds resulting
from increased erosion; and other environmental and rural
community impacts.
I am certain you would agree, Mr. Chairman, that this
situation is intolerable and, in fact, it is a national
disgrace.
Mr. Chairman, we need your help and the Congress' help to
address it. I also have information for the members of the
committee reflecting the relative road mileages for national
forest roads in each of your States. If I could, I would
provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
National Forest Road Program
State Miles
Alabama....................................................... 1,632
Alaska........................................................ 3,458
Arizona....................................................... 30,493
Arkansas...................................................... 9,926
California.................................................... 44,861
Colorado...................................................... 18,462
Florida....................................................... 4,128
Georgia....................................................... 1,523
Idaho......................................................... 33,894
Illinois...................................................... 1,115
Indiana....................................................... 84
Kentucky...................................................... 1,333
Louisiana..................................................... 2,806
Maine......................................................... 79
Michigan...................................................... 11,174
Minnesota..................................................... 4,473
Mississippi................................................... 2,643
Missouri...................................................... 2,354
Montana....................................................... 31,289
Nebraska...................................................... 796
Nevada........................................................ 5,858
New Hampshire................................................. 435
New Mexico.................................................... 22,687
New York...................................................... 4
North Carolina................................................ 2,305
North Dakota.................................................. 857
Ohio.......................................................... 73
Oklahoma...................................................... 690
Oregon........................................................ 71,995
Pennsylvania.................................................. 1,207
Puerto Rico................................................... 23
South Carolina................................................ 1,657
South Dakota.................................................. 4,322
Tennessee..................................................... 1,525
Texas......................................................... 2,547
Utah.......................................................... 11,548
Vermont....................................................... 239
Virginia...................................................... 2,757
Washington.................................................... 22,191
West Virginia................................................. 1,720
Wisconsin..................................................... 7,530
Wyoming....................................................... 10,746
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 379,439
heavy-use roads
Mr. Lyons. I would just point out, for example, that in
Washington State, we have 5,400 miles of road that fall into
this heavy-use category and that need improvement. It is 580
miles in West Virginia; 2,600 miles in New Mexico; 10,300 miles
in Montana; 8,500 in Idaho; 6,000 in Colorado. Senator Cochran,
I would be glad to get you the Mississippi mileage as soon as I
get back to my office. [Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
It is 952 miles in Mississippi.
custodial forest management
Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, as stated in Chairman Murkowski's
letter to the Chief, ``Most Americans believe that each
generation should leave the public resources in a better
condition than they received them from their parents.''
To do so, however, requires more than a custodial budget,
if I understand the intended meaning of that word in the letter
that Chief Dombeck received. To the contrary, what is required
is an investment in our natural resource heritage to insure
that the unintended consequences of past management are
corrected to improve our environmental performance overall and
to insure that the national forests can continue to sustain
production of all the goods and services that come from these
lands.
The roads example I offered is a case in point.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that the
investments called for in this budget are critical to our
ability to provide stable and sustainable production of timber,
water, fish and wildlife, range, and recreation on the national
forests.
prepared statement
More and more, the economies of rural communities are
dependent upon a mix of national forest products and services--
not just timber anymore. We need to work with the communities
and the counties to understand their needs, to help them
understand our capabilities and the limitations of the land,
and to find a balance that will provide greater stability for
those communities in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now I will turn to Chief Dombeck to address these issues in
greater detail.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Lyons
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss
the Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
This morning I'd like to present a brief overview of our
budget request and highlight some of the priorities we've
identified. In his testimony, Chief Dombeck will address these
issues in greater detail.
Mr. Chairman, recently Chairman Murkowski of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Subcommittee
Chairman Craig along with House Resources Committee Chairman
Young and Subcommittee Chairman Chenowith wrote to Chief
Dombeck to raise concerns regarding agency management direction
and to raise the specter of funding national forest management
at a ``custodial'' level. While I know that Chief Dombeck has
replied to this letter and the questions it posed, I want to
offer my thoughts on the issues raised as a means of
illustrating the budget priorities presented by the
Administration in our fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Let me start with the issue of agency mission.
The letter states, ``there is presently very little
agreement on a discrete mission for the National Forest
System.''
I disagree.
Both the Forest Service mission and the mission of the
national forest system are clear and well-defined in statute,
regulation, and agency policy. As an Administration, we have
worked hard within the parameters of current law to resolve
resource management issues, from conflicts over management of
old-growth forests in the Pacific North West to concern about
agency consultations under the Endangered Species Act. While
values differ and the interests of one constituency may, at
times, be at odds with the desires of another, we have sought
balance, reason and dialogue among those interests as a means
of resolution. We continue to be guided by sound science and
professional judgment while placing greater emphasis than
others may have on seeking local input and advice. As evidence,
I would offer the work being done by the regional leadership
team overseeing the Columbia River Basin project to include
affected counties and communities in the dialogue and
decisionmaking processes.
The national forests are to be managed for multiple-use, by
law. And this requires, by statute, that these lands be managed
for the production of wood, water, fish and wildlife, range,
and recreation without concern for the use that returns the
highest profit. We continue to work to seek efficiencies, but
the returns on investment cannot and should not be measured by
net revenues, returns to the Treasury, or board feet. In fact,
the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 calls for,
``harmonious and coordinated management of the various
resources, each with the other, without impairment of the
productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily
the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar
return or the greatest unit output.'' Seeking the highest net
societal public benefits from national forests requires that
these other benefits are considered and addressed.
Our continuing inability to measure the returns on
investment in terms of improved water quality, wildlife habitat
restoration, reduced risk of wildfire, or recreation quality
hamper our ability to gain a true picture of the valuable
products of our management. Unfortunately, we continue to be
challenged simply on the basis of what we produce from the
forests, the commodities that come out of the woods. But that's
only part of the picture. A truer perspective would also take
into account what we leave behind the condition of the resource
following management. For that is what affects the resources
we're entrusted to manage and the communities we serve for the
decades to follow. That is our true legacy.
In February, Chief Dombeck made a presentation to agency
employees regarding his view of the agency's mission. His
natural resources agenda included a focus on watershed health,
sustainable forest management, the critical issue of forest
roads, and the values of outdoor recreation. I know that Mike
will provide you more detail on his remarks. But I believe
Chief Dombeck stated clearly and unequivocally his view of the
agency and national forest system mission, to answer the
specific and primary concerns expressed in the letter to him.
Although the Chief's ``Agenda'' has generated some
controversy, I would assert, Mr. Chairman, that what Mike has
rolled out is really the result of the evolution in thinking of
the agency and its leadership over the past decade or so. For
example, former Chief Dale Robertson distinguished himself as a
leader in promoting recreation on the national forests. During
his tenure the Forest Service announced its National Recreation
Strategy, the forerunner of the outdoor recreation strategy
which is focused and refined in Mike's agenda. In fact, Chief
Robertson's Strategy was in response to the work of the
President's Commission on American's Outdoors, initiated by
President Bush. Chief Dombeck's focus on watershed health and
sustainable forestry are also the product of an evolution in
the thinking of the forestry community and Forest Service
leadership about key natural resource issues. You may recall
that Mike's predecessor, Jack Ward Thomas, issued a document he
called ``The Forest Service Ethics and Course to the Future'',
in which he outlined an agency agenda that included many
elements similar to Chief Dombeck's Natural Resources Agenda.
Among the priorities set by Jack were: (1) Protect Ecosystems;
(2) Restore Deteriorated Ecosystems; and (3) Provide Multiple
Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of Ecosystems.
Sound familiar? I would suggest, as well, that Mike's
emphasis on Sustainable Forestry is fully consistent with the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative launched by the timber
industry's American Forest and Paper Association. So, many
ideas and objectives regarding the future of forestry and
national forest management in the United States are, in fact,
converging. Chief Dombeck has simply brought these issues into
focus with his ``Natural Resources Agenda''. Our goal is to
ensure the most productive use of our lands--in terms of all
possible uses--for the greatest number of Americans.
The one area of strong disagreement between this
Administration and some in the Congress is over the matter of
roads and future road building policy. And there, too, I would
suggest that there is more that we agree on than we disagree.
We have 386,000 miles of roads on the national forests,
enough to circle the globe 16 times. Most of these roads are
poorly maintained or not maintained at all. This is not the
result of intentional neglect, but simply the result of a lack
of resources and a clear strategy for maintaining the
transportation infrastructure we need and for eliminating what
we agree we do not.
Twenty percent of this road system--the arterial and
collector roads--gets eighty percent of the public use. Use for
rural commerce; for access for recreation, hunting, and
fishing; for management; and for commercial activities like
logging. The fastest growing use of national forest system
roads is, in fact, for recreation. No surprise, because
recreational uses of the national forests eclipse National Park
visitation and are growing at a ``significant'' rate.
Of that portion of the road system that gets the most use,
we have only sufficient funds to maintain 40 percent of the
mileage to the standard for which it was built. That's a
problem. And, the problem is compounded by the fact that nearly
1,000 of the 7,000 bridges we maintain are deemed structurally
or functionally deficient by the engineers who monitor them.
This is a public safety nightmare. As a result, more and more
we are being forced to limit road use because of concern for
public safety on a rapidly deteriorating road system.
How do we deal with this dilemma? I'd suggest, in two ways.
The first is to call a time out on new road building until
we understand the dimensions of our problem and what resources
we can muster to deal with it. This ``time out'' has stirred
much controversy. But, the fact is that we have not proposed a
permanent moratorium on road building. And, we continue to
reconstruct roads to improve forest access for many uses,
including timber. The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes
reconstruction of 584 miles of road by the Forest Service,
primarily to address environmental impacts of these roads, and
reconstruction of nearly 3,000 miles of roads by timber
purchasers to access proposed timber sales. Timber purchasers
would also build 403 miles of road in already roaded areas. The
table below provides a brief summary of the forest road program
since fiscal year 1995.
FOREST ROAD PROGRAM
[In miles]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Accomplishment indicator ------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 \2\ 1999 \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road construction purchaser credit....................... 441 417 392 504 .........
Road construction by purchaser........................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 403
Road construction appropriated funds \1\................. 27 46 8 11 8
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 468 463 400 515 411
======================================================
Road reconstruction purchaser credit..................... 1,690 2,301 3,210 3,130 .........
Road construction by purchaser........................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,957
Road reconstruction appropriated funds \1\............... 726 552 384 292 584
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 2,416 2,853 3,594 3,422 3,541
======================================================
Road decommissioning..................................... 2,126 1,440 1,787 1,500 3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appropriated construction and reconstruction figures include recreation, timber, and general purpose roads.
\2\ Estimate.
\3\ Proposed.
So you can see, this ``time out'' on road building in
roadless areas is not about cutting off access to the national
forests as some have alleged. In fact, its about taking a
thoughtful and prudent look at our policies regarding the entry
and management of roadless areas. Road construction and
reconstruction in roaded parts of the forests will continue as
needed. We will build or reconstruct about 4,000 miles of road
in fiscal year 1999 under the proposed budget. Our budget
provides for the decommissioning of 3,500 miles of road--as
already identified in current forest plans. The moratorium
proposal is part of a broader strategy to better manage forest
roads by deciding which roads must be maintained and which can
be decommissioned.
The second thing that we need to do is to begin to deal
with the tremendous backlog of maintenance and reconstruction
needs on our existing road system. I believe, Mr. Chairman,
that the issue of road maintenance and reconstruction of roads
and bridges--those that get extensive public use--is and should
be a national priority. Although we tend to focus, nationally,
on national park and other public land roads, we need to
support national forest roads as well. High use roads on the
national forests represent 55 percent of the total public lands
highway system. And, although we have proposed an increase in
road maintenance funds in this budget, appropriations will
never get the backlog of current road reconstruction and
maintenance needs addressed--that's $10.5 billion and growing
each year. The consequence of this backlog is the decreased
safety of forest roads and bridges, and the degradation of
watersheds resulting from increased erosion. I am certain you
would agree, Mr. Chairman, that this situation is intolerable.
In fact, it is a national disgrace. Mr. Chairman, we need your
help and the Congress' help to fix it.
On another subject, Mr. Chairman, you are aware that
Secretary Glickman chartered a Committee of Scientists last
fall under the National Forest Management Act. The Committee
has been operating since the beginning of this year and will
produce a report by late spring. It's mission is to review and
critique the forest planning process and to guide the
development of new forest planning regulations. I commit to you
that based upon the committee's efforts, we will work to
complete a new draft of the forest planning regulations for
public comment before the end of fiscal year 1998. Then, I hope
we can work together to lift the current prohibition on forest
plan revisions, and structure a new approach to forest
planning.
Mr. Chairman, as stated in Chairman Murkowski's letter to
the Chief, ``Most Americans believe that each generation should
leave the public resources in better condition than they
received them from their parents.'' To do so, however, requires
more than a ``custodial'' budget if I understand your intended
meaning of the term. To the contrary, what is required is an
investment in our natural resource heritage to ensure that the
unintended consequences of past management are corrected, to
improve our environmental performance overall, and to ensure
that the national forests can continue to sustain production of
all the goods and services that can come from these lands. The
roads example I just offered is a case in point.
The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget also provides
for and the Chief has called for a reinvestment in the health
of the nation's watersheds. Increasingly, water is the most
valuable commodity produced on the national forests. Our
responsibility is to ensure that the water we produce is clean
and clear, fishable and swimmable.
Every major metropolitan area in the West, from Los Angeles
and Portland to Boise, Denver, and Albuquerque depends upon the
national forests for their water supplies. Our budget would
increase funding for watershed assessments and riparian area
restoration. It would seek to increase efforts to reduce fuel
build-ups through improved thinning of densely-stocked stands
and salvage of dead and dying timber. Hazardous fuels reduction
efforts--including thinning, prescribed fire and other fuels
management techniques--have increased from 300,000 acres in
fiscal year 1990 to a projected 1.5 million acres in fiscal
year 1999. It calls for more acres of prescribed fire to clean
up fuels remaining after thinning and salvage operations. More
and more, our timber sale program is focused on improving
forest stand conditions and watershed health in this manner.
Chairman Murkowski's letter to Chief Dombeck also suggested
that: ``There will also be some costs associated with wildlife
and fisheries restoration and enhancement work'' related to ESA
concerns. Part of our road maintenance and reconstruction
effort is intended to address the effects of poorly maintained
roads on aquatic habitats. Recently, the National Marine
Fisheries Service indicated that it would recommend listing of
thirteen populations of five different salmon from northern
California to Washington State. The road investment we propose
is critical to our efforts to restore salmon habitat on federal
forest lands and our work in partnership with both Governor
Kitzhaber of Oregon and Governor Locke of Washington to avert
the potential impacts of salmon, steelhead, and bulltrout
listings on both public and private lands in the Pacific North
West. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is ludicrous to consider
improvements in salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest without
investing in restoration of the deteriorating national forest
system roads, which are causing harm to the waterways that are
key to the salmon's survival.
Also critical to addressing our obligations for species
recovery under the ESA is increased funding for the agency's
fish and wildlife program. The reason is simple, the national
forests are the home to more threatened and endangered species
than any other part of the federal domain. That is, in part,
because we continue to manage so much relatively undisturbed
habitat on which these species depend. In part, it is also by
design. In the Pacific North West, for example, a conscious
decision was made to manage for the spotted owl, the marbled
murrelet, and to protect watershed critical to salmon,
steelhead, and threatened and endangered species of trout on
national forests. In fact, it was this policy decision that
helped make possible the development of habitat conservation
plans for the forest lands of companies like Weyerhauser and
Plum Creek.
In summary, I strongly believe that the investments called
for in this budget are critical to our ability to provide
stable and sustainable production of timber, water, fish and
wildlife, range, and recreation on the national forests. More
and more, the economies of rural communities are dependent upon
a mix of national forest products and services. We need to work
with the communities and the counties to understand their
needs, to help them understand our capabilities and the
limitations of the land, and to find a balance that will
provide greater stability for the future.
Our past focus on timber almost to the exclusion of other
resource values and services only served to increase economic
instability, particularly for isolated communities. I fear that
any effort to limit our management activities by reducing our
budget will have a further destabilizing effect for rural
people. The best course is to invest in land stewardship with
the communities as partners and to use the considerable
resources of the federal government to aid the communities at
risk. We seek the opportunity to work with you toward this end.
Because, our ability to work together--this subcommittee, the
Congress, and the Administration--will ultimately determine the
health of this nation's natural resources and the
sustainability of the communities which benefit from the
stewardship of these resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
summary statement of mike dombeck
Senator Gordon. Chief.
Chief Dombeck. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and committee
members.
Since Jim focused on the natural resource issues, I would
like to spend more time talking about the business and
accountability side of the Forest Service.
I believe that, as Senator Craig mentioned, in order to
resolve these problems, it is important that we work together.
I know that there are philosophical differences. There are
philosophical differences almost everyplace. I can even find
them at home. But the important thing is that we continue to
work together.
I want all of you to know that I am available at anytime to
meet and talk about these issues and continually search for
common ground.
business management
I would like to focus now and spend just a few minutes
talking about the business side of the Forest Service. I
certainly acknowledge the problem. The 100-plus inspector
general and General Accounting Office reports that were
discussed at the March 26 hearing in front of the joint
committees with the House is a record of some of the challenges
that we have as an organization. From the day I came on board,
I indicated to employees and others that in order to be good
resource managers, we have to be good business managers and we
have to be good human resource managers.
The Forest Service is equivalent to a Fortune 500 company.
It has 30,000 employees, a $3 billion budget, and its business
and accounting systems need to be up to snuff and up to date.
While I was Acting Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, we got our first clean financial audit in 1995. And
although the budget structure in that organization is certainly
a much less complex organization than the Forest Service, the
job was done there and I believe the job can be done at the
Forest Service. But it is going to take time.
It took Jack Welch 10 years to work on General Electric
[GE], and we have complexities beyond many of those that GE had
that have evolved over time.
I would say, very simply, from the management standpoint,
as I view the Forest Service and the challenges that we have,
the complexity is killing us. It is taking up resources. It has
moved the resource manager out of the field, back into the
office, with less time in the woods, less time dealing with
customers, less time dealing with loggers, recreationists, and
so on. We want to work on that situation together.
Can it be fixed? Yes; here is what we think it needs.
First of all, we need general agreement on resource
priorities and a good business system will help us achieve that
agreement. We need employees that are well trained in business
management practices. We are an organization of some of the
best resource managers and scientists in the world in areas of
silviculture, fire management, watershed work, engineering, and
the list goes on and on.
However, the focus has not been on the business side of the
organization. I intend to place a very high level of focus on
that area and make sure that we have the right skill mix to
achieve what we need.
We need accurate and current information. We find ourselves
in a situation where we are drowning in data and where we lack
information.
Just to give you an idea of the complexity of the situation
we face: Some management codes do as little as 5,000 dollars'
worth of business a year. We have too much under a microscope,
and that complexity is a situation we need to deal with.
To achieve success, we are going to need a strong
partnership with Congress, with the committees here to move
forward with that. Then we will need time to deal with the
issue.
I have taken some actions. I do not want to leave the
impression that we have been looking the other way as this is
going on.
As I indicated on my first day on the job, as I talk with
employees we continually emphasize the need for good business
management practices, human resource management practices, and
natural resource management skills. We cannot have one without
all three.
management action taken
I brought in Francis Pandolfi, the day I came to work, from
the private sector, a chief executive officer with 25 years of
experience and a Harvard MBA, to help with the situation. Some
leadership changes have been made. I want to move quickly to
fill the positions that we have.
We initiated a Coopers & Lybrand study, I might add. One of
the suggestions George Leonard made to me, in addition to
Francis, was to bring in a big 10 accounting firm to take a
look at our structure, take a look at the situation we deal
with, and to make recommendations. We have that report and
Francis would be happy to discuss any details you have.
I found myself as Chief with 35 direct reports. We have
reduced that number to, I think, about 10 or 11. It was a
situation from the standpoint of immediate supervision with a
breadth of almost unmanageable proportion.
We initiated the Chief's reviews that have been in the
Forest Service Manual for many, many years. And yet, I was
unable to find anyone that had participated in one. And the
objective that we are placing on the Chiefs' reviews--and we
will be doing them at all the major units this year--is to
begin to look ahead of the headlights. We are spending so much
of our time dealing with the immediate concern of the day that
the big issues that are coming upon an organization of this
size are going unattended. We need to spend more organizational
energy of the Deputy Chiefs, the Regional Foresters, looking
ahead of the headlights. What is coming at us 5 or 10 years
from now and what could we have done 10 years ago to avoid some
of the situations we are in today? I believe it is important
that we deal with that.
We are working with the Department to implement a new
general ledger. There are some problems with that. But we are
working on those and we will keep you informed as that
develops. And, of course, there is the natural resources agenda
that I have put forward.
So the bottom line is on the accountability and business
management sides, much of the topic of the Christian Science
Monitor article that you quoted from, Senator Craig. Can the
Forest Service be fixed? Yes; we need to do it together. We
need to be aggressive about doing it.
prepared statement
But I believe it can be done. It is going to take
commitment. There will be a tremendous saving in doing it, and
the long-range objective that I have is we not only want a
Forest Service that is a better place to work, but we want an
organization that works better.
I would thank you.
I would like to ask that my written statement be entered
into the record.
Senator Gorton. It already has been ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Dombeck
Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd, and Members of the Committee: I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget.
I have had the honor of serving as Chief of the Forest Service for
the past 16 months. During that time I have worked hard to focus our
direction toward these broad goals:
--Restoring and maintaining the health of the land;
--Ensuring accountability for what we do on the land, our financial
resources and business systems, and the civil rights of our
employees; and,
--Promoting collaborative stewardship, partnerships, and decisions
based on the best science.
I realize philosophical differences exist over how best to achieve
these goals, or perhaps over the goals themselves. I believe that even
as we recognize these differences, it is important to maintain good
working relationships.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today, I want to concentrate on the
important elements of the President's Budget and how it relates to the
Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda, and also discuss the Agency's
financial management systems and the improvements that are needed.
First, let me provide a brief thumbnail sketch of the overall budget.
Overall, the President's Budget for the Forest Service proposes an
increase of 2 percent in discretionary funds. We will manage the 191.6
million acres of forests and grasslands and a $30 billion
infrastructure with a work force which is 2 percent smaller than in
fiscal year 1998. We will provide services in support of approximately
860 million visits annually by the public. We will manage a road system
consisting of 373,000 miles used by 1.7 million vehicles daily for the
purpose of recreation. With the total Forest Service budget of $3.3
billion, we will provide conservation leadership that emphasizes
watershed health and sustainability of services and products that come
from the national forests. The budget includes Presidential Initiatives
that provide $127.3 million for support of such priorities as: the
Clean Water Action Plan; recreation; road, trail, and facility
maintenance; and research. In addition, there are funding increases in
other important areas, such as hazardous fuels reduction, and wildlife
and fisheries habitat management.
Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda
With that brief overview, let me talk about the budget in the
context of the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda. The Agenda is
tiered to the goals and objectives described in our Strategic Plan
prepared under the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA). The Agenda identifies and prioritizes areas of
emphasis within the objectives of our strategic plan. The strategic
plan at the national level, and the forest plans at the local level,
set land management direction for the Forest Service. Fulfilling the
Agenda will help strengthen the confidence of our constituents in the
Forest Service's ability to manage our public land.
The four key emphasis areas of the Natural Resource Agenda are: (1)
Watershed Health and Restoration; (2) Sustainable Forest Management;
(3) National Forest Road System; and (4) Recreation.
Watershed Health and Restoration
Let me start by discussing Watershed Health and Restoration, which
is one of the primary reasons for creation of the national forests. For
many years, our nation's approach to conservation was based on the
premise that we must protect the best of what remains as exemplified by
progressive laws which created wilderness areas and wild and scenic
rivers. Healthy watersheds are the foundation for sustainable multiple
use management, including providing clean water for people and other
outputs. Sustaining the health of the land must be our overriding
priority. Compared to fiscal year 1998, the President's Budget contains
important funding increases to accelerate this part of the Agenda, such
as:
--A $12.6 million increase to provide an additional 12,000 acres of
watershed improvements, and expand clean-up of hazardous
substances sites that impact natural resources and public
health and safety.
--A $15 million (or 30 percent) increase for hazardous fuels
reduction, a critical tool for restoring forest health. This
will result in a reduction of fuels on almost 1.5 million
acres. The proposed fiscal year 1999 program builds on strong
support Congress shows in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations
Act for hazardous fuels reduction.
--A $20 million increase in Rangeland Vegetation Management. The
increase would allow the Forest Service, in partnership with
other USDA and Interior agencies, to begin the first year of a
multi-year cooperative effort to address both the status and
the restoration of rangelands. It would provide for the
restoration of approximately 42,000 acres of range vegetation
through non-structural improvements in the Western States, and
the control of noxious weeds on 55,000 acres.
--Increases for both the Road Maintenance Program and the Road
Reconstruction and Construction program focused on improving
watershed health and public safety. I will discuss these
important programs in more detail later in this testimony.
Only by accepting our responsibility for maintaining watershed
health can we move forward with a more balanced approach to watershed
protection and the provision of grazing, timber, and other outputs. I
have often said that on a national scale our nation's forest and
grasslands are basically healthy. But there are areas where
deterioration is of great concern. We take this responsibility
seriously, and we are taking action. For example, on the Clearwater
National Forest, the winter storms of 1995 and 1996 produced erosion on
old logging roads that caused considerable watershed damage. The Forest
is working with the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Nez Perce
Tribe, and local agencies to plan and identify funding for the
obliteration of 200 miles of these roads over the next two years.
Sustainable forest management
The second point I want to address in the Natural Resource Agenda
is Sustainable Forest Management. Two thirds of the nation's forest
land is managed by owners other than the Federal government.
Sustainable forest management cannot be achieved in the U.S. without
full engagement by all forest landowners. Only by forming coalitions
among communities, conservationists, industry, and all levels of
government can we address the complexity of achieving sustainability
across the landscape.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget supports the effort to
achieve sustainable forest management in a number of areas, such as:
--An increase of $10 million for Forest and Rangeland Research with
primary emphasis given to: accelerating annualized inventories
and improving analytical capability under the Forest Inventory
Analysis program (FIA); expanding the forest health monitoring
program and accelerating integration with FIA; and, increasing
research critical to better understanding and mitigating the
impacts of climate change as it relates to forests and
rangelands;
--Funding increases for a number of State and Private Forestry
programs to help individual landowners, communities, and States
capture the benefits of trees and forests through planning and
stewardship. These programs include the Forest Stewardship
Program, Stewardship Incentives Program, Forest Legacy Program,
and the Urban and Community Forestry Program.
In addition, using our own inventory and monitoring data, and
collaborating with other land management agencies and organizations, we
plan to develop a national report on the condition of the Nation's
forests based on the Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management
of Temperate and Boreal Forests. These non-legally binding criteria and
indicators (C&I) are endorsed by a number of countries--such as the
United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Russia, and others--that
contain 90 percent of the world's temperate and boreal forests and 60
percent of all forests on the globe. The C&I provide a common
understanding of what is meant by sustainable forest management and a
common framework for evaluating progress toward achieving
sustainability. A broad array of U.S. stakeholders, including State
Foresters, and environmental and industry groups support use of the
C&I.
National Forest Road System
Mr. Chairman, now let me turn to the third area of the Natural
Resource Agenda. That area is the National Forest Road System. Needless
to say this issue has received extensive attention since I announced
development of a new road management policy in January 1998.
Unfortunately, the majority of this attention has focused on the
proposed interim policy for road construction in roadless areas. I know
many on this Committee are very concerned about that policy. Mr.
Chairman, this proposed interim rule is only one of several important
aspects of this forest roads proposal. By concentrating on the roadless
policy, attention has been diverted away from the broader issue of
managing overall road access. That is unfortunate because the forest
road system is, in many places, the best of the rural transportation
system. We must do a better job of meeting these local needs.
I am very concerned about the condition of the forest road system.
Today, our road system accommodates 1.7 million vehicles per day that
are being driven for recreational purposes. This is 10 times the
traffic experienced in 1950. This compares to 15,000 vehicles per day
for timber related activities, which is about the same as the 1950
level. While recreation related vehicle use has increased, today there
are 7,600 less miles of road available to passenger type vehicles than
in 1991. Our inability to fully maintain the roads we have has resulted
in the gradual degradation of the road system. The Forest Service has a
road maintenance and reconstruction backlog of over $10 billion. It is
a plain and simple fact that we have not been fully funded to care for
the roads we currently have, and poorly maintained roads can seriously
degrade watersheds and pose a threat to public safety. We are proposing
to begin to reverse this trend through improved management policies,
and our budget priorities.
The Forest Service has sought public input on the scope and nature
of a proposed revision of the national forest system road management
policy. In proposing this, we asked for feedback on three expected
outcomes. First, as fewer forest roads are built today, we will ensure
they are built to minimize adverse environmental effects. Second,
existing roads that are no longer needed or that cause significant
environmental damage will be removed. Third, roads that are most
heavily used by the public will be made safer, and any adverse impacts
on water quality, aquatic habitat, and fisheries, will be reduced.
We have also sought public input on our interim roadless proposal
to temporarily halt road construction in most areas of the national
forest system that do not presently have roads. This proposal
recognizes that we cannot afford to manage our existing road system. We
will use this time to engage the Congress and the American people in a
constructive dialogue about where and when new roads should be built on
national forests.
The President's Budget supports the need to improve management of
the road system we currently have and need to maintain. For example,
the budget proposes:
--An increase in the Roads Reconstruction and Construction Program of
$8 million (or 9 percent). The increase will be focused on road
reconstruction to protect and restore watersheds, improve
safety, and provide appropriate access for utilization of
forest resources.
--A $22 million (or 26 percent) increase in the Road Maintenance
program that would fund the decommissioning of 3,500 miles of
roads, which is less than 10 percent of the total need
identified by the Agency. It would also increase the percent of
system roads maintained to standard from 38 percent in fiscal
year 1998 to 45 percent in fiscal year 1999.
Recreation
Mr. Chairman, the fourth and last emphasis item in the Natural
Resource Agenda is Recreation. The President's Budget provides strong
support for the recreation program and contains important proposals to
permanently implement the many successes we have found with new
recreation initiatives. The national forests and grasslands are the
largest supplier of outdoor recreation opportunities in America. With
the majority of Americans easily able to access National Forest System
land from practically anywhere in the country, it is clear the national
forests are America's backyard for recreation. The national forests had
more than 800 million visits in fiscal year 1997, and we expect this
demand to increase to 1.2 billion visits over the next 50 years.
The President's Budget recognizes the important challenges
represented by this increasing demand for recreation, and has proposed
a $21.1 million increase in the Recreation Use Program over the enacted
amount in fiscal year 1998. A priority emphasis for these funds is the
maintenance of recreation sites, such as restoration and replacement of
water and sanitation facilities, as well as high priority trail
maintenance in wilderness and non-wilderness areas. We are using
appropriated funds, fees generated from the Recreation Fee
Demonstration program, support from partnerships, and other measures to
address our critical recreation program needs. For example, funds
generated under the Recreation Fee Demonstration program on the Siuslaw
National Forest were used to rehabilitate resource damage to meadows
around Mary's Peak Recreation Area, upgrade garbage collection services
and add restrooms at the Sandlake Recreation Area, and complete
resource restoration work and maintain facilities at the Oregon Dunes.
I want to briefly discuss the Recreation Fee Demonstration program.
In fiscal year 1997, approximately 35 million visits occurred on the 40
sites currently operating under the program. An additional 43 sites
will be added in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1997 the Forest
Service collected over $7 million of which $3.7 million will be
expended for maintenance work. The remainder will be used for enhanced
services. We expect collections to increase in fiscal year 1998 to
approximately $18 million. These collections are critical for helping
us provide the services American's expect from the national forests.
However, let me emphasize that America's recreational use of the
national forests is highly dispersed. Those 35 million visits to
Recreation Fee Demonstration sites represent only 4 percent of the
total recreation visits on the national forests. American's expect a
lot from us in terms of the quality of their recreation experience, for
both dispersed use and at fee sites. The President's Budget recognizes
those expectations. The budget proposes increased appropriations for
recreation and assumes that the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project
receipts will be used in addition to appropriated funds as the
authorizing statute intended; otherwise, the backlog will continue to
grow.
Also in the fiscal year 1999 budget is a proposal to permanently
authorize Forest Service retention and use of receipts from recreation
sites, including that portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
receipts outside of the Recreation Fee Demonstration pilot program. We
estimate that beginning in fiscal year 2000, total resources generated
under this proposal will be about $26 million.
Payments to States proposal
We are very aware of the importance of revenues to county
governments and the effects upon the local economies when their sources
of revenues diminish. As timber production on the national forests has
declined in recent years, the payments generated by the forests have
dropped in some cases precipitously. The Congress recognized this in
1993 by enacting special legislation for the spotted owl forests which
provided an annually declining percentage of average 1986-90 receipt-
sharing payments for the affected areas. In 1997 that guarantee dropped
to 76 percent, and it will decline to 70 percent in 1999 under the
current legislation.
In order to provide all county governments with a predictable level
of payments from the national forests, the Administration is proposing
legislation to stabilize the payments. Our fiscal year 1999 proposal
will fix payments at $270 million, which is $37 million above the
amount paid based on 1997 receipts. This figure of $270 million is
based on providing each county with the guarantee currently extended to
the owl forests of 76 percent of the 1986-1990 average payment. For
those counties where the 1997 payment was greater than that amount, the
payment would be frozen at the 1997 level. The program will continue to
be funded by a permanent appropriation to ensure that payments will not
decline in future years. I understand that some counties located in the
Eastside project area of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project have written to the Office of Management and Budget
asking for stability in their 25 percent payments. We would like to
work with you to design a fair system for these and all counties.
Financial management systems
As I mentioned earlier, one of my goals is to improve our financial
management and business systems.
I agree with the audit findings of the General Accounting Office
(GAO) and the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG). The Agency's
financial systems and administrative processes must be improved. The
complexity of the processes and the interrelationships of the
activities we manage require a systematic and comprehensive approach.
We have worked extensively with these groups in the past and are
currently working with OIG to address a number of fiscal and audit
issues. We welcome their advice and input into improving our Agency
business management practices.
The Forest Service operates on an accumulation of faulty or
outdated information systems--some more than 20 years old--that are not
integrated to perform the analysis to make sound decisions, and verify
accountability. All of our corporate processes and information must be
linked in an integrated, performance-based framework.
I realize that we have significant improvements to make in
financial management and accountability, and I want you to know that I
am committed to my employees, the Congress, and the taxpayers to see
that these improvements are made. I will continue to take aggressive
action to ensure that the Forest Service becomes one of the most
efficient agencies in the Federal Government. While we acknowledge that
there is much work yet to be done, we have made a good start in
implementing long-needed changes.
In conjunction with the USDA Chief Financial Officer and the OIG,
we are working towards implementing a new general ledger system called
foundation financial information system (FFIS). While we are making
progress in some aspects of FFIS implementation, the Forest Service and
the National Finance Center still face uncertainties due to the
complexity of the Agency budget and program requirements. USDA is
working with an outside consultant to decide how to proceed. USDA will
inform Congress once decisions are made on the most effective and
efficient way to move forward. As we work through the implementation of
FFIS, we plan to modify our own financial management requirements and
identify where Congress in its authorizing and appropriations processes
can help us to achieve a strong and accountable financial management
system.
In addition, I commissioned a study by the Coopers and Lybrand
accounting firm to review our financial management situation. Their
report, released in March, makes recommendations on streamlining and
clarifying our financial management systems. I intend to carefully
review these recommendations and take appropriate action to strengthen
financial management in the Forest Service.
Many of the accountability issues we face were years--even
decades--in the making. We have already made some progress in
addressing concerns regarding the Agency's management and financial
condition. But we still have a very long way to go. It will take time
before we can address effectively the full range of fiscal and
management accountability issues. Major changes take time. It will take
several years to turn this situation around and we urge the Congress
and the Federal audit branches to recognize these major shifts and work
with us as we strive to meet the mandate of improving the financial
health of the Agency. Combined with the complexity of the
interrelationships among our programs and the migration to new
information systems, we face a great task, and we look forward to the
reward.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
forest service staff
Chief Dombeck. I would like to introduce the key Forest
Service staff that are here who can provide details on
questions. Starting at my right is Francis Pandolfi. Randy
Phillips is here for Bob Joslin. Deputy Chief Bob Joslin's
mother had a heart attack yesterday and he had to fly to
Arizona to deal with that unfortunate situation. We hope she is
doing well.
I have Robert Lewis, Deputy Chief for Research; Janice
McDougle from State and Private Forestry; Clyde Thompson,
Operations; and Ron Stewart from Programs and Legislation.
I also have Kim Thorsen from law enforcement here as well
as Luther Burse, our Director for Civil Rights.
With that, we would be happy to answer any questions and
enter into any dialog and hope it will be very helpful.
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Chief Dombeck.
Senator Byrd, if Senator Domenici thinks he is going to be
better treated sitting over there beside you, he is in error in
that connection. [Laughter.]
But you are the ranking member, a friend, and a supporter.
You did not have an opportunity before the speakers to make an
opening statement. So you can both make an opening statement
and ask your questions now.
Senator Domenici, you will be treated in order. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. Let me just say that I told Senator Byrd
that there were so many Republicans, I figured I would sneak in
over here and I may get called on sooner. [Laughter.]
remarks of senator robert c. byrd
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, Scriptures say that a word
fitly spoken is like apples of gold and pictures of silver. I
think it would be appropriate to fitly speak a word on this
subject. Now that Mr. Domenici has come over to this side of
the aisle, the intelligence quotient on this side of the aisle
has shown a precipitous rise with a commensurate decrease on
the other side of the aisle. [Laughter.]
As the only representative of my party--and I don't do an
excellent job of that, as you will notice in some of my votes--
--
Senator Gorton. I have. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd [continuing]. I do welcome Senator Domenici to
this side of the aisle.
Seriously, I join with all others in welcoming Chief
Dombeck before this subcommittee. He has been in charge of the
Forest Service for a little over a year now. The issues
confronting the agency are of great concern to many people and
the challenges facing the Forest Service are not easily
solvable.
So I look forward to hearing more of his testimony and to
exploring ways that the Forest Service can continue to play, as
it has played for over a long period, a constructive role in my
State of West Virginia, to assistant in responsible management
and stewardship of our forestry resources.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I was late in arriving. I am perfectly
willing to await my turn and yield to you.
Senator Gorton. Oh, no. Why don't you go ahead, Senator
Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you. I will be quite brief in that
regard.
hardwoods technology center
Chief, we have already talked a bit about the Princeton
Hardwoods Technology Center and I look forward to your having
an opportunity to think about this for a few days as we
discussed. Then, as soon as possible, if you can get back to
me, I want us to get this facility on the right track. I will
be eagerly awaiting your analysis of the situation and your
advice and comments.
seneca rocks visitors center
With regard to the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center, which was
destroyed by fire in 1992, what is the current schedule for the
completion of the facility and when do you expect that it will
be open for public visitation?
Chief Dombeck. Well, Senator, we hope to have the facility
open in July of this year, and I hope you can participate in a
dedication of that event. We hope to have the center fully
operational with the displays and everything in place by spring
1999. I am one, at least until I got this job, who got to the
mountains of West Virginia fairly often to be up on Spruce Knob
or go camping. In fact, I did cut a Christmas tree off the
Monongahela National Forest that was in my office this year. I
also want you to know that I did pay the $5 for the permit for
that tree. [Laughter.]
So I am also looking forward to seeing the completion of
that and hope that we can participate in the dedication
ceremony when that is completed.
Senator Byrd. What are the estimated costs for operations
of the visitor center and what plans does the Forest Service
have for developing its budget for next year to accommodate the
additional operating costs that will accompany this facility?
Chief Dombeck. I do not have that information with me, the
specific operational costs. But I would be happy to provide
that to you for the record.
Senator Byrd. Very well.
[The information follows:]
Seneca Rocks Visitor Center
The estimated annual operating cost for the Seneca Rocks
Visitor Information Center is $275,000. The Monongahela
National Forest and the Southern Region Headquarters are
exploring partnership opportunities to offset the increased
costs of operation and maintenance for the Seneca Rocks Visitor
Information Center.
west virginia forestry research
Senator Byrd. We have three research activities in West
Virginia--Morgantown, Parsons, and Princeton. I understand the
staffing and funding for these locations are maintained in the
fiscal year 1999 budget at the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
Is that correct?
Chief Dombeck. Yes; and let me ask Deputy Chief Robert
Lewis, who has a personal knowledge of and directs these
programs.
Dr. Lewis. Thank you and good morning, Senator.
We do maintain the extended level that we had last year at
all three labs, at the Princeton Center as well as Morgantown,
and at Parsons as well. Our plans are to continue to do that.
Senator Byrd. While the budgets for these locations are not
decreasing, they also are not keeping pace with inflation and
other uncontrollable cost increases.
What are the consequences to the research program of the
Forest Service not receiving increased funding to address these
costs?
Dr. Lewis. We have had to deal with the rate of inflation
through managing our research program through attrition. The
overall impact has been a reduction in the number of scientist-
years as we provide operating funds for our scientists that
they might be productive.
So the overall impact has been a decrease in the research
effort. For example, the agency is now down to 548 scientist-
years, permanent full time, as compared to about 1,000 about 10
years ago.
Senator Byrd. So some equipment and facility improvements
get deferred, I assume.
Dr. Lewis. We have both equipment deferrals, as well, which
would be an impact.
Senator Byrd. When these types of investments can no longer
be put off, then what will the agency do? Will it defer hiring
and filling of vacancies?
Dr. Lewis. We can defer hiring and filling of positions
only to a point. And at that point we end up closing a number
of locations.
Senator Byrd. Yes; though I am not suggesting that you do
that. We want to keep abreast of these needs.
What actions are being taken to fill the vacant unit leader
and scientist positions at Princeton?
Dr. Lewis. We currently have an employment certificate to
fill the project leader's job down at Princeton. Our No. 1
candidate did not accept the position, but we have made an
offer to the No. 2 candidate on the list. We hope to have that
position filled shortly.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions. I will
submit them.
Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, your questions and the talk
about Princeton reminded me that last night I had dinner with a
friend whose avocation is thoroughbred horses. He told me of a
recent trip to Charlestown in West Virginia and commented on
the magnificence of the roads and the schools in that area. I
was beginning to wonder after this opening whether there would
be any building sites left in West Virginia.
Senator Byrd. There will be building sites left.
Senator Gorton. I suspect so and that we will hear about
them. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment about the
schools.
You have before you a product of a two-room school. I
started out in 1923 in a two-room school. We had outside
plumbing and we drank spring water. It was all in one bucket
and we all drank out of one dipper. So far as I know, we are
all well and healthy, still.
We have progressed a long way from the two-room school. But
it might be a good thing if all the children of our country
could have the experience of going to a two-room schoolhouse
and attending there for a year. They learn from the upper
gradesmen and they have dedicated teachers. Mine did not get
paid very well, but they were highly dedicated.
Well, so much for the two-room schoolhouse.
Senator Gorton. In any event, I regarded the comments last
night as a great compliment to the senior Senator from West
Virginia.
Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Senator Cochran has only a few brief
questions and I am going to turn to him next. The others, in
order of appearance, are Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, and
Senator Bennett. I am going to defer my own questioning to the
end because it is quite extensive.
So, Senator Cochran, we will go to you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
mississippi forestry research
One of the functions of the Southern Research Laboratory at
Stoneville, MS, is to develop programs in the management of
bottomland hardwood resources and a greater understanding of
the hydrology and other aspects that are unique to this
important national resource.
There is concern that as we focus on the Forest Service we
think about public lands, but there are a lot of private lands,
particularly in the South, that could benefit from technical
assistance and research that is done at these Federal
facilities, like Stoneville.
I know Dr. Lewis has personal experience at that facility.
It is where he started out his career and now he is at a point
of high level of importance in the Forest Service. We
congratulate you on your outstanding career and what you
continue to do for the country in this capacity.
But my question--and I will submit this so that you will
have a greater opportunity to talk about some specifics--is how
we can do a better job at these research facilities. We have
subunits located in Oxford and there is a Forest Service lab at
Mississippi State University. All are working on specific
problems. But particularly the bottomlands hardwoods is a
concern of mine as it is with many private landowners in our
State. How do we reforest more effectively the cropland that
had been cleared once upon a time and is now being put back
into bottomland hardwood resources?
Also, there is some specific research at the Forest Lab at
Mississippi State University on the termite issue. We have had
some pesticides that have been taken out of use because of
dangers to health and human safety. They are trying to do
something to find substitutes there.
I hope you will look at those issues. You may be able to
respond now on this subject of the bottomlands hardwoods
research. I don't know whether Mr. Dombeck or Dr. Lewis want to
respond to that. But I have those questions that I want you to
look at and provide answers for the record.
[The information follows:]
Wood Products Insect Research, Starkville, MS
The mission of this unit is to define the role of termites
in forest ecosystems, to improve protection of wood against
damage, and to understand the impact of termites on forest
health. It is the primary federal research unit working on
control of termites in buildings. All new termiticides must
undergo extensive laboratory and field testing by this unit
prior to EPA registration. Field testing and screening sites
are located in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, South
Carolina, and on Midway Island and in the Panama Canal Zone.
The unit works closely with the Department of Defense, state
termite inspection agencies, chemical and wood products firms,
and Mississippi State University. In addition, the unit
conducts research on the role of termites and other insects in
decomposition of wood in forest ecosystems enhancing nutrient
cycling. This unit collaborates with the International
Institute of Tropical Forestry in the Forest Service's tropical
forestry program located in Puerto Rico.
center for southern bottomland hardwood and wetland forest ecosystems,
stoneville, ms
This new research work unit, formed in fiscal year 1996, is
a consolidation of the following former four units and includes
units formerly administered at Starkville and Oxford, MS:
Technology of forest tree seeds.--This unit develops
methods of collecting, conditioning, and storing eastern forest
tree seeds that will generate and maintain high seed quality.
Research results are used forest nursery and seed orchard
managers with National Forest System Region 8, forest industry,
and southern state forestry agencies. The unit is a partner in
the tree seed research cooperative at Mississippi State
University and collaborates in regional, national, and
international projects of the cooperative. The location will
still be open with two scientists.
Multiple-Resource Management of Southern Bottomland
Hardwood and Wetland Forest Ecosystems.--This unit provides the
information required for ecologically sound management
guidelines necessary to maintain, protect, or enhance the
structure, function, productivity, and value of southern
bottomland hardwood and wetland forest ecosystems. Research
results are used by land managers in Federal and state
agencies, forest industry, and non-industrial private forest
landowners to manage natural stands of bottomland hardwoods.
Expanding efforts to reforest marginal agricultural land and to
restore forested wetlands have caused a resurgence of interest
in research results for this unit in artificial regeneration
methods. This unit participates in the Southern Research
Station's Ecosystem Management Program, and with ``Partners in
Flight'' to develop landscape-scale approaches to forest
management for multiple resources, including habitat for
sensitive neotropical landbirds.
Watershed Ecosystem Research for the Mid-South Upper
Coastal Plan and Interior Highlands.--This unit, located at
Oxford, MS, was closed in fiscal year 1996 and the research
transferred to Stoneville. The location will still be open with
three scientists. This new sub-unit conducts hydrologic and
aquatic ecological research to identify rational forest
management strategies that will aid in the maintenance of
diverse, healthy ecosystems; allow sustainable use of forest
resources, promote recovery of depleted species and
communities; and product quality water. It is the key sub-unit
for watershed in the Mid-South states.
Management of Insect and Disease Pests in Southern
Hardwood/Wetland Forest Ecosystems.--This unit develops pest
management strategies and guidelines necessary to minimize
insect and disease losses in intensive culture and multi-use
stands of southern hardwoods. This is the lead Forest Service
unit for studies of oak wilt.
forestry research related issues
Chief Dombeck. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
I would just like to say to Senator Byrd that I spent 4
years in a four-room school. [Laughter.]
It also had the plumbing out back for the first 4 years.
Then we did get more modern plumbing.
I wanted to make two or three points because I know a lot
of the issues that the committee has made in opening statements
talk about significant concerns about the Forest Service. I
also want to point out that 490 million acres of forests are in
private ownership, and--not only in research, but in the State
and private forestry programs and the need for good
information--the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program is an
area where I see no opposition from State Foresters to academia
to the Forest Supervisors and private land owners. They need
those services. They want that information.
I just want to point out that one of the things that keeps
me going in a job that is fairly controversial like this one is
to continually look across the spectrum because there are many,
many areas of agreement. The Stewardship Incentives Program is
one that is important because the number of tracts of land 50
acres or less in the United States has doubled from 1978 to
1994. Not only is this fragmentation occurring, but also the
turnover, rate, the rate of turnover, is increasing. And yet,
we only have 5 percent of those private land owners who have
professionally based management plans for whatever the
objectives.
I just want to thank you for your support for research and
these programs that are important. I know that Dr. Lewis has
personal knowledge of what goes on at Stoneville since he
worked there for a number of years.
mississippi forestry research
Dr. Lewis. Thank you, Chief Dombeck, and thank you, Senator
Cochran. I was born about 15 miles from Stoneville.
Senator Byrd, I went to school in a one-room schoolhouse,
which was also our church, by the way. [Laughter.]
I can relate to that very well.
Senator Cochran, Stoneville, MS is where I started out. The
bottomland hardwood problem and opportunity is tremendous
there. In fact, we have a number of exciting, interesting, and
very productive research reports that came out of Stoneville,
which is internationally known. For example, there is the work
on cottonwood--the eastern cottonwood, poplars--known all over
the world, in fact.
Mike Dombeck and I had an opportunity to visit with people
at the World Forestry Congress last year where we had an
opportunity to talk about the poplar council internationally.
Also the termite work at Starkville, MS, is extremely
important. As you pointed out, we have some major problems.
Chlordane, for example, was once the primary termiticide used
to treat and prevent termites. That has now been lost. We have
to have alternative treatments. We are working with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in evaluating the efficacy as
well as the safety of alternative methods of treatment for
termites.
That is an area that we would really be happy to address.
We look forward to following up with written responses to your
questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
franklin county lake
The only other subject I wanted to mention, which I
mentioned in my opening statement, is the Franklin County Lake
on the Homochitto National Forest. We hope you will take a look
at that and give us a status report and what you plan to do to
help accomplish the goal of establishing that resource, that
recreational resource.
Chief Dombeck. We will be happy to do that, Senator
Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Projects
This project--the Recreational Lake and Complex at Porter
Creek, Franklin County, Mississippi, Homochitto National
Forest, Homochitto Ranger District--was initiated by the
community leaders in Franklin County, MS. They have tried for
30 years to secure federal funding to build a 1,100-acre lake
to diversify their economy. The community leaders requested
that the USDA Forest Service assist them in improving the rural
development and economic diversity of the area.
This project could create private sector business
opportunities, assist existing local businesses, improve water
quality by remedying raw sewage flow into Porter Creek, and
prevent additional head-cutting of streams in the watershed.
They are now attempting to leverage State and federal funds. It
is estimated that more than $12 million would be needed for
construction of the dam, contract administration, and surveying
and mapping of the lake cross sections and pool levels.
This project is new construction. New construction is not a
priority for the Agency at this time in order to focus
resources on the backlog of reconstruction needs. The Agency
priority continues to be on capital investment priorities which
emphasize reconstruction of health and safety issues, water and
sanitation projects, and recreation backlog, rather than new
construction. New construction adds to out-year operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs; it is unlikely that additional O&M
funds can be provided from the national level in the out-years
to support these new facilities and structures coming on-line.
In the case of a dam, the maintenance and reconstruction costs
in the future can be significant, along with the liability
issues. Based on previous data for dams in the Region (and none
are the size of this one), it is estimated that annual O&M
costs would be about $75,000.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
received $250,000 in fiscal year 1996, $550,000 in fiscal year
1997, and $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to accomplish design,
technical assistance, and complete construction documentation
on this project. The NRCS is experienced with the construction
and reconstruction of dams. The Forest Service would partner
with them to do the actual construction if this project is
directed, earmarked, and additional funding is provided.
In fiscal year 1998, Congress earmarked $1 million in the
Forest Service budget for Franklin County Lake. These funds
would have been used to: obtain detailed survey information for
planning (topographic survey of the dam, basin, and developable
area, and detailed soil surveys of developable area above pool
level); search out and cultivate interest in Private/Public
Venture prospects to build the recreational facilities; develop
a conceptual development plan with input from private partners
who might be interested; and advertise for formal partnership.
Any available remaining funds would partially fund the Forest
Service share of construction and design costs. This funding
does not provide for dam construction, which is estimated at
approximately $12 million. This project was line-item vetoed by
the Administration and funds were not appropriated.
frustrations in the west
Senator Gorton. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I had mentioned in my opening comments the
frustration that is going on in Boise at this moment. Boise
National Forest has proposed to ignite 5,400 acres of land out
there in a prescribed fire, a prescribed burning. You and I
have discussed that at length over time and both agree. The
fire and the overall management of our forests for health, for
the necessary cleansing that must go on is appropriate.
But I am highly frustrated. The phone calls that flooded my
office were done during a period of inversion. Boise filled up
with smoke.
A woman called in. She was desperate. She had a child whose
lungs were spasming because of respiratory problems. All of
that was going on.
Now the inversion happened to lift yesterday. The phone
calls are slowing down today. But Idahoans are extremely
frustrated.
When I have said that we now have a merely zero cut policy
on our lands, we are now burning them. And, while I am out
there trying to defend a reasonable fire policy, a 5,400 acre
sized fire or proposed burn on the Boise National Forest is, in
my research at least, the largest one ever proposed in the
history of the Boise National Forest.
hot shots
What spirals around all of that is the fact that we have
some very real difficulty with our historically and well known
hot shot teams out there, known for firefighting. We have El
Nino. The continued buildup of fuel on the forest floor is
continuing, and we just fired one of the major ways at least to
control fire, our hot shot crews.
I have met with the regional forester. I understand the
controversy around that one and I am certainly willing to give
management the latitude to deal with it. But it kind of sounds
like the baby got tossed out with the dirty water in this
instance, and it gets to be of real frustration to the
citizenry. It is one that I think we are going to have to have
some answers on--the assurance that the fire center in Boise is
capable of maintaining its abilities and certainly the hot shot
crew is available, or some form like that. Also, how do we deal
with the question of the burn? Have you involved yourself with
Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality in the process of
working out these kinds of proposed burns?
Chief Dombeck. Let me start by addressing the hot shot
issue. In fact, I spoke with our Director of Fire and Aviation
just last night again about this issue, Mary Jo Lavin, and
expressed my concern again that we maintain the capability to
deal with situations. And in the case of the Boise Hot Shots,
there were some serious problems that had to be dealt with, and
I am hopeful they are being dealt with appropriately. There is
still some continuing investigation going on and the
possibility of the Department of Justice involved in some
potentially criminal activities.
But the capability nationwide in hot shots by disbanding
that crew is reduced from 1,160 individuals to 1,140
individuals. The requirement that I have on this action is that
we not reduce the capability because it is lives and the things
that you have described that are at stake out there.
idaho department of environmental quality
The second issue, on the coordination with the Department
of Environmental Quality: Our policy is that that occurred at
the local level. I am not familiar with the situation that you
described from the standpoint of whether there were errors in
weather forecasting or whatever.
One of the advantages of a controlled burn versus a
wildfire is the fact that wind direction, weather conditions,
and all of this can be taken into consideration to minimize the
effects that typically occur with a fire. And we would rather
have them in a situation where we can minimize those, or
somehow react to what we know is coming, rather than deal with
a disease over which we have no control.
Senator Craig. Mike, I and my staff asked a lot of
questions in the last few days and the answers we got were kind
of like this [indicating] ``somebody else made the decision.''
I think that we may want to examine how those decisions got
made.
I am not denying that decisions have to be made and that
fire should be a tool, as I said earlier. But we have some very
real problems there.
I am also very frustrated in the regional haze game--I call
it a game that is getting played by EPA--and the particular
game that is getting played by the EPA. The actions of the U.S.
Forest Service and this administration were terribly
inconsistent with the politics of EPA in the last week out in
Idaho.
I am very frustrated at who is wagging the tail of the dog
out there, or back here, when it comes to those kinds of
issues.
Now I don't expect you to respond to that, but that is my
internal reaction. How can we make sense or how can our public
make sense of all of these conflicting policies when that kind
of thing happens?
regional budget declines
I met with the regional forester in region 4 while I was
out there, and you have put an excellent man in place there. I
think he has tremendous talents. I look forward to working with
him and I think our State does, too.
We shared some joint frustrations. This question alludes to
that.
As you know, the Forest Service lands in Idaho represent
regions 1 and 4. That is about 39 percent of the land base in
the State of Idaho. Over the last 5 years, the budgets in those
regions have declined substantially, or at least there is a
graduating decline.
Regions 1 and 4 received 17.4 percent of the total Forest
Service budget in 1993, but in 1998, the region received 13.4
percent.
I guess I will have to ask you why did regions 1 and 4
receive 4 percent less of the total Forest Service budget, as
compared with 1993, when it appears that the demands in that
region are constantly being ramped up. That would be my first
question.
If you cannot respond to it now in detail, I think it
deserves a detailed response and I want to sit down with you
and analyze why that trend is happening to see if we can't
break out of that trend.
Chief Dombeck. Yes; in fact, there is some history that I
cannot articulate here from the standpoint of the change in the
line item and the criteria that Randy knows more about than I
do. I am not sure we want to get into that level of detail.
financial management
But in general, I would like to say that this, in a sense,
gets back to some of the business accounting data valuation
things that I alluded to in my opening remarks when I talked
about the financial management and the business management
decisionmaking process. So I think what is woven into this goes
beyond the resource issues. But it is also one of the things
good business management systems I think can get for us, an
added dimension to the decisionmaking process that will promote
efficiency and effectiveness; that is, more efficient use of
the dollars that we have resulting in more effectiveness in the
employees that we have on the ground.
I think we share the same objective. I am frustrated as an
individual who is head of an organization that we cannot get
more dollars to the ground to work on the land. I believe that
looking at these systems over time will greatly enhance our
capability over there, along with simplifying the processes.
Senator Craig. That percentage of reduction, from 1993 to
1998, factored out represents about $130 million in funding
that has been displaced substantially. There have been a
variety of initiatives out there that have been assumed that
were not authorized and appropriated. So as you analyze that, I
think it is reasonable that those ought to be compared.
In other words, we put budgets forth to do certain things.
The Congress authorized it; the money did not go there. It went
elsewhere, to things that were, I guess, of greater value in
some instances to this administration than to the Congress
collectively. I think that frustrates us all as we try to deal
with these issues.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. You have been
generous with your time.
I think this is important here because it is kind of how do
we get there.
roads moratorium
Last year, when we fought the roads battle, Mike, as you
know, it was interesting that the administration really did not
come out and defend their own policy. It was their own party's
people that largely were attacking their own policy. We just
could not find you. Nobody was willing to fight the good fight.
You have a road policy this year. You have a Senator on the
other side of the aisle, Senator Bryan of Nevada. He has
already said that he is going to introduce legislation to knock
it out.
I guess I am going to ask this question. Are you going to
come up and defend the budget this year when it relates to
roads? Are you going to be willing to work with us to try to
save it?
That did not happen last year. No; after that was all over,
you and I had our discussions on how we ought to work to
resolve this issue and see if we could not come to a bipartisan
solution. We all know the rest of the story.
road maintenance backlog
So here is the question. You testified that you have a $10
billion road backlog for roads and maintenance. You also know
that timber purchases used to pay for 40 to 45 percent of road
maintenance. Now that is declining dramatically and for a lot
of reasons, some of them by policy of this administration. This
is maintenance that recreationists and other agencies use. We
all know that. And all of our public uses it, too.
I guess my frustration comes here. If the road policy today
or the road conditions today are a part of self-infliction by
an inability to get other things done that deny the revenues
that often go to maintenance--and that appears to be the case
in some instances--why should the Congress take about 30
percent of recreation and wilderness budgets and put that money
into road construction and maintenance?
Do you follow my thinking? That is what it appears we are
being asked to do here. We have whacked the other side of the
dollar generating equation that has gone into maintenance and
construction over time and now you are saying let's pull money
out of other places where there are substantial needs and put
it into roads for construction or maintenance.
Mr. Lyons. Senator, if I could address that since I raised
the issue, as I indicated, I do not think it was the intent of
the agency for a time to neglect the road system. We simply did
not have the resources to keep up. You are correct. Declines in
appropriations and timber sales have limited our capacity to
reinvest in the road structure.
I am not sure we ever had the resources to keep up, but
that has exacerbated the situation.
We have limited capacity, though, to obtain funds from the
recreation community and other sources to provide for those
investments. What I was addressing in particular with regard to
the $10.5 billion backlog is that roads, for all intents and
purposes, are public highways. They are part of the public land
highway system.
There ought to be another source of funds to make that
investment. That would then free up appropriations in our road
account which all now go to maintenance to do some other
things, to address some of the other concerns you raised. The
Congress is obviously in conference considering a rather large
highway package and that may be one place to look for some help
on this issue.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Here is a simple question. Are you going to work with us to
defend your road budget this year against attack?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Even if it comes from the other side of the
aisle?
Mr. Lyons. We will defend the President's budget.
Senator Craig. If not, we are going to start taking money
out of good programs to solve this road problem. Then you are
going to have everybody else on top of us, recreationists and
all other kinds of users of that resource, to address this
problem.
So you have to defend the policy you bring up here. You
cannot walk away from it. You did last year.
Thank you.
Mr. Lyons. Senator, we will defend the President's policy
and I want to say publicly that I am proud of Mike's efforts to
be aggressive about dealing with road issues and to have a
better informed debate about the road issue this time around.
Senator Craig. I hope so.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I assume that Mr. Francis
Pandolfi, who has been the supervisor of the major report--we
didn't get that report in time for this hearing, as I
understand it.
Senator Gorton. That's correct.
Senator Domenici. But I assume that it will be reviewed in
due course by the subcommittee?
Senator Gorton. I'm sorry. We did get a copy in the last
few days and we will have it available for you and for study.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
I was thinking that it would be very relevant, Mr.
Pandolfi, to talk to you today about it. I don't know what to
ask you, so I'll wait until I have a chance to review it. Maybe
the chairman can submit some written requests or the like.
land acquisition
Let me talk a minute about a land acquisition prospect in
the State of New Mexico that you all favor greatly--the
acquisition of the Baca location in northern New Mexico.
I note that we still do not have an appraisal of what it
might be worth and that the Forest Service is not going to do
one but, rather, will rely upon the property owners to do one
pursuant to some guidelines that you have agreed to submit.
Do you know the status of that, and why wouldn't we do one
ourselves if you are so excited about acquiring this property?
Chief Dombeck. I am not sure I can answer why we are not
doing one. What I can say is that the new Regional Forester in
that area is Ellie Townes who, of course, was the Director of
Lands prior to that job and certainly one of the most
knowledgeable people in the agency with an impeccable
reputation on these issues. I rely on her expertise in this
area.
Randy or Jim, do you have any additional information on
that specific question?
Mr. Lyons. Senator, I think I can tell you at least the
status, and that is we have provided guidelines to the
appraiser that will be employed by the family to do this
appraisal. I think part of that is simply to insure that they
pick up the cost of the appraisal.
We fully intend that the appraisal be consistent with
standard procedures and guidelines so that it is an appraisal
that we can both live with and that we feel is totally
accurate.
We will give you an update on the situation in detail.
Senator Domenici. I would like an update.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the very large land
acquisition prospects that the President has requested out of
your $299 million fund.
[The information follows:]
Appraisal
The value of the Baca Location No. 1 is currently being
determined by an appraiser hired by the owners of the property.
We have met with the appraiser to discuss the appraisal
standards used for Federal land acquisitions and our review/
approval procedures for appraisal reports provided to the
agency. Because of the size and unique resources associated
with this property, we have contracted with an independent
appraisal firm to provide us with information that will allow
our appraisers to be knowledgeable of the market for this type
of property. We are confident that we have the information and
resources necessary to assure the agency can review any
appraisal report provided to the agency. If the report is
approved, it assures the report has been completed to Federal
standards and represents market value of the property. If for
any reason the report cannot be approved, we have the resources
to establish a value in accordance with Federal standards.
backlogged maintenance
Senator Gorton. $699 million.
Senator Domenici. Yes, $699 million--that everybody thinks
will solve all the problems from the backlogged maintenance to
all the new acquisitions. What I was just saying in your
absence was that an appraisal is taking place. We don't know
whether this property is worth $75 million or $250 million. The
property owner is doing the appraisal under guidelines from the
Forest Service and I am just, right now, going to make the
point that I am not ever going to agree to anything in this
regard until we know exactly what it is going to cost us.
Senator Gorton. You have discussed that with me before and
I am certainly going to defer to you in that respect.
Senator Domenici. There may be some other things that we
need to do.
I want just to go through four or five other things. I will
not ask you to answer them but will tell you that they are
important and that I am submitting something to you in writing.
land exchange
In the Cibola National Forest, which is over by Grants, NM,
and the Mount Taylor area, there is a checkerboard land
exchange of which that your staff is aware. There may be some
desire to put those kind of things off for x number of months.
Frankly, this one seems so rational and so logical for both
sides, I have submitted some details as to why you might look
at that for us.
taos drainage problem
Then, up in the town of Taos, NM, there is a very big
drainage problem causing a whole lot of damage. The town
finally got an engineer to say from where all of this runoff
comes. It turns out that 60 percent comes from the Forest
Service and 40 percent from other topographical changes that
have occurred.
We have submitted a request that you seriously look at what
your responsibility is with reference to the damage from that
runoff. I am submitting something more in detail. If you would,
please look at that situation for us.
new mexico research
I have a question on forest research as it applies to some
of the research taking place in Albuquerque, but it only has to
do with why did you not increase funding there when you did
elsewhere. I would like you to answer that, and I have given
the details to you right here.
four corners development proposal
You know that the Pacific Northwest is leading the way in
trying to aid the transformation of forest industries in their
communities where they have suffered enormous job loss because
of the substantial diminution in timber cut.
In the Southwest, several States are getting together--mine
is one of the States, Colorado is one of the States--and are
going to propose something for the four corners area, which
touches all four of the States--that is Utah, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Colorado.
Are you willing to work with the State and local agencies
who are working on that issue much as you did in the Pacific
Northwest?
Chief Dombeck. Yes; in fact, when I met with your staff
yesterday afternoon, that was one of the issues we briefly
discussed. I know it is a multiagency effort that the State
Foresters are interested in, that the tribes are interested in.
It fits right in with the objectives that we have from the
standpoint of sustainable forest management, sustainable
economies, and using improved technologies to get the job done.
Mr. Lyons. I should also point out, Senator, that I have
met with Jill Long Thompson, my colleague in the department who
is Under Secretary for Rural Development. We are working
together to coordinate efforts in the region to provide that
kind of assistance.
Senator Domenici. All right.
riparian proximity grazing
My last question has to do with the most recent agreement
or settlement of dispute that was resolved with reference to
about 57 rancher allotments in the States of New Mexico and
Arizona that have to do with use of riparian proximity land by
an allottee for cattle grazing.
I am not here to argue who is right in that regard at this
point, however, I wonder if you might submit for the record
what is the policy and the law with reference to these ranchers
being denied that usage. Let's assume for this question that
that is the way it ought to be.
How difficult is it for them to acquire water and to build
tanks and reservoirs that are away from the riparian right of
way to take the place of this water?
I understand this could be hearsay twice over. I understand
from some ranchers that it is very difficult for them to get
permission to build a water reservoir or a major tank so that
they can move cattle away from the riparian areas.
Now, obviously, my concern for them will not be joined by a
number, maybe three or four of the environmental
organizations--not all--who don't want any grazing at all. They
would like to see the water go away and you would have no
replacement anywhere. Thus the cattle will go away.
The issue is becoming less and less important because
ranching is going more and more into bankruptcy and is less and
less able to graze. I just wonder if you could supply us with
this information. What will a rancher be confronted with by way
of acquiring some water away from the riparian areas? Maybe we
can help alleviate the permitting problem if, indeed, it is too
restrictive and too difficult.
Chief Dombeck. We would be happy to provide that for you.
Yes.
Senator Domenici. Does this question make sense----
Chief Dombeck. Yes.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. That if we are going to move
them away, it seems like we ought not to destine them to no
water if they could build tanks or the like somewhere. I would
greatly appreciate your answer, and I know that we might work
on something to alleviate the problem that is too rigid.
[The information follows:]
Riparian Areas
In answer to your question regarding the most recent
settlement of dispute, this did not involve moving cattle away
from ``all'' riparian areas. However, it did involve excluding
domestic livestock grazing from certain riparian areas which
provide habitat for certain federally listed species under the
Endangered Species Act. In no instance are we aware of a
situation where this action has resulted in a rancher being
unable to use upland areas because of the unavailability of
water. To the contrary, many of the exclosures provide water
gaps for livestock. In addition, the construction of stock
tanks on National Forest System lands in Arizona and New Mexico
has long been recognized as a good management practice. The
limiting factors have been funding, and in certain instances
factors such as unsuitable geologic conditions which make it
uneconomical or impractical to consider construction of stock
tanks. We have and will continue to work with the livestock
industry to provide desirable range improvements including
water away from riparian areas.
litigation and multiple use
Senator Domenici. Do you know anything more about it, about
that issue?
Chief Dombeck. I am aware of the issue, Senator. I was
recently in Las Cruces with Secretary Glickman for a hearing on
some of our agriculture programs and that issue came up. So we
will have to look into it and give you the details. It
obviously makes sense to try to provide some way of addressing
the concerns.
Senator Domenici. In that regard, I do want to say for the
record that part of the problem that the Forest Service and the
BLM is having with reference to management is the fact that
they are buttressed on all sides of every issue by litigants
who seem to have found a way to get into the court on issues
that nobody ever thought existed.
To the extent that you can, you have been trying to defend
the multiple use prerogatives of the forest lands, which is
your charter. It is being made difficult by some who are not
the least bit reluctant to file law suits, and then everything
is tied up.
I understand that is part of a very difficult situation
that you have. I would only urge that you be as fair as you can
and that you consider everybody's rights and consider the
charter of the forest lands when these decisions are made.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. We are toward the end of a single rollcall
vote. In this connection, Senator Bennett has already gone to
vote. We will begin again with his questions and will try to
keep the interruption to as short a period as possible.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Bennett [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Senator Gorton will be back with us shortly but did ask
that I continue the hearing in his absence.
Mr. Lyons, Mr. Dombeck, I want to welcome you both. You
have heard a lot of thunder from some of my colleagues, and I
will let that thunder stand on its own and not add to it.
2002 olympics
First, Mr. Lyons, I want to thank you for your tremendous
assistance in working to resolve the difficult issues relating
to the preparations for the 2002 Olympics. This is a once in a
lifetime experience. It is tremendously involved. I went to the
Olympics in Nagano and spent time talking with the Japanese
officials there. I came back a little bit frightened at the
difficulty connected with transportation issues, safety issues,
security issues in a winter environment. I know they had
problems in Atlanta, but at least the sun was shining the whole
time and the streets were clear.
In Japan, they were faced with uncertain weather. They had
to cancel events because of the weather and then reschedule
everything. As we prepare for the 2002 Olympics in Utah, we
recognize that we must learn from the experiences of other
Olympic games. We must be prepared.
I know that you are taking some heat for your willingness
to assist us. I am taking some heat from constituents who
clearly have better ways to do things. But I don't think we
have any choice but to proceed in the way that we have and I am
personally very grateful to you for your support for that. I
want that to be on the record.
appreciation for forest service personnel
Mr. Dombeck, I want to thank you for the Forest Service
personnel that you have stationed in the State of Utah, and I
hope you leave them there. We have some very, very fine people.
There are Bernie Weingart of the Wasatch-Cache, Burt Kuluza in
the Ashley, and Hugh Thompson on the Dixie. Among other things,
they always give me and my office a straight answer when we ask
them tough questions. They do not dodge or hide behind
bureaucratic language. Sometimes it is not the answer I want.
Sometimes it may not be the answer you want. But we appreciate
them.
We miss Dale Bosworth, but we look forward to working with
Jack Blackwell. We appreciate the support you give them.
roads moratorium impact on timber
On the moratorium on the roads and the impact on board
feet, again I will allow my other colleagues to lead the fight
on that one and won't add to the conversation that has already
gone on. But the initial indication was that the moratorium
would impact between 200 million and 250 million board feet. We
are now seeing an impact of 100 million board feet in our
region alone. That is disturbing.
I simply want to put that on the record and, again, look
forward to discussing that with you as we move forward.
town of dutch john transfer
Going down my laundry list, I want to express my
appreciation to the Forest Service for your support of my
legislation to transfer the town of Dutch John from public
ownership to private ownership. I think it will save the Forest
Service some money. I would like to save the Forest Service
some money and I appreciate your willingness to testify in
behalf of my legislation on that issue.
red butte dam
Here is a very small item, but with no one else waiting to
question, we might as well talk about it. My staff has brought
to my attention the issue of the Red Butte Dam above Fort
Douglas in Salt Lake City. This is a problem between the Forest
Service and the Army. The Army has decided that they will not
keep up the dam anymore and the Forest Service, understandably,
does not want to pay to bring the dam up to standard.
We have met with the Forest Service. We understand the
Forest Service side of the issue. We have not yet met with the
Army. So, naturally, at this point the Army has nothing valid
in their position and the Forest Service is right all the way
down the line.
Isn't that the way it usually happens when you only talk to
one side? [Laughter.]
But we intend to hear from them to get their understanding
of their problem with this. Then I would be happy to act as
honest broker, if that is what it takes, between the two
agencies to try to resolve this.
Do you have any knowledge of this one or am I catching you
completely off-guard?
Chief Dombeck. Most recently, we were in Utah within the
last month to a month-and-a-half and got briefed on a variety
of issues. One of the things that was mentioned was this Red
Butte Dam. I was pleased that the Forest Service was able to
step in and at least deal with the safety issue in the interim
until we get the issue resolved and determine exactly where the
Army is coming from.
I believe Jim has had some recent correspondence, or at
least some dialog, and I would just let him elaborate on that.
Mr. Lyons. Senator, since your State office informed us of
this problem, we have been dealing with it almost daily, at
least weekly.
In fact, just this morning I sent a letter to the Acting
Secretary of the Army urging him to take a personal interest in
this issue and to help us resolve the issue. I am sorry I did
not bring a copy of the letter. But I will have it sent up to
your office.
I initially spoke with Mike Davis, who oversees the Army
Corps of Engineers, who informed me that this was a real Army
issue, not an issue for the Army Corps. He directed me to the
Secretary for the Army.
So we intend to get it resolved. I am pleased to see that
the Army at least has agreed to put a dam tender on the dam
this spring so that when flood season comes and high water
comes, the dam will get the kind of attention that it requires
and public safety will be a paramount concern.
But long term, we do need to work this out. We think and I
hope, with the overtures we have made to the Army again today,
that we can reach resolution on this issue very quickly.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
We will. There is no guarantee when it comes to weather,
but given the kind of winter we have had and the thaw pattern,
there is a very real chance of floods this year. The last time
we had a year that had the same temperature pattern and the
snowpack that we have had this year, we ended up with sandbags
down the main streets of Salt Lake City and a major river
running through the city because the snowpack was held with low
temperatures for a long period of time and suddenly it went
into the 90's. Instead of a slow, progressive melting of the
snowpack, we had it all happen within something like 48 hours.
As I say, in the middle of May we had a major river running
right through downtown, causing our Governor to comment: ``This
is a hell of a way to run a desert.'' [Laughter.]
I have no further questions. I again want to thank you all
for the things you have done. I will have some questions that I
will submit in writing.
I see the chairman has returned and I am happy to turn the
gavel back over to him.
Senator Gorton [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
I invited Senator Gregg to come back who looked forward to
a long wait a couple of hours ago but who now can go right
ahead.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
courtesy.
I know that you have not even had a chance to ask questions
yet. So it is extremely kind of you.
white mountain national forest
First of all, let me say that New Hampshire has had a
little different experience than those States of some of my
fellow Senators. That, I suppose, is true in many areas of
government. But our experience at the White Mountain National
Forest is one that is very positive with the Forest Service.
Donna Hepp has been an extremely positive community participant
and has done an excellent job heading up the White Mountain
Forest. We have had a few issues over fees, but we are in the
process of doing a forest plan which has all of the
stakeholders involved. We have always had a very cooperative
attitude in our State between the forestry community, the
timber people, and the recreational people and the
environmentalists.
We are able to all sit at the same table and try to work
things out in most instances, and we are trying to do that
right now.
I guess my question goes to a more global issue, however,
which is this--and I will leave this to whoever is the proper
person to answer it.
The demands on different forests vary dramatically,
obviously. The primary purpose of the Forest Service, I
understand, is to maintain the silviculture of the area. But
with larger forests, obviously in the West, the primary costs,
I presume, are related to utilization of the forest for
forestry activities, such as cutting timber.
new england forest recreation use
In New England, and especially at the White Mountains--
which I think is the most visited national forest in the
country--timber activity is very big and a very important part
of it, but there are a lot of other uses, too. There are a lot
of recreational uses. As a result, its utilization is
extraordinarily high by people who are just wandering around
it, enjoying it, skiing on it. There is snowmobiling, cross
country skiing, climbing and people generally use it as a place
to view scenery. There are a couple of major tourist
attractions in the middle of it owned by the State, so a lot of
people just move in and out of it.
So the demands are different and the staffing is different
as a result of that. We have to have a lot of people who just
basically manage people, as versus a lot of people who manage
trees. We need the people who manage trees, too.
allocation criteria
When you are allocating your funds, my sense is that your
allocation is done pretty much on an acreage basis without
relationship to the fact that we end up managing a lot of
people and, therefore, have a lot of demands that are a little
different than a typical forest would expect, and especially
the White Mountains, which are so heavily trafficked.
I guess that is a long introduction to my question, which
is this. To what extent is the fact that the White Mountain
National Forest is utilized aggressively for things along with
the silviculture activity, to what extent is the allocation of
resources to the forest reflective of the huge, unique demands
that a forest like the White Mountain Forest has?
Mr. Lyons. Senator, I think I will start and then will let
Randy give you the details on how we allocate funds between
regions and forests. But I think the White Mountain is an
excellent example of a forest that clearly is a recreation
forest.
In fact, we would categorize it as an urban national forest
because of its close proximity to urban areas.
Senator Gregg. It is an urban forest by law.
Mr. Lyons. That is right. Senator Gorton has a few, such as
the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and the Gifford Pinchot, which are
two good examples, where urban use on the I-5 corridor puts
tremendous demands on the forests which are very different from
the demands the forest faced in the years past.
national forest foundation
In fact, in several weeks I will be going up to the White
Mountain National Forest to announce a $50,000 gift to the
White Mountain National Forest that was facilitated by the
National Forest Foundation to help invest in trail improvement
and create a new trail.
Actually, the timber industry was a big part of providing
the funds for that gift. So we are looking at new ways to fund
programs to address recreation concerns and to address the
increasing demands that are placed on these forests by urban
residents and other users.
Recently, we reevaluated our formula for allocating funds
and tried to take into account changing needs. The allocations
are not solely based on acreage. They are based on resource
demands, are based on visitation and other factors.
allocation criteria
Senator Gregg. What percentage is visitation of the forest?
Do you know?
Mr. Lyons. I will let Randy offer the details. But let me
just make this one point, which is that we recognize that these
changes are occurring. It creates a challenge not only for us
in terms of how we allocate our funds but also for the
organization, culturally, how we respond to those changes.
As you said, our biggest challenge right now is managing
people as much as it is managing natural resources.
Randy can talk about the specific elements in the formula.
Mr. Phillips. Senator, what might be helpful after I get
through explaining this is to plan on a future meeting where we
come up and give you a briefing of all the allocation criteria
that we use for all the resources.
We are about in the second year of using a new allocation
process that was developed with the help of all the regional
representatives. It is certainly not a perfect system, but it
is better than what we used in the past, which is, to some
degree, based on subjectivity.
We use a combination of acres. We use a combination of the
capacity of the recreation site. It varies between resource
program areas based on what the program managers thought should
be evaluated or should be used.
I do not have the exact percentages. I would be happy to
get you those. We look at miles of trail, trail maintenance
needs, and so on. There is a fairly long list of things that
the staff uses in allocating those funds out. In many cases,
the regions use those same criteria or have adapted them a
little bit to allocate those out to the forests.
In land management planning, for the forest plans, we use
acres to some degree. We also use whether or not a plan is
coming up for revision. That would generate a little more
funding to those forests that are actively revising their
forest plans.
Senator Gregg. I think that is probably the best way to
proceed. Maybe we could get together with your office and go
over the specifics of it.
As you know, we are in the middle of the planning. We would
like more resources for planning. That is important. We had
some problems there starting out and, hopefully, we can resolve
those relative to funds. But I am concerned that in a place
like the White Mountains, which has a huge utilization because
it is in the middle of such a concentrated area of attractions,
and it itself is one of the main attractions, be reflected
adequately in the allocation formula.
Mr. Phillips. I will tell you that we did make some
additional funds available to the White Mountains for that
planning.
Senator Gregg. I know that.
land acquisition
Mr. Lyons. I also just want to point out that yesterday,
when the President was discussing the use of the LWCF funds
which was mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, one of the items on
our priority list--in fact, one of our top priorities--was
completion of the Appalachian Trail, which we are doing jointly
with the National Park Service. Some of the allocations for the
trail from the national forests are for segments on the White
Mountain.
Senator Gregg. I am not sure there is any private trail
still in the White Mountain boundary. There is still private
trail in New Hampshire. Most of it is owned by Dartmouth. But
there is some private trail, but I don't think it is within
that boundary.
Mr. Lyons. One of the other priorities we set that I should
mention as well is the acquisition of Lake Tarleton.
Senator Gregg. Yes; very much so. The chairman has been
extraordinarily helpful with Lake Tarleton, as he was with
Bretton Woods. These are critical pieces to the national
forest.
We appreciate the administration's support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. The chairman may say that he views with
great favor the completion of the Appalachian Trail. We have a
number of priorities in the West and in my own State, but the
Appalachian Trail is a truly major national asset. I hope that
we can do a great deal with the money we have for land and
water in that connection.
long-term roads policy
Chief, is it not the case that in connection with the new
roads policy you have a comprehensive transportation planning
review that is likely to prevent any harvest at all in roadless
areas well into the year 2001?
Chief Dombeck. No; I do not believe that is the case.
Regarding the temporary suspension of road building, I have
specifically put an 18-month sunset in the proposal. It is one
that I have a strong commitment to, largely because of the
concern that many people have mentioned to me, that we do
temporary things in our interim guidelines and somehow those
kinds of things never go away.
I am committed to focus on that.
Also, I want to point out that work on a long-term policy
is progressing well. As soon as the long-term policy is done,
if it is before the 18-month period, then the long-term policy
will replace the temporary suspension. Some would like this
policy to be a policy that locks up roadless areas. That is not
the intent. The intent is to focus on the issue of roads alone.
It does not change land allocation.
I understand that the temporary suspension does preclude
some activities. But also I have been a little bit surprised at
the number of projects that are able to go forward. For
example, some proposed sales had helicopter logging options,
alternatives that they were able to utilize. Also, some
reconfigurations were occurring. They have been able to
reconfigure some sales and things like that where perhaps only
a corner of a sale was in a roadless area that might be covered
by the proposal.
But I also want to point out that at this point it is a
proposal. I want to finalize that proposal of the temporary
suspension as quickly as possible so that people know exactly
what the rules are. Then we can get on with the finalizing of
the long-term policy.
Senator Gorton. That is at least an encouraging answer. I
hope that you will work diligently to see to it that those
assurances can be met and that we don't have something that
literally goes on forever.
Chief Dombeck. In fact, I have scheduled the Second
National Leadership Team meeting, and the Regional Foresters
and Station Directors will be gathering next week.
Senator Gorton. And this philosophy will be expressed to
them in no uncertain terms?
Chief Dombeck. Yes. Yes.
We will be gathering next week to take a look at the
analysis, the comments, and other progress to date.
accountable decisionmaking
Senator Gorton. Mr. Pandolfi, is it your view from your
business background that the agency's accountability and
decisionmaking process is the mess that the GAO portrays?
Mr. Pandolfi. Senator, I think before I comment on that I
should say that, as was indicated earlier, having an MBA and
working as a CEO in the private sector, as I have discovered in
the last few months, is no guarantee of success in government.
[Laughter.]
I wanted to express that to you.
However, under the rules of the committee today, the rules
of performance for today's hearing, I also score poorly because
my school had 100 rooms. It was in a brick building and it had
indoor plumbing.
Senator Gorton. You and I are more similar, then, in our
background. [Laughter.]
Mr. Pandolfi. Having said that, I want to answer your
question. The analysis of the OIG and the GAO reports with
regard to the Forest Service is largely accurate. I think it is
terribly unfortunate and unnecessary that conditions to cause
such a situation ever developed. But I must say that those
problems are certainly partly due to what has happened in the
Forest Service. They are also due to external forces as well as
what Senator Domenici mentioned with regard to the issue of
litigation.
But if the Forest Service were a private sector company, it
would be rated No. 450 on the Fortune 500 list. I must tell you
that I cannot imagine a company of that stature in the private
sector that has ever been in a situation such as that in which
the Forest Service finds itself today.
Senator Gorton. It would not be 450 for very long.
Mr. Pandolfi. No; it would not. Well, it might remain
there, but it would certainly have new managers.
business management
In the Forest Service, we are overrun with data and we have
very little information. For example, we have 75 million
transactions, financial transactions, that occur every single
month at 800 locations around the Nation where we enter data
into our system. Yet we have no reliable financial statements.
I think it is just for such a predicament that the phrase
was invented that ``you can't see the forest for the trees.''
It is perfect. It is absolutely perfect in this case.
The truth is that we do not really know the dimensions of
our problems. I do not mean to imply by that comment that they
are any bigger than anybody has said that they are because, on
the counter side, we do not know the size of our opportunities,
either. And there are great opportunities in an agency that
manages 192 million acres, with 35,000 employees and a $3.3
billion budget.
So all I can say is, and that was a long answer, that the
answer to your question is yes, it is pretty much of a mess.
control board
Senator Gorton. What is your response to Congressman Dick's
suggestion of a temporary control board?
Mr. Pandolfi. I do not have any idea of whether a control
board--I do not honestly know what a control board would do.
But if I were going to try to decide how to manage the Forest
Service, I think what is appropriate is to look at what the
agency needs and then to try to figure out what sort of
mechanism might be appropriate. Perhaps it is the very one that
you have seated before you this morning in terms of this
particular management team and just the way we are.
Clearly, the standard form of Federal Government is not
well suited to making things happen in a crisis, at least not a
crisis like this--perhaps a war, but that is a different story.
But not this.
For example, there are three areas where we really need to
solve problems before we can ever fix the situation here. When
I say that the Federal Government is not well suited, this is
specifically what I mean.
How do we get the flexibility to put the right people in
the right jobs in the Forest Service?
personnel flexibility
Senator Gorton. That was my next question. Does the Forest
Service have the ability to get the right people in the right
jobs?
Mr. Pandolfi. Well, it is difficult and that is for sure. I
mean, I have been here for 15 months with Mike Dombeck and I am
still Special Assistant to the Chief because there are lots of
reasons why it is difficult to give me any other title. I mean,
I have written my essays to become part of the Senior Executive
Service. I do not know what grade I got, but I believe I
passed.
There are massive limitations on hiring, firing, and
incentivizing people. I do not mean to just dwell on the
negative of firing, either. There are just massive limitations.
As a result, we have very little flexibility.
decisionmaking
Second, it is extremely different--extremely different--to
make tough decisions quickly and get the pain over with.
I do not deny that the Government, and I expected that, the
Government is far different from the private sector in terms of
how the decisions are made. But the debate goes on and on and
on, and it is very difficult, because there are so many
constituencies for us to satisfy, for us to make a decision.
pulling punches
I think with regard to having multiple constituencies, the
third thing I would say is that it seems so necessary all the
time to pull our punches and not say how we really feel about
something because there is going to be some constituency or
other who is going to be insulted by it. Then they are going to
write us a letter with 75 or 80 questions in it that is going
to take 3 weeks of staff time to fill out. And so we are
stopped again.
So I would say the issue of flexibility, moving quickly,
and having to pull punches are things that are very, very
difficult to overcome.
I heard Senator Craig say something that I thought was
encouraging. He said--I think he said--that the Congress should
try to structure a budget to solve the problem. I do think that
is doable. And with the proper protection or the ability to act
quickly, if we could get the ability to act quickly, if we
could get the confidence of this august body to support us and
then leave us alone for a while--a totally, I realize,
impractical suggestion, perhaps--we could show significant
progress in a short time.
Senator Gorton. Well, could you and the people for whom you
work write proposed conditions for a budget, leaving aside the
amount of money that we may have, that would lend encouragement
to this process that could help speed it up?
Mr. Pandolfi. I think so, Senator, and I think that we
could make some suggestions to you at a later time as to ways
to do that.
Senator Gorton. Well, let's not make that too much later a
time.
Chief Dombeck. I would just like to reaffirm and support
Francis and say we would love to. I think it is very important
that we get beyond some of the debate and work together on
these issues. We welcome that suggestion.
Senator Gorton. We have philosophical debates about what
you ought to be doing and you are not going to persuade us on
those, necessarily, nor are you. But to be able to use the
money that you have within the laws that you have in a way that
is more efficient and more effective is a cause that ought to
unite us. It is a cause that we ought to get your kind of
suggestions about.
I, for one, who is going to have the primary responsibility
for writing this budget, know that if I have intelligent
administrative suggestions that can be adopted as a part of the
budget, I am certainly going to do it.
Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, I think, if we can set aside the
philosophical debates over the resource issues, the resource
agenda issues, and focus in on those management and business
practice concerns, we can reach amazing agreement on what is
needed. We certainly would like to work to provide some
guidance as to how we might get there.
Senator Gorton. OK. You talked about how difficult it is to
get decisions made and implemented. We don't have a whole, long
time before we have to come up with something.
Mr. Lyons. I understand.
Senator Gorton. We will need those suggestions.
coopers & lybrand report
Mr. Pandolfi, how about Coopers & Lybrand? Has that done
any good?
Mr. Pandolfi. Yes, Senator.
I think it is very helpful. The Coopers and Lybrand
report--let me clarify what it was intended for because I think
some people may have greater expectations of it than are
warranted: We requested the report in the Forest Service and we
did it last August. We requested it last August. It has just
been completed. Its purpose was to help us determine how to
simplify our operations.
As the Chief said earlier, and as I indicated when I spoke
of the number of financial transactions that occur, we have
raised complexity to an art form in the agency and it has to be
reduced or we will not get further.
I think the report will help us to improve both
accountability and efficiency. But there will be no
accountability without good information.
If you want, I would be happy to go into more detail about
what the report proposes or we can do it at a later time,
whatever you prefer.
Senator Gorton. Well, I think we can do that at a later
time. I just simply want to know whether or not we are going to
get any good out of it on the ground.
Mr. Pandolfi. Yes.
Senator Gorton. Will it result in internal changes for the
better or in the kind of suggestions we have just talked about
to come to this committee for the budget?
Mr. Pandolfi. There were 31 specific recommendations in the
report and we will begin to implement some of those
recommendations as early as next week.
overhead costs
Senator Gorton. Now a part of all of this is the fact that,
while income is going down in the Forest Service from those of
its activities that are productive of revenue, overhead
continues to go up. I would like to ask the general question
both of the chief and of you: Why is it that overhead costs
keep going up while overall fund expenditures are decreased?
Chief Dombeck. One of the things that agencies have a very
difficult time doing is taking things off their plate. When new
legislation is passed, we do more things and there is great
difficulty in saying, ``OK, we are going to stop doing this
because there is a constituency that demands this.''
So we spend a lot of time on those kinds of issues. One of
the things that I believe better business systems will allow us
to do is to prioritize what is most important.
I understand that there is a lot more to this than just
calculating the return on investment of a project because there
are other values involved in this kind of thing. But it will
simplify what we do greatly and, I believe, free up staff time,
reduce the complexities. As I mentioned in my opening statement
and as Francis concurred with it, we, in a sense, are drowning
in complexity.
Mr. Lyons. There is another reason, Senator, and that is we
solve problems by process. Rather than making decisions and
moving forward, we engage in new processes, new studies, new
requirements. All of us here are guilty of this. That adds to
cost and does not get us to any reasonable outcome any sooner.
In fact, it complicates things even more.
So there are lots of ways to streamline and reduce overhead
and probably get to the same end in a more efficient way. These
are the kinds of things we need to explore with new business
practices.
chief's reviews
Chief Dombeck. We have done the Chief's Reviews in three
regions, one research station, and two Washington Office Deputy
Areas.
I do not know if you were here when I mentioned doing the
Chief's Reviews, Senator Craig--I think you probably were--but
the objective is not the typical review that most people
expect, that you are going to come out and look at our books or
you are going to look at our decisionmaking process, and you
are going to tell us what we did right or what we did wrong.
The objective of the review is really to see what is on the
minds of the employees because there is tremendous talent out
there. It is also then to begin to look ahead of the headlights
and ask ourselves the question what could we have done 10 years
ago to avoid this protracted problem.
One of the things we discovered--in fact, it was in a
meeting with your staff, Clyde--was we find that we run into a
problem and we build a process around it. Then there is another
problem looming right there, right in front of you today, and
we built a process around it to solve it.
The organizational energy, right to the level of the Chief,
goes to dealing with the immediate-urgent. If you are in the
right quadrant, that is No. 1.
We are spending very, very little time in quadrant two.
That is something I am trying to do to further empower the
Associate Deputy Chief level, the staff director level, to make
sure that they are engaged much more aggressively to allow the
Deputy Chief level, the Regional Foresters, to work with
constituencies, with Congress, to focus on problems before they
are right on a plate or before we are in court.
Senator Gorton. One of the greatest shortcomings any
organization can have--and it seems to be endemic to
Government--is to have very good and very talented people who
are not able to use those talents in the way that they ought
to. It not only frustrates the organization, it frustrates the
individuals, and you are likely to lose them.
overhead costs
Do you have any comment on these questions, on the overhead
questions, Mr. Pandolfi?
Mr. Pandolfi. Yes, Senator. I would like to just speak for
a moment on that but take it from a different angle.
I do not think there is any way to know today what level of
overhead is actually appropriate or inappropriate for the
Forest Service. The reason I wanted to say that is because I
believe the single most important thing that this agency could
do in the short term, the intermediate term, whatever amount of
time it is going to take, is to develop good information
systems. We do not have good information systems. We cannot
answer your questions well and accurately all the time. We can
in some cases, but in others we cannot.
financial friction
I want to put it in perspective. I want to put the value of
having a good information system in perspective with respect to
the overhead question. It is very simple to do. Simple
financial friction in an information-free business results in
untold inefficiencies. A mere 5-percent inefficiency factor in
a $2.2 billion--and I think we are a little higher than that,
$2.5 billion, actually, but I did my calculations on $2.2
billion, so I will stick with that--a mere 5-percent amount of
financial friction in a $2.2 billion organization results in
waste that could be as much as $100 million a year.
personnel reductions
Now, we have reduced the number of people in human
resources, fiscal, budget, and information management from 1993
to 1998 by 1,243 people. So here we are. Maybe if we had a
couple of those people back--I know, I understand the problem
of hiring people, for example, in the private sector and not
selling the product. It is not generally looked upon with a lot
of favor. But we have gone too far in reducing some of these
administrative overhead positions and we do not necessarily
have people properly trained, as the Chief said at the
beginning of his remarks, to do the work.
I will tell you, Senator, for a few million dollars in
overhead, if we could reduce that financial friction, the
return on investment and the payback period would be just
startling. And most any private sector individual would be
delighted to make an investment in this organization.
So I do not know the answer, whether it is too much or too
little. But the fact is, if we could just get good information
systems, we would be so much better off.
Now we are working on that, but it is tough.
interior columbia basin ecosystem management project
Senator Gorton. OK. Now I do want to go on to a subject in
which we have an obvious philosophical difference, Mr. Lyons,
and that is the Interior Columbia basin ecosystem study.
I don't know of any subject of this sort in the last 8 or
10 years which has created more hostility on the part of my
constituents. I have an advisory committee in every county in
the State of Washington. I met with half a dozen of them in the
last 2 weeks in eastern Washington. Among all of the rural
people, it was the No. 1 item for discussion. And these are
fairly broadly based groups, from business, local government,
teachers, and the like.
Yesterday I had in my office a State senator whom I greatly
admire on that subject. Universally they feel that the money is
being wasted, that neither local governments nor ranchers,
citizens, are being considered, are having their concerns
listened to. They feel it is one planning process piled on top
of another.
I must say that if I were to follow the desires of my
constituents, what they want me to do is to just end it. They
want it to stop. They see nothing of value to them coming from
it.
I am intensely frustrated. I have tended to buy your views
that not to go ahead is worse than going ahead. But it sure is
the very devil of a choice, even if that is true.
apprehension of icbemp
I guess I have to ask you this. When is it going to come to
an end? What are its results going to be? Why do you seem to
have such an inability to listen to the concerns of the people
whose lives are going to be affected by it? And how can you
deal with the overwhelming apprehensions I get everywhere that
what you really want to do is run everyone's life and
everyone's private property as well as to manage the federally
owned property in the area?
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, could I add to that? I have
been home, too.
I have been to town meetings, gatherings, county
commissioners meetings, talked with school people--everything--
and I get the same kind of response.
My questions are identical. Also, if you want to know where
$40 million of your money went, that is where it went, and you
have nothing to show for it yet except some studies and a high
level of frustration.
county commissioners
What has happened also that has created the frustration
that the Senators and the chairman is speaking to is the folks
who could have been your political liaison you have decoupled.
The county commissioners are walking away now because they feel
that after months, if not years, of involvement with you in
this, you didn't listen in the end. They feel that somebody
else out of the region won and they lost in their effort to
participate. You decoupled the very team, the county
commissioners involved, that could have come home to sell this
idea to the constituency.
They are now the enemy.
Senator Gorton. I am told that 60 percent of the county
governments now want it terminated.
Senator Craig. That's right.
Senator Gorton. It is likely when those who are collecting
those petitions have them all in, it will be up to 80 percent.
OK, give me your comments.
Mr. Lyons. Senator, I agree with you that it would be great
to get this over, to complete the environmental impact studies
underway, and to have a new basis upon which to manage the
public lands in that region. It is a sizable portion of the
public lands in the Nation and obviously has a significant
impact on the communities there as well as the Nation's
resources as a whole.
congressional icbemp directive
I would agree with you that this has gone on long enough.
To reiterate a comment I made earlier, though, we are all
contributing to this. For example, last year, this committee
asked us to do another study which extended the period of time
that was necessary for us to complete this by another 6 months.
We completed that study and have since issued it. It is a
directive to look more closely at how rural communities were
going to be affected and the economic impacts.
So that, as well as other things we have done, have
contributed to additional delays.
reaction to icbemp
I am concerned about the belief in the counties that they
have been decoupled, to use Senator Craig's words, from the
process. That certainly was never the intent. But I think, as
this has gone on and as other things have come into play, there
is a growing sense that this is a Federal Government-imposed
solution on local resource concerns.
Two things are going on. One is clearly there is fear of
some of the changes that are coming about in the region and
these all come to a head when you look at the pressures that
are brought to bear on Federal lands. Also, change is not
welcome by anyone and we would all be better off if we did not
have to deal with that.
The reason--and this is the argument I have articulated
before--we need to complete this is so that we have a good,
solid base of information, good science, to guide professional
judgment so that, when we are challenged on management
decisions, those challenges can be fought back and we can
sustain our course.
But the other concern clearly is, as this has gone on, as
other decisions have been made, people have felt
disenfranchised and not a part of the process.
Our managers continue to make every effort to incorporate
counties in the decisionmaking process, to involve them in
helping determine what the final alternative will be, an issue
that is not yet decided.
All we can do is attempt continually to engage the
communities in that decisionmaking process, help them
understand the value of this process--and hopefully the value
of the product that is going to be generated by it--and reach
some conclusion. Right now I think the uncertainty, associated
with the process that seems to go on and on, is killing the
process and clearly destroying any faith the communities have
in those agencies to get something done.
So I agree with you. We need to get it done. Please do not
ask us for any more studies. Let us finish the process and let
us move forward. Then we will see.
environmental impact statement for icbemp
Senator Gorton. Will you have an EIS by early next year?
Mr. Lyons. Maybe Mike can address the specific timetable.
We have had to roll it back a little bit because of the
additional research work that we had to do.
Chief Dombeck. Where we are now, I believe, is the comment
period. That closes May 6. Then we are talking about spring
1999 to have the record of decision signed.
Senator Gorton. Spring.
Will a final record of decision prevent further endangered
species listings?
Chief Dombeck. We certainly hope so. The intent is to try
to move ahead of the power curve on something that we have been
playing catch-up on for a long time.
private property impact of icbemp
Senator Gorton. What do you expect the impact of the plan
to be on private property?
Chief Dombeck. We have no jurisdiction on private property
nor are we seeking any. We hope in many of the situations that
the issues that we can deal with regard to the Endangered
Species Act and things like that on Federal lands alleviate
some of the stress in other areas.
One of the concepts that has been evolving for some time
through the various processes is the working together on a
watershed scale, on an ecosystem scale--call it what you will--
so that the management activities become more compatible. This
is because good land management is good land management. It
does not matter who is the steward.
Senator Gorton. I want to go back to Secretary Lyons'
statement about participation.
public participation in icbemp
It is one thing to solicit comment. It is another to create
a feeling in the people from whom that comment is solicited
that their comments mean anything and will have any impact, any
impression, on a final decision.
That, it seems to me, is where there has been a failing
without, at this point, attempting to assign blame but trying
to get to the future.
One of the most important questions I have is this--and I
don't even want you to answer it here in an unequivocal
fashion, but I want the answer to it and I want a way we can do
this that I think would solve many of your problems. It relates
to the last question that I asked about private property.
I want to know whether or not we can come up with some
language that will be acceptable to you, and not get one of
these big veto threat kinds of things, with respect to the
impact of the plan on private property. If we can assure our
constituents out there that your plan is not going to adversely
impact their own use of their own land, I think that we will
have solved if not 100 percent of the kinds of objections that
we have, then a very significant share of them.
Mr. Lyons. I will work with you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Craig, on that issue because I believe we should be able to
address that.
Senator Gorton. OK.
Now I am way over my own time. Senator Craig may have some
more questions and I am going to let him close the hearing.
plum creek land exchange
I have just one purely parochial question about the Plum
Creek land exchange. It has been very much in the news at home
recently.
Personally, I think you have done a wonderful job on it. I
think it is a great bargain for the Federal Government to get
more land than it is giving up and to have it blocked up on
both sides. But we already do have some of the environmental
organizations threatening lawsuits over it and we have Plum
Creek saying the end of the year is it and if we cannot get
this accomplished soon, we are out of here.
I don't know whether or not that is entirely true. But I
would query: In this bill, should we legislate the land
exchange that you have agreed to?
Mr. Lyons. Senator, I do not think we want to enter into
the prospect of legislating an action that bypasses due process
and the rights of individuals to challenge it.
Senator Gorton. But this process has been due for a whole
long time.
Mr. Lyons. I understand that, Senator. But the only thing
you are left with then is to say ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law,'' that infamous statement that all of us look
for in legislation and that sends off skyrockets.
I think this has been an excellent effort on the part of
Plum Creek and I appreciate Rick Holley and all his staff's
efforts to work very professionally and efficiently with Forest
Service staff to put this together. I would like to expedite
this process. But I do not want to do it in a way that is going
to create more legal problems.
But I will work with you to find ways to get this done as
quickly as possible.
Senator Gorton. All right. That is fine. In a sense, it is
like the earlier question.
I believe it is time to have it come to an end. I think the
deadline that Plum Creek has set is a reasonable one. Figure
out a way with us to make it happen.
Mr. Lyons. We will work with you on that.
Chief Dombeck. Senator Gorton, I had breakfast at Salish
last Wednesday with some of the industry representatives and
the conservation community, as well as Jim Ellis, who speaks
very highly of you. We covered a variety of issues, including
this one. I offered to help facilitate, and, of course, we have
a wonderful Forest Supervisor there in Denny Bschor to help
facilitate in any way so that we can move this forward.
Senator Gorton. This is one area in which I don't have any
criticism of you all and what you are doing. I want to make it
happen, in fact, so that we get it done.
That is what we are here to do.
Senator Craig, you are back. That means you have more
interest. I have a whole series of other subjects that I wanted
to cover as well, but we are just simply going to have to do
those in writing.
I will turn the hearing over to you and you can ask as many
questions as you would like and then adjourn the hearing.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
be brief. Everyone at the table has been courteous with their
time and I have just a couple of subjects, both very brief. I
thank you for your indulgence.
thompson creek mine
Chief, I am sending you a letter concerning a delay in
completing a supplemental environmental impact statement on the
Thompson Creek mine in Idaho. It has been ongoing now almost, I
don't know how many years, with the promise again that it will
soon be done.
I am very concerned that there have been agreements entered
into between environmental interests and the Department of
Justice that have delayed the implementation of the
technologies that would benefit the environment.
The problem is some folks just flat don't want it mined.
But these people have a right to mine it, and they are willing
to use absolutely state-of-the-art technologies to get it done.
And, in fact, it will improve the environment or lower the
environmental risk.
So I sent you a letter and would ask for as timely a
response as possible on that. I think it is critical. We are
all frustrated out there. But when the game gets played for
years though it should have taken months, the level of
frustration is exaggerated and for the right reasons.
Secretary Lyons suggested that much of what we are pursuing
is an extension, much of what you are pursuing is an extension
of what Jack Thomas had for ideas, and I would mention the
chief prior to Jack Thomas. I guess I am pursuing this because
I am frustrated over what I am trying to do and what you and
certain the administration in part resist at times.
conservation philosophy
Would you say your philosophy of conservation is similar to
Jack Thomas' or your general view of where you are with the
Forest Service is similar?
Chief Dombeck. I believe it is.
Senator Craig. The reason I say that is, while Jim has sat
there for the last several years and said problems exist, there
has been no willingness to work with us on solutions. We always
meet, but boy, when I put out an idea, down goes the hammer.
The environmentalists' lights go on and I know where the
information is fed from. It is very frustrating--very
frustrating.
This willingness to work together, at some point I lose my
voice over it because there is nothing forthcoming. You guys
are now embroiled in crisis. You have experts in here trying to
manage, taking an agency that has been politicized and trying
to fix it. It is difficult. I do not dispute that. You are in a
very difficult situation. We all are.
I have constituencies all over my back on both sides of
this issue. We ought to have some resolution to it.
Let me read to you a quote from a March 25 hearing held out
in Coeur d'Alene that Jack Thomas was a witness at and gave, I
thought, some very valuable testimony. I think he was speaking
with a bit more candidness after he had left the office of the
Chief.
I am not even going to ask you to respond to it unless you
wish to. But I think it is important for the record.
Somehow, after people in your position leave, they gather
great wisdom and they can talk about marvelous things that
ought to be done that they were either not able to do or not
allowed to do while they were chief. And yes, you have been
warned by Jim to be careful. I am not witch hunting here today
at all. I am very frustrated that we are living over an agency
that is very dysfunctional at this time with very talented
people sitting out there on the ground, spinning their tires,
and not being able to get things done for the Forest Service,
for the forests, for the environment, or for the citizens they
are asked to serve.
former chief's quote
These are Jack Thomas' words. ``In my opinion, the position
that there are no problems with the legislation''--he is
talking about my legislation and also other legislation and
laws--``that govern management of the public lands and that
whatever problems there are can be solved through better
administration is incorrect.
``There are problems,'' he says, serious problems. The land
management agencies need clear guidance and a clear mission.
The NFMA and other legislation assumes, I believe, that a well
qualified and relatively autonomous agency would carry out
consistent programs and make adjustments in regulations issued
pursuant to law frequently in keeping with the principles of
adaptive management. Those assumptions no longer hold.
``For example, the planning regulations issued pursuant to
NFMA have been through two revisions and have been under
development for nearly 7 to 8 years. The first time they were
ready for release, they were delayed by the Bush administration
until after the 1992 election.'' I expect that was a political
decision.
``The regulations were then revised and were ready for
release a year before the 1996 Presidential elections. These
regulations have not yet been released.'' That was March of
last year. ``And when they are, they will likely be
significantly altered from present form to mollify any group or
another. In short, the assumption concerning how such
regulations are promulgated no longer holds, and getting
anything done in terms of producing more workable regulations
based on experience is slow, very, very slow, at best.''
I thought that was a pretty profound statement because I
think it is not only a statement reflective of the experience
of a chief who was in the trenches like you are now, but I
think it also speaks to the fact that you will spend the next
year and a half or so, or 2, trying to regulate your way out of
a problem that we are all in.
I wish you luck. Once again, I extend my willingness to
help.
I have no crystal ball. My guess is you can't get it done
because I think you are structurally flawed. And I don't think
this administration will allow you to make those changes
because they are politically unpalatable with some of the
interests involved. And that is too bad because, if we could
deal with it in a bipartisan way, it could be resolved.
You saw the company front here today and very few from the
other side. That will not produce good policy. It will only
produce conflict. And in the end, the forests and the Forest
Service will be the loser. That is my concern.
If you wish to speak to that, you may. If not, I
understand.
So thank you all very, very much for coming.
Are there further comments? Yes, Jim.
working together
Mr. Lyons. Senator, I just want to make this point and this
pledge. I think if you and I and the members of this committee
can agree to try to work to make Mike a successful Chief--and I
would concur that Jack Thomas was an extraordinary leader for
his time and I was very pleased to have him despite some of the
protestations and concerns that were raised early on by members
of this committee, including yourself, about his skills and his
capacity to be Chief--if we agree to work together, it would
help Mike become a successful Chief; allow him to make; the
decisions he needs to make, make the personnel changes he needs
to make; and allow the organization to come forward and support
him. Then I think the goals we share will be realized.
So I make that commitment to you. The administration would
like to see Mike Dombeck be the most successful Chief in the
history of the Forest Service and I hope you share that goal as
well.
Senator Craig. Jim, of course I do.
Let me close by saying there were no conflicts ever between
Jack Thomas and myself. We had some disagreements. My only
problem was the way he came to be and that is a problem that
exists today.
This administration chose to make the chief a political
appointment. You are the one that should be charged with the
politics. But the chief should have a buffer to be an
administrator of policy and a critic of politics when
necessary. I believe this administration has denied both of
their chiefs that opportunity and that is too bad because the
history of the Forest Service would argue that that is
necessary. It is necessary in any good management.
Politicians, you and I, come and go. But good policy ought
to hang on for a long time, until the politicians decide to
change the policy. That is not the character of the situation
we are involved in today.
The thing that is important, though, is that yes, there was
early criticism of me by Jack Thomas. It was translated to be a
criticism of him. It was a criticism of the way he came to be.
He and I, as you know, developed an excellent, although
sometimes tenuous, working relationship. But it was a good one.
additional committee questions
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much. They 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:]
Additional Committee Questions
landownership management
Question 1. Please provide for the record the status of the
FS evaluation of the Wyoming-Cloverdale Power Transmission
line, proposed by American Electric Power Company.
Answer. In 1991 American Electric Power (AEP) proposed the
construction of 115 miles of 765kv transmission line across
private and federal lands in Virginia and West Virginia. One
hundred and three miles of the proposed transmission line were
proposed to cross private lands and approximately 12 miles to
cross lands under federal jurisdiction.
The Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) initiated
hearings on the AEP proposal and, in December of 1995, directed
AEP to explore other routing options to mitigate a number of
sensitive locations crossed by their proposal. In West Virginia
no acceptable application was ever submitted for consideration.
In June of 1996 the George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests published a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the federal land component of the AEP
proposal. Based on the DEIS, the FS identified ``No Action'' as
the agency preferred alternative. Under the No Action
Alternative AEP would not be authorized to cross federally
administered lands with their proposed line.
On September 30, 1997, AEP filed new applications (new
route) for the 765kv transmission line with the VSCC and the
West Virginia Public Service Commission. AEP has not changed or
withdrawn the application they submitted to the FS in 1991. The
corridor identified in AEP's 1997 applications to the States
does not coincide with the federal land corridor proposed by
AEP in the 1991 application to the FS, however, the new
corridor does coincide with one of the federal land
alternatives considered by the federal agencies in their DEIS.
The two State Commissions have the responsibility and
authority to make a number of key decisions regarding the AEP
proposal. The Commissions will decide whether the power is
needed, whether the proposed transmission line is the best
method to meet the anticipated need, whether or where the
corridor will be located on private lands, and whether the
purported benefits which result from the transmission line
offset the adverse environmental and social effects.
The federal agencies are awaiting the conclusion of the
State certification processes before completing their analysis
and making their decisions for the federal land components of
the AEP proposal.
Question 2. When are final decisions expected from the Sate
of West Virginia and Virginia on proposed routes?
Answer. AEP filed new applications with the West Virginia
Public Service Commission and the VSCC on September 30, 1997.
In this case, the West Virginia Commission is operating under a
400-day timeline. Accordingly, one would expect a decision from
West Virginia in November of 1998. The Virginia Commission does
not operate under a prescribed timeline so it is not possible
to accurately predict the length of their evaluation process.
Virginia has scheduled the last of its hearings for the AEP
case in July of 1998.
Question 3. Within what time-frame will the Agency be able
to issue a final Record of Decision once State action is taken
on proposed routes?
Answer. It is exceedingly difficult to accurately predict a
timeline for the completion of an analysis when the scope of
the analysis is subject to change.
The FS is required to evaluate the proposal that is
presented to them. Should the Commission approve a route across
private lands, and a federal land crossing is necessitated by
the States' decisions, the federal agencies would then involve
those persons who may be newly affected by the federal
decisions along that corridor. This new input would be used by
the federal agency to identify new analysis related tasks or to
develop new alternatives that would need to be considered by
the federal agencies before a decision could be made on AEP's
requested use of federal lands.
Assuming that services of an environmental consulting firm
are available to the FS, an analysis of this nature and
complexity could be completed within 2-years of the date the
next phase of the analysis is initiated.
Question 4. Should the role of conducting environmental
assessment for power lines be transferred to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Department of Energy (DOE)
from the Forest Service (FS)?
Answer. No. FERC and DOE are regulatory agencies whereas
the FS is the land management agency.
Question 5. Please explain the process which resulted in
American Electric Power (AEP) contributing to the cost of
environmental assessment and analysis. Specifically, how much
has the company paid the FS for environmental assessment work?
Answer. In 1991 AEP (then, American Power Company)
approached the FS with a proposal to cross approximately 12
miles of the National Forest with a 765kv transmission line.
The FS recognized that the analysis of such a complex federal
land use proposal could not be accomplished without seriously
compromising its ability to conduct and complete its planned
program of work. In an effort to respond to AEP's assertions
regarding the immediate need to begin the analysis of its
proposal, a couple of options were developed. AEP was advised
that the use of an environmental consulting firm would likely
expedite the processing and evaluation of its application.
Additionally, AEP was offered the option of entering into a
collection agreement with the Agency. Through this agreement
AEP would fund the activities of FS resource specialists when
they were engaged in analysis work related to the 765kv
transmission line proposal. Through this agreement the FS was
able to devote personnel, including a project coordinator, to
the processing of the transmission line proposal without having
to await funding through the normal 2-year budget appropriation
cycle.
To date AEP has reimbursed the FS for approximately
$750,000 in salary and analysis related expenses. AEP did opt
to hire a consulting firm to assist the FS in analysis of its
transmission line proposal. The total costs for those services
now approximates $5.36 million.
Question 6. How does this amount compare to original
estimates?
Answer. The original cost estimate of the consulting firm
that successfully competed for the contract was $689,865.
However, this estimate was submitted before the federal
agencies defined the scope of the analysis. This is a highly
controversial private and federal land use proposal. As the
public involvement process prescribed by the National
Environmental Policy Act was pursued, more people became
involved and there were more issues, more resources and more
miles of alternatives to consider. Additionally, the federal
agency's analysis grew from a federal land focus, as originally
envisioned, to include the private lands as well. Hence, the
consulting firms competing for the contract submitted cost
estimates for a project whose final scope was unknown. AEP's
proposal involved 103 miles of private lands and approximately
12 miles of federal land.
Question 7. What specific products have been generated from
the company's payments?
Answer. In conformance to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act, the FS published a DEIS which
considers 14 alternatives in detail; twelve of the alternatives
cross the NF, one avoids the NF, and a ``No Action
Alternative''. The FS study considered the resources located on
both federal and private lands along the 115 miles of the
proposed route in the States of Virginia and West Virginia.
The information contained in the Draft EIS provides AEP,
the public, agencies and the Commissions with important
resource and environmental effects information regarding the
federal lands managed by the FS, National Park Service and the
US Army Corps of Engineers. In fact, the Virginia Commission
requested the type of information found in the DEIS when they
initiated their evaluation of the AEP proposal in 1992. The
West Virginia Commission advised AEP that they could not
process their application until they had an opportunity to
review the DEIS.
Since the President's Forest Plan was adopted in April
1994, small, run of the river hydroelectric projects proposed
to be located on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land have
been paralyzed by the failure of the U.S. Forest Service to
make a determination of consistency with the plan. Developers
have spent millions of dollars, mostly on environmental
studies, to meet the Service requirements, and have permit or
license applications pending before FERC. Some projects have
been declared consistent with prior plans and obtained Clean
Water Act Section 401 approvals from the State of Washington.
Yet the Forest Service does not offer clear guidance on
compliance with Option 9, nor has it made any determinations on
individual projects. Designed for forest management, it is
clear that Option 9 is being used to stop small hydro
development on federal multipurpose lands, leaving developers
who relied on the Forest Service to administer the plan fairly
and on a timely basis with significant stranded investment. The
Senate Appropriations Committee in its July 18, 1995 report on
Forest Service funding stated that it expected the Forest
Service to conduct an expeditious review of small hydro
projects waiting for approval by the Forest Service. It appears
not one of these hydro determinations has been completed.
Question 8. What is preventing the Forest Service from
performing its public responsibilities by acting on small hydro
projects on the Mount Baker--Snoqualmie National Forest
(MBSNF)?
Question 9. By what exact date will the Forest Service make
a final determination on small hydro project consistency with
the President's Forest Plan?
Answer 8 and 9. As background, small hydro projects on the
Mount Baker--Snoqualime National Forest with license
applications pending with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) include: the Martin Creek project; 5 projects
within the North Fork Nooksack River basin; and 4 projects
within the Skagit River basin. Under the Federal Power Act
(FPA) FERC has the statutory responsibility for determining a
project's consistency but it traditionally relies on the
recommendations of the Forest Service with respect to
individual forest plans. Those recommendations made by the
Forest Service are not made final until the completion of the
environmental analysis.
In November 1994, in response to FERC's notice that the
project application had been accepted for filing, the Forest
Service made an interim recommendation that the Martin Creek's
Project was inconsistent with the President's Forest Plan.
Subsequently, the FERC requested that the applicant provide
additional information to and consult with the Forest Service.
On May 10, 1996, the Forest Service provided further
interpretation of Forest Plan direction related to
hydroelectric development and on August 5, 1966, completed the
re-evaluation of the Martin Creek project. This re-evaluation
provided specific information relative to resource impacts and
mitigation considerations, but concluded that due to the
severity of the resource impacts and the difficulty of
developing effective mitigation measures would probably prevent
the Forest Service from issuing a recommendation of
consistency. No further action from the Forest Service has been
requested by the applicant or the FERC on this specific
project, and it is our understanding that the project is not
yet considered by the FERC to be ready for environmental
analysis.
In February 1995, in response to the FERC's Draft EIS for
the North Fork Nooksack River basin projects, the Forest
Service provided interim recommendations and identified
specific resource impacts and Forest Plan requirements not met
by four of the five proposed projects. In September 1997 the
Final EIS was issued by the FERC. On October 21, 1997, the
Forest Service issued a recommendation to FERC of Forest Plan
inconsistency for the same 4 projects, and concurred with the
FEIS recommendation for license denial based on adverse
resource impacts outweighing developmental benefits. On
December 19, 1997, the Forest Service made a final
recommendation of Forest Plan consistency for the remaining
Nooksack River project and provided conditions necessary for
the adequate protection and utilization of forest resources.
(Note: the appeal period for this Decision Notice ended March
12, 1998, and the MBSNF is unaware of any appeals filed.)
In 1995 the Forest Service made recommendations to the FERC
of Forest Plan inconsistency for the 4 Skagit River projects
citing resource impacts and Forest Plan requirements not met.
Final recommendations will be made in response to the FERC
Final EIS, which is anticipated for release sometime this year.
No additional proposals or project modifications have been
presented to the MBSNF requiring further consistency
recommendations.
Question 10. Does the Forest Service recommend that small
hydro projects be removed from the President's Forest Plan in
light of the fact that (1) Option 9 was designed for large-
scale forest management, not small hydro; (2) the Forest
Service is not acting on hydro matters; (3) the FERC has
jurisdiction to declare consistency with National Forest use;
and (4) Option 9 and the Federal Power Act cover much of the
same subject matter?
Answer. The President's Forest Plan was designed in
response to many issues related to the management of habitats
for late-successional and old-growth related species. It
specifically addresses concerns about locally important late-
successional habitats and species and provides direction to
protect such species. Another important component of the Plan
is the aquatic conservation strategy that was developed to
restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and
aquatic ecosystems. The Forest Service also developed, in
cooperation with other federal agencies, riparian reserve
standards and guidelines and has issued direction, relative to
the Plan, that seeks to restore and conserve these valuable
resources. Impacts on Salmon would be considered as well.
The Forest Service has developed a National Hydropower
Initiative which seeks to facilitate the relicensing of the
many projects, located on lands administered by the National
Forests, which will come up for relicensing in the next ten
years. The agency has committed significant increases in both
personnel and finances to respond to this workload. The Forest
Service is committed to providing timely and responsible input
to this complex relicensing effort.
Although the FPA clearly established that the FERC has
statutory responsibility for determining if a project is
consistent with a comprehensive management plan (e.g., Forest
Plan), the FERC has traditionally relied on the Forest Service
to provide to FERC their recommendations of consistency
relative to individual forest plans. The local National Forest
possess the resource expertise at the regional level to
determine the effects of a specific hydropower project on these
resources and bring the project into compliance with the
respective Forest Plan. The FPA establishes the responsibility
of the Secretary of Agriculture to determine conditions
``necessary for the adequate protection and utilization'' of
the National Forests. The Forest Service provides its
recommendation of consistency when it transmits those mandatory
4(e) license conditions to FERC.
Question 11. If the Forest Service does not recommend that
small hydro projects be removed from Option 9, what changes in
the Plan should be made to expedite approval of such projects
in a manner that does not penalize hydro developers?
Answer. There is no need to amend the President's Forest
Plan to expedite the evaluation of hydroelectric projects.
Projects pending decision in 1994 (both non-federal and Forest
Service initiated projects) initially faced some delay in
project evaluation and final approval while the federal
agencies affected by the development of the President's Forest
Plan gained a better understanding of, and ability to apply,
the direction of the Plan. As the agencies gained experience in
the interpretation and application of the Plan, the time
necessary to resolve complex resource issues has decreased.
Question 12. Does the Agency intend to ease the burdens on
projects whose license applications were pending on the date
the Record of Decision was put in place and how would you
accomplish this?
Answer. Pending projects that lacked completed analysis and
final decisions are subject to the requirements of the
President's Forest Plan. At the time the Plan was adopted in
April 1994, there were no small hydroelectric projects with
pending applications on the MBSNF that had completed the FERC
environmental analysis. The Forest Service has, and will
continue to actively consult with project applicants and the
FERC to identify specific Forest Plan consistency requirements
and conditions necessary for the utilization and protection of
forest resources.
forest service overhead
Earlier GAO was asked to conduct an investigation into
reports that the amount of expenditures for overhead and other
indirect costs at the Forest Service has increased dramatically
in recent years. The GAO has provided us initial information
concerning agency trust funds. Based on Forest Service
definitions and financial data, there has been a dramatic
increase in virtually every region. While GAO is continuing the
study, these initial findings clearly require explanation. It
is difficult to believe that these numbers do not represent a
large decline in agency efficiency. It could also explain why
the once profitable timber sale program is no longer bringing a
positive return. For example, GAO has found that overhead in
permanent trust funds was 29 percent in fiscal year 1997, which
is 80 percent higher than it was in fiscal year 1993.
Question 13. In view of the agency's apparent inability to
accomplish on-the-ground results, how much of the problem is
attributable to funding what appears to be bloated overhead?
Answer. Incomplete analysis of the FS financial records
could lead one to the conclusion that ``overhead and other
indirect costs'' are bloated in the trust funds; however, we do
not believe this to be the case. First, we need to be clear on
our terminology. The GAO report referred to does not report on
overhead costs. The GAO report analyzes what the Forest Service
has defined as indirect costs. While some of these can be
considered overhead (rent, utilities) not all of them are
usually thought of as overhead (computer support, line
supervision). Secondly, it is inappropriate to compare fiscal
year 1993 to fiscal year 1997 because a change of the FS coding
structure for program support and common services for program
managers occurred in fiscal year 1994 and again in fiscal year
1995. Many costs, in fiscal year 1994 and later, in these
activities had no comparable work activity codes in fiscal year
1993 business. Readers of the GAO report will note this
definition change reported in the ``limitations with data''
section of the report. This change in definition, or
classification of costs, accounts for more than 100 percent of
the ``apparent'' increase in indirect costs from fiscal year
1993 to fiscal year 1997. In fact, if the costs included in the
total with indirect costs as a result of this definition or
classification change are excluded, the costs for this category
has actually decreased by 16 percent since fiscal year 1993.
The terms ``overhead'' and ``indirect'' have been used
interchangeably, and sometimes, incorrectly, as synonyms for
general administration (a subset of indirect/overhead costs).
This further complicates reporting of these costs. We currently
do have agency-wide definitions for ``indirect'' costs; hence,
coding and the resulting cost information is only available for
portions of what some might define as ``overhead'' (e.g. common
services such as rent, utility, communications are clearly
defined and these costs are available.) Admittedly, much
confusion was created with the change in definition and
classification of activity costs in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal
year 1995. Consequently we are analyzing and reviewing our
entire cost accounting code definitions and structure with the
intent to clarify and have revisions in place in time for use
in fiscal year 2000.
Question 14. What plans does the agency have to reduce
overhead expenditures in the future?
Answer. We are actively looking at reducing all costs, not
just overhead codes. All work should be performed in the most
efficient manner. We have combined a number of units, both
administrative overhead units and entire offices, eliminated
some offices and moved some to cheaper quarters over the years
to lower fixed overhead costs. In addition, we have reduced
administrative staff by more than 25 percent since fiscal year
1993. Efforts to increase efficiency, while still accomplishing
an ever-increasing workload, continue.
Question 15. Why is Region 2 of the Forest Service the only
unit showing a decline in overhead expenses since fiscal year
1993? What are they doing that other units are not?
Answer. Actually Region 2 has not shown a decline in
overhead expenses in permanent and trust funds since fiscal
year 1993. They have actually shown a slight increase. However,
their increase has been much smaller than the other Regions. On
the other hand, R2's overhead expenses (on a percentage basis)
charged to appropriated funds is the third largest in the
nation. The primary reason for this is because R2's permanent
and trust fund programs are quite small, thus to a large degree
the cost of ``program management'' and support is being borne
by appropriated funds.
However, more analysis would be needed to determine if
Region 2 in reality does indeed have lower overhead, or if
Region 2 appears to have lower overhead due to their
understanding of the changes made in fiscal year 1994 and
fiscal year 1995.
Question 16. How will the need to implement major new
systems such as FFIS and INFRA affect current staffing levels
which are considered overhead?
Answer. For the past 5 to 6 years, since the inception of
INFRA, INFRA has relied on an ad-hoc workforce to develop,
implement, and support the application. Members of the INFRA
team are located in several states across the nation. We are
currently evaluating alternatives to implement a permanent
organization, in a central location. This will provide for
greater career opportunities as well as provide for enhanced
application implementation and support.
It is unclear whether FFIS alone will affect staffing
levels. The challenge of converting a commercial--off the shelf
accounting package to meet all the specialized accounting needs
of the Forest Service has taken a lot of attention. Our
financial health initiative also attempts to address the
weaknesses of our recent financial statement audits. While
these efforts have commanded our attention, we will not know
the long-term needs until we can get over our implementation
hurdles and begin to make FFIS and Financial health routine
business.
Question 17. Is the Forest Service aware that even though
total fund expenditures fell over the past five years, indirect
expenditures increased significantly? Has the Forest Service
been monitoring the increase in indirect expenditures? If so,
what has the Forest Service done to reduce the increases or at
least minimize them?
Answer. A change of the FS coding structure for program
support and common services for program managers (which we
understand GAO and others refer to as ``overhead or indirect
costs'') occurred in fiscal year 1994 and again in fiscal year
1995. Many costs, in fiscal year 1994 and later, in these
activities had no comparable work activity codes in fiscal year
1993 business. This change in definition, or classification of
costs, accounts for more than 100 percent of the ``apparent''
increase in ``overhead or indirect costs'' from fiscal year
1993 to fiscal year 1997. In fact, if the costs included in the
total with ``overhead and other indirect costs'' as a result of
this definition or classification change are excluded, the
costs for this category has actually decreased by 16 percent
since fiscal year 1993. Admittedly, much confusion was created
with the change in definition and classification of activity
costs in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. Consequently we
are analyzing and reviewing our entire cost accounting code
definitions and structure with the intent to clarify and have
revisions in place in time for use in fiscal year 2000. Due to
the reductions in Budget and Accounting staff over the last
five years we have not had the resources to monitor ``indirect
costs'. We are actively looking at reducing all costs, not just
overhead codes. All work should be performed in the most
efficient manner. We have combined a number of units, both
administrative overhead units and entire offices, eliminated
some offices and moved some to cheaper quarters over the years
to lower fixed overhead costs. In addition, we have reduced
administrative staff by more than 25 percent since fiscal year
1993. Efforts to increase efficiency, while still accomplishing
an ever-increasing workload, continue.
Question 18. Why have indirect expenditures risen while
overall fund expenditures have decreased? Can the Forest
Service identify the types or kinds of indirect expenditures
that are responsible for the growth? Are certain indirect costs
escalating faster than others? If so, what are those costs?
What has the Forest Service done to slow this growth?
Answer. A change of the FS coding structure for program
support and common services for program managers (which we
understand GAO and others refer to as ``overhead or indirect
costs'') occurred in fiscal year 1994 and again in fiscal year
1995. Many costs, in fiscal year 1994 and later, in these
activities had no comparable work activity codes in fiscal year
1993 business. This change in definition, or classification of
costs, accounts for more than 100 percent of the ``apparent''
increase in ``overhead or indirect costs'' from fiscal year
1993 to fiscal year 1997. In fact, if the costs included in the
total with ``overhead and other indirect costs'' as a result of
this definition or classification change are excluded, the
costs for this category has actually decreased by 16 percent
since fiscal year 1993. Admittedly, much confusion was created
with the change in definition and classification of activity
costs in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. Consequently we
are analyzing and reviewing our entire cost accounting code
definitions and structure with the intent to clarify and have
revisions in place in time for use in fiscal year 1999. Due to
the reductions in Budget and Accounting staff over the last
five years we have not had the resources to monitor ``indirect
costs''. We are actively looking at reducing all costs, not
just overhead codes. All work should be performed in the most
efficient manner. We have combined a number of units, both
administrative overhead units and entire offices, eliminated
some offices and moved some to cheaper quarters over the years
to lower fixed overhead costs. In addition, we have reduced
administrative staff by more than 25 percent since fiscal year
1993. Efforts to increase efficiency, while still accomplishing
an ever-increasing workload, continue.
Question 19. Can we expect the growth in indirect
expenditures to continue? What plans does the agency have to
reduce indirect expenditures in the future?
Answer. As explained in answer to question No. 13 and No.
17, we do not believe that ``indirect expenses'' in reality,
have increased. We believe the increases are due to changes in
definition in regard to expenses allowed to be charged out to
this cost category. We can expect consistent definitions and
coding of activities in the future. This coding change may
cause indirect expenses to appear higher or lower, but it will
not change reality. Our efforts to minimize all expenses are
ongoing.
Question 20. How do you explain the wide variations in
indirect expenditure rates? Are some funds more efficiently
managed than others?
Answer. The indirect expenditure rates are a result of
services provided to be individual resources. To the extent
that any of the programs require indirect costs (rent for their
employees, computers for their projects, unemployment costs for
crews, line supervision for their crews) the benefitting fund
pays the cost as part of the program. The variations in the
indirect rates are a reflection of the complexities. Salvage
Sale Funds, K-V, and Salvage Sale are all similar. Coop-work-
other is less by the nature of the program. Coop-work-other is
for cooperative work with others outside of the Forest Service
and requires less indirect support because of its activities.
Question 21. How do you account for wide variations in
costs from region to region? Is it possible that some regions
are much more efficient than others or is there some other
reasons for such wide variations? If some regions are able to
manage funds at far less in indirect costs, are there lessons
to be learned by other regions? Does the Forest Service have in
place a mechanism for sharing this knowledge? If so, then why
are there such vast differences?
Answer. Variations by region are to be expected.
Geographical and ecosystem differences across the country will
always result in variations in costs across the regions. Costs
to support recreation in urban fringe areas differ from
wilderness areas. Both are necessary and proper. The Forest
Service has a program of management reviews and technology
transfer mechanisms to keep program managers apprised of
efficiencies across the agency. However, more analysis is
needed to determine if fluctuations among regions are due to
different coding conventions or in more efficient use of funds.
Question 22. Has the Forest Service ever analyzed its
``overhead'', ``indirect'', or ``general administration'' costs
with a goal towards reducing the amount of these costs instead
of reallocating them to other categories? If so, how successful
was the Forest Service in obtaining overall cost reductions?
Has the Forest Service followed up to assume that its
recommendations are still in place?
Answer. As stated previously, we focus on reducing all
costs, not just specific types of costs. We have recently
consolidated some organizations and are moving one regional
headquarters to realize overall costs reductions. In fiscal
year 1997, the Washington Office consolidated the Land
Management Planning and Ecosystem staffs, and reduced two
staffs in the Research organization. Also in fiscal year 1997,
two Research Stations were consolidated. In fiscal year 1998
three National Forests and 22 Ranger Districts were
consolidated. We have gained approval to move the Pacific
Southwest Region's Regional Office from San Francisco to Mare
Island to achieve lower rent costs.
Question 23. Has the Forest Service compared its overhead,
indirect, or general administration costs to other federal
agencies, state agencies, or the private sector? If so, what
were the results?
Answer. No analysis of this nature has been done by the
Forest Service.
Question 24. Has the Forest Service used analysis of other
federal agencies, state agencies, or the private sector to
assist them in analyzing their own indirect costs?
Answer. No analysis of this nature has been done by the
Forest Service.
Question 25. Does the Forest Service know whether indirect
expenditures as a percent of total appropriated funds have been
increasing? If so, how do indirect expenditures for the five
funds compare to those of appropriated funds? If the growth in
indirect expenditures for appropriated funds is inconsistent
with those for the five Forest Service funds, what can be done
to slow the growth?
Answer. Indirect expenditure rates in the NFS
appropriations are increasing slowly, similar to the years with
valid data in the five funds in the GAO report. The rates are
lower than the five funds because NFS appropriations are not
assessed for GA. However, see No. 13 and No. 17 for a
discussion about how coding changes over the years have
affected the composition of indirect costs.
Question 26. Do all funds incur the same kinds of costs or
are some of the funds exempt from particular indirect costs?
Answer. No. All funds finance indirect activities to the
extent that they require them. Indirect collections can be
waived in a certain category of coop-work agreements, although
the indirect costs in those cases are paid for by the
benefitting BLI in appropriated funds. Indirect expenditures
are also sometimes forgone if the amount is insignificant.
Question 27. Are indirect expenditures for the Cooperative
Work-Other Fund subject to more oversight than other funds? If
so why? Do some ``cooperators'' require that Forest Service
overhead costs be limited or even zero? Are this Fund's costs
artificially held down as a result of the oversight? If their
expenditures are held down, do the other funds pick up extra
shares of the indirect costs?
Answer. No. See answer No. 26.
Question 28. How do you decide which fund will pick up
particular costs, especially those that might be shared by all
the funds? For example, how do you decide what portion of the
Line Management costs will be allocated to each fund? How do
you decide how each fund will share in rent costs or the costs
of new computer systems? Is there a systematic basis for all
these allocations that everyone follows?
Answer. All funds provide support to the extent they
benefit from that support. This charge-as-worked philosophy is
central to the management of our finances. Line management is
by definition a GA activity, so other than the occasional
Deputy line position that has resource emphasis, line is
charged to a combination of appropriated GA (NFGA) and
assessments against the permanent and trust funds at parity
with NFGA.
When permanent appropriations and trust funds are assessed
for general administrative costs, those funds are joined with
the general administration (GA) line item into a pool. Funds in
this pool of GA are used interchangeably for any expense
legitimately paid from GA. For non-GA costs, each fund pays its
fair share according to usage or the best estimate of usage.
For example, if employees working on salvage sales use 10
percent of the floor space in a building, then the salvage sale
fund will pay 10 percent of the rent.
Question 29. How does the Forest Service decide when to
reduce costs and when to reallocate them? If the Congress were
to limit ``overhead'', ``indirect'', or ``general
administration'' costs to a certain percent of total
expenditure or total direct costs, would we see a major effort
to reduce costs or an attempt to reallocate the costs without
any real reductions in the costs? If there were actual cost
reductions, where are they likely to occur?
Answer. The Forest Service is always working to reduce
costs, since funding is well behind inflation and since we
adhere to the business ethic of always trying to improve
efficiency. We do not arbitrarily reallocate costs, we do try
to ensure that costs are charged correctly and consistently.
If Congress were to limit overhead to a fixed percent of
permanent appropriations and trust funds, appropriated funds
may have to bear of disproportionate share of the burden.
Essentially, the charged-as-worked benefitting function
approach would have to be altered. Indirect costs are simply
the attempt to allocate workload to the EBLI requiring the
support.
Cutting indirect/overhead takes time; costs such as rent
are fixed in the short-run, and relocating often requires
Congressional approval. Much of our costs are in salary,
especially general administrative costs. We find that in many
cases more personnel are needed, at least in the near term, to
improve our financial systems and accountability and to meet
the increasing needs for information by parties external to the
Agency.
Real costs reductions can only occur with:
--Improved business practices, which may cost more in the short run
to achieve long run savings;
--Centralization of services, which could make overhead appear
higher, even though total costs may decrease
--Elimination of work; and
--Combination, or closure of some units.
Question 30. How do GPRA goals address the issue of
reducing overhead and indirect expenses?
Answer. Although no single goal or objective is focused on
the issue of overhead and indirect expenses, the need to set
relative priorities within an assumed flat budget environment
is recognized throughout the annual Performance Plan. The
single greatest opportunity, apart from reducing or eliminating
programs, is increased operational efficiency through use of
technologies such as improved financial systems, corporate data
bases (both resource and financial), Geographic Information
Systems (GIS), and Global Positioning System (GPS). All GPRA
objectives and management initiatives recognize the importance
of these potential opportunities.
Question 31. How will the agency plans to reorganize and
address the serious financial accountability problems, affect
overhead?
Answer. The Agency currently estimates that is will costs
approximately $23 million over the next 3-years to complete a
series of actions to strengthen management and accountability
in the Forest Service. The funds will primarily be used to hire
a limited number of management personnel to address the major
management needs of the Agency. The Forest Service would return
to current staffing levels through attrition so this would not
be a permanent increase in overhead costs. We also expect that
as the quality of financial information improves, efficiencies
will be gained through better analysis of resources
alternatives. We also expect to gain efficiencies in overhead
operations as we simplify our budget and accounting systems.
Question 32. How can the Committee be supportive of efforts
to address these serious problems through reorganization while
addressing the problem of increasing overhead costs?
Answer. The Committees can be supportive by working in
partnership with the Forest Service as we look at alternatives
to simplify our current accounting and budget structures. We
would like to work with the Committees in analyzing alternative
structures to assure that the Forest Service can meet the
information needs of Congress with better quality and more
reliable data. The Forest Service and the USDA has realized
that reductions in budget analysis, accountants, personnel
specialists, and contracting officers has contributed to our
serious accountability problems. We believe in the long-term we
can reduce not only our overhead costs, but the overall costs
of doing business by accurate data to help us make financial
and resource decisions. We are in complete agreement in seeking
to maximize the efficiencies of our operations and look forward
to working with the Committee to pursue this goal.
Question 33. The Forest Service has a Committee of
Scientists making recommendations on a revision of the planning
regulations. How does that work link to what the Columbia Basin
study is developing to amend forest plans?
Answer. The Forest Service has regulations which guide the
process to be used while revising Forest Land and Resource
Management Plans. The Committee of Scientists are projecting
completion of their work in June, 1998 at which time they will
recommend planning regulation changes to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Columbia River Basin forest plan revisions will follow the
new regulations if they are completed by the time the Columbia
River Basin Record of Decision is made. Otherwise, revisions
will respond to the current regulations.
wildland fire management
In fiscal year 1997 the agency employed 261 employees in
the smokejumper program. The smokejumper program has been in
existence for many years and is proud symbol of Forest Service
history.
Question 34. With increased roading of the National Forests
and overall improved access how cost effective is this program?
Answer. Even with the improved access with the increase in
roads over the years, the program is still an important method
for quick, safe initial attack on fires. There are still many
unroaded areas, including vast areas of Wilderness where smoke-
jumpers continue to be the primary firefighting resource. The
cost effectiveness varies throughout the west. The National
Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) is used to analyze the
most cost effective mix of resources for all national forests.
Smoke-jumpers are used, either alone, or in combination with
other resources, in accordance with the NFMAS planning.
Question 35. What studies have been conducted to assess the
cost effectiveness of this program as opposed to alternative
methods of fire suppression? Please provide the subcommittee
with copies of these studies.
Answer. In addition to the NFMAS planning for all units in
the National Forest System, an interagency study to determine
the best mix of aerially delivered firefighters is underway.
The model will analyze various mixes of smoke-jumpers,
helitack, and repel crews and should be completed by the end of
calendar year 1998. By early 1999, we should be able to test
the effectiveness of smoke-jumpers in general as well as
determine the most efficient locations and staffing levels.
Question 36. How does the average cost per smoke-jumpers
employee compare to that of other employees retained for the
purpose of fire suppression?
Answer. The costs for three different types of firefighter
appear below. The costs are based on a per FTE basis. The costs
include all equipment and administrative support for the
firefighter. For smoke-jumpers, the cost of the aircraft
supporting each base is included.
Firefighters
Firefighter type Cost per FTE
Smoke-jumpers................................................. $66,364
Hotshot crew member........................................... 37,000
Engine crew member............................................ 31,000
Question 37. What consideration has been given to merging
the smoke-jumpers program completely with that of the Bureau of
Land Management under one agency's jurisdiction?
Answer. To date, no efforts have been undertaken to study
this question, however, the study mentioned in question 35 will
assist in determining locations and numbers needed in the
future.
As population increases there is an increasing impact to
the fire program due to management of the forest/urban
interface.
Question 38. How is the urban interface affecting the
positioning of fire suppression forces and the management
posture regarding fire suppression?
Answer. With the increased risk to life and property in the
urban interface area, there is an increasing need to prioritize
fire suppression resource to the protection of life and
property in the interface. The Forest Service does not have
jurisdiction for structure protection on private land, or on
State, Tribal, or local jurisdictions and does not take the
primary responsibility in those areas. We do have a
responsibility to prevent damage to these areas from wildland
fires spreading from NFS protection lands. As a result,
suppression resources may be assigned to suppress fires, or
flanks of large fires, which threaten the interface instead of
assigning those resources to protection natural resources on
NFS lands.
The positioning of preparedness forces in anticipation of
initial attack needs is based on a planning process which takes
into account the location and availability of cooperator
resources. In many areas, cooperative agreements with States or
local entities provides for a very efficient mix of Forest
Service, State and local resources.
Question 39. How is the urban interface affecting the type
of equipment being used in suppression activities?
Answer. Since the Forest Service cannot assume
responsibility for the suppression of structures, the types of
equipment within the agency is based on the need a
effectiveness for wildland fire suppression. In recent years,
foams and retardants that were developed for agencies with
structure protection responsibilities have proved to be very
effective in wildland fire suppression. Many engines and
helicopter now have foam capabilities, but the purpose is for
wildland fire suppression.
Many municipal and volunteer fire departments are now in
interface areas with wildland fire responsibility as well as
their traditional structure protection duties. These
departments are now equipped with wildland fire equipment and
have received training and experience from the Forest Service
through the Cooperative Fire Protection Program and the Rural
Community Fire Protection Program.
Question 40. How is the urban interface affecting the type
of air tankers used for suppression?
Answer. The urban interface does not require different
aircraft than the current air tanker fleet for safe, efficient,
and effective operations.
Question 41. What consideration is being given to acquiring
new air tankers for fire suppression such as the CL-415 super
scooper aircraft?
Answer. The USDA Forest Service does not own air tankers
for suppression but contracts for aerial fire suppression
services from the private sector. This is true for both air
tankers and helicopters.
Question 42. What effectiveness studies have been conducted
by the Forest Service on the CL-415 aircraft? Please provide
the subcommittee with copies of these studies.
Answer. The USDA Forest Service was a part of an
interagency study effort that culminated in the November, 1996,
publication National Study of Large Air tankers to Support
Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression, Final Report, Phase
2. This study was to look at those aircraft with a potential of
carrying 1,000 gallons or more of retardant, and develop
economic models to describe the composition and distribution of
an idealized fleet. The idealized national fleet described in
the report is based on 3,000 to approximately 5,000 gallon
capacity air tankers capable of delivering long term fire
retardant chemicals. The CL-215/415 was considered and might
have localized usefulness but does not meet the requirement of
3,000 to 5,000 gallons retardant capacity for a place in the
future nationally mobile fleet.
forest service geometronics activities
The Forest Service (FS) maintains a Geometronics Service
Center which provides a number of services to the organization
including mapping. In fiscal year 1997 the center employed 112
FTE's and expended $9.3 million.
Question 43. What consideration has been given to
consolidating these activities with other federal agencies such
as the U.S. Geological Survey?
Answer. Mapping activities carried out by the FS and other
civilian agencies of the federal government have been studied
and evaluated on many occasions over the past 25 years. The
consolidation of all or part of these activities has been
considered and debated; however, rather than consolidation,
agencies have found it most efficient and best service to
customers to coordinate closely and minimize duplication.
Federal agencies involved in geospatial activities utilize
interagency agreements to avoid duplication in mapping and
related data production activities to share program
information, coordinate production and data exchange
activities. This includes the shared responsibility for
maintaining the nation's topographic quadrangles maps; the
National Digital Orthophoto Program, National Aerial
Photography Program, Digital Elevation Models, Public Land
Survey System and related ownership information and other
digital and hard copy geospatial products. The agreements
support the missions of various government agencies and also
support state and local governments and the private sector.
Question 44. Could all Geometronics activities be assumed
by USGS and/or other agencies?
Answer. All Geometronics activities could not effectively
be assumed by USGS and/or other agencies. The Forest Service
established the Geometronics Service Center because the USGS
was unable to meet our needs for base geographic information in
a timely manner. Since that time products and services required
by forest managers have grown to include the production and
dissemination of base geographic information in both hardcopy
and digital formats; development and distribution of derivative
and special maps, digital data, brochures, and support for
transferring geospatial technologies and product applications.
There would be no cost savings if this work were shifted to
USGS but there would be a loss of service to forest managers.
The importance of Geometronics activities cannot be
underestimated. Each resource staff provides funding to support
the Geometronics activities to meet their requirements for
current, accurate, and timely geospatial information. FS
Geometronics activities provide essential geospatial
information for over 191 million acres of National Forest
System lands directly to the resource managers, scientists, and
the public. To adequately respond to critical land management
issues such as fire, forest health, watershed management,
ecosystem restoration, and recreation, the FS needs quick,
efficient access to current information.
forest service law enforcement
Question 45. What is the current status of Forest Service
law enforcement involvement in illegal immigration activities
on the Cleveland National Forest?
Answer. Forest Service law enforcement involvement with
illegal immigration activities only occurs as it relates to the
protection of National Forest System resources. If, during the
course of normal activities personnel discover illegal
immigration activities, actions necessary to protect the
resources and notify the appropriate agency are taken.
Question 46. Has the Forest Service fully implemented the
Committee's fiscal year 1998 direction regarding these
activities?
Answer. As of December 20, 1997, Forest Service law
enforcement had eliminated the use of detailed individuals to
the Cleveland National Forest. In addition, the number of law
enforcement personnel assigned to the Cleveland National Forest
was no higher than it was prior to Border Patrol's Operation
Gatekeeper.
The investigation of timber theft continues to be an
important emphasis for the program.
Question 47. If the agency increases its reliance on scaled
sales, what affects will this have on the overall law
enforcement program?
Answer. The opportunity for timber theft is present in both
tree measurement and scaled sales; timber theft did not end
when the Agency changed to exclusively tree measurement sales.
This action merely focused the opportunity for theft primarily
on the sale site. Thus, law enforcement personnel concentrated
their investigative efforts on pre-sale, sale, or post sale
activity. With the decreasing number of law enforcement
personnel, this narrowing of opportunity was necessary. With
the advent of scaled sales, the opportunity for theft
increases. The entire scaling process is vulnerable to theft by
any one of a number of individuals involved throughout the
process. It will be difficult to ensure proper monitoring of
activities by law enforcement personnel due to this increase
and the continued decrease of field officers. Investigation of
timber theft or related violations during the scaling process
will also be hindered by the decline in numbers of special
agents to conduct these highly complex scaling investigations.
Question 48. What special program emphasis is the Agency
placing on the investigation of timber theft?
Answer. The Forest Service continues to look for
opportunities for the development of methods to track and trace
federal timber using both overt and covert techniques. Some of
these opportunities involve the assistance of other Federal
agencies and the addition of ``Unannounced Timber
Accountability Audits'' which are designed to strengthen our
internal controls of preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and
abuse in timber program accountability. Both LE&I and forest
management personnel have worked together to accomplish the
following objectives related to timber theft:
--Development of timber theft training modules for prevention/
detection, basic investigation, advanced investigation and
management.
--Instituted reporting timeframes and documentation requirements when
undesignated timber has been cut/removed.
--Law enforcement personnel are now a required part of any activity
review or log accountability audit team.
--Improved overall coordination efforts between timber personnel and
law enforcement to enhance prevention efforts and establish
protocols for reporting and information exchange.
--We have ensured a strong prevention and detection program through
use of our law enforcement officers by incorporating timber
sale and log yard visits into their regular enforcement
activities.
--Issued direction on procedures to ensure debarment and suspension
referrals are completed.
Question 49. What is the status of the Agency's long
promised comprehensive timber theft prevention and training
program?
Answer. The training program is currently being reviewed by
timber and law enforcement personnel in all Regions and the
Washington Office. Replies are due within the next few weeks
and then the program will be finalized.
Question 50. Have all aspects of the program been presented
at both timber and law enforcement meetings?
Answer. Although the program has not been finalized, two
modules have been presented to line officers and law
enforcement personnel. The program is structured so modules are
presented to the applicable audience. Not all areas of the
program will be used with each group.
Question 51. What experts are being used to present these
training sessions?
Answer. A Forester, currently assigned to LE&I has
presented the two modules thus far. Future plans are to have
forest management and law enforcement provide instructors for
their respective sections of the modules. In most cases, the
material will be taught by a team made up of both disciplines.
As part of a recent timber theft conviction in Washington
State, damage to resources was assessed at $850,000.
Question 52. What resources are available to the Timber and
Law Enforcement programs to assure a consistent nationwide
assessment of damages in timber theft cases?
Answer. For clarification, the damage assessment of
$850,000 is what the Forest Service determined to be the dollar
value of the resource damage. Sentencing has not occurred in
this case, so it is unknown what the judgement against the
defendant will be. The most consistent and professional
approach the Forest Service can take, is to have damage
assessments performed by the local ecologist, biologist, timber
specialist, etc., since they possess the technical and
scientific expertise for the affected land base and associated
economic/sociological characteristics. Forest Management and
Law Enforcement must establish the procedure(s) to be used for
resource damage assessment and disseminate it to investigators
and the above mentioned resource experts in the field.
forestland management
The Administration proposes a timber sell level of 3.4
billion board feet in fiscal year 1999. This figure represents
a steady decline since 1990 when the volume offered was over 11
billion board feet.
Question 53. If the funds were provided how much additional
volume could the Forest Service prepare?
Answer. The agency has the potential to prepare
approximately 400 million board feet of timber for sale in
fiscal year 1999. It is not certain that all of the volume
could be offered for sale by the end of fiscal year 1999,
because of the late start on preparing this volume.
Question 54. To achieve this level, how much additional
funding would be required?
Answer. It would require additional funding of $38 million
in Timber Sales Management and $10 million in Road Construction
for engineering support of road design to prepare the
additional 400 million board feet of timber.
Question 55. Of this additional volume how much might be
affected by the proposed roadless area moratorium?
Answer. The Chief proposed a draft interim rule suspending
the reconstruction or construction of roads in roadless areas
for 18 months, which was published in the Federal Register on
January 28, 1998. To date this rule has not been finalized and
is not in affect. If the proposed interim rule were finalized
and implemented as published in the January 28, 1998 Federal
Register prior to the beginning of fiscal year 1999, then it
would not be prudent for the agency to propose additional sales
in areas likely to be suspended. Therefore, the additional
volume should not be affected by the proposed suspension.
Question 56. What impact has the dramatic change in Forest
Service personnel had in recent years on the agency's ability
to produce the modest amount of timber it has promised but in
some cases failed to deliver?
Answer. The dramatic change in Forest Service personnel in
recent years has decreased the both the number and experience
level of field personnel. Both of these factors have slowed the
completion of field work.
Question 57. The Senate version of the fiscal year 1998
supplemental contains approximately $4.828 million for the
Routt blowdown within the national forest system appropriation.
What portion of these funds is directly attributable to removal
of timber or to access this salvage volume?
Answer. None of the funds provided in the fiscal year 1998
Supplemental appropriation are for the removal of the blowdown
timber. Timber removal will be charged to the Salvage Sale
Fund. The fiscal year 1998 Supplemental did provide funding in
the National Forest System appropriation for road maintenance
to open roads made impassable by the storm. This maintenance
will benefit all road uses, which includes timber, but is not
directly attributable to access the salvage.
Question 58. What volume of timber is estimated to be on
the ground and accessible for harvest as a result of the
blowdown, and what is the agency timetable for removal of this
volume?
Answer. The volume on the ground and available for harvest
(outside Mount Zirkel Wilderness) is estimated to be 53 million
board feet. It is estimated that 43 million board feet will be
harvested in fiscal year 1998 and an additional 10 million
board feet in fiscal year 1999.
Question 59. Is the removal of this volume affected by the
roadless area moratorium?
Answer. The Chief proposed a draft interim rule suspending
the reconstruction or construction of roads in roadless areas
for 18 months, which was published in the Federal Register on
January 28, 1998. To date this rule has not been finalized and
is not in affect. According to the draft interim rule road
projects in roadless areas on the Routt NF would be exempt from
the suspension. This results from the Routt NF having a signed
Record of Decision revising the land and resource management
plan on which the administrative appeals process under 36 CFR
Part 217 is underway. It is felt that issues related to road
construction in roadless areas will be addressed in the appeal
decision, when appropriate. Therefore, if the interim rule were
finalized and implemented as published in the January 28, 1998,
Federal Register, then the blowdown volume on the Routt would
be exempt from the rule.
Question 60. Are agency salvage sale resources sufficient
to access this volume?
Answer. Yes, there are sufficient salvage sale fund
resources to access this volume.
Question 61. Does the Forest Service actively intend to
harvest available downed timber? If so, in what year?
Answer. Yes, the Forest Service plans to actively harvest
the available downed timber. It is estimated that 80 percent
will offered for sale in fiscal year 1998 and the remaining 20
percent in fiscal year 1999.
Question 62. What road construction/reconstruction must
occur to access this volume?
Answer. Nineteen miles of reconstruction is needed to
provide safe access into the sale area. The work includes
drainage improvements; adding turnouts; spot surfacing and
widening; resurfacing; regraveling; minor realignment; and
clearing. This work will allow safe access throughout the area
with the increased logging traffic and will allow multiple
sales to be offered simultaneously. It is estimated that five
miles of new road construction is needed to provide adequate
access.
The timber sale contract has been under consideration for
revision for more than 10-years.
Question 63. What is the status of the planned contract
revision?
Answer. It is currently being prepared for advertisement in
the Federal Register as a proposed rule. This proposal in now
in the Department for clearance.
Question 64. What consideration has been given to proposing
innovative new methods of timber sale contracting which would
include provisions for providing logs timber [sic] for services
to accomplish watershed restoration projects.
Answer. Identification and evaluation of new ways of
accomplishing national forest vegetative management goals,
including those relating to watershed restoration, was launched
in the summer of 1996. The decision to begin this
``reinvention'' process was prompted by a growing recognition
of three things: (1) the need to treat national forest
vegetation in some areas to achieve ecosystem protection and
restoration goals; (2) the fact that our traditional tools for
implementing desired vegetative treatments--i.e., timber sale
and service contracts--have serious drawbacks, especially when
it comes to treating low-valued material; and (3) the
likelihood that future appropriations for performing needed
ecosystem protection and restoration work will require improved
program efficiency and effectiveness.
To help provide public input, a national scoping session
was held in Washington, DC, during October 1996. Based on the
input that was received, five objectives were established.
These are: (1) to explore new ways of accomplishing needed
vegetative treatments more effectively and efficiently; (2) to
explore new ways of accomplishing needed vegetative treatments
with minimal need for increased appropriations; (3) to
demonstrate the role of vegetative management in proper
resource stewardship; (4) to demonstrate the role that
ecosystem protection and restoration activities can play in
helping to sustain rural communities; and (5) to demonstrate
the advantages of collaborative stewardship.
In the summer of 1997, Bob Joslin, Deputy Chief for the
National Forest System, asked the Regional Foresters to
identify projects for ``pilot-testing'' possible new ways of
doing business. A total of 52 nominations were received. In
November of 1997, an interdisciplinary team reviewed the
proposals and recommended 23 projects, including at least one
from each region, for implementation. Projects were selected on
the basis of the following criteria: (1) ability to add to our
existing knowledge; (2) the potential to provide information of
broad applicability; (3) evidence of widespread public interest
and support; and (4) ability to implement one or more of the
Chief's resource priorities--i.e., improving forest and
rangeland ecosystem health, improving water quality and
quantity, promoting responsible recreation use, riparian
restoration, and promoting partnerships.
The proposed pilots evaluate a wide variety of new
processes and procedures within a range of different settings,
including some urban interface areas. While some of the
projects can be carried-out within our existing legislative
authorities, consistent with the spirit of reinvention, others
would require temporary supplemental authorities to be
implemented as planned. One of these authorities, as this
question suggests, would be the ability to trade goods for
services.
The Forest Service has conducted extensive studies on
effective utilization of small diameter material throughout the
western states.
Question 65. What active projects have resulted from this
research? What specific sites have actually utilized small
diameter material in response to this research?
Answer. There have been a variety of studies conducted on
improving utilization of small diameter material. The research
has focused primarily on new or alternative products, tools and
strategies for harvesting small trees, and economics of product
and management options. This research is in various stages of
completion from analysis to technology transfer to on-the-
ground testing. Early results have been incorporated into a
model to help resource managers make decisions about how to
improve financial decisions when designing contracts for forest
operations. This model, Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem
Management Activities (FEEMA) is in the technology transfer
stage with scientists working with resource managers to
demonstrate how to use it. This model will help managers foster
cost-effective ecosystem-based activities regardless of whether
the management objective is improving forest conditions,
improving wildlife habitat or is a designated timber sale.
Several research projects have been conducted over the last
two years in cooperation with the Pacific Northwest Research
Station, the USDA Forest Products Laboratory, and other federal
and non-profit partners on the Applegate Adaptive Management
Area. To date, three independent wood products manufacturers
are using or planning to invest in technologies to utilize the
small diameter material.
The Limber Jim Fuels Reduction Management Experiment on the
La Grande Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest in Oregon investigated harvesting methods of small-
diameter material, and was completed in 1998. The primary
purpose of the fuel reduction efforts was to reduce small-
diameter forest fuels to create a shaded fuel break, which
would permit more effective forest fire fighting. Additionally,
three methods of removal of these materials were compared for
economic efficiency, stand damage, and wildlife impacts.
Technology transfer efforts are ongoing to encourage
utilization of this research. This project was conducted by the
Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute of the Pacific
Northwest Research Station and the La Grande Ranger District of
the Wallowa Whitman National Forest in cooperation with several
partner organizations.
In northern Idaho and Montana, research by our USDA Forest
Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisc., showed that mechanical
grading lumber from small diameter lodgepole pine and grand fir
substantially improved grade yield of structural products.
Several mills in these areas are now considering implementing
this technology to more efficiently handle small diameter logs.
In Arizona and Colorado studies have been conducted on the
structural use of 4-to 6-inch of ``round-wood'' for
applications such as rustic round trusses, space frame pole
structures, picnic shelters, bridges, and for other structural
buildings. Research efforts are focusing on overcoming the
technical barriers, such as grading systems to meet building
codes and better understanding the variation of round material
versus sawn lumber.
In the Southwest the Forest Products Laboratory has
initiated a project with glue-laminated manufacturers regarding
the use small diameter ponderosa pine as decking for timber
bridges. A manufacturer is producing a demonstration product
for evaluation and testing.
Last year's Interior Appropriations bill included language
that amended the Forest Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(FRCSRA). The amendment requires the Forest Service to issue
regulations governing our log export laws no later than June 1,
1998.
Question 66. Can you tell us the status of these
regulations and if you are going to meet the June 1 deadline?
Answer. The revisions of the Export Regulations required by
the 1998 Appropriations Act are being reviewed by the Office of
the General Council. We plan on publishing the proposed
revision of the rule in July.
The method by which the agency accounts for timber sale
accomplishment differs from region to region.
Question 67. What is the agency position on potential
direction from the Committee that it account for timber sale
accomplishments by volume sold as opposed to volume offered?
Answer. The Forest Service can track sold volume and/or
offered volume. By tracking sold volume for accountability,
emphasis is placed upon developing environmentally sound
economical sale packages.
Congress directed the agency to conduct a nationwide study
comparing tree measurement and scaled sale methods for selling
timber.
Question 68. What specific actions have taken place on the
recommendations from this report?
Answer. The study, directed by Congress, comparing tree
measurement and scaling has been submitted to Congress. Many of
the suggestions were already part of the standard regional
practices. The report indicated that there are advantages to
each method of measurement depending on the situation. The
Washington Office has asked the Regions to evaluate the report
and make recommendations on how the suggestions might be
implemented. The replies are due next month.
systems management
The agency has committed to having fully functioning and
manageable data relative to real property maintenance in the
``infrastructure'' data base by the end of fiscal year 1999.
The Subcommittee expects the agency to comply with this
commitment.
Question 69. Are regional and forest unit managers fully
cognizant of the agency commitment to this deferred maintenance
system?
Answer. The Chief has delivered his agenda to the Congress,
the Department, and the Forest Service employees. Along with
the Chief's message, the Chief Operations Officer and all
Deputy Area directors have been stressing the importance of
being able to easily gather credible information that can be
shared with others in a timely manner. A significant commitment
is to address deferred maintenance for facilities and roads and
this message is being strongly delivered to the field units.
Currently, Forest Service specialists are meeting to accurately
describe what deferred maintenance is. Given agreement on basic
data requirements and definitions, ``infrastructure'' will then
capture the information required.
Question 70. Is the agency on schedule in terms of systems
modifications and definitions that must occur in order to fully
handle the deferred maintenance information in
``infrastructure''.
Answer. Yes. The agency is working diligently on
definitions, clarifications, and agreement with the different
program areas in the Forest Service and the Forest Service is
seeking standardization with other land based agencies to
ensure a common understanding of the definitions. The Agency is
on a short and intense course of action to gain agreement on
deferred maintenance definitions. The first version of the
``infrastructure'' system that will handle deferred maintenance
information using the new definitions is scheduled to be
fielded in fiscal year 1999.
Question 71. Once operational, will system be able to
generate complete national reports which identifies the amount
of backlog for all forest service facilities, including roads,
bridges, trails, buildings and recreational facilities?
Answer. Once fielded in January, 1999, the system will be
able to store maintenance needs for these facilities. There
will be some lag before the data is collected through condition
surveys, and entered into the system. Some data is now on hand
from recent inspections that can be entered into the system
immediately. It will most likely be several years before a
complete cycle of condition surveys and data entry will occur.
Before data entry and condition surveys are completed, the
currently available data can be used to make better estimates
for the total deferred maintenance backlog for each facility
type. The system will be able to sum deferred maintenance by
facility type and provide information for national reports.
The Bureau of Land Management is implementing an Automated
Land and Minerals Reporting System (ALMRS) which will provide
resource information on a national basis from any location
within BLM.
Question 72. Does the agency have plans to implement a
similar system with comparative accessibility?
Answer. Yes. The Forest Service will implement the
automated lands project (ALP). This will enable both agencies
to access each others data in a seamless manner.
Question 73. What effort is the agency making to assure
that resource management information systems are fully
compatible with BLM?
Answer. There is a joint Forest Service/BLM team designing
the required data elements to assure interagency compatibility
in accordance with Federal Geodetic Data Committee standards.
forest service administration
USDA has acquired the Foundation Financial Information
system (FFIS) for use Department-wide. The agency recently
announced plans to delay implementation of the system for an
additional year.
Question 74. A February 1998 report by GAO states that FFIS
is not year 2000 compliant. Will this cause problems with
implementation?
Answer. No. A year 2000 compliant version of FFIS will be
installed at the National Finance Center, New Orleans,
Louisiana, during June/July, 1998.
Question 75. How will implementation of FFIS affect the
agency organization? Will additional FTE's be required to
manage the system effectively?
Answer. FFIS implementation has significantly impacted
units currently piloting the new system. In addition, more
staffing has been assigned to the Agency FFIS project team.
There has been moderate impact on the remainder of the Agency
as individuals are trained in the use of FFIS and as units
prepare for data conversion from the current Central Accounting
System (CAS) to FFIS. Additional FTE's will be required in
other Agency units as they begin to implement FFIS. The need
for these additional FTE's is currently being assessed and
prioritized with the intent to have needed positions advertised
and filled within the next 60-75 days.
Question 76. Based on test results, GAO states that the
system had significant problems in terms of using FFIS
information for budgetary and accounting report generation.
Will this problem be rectified before the system goes ``on-
line?''
Answer. Yes. FFIS is currently operating on-line within FS
Regions 6, 10 and the Pacific Northwest Research Station. The
Agency is rapidly addressing reporting issues so that Regions
6, 10, and the Pacific Northwest Research Station may determine
their funds status for fiscal year 1998. An alternative
approach is currently being reviewed for the production of
necessary reports which will involve the use of an FFIS
reporting module.
Question 77. In light of the plan to delay implementation,
is the agency considering different accounting systems that
could provide better reliability?
Answer. Based on experience gained in preparation for
implementing FFIS, the Agency does not believe it would be
feasible to implement another new accounting system before the
Agency-wide implementation of FFIS. FFIS is anticipated to be
implemented Agency-wide on October 1, 1999. The remaining FS
units, i.e., other than Regions 6, 10 and the Pacific Northwest
Research Station, will continue to use the Central Accounting
System (CAS) currently located at the USDA National Finance
Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Maintenance of accurate
financial information will continue to be emphasized Agency-
wide . This emphasis will also facilitate conversion to FFIS.
Significant changes may occur in agency budget structure
due to implementation of GPRA and as a result of recently
announced plans to reorganize.
Question 78. Will FFIS be able to accommodate these changes
while the system is being implemented.
Answer. Yes. FFIS can accommodate a wide variety of options
involving budget and cost reporting structures which will
provide support for the Agency to fully implement the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
deferred maintenance
During the House hearing on agency deferred maintenance,
the Forest Service committed to examining the efficiency and
regulatory compliance of its housing program.
Question 79. What steps is the agency taking to address
what is clearly poor utilization of employee housing?
Answer. The Forest Service has taken the following steps to
address employee housing:
--Notifying tenants, except those in barracks, that we are reviewing
all quarters to determine if the quarters are necessary to meet
Forest Service needs;
--Utilizing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11
criteria for decisions regarding new construction and reduction
of existing quarters;
--Converting quarters to other uses when there is a need;
--Reporting to our Lands Staff, for exchange, all quarters on
administrative sites that have been vacant for over a year as
well as those quarters that are not occupied by Forest Service
employees;
--Surveying all the remaining quarters and identify for disposal
those that are not required for service or protection or where
there is available housing (OMB Circular A-11);
--Documenting the survey and reasons for keeping each unit; and
--Ensuring that the reduction of quarters is consistent with any
existing or proposed organizational changes.
Question 80. When will the agency take aggressive steps to
eliminate unused housing?
Answer. We have taken aggressive steps as indicated in our
response to question 79. We will continue to monitor the survey
and disposal progress.
Question 81. The agency's records indicate that quarters
collections totaled $6.9 million in fiscal year 1997. How does
this compare to the present estimated cost of bringing housing
to current standards for condition and maintenance?
Answer. Industry operation and maintenance costs range from
2 percent to 4 percent of current replacement value. Our annual
quarters rental collections (less than 1 percent of current
replacement value of all improvements) are expended on
immediate maintenance needs and do not reduce the backlog.
Question 82. Has the agency considered renting unused
employee housing to private parties as residences when such
housing will not be utilized for agency purposes? If not, why
not?
Answer. We have permitted the use of a small number of our
housing units and will continue to do so where the housing is
vacant now but is needed for future programs.
There are several reasons why we do not want to ``rent''
unused housing to private parties:
--We do not want to, nor do we believe we should, compete with the
private sector;
--We wish to a avoid the liability and risk that comes with having
private citizens living at Government compounds and work
centers;
--We do not have the people or time to manage a private housing
program;
--We wish to avoid the disruption to Forest Service operations that
would come from having private citizens living at Forest
Service sites; and
--We do not believe that, in general, the ``rents'' collected would
be adequate to maintain the structures, to make necessary
upgrades, to provide a reasonable return on investment, and to
pay the costs of managing the program.
Question 83. A March 17, 1998, USDA OIG report states that
the management of maintenance could be significantly enhanced
the GPRA strategic plan specifically provided emphasis. Does
the agency intend to implement this finding?
Answer. The Forest Service GPRA Strategic Plan contains an
objective under the ``Provide Multiple Benefits'' goal that is
focused on maintaining an effective infrastructure. This Plan
was submitted to the Congress and OMB on September 30, 1997.
That revision will include language to focus on the improvement
of infrastructure maintenance. The fiscal year 2000 Performance
plan is being revised to include performance indicators that
target a reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog. The
current and fiscal year 1999 performance plans contain
performance indicators relating to the improvement of road,
trail, and building maintenance.
Question 84. Has the agency developed standardized
definitions for deferred maintenance which will be used in the
``infrastructure'' data base?
Answer. We are now developing standard definitions for use
in the various program areas. The Forest Service definitions
are based upon the definitions put forth by the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board in their Statement No. 6 of
June 1996. The various program areas (recreation, roads, dams,
etc.) will incorporate the definitions into specific direction
to the field, and develop guidance for implementation. The Work
Items module of the ``infrastructure'' data base is being
modified to accept data based upon the standard definitions.
The modified INFRA system is scheduled for release to the field
in January of 1999.
Question 85. How do these definitions compare to those used
by the Department of the Interior?
Answer. The Forest Service is coordinating with the
Department of Interior striving to make our definitions
consistent.
The Forest Service does not perform all of its maintenance
activities from the Infrastructure Management line item.
Question 86. What is the agency's position regarding
consolidating all recreation maintenance activities into this
line item?
Answer. The Forest Service supports changes to its budget
structure that provide more flexibility and accountability to
managers on the ground to address resource management needs.
The backlog of maintenance work for trails, roads, and fire,
recreation, administrative, and other facilities is at several
hundred million dollars. Consolidating all recreation
maintenance activities--recreation facilities and trails
maintenance--into the Infrastructure Management budget line
item could serve to more effectively highlight and increase
understanding of the budgetary issues associated with
infrastructure maintenance. However, consolidating these
activities in a manner that provides less budgetary flexibility
to managers, such as the creation of unnecessary expanded
budget line items, would be counterproductive. Instead, a more
comprehensive, both to provide additional visibility to budget
issues, along with flexibility and more accountability for
local forest managers may be more efficient. The Administration
is analyzing options and looks forward to working with the
Committee on these questions.
road construction moratorium
The Forest Service implemented a roads policy with one
component being a proposed moratorium on road construction in
roadless areas. Forest Service estimates are that this
moratorium will reduce the fiscal year 1999 timber sales
program by 100 million board feet. I fear the Administration
may be under-estimating the long term impacts of the
moratorium.
Question 87. The committee assumes work has ceased on
development work on projects in roadless areas pending
completion of the 18 month ``time out'' period. Assuming your
line officers are doing exactly that, isn't it true that
several years could elapse before these sales are brought back
on line?
Answer. The assumption that work has already ceased is not
correct. The final rule has not been published nor implemented.
In addition, the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System
issued the following direction on April 2, 1998 to clarify the
concern you have.
As you are aware, the Forest Service published a Proposed
Interim Rule in the Federal Register on January 28, 1998. The
interim rule will not be final until public comments are
evaluated, and a final rule is published in the Federal
Register. This is at least a month or more from now.
We are aware that some line officers have canceled projects
in response to the draft proposal. I want to emphasize that the
Federal Register announcement makes it clear that this rule
will not be effective until the date of publication of the
final interim rule. The chief wrote to the Forest Supervisor's
recommending the following:
``There are many good reasons to cancel, modify, or
lengthen the planning process for projects proposed in roadless
areas. You should continue to use your best judgement about
what projects should go forward and what projects should be
cancelled. However, I remind you that you should not use the
draft interim rule, nor the anticipation of a final rule, as a
reason to cancel or delay continued analysis or decisionmaking
for projects.''
It is anticipated that once the interim rule is finalized
any project subject to the suspension will need to be analyzed
in light of new transportation analysis process before it can
be implemented. This will cause some delay.
trail reconstruction/construction program
The fiscal year 1999 budget request reflects a reduction in
trail reconstruction/construction of $14.3 million. The
justification further states that $15 million of the program
will be funded from the Road and Trail fund.
Question 88. How will the agency increase its attention to
reducing backlog if it reduces requests in appropriated funds
in favor of offsets against other funds?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, we propose funding the Trail
Reconstruction and Construction program from both Appropriated
(CNTR) funds at $13.2 million, and from the 10 percent Road and
Trail Fund (10 percent R&T) for $15 million, for a total of
$28.2 million, a total increase of $1 million from fiscal year
1998 of $27.3 million in Appropriated CNTR funds. The 10
percent R&T will be used for the same activities as the CNTR
funds, and on the national forests in the States that generate
the receipts. The Appropriated dollars will be used to backfill
to bring the total on each forest up to the program level. To
determine the feasibility of this approach, we ran a test
allocation based on the fiscal year 1997 receipts by forest. If
the fiscal year 1997 receipt levels remain the same or increase
in fiscal year 1999, by State, it appears to be possible to
provide the for the trail reconstruction and construction
program levels between the two funds. This program level of a
combined $28.2 would include addressing some of the backlog
trail miles.
forest service accountability
Senator Gorton noted in his hearing remarks, that the
General Accounting Office gave a very strong indictment of the
agency's commitment to improving decision making and
efficiency, and tracking its finances.
Question 89. Does the Forest Service plan to fix the
serious problems noted by GAO? If so, what are the specifics?
Answer. The GAO report discussed significant resource and
financial management deficiencies within the Forest Service
(FS), including: inadequate attention to improving the Agency's
decision-making process; an inability to improve accountability
for performance; a lack of agreement within the Agency on how
to portray long term strategic goals; an inability to address
issues that transcend administrative boundaries and
jurisdictions; an inability to operate under the differences in
environmental statutory requirements; slow progress in taking
aggressive actions to correct deficiencies; and a lack of
integration among national processes, data structures, systems
and information. These are major challenges. While the Agency
acknowledges that there is much work yet to be done, a good
start in implementing long-needed changes has been completed.
A Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda (Agenda) has
recently been announced to help with these changes. The Agenda
focuses special attention on four key emphasis areas: watershed
health and restoration, sustainable forest ecosystem
management, forest roads, and recreation, and is a clear
expression of direction--direction that is supported strongly
by the American people and that will be implemented in strict
accordance with the law. One of the issues facing the Agency is
the tradition of trying to do everything and failing to set a
clear set of priorities. This has led to some questionable
decision-making and failure to implement some projects,
particularly those that are complex and contentious. The Agenda
will give a more focused direction and priorities to FS
employees over the next few years.
The Agenda is being implemented through the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) process. GPRA is an
extremely useful tool for linking the Agency mission to
appropriate strategies and results. Priorities set by this
Agenda will be reflected in appropriate GPRA goals, objectives
and performance measures. Further, specific GPRA performance
measures are being linked to individual standards for FS line
officers.
Significant improvements are being made in the area of
financial management and accountability. The Agency continues
to take aggressive action to ensure that the FS becomes one of
the most efficient agencies in the Federal Government. While
much work is yet to be done, the Agency has made a good start
in implementing long-needed changes.
In conjunction with the USDA Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and
the USDA National Finance Center (NFC), the FS is working
towards implementing a new general ledger system called the
Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS). Consistent with
this joint effort, a pilot project to implement FFIS in several
FS regions is currently under way. While progress is being
made, implementation issues are being managed continuously. As
FFIS is implemented, FS financial management requirements will
be modified as appropriate and opportunities will be identified
where Congress, in its authorizing and appropriations
processes, can help the Agency achieve a strong and accountable
financial management system.
Additionally, the Coopers and Lybrand accounting firm was
commissioned to review the Agency's financial management
situation. Their report, released in March, makes
recommendations on streamlining and clarifying financial
management systems. These recommendations are being carefully
reviewed and appropriate action taken to strengthen financial
management in the Forest Service.
columbia basin studies
This Subcommittee has major reservations about the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Study. When the Forest Service first
undertook this effort with the Bureau of Land Management,
Congress was assured that planning over large areas such as the
Columbia Basin would promptly result in making final land
management decisions. Now, due largely to the Endangered
Species Act requirements for consultation with other regulatory
agencies; namely the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, it appears the Columbia Basin study
is little more than a bureaucratic process that will be
followed by an additional cumbersome local forest planning
process. This seems terribly inefficient. Once again it appears
the Forest Service is affected by analysis paralysis.
Question 90. What effort can be made by the Administration
to rein in these regulatory agencies, so the analysis will only
occur at one level or the other?
Answer. An Executive Steering Committee was developed by
the Director of the BLM and Chief of the Forest Service to
manage the project. The committee is composed of the BLM State
Directors from Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Montana;
Regional Directors of the National Marine Fisheries Service, US
Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency;
Forest Service Station Directors from the Pacific Northwest
Research Station and the Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station and the Forest Service Regional Foresters
from the Pacific Northwest, Northern and Intermountain Regions.
This Committee is working hard with a broad array of
governments including 100 counties and 22 tribes, partners; and
interested groups and individuals to carry out a very complex
task because of the issues and size of the area involved. They
are striving to find a way to balance the statutory
responsibilities of five federal agencies with the needs of
State and local government and demands of industries and
conservationists, and the desire of an even broader array of
individuals and groups.
Question 91. In order to move this process forward, does
the Forest Service plan to reduce substantially or eliminate
requirements for local unit planning following issuance of the
final EIS?
Answer. The project decisions will lay out the conditions
for future management to assure sustainable populations of
species across the planning area. It will provide the framework
for future management. It will create consistency regarding
broad scale issues being integrated into forest and resource
management plans, creating a better expectation for goods and
services to be provided from our public lands. Although we
won't know for certain until a decision is made, we anticipate
that the ICBEMP ROD will identify broad scale desired future
conditions for vegetation, road management conditions, aquatic/
terrestrial strategies, and some management prescriptions. If
this were to happen, the need to address these types of broad
scale concerns at the project level would be eliminated.
Question 92. What impact will the plan have on local land
managers ability to make important management decisions in a
prompt and efficient manner?
Answer. One of the purposes of the Project is to provide a
broad scale framework for local land managers to make local
decisions promptly and efficiently. With this framework,
managers will be able to focus on local issues and not expend
time and energy on issues that they can not resolve at their
level. For example, the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD)
will contain direction concerning conservation and restoration
of aquatic systems. When followed, it will provide assurances
to local managers that their actions are contributing to the
restoration of aquatic species and not a continuing decline.
This project has become too grand in concept, especially if
local planning efforts must continue. If Congress continues to
authorize this project, this Subcommittee expects the Forest
Service and the Department of Interior to make it more
streamlined and focused.
Question 93. What are the decisions that absolutely must be
made at the Basin level, and what other aspects of the study
can be eliminated?
Answer. The project will be revisiting this question in
developing the Final EIS and ROD. There may be decisions that
can be deferred and are more appropriately made at other
levels. Our intent would be to identify these issues and as
part of the decision for this Project, describe how and when
they would be addressed.
At a minimum, the Project must replace interim direction,
specifically PACFISH and INFISH. There are two court decisions
(Prairie Wood Products et. al. v. Glickman et. al. and Friends
of the Wild Swan et. al. v. U.S. Forest Service et. al.) that
expect the Project to replace the interim strategies with a
long-term strategy.
In previous testimony the Forest Service stated that
through this process it would prevent future endangered species
listings; but it appears that species listings is moving right
along, including Steelhead, Bulltrout, the Lynx and others. The
agency doesn't seem to be succeeding.
Question 94. Will a final record of decision prevent
further endangered species listings?
Answer. It is certainly our intention to build into the
Final EIS and ROD the necessary analysis and direction to avoid
the need to list additional species where all or a major
portion of the species population resides on federal lands.
Furthermore, it is our intention to provide the necessary
direction to ensure that no listing of additional species occur
as a result of management actions on Forest Service and BLM
lands. This intent is clearly written into the goals for the
Project. The information and analysis prepaid for the Project
will allow State and local officials throughout the Basin in
their decisions over a multi-state region.
Question 95. What will it take in the record of decision to
accomplish this goal?
Answer. By implementing the Final EIS and ROD, it is our
intent to avoid further listings on federal lands.
Question 96. What is the impact of the plan on private
property?
Answer. Decisions made in the Final EIS and Record of
Decisions will not apply to private or other non-federal lands.
Decisions made by the Project will only apply to the 72 million
acres of Forest Service-or BLM-administered land within the
project area. How those lands are managed could affect other
lands; just as current management of federal lands affects
other lands, and private management affects federally
administered lands.
It is our intent that the aggressive restoration strategies
of the preferred alternative positively affect other lands
through, for example, a reduction in the occurrence of
uncharacteristic wildfire and more systematic and aggressive
treatment of noxious weeds.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal
land managers look at both how they might affect surrounding
lands as well as how management on those lands might affect
federal lands. Chapter 4 of the draft statement outlines what
those possible cumulative effects might be.
The Columbia Basin Study has been extremely expensive, with
the BLM and Forest Service spending over $15 million on the
study alone and estimating the need for $125 million to
implement the plan.
Question 97. To what degree is success of the plan
dependent on these agencies receiving the funding increases
requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget?
Answer. The funding increase requested in the President's
1999 budget is the amount of the funding needed to begin
implementation of the plan in the last quarter of fiscal year
1999. That funding increase is based on the preferred
alternative (Alternative 4) in the draft statement. Between the
draft and the final statement, we expect there will be changes
made to Alternative 4 and that implementation funding may need
to be recalculated.
If full funding does not occur, we will still be able to
implement the plan with the funding the agencies do receive.
However, the rate of implementation will be decreased
appropriately. Receiving less than full funding will make it
harder to achieve the Desired Range of Future Conditions called
for in the plan. There will be a higher risk of more severe
wildfires, reduced activity levels, and fewer restoration
associated jobs. Reduced funding would also affect the
predictability of goods and services from federal lands within
the project area
Question 98. Does the plan have any tangible benefit if the
agency is held at or below fiscal year 1998 levels?
Answer. Yes. There are at least three tangible benefits.
First, land managers will know at the broad scale where they
can invest the funding they get and make a difference, from
both a biological and social/economic standpoint. In other
words, they will have information that allows them to
prioritize how money is spent in order to get the greatest
return on their investment, or said another way, the biggest
bang from their buck.
Second, this landscape strategy will better position the
land management agencies, both Federal and State, to compete
for watershed and fish/wildlife habitat restoration dollars
from other funding sources. Having a strategy that shows how
project level work can contribute to restoration of fish and
wildlife or improvement of water quality throughout the Basin
could be an effective tool for developing partnerships and
obtaining additional restoration funding. Also, local officials
and non-profit organizations can target key lands for land
improvement or protection to support land and community
development efforts.
Lastly, the current interim direction will be replaced with
a long-term strategy meeting the expectations of the courts.
See answer to question No. 93.
Question 99. What would be the consequences of not
finishing this study and not issuing a record of decisions?
Answer. Management of BLM or Forest Service administered
lands would be vulnerable to legal injunctions. Interim
strategies (such as PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside Screens)
would be vulnerable to lawsuits since recent court rulings (see
answer for S-093) expect the Project to replace the interim
strategies with a long-term strategy. Without a long-term
strategy, endangered species consultations on land management
plans for Snake River sockeye and spring/summer and fall
chinook salmon would be moot, and the agency would be exposed
to the same vulnerability to wide-ranging injunctions.
Resolution of these injunctions would likely be difficult
because of the lack of a consistent strategy for species
protection across the range.
The release of the Project's scientific reports creates a
situation where the BLM and National Forests must show they
have taken the new information into account in their decisions
on individual projects (like timber sales) or on updates to
their land use plans. For the latter, there will need to be a
consistent interpretation of the information, or the agencies
will be exposed to legal challenges based on eventual
inconsistencies of using the science. The risk of inconsistent
interpretation of the science can be avoided by completing the
EISs and issuing a Record of Decision.
Question 100. What value will the science conducted to this
point in developing the DEIS have if the project is terminated?
Answer. The science conducted thus far adds to our overall
understanding of the biological systems we manage and the
social and economic systems that depend on them. The science
portion of the Project has developed three major pieces of
work: A Framework for Ecosystem Management, the Integrated
Assessment, and An Assessment of Ecosystem Components. These
documents bring together the most current information on
biological, social and economic conditions within the interior
Columbia Basin, and in particular information important to
federal land management. The primary focus of the science
effort has been at the Basin scale so federal land managers
could develop strategies to address basin-wide problems.
The Framework and the Science Assessment describe the
biological and social/economic risks and opportunities that
exist within the Basin. Managing the risks and opportunities is
the point of BLM and Forest Service management. In this sense
then the agencies have the opportunity to be more efficient and
effective in their management. The science will be valuable for
future decisions at multiple scales.
If the Project's Final EIS and ROD are not the decision
mechanism to address the broadest scale of risk and
opportunities, it leaves a void at this scale. This result
would leave as unsettled the issue of a strategy to manage
risks to listed fish species, old-growth dependent species, and
forest and rangeland health within the Basin.
Question 101. What factors contributed to the wide breadth
that this study is covering? Why is it addressing every issue
under the sun including those which would be addressed by local
forest plans?
Answer. The Project is focusing on a number of issues, such
as the viability of wide ranging wildlife and fish species and
forest and rangeland health, that transcend forest and BLM
district boundaries. We will not address those issues most
appropriately dealt with at the local level.
Question 102. Couldn't some of these issues be addressed in
different ways than through this massive analysis and thousands
of pages of material which is too complex for most people to
comprehend?
Answer. If it were not for some overarching issues like
forest health or managing anadromous fish populations, we might
be able to plan at a different level. However, as Judge Dwyer
pointed out in his ruling on the Northwest Forest Plan ``given
the current conditions of the forests, there is no way the
agencies could comply with the environmental laws without
planning on a ecosystem basis.'' Given this interpretation, we
believe such issues as forest health and anadromous fish
populations could not be effectively or efficiently addressed
by plan or project level decisions.
We will learn from this experience so that future landscape
and ecosystem plans will be more expeditious and cheaper to
complete. Also, the Project needed to establish a foundation or
resource conditions, which, apart from some timber health
measures, have not been systematically pursued in most forests.
This data will become part of the on-going survey data
collected by the federal agencies. This database will allow
future ecosystem plans (and forest plans in general) a giant
headstart.
county stabilization
On April 2, the Department of Agriculture forwarded to the
President draft legislation to establish a stabilized level of
payments to States for distribution to counties in which
National Forest are located. The Administration states that the
purpose of this legislation is to provide counties with a
predictable level of payments in lieu of the dramatic
reductions most counties have sustained over the past several
years.
Question 103. Is this proposal an Administration effort to
use the stabilization plan as a politically palatable way to
further reduce the planned timber cut from National Forests?
Answer. Implementation of the payments to States
stabilization proposal should have no effect on the timber sale
program. Decisions regarding the timber program will continue
to be made independently of the payments to States funding as
they have in the past.
This proposal does not have the support of local county
governments, which see it as a form of welfare that can't even
begin to compensate counties for the loss of an industry which
provided jobs in addition to reasonable levels of county
payments from federal receipts.
Question 104. How does the agency respond to this
criticism?
Answer. With revenue collections declining, States and
counties are receiving fewer and fewer dollars from the Federal
government. Payments to States funding has declined 35 percent
(from $361 million down to $233 million) since 1989. The
payments to States proposal will provide stabilized payment
levels independent of local employment issues. This
stabilization will provide local communities improved knowledge
of future payments, permitting better planning and enhanced
rural development efforts. Furthermore, this proposal will
provide a permanent replacement for the special payment
guarantee, which expires in 2003, for counties affected by the
northern spotted owl decisions.
forest service research
This Subcommittee was generous to the Forest Service
Research program in fiscal year 1998. In fact the program
received an increase of $8 million over the President's
request. In fiscal year 1999 the President's request calls for
an increase of $10 million.
Question 105. Is the Forest Service using these significant
increases to conduct research in areas that will actually
result in on-the-ground management that increases multiple use?
Answer. The primary strength of Forest Service Research &
Development is developing land management options for solving
complex forest and rangeland problems associated with multiple
use. A majority of our research program has as the ultimate
objective, options for on-the-ground multiple use management of
the diversity of natural resources on forest and rangelands in
the Nation.
The $8 million increase provided by the Subcommittee in
fiscal year 1998 is allocated for, and addresses the following
multiple uses:
--$1.6 million across all Research Stations and their programs to
partially cover fixed cost increases. $3.0 million to enhance
and conduct the on-the-ground Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) program. This funding was allocated as follows: Southern
Research Station ($2,000,000); Northeastern Station ($155,000);
North Central Station ($550,000); Rocky Mountain Station
($175,000) and Pacific Northwest Station ($120,000). The focus
of these funds is to expand the development of our annual
inventory system, which if completely funded and developed
should result in an FIA cycle averaging 5-years and to continue
to integrate our Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) system plots
with FIA as well as expanding the suite of data collected and
analyzed to provide a more complete understanding of ecological
conditions and trends in forest health. This inventory is the
primary source of information used by states, industry and the
Forest Service to assess current conditions and trends in the
nation's forest resources. While FIA focuses primarily on
inventorying the Nation's timber resources, it does inventory
other vegetative and habitat cover. The integrated FIA and FHM
system will further concentrate multiple use resources as well
as forest health.
--$1.0 million to Rocky Mountain Research Station: $700,000 to
address the need for effective and economically efficient ways
to reduce fuels and improve forest health within the
southwestern wildland/urban interface; and $300,000 to carry
out research studies to find applicable forest and rangeland
management treatments needed to restore forest health and ways
to monitor the effectiveness of these treatments. This research
supports the Forest Service Region 3 southwest wildland
ecosystem restoration project in AZ and NM.
--$500,000 to the North Central Research Station to enter into a
collaborative partnership with Purdue University, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, and private industry to
establish a Fine Hardwoods Tree Improvement and Regeneration
Center. The focus of the Center's research will be on finding
management techniques to curb the decline of fine quality
hardwood forests and improve forest health in the central
hardwoods region of the U.S.
--$450,000 to the Pacific Southwest Station to support the Institute
of Pacific Islands Forestry in Hawaii. These funds will support
studies aimed at: restoring and protecting Hawaii's native
forests to provide economic and environmental benefits;
controlling exotic plants that threaten Hawaii's native
forests; and providing effective management techniques to
manage and protect Hawaii's coastal wetland forests which
provide wood, clean water and aquatic resources for people.
--$1,500,000 to the Pacific Northwest Station to initiate long term
integrated studies to evaluate methods to improve management
compatibilities among multiple uses on Federal Lands. Through
new and existing studies they are focusing on key management
and economic issues that provide opportunities for producing
wood as-well-as create, restore, and maintain wildlife habitat,
biodiversity, watershed and aesthetic values.
The $10 million increase requested in the fiscal year 1999
President's budget also addresses needs of on-the-ground
management for multiple use.
$6.0 million across Stations for further expansion of the
annual inventory to move toward 5-year cycle of the Forest
Inventory and Analysis program and integrate and expand the
Forest Health Monitoring program on public and private lands of
the U.S.
$1.0 million to address information needs for implementing
the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(ICBEMP). Research will evaluate on-the-ground management
activities to better apply prescribed fire, modify grazing
systems, control noxious weeds, apply silvicultural treatments,
and find effective indicators that the Basin ecosystems remain
sustainable under the demands of various multiple uses.
$3.0 million to develop economically feasible and efficient
technology to help industry and the people of the U.S.
understand, adapt to, and mitigate the potential impacts of
climate change, i.e., how people can help reduce greenhouse
gasses and carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels;
and how people can help store carbon by using more durable and
longer lasting forest products in their homes and businesses.
Last year this Subcommittee provided an additional $1.5
million to the Pacific Northwest Research Station without
specific earmarks; only emphasizing the need to increase
emphasis on commodity outputs.
Question 106. How has that money been used for this
purpose?
Answer. Following the guidance of Senate language for the
fiscal year 1998 Appropriation, the $1.5 million has been used
to initiate long term integrated studies to evaluate ``improved
methods of increasing commodity production in an
environmentally acceptable manner.'' This is being accomplished
in collaboration with institutions such as the University of
Washington's Center for Streamside Studies and the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources through the Station's
Initiative: ``Compatibilities between wood production and other
forest values and uses on Federal Lands.'' Through new and
existing studies we are focusing on the key issues that provide
opportunities as well as remove barriers to producing wood
while creating or restoring wildlife habitat, biodiversity,
watershed and aesthetic values.
Additional funds were provided to study methods for
utilization of small diameter timber on the Colville National
Forest and to initiate a comprehensive small diameter
utilization study in Southeast Alaska.
Question 107. What is the status of these projects?
Answer. Significant research work is already underway in
Southeast Alaska, Western Washington, and Western Oregon to
address several key concerns of federal, state, and private
land managers. Work has been initiated to evaluate impacts of
alternative silvicultural treatments on wood quality in young
growth stands, particularly for upland riparian forests, a
topic of high priority for private industry in the Douglas-fir
region as well as the coastal western hemlock type. Modeling
capabilities are being accelerated to better link management
alternatives with desired outcomes at multiple scales. In
particular, forest vegetation simulation models are linked with
visualization and digital elevation modeling to address
commodity production while maintaining wildlife and anadromous
fish habitat. The necessary cooperative agreements with
regional universities are also being drawn up and expect to be
in place by beginning of fiscal year 1999.
Question 108. When can we expect to see on-the-ground
management results from these funds?
Answer. A complete Problem Analysis will be finished by the
end of this fiscal year (FY 1998). Where as most of fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999 will see completion of several
``synthesis'' types of products as a follow-up to the Problem
Analysis as well as initiation of work by the universities, the
bulk of the information will be summarized after 3 to 5 years.
However, we will complete some near term products (e.g., on
wood quality) that will be made available to land managers
early next year.
Question 109. How is the Chief personally involved in
setting priorities for the Research program that will
ultimately lead to increased multiple use management on the
ground?
Answer. The Chief sets his priorities for the Forest
Service organization. He has clearly set there priorities out
through the FS NRA and the Agency's Result Act (GPRA) strategic
plan and annual performance plan. He conveys these priorities
through continuous written and verbal dialogue with his Deputy
Chiefs and other top leadership team members. The Deputy Chief
for R&D has two major responsibilities relative to setting
priorities. One responsibility is to maintain constant dialogue
with the Chief and carry his messages and priorities to the
Research leadership, who are responsible for implementing these
priorities at the field level. A second responsibility for the
Deputy Chief is to convey to the Chief what Research leadership
views as science priorities. Scientists and Forest Service R&D
are responsible for staying at the cutting edge of science and
looking strategically ahead at what issues and problems may
occur in the future.
Beginning in fiscal year 1995, Research scientists provided
extensive support to revision of the Tongass Land Management
Plan in Alaska. Research support to the Alaska Region continues
today as post-plan activities are conducted. Based on findings
by GAO, the Forest Service was unable to document if Research
funds were used to support this effort; which would have been
improper. Despite agency direction in 1997 to strictly document
such jointly funded projects, GAO found that the agency's 1998
final budget allocation failed to comply with this requirement.
Question 110. Does the Forest service recommend that small
hydro projects be removed from the President's Forest Plan in
light of the fact that (1) Option 9 was designed for large-
scale forest management, not small hydro; (2) the Forest
Service is not acting on hydro matters; (3) the FERC has
jurisdiction to declare consistency with National Forest use;
and (4) Option 9 and the Federal Power Act cover much of the
same subject matter?
Answer. Since the completion of an audit by OIG in May,
1995, the Forest Service has worked diligently to respond to
the findings from the report. A complete copy of the audit
findings was provided to all Stations in July 1995. One of our
first accomplishments was based on Finding No. 3 ``Controls
Needed to Ensure Federal Procurement Regulations are Followed
for External Research Organizations,'' and Recommendation 3b of
the OIG Report, which directed research stations to document
the source of funds for cooperative agreements. The majority of
the issues identified has been accomplished by updating and
providing further guidance to project managers through the
Forest Service Manual and Handbooks, Interim Directives and
Management Reviews. In addition, Forest Service Research
provide guidance to the Stations in the Explanatory Notes and
Program Budget Advice. These systems in place serve as the
basis for internal management and control of Forest Service
Research programs and the primary source of administration
direction to all Agency employees.
Question 111. If the Forest Service does not recommend that
small hydro projects be removed from Option 9, what changes in
the Plan should be made to expedite approval of such projects
in a manner that does not penalize hydro developers?
Answer. All Research Stations have been directed to have in
place a procedure to document the source of funds for
cooperative agreements, as well as a process to review them for
proper authority. For example, we have established a procedure
and template form for documenting research and collaborative
agreements, which includes detailed instructions and examples.
Forest Service Research will continue to work on providing
the appropriate information and training to project managers to
further their understanding of appropriation law and the
authority that accompanies it.
In addition, as stated above, the Forest Service Manuals,
Interim Directives, Explanatory Notes, and the Program Budget
Advice provides guidance and directions for the entire Research
program.
Congress provided funds in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations process to study methods to utilize materials
removed during hazard reduction operations. This is
particularly important as urban population expands deeper into
forest lands.
Question 112. What is the status of these efforts?
Answer. The Joint Interagency Fire Science Program was
initiated in fiscal year 1998 to provide research, development,
and application support for expanded fuels management
activities on federal lands. Activities will include:
assessment of fuel hazard problems; ecological, environmental,
and socioeconomic effects of fuel management treatments;
strategies for treatment scheduling; and monitoring of
treatment effects. The Forest Service contribution to this
program is $4 million in fiscal year 1998 and proposed at $4
million in fiscal year 1999. This funding is part of the
Wildland Fire Management Fire Operations budget.
Question 113. How will the Forest Service apply these
efforts to actual on-the-ground activities?
Answer. The activities listed for the Fire Science Program
are intended to provide managers information, data, models, and
process for implementing the fuel management program. Of
particular importance is the prioritizing of projects and the
effects of treatment activities which will be used by local
mangers to determine a planned fuel management program and for
the allocation of budget and targets based on the assessment
and national priorities.
minerals and geology
In 1982, Congress authorized the Mount St. Helens National
Volume Monument. The exchange of surface and minerals with
private landowners was to be completed within a year after the
act was signed. However, approximately, 10,000 acres of private
minerals remain stranded in the monument area. Legislation has
been introduced that would complete this minerals exchange.
However, the Subcommittee prefers that this issue be worked out
between the agencies involved (Forest Service and BLM) and the
affected companies (Weyerhaeuser and Burlington Northern).
Question 114. What is the status of this issue?
Answer. Since 1982 we have been negotiating with
Weyerhaeuser and Burlington Resources (formally Burlington
Northern). We reached agreement on land and mineral exchanges
resulting in the acquisition of 27,106 acres of surface and
19,234 acres of subsurface interests within the Monument. The
most recent agreement was in 1991, when we acquired 18,051
acres of mineral and geothermal interests through exchange.
As evidenced by the previous accomplishments, we believe
that we can continue to operate as provided in the Act under
``voluntary exchange transaction'' as a means to acquire the
remaining 10,750 acres of mineral and geothermal interests.
We recently completed a new appraisal to estimate the
current market value of the remaining 10,750 acres.
We initiated negotiations on April 1, 1998, with both
companies in an attempt to reach agreement on the current
market value of the remaining non-federal subsurface interests.
Two follow-up negotiation meetings are scheduled during May
1998.
If accomplished, our objective will be to develop a final
exchange transaction as a means of acquiring these property
interests.
financial management
As part of the fiscal year 1998 Senate Appropriation Act
report language, the agency was directed to provide a status of
the Brush Disposal fund. In past years this analysis would
include the cost of Brush Disposal work to be performed so that
available cash on hand and to be collected could be compared to
the cost of performing the work. Maintaining information on the
cost of work to be performed has been discontinued.
Question 115. Why is this figure no longer reported?
Answer. Current direction to the Regions concerning
management and accountability of Brush Disposal funds has been
inadequate. In fiscal year 1998 the Forest Service has drafted
Handbook procedures to manage and account for Brush Disposal
funds similar to the procedures used for KV and Salvage Sale
Funds. This draft policy and procedures will be fully
implemented by October 1, 1998. As such, in fiscal year 1999
the Forest Service will be able to analyze the Brush Disposal
funds for each proclaimed National Forest to determine
available cash on hand and to be collected and compare these
costs to the actual costs of performing the work.
Question 116a. How does the agency know the full status of
its fund if it does not maintain this information?
Answer. The Forest Service has recognized its deficiencies
in the management and accountability of Brush Disposal Funds.
The new policy and procedures that will be issued in fiscal
year 1998 will improve the agency's management of these funds.
Question 116b. Is there a similar deficit of information
regarding KV funds?
Answer. No. KV funds can be analyzed for each proclaimed
National Forest to determine available cash on hand and to be
collected and compare these costs to the actual costs of
performing the work.
state and private forestry
Question 117. How will assumption of the Rural Community
Fire Protection program enhance services provided by the Forest
Service in overall Cooperative Fire Protection program?
Answer. Assumption of the RCFP program will increase
efficiency of overall program management by eliminating the
transfer of funds between two federal agencies. This should
decrease the administrative workload and allow maximum
allocation of dollars to the project level. By having
responsibility of the program budget and development, the
Forest Service will be more effective and efficient in planning
cooperative fire protection activities with States and rural
volunteer fire departments and determine assistance needs and
priorities. By accomplishing the program objectives of
assisting local fire departments to train, equip and organize,
the Forest Service will benefit through the increased
firefighting capability of its cooperators in the wildland
urban interface.
Question 118. To what extent are State and Private programs
involved in Agroforestry issues such as development of
specialty products such as mushrooms, ginseng, etc?
Answer. The National Agroforestry Center (NAC) which is co-
sponsored by State and Private Forestry, has developed and
distributed brochures on agroforestry and its relation to
agriculture on a very wide variety of topics. The NAC is
participating in the Enterprise Development Through
Agroforestry conference, October 4-7 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The primary purpose of this conference is to promote
agroforestry for the production of crops, including mushrooms,
ginseng and others. The NAC activities and programs are
technical transfer of materials to natural resource
professionals that deliver forest stewardship, urban forestry
and economic assistance programs to the general public.
Recently an ``Action Strategy'' was developed for the State
and Private Forestry program.
Question 119. How will this program change emphasis from
existing programs?
Answer. The emphasis on existing programs will not be
reduced. Several issues will have emphasis, such as sustainable
natural resources and communities, watershed issues, and
conditions; urban forest resources, forest information for
landowners and managers, and tribal government relations.
Question 120. How will this ``action strategy'' affect
future budget requests?
Answer. The ``action strategy'' draws from a number of
sources including the President's Clean Water Initiative, as
well, as the findings and recommendations of the November 1997
National Research Council Report ``Forested Landscapes in
Perspective: Prospects for Sustainable Management of America's
Non-federal Forests.'' This study was commissioned by the
Forest Service to assess the status of the nation's non-federal
forests and the role of the Federal Government in contributing
to sustainable management on non-federal lands. In the coming
year, we will develop specific and detailed costs to implement
the Action Strategy for inclusion in future budget requests.
alaska subsistence
Question 121. What is the current situation in Alaska
regarding fish and wildlife management, and how does this
potentially affect future Forest Service programs?
Answer. In December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court found
the State's subsistence law unconstitutional in its decision in
McDowell v. State of Alaska. The court held that the rural
preference for subsistence uses violated the Alaska
Constitution. This decision placed the State out of compliance
with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) Title VIII. As a result, since 1990 The Department of
the Interior and The Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)
have had management responsibility for subsistence hunting,
fishing, and trapping on Federal public lands in Alaska. Up
until now the focus of the program has been mainly on upland
animals with very little fishery involvement. The costs
associated with these federal subsistence management
responsibilities have had budget impacts on Forest Service
wildlife habitat management activities.
Question 122. What will it cost to implement the extended
federal fisheries jurisdiction regulations in fiscal year 1999
and how much of this is included in the President's request?
Answer. The USDI and USDA have identified fiscal year 1999
funding needs of $9.5 million to initiate the additional
subsistence management effort in Alaska, including program
administration, resource monitoring and law enforcement. Of
this amount, $3,000,000 would be for the Forest Service. These
estimates recognize the current Congressional moratorium will
expire on December 1, 1998, and that fiscal year 1999 would
fund start-up costs and operational costs for the remainder of
fiscal year 1999. There are currently no funds identified in
the President's 1999 budget to extend federal fisheries on
national forest system lands in Alaska; however, offset
recommendations are being developed.
Question 123. What does it cost the Forest Service to
manage the current subsistence priority requirements of ANILCA?
Answer. Managing current subsistence hunting fishing and
trapping on National Forest System lands in Alaska is estimated
to cost between $3,500,000 and $4,500,000 annually exclusive of
expanded jurisdiction for fisheries in navigable waters.
Question 124. What factors account for the cost to
implement subsistence fisheries requirements of ANILCA on
Forest Service lands?
Answer. Expanding Federal subsistence priority and
conservation requirements of ANILCA Sections 801 and 802 to
fisheries in navigable waters will require the Forest Service
to initiate significant new actions including developing and
modifying fisheries harvest management plans, making annual
projections of returning fish runs available for harvest in
hundreds of streams and lakes, projecting annual subsistence
harvests in those waters, issuing federal permits and
monitoring subsistence harvest, implementing numerous closures
in order to protect the conservation requirements of spawning
fish, law enforcement, legal support services, and operating
the annual administrative and public involvement processes for
modifying and establishing annual subsistence fishing
regulations. These are new and unprecedented requirements of
the Federal government, requiring new expertise and
administrative procedures.
Question 125. Should one federal agency be responsible for
management of subsistence requirements? What are the pros and
cons of such single agency management?
Answer. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Office of the Solicitor, the Forest Service and Office of
General Counsel for USDA are the federal agencies responsible
for working together effectively to manage subsistence hunting
and fishing on Federal public lands in Alaska. The U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service is the lead agency. Rural residents, including
Alaska Natives, look to the local federal land management
agency for help and leadership in providing subsistence
resources and opportunities and willingness to collaborate
locally. It was determined in 1990 that all of these federal
agencies should have a role in managing these resources and
activities on the lands for which they have responsibility
because (1) wildlife and fish and their harvest are essential
to rural residents (2) subsistence is closely tied to other
federal land management activities and (3) federal laws convey
land management responsibilities to federal agencies,
Infrastructure required to manage wildlife and fish on the
various federal public lands reside with the federal agency
managing those lands. Requiring one federal agency to obtain
the additional personnel and equipment to duplicate some
already available with the individual federal land management
agencies would be unnecessarily costly. This would also
diminish the community relationships each agency desires and
needs to carry out an effective resource program.
gpra
The agency is receiving extensive criticism regarding its
budget structure. It seems clear that agency concurs that much
of the criticism is valid.
Question 126. How will GPRA influence revision of the
budget structure?
Answer. The way the agency portrays its mission, goals and
objectives in its GPRA Strategic and annual Performance Plans
will play an important role in future proposals to adjust our
budget structure. Our current budget structure is complex and
functionally oriented, containing over 60 accounts from which
we are authorized to spend funds. Our current GPRA structure of
strategic goals and objectives is simpler but quite different
from our budget structure. However, as an agency, we have not
yet determined if the current GPRA structure is the best way to
portray our mission and what we're about. Several proposals to
modify this structure are being evaluated as we develop the
fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan and take the first steps
towards revising our strategic plan. We expect the GPRA
structure to evolve as we continue to clarify our mission,
roles and responsibilities; gain new information; and meet the
performance-based and financial requirements of the GPRA and
the Chief Financial Officers Act. Any proposal to modify our
budget structure will reflect an evaluation of these and other
issues in consultation with the Congress.
Question 127. How does implementation of the Chief
Financial Officers Act affect probable revisions of the
existing strategic plan?
Answer. The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act requires
federal agencies to develop integrated accounting and financial
management systems to provide complete, reliable, consistent
and timely financial information, and to use financial
information for measuring performance. The Government
Management Reform Act (GMRA) requires that the Forest Service
submit audited financial statements to OMB each year. These
statements must meet the accounting principles and standards
issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
(FASAB) and OMB. To meet these standards, the Forest Service
must identify an information and reporting structure that best
reflects and meets its financial information needs. This
structure should reflect the way the agency portrays itself
through its mission, goals, objectives and performance
indicators which would necessitate an alignment with the
information produced under the requirements of GPRA. While the
structure of the agency's GPRA plans will continue to evolve
for a variety of reasons (see answer No. 126 above), one of the
factors that may affect the structure and will help to assess
the effects of any future structural changes, will be the
agency's need to collect and report accurate financial
information.
The GAO testimony provided to the House of Representatives
states there is no clear link between the Forest Service's
ecosystem-based goals and objectives and its budget line items,
funding allocation criteria, and performance measures.
Question 128. What are the next steps in refinement of the
agency GPRA program and specifically efforts to integrate and
modify the budget structure to accurately represent the work
the agency accomplishes?
Answer. The Forest Service GPRA Strategic and Performance
Plans include goals and objectives covering all agency programs
and funding sources. A cross-walk between the agency's budget
structure and GPRA goals and objectives has been developed to
facilitate the linkage between planned levels of performance
and associated funding needs. The complexity of this cross-walk
highlights the significant differences between our GPRA and
budget structures and the need for some adjustments in one or
both. The agency is currently developing the fiscal year 2000
annual Performance Plan and is formulating plans for revising
its strategic plan by September 30, 2000. Both of these efforts
are focused on how to describe, quantify and prioritize the
agency's goals through the objectives and strategies for
achieving them. These efforts should result in a clearer focus
on how the agency wishes to portray its mission and business
and form the basis for a proposal to modify our budget
structure, as well as align our resource and financial
information structures. The first iteration of the agency's
fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan will accompany the agency's
budget proposal to the Department of Agriculture in July, 1998.
The agency will incorporate as many of the changes included in
this Plan as possible into the final fiscal year 1999
Performance Plan that will be updated after we receive our
budget from the Congress this Fall.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question 129. We have received mixed signals from the
Administration on the Franklin County Lake. Will you please
tell me what is the position of the Forest Service on this
project?
Answer. This project, the Recreational Lake and Complex at
Porter Creek, Franklin County, Mississippi, Homochitto National
Forest, Homochitto Ranger District, was initiated by the
community leaders in Franklin County, MS. They have tried for
30 years to secure federal funding to build a 1,100 acre lake
to provide recreation and water supply for the area. The
community leaders requested that the USDA Forest Service assist
them in improving the rural development and economic diversity
of the area.
This project could create private sector business
opportunities, assist existing local businesses, improve water
quality by remeding raw sewage flow into Porter Creek, and
prevent addition head-cutting of streams in the watershed. They
are now attempting to leverage state and federal funds. It is
estimated that over $12 million will be needed for construction
of the dam, contract administration, and surveying and mapping
of the lake cross sections and pool levels.
This project is new construction. New construction is not a
priority for the Agency at this time, as we attempt to focus
resources on the backlog of reconstruction needs. The Agency
priority continues to be on capital investment priorities which
emphasize reconstruction of health and safety issues, water and
sanitation projects, and recreation backlog, rather than new
construction. New construction adds to outyear operation and
maintenance costs and it is unlikely that additional O&M funds
can be provided from the national level in the outyears to
support these new facilities and structures coming on-line. In
the case of a dam, the maintenance and reconstruction costs in
the future can be significant, along with the liability issues.
Based on previous data for dams in the Region (and none are the
size of this one), it is estimated that annual O&M costs will
be about $75,000. In general, the project appears to be more of
a locally oriented responsibility, rather than a priority
Federal goal.
The National Resources Conservation Service received
$250,000 in fiscal year 1996, $550,000 in fiscal year 1997, and
$3,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to accomplish design, technical
assistance, and complete construction documentation on this
project. This Agency is experienced with the construction and
reconstruction of dams. The Forest Service will partner with
them to do the actual construction if this project is directed,
earmarked, and additional funding is provided.
In fiscal year 1998, Congress earmarked $1 million in the
Forest Service budget for Franklin County Lake. These funds
would have been used to obtain detailed survey information for
planning (topographic survey of dam, basin and developable area
and detailed soil surveys of developable area above pool
level), search out and cultivate interest in Private/Public
Venture prospects to build the recreational facilities, develop
conceptual development plan with input from private partners
that might be interested, advertise for formal partnership and
with any available remaining funds, and partially fund Forest
Service share of construction and design costs. This funding
does not provide for dam construction, which is estimated at
approximately $12 million. This line item was vetoed by the
Administration and were not provided.
Chief Dombeck, it has been brought to my attention that
there needs to be an increase in the transfer of technology to
assure that small businesses are not only made aware of Forest
Service research conducted but that the research results are
transformed into practical management guidelines. Specifically,
the National Hardwood Lumber Association, representing a number
of my constituents, has identified this concern and has offered
to assist in the dissemination of information.
Question 130. Is there a way that a formal cooperative
effort could be developed between groups such as the National
Hardwood Lumber Association and the U.S. Forest Service to
provide a pipeline for this information to reach the user and
not remain shelved at the agency?
Answer. Forest Service Research and Development has many
publications in the area of forest management. Notification of
the availability of these publications is disseminated by our
Research Stations on a regular basis, through newsletters,
publication lists, e-mail, and on computer Web Pages.
Availability of many of the latest FS R&D publications is also
listed in the monthly Society of American Foresters, Journal of
Forestry under the Forestry Reports--New Releases. We also
transfer information to organizations such as the National
Hardwood Lumber Association by actively participating in their
technical meetings and workshops, thus reaching many small
businesses and their managers directly. In addition, a Forest
Service staff member serves on the NHLA Standing Committee on
Hardwood Research Advisory Committee. We welcome more formal
cooperation and are willing to work with the Hardwood Lumber
Association to increase their awareness of the availability of
our information and publications.
There is a growing concern in Mississippi over bottomland
hardwood forests and associated farmland, especially in the
Delta. This concern is twofold with concern over the long-term
sustainability of the forests and their many products as well
as concern over how to reforest cropland especially in the
Wetlands Reserve Program and similar programs.
Question 131. What is the Forest Service Research doing now
to help landowners in the Delta restore and protect bottomland
forests, wildlife, fish and mussel population, and develop
revenue potential from these lands from recreation and forest
commodity values?
Answer. Forest Service Research has the Center for
Bottomland Hardwoods Research located mainly in Stoneville, MS
with subunits in Oxford and Starkville. This research unit is
multidisciplinary with scientists working in the areas of
forest management, wildlife and fisheries, soils, hydrology,
seed biology, insects and diseases. These scientists work
together and in collaboration with federal and non-federal
partners to address forest susceptibility, restoration and
protection including wildlife and fisheries issues. The
capacity does not exist at the Stoneville unit to address
socio-economic analyses but they work with other scientists in
Southern Research Station to meet these needs.
Question 132. Is there more that could be done to provide
answers and techniques to landowners to address these issues?
Answer. Yes, there are four areas in which we have the capability
but lack sufficient funding to respond to these priorities:
--Hydrologic function;
--Restoration technology;
--Silvicultural guidelines and aquatic monitoring techniques;
--Socio-economic effects
However, these areas do not rank as the highest priorities
for expanding our research.
There has been tremendous interest in the Wood Products
Insects Research Unit in Starkville, Mississippi.
Question 133. What impact will implementation of the Food
Quality Protection Act have on termiticides and other products
used to protect wood products from insect damage?
Answer. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 is an
amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA). It requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to apply new standards of safety, especially for
children, in the registration of pesticides such as
termiticides. It also requires the review of older pesticides
to make sure they meet current standards.
EPA must review all existing tolerances within 10 years to
determine that they impose a low risk for children and may
require an additional safety factor of up to ten-fold, if
necessary, to account for uncertainty in data relative to
children. Thus, it is too early to tell what impact the Act
will have on the registered termiticides.
Question 134. What role will this laboratory play in the
testing of new products and the development of alternatives to
existing products?
Answer. Currently, EPA relies on the USDA Forest Service
Wood Products Insect Research Unit at Starkville, MS to provide
reliable, independent laboratory and field testing of the
efficacy of potential termiticides. This involves two years of
laboratory testing and at least five years of field testing at
several sites in the US. This is to ensure that the chemical or
non-chemical products submitted by developers to EPA for
registration will protect the wood products and structures.
This is an important service to the public so that they can be
assured of reliable termiticides.
The Unit has a number of chemical and non-chemical products
under field test now and we expect that these will provide an
array of alternatives to the public.
Question 135. Please provide for the committee a five-year
funding history for this unit.
Answer. The funding for the Wood Products Insect Research
Work Unit at Starkville, Mississippi for the last five years is
given below:
Funding history
Fiscal year:
1994...................................................... $851,000
1995...................................................... 1,027,000
1996...................................................... 792,000
1997...................................................... 792,000
1998...................................................... 792,000
Question 136. Are there additional funding needs for this
laboratory for fiscal year 1999 and beyond?
Answer. Sufficient funds are available in the President's
Budget to fund this laboratory.
Hercules, Incorporated, which has facilities in
Mississippi, uses pine stumps as a raw input for products it
manufactures. This company is interested in procuring stumps
from the Apalachicola National Forest.
Question 137. Is it possible for Hercules to purchase these
stumps from the Apalachicola National Forest?
Answer. The only stumps offered for sale on the
Apalachicola NF occur within a proposed road, facility or other
planned construction.
Question 138. Are stumps offered under the same terms and
conditions in timber sales?
Answer. No, the only stumps offered for sale on the
Apalachicola NF occur within a proposed road, facility or other
planned construction.
Question 139. If not, why not and under what statutory
authority is this denied?
Answer. A decision notice and finding of no significant
impact amending the Appalachicola Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan, signed 7/12/91, restricted harvesting of
stumps to the areas within a proposed road, facility or other
planned construction. This amendment was developed in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the
National Forest Management Act of 1976.
------ 9
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
snake river adjudication
Question 140. How much time and money has been spent on the
Snake River Basin Adjudication and the Forest Service water
claims?
Answer. While the Forest Service does not know the total
expenditures by all parties on this adjudication, it estimates
that about $10 million has been spent on its own claims since
the State initiated this adjudication in 1987.
Question 141. Who did the claim work for the Service and
how many claims were filed?
Answer. Forest Service field employees on 11 National
Forests and two Regional Offices did the vast majority of the
claim preparation work from 1987 to present. In addition, since
1995, eight non-Forest Service experts have been contracted to
perform various analyses and quality control checks on the
Forest Service claims and supporting data, and to prepare for
trial scheduled in September 1998 by the head water judge. In
1993, the Forest Service filed some 12,054 consumptive use
claims and 3,759 instream flow claims. The latter have since
been reduced to 71 claims.
Question 142. For what purposes are the water claims made?
Answer. The consumptive use claims were made for one or
more of the following uses: domestic water, irrigation of hay,
municipal, industrial, commercial, recreation, fire protection,
stockwater, hydropower. The original set of instream flow
claims were made for one or more of the following uses:
fisheries habitat, recreation, channel maintenance, wild and
scenic rivers, wilderness, National Recreation Areas and
maintenance of hot springs and lake levels. The reduced set of
instream flow claims now includes only fisheries, recreation,
channel maintenance, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and
National Recreation Areas.
jetboats in hells canyon
Public Law 94-199, designating the Hells Canyon National
Recreation Area, was enacted December 31, 1975. Section 10 of
that Act provides that motorized river craft are recognized as
a valid use of the Snake River within the recreation area. This
language seems clear. However, the original intent seems to
have been forgotten. The Forest Service has announced its
intent to implement a ``motorless window'' on segments of the
Snake River through Hells Canyon beginning this summer.
Question 143. Contrary to the intention of the original
Act, why does the Forest Service persist in closing the river
to motorized users?
Answer. The Act allows for motorized use of the Snake River
in Hells Canyon, but also directs the Forest service to
administer this as well as provide for other uses. The actual
restriction is quite small, only on 21 miles of the 31.5 mile
``wild'' section for a maximum of 21 days per year. The new
river plan actually provides for an increase in motorized use.
All river portals will remain open to powerboats 365 days per
year. When the non-motorized days are in effect, there will
still be 50 miles of river available for powerboats.
Question 144. There are numerous western whitewater rivers,
several in Idaho and Oregon, which provide exclusive use for
non-motorized floaters. Why is it necessary to force that same
type of recreation use in Hells Canyon?
Answer. The non-motorized period is in response to a
distinct group of regional and national customers who indicated
a preference for some level of non-motorized opportunity. The
actual effect of the non-motorized period on motorized use is
small. During the annually maximum 21 days of the period, there
will still be 50 miles of river available for powerboats.
lewis and clark trail
I understand the Forest Service is currently developing a
strategic plan to participate in the upcoming Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial Observance from 2003-2006. I hope funding to
implement this plan will be a priority within the FS budget.
Question 145. How is the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
addressed within the Forest Service budget?
Answer. Region 1 is actively planning for the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial, working closely with the Salmon Forest in
Region 4. A draft strategy has been formulated to identify all
the many ways that the National Forests may participate with
the States, local communities and tribal governments in
appropriately commemorating the Bicentennial. A Forest Service
bicentennial coordinator has been appointed to insure that our
plans are well coordinated with the National Bicentennial
Council's plans and that our investments in preserving trail
resources and accommodating trail visitors leave a lasting
legacy that extends well beyond the Commemoration years of
2003-2006. Each Forest is also actively participating in local
community bicentennial planning efforts. Our preliminary
conclusions include:
--Lewis and Clark Bicentennial will affect National Forests in
Regions 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 with most direct on-the-ground
opportunities centered in Regions 1 and 4, particularly in
North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
--Many challenges and opportunities can be addressed by careful
priority setting within existing funding criteria and
allocations, however some potential projects and programs will
not be feasible without national emphasis to target increased
funding to the affected forests.
--Many Forest Service programs will contribute to the Bicentennial.
State and Private Forestry grants can assist rural communities
in planning and carrying out their commemorative activities.
Heritage Program funding can make necessary historic and
archeological studies possible. Recreation funded programs will
both insure that visitors find appropriate facilities and that
fragile locations are not over used. Construction projects will
make sure that roads, trails and campgrounds are open and in
tip top shape for the beginning of and throughout the
Bicentennial.
--Most of the infrastructure needed is already in place though many
existing facilities need to be spruced up or replaced. A few
new facilities have been proposed for construction. Interagency
and public private partnerships are key to meeting
infrastructure needs.
--Funding projections and needs are still very preliminary, but
should firm up by the end of fiscal year 1998.
In Summary the Forest Service is planning for the
Bicentennial. We are committed to providing necessary focus to
insure National Forests along the Lewis and Clark Trail can do
what is necessary to protect resources, accommodate increased
visitation, and support local community events. While we
haven't all the final answers on how to fund many opportunities
we expect to continue to seek effective partnerships to allow
the completion of highest priority projects.
frank church wilderness deis
The Forest Service recently released a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness. Most who use the wilderness agree it is in
excellent condition and one of the best managed wilderness
areas. A few changes were needed in the management of the
wilderness, a tweak hear and a tweak there, but not a complete
overhaul of the system. The extreme cut backs on access, such
as a 50 percent decrease in float boating, could have
devastating effects on the tourism and recreation industry in
Idaho. I realize the comment period has been extended to give
everyone an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Question 146. I would like a commitment from the Forest
Service to work with the individuals most effected by their
decision and develop a management plan that protects the
integrity of the wilderness without severely restricting access
to the resource for recreation and other purposes.
Answer. The Forest Service is strongly committed to working
with individuals most effected by the proposals in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Frank Church River of No
Return Wilderness. This commitment is evidenced in the
extension of the comment period, and the numerous public
meetings and negotiations currently underway.
Cabin Fees on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Many of
the cabin owners on the SNRA protested the FS appraisal of the
cabin sites and are having a second appraisal done at their own
expense.
Question 147. When will the second appraisal be completed?
Answer. Approximately 87 permit holders on the Sawtooth
have requested a second appraisal of approximately 18
representative, or typical, lots to formally dispute the
findings of the Forest Service's first appraisal. The Forest
Service has already approved the qualifications of 2 appraisers
that holders have secured to conduct second appraisals on 10-12
typical lots. There may be more appraisers secured by permit
holders for conducting a second appraisal and, if so, the
Forest Service is committed to promptly reviewing the
qualifications of those appraisers, and approving them for use
by the holders.
The second appraisals now being planned are expected to be
completed and submitted to the Forest Service for review and
approval by August 1, 1998. The Forest Service will promptly
review the appraisal reports upon receipt of them from the
permit holders.
Question 148. Will the Forest Service wait to implement the
new cabin fee until the second and if necessary third appraisal
is completed?
Answer. Public Law 105-83 directed that the Secretary of
Agriculture could not increase recreation residence fees based
upon a new appraisal of a recreation residence lot any sooner
than one year from the time the permit holder is notified by
the Forest Service of the results of an appraisal which has
been conducted for the purposes of establishing such a fee. It
also specifically cited that no increases in recreation
residence fees on the Sawtooth National Forest could be
implemented prior to January 1, 1999.
The Forest Service notified the permit holders on the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area of the results of its (the
Forest Service's) completed appraisal of their tracts/lots in
late 1997. In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 105-
83, the Forest is planning to assess a new base fee for those
appraised lots beginning with the fee to be billed for calender
year 1999. CY 1999 fees will be assessed and billed in
November, 1998, with a payment due date of January 1, 1999. As
stated above, the permit holders expect to have the second
appraisals completed and submitted to the Forest Service by
August, 1998. The Forest Service will promptly review those
appraisal reports. If they meet agency standards and the
specifications provided the appraisers by the Forest Service,
the reports will be approved for agency use.
Per agency policy, if the two appraisals result in
estimated fee simple values of the appraised lots that differ
by 10 percent or less (from the estimated value of the same
lot(s) identified in the Forest Service's appraisal), then the
authorized officer will have the discretion to use the
estimated value identified in either appraisal report, or a
combination thereof, in establishing a new base fee. If the
Forest Service's appraisal report and the second report differ
by more than 10 percent in value for any particular lot/group
of lots, then the Forest Service will instruct the first and
second appraisers to meet in an attempt to reconcile their
differences. If that is not possible, then a third appraisal
may be secured, upon the approval and concurrence of both the
authorized officer and the affected holder(s), with the cost of
such an appraisal shared equally by each party.
For those recreation residence lots/tracts on the Sawtooth
NRA that were appraised by the Forest Service in 1997, the
Forest expects to have the appraisal process completed prior to
its assessment and billing of fees for CY 1999. This appraisal
process may not be completed in advance of our November 1998,
billing of CY 1999 fees if (a) there are lots or groups of lots
which qualify for a third appraisal, and (b) the holder(s) and
Forest Service agree to secure a third appraisal. If there are
cases like that, the Forest Service intends to assess and bill
a new base fee for CY 1999 for those affected lots, even if the
third appraisal(s) does not get done in advance of the CY 1999
billing period. The base fee that will be assessed for CY 1999
will use the estimated lot values identified in either of the
first two appraisals, or perhaps a combination thereof. Should
the results of a completed third appraisal subsequently produce
a different base fee than that assessed for CY 1999, the
resulting fee difference will be reconciled in an adjustment
made to the fee assessed for CY 2000, scheduled to take place
in November 1999.
interior columbia basin ecosystem management project
Question 149. Many of my constituents feel that ICBEMP is
bureaucratic boondoggle that would harm ranching, mining and
logging. What are you doing to convince them that this is not
the case?
Answer. We have met and talked with many people in the
Basin that have concerns about the management of their public
lands. The best way we can assure the continued use and
enjoyment of these lands is to assure their continued long-term
health. Healthy lands are productive lands.
Healthy lands also are better able to meet the legal
mandates under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act
and the Clean Air Act, to name a few. Short of this, lawsuits
and injunctions generally result in more restrictive use of the
land. By developing a proactive approach to dealing with these
legal issues now, we can assure the continued use of these
lands.
Question 150. You've indicated that the aim over the past
four years is to develop a scientifically-sound management
strategy. As best I can tell no progress has been made in
achieving this objective. Why should the Congress continue to
support ICBEMP when its track record to date is so poor?
Answer. The Project is well on the way to fulfilling the
Charter given it by the Director of BLM and the Chief of the
Forest Service in 1994. Although it has taken longer than
initial estimates, much of the work is complete. The scientific
assessment, on which we are building the management strategy,
is complete. The Draft EISs containing the management strategy
have gone through an eleven month public comment period that
ended May 6, 1998. What remains is analyzing public comments,
deciding what needs to be changed, and preparing a Final EIS
and ROD. Unless there is some other way to address the legal
problems of continuing to manage under interim guidelines of
INFISH, PACFISH, and the eastside screens, we will find all
projects and plans at risk of legal challenge.
Question 151. I understand that you intend to issue a final
environmental impact statement in the spring of 1999. What
assurances can you give the Committee regarding this date?
Answer. At this time, we feel confident that we will meet
that timeframe. The one question that has not yet been answered
is whether or not we may need to supplement the draft
statement. This is a possibility, as it is with any EIS
process. A supplement may be needed if substantial changes to
the draft statement are made, based on input to the draft, or
if there are significant new circumstances or information
relevant to the proposed action. The purpose of issuing a
supplement is to allow the public to respond to the substantial
changes or new information.
If we determine it is necessary to supplement, it will
delay the release of the final environmental impact statements
and Record of Decision. The length of the delay will be
determined by the type of supplement.
Question 152. The project has cost $40 million already. I
find this to be an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. Aren't
you doing nothing more than through good money at a bad
investment?
Answer. The broad scale issues we are addressing are either
going to be addressed in this process or a process very similar
to this. A case in point is developing a long-term aquatic
conservation strategy to replace the interim direction in
PACFISH and INFISH. To start a new process or multiple
processes seems less efficient and more costly than finishing
the current process.
Question 153. Implementation costs have soared to an
estimated $125 million annually, much of it for weed and
erosion control, forest health and watershed management. In an
environment of constant, real dollar agency budgets, are you
prepared to cut other Forest Service programs to come up with
this kind of money?
Answer. The estimated funding needed to fully implement the
plan, you reference, were based on the preferred alternative
(Alternative 4) in the draft statement. We expect there will be
changes to the preferred alternative and that we will have to
recalculate implementation needs.
Question 154. We've been told that timber harvest should
increase slightly under the plan. My guess is that this
conclusion does not factor in your roads moratorium. What are
you prepared to tell us about the timber impacts of the roads
moratorium on ICBEMP?
Answer. The Draft EIS contained direction which was similar
to the proposed road management policy. The Draft provided
strong direction for systematic road management and improved
road maintenance. As we move toward a decision on the road
management policy we are evaluating options that would allow
the Forests covered under the ICBEMP decision to move forward
without being subject to the moratorium once a Record of
Decision is signed for the ICBEMP and plans are amended.
Question 155. Elizabeth Holms Gaar, the Assistant Regional
Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, has
said that the new information contained in ICBEMP will allow
agencies to ``begin the restoration efforts with the confidence
that many of our highly valued public resources need.'' But
with new information at virtually ever bend in the road, how
will this planning process ever be brought to conclusion?
Answer. Once the Final EIS is completed and the ROD is
signed, this planning process will conclude. We will include
any new information that has been surfaced since the draft
statement was issued. Direction in this plan may have to be
amended as pertinent new information comes forward. We intend
to have a process to incorporate this information without
having to start a whole new planning process.
Question 156. I strongly feel that the best government is
the most local form of government. There is some good, sound
science in ICBEMP that could be used on the land. Why not just
scrap this multimillion-dollar project and pass the scientific
research onto local land managers?
Answer. It is just not enough to have good science. The
information given must be applied uniformly across the board.
This is the reason why broad scale planning is needed and why
the ICBEMP decision will amend forest plans. Also, regional
direction is needed on how to use the new science information
in order to provide viability determinations for fish, wildlife
and plants and for assessing cumulative effects across a large
area.
In addition, two federal court decisions are relying on the
Project to replace the current interim direction (PACFISH/
INFISH/Eastside Screens). Our pledge to replace these interim
directions through this process was an important element in the
court decisions. Failing to do so will make us vulnerable to
legal challenges.
timber sale set-aside regulations
Two years ago we directed you to develop regulations which
will allow people directly impacted by the Forest Service
Timber Sale Set-aside program, to appeal those decisions. Now
two years later you are still sitting on those final
regulations.
Question 157. What is the hold up Chief?
Answer. There is an appeal rule in effect which allows
purchasers affected by the Small Business Set-Aside Program to
appeal. An interim rule published March 24, 1997 (62 Federal
Register 13826), went into effect immediately to comply with
the Conference Report accompanying the 1997 Omnibus
Appropriation Act. The interim rule gives an appeals procedure
and provided an opportunity for comments which will be
reflected in a final rule. We are nearing completion of the
final rule and plan to publish it soon.
Question 158. Why haven't you published the final
regulations?
Answer. The comments received in response to the interim
rule have been evaluated, and a final rule has been drafted.
The final rule has been reviewed by our Office of General
Counsel and is now being finalized by our Directives and
Regulations staff. We anticipate that it will be ready for
Department approval within the next few weeks.
Question 159. Do you want this Committee to simply write
legislative language to impose a appeals process?
Answer. As noted in the previous answers, an appeal process
is in place and while we recognize that the task has taken some
time, we believe that the final rule will better reflect the
desires of the purchasers affected by the appeals rule by
reflecting their input. Legislative language to impose an
appeals process is not needed.
Question 160. Or would you prefer that we withdraw your
authority to expend any more funds until you publish these
regulations?
Answer. Our objective is to finalize the appeal rule in a
short time; withdrawal of authority to expend funds until the
regulations are published would not expedite the process.
Forest and Rangeland Research--Climate Change Technology
You've asked for a $3 million earmark for Climate Change Technology
Initiative and suggested that harvesting and maintaining forests in a
younger healthier condition will help with global warming.
Question 161. How much data already exists to support your
contention?
Answer. Considerable data exists that demonstrates the role of U.S.
forests in the sequestration of carbon. This positive forestry role in
sequestering carbon can be significantly increased by research to
provide enhanced technologies aimed at improving biomass production,
reducing carbon release during forest operations, reducing energy
consumption in post-harvest production, and lengthening the life cycle
of forest products. While this research will be enhanced by funding
requested under the Climate Change Technology Initiative, it address
problems of increasing biomass productivity that our users want
answered even if climate change were not an issue.
Question 162. If your research shows that young healthy forests,
and the sequestration of carbon in wood products which resulted from
harvesting on federal lands, improve the carbon cycle challenge facing
this country, are you willing to help educate the American public on
this issue?
Answer. Forest Service Research will remain an objective source for
scientific information and will make that information available to as
wide an array of interested parties as possible, clearly including the
American public. Our ability to provide objective, balanced information
on subjects such as the role of forests in the global carbon cycle is
limited by the funding appropriated to us. The $3 million funding
increase requested under the Climate Change Technology Initiative would
allow us to become a more active source for objective information while
addressing needs of the user community.
Forest and Rangeland Research--Urban Forestry
Question 163. If you have a $10 billion backlog in Forest Road
Maintenance and are having trouble funding management activities on the
lands which have been entrusted to you, why are you requesting urban
forestry research?
Answer. Urban and community forests serve many ecological and
aesthetic functions, while providing benefits to a majority of the
nearly 200 million people in the United States that live and work in
urbanized areas. Urban forests mitigate rainfall runoff and flooding;
provide shade to reduce summer air-conditioning energy costs; reduce
adverse health impacts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation; mitigate air
quality impacts of various industrial processes, motor vehicle exhaust,
and other human activities; provide wildlife habitat; and enhance the
attractiveness and livability of our cities, communities and urbanized
areas.
Research on economic benefits of urban forest ecosystems will help
to improve the quality of life for large segments of the U.S.
population. This research includes studies to: (1) Assess the potential
cost effectiveness of utilizing urban forests to mitigate air
pollution; and (2) Identify psychological and physical health benefits
and reduced costs due to improved urban ecosystems.
Research, dealing with ecosystems impacted by rapidly urbanizing
areas adjacent to many National Forests, is of critical importance due
to the problems of: urban/wildland interface fire, watershed pollution,
air pollution, high recreation demand by diverse populations, and
concern for T&E species habitat. Examples of major urbanizing areas
adjacent to National Forests with critical situations include: Los
Angeles, San Diego, Lake Tahoe, Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, and
Salt Lake City.
Question 164. How many National Forest are located within the
bounds of cities?
Answer. As a general rule, National Forest boundaries are not
located within city limits, with the possible exception of scattered
parcels or inholdings. There are however a number of National Forests
within an hours drive of many major metropolitan centers throughout the
US.
Question 165. Aren't most urban forests the responsibilities of the
States, or local municipalities?
Answer. Most urban forests are the responsibility of States, local
municipalities or private landowners and Section 9 of the Cooperative
ForestryAssistance Act enables the Forest Service to provide technical,
financial and related urban forestry assistance to State Foresters and
other partners.
Forest and rangeland research--wilderness
Question 166. Chief, refresh my recollection, didn't the Wilderness
Act of 1964 say that Wilderness Areas are ``an area where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man?
Answer. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law states in section
2(c) ``A wilderness * * * is hereby recognized as an area where the
Earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man
himself is a visitor who does not remain.''
Question 167. If that is the case, why are you proposing to
undertake research in these areas?
Answer. (Sec. 2(c)) of the Act goes on to recognize that wilderness
``may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value''. In Section 4,
Use of Wilderness Areas, the Act states that ``wilderness areas shall
be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation, and historical use'' (Sec. 4(b). It is
therefore believed appropriate for research to be conducted in
wilderness, when such activity is dependent on wilderness and can be
done to minimize the impacts to the wilderness resource.
As reported in the fiscal year 1996 Report of the Forest Service,
recreation use in wilderness areas accounted for 14.5 million
recreation visitor days in fiscal year 1996. At the end of fiscal year
1996, there were 26,610 miles of trails available for use in wilderness
areas. With the heavy visitor load in many wilderness areas, Research
continues to explore fundamental questions to assist managers to better
protect and preserve wilderness areas and the public values they
provide. For wilderness near urban areas, investigations focus on
changing recreation patterns. What are the factors underlying user
conflicts? What changes are occurring in values, attitudes, and
behaviors related to natural resources? Can these be affected by new
visitor communication strategies?
State and private forestry--forest health management
Help me better understand how funds are spent within the State and
Private Forestry Forest Health Management line item called Federal
Lands.
Question 168. You have requested $37.2 million for this item, isn't
that correct:
Answer. Yes. The President's Budget does include $37.2 million for
Federal Lands Forest Health Management.
Question 169. A $4 million dollar increase over the fiscal year
1997. Am I right on that figure?
Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 1997 Appropriation for Federal Lands,
Forest Health Management was $33.2 million.
Question 170. Why don't the other agencies within the Interior
Department pay you for this service?
Answer. The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act makes the Secretary
of Agriculture responsible for forest health protection directly on the
National Forest System and in cooperation with other Federal
departments on all other Federal as well as Tribal lands. The Secretary
has delegated responsibility for carrying out provisions of the Act to
the Forest Service. To meet its responsibility the Forest Service
through the Secretary requests annual appropriations for forest health
protection based on estimated costs developed in cooperation with other
the Federal departments; the other Federal agencies do not receive an
appropriation for this purpose.
Question 171. Would having them help with the expense of doing this
much needed work help you focus more closely on the lands your tasked
with managing?
Answer. No. The resulting additional financial management and
program overhead expenses would have the opposite effect. In addition,
our current ability to respond in a timely manner to emergency
situations across all ownerships would be impaired and national forests
would be at increased risk from insect and disease outbreaks arising on
adjacent other Federal or Tribal lands.
National customer service plan
Question 172. I note you want to expand funding for the National
Customer Service Plan. Is that right?
Answer. A budget increase of $35,000 has been requested in fiscal
year 1999 only to fund the follow up action plans for customer surveys
completed in fiscal year 1996-98, and to provide customer satisfaction
and polling results required by Congress in the GPRA.
Question 173. Isn't it true that the purchasers of federal timber
sales produced 60 percent of the revenues collected by your agency in
fiscal year 1997?
Answer. No, it is more than 60 percent. Of the $679,964,000 in
receipts received in fiscal year 1997, $534,125,000 or 79 percent is
related to timber sales. This includes the sale of forest products, and
deposits to the K-V fund, salvage sale fund, and brush disposal fund.
Question 174. And that over $319 million dollars of timber trust
funds were used last year to help fund your day-to-day operations
(about $10 percent of the agencies budget request)?
Answer. In the fiscal year 1997 final program budget advice to the
field the agency allocated $187,810,000 from the salvage sale fund,
$218,023,000 from the K-V fund, $30,000,000 from the reforestation
trust fund, and $45,651,000 from the brush disposal fund, for a total
of $481,484,000. This is 16 percent of the total Forest Service request
included in the President's Budget.
Question 175. Yet we're told that you've only met with members of
your number one customer a handful of times over the last two years.
Why would we fund this priority and what are you going to do to address
the legitimate concerns on your most important customer?
Answer. Timber contractors are one of our important business
customers. In the course of our timber sale customer survey project
(1997 & 1998), we engaged the timber industry in a variety of forums,
from focus groups to large industry meetings. We have addressed many of
the business delivery concerns of our timber industry customers and are
currently implementing actions to improve our service and work
processes. (See enclosed ``Report to Timber Sale Customers'')
[Clerk's note.--The above mentioned publication ``Report to Timber
Sale Customers'' has been retained in subcommittee files.]
National commitments
Question 176. Why are you holding onto 39 percent of the Forest
Health Management Dollars in your regional allocation for the
Washington Office?
Answer. Only about 6 percent of the Federal Lands Forest Health
Management budget line item in the fiscal year 1999 President's budget
is held by the Washington Office (WO). A total of $1.3 million,
approximately 3.5 percent, is planned for salaries, travel, training
and supplies for staffs in the WO headquarters. Approximately $0.6
million, approximately 1.6 percent, is held in the WO for National
Commitments, and another $0.3 million, or 0.8 percent, for special
forest health protection projects which are most efficiently managed
from WO Headquarters. Some of the funds held for National Commitments
are allocated to field units. Additional funds are included in the WO
budget for the Forest Health Protection Enterprise Teams located in
Morgantown, WV and Fort Collins, CO. The Teams are essentially field
units in that they provide direct program assistance to the Regions,
the Northeastern Area, the International Institute of Tropical
Forestry, and also work closely with the Research Stations. A total of
$8.7 million, or 23.5 percent of the President's budget level for
Federal Lands Forest Health Management is held in the Washington Office
Reserve for allocation to field units for: (1) specific pest prevention
and suppression projects that are proposed and approved based on site-
specific biological evaluations in early and mid-FY 1999, (2)
Technology Development projects, and (3) support for the National
Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.
Question 177. Why are you holding onto 52 percent of Cooperative
Lands funding from the States?
Answer. Only about 5.3 percent of the Cooperative Lands Forest
Health Management budget line item in the fiscal year 1999 President's
budget is held by the WO. A total of $0.7 million, approximately 4.1
percent, is planned for salaries, travel, and training of staffs in the
Washington Office headquarters. Approximately $0.2 million,
approximately 1.1 percent, is held in the WO for National Commitments,
and another $0.02 million, or 0.1 percent, for special forest health
protection projects which are most efficiently managed from WO
Headquarters. Some of the funds held for National Commitments are
allocated to field units. Additional funds are included in the WO
budget for the Forest Health Protection Enterprise Teams located in
Morgantown, WV and Fort Collins, CO. The Teams are essentially field
units in that they provide direct program assistance to the Regions,
the Northeastern Area, the International Institute of Tropical
Forestry, and also work closely with the Research Stations. A total of
$8.8 million, or 55 percent of the President's budget level for
Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management is held in the Washington
Office Reserve for allocation to field units for: (1) specific pest
prevention and suppression projects that are proposed and approved
based on site-specific biological evaluations in early and mid-FY 1999,
(2) continuation of the pilot project phase of the gypsy moth Slow-the-
Spread project, and (3) support for the State Forest Resource Planning
program.
Question 178. Why shouldn't this Congress limit the amount of funds
which can be held in the Washington Office to say 10 percent and then
force the distribution of the remaining funds out to the field offices
so work can commence in the field?
Answer. Please see responses to Questions 176 and 177.
Approximately 6 percent of the Federal Lands Forest Health Management
and 5 percent of the Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management
expanded budget line items support WO Headquarters.
Question 179. How would you feel about this Congress imposing the
following direction:
No more than a total of 15 percent of any budget line item may be
held, for overhead or other uses, at the following offices: (1)
Secretaries Office; (2) the Washington Office: (3) the Regional
Offices; or (4) any Forest Supervisors Office, or analogous Forest
Research Stations.
Answer. We do not feel this direction will lead to sound, efficient
resource management. Major efficiencies are gained in a number of
instances by centralizing services or purchases in the Washington
Office or a Regional Office, which would otherwise be done piecemeal at
lower levels. For example, funds are held in the Washington Office to
purchase a national software license for our major information systems.
If each forest used these funds independently to purchase this
software, the buying power would diminish by a factor of 100, and the
ability to support common systems and exchange information coherently
would be lost. If the Washington Office billed all of the units, rather
than holding the funds, the paperwork would be expensive to accomplish
the same result. It is therefore much more cost-effective to negotiate
and pay for such a contract centrally and to hold the funds rather than
bill each lower level. At the same time, we realize that we must
continue to rigorously manage the debate and decisions on the priority
and effectiveness of these investments, against alternative investments
at the field level. Sound decisions on alternative uses of funds are a
critical element in making these central services cost-effective.
Many regions offer centralized resource specialists that work in
the Regional Office or in a Supervisor's Office and service many
forests and districts. Each district office cannot not afford a
complete array specialists; most districts probably do not have
sufficient work for an array of full-time specialists. Sharing
specialists saves money, but may require the specialist to report to
and be funded by a higher organizational level.
Question 180. How would you feel about this Congress imposing the
following direction:
Further, all funds authorized in this Bill, less the prescribed 15
percent for overhead, shall be distributed to the field offices within
one month of final passage of this law, or one month after the
beginning of the new fiscal year.
Answer. The Forest Service Washington Office (WO) makes every
effort to distribute available funds to its field units as soon as
possible after the appropriation bill becomes law. In an attempt to
expedite the allocation process for fiscal year 1999, we have developed
a revised timeline which requires that the Final WO budget and national
commitments be determined at a much earlier date than in previous
years. This change will ensure that available funds are distributed to
the individual forest level within 90 days of final passage of the
Appropriations Act. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to
complete our allocation process if given only 30 days from final
passage of the law.
Question 181. Why shouldn't we limit overhead from the cooperative
lands line item to 15 percent and then block grant the remaining funds
straight to the States?
Answer. Please see response to Question 177. Only about 5.3 percent
of the Forest Health Management Cooperative Lands expanded line item is
held for use by the WO Headquarters and some of these funds are
allocated out to the field. This is about the same percentage (6.1
percent) for the entire State and Private Forestry appropriation.
Block grants would provide the States with unlimited discretion as
to how they expend and account for the funds, regardless of the purpose
for which the funds are appropriated by Congress and granted to States.
At present, State and Private Forestry authorities do not enable the
issuance of block grants to the States. While recognizing the need to
address different priorities in different regions and States, one
dimension of the Federal role is to assure that program priorities of
national importance, which address a range of needs and customers are
advanced in a coordinated effort. Administration budget proposals and
Congressional appropriations underscore this role, and determining the
appropriate mix of different programs and budget line items. The shift
toward performance based budgeting reinforces the need to associate
budget allocations with planned program outcomes.
State and private forestry--forest stewardship
Question 182. Chief why do you need a 14 percent increase in Forest
Stewardship?
Answer. Nonindustrial private forestlands (NIPF) represent over 48
percent of the nations forests. Almost 10 million owners hold 337
million acres. Less than 20 percent of these lands are actively
managed. Collectively, these lands are critical to the nation's timber
supply, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, landscape aesthetics
and the economic welfare of many resource dependent communities. This
proposed program increase will support a modest increase in support to
State Forestry agencies and their assistance to landowners in forest
planning and application of forestry practices. This would only be a
small beginning in implementing the recently released National Academy
of Sciences report. This program is used nationwide on forested lands
and has a strong agroforestry component. As a result a broader array of
national interests in these lands will benefit.
Question 183. Exactly what do we get for that investment?
Answer. The increase in fiscal year 1999 will enable over 3,000
NIPF landowners to develop multiple resource Forest Stewardship
management plans. These plans will encompass over 400,000 acres of
forest lands. Particular focus will address watershed health and
restoration. This will support an increase of 70,000 acres of
Stewardship Incentive Program practices, including 12,500 acres of tree
planting. The increase will help provide information, technology, and
training on forest nursery management, tree improvement, tree planting
methodology, seedling culture, and equipment development to State,
private, and federal nurseries, and support the tree seed bank. These
specific treatments will contribute to the national interests noted
above.
Question 184. Why shouldn't we put the extra money in managing the
lands your entrusted to manage?
Answer. There are obviously many unmet needs on national forests as
well as substantial national interests in non-Federal lands. The Forest
Service is responsible for a coordinated forest stewardship program for
management of this Nation's non-Federal forest lands in partnership
with Federal, State, and local organizations. Demand for goods and
services is increasing on NIPF lands. As noted above, only a small
portion of these lands are under active management. The potential
exists to do much more to assure adequate wildlife habitat, watershed
protection and a sustainable forest resource on these lands. The number
of small sized forest land ownership, less than 10 acres, is also
rapidly increasing, putting more pressure on an increased number of
landowners to provide the forest resources. This 14 percent increase
will strengthen our partnership with state forestry agencies to help
handle the increasing pressure on NIPF landowners and as again noted
above will only be a start in implementing the recommendations of the
recent National Academy of Sciences report.
State and private forestry--urban and community forestry
Question 185. Isn't the chief responsibility for Urban and
Community Forestry fall with local government?
Answer. We agree that local governments bear the chief
responsibility for the comprehensive care of their trees, forests and
greenspace and believe that this reflects the current situation.
However, many communities are not knowledgeable about conditions,
possibilities, technical issues, or overall impacts of healthy urban
forests on the welfare of its citizens, or such economic factors such
as energy costs, or costs to local government of providing such
services as storm-water management. Nationwide, the care of trees and
forests in many of our larger cities are in decline and most need work
to reclaim trees and greenspace to provide a better quality of life for
their residents. Many smaller communities and unincorporated areas do
not have the necessary financial resources or technical expertise to
care for their trees and related natural resources, while resources do
not reach many inner city neighborhoods. The Forest Service goal is to
create local capacities to manage urban and community forests and does
so by creating awareness; providing information to the public; and
providing assistance in assessment, planning, management and community
action.
At the landscape level trees and urban forests occur on land in
mixed ownership and across jurisdictional boundaries and can become
prey to insects and diseases. Counties, cities and other communities
are even less equipped to deal with the loss of trees, forests,
openspace, wildlife habitat and watershed functioning that is
accompanying the urban sprawl occurring at unprecedented levels across
the nation. In the last twenty years population in Atlanta has doubled
while urban sprawl has consumed over 400 percent more land. A the
landscape level the Forest Service has a responsibility to promote
increased communication and coordination across political and
geographic boundaries to protect and restore healthy ecosystems.
Question 186. Why shouldn't we simply block grant $26.8 million
requested in this budget straight to the States?
Answer. The Program is designed to address concerns at the local,
State and national scales. By the year 2000 over 80 percent of the
American public will reside in metro areas with complex natural
resource problems. National indicators of deteriorating environments
associated with cities and other communities include decreases in air
and water quality with their associated health risks; land use changes,
forest conversion and fragmentation leading to loss of wildlife
habitat, biodiversity and open space; diminished watershed functioning
and increased storm-water flooding; and increased heat island
temperature effects that exacerbate regional weather systems and global
warming. The Forest Service provides research, technology transfer and
technical assistance needed to identify national trends, assess, test
and develop corrective actions needed to sustain and improve urban and
community natural resources. The Forest Service works in collaboration
with other federal agencies, State forestry agencies, local
governments, non-profit organizations and the private sector to
accomplish this work and keep Congress informed of important national
trends.
Question 187. Why couldn't these communities hire U.S. Forest
Service expertise, if in fact your employees truly are the most
knowledgeable and of course the price you would charge is competitive
with private contractors?
Answer. The scope and complexity of urban natural resource problems
requires the combined talents and commitment of Federal, State and
local governments, non-profit organizations and the private sector all
working together. The role of the Forest Service is to provide the
national leadership and long-term Federal continuity to assist States,
cities and counties to recognize the importance of natural resources in
populated areas, and to serve as facilitators and conveners to bring
together all the parties needed to develop community based efforts to
care for trees, forests, watersheds and openspace in urban areas.
Question 188. Don't you think it is unfair to those striving to
make a living in urban forestry for Congress to subsidize a federal
agency at the expense of the private sector?
Answer. Rather than competing for jobs in the private sector, the
Urban and Community Forestry Program has been an important catalyst for
creating new jobs and careers in both the private and non-profit
sectors involved with caring for trees, forests and greenspace in urban
areas. As local communities become more aware of the important role
that trees, forests, and open space play in supporting the economic,
social and environmental aspects of their lives, we believe that this
segment of the economy will continue to grow.
Not more than 20 full time equivalent assignments are tied to
delivery of the Urban and Community Forestry program. All of them carry
some level of national responsibility. The states and localities,
including non-profit, citizen based volunteer organizations involved in
urban forestry help craft the role and responsibility of federal
participation. The role the Forest Service plays in urban and community
forestry is defined by the partnership of federal/state/local
interests.
The National Forest System--recreation
You've stated that driving for pleasure is the No. 1 recreational
activity on the National Forest System. You've also stated that you
have a $10 billion backlog in road maintenance. You've requested a 13-
percent increase in funding for recreation above that budgeted in
fiscal year 1997.
Question 189. Why shouldn't we fund recreation at fiscal year 1997
levels and then take this money and put it into road reconstruction and
maintenance?
Answer. The Forest Service budget proposal balances the needs of
all the resource areas to provided multiple benefits and
accomplishments. In fiscal year 1999, the increase in the Recreation
budget line items provides an additional $23 million for the
President's Land, Water, and Facility Restoration Initiative for the
operation, maintenance, and reconstruction of recreation facilities and
trails which have a combined backlog of over $1 billion. These
facilities and trails in substandard condition exists at a time when
more Americans are visiting the national forests than ever before.
Removing these funds will eliminate the following projects across
the Nation: Replacement of over three hundred toilets with more modern
and sanitary, accessible sweet smelling toilets, and replacement of
many which are leaking and causing environmental degradation. Over 400
water systems will be repaired or replaced in order to meet health and
safety standards required by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment. The
$8 million provided for trails would provide heavy maintenance,
rerouting, and reconstruction of over 3,000 miles of trails. This
maintenance would enhance the health and safety of the forest visitors,
improving accessibility, as well as preventing ecosystem degradation.
Many of these projects anticipate contributed funds as well as ``in
kind'' support from the local communities in the form of partnerships.
This allows leverage of the funding to accomplish more than would be
possible with only the Federal dollars.
Examples of project proposal which could be done if this funding is
provided include:
--Providing for the maintenance and reconstruction of water systems
at high use recreation areas, such as Swauk and Ice Water
Campgrounds on the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington;
Ward Lake recreation Area campgrounds on the Tongass National
Forest in Alaska; Pounds Hollow Recreation Area on the Shawnee
National Forest in Illinois; Hyalite Canyon and Reservoir/
Gallatin Canyon on the Gallatin National Forest in Montana;
Dolly Copp Campground wells on the White Mountain National
Forest in New Hampshire; Albert Pike Recreation Area on the
Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas; Bird Creek campground on
the Humbolt National Forest in Nevada; Horseshoe Springs on the
Sante Fe National Forest in New Mexico; the upgrade of 4 water
systems on the Araphaho/Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado;
and the Almanor pumphouse and tank replacement on the Lassen
National Forest in California.
--Providing environmental protection for water quality by improving
sanitation facilities, sewer and/or wastewater systems such as
Begich, Boggs Visitor Center Wastewater system on the Chugach
National Forest in Alaska; Chewalla Lake Recreation Area in
Mississippi; at the Hopewell, Handsome Lake, and Hooks Brook
boat access campgrounds on the Allegheny Reservoir on the
Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania; Fishlake Sewer Lift
Station repairs in Utah; the Bog Springs Campground in Madera
Canyon on the Coronado National Forest in Arizona; Stratton
Pond on the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont; Davidson
River Recreation Area on the Pisgah National Forest in North
Carolina; and Juniper Springs Recreation Area on the Ocala
National Forest in Florida.
--Trail maintenance and reconstruction to protect stream crossings,
steep trails and trails located within riparian areas, such as
the Hanging Rock and Monday Creek ORV areas on the Wayne
National Forest in Ohio; Shenandoah Mountain trail in West
Virginia; the Badin Lake Horse Trail System on the Uwharrie
National Forest in North Carolina; trail restoration on the
Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina, the Coker
Creek and John Muir Trails on the Cherokee National Forest in
Tennessee; the Noisy Creek and Shedroof Mountain trails on the
Colville National Forest in Washington; and the Quinault
Valley, Soleduck River and Duckabush River trails on the
Olympic National Forest in Washington.
Additional project proposal information by Region or
National Forest is available. The actual project selection will
depend on the mix and amount of additional funding provided to
the Forest Service in fiscal year 1999.
You've also requested that we re-authorize the recreation
user fees program which you indicate generated $7.7 of receipts
which will be used by the Forest Service. In essence your
asking this Congress to increase your funding by over $28
million for recreation. For a program that returns less then
$50 million to the government. At the expense of a program that
has the potential to return over a billion dollars in revenues.
Question 190. What are you guys down there in the Old
Auditors Building thinking about Chief?
Answer. Returns to Treasury are one indicator of a programs
contributions to the economy of the United States. The USDA
Forest Service plays a significant role in managing forests and
rangelands and producing resource outputs that provide a
variety of goods and services for the American public. The
economic effects of these goods and services can be described
by several measures, each contributing unique information. The
Draft 1995 RPA Program presents three measures of economic
effects: (1) benefit-cost analysis; (2) returns to Treasury;
and (3) employment and income impacts. The benefit-cost
analysis compares the cost of Forest Service programs to the
benefits generated by those programs. Returns to Treasury are
receipts to the government from sales of outputs and fees for
services on the National Forests and Grasslands.
The economic impacts resulting from Forest Service programs
like timber, grazing, and recreation create ripple effects
throughout the economy with measurable impacts at local,
regional, and national scales. The economic impacts from Forest
Service activities are often summarized as contributions to
employment and income. At the national level, the most relevant
measure of income is the contribution to Gross Domestic Product
(GDP): the value added to the economy of domestic production of
goods and services.
As displayed in the Draft RPA Program, the national
contributions to GDP from recreation are substantially larger
than contributions from other resource areas. This difference
is explained by several factors. The first factor is the sheer
magnitude of recreation use on the national forests and
grasslands. Second, recreation visitors are purchasing final
consumption products (fishing equipment, clothes, etc.) as part
of the recreation trip expenditures.
However, economic impacts are just one perspective and
there are many other valid perspectives and sources of
information that should also be considered in evaluating Forest
Service programs. These include the social and economic impacts
to local communities, revenues generated, economic efficiency,
historical program development and support, and actions needed
to achieve desired conditions or to address urgent problems,
such as forest health. Funding allocations are not based on a
single dominant perspective or factor. Such decisions take into
account all of the factors mentioned above, plus many more.
Question 191. Do you think we can afford to throw good
money after bad to support your social engineering experiments.
Answer. Recreational opportunities continue to be important
to the American public and contribute significantly to local
rural economies. We believe providing recreation facilities and
trails is an important part of the Agency mission--Caring for
the Land and Serving People.
The National Forest System--road maintenance
Chief, you've testified that you have a $10 billion backlog in road
maintenance. We also know that timber purchasers use to pay for 40 to
45 percent of road maintenance. Maintenance that the recreationists,
the agency, and all other forest road users enjoyed.
Question 192. Why shouldn't this Congress take about 30 percent of
the recreation and wilderness budget and put that money into road
reconstruction and maintenance?
Answer. The Forest Service budget proposal provides for recreation
road maintenance and reconstruction within the maintenance and road re/
construction budget line items. Budget constraints do not allow for the
levels of funding needed for either the roads or the recreation
programs. The President's Budget provides balanced funding for these
programs within current funding constraints.
Law enforcement
According to your budget it costs the Forest Service $92,545 per
law enforcement agent.
Question 193. How many county law enforcement officers could the
average county hire for $92,000 per year?
Answer. It is unknown how many law enforcement officers could be
hired by the average county, since we do not have pay information for
county law enforcement personnel available. Simply taking the 1999
estimate of $67,373,000 and the FTE level of 728 from the Forest
Service Explanatory Notes, then dividing those, does not accurately
reflect the cost of law enforcement personnel. The overall budget
figure shown includes cooperative law enforcement funding, fleet
equipment replacement and use, support costs for office space and
clerical assistance, training and travel, transfer of station costs,
and all other related employment costs.
Question 194. Why shouldn't we block grant most, if not all, law
enforcement dollars directly to those counties which have National
Forest lands within them?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 the Senate Appropriations Committee
asked for an independent review of the Forest Service law enforcement
program. In March of 1997, Star Mountain, Inc., a company hired through
the Office of Personnel Management, submitted their final assessment of
the program. One of the four focus areas in their study was,
``Potential for establishing block grants to local law enforcement
agencies, its merits, and cost benefit.'' The report concluded that
block grants were not viewed as an alternative to cooperative
agreements for assuming Forest Service Law Enforcement and
Investigations responsibilities. The primary reason for their
conclusion is the lack of accountability for block grants. Audits may
be required on some types of block grants, however, they generally
focus on the financial soundness of the grant recipients and their
activities rather than accountability for results and outcomes.
Essentially there are no requirements to show an increased benefit
utilizing block grants.
The National Forest System--prescribed fire
Chief, you've state publicly that 90 percent of the lands within
the interior west which are considered to be at a high risk for
catastrophic fire will need to be mechanically treated prior to
burning. We've also seen proposals to burn commercially valuable timber
in some prescribed burns.
Question 195. What is the average cost of prescribed burning?
Answer. Answer combined with those for S-196, S-197, see below.
Question 196. Your budget documents suggest you will treat 1.47
million acres in fiscal year 1999 for some $235 million in fire
operations funding.
Answer. Answer combined with those for S-195, S-197, see below.
Question 197. That works out to about $160 per acre if I did my
math right.
Answer. (Combined with answers for S-195, S-196) The fiscal year
1999 proposed budget includes $235.0 million in fire operations
funding. Of that amount, only $65.0 million is proposed for the
Hazardous Fuel Reduction program. The balance of the Fire Operations
program funding supports wildfire suppression activities.
The $65.0 million Hazardous Fuel Reduction program supports all
types of fuel treatment activities, including prescribed burning, and a
variety of mechanical treatments. The program also supports associated
activities, such as planning fuel reduction activities and assuring
compliance with air quality standards. The fiscal year 1999 program
proposed to treat a total of 1.47 million acres.
Per-acre costs of prescribed burning, which is one component of the
$65.0 million Hazardous Fuel Reduction program, vary by topography,
vegetation type, weather conditions, and proximity to structures and
developed areas. Per-acre costs range from $30 to $300 per acre, with
some situations potentially driving per-acre costs higher.
Question 198. If you could sell only 5,000 board feet/acre of
commercial timber from the lands you want to burn, the commercial
timber value would net the government approximately about $240 per acre
treated. Tell me why we shouldn't require the Forest Service to remove
and sell all commercial products prior to burning?
Answer. Commercial timber does not occur on all lands scheduled for
fuel treatment or prescribed burning. Mechanical fuel treatment and
prescribed burning are not meant to cause damage to forest lands. Most
of the mechanical treatment needed to prepare a forested area for
prescribed burning involves removing small trees and brush that have
little or no commercial value. The objectives are to reduce fuels that
allow fire to move from the ground, surface fuel into tree crowns and
to create a crown spacing that reduces the risk of wildfire spreading
through tree canopies. Some commercial products may be produced as a
result of this mechanical treatment, including biomass, pulpwood, and
some sawlog products. It is current practice to seek to sell and remove
products that have commercial value in preparation for prescribed
burning. Unfortunately, much of the material to be treated has little
or no value in the marketplace. Material that does have commercial
value, such as biomass and pulpwood may have local markets, but those
markets are often transitory and unreliable, making it difficult to
plan with assurance that they will be available at all times.
Question 199. If you did remove this volume won't you reduce the
fuel loading and make these projects less risky and less costly to
burn?
Answer. Removing commercial timber from an area may increase fire
hazard as the limbs and foliage that were a part of the harvested trees
are left as slash and dead fuel. As fuel loadings on an area increase,
the cost of fuel treatment may also increase.
Question 200. Wouldn't you return a positive cash-flow to the
federal coffers rather then sending $235 million up in smoke?
Answer. It is current practice to sell merchantable products
created as a result of treatment in preparation for prescribed burning.
This can help offset the cost of fuel treatment, but normally is not
sufficient to create positive cash flow. As stated before, the
materials that are removed to prepare an area for prescribed fire are
generally not valuable enough to create market interest.
The National Forest System--purchaser road credits
Chief, once again you've proposed to do away with purchaser credits
and reduce road funding.
Question 201. What percent of your road construction budget is
spent on building new roads and what percent is spent on reconstructing
existing roads?
Answer. Only 1.0 percent of the proposed fiscal year 1999 road
reconstruction and construction budget is proposed for actual road
construction contract costs and 28 percent is proposed for actual road
reconstruction contract costs. The remaining 71 percent is proposed for
engineering support (survey, design, and contract administration) for
roads reconstructed and constructed from appropriated funds, and by
timber purchasers, and for program management and overhead. Recognizing
both appropriated and purchaser funded work, and based on miles to be
accomplished, there will be 3,541 miles of road reconstructed (89.6
percent) and 410 miles of road constructed (10.4 percent) in fiscal
year 1999.
Question 202. How much of your bridge replacement backlog and
maintenance backlog is dependent on reconstruction projects?
Answer. Basically, all of the bridge replacement and maintenance
backlog depends on reconstruction. Bridges can be replaced with
maintenance funds and the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
initiative includes replacing 40 bridges. However, about 13 percent of
our 7,650 bridges are functionally obsolete or unsafe. On a 50-year
replacement cycle, we would need to replace about 150 bridges per year
to hold the bridge backlog line. With foreseeable maintenance funding,
gaining on or even holding the bridge backlog line will depend on
reconstruction.
Question 203. Are you telling me that you have critical road
maintenance and reconstruction problems yet your recommending further
reduction in two to the line items which help you accomplish the very
work your now wringing your hands over? The National Forest System--
Purchaser Road Credits.
Answer. The elimination of the Purchaser Road Credits program in
fiscal year 1999 will not affect our ability to accomplish needed road
work for ``critical road maintenance and reconstruction problems''.
Purchasers of National Forest timber will still be required to do
needed road work as before, but now the cost of that road work will be
paid directly, rather than indirectly by the purchasers. This may then
be reflected in lower bid prices; however, any suggestion or appearance
of a subsidy will be removed. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget
for roads reconstruction and construction is actually a 10-percent
increase over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, and the request for
road maintenance is increased 26 percent over the fiscal year 1998
appropriation. However, critical road maintenance and reconstruction
problems will still remain as the increases will slow the increase of
the growth of the backlog in both these areas but not decrease it.
Question 204. What percent of federal timber is purchased by small
business purchasers?
Answer. Data is currently unavailable.
Question 205. Don't the small business purchasers may a greater
cash flow challenge when it comes to paying for timber sales?
Answer. Yes, small business purchasers may have a greater cash flow
challenge when it comes to paying for timber sales. However, we believe
that the timber sale provisions and requirements reflect reasonable
rates of deposits and payments for the small business purchaser, while
protecting the interest of the United States Government.
Question 206. If you need forest product companies to help you
accomplish your management goals and you are going to propose a policy
which will financially disadvantage one group of timber sale purchasers
over another, what are you going to do to protect these small
companies?
Answer. The Forest Service needs an industry to help achieve the
long term management goals of the national forests. The President's
fiscal year 1999 budget proposed language to modify Section 14i of the
National Forest Management Act, which authorizes the Forest Service to
build purchaser credit roads over $20,000 upon the request of small
businesses. The proposed language is necessary to continue to provide
this opportunity to small businesses.
The National Forest System--purchaser road credits
Question 207. Chief, has your agency done any analysis on how much
it will cost to develop new contract procedures to allow for road
design changes that are now handled under the purchaser credit
provisions of the timber sale contract?
Answer. We have not done an analysis at this time on the cost to
revise the policy concerning timber sale purchaser roads. The process
we will propose to put into place will try to cause as little
disruption as possible to the process. As an example, we will still
build the same standard of road necessary to protect the environment
and that is necessary to remove the logs. Thus, the construction
provisions will not change. We will try to include all the present
contract provisions but will just handle them in a different manner.
Currently, the sale is advertised as if the road is in place and the
purchaser receives credit as the road is constructed. The revised
approach will advertise the sale reflecting the cost of the road as
part of the bid price.
Question 208. What will happen when your employees identify a need
to make a change in the road design?
Answer. Needed road design changes will be handled similar to the
present process. The contract will identify the same reasons,
conditions and requirements to justify those needed design changes.
Other changes will have to be by mutual agreement. In some cases,
appropriated funds will have to used. As appropriated funds have been
limited in the past, some design changes may not be accomplished if
there are not sufficient funds.
Question 209. How will your timber sale contract accommodate the
change without delaying a purchaser's sale operations?
Answer. The elimination of purchaser road credits requires change
in approach in handling road costs in the timber sale contract.
Question 210. Has your agency undertaken any analysis to understand
how the elimination of the purchaser road credit program will impact
timber bids and receipts?
Answer. A year ago GAO reported to Congress what the possible
effects of eliminating the purchaser road credit program might be. The
Forest Service has not done any additional analysis. We would expect a
slight decrease in bids because timber sale purchasers will have to
carry borrowed funds longer and will pay more interest on borrowed
monies without purchaser road credits. In addition, if there is no
purchaser credit, this approach will not allow the timber sale
purchaser to transfer earned purchaser credit between sales on the same
national forest.
American heritage rivers
In Ms. McGinty's testimony on this program, she indicated the three
primary objectives of the program are (1) local economic
revitalization, (2) natural resources and environmental protection, and
(3) cultural resource preservation. The federal register announcement
on this initiative indicated that you (the administration) were
``creating the American Heritage Rivers (AHR) initiative to help these
communities restore and protect their river resources, in a way that
integrates natural resource protection, economic development, and the
preservation of historic and cultural values.''
Question 211. Chief, having listened to those objectives would you
think these rivers would be located near metropolitan areas, or in the
wilderness areas?
Answer. We do not know where the 10 designated rivers will be
located, but they may be in both urban and non-urban settings.
Question 212. Chief, the President's Executive Order of April 8th
on the American Heritage Rivers Advisory Group calls for some of the
rivers which this group will recommend to be rivers that are
``relatively pristine.'' Is it your understanding that your agency will
be asked to expend its budget to place additional protection on rivers
within the National Forest System (NFS) as a result of the Heritage
Rivers initiative?
Answer. It is our understanding that this initiative will not
require or allow any new federal regulations. We do not expect to place
additional protection on AHR designated rivers within NFS lands.
Question 213. What will this program do for rivers located on
National Forest Lands that your existing forest plans can't already
accomplish? Will this initiative result in any additional rivers be
designated as wild and scenic on National Forest lands?
Answer. This initiative will encourage greater interagency
coordination, more partnerships with the private sector and non-profit
organizations, and more involvement with communities. This initiative
will not affect any rivers eligibility for wild and scenic river
designation.
Question 214. If the program is designed to help communities (town
and cities) refurbish their river heritage, why are you mucking around
out on the National Forests? How many towns over 5,000 people are
located within the boundaries of the National Forests? How many have
rivers which run through both the town and the National Forest?
Answer. This information is currently not available at the
Washington or local offices. Please contact us to clarify your needs
and we will work with you to provide the appropriate information.
The Agriculture Research Bill Conference Report includes language
that puts the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program on a five-
year cycle. This language has strong support among all forest
constituents, and is the product of a blue ribbon report prepared for
the Chief of the Forest Service by a diverse coalition including the
National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges,
National Association of State Foresters, the National Woodland Owners
Association, the Wilderness Society, the Society of American Foresters,
and the American Forest and paper Association. The language was
overwhelmingly approved in the House and has met no significant
opposition in the Senate.
Forest and rangeland research--forest inventory and analysis
Question 215. Is it the intention of the Forest Service, in
response to Congressional mandate, to move the FIA program to a 5-year
cycle?
Answer. The Research Bill has not yet been finalized or signed by
the President. However, the Forest Service shares the goal of moving
the FIA research program to a 5-year cycle. The current legislation
requires submission of a strategic plan with 180 days of passage
indicating additional funding and personnel needs to transition from
the current program to a more vigorous 5-year program.
Question 216. What is the priority of this improved FIA program
relative to other research initiatives? What research initiatives are
higher priority?
Answer. FIA is the highest research initiative priority for the
fiscal year 1999 Forest Service Research budget.
Question 217. Is the $4.5 million increase in funding for FIA in
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget sufficient to move the program
to a five year cycle?
Answer. No. The increase proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget is
only sufficient to reduce the national FIA cycle to about 11-years and
begin annualized inventories on about 37 percent of the nation's
forests. The strategic plan called for in the Research Bill will
outline the additional needs above fiscal year 1999 funding to achieve
the five-year cycle mandated on 100 percent of the nation's forests.
Question 218. Would you agree that Congress, in response to the
overwhelming support for a five year inventory cycle, should provide
sufficient resources to make a 5-year cycle possible?
Answer. Yes. As long as the resources permit the agency to collect
information on the broader suite data essential to monitor ecosystem
integrity.
FIA is a global leader in inventory and monitoring technology and
provides critical information on the status, trends and condition of
forest lands for 10 million private and all public forest landowners in
the United States. FIA is provides forest resource information across
all ownerships that is more comprehensive, more detailed, and of higher
quality than any other entity and has done so for 70 years. FIA's
leadership and dedication to providing sound, unbiased resource
information was recognized by the First Blue Ribbon Panel on Forest
Inventory in 1992 and again by the Second Panel this year.
Question 219. How much additional funding would the Forest Service
need to move the FIA program to a 5-year cycle?
Answer. The question has two answers because the five year cycle
required by the Agriculture Research Bill is more stringent than the
five year cycle sought in the Second Blue Ribbon Panel Report. Although
the strategic planning required by the Research Bill has only recently
begun and the budget analyses are still very preliminary, we estimate
that it would take $98 million annually to provide the program outlined
in the Research Bill. The estimated cost of complying with the Second
Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommendations is $80 million. The cost
difference stems from the fact that visiting 20 percent of the plots
each year in very remote locations, such as interior Alaska and
wilderness areas, is extremely expensive. The Blue Ribbon Panel report
recommends negotiations with State Foresters, and some State Foresters
are supporting cycles other than 5-years. For example, for some western
areas, cycles of 7 or 10-years are supported by State Foresters, and
perhaps 20-years for interior Alaska. This flexibility to negotiate a
cycle that best meets customer needs results in the lower cost estimate
of $80 million.
Both the Research Bill and the Blue Ribbon Panel require reporting
of forest health information as an integral part of the program. Thus,
budget estimates for this response reflect a merged FIA and Forest
Health Monitoring (FHM) detection monitoring program.
In fiscal year 1999, Forest Service Research proposes $28 million
on FIA and FHM detection monitoring and will leverage about $9 million
in direct and in-kind support from FIA/FHM partners, for a total of $37
million. This funding will support annualized inventories on about 37
percent of the nation's forests, a national FIA cycle of about 11
years, and provide for forest health detection coverage on about 70
percent of the nation's forests.
In addition, future inventory and monitoring efforts will include
more ecosystem information to increase their value for analysis,
planning, evaluation and education. This broader array of information
in conjunction with improved linkages to other data sources will help
streamline planning, analysis and implementation of a more efficient
resource information gathering and delivery system. Future efforts will
also pursue continued improvement and significant expansion of our
popular interactive internet data delivery capability
(www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/wo/wofia.htm).
National Forest System--reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire
In his recent ``State of the Forest Address, Chief Dombeck state,
``There are approximately 40 million acres of national forests that are
exposed to abnormally high risk of fire, disease, and insect outbreaks.
To respond to this need, we are asking Congress for funding to: (1)
increase prescribed fire and forest fuels treatment in critical
watersheds from 1.1 million acres in 1997 to 1.5 million acres in 1999
and (2) double the amount of thinning in unnaturally dense forest
stands particularly along the urban--wildland interface over the next
5-years.''
Question 220. In October of 1997 the House Committee on Agriculture
sent you a letter requesting the location of these 40 million acres.
Did the agency ever respond to this letter?
Answer. We cannot find record of a response to this letter.
Question 221. Have these acres been identified? Where are they?
Answer. The 40 million acres are estimated to be a portion of
National Forest Land where hazardous fuels loads and the potential for
insect and disease problems is greatest. These areas primarily occur in
the extensive pine stands found in the west and south. In the fiscal
year 1998 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, Congress directed that $4 million in the Forest
Service's Wildland Fire Management appropriation and the Department of
Interior's appropriation be used to establish and implement a
comprehensive approach for fuels mapping and inventory. This approach
is now being developed by a joint Fire Sciences Team and will provide
for improved fuels mapping and inventory.
Question 222. Your ``State of the Forest Address'' indicated that
you intend to ``double the amount of thinning in unnaturally dense
forest stands over the next five years.'' How much of this thinning do
you currently do?
Answer. Two types of thinning operations are performed--
precommercial and commercial. The difference between the two
activities, as the names imply, is largely a function of whether or not
the material being removed is of sufficient size to have acquired a
market value.
Annual data on the number of acres subject to each type of
treatment are available from the Forest Service's TRACS-SILVA database.
The figures for the last two years are provided below. These data
indicate that we are presently thinning about 285,000 acres annually--
155,000 acres precommercially and 130,000 acres commercially.
ANNUAL DATA
[In acres]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997
Region -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precommercial Commercial Total Precommercial Commercial Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern.............................. 14,285 2,391 16,676 11,737 2,535 14,262
Rocky Mountain........................ 12,801 4,372 17,173 12,839 4,324 17,163
Southwest............................. 4,353 1,915 6,268 14,189 5,707 19,896
Intermountain......................... 10,723 5,122 15,845 12,268 2,947 15,215
Pacific South West.................... 25,303 11,171 36,474 31,456 16,808 48,264
Pacific North West.................... 66,437 12,785 79,222 57,724 20,149 77,873
Southern.............................. 8,874 61,943 70,817 8,501 51,827 60,328
Eastern............................... 5,713 28,844 34,557 4,729 27,786 32,515
Alaska................................ 4,016 .......... 4,016 3,728 .......... 3,728
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Servicewide....................... 152,505 128,543 281,048 157,171 132,083 289,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 223. Where is this thinning going to occur?
Answer. While we are currently striving to improve the reliability
of our data, at present it is estimated that approximately 40 million
acres of National Forest land are exposed to abnormally high risk of
fire, insect, or disease outbreaks. This heightened risk may be a
function of many variables, but overstocking is certainly a key
consideration. While some overstocking problems can be addressed by
means other than thinning--e.g., prescribed burning--in many instances
the existing stocking levels are so high that the risks associated with
introducing a prescribed fire are prohibitive. In these instances,
thinning is our only real mechanism for implementing positive change.
Given that the risk of catastrophic fire tends to be greatest in
wildland/urban interface areas, these zones would logically become
focal points for our expanded thinning program.
Question 224. The funding for this thinning doesn't seem to appear
to be in any of the National Forest System line items, the State and
Private Forestry line items or in any other program line items. Where
precisely is this thinning initiative in the budget?
Answer. The initiative proposes to double the amount of thinning in
unnaturally dense stands over the next five years. In fiscal year 1999
we will be using funding in the forestland management line items (NFTM
for commercial thinning and NFFV for precommercial thinning) and from
the K-V and reforestation trust funds only for precommercial thinning.
Question 225. In what time frame do you anticipate treating all 40
million acres in the current backlog? Is your budget request consistent
with this timeframe? What level of funding would be consistent with
this time frame?
Answer. We plan to increase our fuels treatment program 30 percent
per year until we are treating 3.0 million acres per year by 2005. At
this rate of treatment, we anticipate that critical areas would be
treated within 10-15 years, with much of the 40 million acres requiring
multiple treatments on each acre.
The work by the Fire Sciences Team will be used to determine
priorities, judge the effectiveness of various treatments, and assess
the risk. The funding request in the President's budget is consistent
with this time frame.
National Forest System--watershed health improvement
In February Secretary Glickman transmitted a letter to House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Smith expressing his opposition to
Chairman Smith's forest health bill. The letter rejected Chairman
Smith's proposal to use the Roads and Trails Fund for forest health
recovery projects, yet advocated using this same fund for ``watershed
restoration activities.'' The concept of ``watershed restoration, as it
turns out, is nearly identical to the concept of forest recovery
outlined in Chairman Smith's bill.
Question 226. On February 27, Secretary Glickman transmitted a
letter to Chairman Smith opposing the use of the Roads and Trails Fund
for the purpose outlined in his forest health bill. This same letter
advocated the use of the Roads and Trails Fund for ``watershed
restoration activities.'' Where does this proposal appear in the fiscal
year 1999 budget?
Answer. Secretary Glickman's February 27, 1998 letter described the
Administration?s suggested alternative to H.R. 2515. This alternative
would emphasize watershed and forest health treatments such as:
--Reconstructing, relocating, maintaining, or decommissioning roads;
--Prescribed fire;
--Watershed restoration through soil stabilization and abandoned mine
rehabilitation;
--Restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat;
--Control of noxious and exotic weeds; and
--Ecosystem analysis
The fiscal year 1999 President's budget includes funding
increases for programs that would carry out these kinds of
treatments.
The Administration's alternative would amend the 10 Percent
Fund to expand its scope of spending from road and trail
construction, reconstruction, and maintenance, to overall
watershed health. The Secretary's letter was sent to the
Committee after the fiscal year 1999 President's budget was
released. The fiscal year 1999 President's budget for the 10
Percent Fund would support activities that are currently
authorized, including trail reconstruction, and road
reconstruction and maintenance to address environmental
degradation, especially in riparian areas.
Question 227. Why was the Secretary's proposal not included
in the USFS explanatory notes?
Answer. The Secretary's letter was sent to the Committee
after the fiscal year 1999 President's budget was released. The
fiscal year 1999 President's budget, as described in the
Explanatory Notes, includes funding increases for programs that
normally conduct the kinds of watershed restoration and forest
health treatments described in the Administration's
alternative. The fiscal year 1999 President's budget for the 10
Percent Fund would support activities that are currently
authorized, including trail reconstruction, and road
reconstruction and maintenance to address environmental
degradation, especially in riparian areas.
Question 228. Was the proposal presented to Chairman Smith
sincere? Does the Department or the agency still view
``watershed restoration activities'' as an appropriate use of
the Roads and Trails Fund?
Answer. The Secretary's proposal was sincere. The
Administration believes it would be appropriate to expand the
authorized use of the 10 Percent Fund to include the types of
watershed and forest health treatments described in it's
alternative to H.R. 2515.
Question 229. To what extent does the treatment of the 40
million acres of forest at risk of catastrophic fire correspond
with ``watershed restoration?'' How are the two similar? How
are they different?
Answer. A noted earlier, the location and actual risk
associated with these acres will be defined by the Fire
Sciences funding in the fiscal year 1998 Wildland Fire
Management appropriation. Since large, damaging fires pose a
threat to a healthy watershed, many acres included in the 40
million occur within watersheds that need restoration. Fuel
treatment can prevent severe fires which damage watersheds and
cause floods and erosion. Prescribed fire can increase species
diversity on a site, giving more resilience to ecosystems. Fuel
treatments that put more organic matter on the ground speeds
nutrient availability to new plants and prevents site
deterioration. It is assumed that fuel treatment within these
areas will be one very effective component of watershed
restoration. There are riparian areas where fire may be
damaging instead of restorative. In other cases, fire may
expose old erosion sources, reactivating the erosion cycle.
These areas would not be included within the 40 million acres
and may require restoration activities other than fuel
treatment or prescribed fire.
Question 230. Does the current condition of the 40 million
acres place watershed health at risk? Would it logically
follow, then, that your proposal for watershed restoration
would incorporate the 40 million acres?
Answer. As noted in Question 229, much of the area would
cover the same area. Fuel treatments are expected to reduce the
fire hazard, restore the health of the ecosystem, and be an
effective component of watershed restoration.
------
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
hardwoods technology center, princeton
Chief, the Forest Service has been involved with the
hardwoods technology center in West Virginia that assists
small, independent operators in their efforts to get
established in the secondary hardwoods processing industry. For
a variety of reasons, the Center is now faced with a need to
restructure its operations.
Question 231. What steps can the Forest Service, especially
State and Private Forestry, take to assist in providing this
center with a firm organizational footing?
Answer. In fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 1992, a total
of $8.9 million was appropriated to the USDA Forest Service,
State and Private Forestry, to initiate the development of a
hardwood training and flexible-manufacturing center in Mercer
County, West Virginia. The initial role of the USDA Forest
Service in assisting the Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technology
Center was largely grant administration by the Northeastern
Area and some counsel by Research.
During the last three years the Northeastern Area has taken
on a more direct role of assistance, guidance and counsel. In
May 1996, the Northeastern Area drafted a report entitled,
Strengthening Hardwood Utilization: An Institute Concept for
Hardwood Utilization Research, Technology Training and
Transfer, and Industry Development. The report, provided to
Congress, called for the USDA Forest Service to better
coordinate its State and Private Forestry and Research role and
to develop linkages with the Center to focus on the following
program areas: Joint leadership, resource information and
analysis, shared training, shared workforce toward common
goals, shared planning, and shared initiatives.
The Institute concept specifically called for funding for
the Forestry Sciences Laboratory to be restored to the fiscal
year 1995 level, a State and Private Forestry Liaison position
to be created, and an economically self-sufficient Center to be
programmatically linked to USDA Forest Service Research and
State and Private Forestry programs. Funding has been restored
at the Laboratory and a State and Private Forestry Liaison
position has been established.
The Forest Service continues to assist the Center by
providing, through a partnership role, a wide-range of linkages
and contacts, timely information, technical advice, and focused
financial incentives. The research programs at the Forestry
Sciences Laboratory have been recently restructured based on
input from the hardwood industry. The Institute concept,
bringing together the Center; the Northeastern Area; and the
Forestry Sciences Laboratory; remains a viable option for the
Center to be fully successful. The Forest Service continues to
support the Institute Concept, however, since the Center is a
501(c)-(3) non-profit organization, the Board of Directors for
the Center controls the overall program agenda and makes all
decisions concerning the operations of the Center.
Chief, I would request that you develop, for the
Subcommittee's consideration, a future vision for the Hardwoods
Technology Center. Because of the nature of the center's work,
I believe your State and Private Forestry branch should lead
this effort. This group is familiar with this project, and
should be able to address goals and objectives, leadership
needs, and funding requirements for a restructed Hardwoods
Technology Center. And, because the Appropriations Committee
will soon begin its mark-ups of the fiscal year 1999 budget, I
would appreciate a response within the next two weeks.
Question 232. In light of the need to strengthen the
program at the hardwoods center, why has the Forest Service
proposed to reduce the fiscal year 1999 technical assistance
funding below last year's enacted level of $200,000?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 President's budget proposes to
maintain funding for the hardwoods center in Princeton, West
Virginia at the fiscal year 1998 funding level of $200,000. The
Forest Service fiscal year 1999 Explanatory Notes do not report
the correct level of funding.
Seneca Rocks Visitor Center
Question 233. What are the estimated costs for operations of the
visitor center? What plans does the Forest Service have in developing
its budget for next year to accommodate the additional operating costs
that will accompany this facility?
Answer. The estimated annual operating cost for the Seneca Rocks
Visitor Information Center is $275,000.
The Forest and Region are exploring partnership opportunities to
offset the increased costs of operation and maintenance for this, and
one other new center (Northern Great Lake Visitor Center) in the
Region.
To assist the Forest Service in addressing the growing recreation
demands on our national forests, Congress in fiscal year 1996
established a demonstration fee program.
Question 234. To assist the Forest Service in addressing the
growing recreation demands on our national forests, Congress in fiscal
year 1996 established a demonstration fee program. What has been the
experience to date in the Service's implementation of the program?
Answer. Our experience has generally been favorable. The
flexibility of the program as authorized has given our project managers
the latitude to craft projects that are generally acceptable for their
particular site and their particular set of circumstances and visitors.
It also allows us to make needed changes where changes are warranted
because of public reaction. We have also found that projects in areas
or for activities that had no prior fee associated takes more time,
resources, and about a year of planning--to ensure a fiscally sound and
publicly accepted program. We also find better success with projects at
developed sites where reinvestment of funds is more apparent than on
dispersed sites.
Question 235. What revenues were generated last year, and what are
your expectations for this fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 we collected $8.7 million from the fee
demo program, at 40 sites. We anticipate collecting approximately $16
million from the program in fiscal year 1998, at about 80 sites.
allocation of funds
Chief, in recent years, the Forest Service has undertaken an effort
to change the manner in which it decides how it allocates funds to the
field. It appears that as a proportion of total National Forest System
appropriated funds, Region 9 is not faring as well in the budget
process. I understand that similar dissatisfaction has been heard in
some corners from Region 8, the Southern region.
Question 236. What are the factors that contributed to the Forest
Service's decision to reallocate funding of the various National Forest
System line-items?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1995, there was no consistent,
established approach for allocating funds in either the formulation or
execution stages of the budget process. In budget formulation, the
Deputy Chief established regional funding levels by adjusting the
previous year's level based on personal knowledge of issues or program
changes. These adjustments were not necessarily based on quantifiable
or documentable information and tended to perpetuate historical funding
distributions. In budget execution, the same approach was used except
that allocations were proposed by individual staffs based on their
knowledge of program issues and priorities. Some staffs used budget
formulation information received from field units to help in these
decisions. The agency's leadership generally approved these allocations
without significant adjustments. The logic and rationale behind these
decisions in both steps of the budget process were never communicated
to the field. Many regions voiced concerns about the equity and
objectivity of these allocations, particularly as program priorities
within the agency began to change.
The Forest Service began using a criteria-based approach for
allocating funds in the agency's budget formulation process in fiscal
year 1995. Significant progress has been made since that initial
effort, and as of fiscal year 1997 criteria are now used to make
initial and final allocations as well as allocations for budget
formulation purposes.
Allocation criteria provide some of the rationale needed to justify
programs by linking the distribution of funds to expected performance
as described in agency goals and objectives. They help sharpen the
focus on objectives and communicate agency priorities. The allocation
criteria establish a foundation for distributing resources by
identifying differences in Regional resource conditions, workload,
production capabilities and other elements.
As the Agency refines its allocation criteria, Washington Office
(WO) and Regional program managers are looking to improve the link
between the performance indicators in the GPRA Performance Plan and the
criteria. This connection will ensure that accomplishing the agency's
priorities on the ground is rewarded and that funding is tied to
accountable work.
Question 237. What are the consequences to the forests, on-the-
ground, of this type of reallocation? Are facilities having to be
closed, or are services being reduced, or is staffing affected?
Answer. Given the complexity of managing natural resources, no set
of criteria will yield the optimum allocation for everyone. Management
review remains a necessity to ensure that regional programs are
maintained. Changes to address program viability or emerging needs
usually take place when the regions respond to the Program Budget
Instructions, the Initial Planning and Budget Advice (PBA), or even
through reprogramming requests. Regions provide an analysis of the
impacts that proposed funding increases and decreases would have on
their program capabilities. In reviewing this information, WO program
managers work to address emerging issues or priorities so that the
final allocation balances Regional needs.
In the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 Final PBAs,
adjustments were made to some programs where shifts in funding due to
applying the criteria would have resulted in significant changes. The
adjustments generally limited an increase or decrease of no more than
10 percent in a unit's percent share of available funding from one year
to the next. In the fiscal year 1999 Initial PBA, NFS program managers
eliminated the ``bridge'' for most of their programs, but kept it when
the impacts would have been too drastic or if revisions to the criteria
were soon expected to occur.
Question 238. As the effects of these reduced budgets are being
felt in the regions that have had to give up funds, is there any
thought being given to re-evaluating the factors so that significant
disruption to the delivery of services does not occur?
Answer. For any given region, several factors would have led to
increases or decreases in funding for a line item: total funding
appropriated, the amount of funds needed to operate the National
headquarters, earmarks or priorities for specific regions, and the
criteria used. Since moving to a criteria-based approach can result in
significant shifts in program funding among regions, an adjustment or
``bridge'' was applied to all regions to limit an increase or decrease
of no more than 10 percent in a region's percent share of the available
funding from one year to the next.
While some Regions may have declining budgets for some programs,
using the criteria has resulted in increases in other programs. Use of
the allocation criteria has refocused funding in the regions on
different programs. For instance, Regions 8 and 9 are receiving a
higher percent share of the Ecosystem Planning, Inventory and
Monitoring, but less of the Recreation and Wilderness funds.
The evaluation and refinement of allocation criteria is an on-going
effort involving Washington office and regional resource and budget
staffs. This effort is designed to address issues related to specific
program criteria. Resource or other information used to update the
criteria is kept as current as possible. Unresolved issues related to
specific criteria are periodically addressed to assure that the best
possible criteria are in use. Staffs are also working to improve the
link between the performance indicators in the agency's GPRA
Performance Plan and the criteria. This connection will ensure that
accomplishing the agency's priorities on the ground is rewarded and
that funding is tied to accountable work. As criteria improve,
additional shifts in funding among regions may occur. Those changes
will be implemented incrementally to limit significant changes.
Question 239. What was the Forest Service's logic in applying the
reallocation to the base program, and not just the incremental changes
in funding each year?
Answer. Allocation criteria for each program are applied to the
total funds available for distribution to the field for a given year.
When the criteria were first used, a ``bridge'' or adjustment was also
applied to mitigate the adverse effects of potentially rapid changes in
program funding levels. This ``bridging'' approach temporarily
maintained the link to an historical ``base'', but allowed some
movement towards a more rational and equitable distribution of funds.
Subsequent allocations using the criteria have resulted in further
shifts away from historical levels of funding for some programs in some
regions. This, however, reflects the intended result of this approach,
a significantly more meaningful, visible and equitable allocation.
Applying the criteria to incremental changes in the budget could
eventually lead to the same result, but it would take significantly
longer and there would be no justifiable reason for hanging on to a
``base'' program that does not reflect current workloads and the
capabilities of field units to address shifting agency priorities.
Question 240. To what extent does the allocation of funds take into
consideration the number of recreation sites on a forest, and the costs
associated with keeping these facilities available for public use?
Answer. The regional and Washington office Recreation Management
staffs worked extensively to develop and refine the criteria currently
being used. The agency's Recreation Program Directors selected criteria
that best represented the recreation resource situation and workload
for which quality information was available. From this process they
selected the following criteria:
--Recreation Use calculated using Recreational Visitor Days (31
percent weight);
--Managed developed site capacity using PAOT-Days (Persons-at-one-
time) (30 percent weight);
--Non-Wilderness Forest Service acres per Region (18 percent weight);
--Miles of existing Non-Wilderness trails (12 percent weight); and
--Number of Special Use Permits (9 percent weight).
Of these criteria, the PAOT-Days, weighted at 30 percent,
attempts to account for the workload associated with recreation
sites and managed site capacity. The recreation budget criteria
are expected to change when the results of two important
efforts (Recreation Meaningful Measures and the INFRA data
base) provide consistent, validated measures and costs.
Question 241. Does the allocation method address the
different operating seasons for the various regions such as the
short but intense use in the northernmost states, as compared
to the longer, more dispersed seasons in the southern tier of
states?
Answer. The Recreation Program Directors measured the
managed developed site capacity calculated using PAOT-Days
(Persons-at-one-time). PAOT-days was used because it does
consider the season of use, though it does not capture the
timing differences in operating seasons. The Recreation
Directors considered a range of potential indicators that
attempted to measure the different workloads and resources in
the regions.
When Meaningful Measures and the INFRA database are
implemented in fiscal year 1999, the Recreation staff intends
to review its allocation criteria to assess the improvements in
the information collected and to identify indicators that
demonstrate the ``quality'' of experience.
firefighting
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Forest Service
appropriated funds is about $50 million above the fiscal year
1999 enacted level. A significant portion of the increase is
created by reducing funding for the firefighting program some
$30 million below last year's level.
Question 242. What is your confidence level that sufficient
funds are included in the Forest Service request for
firefighting this year?
Answer. Within the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for
Wildland Fire Management, firefighting funds proposed in the
Fire Operations Expanded Budget Line Item at $235.0 million
combined with $102.0 million in proposed contingency funding,
represent a level slightly above the 10-year average annual
fire suppression expenditures. In addition, there is still a
$250 million emergency fund available should the President need
to activate it.
Question 243. Do you anticipate having to borrow any funds
from the Knutsen-Vandenburg Reforestation Trust Fund this fire
season? If so, how do you propose to repay the K-V account for
those funds, let alone the outstanding balance of $493 million
already owed the K-V account?
Answer. The Forest Service does not anticipate having to
borrow funds from the Knutsen-Vandenburg fund for firefighting
this fire season.
The ten year (1987-1997) average for wildfire suppression
activities is $323 million. Yet the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for operations is just $235 million, some $88 million,
or 27 percent, below the 10-year average.
Question 244. Does the Forest Service believe the ten-year
average is an inappropriate indicator for firefighting costs?
If so, what alternative basis would you recommend for
determining firefighting funding levels?
Answer. The ten-year average annual fire suppression
expenditure figure is an appropriate indicator for capturing
the variability of fire season severity year to year. At the
same time, it provides a logical basis for consistent
administration budget proposals, in the face of uncertain
outyear fire seasons. Given the wide fluctuation in fire season
severity, a ten-year average annual level, along with a
contingency fund or supplemental appropriation in extreme
wildfire occurrence years, provides for a more balanced annual
budgeting process.
As you may be aware, Budget Committee and the Congressional
Budget Office expect the Interior Subcommittee to fund the
firefighting accounts at the ten year average. Thus, even
though you have not requested this amount, the Subcommittee may
be ``charged'', or scored, with the increment of $88 million.
Question 245. If this happens, where within the Forest
Service budget do you propose that the Subcommittee obtain $88
million in savings?
Answer. The Fire Operations account at $235.0 million,
along with the $102.0 million in proposed contingency funding,
is slightly above the 10-year average annual suppression costs.
In addition, there is currently a $250.0 million contingency
that was established by Congress in fiscal year 1997 but not
used. The amount available in fiscal year 1999 will depend upon
fund usage, if any in fiscal year 1998. Given these additional
funds, we feel there are adequate financial resources available
to the Forest Service in fiscal year 1999.
state and private forestry
Cooperative Fire Program
Question 246. The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget request
calls for a program increase to $23.5 million for Cooperative Fire
Protection. Is this increase a result of budget restructuring or is it
a proposed program increase? Please describe with specificity what a
requested increase in funding will be used for.
Answer. The increase is a result of budget restructuring. In the
fiscal year 1999 President's budget the Cooperative Fire Protection
budget is being proposed as a separate Budget Line Item within the
Interior Appropriation for the Forest Service State and Private
Forestry. Prior to this year, the funds for a Cooperative Fire
Protection program came from two separate appropriations: The
Cooperative Lands Fire Management EBLI within the Interior
Appropriation for Forest Service State and Private Forestry, and the
Rural Community Fire Protection (RCFP) component, funded through the
Rural Housing Service within the Agriculture Appropriation.
The funds for Rural Community Fire Protection will be used in
fiscal year 1999 as they have been used in the past: for training,
organizing, and equipping rural volunteer fire departments servicing
communities with populations of less than 10,000.
Question 247. What is the basis for allocation of these funds to
the Regions? Will the fiscal year 1999 allocation differ dramatically
from allocations made in fiscal year 1998? If so, why?
Answer. State Fire Assistance Expanded Budget Line Item--Funds are
allocated to the field units based upon continuation of a historical
funding which took into account program complexities and fire workload
in each state. The allocations are developed in consultation with the
State Foresters who administer the program locally.
Volunteer Fire Assistance Expanded Budget Line Item.--Funds are
allocated to the field units based upon continuation of a historical
funding which took into account program complexities and fire workload
in each state. The allocations are developed in consultation with the
State Foresters who participate in the program.
The allocations for fiscal year 1999 will not differ significantly
from those made in fiscal year 1998.
Question 248. How does this program differ from what is planned to
be accomplished in the Forest Service Wildland Fire Management
activity?
Answer. The Forest Service Wildland Fire Management activity
provides for protection of National Forest System lands from damage by
wildfires commensurate with the threat to life, firefighter and public
safety, values at risk, and resource management objectives. The funding
is used to provide resources which provide a preplanned fire protection
capability to respond to the historical and anticipated workload on
national forest lands. The purpose of the Cooperative Fire Protection
activity is to protect lives, homes and natural resources from
uncontrolled wildfires on non-federal wildlands and rural lands. The
Forest Service provides technical, financial and other assistance to
help States and volunteer fire departments maintain currency in
prevention, suppression and wildland fire protection techniques. This
promotes State, local, and citizen-driven solutions to fire protection
needs, and provides the Forest Service with additional resource
capability in the wildland urban interface.
Question 249. How successful has the Forest Service been in
utilizing cost-share arrangements to accomplish the goals of this
program?
Answer. Cost-share arrangements have been very successful in
accomplishing this goals of this program. On the average, each federal
dollar leverages at least two dollars in State funds.
Forest health management
Question 250. What criteria does the Forest Service use to allocate
Forest Health Management funds to its Regions? Will the fiscal year
1999 allocations differ dramatically from allocations made in fiscal
year 1998? If so, why?
Answer. Federal Lands Forest Health Management--Surveys and
Technical Assistance Program consists of two components (1) a base
technical assistance and survey program, and (2) Off-plot forest health
monitoring. Funding for the base program is a historical distribution
based on the size of the Forest Health Protection organization in each
region. Off-plot forest monitoring funding is developed in the WO and
the distribution is based on the number of participating States and
acres of forested land in those States. Prevention and Suppression
funding level is developed in the WO based on the 5-year average of
actual expenditures. Allocations include funds, based on historical
funding levels, for initial presuppression activities. Funds for
suppression projects are allocated after project proposals are
submitted, prioritized and approved.
Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management.--Surveys and Technical
Assistance Program consists of two components (1) a base technical
assistance and survey program, and (2) Off-plot forest health detection
monitoring. The base program allocation provided for each State is
formula-based. The formula is: $0.01 per acre of State and private
forest land + $40,000 divided by 2 (50 percent cost share), but not
less that $25,000 total. Regions and Northeastern Area may alter the
formula-based distribution of their respective Regional and Area
allocations with concurrence of the participating States. Although the
program is formula driven, it is based on the availability of funds.
Forest Health monitoring funding is developed in the WO and allocated
based on acres of forest and number of plots in participating States.
Prevention and Suppression funding level is developed in the WO based
on the 5-year average. Funds for suppression projects are allocated
throughout the fiscal year based on the results of biological
evaluations and the priority of each project in meeting national needs.
The fiscal year 1999 allocation will be the same as fiscal year
1998.
national forest system
Rangeland management
Question 251. (a): The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget
includes an increase of $19.2 million for rangeland management, in part
to be used for grazing allotment analyses. (b): To date, what progress
has been made to complete grazing allotment analyses? (c): What amount,
if any, will be needed in future years to complete this work? (d): What
percentage of the requested increase will be used to complete grazing
allotment analyses and what percentage will be used to complete other
additional on-the-ground structural improvements?
Answer. (a) The range Vegetation Management (NFRV) expanded budget
line item (EBLI) proposed funding is requested at $37.807 million in
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget. This budget includes a program
increase over fiscal year 1998 in regular funding of approximately $4
million and a Presidential Initiative of $16 million included in the
President's Environmental Resources Fund for America (Clean Water and
Watershed Restoration Fund Initiative, which includes a Rangeland
Initiative $15 million and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project $1 million). The range Grazing Management (NFRG)
expanded budget line item is $27.840 million or $.300 million above
fiscal year 1998.
Rangeland Management budget line item (BLI) request for fiscal year
1999 is $65.6 million (NFRG and NFRV combined); however, Rangeland
Management budget trends need to be viewed in the context of past
years. As can be seen in the Table below in millions of dollars
(rounded), the Rangeland budget dropped in fiscal year 1994.
Rangeland budget
Fiscal year Millions
1992..............................................................$43.20
1993.............................................................. 44.42
1994.............................................................. 16.40
1995.............................................................. 18.50
1996.............................................................. 27.00
1997.............................................................. 38.00
1998.............................................................. 45.40
Note: Fiscal year 1998 is enacted to date.
The request for fiscal year 1999 includes: adjustments to cover
inflation since fiscal year 1993; an increase in the noxious weed
program in response to public requests; increased dollars to gather and
analyze data needed to accomplish the NEPA work that Congress mandated
in the Rescissions Act of 1995; funding to implement the restoration
decisions resulting from the Rescissions Act NEPA; and finally,
resources to monitor and evaluate restoration progress on the ground.
Riparian area restoration is included in the implementation of the NEPA
decisions.
(b): The Forest Service was required in the Rescissions Act of 1995
to develop a schedule for NEPA analysis and management decisions on
grazing allotments. The schedule was developed based upon performing
NEPA analysis within a period of 15 years. The 15 year period was
divided into 5 three year time blocks to make the process more
manageable. A total of 2,516 analyses and decisions were planned for
fiscal year 1996 through 1998. This is 37 percent of all the analyses
needed in 15 years. By the end of fiscal year 1997, analyses and
decisions were completed on 1,218 allotments. In fiscal year 1998, an
additional 544 allotment NEPA analyses are underway for a total of
1,752 or 70 percent of the analyses planned in the first time block.
The Forest Service will be short of its goal of 2,516 allotments by 30
percent or 754 allotments at the end of the first three year time
block. While we have fallen short of our ambitious schedule, the
accomplishment of 1,752 NEPA decisions in three years represents a 400
percent or greater increase over the rate of decisions prior to the
Rescissions Act.
(c): The development and implementation of grazing management plans
through NEPA needs input from range specialists, wildlife and fisheries
biologists, soils scientists and many others to address the complicated
effects of a livestock grazing program. This represents expanding
workloads at a time when staff levels are limited or reduced; this has
resulted in a growing backlog of NEPA analyses. Work on the remaining
allotments will be shifted to future time blocks in the schedule.
Implementation of existing decisions needs to occur as the NEPA
decisions are made. This translates into a minimum program for
Rangeland Management of approximately $75 to $80 million for future
years if all Congressionally mandated assignments are to be completed
and yearly permit administration is carried out.
(d): The program funding increase proposed for fiscal year 1999 is
explained under EBLI NFRV above. Under the Rescissions Act schedule, we
have made 1,752 decisions in the past three years (including fiscal
year 1998). The NFRV funds increase, in large part, is needed to
implement these decisions. These monies are to be spent on improving
and/or restoring vegetative capabilities of the National Forest System
lands through implementation of the NEPA decisions and monitoring
progress towards achieving the objectives described in these decisions.
Additionally NFRV monies can be spent on inventory and analysis, this
information can be used as base data for NEPA. This represents about
fifty percent of the cost of doing NEPA analysis, but is less than 20
percent of the NFRV budget. Direct work on NEPA and resulting decisions
are accomplished under EBLI NFRG, as is structural improvement work.
Since the proposed funding increase is not in the area of NFRG, no
additional NEPA analyses are scheduled and no additional structural
improvements are planned.
The distinction between NFRG and NFRV has resulted in difficulty
for the Rangeland Management program. A budget increase in one of the
EBLIs does not provide for a parallel increase in the other EBLI. Thus
an increase on the NFRV side of the Rangeland Management program
provides added base data and information for NEPA without dollars to
actually perform the NEPA work and inform the public. Moreover, the
decisions that are currently in place will be implemented in fiscal
year 1999 to the degree possible with NFRV considering that these
monies can only be spent on vegetative improvements and not on the
needed structural improvement work.
The solution to the two types of funding would be the consolidation
of the NFRG and NFRV EBLIs into a single BLI for Rangeland Management.
This would allow decision makers the flexibility to plan the entire
process under one set of funds. Thus, data gathering and analysis
information could be immediately used in the writing of a NEPA document
while consulting with the public. This could be followed by the
creation of an allotment management plan after a decision is made. The
next step would be the actual implementation of the decision on the
ground with coordination and cooperation of the permittee. Finally, as
a last step, monitoring should take place to evaluate progress towards
achieving the objectives delineated in the NEPA decision. As described
above, this is a building process that requires consistent funding at a
level that provides for performing all the needed steps, while
continuing the administration of permits and the rest of the Rangeland
Management job. An adequately funded program would require between $75
and $80 million on a long term basis.
Question 252. What efforts has the Forest Service made to include
landowners in the decision-making process relative to initiating
rangeland improvements?
Answer. The Forest Service considers local landowners who are
holders of livestock grazing permits to be very important in the NEPA
process. The permittees are the people who, in partnership with the
Forest Service, carry out the decisions that stem from the NEPA
process. They are our partners, as permit holders, in making management
on the ground workable and productive. Therefore, the Forest Service is
committed to completing the scheduled NEPA analyses with the help of
our permit holders through cooperation, coordination, and consultation.
That means continuing to inform them of our concerns, the
responsibilities that we have under the law, the regulations that we
are expected to carry out, and the issues that the general public
brings forth in the NEPA process. It also means continuing to listen to
their needs and their ideas for the improvement of management on their
allotments. The Forest Service is committed to working closely with the
individual permittees through ongoing consultation with them on
developing situations and coordinating with them when rangeland
management programs are developed for their allotments under NEPA.
Likewise, the actual implementation of management plans along with the
construction or development of improvements requires continued close
cooperation between the Forest Service and the permittees. In addition
to including the permittees in the NEPA process, Forest Service
decision makers also have a commitment to work with other interested
parties, other Federal and state agencies, and other Forest Service
resource areas to ensure that management actions are ecologically
responsible, economically viable, and socially acceptable.
Question 253. Approximately how many acres of noxious weed
treatments does the Forest Service plan to complete in fiscal year
1999? Does this include acres of weeds to be addressed under the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project?
Answer. The proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 includes $4
million for noxious weed work in regular appropriations with another
$2.6 million in the President's Environmental Resources Fund for
America (Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Fund Initiative, which
includes a Rangeland Initiative and the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project). It is expected that these funds together
will generate 67,500 acres of treated noxious weeds. Of the total acres
predicted approximately 12,500 will be from treatments within the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Additional acres
of treated noxious weeds are expected from other programs as in
previous years.
An assigned target of 36,732 acres has been established for the
Regions for fiscal year 1998 using noxious weed funding. Again
cooperation is expected from non-Federal entities, also it is
anticipated that additional weeds will be treated under the KV program
in fiscal year 1998.
Recreation use
Question 254. In the fiscal year 1999 budget, the Forest Service
repeatedly notes a backlog of project work relative to Recreation Use
as a justification for some of the proposed increases. Specifically, it
asks for an increase of $16 million. To date, has the Forest Service
completed a formal inventory of recreation backlog projects? Has a
priority list of backlog work been developed? What criterion will be
used to chose projects?
Answer. The backlog of deferred maintenance and reconstruction for
recreation facilities and trails was based on condition assessments and
field estimates in fiscal year 1994. Recreation facility backlog
information was gathered by utilizing the following criteria: health
and safety; resource protection; work needed to avoid closing a site;
site work needed to return to a user fee system previously charged or
to continue a user fee system; or facility elimination for those sites
beyond a serviceable condition. The totals identified, $818 million for
recreation facilities and $267 million for trails, have not been
updated since fiscal year 1994. The Forest Service is in the process of
developing a consistent set of definitions and identifying specific
needs through development of the computerized inventory database called
INFRASTRUCTURE. This is expected to be complete by the end of fiscal
year 1999. In the meantime, the total funding needed to address
substandard conditions has no doubt increased due to continuing forces
of deterioration and rising costs.
The emphasis in fiscal year 1999, as in recent years, is on
reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing facilities. Based on the
above criteria, each of the nine Forest Service regions develops a
project list from which the national list is compiled. The list
includes projects needed to meet the demands of today's recreation
customer as well, but with the emphasis on the above criteria the
majority of funding would be applied to reduce the backlog. Therefore
the $16 million increase in the fiscal year 1999 budget, although only
a small part, would help alleviate the total need.
Question 255. To date, how would you characterize the success of
the recreation fee demonstration program? What plans does the Forest
Service have for expanding the program and making it more efficient?
Answer. To date, we consider the demonstration program successful.
The feedback has generally been favorable as long as the fees come back
to the local area and the Agency budget is not offset. Some projects
have more controversy than others--mainly fees for the dispersed types
of recreation. With significant effort on the part of the local Agency
personnel and modifications to the project proposal, even the more
controversial projects are able to succeed and gain public acceptance.
In 1997, 40 projects were collecting fees. Currently, 51 projects
are charging fees. We have plans for an additional 37 projects to begin
charging fees this year or the beginning of next year, and are
expecting proposals to fill the additional slots. We hope by May 1999
to have close to 100 projects charging fees.
We continue to work with projects to streamline and enhance
business operations, as our managers and workforce gain additional
skills needed to collect fees on this larger scale, and run projects in
a business-like manner. As we move into a second full year of
operation, we will work on ways to better integrate the various fee
systems. Our intent has been to test a variety of fee collection
methods on a wide variety of recreation activities. We are also
developing a proposal for a national pass. Although we are accepting
the Golden Eagle passport at some locations, it does not work well for
most national forests since we have very few ``entrance'' fee areas.
presidential initiatives
Clean water and watershed restoration
Question 256. The Forest Service Budget includes $60 million for
the Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative, including $35
million in the National Forest System account. Please indicate the
Forest Service's priority use of the funds in this account if only a
portion of the funding is provided.
Answer. The Forest Service priorities would be those activities to
restore National Forest System watersheds. The priorities for this
effort would be based on the priority watersheds identified by the
States resulting from their Unified Watershed Assessments.
Question 257. What other initiatives are included within the
planned use of these funds, including amounts to fund the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Southwest Conservation
Strategy, or other major projects?
Answer. More than a million dollars is planned for use in the
Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management project. Currently planned is
twenty million dollars for Rangeland Vegetation Management, part of
which will be applied to the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management
Project and to the Southwest Conservation Strategy. Other initiatives
to which the funding is applied are: $63 million in the land, water and
facility restoration initiative, $3 million in the climate change
technology initiative, and $1.3 million in the law enforcement
initiative.
Question 258. What are the long-term implications of not receiving
the total amount of funding requested for this initiative?
Answer. The long-term implications would be an adverse effect on
the Forest Service ability to be trusted and effective partners in
achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act and implementing its mission
for watershed management and land stewardship.
Question 259. An additional $14 million is included in the
Reconstruction and Construction account for this initiative for roads.
What is the planned use of these funds? How will priority
reconstruction and construction projects be selected?
Answer. These funds are planned for road work designed to improve
watershed health and eliminate adverse impacts on fisheries and
wildlife. Examples of work to be done with these funds includes:
--Aggregate surfacing to reduce sediment production and runoff;
--Reconstructing cross sections to improve drainage;
--Revegetating cut and fill slopes; and
--Replacing culverts and bridges to pass 100 year storm flows.
Regions have set priorities for this work to provide the greatest
amount of environmental improvement with the funds available to them.
They estimate that they will be able to reconstruct 340 miles of road
and replace 13 bridges with these funds. No new road construction is
planned under this initiative.
Land, water, and facility restoration
Question 260. The Forest Service budget includes $63 million for
the Land, Water, and Facility Restoration Initiative, of which $31
million is included in the National Forest System account. Please
indicate the Forest Service's priority use of the funds in this account
if only a portion of the funds are provided.
Answer. The $31 million is planned for a balanced program of
priority restoration projects for recreation and FA&O facilities, and
for roads and trails, in the proportions shown on page 316 of the
fiscal year 1999 Explanatory Notes. Funds will be prorated to maintain
this proportion between these elements of our infrastructure if only a
portion of the requested funds are provided.
The $11 million of initiative funds for road maintenance will allow
us to increase maintenance to a full service level standard from 40
percent to 45 percent and replace 40 of the bridges that are currently
restricting access to public lands. The $5 million of initiative funds
for FA&O facility maintenance will allow us to increase maintenance to
a full service level standard from 20 percent to 24 percent thereby
improving employee safety, efficiency and morale. In the case of the
recreation facility and trail components, loss of funds will result in
the elimination of water, sanitation and trail projects. In the NFS
account, $15 million is provided for recreation facilities and trails.
These funds, along with $8 million in the Reconstruction Account, have
Recreation Facility and Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction projects
proposed by all 9 Forest Service Regions. The total funding of $23
million for recreation facilities and trails in NFS and Reconstruction
will fund over 400 water projects, 300 sanitation projects, and provide
maintenance and reconstruction on over 3,000 miles of trail. A
reduction to this funding will be prorated across the Regions and will
begin to eliminate the programs described above.
Question 261. Please indicate the Forest Service's priority use of
the $17 million in funding requested in the Reconstruction and
Construction account for this initiative if only a portion of these are
made available. To date, what steps has the Forest Service taken to
inventory its maintenance and construction backlog? How will projects
be chosen for the use of these funds?
Answer. The $17 million is planned for a balanced program of
priority restoration projects for recreation and FA&O facilities, and
for roads and trails, in the proportions shown on page 316 of the
fiscal year 1999 Explanatory Notes. Funds will be prorated to maintain
this proportion between these elements of our infrastructure if only a
portion of the requested funds are provided.
Not receiving the $9 million of initiative funds for FA&O
reconstruction and construction would postpone the completion of three
airtanker bases and ten office and work center projects. These
postponements would have a direct affect in the Forest Services ability
to protect natural resources, meet the public needs, and the health and
safety of employees and the public. In the case of the recreation
facility and trail components, loss of funds will result in the
elimination of water, sanitation and trail projects. In the NFS
account, $15 million is provided for recreation facilities and trails.
These funds, along with $8 million in the Reconstruction Account, have
Recreation Facility and Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction projects
proposed by all 9 Forest Service Regions. The total funding of $23
million for recreation facilities and trails in NFS and Reconstruction
will fund over 400 water projects, 300 sanitation projects, and provide
maintenance and reconstruction on over 3,000 miles of trail. A
reduction to this funding will be prorated across the Regions and will
begin to eliminate the programs described above.
Individual forests have project-by-project maintenance plans and
awareness of reconstruction needs. Unfortunately, these are not in a
standard format that facilitates summarizing needs nationally. We are
presently updating our Infrastructure integrated information system to
include this information.
Regions have set priorities for this work to provide the greatest
benefit to protect the facilities and best serve users.
Question 262. What are the long term implications of not receiving
the total amount of funding requested for this initiative?
Answer. In general, the growth of the backlog of maintenance and
reconstruction needs for these programs will be accelerated.
Specifically, environmental damage from old non-engineered roads will
not be reduced, many high priority health and safety administrative
facility projects will not be accomplished, and we will be unable to
meet critical time frames for air tanker base reconstruction needed to
use the new air tankers on which our future fire fighting capabilities
depends. As indicated above, hundreds of recreation water and
sanitation projects will not be addressed in fiscal year 1999. They
will be addressed as funds become available in the future and those
facilities that represent a health or safety problem for the public
will be closed until repairs/reconstruction work can be accomplished.
Question 263. Please specify in priority order (including acreage)
planned land acquisitions with the use of $15 million requested for
this initiative.
Answer. The land acquisition portion of this initiative is to
provide $14.5 million to acquire lands identified by the Forest Service
as a priority for acquisition. All of the land acquisition projects
proposed for funding are identified in the President's budget request
and would be funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In
the fiscal year 1999 request, over $48 million of land was identified
for acquisition. The land acquisition priorities are listed by
priority, but were not developed to show specific projects funded by
the initiative. Many of the land acquisition proposals, such as North
Florida Wildlife Corridor and Pacific Northwest Streams serve to
protect and enhance key watersheds.
interior columbia basin ecosystem management project
Question 264. What progress has been made relative to meeting the
requirements of section 323(a)(b) of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-83)?
Answer. Section 323(a) of the 1998 Appropriations Act directs the
Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to prepare and submit a report
to the Committees ``prior to the completion of any decision document or
the making of any decision related to the final Environmental Impact
Statements * * *.'' This report is to address the time and costs
anticipated for accomplishing decisions and sources of funds. Since the
public comment period just recently closed on the draft EIS's, work has
not begun on development of a decision document. A decision document
will not be developed until the Executive Steering Committee for the
Project have selected a final alternative for management of the Forest
Service and BLM lands within the project area. Therefore, the report
required by Section 323(a) has not been prepared at this time. This
report will be prepared within the next twelve to fourteen months.
Section 323(b) of the 1998 Appropriations Act required the Project
to analyze and publish a report on the economic and social conditions,
and culture and customs of communities within the project area. This
report was published and released to the public in early March 1998. At
the same time, an additional extension of the public comment period was
given to allow additional time for people to read the report and
comment.
Question 265. Just recently, the comment period for the ICBEMP
EIS's was extended an additional month to May 6,1998. In part, this
means that less time is available to complete actual on-the-ground work
in the Basin for this year. How, if at all, does this change your
project implementation costs for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. At this time, we have already factored that extension into
our budget estimate. Therefore, the month extension of the comment
period does not change our Project implementation costs for fiscal year
1999.
Question 266. Several interest groups, including county coalitions,
have spoken out in opposition of the Project. What are their specific
concerns? What steps have you taken to address their concerns?
Answer. We have worked with a number of interest groups as well as
governmental entities including other federal agencies, states, tribes
and counties from the inception of this Project in 1994. To the extent
possible, we incorporated their concerns into the draft statements. We
expect to hear some of their concerns reiterated in comments we
received from them during the comment period that closed May 6, 1998,
plus additional concerns. We will continue to work with these interest
groups, governmental entities and individuals we as prepare the final
statement.
We are including copies of two documents (What We're Hearing and
Content Analysis Newsletter dated February 19, 1998) that outline some
of the concerns we have received. We plan to make available a copy of
the final analysis of public comment in late June.
[Clerk's note.--Due to their volume, the above mentioned
publications have been retained in subcommittee files.]
Question 267. What has been the response from Forest Service field
managers to plans for on-the-ground implementation of the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project? What has the Forest
Service done to address their concerns?
Answer. The BLM and Forest Service field managers agree with the
need to address these broad scale issues so they have a framework to
plan on-the-ground projects. But as with the public, there is not
unanimous agreement on what needs to be included in the plan and the
level of specificity in the direction. The land management and
regulatory executives plan to work with their field managers in
developing the Final EIS and ROD to insure the direction in the plan is
feasible to implement.
roads policy
Question 268. How many acres of forest land will be affected by the
Forest Service's recent 18-month moratorium on road building?
Answer. The temporary suspension of road construction in roadless
areas would be applied to those projects that are proposed to be built
in fiscal years 98 and 99. The suspension does not involve a specified
number of acres of land area. After development of a NEPA document for
the Interim Rule, the number of miles of proposed road affected by the
suspension will be available.
Question 269. Please explain in detail the work that the Forest
Service plans to complete during the 18-month moratorium. What actions
does the Forest Service plan to take as a result of this work in order
to improve the transportation system and improve the health of the
land?
Answer. During the 18-month period the Forest Service intends to
develop a long-term policy for managing roads on the national forests
that addresses the social, economic, and ecological basis for new
construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and road decommissioning.
The policy will emphasize the rapid assessment of problem areas,
integration with Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, and
reassessment of the body of science available for making the best road
management decision. In addition, an analysis process for implementing
the long-term policy, an interim policy for roadless areas access, and
the identification of funding sources needed for implementation will be
included. The process will be adaptable to local situations in order to
assure that relevant information is provided to decision makers at an
affordable cost. Finally, the process will consider the budgetary
impacts of the alternatives, including addressing deferred backlog and
other long-term costs. Finally, the process will consider the budgetary
impacts of the alternatives, including addressing deferred backlog and
other long-term costs.
The January 28, 1998, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
published in the Federal Register indicates that the Forest Service is
serious about revising its regulations to better address how the
national forest road system is developed, used, and maintained. The
substantial reasons for undertaking these changes are outlined in the
notice.
The analysis process will not be a new decision process, nor will
the results of the analysis constitute an agency action. Rather, it
will provide a management strategy and important information that can
be used when making future decisions about constructing,
reconstructing, relocating, decommissioning, and maintaining roads. The
information developed through implementation of the new analysis will
feed into existing National Environmental Policy Act and National
Forest Management Act decision processes. While we will work to
implement the new analysis process within the 18-month period, we
recognize that there will be budget and resource limitations and have
never intended to fully implement on-the-ground changes to the road
system within that period. In order to implement the process it will be
necessary to complete additional inventory work on some national
forests. The complexity of the inventory will vary with the complexity
of issues and site conditions related to the local transportation
system.
The agency currently has a team of scientists and forest managers
working to develop the analysis process. Once drafted, it will be
subject to peer and management reviews and will be tested on several
national forests. The feedback provided from these tests and reviews
will play a key role in finalizing the process. Once the new analysis
process has been completed on a forest, or at the end of the 18-month
period, the suspension would be lifted.
The new transportation policy and analysis process will provide the
minimum road system to best serve current and anticipated forest
management objectives and public uses. We will more carefully consider
decisions to build new roads, will aggressively decommission unneeded
roads, and will aggressively upgrade and maintain the most critical
roads to provide safe public use, ensure economically affordable and
efficient management, protect and restore natural resources, and
minimize ecological impacts.
Question 270. Is it expected that the time needed to complete the
road inventory will take longer than the 18-month moratorium?
Answer. We have sufficient forest development road inventory data
to develop the new road policy and analysis process within the 18-month
period. Currently, the forest road inventory formats vary widely across
the Forest Service. We anticipate a significant effort will be needed
to standardize the inventory format, map the location of existing
forest roads, and expand the inventory to include all other travelways
for implementation of the new road policy and analysis process.
payments to counties--proposed legislation
Question 271. Does this proposed legislation also apply to states
covered by the northern spotted owl payments? That is, will those
states covered by the owl payments also get an annual payment level
equal to the greater of the fiscal year 1997 payment level or 76
percent of the fiscal years 1986-1990 average payment?
Answer. Yes, the proposal would replace the existing State
payments, including those States currently receiving payments for
counties with National Forests affected by decisions related to the
northern spotted owl.
Question 272. Does this policy include provisions for periodic
assessments that adjust payments for inflationary purposes?
Answer. No. As with the existing Forest Service payments to States,
the stabilization proposal does not include an adjustment for
inflation.
Question 273. Are there some regions of the country or specific
counties that will be negatively affected in the long run by this
proposal? If so, which ones?
Answer. This is dependent on whether actual National Forest
revenues increase, decrease, or remain constant in the future. The long
range budget projections indicate continued funding declines from $233
million paid for 1997 to less than $216 million estimated to be paid
for 2003 (-7.4 percent) on a national basis. We don't have an
assessment of the projected revenues for all areas below the national
level.
Question 274. Is it possible that future receipts will be greater
than the guaranteed payments? What does the Forest Service plan to do
in those years?
Answer. The total payments to States funding for each year of the
budget long range estimates is projected to be greater under the
stabilization proposal than with the projected receipt collections. The
long range budget projections indicate continued funding declines from
$233 million paid for 1997 to less than $216 million estimated to be
paid for 2003 (-7.4 percent) on a national basis. In exchange for a
stable, predictable payment level, the payments under the stabilization
proposal will neither decline nor be increased due to future revenue
collections from national forests. This more stable, predictable
payment will allow states and counties the opportunity to better plan
the use of these funds.
Question 275. What are the implications of this policy relative to
future Forest Service timber production levels? Are future production
levels expected to increase, decrease, or remain level?
Answer. Implementation of the payments to counties stabilization
proposal should have no effect on the timber sale program. Decisions
regarding the timber program will continue to be made independently of
the payments to counties funding as they have in the past. Timber sales
are planned and executed using funding from discretionary and mandatory
appropriations that have no relationship to the amounts of revenues
paid to the counties. Should the payments to counties stabilization be
implemented as proposed, most of the revenues now being paid to
counties would be returned to the Treasury.
With the costs of conducting a vegetation management program on the
national forests continuing to rise we expect a continued slow decline
in production levels in the future given stable funding levels.
Whatever is decided about payments to counties would have no effect on
this trend. We believe that our proposal would be most helpful to rural
communities in guaranteeing a higher, fixed income, plus permitting
greater certainty and opportunities for more effective local planning
and spending.
Question 276. What are the PAYGO implications of the proposed
policy?
Answer. Briefly, the proposal recognizes that there has been a
significant decrease in FS timber receipts due to operating a smaller
program which is consistent with balancing all forest resource values
as required by law and as enforced by the courts. The large component
of low-value salvage sales in the timber program has also contributed
to the reduction in receipts. Faced with a similar, but localized,
situation in the spotted owl forests in 1993, the Administration and
the Congress agreed to cushion the blow of reduced receipt-sharing
payments to county road and school budgets by providing 85 percent of
the 1986-1990 average payments, reducing the guarantee by 3 percent
each year. The Administration is proposing to provide all of the
roughly 800 counties that receive payments with the same guarantee
using the 1997 level of 76 percent. Those counties that had a higher
level of payments based on 1997 receipts would receive that higher
amount. The Department's Office of Budget and Program Analysis has
provided more detail including a discussion of offsets.
[The information follows:]
Proposal
Under existing law, 25 percent of most Forest Service receipts are
paid to the States for distribution to the counties in which the
forests are located for financing roads and schools. About 800 counties
across the Nation receive such payments. Historically, the largest
source of receipts is from the sale of timber on the National Forests.
Timber receipts have declined in recent years due to the need to manage
forests on an ecosystem basis which takes into account the needs of a
broad range of resources such as wildlife, water quality, and outdoor
recreation. In addition, the program emphasis has shifted from timber
production and sales as a strictly commodity activity to forestland
management. A significant portion of the program now consists of the
sale of dead and dying trees to achieve forest health objectives. Such
material commands much lower prices than the large volumes of timber
sold in the past.
In recognition that the payments generated by the forests affected
by the northern spotted owl litigation had dropped precipitously, the
President's Forest Plan included an economic package that supported
legislation enacted as part of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act, which established payments for those forests at an annually
declining percentage of the 1986-1990 average payment. For 1997, the
percentage was 76 percent and it would decline to 70 percent in 1999,
under the current legislation. In recent years, payments to the States
in other regions have declined significantly. In order to provide all
county governments with a predictable and equitable level of payments
for the national forests, the Administration will propose legislation
later this year to stabilize the payments. The 1999 estimate of $270
million is based on providing each county with the guarantee currently
extended to the owl forests of 76 percent of the 1986-1990 average
payment. For those counties where the 1997 payment was greater than
that amount, the payment is frozen at the 1997 level. The budget
estimates that the proposal would cost $10 million more in 1999 than
would the program operating under the current legislation. Under the
proposal, the payments will continue to be funded by a permanent
indefinite appropriation. This ensures that payments will not decline
in future years.
Offset
The 1999 Budget for the Department of Agriculture proposes a number
of changes in programs that are considered ``direct spending'' under
current budget conventions. For the most part, these proposals would
require changes in permanent statute and would be under the
jurisdiction of the Congressional legislative authorizing committees
rather than the Appropriations Committee. This is the case with the
proposed change in the Forest Service Payments to States program. Such
changes that result in increased spending require offsetting reductions
in other direct spending programs or alternatively increased revenues
such as user fees. This is generally referred to as the pay-as-you-go
or PAYGO requirement. The requirement applies to discretionary spending
as a whole. Offsets do not have to come from programs within the same
agency or even the same cabinet Department. In general, the
Administration's proposed spending increases, taken as a whole, are
offset by the proposed decreases and increased user fees, again taken
as a whole. Thus, it is not possible to relate any one specific
increase to a specific offset.
For your information, the PAYGO proposals in the President's 1999
budget are set out in full beginning on page 348 of the Budget of the
United States Government: fiscal year 1999. The proposals for the
Department of Agriculture are shown below displaying the deficit impact
by fiscal year in millions of dollars.
Food Stamps deficit impact
[In millions of dollars]
Restrict States; ability to increase Federal outlays by shifting
administrative costs from TANF to food stamps and Medicaid (food
stamps component)
1998............................................................
1999...................................................... -$160
2000...................................................... -185
2001...................................................... -190
2002...................................................... -195
2003...................................................... -200
Restore benefits for vulnerable groups of legal immigrants (food
stamp component)
1998...................................................... 100
1999...................................................... 535
2000...................................................... 500
2001...................................................... 455
2002...................................................... 460
2003...................................................... 480
Shift certain crop insurance spending to mandatory
1998............................................................
1999...................................................... 185
2000...................................................... 123
2001...................................................... 118
2002...................................................... 127
2003...................................................... 137
Limit catastrophic crop insurance payments to $100,000
1998............................................................
1999............................................................
2000...................................................... -15
2001...................................................... -30
2002...................................................... -30
2003...................................................... -30
Increase Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
1998............................................................
1999...................................................... 13
2000...................................................... 49
2001...................................................... 70
2002...................................................... 59
2003...................................................... 52
Forest Service Payments to States (delinking from receipts)
1998............................................................
1999...................................................... 10
2000...................................................... 22
2001...................................................... 30
2002...................................................... 41
2003...................................................... 48
Rural EZ/EC economic development grants for Round II
1998............................................................
1999............................................................
2000...................................................... 7
2001...................................................... 16
2002...................................................... 19
2003...................................................... 19
Restructure Export Enhancement Program (EEP) consistent with
market conditions
1998............................................................
1999...................................................... -230
2000...................................................... -359
2001...................................................... -258
2002...................................................... -258
2003...................................................... -270
Restructure CCC cotton user marketing certificates consistent with
market conditions
1998............................................................
1999...................................................... -110
2000...................................................... -48
2001............................................................
2002............................................................
2003............................................................
Spend existing and new Forest Service recreation and entrance fees
1998............................................................
1999............................................................
2000...................................................... 3
2001...................................................... 3
2002...................................................... 3
2003...................................................... 3
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
Question 277. The Forest Service recently released its Natural
Resources Agenda to focus agency efforts in four areas. Does this
Agenda represent a departure from the Forest Service mission? To what
extent does the fiscal year 1999 budget request further your capability
to implement the Agenda?
Answer. The Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda supports the
main purposes of the 1897 Organic Act for the National Forests:
maintaining watershed health, providing clean water, and maintaining a
sustainable supply of timber. The Agenda is tiered directly to the
Forest Service Results Act (GPRA) strategic plan. Compared to fiscal
year 1998, the fiscal year 1999 President's budget supports each of the
four elements of the Agenda. For example:
Watershed health
--A $12.6 million (49 percent) increase to provide an additional
12,000 acres of watershed improvements and expand clean-up of
hazardous materials on Forest Service lands.
--A $14.9 million increase (15 percent) in the Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management program in the areas of habitat restoration
and partnership programs.
--A $20 million (112 percent) increase in Rangeland Vegetation
Management to begin the first year of a multi-year cooperative
effort to address both the status and restoration of rangeland,
including riparian areas.
Sustainable forest management
--An increase of $10 million (5 percent) for Forest and Rangeland
Research with primary emphasis given to Forest Inventory
Analysis, forest health monitoring, and climate change
technology.
--Funding increases for a number of State and Private Forestry
programs to help individual landowners, communities, and States
capture the benefits of trees and forests through planning and
stewardship. 490 million acres in the U.S. are in non-federal
ownership.
--A $15 million (30 percent) increase for hazardous fuels reduction.
Forest roads
--An increase of $8 million (9 percent) focused on road
reconstruction to protect and restore watersheds, improve
safety, and provide appropriate access for utilization of
forest resources.
--A $22 million increase (26 percent) to fund the decommissioning of
3,500 miles of roads and increase the percentage of roads
maintained to standard.
Recreation
A $21.1 million increase (10 percent) in the Recreation Use program
focused on recreation facility and trail maintenance.
Question 278. The Forest Service Budget request includes a
substantial increase for fish and wildlife management. What public
benefits accrue from fish and wildlife resources on the National
Forests and Grasslands, and to what extent will this additional funding
contribute to additional public benefits?
Answer. In 1996, wildlife and fish recreation expenditures tied to
national forest tallied $6.8 billion in association with 125.7 million
visitor days of hunting, fishing and wildlife/fish-associated viewing.
Anglers spent $2.7 billion (46.8 million visitor days), wildlife/fish
viewers spent $2.1 billion (52 million activity days), and hunters
spent $2.0 billion (27 million activity days) in pursuit of their
pastimes. This $6.8 billion in direct spending translates to a total of
$20 billion in local economic output and 226,000 jobs. Specific
examples include:
--Commercial salmon harvest from the Tongass National Forest averages
120 million pounds per year, with an average annual earnings of
$66 million. Meanwhile, sportfishing numbers in Southeast
Alaska increased by 62 percent from 1984-93, a significant
revenue source for local economies.
--In 1997, nearly 183,000 people joined in ``Celebrating Wildflower''
events on national forests.
--The Forest Service and their partners held 3,985 aquatic education
events in 1997 that landed 274,000 people. Events included
National Fishing Week, Pathways to Fishing clinics and
classroom talks.
--Under Recreation Fee Demonstration Pilot program, in 1997 a fee of
$36 was charged to view Brown Bears at Pack Creek on Admiralty
Island National Monument, Alaska. The new fee raised $37,990
for this limited access site and did not effect visitation
since site saw an 11 percent increase in use over last year.
The revenue generated will cover the cost of implementing the
fee program and allow the additional dollars to be used to pay
for site expenses.
Any increases in funding will be used for habitat improvements and
restoration, development of new hunting, fishing and viewing
opportunities, and expansion of existing opportunities.
Question 279. Your proposal to place a moratorium on road
construction in most roadless areas has been highly controversial,
among industry and environmental groups. Given this controversy, why
have you placed so much emphasis on making changes to the way in which
you manage the National Forest road system?
Answer. Our proposal to suspend temporarily road construction in
roadless areas is a matter of accountability to the American taxpayers.
It is designed to give us time to develop new scientific tools that our
managers can use to make more informed local decisions about when, and
if, to construct new roads.
Question 280. Now that you have your natural resource policy on
track, how long will it take to straighten out several years of fiscal
chaos, civil rights neglect, and uncertainty about natural resources
policy? What can this Committee do to help?
Answer.
Fiscal.--Resolution of financial management issues identified in
recent audits of Forest Service annual financial statements are
dependent upon several factors. Key Agency positions responsible for
providing financial management leadership, i.e. the Chief Financial
Officer and the Director of Financial Management, will be recruited
within the next several months. In addition, the Agency has recently
recruited and filled several other financial management positions which
were vacant. These positions included the Agency's Assistant Director
of Financial Management for Operations and the Agency's Assistant
Director of Financial Management for Fiscal Policy and Analysis.
Implementing the new USDA accounting system titled the Foundation
Financial Information System (FFIS), will also be critical in resolving
the Agency's financial management issues. This new system, working in
conjunction with associated feeder systems such as those for payroll,
travel and purchasing, will provide state-of-the-art technology for
data entry, data retrieval, and report preparation. Pilot testing of
FFIS is currently taking place in two Forest Service regions and a
research station. This pilot stage of implementation began October 1,
1997. Full implementation Agency-wide, with a software version that is
year 2000 compliant, is scheduled for October 1, 1999.
Civil rights.--The Forest Service's number one challenge in Civil
Rights has been to resolve the 425 complaints identified in the Civil
Rights Action Team Report issued in February 1997. To resolve the
complaint backlog , the agency proposed a special initiative in
partnership with the Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration,
USDA.
Currently, there are 167 unresolved complaints.
By the end of fiscal year 1998, we hope to see improved success in
the area of EEO complaints because of a greater emphasis on
preventative programs such as Early Intervention and Mediation, and
work environment action plans developed as a result of the Continuous
Improvement Program (all-employee survey). These programs, combined
with new accountability systems, will work to foster an environment
where employees and managers are free to discuss concerns openly and
take appropriate steps to resolve complaints.
Natural resources.--The Natural Resource Agenda will help to
resolve uncertainties about where the Forest Service will focus its
priorities with regards to developing programs, budgets, and actions to
address these critical areas. These priorities include watershed
restoration and maintenance, sustainable forest ecosystem management,
forest roads, and recreation.
The committee can help by supporting the President's Budget
proposal which proposes more than $120 million in new spending on
watershed protection and restoration. This will allow for an increase
in stream and streamside restoration by 40 percent, habitat restoration
for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species by 30 percent, and
abandoned mine reclamation by 50 percent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
rangeland management
Question 281. The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service has asked for a
large increase in its range management funding. How does the Forest
Service plan on using these funds? What kind of assurances will the
agency provide that the funds will be used on the ground to fund
project work?
Answer. Almost all of the $20.3 million increase is in the
Rangeland Vegetation Management portion of the budget. $16 million of
the increase is provided under the President's Clean Water and
Watershed Restoration Initiative. These funds will allow the Forest
Service, in partnership with other USDA and Interior agencies, to begin
the first year of a multi-year cooperative effort to address both the
status and the restoration of rangelands. The Initiative will focus on
rangeland restoration, classification of range types, assessment of
current range conditions, and provide for monitoring for the
effectiveness of restoration practices and management modifications.
These efforts will enable significant progress in NEPA analyses of
grazing allotments required under the 1995 Rescission Act. The
remaining funds would be used primarily to restore range vegetation
through non-structural improvements. Much of the work described above
supports the objectives of the President's Clean Water Action Plan, and
is on-the-ground project oriented.
Question 282. The Rescissions Act of 1995 directed the Forest
Service to complete NEPA on all allotments where NEPA is needed. What
progress has the Agency made? Have decisions been implemented? If not,
what steps is the Forest Service taking to implement these decisions?
Answer. The Forest Service was required in the Rescissions Act of
1995 to develop a schedule for NEPA analysis and management decisions
on grazing allotments. The schedule was developed based upon performing
NEPA analysis within a period of 15-years. The 15-year period was
divided into 5 three year time blocks to make the process more
manageable. A total of 2,516 analyses and decisions were planned for
fiscal year 1996 through 1998. This is 37 percent of all the analyses
needed in 15-years. By the end of fiscal year 1997, analyses and
decisions were completed on 1,218 allotments. In fiscal year 1998, an
additional 544 allotment NEPA analyses are underway for a total of
1,752 or 70 percent of the analyses planned in the first time block.
The Forest Service will be short of its goal of 2,516 allotments by 30
percent or 754 allotments at the end of the first three year time
block. While we have fallen short of our ambitious first three year
schedule, the accomplishment of 1,752 NEPA decisions in three years
represents a 400 percent or greater increase over the rate of decisions
prior to the Rescissions Act. It also represents 25 percent of all the
decisions needed in the 15-year schedule.
The development and implementation of grazing management plans
through NEPA needs input from range specialists, wildlife and fisheries
biologists, soils scientists and many others to address the complicated
effects of a livestock grazing program. This represents expanding
workloads at a time when staff levels are limited or reduced; this has
resulted in a growing backlog of NEPA analyses. Work on the remaining
allotments will be shifted to future time blocks in the schedule. In
the meantime, the highest priority analyses will be conducted first, so
to achieve the greater impact as rapidly as possible.
Question 283. How does the President's Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Initiative affect the livestock grazing program of the
Forest Service? How does the agency plan to implement this initiative
on its livestock grazing allotments?
Answer. The Initiative will provide the funds necessary to make
significant progress in implementing new NEPA decisions. Without this
Initiative, only minimal rangeland restoration progress has been made
by the implementation of new decisions through allotment management
plans. The Initiative will provide us with the ability to adequately
fund actions recommended in our decisions. Watershed restoration and
riparian rehabilitations are important concerns of the public. This
Initiative represents the opportunity to continue proper management in
most areas and in some locations to just begin the implementation of
effective management.
Implementation will begin on allotments of most concern to FS range
managers, those locations where insufficient livestock grazing
management has resulted in less than desired conditions. Without
restoration, livestock grazing will likely be reduced as resource
conditions remain stagnant or decline.
Question 284. The rangeland management program receives funding
under two separate lines in the Forest Service budget. What is the
difference between the two budget lines? Isn't the rangeland program
simple enough so that a single funding line would cover all activities:
How is the noxious weed program provided for?
Answer. The Grazing Management line item provides for the
continuation of permitted livestock grazing through the issuance and
administration of term grazing permits and the application of sound
management practices on grazing allotments.
The Rangeland Vegetation Management line item provides for:
--Managing rangeland vegetation to achieve conditions prescribed in
forest plans and refined in project decisions, and performing
monitoring to ensure conditions are maintained.
--Developing non-structural improvements that contribute to
ecological objectives, provide for sustainable forage for
livestock and wildlife, improve soil stability, improve water
quality, and protect watersheds. Due to funding limitations,
structural improvements are primarily funded through the Range
Betterment Fund.
--Providing for the protection, management and control of over 2,000
wild horses and burros on NFS lands. These activities are
coordinated with BLM.
--Managing infestation of noxious weeds and preventing further
infestations through implementation of the Forest Service and
USDA noxious weeds strategies. The Forest Service fiscal year
1999 budget proposal provides $5 million for the noxious weeds
program--$4 million under the regular program and $1 million to
support implementation of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project under the Presiden'ts Clean Water and
Watershed Restoration Initiative.
There is significant pressure on the Rangeland Management budget to
conduct and implement NEPA analyses of grazing allotments required
under the 1995 Rescissions Act. Funds from both the Grazing Management
and Rangeland Vegetation Management expanded budget line items are used
to fund the work--and meet the 15 year schedule--required under the
Rescissions Act. Funds under the Rangeland Vegetation Management enable
data collection and ecological analysis to support NEPA analyses,
however the subsequent NEPA documentation and public involvement work
is performed with Grazing Management funds. Further, both expanded
budget line items fund work to carry out final NEPA decisions--grazing
administration, range improvements, and monitoring. Thus, the budget
structure separates into two funding activities what should, from a
management standpoint, be logically be viewed as one activity. This is
a significant structural issue because much of the Rangeland Management
budget is focused on meeting the requirements of the 1995 Rescission
Act, and because limited funding under one expanded line item could
prevent NEPA work from being accomplished that would not be the case if
the two line items were merged. The Forest Service supports changes to
its budget structure that provide more flexibility to and
accountability by managers on the ground to address resource management
needs. Merging these two expanded budget line items would accomplish
this objective.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much, that concludes our
hearings, the subcommittee will stand in recess awaiting the
call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., Thursday, April 23, 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 1999
----------
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 R. Dean Tice, Executive Director, National
Recreation and Park Association
Mr. Chairman: The National Recreation and Park Association commends
the Subcommittee for its fiscal year 1998 actions which set aside $100
million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for state assistance.
We share your disappointment in the results of conference negotiations
with the House. We are also concerned with the decision to use a
portion of the LWCF appropriation for operations and maintenance of
federal land systems. The decision to use a portion of the $699
``reserve'' to address operations and maintenance could create a
pattern which threatens future use of LWCF funds for their intended
purpose: to aid the acquisition of land and water resources at
strategically important places and to develop and enhance of the
capacity and quality of state and local recreation sites and resources.
We urge the Subcommittee to consider the following for fiscal year
1999:
--A significant, sustained increase in public investment from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, including an appropriation of
not less than $200,000,000 to restore the state assistance
program as a catalyst for efficient reinvestment of public
resources where they are most needed.
--At least $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Program to aid and encourage restoration of the most distressed
urban park systems and to stimulate innovation in recreation
services.
--Amounts sufficient to enable the National Park Service to increase
its capacity for technical assistance to local and state
governments--including the conservation of decommissioned
military installations for recreation and resource
conservation, and to aid others in conserving and making
publicly accessible rivers and trails and other recreation
resources.
We believe these recommendations are well within the nation's
fiscal capacity to address and urge the Subcommittee to make every
effort to respond. We also believe that the partnerships encouraged by
these investments have the high probability of containing federal costs
over time.
why invest now?
There is a growing imperative to return a greater proportion of
public fiscal resources--principally Outer Continental Shelf revenues--
to the American people for public recreation and parks. This imperative
is both social and physical, and will increasingly be influenced by the
changing demographics of the American people.
In a social context, prudent investment in public recreation
resources and services addresses some of the most obvious challenges of
the day. We are largely a sedentary nation, for example, and while
overweight young people can avoid the resulting health risks, as they
age their health typically declines while health costs escalate. As the
``boomers'' move ever closer to retirement age the present $1 trillion
per year national cost of health care may seem like a good deal.
Further, as the nation ages and its ethnic composition changes, so,
too, will the very nature of recreation demand. This subcommittee and
others should initiate specific inquiries to examine the conditions
which will influence longer term (at least to the year 2025) recreation
demand and necessary public responses.
At the other end of the age spectrum, we spend large sums of public
resources to address conditions which influence the life of the
nation's youth. While the vast majority of young America avoids serious
negative antisocial or criminal activity, many end up costing society
about $30,000 each per year through the juvenile justice system.
The actions of this Subcommittee directly impact the ``quality of
life'' for millions of people. In defense of reduced investments in
public parks and recreation, some urge that we reduce spending first to
not burden posterity with a debt accumulated by this generation.
Certainly we must make prudent investments. But if we do not adequately
invest today in recreation and park resources and services we burden
our children and their children with a deficit of opportunity, and a
legacy of diminished health and wellness and environmental quality.
The Congress need only examine proposals by the Administration and
scores of members of the 105th Congress to put our recommendations in
fiscal context. Among proposals:
--A budget request of $1,000,000,000 ($200 million a year for 5
years) to increase spending on after-school activities,
including recreation services, through the U.S. Department of
Education's 21st Century Schools Program.
--An element of S. 10, the proposed Violent and Repeat Juvenile
Offender Act, now pending in the Senate includes a $500,000,000
per year ``prevention'' block grant, notwithstanding that up to
60 percent of it will likely be reserved for activities which
differ from most perceptions of ``prevention,'' that is,
actions which prevent crime before it occurs.
--Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, including findings and
policy which recognize that older adults can often stay healthy
with moderate physical activity, including walking.
--A request in excess of $550,000,000 per year for the federal
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.
--A proposal to eliminate federal disaster relief eligibility for
state and local park and recreation resources if they produce
any revenue.
capital investments in parks and recreation
It is inconceivable that we are prepared to take--or have already
undertaken--so many costly actions, which largely ignore the record of
recreation as a mitigating factor in each area. Our recommendations
also address known capital investment needs. In 1994, we surveyed
nearly 500 local park and recreation agencies selected randomly
nationwide to determine the needs, priorities and probable funding
sources for capital investment for fiscal years 1995-1999. A similar 5-
year survey was completed in 1990, and we will initiate a third inquiry
for the period 2000-2004.
Local park and recreation agencies reported a total of $27.7
billion in capital investment needs nationally for rehabilitation of
public park and recreation facilities, land acquisition, and new
construction. They expected to have less than half that amount
available. While the total estimated need is down from $30.4 billion
reported five years ago, the expected budget shortfall increased seven
percent. New construction ranked highest with a total need of $13.6
billion (49.9 percent) nationwide, with an average need per agency of
over $3 million. Rehabilitation and restoration needs nationwide
totaled $8.8 billion (32.3 percent). The average need per agency was
just under $2.2 million, up from $1.8 million in the previous survey.
Land acquisition needs through fee simple acquisition or non-title
action totaled almost $5 billion (17.9 percent) nationwide.
why partnerships?
The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program were conceived as fiscal and, in some
circumstances, recreation resource partnerships. In a fiscal sense, it
can be highly efficient to return national public resources to state
and local decisionmakers to address perceived needs. Two well-
established parks illustrate the principle of shared conservation,
recreation goals and savings.
Assateague State Park, with over 750 acres in Worcester County,
Maryland, clearly illustrates federal costs savings. It encompasses
over 2 miles of Atlantic Ocean frontage, plus marshes and forests on
Sinepuxent Bay. The state park and northern unit of the national
seashore host about one-half million visits annually. The National
Geographic Society's Traveler magazine in 1994 selected Assateague
State Park as one of the 50 best state parks in America.
Assateague State Park bears the major impact of visitors to the
northern end of Assateague Island. It has about 350 developed campsites
(compared to about 200 in the national seashore). It annually pays the
salaries of 10 year around state employees--and some 40 more seasonal
workers. Recent capital investments include an estimated $500,000 for
an additional full service campground, and about $1,500,000 for the
complete renovation of the park's central day use facility, including a
contact station, board walk, showers, parking, change facilities and
concessions. ``The coordination (between state and federal managers) of
policy and operational matters works well,'' a senior Maryland Forest
and Park Service official observed. ``If the state had not responded to
public demand, then the (National Park Service) would be forced to,''
he added. What would be the cost in perpetuity to the federal
government of development, maintenance, and management?
Other Maryland forests and parks--Fort Frederick, Gathland and
South Mountain state parks--help conserve the record of nationally
significant actions or places.
Indiana Dunes State Park, Indiana, represents another area where
early and continuing state investment and management disperses user
impacts and costs that would otherwise be borne by the federal
government. Visitation to the state park in 1996-1997 was nearly
800,000, the highest of all Indiana state parks; 42 percent were out-
of-state visitors.
Indiana Dunes State Park was established in 1925, and is today
comprised of about 2,200 acres of Lake Michigan shoreline and beach,
dunes, woods, and marsh areas. 1,530 acres is dedicated as Dunes Nature
Preserve. As early as 1916, there was a proposal to create a national
conservation area at the Dunes. The park has scenic, natural and
historic values. Donations from industrialists in the area and money
from a tax levy paid for the park's acquisition. Because the land was
in private ownership with many landowners, acquisition took several
years to complete. The special features and activities of this park are
the dunes, which contain some of the most unique flora and fauna in the
Midwest, and swimming and hiking. On summer weekends, this state park
receives maximum usage of the beach, picnic areas, and the campground,
and campers are frequently turned away. Many of the activities
available at Indiana Dunes State Park are also available at the
neighboring national lakeshore.
Similar to Maryland, other Indiana state projects tend to lessen
the pressure on federal resources. At Lincoln Boyhood National
Memorial, for example, federal employees take advantage of a $3,000,000
outdoor amphitheater in the state park.
The National Recreation and Park Association shares your
subcommittee's deep concern for the health and welfare of the American
people and others who live within our borders.
For these and other reasons, we urge the Subcommittee to consider
fully our recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Beard, Senior Vice President, National
Audubon Society
Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Audubon Society's more than 550,000 members, and over 500
chapters in communities throughout the United States, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on 1999 Interior
Appropriations budget requests. Audubon's priorities for the 1999
Department of Interior budget are focused on programs that protect
birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of all
Americans. America's public land and wildlife resources belong to all
Americans. This priceless natural heritage will be lost without
adequate funding for the staff and other resources that ensure proper
stewardship.
We hope that the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations Act will
repeat last year's historic funding levels for several programs that we
all care so deeply about. With the strong leadership of this
Subcommittee we can also increase funding levels for other programs as
well.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
We applaud the Committee for approving last year's historic $969
million LWCF allocation. The LWCF protects forests, wetlands, beaches
and other open spaces for the protection of wildlife and the enjoyment
of future generations. In many cases, direct fee acquisition from
willing private sellers, facilitated by use of the LWCF, is the best
way to accomplish long-term protection of priority lands. Purchase of
inholdings within wildlife refuges and other federal lands may also
result in long-term savings to the federal government because of
reduced management costs. While the LWCF is authorized to receive $900
million annually from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing
receipts, last year was the first time it achieved that level of
funding in more than 15 years. The long-term diversion of funds from
the LWCF has translated into lost opportunities to acquire lands of
ecological, recreational and cultural significance for preservation for
future generations of Americans.
The LWCF state program provides funding for the conservation
priorities of individual states. This matching grant program allows
states to complete conservation projects at the local level and the
matching requirement ensures that states and communities are fully
committed to these projects. Eliminating the acquisition funding for
state side projects in fiscal year 1996 interrupted ongoing state
projects.
While the President's $270 million request for LWCF is
significantly larger than last year's initial request, full allocation
of the LWCF is needed on an annual basis to meet priority land
conservation needs. It is expected that OCS mineral leasing royalties
to the federal government will reach $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1999,
an increase of $192 million over fiscal year 1998. We join the
Americans for our Heritage and Recreation (AHR), of which the National
Audubon Society is a member, in encouraging the Committee to take
advantage of this substantial increase by allocating the full $900
million. We further request the Subcommittee direct $200 million of the
LWCF towards state grants. We have submitted our acquisition priority
list separately.
Everglades
For Everglades restoration programs, the President has requested
$144 million in funding for the Department of the Interior. We strongly
urge the Subcommittee to support the President's Everglades restoration
budget.
The most important component of the budget is the $81 million
requested for National Park Service's land acquisition account. It is
our understanding that the allocation of this portion of the budget
request has been amended by the Administration so that Everglades
National Park would receive $40 million; the East Coast Buffer would
receive $38 million; and Big Cypress National Preserve would receive $3
million. This would provide the National Park Service with sufficient
funds to complete acquisitions in the East Everglades Expansion Area,
which Congress authorized in 1990; however, unless a more expedited
process is created completion of the Park will not occur until 2008 or
2009.
As you know, one of the most important elements of Everglades
restoration is land acquisition for water storage purposes. A National
Audubon Society report concludes that there is an immediate need to
acquire 75,000 acres for water storage in the Everglades Agricultural
Area (EAA). We are very encouraged by the Vice President's announcement
on December 6th of the ``Agreement in Concept'' to acquire the Talisman
properties, which are located in the EAA. The 75,000 acres we
recommended could be approached if the federal government used the
remainder of the funds provided under the 1996 farm bill to close on
the Talisman properties, and then prudently swapped its non-contiguous
parcels and consolidated the contiguous block in the southern
Everglades Agricultural Area. We urge the Subcommittee to monitor this
situation closely to ensure that the federal investment is protected.
National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Audubon Society expresses its thanks to the Committee
for approving an unprecedented $41 million increase in Refuge System
operations and maintenance (O&M) funding in fiscal year 1998. These
additional funds will make it possible for refuge managers to begin
digging themselves out from under the backlog of operations and
maintenance needs that have hindered their ability to provide optimal
management of refuges.
In 1993, Interior's Inspector General issued a report that
documented a $323 million backlog in maintenance projects. This figure
has grown to $599 million, jeopardizing the integrity of the entire
Refuge System. The President's budget proposes $246 million for O&M,
including implementation of the newly enacted ``National Wildlife
Refuge Improvement Act,'' the development of comprehensive conservation
plans and addressing the backlog of O&M projects. As a member of the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), National Audubon
supports the objective of incrementally increasing O&M funds for the
Refuge System over the next five years (as outlined in CARE testimony
prepared by the National Wildlife Refuge Association). While the CARE
proposal will not meet optimum funding levels, it will go a long way
toward meeting the bird and wildlife conservation objectives that we
support for the System.
We also wish to point out that while operations and maintenance
allocations are equally important, it is important to note that the
Refuge System carries out its regularly scheduled annual maintenance
projects through its operations budget. Therefore, ensuring sufficient
funding of refuge operations will aid in reducing growth of the overall
maintenance backlog.
Last year's increase represents an important first step, and we are
hopeful the Committee will continue to provide adequate increases in
future years as we count down to the System's Centennial in 2003. For
fiscal year 1999, we support a funding level of $277 million for Refuge
Operations and Maintenance.
Forest Service
We oppose funding for construction of more logging roads, whether
by direct appropriation, or through the device of ``purchaser
credits.'' Road building is one of the most environmentally destructive
of all Forest Service activities. The President's proposal to
discontinue timber purchaser credits and shift the cost of road
building to become a direct cost does not adequately address the issue.
Taxpayers would still be forced to subsidize additional and unnecessary
road building.
We support the Forest Service's request of $107 million for Road
Maintenance and the dismantling of 3,500 miles of roads. This money
would be spent in a prioritized manner on road dismantling and
maintenance of existing roads which will not be removed, but contribute
sediment into streams and threaten them with road blow-outs and
mudslides.
We support the President's proposal to reform Forest Service
Payments to States by ``de-coupling'' them from timber sales. Currently
Forest Service Payments to States ``in lieu of tax'' are made at a
level commensurate with timber sales in the state. This system creates
a perverse incentive to log in order to support educational and roads
programs. The Forest Service's proposal would stabilize these payments
so they are not directly dependent on the amount of trees cut,
eliminating the perverse incentive to log.
We support increased funding for the Forest Legacy Program. This
program protects prime forest habitat while addressing the needs of
forest landowners. Currently it only functions effectively in select
states. Additional funding will allow it to be expanded to more parts
of the country.
An environmental assessment should be prepared prior to
reconstruction of forest roads with Emergency Relief for Federally-
Owned Roads (ERFO) funds except when emergency reconstruction is
necessary to protect life or provide access to inholdings. ERFO funds
should only be available for roads that have been open to recreational
and general forest users for at least six months of the year for the
past five years.
Endangered Species Programs
Audubon fully supports the President's 1999 budget request for the
Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program of $113 million,
nearly a $36 million increase over fiscal year 1998 levels. We believe
that this increase is long overdue and necessary to properly implement
many of the administrative reforms instituted in recent years by the
Fish and Wildlife Service, which have resulted in a substantial
increase in that agency's workload.
The President's request includes increased funding for the Fish and
Wildlife Service consultation budget, which covers both Section 7
consultations and the rapidly expanding Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
program. In 1992, the federal government had approved fewer than one
dozen HCP's; to date they have approved 225 plans, with another 200
under development. The federal government has an obligation to review
and approve all HCP's, to monitor and enforce plans once they are
approved, and to respond in the event that unforeseen circumstances
require modification of plans. This long overdue increase is needed to
fulfill these obligations and process the rapidly increasing number of
HCP's.
The President's budget also includes a substantial increase in the
Service's recovery budget, which will fund increased on-the-ground
recovery efforts, greater involvement of stakeholders in the recovery
planning process, expansion of the Safe Harbor program, and the
delisting of species. The budget also includes a small but necessary
increase in the listing budget, and a $5 million pilot project that
will offer incentives to landowners who take proactive steps to
conserve and manage endangered and threatened species habitat.
Preservation of Migratory Birds
In the United States more than 65 million people identify
themselves as birdwatchers, contributing more than $20 billion annually
to the U.S. economy. Yet year after year the U.S. government fails to
sufficiently fund programs that protect nongame birds, despite the fact
that it makes good economic sense. Moreover, in conjunction with
Partners in Flight, Audubon recently published the WatchList; which
contains more than 120 bird species, primarily nongame, that are in
decline. Funding for the conservation of these birds today will halt
their decline and preclude the need for expensive emergency measures
later to prevent their extinction. In recognition of the economic and
environmental importance of this natural resource, we urge you to fully
fund the following programs.
The Office of Migratory Bird Management (OMBM) provides scientific
information and management advice on migratory birds to federal land
managers. We believe that the President's budget request of $18.675
million for this key program is inadequate to meet current needs and we
urge Congress to increase funding for this program by $10 million. The
OMBM has simply been unable to comply with federal statutory
requirements to protect nongame migratory birds. Without proper
funding, the FWS cannot maintain its trust responsibilities to protect
all 780 species of nongame birds, many of which play a critical and
invaluable role in the economies of the U.S. and parts of the Western
Hemisphere. Additional funding would enable OMBM (1) to monitor the
status of our nongame birds; (2) to implement conservation plans that
being developed under the auspices of the Partners in Flight program;
(3) to provide technical assistance to our National Wildlife Refuges,
other federal agencies, and private sector partnership groups; (4) to
provide educational and recreational opportunities to some of the 65
million people who actively feed and watch birds.
National Audubon Society would also like the Congress to direct the
FWS to fully participate in the development and implementation of a
North American Plan for Birds. Currently, only a handful of game
species receive adequate funding for monitoring and habitat restoration
and acquisition, notwithstanding the fact that nongame bird enthusiasts
contribute billions to our economy. The development of such a plan,
similar to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, would greatly
facilitate the protection of these birds species.
We also support the activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Western Hemisphere Program, which trains protected area
managers in Latin America and makes small matching grants for education
and grassroots conservation. This is one of the few U.S. programs that
benefits North American birds on their wintering grounds in Latin
America. Audubon urges Congress to support an increase of $1 million
for funding this important program.
Biological Resources Division/USGS
National Audubon urges Congress to increase funding for the
Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological Service
(BRD). BRD provides sound, unbiased scientific information to federal
agencies, state and local governments, private industry and the public,
which in turn use this information to make informed natural resource
and land management decisions. To ensure the future of these vital
programs, the President's request of $158 million should be increased
to $175 million. We urge Congress to include an earmark of $1 million
for research on the impacts of commercial fishing on seabirds.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Audubon Society supports the Administration's request
of $6 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The
Foundation leverages its federal appropriations through the use of
challenge grants. These appropriations will fund the implementation of
the Partners in Flight North American Bird conservation strategy.
national audubon society's lwcf priorities for fiscal year 1999
Federal Projects
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Balcones Canyonlands NWR, TX; Bayou Savage NWR, LA; Big Muddy NWR,
MO; Black River NWR, WA; Cabo Rojo NWR, PR; Canaan Valley NWR, WV;
Chincoteague NWR, VA; Ding Darling NWR, FL; Don Edwards San Francisco
Bay NWR, CA; Eagle Lakes NWR, WA; Edwin B. Forsythe NWR, NJ; Grand
Kankakee Marsh NWR, IL-IN; Great White Heron NWR, FL; John Heinz NWR,
PA; Key Cave NWR, AL; Klamath Forest NWR, OR; Lake Wales Ridge NWR, FL;
Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, TX; Marin Baylands, San Pablo Bay NWR
Complex, CA; Montezuma NWR, NY; National Key Deer NWR, FL; Northwest
Montana Wetlands Management District, MT; Ottawa NWR, OH; Palmyra Atoll
NWR, U.S. Territory; Patoka River NWR, IN; Pelican Island NWR, FL; Red
Rock Lakes NWR, MT; St. Marks NWR, FL; San Diego NWR, CA; Silvio O.
Conte NF&WR, CT-MA-NH-VT; Stewart B. McKinney NWR, CT; Stone Lakes NWR,
CA; Tualatin River NWR, OR; Waccamaw NWR, SC; Wallkill River NWR, NJ;
Wertheim NWR, NY; Whittlesey Creek NF&WR, WI.
National Park Service
Big Cypress National Preserve, FL; Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams,
Olympic NP, WA; Everglades NP, FL; Everlades East Coast Buffer, FL;
Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve, LA.
Bureau of Land Management
La Cienga Area of Critical Environmental Concern, NM.
U.S. Forest Service
Baca Ranch, Santa Fe NF, NM; Brown Mining Claim, Kalmiopsis
Wilderness, Siskiyou NF, OR; Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area,
WA-OR; Lindbergh Lake, Flathead NF, MT; Pinhook Swamp, Osceola NF, FL;
San Bernardino NF, CA; White Salmon/Klickitat National Wild and Scenic
River, Gifford Pinchot NF, WA.
State Projects
Champion Property, Adirondack Park, NY; Fanita Ranch, CA Mines of
Spain, IA; Moosic Mountain, PA; San Dieguito River Valley Park, CA;
Santa Maria River Valley, CA; Rodman Ranch and Slough, CA; Whitney
Property, Adirondack Park, NY.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary Werner, Chair, Partnership for the National
Trails System
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
the National Trails System appreciates the support you have given 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 the
allocation of funds for fiscal year 1998 to directly support the trails
administered and managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management. To maintain the momentum of progress that you have fostered
the Partnership requests that annual base operations funding be
provided for each of the 20 national scenic and national historic
trails for fiscal year 1999 through these appropriations:
--National Park Service--$5.20 million for the administration of 15
trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
by the Washington Park Service office.
--USDA Forest Service--$2.25 million to administer four trails and
$550,000 for portions of 10 trails managed through agreements
with the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management.
--Bureau of Land Management--$160,000 for administration of the
Iditarod National Historic Trail and $1.20 million for the
portions of 10 other trails managed through agreements with the
National Park Service and Forest Service.
We ask that you continue to earmark one-third (approximately
$600,000) of National Park Service Challenge Cost Share funds for the
15 national scenic and historic trails it administers.
We ask that you appropriate $15.1 million from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriation for
acquisition of lands by the National Park Service and United States
Forest Service to protect the scenic quality of the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail.
We also ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund $1 million to the State of Wisconsin to match state
funds available for acquisition of land for the Ice Age National Scenic
Trail, $1 million to the State of Florida to match state funds
available for acquisition of land for the Florida National Scenic Trail
and $250,000 each to the states of Michigan and New York to match funds
available for acquisition of lands for the North Country National
Scenic Trail.
The $5.2 million we request for the National Park Service will
finally provide significant operational support for 8 of the trails
that have received little funding. Annual operations funding for the
Anza, Trail of Tears, Overmountain Victory, Natchez Trace, California,
Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express and Potomac Heritage Trails ranges from
$0.00 to $78,000 and averages about $46,000, barely enough money to pay
for a federal trail coordinator with little left for projects that
nurture the trail. The additional funds we request will provide the
first operations money for the Potomac Heritage Trail to support trail
planning and development projects with local organizations and
agencies.
Similarly, the added funding will enable real progress to be made
in marking and interpreting sites along the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail
right through the heart of California's largest communities, mobilizing
local citizen groups and government agencies. There is also much work
to be done, supported by this funding, to inventory, map and interpret
the many important cultural heritage sites along the several strands of
the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears Association, Cherokee Nation and
the other displaced tribes are anxious to get on with the work of
documenting their heritage in partnership with the Park Service when it
has sufficient resources to do the job.
Along the Natchez Trace Parkway and in the southern Appalachian
mountains strands of the Natchez Trace and Overmountain Victory Trails
are being patiently knit together by small dedicated organizations so
that someday hikers will be able to retrace the steps of citizen
soldiers of the Revolutionary War and returning Mississippi River
boatmen of the last century. The additional funding we request will
quicken the pace of these efforts by strengthening the capacity for
planning and organizing trail making projects.
The additional funding will also better enable the Park Service to
support the innovative interagency Salt Lake City Trails office, a cost
effective partnership enabling sharing of resources with the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service to cooperatively manage four
national historic trails that cover 10,000 miles and extend across 12
states. The completion of the new Comprehensive Plan for the trails and
the 150th anniversary of the California gold rush in 1999 has
heightened interest in the many strands of the Oregon and California
Trails. There will be many opportunities to celebrate and interpret the
heritage of these trails in partnerships with state and local
historical societies if there is adequate funding to do the necessary
organizing.
Looming just over the horizon with the coming new millennium is the
Bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. The Lewis & Clark Trail
Bicentennial Council has been working for several years to guide the
planning for this commemoration to minimize damage to irreplaceable
resources and to maximize benefits for the Trail. The Bicentennial
promises to be a large event with countless activities stretching
nearly across the country. To guide this massive event to benefit the
heritage of the Lewis & Clark, Nez Perce and the other trails of the
National Trails System is an extraordinary undertaking requiring
significant financial support. The Partnership's request includes a
major increase in funding for planning and organizing activities,
interpretation and protection of resources involved in the
Bicentennial.
All of these trails are amazingly complicated undertakings, none
more so than the 4,000 mile long North Country Trail. With more than
600 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 Trail management that provides high
quality ``North Country'' experiences for hikers. Limited budgets for
both agencies have severely hampered their ability to perfect this
effective management procedure. The additional funding we request will
give them that ability for the first time while also providing greater
support for the trail building projects led by the North Country Trail
Association, hastening the day when our nation's longest national
scenic trail will be fully opened for use.
It is equally important that the national scenic and national
historic trails administered or managed by the United States Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management receive similar budgetary
recognition as America's Congressionally designated premier trails.
Annual operations funding for these trails distinct from the general
recreation program appropriations for these two agencies is essential
to insure that these trails receive appropriate priority in annual work
plans.
Recognizing the special responsibility for administering three
national scenic trails and one national historic trail, the Chief of
the Forest Service recommended that $1 million be used for those trails
in fiscal year 1995. You directed funding to these trails for fiscal
year 1998. Consistent operations funding should be provided annually
for these trails and we ask you to appropriate $1.25 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 for fiscal year 1999. Recognizing the on-the-
ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838 miles
of the Appalachian Trail, more than 600 miles of the North Country
Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Lewis & Clark, California,
Iditarod, and Overmountain Victory trails, we ask you to appropriate
$550,000 specifically for these trails.
Administration of four national trails, two more than 1,000 miles
long and two over 2,000 miles long, each crossing many management
jurisdictions, is a complex endeavor. Each of these long trails passes
through tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of land with great
variations in topography, plant, animal and human communities. Each
trail encompasses cultural and natural resources requiring sensitive
management. As management endeavors they are comparable in scale and
needs to the national forests, yet the Forest Service does not
administer them as distinct entities with annual reliable budgets. The
Partnership believes these national trails should be administered as
distinct entities with appropriate supervision by the Forest Service
and asks that you provide the funding and direction to do so. Here are
several examples of the projects awaiting along the national trails
administered by the Forest Service.
Two major gaps in the Florida National Scenic Trail are poised to
be closed through patient negotiations led by the Forest Service and
the Florida Trail Association. Trail can now be built across Eglin Air
Force Base at the northern end and the Seminole Indian Reservation at
the southern end, adding about 100 miles to the completed Florida
Trail, if adequate funding is provided.
Last summer the Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with major
assistance from the Forest Service and funding support from the outdoor
recreation industry, sponsored ``Uniting Along the Divide.'' During
this two week long event hundreds of volunteers surveyed the entire
3,200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail to develop the first
comprehensive assessment of the condition and construction and
management needs for the Trail. They documented $10.3 million of
construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To continue the
funding, begun in fiscal year 1998, for this new trail construction we
ask that you appropriate $1 million for projects along the Continental
Divide Trail in fiscal year 1999.
With critical Forest Service assistance the Pacific Crest Trail
Association is growing and assuming greater responsibility for
maintaining the western complement to the Appalachian Trail. The
Pacific Crest Trail, an original component of the National Trails
System, is complete from the Canadian to the Mexican border. However,
like the Appalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail is not entirely
protected from disruption from end to end. The PCT crosses more than
300 parcels of private land on narrow easements that are not
conveniently cataloged so they can be effectively monitored and
managed. The Pacific Crest Trail Association has secured a private
foundation grant to work with the Forest Service to search out and
catalog the legal documents and survey the ``on-the-ground'' condition
of these easements as a baseline for future monitoring. This is a good
example of essential work to protect the PCT accomplished through
public/private partnership. The project will only be successful if it
has sufficient funding and staffing from both partners.
While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
for just the Iditarod National Historic Trail, it has on-the-ground
management responsibility for 628 miles of two scenic trails and 3,590
miles of eight historic trails administered by the National Park
Service and U.S. Forest Service. However, the Bureau of Land Management
budget does not reflect this responsibility; the agency receives no
funding specifically for these trails. We ask that you appropriate
$160,000 for fiscal year 1999 earmarked as a separate budgetary item
for administration of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and
$1,200,000 for management of the portions of the 10 other trails under
the care of the Bureau of Land Management.
The level of annual funding that we request is essential to support
the public/private partnerships working to complete these trails.
Attachment 3 details the specific funding requests.
The land acquisition accomplished to protect the continuity and
quality of the Appalachian Trail has been one of the most successful
projects ever undertaken by the National Park Service and United States
Forest Service. Today, only 35 miles remain unprotected of the 2,160
mile Appalachian Trail. This far-sighted project to protect the most
significant recreational resource in the eastern United States must be
continued to successful completion and the Land and Water Conservation
Fund which has made the land acquisition possible must be preserved and
renewed.
There are many important historical sites and critical stretches of
the other national scenic and historic trails that remain unprotected
and vulnerable to destruction or loss for public use. The Land and
Water Conservation Fund must be available as one source of funds to
help acquire these significant resources and protect the integrity and
value of America's national scenic and historic trails. At least the
annual funding applied to protecting the Appalachian Trail over the
past 20 years should be used to protect critical resources of other
national scenic and historic trails.
The National Trails System Act encourages states to participate in
the conservation of the resources and development of the national
scenic and historic trails. Florida and Wisconsin have committed
millions of dollars to help conserve the resources of the Florida and
Ice Age National Scenic Trails, respectively. Michigan and New York
have funding programs that can similarly help acquire lands for the
North Country National Scenic Trail. All of these state resource
protection programs are predicated on matching funds. The Partnership
asks that you provide grants to these states from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to further assist and encourage their participation
in stewardship of these components of 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. They combine
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, often resulting
in a greater than equal match of funds.
The commitment of the private trail organizations toward the
success of these partnerships as the means for making these trails
grows even as Congress' support for the trails has grown. In 1997 the
trail organizations channeled over 435,000 hours of documented
volunteer labor valued at more than $5,628,000 toward completion of the
national scenic and national historic trails. In addition the various
trail organizations also directly applied private sector contributions
of $4,213,943 to benefit the trails. Additional in-kind and uncounted
monetary contributions from thousands of volunteers and cooperating
organizations would likely double this amount. These contributions are
documented in Attachment 1.
The earmarked Challenge Cost Share funds have significantly
increased the activity along the trails administered by the National
Park Service. In fiscal year 1997 $556,062 provided by Congress funded
88 projects throughout the country with a total value of $1,949,069.
The $1,393,007 provided by trail organizations and state and local
government agencies to support these projects represents a 2.5:1 match
to the Federal investment. The array of projects that have been
completed with this funding is detailed in Attachment 2. For every
trail project funded there is another awaiting funding.
The Challenge Cost Share approach 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
Challenge Cost Share programs should be funded as generously as
possible as a wise investment of public money that will generate public
benefits many times greater than the appropriation made. Directing a
portion of those funds specifically toward the national scenic and
historic trails will continue the steady progress underway to make
these trails fully available for public enjoyment.
ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 1997 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.................................... 160,850 $2,091,050 \1\ $2,425,000
Continental Divide Trail Society................................ \1\ 1,500 19,500 ..............
Continental Divide Trail Alliance............................... 18,800 265,630 217,370
Florida Trail Association....................................... \1\ 40,000 440,000 138,000
Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation............................... 50,687 658,931 261,861
Iditarod Trail Committee........................................ \1\ 12,900 206,400 \1\ 70,000
Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza Juan Bautista De Anza Trail...... \1\ 6,800 95,200 ..............
Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation......................... 11,763 180,459 166,004
Mormon Trails Association....................................... 4,200 58,800 30,000
Iowa Mormon Trails Association.................................. 4,360 61,040 32,000
Natchez Trace Trail Conference.................................. 1,919 26,886 29,000
National Pony Express Association............................... 1,602 20,826 15,790
Nez Perce Trail Foundation...................................... \1\ 3,000 39,000 ..............
North Country Trail Association................................. 17,440 212,306 53,877
Oregon-California Trails Association............................ 28,376 397,264 172,796
Overmountain Victory Trail Association.......................... 4,400 48,708 500
Pacific Crest Trail Association................................. 41,600 499,200 120,967
Santa Fe Trail Association...................................... \1\ 16,300 195,000 71,500
Trail of Tears Association...................................... 11,822 165,508 9,139
Trail of Tears Advisory Council................................. \1\ 380 5,320 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 439,299 5,686,028 4,243,943
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
Attachment 2.--National Park Service Challenge Cost Share Projects on
the National Scenic and Historic Trails
During fiscal year 1997 88 projects valued at $1,949,069 were
completed in support of the National Trails System trails administered
by the National Park Service. These include:
--Trail design and construction: on the North Country, Appalachian,
Ice Age, Iditarod, and Natchez Trace Trails; preparation of
bridge construction manual for the Appalachian Trail;
--Trail heads and parking facilities: 10 on the Ice Age Trail;
--Bridges, boardwalks and shelters constructed: bridges on the Ice
Age, Natchez Trace, North Country and Potomac Heritage Trails;
boardwalks on Ice Age and North Country Trails; shelters on the
North Country, Appalachian and Ice Age Trails;
--Trail mapping and marking: mapping of the 10 branches of the
California Trail and the Applegate Trail in California, of the
North Country Trail in Michigan and the Oregon Trail in Idaho
and Oregon; route research for the Trail of Tears; trail
marking on the western end of the Iditarod Trail, the Mormon
Pioneer Trail in western Wyoming, North Country Trail highway
crossings in Michigan and New York, the Mormon Pioneer, Oregon
and Pony Express Trails across Utah, and the Santa Fe Trail;
--Interpretive signing installed: on the Anza Trail in Los Angeles
and the East Bay Region, and wayside exhibits: 14 in Oregon,
and 13 across South Dakota for the Lewis & Clark Trail, for the
Mormon Pioneer Trail, North Country Trail in Michigan, Oregon
Trail at the Columbia River Terminus, 3 for the Santa Fe Trail
in Kansas and others in Missouri, New Mexico and Oklahoma and
along the Trail of Tears in Kentucky and Tennessee;
--Exhibits and brochures developed: museum exhibits for the Trail of
Tears and the Santa Fe Trail Center in Kansas, and at the end
of the Pony Express Trail in California; brochures for the
Lewis & Clark, Mormon Pioneer, and North Country Trails;
--Natural resource management/Landscape restorations: prairie/
grassland restorations on the Ice Age Trail with Dane County
Parks Department and at the National Frontier Trails Center;
natural heritage inventory along the Appalachian Trail through
Massachusetts; preparation of land management handbook for the
Appalachian Trail;
--Archeology: on the Santa Fe Trail in Bent County, Colorado;
Funding also supported interpretive program development and work
safety training programs for volunteers along the Appalachian Trail, a
course for teachers about Indian-White relations along the Oregon Trail
in Idaho, and a Spanish translation of an interpretive booklet for the
Anza Trail.
ATTACHMENT 3.--PARTNERSHIP FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Project/programs possible with increased
Agency/trail 1998 approp. 1999 request funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS:
Appalachian................. $871,000 $877,000 ..............................................
Natchez Trace............... 26,000 151,000 Planning, guidance and support for trail
development projects with NTTC.
California.................. 61,000 361,000 Comprehensive Plan implementation: trail
brochure, markers and interpretive waysides;
Sesquicentennial wagon train and other
activities with OCTA.
Ice Age..................... 325,000 331,000 ..............................................
Juan Bautista de Anza....... 67,000 217,000 Guidance and coordination of Trail site
protection, interpretation and development
projects with local agencies and
organizations.
Lewis & Clark............... 399,000 1,174,000 Planning, coordination and support for local
Bicentennial projects.
Mormon Pioneer.............. 78,000 178,000 Coordinate interpretive exhibits and route
marking with 12 states for 4 trails.
North Country............... 226,000 376,000 Closer collaboration with National Forests to
strengthen management consistency; Trail
route planning; Support for NCTA trailmaking
projects.
Oregon...................... 103,000 250,000 Interagency collaboration to protect and
interpret critical sites like South Pass.
Overmountain Victory........ 36,000 136,000 Stronger coordination of projects with OVTA;
new route signs.
Pony Express................ 61,000 201,000 Implementation of Comprehensive Plan: support
for GIS database, site inventories,
certification and interpretation with NPEA
and local agencies.
Potomac Heritage............ .............. 150,000 Coordination of trailmaking projects with
organizations and local agencies.
Santa Fe.................... \1\ 460,000 469,000 ..............................................
Selma to Montgomery......... 100,000 140,000 Coordination with citizen support
organizations and local agencies.
Trail of Tears.............. 42,000 192,000 Survey, protection and interpretation of
critical Trail sites with TOTA.
--------------------------------
Total National Trails
System................... 3,068,000 5,203,000
================================
BLM:
Iditarod.................... 100,000 160,000 Coordination and support for collaborative
management with other Federal agencies,
Iditarod Trail organizations and State of
Alaska.
CDT, PCT, CAT, JBAT, L&CT, 300,000 1,200,000 Support for on-the-ground projects for BLM
MPT, NPT, OT, PXT, SFT. managed trail segments; California Trail
Sesquicentennial projects and events; Lewis &
Clark Bicentennial preparations; Support for
Oregon Trail interpretive center.
--------------------------------
Total................... 400,000 1,360,000
================================
USDA-FS:
CDT, FT, PCT, NPT........... 900,000 1,250,000 Assumption of full administrative
responsibility and leadership for consistent
interagency collaboration for each trail;
support for ongoing, consistent management
with trail organization and local agency
partners; trail brochures, signs, project
planning etc.
AT, NCT, IAT, IDT, CAT, 300,000 550,000 Support for on-the-ground projects for trail
L&CT, OT, OVT, PXT, SFT. segments in National Forests.
Continental Divide.......... \2\ 750,000 \3\ 1,000,000 Trail construction projects along the
Continental Divide Trail.
--------------------------------
Total..................... 1,950,000 2,800,000
================================
LWCF grants Appalachian Trail... 7,200,000 \4\ 15,000,000 Complete protection of Appalachian Trail end-
to-end.
LWCF grant Florida Trail-- .............. 1,000,000 Provide assistance to State of Florida to
Florida. protect threatened FT corridor and connect
trail segments across private land.
LWCF grant Ice Age Trail-- .............. 1,000,000 Provide assistance to State of Wisconsin to
Wisconsin \6\. protect threatened IAT corridor and connect
trail segments across private land.
LWCF grants North Country Trail. .............. .............. Provide assistance to States of Michigan and
New York to protect threatened NCT corridor
and connect trail segments across private
land.
Michigan.................... .............. 250,000
New York \7\................ .............. 250,000
--------------------------------
Total..................... 7,200,000 2,500,000 ..............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $242,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
\2\ Appropriation resulting from request by Continental Divide Trail Alliance.
\3\ Request from Continental Divide Trail Alliance.
\4\ Administration request for allocation from supplemental $699 million appropriated for fiscal year 1998. This
would be a supplemental fiscal year 1998 appropriation to complete the Appalachian Trail over the next several
years.
\5\ This would be a grant to the State of Florida to be matched at least 1:1.
\6\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
\7\ These would be grants to the States of Michigan and New York to be matched at least 1:1.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce Runnels, Chief Conservation Officer, The
Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity.\1\ To date our
organization has protected more than 9 million acres in the 50 states
and Canada, and has helped local partner organizations preserve
millions of acres overseas. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,600
preserves--the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the
world. Three concepts that have been fundamental to our success are
sound science; strong partnerships with public and private landowners;
and tangible results at local places. This testimony highlights
projects and programs that foster each of these three key factors of
success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The mission of The Nature Conservancy 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 900,000 individual members and over 1,850
corporate sponsors; we currently have programs in all 50 states and 17
nations. Our Board of Governors includes corporate officers such as
Durk I. Jager of Proctor and Gamble and John G. Smale of General
Motors, distinguished leaders such as General Norman Schwarzkopf, and
renowned scientists such as E.O. Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our 45 years of conservation work, perhaps the single most
important lesson we have learned is that local communities hold the key
to conservation success. Without the support of the people who live in
and around the places we are trying to protect, we can never achieve
our goals. By making a community's interests ours, and conservation
theirs, together we can start developing an ecologically compatible and
economically sound vision for the future.
The Nature Conservancy is in the midst of launching the most
ambitious fundraising campaign ever initiated by a private conservation
organization. In doing this, we are demonstrating our firm commitment
to private investment in biodiversity conservation. But private efforts
alone will not suffice. As the largest owner and manager of land across
America, the federal government is a critical partner and leader in
effecting conservation. In that vein, I respectfully offer the
following fiscal year 1999 funding recommendations to the Subcommittee.
Acquisition and Management of Federal Land
We feel that continuing to make additions to the public lands base
in high-priority sites is extremely important. We also recognize the
tremendous need for getting ahead of the backlog of maintenance and
construction problems on federal lands. We believe the Administration's
proposed 5-year plan addresses the need to think longer-term about
acquisition and maintenance needs. In fiscal year 1998, Congress took a
bold step in funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its
fully authorized level. We urge you to provide that level of investment
every year.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The Nature Conservancy offers
for your consideration a list of biologically rich land acquisition
projects totaling $139,405,000. Each project is a high priority for the
corresponding land management agency and has active negotiations
underway for acquisition. A list of these projects is included with
this testimony. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the
Subcommittee's leadership in consistently supporting this important
activity.
Stewardship of Public Lands.--In addition to maintaining the
infrastructure on our public lands, we must protect our overall
investment by maintaining their biological resources. Many of our
nation's ecosystems are extremely degraded and are in need of active
management. Invasion by alien species is perhaps the most pervasive
threat to native biodiversity on public lands, and can be treated
through prescribed burns and other techniques. We support all increases
proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget requests of the public land
management agencies for stewardship activities. For example, the USFWS'
National Refuge System has proposed a $15 million increase in
operations to support habitat improvement and other projects.
Scientific Information
A base of high-quality scientific information is needed in order to
make sound decisions regarding public and private land acquisition and
management. The Conservancy supports strengthening research programs
within the Interior Department that relate to status and trends of
biological diversity. By making modest investments in information
today, we can avoid more costly crisis management in the future. We
suggest an increase in funding for the biological research programs
within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and specifically within its
Biological Resources Division (BRD). We applaud the Administration's
request for an $11 million increase for research on habitat and species
relationships which will greatly assist Department of Interior land
managers. The Conservancy also supports BRD's request of $748,000 for
Species at Risk, which funds research on status and trends of sensitive
species. By generating information on species before they decline, the
program reduces the need for formal listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
Endangered Species Act
It is widely recognized that the federal ESA's chronic lack of
adequate funding is a major limitation to its success. Therefore, the
Conservancy strongly supports the USFWS's fiscal year 1999 request of
$129.9 million to administer the ESA--the most ambitious request ever
for this program. Most notably, the new funding would provide
incentives to private landowners to protect species, such as candidate
conservation and safe harbor agreements. Funds are also included for
100 new Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP's). In carrying out this
element, we urge USFWS to adhere to the following principles we feel
are crucial to an effective and biologically defensible HCP process:
plans are locally developed by stakeholders; they are developed in a
regional context; they have a strong scientific foundation; and they
include comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management programs. The
Natural Communities Conservation Plan now underway in Southern
California provides a strong example for successful application of
these principles.
We are also pleased to see $17 million requested for the
Cooperative Endangered Species Fundunder Section 6 of the Act (grants
to states). For the past two years, this Fund has included $6 million
for land acquisition related to large-scale HCP's. These funds have
been in high demand, and this year the Administration has increased the
level provided in its budget to $9 million. The Conservancy supports
this elevated level, as we have seen the direct benefits of these funds
on the ground in several HCP's where we are involved.
We also urge your support of the Recovery Program for the four
endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. We join the
other partners in this project (including three states, USFWS, Bureau
of Reclamation, environmental groups and power users) in requesting
$636,000 of resource management funds; at least $200,000 under Section
6; and $308,000 for fish propagation at the Ouray National Wildlife
Refuge.
Partnership Initiatives
One of the best conservation investments the federal government can
make is one that will multiply its limited dollars. The following
programs help leverage scarce resources from both the private and
public sectors to increase the total amount of funds available for
conservation activities.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.--The National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is an excellent example of a federal program
that effectively leverages conservation benefits. The Foundation builds
partnerships between the public and private sectors to support
activities that are focused on solving environmental problems, and has
an outstanding record of encouraging and rewarding innovation in
natural resource management. For every federal dollar that goes to the
Foundation, at least $3 is spent to benefit fish, wildlife and plants.
In its twelve-year history, NFWF has awarded 2,420 grants, with $82
million of federal funds generating another $195.7 million in outside
money. The Administration has requested the same level as the fiscal
year 1998 appropriation for NFWF ($6 million for USFWS, $1.5 million
for BLM, and $2 million for USFS). We feel the need is even greater,
and recommend $7.5 million for USFWS, $3 million for BLM, and $3
million for USFS.
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund.--One of the most
successful conservation programs in the nation is the North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund. The Fund supports the implementation of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and also funds habitat
conservation for nongame wetland-dependent migratory birds, via the
international grant program authorized under the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act. A variety of partners in Canada, Mexico, and
the U.S. have matched federal dollars at more than 2:1 to acquire,
restore, and enhance these wetlands. Since this program was established
in 1989, the $233.2 million of federal funding invested in its projects
have generated an additional $473.4 million of partner funding. As a
member of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council since its
inception, the Conservancy has been part of the panel that recommends
projects for final approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission. The Administration has proposed to increase the funding for
this program by $3 million, to $14.7 million. The Conservancy strongly
supports this modest but high-leverage increase.
Private Landowner Programs
Private landowners, both large and small, are essential--and often
enthusiastic--partners in the goal of protecting biodiversity.
Financial and regulatory incentive programs have motivated many private
participants to take conservation actions. Private lands collectively
are critical to the survival of many rare species and their habitats;
federal incentive programs can make them an asset rather than a
liability to landowners.
We support the USFWS's request of $27 million for Partners for
Wildlife, a program which allows private landowners to undertake long-
term protection and restoration projects that benefit species at risk
of becoming threatened or endangered. The USFS' Forest Legacy Program
provides matching funds to private entities for the purchase of
conservation easements on working timberland threatened with conversion
to non-forest use. We support a level of $10 million for this program.
Challenge Cost Share Programs within USFWS, BLM and USFS offer private
landowners a federal match for activities they undertake to manage,
restore or enhance natural resources.
Freshwater and Coastal Programs
Freshwater and coastal protection are among the Conservancy's top
priorities this year. We were therefore gratified by the announcement
of the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. This program seeks to
encourage partnerships between state, local and federal agencies,
tribes, and local communities to plan for watershed management. Funds
to be devoted to this project are proposed within USGS, BLM, USFWS,
USFS, Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Indian Affairs. We support
the emphasis given in the budget to the Florida Everglades and the
California Bay-Delta, two ecologically and economically significant
watersheds in dire need of restoration. In addition, we urge the
Committee to continue to support the USFWS's National Coastal Wetlands
Grants which provide matching grants to coastal states and territories
for projects involving acquisition, restoration or enhancement of
coastal wetlands.
Recommended LWCF appropriations for fiscal year 1999
Amount
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Black River Unit--Nisqually NWR, WA................. $3,000,000
Cape May NWR, NJ.................................... 3,000,000
Cypress Creek NWR, IL............................... 1,000,000
Darby Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Project,
OH................................................ 2,500,000
Emiquon NWR, IL..................................... 20,000,000
Great Dismal Swamp NWR, VA.......................... 1,200,000
Kodiak NWR, AK...................................... 1,000,000
Lake Wales Ridge NWR, FL............................ 3,000,000
Morzhovoi Bay Lagoons--Izembek NWR, AK.............. 3,600,000
National Key Deer Refuge, FL........................ 2,000,000
Northern Tallgrass Prairie, MN...................... 1,000,000
Oahu Forest, HI..................................... 1,000,000
Ohio River Islands, WV.............................. 500,000
Oregon Coastal Refuges, OR.......................... 5,000,000
Palmyra Atoll, Pacific Ocean........................ 5,000,000
Point Possession--Kenai NWR, AK..................... 3,000,000
Rappahannock River Valley NWR, VA................... 3,000,000
Roanoke NWR, NC..................................... 2,250,000
Sacramento River NWR, CA............................ 3,000,000
San Diego Refuges, CA............................... 6,000,000
Shadmoor--Amagansett NWR, NY........................ 2,500,000
Stratford Great Meadows--Stewart B. McKinney NWR, CT 2,500,000
Waccamaw NWR, SC.................................... 3,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 78,750,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Bureau of Land Management:
Chadwick Hill--Point Colville Area, WA.............. 1,000,000
Cosumnes River, CA.................................. 3,000,000
Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa, CA.......................... 2,000,000
Santa Rosa Mountain, CA............................. 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 7,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
National Park Service:
Cumberland Island, GA............................... 10,900,000
Salt River, USVI.................................... 3,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 14,400,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
U.S. Forest Service:
Coronado NF, AZ..................................... 1,200,000
Francis Marion NF, SC............................... 3,000,000
Nantahala NF (Thompson and Hennessee tracts), NC.... 7,100,000
North Fork Flathead River--Flathead NF, MT.......... 1,155,000
Pisgah NF, NC....................................... 300,000
Sumter NF (Jocassee Gorges), SC..................... 6,500,000
Valles Caldera (Baca Ranch), NM..................... 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 39,255,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 139,405,000
______
Prepared Statement of the World Wildlife Fund
World Wildlife Fund appreciates the opportunity to present its
views on the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for the Interior
Department and the U.S. Forest Service. Generally, WWF is very
supportive of the administration's overall budget request, including
increases for natural resource management and conservation agencies.
Several specific program budgets are important to the organization's
goals of recovering endangered species, achieving ecoregion-based
conservation, and effectively dealing with global threats--overfishing,
toxic chemicals, climate change, and unsustainable logging--to
biodiversity.
department of the interior
Everglades Ecosystem Restoration
Scientists at World Wildlife Fund have identified the South Florida
Everglades as one of the most unique and important ecoregions in North
America, and also one of the most threatened. WWF has selected 25
ecoregions in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America and
the Caribbean, and North America in which to focus our highest priority
attention during the next five years. These are the places we believe
simply must be protected if we are going to make a serious effort to
save life on Earth. The Everglades is one of the focal 25 ecoregions.
WWF greatly appreciates the attention and the priority this
Subcommittee has given to Everglades restoration, especially the fiscal
year 1998 appropriation of $136 million for the Interior Department.
This figure represents a very significant increase in funding from
previous years for the Everglades program.
The administration's request for $144 million for the Interior
Department Everglades budget in fiscal year 1999 is only a slight
increase over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. The total South
Florida/Everglades funding request in the President's budget is $282
million, including programs in EPA, NOAA and the Department of
Agriculture, as well as Interior.
We strongly support this request as the minimum necessary to move
forward with Everglades restoration with a continued strong commitment
at the federal and state level. It is clear the total price tag to
achieve the goals identified for the Everglades system by the
intergovernmental federal/state South Florida Everglades restoration
partnership will cost at least $3 to $5 billion over the next decade.
That estimate will likely be revised by the Army Corps of Engineers as
it prepares the Comprehensive Plan for Everglades restoration that
Congress required be completed by July 1999.
WWF is pleased that significant progress is being made towards
restoration, and we believe a continued investment in federal funds for
this purpose is strongly needed. Our optimism is based on the
following:
--Public support for the Everglades in Florida and at the national
level is strong, and there is a broad recognition that
restoring the Everglades ecosystem is an important national
goal;
--Everglades restoration has attracted strong bipartisan political
support in Washington and in Florida, with the Clinton and
Chiles administrations as well as key leaders of both parties
in both houses of Congress;
--We now have a clear understanding of how natural hydrological
conditions of South Florida have been disrupted to serve urban
and agricultural interests, and scientists and policy experts
believe nearly natural timing, flow and delivery of water can
be restored through much of the Everglades ecosystem while
enhancing water supply for urban areas and protecting the needs
of agriculture;
--At long last we are at the stage where specific water management
decisions and projects are about to happen, which will begin
the long process of actual restoration. The announcement this
past December by Vice President Gore of the intent to acquire
the Talisman sugar cane farm in the southern Everglades
Agricultural Area is a good example.
WWF also wants to emphasize the critical importance of a fully
funded Land and Water Conservation Fund to the success of Everglades
restoration. In fiscal year 1999, the administration has requested $81
million from the fund to purchase lands in the East Everglades
expansion area, for water preserve areas, and for inholdings in the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The State of Florida continues to acquire
property for Everglades restoration from several sources of funding,
including its nationally acclaimed P-2000 program, the largest single
conservation land purchase program in the country.
LWCF money is essential to the Everglades, and it is important to
the conservation and recreation needs of the nation. We are very
pleased that the program was nearly fully funded in fiscal year 1998.
However, the country needs a commitment of funds to LWCF of at least
$900 million every year. The Everglades is one of many national
conservation priorities that deserve attention and support from LWCF.
The Appalachian Trail, northern New England's forests, the Mississippi
Delta, San Francisco Bay and the Baca Ranch in northern New Mexico are
a few other examples of nationally significant conservation lands that
demand LWCF funding.
We also urge the Subcommittee to restore some reasonable level of
funding to the state LWCF matching grant program. It is clear there is
a major need for a dramatic increase in federal, state and local
support and participation in enhancing and expanding a wide range of
urban and non-urban recreation and conservation opportunities
throughout America outside of areas served by the federal lands.
Congress should fully fund LWCF, and it should revive and revitalize
the State and Local Assistance program.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
African Elephant, Asian Elephant and Rhino/Tiger Conservation Funds
WWF supports the President's request for $1 million each for the
African Elephant Conservation Fund and Asian Elephant Conservation Fund
and recommends that the Subcommittee increase the President's budget
request for implementing the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act to
$1 million as well. Funding allocated under these programs has proven
that the spiral toward extinction for these species can be stopped.
Additional funds are urgently needed for protected area conservation,
anti-poaching efforts, monitoring populations, translocating animals,
and mitigating human/wildlife conflicts.
Wetlands for the Future
WWF requests a $500,000 increase in the Fish and Wildlife Service's
international budget for implementation of an expanded Wetlands for the
Future Program. Specifically, we would like to see the program expanded
to Africa. The program currently provides funding for wetland
conservation projects and training wetland managers in Latin America
and the Caribbean. A phased expansion of the program to developing
countries in Africa will provide habitat for a wide range of animals as
well as important natural resources for people.
Endangered Species
WWF applauds the dramatic increases in funding for endangered
species programs requested by the President for fiscal year 1999,
particularly the $18.4 million increase for recovery programs. We
enthusiastically support the $5 million earmarked for the Safe Harbor
grant program, a promising vehicle for encouraging species conservation
on private lands. Unfortunately, much of the increase in the recovery
program budget is requested in anticipation of passage of S. 1180, a
bill that contains new, extremely burdensome recovery planning
procedural requirements of dubious utility. We urge that this increase
be retained in full regardless of the fate of Endangered Species Act
reauthorization legislation, and used primarily for on-the-ground
recovery activities that directly benefit listed species.
Likewise, WWF supports the President's request for an increase of
$12.6 million in funding for consultations and habitat conservation
planning under sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. Consultation and HCP
procedures have been successful at reconciling species conservation
with development projects, but monitoring of the impacts of resulting
incidental take of species has been lacking. We urge that a large
percentage of this budget increase be dedicated to monitoring
functioning HCP's and section 7 incidental take authorizations in order
to ensure, as the law requires, that those activities are not reducing
appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected
species.
Environmental Contaminants
WWF believes the USFWS Division of Environmental Contaminants (DEC)
is woefully underfunded. At the proposed core funding level of $10.4
million, the program will not meet its objectives of investigating and
assessing the effects of environmental contaminants on wildlife and
maintaining a ``scientifically credible program through proper program
support, training, and technical assistance.''
After reductions for five consecutive years, funding for the core
program has been restored to the fiscal year 1995 level. Yet during
this same period, reports from around the nation and the world indicate
more strongly than ever that wildlife populations are being stressed by
contaminants. The DEC is the government agency best qualified to
investigate reports of deformed frogs, feminized male fish, and bird
kills caused by legal pesticide use.
The USFWS cannot respond, under its present budget, to these new
findings. This past year, WWF called for doubling the proposed budget
to $18 million. We are pleased with the modest proposed increase of $1
million enacted, however, a more substantial increase is justified.
Core funding for the program should be increased to $18 million to give
the USFWS analytical capability it currently lacks, and to help it
assist partner states, universities, and other agencies in assessing
adverse effects in wildlife. Funds should be used to upgrade the
Patuxent Analytical Control Facility and to support forensic field
investigations with USFWS partners. These investigations, in the past,
have provided early warnings of chemical threats to wildlife and
humans.
u.s. forest service
WWF supports the administration's increase in the road maintenance
budget and for road decommissioning and stabilization. These increases,
however, would still leave more than half our nation's forest road
system in need of repair and maintenance. Road failures continue to be
a major forest health problem on public lands and have contributed to
the degradation of fisheries, water quality, and slope destabilization.
Moreover, the 3,500 miles of road slated to be decommissioned is
grossly inadequate and would not even meet the demand on most national
forest regions, let alone on a national basis.
WWF endorses the cooperative activities of the Forest Service
through the activities of state and private forestry programs. Thus, we
agree with the administration's request for increases in the Forest
Stewardship, Stewardship Incentives, Forest Legacy, and Urban and
Community Forestry programs. These programs provide high visibility to
the public on forestry operations that are based on sound stewardship
and land protection principles and are held in high regard with the
public. Our experience suggests that despite such increases, these
programs are still largely underfunded and will not be able to keep up
with growing demand.
WWF urges the Subcommittee to appropriate at least $12 million for
the Forest Legacy program. The program has a proven track record of
protecting environmentally significant privately owned forests from
being converted to other uses through purchase of permanent
conservation easements. Fifteen states currently qualify to participate
in Forest Legacy. The administration's request for $6 million in fiscal
year 1999 is inadequate. For northern New England alone, the Northern
Forest Alliance has identified $26 to $31 million of specific, high
priority Legacy projects that need funding.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee on the fiscal year 1999
legislation.
______
Bureau of Land Management
Prepared Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado
River Board of California
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 1999 funding for the Department of the Interior 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.
The President's proposed budget for the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) has included $31,031,000 in BLM's budget for Management of Land
and Resources--Soil, Water and Air Management. 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, formally requests that Congress allocate $5,200,000 of
these funds for the Colorado River Basin salinity control activities as
recommended by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource for California. California's Colorado River water users
are presently suffering economic damages estimated at about $800
million per year due to the river's salinity, and those damages are
expected to increase significantly by the turn of the century without
further salinity control measures being implemented. 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 Joe Judd, Commissioner, Kane County, UT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies, I am Joe Judd, a member of the Board of Commissioners
of Kane County, Utah. On behalf of the Kane County Commission and all
the citizens of Kane County I would like to thank you for inviting us
here today to testify regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument and the first year of our cooperative planning effort with the
Bureau of Land Management and the need for $1,340,000 in additional
funding for basic visitor information facilities.
Testifying with me today is the Honorable Karen Alvey, the mayor of
Kanab City, Utah, who will testify about the opportunities for an
expanded role for the rural communities in the planning process.
When we provided testimony last year, there were many questions
and, yes, many doubts about how the joint planning process would work--
if it would work at all. The people of Kane County were still angry
about the sudden announcement of the monument by the President and were
highly suspicious of how they would be treated by the Interior
Department and BLM.
We were very fortunate to receive a great amount of advice and
assistance from Senator Bob Bennett, Senator Orrin Hatch and their
professional staff members.
We concluded that without substantial participation by the local
people who know and love the land, the monument plan would never be in
harmony with the area. I met with Secretary Babbitt and he indicated a
belief in working with the local citizens. He said he wanted the
process to work.
So, overcoming serious misgivings, the Commission asked me to
provide testimony asking for your support and the funding necessary to
allow our participation with the agency.
Senator Bennett suggested language to be included with the Senate
bill that would allow us to participate on an official basis with the
agency. You graciously accepted that language. Thank you. The support
from your committee provided the basis and authority for our role as
sanctioned participants and not as subservient and trivial kibitzers.
We have used the opportunity in the first year to work toward a
true partnership with the federal government. We have established a
mutually respectful relationship with the monument director, Jerry
Meredith, and his professional staff. With the funds provided to us by
the Department for fiscal year 1997, we formed a selection committee
and solicited experts to independently provide recommendations
regarding infrastructure requirements, public safety, transportation,
and local community needs.
Those preliminary recommendations are in. They present a
comprehensive picture of both capabilities and shortfalls in our joint
preparations to provide a rewarding national monument experience--while
protecting the fragile monument lands.
This year, with the fiscal year 1998 funds requested by the
department and appropriated by this committee, we are proceeding to the
second phase of the planning process. Our principal areas of concern
will be: the gateway community and destination tourism plan; grants to
Kane County communities for monument impacts planning; and Kane County
services to the monument area.
Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget includes $6.4 million for the monument with $250,000
intended to be provided to each of the two impacted counties. That is
the same funding level as in fiscal year 1998.
We are encouraged that the Administration is continuing to
recommend a significant level of support. However, with the
recommendations of the completed studies in hand, it is obvious that we
need to begin now to plan and develop some very basic facilities for
both the BLM and the visiting public. The Draft Plan will be completed
in September, and the Final Plan in September of 1999, but the need to
provide information to visitors is there now. It is non-controversial.
The information centers will be adjacent to the monument at those very
few established entryways. The identified ``gateways.'' Let me just
briefly mention the facilities that are to be located in Kane County:
Monument Headquarters, BLM ($0)
Immediately after the 1996 announcement, the agency entered into a
three year lease for headquarters space for the monument director and
staff--in Cedar City, Utah. That is eighty miles from the monument. The
agency indicated at that time its intent to locate the permanent
headquarters adjacent to the monument. With only one and one-half years
remaining on the BLM lease, it is extremely important that a new
facility be identified and made available as soon as possible.
We are working with the agency in selecting an appropriate site
that provides access to the monument and has adequate community
amenities for the full-time staff. But it is extremely important that
we begin that process as soon as possible. The estimated total cost is
$2 million.
This is our number one priority.
However, we are not requesting funds for that purpose. We are
exploring other arrangements wherein we would finance the building and
lease it to the agency. We respectfully request that the committee
include language that directs the Bureau of Land Management to work
with Kane County and Kanab City to plan the facility and enter into an
agreement to occupy the facility upon completion of construction.
Visitor Center ($650,000)
We also need to move quickly to accommodate visitors. There is
virtually no information regarding monument conditions or accessible
monument sites in Kane County. Only a tiny portion of this huge area of
3,125 square miles, (larger than the size of the state of Delaware--
2,498 square miles) will ever be accessible to the public under our
plan. But it is a national monument established for the American
people--and an international attraction. We must treat it as such.
The first necessity is a Visitor Center. We are suggesting that a
center be located about halfway between Kodachrome Basin State Park to
the north and Johnson Canyon on the southern boundary of the monument.
This would be on the only currently paved road in Kane County that
crosses portions of the monument. A tentative site is located just
inside the monument boundary, but on school trust land. It is a very
beautiful and dramatic location that would exemplify the character of
the monument. We would also include a campground which would have
drinking water, rest rooms and showers.
The estimated cost is $2,321,000 for the Visitor Center, and
$1,715,000 for the campground. We are requesting that the committee add
$650,000 for planning and design in fiscal year 1999.
Information--Interpretive Centers ($440,000)
In addition, there is an immediate need for information centers at
Big Water the south-eastern entry to the lands and Glendale, Utah, on
the northwest corner of the monument. These would have rest rooms and
water. Visitors would be informed of accessible scenic locations and
warned of the ruggedness of the area and the lack of even the basic
fuel and water supplies--or sanitation facilities.
The estimated costs for design and construction of the visitor
information centers is $440,000 and we are requesting that that amount
be added to the monument budget.
Planning funds, Kane County ($250,000)
A final item that I need to address is that of Kane County's
participation in the planning process. We began this joint program with
a grant from the Department of Interior for $200,000. I believe we have
demonstrated that we have maximized that funding with an almost
unlimited participation and contribution by local officials. This year,
the federal contribution will be $250,000. We are grateful that both
the department and the Congress has recognized our growing
participation. The Bureau's budget reportedly includes the same level
of funding to be provided in fiscal year 1999.
However, as the planning process becomes one of implementation to
meet the basic requirements related to visitation in such an immense
area, the demands on the Kane County budget increase also. As you know,
70 percent of the monument is in Kane County and the elimination of the
Smokey Hollow Coal Mine has impacted greatly on the County. Kane County
has lost $1,000,000 in anticipated annual revenues.
This year we ask that the amount provided to the county be set at
$500,000. We are requesting that the $250,000 be an ``add-on.'' We are
not suggesting that the additional $250,000 be transferred from within
the amount requested by the administration for the management of the
monument. The BLM budget is constrained as it is. This should be in
addition to the President's budget.
As we move toward a partnership with the federal government, we
need, at least, the minimum resources to be effective.
Thank you again for inviting me to provide testimony for the
record.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum
This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
Management for activities that assists the Colorado River salinity
control program. The Bureau of Land Management has reformulated its
budgeting process so as to support ecosystems and watershed management.
The activities needed to control salinity being contributed from the
BLM lands are a part of ecosystem and watershed management. Because the
budgeting process lumps all activities together, we can only presume
that there is adequate dollars in the President's budget to move ahead
with the water quality enhancement and protection programs needed in
the Colorado River drainage to ensure that the salts in excess amounts
are not contributed to the river system. Our analysis indicates that
the Bureau of Land Management needs to specifically target the
expenditure of funds in the amount of $5,200,000 to salinity control in
fiscal year 1999. The Forum simply supports the President's Budget
because we presume, but cannot discern, that adequate funds will move
to this needed water quality effort.
Although the Forum has not been able to determine from limited
budget documents how appropriated funds will be spent, we are much
encouraged by public statements made by Administration officials.
Statements have been made as follows: ``The BLM is anxious to
participate in the implementation of the Administration's Clean Water
Action Plan,'' ``The 1999 Budget requests a $16 million increase for
implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan,'' ``Together with the
USFS and the NRCS we will develop a standardized rangeland health
inventory and classification system, by 2000,'' ``It also is
responsible for BLM's efforts at reducing salinity,'' ``improve overall
management of watersheds and minimize harmful consequences of erosion,
saline discharges, water quality degradation,'' ``In 1998, $800,000 is
planned for the BLM's Colorado River water quality improvement
effort,'' ``Federal Salinity Control--In the tributaries of the Upper
Colorado River Basin, BLM will accelerate management actions and
facilities maintenance on saline soils to complement the overall salt
reduction efforts of Reclamation and the USDA, and our commitments to
Mexico.'' The Forum strongly supports the above-stated intentions.
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
had made via a treaty with 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 legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead
Federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of funding
for the Title II program.
After a decade of investigative effort, the Basin states concluded
that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. Congress revised
the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping the Secretary of the
Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River Basin salinity control
efforts, also gave new salinity control responsibilities to the
Department of Agriculture, and to a sister agency of the Bureau of
Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management. Congress has charged the
Administration with implementing the most cost-effective (dollars per
ton of salt removed) program practicable. The Basin states are strongly
supportive of that concept, as the Basin states cost share 30 percent
of federal expenditures for the salinity control program, while in
addition proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in
the Colorado River system.
Since the Congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. The Bureau of Reclamation has recently completed studies on the
economic impact of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the damages
to United States' water users alone may soon be approaching $1 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 to
support the implementation of a program necessary to control the
salinity of the river system. Forum members are appointed by the
governors of the seven Colorado River Basin states. 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 necessary to keep the
salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in 1972.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity levels measured at Imperial, Parker, and Hoover Dams in
1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary
for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan of
implementation.'' The 1996 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 numeric criteria will be exceeded and damage from
the high salt levels in the water will be widespread and very
significant.
justification
The BLM is, by far and away, the largest landowner in the Colorado
River Basin. Much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the
Bureau of Land Management are heavily laden with salt. Past management
practices, which include the use of lands for recreation; for road
building and transportation; for oil, gas, and mineral exploration; and
most importantly, for grazing, 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 pick-up of salt
from public lands. Recent reports drafted by the Western Water Policy
Review Advisory Commission find this to be true. Congress charged the
federal agencies to proceed with programs 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
are more cost-effective than some now being implemented 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 runoffs, and enhance
wildlife habitats.
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 out of
the overall requested and authorized budget 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 adopted plan of implementation.
details concerning the requested appropriation
After conferring with BLM officials, the Forum believes there needs
to be spent in fiscal year 1999, by the Bureau of Land Management,
$5,200,000 for salinity control. We are particularly concerned that the
line-item titled Management of Lands and Renewal Resources is
adequately funded.
The Forum believes that although it is commendable for the
administration to formulate a budget that focuses on ecosystems and
watershed management, it is essential that funds be targeted on
specific sub-activities and the results of those expenditures reported;
this is necessary for accountability and for the effectiveness of the
use of the funds. The Forum requests that the Committee require
accounting by the Bureau of Land Management in such a way that the
results of their activities in connection with the expenditures the
funds can be reviewed and measured. The Forum made this request last
year but we have not seen any improvement in the ability of the BLM to
account for its expenditure of funds and accomplishments as their
efforts relate to Colorado River salinity control. Please find a way to
make BLM accountable.
______
Office of Insular Affairs
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Janger, President, Close Up Foundation
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Stephen A. Janger and I am President of the Close Up Foundation. It is
a privilege for me to submit this testimony with regard to our work in
the Pacific Islands to provide quality civic education experiences for
students and educators.
On behalf of all of us at the Foundation, I would like to begin
this testimony with a very sincere thank you to this Subcommittee for
its support of our efforts. We are fully aware that without the funding
provided by the Subcommittee to the Office of Insular Affairs for our
programs, it would not have been possible to reach the thousands of
students and educators who have benefited so measurably from our
programs. We hear over and over again, from students and educators
alike, that participation in Close Up's programs has had a positive,
life-transforming effect on them. We enjoy having that affirmation of
our work, and we know that a large part of it would not have been
possible without this Subcommittee's support.
The Close Up Foundation began working with the Pacific Islands 15
years ago. From only a few participants from American Samoa in 1983,
the word spread about our program and its educational value. With help
from Congress, we now have students and educators participating from
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI), the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Guam, the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. These island entities
have a unique and special relationship with the United States. As these
entities develop independence and strengthen democratic institutions,
it is vital to ensure that their citizens have an understanding of the
important role each of them plays in establishing a democracy and
taking responsibility for its continuance. Moreover, many Pacific
Islanders are American citizens who deserve the same quality of civic
education that is offered on the mainland.
Our citizenship education programs in the Pacific have been aided
by this Subcommittee and the Congress with funds made available through
the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA). Although we are well aware of the
budgetary pressures facing the Subcommittee, we believe we have a very
worthwhile program that makes a significant contribution. Therefore, we
respectfully request $1 million in fiscal year 1999 funding for Close
Up's Pacific Islands programs.
close up foundation's pacific islands programs
Washington High School Program
The Washington High School Program is the core element of all of
Close Up's programs. Through this program, we offer experiential,
hands-on learning opportunities for youth of all abilities and
aptitudes, from all areas of the world. Our teaching methodology is
focused on allowing students to have first-hand, person-to-person
interactions that are designed to build self-esteem and inculcate a
belief in the importance of every person in a democracy. This
methodology is particularly well-suited to the students of the Pacific
Islands, since these young people lead a much more isolated life than
most of their peers in the United States.
In order to help meet the civic education needs of the Pacific
Islands region, Close Up plans to offer three Washington High School
program options. All three options include a week in Washington on
Close Up's program. Two of the program options involve a week in
Washington plus another week in either Hawaii, or in Williamsburg,
Philadelphia, and New York.
During the week in Hawaii, Pacific Island students and educators
take part in the Close Up Pacific Basin Program. In this program,
participants from the Pacific Islands and from the U.S. mainland meet
to study issues of importance to both areas. The program usually
includes a seminar on the changing role of the U.S. armed forces in the
Pacific, a simulation addressing the economic interdependence in the
region, workshops on immigration issues, and other activities related
to the interests of the region.
The second option includes a two-day trip to Williamsburg to
explore the roots of American democratic government; a visit to
Philadelphia to examine the U.S. Constitution, its origin, and its
impact on Pacific constitutions; and a visit to New York City, where
students study the cultural and political implications of America's
diverse citizenry.
The third option is a Washington program expanded to eight days.
This program was created by Close Up staff and Pacific educators in
response to an approximate 25 percent reduction in funding in fiscal
year 1997. Rather than significantly reduce the number of students who
would be able to participate, four Pacific Island entities decided to
offer an eight-day program instead.
The Eight-Day Program has been well-received by the entities that
have taken part. Given the expense and logistical difficulties involved
in traveling from the Pacific, Close Up provided an extra day and one-
half for Pacific Island students to work on activities specifically
devoted to the Pacific Islands and their relationship to the U.S.
government.
In Close Up's current program year, we are planning to offer all
three program options and estimate that there will be approximately 261
participants. This level is slightly lower than last year. We recently
learned that our grant for fiscal year 1998 will be $750,000. This
level of funding should allow us to reach this year's estimated level
of participation. If the Foundation's fiscal year 1999 funding request
is granted and we are able to offer the three program options mentioned
above, we hope to be able to increase the number of students and
educators taking part in our programs next year.
One of the most rewarding aspects of Close Up's programs is the
positive feedback we receive from participants. Their experiences have
helped them realize their responsibility to make contributions to their
communities for the rest of their lives. While we consider it a
privilege to assist Pacific Island students and educators in their
civic learning process, it is reaffirming to know that our programs are
having a positive, long-term, and lasting effect in the developing
democracies of the Pacific Islands.
Civic Education Needs Assessment
As we mentioned in last year's testimony, we believed it was
necessary to conduct a civic education needs assessment in the Pacific
Islands. In order to maximize the effectiveness of our civic education
activities, we believed it was important to learn from Pacific
educators what needs existed and what would be the best ways to address
those needs.
With the assistance of a grant from the Office of Insular Affairs,
Close Up conducted a nine-month civic education/social studies needs
assessment from 1997 into early 1998. Close Up staff met with directors
of education, curriculum chiefs, social studies specialists, and other
appropriate representatives in January 1998. They discussed social
studies curricula, materials, training, and technology available to
teachers in grades five through twelve in the public and private
schools of American Samoa, the CNMI, the FSM, Guam, the Marshall
Islands, and Palau.
The meeting participants, combined with Close Up's own research and
program experience, produced results that are comprehensive, complex,
and very useful in charting the direction for Close Up to be most
helpful in addressing the civic education needs of the Pacific Islands.
As we expected, there is no ``one size fits all'' approach to the needs
of the various Pacific Islands. However, the meeting uncovered common
needs that can be categorized into four general areas: (1) development
of social studies standards; (2) materials acquisition; (3) teacher
training and staff development; (4) use of technology in social
studies. Close Up has proposed various programs to meet some of these
needs in the most expeditious manner possible.
Teacher Training and Teacher Institute
At this time, we do not know what amount, if any, will be made
available to the Foundation from fiscal year 1998 funds to support
activities in addition to the Washington High School program. We have
requested funding to support a teacher training institute to be
conducted in the Washington area during July or August of this year. We
are very hopeful that funding will be made available for this important
activity.
The need for teacher training and staff development has been a
constant theme in our formal and informal discussions with Pacific
educators. While the entities have different types of training needs,
our strategy is to address these differences by focusing on capacity
building. With capacity building, we would conduct sessions in which we
would be training the trainers. We would teach educators how to train
other teachers, thereby developing a group of resident island trainers
who could help other educators become more self-reliant and self-
assured.
Regardless of whether we are fortunate enough to be awarded funds
to conduct a ``Trainer of Trainers'' Institute this summer, we believe
the need is so strong that a second institute is necessary in fiscal
year 1999. We could not possibly include in one year the numbers of
trainers necessary to meet the needs of Pacific Island teachers.
Therefore, we would like to work with Pacific educators to conduct a
(hopefully second) Trainer of Trainers Institute in the summer of 1999.
Additionally, we have found during the past several years that
Pacific educators believe island-specific training conducted on the
island entity is very helpful. The training and staff development that
take place on the islands are less abstract than other activities and
help to build the self-confidence of the teachers involved. The
difficulty, however, is that island-specific training sessions
sometimes can be limited in terms of the number of teachers reached by
the program. This is why Close Up, in balancing the benefits of various
training activities, would like to provide trainers with technical
assistance and onsite evaluation, but do so as requested and on a
limited scale.
Civic Education Materials
One of the most disturbing findings of the needs assessment meeting
was the overwhelming need in most of the entities for current materials
in sufficient numbers. Again, as with teacher training, the specifics
of the needs vary from entity to entity, and from island to island.
Close Up currently has the ability to help address this materials
shortage in a cost-effective manner. Close Up has collaborated with
Pacific educators for the past six years, to develop island-specific
social studies resource books. These books were modeled on Close Up's
Civic Achievement Award Program (CAAP) books, which are designed to
connect history, government, geography, economics, culture, and current
events with responsible citizenship. Since these CAAP books are
specifically tailored to the island entities, additional distribution
of CAAP materials would help mitigate the need for supplementary
materials.
We propose that the CAAP materials be reformulated into a
comprehensive text focusing on the entire Pacific region. The
Foundation has included in its fiscal year 1998 proposal a small amount
of funding to begin to provide CAAP books and start the process of
creating a comprehensive text. Should our fiscal year 1998 request be
granted in this area, there remains a need to distribute additional
CAAP books and to further disseminate the new textbook. We would expect
to commit a limited amount of fiscal year 1999 funds, should they be
provided, to help to address this critical need.
Local Programs
As part of Close Up's message of life-long civic learning and
involvement, the Foundation provides a very limited amount of money to
help the island entities conduct civic education programs in their own
communities. These local programs enable many groups to learn and
contribute, increasing the civic literacy of the entire community.
Mr. Chairman, the Close Up Foundation is proud of its work in the
Pacific Islands. We appreciate the support of the Subcommittee in our
mission to help meet the civic education needs of students and
educators in this very important region. Our plans for the coming
fiscal year warrant additional support because of the impact that Close
Up can make on students and teachers in their understanding of the
value of being an informed participant in democracy. We would be happy
to respond to any questions and to provide any additional programmatic
or budgetary detail. Thank you very much.
______
National Park Service
Prepared Statement of Margaret A. Parker, President, Meigs County
Historical Society
The Meigs County Historical Society presents the following as
testimony supporting the request for allocation of funds to be used for
preservation and purchase of the Buffington Island Civil War
Battlefield.
For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
the Ohio River. The battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
took place at Portland, Lebanon Township, Meigs County, Ohio on July
19, 1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the
leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
Known to have been present at this battle were two future United States
Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
as a Class C principal battlefield for historic significance. The site
has been determined by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Sites. However, a
portion of the battlefield at Portland may be lost to sand and gravel
mining, unless public support for preservation of the site is raised.
Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio have applied to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, for a permit to build a
loading facility on the Ohio River at Portland and to the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources for a mining permit. The 520 acres of
land that Richards and Sons, Inc. owns for sand and gravel purposes is
located on known portions of the battlefield, including a section
referred to as ``the bloody ground.'' As part of a required 106 Review,
the gravel company recently had a Phase I cultural resources
reconnaissance investigation completed on the property they own. This
archaeological survey identified twenty-two prehistoric archaeological
sites, including 9 isolated finds. Sixteen multi-component historic and
prehistoric sites were identified, and 6 historic sites were
inventoried, making a total of 44 archaeological resources encountered
in these investigations. Of the 44 sites identified, 19 were
recommended for additional Phase II testing and evaluation studies. The
study also concluded that based on eyewitness officer's accounts
portions of the Civil War battle occurred within the study area,
particularly the final engagement and the Confederate withdrawal. Based
on these combined data sources, it appeared likely the study area
included properties which may retain evidence for the battle. Because
of this conclusion it was recommended that additional research on the
probable locations of battle actions on these properties be
investigated.
The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of 242
``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
This Trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism initiative
of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private
historic preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation, and
visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
The first Confederate invasion of Ohio was by Brigadier General
Albert Gallatin Jenkins in September 1862. Jenkins crossed from
Virginia (now West Virginia) at the Buffington Island ford. He
proceeded to Racine, Ohio and then crossed back into Virginia at the
ford at Wolf's Creek Bar, down river from Racine.
The Buffington Island ford was also an important crossing point for
the Underground Railroad, with much of the present Meigs County black
population being descendants of blacks who followed Colonel Lightburn
on his retreat from the Kanawha Valley. So, not only is this ground
significant for the Battle of Buffington Island, it also contributed to
a great deal of other Civil War history.
This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most
important historical assets. Further delay of the site's protection and
compatible development for heritage tourism only increases the
vulnerability of the site to inappropriate development and does nothing
to stimulate the local economy.
The states of Kentucky and Indiana are in the process of marking
the Morgan's Raid Route across their states, and it is our
understanding that research is also being done in Ohio, so that the
route across Ohio maybe marked. The Meigs County Historical Society was
awarded a Travel and Tourism grant to research and mark the route in
Meigs County and significant sites in the Buffington Island Battlefield
area. Research for this project has been completed and text is now
being written. Several markers have been already been delivered and
will be set over the next few months. We anticipate setting at least
twelve of these markers along the route across the county and in the
Portland area. But, without the battlefield, what meaning will marking
the Morgan's Raid route across the state, or even Meigs County, have?
What meaning, when the places where men fought and died are only holes
in the ground? When nothing remains to show future generations the
turning point of the longest raid of the Civil War; the only
significant battle on Ohio soil; the site where two future U.S.
Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley (both native
Ohioans) participated in battle; and where the U.S. Navy played a
deciding factor in the outcome from gunboats on the Ohio River. This is
not just Ohio's battlefield, this is West Virginia's battlefield, also.
Those gunboats were on the Ohio River and that belongs to West
Virginia. But, more important, the blood that poured out upon the soil
that hot day in July, was blood from many states and lineages that
stretched far back across an ocean. It was the blood of our forebears
who believed in freedom and were willing to fight for it. The freedom
that we today take for granted as we enjoy a life style unthought of
one-hundred and thirty-five years ago. We owe those men respect and
reverence, whether they fought for the north or the south. They were
sons, husbands and fathers who were only doing what they believed their
country asked of them. How can we do anything less than see that this
battlefield is preserved? Preserved to the memory of those who gave so
much of themselves upon her fields. The Official War Records state that
47 Confederate soldiers were buried by Union troops on the battlefield
and seven more by the local citizens. We believe these bodies may still
be buried on the battlefield, but the site has not been identified. We
hope the Phase II study will achieve this.
In an effort to Save the Battlefield, we are negotiating with the
gravel company concerning the immediate danger to the site. However, we
must also look for ways to guarantee long-term protection and
development of the rest of the battlefield and other historical sites
in the area. An appropriate way to preserve, might be through purchase
of significant locations identified with the battle. This should also
include the area known as Portland at the time of the battle and
restoration of the village. To protect lands which cannot be purchased,
land easements should be secured. A park and visitors center portraying
the battle history should also be part of the battlefield development.
The battlefield itself remains in a pristine condition, the land
having only been farmed. There are produce growers in the area who
would like to farm part of this land, preserving it as it was when the
Battle of Buffington Island occurred.
It has been recorded that three out of every five Ohio men between
18 and 45 served in the Union forces, leading all northern states in
proportion to population. Only New York and Pennsylvania exceeded the
total figure. But, those statistics do not tell the whole story, for
the state did not receive credit for those who served with the regular
Army or Navy, or in the regiments of other states. Of the eight Ohioans
who were elected president of the United States, five of them fought in
the Civil War, four as generals and one a major. Two of these were
known to have participated at Buffington Island. And we must not forget
the ``Fighting McCooks'' of Columbiana and Carroll counties, Ohio.
There were ten sons of Daniel McCook and seven sons of his brother,
John McCook who served in the Civil War. It was at the Battle of
Buffington Island that father, Major Daniel McCook, was mortally
wounded, by the Confederate troops he believed had killed his son,
Brigadier General Robert L. McCook the year before. We believe that the
only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio should be preserved as
a lasting memorial to the memory of these men.
We also believe that by working together, the Buffington Island
Battlefield can be preserved for future generations. The memory of that
long ago war must not be erased, because as it has been stated, ``those
who forget history are deemed to repeat it.''
We sincerely hope that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies will deem the Buffington Island Civil War Battlefield worthy
of preservation and consider it for appropriation.
______
prepared statement of patricia ann cook, president, meigs county
genealogical society
The Meigs County Genealogical Society wishes to lend its support to
the efforts of the Meigs County Historical Society in their attempt to
save Ohio's only Civil War Battlefield, known as the Buffington Island
Battlefield at Portland, Ohio.
The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
as a Class C principal battlefield for historical significance, which
suggests preservation at the local or state level. Because an important
section of the battlefield is owned by the Richards and Sons Sand and
Gravel Company of Racine, Ohio, there is immediate concern for
preservation of the site. The company has applied for permits to begin
mining and if these are issued, we believe an important part of the
battlefield will be lost. Because money is not available to purchase
the company owned land, nor surrounding properties, eventually, much of
the battlefield maybe lost. We feel that appropriation for acquisition
of the land where the battle took place is crucial and sincerely hope
this committee will agree.
The Battle of Buffington Island was the only significant Civil War
battle fought in Ohio, or north of the Ohio River. The Morgan's Raid,
which culminated in the battle, was the longest raid of the war. Had
General John Hunt Morgan successfully crossed at Buffington Ford, his
raid might very well have had a definite influence on the outcome of
the war.
This historical landmark certainly has elements which make it
uniquely eligible for preservation. Notably some of these being: the
only Civil War Battlefield in Ohio; the only Civil War battle that
occurred north of the Ohio River; contribution as a turning point to
the longest raid of the war; the only battle on Union soil in which
gunboats on the Ohio River participated; two future presidents
participation; and the fact, that never again did Confederate troops
invade the Union states.
We sincerely hope that this committee will recognize the
significance of this battle and vote to appropriate funds for
preservation of the Buffington Island Battlefield.
______
prepared statement of john carey, jr., state representative, ohio house
of representatives
Thank you Chairman Gorton and members of the Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies. I would like to take this opportunity to
show my support and share my concerns for the preservation of the
Buffington Island Battlefield site in Portland, Ohio (Meigs County,
Lebanon Township).
It has recently come to my attention that there is an appropriation
of $699 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for priority
land acquisitions and land exchanges, of which $362 million is not yet
earmarked for special projects. I understand the committee is seeking
to identify opportunities to use a portion of this special
appropriation for acquisitions that will help preserve important Civil
War battle sites.
As one who appreciates the importance of our heritage, I am very
concerned with the possible mining of the Battlefield. It is to my
understanding that a certain gravel company recently submitted an
application for a permit to build a loading facility on the Ohio River
at Portland, Ohio. We are all very concerned with the integrity of this
historical landmark. I feel that if they are granted this permit, it
would indeed have a significant environmental impact on the Ohio River
in southern Ohio, as well as diminish the only site in the State of
Ohio where the Civil War Battle was fought.
Over 10,000 soldiers fought and died on this land. I recognize the
significance of Buffington Island to our state and our nation, and I
hope that you will also. For the record, I oppose the issuance of a
permit for mining of gravel on this historic landmark and I hope that
you will do the same.
Therefore, I wholeheartedly believe that the Buffington Island
Battlefield site is very deserving and worthy of receiving a portion of
this special appropriation.
I would appreciate every effort that you can make to preserve the
Buffington Island Battlefield site. Your assistance in this matter will
be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration on
this very important matter. If I can be of any service to you, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
______
prepared statement of michael shoemaker, state senator, 17th senate
district
Ohio has only one Civil War Battlefield, the Buffington Island
Battlefield, maybe this is the reason so many in Ohio wish to preserve
this portion of our history. For many years now the Meigs County
Historical Society and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been
heading a campaign to save this battlesite located in Lebanon Township
in Meigs County. The battle at Buffington Island took place on July
19th, 1863 and it involved nearly 2,000 Confederate troops under the
leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
Two future U.S. presidents also participated in this battle, Rutherford
B. Hayes and William McKinley. This battlefield site is on the critical
list of 384 principal battlefields defined by Congress to be preserved
and it is ranked in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed
conflicts. It is ranked as a Class C principal battlefield for
historical significance.
Unfortunately, a portion of this battlefield is in danger of being
lost to sand and gravel mining. Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine,
Ohio have applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington
District, for a permit to build a loading facility on the Ohio River at
Portland and to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for a mining
permit. The area that Richards and Sons, Inc. owns for sand and gravel
purposes is located on known portions of the battlefield. This area is
also historically known for Native American tribes inhibiting the land
and artifacts are found periodically. As part of a 106 Review the
gravel company had a preliminary archaeological and historical survey
completed on the property they own. The survey report identified forty-
four prehistoric/historic sites. A mental detecting survey was
recommended to determine if there are any Civil War artifacts.
The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of 242
``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most important
historical assets. Kentucky and Indiana are currently in the process of
marking Morgan's Raid Route across their states. The Meigs County
Historical Society was awarded a Travel and Tourism grant to research
and mark the route in Meigs County and significant sites in the
Buffington Island Battlefield area. Several markers have been delivered
and will be set in the next few months.
In an effort to save the battlefield the Meigs County Historical
Society is negotiating with the gravel company concerning the immediate
danger to the site.
However, we must also look for ways to guarantee long-term
protection. One way to preserve this battlefield is through the
purchase of significant locations identified with the battle. A park
and visitors center portraying the battle history should also be part
of the battlefield development.
All of this seems so much to go through for just a piece of land,
but it is really more than that. This piece of land is a piece of
history, where husbands, sons and fathers gave their lives. These men
believed in freedom and fought for it, whether they were Union or
Confederate soldiers doesn't matter, they were fighting for a cause
they chose to believe in. It is only right that we preserve this
battlefield in memory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, their
life. The official War records state that 47 Confederate soldiers were
buried by Union troops on the battlefield and seven more by the local
citizens. This burial site has not been positively identified, it is
imperative that this site be found and preserved as hallowed ground.
Working together, the Buffington Island Battlefield can be preserved
for many future generations to come.
______
prepared statement of the ohio department sons of union veterans of the
civil war
The Ohio Department Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War is the
primary organization representing the largest Union veterans
organization of the post-Civil War period--the Grand Army of the
Republic (G.A.R.). When the G.A.R. disbanded due to the death of most
of its members, it literally wrote a will naming the Sons of Union
Veterans of the Civil War as its legal heir to its property as well as
to its purposes to keep the memory and sacrifices of the ``Boys in
Blue'' alive.
It has been a primary concern of the Ohio Department of the
imminent danger of the destruction of Ohio's only Civil War
battlefield, the Battle of Buffington Island at Portland, Meigs County,
Ohio. This battle involved nearly 8,000 Union troops as well as 2,000
Confederate troops. The only other battles on northern soil were the
Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania and the Battle of Corydon in
Indiana. (This latter battle was also a result of the same Confederate
raid that resulted in the Battle of Buffington Island.)
The Battle of Buffington Island has several unique historical
points to make. First, it involved both federal Union troops as well as
local militia troops. This is the only battle known to us that involved
local militia as well as federal troops. Meigs County, Ohio, where the
battle occurred, had a significant number of county militiamen
dedicated to the defense of its county. Historians credit the vigor and
dedication of these militiamen to the delaying of the Confederate
troops that caused their delay and engagement at Portland, Ohio.
Further, the Battle of Buffington Island is unique in that it
involved artillery, cavalry, infantry, and naval operations. Three
Union gunboats assaulted the Confederates from their points in the Ohio
River.
In addition to these points, this battle involved the participation
of two future U.S. Presidents--Rutherford B. Hayes and William
McKinley, both Ohio ``boys''. This is likely the only Civil War battle
where such a situation occurred.
One point about the significance of this battle is often
overlooked. The Battle of Buffington Island occurred on July 19, 1883.
This is just a few days after the Confederate defeats at Gettysburg and
Vicksburg. It is also the same time that the largest riots in U.S.
history occurred--the New York Draft Riots. Had the Confederates
succeeded in the Battle of Buffington Island, it could have renewed
Confederate hopes that invasions onto northern soil would be a primary
goal thus changing the whole end to the Civil War.
The official records of the Civil War indicate that at least 54
Civil War soldiers of the Battle of Buffington Island are buried on the
Buffington Island Battlefield. Currently, the locations of these graves
are unknown. With both time and funding, archeologists have assured us
that the locations can be located. Since Confederates are legal U.S.
veterans of the Civil War, it really does not matter which kind of
soldiers are buried there. If this battlefield is allowed to be
excavated by a sand and gravel company, the bodies of the veterans of
this country may very well end up in paving material created from this
sand and gravel--a disgrace in the opinion of anyone with a shread of
patriotism in them.
The exact boundaries of the Battle of Buffington Island are not yet
completely known. Again, it will take time and money to obtain expert
archeological study to determine this. We do know, however, certain
parts of the area that are undoubtedly part of the battle--a
significant part of which is owned by the Shelly Company of Thornville,
Ohio. This company has already applied to the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources for a mining permit. Since the State of Ohio has no
laws regarding preservation of historical areas, the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources has no choice but to eventually issue this permit
thus guaranteeing the destruction of the battlefield.
The reason the exact boundaries of the battle are yet unknown is
due to another unique situation of the battle. It is what is called a
``running battle''. The Union was attacking the Confederates on three
sides--one of those sides being the Ohio River. That left the only path
of escape for the Confederates being up river along the Ohio River.
That caused the Confederates to keep moving up river as the battle
flared.
The question may arise why Meigs County, the home of the battle,
has not done anything to preserve the land. Meigs County is a part of
the Appalachian region of Ohio. It has a population of 23,000 people.
Federal statistics indicate that about half of the population receives
Government checks from Government agencies such as the Social Security
Administration and the Department of Human Services. Unemployment runs
much higher than the average for the U.S. The largest employers in the
county are a coal company, a school district, and the county
Government. The county has the lowest teaching salaries in the State of
Ohio--so low in fact that some teachers qualify for food stamps. The
county is too poor to afford to buy the property even though land
prices are comparatively low for the rest of the state.
The State of Ohio is also currently in a funding crisis due to a
recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling requiring a complete restructuring of
the school funding to equalize schools around the state. They do not
have the funding to pay for the battlefield either.
It has always been a basic premise of American democracy that the
people through its Government must supply funding and assistance to the
public when the people cannot handle problems as individuals. Clearly,
the Buffington Island Battlefield falls in this category. Neither the
local people nor the State of Ohio has the funds to save this critical
historical area. Current Ohio law gives eminent domain to condemn the
land of this battlefield if the money is available for the legal costs
and the purchase of the land. It is absolutely imperative that your
committee provide the funds to condemn and purchase the property. Some
of this property is coming up for private sale by a private owner on
April 25. We fear that the Shelly Company will endeavor to purchase
this thus making it even more expensive to condemn and purchase the
property.
Currently, a new organization called the Ohio Civil War Trails
Commission has been formed to inform the public on Ohio's contributions
in the Civil War. The loss of the most important Civil War site in Ohio
will cripple any attempt to increase tourism in Ohio through this
commission. It would be devastating to show a large hole in the ground
as the place where brave men once struggled.
Currently, Morgan's Raid, which is the raid that resulted in the
Battle of Buffington Island, is the most re-enacted part of the Civil
War. There are no less than four different places in three states that
re-enact portions of this battle thus proving its significance in Civil
War history.
We realize that other Civil War battlefields are in danger.
However, Ohio furnished the 3rd largest number of soldiers to the Union
in the Civil War. It furnished an equal amount of support in food and
materials. Ohio also furnished the most successful Generals of the
war--Grant, Sherman, Custer, and Sheridan. It would seem only fair that
the single Civil War battlefield be entitled to be saved. The federal
Government has already ranked it as one of the most endangered
significant sites of the Civil War. Further, this battlefield is ranked
by historians in Ohio as the Number One endangered historical site of
any kind in Ohio.
Though the historical research has not yet been concluded, it also
appears that this same battlefield was involved in an 1862 part of the
Civil War. Jenkins' Raid--the first raid onto northern soil during the
Civil War--occurred on this same sight. A reference in historical
materials refers to this site as ``Camp Scott''. Though no battle
occurred during Jenkins' Raid, it is nonetheless very significant.
When the federal Government is stressing higher educational
standards, how do public school teachers of the nation's children prove
that it is important to a well-rounded education to learn about
American history when the Government stands by to allow an important
battlefield like Buffington Island be forever destroyed by a mining
company. There is no doubt that there are other sources of land that
can provide sand and gravel for this company, but there is no way to
replace a battlefield.
The Shelly Company of Thornville, Ohio, has not been cooperative in
providing the specifics on the value of the sand and gravel under their
lands in order to make a specific value on the land. This has been done
by the company in order to confound our ability to obtain the funds we
need to purchase the property. We can only estimate that the legal
costs, archeological costs, and land purchase may run up to $17
million. However, there is currently a public school building located
on the property that the school is hoping to vacate in favor of
building a consolidated school at another location. This building can
easily be used as an interpretive and historical center.
I hope you will see the immediate need of the funds to save the
Buffington Island Battlefield and grant full funding of the site. Meigs
County currently has a nonprofit corporation set up to accept the
monies and begin the process of acquiring property. All that is needed
is federal funding.
God save the Union and our battlefields.
______
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, February 26, 1998.
Mrs. Margaret A. Parker,
President, Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Mrs. Parker: I am delighted to support your effort to secure
federal funds for the preservationist work of the Meigs County
Historical Society. I fully approve of your effort to preserve the
Buffington Island Battlefield, Portland, Ohio as the centerpiece of
your proposal, for the site is both significant and endangered.
In my wide travels to historical sites in the United States and
abroad, I have visited literally hundreds of battlefields. Some like
Waterloo, Gettysburg, Omaha Beach, and Gallipoli have undeniable
historical significance. Many do not, but they nevertheless draw
thousands of visitors because they are part of public park systems and
offer an excellent combination of education and recreation. Such sites
are quite literally ``portals to history'' that encourage further study
and contemplation on the part of people who might not otherwise have
any curiosity or interest in, for example, the American Civil War. Thus
the sites take on an importance that transcends their objective
historical importance.
Whether a site serves an educational role depends, of course, upon
its facilities and presentation. Many sites I've visited began with
private and local-public investment, but they need public funds to
expand and reach their full potential. Three such sites that I have
visited often are Tippicanoe (Indiana), Point Pleasant (West Virginia),
and Fort Ligonier (Pennsylvania), all of which serve as ``portals'' for
the trans-Appalachian migration and the conflict with the Native
Americans. Only public funds (in the absence of some very wealthy
philanthropist) can bring a site to an appropriate level of
development.
In the current absence of another site like it, Buffington Island
could be Ohio's ``portal'' to the Civil War in the way Fort Ancient
(Ohio) now is for the study of Native American culture. I would not
argue that the battle of Buffington Island looms great in Civil War
history since Morgan's Raid is only a diversion in a very big war,
1861-1865. Nevertheless, the site of the battle would be an outstanding
place for the citizens of the Ohio River valley and more distant
visitors to sample the history of the mid-19th century through
reenactments, festivals, presentations, exhibits, and study centers. I
have seen such sites for 18th and 19th century activities at Caesar's
Creek State Park (Ohio) and New Salem Village (Illinois), and both are
popular weekend and vacation attractions. Buffington Island could play
the same role for the Ohio Valley culture of 19th century, not just the
Civil War.
Knowing the enthusiasm and dedication the Meigs County Historical
Society has shown in building your county museum and in supporting
preservationist efforts along the Ohio River, I am confident that you
and your members would see that the Buffington Island project is done
correctly. I applaud your effort to save Buffington Island as a place
where all Americans can gather to contemplate their common history.
Best wishes as always.
Sincerely,
Allan R. Millett,
Maj. Gen. Raymond E. Mason, Jr.,
Professor of Military History.
______
University of Rio Grande,
Rio Grande Community College,
Rio Grande, OH, March 6, 1998.
Ms. Margaret A. Parker,
President, Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Ms. Parker: University faculty write letters of support as
part of the professional routine; the task is quite mechanical and
mundane. Every once in a while, however, one can actually take pleasure
in writing such a letter because the cause is so extraordinary. This is
the case with Buffington Island. I support the preservation of this
historic site with my strongest endorsement and unfeigned enthusiasm.
Buffington Island can only be an asset to our state and community.
At Antietam, Gettysburg, and countless other places across our
land, there are monuments honoring the sacrifice of Ohio's soldiers
during the Civil War. It would be a travesty to desecrate the only site
in the state of Ohio where a Civil War battle took place. It is well
known that two future presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William
McKinley, participated in this conflagration. As the only Civil War
battlefield in Ohio, Buffington Island has great historic and economic
potential for our region and the state. Even the United States Congress
has determined the significance of this site by declaring it a Class C
principal battlefield. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has also
determined that the battlefield is eligible for the National Register
of Historic Sites. Consequently, it is thereby imperative that the
pristine condition of this battlefield be maintained so future
generations can know of its significance and the sacrifice a generation
made to save the Union.
It is difficult for me to believe that our society is willing to
allow the destruction of a Civil War battlefield for something as
insignificant as gravel. Certainly there are other areas where gravel
could be mined. There is something terribly wrong with our values when
we support the building of sports arenas in Cleveland, Columbus, and
Cincinnati, but are unwilling to preserve our historic heritage. At
present, an Ohio bicentennial conference is being planned at the
University of Rio Grande which will focus on John Hunt Morgan's raid.
It would be beneficial for us to take groups to view the site. Imagine
their impressions and our embarrassment if what they saw were trucks
mining gravel. Once destroyed, this site can never be saved.
In conclusion, I strongly endorse the preservation of Buffington
Island battlefield, and encourage you to give the utmost consideration
to saving our historic heritage. Please do not hesitate to contact me
(E-mail: [email protected]) if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Samuel J. Wilson,
Associate Professor of History.
______
prepared statement of the national woman's relief corps
For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
The Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
the Ohio River. The battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
took place at Portland, Lebanon township, Meigs county, Ohio on July
19, 1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the
leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
Known to have participated in this battle were two future United States
Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
as a Class C principal battlefield for historical significance. The
site has been determined by the Ohio Historical Preservation Office to
be eligible for the National Register of Historical Sites. However, a
portion of the battlefield at Portland may be lost to sand and gravel
mining, unless public support for preservation of the site is raised.
Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio, have applied to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, for a permit to build a
loading facility on the Ohio River at Portland and to the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources for a mining permit. The area that
Richards and Sons, Inc., owns for sand and gravel purposes is located
on known portions of the battlefield. It is also historically known
that Native Americans inhabited this land and artifacts are found
periodically.
The Buffington Island Battlefield is included as one of 242
``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
This trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism initiative
of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National Trust for
Historical Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private
historic preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation and
visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most
important historical assets. Further delay of the site's protection and
compatible development for heritage tourism only increases the
vulnerability of the site to inappropriate development and does nothing
to stimulate the local economy.
The National Order of The Woman's Relief Corps, Auxiliary to The
Grand Army of The Republic, goes on record at this time to further
submit that this Buffington Island battlefield site should be given its
proper due and be enshrined as a memorial to those men who fought and
died there and not be developed into a gravel pit.
______
The American Legion, Department of Ohio,
8th District.
As Commander of the 8th District of the American Legion I am
writing this letter in support of the Meigs County Historical Society
for request that allocations for funds for the preservation of the
Buffington Island Civil War Battlefield.
For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
the Ohio River. The battle known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
took place at Portland, Lebanon Township, Meigs County, Ohio on July
19, 1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the
leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
Known to have participated in this battle were two future United States
Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of 242
``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
This Trail is a National preservation and heritage tourism initiative
of the Civil War Trust in with the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private historic
preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation, and
visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
Since the American Legion is a war time organization we feel that
it is important to preserve Buffington Island for Meigs County and
Ohio. Buffington Island in Meigs County is part of the 8th District. We
ask your support in making this happen.
Mick Williams,
Commander, 8th District, American Legion, Department of Ohio.
______
prepared statement of the sons of union veterans of the civil war
For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
The Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
the Ohio River. The battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
took place a Portland, Lebanon township, Meigs County, Ohio on July 19,
1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the leadership
of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops. Known to
have participated in this battle were two future United States
Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
as a Class C principal battlefield for historical significance. The
site has been determined by the Ohio Historical Preservation Office to
be eligible for the National Register of Historical Sites. However, a
portion of the battlefield at Portland may be lost to sand and gravel
mining, unless public support for preservation of the site is raised.
Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio, have applied to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, for a permit to build a
loading facility on the Ohio River at Portland and to the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources for a mining permit. The area that
Richards and Sons, Inc., owns for sand and gravel purposes is located
on known portions of the battlefield. It is also historically known
that Native Americans inhabited this land and artifacts are found
periodically.
The Buffington Island Battlefield is included as one of 242
``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
This trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism initiative
of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National Trust for
Historical Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private
historic preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation and
visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most
important historical assets. Further delay of the site's protection and
compatible development for heritage tourism only increases the
vulnerability of the site to inappropriate development and does nothing
to stimulate the local economy.
General William McLaughlin Camp 12, Sons of Union Veterans of The
Civil War, descendants of The Grand Army of The Republic, goes on
record at this time to further submit that this Buffington Island
battlefield site should be given its proper due and be enshrined as a
memorial to those men who fought and died there and not be developed
into a gravel pit.
______
Society of the War of 1812,
Upper Sandusky, OH, March 6, 1998.
Meigs County Historical Society,
P.O. Box 145,
Pomeroy, OH.
I wish to say that I am in favor of preserving the Buffington
Island Battlefield as it is the only Civil War Battlefield in the state
of Ohio and deserves to be held in trust for future generations.
Historical sites are not only for the memory of the event, but also
honors those who participated in the battle and especially those who
paid the supreme sacrifice as a result of the conflict. I am concerned
that fifty-four graves of men who died at this battle are not accounted
for and are presumed to be interned somewhere on the field of battle.
Development of the land may destroy a cemetery.
I would also like to point out that destruction of a battlefield or
any site worthy of historical value cannot be undone.
Thus I would like to see the Buffington Island Battlefield
preserved as a National Park and support the request for allocation of
funds to be used for purchase of the site.
Sincerely yours,
Harrison Scott Baker II,
President, Ohio Society War of 1812.
______
The Ohio Society,
Sons of the American Revolution,
Cincinnati, OH, March 5, 1998.
Margaret A. Parker,
President, Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Ms. Parker: We have reviewed the situation of the Civil War
Battle Field, known as the Buffington Island Battlefield at Portland,
Ohio and with Executive Committee action, give our support to the
preservation of this historical site. It is important to preserve
historical sited, especially those where our soldiers have given their
life to establish and preserve our Country.
We should preserving the only Civil War Battle sites as a
remembrance to those who made the ultimate sacrifice there and at the
many other battlefields to preserve and maintain the United States of
American. Preserving these sites also preserves history. It is
necessary for us to know what has happened in the past in order to
avoid repeating these same and similar happenings in the future.
We strongly support your effort to preserve the Buffington Island
Battlefield at Portland, Ohio because we feel it is necessary to
remember those who participated in giving us and maintaining the United
States of American and preserving history to prevent a repeat of the
similar events in the future.
With Best Regards,
Robert F. French.
______
prepared statement of the ewings chapter, sons of the american
revolution
For the past several years the Meigs County Historical Society and
the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio. This battle
known as the Battle of Buffington Island took place at Portland,
Lebanon Township, Meigs County, Ohio on July 19, 1863. This battle
involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the leadership of General
John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops. Known to have
participated in this battle were two future United States Presidents,
Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
This site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principle
battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. This site has
been determined by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Sites. However, a portion of this
battlefield at Portland may be lost forever to sand and gravel mining
unless additional public support for the preservation of this site is
raised.
The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of the 242
``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's, Civil War Heritage
Trail. This trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism
initiative of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.
Ewings Chapter, Sons of the American Revolution urges your
consideration and support for an allocation of funds to be used for the
preservation and purchase of the Buffington Island Civil War
Battlefield.
______
prepared statement of the sons of confederate veterans, ohio division
In the summer of 1863, the famous Confederate cavalryman, Gen. John
Hunt Morgan, led a daring raid across the Ohio River into the heart of
Union territory, traveling hundreds of miles through enemy territory in
Indiana and Ohio. His force of over 2,000 Confederates were harried and
pursued by local militia and Federal units, culminating in the battle
of Buffington Island on July 19th, 1863. Morgan's attempts to cross the
Ohio river and escape back to Southern soil were thwarted by converging
Union columns and gunboats. On that foggy Sunday morning roughly 2,000
Confederates and 8,000 Union soldiers fought a pitched battle,
resulting in the defeat and capture of a major portion of the
Confederates engaged. Morgan, however, was able to escape with a
contingent of about 1,100 men, but was ultimately captured one week
later in Columbiana County after a grueling chase. Thus was to end the
longest and one of the most fascinating of all cavalry operations of
the Civil War.
The Buffington Island battlesite, located in Meigs County, Ohio,
near the small village of Portland, is now in imminent danger of being
destroyed by plans to mine gravel deposits on significant portions of
the site where the battle occurred. Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine
Ohio, owns battlefield land and have applied to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for a permit to construct loading facilities on the adjacent
Ohio River. They have also applied to the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources for a mining permit. To our knowledge, neither has been
awarded at this time. However, the ODNR has no authority to deny
applications based on a site's historical significance, so that it is
likely such a permit will be granted. Even if the U.S. Corps of
Engineers were to deny the loading facility to Richards and Sons, the
company still has the option of mining and trucking out the gravel by
road. Unfortunately, the thousands of letters written by concerned
citizens to state officials have been largely met with at best only
sympathy. There have been no real and concerted efforts on the part of
Ohio's leadership to save Buffington Island. It is our feeling that
unless funds are found to purchase the site, it will succumb to
commercial ``development'' of the type which will forever ruin its
historical worth. Gravel pit mining would leave a giant hole where men
fought and died.
Is it worth saving? Our membership believes without a doubt it is
worthy of preservation for the following reasons:
Buffington Island is Ohio's only battlefield and one of the very
few major engagements to be fought on Northern soil. Proportionately,
Ohio sent more men to serve the Union cause than any other state. It
would be a blot on their memory if the only site in their mother state
where Ohioans shed their blood were to be lost.
The battlesite looks much the way it did in 1863. Its present
pristine condition would be the envy of other battle sites as it has so
far escaped the encroachment of development common to other Civil War
sites. Visitors can now view the area much as it appeared when the
battle occurred.
Buffington Island was a major battle. The engagement involved
roughly 10,000 participants, 2,000 Confederate and 8,000 Federal. It is
listed by Congress as one of the 384 principal battlefields which
should be preserved and ranked in the top 2.6 percent of all conflicts
in the war. It is also one of the 242 ``foundation sites'' in the Civil
War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail, the organization's effort (in
partnership with the National Park Service, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation and other private historic preservation groups)
to promote the identification, preservation, understanding and
visitation of important sites by the public. The Ohio Historic
Preservation Office has also determined that Buffington Island is
eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Sites.
Buffington Island was a unique battle. There was none like it. It
was the climax of the longest raid of the entire war. Involved was
cavalry, infantry, and naval forces in the form of Federal gunboats on
the river. Two future U.S. presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William
McKinley, were participants. As stated before, it was one of the very
few engagements fought in the North.
Soldiers rest in unmarked graves on the site. This has been
documented. The Official Record of the Civil War records a letter from
Gen. Hobson to Col. Lewis Richmond stating that local citizens buried
47 rebels and a Dr. Scriven buried 7. Just as cemeteries cannot be
wantonly destroyed, cannot the same respect be afforded to the remains
of American soldiers who gave their lives to a cause they believed in?
If the Richards and Sons Company proceed with their intentions, it will
be a desecration to the memory of all the soldiers who fell there, both
Union and Confederate.
Mining the battlefield would achieve only short term economic
benefits. From a purely economic standpoint, we believe mining the site
contrary to the economic welfare of southeast Ohio. Although mining
would provide jobs and income so desperately needed in this area of
Appalachia, operations would be of a limited nature. Once available
deposits were extracted, the result would for all time destroy the
potential tourism benefits associated with the site's historical
significance. Tourism has no limits, in terms of the numbers of people
who might visit and for how long. We believe the site has great
potential, depending on how it is ``developed'' for tourism. At the
present time, efforts are underway by the newly formed Ohio Civil War
Trails Commission to establish the Morgan Trail, a route following
Morgan's raid through the state. Signage, audio and video tapes,
brochures, web sites, etc., would provide impetus for the public to
visit southern Ohio and enjoy the rich historical tradition of the
state as well as the inherent natural beauty of the region. Kentucky
and Indiana are well ahead of Ohio with similar plans. One of the goals
of the Commission is to integrate the efforts of all the neighboring
states. If done well, this could provide a continual infusion of
revenue to the existing businesses of the area, as well as the growth
of new enterprises which would surely arise to meet the demand of new
visitors. Buffington Island would be the crown jewel of the Trail. That
is, provided visitors have a pristine battlefield to view rather than a
gravel pit.
In short, as members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and more
importantly, as citizens who place great importance on our nation's
history and the sacrifices made by our ancestors, we urge you to do all
in your power to save the Buffington Island battlesite. If federal
funds are available for the purchase of Civil War sites, Buffington
Island must be considered. Unless measures are taken now, it's loss
will be lamented by many future generations.
______
Civil War Days,
Somerset, OH, March 7, 1998.
Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Ms. Parker: The Civil War Days Committee of Somerset, Ohio is
fully and firmly committed to Civil War Battlefield preservation in
general and the Buffington Island Battlefield in particular. All of the
proceeds from our September event id earmarked for Buffington Island.
We have many Civil War era projects in our area but have forsaken
them, at least temporarily, while the second Battle of Buffington
Island, as we call it, rages. Our maintenance projects can be deferred,
but we only get one chance to save an endangered battlefield.
We are all aware of the importance of Buffington. It is an
excellent example of U.S. naval activity in coordination with infantry,
cavalry and militia. It is also the only battle where three future
presidents (Garfield, Hayes, McKinley) were engaged. Buffington is a
hallowed symbol of Ohio's unparalleled contribution to the conflict. No
state produced more men, more regiments and more generals per capita
than Ohio. The offspring of those 250,000 Buckeyes who served their
country, now spread to the ends of the earth should now step forward
and honor them in a dignified and perpetual manner. We can think of no
more fitting way to show our respect than to permanently remove the
property from harm's way.
If the Land and Water Conservation Fund is indeed planning to
acquire new properties, with certain uncommitted funds, we believe
Buffington is an appropriate site for such an acquisition.
Sincerely,
Robert Snider,
Director.
______
30th Ohio Volunteer Infantry Association,
Columbus, OH, March 5, 1998.
Margaret Parker,
Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Misses Parker: Our Civil War Reenacting Association is fully
committed to the Historical Society's efforts regarding the Buffington
Island Battlefield. We are acutely aware of the importance of the site.
Ohio contributed more men and more regiments per capita than any other
state in the Union, north or south and yet somehow we are unable or
unwilling to save a site within our own boundaries.
It is a great shame on the current inhabitants of this greatest of
all states, that this issue cannot be resolved, that posterity may know
what happened there. Scores of men struggled died and are buried there.
Indeed the burial sites are yet unknown. It is our duty to continue the
struggle to save the property and protect the integrity of this most
hallowed of state ground. It is more than just an Ohio treasure that
remains in jeopardy. It is also a national calamity. What will future
generations and historians say of the culture that refused to save
property, hallowed by their grandfathers, when the means was at hand?
We believe that the uncommitted monies yet available in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund could do much to salvage this important
shrine. We hope that the Senator Slade Gorton chaired Committee will
fully consider the acquisition of the most vulnerable components of the
battlefield as a first step in satisfying the legacy of our
grandfathers' sacrifice.
We have financially and emotionally supported your good efforts in
the past and will continue to do so.
Your ob't. serv't.
David Snider,
Association Historian.
______
Perry County Historical Society,
Somerset, OH, March 3, 1998.
Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Margaret Parker: The Perry County Historical Society is very
much interested in the preservation of Buffington Island Battlefield.
We sponsor a reenactment here in Somerset every September and the net
proceeds of the event go to the Buffington Island Battlefield
Preservation Association.
We believe there are several worthy battlefield sites throughout
the nation that are currently vulnerable, which merit significant
preservation efforts, but we believe there are several things about the
Buffington Site which move it to the top of the list.
Foremost is the fact that the Buffington site is the only Ohio site
of Civil War vintage. To save that battlesite is to save 100 percent of
the battlesites in the state. Ohio's commitment, giving 250,000 men to
the cause and not less than sixty generals, including: the legendary
Grant, Sheridan, Sherman and Custer warrants our full measure of
devotion.
The Battlesite is a great resource for all of the United States in
ways we are only now coming to understand. Educators say that you can
teach absolutely any subject in the world if you can somehow use
dinosaurs, space travel or the American Civil War as the vehicle of
delivery. Saving this battlefield not only pays homage to the
generation that fought and died there it also provides promise for our
future young scholars. It is indeed a rare opportunity when generations
long dead and those yet born can be served by the current inhabitants.
Let us all recognize and seize this opportunity for what it really is.
Please forward our concerns to Senate Chairman Slade Gorton
regarding is wonderful opportunity.
Sincerely,
Douglas Miller,
PCHS President.
______
1st Ohio Volunteer Cavalry,
Somerset, OH, March 3, 1998.
Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, OH.
Dear Margaret Parker: The 1st Ohio Volunteer Cavalry is a Civil War
Reenactment unit centered in central Ohio that is very much concerned
about the future of our states only battlefield at Buffington Island
near Portland, Ohio.
The importance of Ohio's contribution in the Civil War in
particular and nation building and preserving in general has long been
overlooked in the broad survey that the study of our nation's history
has become. The state contributed more men than any state in the
nation, except the old states of New York and Pennsylvania, to the
great struggle. It seems a terrible shame than those men who struggled,
died and are buried there should be forgotten by there offspring. It
reflects very badly on all of us as a society that the preservation of
this hallowed ground is not a priority for all of the individuals who
have enjoyed the fruits of the liberty this struggle salvaged.
If the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies is indeed
exploring potential land acquisitions with yet to be committed funds,
we can think of no better place to begin than at Buffington Island. It
should be this generation of citizens and lawmakers that saves this
hallowed property for posterity. Future generations will not have the
luxury nor the solemn duty we have been blessed with.
We have supported the Buffington Island preservation movement on
the reenacting battlefield, in the classroom and anywhere the story can
be told and we will continue to do so.
Sincerely,
Captain Steve Reincke.
______
The Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the
United States,
Commandery of Ohio,
Massillon, OH, March 14, 1998.
Margaret A. Parker,
President, Meigs County Historical Society,
Pomeroy, Ohio.
Dear Ms. Parker: I have been appraised that Senator Slade Gorton is
accepting written outside testimony regarding a special $699 million
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land
acquisitions of which $362 million at this time is not earmarked for
specific projects.
It is well known that your organization is most concerned about the
Buffington Island Battlefield being destroyed by a gravel mining
company. This travesty greatly concerns our Military Order that was
founded the day that our beloved 16th President, Abraham Lincoln died--
April 15, 1865.
Our 19th President, Brevet Major General Rutherford B. Hayes of
Ohio was a participant at the ``historic Ohio battlefield site''. R.B.
Hayes was our ``MOLLUS'' Commander in Chief from 1888-1893. He also
served as the Commander of the Ohio Commandery from February 7, 1883
through May 5, 1886. He was followed by General William T. Sherman who
served a one year term.
``The Military Order of The Loyal Legion of the United States''
objectives were many. The number one objective was to honor the memory
of Abraham Lincoln and to cherish the memories and associations of the
war waged in defense of the unity and indivisibility of the Republic.
Translated that also means, the preservation of the countless
monuments, memorials and battlefields honoring those men who fought and
died in the Civil War.
A gravel pit is not a memorial to our fallen comrades and with the
grace of God, we will win this battle and secure the monies needed to
preserve this sacred battlefield site.
As a further testimony on saving the Buffington Island Battlefield,
I'm listing the following reasons:
It is Ohio's only Civil War battlefield and Ohio deserves part of
this national funding having furnished the third most men in the Union.
It is located in an Appalachian Ohio county of 22,000 population
that is the poorest in the state where half of the residents receive a
government transfer payment of some kind.
There were 8,000 Union and 2,000 Confederates in the battle.
The battle is unique in that it involved infantry, artillery,
cavalry, navy and local militia.
Future President, William McKinley of Ohio also participated.
The ``Official Records'' of the U.S. government indicate at least
54 graves of soldiers whose location are currently unknown. These
graves may end up as paving material by the sand and gravel company
that owns part of the land.
Had the Confederates won this battle, it may have prolonged the war
by encouraging further raids into the north.
This battle is one of three on northern soil. The others are the
Battle of Corydon (Indiana) and Gettysburg (Pennsylvania).
Destroying a battlefield cannot be undone once occurred.
Destroying an important historical site like this teaches children
that learning history in school is unimportant.
Destroying a battlefield cheapens the sacrifice made by those who
fought there.
Morgan's Raid is the most re-enacted and celebrated item of the
Civil War with currently four separate re-enactments occurring
annually.
No adequate archeological study has been conducted on the site
concerning the Civil War.
In terms of fair play, preserving our Ohio Civil War military
heritage and history and saving our only battlefield site, hopefully we
will receive the necessary funding from the ``Committee on
Appropriations''.
Loyally yours,
Karl F. Schaeffer,
Commander.
______
prepared statement of the meigs county tourism board
The Meigs County Tourism Board respectfully submits the following
testimony in support of the request for an allocation of funds to be
used for the preservation and purchase of land at the Buffington Island
Civil War Battlefield.
On July 19, 1863 a battle took place in Meigs County, Ohio. The
battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island involved 10,000
American men, and was a significant and defining battle of the American
Civil War. Currently, another battle rages on the same hallowed ground,
a battle of preservation.
The Meigs County Historical Society in accordance with the Ohio
Historic Preservation Office is spearheading a campaign to save the
only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio. This site is defined
by Congress as one of the 384 principal battlefields that should be
preserved, and is ranked in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed
conflicts. In addition, the battlefield is eligible to be listed on the
National Register of Historic Sites.
Unfortunately, a portion of this critical site is in imminent
danger of being lost forever to the destruction of sand and gravel
mining. Richard and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio have applied to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for a permit to build a loading facility
on the Ohio River and to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for a
mining permit. The land that Richard and Sons has acquired for the
expressed purpose of sand and gravel mining is located on portions of
this battlefield site.
This historical site is unlike any other in the entire state of
Ohio. It is one of the southeastern region's most important historical
assets. To rob future generations of a part of their heritage is a
decision that should not be made for profit.
This battlefield is undeniably an asset to Meigs County as a
tourism attraction and as a living history lesson for visitors to
enjoy. This site is part of the Civil War Heritage Trail, which is a
heritage tourism initiative of the Civil War Trust in partnership with
the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park
Service. To not protect this site for preservation and for future
appropriate heritage tourism development in ludicrous, and only
increases the risk of inappropriate development and eventual
extinction.
Our forbears were willing to give up their lives in the Battle of
Buffington Island for the freedom of all men, and for the continuation
of liberties for all generations to come. The Official War Records
state that 54 soldiers were buried on this battlefield. We owe it to
their memory to preserve this site as a testament of their bravery and
their honor. Thank you for your sincere consideration of this matter,
and for any help you can extend to our county in finding an amicable
solution to this situation.
______
Ohio Historic Preservation Office,
Columbus, Ohio, March 5, 1998.
The Honorable Slade Gorton,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the Meigs County Historical
Society, I am writing in response to your request for assistance in
identifying opportunities to use a portion of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriation to preserve important Civil War battle
sites. One candidate for your consideration is the site of the Battle
of Buffington Island, the only Civil War battlefield in Ohio or north
of the Ohio River.
The Battle of Buffington Island marked the effective end of the
Great Ohio Raid, a 17 day, 1,000 mile running skirmish across four
states between Confederate cavalry troops led by the flamboyant General
John Hunt Morgan and local militia and Union troops. It was to be the
longest sustained raid of the Civil War. The battle itself occurred
near a low point in the Ohio River where General Morgan hoped to escape
into West Virginia with 2,000 troops. High water, 8,000 Union troops,
and gunboats stopped him. Two future United States Presidents,
Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley, took part in the engagement.
Bone weary from weeks in the saddle, Morgan was forced to abandon 700
men but managed to escape, his raid ending 7 days later less than 100
miles from the shores of Lake Erie.
The battle site is marked by a State Memorial within a four acre
park near Portland in Meigs County, Ohio. Listed in the National
Register of Historic Places since 1970, the memorial is part of the
larger battlefield occupying the terraces between the Ohio River and
the foothills of the Appalachians. Local efforts are underway to mark
the route of Morgan's raid, and an invitation has been extended by the
States of Kentucky and Illinois to join and expand their National Park
Service-funded effort to mark Morgan's route through their states,
culminating in a marked, multi-state General John Hunt Morgan trail.
The Battle of Buffington Island is a key site in this Civil War
heritage trail.
The secluded agricultural land upon which this site is located is
now the subject of a proposed gravel mining operation that would
destroy core features of the battlefield, including an area known
locally as the ``Bloody Ground.'' Our office is undertaking a review of
the proposed project under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Working with the developers, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and interested parties, we are identifying the significant
elements within the area, determining the effects of the project, and
seeking means of mitigating any adverse effects.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation to which you
refer would be an ideal source of funding to secure and preserve this
significant Civil War battlefield site. Strong local and inter-state
interest (over 3,000 letters of concern have been received to date) has
been expressed, and the developer is sensitive to the significance of
the site. I urge your Committee's consideration of the Buffington
Island Battlefield site as a candidate for acquisition with the Land
and Water Conservation Fund.
I would be pleased to answer any questions or supply any additional
information you may need. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
your efforts to acquire and preserve important Civil War battle sites.
Respectfully submitted,
Amos J. Loveday, Jr.,
State Historic Preservation Officer.
______
State of Ohio,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
Columbus, OH, March 17, 1998.
The Honorable Slade Gorton,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: I am writing in support of the Meigs County
Historical Society's request for funding from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
If approved, this money would be used for a land acquisition (or
exchange) that would preserve the Buffington Island Battlefield at
Portland, Ohio, which is Ohio's only Civil War battlefield. The
battlefield site, which is located in Meigs County, is in danger of
being destroyed by a pending gravel mining operation.
As a native of southeastern Ohio, I can personally testify to the
historical and economic importance of this site.
The Battle of Buffington Island was part of the infamous ``Morgan's
Raid,'' the longest, sustained raid of the Civil War. Fought just north
of the Ohio River, this bloody confrontation involved over 10,000 Union
and Confederate troops. It was the last major engagement between the
two forces before General John Hunt Morgan and his raiders surrendered
in northeastern Ohio seven days later. The battle, along with many of
the stories and ``legends'' surrounding it, are integral part of our
unique heritage.
Many parts of Appalachia have focused on tourism as part of their
economic development strategies. It is important to note that a multi-
state effort in underway to mark the trail Morgan's Raiders traveled
through Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois. When completed, the trail will
attract much welcomed visitors and attention to southeastern Ohio, as
American history enthusiasts and tourists retrace the events that took
place there. It is only fitting that the Buffington Island Battlefield
be preserved as a part of this new trail.
Given the importance of preserving our country's historic landmarks
and sites, I believe that the Buffington Island Battlefield would be an
excellent choice for funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Therefore, I urge you and your committee to give favorable
consideration to the Meigs County Historical Society's request.
If you need any additional information regarding his letter or my
support for this important historic preservation project, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (614) 466-3396.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy P. Hollister,
Lieutenant Governor.
______
Letter From Helen Hooper, Director of Public Policy, Land Trust
Alliance
April 15, 1998.
The Honorable Slade Gorton,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gorton: The Land Trust Alliance (LTA), the national
organization serving the country's more than 1,100 land trusts, is
pleased to submit this letter to the Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies for the record of testimony regarding the fiscal year
1999 appropriations to two federal programs that foster private,
voluntary land conservation. Specifically, I urge the committee to
provide adequate funding to the Forest Legacy Program of the Forest
Service and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), especially the
state grants programs administered by the National Park Service.
Forest Legacy Program
Recommendation.--LTA supports a substantial increase to a $50
million appropriation for the Forest Legacy Program.
The Forest Legacy Program should be increased to $50 million
annually in order to function as an effective national program. Funding
at $50 million annually will enable this chronically underfunded
program to complete projects more rapidly, expand the program to more
states, respond effectively to the needs of timberland owners, and,
most importantly, conserve a significant amount of threatened
timberland. We thank you for your leadership in appropriating an
increase for this program for the current fiscal year, and urge that
you make the further increases needed.
The Forest Legacy Program supports the purchase of interests
(primarily permanent conservation easements) in environmentally-
sensitive timberland that is threatened with conversion to nonforest
uses. It is a voluntary, private, non-regulatory means for preserving
the nation's forests and improving water quality, air quality,
sensitive habitat, and sustainable economic resources.
Forest Legacy provides willing landowners with a viable alternative
to selling their timberland for development; conserves timberland for
traditional uses; and fosters partnerships between landowners, local,
state, and federal agencies, and interested nonprofit organizations
such as land trusts.
Providing voluntary options to landowners
The Forest Legacy Program offers willing landowners a viable
economic alternative to selling their timberland for development. By
purchasing development rights at fair market value, but leaving the
ownership in private hands, Forest Legacy allows landowners to retain
ownership of their land. Landowners can also continue to engage in
traditional economic activities on timberland such as sustainable tree
harvesting and maple sugar production. Finally, landowners can be
secure in the knowledge that their timberland will be protected for
future generations and that such traditional activities on the land can
be sustained.
Example: In Massachusetts, Ted and Beverly Hutchinson, with the
assistance of the Forest Legacy Program, were able to protect
permanently approximately 490 acres of their woodland from encroaching
development. The sale of the development rights for $616,000 removes
the threat of development from the property and allows the Hutchinsons
to continue managing their land for forest products as they have for
the past 60 years. ``I've put a lot of time and energy into this land
planting trees and harvesting timber. I'd hate to see houses built all
over the property,'' said Hutchinson.
Conserving timberland for traditional uses
Forest Legacy makes possible the sale of conservation easements by
timberland owners wishing to continue the forest uses on their
property. In doing so, Forest Legacy protects the quality of life in
communities and ensures continued traditional uses of the timberland.
Sustainable timber harvesting, outdoor recreational activities such a
hunting, fishing, and hiking, are all permitted on property enrolled in
the Forest Legacy Program. Moreover, conserving existing timberland
checks sprawl, and protects wildlife habitat and the other open space
and rural characteristics of many forested areas.
Example: In Vermont, a $342,000 Forest Legacy grant made possible a
conservation easement on 2,281 acres of timberland from Wagner
Woodlands-Atlas Timber. The land will continue to be owned and managed
by the landowner as productive timberland while accessible to the
public for traditional recreational activities such as hunting,
fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing. According to
Hank Swan, general partner of Atlas Timber, ``I see this purchase to be
a win-win situation. Atlas is able to continue its primary mission of
sustained yield management and harvest of forest products, while at the
same time public use is insured.''
Fostering partnerships
Forest Legacy fosters partnerships between willing landowners,
interested non-profit organizations such as land trusts, and local,
state, and federal governments. These partnerships help cultivate the
mutual understanding that is key to successful long-term agreements. By
encouraging the involvement of community-based conservation
organizations such land trusts, the program also ensures a board range
of community involvement and investment, another factor essential for a
successful agreement.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Forest Legacy is a highly
leveraged program that stretches federal dollars farther. The program
requires states to contribute at least a 25 percent match. This means
that a significant amount of nonfederal money is raised for each
project.
Example: The Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust worked with the Forest
Legacy Program to protect 1,272 acres of pristine Maine forestland. As
a result of the $840,000 the Forest Service supplied for the
acquisition of a conservation easement on the property, the trust was
able to raise over $400,000 to cover the remaining amount needed to
purchase and protect the tract. The result was the protection of 3.4
miles of lakefront that represented a critical link in 12 miles of
continuous undeveloped lakeshore. It also contributed to more than 40
miles of protected shorefront in the Rangeley Lakes chain, which
encompasses over 33,000 acres of public access conservation lands.
The Problem: Underfunding
Since its inception under the 1990 Farm Bill, the Forest Legacy
Program has been plagued by underfunding. This has hampered severely
its ability to work with willing timberland owners to help prevent
their land from being converted to nonforest uses. Demand for the
program has increased dramatically, with over $50 million in projects
currently awaiting funding. The resources of the program are not
adequate to meet this demand. In fiscal year 1998 it received only $4
million--not enough for even a marginal national program, even though
it was an increase over the previous year's level.
Currently, 15 states are eligible to receive Forest Legacy funds.
Lack of adequate funding is one of the primary reasons that more states
with an identifiable need for the program do not participate in it. A
number of states considering qualifying for the program have chosen not
to devote the administrative time to doing so because of the scarcity
of funds. Consequently, timberland that might have been conserved with
Forest Legacy funds is lost to development.
Increasing the Forest Legacy appropriation to $50 million annually
would expand the number of states participating, result in more
projects being completed, and, ultimately, more threatened timberland
being protected from development.
Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants Program
Recommendation.--LTA encourages the committee to increase the
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We strongly
urge the committee to include funding for the state grants program as
well as funding for federal projects.
Since its inception, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
has been a crucial element in the conservation of the land and water
resources of the nation. LTA applauds the Committee for its efforts to
provide increased funding from the LWCF in fiscal year 1998, especially
the $699 million supplemental appropriation enacted for priority
federal land acquisitions. We also support the administration's
requested $270 million fiscal year 1999 level.
While making its appropriations decisions, Congress should look
again at the benefits of providing matching state grants from the LWCF.
State LWCF grants leverage federal dollars and reflect community
priorities in land conservation and recreational facility enhancement.
Unfortunately, state-side LWCF funding has suffered a dramatic
reduction over the past five years: at this point, the program is all
but shut down. There is no fiscal year 1998 money for state grants, nor
does the administration propose any for fiscal year 1999. This program,
historically very successful in promoting community and nonprofit
involvement in conservation activities, deserves your support.
Example: LWCF grants to the state of Idaho have allowed the Idaho
Foundation for Parks and Lands (IFPL) to facilitate successfully a
number of projects of importance to communities around the state. For
example, the Foundation went into action when 1.8 acres and 560 linear
feet of waterfront became available on Payette Lake. Working hand in
hand with the local community, IFPL was able to raise $269,000, and,
combined with LWCF matching funds, was able to acquire the property for
$560,000. The land was then transferred to the City of McCall and
turned into McCall Mill Park for the enjoyment of all the local
citizens.
Conclusion
The Land Trust Alliance requests that the committee take a
leadership role in the rejuvenation of these two important programs
that promote voluntary land conservation across the country.
We urge you to appropriate $50 million in fiscal year 1999 for the
Forest Legacy Program to allow greater state participation in the
program and more key working timberland to be conserved.
In addition, we urge you to allocate a substantial amount of funds
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the state grants program.
These grants will provide states and localities with much needed funds
in their pursuit of open space preservation and recreational
opportunities for their citizens.
On behalf of the nation's more than 1,100 land trusts, thank you
for considering the views of the Land Trust Alliance as you make your
funding decisions for the coming fiscal year.
Sincerely,
Helen Hooper,
Director of Public Policy.
______
Prepared Statement of Jose Marques, Executive Director, Children's
Forest Association
The Children's Forest Association is working with the San
Bernardino National Forest and the local community to plan and develop
projects that will provide forest visitors and residents, both youth
and adult, with high quality opportunities for recreation and learning
about the forest and their role in its protection.
The pressures on the San Bernardino National Forest continue to
grow due to 20 million people who live in southern California, rely on
these public lands for recreation, solitude, and learning. The Forest
faces the threat of greater fragmentation as private inholdings are
developed into subdivisions, effectively reducing the available land
for recreation and forest ecosystem health. In addition to recreation,
the National Forest provides a place for an important ecosystem to
thrive. In order to ensure that the ecosystem, including its human
community, is healthy in the future we need to ensure there is enough
open space. For these reasons, the protection afforded by the $15
million from the LWCF will represent an especially sound investment in
the future of this extremely popular National Forest.
______
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 relating to food production and the environmental
situation on Enewetak Atoll. We would also like to give you an update
on the initiatives we have taken these past few years to improve not
only food production but also the health and education of our people.
These initiatives include the continued implementation of a more
intensive agriculture program; the continuation of a nutrition
education program; the continued implementation of a more effective
education program; and, attempts at the economic development of our
atoll to permit fishing and/or tourist activity.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset we wish to express our gratitude to the
United States Congress for the appropriation of funds these past twelve
years to provide food to our people through a program which has become
known as the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program. We are particularly
grateful to you Mr. Chairman and to the members of this Subcommittee
for the increase of $100,000 of the program's funding (to $1.191
million) for fiscal year 1998.
This program is funded pursuant to Section 103(h)(2) of Public Law
99-239 (Compact of Free Association Act of 1985). We are also grateful
that the Congress has amended Section 103(h)(2) of Public Law 99-239 to
authorize funding for the program through fiscal year 2001. We now
request that funding for the program be appropriated for fiscal year
1999. We note that Congress anticipated the necessity for continued
funding of the program when it stated in Section 103(h)(3) of Public
Law 99-239: ``Payments under this subsection shall be provided to such
extent or in such amounts as are necessary for services and other
assistance provided pursuant to this subsection. It is the sense of
Congress that after the periods of time specified is paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this subsection, consideration will be given to such additional
funding for these programs as may be necessary.''
Of equal significance is the language of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 171-2 in which the Congress stated: ``It is the sense of the
Congress that the special medical care and logistical support program
for Rongelap and Utrik and for the agriculture and food programs for
Enewetak and Bikini described in section 103(h) of Public Law 99-239
represent special and continuing moral commitments of the United States
and will be funded to the extent of the need of the populations of such
atolls for such assistance.''
The Administration has included funding in the amount of
approximately $1.091 million for the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
Program in its fiscal year 1999 Budget. However, we must note that the
$1.091 million in the Administration's budget is the same amount as the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1987. That is, the funding for the
program has substantially declined these past 12 years in real dollars.
Applying a 3 percent average annual inflation factor, the $1.091
million appropriated in 1987 now has the purchasing power of
approximately $700,000. In short, the program over the years has
experienced over a 35 percent cut in funding. At the same time our
population has increased at a rate of over 4 percent per year. In
addition, it has been suggested that the agriculture rehabilitation
component of the program needs to be accelerated. Agriculture
equipment, such as backhoes and trucks, and additional manpower are
required for such acceleration. The cost of such equipment and manpower
is as follows:
3 backhoes plus shipping to Enewetak ($70,000 each)........... $210,000
2 flat bed trucks plus shipping to Enewetak ($50,000 each).... 100,000
Manpower (21 additional workers).............................. 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 460,000
Consequently, we ask that the amount requested by the
Administration ($1.091 million) be increased by $460,000 to $1,551,000.
It most be noted that such increase does not take into consideration
the impact of inflation on the funds as described above. As an
alternative to such increase in the program's funds, we ask that the
Department of Interior's technical assistance funds be increased by the
amount of $460,000 and such amount be specifically earmarked for the
$460,000 cost of the additional equipment and manpower required by the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program.
Below, we briefly describe why the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
Program is necessary, and report to you efforts made by us to put these
funds to the best possible use.
Background
Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 of the 66 nuclear tests conducted
by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1948 and 1958. One
of the tests was especially significant as it was the first test of a
experimental thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb). This test occurred
on October 31, 1952 and was known as the ``Mike'' test. The test had a
yield of 10.4 megatons (750 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb). The
Mike test vaporized a number of islands, leaving a crater a mile in
diameter and 200 feet deep.
The 43 nuclear tests conducted at Enewetak were detonated in the
air, on towers, on the surface of islands and reefs, on barges, and
underwater. Some of the ``ground zeros,'' or surface level explosions,
were on the islands themselves, some were on the reef, some were in the
lagoon, and one was in the ocean nearby. In addition, two plutonium
experiments were conducted on the island of Runit in which the devices
did not fully detonate but instead sprayed chunks of plutonium across
the island. Nuclear testing on Enewetak ended with the last Operation
Hardtack test on August 18, 1958.
The Nuclear Testing Program inflicted serious damage to Enewetak
Atoll. Five islands in the atoll were completely or partially vaporized
by the nuclear tests. The remaining islands on the northern half of the
atoll, including the major residential and agricultural island of
Enjebi, were heavily contaminated with radioactivity, as was the island
of Runit. Debris and wreckage--radioactive and nonradioactive--littered
many of the islands. The atoll's lagoon was seriously damaged. Large
bomb craters covered many of the islands. The southern islands of
Enewetak and Medren were mostly covered by concrete and asphalt since
they were used for various facilities required by the Nuclear Testing
Program, including concrete foundations, roads, airstrips, and an
airport. As a result, the entire atoll was devastated--vegetation was
completely stripped from many of the islands, and nearly all plants of
agricultural and economic value on the atoll were totally destroyed.
In December of 1947, prior to the testing program, the United
States relocated us to a small and remote atoll 125 miles southwest of
Enewetak. That atoll is named Ujelang. Ujelang atoll has a land area
less than one-fourth that of Enewetak, and a lagoon less than one-
sixteenth that of Enewetak. The suffering and hardship we experienced
between 1947 and 1980 at Ujelang is well documented and ultimately
resulted in a commitment by the United States to resettle us at our
home atoll of Enewetak.
In order to permit us to return to our ancestral homeland, the
United States, between 1977 and 1980, undertook a resettlement program
which included revegetation of the atoll. Crops of coconut, pandanus,
breadfruit, taro, bananas and lime were planted beginning in 1979 and
the plantings continue as part of the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
Program. The crops have never produced the projected quantity of food
and do not now provide sufficient food for our population. The problem
is significant since less than one-third of the land of the atoll can
be used for food production. We cannot harvest the food crops of the
northern islands of the atoll due to the relatively high level of
radiation in these foods and some land remains unavailable to us for
agriculture use because it remains covered by concrete and asphalt.
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 which brings us the
imported food, a nutrition education program, and an operation and
maintenance component conducted out of a facility on Enewetak known as
the field station.
Efforts made to increase food production.--As we previously
explained to this committee, we were unhappy with the state of the
agriculture rehabilitation program when we inherited the program from
the Department of Energy. Accordingly, in 1993 we had an assessment of
our agriculture situation conducted. The purpose of such assessment was
to determine the then current agriculture situation and to develop
recommendations for increased food production. The recommendations
included the hiring of a part time on-site agriculture consultant. The
agriculture consultant began his work in 1993 and modified the
recommendations somewhat. 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. Additional funding
in the amount of $460,000 as requested in this statement would greatly
assist in accelerating the agriculture rehabilitation of the atoll.
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. Since we have taken over the program we
have increased the quantity of imported food by 35 percent without any
increase in the overall program budget. We have accomplished this by
utilizing bidding procedures for food purchases; elimination of
transportation charges by use of our motor sailer (Wetak II);
elimination of import tax on food; and reduction of other program
expenses.
Nutrition education program.--Since our people cannot rely on
traditional foods we must import food, the nutritional value of which
is unfamiliar to us. Several years ago we became aware that some of our
people, particularly our children, suffered from malnutrition.
Accordingly, we instituted a nutrition education program. We are
pleased to report that we have been apprised by physicians that
malnutrition among our children has been greatly reduced.
Wetak II (waterborne transportation).--The Wetak II, a fifty foot
motor sailer, is used to primarily transport our imported food
purchases and agriculture material from the region to Enewetak. Food
and agriculture material is transported from Majuro, a distance of 600
miles from Enewetak. We are extremely proud of the hard work and
perseverance of our local crew and local captain in carrying out this
assignment. Transportation in this manner permits us to save
substantial shipping costs.
Field Station.--Operation and maintenance of the entire program is
conducted out of a facility referred to as the Field Station. The
machinery and equipment required by the agriculture, food and
transportation components of the program are kept at 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. The overall manager of the program is Johnson Hernest. Other
management personnel include Samson Yoshitaro and Mathan David. The
program employs 40 members of our community.
Review of Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program
In 1997, the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies, asked the Department of Interior to
review the program and submit a report. We understand that a report
concerning such review has recently been completed. We were given a
copy of a draft of the report and noticed that there were some
inaccuracies relating to the nature of the program and some
misinterpretations of data which resulted in several erroneous
assumptions and conclusions. We commented on such inaccuracies and
misinterpretations in our comments to the report. We understand that
our comments will be made a part of the report. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the report does conclude that the continuation of the
program is necessary, that continued funding is necessary, and that the
agriculture rehabilitation component of the program needs to be
accelerated. We have been told by our agriculture consultant that the
program can be accelerated so long as we obtain additional equipment
and manpower. The additional equipment consists of three backhoes and
two flat bed trucks. The additional manpower consists of twenty-one
additional workers. Cost figures for such equipment and manpower are
provided above.
Conclusion
In closing, we thank the Congress for its past funding of the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program and trust that it will provide
funding for fiscal year 1999 (at least $1.091 million) and increase
such funding with the additional amount of $460,000 for fiscal year
1999 either directly to the program or to technical assistance
specifically for the Enewetak program.
______
U.S. Geological Survey
Prepared Statement of Henry Dean, Chairman, Interstate Council on Water
Policy
The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) represents state,
interstate, intrastate, and regional water agencies; academic
institutions; professional and business firms; and individuals
committed to the conservation, use, development and wise management of
water. Established in 1959, ICWP is the national voice for water-
related interests both on quantity and quality issues. The Interstate
Council on Water Policy has taken keen interest in the federal budget
as it pertains to data collection and analysis from the nation's water
resources. In the recent past, we have commented numerous times on the
budget of the U.S. Geological Survey, particularly over the demise of
the stream gaging program brought about by budgetary cutbacks.
In reviewing the President's Budget for the USGS in Federal fiscal
year 1999, we are pleased that increases are recommended for the
Hydrologic Networks and Analysis and Federal-State Cooperative Program
line-items. These two activities comprise the National Stream Gaging
Network. We are particularly pleased that base adjustments to these two
programs are provided as well as new initiative funding. Base
adjustments are recommended at $730,000 and $1.72 million,
respectively, for the Hydrologic Networks and the Coop Programs. We
view these adjustments as more important than the new initiatives
because they help retard the erosive effects of inflation on current
service levels within those programs. At a minimum, ICWP recommends
that these base adjustments be approved, bringing the fiscal year 1999
base for the Hydrologic Networks to $24.8 million and the Coop Program
base to $68 million.
There is also $14.3 million in enhancements proposed for incentives
under the Water Resources Division of the USGS in fiscal year 1999.
Many of these incentives can be classed under the Administration's
Clean Water Action Plan or its theme of the Citizen's Right to Know
with water quality as the centerpiece of that information. ICWP
acknowledges the benefit of many of the efforts proposed under the
Clean Water Action Plan and supports the open access of water data and
information to citizens and decisions makers on a real time basis.
However, our review of the budget leaves an impression that the
basic collection of these data is subservient to the efforts to
showcase such information and promote water quality as the premier
water resource issue. Left out of the budget are efforts to enhance the
acquisition of streamflow data. For example, the enhancement of
$787,000 for Hydrologic Networks and Analysis is dominated by $3.5
million (offset by reduction in other program components) for water
quality collection in National Park Service watersheds and enhanced
availability and dissemination of water quality data. The $4 million
enhancement of the Coop Program is linked to the water quality
conditions and processes present in the nation's watersheds and
additional dissemination of water quality data.
Neither enhancement mentions expansion of the nationwide gaging
station network as part of these endeavors. ICWP views this as ironic
since one of the major water quality tasks facing the nation will be
the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads for polluted runoff and
baseflow. These loads require a flow value in order to be calculated.
In fact, flow, as the delivery mechanism of many of the pollutants
impairing the nation's waterways, is probably a more important factor
than the concentration of the pollutant itself. Yet, the budget
neglects to direct resources toward increasing the information base on
streamflows as part of these initiatives.
On the matter of Right-to-Know, ICWP notes that up to $7 million of
the enhancement funding is directed toward water quality information
and water information delivery within the line items of Hydrologic
Networks and Analysis, Water Information Delivery and the Federal-State
Cooperative Water Program. Once again, while the efforts to increase
the access of water data are laudable, we are left with the impression
that the Administration is more concerned with access than acquisition.
We believe that the Citizen's Right to Know is tied to Government's
Duty to Show, that is, access is irrelevant if the rudimentary tasks of
data collection are neglected. We would encourage the Subcommittee to
direct a portion of the proposed enhancements into efforts to expand
the ability to monitor streamflow conditions. The benefits of
expansions in stream gaging may not be as obvious as providing Internet
access to water information, but the management of extreme hydrologic
events, such as flood and drought, are deeply dependent upon adequate
coverage of data networks as well as the access to the data those
networks provide.
ICWP wishes to advise the subcommittee on one matter which is
tangential to the USGS budget. In recent years, cooperative efforts by
the USGS and ICWP have been successful in stemming the loss of stream
gages across the nation. However, the subcommittee needs to be aware
that other Federal agencies, notably the Corps of Engineers, have
helped fund these stations. Budgetary constraints within the Corps is
inducing certain District offices to withdraw their support of gaging
stations traditionally used by the Corps and States in the management
of water resources. Numerous members of ICWP are facing circumstances
of losing gages which they have historically relied upon for certain
needs because of Water Control operations within Corps Districts are
cutting out support.
Additionally, there are efforts by other Federal agencies in water
management which utilize stream gaging stations but do not provide
financial backing to the operation of those gages. Specifically, the
National Weather Service is recommended to receive enhanced funding for
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction and Forecasting capabilities integrating
data into predictive forecast models to predict medium term hydrologic
conditions. However, the ground truth of such modeling endeavors, the
gaging stations on the major streams and tributaries were not
coincidentally enhanced, placing the models in a precarious situation
of having to rely on assumptions rather than data for calibration,
verification and prediction.
Similarly, the Clean Water Action Plan, with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture in lead, places a
great deal of emphasis on reducing polluted runoff and enhancing
monitoring efforts. Left unsaid is the fact that the gaging stations of
USGS will play a key role in assessing the relationship between flow
conditions and pollutant loads, the relative geographic contribution of
pollution on a watershed scale and ultimate evaluation of state and
federal program activity to reduce water quality impairment.
These three examples point out the need for the Subcommittee to
provide for adequate support of stream gaging in concert with other
agency activities, either by providing sufficient funding and
flexibility in those agencies to utilize the USGS or to provide
increased funding in the USGS to fulfill that support mission in
concert with those agencies.
The interaction of agency budgets for data collection and
(acquisition is long overdue and further neglect in recognizing this
interplay among agency missions and the basic resources needed to
fulfill those missions will compromise water management, be it ongoing
programs or new initiatives.
The ICWP encourages the Subcommittee examine these issues and
provide sufficient direction and support to the basic functions of USGS
in continuing to provide streamflow information of the highest quality
to water managers across the nation. As we have said in the past,
regardless of the expertise housed within USGS, without the ongoing
collection of basic data, the states have little need for interpretive
analysis of water resources.
The ICWP thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide
these comments regarding the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey.
______
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Prepared Statement of Julia A. Davis, Chair, Northwest Portland Area
Indian Health Board
It is an honor to present testimony on behalf of the Northwest
Portland Area Indian Health Board, a tribal organization which
represents 40 Federally-recognized tribes in Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho on health-related issues.
This organization is charged each year with reviewing the
President's budget for the Indian Health Service and analyzing its
impact on Indian health programs. We are submitting that analysis as
our written testimony, and I am here today to share with you a brief
summary of our concerns about this budget.
This Board is very familiar with the details of the Balanced Budget
Agreement, which calls for large cuts in discretionary program spending
over the next four years. But beginning in late fall as talk of a
``budget surplus'' surfaced and rumors were heard that some of this
``surplus'' might be directed towards discretionary health programs, we
became hopeful that the President would propose reasonable increases
for the Indian Health Service budget. And when we listened to the State
of the Union address in which the President spoke of extending health
care to children of working poor families and to more senior citizens,
and to addressing health disparity among America's racial minorities,
we became downright optimistic. Surely the President intended Indian
people, who continue to have excess morbidity and mortality to share in
these initiatives. But when we finally saw the budget and read
Secretary Shalala's joyous budget announcements on the Department's
website and e-mail, our hope turned to dismay as we painfully realized
that American Indian people were excluded.
There is nothing joyful for us in a budget which proposed an
increase of 8.5 percent for the National Institutes of Health, 17.7
percent for the Food and Drug Administration, 17 percent for the Agency
for Health Care Policy Research, but just 1.8 percent for the Indian
Health Services--and less than one percent (0.9 percent) if new
facility construction is excluded.
Perhaps this Administration has forgotten about the commitments
made in treaties and Executive Orders in which Indian tribes ceded land
and resources in exchange for health care and other assistance. But we
have not forgotten.
Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that Indian health
programs are a success story that demonstrates what the Federal
government at its best can accomplish. But we have not forgotten that
from 1972 to 1992, infant mortality rates for American Indians
decreased by 60 percent that the life expectancy for American Indians
went from 63.5 years in 1972 to 73.2 years in 1992.
Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that American Indian
people still have considerably higher mortality rates than the general
population for diabetes, tuberculosis, alcoholism, accidents, pneumonia
and influenza, suicide and homicide. But we have not forgotten because
we deal with the reality of these statistics on a daily basis.
Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that after many failed
policies, the most successful policy this nation has ever had in its
200-year relationship with Indian tribes is the policy of Indian Self-
Determination. And perhaps it has forgotten about the commitment made
by the President for consultation with tribal governments. But we have
not forgotten. This budget has effectively ended the opportunity for
self-determination by not providing new contract support cost funding,
one of the highest budget priorities identified by tribes in
consultation with IHS.
Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that the Indian Health
Service has already contributed more than its share to balancing the
Federal budget, having absorbed over a billion dollars in unfunded
mandatory costs since 1993. But those of us trying to operate health
clinics have not forgotten.
Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that since 1995 the
Interior Appropriation has increased only 3.4 percent while Labor, HHS,
and Education has increased by 22.3 percent. But we have not forgotten
and are not so naive as to understand that for Congress to find
additional money for IHS, funds must come from another agency in an
already strapped appropriation.
Perhaps the Administration has forgotten that in 1993 it proposed
unrealistic Medicaid collections to justify an inadequate and unfair
budget for the Indian Health Service and Congress recognized this and
restored funding. But we have not forgotten. We know that the
Children's Health Initiative Program (CHIPS) program will produce very
little new collections in our area, and that negotiations between HCFA
and IHS for a reimbursement rate increase have stalled. We know budget
gimmickry when we see it.
And finally, perhaps what this Administration has forgotten is what
Indian health programs are doing. Indian health programs are on the
front lines relieving the pain and suffering of real people and
preventing future pain and suffering. This is not an agency that can
simply give out a few less grants to make up a budget reduction. We are
delivering health care.
Northwest tribes ask this Committee to restore the funding that is
proposed to be cut in hospitals and clinics, sanitation construction,
and maintenance and improvement. Additional funds must be found to fund
the mandatory costs that every program must pay. This is particularly
critical for the Contract Health Service Program. The Indian Self-
Determination Fund must be restored and at a level so that those tribes
waiting to take responsibility for the health status of their people
can do so in a reasonable period of time.
New ways must be found to address facility construction needs.
Congress should provide opportunities for IHS and tribes to join forces
in Joint Venture Construction Projects. The facility needs of small
tribes should be addressed through the small grants program and through
the ability to utilize Maintenance and Improvement funds.
We have asked this Administration to propose a budget amendment
that allows IHS to share in the 8.4 percent average budget increase
proposed for the other discretionary health programs in the Department
of Health and Human Services. If the Administration does not propose
such an amendment it is our hope that this Committee can identify
resources so that Indian health programs share in this commitment to
improve the health of the American people.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits the following
recommendations regarding the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Indian Health Services budgets and those agencies data-gathering
efforts as they relate to child welfare.
--Support the Administration's BIA fiscal year 1999 Budget Request
relating to Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
Grant Program ($5 Million) under the Tribal Priority
Allocations (TPA) budget category.
--Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
II Off-Reservation grant programs ($2 Million) which was funded
through fiscal year 1996 under Special Projects and Pooled
Overhead portion of the BIA budget, but is not identified in
the Administration's request for fiscal year 1999.
--Require the BIA and IHS to provide more detailed information on
programs that provide funding/services for children. This
information is needed to accurately identify the need for these
programs and how BIA and IHS budget requests respond to that
need. The recommendations pertain to the Tribal ICWA, Title II
grant programs under TPA and the IHS Mental Health and Social
Services and Contract Health Services budget categories
(specific recommendations described below and in Conclusion
section of testimony.)
Organization Profile.--The National Indian Child Welfare
Association is based in Portland, Oregon and provides a broad range of
services including, (1) training and technical assistance for tribal
and urban Indian child welfare professionals, (2) consultation on
mental health and child welfare program development, (3) by request,
facilitation of child abuse and neglect community prevention activities
and (4) analysis and dissemination of public policy information that
impacts Indian children and families. Our constituents are tribal
governments and urban Indian child welfare programs throughout the
United States. Our organization works closely with the Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians and National Congress of American Indians
as well as having members on the Indian Child Welfare Committees of
both organizations. This will be our sixth year in providing written
testimony to this Subcommittee.
Measuring Need.--Under TPA tribes are essentially provided a block
grant from which they must fund a broad variety of services. Under this
system tribes must make decisions about which services they can fund
and at what level. However, many tribes encounter situations when they
must transfer funding from one financially strapped services to
another, even though both services are overwhelmed by the human need
they face. The BIA looks at this transfer as a measure of decreased
need, which they use when developing their budget requests. This
provides only an artificial measurement of need. Using this method,
Congress and the Administration will never know what the actual need
for any program under TPA is and how well appropriated funds are doing
in trying to meet that need.
Data provided to Congress should accurately describe human need,
not just budget priorities. Amazingly, the BIA has been allowed to
provide only superficial data to justify budget requests. For example,
it is virtually impossible to know how many clients received child
welfare services, what kind of services are provided and how need for
child welfare compares to the level of services being funded.
Another important factor in determining the need for child welfare
funding is tribal access to other program services and funding. Of the
top four federal sources of child welfare funding guaranteed to states
under the Social Security Act (Title IV-B subparts 1 and 2, Title IV-E
and Title XX) tribes only have guaranteed access to one, Title IV-B
subpart 1 Child Welfare Services, and the amounts of funding available
from this source for tribes are extremely limited (approximately $5
Million projected for fiscal year 1998).
This situation combined with dwindling state resources, lack of
state expertise in serving Indian families, and states reluctance to
provide services in Indian communities based on financial and
jurisdictional issues, has created a serious crisis for tribes in their
efforts to protect their children and establish permanency and
stability for those children who need help.
Tribal Child Welfare Programs.--Until fiscal year 1993 tribes had
been forced to compete for child welfare funding from year to year.
This competitive process was extremely disruptive and in most years
only allowed approximately 50 percent of the tribes nationwide to
receive any child welfare funding. Improvements in the grant process
and small increases to ICWA and Title IV-B funding have enhanced tribal
access to child welfare funding, but there is still a need to continue
efforts to make more funds available to address child abuse and
neglect. One such effort is provided by the Administration's proposal
to fund the Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention grant
program ($5 million). Other efforts should include a more careful and
accurate analysis of the child welfare needs of tribes by the BIA for
purposes of budgetary recommendation. This analysis should be based on
more than just population figures and how tribes are able to prioritize
their limited TPA funds. It should include data on types of services
provided, how many children and families receive these services, number
of out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
placement, length of time in out-of-home care, and numbers of children
who are able to secure permanence though reunification, guardianship,
kinship/relative care or adoption.
Other factors that deserve careful analysis include tribal access
to other child welfare funding or services and the relative costs of
providing basic child welfare services on tribal lands. This is
meaningful data that can provide Congress with an accurate definition
of need.
The most recent research on risk assessment of child abuse for
Indian children indicates that 34.4 percent of Indian children are at
risk for abuse or neglect (1993 National Indian Justice Center Study on
Indian child maltreatment funded by the Indian Health Service). Many
other documented indicators of the need for these services are also
highly visible in many Indian communities such as extreme poverty and
high rates of substance abuse.
Off-Reservation ICWA, Title II Grants.--Off-reservation programs
can provide a number of important services to both tribes, states, and
individual Indian children and families. The ICWA does not make a
distinction between who should benefit from the Act, and is designed to
protect Indian children and families everywhere. Arguably, Indian
children living outside of their tribal community are some of the most
vulnerable Indian children to stressors that are linked to risk for
abuse and neglect. These off-reservation programs, where they have been
able to exist, can provide key linkages to tribes when their members
become involved in state child welfare systems--all of which are
designed to meet the purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Some
common services that these programs can provide include:
--At the request of tribes, provide case advocacy or other services
such as foster care to tribal children who do not live on the
reservation and whose tribe may not even be in the state.
--Act as a resource to state agencies, courts and private agencies by
providing training on how to provide more cost-effective
services.
--Recruiting and licensing Indian foster and adoptive families, an
activity that states often do not have resources for and are
not successful at.
Off-reservation programs have suffered from the instability of
inadequate funds and a competitive grants process. Historically,
funding levels for off-reservation ICWA programs have been between $1.5
to $2 million. This has enabled the BIA minimally fund about 40
programs a year serve the 65 percent of the Indian population that
lives in primarily urban settings. These programs have also tried to
access private foundation funding and state contracts to supplement
ICWA grants. However, these funds have been increasingly difficult to
secure, especially in light of increased competition for these
resources due to reductions in state and federal funding.
We also know that many of these children may be served by state
child welfare agencies at some point. Because of the small number of
off-reservation ICWA programs operating in the United States, many of
these children in urban areas are at great risk for not receiving
needed services or protections. This seems especially relevant when you
consider the budgetary problems that states are experiencing that
result in minimal resources for staff training and services in general.
Mental Health Services.--One of the best assessments of the current
status of mental health services for Indian children is contained in a
report that NICWA published in 1996 entitled, ``American Indian
Children's Mental Health Services: An Assessment of Tribal Access to
Children's Mental Health Funding and a Review of Tribal Mental Health
Programs.'' We have provided a complimentary copy for the Subcommittee
to review. The report details issues affecting access to mental health
services, current funding sources, an original survey of tribal mental
health providers, profiles of the four tribal mental health service
systems, barriers to access of mental health services and compilation
of recommendations for improving access to services.
Three issues we believe are of great importance to the Committee's
consideration of our request are: (1) The IHS system of mental health
service delivery is primarily geared to adults (see statistics on page
4 and 15-17 of the above-mentioned report); (2) it is difficult, if not
impossible, to identify how much of the IHS funding under the Mental
Health and Social Services and Contract health Services budget
categories go to mental health service, particularly mental health
services to children; and (3) IHS admits in their own budget request
that they are not able to meet the current need with available
resources (see Page IHS-48). Our best sense, based on findings in our
report, is that children receive a few mental health services funded by
IHS. We therefore recommend that the Committee require IHS to provide
data detailing the level of funding from Mental Health and Social
Services and Contract Health Services that supports mental services for
Indian children.
Conclusion.--Tribal child welfare programs are a valuable resource
shown to be extremely effective in protecting Indian children and
strengthening Indian families. A study in 1988 commissioned by the
Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Interior
entitled, ``Indian Child Welfare: A Status Report'', revealed that
tribal programs outperformed the BIA and state child welfare programs,
notwithstanding the limited funding available to tribes. Specifically,
Indian children in substitute care had shorter stays in foster care and
higher rates of permanency when served by tribal programs. In 1994 the
Office of Inspector General issued a report entitled, ``Opportunities
for ACF to Improve Child Welfare Services and Protection for Native
American Children'', which clearly showed that most states were either
not willing or able to share federal funds for child welfare services
with tribes. This clearly demonstrates that tribes, when provided
opportunity, are able providers of child welfare services, while
currently not being able to depend on state funding sources or
services.
We must also take into consideration other factors which impact the
ability of tribes and off-reservation programs to protect their
children and give them a sense of permanence. Because of welfare reform
and recent child welfare reform, states have additional pressures to
target their resources carefully. This will most likely mean that
states historic reluctance to provide services on tribal lands will
continue and possibly get worse. If tribes are not given the adequate
resources, then Indian children will likely continue to be the most
unprotected class of children in this country with the least access to
services that help provide permanency.
The National Indian Child Welfare Association request that the
Subcommittee recommend the requests we have made in our testimony. They
are as follows:
--Support the Administration's BIA fiscal year 1999 budget request
relating to Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
Grant Program ($5 Million) under the Tribal Priority
Allocations (TPA) budget category.
--Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
II Off-Reservation grant programs ($2 Million) which was funded
through fiscal year 1996 under the Special Projects and Pooled
Overhead portion of the BIA budget, but is not identified in
the Administration's request for fiscal year 1999.
--Require the BIA to provide adequate child welfare data to Congress.
Some examples of this data are types of services provided, how
many children and families received these services, number of
out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
placement, length of time in out-of-home care and number of
children who are able to secure permanence through family
reunification, guardianship, relative/kinship care or adoption.
--Require the IHS to provide data detailing the level of funding from
Mental Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services
budget categories that supports mental health services for
Indian children.
Please consider these requests carefully and help tribal
governments and off-reservation ICWA programs continue to offer proven,
effective programs for Indian children and families.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Summary
Elwha River Restoration (BIA), Treaty Rights Protection, $464,112.
Shellfish Add-on, BIA Fisheries, $97,500.
Support the Administration request for a general increase in TPA,
$34 million.
Support the Administration's request for an increase in BIA law
enforcement of $25 million, including detention facilities.
Provide additional funds for General Assistance (BIA); and start up
funds for tribes taking over welfare reform (TANF).
Support the Congress increasing the IHS appropriation over the
Administration's request.
Elwha River Restoration
In 1992 a unique coalition of interests came together to seek a
comprehensive legislative resolution of conflicts concerning the Elwha
River in Washington State. This coalition worked closely with a
bipartisan group of Washington State congressional members to secure
the passage and enactment of the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries
Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495).
Every activity involved in Elwha River restoration, from dam
removal to water supply protection, and every phase of restoration,
from preliminary design to post-construction monitoring, will directly
affect the governmental interests of the Elwha Klallam Tribe. Our
people consider that the effects of Elwha River Restoration need to be
carried out with the highest priority being paid to treaty rights
protection.
How the dams are removed and sediment is released from the
reservoirs will directly affect traditional cultural properties
throughout the watershed, as well as treaty fisheries, water quality,
and flood safety on the Lower Elwha Reservation. The same is true of
levee upgrades and other floodplain mitigation on the reservation.
The negotiation, design, construction, and operation of a new
facility to protect municipal water supplies will directly affect
tribal water rights, reservation water quality, treaty fisheries and
intergovernmental relations with neighboring communities.
In order to protect its legal interests and carry out essential
governmental functions during the design phase, the Tribe must retain
core administrative and technical staff. It must also have funding for
access to engineering, legal, and other technical expertise to assist
core staff in identifying and negotiating design alternatives that
protect the Tribe's political integrity, economic security, health and
safety.
The Tribe's existing fiscal year 1998 Funding Request, as yet not
approved, sets out realistic funding needs. At a minimum, core
administrative staff should be funded at the levels expressed there at
approximately $214,112. Contractual funding should provide at least one
engineering FTE and legal, policy and miscellaneous technical
consultants, totaling another $250,000. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
is respectfully requesting funding for fiscal year 1999 at a level of
$464,112, since we have not been funded in the current year.
Shellfish Add-on
The Western Washington tribes in the Case Area of U.S. v.
Washington are now tasked with additional responsibilities under the
latest rulings with respect to shellfish rights. The request of the
twenty tribes so affected is for a total of $1.95 million, providing
for a biologist and an enforcement officer for each tribe to address
issues of public health protection and illegal harvest activity. We
respectfully request $97,500 within this amount for the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribe which supports this Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
initiative.
TPA Increase
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the Administration's request
for an increase in TPA of $34 million, with earmarks for specific
programs. The Tribe is a self-governance Tribe, and as other tribes who
take advantage of their authorities under the Indian Self-Determination
Act, the TPA fund is our life's blood for Tribal programs. We agree
that small and needy tribes deserve the additional funds requested; and
we also support the increase in the Indian Self-Determination Fund.
BIA Law Enforcement
We have been closely following discussions sponsored by the
Administration on the possibility of moving Indian country law
enforcement to the Department of Justice. We support the current
arrangement, but we feel that funding is inadequate. We therefore
support the Administration's request for an additional $25 million in
BIA Law Enforcement. We support the Administration's request for
detention facilities.
Social Services, GA, and TANF
Due to the vastly increased demand for General Assistance (GA)
benefits on most of the reservations in America, funds for many smaller
tribes for GA have been significantly reduced. The Lower Elwha Klallam
Tribe has taken a substantial reduction in our GA funding; it is only
through very tight management that these funds last throughout the
entire year. We respectfully request that the Congress look closely at
documented need in this program.
As the Congress is well aware, domestic crime in Indian country is
on the increase. Because Indian communities are so at risk, we request
additional funds be made available for our Social Services and Indian
Child Welfare Programs. In addition to these responsibilities, the
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is actively pursuing negotiations with the
State of Washington to assume the responsibility for TANF for our
people. This is such a great change that we request start-up funds to
make our assumption of this welfare program a success.
Indian Health
Finally, as the Congress is well aware, the health status of
American Indians and Alaska Natives is the lowest of any group in
America. The Administration has requested a minuscule increase in
fiscal year 1999 funding for IHS. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
respectfully requests that funding for IHS be increased sufficiently to
include funds for mandatory increases, at a minimum.
______
Prepared Statement of Merv George, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe of
California
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I respectfully
submit our comments regarding the fiscal year 1999 proposed budgets of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Office of the Special Trustee. A summary of my testimony follows:
Request $200,000 from the BIA Forestry budget for NEPA, ARPA, and
the National Indian Forest Management Act activities.
Request $150,000 from the BIA Forestry budget for resource
protection activities to reduce timber theft.
Support increase to the BIA Forest Development budget.
Request $140,000 from the BIA ESA budget for tribal costs
associated with ESA implementation.
Request $2.6 million from the Office of Special Trustee budget for
the California Trust Reform Demonstration Project.
Support increase of $2.5 million for the USFWS Klamath River
Fishery Restoration Program and an additional amount of $1.5 million
for the Yurok and Karuk Tribes and USFWS.
Request that the USFWS be directed to work with tribes prior to
transferring Klamath and Trinity River issues to the proposed Pacific
Southwest Regional Office.
The Tribe supports funding increases for the BIA Waste Management
and Environmental Cleanup Programs.
The Tribe supports funding for BIA Indian Land Consolidation
activities.
The Tribe supports funding for the BIA Office of Self-Governance
and for Self-Governance Tribal Grants.
Narrative of budget requests
BIA--Forestry.--The Tribe has identified insufficient funding as a
major deficiency within the Forest Planning Branch which implements the
federal requirements under NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). In fiscal year 1997,
the BIA provided no funds for planning (NEPA) purposes. While some
funds are provided by the BIA for wildlife ESA work, it is insufficient
to cover the costs of the program, particularly for botanical surveys
for ESA T&E plants.
Finally, the BIA provides no funds to complete ARPA required
surveys for archaeological resources. While the Tribe has funded these
activities in the past, we will not be able to in the future because
our administrative fees budget cannot withstand the current spending
levels or anticipated future costs. Most of the Tribe's forestry
funding is committed to paying for other legal requirements associated
with ESA T&E plants, archaeology (ARPA) and NEPA.
We request funding of $200,000 from the BIA Forestry budget in
order to meet federal legal requirements for NEPA, ARPA, and the
National Indian Forest Management Act.
BIA--Forest protection.--The Tribe has numerous federally-
constructed roads on the Reservation which are open to the public. As a
result, the Tribe experiences timber theft, principally from illegally
cutting of firewood. Most often, this timber theft is taken from
standing old growth Douglas-fir trees. At current rates of theft, which
in 1986 were measured at 1,000 MBF/year, the value of the lost timber
resources is $500,000/year.
We request that the Subcommittee provide $150,000 in the BIA
Forestry budget for a resource protection officer and two resource
protection technicians to reduce timber theft on the Reservation.
BIA--Forest development funds.--Forest Development funds provide
critical funding to Indian tribes and the BIA to address required
forest treatment activities and to address backlogs in pre-commercial
thinning of Indian commercial timber lands. Since 1989, the Tribe has
worked hard to prevent any additional backlog by striving to include
these costs in our existing federal and tribal budgets. This effort,
for the most part, has been successful. However, the pre-1989 backlog,
which was generated when the BIA managed the Reservation forestry
programs, remains to be a problem. The annual costs for addressing the
Forest Development backlogs for the Hoopa Reservation is estimated to
be $1,099,000.
Therefore, we support an increase to the Forest development budget
of the BIA and an increase in the Tribe's Forest Development funds.
BIA--Road maintenance program.--Adequate transportation systems for
Indian reservations are critical components for developing and
maintaining tribal economies and local infrastructures. However, each
year, the BIA Road Maintenance Program continues to be drastically
underfunded. At Hoopa, the Tribe has had to incorporated the BIA Road
Maintenance Program with Federal Highway Administration funds and
tribal timber roads in order to deliver even minimal services to the
Reservation residence. However, it is unlikely that the Tribe will be
financially capable of continuing our level of funding for this program
in future years. Additionally, there is a major capitalization need for
new road maintenance equipment since none of the Federal roads
equipment has not replaced since 1977. The annual estimated cost for
the BIA Hoopa Road Maintenance Program is $350,000-$450,000.
The Tribe supports an increase in the BIA's Road Maintenance
Program and requests an increase to the Hoopa Reservation Road
Maintenance Program of $100,000.
BIA--Endangered species funds.--The ESA has profound implications
for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. On the one hand, the Act potentially
provides the necessary leverage to alter poor land management practices
contributing to species decline; on the other, restrictions applied to
Tribal resource use, threaten the economy and rights of the Tribe.
It is well established that cultural, subsistence and threatened
and endangered wildlife and fish species that are important to tribes
are a Trust Resource with which the United States must protect. In
order to accomplish this, the Tribe's level of funding must be
increased to address both ESA species as well as other wildlife
management activities related to all wildlife species of concern to the
Tribe.
On April 25, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
declared the coho salmon of the southern Oregon and northern California
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) ``threatened'' as defined by ESA.
This action has a direct impact on the Tribe's access to the trust
fishery resources of the Trinity Basin. At the very least, this action
by NMFS will cause the Tribe to engage in a cumbersome bureaucratic and
technical process to legitimize harvest of coho.
This new burden to Tribal resource managers will require increased
budgets in order to fulfill our new legal requirements. Moreover,
immediate demands placed upon Tribal natural resources staff because of
the regulatory requirements of the ESA will ultimately impair the
ability of the Tribe to utilize trust resources. Long-term recovery of
ESA listed fish and wildlife species will necessitate development of
Tribal Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) and will require additional
staff.
Therefore, in order to meet the minimum survey level for marbled
murrelets, spotted owl monitoring effort, and address the new
requirements caused by the listing of coho salmon, the Tribe requests
$140,000 from the BIA ESA budget to pay for the increased obligations
to the Tribal Fisheries and Forestry Departments.
DOI--Office of the Special Trustee.--The Office of the Special
Trustee was established as a result of enactment of the American Indian
Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. As part of his task, in 1997,
the Special Trustee developed a Strategic Plan, in which he proposed
reform in the BIA's management of financial and trust assets held for
tribes and individual Indians.
The Tribe participated in many of the Special Trustee's
consultation meetings and made numerous recommended changes to the
proposed Strategic Plan with respect to trust resource management. None
of our recommendations have yet been incorporated into any revisions to
the Strategic Plan.
The Tribe believes that a key part of addressing the Federal
Government's trust management concerns is for tribes and the BIA to
formally establish management standards for trust resources that
incorporate the Tribe's interests and priorities along with the
responsibilities of the Federal Government. An important part of the
implementation of the trust management standards is to restructure the
BIA in a manner that would create a more responsive and effective
federal structure so as to promote cooperative partnerships with Indian
tribes.
Beginning in 1997, seven California Indian tribes, including Hoopa,
Yurok, Big Lagoon, Redding Rancheria, Cabazon, Karuk and Cahuilla and
the BIA Sacramento Area Office, agreed to participate in a California
Trust Reform Demonstration Project to implement the plan. The plan
includes developing agreements between the BIA and participating tribes
for management of trust resources, formally establishing mutually
acceptable trust management standards, streamlining the BIA
organizational and decision process for trust resources issues, and
conducting annual trust management evaluations to evaluate
implementation of the plan. The Special Trustee's Strategic Plan was
used as a guide for developing the components for the California Trust
Reform Demonstration Project.
The project approved by California Tribes as part of a California-
wide BIA restructuring plan. The seven tribes then submitted a ``638''
contract request to the Office of the Special Trustee for implementing
the plan. The funding amount for developing both tribal and Sacramento
Area Office capabilities for implementing the plan was $2.6 million.
However, despite language contained in the Special Trustee's Budget
Justification which suggested support for working with tribes and
entering into tribal self-determination agreements, on March 16, 1998,
the Special Trustee arbitrarily denied the contract.
The California Trust Reform Demonstration Project contains
effective methods for addressing most of the problems raised by the
Special Trustee with respect to the BIA's management of trust
resources. However, the Special Trustee denied our contract request
without comment, negotiation or consultation with our tribes.
Therefore, we request that the Subcommittee to designate $2.6 million
from the Special Trustee's budget for implementation of the California
Trust Reform Demonstration Project.
USFWS--Klamath River Fishery Restoration Program
The Klamath River is the second largest river system in California.
Like the Trinity River, its largest tributary, the Klamath River
fishery populations have undergone drastic reductions during the past
few decades. In recognition of the significance of the Klamath River
fishery stocks to the Pacific Westcoast economies, in the mid-1980's,
government agencies and fishery interests initiated an historic
negotiation process for allocated of the Klamath River fishery
resources among the fishery interests and spawning escapement needs.
The negotiations resulted in the development of an allocation agreement
which establish many of the management principles that are still
utilized today. In 1987, Congress formally enacted the Klamath River
Fishery Management Council, Task Force and Fishery Restoration Program
(Program). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was designated as
the agency responsible for its implementation. However, the USFWS has
only funded the Program at an amount of $1 million annually, which is
distributed between administrative and restoration activities. The
amount of annual funds appropriated for the Program has clearly been
determined to be inadequate to achieve even the most minimal fishery
restoration efforts.
The Tribe supports an increase of $2.5 million for the Klamath
River Fishery Restoration Program, and an additional $1.5 million for
the Yurok and Karuk Tribes and USFWS for administration and fulfillment
of the Federal Government trust responsibilities to the Klamath and
Trinity River Indian tribes.
USFWS--Proposed Pacific Southwest Regional Office.--The Tribe has
become aware of the proposal to create the Pacific Southwest Regional
Office in Sacramento, California. While we understand the rationale for
a Pacific Southwest Office for central and southern California and
Nevada issues, we do not support the transfer of Klamath and Trinity
River issues to this office. The Klamath and Trinity Rivers have a
distinctive relationship with the timber, fisheries and water issues of
the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, the proposed use of the California
border as the northerly jurisdictional boundary for the Pacific
Southwest Regional Office will severely handicap the managers of the
Klamath and Trinity Rivers by eliminating the ``basin-wide''
comprehensive management programs that we have worked for decades to
establish.
The USFWS has made not efforts to consult with the Klamath and
Trinity River tribes to determine how the Pacific Southwest Regional
Office will impact our water and fishery management efforts. We are
very concerned that the transfer of Klamath and Trinity River issues to
the proposed Pacific Southwest Regional Office will set back management
efforts on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers by several years. Therefore,
we request that the USFWS be directed to work with the Klamath and
Trinity River Indian tribes and address our concerns prior to moving
forward with the proposed transfer of Klamath and Trinity River issues
to the proposed Pacific Southwest Regional Office.
I would be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe, Lummi Indian Nation, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, Quinault
Indian Nation, and Sac and Fox Nation
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe,
Lummi Indian Nation, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, Quinault Indian
Nation and Sac and Fox Nation, we appreciate the opportunity to submit
the following testimony on the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
Health Service fiscal year 1999 Budgets:
Summary of testimony
Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls;
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services;
Provide $900,000 to DOI Office of Self-Governance (OSG) for
planning and negotiation grants; and, $500,000 respectively to the DOI
and IHS Self-Governance offices for additional FTE's and operations
expenses for field offices as appropriate;
Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
Governance Communication and Education Project;
Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs and $1.5 million for the
Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology;
Support for BIA and IHS Tribal Self-Governance Stable Recurring
Base Budgets;
Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
Secretary;
Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
Albuquerque, NM; and,
Support the funding transfer of IHS Facilities Improvements and
Maintenance from Seattle/Houston to IHS Area Offices.
Narrative for self-governance considerations
Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls.--Despite the
fact that contract support has been one of the very highest Tribal
priorities nationally, the Administration's budget fails to include
adequate funding for CSC. Current CSC shortfalls are estimated at $25
million in BIA and $137 million in unfunded CSC for fiscal year 1999,
alone.
The Self-Determination Policy has been effective in ending federal
domination of Indian communities and transferring governing
responsibilities and resources to local Tribal governments. CSC is an
important part of the federal resources transferred to Tribes under
self-determination and self-governance and supports vital and increased
managerial and administration functions essential to any government or
business.
Additional CSC appropriations are needed to implement the self-
determination and self-governance policy as supported by Congress
within the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Tribal interest in self-determination contracting and self-governance
compacting has escalated substantially since 1988, when the CSC funding
provisions were included in the Act. Based on an updated analysis on
``Determining the True Cost of Contracting Federal Programs for Indian
Tribes'' published in May 1997, findings support that Tribal indirect
cost rates have not increased significantly and are not the major cause
of CSC increases. The increases in CSC requirements are directly
related and reflective of this increase in new contracts/compacts.
Absent adequate CSC funds, there is little incentive for Tribal
governments to assume programs and services from the BIA or IHS if it
means immediately reducing services or being forced to use limited
Tribal funds.
As a secondary issue, we believe that for those Tribes that are
interested in negotiating and agreeing to a fixed contract support
amount, the BIA and IHS should support that Tribe's request. Obviously,
the inability to adequately predict in advance the amount of contract
support funds that are needed is the primary reason for deficits in the
contract support cost budgets. Therefore, it would be a major step
toward resolving this problem and toward achieving the Committee's goal
of addressing contract support funding shortfalls if stable contract
support agreements were to be agreed to between the BIA, IHS and
Tribes. Unfortunately, even though some of our Tribes have developed
fixed amount contract support agreements with either the BIA or IHS,
there has been some indication that some Federal officials may be
attempting to nullify these agreements and force Tribes back into the
deficit budget situation. We firmly stand behind our negotiated
agreements and expect the BIA and IHS to do the same.
It was a difficult and controversial process to obtain these
agreements in the first place. It would be unfortunate if a short-
sighted agenda of some Federal officials was allowed to undermine the
few contract support success stories that has been achieved between
Tribes and Federal agencies. Therefore, we request that the Committee
provide language that protects the fixed-amount contract support
agreements that presently exists between Indian Tribes and the BIA or
IHS and encourage the agencies to enter into similar agreements with
other Tribes.
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.--
Mandatory costs should be the first consideration in the budget
formulation process. These costs are unavoidable and include medical
and general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently construction
facilities. IHS and Tribal programs have been forced to absorb these
costs over the past seven years. In an analysis conducted by the
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the compounding affect of
multi-year funding shortfalls from (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1999)
have resulted in $1.2 billion in real resources lost. These costs
increases will result in further service reductions in health care if
not addressed.
Provide $900,000 to DOI Office of Self-Governance (OSG) for
planning and negotiation grants; and, $500,000 to DOI and IHS Self-
Governance offices for additional FTE's and operations expenses for
field offices as appropriate.--Both DOI and IHS have experienced
significant growth in tribes choosing to participate in Self-
Governance. The offices provide a critical role for the annual
negotiation of funding as well as the ongoing demonstration and
implementation efforts by Tribes. For BIA, 206 Tribes are now
participating in Self-Governance and for IHS, 239 Tribes. Funding is
needed to support the expanding responsibilities of these offices. In
addition, the fiscal year 1999 DOI budget does not provide for planning
or negotiation grants which are essential to Tribes' preliminary and
intermediate planning and actual negotiation requirements for Self-
Governance.
Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
Governance Communication and Education Project.--This project provides
essential educational and information sharing opportunities for all
Tribes participating in Self-Governance, Self-Governance Planning
Grants, Negotiation Grants, as well as for Tribes who choose not to
participate in Self-Governance. Funding supports communications and
information exchange between the Tribes, BIA and IHS, provides
coordination and logistical support for BIA and IHS workshops, training
for federal and tribal employees, and specific federal and Tribal
requests for information. The Project has played a major role in
providing for greater acceptance and understanding of Self-Governance
among Tribes and Federal agencies. We ask that the Committee provide
language that acknowledges the need to continue funding this project at
these levels for fiscal year 1999.
Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes.--We request for
the transfer of funding authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for approval and payments processes to effect a more
efficient distribution of funding to Self-Governance Tribes. Under the
present financial system of IHS, there are nine steps for approval,
eight steps for apportionment for payment, and eighteen steps to amend
and existing Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). Such an expensive and time
consuming bureaucratic system is not warranted when other streamlining
methods can be implemented. The Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
should be provided full authority for distribution of all funds
provided by IHS, including grants made under authority of the Balanced
Budget Act, that are made a part of and funded through the AFA to
participating Title III Tribes. We ask the Committee to consider
language which supports the transfer of authority to OTSG.
Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs and $1.5 million for the
Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology.--Although the
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes a $34
million increase over fiscal year 1998, the request does not include
costs for a general increase for TPA. The majority of Tribal services
are provided under TPA which fund a variety of social, welfare,
housing, education, economic development, law enforcement and natural
resource management, along with essential tribal governmental services.
TPA also provides Tribes the flexibility to prioritize their funding to
meet their individual goals and objectives within each respective
Indian community. In 1994, the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force
recommended TPA inflationary adjustments as a first priority. At a
minimum, the requested amount of $23 million will provide for a 3
percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services.
The increase is a small step in the direction of providing adequate
funding for critically needed Tribal programs. While there have been
small increases since TPA was drastically cut in fiscal year 1996, it
has yet to be restored to the fiscal year 1995 level. Additionally, we
are supportive of the establishment of a Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group
in its efforts to address funding inequities, unmet Tribal needs and
funding shortfall.
Support for BIA and IHS Tribal Self-Governance Stable Recurring
Base Budgets.--A major goal of the Self-Governance initiative is to
achieve stable base budgets for Tribes in order to maintain effective
and efficient Tribal governments. Tribal stable base budgets should
also include a proportional share of the Congressionally approved
inflationary and other adjustments to the BIA and IHS budgets. We are
concerned that Federal downsizing efforts of both the BIA and IHS may
result in attempts by these agencies to use inflationary and other
adjustments approved by Congress as a means of protecting their
internal operations by redirecting these funds away from Tribal
contracts and compacts.
Stable base budgets are one of the primary methods for Indian
Tribes to achieve economic self-sufficiency and maintain professional
staffs. It is important that the Congress send a clear message that
both the BIA and the IHS that one of their primary goals the priority
to provide Tribes with stable budgets upon which we can build strong
governmental structures. Therefore, we request that the Committee
include language in the BIA and the IHS budgets supporting the
establishment of Tribal stable based budget and to prohibit the BIA and
IHS from attempting to use Congressionally-approved inflationary and
other adjustment for their own internal purposes.
Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
Secretary.--Indian health is under represented within the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service should be
established as an Agency of the Department and the Director, IHS should
be elevated to Assistant Secretary in order to provide parity for
Indian health needs at the Department level. The fiscal year 1999 IHS
Budget clearly indicates that Indian health concerns have received low
priority in comparison to all other areas of the Department's budget.
In fiscal year 1998, the Secretary implemented a Tribal consultation
policy. The IHS Director fulfilled this policy by fully involving
Tribes in a consultative process regarding the fiscal year 1999 Budget.
However, the Director's and Tribes' health priorities were ignored at
the Departmental level. As a result, critical health needs were reduced
to fund Departmental initiatives that were not identified as a priority
by the Indian Health Service, Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee
or the National Indian Health Board. Such representation is vital to
ensuring appropriate Indian health advocacy among senior officials of
the Department.
Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
Albuquerque, N.M.--The BIA proposes to transfer funding for Operations
and Maintenance line item to the Facilities Management and Construction
Center (FMCC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This effort does not diminish
the bureaucracy, but simply transfers it to another location. Funding
should be transferred to the Area offices for a more equitable
distribution for all of the federal and tribal facilities maintained by
BIA and compacting/contracting Tribes.
Support the funding transfer of IHS Facilities Improvements and
Maintenance from Seattle/Houston to IHS Area Offices.--Presently, IHS
maintains an office in Seattle, Washington, and Dallas, Texas, to
provide engineering support for IHS facilities. IHS proposes to
transfer these functions and funding to Area offices. We support this
initiative.
In closing, we ask the Committee to give full consideration to our
requests. The six Tribes represented in this written testimony have
committed countless hours to promoting and enhancing the Tribal Self-
Governance initiative since its inception in 1988 because we believe in
Self-Governance and Self-Determination for Indian Tribes. We seek your
continued support for our efforts as well as the additional efforts put
forth by many other Tribal governments that have embraced the
principles and philosophy of Self-Governance and its importance towards
the sustainment of Tribal governmental authorities and
responsibilities.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman and Executive
Director, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I thank
you for the opportunity to express our concerns and requests regarding
the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service
budgets. The following document presents the Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe's funding priorities, as well as other regional and national
concerns and recommendations for your consideration.
Overall Recommendation
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe strongly recommends that the
Subcommittee not consider any provisions or legislative riders which
undermine Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
governmental capacity based on long-standing Federal/Tribal relations
and Federal Indian law and policy.
Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
$165,000 increase in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) plus full
funding of related contract support costs for restoration of the
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe BIA Self-Governance base budget (total of
$1,828,000);
$45,000 increase in IHS Services appropriations plus full funding
of related contract support costs for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe IHS
Self-Governance base budget (total of $920,000); and,
$600,000 one-time funding for the purchase of land adjacent to our
existing reservation.
Regional Requests and Recommendations
Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
Support technical correction of $185,000 for BIA Western
Washington-Boldt Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
funding shortfall;
Support BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation of
the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the Woods''
Initiative and the designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative;
Support BIA request of $1,000,000 for Forest Development,
Endangered Species Act initiative; and,
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
Provide $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 to both DOI and IHS Self-
Governance offices for additional FTE's for Field Offices as
appropriate;
Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
Provide $150,000 from BIA and $150,000 from IHS for Self-Governance
Communication and Education Project;
Provide increase for BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) funds
to address documented Tribal needs;
Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment and $1.5 million for
the Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology; and,
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.
Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
Increase In BIA--TPA For Jamestown S'Klallam Self-
Governance Base +$165,000
We are now in our eighth year of BIA Self-Governance implementation
and have successfully demonstrated that the concept of re-directing
resources based on local priorities and needs has resulted in more
effective use of those resources. At the Tribal level, these measurable
improvements include recorded increase in services to Tribal members
for education, housing, social and cultural resources and are
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
objectives which focus on program outcomes and budget justification. As
a result of Self-Governance, the Tribe re-prioritized funding to expand
economic development and address natural resources priorities.
Additionally, we have established our own Tribal Policies and
Procedures for implementation of the Welfare Assistance and Housing
Improvement programs.
The flexibilities afforded under Self-Governance and the
establishment of a formal Tribal budget process have allowed us to re-
prioritize and re-address our program needs and priorities. However,
since initiation of our first Self-Governance funding agreement in
1990, limited or no general increases to TPA funds have been added to
our Tribal base. In fact--in fiscal year 1996, TPA was drastically cut
and critical programs and services were severely impacted at the Tribal
level. Further, in fiscal year 1998, our proposed TPA general increase
negotiated by the Tribe was reduced by 67 percent ($73,000) as a result
of the final report and recommendations of the Federal/Tribal TPA Task
Force which was formed to address and develop recommendations for a
revised TPA distribution methodology. These reductions have severely
impacted our existing Tribal programs such as housing, social and
cultural services, education and other key governmental operations
which undermine the successes we have achieved to date through this
historic initiative.
Funding levels to TPA have yet to be restored to the fiscal year
1995 level. The small increases to TPA over the past several years have
not been adequate to keep pace with inflation, pay costs and increases
for population growth. The failure of the Administration to include a
general increase in overall TPA for fiscal year 1999, continues to
hinder our governments' ability to provide for the essential needs of
our Tribal communities. While we are supportive of the efforts that are
underway to address funding inequities, unmet Tribal needs and funding
shortfall; protection of existing Tribal base budgets and adjustments
for inflation are essential to preserve the purchasing power of overall
funding base amount and must remain a priority to promote strong and
stable Tribal governments.
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe requests the Subcommittee to direct
the BIA to increase our Self-Governance base budget to restore funding
levels to no less than the fiscal year 1995 enacted amounts. The base
amount for our Tribe includes an increase of $165,000 in TPA-Self-
Governance to our Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) amounts (including
associated increase in contract support costs) as originally negotiated
prior to the adjustment for actual Congressional reductions. Since
1993, we have negotiated a lump sum amount for contract support costs.
However, this lump sum amount has only been partially funded each year.
The inclusion of a negotiated lump sum amount for contract support
costs establishes a base amount for indirect costs associated with
those programs included in our AFA and provides protection and
stability for these funds. Our total base amount of $1,828,000 includes
full funding of contract support costs ($628,000) and represents the
level of funding needed to maintain our base for future stability.
Increase In IHS Services For Jamestown S'Klallam Self-
Governance Base +$45,000
We are now in our fifth year of implementation of Self-Governance
with the Indian Health Service. During that time, we have negotiated
for a majority of the IHS programs and services and have re-designed
our Tribal health services into a comprehensive Tribal managed care
program. As a small Tribe managing a new and innovative program, it is
critical that we maintain stable base funding levels to ensure
successful implementation of our managed care program and to provide
critical health care services to our members.
In fiscal year 1996, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe was one of only
two Self-Governance Tribes selected by the IHS to participate in a 3-
year ``pilot project'' allowing for the establishment of base funding
under Self-Governance. In fiscal year 1998, we successfully re-
confirmed our Annual Funding Agreement negotiations with the IHS on the
amounts, terms, and conditions for our Tribal base funding under this
pilot project. While the terms of our Tribal base amounts allow for us
to share equally in any inflationary cost increases and other
mandatories, the fiscal year 1999 IHS Services Appropriations budget
request by the Administration again fails to include adequate funding
for mandatories and inflation costs needed to maintain existing health
services. For fiscal year 1999, a total of $120 million is estimated in
``unfunded'' mandatory costs.
The Tribe requests the Subcommittee to direct IHS to restore
mandatories in order to address the rising cost of providing health
care services and to increase our Self-Governance base budget by
$45,000 to provide for adequate medical and general inflationary costs
needed to maintain our current Tribal health program. Consistent with
GPRA goals and objectives, we are currently in the process of
developing a 5-year plan for our Tribal Managed Care program including
financial projections and recommendations for improvements which are
results-oriented. Inflation is a real factor which negatively impacts
our Tribal budgets and service delivery capabilities. Based on our
analysis, inadequate IHS funding for mandatory costs will force the
Tribe to reduce benefits and/or limit eligibility for health services.
We are greatly alarmed regarding the failure of the Administration
to provide for additional funding for CSC in the IHS budget. The total
CSC shortfall for IHS is estimated at $137 million. This amount
includes shortfall for existing Tribal contracts and compacts. While
the Administration says that it is committed to the policy of Tribal
self-determination and self-governance, it's failure to provide any
increase for CSC essentially halts further progress or opportunity for
Tribes to assume and manage these programs. Our requested increase and
total base amount represents the level of funding needed to maintain
existing programs and services and includes full funding of contract
support.
Establishment of Tribal Land Base +$600,000
For the past 7 years, the Tribe has requested the Subcommittee's
assistance in securing additional land to add to our existing
reservation. This request has yet to be funded and we again appeal to
the Subcommittee for your consideration of funding for this land
acquisition. In the 1870's, Tribal members rejected a relocation policy
(urged on by white settlers) to move them from their historical lands
to another Tribe's reservation. In 1981, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
achieved federal recognition. Since that time, we have been attempting
to undo the effects of this injustice, which had devastating social,
economic, and cultural impacts for on the Tribe. We strongly believe
the United States government has an obligation to assist the Tribe in
correcting these negative impacts. One way this situation can be
addressed is for the Congress to assist us to increase on our meager
reservation land base; a base that would have been substantially larger
had it not been for the 100-year wait for our recognition.
A contiguous ten (10) acre site still remains available for
purchase at approximately $600,000. This land acquisition would allow
us to expand our facilities to meet the steadily increasing demand for
services by our Tribal members. Our Tribe is now at a critical juncture
in this rapidly evolving situation. Any further development of the
current Tribal facilities to meet expansion needs would be both
environmentally and practically unsound. Based on some projections
provided us by a local consultant, it will cost approximately
$3,000,000 to construct the facilities that will be needed for the
foreseeable future, given our rate of growth since our Federal
restoration. The Tribe is confident it can obtain the resources to
develop the facilities on the proposed site from a combination of
sources; i.e. donations, seeking philanthropic support, and Tribal
business revenues. We need Congressional assistance to purchase the
adjacent property which is essential for logical and efficient growth
management of the Tribal operations.
If the Tribe does not acquire the tract and a third party purchases
and develops the land, we will obviously be blocked from any further
practical expansion of our reservation base due to the geographic
conditions of this area. In addition, the likelihood of a price
escalation for this acreage exists. The seller's price has sharply
increased since 1985 due to the attractive conditions of our area and
population growth. The Tribe needs to act quickly to secure this
opportunity before it is lost to development or realty investment
speculation.
Regional Requests and Recommendations
Support request of additional $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington
Tribes and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) for Tribal
shellfish harvest management, enforcement and enhancement to implement
Tribal treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish
operations. This amount will help Tribes prepare for future shellfish
enhancement and harvest activities as well as implement established
Tribal/state agreements and other future cooperative management
considerations requiring additional tribal shellfish management
capabilities.
Support for technical correction of $185,000 for BIA Western
Washington-Boldt Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
funding to levels consistent with the previously identified levels as
directed by Subcommittee. During this past fiscal year, the BIA and the
Office of Self-Governance failed to fully restore these funds when
these were re-programmed from the TPA line. This error is a direct loss
of funding to the NWIFC.
Support for BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation
of the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the
Woods'' Initiative and designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative. We request that the
Subcommittee continue to provide $400,000 for the Washington Wild Stock
Restoration. The remaining $2.6 million from this initiative will allow
Tribes to conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration within
their usual and accustomed areas.
Support for BIA Resources Management request of $1,000,000 for
Endangered Species Act initiative. The ESA process has resulted in
significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices and has
placed new obligations upon us. This amount will be used to enhance
Northwest Tribal capacity to respond and meet these ESA process
obligations.
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes 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 $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 respectively to both DOI
and IHS Self-Governance offices for additional FTE's for Field Offices
as appropriate. The DOI and IHS Self-Governance offices are responsible
for the facilitation of the annual negotiation process and
implementation of the Self-Governance initiative within each of their
respective Departments. In fiscal year 1998, a total of $182 million in
funding has been obligated and transferred from the BIA to 206 Tribes
and $423 million in funding has been transferred from IHS to 239 Tribal
governments under Self-Governance. This funding is essential for the
management and administrative staff to facilitate this increase and
handle the addition in existing work load.
Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for implementation of approval, payment and award of all
Self-Governance funding to participating Tribes. The current system for
payment and approval of Self-Governance funds to participating Tribes
is unnecessarily bureaucratic, expensive and time-consuming. We,
therefore, request the Subcommittee to consider language in the
appropriations bill which would direct the IHS to identify and report
to Congress the total funding for Self-Governance Tribes and to
transfer such funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance, with
this Office being hereby granted full authority of distribution of all
funds provided by the IHS that are funded through Self-Governance
funding agreements.
Provide $300,000 as a base funding amount for the Self-Governance
Communication and Education Project. The purpose of this Project has
been to provide technical assistance and factual information about
Self-Governance. The Project is vital to ensure that Self-Governance
and its purposes are clearly understood and consistently developed by
participating Tribal governments, federal agency officials and non-
participating Tribes.
Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address
documented need. Despite the fact that contract support has been one of
the very highest Tribal priorities nationally, the Administration's
budget fails to include adequate funding for CSC. Additional CSC
appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
governance policy as supported by Congress. Absent adequate CSC funds,
there is little incentive for Tribal governments to assume programs and
services from the BIA or IHS if it means immediately reducing services
or being forced to use limited Tribal funds.
Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments and $1.5 million
for the Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology. Although the
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes a $34
million increase over fiscal year 1998, the 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. At a minimum, the requested amount will provide
for a modest 3 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal
programs and services.
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing 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 have been forced to absorb these costs over the past 7 years.
In an analysis conducted by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board, the compounding effect of multi-year funding shortfalls from
(fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1999) have resulted in $1.2 billion in
real resources lost. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in
further health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
In conclusion, we strongly recommend increased funding levels
within the BIA and IHS budgets for critically-needed existing programs.
It is truly unconscionable and outrageous for Tribal governments who
have struggled to secure decent housing, health care, and other
programs for its people to suffer further reductions in funding. This
funding is an obligation stemming from solemn commitments of the U.S.
to Indian people to provide basic health, safety, education and
economic security. We appreciate this Subcommittee's continued support
and urge that Tribal government operations be afforded the highest
priority in your appropriation decisions.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bennie J. Armstrong, Tribal Chairman,
Suquamish Tribe
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Bennie J.
Armstrong, and I am the appointed Chairman of the Squamish Indian
Tribe. As an appointee of only seven weeks, but a past elected Chairman
of the Tribe, I am honored to present oral testimony before you today.
And, if I do a good job, maybe next year I will be back to present,
once again, as the elected Leader of my Tribe.
Tribal priority requests
$200,000 for higher and adult education added to the Tribal
Priority Allocation Account;
$150,000 increase for Tribal Courts added to BIA/TPA Tribal Courts
account; and,
$1.8 million for the Suquamish Tribe to reacquire our ancestral
home at ``D'SUQ'WUB'' (place of clear salt water) added to the BIA Non-
recurring programs, Wildlife and Parks, Tribal/Agency Budget.
Regional priority requests
$185,000 Washington-Boldt Pacific Salmon Implementation and Pacific
Salmon Treaty Funding shortfall;
$1.95 million for Boldt case Tribes funding of shellfish operations
and maintenance of shellfish hatcheries;
$1 million for BIA resource management--Endangered Species Act
Initiative; and,
$3.1 million for Tribal Ecosystems management initiative to
establish a cooperative and coordinated monitoring and evaluation
program.
National priority requests
Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls;
Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
funded schools;
Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs;
Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs;
Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
programs;
Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
Governance Communication and Education Project; and,
Elevate the Director of IHS within HHS to an Assistant Secretary
Level.
The Suquamish Tribe is one of two Indian Reservations located in
Puget Sound, Northeastern Kitsap County, Washington. Established by the
Treaty of Point Elliott on January 22, 1855, the Suquamish Tribe is
situated on a large peninsula extending into Puget Sound that has been
affirmed by a Supreme Court ruling as ``Indian Country''.
Tribal priorities
$200,000: Higher and Adult Education added to the Tribal Priority
Allocation Account.--Requests by Suquamish tribal members for education
services of all types and employment counseling and services has
dramatically increased. In response, the Tribe has provided additional
services in a variety of areas. First, by providing daily
transportation of high risk students to a local alternative high
school. Second, by working with Northwest Indian College to provide an
on reservation GED program which has served over 45 community residents
this year. Third, by renovating old tribal and donated computers and
making them available to tribal member students. Fourth, by increasing
the tribal higher education budget by 200 percent from 1995 to 1997.
Assistance in the work and training area has doubled in the past
year from eight trainees in 1997 to a projected sixteen or more in
1998. In addition, the Tribe has provided training to 18 tribal members
to become divers to harvest shellfish. One tribal member was trained to
be an underwater welder and was immediately employed. In fact, the
current tribal coordinator for these programs started as a trainee in
the fall of 1996 and has progressed to the point of being able to
capably administer these programs. Funding from the BIA will train only
one or two individuals per year. More funds are needed to fulfill
requests from tribal members with employment training goals.
Higher education is of great concern to the Suquamish Tribal
Council. The number of students requesting higher education assistance
has nearly doubled in the past 18 months. In the Fall of 1996 there
were 16 students receiving assistance. In the Fall of 1997, 31 students
received assistance. It is anticipated that between 35 and 45 students
will request assistance in the fall of 1998. The BIA higher education
funding is sufficient to provide an average of $1,113 per year per
student based upon 31 students attending college. Obviously, this is a
totally inadequate amount for any student. Need is considered and
averages over $5,000 per student. To meet the projected need in fiscal
year 1999 would require at least $175,000 in additional funds. The
Tribe has increased the amount of tribal funds going into higher
education from $20,000 in 1996 to over $60,000 in 1997. Together with
the BIA funding, the amount available per student is approximately
$3,050; well short of the average need of $5,000 per student. The Tribe
does not have the resources to increase higher education funding beyond
the $60,000 level from tribal funds.
The Tribe will continue to support all education programs but
additional funds are needed to meet the needs of tribal members for
GED, higher education and job training services.
$150,000: Tribal Courts to BIA/TPA Account.--The Suquamish Tribal
Council has faced substantial increased costs in operation of both the
Tribal Court and Tribal Police Services. In addition, the Tribe and
Kitsap County have been working cooperatively on a number of issues and
have established a working relationship to assist one another in a
variety of law enforcement activities. For example, the Juvenile
Departments of the County and Tribe are working closely together in
diversion and probation activities for Indian youth and adults. The
Tribal Diversion/Probation Officer is now supervising County referred
offenders.
Another area of cooperation is in general law enforcement. County
and Tribal Officers assist each other in responding to a wide variety
of incidents. Jurisdiction of the County and Tribe on the Port Madison
Reservation, is very intricate and cooperation between the law
enforcement agencies is critical. In January of 1998, the Suquamish
Tribe hosted an historic government-to-government summit with Kitsap
County elected officials and law enforcement personnel.
There has been an increase in arrests and incidents reported by the
Tribal Police which has resulted in a substantial increase in the
Tribal Court caseload. Tribal Court cases increased from 150 in 1996 to
315 in 1997, or an increase of 110 percent in one year. Police calls on
the Suquamish Reservation for non-traffic offenses increased 21 percent
from 1996 to 1997 at a time when the rate of increase in Kitsap County
was 3.5 percent. Many of these calls involved non-native residents of
the reservation. Cooperation with the County Sheriff is critical to
effective law enforcement on the reservation because of the complicated
trust land ownership pattern and consequent jurisdiction issues
following therefrom.
Costs of providing law enforcement services has increased
considerably, doubling in the past five years. The Tribe has had to
increase salary of officers to retain properly trained commissioned
officers. The standards for officers hired by the Tribe is on a par
with the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office. All officers are academy
trained. Tribal officers are trained to know not only tribal laws, but
also Federal, State and County laws. Joint training with the County is
occurring as are meetings between supervisory staff and legal staff to
ensure a good working relationship.
Of great concern to the Tribe are incarceration costs. These costs
have increased from a few thousand dollars per year to over $50,000
annually. It is anticipated these costs will continue to increase and
the Tribe is considering building a jail since the nearest facility
available to take prisoners is over 65 miles away in Puyallup
Reservation. Just transporting a prisoner to jail takes nearly one
whole shift for an officer.
The Suquamish Tribe has found itself in a position of having to
take desperately needed tribal funds to support the Public Safety and
Tribal Court budgets. The funds received from the BIA are no longer
adequate to provide the minimum services needed to ensure community
safety.
$1.8 Million: Reacquire Ancestral Home ``D'SUB'WUB'' added to BIA
Wildlife and Parks, Tribes/Agency Budget.--Sometime between the years
1866 (the year Chief Sealth passed away) and 1872 under orders from the
government, William DeShaw, agent in charge of the Port Madison Indian
Reservation, moved the remaining families out of Old Man House and then
to ensure no further inhabitancy, dismantled and burned it. But since
this site was unalloted lands some tribal members built small homes on
the site and continued to live here until 1904 when the U.S. War
Department purchased the site for a fort to guard the watery entrance
to Port Orchard Bay, where the new Bremerton Navy Yard was located.
Many of the members opposed the sale, but the Army pressured the
Indians to sign, claiming that if the property was not used for
military purposes, it would be returned to the Tribe. On May 28, 1904,
an agreement was signed by the adult members of the Tribe, D'Suq'Wub
was vacated, and the Suquamish Tribe never returned.
We are requesting $700,000 in 1999 to fund the purchase of two
lots, that along with the state park make up the former site of Old Man
House, and $400,000 in 2000 to conduct an archaeological dig on this
site that was home to the Suquamish Tribe for Two Thousand Years. and
$700,000 in 2001 to construct a smaller replica of Old Man House to be
used as a interpretive center for the Tribal Members and the general
public, and as a gathering place for the tribe to relearn about their
culture and traditional ways of life.
Regional requests
Provide $185,000 for a technical correction of the Western
Washington-Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding
shortfall. In fiscal year 1998, the BIA and OSG failed to restore
$185,000 to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) as a
result of reprogramming trust resources to the TPA line item. The NWIFC
must be able to recoup the funds to perform ongoing trust resources on
behalf of Tribes for the Western Washington-Boldt case and U.S./Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations.
Additional funding to tribal programs are necessary to address these
needs. Western Washington tribes request an additional $1,950,000 be
added to tribal fisheries management contracts as permanent base
funding. This would provide basic infrastructure for each tribe of
$97,500. This would cover only the basic level of management and
enforcement needs.
Support for $1 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
Species initiative. As Tribes that are potentially impacted by the
proposed listing of pacific salmon under the terms of ESA, funds are
needed for biological review, listing decisions, conferencing,
consultation and recovery planning to prepare for the changes in
harvest, hatchery and habitat practices in response to the ESA process.
Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
Management initiative. This amount is needed to support the
coordination and cooperative monitoring effort by the Tribal co-
managers for the protection and restoration of salmon populations,
consistent with ESA, Clean Water Act, Natural Resource Conservation
Service's obligation for salmon recovery, and the Forest Service
obligations under the Northwest Forest Plan.
National requests
Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls. Contract
support continues to be a concern. The BIA still does not do an
adequate job of identifying the need for inclusion in the
Administration Budget. These funds are vital to Tribes to enable us to
continue to maintain our core government functions. We request that the
Committee require a report from the BIA which fully identifies the
need, and recognize the Intent of the Self-Determination Act and fully
fund Contract support.
Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
funded schools. While we support the Administration's significant
investment of $86.6 million for school construction for BIA, even with
the proposed increase, there is an estimated need of more than $800
million in BIA school facilities and repair. For Adult Education,
funding levels continue to be extremely low and is considered the most
poorly funded of all Indian education programs. Since DOE has
eliminated Adult Education, BIA must be funded at $4 million. For
Johnson O'Malley, we support the proposed increase in the fiscal year
1999 budget, however, the true need is $54 million and is especially
critical since there continues to be an annual increase in the number
of eligible Indian students attending public schools. The Indian
Student Equalization Program (ISEP) is far below the national average
per pupil expenditure of $7,371 for academic instruction in School Year
1998-99. $348 million is required to provide quality education to
Indian students on an even par basis with the national population.
Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs.
To date, no funds have been appropriated by Congress in support of the
Indian Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176) for enhancement and
improvement of tribal judicial systems. For fiscal year 1999, $11.2
million is requested for tribal courts in BIA and $10 million for the
Department of Justice. However, these amounts are not in keeping with
the $54 million authorized under the law.
Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs. It is extremely
important that we, at least, keep pace with inflation. Even with this
request, tribes are left underfunded when compared to other
jurisdictions. Although the Administration's budget request for fiscal
year 1999 includes a $34 million increase over fiscal year 1998, the
request does not include costs for a general increase for TPA. The
majority of Tribal services are provided under TPA which fund a variety
of social, welfare, housing, education, economic development, law
enforcement and natural resource management, along with essential
tribal governmental services. TPA also provides Tribes the flexibility
to prioritize their funding to meet their individual goals and
objectives within each respective Indian community. In 1994, the Joint
Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force recommended TPA inflationary adjustments as a
first priority. At a minimum, the requested amount of $23 million will
provide for a 3 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal
programs and services.
Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
programs. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Public Law 101-601), was to ensure Native American human remains and
sacred objected retained by federal, state, and local governments,
universities, and the museum community are returned to the appropriate
tribes and/or descendants. The law also provided for protection of
burial sites on tribal and federal lands. Despite a continual tribal
request of $10 million from fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1998, Congress
has appropriated only $2.6 million to date. The National Historic
Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665) is another law tribes rely on for
the protection of cultural and historic resources. Under the 1992
Amendments, Tribes could assume the responsibilities of State Historic
Preservation Offices. The Administration has requested $3 million,
however additional funding and resources are necessary to protect and
preserve Tribal culture.
Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes. We request the
transfer of funding authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for approval and payments processes to effect a more
efficient distribution of funding to Self-Governance Tribes. Under the
present financial system of IHS, there are nine steps for approval,
eight steps for apportionment for payment, and eighteen steps to amend
and existing Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). Such an expensive and time
consuming bureaucratic system is not warranted when other streamlining
methods can be implemented. The Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
should be provided full authority for distribution of all funds
provided by IHS, including grants made under authority of the Balanced
Budget Act, that are made a part of and funded through the AFA to
participating Title III Tribes. We ask the Committee to consider
language which supports the transfer of authority to OTSG.
Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
Governance Communication and Education Project. We support the
continued funding of the Self-Governance Communication and Education
Project. This project has been a valuable tool for promoting the
utilization of the Self-Governance model which has provided meaningful
improvements in Indian country without building or maintaining
bureaucracies.
Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
Secretary. Indian health is under represented within the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service should be
established as an Agency of the Department and the Director, IHS should
be elevated to Assistant Secretary in order to provide parity for
Indian health needs at the Department level.
In conclusion, I thank you for your consideration of our requests
and your continued support for Tribal governments.
______
Prepared Statement of Dave W. Whitener, Chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
Squaxin Island Tribe, I thank you for this opportunity to provide
testimony on the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
Health Service. The following concerns and recommendations of the
Squaxin Island Tribe are common, not only to us, but to Tribes both in
our region and throughout the nation.
summary of appropriation requests
Tribal Specific
Support for $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management.
Regional
Provide $185,000 for a technical correction of the Western
Washington-Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding
shortfall;
Support for $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal shellfish harvest
management, enforcement and enhancement to implement Tribal treaty
rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
Support for $1 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
Species initiative;
Support for $3 million BIA, Forest Development, Woodland
Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative and
from this amount a designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock
Restoration initiative; and,
Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
Management initiative.
Self-Governance and Other National Issues
Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls;
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services;
Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
Governance Communication and Education Project;
Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs;
Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
Secretary;
Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
Albuquerque, NM;
Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
funded schools;
Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs;
and,
Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
programs.
narrative summary of requests
Tribal specific
Support $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management. The
Squaxin Island Tribe was a plaintiff in the recent court case which
reaffirmed the Treaty rights of the Tribes in Washington State to
harvest 50 percent of the shellfish product, and to act as co-managers
of the shellfish resources. This involves management of both inter-
tidal and sub-tidal species of shellfish.
For the past two years, we have been expanding our management of
this very important resource to the Squaxin Island Tribe. Currently we
manage the resource for about 150 Tribal harvesters who harvest
shellfish for subsistence and commerce as has been the case since the
Treaty was signed in 1854. To date our expanded enhancement and
management efforts have been directly funded by Tribal dollars.
Once again, the appellate court has upheld the District Court's
decision, and strengthened the tribal claims. Our experience has shown
that in order to be an effective co-manager of this resource, we need
to be able to participate in management, enhancement, and enforcement
activities. As managers of this resource, we will need to continue to
expand our management capacity. This will involve specialized training
and equipment for our harvesters, our management staff, and our
enforcement staff.
Regional
Provide $185,000 for a technical correction of the Western
Washington-Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding
shortfall. In fiscal year 1998, the BIA and OSG failed to restore
$185,000 to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) as a
result of reprogramming trust resources to the TPA line item. The NWIFC
must be able to recoup the funds to perform ongoing trust resources on
behalf of Tribes for the Western Washington-Boldt case and U.S./Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations.
Additional funding to tribal programs are necessary to address these
needs. Western Washington tribes request an additional $1,950,000 be
added to tribal fisheries management contracts as permanent base
funding. This would provide basic infrastructure for each tribe of
$97,500. This would cover only the basic level of management and
enforcement needs.
Support for $1 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
Species initiative. As Tribes that are potentially impacted by the
proposed listing of pacific salmon under the terms of ESA, funds are
needed for biological review, listing decisions, conferencing,
consultation and recovery planning to prepare for the changes in
harvest, hatchery and habitat practices in response to the ESA process.
Support for $3 million BIA, Forest Development, Woodland
Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative and
from this amount a designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock
Restoration initiative. We support the BIA request of $3,000,000 for
continued implementation of the President's Northwest Forest
Development Plan, ``Job in the Woods'' Initiative and the designation
of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of Washington Wild Stock Restoration
Initiative (WSRI). WSRI is essential to developing a habitat inventory
base from which restorations projects can begin. This work will extend
the effectiveness of the limited funds for restoration by providing an
effective tool for prioritization and design of projects.
Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
Management initiative. This amount is needed to support the
coordination and cooperative monitoring effort by the Tribal co-
managers for the protection and restoration of salmon populations,
consistent with ESA, Clean Water Act, Natural Resource Conservation
Service's obligation for salmon recovery, and the Forest Service
obligations under the Northwest Forest Plan.
We support the requests and recommendations of the Northwest
Portland Area Indian Health Board, the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission, and the Northwest Intertribal Court System. These consortia
assist us in an efficient and cost effective manner, thus insuring the
tribes and the federal government that scarce funds are wisely managed.
Please consider their requests as you consider our individual
submissions.
self-governance and other national issues
Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls. Contract
support continues to be a concern. For the past several years the
Squaxin Island Tribe has offered testimony of the need to fund the full
amount of Contract Support needed in Indian Country. The BIA still does
not do an adequate job of identifying the need for inclusion in the
Administration Budget. These funds are vital to Tribes to enable us to
continue to maintain our core government functions. We request that the
Committee require a report from the BIA which fully identifies the
need, and recognize the Intent of the Self-Determination Act and fully
fund Contract support.
Contract Support Costs is one of the highest priorities of Tribes.
Current CSC shortfalls are estimated at $25 million for BIA and $137
million for IHS, excluding past years shortfalls. CSC is an important
part of the federal sources transferred to Tribes under self-
determination and self-governance which supports vital managerial and
administration functions essential to any government or business.
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.
Mandatory costs should be the first consideration in the budget
formulation process. These costs are unavoidable and include medical
and general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently construction
facilities. IHS and Tribal programs have been forced to absorb these
costs over the past seven years. In an analysis conducted by the
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the compounding affect of
multi-year funding shortfalls from (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1999)
have resulted in $1.2 billion in real resources lost. These costs
increases will result in further service reductions in health care if
not addressed.
We have since opened a new health facility, and are providing
expanded primary care to Tribal members. We are also providing dental
care, and contract health services from one very modern and accessible
facility. Our patient count has tripled, and continues to grow with new
and expanded outreach and educational programs. We were able to
accomplish this by creatively leveraging our funding to secure
financing with a long term loan. Even with this great report, we still
have concerns. The Indian Health Service has never been and is not now
funded at a level to meet the majority of the need in Indian Country.
Although the current budget includes an increase over the prior year,
if you examine the numbers more carefully, you will see that we are
losing ground. The percentage of increase does not take into account
that a conservative estimate of the medical inflation rate is about 5
percent and the average population increase in Indian Country is about
2.3 percent. Using these figures, it is estimated that an additional
$85 million would be needed in fiscal year 1999 to keep pace with
fiscal year 1998. We ask that the Committee take a serious look at the
dollars actually spent to address the medical needs of Indian people
today and as we move towards the next millennium. The quality of health
care in Indian Country, is at a minimum, an embarrassment when compared
to that received by others in this Country.
Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
Governance Communication and Education Project. We support the
continued funding of the Self-Governance Communication and Education
Project. This project has been a valuable tool for promoting the
utilization of the Self-Governance model which has provided meaningful
improvements in Indian country without building or maintaining
bureaucracies.
Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes. We request the
transfer of funding authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for approval and payments processes to effect a more
efficient distribution of funding to Self-Governance Tribes. Under the
present financial system of IHS, there are nine steps for approval,
eight steps for apportionment for payment, and eighteen steps to amend
and existing Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). Such an expensive and time
consuming bureaucratic system is not warranted when other streamlining
methods can be implemented. The Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
should be provided full authority for distribution of all funds
provided by IHS, including grants made under authority of the Balanced
Budget Act, that are made a part of and funded through the AFA to
participating Title III Tribes. We ask the Committee to consider
language which supports the transfer of authority to OTSG.
Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs. It is extremely
important that we, at least, keep pace with inflation. Even with this
request, tribes are left underfunded when compared to other
jurisdictions. Although the Administration's budget request for fiscal
year 1999 includes a $34 million increase over fiscal year 1998, the
request does not include costs for a general increase for TPA. The
majority of Tribal services are provided under TPA which fund a variety
of social, welfare, housing, education, economic development, law
enforcement and natural resource management, along with essential
tribal governmental services. TPA also provides Tribes the flexibility
to prioritize their funding to meet their individual goals and
objectives within each respective Indian community. In 1994, the Joint
Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force recommended TPA inflationary adjustments as a
first priority. At a minimum, the requested amount of $23 million will
provide for a 3 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal
programs and services.
We ask that this Subcommittee not be swayed by the few notable
success stories and not make decisions based on accounts by the media
of Indian gaming. When the discussions are drawn to need based funding,
we ask that you consider the needs of all Tribes, and recognize that
for the majority, we have historically been, and continue to be, in the
under-funded column of the equation. Reports show that while the
overall Federal spending has increased, actual spending for Tribal
programs has decreased when inflation and population growth is factored
into the total numbers.
Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
Secretary. Indian health is under represented within the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service should be
established as an Agency of the Department and the Director, IHS should
be elevated to Assistant Secretary in order to provide parity for
Indian health needs at the Department level.
Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC). The BIA
proposes to transfer funding for Operations and Maintenance line item
to the Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. This effort does not diminish the bureaucracy,
but simply transfers it to another location. Funding should be
transferred to the Area offices for a more equitable distribution for
all of the federal and tribal facilities maintained by BIA and
compacting/contracting Tribes.
Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
funded schools. While we support the Administration's significant
investment of $86.6 million for school construction for BIA, even with
the proposed increase, there is an estimated need of more than $800
million in BIA school facilities and repair. For Adult Education,
funding levels continue to be extremely low and is considered the most
poorly funded of all Indian education programs. Since DOE has
eliminated Adult Education, BIA must be funded at $4 million. For
Johnson O'Malley, we support the proposed increase in the fiscal year
1999 budget, however, the true need is $54 million and is especially
critical since there continues to be an annual increase in the number
of eligible Indian students attending public schools. The Indian
Student Equalization Program (ISEP) is far below the national average
per pupil expenditure of $7,371 for academic instruction in School Year
1998-99. $348 million is required to provide quality education to
Indian students on an even par basis with the national population.
Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs.
To date, no funds have been appropriated by Congress in support of the
Indian Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176) for enhancement and
improvement of tribal judicial systems. For fiscal year 1999, $11.2
million is requested for tribal courts in BIA and $10 million for the
Department of Justice. However, these amounts are not in keeping with
the $54 million authorized under the law.
Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
programs. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Public Law 101-601), was to ensure Native American human remains and
sacred objected retained by federal, state, and local governments,
universities, and the museum community are returned to the appropriate
tribes and/or descendants. The law also provided for protection of
burial sites on tribal and federal lands. Despite a continual tribal
request of $10 million from fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1998, Congress
has appropriated only $2.6 million to date. The National Historic
Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665) is another law tribes rely on for
the protection of cultural and historic resources. Under the 1992
Amendments, Tribes could assume the responsibilities of State Historic
Preservation Offices. The Administration has requested $3 million,
however additional funding and resources are necessary to protect and
preserve Tribal culture.
In closing, the Squaxin Island would like to emphasize the long
list of unmet needs that are evident throughout Indian country We are
doing everything we can to work with the limited resources available to
us. The health care of Indian people cannot remain at such a deplorable
level. We are entering the next millennium, yet Indian people remain as
the highest risk population in the Nation. On February 20, 1998, the
U.S. President announced a ``New Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Initiative''. Unfortunately, the Administration's initiative is
inconsistent with the priorities presented by Indian country under the
Secretary's consultation policy. Funding was removed from our hospitals
and clinics line items to provide funding for Departmental initiatives.
Thus, we look to this Committee to correct the gross negligence of our
consultative input on the part of the Administration.
The Committee's support for our requests is much appreciated and on
behalf of the Squaxin Island people, I thank you for your continued
efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of Henry Cagey, Chairman, Lummi Nation
My name is Henry Cagey, Chairman of the Lummi Nation. The Lummi
Nation, located on the northwest coastline of Washington State. The
Lummi Nation 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 the opportunity to express our
concerns and requests regarding the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian
Affairs ad Indian Health Service budgets. The following document
presents the Lummi Nation's funding priorities, as well as regional and
national concerns and recommendations for your consideration. Further,
Lummi Nation strongly opposes any Bill, language or legislative riders
which undermine Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
governmental responsibilities based on long-standing the government to
government relationship without consultation or formal hearings.
Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
+$14.6 million Emergency Replacement School Funding.--Provide BIA
FI&R Funding for Replacement School Construction funding to replace the
permanent school facility, earmarked for Lummi Nation students
consistent with Bureau of Indian Affairs Safety and Health standards,
for a population of 650 students.
+$1,300,000 To Support Water Agreement in Principle.--Provide the
Lummi Nation with funding sufficient to support the final on-
reservation water agreement The Lummi Nation does not receive any BIA
Water Resource funds through its Self-Governance Annual Funding
Agreement on a recurring basis.
+$750,000. Water and Sewer Infrastructure Planning.--Provide the
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with funds earmarked to
support the planning of water delivery and sewage extraction system
projects and roads system development to enable the continuing orderly
development of the Lummi Indian Reservation.
+$350,000. Increase to Lummi Nation Hatchery Recurring Program.--
Base to support the on-going operation of the Tribal Shellfish Hatchery
consistent with the expansion of the Boldt Decision to shellfish.
Tribal-specific Appropriation Summaries, Justification and
Recommendations
Emergency Need Lummi Students Need for a Replacement Tribal School:
+$14.6 million.--There are 254 Tribal students now attending Tribal
school at a temporary facility that was designed to accommodate 120
students. We will have 59 students next year at the high school level
without a facility. This situation has escalated from an emergency
problem to a crisis situation through the in-action of the Bureau to
address the need for permanent facilities. Since 1989, our Tribal
student enrollment has increased by 66 percent from 120 to 211 with a
projected future enrollment of 650 in 2000. There are nearly 1,600
Lummi youth of school age, most of whom have expressed an interest in
attending Lummi Nation Schools. Approximately 70 percent of Lummi youth
still drop out of public school prior to graduation. A 1997 facility
review by the Bureau, discovered numerous structural deficiencies which
impact the safety and health status of students.
--Recommendation: Direct the Bureau to Restore Priority Listing of
Lummi Nation Replacement School.--Bureau Educational Staff have
persistently denied the request of Lummi Nation to treat its
replacement school request as an emergency school replacement
under the Facilities Improvement and Repair Program and not as
a request for new school construction funding. We ask the
Committee to direct the Bureau Education Staff to restore the
priority listing of the Lummi Nation on the National Facilities
Improvement and Repair and swiftly proceed to process this long
over due project.
--Recommendation: Direct the Bureau to Work with Tribes to Develop
Alternative School Construction Financing Methods.--The Lummi
Nation is willing to explore alternatives school construction
which involves more State, local and private financial
resources in the financing of Tribal school facilities. Other
Tribal governments effectively locked out of the Bureau School
Finance System would be willing to join in this effort. We ask
the Committee to direct the Office of Indian Education Programs
to enter such a planning process leading to the development of
school construction financing process which maximizes the
benefits to Indian children. For the Lummi Nation, a relatively
small amount of Bureau funds, could provide critical gap
financing which would enable the Lummi Nation to fund the
construction of a much needed school facility with State local
and private financial resources.
Funding to Support Water Agreement in Principle: +$1.3 million.--
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 on-
Reservation water rights conflicts resulting through disregard of
treaty-reserved water and fishing rights in the Nooksack River
Watershed. Many difficult issues remain to be resolved which will
require significant technical studies and legal consultation before a
final agreement can be signed. To complete this work the Lummi Nation
has determined, based on its considerable experience in this area, that
it will need $1.3 million during fiscal 1999. $300,000 to defray legal
consultation costs, $400,000. For on-Reservation technical studies,
$600,000 for technical studies in the Nooksack River Basin.
--Recommendation: Direct the Bureau to Fund Lummi Nation Water
Agreement Technical Studies.--The Lummi Nation requests an
increase of $1.3 million in BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Trust
Services, Water Rights, Negotiation/Litigation earmarked for
the Lummi Nation.
Increase to Lummi Nation Hatchery Recurring Program Base:
+$350,000.--To support the on-going operation of the Lummi Nation
Tribal Shellfish Hatchery consistent with the expansion of the Boldt
Decision to shellfish. In order to include the Lummi Nation Shellfish
Hatchery. The development of this hatchery was accomplished by the
Lummi Nation and a variety of funding agencies. The Hatchery is fully
operational and supplies oyster and clam seed to most northwest
Washington Tribes. The funding received from annual sales of $80,000
reduces the annual operating costs of the Hatchery.
--Recommendation: Provide Lummi Shellfish Hatchery with Recurring
Base Operational Funding.--The Lummi Nation is seeking on-going
operational funds from the Bureau's Hatchery Operation Program
and inclusion of the Shellfish Hatchery in the Bureau's
Hatchery Maintenance and Repair Program for on-going and
scheduled maintenance and repair. In order to secure this
funding the Lummi Nation is requesting that the Bureau receive
an increase in this line item, earmarked for the Lummi Nation
Shellfish Hatchery.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure Development Planning: +$750,000.--
The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 7,000 persons
which has pushed water and sewer systems capacities to their limit.
Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the existing
population. In the short term water and sewer systems re-design and
upgrades will handle the problem. However, the long term solution must
include additional treatment capacity and water source location and
development. Substantial investments like these require substantial
planning. The Lummi Nation is not ale to undertake this level of
planning without the assistance requested herein.
--Recommendation: Direct HIS/OEHE to Fund Lummi Nation Need for Water
and Sewer System Planning.--Provide the IHS Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program with funds earmarked to support
the planning of water delivery and sewage treatment system
infrastructure for the existing and projected population of the
Lummi Indian Reservation.
Regional Requests and Recommendations
Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
Support technical correction of $185,000 for BIA Western
Washington-Boldt Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
funding shortfall;
Support for BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation
of the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the
Woods'' Initiative and the designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State
of Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative;
Support for BIA Forest Development, Endangered Species Act
initiative of $1,000,000; and,
Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Regional Request Summaries and Recommendations
Support request of additional $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington
Tribes and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal
shellfish harvest management, enforcement and enhancement to implement
Tribal treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish
operations. As Tribal shellfish programs continue to develop and
expand, other issues affecting shellfish resources have been
identified, such as the need for additional data and technical
information. The Western Washington Tribes need financial support to
establish basic shellfish management capabilities that compliment their
existing management programs. This additional amount will help Tribes
prepare for future shellfish enhancement and harvest activities as well
as implement established tribal/state agreements and other future
cooperative management considerations requiring additional tribal
shellfish management capabilities.
Support for technical correction of BIA Western Washington-Boldt
Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty funding to levels
consistent with the previously identified levels as directed by
Subcommittee. During this past fiscal year, the BIA and the Office of
Self-Governance failed to fully restore these funds when these were re-
programmed from the TPA line. This error is a direct loss of funding to
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) at a time when we can
ill afford further budget reductions. For the past three years, we have
witnessed a direct attack on Tribal Self-Governance; and in the
process, Indian natural resource management has been unfairly affected.
While the NWIFC has shared in funding shortfalls, they are unwilling to
be disproportionately affected. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
maintain Trust, TPA and Self-Governance program funding.
Support for BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation
of the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the
Woods'' Initiative and designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative. We request that the
Subcommittee continue to provide $400,000 joint Tribal-State of
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland Management; Northwest Forest Plan
``Jobs in the Woods'' Initiative, requested by the Administration at $3
million. This program is essential for development of a habitat
inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. This approach
would be identical to that taken last year which the Subcommittee
supported. The remaining $2.6 million from this initiative will allow
Tribes to conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration in
watersheds within their usual and accustomed areas. These funds will
help restore critical salmon streams.
Support for BIA Resources Management request of $1,000,000 for
Endangered Species Act initiative. Tribes have worked very hard over
the years to bring about positive and effective change in resource
management. However, the ESA process has resulted in significant
changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices and has placed new
obligations upon us. This amount will be used to enhance Tribal
capacity to respond and meet these ESA process obligations.
We continue 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 $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 to both DOI and IHS Self-
Governance offices for additional Ft.'s for Field Offices as
appropriate;
Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
Support for Increased Funding for Bureau Real Estate and Trust
Function;
Provide $150,000 from BIA and $150,000 from IHS for Self-Governance
Communication and Education Project;
Provide increase for BIA and IHS Contract Support funds to address
documented Tribal needs;
Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflation; and,
Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.
Summaries Self-governance and Other National Considerations
Provide $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 respectively to both DOI
and IHS Self-Governance offices for additional FTE's for Field Offices
as appropriate. The DOI and IHS Self-Governance offices are responsible
for the facilitation of the annual negotiation process and
implementation of the Self-Governance initiative within the Department.
In fiscal year 1998, a total of $182 million in funding has been
obligated and transferred from the BIA to 206 Tribes and $423 million
in funding has been transferred from IHS to 239 Tribal governments
under Self-Governance.
Support for Increased Funding for Bureau Real Estate and Trust
Services; Land The Lummi Nation Supports increased funding for Bureau
Land Records Improvement Program and Probate Backlog and its efforts to
address the fractionated heirship. We hold real estate services as a
sacred trust to our people. Therefore the Lummi Nation has assumed the
management of the Bureau Real Estate Services under the Self-Governance
Initiative.
Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance for implementation of approval, payment and award of all
Self-Governance funding to participating Tribes.
Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Funds to address documented
need. We request that the Subcommittee directs the BIA and IHS to begin
the process to identify actual need in future budgets and accurately
report shortfall amounts. Despite the fact that contract support has
been one of the very highest priorities nationally, the BIA has
historically failed to adequately identify, measure and report the need
and justification for these funds. Because the BIA has never fully
funded contract support costs, Tribes are forced to absorb these costs
within existing programs thus reducing direct services. The Tribes only
other option is to use very limited Tribal funds. For the Lummi Nation
the lack of full funding for Contract Support has meant the loss of in
excess of $554,704 annually for the past 8 years. We are, therefore,
greatly alarmed regarding the failure of the Administration to provide
for additional funding for CSC in the IHS budget. The total CSC
shortfall for IHS is estimated at $137 million. This amount includes
CSC shortfall for existing Tribal contracts and compacts. While the
Administration says that it is committed to the policy of Tribal self-
determination and self-governance, it's failure to provide any increase
for CSC essentially halts further progress or opportunity for Tribes to
assume and manage these programs.
Provide $300,000 as a base funding amount for the Self-Governance
Communication and Education Project. The purpose of this Project has
been to provide technical assistance and factual information about
Self-Governance and to create an open atmosphere where this concept can
be discussed, debated and developed by Tribal and Federal officials.
The Project is vital to ensure that Self-Governance and its purposes
are clearly understood and consistently developed by participating
Tribal governments, federal agency officials and non-participating
Tribes. With the anticipated increase in participating Tribes and
expansion of Self-Governance to other federal agencies and program,
continued funding is needed to provide these communication and
education efforts.
Finally, we strongly recommend restoration of funding levels within
the Bureau budget for critically-needed existing programs. We have
faced generations of paternalism, yet we remain at the bottom of the
list in almost every measurable economic category and we have been
enduring some of the worst living conditions in the United States. This
funding is an obligation which stems from solemn commitments of the
United States to Indian people to provide basic health, safety,
education and economic security. We appreciate this Subcommittee's
continued support and urge that Tribal government operations be
afforded the highest priority in your appropriation decisions.
The Lummi Nation, as one of the first tribe involved the
development of the Self-Governance Initiative, would like to remind the
Sub-Committee members that 1998 marks the 10th year of successful
implementation of the Self-Governance Initiative. However, a decade of
increasing success is not enough. We want to continue on this path
towards empowerment into the new millennium. This Sub-Committee's
continued support and understanding of the Self-governance initiative
is critical to Tribal successes. Self-governance is a permanent part of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Shortly, the Congress will be considering
legislation to make Self-Governance a permanent part of the Department
of Health and Human Services. We urge your support for this
legislation. While every Tribal government is not ready for Self-
governance at this time, it is the goal of all Tribes to become more
self-governing as their capabilities increase consistent with the needs
of their people. The Self-governance initiative is designed to provide
this option to Tribes when and if the people through their governments
determine it is appropriate.
I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 1999 requests
and recommendation of appropriations for the BIA/IHS, on behalf of the
Lummi Nation. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Rainwater, President, Ketchikan Indian
Corp.
Introduction.--Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
on the fiscal year 1999 budget request for both the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and for the Indian Health Service (IHS). Ketchikan Indian
Corporation is a federally-recognized tribal government organized under
an Indian Reorganization Act (I.R.A.) constitution approved by the
Secretary of the Interior in 1940. We have more than 3,900 members. In
1976, we were one of the first Indian tribes to assume, under the newly
enacted Public Law 93-638, the tribal operation of programs run by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1993 Ketchikan joined with several other
Indian tribes in Alaska to be the first to participate in the BIA
Tribal Self-Governance demonstration program. Since then we have
managed our BIA-funded programs under self-governance authority for a
total of approximately $1.7 million each year.
With the increased flexibility and accountability accorded Indian
tribes under Tribal Self-Governance, Ketchikan has been able to
maximize the beneficial impact of these federal dollars at the local,
community level. As a result of Tribal Self-Governance, we have
strengthened our tribal administrative and management control systems.
Our Tribe is poised to assume more program and service
responsibilities. Our tribal members are excited about this new chapter
in our Tribe's history. We are experiencing a renaissance of our tribal
culture and a restoration of our self-sustaining tribal economy,
including the growth of tribal enterprises that provide employment
opportunities for tribal members and revenue for tribal governmental
programs. This increased tribal economic activity also has a direct and
positive impact on our neighboring non-Native communities in the
Ketchikan Borough because we are attracting dollars from outside our
area and are churning them in our local economy.
Supporting Local Tribal Health Self-Governance Authority.--We ask
this Subcommittee to ensure that nothing in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations act be allowed to inhibit our right as a relatively
large tribe to continue to run our own health programs under Pub. L.
93-638 (Self-Determination; Self-Governance). There are three reasons
for our request. First, the local control authorized by Pub. L. 93-638
permits greater cost efficiencies and maximizes the benefit of each
appropriated dollar. Second, the self-determination and self-
sufficiency fostered by Pub. L. 93-638 is the key to our future
survival as an Indian tribe. Third, any further disruption of our
health delivery will have negative impacts on the health of our patient
population.
Let me explain why these three concepts are so critical for KIC.
KIC began 1997 with two main objectives: (A) to build a new health
clinic facility in Ketchikan; and (B) to administer, under Public Law
93-638 authority, the delivery of federally-funded health care services
to KIC tribal members and other eligible Indians in the Ketchikan area.
KIC's initiative was opposed by the Southeast Alaska Regional Health
Corporation (SEARHC), a large non-profit health organization which has
administered these and other federal health care funds on behalf of
more than eighteen (18) Tribes in Southeast Alaska in previous years.
In October, 1997, after months of extremely difficult negotiations,
KIC ended up with an IHS Self-Governance agreement by which KIC
operates the Ketchikan clinic under a 12-month, $2.7 million annual
funding agreement to provide health clinic services. Our tribally
operated KIC health clinic now employs 40 professional, technical, and
clerical staff in support of acute and chronic medical, and dental
services. It also provides social services for our clients who need
counseling and referral services. In addition to providing acute
medical services, our clinic provides essential preventive services,
such as cancer screening, TB screening, prenatal care, and health
education. Our patients include those Indians and Alaska Native
residing in the Ketchikan area; our active user population is
approximately 5,500.
Last October, the Congress adopted a provision which required IHS
to have only one tribal contract or compact in effect within the
Ketchikan Gateway Borough in the future.\1\ To comply with this new
law, KIC recently submitted a competitive application to IHS to be the
one compact or contract in the Borough for fiscal year 1999. At the
same time, KIC has also been the subject of a GAO review of our health
operations. The GAO conducted a site visit at our clinic less than
three months after we started running our clinic under strenuous start-
up conditions. We asked the GAO to return after we had a few more
months of patient data on hand to show how efficient is our operation.
The GAO declined. Despite the challenges posed by our sudden start-up,
we believe any fair review of our performance will show that we are
delivering quality health care in a cost-efficient manner. Local
control over program decision-making in our vast region of Alaska leads
to greater cost efficiencies. In this case, local or tribal control
means our patient population gets more bang for the buck. We believe
our proposal, now pending with the IHS, will be awarded on the merits
of our performance thus far in fiscal year 1998. If we are awarded the
single contract by IHS, the Organized Village of Saxman, a tribe of
several hundred members also located in the Ketchikan Borough, has
indicated it will support KIC's application to serve Saxman members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``* * * in awarding the contract or compact, the Secretary
shall take into consideration--(1) the ability and experience of the
applicant; (2) the potential for the applicant to acquire and develop
the necessary ability; and (3) the potential for growth in the health
care needs of the covered borough.'' Section 203(b), Pub. L. 105-143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacing Our Health Clinic Facility.--We are not asking the
Subcommittee to provide construction funding for our new clinic
facility. We have arranged separate financing. With the new clinic in
mind, our congressional delegation assisted KIC in gaining title to a
closed Coast Guard facility site within the city of Ketchikan. We may
now either sell or swap that site in exchange for another clinic site.
We have commissioned the development of plans for the construction of a
new health clinic. Our health service delivery needs have outgrown our
antiquated health facility. We will keep the Subcommittee apprised of
our developing plans which should have no impact on Federal
construction obligations.
Why We Have Assumed Local Self-Governance Control of Our Clinic.--
As we were developing plans for a new facility, our Tribal Council
began to hear growing complaints from our membership about the
difficulties they had receiving dependable and quality services from
SEARHC, a relatively large non-profit health organization that has
operated our Ketchikan clinic under contract with IHS for a number
years. The non-responsive inefficiencies of a decision-making process
of SEARHC's large organization located far from the field of service
began to draw increasing criticism from clinic patients. Our tribal
leadership tried to sensitize SEARHC to the problems, but with little
success. Finally, in July, 1996 our Tribal Council heeded the call of
its membership and submitted a Public Law 93-638 application to the IHS
to assume the management of KIC's portion of the clinic. Our rationale?
To improve the quantity and quality of health care by assuming local
control and responsibility for the operation of local programs.
On April 24, 1997, the IHS approved a proposal for dividing up the
funds between KIC and SEARHC, and a plan for some joint management by
KIC and SEARHC of the Ketchikan clinic. In the self-governance
agreement signed by IHS in May, 1997, KIC's assumption of clinic
operations was to begin on October 1, 1997. SEARHC subsequently wrote
IHS on June 17, 1997 to announce it had decided to abandon the
agreement for joint management with KIC and instead proposed to divide
the old program into two clinics, one managed by KIC to serve KIC
members, and one managed by SEARHC to serve Saxman and other small
Tribes in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Consequently, KIC was forced
to endure painful negotiations with SEARHC throughout the summer of
1997 over the question of how to divide up one clinic into two
operations, one large KIC clinic and one smaller SEARHC clinic.
During these negotiations, appropriations rider language was
proposed in the Senate which attempted to nullify our contract or
compact despite the fact that it had been signed and transition efforts
had begun. The proposed rider, which went through various changes and
was not finalized until the very beginning of the new fiscal year,
caused us great uncertainty. We did not know whether or not the United
States would uphold the agreement it had signed with us in June. We did
not know whether we should carry out preparations to operate a clinic,
hire professional medical staff, purchase supplies, and so forth. This
was a very difficult period for KIC. We got the final word that our
agreement would be honored just a few days before we had to open the
clinic in mid-October. We are proud of the fact that our clinic
operations opened smoothly. We are grateful for the clinic staff who
braved uncertainties to ensure that health services were delivered with
only minimal disruption throughout the period of transition.
For the first months of operation of the KIC Tribal Health Clinic,
our doctors and support staff worked very efficiently together,
managing to see a very high number of patients in comparison to the
number of patients seen in the clinic the previous year for the same
month. In dividing up the clinic operational funding, KIC was allocated
58 percent of the prior year's funding to provide health care for
Ketchikan residents, and SEARHC was allocated 42 percent of the funding
to serve other Indians, yet in November 1997 the KIC Tribal Health
Clinic saw 70 percent of the number of patients seen in November 1996.
In December 1997 the KIC Tribal Health Clinic saw 64 percent of the
number of patients seen in December 1996, and in the first five days of
January 1998 the KIC Tribal Health Clinic saw 82 percent of the number
of patients seen in the first five days of January 1997. KIC was aware
that our clinic would most likely be required to provide health care
for more than 58 percent of the total population but chose to take on
that great task to keep our health care services close to our community
and to be able to tailor our health programs to local needs.
Our pharmacist has performed well beyond the call of duty to
provide services to the Ketchikan patients. Due to the uncertainty
caused by the legislation, KIC has not been able to hire a second
pharmacist. During an eighteen day test period in December and January
the KIC Tribal Health Clinic pharmacist filled 60 percent of the number
of prescriptions filled in the same time period the previous year by
three pharmacists. The KIC Tribal Health Clinic pharmacist experienced
1,481 compared to 818 patient encounters per pharmacist the previous
year.
Health Objectives for Fiscal Year 1999.--We seek early assurance
that our continued operation of our health clinic is not disrupted or
made uncertain by changes in the law. We hope to remove, as soon as
possible, the uncertain, temporary nature of KIC's health service
delivery so that quality health services are not disrupted, so that
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998 are not wasted on startup and
shut down, and so that KIC can attract and retain qualified long-term
personnel to our clinic operations. We want quickly to turn to devoting
our full energies and focus to financing and constructing our new
clinic facility as soon as possible and to securing a fairer share of
the available IHS services dollars on a per patient basis.
IHS Services Funding.--KIC endorses the testimony of other Tribes
which decries the Clinton Administration's flat-line spending request
for Indian health services for fiscal year 1999. We cannot maintain the
same level of services next year with the same amount of service
dollars we received in fiscal year 1998. Inflationary and other cost
increases will make today's dollar worth less next year and we will, as
a result, have to cut back our health services to our members. We
implore this Subcommittee to add funds to the Administration's request
for health services.
BIA Contract Support Funds.--We share the concern of other Tribes
that settlement of the Ramah Navajo class action suit will result in a
court judgment that is hollow. As you know, KIC was part of the class
of plaintiffs who were joined by the Court in the case seeking damages
for administrative costs that the BIA unlawfully refused to pay during
the years 1989 through 1993. We are alarmed by reports that the Justice
Department, acting as the lawyers for the Interior Department, has
indicated it will seek to have the Judgment Fund reimbursed by Interior
appropriations for any damages paid to the Tribes. This would be
completely unfair to us. It would mean that the United States settles a
case, agrees to pay damages approved by a judge, and then later offsets
that payment of damages to Tribes with a reduction in other funds due
the Tribes. KIC requests that the Subcommittee instruct the Interior
Department in fiscal year 1999 bill language to not permit any
reduction in its discretionary funding to be made in order to satisfy
any judgment duly entered in a court of law regarding the Ramah case.
Conclusion.--We thank you for this opportunity to provide
testimony. Please do not hesitate to let me or my staff know if we can
provide any further information of value to the Subcommittee in its
deliberations
______
Prepared Statement of Curtis Zunigha, Chief, Tribal Council, Delaware
Tribe of Indians
The Delaware Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribal
government located in eastern Oklahoma, appreciates this opportunity to
provide written testimony to this Subcommittee on the President's
budget request for fiscal year 1999 funding for the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
We wish to address two main points. First, we want, in the
strongest terms, to urge the Subcommittee to adopt bill language which
would remove confusion created by an overly-broad fiscal year 1992
appropriations proviso that has placed our Tribe's authority to fully
administer federally-funded programs in some jeopardy. And second, we
want to thank this Subcommittee and the Congress for fully funding the
``new tribes'' account in fiscal year 1998. Your actions have had a
direct and positive impact on our Tribe. We have begun to accomplish
many things with our first year funding and ask that you fund the full
amount requested for the fiscal year 1999 ``new tribes'' account which
will provide us with our second of three years of funding.
background on the delaware tribe of indians
The Delaware Tribe of Indians has had a long and rich history of
relations with the United States. In 1778, the Delaware became the
first tribe to be granted recognition by the United States. By 1866,
most of the Delawares had moved from the northeastern U.S. to Kansas.
In 1866 our ancestors signed a treaty providing for their removal to
Oklahoma. Since 1866, the Delaware Tribe of Indians have continuously
maintained an elected tribal government in Bartlesville, Oklahoma and
engaged in direct, government-to-government relations with the United
States.
In the early 1970's, the Delaware became one of the first tribes to
contract with the BIA and the Indian Health Service, assuming tribal
administration of programs previously run by Federal bureaucrats. This
tribal initiative was in direct response to President Nixon's call for
Indian self-determination.
In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court expressly affirmed that the Delaware
Tribe of Indians of eastern Oklahoma has ``* * * maintained a distinct
group identity, and they are today, a federally recognized tribe.''
Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73, 77 (1977). In
the Ford Administration's brief, Interior Secretary Kleppe likewise
declared that the Delaware Tribe of Indians of eastern Oklahoma was a
``federally-recognized'' tribe.
Nevertheless, in 1979, an acting BIA Deputy Commissioner in the
Carter Administration issued a letter on behalf of the Cherokee Nation
of Oklahoma purporting to end the Delaware Tribe of Indians'
relationship with the United States. For the next 16 years, the BIA
refused to resolve the confusion it had caused about the Delaware Tribe
of Indians' status as a tribe.
That uncertainty has now ended. We are relieved to report that in
1996, after careful legal review by its Office of the Solicitor, the
Interior Department finally resolved the matter by expressly
reaffirming the Delaware Tribe of Indians (Eastern Oklahoma) as a
federally-recognized Indian tribe.
Nevertheless, some uncertainty lingers about the Delaware's
authority to administer some federally-funded programs because of an
overly-broad proviso added in 1991 by the conference committee to the
fiscal year 1992 Interior appropriations Act.
bill proviso language
In its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Administration has
proposed bill language governing the BIA which would replace the
ambiguous proviso to the fiscal year 1992 appropriations Act. The
Department of the Interior's position is that the 1992 proviso was
never intended to affect the Delaware. In addition, the Delaware Tribe
contends that the proviso should have been considered to be effective
only for fiscal year 1992. The ambiguity created by the 1992 proviso,
however, continues to raise questions and cause unnecessary delays in
the Delaware Tribe's efforts to administer our programs.
The fiscal year 1992 proviso said that-- ``* * * until such time as
legislation is enacted to the contrary, none of the funds appropriated
in this or any other Act for the benefit of Indians residing within the
jurisdictional service area of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma shall be
expended by other than the Cherokee Nation, nor shall any funds be used
to take land into trust within the boundaries of the original Cherokee
territory in Oklahoma without the consent of the Cherokee Nation.''
Many Delaware members reside within the Delaware Tribe's service
area which overlaps that of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. This is
not unusual throughout Indian Country.
In its proposed fiscal year 1993 bill, the Department recommended
that Congress not include the fiscal year 1992 proviso. Congress
agreed, and the proviso has not been reenacted in any of the
appropriations Acts since 1992. As far as the Delaware Tribe is
concerned, this should have ended the matter.
Nevertheless, confusion continues to reign within the Department
about whether the 1992 proviso is permanent law, and whether it applies
to the Delaware Tribe. The legislative history of the proviso makes it
clear that its sponsors intended it to resolve a dispute between the
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma, by making the Cherokee Nation the only tribe that would
receive Federal funding for Cherokee Indians in that area. The original
Senate bill language, and all of the related floor and report language
was concerned with the dispute between the Keetoowah Band of Cherokees
and the Cherokee Nation. The record does not reflect any intention to
restrict funding to the Delaware Tribe, nor does it even reference the
Delaware Tribe at all.
Continuing confusion about the meaning and impact of the 1992
proviso could disrupt our Tribe's orderly administration of its
federally-funded programs. Therefore, the Delaware Tribe of Indians
strongly urges the Subcommittee to include language in the fiscal year
1999 bill which conclusively and expressly repeals the 1992 proviso.\1\
If this is not possible, we ask you to include bill language which
conclusively and expressly exempts the Delaware Tribe of Indians from
the 1992 proviso,\2\ or to include the bill language proposed by the
Administration which would replace the 1992 proviso with a more
narrowly drawn limitation.\3\ Any of these alternatives is to be
preferred over the uncertainty that continues to be caused by the
confusion surrounding the fiscal year 1992 proviso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, we favor the following language: ``Provided
further, That the sixth proviso under this head in Public Law 102-154,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992 (105 Stat. 1004), is
hereby repealed.''
\2\ Alternative bill language exempting the Delaware Tribe of
Indians could read as follows-- ``Provided further, That nothing in the
sixth proviso under this head in Public Law 102-154, for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1992 (105 Stat. 1004), shall be construed to
apply to the Delaware Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribe in
eastern Oklahoma, or to affect in any way its eligibility to administer
federal funds and programs for the benefit of its members.''
\3\ The bill language proposed by the Administration is as
follows--``Provided further, That the sixth proviso under this head in
Public Law 102-154, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992 (105
Stat. 1004), is hereby amended to read as follows: Provided further,
That until such time as legislation is enacted to the contrary, no
funds shall be used to take land into trust within the boundaries of
the original Cherokee territory in Oklahoma without consultation with
the Cherokee Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``new tribes'' funding
In fiscal year 1998, the Congress appropriated the full amount of
funds requested by the Administration for the ``new tribes'' account.
The Delaware Tribe of Indians wishes to thank this Subcommittee for
supporting the ``new tribes'' funding in fiscal year 1998, and asks
that you fully fund the Administration's request for ``new tribes''
funding in fiscal year 1999.
Following its 1996 ruling which reaffirmed the status of the
Delaware Tribe of Indians as a tribal government, the Administration
sought ``new tribes'' funding for the Delaware after years of
uncertainty that had disrupted our earlier funding. While we are not a
``new'' tribe, our status has only recently been reaffirmed and we thus
qualify for funding under this account.
Since enactment of the fiscal year 1998 Act, our Tribe has
initiated plans to use the ``new tribes'' funding of $160,000 to revise
our existing tribal constitution, establish core governmental and
programmatic control systems, and administer service programs for the
benefit of our members.
The funds provided under the ``new tribes'' account in fiscal year
1998 have had a direct and positive impact on our Tribe. We have begun
to accomplish many things with our first year funding and ask that you
fund the full amount requested for the fiscal year 1999 ``new tribes''
account which will provide us with our second year of funding as
requested by the Department.
conclusion
We are proud of our government-to-government relationship with the
United States. We are striving to run our tribal government and deliver
tribal services in the most efficient manner possible. The fiscal year
1992 proviso has raised unnecessary uncertainties which frustrate our
efforts to maximize services to our members. We urge the Subcommittee
to adopt bill language which would remove the confusion created by an
overly-broad fiscal year 1992 appropriations proviso that has placed
our Tribe's authority to fully administer federally-funded programs in
some jeopardy. And we ask that you fund the full amount requested for
the fiscal year 1999 ``new tribes'' account which provides essential
funding to our tribal government. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Edward K. Thomas, President, Central Council of
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
introduction
Greetings from Alaska. My name is Edward K. Thomas, President of
the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
(Tlingit & Haida), a federally-recognized Indian tribe based in Juneau,
Alaska. I have served as President of my Tribe since 1984.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1999
appropriations request for the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). My testimony will focus on four main
areas of concern: indirect costs, Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA),
welfare reform and funding for the Office of Special Trustee.
Tlingit and Haida has 23,000 members and has been a self-governance
Tribe since fiscal year 1993. We were among the first self-governance
tribes in the Juneau Area, which covers nearly all of Alaska. We were
the first Tribe to enter into a multi-agency agreement under Public Law
103-477, which allows us to consolidate employment and training funding
from various federal sources into one coordinated tribal program. Many
of our Native communities are pockets of high unemployment and many of
our individual members are quite poor. Many of our members live with
conditions most Americans would find shocking.
1998 appropriations
Let me begin by thanking Congress, and particularly this
Subcommittee, for the support it gave to increased Indian funding in
fiscal year 1998. That resulted in $757.4 million for the TPA account,
an increase of a little more than one percent ($76.5 million) over the
amount provided for the TPA account in fiscal year 1997. After fixed
costs and special distributions necessary to bring each small and needy
tribe up to a minimum floor of annual TPA funding of $160,000,
approximately $23.6 million remains available as a general increase to
the TPA account in the fiscal year 1998 Department of the Interior
Appropriations Act.
For far too long, small and needy tribes have had to ``make do''
with funding levels too small to provide meaningful governmental
services to their tribal members. In response, the 1994 Reorganization
Task Force recommended that TPA increases be applied, as a priority, to
bring small and needy tribes up to a minimum annual level of funding.
The Reorganization Task Force determined that the minimum floor should
be $160,000 per tribe in the Lower 48 states, and, in recognition of
the cost differentials and challenges unique to Alaska, $200,000 per
tribe in Alaska.
Many small tribes have not had enough resources even to open a
small office to conduct tribal business and provide much needed
services to their members. While we remain puzzled why Congress
overlooked the added costs associated with being located in Alaska, my
Tribe does commend the Congress for making sure that these small and
needy tribes for the first time obtained the minimum funding levels
which many of us have sought for years. We would encourage you to apply
any TPA increases in the fiscal year 1999 budget to ensure that small
and needy tribes in Alaska are raised to a minimum of $200,000 per
tribe.
indirect costs and the ramah navajo case
The Ramah Navajo class action case is in the final stages of
settlement. Our Tribe, like most other Tribes, was included by the
court in the class of plaintiffs who sought damages for administrative
costs that the BIA unlawfully refused to pay during the years 1989
through 1993. The amounts of damages have been identified for each
Tribe. But there is one major problem. The Justice Department, acting
as the litigation counsel for DOI, has refused to promise that it will
refrain from seeking to have the Judgment Fund reimbursed by DOI
appropriations for any damages paid to the Tribes. This is the height
of heavy-handed unfairness for the United States to admit in settlement
that it had unlawfully withheld funds from Tribes, to tell the court
that it has agreed to pay tribes for the funds they lost, and then to
offset that payment with a reduction in other funds due the Tribes.
Senators Campbell and Inouye have written to Attorney General Reno
asking that she ensure that no reimbursement for Judgment Funds paid
out to Tribes will be deducted from funds that would otherwise come to
Tribes through DOI appropriations. We ask that you likewise instruct
the DOI to not permit any reduction in its discretionary funding to be
made in order to satisfy any judgment duly entered in a court of law.
We suggest language be included in the general provisions of the bill
as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to reimburse the
Department of Justice for a judgment entered in the Ramah Navajo class
action suit.''
fiscal year 1999 tpa funding
Increases in the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) funding, and an
equitable distribution of increases to the TPA account, are of extreme
importance to my Tribe.
Increases Are Needed.--While we thank you for providing increases
in the past two fiscal years, they did not keep pace with even the low
rate of inflation that we have enjoyed in these years. And the needs
confronting our communities are so great, and the lack of basic
services is so painfully obvious, that we can only ask that this
Subcommittee make major TPA increases its top priority for fiscal year
1999 appropriations.
The American Indians and Alaska Natives residing within Alaska and
the BIA Juneau Area are scattered over a huge territory of land that
poses unique challenges for communication, governance, and the delivery
of essential services. Many Indians and Natives in Alaska suffer from
high rates of unemployment. Given the realities of weather and remote
geography, the cost to provide basic governmental services is much
higher in Alaska than in many other parts of America.
The needs of our membership tax to the limit the meager resources
of our tribal government. Our Tribe necessarily depends upon the
appropriations provided by the United States. Most of our essential
governmental services to our members are funded under the TPA account.
This is why TPA funds, and an equitable distribution of increases to
the TPA account, are of extreme importance to my Tribe.
Increases Should Be Distributed Equitably.--My Tribe strongly
objects to the short-term recommendation of the January 29, 1998, TPA
Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. The TPA Task Force's
recommended allocation of one-twelfth of the fiscal year 1998 TPA
increase to each of the 12 BIA Area Offices, without any variation
based on the relative need of tribes within each of those BIA Areas,
will cause even more inequity in the BIA funding system. We ask that
the Subcommittee take prompt action to urge the BIA to abandon this
approach before it makes the fiscal year 1998 distribution. And we
further request that the Subcommittee expressly require that the fiscal
year 1999 allocation of any TPA increases be targeted to Tribes whose
members have the greatest financial need as measured by rational
standards.
The numbers of Tribes and Indians, plus individual and tribal
``needs'' and conditions, vary tremendously from Area to Area. While
our Juneau Area has fewer Indians and Natives within its jurisdiction
than do many other BIA Areas, by nearly every known measure the Juneau
Area has some of the ``neediest'' Indians in terms of low income
levels, lack of access to employment and training opportunities, and
the unavailability of basic services.
The BIA has never implemented the 1994 Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal
Reorganization Task Force's recommendation to establish a Standard
Assessment Methodology by which to measure tribal needs based on
rational and measurable standards. Nevertheless, even without having a
well-developed, comprehensive Standard Assessment Methodology, there is
readily available data on a national level that could have been used by
the TPA Task Force as an alternative to arbitrarily dividing the
increase by 12. Factors could be used, such as the number of tribes,
unemployment rates, cost of living indexes, population, service
delivery area, and so forth, incorporating readily available data, to
create a simple allocation formula that begins to address the parity
gap among tribes. Some or all of these factors could be given varying
weights in preparing an allocation formula. One of the easiest to
derive and perhaps best indicators of relative need are the
unemployment statistics that are available for each Indian and Native
community in the ``Indian Service Population and Labor Force
Estimates'' maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
welfare reform
The 1995 Welfare Reform law provided an opportunity for the state
of Alaska to enter into a cooperative agreement with my Tribe to
provide Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) to Alaska Natives
in Southeast Alaska. This program invites states to provide matching
money for the administration by Tribes of this program. Last year
Alaska's governor requested some money (about half of what is needed)
from the legislature and the legislature funded about half of what the
governor requested. This means that my Tribe and other regional Native
organizations were not able to manage a ``Native'' TANF in Alaska this
past year. Our Native people are once again left out of opportunities
of getting referred to jobs through these programs and left out of
training opportunities associated with the ``welfare-to-work''
initiatives.
I am requesting that a $2 million pilot program be set up in states
where the state government is unwilling to work constructively with
Tribes. In this way, funds appropriated through the Department of the
Interior could be passed on to Tribes to be used as the administrative
match for Welfare Reform programs. This would go a long way to bridging
the gap between Tribes and states on Welfare Reform.
additional funding for the office of special trustee
The Interior Secretary has endorsed the latest version of the
strategic plan of the DOI Special Trustee for Indians. My Tribe fully
supports the Secretary's $42 million request for that Office. Although
we feel there is a need for more funding to do the job properly, the
$8.1 million added to last year's amount is a good start at the very
important job of managing tribal assets held in trust by the
Department. It is in everyone's best interest to get this very
important issue behind us.
Although the efforts of the Office of the Special Trustee are very
important, it is equally important that increased funding for his
efforts are not made at the expense of other important BIA and tribal
programs.
conclusion
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee,
for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of Central
Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and its
citizens. I wish you well as you do your work in this Congress and I
hope my comments are useful as you decide on these very important
issues.
______
Prepared Statement of Pearl Capoeman-Baller, President, Quinault Indian
Nation
summary--quinault indian nation requests: tribal priorities
Quinault Cultural Preservation Center (QCPC) +$300,000 National Park
Service: Historic Preservation Fund
The Nation supports the Administration's proposed $25 million for
grants to states, territories and Tribes. We renew our request to fund
construction and development of a Quinault Cultural Preservation Center
and Museum to preserve the cultural heritage of the Quinault people--a
nation which consists of 7 tribes. Through Self-Governance funding, a
small cultural program was developed, however, a facility is needed to
properly preserve, restore, catalogue and display artifacts and family
heirlooms and other archeological findings. Request a $300,000 earmark.
Senior Citizens Assisted-Living Program +250,000 IHS--Community Health
Program
As our elderly population increases, many of our senior citizens
are not receiving proper nutritional and health care. Our existing
Public Health/Community Health Program is unable to provide continuous
care due to lack of staffing and equipment and supplies. We are in
urgent need of 24-hour care for seniors in both villages on the
Reservation. We are requesting an earmark of $250,000 initial funding
and $150,000 on a recurring basis to establish a senior citizens
assisted-living program in the villages of Queets and Taholah.
requests and recommendations: national level
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS--Land Consolidation Project
We support the Indian Land Consolidation Project, proposed by the
Department at an initial funding level of $10 million. This program is
designed to address one of the crucial problems facing Indian Country
and the Department--consolidation of fractionated interests in Indian
lands. The Secretary and the Special Trustee both have pointed to this
problem as one where the costs to the government to not address the
problem greatly outweighs the cost to fix it. The Quinault Reservation
and the Quinault government is one of the worst examples of the
management and financial nightmare created by this problem. We urge the
Committee to fund this pilot project at the full amount requested.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE--Restore Indian Self-Determination Fund +$7.5
million
No new funding for contract support costs has been provided in
fiscal year 1999, thereby eliminating support for new and expanded
Public Law 93-638 contracting and compacting. With Contract Support
Costs shortfall of over $110 million, the rights of tribes to operate
programs provided for the benefit of their members will never be
realized. Congress should restore the 7.5 million Indian Self-
Determination Fund in the 1999 IHS Budget.
Provide Funding for Mandatory and Inflationary Cost Increases +$140
million
IHS has now had to absorb over $700 million in unfunded mandatory
cost increases over the past seven years. Congress should provide IHS
with an additional $140 million for mandatory and inflationary cost
increases to maintain current services in fiscal year 1999.
Restore Maintenance and Improvement Funds +14.2 million
The Administration has proposed a $4.2 million cut in Maintenance
and Improvement funds. Decreased funding in this area will certainly
jeopardize the investments in health care facilities nationwide. It is
imperative that the $4.2 million proposed cut be restored, and an
additional $10 million be added to address the backlog of maintenance
and improvement projects.
quinault indian nation: tribal priorities
BIA SELF-GOVERNANCE: Tribal Priority Allocations +$500,000 Public
Safety and Justice: Law Enforcement
Nation-wide, current funding levels only provide marginal levels of
law enforcement services. The Quinault Nation supports the joint
initiatives undertaken by the Office of Tribal Justice in the
Department of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The additional
funds will help address community law enforcement needs. However, these
services must include protection of reservation natural resources
because they are the foundation of our economy and the cultural
identity of our people and our sovereign status derive in large part
from the land.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: Construction: Courthouse Facility +$100,000
The Quinault Indian Nation court house has sustained considerable
damage in recent storms on the coast this past winter. Our court staff
have been working in cramped quarters and now they must work under
leaking roofs, falling ceilings and unstable flooring. We are
requesting partial funding of $100,000 for construction of a new court
house facility.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: Historic Preservation Fund +$300,000 Quinault
Cultural Preservation Center (QCPC)
We support the ``Save America's Treasures'' proposed program and
request a $300,000 earmark out of that fund to construct a Quinault
Cultural Preservation Center and Museum.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: Community Health Programs +$250,000 Senior
Citizens Assisted Living Program
Our Seniors are in urgent need of 24-hour care in both villages on
the Quinault Reservation. We request an earmark of $250,000 initial
funding and $150,000 on a recurring basis to establish a senior
citizens assisted-living program in the villages of Queets and Taholah.
BIA Self-Governance--Tribal Priority Allocations:
Support for an increase in the total TPA appropriation to ensure
that tribal programs are not diminished. Each year, the actual dollars
available to TPA has been decreased and inflationary costs have not
been considered. In a time of economic disparity between rural areas
and urban areas, the failure to keep pace with the actual funding needs
has caused a reduction in tribal services for all tribes.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: Fund Inflationary Costs +$15 million
Last year, the IHS received only a 2.2 percent increase over 1997
resulting in over $100 million in mandatory costs being unfunded. In
fiscal year 1997, Congress funded less than 50 percent of mandatory pay
increases, and no unavoidable inflationary cost increases, requiring
the Agency to absorb an additional $50 million. During fiscal year
1999, the proposed budget is only 1 percent over fiscal year 1998. The
repeated absorption of costs due to unfunded inflationary costs have
eroded tribal and agency budgets to the point of jeopardizing medical
care provided through Indian Health programs.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: Fund Mandatory Costs +$125 million
The Administration has proposed a flat budget for the Indian Health
Service (IHS) for fiscal year 1999. As a result every health program
faces a shortage of funds to covering mandatory, inflationary cost and
population growth increases. In the Northwest, where Indian health
programs must purchase all inpatient and specialty care from private
providers, it is particularly important that inflationary cost
increases for the Contract Health Services program be funded. In past
years, deferred medical and dental services in the Northwest have been
as much as $4 million annually. In order to prevent further erosion of
health services, we request an increase of $125 million to fund
mandatory costs in fiscal year 1999.
Elevation of the Indian Health Service Director
Earlier this year, S. 1770 was introduced by the Senator John
McCain. This bill would elevate the Director of the Indian Health
Service to the Assistant Secretary level within the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service is the largest
direct health care provider within the Department. Tribes look to the
Director of Indian Health Service to insure that issues unique to
Indian Country are taken into consideration when Department policy and
regulations are developed. To do this effectively, the Director needs
to report directly to the Secretary and serve on the top policy making
level within the Department.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert Guenthardt, Chairman, Little River Band of
Ottawa Indians of Michigan
This testimony provides the views of the Little River Band of
Ottawa Indians of Michigan on the President's Budget Request for fiscal
year 1999 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service.
The Little River Ottawa is a relatively small Tribe which was
restored and reaffirmed by Congress just three and a half year ago.
Because the Tribe's restoration Act was passed in September of 1994,
the Tribe did not receive funding in fiscal year 1995. Our first BIA
funding was received in fiscal year 1996 under the ``new tribes''
program. Unfortunately, because of a misunderstanding when the BIA made
its first budget estimate for my Tribe, we have been dramatically
underfunded in comparison to other Tribes in the Minneapolis Area,
including two Michigan Tribe which received federal recognition when we
did. This funding inequity has hindered the Little River Ottawa Tribe's
ability to fulfill the purposes of the ``new tribes'' program and, if
it continues, will seriously limit our ability to sustain even existing
programs, and that is the problem we are addressing today. We ask for
this Subcommittee's assistance in making sure the BIA corrects this
problem in fiscal year 1999. Specifically, we request that the
Committee either provide an add-on of $413,000 to the fiscal year 1998
enacted level or $355,500 to the fiscal year 1999 proposed amount for
the Tribe under the TPA account, or that the Committee direct the BIA
to make this money available to the Tribe out of regular TPA funding.
The Little River Ottawa Band is the political successor to nine
bands of the Grand River Ottawa people whose village sites were located
in what is now a nine-county area in Western Michigan. At one time,
these Grand River bands had reservations in the two northernmost
counties of tribal territory, namely Manistee and Mason. Now about 500
of the tribe's members currently reside in these two counties. Other
tribal members reside in urban areas, including Grand Rapids, Detroit
and Lansing. Most tribal members, however, continue to live near
traditional village sites in the nine-county area. Our membership now
totals 2,200. Unfortunately, when the BIA first contacted the Tribe to
get enrollment numbers for appropriations planning, tribal officials
misunderstood the nature of the request and provided the BIA with the
number of files then-approved, rather than projected enrollment, was
provided. As a result of this misunderstanding--confusion about
``actual'' enrollment versus ``projected'' enrollment--the Tribe's
appropriations were based on an enrollment of 650. This created a
funding inequity from which the Tribe is only beginning to recover. In
1996, the Tribe received $330,000 while Little Traverse and Pokagon,
which have enrollments only slightly higher than Little River, received
$1.2 million and $1.3 million respectively.
In fiscal year 1997, the Tribe's funding level was adjusted upwards
but as the following table indicates, in fiscal year 1998 the Tribe is
still funded at a rate significantly lower than similarly situated
Tribes in Michigan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Amount per
Tribe members Appropriation member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little River.................................................... 2,200 $671,000 $305
Little Traverse Band............................................ 2,428 1,242,000 511
Pokagon Potawatomi.............................................. 2,700 1,330,000 492
Grand Traverse Band............................................. 2,930 1,640,000 560
Bay Mills Community............................................. 1,143 723,000 632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of compacting problems with the State of Michigan, of the
five tribes listed in the table, only Bay Mills and Grand Traverse are
conducting gaming. Thus, Little River, like Little Traverse and
Pokagon, does not have gaming revenues to supplement federal
appropriations for tribal programs for its members.
Due to limited funding, the Tribe's recruitment of staff and
program development was slowed. With the federal funds it has received,
the Tribe has now hired a minimal core staff and has developed several
programs to address the service needs of tribal members. The Tribe has
established its Tribal Court, its governmental offices, a health clinic
and a community center and has begun to reacquire land within its
historic Reservations. Unfortunately, this progress may be short-lived.
Unless we have a funding increase of $413,000 in fiscal year 1999, the
Tribe will have to cut back or eliminate most of its programs.
Under a court-ordered settlement, the Tribe will also begin
negotiations to assume management responsibility for its reserved
Treaty fishing and hunting resources. The Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty
Fishery Management Authority (COTFMA) will be requesting additional
funding to allow the Little River Ottawa to have access to the same
resources as other treaty fishing Tribes.
To bring Little River up to a funding level comparable to that of
the other Tribes in the Minneapolis Area, including the Tribes who were
also restored in 1994, would require an additional $413,000. Without
this funding increase we will have to eliminate the following programs:
child welfare services ($10,800), social services ($48,360), higher
education grants and GED completion programs for 60 students
($134,000), vocational education ($14,500), Johnson-O'Malley supplement
for 140 children ($40,000), housing improvement for over 100 households
($70,000), Court Services ($50,400) and Law Enforcement ($61,249).
Without an increase, the Tribe will be faced with the Hobson's choice
of either eliminating all these critical services to Tribe members or
eliminating certain programs and some of the 15 BIA-funded staff
positions.
The Tribe believes this situation has reached a critical state. In
fact, and I do not say this lightly, our very survival as a tribal
government depends upon adequate funding provided to us by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs from appropriations made by the Congress. We thank
you for any help you can offer to ensure that our funding needs in
fiscal year 1999 will be met.
Thank you again for the opportunity to bring this important matter
to the attention of the Members of the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of David Old Bear, Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, Sac
and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
Introduction
Distinguished members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee,
thank you for giving our tribe the opportunity to present testimony
regarding the President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 as it
relates to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. My
name is David Old Bear Sr. In addition, I represent the Meskwaki
Nation, more commonly recognized by the federal government as the Sac
and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. Our tribe is located on the
Meskwaki Indian Settlement in Tama County, in the State of Iowa. Our
tribe does not reside on a reservation but on land that our tribe has
purchased through the years since 1857. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
has placed our land into trust status.
The Presidents Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget calls for a budget increase
of approximately $142.1 million over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We believe that the President's
request has taken a very positive step in reversing the decline in
funding for Indian programs that has been experienced since fiscal year
1996.
Of particular interest to us are the Tribal Priorities Allocations
(TPA). The Administrations budget includes a $34 million increase over
fiscal year 1998. It does not include a general increase for TPA. The
bulk of increases contained are for supporting the bureau's goal to
increase tribal operations of programs, to increase contract support
funds for ongoing contracts, and other new initiatives. Our tribe
depends on the Tribal Priorities Allocation to support our on-going
services at the tribal level for programs such as housing, road
maintenance, education, child welfare, and other tribal government
services. TPA gives us the flexibility to prioritize funds among these
programs according to our critical needs. The drastic cuts to the TPA
in fiscal year 1996 severely affected our tribal programs and services
as the allocations to our tribe were already at a funding level that
was inadequate to meet our needs. Our tribe has not had the opportunity
to benefit from other programs included in the TPA such as law
enforcement, general assistance, and economic development. Continued
decreases in TPA will only assure that we never will see the benefits
available from these programs and will serve to decrease the minimal
benefits that we enjoy now. We urge Congress to support the Presidents
requested TPA increase beyond its current enacted level.
Another major concern for our tribe is in the area of BIA
Construction funding. The President's budget request includes a $27
million increase over that enacted in fiscal year 1998. Over half of
the requested funding is for education construction. In all, $37.4
million is requested to complete three (3) facilities on the approved
priority list. Our Sac and Fox Settlement School is one of these
schools. Our original facility that was built in 1937 has structural
and code deficiencies that threaten student safety and are not adequate
to handle our rising student enrollment and it is not conducive to
learning. Funding for site preparation was appropriated in fiscal year
1998. Appropriations in fiscal year 1999 to complete the construction
and will bring closure to our 29 year quest to provide a safe, unique
and effective educational experience for our children. We also realize
that we are not the only tribe in the country who has the need for
educational facilities and urge Congress to support the President's
request for BIA construction projects.
In addition, in conjunction with the funding for Construction
funding for educational facilities we support the increase of $26.5
million over fiscal year 1998 for BIA School Operations. The education
of our children is dependent on funding from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The increases in student population in the bureau School
system coupled with decreases or no increases in funding drastically
impact the quality of education that can be offered at schools such as
ours. Our funding level is already at approximately half of the
national average per pupil expenditure. We urge Congress to join the
Administration in its commitment to address the educational needs of
tribes and support the President's request for fiscal year 1999 for all
Indian Educational programs.
This concludes the testimonial for the Sac and Fox Tribe of the
Mississippi in Iowa.
______
Prepared Statement of Gerald J. Jones, Tribal Chairman, Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe
Summary of Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal Priorities
Shellfish and Endangered Species Funds.--Request: $420,000 be added
for implementation of the U.S. v. Washington shellfish decision and for
salmon recovery efforts necessitated by Endangered Species Act listing
of salmon runs.
Law Enforcement.--Request: $240,000 be added to fund additional
police protection and to fund planning for a tribal jail facility.
Indirect Cost Funds.--Fully fund the BIA and IHS Contract Support
pool for funding tribal Indirect Costs, as required by law.
Indian Tribal Justice Act Appropriation.--Appropriate the funds
authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993.
Introduction
As Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe from Washington
State, I am submitting written testimony on behalf of my fellow elected
Tribal Council members and on behalf of our people. We appreciate this
opportunity to present testimony for the record on the fiscal year 1999
budgets of the BIA and IHS.
justification of port gamble s'klallam priorities: tribal level
Shellfish and Endangered Species Funds.--We are requesting $420,000
be added for the Tribe to implement the recent U.S. v. Washington
shellfish decision and the salmon recovery efforts necessitated by
Endangered Species Act listing of salmon runs.
Early this year, the Tribe's treaty right to harvest shellfish was
reaffirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Tribe
still cannot exercise this right unless it provides for the management
and protection of the shellfish resource. The court decision requires
the Tribe to collect and analyze data, conduct resource assessments,
take measures to ensure the protection of public health and develop
management plans with State agencies and private tideland owners.
The Tribe now has the opportunity to utilize many species of
shellfish, including deep-water animals such as crab, shrimp, and
geoduck. Effectively managing these ``new'' shellfish resources, while
providing for their protection, will require additional technical
expertise. The additional shellfisheries will also require expanded
enforcement efforts and capability. The opportunity is also available
for the enhancement of tidelands to increase shellfish production. This
will benefit both Indians and non-Indians.
The Tribe cannot take advantage of the opportunity to harvest
treaty resources unless it meets the court's requirements and it can't
meet the requirements without funding assistance from Congress. The
Tribe has imposed a tax on the harvest of shellfish to fund a skeletal
harvest program. This tax provides about $130,000 per year. This tax
base cannot increase without opening new harvest opportunities. It is a
``Catch-22'' situation for the Tribe.
Of equal concern, two species of salmon in our treaty area were
just listed as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The ESA listing will have broad implications for tribal and non-tribal
management of salmon. As co-managers of the salmon resource, the Tribe
wants to be involved and is legally required to be involved in the
development and implementation of plans to protect and recover
depressed stocks of salmon. Unfortunately, the Tribe has virtually no
tax base to support these activities because there can be no harvest of
these species.
Continuation of the Tribe's salmon management program and the
additional requirements of both the shellfish decision and the ESA
recovery planning efforts require funding. A shellfish biologist,
salmon biologist with a background in ESA issues, three technicians and
the support services and equipment needed to carry out our duties under
the law will require an additional $420,000. We will continue to
contribute the proceeds from our harvest tax to the program. We are
asking the Congress to fulfill the United States' trust responsibility
for these treaty resources by providing us a chance to assist in the
protection and recovery of our precious natural resources.
We also request your support of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission Request for Fisheries and Shellfish Programs.
Law Enforcement.--We are requesting $240,000 be added to fund basic
police protection and to fund planning for a tribal jail facility.
Our community has been confronted with a number of serious, new
crime issues over the past couple of years. The Tribe has launched a
war on illegal drugs and against gang violence. These efforts have been
undertaken in cooperation with local and federal law enforcement
agencies. However, the Tribe continues to have a chronic shortage in
police protection because there is not enough funding to provide
salaries and equipment.
Our goal is simple: to provide 24 hour police coverage on the
reservation. This requires a minimum of six officers. We are requesting
$160,000 of the $240,000 to fund additional officers, their equipment
and training.
The Tribe currently contracts with neighboring counties for jail
facilities. The nearest juvenile detention facility, an hour drive from
the reservation, is filled to capacity most of the time. Adult jail
facilities are frequently full as well, posing a safety threat to our
police officers and to the community. This facility could provide jail
services to six area tribes, increase employment and generate revenue
by renting jail space to local jurisdictions. The Tribe would like to
begin the process of planning a tribal jail. We are requesting the
remaining $80,000 for the costs associated with this planning effort.
Indirect Cost Funds.--We are requesting that Congress fully fund
the BIA and IHS Contract Support pool for funding tribal Indirect
Costs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs refuses to request full funding
even though payment of full Contract Support is required by statute and
has been ordered by the court in Ramah Navajo v. Lujan. As a Self-
Governance Tribe, we have assumed the responsibility to deliver
governmental services directly to the people we serve. Self-Governance
been a dramatic success on our reservation. The Tribe's management of
tribal programs has resulted in considerable cost savings, allowing
Tribal priorities to be more fully addressed.
The Indirect Cost (overhead) dollars that enable the Tribe to
provide these services are critical to the economic stability of the
Tribe. Each Tribe's Indirect Cost agreements must be approved by the
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. The costs are
independently and rigorously audited each year.
For the past five years, the federal government has not fulfilled
its legal obligation to fully fund the Tribe's Indirect Costs. We had
nearly twenty-five percent of our overhead costs in the BIA cut in
1997. When our indirect costs are cut, we are forced, by the formula,
to cut direct services to Tribal members. The gains we have achieved
through Self-Governance are being eroded by this lack of funding. Our
Tribe will be making cuts in already underfunded programs including
daycare, education and senior citizen housing. Our food bank and
emergency shelter programs face elimination.
This is no way to run a government or a business. We must have a
stable base in order to properly serve our people. This means stable
funding of overhead costs. There is not one contractor for the federal
government that can remain in business if their overhead costs are not
covered. Neither can Tribes.
Indian Tribal Justice Act Appropriation.--The Indian Tribal Justice
Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. Four years later, Congress has
still not appropriated the funds authorized under the Act. We urge this
Congress to do so.
Congress made specific findings in section 2 of the law that, (1)
The United States has a trust responsibility to protect the sovereignty
of each tribal government, (2) That ``* * * tribal justice systems are
an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
for ensuring public health and safety * * *'' and (3) That tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is proud of its court's ability to
provide high quality justice. However, tribal courts are constantly
under attack by critics who believe that individual civil rights are
compromised in tribal justice systems. While we see no evidence of this
in our court, a chronic lack of funding in our court and in all tribal
courts hampers the efforts of tribal governments to provide all the
necessary judicial services to their people.
Our tribal enforcement and justice officials work in concert with
federal and state law enforcement, prosecutors and courts to address
the inter-jurisdictional problems associated with enforcement of child
abuse, drug crimes, and child support on the Reservation. This work
requires having personnel available on nights and on weekends as well
as the during the work week. The court hears cases in twenty subject
matter areas including criminal, civil, traffic, child welfare,
juvenile, domestic violence, hunting, fishing, housing, and adult
protection.
Like all courts, ours requires a judge, prosecutor, Court
Administrator, court clerk, court compliance officer and support staff.
The court facilities require space and equipment for the confidential
work of the court which can't be shared by other tribal departments. We
are nearly two hours from the nearest law library and must have an
updated reference base including internet access located on site for
the court's use. The court must also provide an effective appellate
system to ensure due process.
The Indian Tribal Justice Act was enacted to address precisely
these basic needs. It is imperative that Congress appropriate funds for
the Indian Tribal Justice Act.
We also request your support for the Northwest Intertribal Court
System request for funds. As members of this consortium, our Court
funds depend directly on the appropriation for NICS.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Eugene ``Bugger'' McArthur, Tribal Chairman,
White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians
Mr. Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to provide the Committee
an assessment of the challenges faced by the People of White Earth and
to share with you our views about the overall needs in Indian country
and, specifically, the needs of the White Earth Band.
white earth cadastral survey project
I begin my testimony on a seemingly small, but important matter.
A Cadastral Survey Project Office was established on the White
Earth Reservation in January 1985 in order to survey and monument the
land boundaries and corners of the Reservation. The purpose of this
project was to help the Band gain a clear picture of the our land
holdings so that we can most effectively utilize its cultural, economic
and natural resources.
From 1984 until 1995, the BIA had funded this office through the
Minneapolis Area Office land survey budget. In 1995, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians and the Bureau
of Land Management entered into a tripartite agreement in which each
party agreed to dedicate resources to continue the work of the White
Earth Cadastral Survey Office.
The funding for this agreement was shared accordingly:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Band BIA BLM
Fiscal year contribution contribution contribution Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995....................................................... $38,000 $29,000 ............ $67,000
1996....................................................... 50,000 18,000 ............ 68,000
1997....................................................... 14,000 28,500 $38,000 80,500
1998....................................................... 85,000 ............ ............ 85,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sharing with you the history of this agreement, because this
fiscal year the Bureau did not include any funding for this project for
fiscal year 1998.
While we have decided to maintain this program during fiscal year
1998 by expending Band funds, I respectfully request that the Committee
provide the Bureau of Indian Affairs the necessary funding to complete
this project, or insert language in the Committee Report directing the
Bureau to keeps its agreement with the Band by continuing to fund the
Survey Office until the work is completed.
justice and public safety
The most pressing threat to our children's future is the
intolerable level of violence that Indian people deal with on a daily
basis. Too many of us, young and old alike, are being injured by
violence and domestic abuse. Many of our children face the threat of
violent death at the hands of a family member or as the result of a
family feud.
While statistics indicate that the overall violent crime rate has
dropped and the national murder rate is down 22 percent, murders in
Indian country have increased 87 percent.
Tribal, local and national law enforcement agencies correctly
attribute the primary cause of this rise in violent crime in Indian
country to inadequate law enforcement funding.
Through the help of a $1 million grant from the Justice
Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS),
White Earth has formed its own police force. Additionally, the Tribal
Council has recently enacted public safety codes, and we have
established an independent court. This combination of law enforcement
and proper justice under the law is a gigantic step forward for our
people and our sovereignty; however, the Congress needs to do its part
to stem the growing tide of crime and lawlessness in Indian country.
So far, Congress has failed to appropriate any monies to implement
the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993. As you know, this Act authorized
the appropriation of $58.4 million to help tribes fund tribal courts.
The Administration's budget for fiscal year 1999 includes $11.2 million
under BIA, and $10 million under the Department of Justice, to help
tribes establish and operate Indian tribal courts. While we laud this
initiative, I hope you will fund this program to the extent authorized
by the Indian Tribal Justice Act.
indian health service
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the alarming degree of
sickness and disease in Indian country is not acceptable. Our people
are simply not receiving adequate health care.
Neither past Congressional appropriations, nor the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request, comes close to funding the scope of
work required for the Indian Health Service to markedly improve the
health and well-being of Indian people.
The President's request for $2.1 billion for IHS represents an
increase in services funding of less than 1 percent over the current
level--a miserable sum compared with the major increases in federal
spending for non-Indian health care.
Like all of Indian country, White Earth has an extraordinary number
of Band members who do not have sewer and water systems. The Indian
Health Service has simply not received the support in Congress for
adequate sewer and water funding. I am very disappointed that this
Administration has decreased sanitation facilities by $5 million, and I
strongly urge you to increase funding for the construction of sewer and
water facilities for our people.
circle of flight
As you know, one of the most successful wetland and waterfowl
protection/enhancement programs in the nation today is the tribally-
managed Circle of Flight program.
Funding of this program since 1991 has enabled tribes to implement
36 different projects on 25 reservations in the Upper-Midwest.
At White Earth, we have integrated the Circle of Flight and the
Northern Tallgrass Prairie Restoration Projects to more effectively
preserve essential prairie wildlife populations. The White Earth
biology department has restored seven waterfowl ponds and cut back
overgrown brush to promote grass and forbe regeneration.
In addition, the Band has worked cooperatively with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota to harvest and process
native tallgrass from waterfowl productions areas, in order to reseed
additional areas under tribal management.
I urge you to fully fund Circle of Flight in fiscal year 1999 in
the amount of $1,038,000.
bureau of indian affairs
Finally, we support the President's request to increase the
Bureau's fiscal year 1999 budget by $142 million. However, the level of
funding requested by the administration of $110 million for Indian
Programs Operation is not adequate to meet the task of self-
determination, which this administration has traditionally supported.
We also laud the President's initiative to improve funding for BIA
school construction. While this funding does not directly impact the
reservations in the State of Minnesota, we nonetheless encourage the
Committee to fund this increase.
______
Prepared Statement of Tom Miller, Administrator, Hannahville Indian
Community Tribal School
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies, I am Tom Miller, School Administrator for the
Hannahville Indian School on the Hannahville Potawatomi Reservation in
the upper peninsula of Michigan. On behalf of the Minneapolis Area
Community Tribal Schools, Inc. (MACTS) I would like to thank you for
allowing me to submit testimony in support of a $250,000 demonstration
project through the Facility Management and Construction Center (FMCC),
BIA, to provide facility inventory updates and plan preventative
maintenance schedules through the Hannahville Indian Community Tribal
School to the twelve Minneapolis area schools.
Hannahville Indian School will distribute the services to the
schools through the MACTS system. The MACTS organization has been in
existence since 1984 assisting all Minneapolis Area tribal schools and
up to fourteen tribal schools outside of the Minneapolis Area.
In this demonstration program, MACTS will provide technical
assistance to the twelve Minneapolis Area Tribal Schools. The technical
assistance will be in the areas of Facility Updating and Planned
Maintenance Scheduling. Funding would be directed from Operation and
Maintenance funds within the Facility and Construction Center (FMCC)
through the Minneapolis Area Facility office.
In the past, the schools have contributed funding for MACTS to
provide partial services but there is a need for additional funding so
that complete services can be implemented.
Currently, the FMCC has the responsibility to work with the Tribal
Schools across the nation in updating facility inventories and
developing Planned Maintenance Schedules. This service has not been
provided. FMCC has recently expressed an interest to provide these
services, but they have neither the expertise nor the experience of the
MACTS system.
The services are critical to the school maintenance and replacement
process. It is our experience that planned preventive maintenance is
often the most convenient area to overlook in managing educational
facilities. In fact, this area is the single most important factor in
maintaining a quality facility and extending the life of the building.
It's a simple fact of ``pay me a little now or pay me a lot later.''
The facility inventories of each specific facility must be accurate
and correct if the school is to generate the full amount of operation
and maintenance funding. Each facility director will be trained on how
to update his own inventory and how to access the FACCOM system for
validation.
With an accurate facility inventory, the planned maintenance
schedule can be developed and made site-specific. This schedule is
crucial in allowing the schools to plan and budget for the maintenance
of their buildings. Both major and minor repairs and maintenance items
can be planned and not just reacted to, as is done in many of the
schools. The nature of the plan is to ``spend a little now'' to
maintain the buildings properly and save the schools from ``paying a
lot later'' due to improper planned maintenance schedules.
This allows the schools to effectively plan for building
replacement at the end of the life of the building. The BIA can use the
information generated by these plans to budget for the eventual
replacement of these schools. Also, it will allow Congress access to
accurate information about the state of facilities in the Minneapolis
Area schools. The schools and MACTS organization will be linked to FMCC
and OIEP by computer for timely information transfer.
The schools now receive inadequate maintenance dollars from the O&M
program of the FMCC based on an incomplete inventory of the facility.
MACTS has developed a very complete and more effective inventory method
that has the effect of demonstrating an accurate and larger usable
square footage upon which reimbursement is awarded. This has resulted
in increased funding for preventative maintenance. Not surprisingly,
the prospect of increased funding has brought resistance from FMCC.
But this resistance is short-sighted. Without adequate funding for
preventive maintenance, along with timely Improvement and Repair
Projects, there will be more costly repairs and premature replacement
not far down the road. Preventive maintenance is by far the highest
value for the dollar.
And most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this is not about dollars.
Poorly maintained buildings have a real and negative effect on
education.
We have formally requested FMCC to allow MACTS to provide this
service. They agree that the service is needed and that it would
unquestionably help the schools. However, they need direction from
Congress to initiate a demonstration program.
This demonstration program will allow the schools in the MACTS
system to better prioritize educational spending, putting adequate
maintenance at the top of the list.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing me this opportunity to
submit testimony for the hearings record.
______
Prepared Statement of Yvonne Novack, NIEA President, National Indian
Education Association
The National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the oldest
national organization representing the education concerns of over 3,000
American Indian and Alaska Native educators, school administrators,
teachers, parents, and students, is pleased to submit this statement on
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget as it affects Indian education.
NIEA has an elected board of 12 members who represent various Indian
education programs and constituencies from throughout the nation. Every
year, NIEA holds an annual convention which provides our members with
an opportunity to network, share information, and hear from
Congressional leaders and staff as well as federal government officials
on policy and legislative initiatives impacting Indian education.
The Federal government has a trust responsibility, both legally and
morally, to provide educational services for American Indians and
Alaska Natives. This responsibility has been affirmed through
Presidential Executive Order, Supreme Court decisions, treaties,
federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. NIEA firmly believes that
this responsibility should be maintained by the Congress and the other
branches of the Federal government.
We commend President Clinton for a budget that emphasizes the
importance of education for all citizens of this country, including the
First Americans. There are programs within the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, such as funding for School Operations, school construction and
repair and higher education which deserve consideration for possible
increases. President Clinton has proposed several new education
initiatives for fiscal year 1999 which will require a major investment
of federal dollars, if approved by Congress. Administration proposals
like the School Construction Tax Credit and the Class-Size Reduction
Initiative are desperately needed by schools operated and funded by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The investment proposed for BIA
Education Construction and Facilities Improvement and Repair will help
to partially meet the huge backlog of projects now estimated at over
$800 million.
In April of 1994, President Clinton and tribal leaders met to
discuss a variety of issues including, briefly, education. Immediately
following that historic event, Indian educators were challenged by the
White House to come up with a comprehensive approach to the federal
government's administration of Indian education programs. That
challenge was taken up and has been successfully met in a way far
exceeding even our expectations. For the past three years, NIEA has
worked cooperatively with the National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI) and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) in developing an
Executive Order on a Comprehensive Federal Indian Education Policy
Statement (CFIEPS) which we are urging the Clinton Administration to
issue.
The intent of this policy is to formally set national guidelines
for Indian education programs which would be applicable to all federal
agencies. The uniqueness of this document is that it is tribally-
endorsed, encompasses all education levels, and reflects the historical
nature of federal Indian education policy. These guidelines are broad
enough to define and direct federal agency implementation of all
congressional and executive branch level Indian education initiatives
including budget appropriations. The CFIEPS has been forwarded to the
Clinton Administration with several House and Senate Members endorsing
the proposal. We urge this subcommittee's formal endorsement of a
Presidential Executive Order on Indian Education. Below are our funding
recommendations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
department of interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
NIEA is pleased that the BIA's fiscal year 1999 budget for School
Operations includes a $26.5 million increase over 1998. The $486.8
million investment in American Indian youth who attend BIA schools
reflects the Administration's commitment to the Government-to-
Government relationship that exists between the tribes and the federal
government. The BIA educates approximately 12 percent of the American
Indian K-12 population. We urge this subcommittee to support this
needed increase. NIEA also supports the recommendations from the
October 1997 Method of Financing BIA-Funded Schools Study that was
produced under contract through the Department of Interior. One of the
study's recommendations included higher future funding levels under
ISEP in order to stay level with inflation, comply with BIA academic
standards, and to reach parity with public schools. According to the
study's ISEP estimates, an additional $21 million needs to be requested
in the fiscal year 1999 budget to meet a minimum level of support. As
shown below, NIEA fully supports this amount.
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA):
Adult Education.--Adult Education continues to be one of the most
underfunded Indian education programs despite the fact that it is
desperately needed to enable adult Indians who did not finish high
school to obtain their General Educational Development (GED) degree.
The program's funding levels over the past 10 years have fluctuated
with fiscal year 1996 being the highest at $3.6 million. The fiscal
year 1999 request of $2.7 million represents a 25 percent decrease
since 1996. The BIA estimates at least 20,000 Indian adults participate
in the program.
NIEA believes the adult education program needs to be funded at no
less than $4 million annually. The elimination in 1996 of the Adult
Education Program in the Department of Education's Office of Indian
Education (OIE), puts a strain on the limited resources of the BIA and
does little to focus financial attention on Indian adults who do not
live on reservations. Older Indian adults tend to not attend state-
operated programs and are more comfortable with Indian instructors.
Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program.--The fiscal year 1999 request is
$18 million, an $864,000 increase over the fiscal year 1998 level. The
highest level the JOM program has received this decade was in fiscal
year 1995 when it was funded at $24.4 million. NIEA supports funding
for JOM at a level of $24 million to meet the increasing student
population. The JOM program provides supplemental educational services
for 272,000 American Indian students in 23 states. We understand that
JOM contractors are unable to add any new schools to their current JOM
programs without lowering the amount other programs receive. NIEA
requests that the JOM appropriation level be raised and that any caps
related to student count increases be eliminated.
Scholarships.--NIEA supports the fiscal year 1999 request of $29
million for undergraduate scholarships for American Indians, which
represents a $488,000 increase over fiscal year 1998. Over the past ten
years, the average allocation for Indian scholarships was $28.6
million. Out of an estimated 12,300 requests for scholarship
assistance, 9,800 students will be served through this tribal
scholarship program. The BIA estimates the unmet need is estimated at
$25 million for 1998. NIEA firmly believes that the trust
responsibility for Indian education extends through postsecondary
education. One of NIEA's major priorities is to increase funding for
all postsecondary education programs for American Indians and Alaska
Natives. The needs of Indian students pursuing postsecondary education
are often neglected, especially when critically-needed programs are cut
or eliminated such as the Department of Education's Office of Indian
Education Fellowship Program. As mentioned below, funding for BIA's
only graduate level scholarship program has operated at half funding
capacity for four consecutive years.
Other Programs
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula.--For fiscal year
1999, NIEA requests a funding level of $329 million. This would require
an additional investment of $21 million over the President's request of
$308.5 million. Funding for this program provides formula-based
assistance for 185 BIA-operated, grant, and contract elementary and
secondary schools. NIEA supports a higher ISEP funding amount of $329
million, as recommended by the October 1997 Method of Financing BIA-
Funded Schools Study, but no less than the President's $308.5 million
request. The President's request would provide $3,125 per Weighted
Student Unit (WSU) compared to $3,009 per WSU in school year 1997-98.
NIEA continues to support a funding level of $3,500 per WSU--a number
we have proposed since fiscal year 1993. The proposed $3,125 per WSU is
still far below the average per student expenditure by public
elementary and secondary schools, an amount reported by the Department
of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to be
$7,317 per student in school year 1996-97.
Family and Child Education (FACE) Program.--NIEA supports the
fiscal year 1999 request of $5.5 million for BIA's early childhood
development program. The fiscal year 1999 funding level represents a
$42,000 increase over 1998, which previously had not increased for
three years. We request that the FACE program be funded at the fiscal
year 1995 level of $6.5 million. Currently there are 22 FACE sites,
however the BIA could use a FACE program at each of its 82 elementary
schools if the program were sufficiently funded.
Student Transportation.--NIEA supports the fiscal year 1999 request
for $36.5 million for student transportation. In fiscal year 1997-98
the BIA-funded transportation cost was $1.98 per mile with 15,897 miles
(School Year 1996-1997) estimated being driven for day and boarding
schools. According to the latest School Bus Fleet information, the
national average for student transportation costs in school year 1993-
94 was $2.94 per mile for public schools. Therefore, the BIA-funded
schools, which are located primarily in rural, isolated areas, are at
least $0.96 below the national per mile average.
Administrative Cost Grants.--NIEA supports the fiscal year 1999
request for Administrative Cost Grants of $46.69 million. At least 10
of the remaining 49 BIA-operated schools an the Navajo Nation have
indicated that they will convert to grant status after July, 1997. The
conversion cost is projected at $4.6 million. The need for additional
Administrative Cost Grants has been increasingly evident as more
schools convert from BIA to tribal control. Therefore, the BIA may need
another $1.6 million for this conversion.
Education Facilities Operation and Maintenance (O&M).--The fiscal
year 1999 request for Facilities O&M is $77.4 million, a $2.7 million
increase over fiscal year 1998. The Facilities Operation and
Maintenance Program provides essential operating expenses and
facilities for all Bureau funded schools. NIEA supports this request
that would help to cover the maintenance needs of 2,313 schools and
buildings in the Bureau system.
Tribal Departments of Education.--Although no funding is provided
in the President's budget, NIEA recommends at least $3 million for
tribal departments of education, which are authorized by Public Law
103-382, the ``Improving America's Schools Act (IASA).'' We believe
that sufficient funding should be provided to assist tribes in planning
and developing their own centralized tribal administrative entities to
accomplish the original intent of the 1994 Act. This would be
appropriate given the recent trend to convert more schools from BIA to
Tribal control.
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges
Tribal Colleges/Post Secondary Schools.--The President's fiscal
year 1999 request for Tribally-Controlled Community Colleges is $35.4
million, a $5.5 million increase over fiscal year 1998 and represents a
substantial increase over previous years. NIEA supports the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) recommendation of $37.4
million which provides for an additional $2 million for TCCC Operating
Grants. NIEA also supports an additional $2 million for tribal college
endowments, $2 million for economic development, and $1.8 million for
emergency facility repair and renovations and $214,000 for Technical
Assistance grants in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
In addition, tribal community colleges have never received
facilities construction or renovation/repair money from the BIA. The
national average for Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) funding at mainstream
community colleges is approximately $6,200 per year. The level of FM
funding for some special population colleges is approximately three
times that which is provided to the tribal colleges.
Furthermore, NIEA supports the separate funding levels in fiscal
year 1998 for Bureau-funded post secondary vocational institutions.
This includes Haskell Indian Nations University at $11.6 million,
Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) at $4.6 million, the
Institute for American Indian Arts (IAIA) at $4.25 million, and the
United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) at $2.5 million.
Special Programs and Pooled Overhead
Graduate Scholarships.--The Administration request for Graduate
Scholarships in fiscal year 1999 is $1.33 million, which is the same as
the past three fiscal years. This program is the primary funding source
for American and Alaska Native graduate students and is totally
inadequate to help these individuals meet the costs of an advanced
degree. The program, which is administered by the American Indian
Graduate Center (AIGC) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been underfunded
since its founding in 1969. During the past ten years, the highest
level of funding for this program was $2.6 million in fiscal year 1995.
For school year 1997-98, the actual unmet need for Special Higher
Education Scholarship recipients was $5.7 million, which means that
even with this assistance, Indian students must pursue other sources of
funding to complete their higher education package. During the 1996-97
school year, the program funded an estimated 378 students with an
average award of $3,955. Because of reduced funding, scholarship awards
are being drastically reduced while the demand for these limited
scholarship funds increase. This program funds students in 27 states
with 128 tribes represented. No other federal graduate level
scholarship program, other than the Indian Health Service Scholarship
Program, specifically for American Indian students currently exists.
Education Construction
Special Note: NIEA is aware that Senators Pete V. Domenici and Tim
Johnson were able to increase the budget allocation for BIA school
construction and repair from the President's request of $86 million to
$166 million in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution. NIEA fully
supports their efforts on behalf of the unmet BIA school construction
needs. We urge this committee to fully support the higher amount for
education construction projects. Below are NIEA's funding
recommendations prior to Senators Domenici and Johnson's recent action.
Replacement School Construction.--NIEA supports the fiscal year
1999 request of $37.4 million for Replacement School Construction,
which is $18.2 million more than 1998. These funds are earmarked to
complete construction of the Seba Dalkai School, the Sac and Fox
Settlement School and the Pyramid Lake High School. NIEA supports this
request as the Interior Department strives to make a targeted approach
to the severe backlog of construction projects at Indian education
facilities.
Education Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--NIEA supports
the fiscal year 1999 request of $46.2 million, which is $14 million
over the 1998 appropriation. The backlog under this program, however,
is over $800 million which would take over seventeen years to complete
at the current rate of funding. NIEA urges the Committee to consider
additional, or supplemental funding to help meet this need.
Other
Institute of American Indian Arts.--NIEA is concerned that proposed
funding for the Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) is being
terminated with the last year for appropriations in fiscal year 1999.
We support continued funding for IAIA at the fiscal year 1998 level of
$4.25 million and request the Committee's support in continuing this
institution through the year 2005. This institution has been in
existence for 35 years and is the only facility solely dedicated to the
arts for American Indians and Alaska Natives. NIEA joins with NCAI in
opposing any decrease in funding and urge Congress to maintain the
enacted level for fiscal year 1999 and beyond.
In closing, the National Indian Education Association would like to
thank the Committee for allowing us the opportunity to present
testimony on the educational concerns of American Indians and Alaska
Natives. NIEA appreciates the financial effort the Administration is
submitting for consideration by the Congress on behalf of Indian
education. Our concerns reflect a need for a seamless educational
effort that includes Early Childhood, K-12 and postsecondary education
in reservation and non-reservation settings. Currently, we feel a
deficiency exists with regard to postsecondary funding for all American
Indian and Alaska Native students. All the educational efforts targeted
for K-12 students mean little if insufficient resources are available
once Indian students graduate from high school. Please contact NIEA if
you need clarification on any item presented in our testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Samuel N. Penney, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal
Executive Committee
On behalf of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, the
governing body of the Nez Perce Tribe, I appreciate this opportunity to
submit our views on the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for
tribal programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service
and other agencies of the Department of the Interior. This testimony
will cover the following funding requests for fiscal year 1999 which
are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe: $400,000 for our Wolf Recovery
Project in the Fish and Wildlife Service; $200,000 in fiscal year 1999
through the BIA to assist in the establishment of a Bureau of Land
Management cadastral survey station on the Nez Perce Reservation;
$750,00 for equipment and $1.7 million for staffing through IHS under a
joint venture arrangement; and $710,000 under the BIA's Water Rights
Negotiation and Litigation Program within Indian Rights Protection for
negotiation and litigation of the Snake River Basin Adjudication.
In addition, I would also like the Subcommittee to know of our
support for several general funding increases recommended for fiscal
year 1999 as follows: support for the increase of $34 million for the
Tribal Priority Allocation account in the BIA over the fiscal year 1998
enacted level; support for the Administration's requested fiscal year
1999 increase of $3.5 million for the Water Rights Negotiation and
Litigation Program to fund additional tribal water studies; support for
the $25 million increase requested for BIA Law Enforcement; support for
additional fiscal year 1999 funding over the budget request for the
Indian Health Service, in order to address inflation, population
growth, and staffing at new facilities; support for the $250,000
requested for Columbia River fishing access sites built by Army Corps
of Engineers; and support for the $500,000 through the Fish and
Wildlife Service that the Administration has requested for consultation
with tribes as part of the recent Secretarial Order related to tribal
treaty rights under the Endangered Species Act.
Wolf Recovery Program: FWS, $400,000
The Nez Perce Tribe is entering our third year of participation in
the Wolf Recovery Program with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. This
is the only effort in the nation in which an Indian tribe is leading
the recovery effort for an endangered species. Through a contract with
the Service, the Tribe produced and is implementing a Service-approved
recovery plan for grey wolves in Central Idaho, which requires
documentation of ten breeding pairs for three consecutive years. We are
most appreciative that Congress provided $300,000 in fiscal year 1998
through the Service for this project.
However, the project is badly underfunded. The funding shortfall
threatens our ability to adequately monitor the breeding pairs, which
are scattered throughout 15 million acres, and to capture and install
radio collars on any offspring produced this spring. The information
gathered from these monitoring activities is fundamental to determining
when the recovery standards have been met and essential in working with
local communities and the livestock industry in addressing concerns
regarding wolf recovery.
In addition, as the project enters its third year, we have found
that many of the radio collars used for the monitoring of these wolves
need to be replaced. Additional funding is necessary both to provide
the new equipment and to locate, recapture and recollar the
participating wolves in the wild. The latter involves the use of
helicopters and retention of the few professionals licensed by FWS to
do recapture work. As a result, we ask this Subcommittee to consider
providing a level of $400,000 additional funding through the Fish and
Wildlife Service for the Nez Perce Tribe's grey wolf recovery project
in fiscal year 1999.
Cadastral survey station: BIA, $200,000
In 1997, we executed an interagency memorandum of agreement with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management to
establish a cadastral survey station on the reservation. The agreement
calls for a budget of $100,000 for fiscal year 1999, with an additional
$450,000 to be spent over the following four years. Given the recent
experience in only two of these disputes that became highly
controversial, we believe that the expenditure of funds on a cadastral
survey is the most cost-effective use of federal funds, with benefit to
Indian and non-Indian landowners within the reservation.
At the current funding level, only approximately 10 percent of the
estimated 400 field months of work will be completed under this
agreement. We are requesting that Congress at least double the funding
for the Nez Perce Survey Station, to $200,000 per year for the next
four years. This will add another field survey crew, which will double
the project output.
Joint venture funding: IHS, $2.45 million
The U.S. Congress recognized that the existing system for funding
the replacement of health care facilities under the IHS Facilities
Priority Construction List does not work for most tribes. It is
difficult for our Tribe to make that priority list due to the criteria
the IHS utilizes for new facility construction. Congress authorized
``Joint Venture'' programs under the IHS which provides that tribes who
construct their own facilities with their own resources could count on
the IHS to provide increased staffing and new equipment, as long as the
tribe provides the facility under a no-cost lease agreement to IHS.
The Nez Perce Tribe has elected to construct replacement clinics at
Kamiah and Lapwai, Idaho. Both clinics have been designated in need of
replacement. The Lapwai clinic is too small, and experiences continued
problems with its foundation. The Tribe will provide the land and
construction costs. The Nez Perce Tribe seeks funding from IHS for the
increased staffing and new equipment for these facilities, which we
hope to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1999. The estimated cost
for start-up equipment is $750,000 and the annual recurring amount is
$1.7 million.
Snake River basin adjudication negotiations funding: BIA, $710,000
Since 1987, the Nez Perce Tribe has been engaged in an adjudication
of its water rights in the Snake River basin. This litigation, which
involves the adjudication of all water rights in the Snake River, much
of which lies within the aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe,
is the largest water rights adjudication in the nation. We are
represented in this proceeding by our own in-house counsel and by the
Native American Rights Fund (NARF) in Boulder, Colorado. The stay that
had been in place has been lifted and the parties have begun the
discovery phase of the complex litigation.
For fiscal year 1999, we are requesting that $710,000 be made
available in the BIA's Indian Rights Protection account, Water Rights
Negotiation and Litigation Program for the Tribe's work and
participation in the Snake River Basin Adjudication. These funds will
cover the costs of on-going work by experts needed in the negotiation
and litigation of the case including fisheries, economic and
engineering experts as well as attorney and overhead costs in the
adjudication.
We note that the Administration has requested an increase of $3.5
million for the Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation Program, and
hope that Congress will approve this proposed increase, as well as
specifying funds for our adjudication.
items of general support
The Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee also hopes that the
Congress will approve fiscal year 1999 funding increases for several
other programs, which impact many tribes:
BIA Law Enforcement
We urge that the Subcommittee favorably concur with the
Administration's request for $25 million for BIA Law Enforcement, to be
used for criminal investigators, uniformed police and basic detention
services, within the Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account.
The Nez Perce Tribal Police Department provides normal and
emergency services to Indians as well as non-Indian citizens within the
Reservation. Additional funds for law enforcement on our Reservation
are needed for traffic enforcement and driver education efforts, in
order to address a significant increase in traffic-related injuries and
deaths over 1997.
The current Tribal Police Department cannot meet expanding services
requirement because of lack of manpower. Currently, we have only six
Patrol officers. The Position Manning Factor for the Patrol Officer to
perform patrol duties 24-hours, seven days a week, for 52 weeks would
require a staff of 17. We currently have no Communications-Dispatch
Center (that function is provided by the County Sheriff's Office); the
Position Manning Factor for the Dispatcher position would require 7
persons. The Tribe also does not currently have an Adult and Juvenile
Detention Center, which would require a staff of 13. For the Nez Perce
Tribe, an additional $733,000 in fiscal year 1999 is necessary to
address these law enforcement program deficiencies. We strongly urge
the Congress to provide additional funds through the BIA for law
enforcement efforts.
IHS Mandatory Cost Increases
We are very disappointed with the Administration's fiscal year 1999
request for the Indian Health Service, which includes no increases for
inflation, population growth, or staffing at new facilities. Most
programs are level-funded at the fiscal year 1998 enacted amounts, and
the fiscal year 1999 IHS budget request assumes an increase in
Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance collections totalling $25
million.
The Nez Perce Tribe urges the Congress, to provide additional funds
in fiscal year 1999, for the vital health service and health facility
programs IHS operates. We also concur with the analysis of the fiscal
year 1999 budget prepared by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board, and support the recommendations proposed in their testimony
presented to the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in March
1998.
Tribal Priority Allocations
We appreciate that the Administration continues to provide
additional resources through the Tribal Priority Allocations account to
assist tribal governments to address basic necessities and critical
services within our communities. The President's fiscal year 1999
budget proposes an increase of some $34 million over the fiscal year
1998 enacted level. While much of this proposed increase is for
specific programs, rather than as a general increase to the base
funding of all tribes, we do support additional funds for TPA in fiscal
year 1999.
In-Lieu Sites
We also support and urge the Subcommittee to approve the $250,000
requested by the Bureau to implement the terms of the 1995 Memorandum
of Agreement between the Bureau of the Corps of Engineers for Columbia
River fishing access sites built by the Corps. In that Memorandum, the
Corps committed $250,000 annually for the costs of law enforcement,
operation and maintenance, training and other maintenance needs.
ESA Secretarial Order
We support the $500,000 through the Fish and Wildlife Service that
the Administration has requested for consultation with tribes as part
of the recent Secretarial Order addressing the relationship of tribal
treaty rights and the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony to the
Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of the Nez Perce
Tribe.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Introduction
On behalf of the 31 Tribal Colleges which comprise the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), we thank the Subcommittee
for allowing us this opportunity to present our appropriations request
and justifications for the 26 tribally-controlled colleges funded under
Public Law 95-471, ``The Tribally-Controlled Community College
Assistance Act.'' This program, also known as the ``Tribal College
Act,'' is administered by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs. Although AIHEC
requests full funding for the Act's authorized programs, we realize
that this request must be obtained over time. We ask that the
Subcommittee fully support and build upon the President's Budget
Request of a $5.5 million increase for core operations (Title I and II)
fiscal year 1999. Specifically, we request an additional $6 million in
funding for Title I, which provides core operational funding for 25
colleges, and an increase of $1.5 million in Title II funding, which
provides core operational funding for Dine College. Additionally, we
seek Title III funding at $2 million for endowments; Title IV funding
at $2 million for economic development; $1.8 million under the
facilities renovation authority of the law; and $214,000 for technical
assistance.
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium was founded in 1972
by six of the first tribally-controlled community colleges. Today,
AIHEC is a cooperatively sponsored effort on the part of 31 member
institutions, all of which are fully accredited (with the exception of
the four newest institutions that are accreditation candidates). The
Tribal Colleges were chartered by their constituent tribes over the
last 30 years to bring greater access to higher education opportunities
to American Indians living on remote and economically disadvantaged
reservations. Since their creation, the Tribal Colleges have been
addressing the problems and challenges of our welfare system.
Throughout their history, Tribal Colleges have provided GED and other
college preparatory courses, probably more than any other community
colleges in this country.
Our mission requires us to help move American Indian people toward
self-sufficiency and help make American Indians productive, tax-paying
members of American society. Fulfilling that obligation will become
increasingly difficult as more and more welfare recipients turn to the
Tribal Colleges for training and employment opportunities. Tribal
Colleges serve 26,500 students each year, offering primarily two-year
degrees, with a few colleges now offering four-year and graduate
degrees. Together, they represent the most significant and successful
development in American Indian education history, promoting achievement
among students who may otherwise never know educational success.
First, this statement provides background information regarding the
funding inadequacies with which Tribal Colleges have coped throughout
their history. Next, we provide justifications for Tribal College
funding increases and outline how new monies would be directed; and
then we briefly summarize recent accomplishments.
Please note that AIHEC's membership also includes institutions of
higher education funded under separate authorities, and AIHEC fully
supports their independently submitted Interior Appropriations
requests. These include: Haskell Indian Nations University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; the Institute of American
Indian Arts; and United Tribes Technical College.
Background and Funding Disparities
The Tribal College Act provides funding for the operational budgets
of one qualifying institution per tribe based on an American Indian
enrollment formula. The Act does not provide funding for non-Indian
students, although Tribal Colleges serve an increasing number of non-
Indian students from the surrounding rural communities. However,
federal appropriations have never matched the levels authorized under
Title I. Funding for the colleges was first authorized at $4,000 per
full-time equivalent Indian student, or Indian Student Count (ISC). In
1984, this level was raised to $5,820 per ISC, to more closely reflect
the true cost of higher education at a community college. Due to a
combination of inadequate appropriations and dramatic enrollment growth
at the colleges, funding for the Tribal Colleges has never reached
either of these levels. In fact, even with the fiscal year 1998
increase of $2.1 million for Title I colleges, the colleges are still
funded only at about half of the level authorized, or $3,014 per full-
time Indian student.
Compounding the existing funding disparities is the fact that
Tribal College enrollments have increased dramatically--the 26 Tribal
Colleges funded under this Act now serve nearly 20,000 full- and part-
time students every year. Additionally, funding for Tribal Colleges,
insufficient from the outset, has not even kept pace with inflation--in
fiscal year 1997, the Title I Tribal Colleges received only $30 more
per Indian student than they received in 1981. When inflation is
factored in, the payment's value actually decreased by $1,200 (from
$2,831 to $1,626) since 1981.
Tribal Colleges, in some ways, are being punished for their
successes--the impressive enrollment gains recorded by the colleges
have forced Title I colleges to slice an inadequate pie into incredibly
small pieces. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
praised the colleges in its May 1997 report, for providing access to
students, strengthening communities and rebuilding cultures. The first
recommendation of the report requested full funding for the Tribal
College Act. Pointing to the significant enrollment gains posted by the
colleges, the report called on the Administration and Congress to fund
the colleges at fully authorized levels.
Our request for a $6 million increase for Title I would amount to
only $3,713 per full-time Indian student, which is still significantly
less than the average amount under which mainstream community colleges
operate. It is also significantly less than the authorized amount of
$5,820, and just a modest increase above the current Indian student
allocation of $3,014.
Tribal Colleges have survived on a patchwork of smaller,
competitive, short-term grants that supplement the insufficient Titles
I and II operational funding. This has never been a stable way of
funding Tribal Colleges, but the colleges have little choice. Several
colleges have faced serious struggles because of this funding
instability, and accrediting agencies have warned the colleges about
the hazards of relying too heavily on ``soft money.'' Unlike most state
institutions, the Tribal Colleges are young--most were founded in the
past 25 years--and they have not built the funding reserves that are
common at older institutions. The lack of reserves actually forced two
of the colleges to cease operations during the government furloughs and
the budgetary impasse of 1996. Therefore, it is more important than
ever that the Tribal College Act achieve what it was designed to do:
provide for the operational support of Tribal Colleges.
Additionally, due to this inadequate funding, Tribal Colleges are
now in urgent need of facilities repair and renovation, many of which
currently operate in abandoned, condemned, or donated buildings. Health
and safety hazards at Tribal Colleges include leaking roofs, asbestos
insulation, and crumbling buildings. Most repairs and refurbishments
can be done cost effectively by Tribal College students. The facilities
renovation provision, requested at $1.8 million (for the institutions
combined), would allow Tribal Colleges to begin to address their most
urgent facility renovation needs.
While mainstream institutions are able to fall back on a foundation
of stable state support, Tribal Colleges are located on federal trust
territory, and the states have no obligation to fund them. They receive
little or no funding from the states in which they are located. It is
important to note that Tribal Colleges are reliant on the federal
government for their operational funding. Tribal Colleges are also
inequitably served by state block grants, and are frequently neglected
in block grant distribution, as the recently-passed welfare reform
block grants demonstrate.
Tribal Colleges 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 a strong
reservation economy diminish the creation of a reservation tax base.
Indian gaming is not a viable funding source for Tribal Colleges.
The vast majority of the reservations which Tribal Colleges serve are
located in extremely remote and economically disadvantaged areas.
Therefore, gaming has not been a significant source of income for the
majority of the colleges. In addition, gaming tribes should be held to
the same standard as states, which are not required to share their
gaming revenue with other states, nor are they penalized for the
success of their lotteries or gambling.
Tribal Colleges are a direct result of the special relationship
between American Indian tribes and the federal government. Tribal
Colleges are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian
nations, which hold a special legal relationship with the federal
government confirmed by numerous treaties, Supreme Court decisions, and
prior Congressional action. Tribal Colleges serve communities in the
most remote areas of our nation. For Tribal College students, both
Indian and non-Indian, higher education would otherwise be
inaccessible. Tribal Colleges 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
communities.
Further Justifications and High Priority Areas of Need
AIHEC recognizes the Congressional goal of achieving a balanced
budget, and we applaud this effort. Within that framework, AIHEC would
like to highlight the following justifications and targeted highest
priority areas of need for increased funding for Tribal Colleges.
Justifications
Tribal Colleges provide access to critical postsecondary education
opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. Most American
Indian reservations are located in extremely remote areas, and their
populations are the poorest in our nation. For many American Indian
communities, the nearest mainstream institution is several hours away,
making attendance virtually impossible. The cost of attending a
mainstream institution is usually prohibitively high, especially when
tuition, travel, housing, textbooks, and all other expenses are
considered. Unemployment on the reservations served by Tribal Colleges
can soar to 86 percent. One survey found that 98 percent of Tribal
College students qualify for need-based federal financial aid.
Tribal Colleges are producing a new generation of highly trained
American Indian contributors: teachers, tribal government leaders,
engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
professionals. Most of these new professionals are the first in their
families to attend college. By teaching the job skills most in demand
on their reservations, Tribal Colleges are laying a solid foundation
for tribal economic growth, with benefits for nearby off-reservation
communities. Most Tribal College graduates remain in their tribal
communities, contributing their newly-acquired skills and knowledge
where they are most needed. For example, 87 percent of Little Big Horn
College (Crow Agency, Montana) graduates have found employment within
the Crow Indian Reservation community.
Tribal College students and faculty also contribute to our nation
as a whole, by participating in our national community of researchers,
scientists, authors, artists, and teachers. Despite their lack of
adequate funding, Tribal Colleges have established centers for research
and education that are contributing in revolutionary ways. Many Tribal
Colleges conduct economic development research, investigate new land
uses and encourage tribal entrepreneurship. Each college has completed
a detailed economic development plan that strongly justifies the need
for the economic development appropriation (Title IV) requested in this
testimony.
Tribal Colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
accreditation boards, and offer top-quality academic programs. For
example, Turtle Mountain Community College, located in Belcourt, North
Dakota, and many others were recently granted a ten-year accreditation
term--the longest term allowed for any higher education institution. It
is now not uncommon for accrediting agencies to refer mainstream
institutions to Tribal Colleges for assistance with the accreditation
process; Tribal College self-studies have been used as models of
excellence for non-Indian institutions.
Tribal Colleges serve as highly effective bridges to mainstream
four-year postsecondary institutions. A recent study showed that 42
percent of Tribal College students transfer to four-year institutions.
Students who transfer from Tribal Colleges are much better prepared for
the challenges of mainstream four-year institutions; they are far more
likely to complete Bachelor's degree programs than American Indian
students who enter as freshmen.
Tribal Colleges serve as community centers, providing libraries,
tribal archives, career centers, economic development centers, public
meeting places, child care centers, nutrition and substance abuse
counseling, and a broad range of other vitally-needed facilities.
Tribal Colleges have become centers for American Indian language
and cultural research, preservation, and revitalization. Many Tribal
Colleges now serve as tribal archives, and offer courses in tribal
history, literature, government, language, kinship, and other aspects
of American Indian culture.
High Priority Areas of Need
Like mainstream institutions, these institutions strive to fully
develop their institution and to expand services to serve the needs of
their increasing student bodies. If each college received full or even
increased core operational funding, Tribal Colleges could focus on some
of their high priority areas of need, such as (1) maintaining
accreditation by stabilizing their core operational budget (2)
improving instructional capabilities and enhancing student support
services; (3) expanding library services and collections, or
establishing a tribal archive; (4) maintaining and improving facilities
and enhancing laboratory facilities; (5) expanding technology through
purchasing computers and establishing Internet access; (6) expanding
child care facilities; and (7) constructing community or cultural
centers.
Conclusion
In light of the justifications presented in this testimony and the
even further enrollment increases that will result from welfare reform,
we urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal Colleges.
Fulfillment of AIHEC's fiscal year 1999 request will strengthen the
mission of these colleges and the enormous, positive impact they have
on their respective communities and will help ensure that they are able
to properly educate and prepare thousands of American Indians for the
workforce of the 21st century. Without the Tribal Colleges to serve as
the means for moving from welfare to work, much of the reform
accomplished by the Congress will fail throughout Indian Country. As
demonstrated in this testimony, Tribal Colleges have been extremely
responsible with the federal support they have received in the last 17
years. It is important that the federal government now capitalize on
its investment. As the recent Carnegie report stated, ``Now, as
strongly as ever, we repeat our conviction that Tribal Colleges deserve
continued support. Their value has been proven, but their vision is not
yet fulfilled'' (Native American Colleges: Progress and Prospects,
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1997). These
institutions have proven themselves as a sound federal investment, and
we ask for your continued support.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present our request before
this Subcommittee. We respectfully ask the Members of this Subcommittee
for their continued support and full consideration of our fiscal year
1999 appropriations request.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert Chicks, Chairman, Stockbridge-Munsee
Community Band of Mohican Indians
The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe appreciates this opportunity to
present our requests for funding in fiscal year 1999 for the Indian
Health Service. We request that this Subcommittee provide fiscal year
1999 funding for our three priority projects: $3.6 million for a new
wastewater treatment facility for the Stockbridge-Munsee Community;
$2.8 million for a new health clinic for the Stockbridge-Munsee
Community; and/or $1.27 million for equipment and supplies and $1.6
million for staffing to operate and maintain a new tribal health
facility, which the Tribe will construct under a tribal joint venture
demonstration project arrangement.
The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe was once located in what is now the
northeastern United States. However, in the early 1800's, we were
removed from our ancestral lands to Indiana, and later relocated to
what became the State of Wisconsin. Since 1856, our homeland has been a
46,000-acre reservation in central Wisconsin. The Mohican Nation has
nearly 1,600 tribal members, over 800 of whom live on the reservation.
The Tribe employees some 800 people--members and non-members--in our
tribal programs and economic enterprises, including our small but
successful casino and bingo operation, and is the largest employer in
Shawano County, WI. In 1996, the Mohican North Star casino employed
some 460 people, about three-fourths of whom are non-tribal members.
The Community uses gaming proceeds to supplement funding for all our
tribal governmental programs, including Elderly Assistance, Higher
Education and Vocational Training, Housing Assistance, and Economic
Development, but gaming revenues make up only 40 percent of the Tribe's
fiscal operating budget.
The Tribal Council has three funding requests we have determined to
be of highest importance, and we submit them for this Subcommittee's
consideration.
wastewater treatment facility and sewage collection system
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Indian Health Service's
Sanitation Facilities Construction account proposes a $5 million
decrease below the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. While we recognize
that the Administration, Congress and tribes are forced to struggle to
determine which programs will receive funding as efforts to balance the
federal budget continue, surely the provision of such essential
services as water supply and waste disposal facilities for Indian homes
and communities, which the rest of the American population almost takes
for granted, must be a priority.
The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe is in desperate need of a wastewater
treatment facility and sewage collection system. The Tribe currently
uses a three-cell lagoon system community water and wastewater system,
instead of a regional treatment facility. Thanks to joint funding in
fiscal year 1996 through IHS and HUD, we will be able to repair and
upgrade the existing lagoon system, which services our main housing
development area, this spring. However, that area is made up of only 30
households. Even the upgraded lagoon system is not able to meet all
current community sanitation needs. In addition, the poor condition
because of old age of the sewer systems in many of the existing homes
presents the challenge of contamination of the groundwater supply and
existing wells with bacteria and radon when replacing those systems.
The Tribe's Planning Department projects that the Tribe will need
to build 50 to 60 new homes for our members in the course of the next
10 years. Although several existing residential units on the
reservation utilize individual septic tanks, due to the soil types on
the reservation, it is very unlikely that these new homes will be able
to utilize individual septic tanks. According to data stored on the
Geographical Information System, almost 93 percent of the soil types
located on the Tribe's trust lands have severe septic limitations. The
remaining 7 percent of the land has moderate limitations. These
limitations make it is very difficult to find suitable areas on which
to build housing for our members. As a result, the Tribe is seeking
funding to construct a master wastewater treatment facility which will
enable us to construct these homes on lands that would otherwise be
unsuitable because of the septic limitations.
The proposed wastewater treatment facility would service an
existing 80 residential dwellings within the regional service area,
tribal offices, our existing health clinic and proposed new clinic and
wellness center, and the casino. In addition, the new facility would
service the contemplated new housing development and other commercial
development, including a planned hotel. It would also be able to handle
future increases in wastewater flow.
The IHS Field Engineer has estimated that the cost of the new
master wastewater treatment facility and collection system will be $3.6
million. The need for such a system has been documented and submitted
to the Indian Health Service for inclusion on the Sanitation Deficiency
System (SDS) Listing. But, as this Subcommittee well knows, there are
many tribal projects currently on the SDS list.
Without adequate funding to the IHS, necessary and essential
projects like the Stockbridge-Munsee's wastewater treatment facility
and sewage collection system will not be constructed. We ask that the
Subcommittee provide additional funds for fiscal year 1999 for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction account, and provide the necessary
$3.6 million to the IHS to fund our Tribe's very needed project.
new health clinic and wellness center
For the IHS Facilities account, the President's fiscal year 1999
budget request proposes an increase of $25 million over the fiscal year
1998 enacted level for construction of the replacement hospital at Fort
Defiance, AZ. The balance of funds for this facility is requested as
advanced appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
While the Stockbridge-Munsee Community strongly supports this
construction request, we know that many tribes throughout the country
share the need of the Navajo Nation for a new health facility. However,
unless Congress appropriates additional funding for IHS Facilities, it
will be many years before other facilities are able to be built.
The Tribe has a small, 14,000 square-foot health clinic on our
reservation which was built in 1973. During a typical month, the clinic
provides medical services to over 1,200 patients, dental care to 200
patients, and fills over 1,000 prescriptions at the pharmacy. Annually,
the current staff of 42 full-time and 1 part-time employees and 6 full-
or part-time physicians and dentists provides necessary and essential
medical treatment to over 2,300 people--Mohican tribal members and
Indians who are members of other tribes but live on our reservation,
and numerous non-Indians who live within the original boundaries of the
reservation.
The severe space limitations, existing structural problems and poor
condition of the clinic make providing necessary medical services very
difficult. After a point, further additions to the clinic--and there
have already been two--are not economically efficient. In 1996, the
Tribe received a HUD Community Development Block Grant toward the
construction of the new health clinic and wellness center; the Tribe
paid for the costs of designing the facility out of tribal funds. Last
year, the Tribal Council hired an architectural firm which has now
completed a preliminary cite evaluation and the design of the layout
and floor plans of the new facility. The Tribe is seeking fiscal year
1999 construction funding in the amount of $2.8 million through the
Indian Health Service.
tribal health facilities joint venture
If Congress is not able to provide additional funds in fiscal year
1999 for specific IHS facilities construction projects like ours, the
Stockbridge-Munsee Community wishes the Subcommittee to consider
providing appropriations for joint venture demonstration projects, as
authorized under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.
1680h(e)). The Stockbridge-Munsee Community is a member of the Tribal
Nations Joint Venture Coalition for Health Facilities, a coalition of
tribes from across the United States which would like to use the joint
venture approach to draw upon non-federal funds to construct health
facilities in our communities. Under the joint venture demonstration
program, a tribe uses tribal, private sector or other available
nontribal funds, including loan guarantees, to acquire or construct a
health facility under a no-cost lease. IHS would then provide
equipment, supplies and staffing to operate and maintain that facility.
Tribes in Oregon and Oklahoma used this approach to build facilities
which were completed in the early 1990's.
If Congress is not able to appropriate specific funds for our new
wellness center, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community plans to finance and
build the new Stockbridge-Munsee Community Health Center according to
IHS planning criteria and design standards, to provide direct health
care services to a projected user population of 2,900 Indian patients.
The Tribe will ``joint venture'' with the Indian Health Service for
staffing and equipment. We ask this Subcommittee to consider providing
the necessary funding--$1.27 million for equipment and supplies and
$1.6 million to increase health center staff from 42 to 66--in fiscal
year 1999.
I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement to this
Subcommittee on behalf of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe. We are very
proud of the services we provide our people and members of the
surrounding community, services we are able to offer because the
Congress has provided tribes with additional resources through the
Indian Health Service. Thank you very much for your consideration of
these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Margie Mejia, Chairperson, Lytton Rancheria/
Lytton Band of Pomo Indians of California
The Lytton Rancheria/Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (the ``Tribe'')
submits this testimony for the record regarding the fiscal year 1999
budget request for programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian Health Service. Specifically, we express our support for the
BIA's requested $3 million for the Small and Needy Tribes program. We
are very concerned about decreases in IHS funding levels and ask for an
add-on of $20 million for California Tribes--$10 million for direct
contract care and $10 million for contract support.
Located in Sonoma County, California, Lytton Rancheria was restored
to federal recognition by the federal courts in Scotts Valley Band of
Pomo Indians, et al. vs. United States of America et al. USDC No. Civ.
No. C-86-3660-WWS; Sept. 6, 1991. The Tribe received no federal
services for over thirty years. The effort to restore our status as a
Tribe took about ten years, five of which were spent in litigation.
During this time, the ill effects of termination took their toll on our
people in terms of loss of property; lack of education and health
benefits; increased poverty; high unemployment; disruption of families;
death of tribal members due to alcohol and related illnesses or
accidents; and the destruction of hope.
The Tribe, currently landless, has approximately 200 Tribal members
and is governed by a Council consisting of seven Tribal Officers. The
Tribal membership is 47 percent male and 53 percent female; of these 40
percent are adults and 60 percent are children under 18.
Tribal members reside primarily in Sonoma County (57 percent) and
Del Norte County (27 percent), with the remainder of members scattered
throughout the State of California and the continental United States
(16 percent).
The Tribe plans to empower its constituents through education and
training. The general membership approved a constitution on January 20,
1996, to establish laws that the Tribal members have agreed to live and
abide by. Other empowering documentation which has recently been
developed and is currently being utilized include: Enrollment Manual,
Election, Enrollment and Voting Procedures Code, Tribal Government
Operations Manual, Tribal Court Procedures and related codes. The Tribe
is devoting its time, energy and resources in order to become self-
sufficient.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Our biggest concern regarding the BIA is the understaffing at the
Area and Agency offices. California tribes have never known what it is
to have a strong Area Office. The California Area Office has never been
the equal of other Area Offices. It has 105 tribes in its service area
and not enough funding to provide adequate services to them. Our Tribe
is within the service area of the Central California Agency Office with
52 tribes in its service area. It needs funds to increase its staff
from 40 FTE to at least 57 FTE positions.
Currently, the Tribe operates several grant programs through the
BIA. We have an Indian Child Welfare program for tribal children and
have used our BIA Aid to Tribal Government (ATG) grant monies to
develop tribal infrastructure programs, including the codes and manuals
described above. We request an increase in funding to implement the
recommendations of the Interior/BIA/Tribal Joint Task Force on
Reorganization of the BIA. One recommendation that the Tribe supports
is the plan for a three-year phased in minimum funding amount for
tribes starting at $160,000 annually and raised to $250,000 per year in
the third year.
Like some 14 other tribes in California, the Lytton Band does not
have land. This creates problems for our members because if you don't
live ``on or near'' a reservation, even if you are a member of a
federally recognized tribe, you are not eligible for federal services.
Tribal governments simply cannot build tribal communities without land.
While the process for taking land from the Indians was often done with
little more than the stroke of a pen, it is nearly impossible to a
tribe to have lands taken into trust and that process is getting longer
and longer.
The Tribe would like to take this opportunity to request
legislation and funding to tribes to assist them in hiring specialized
staff to handle repatriated human remains and other associated objects.
While museums have a great deal of inventory that rightfully belongs to
tribes, it is often hard for tribes to accept the items because of the
costs of curating them.
We very much support the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) within
the BIA. We believe that the administration of HIP should stay in the
BIA, not HUD, and that the grant aspect (see 25 C.F.R. 256) should be
retained. There have been discussions about using HIP monies under the
regular tribal contracting process, but we support direct grants for
this very needed program.
Finally, we request funds to cover 100 percent of the contract
support costs for new tribes.
Indian Health Service
The Tribe requests a $10 million add-on to the IHS budget for
contract support costs for California Tribes and a $10 million add-on
to the IHS budget for direct contract health care. As Chair of the
Tribe, I have become a member of the California Rural Indian Health
Board and am on the Board of the Sonoma County Indian Health Board. In
that capacity, the desperate health needs of California Indians have
become very evident to me. Basic illnesses are untreated. Members do
not even have eyeglasses or dental care. The President's health
initiative includes programs to treat Indian diabetes. We believe that
is excellent but not if other common illnesses and preventive care are
neglected. There is no IHS hospital facility at all in the State of
California. In Sonoma County, three tribes used HUD CDBG money to buy
land and combined grant monies from various programs to build a health
clinic. The State of California has approved a Mortgage Loan to the
tribes for this purpose. IHS is staffing the facility. The Subcommittee
should also know that the federal expenditures per patient in federal
hospitals (veterans, public health service) is about $3,000 per
patient; for IHS overall, it is $1,200 per patient; for California
Indians, it is about $500. This is simply not enough to maintain even
the most minimal health care for California Indians.
Without additional continued funding, especially in the crucial
formative years for new tribes, our membership will stagnate and revert
back to the downward spiral of life quality experienced by so many
Native Americans for so many years.
______
Prepared Statement of Kenny Mallory, Chairman, Winnebago Tribe of
Nebraska
This testimony addresses the fiscal year 1999 budget request for
programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
The Tribe is concerned about funding for the Indian Health Service, and
supports the Administration's proposed increases for the Tribal
Priority Allocation account, Law Enforcement and the Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges program within the BIA.
The Tribe and Economic Development.--The Winnebago Tribe of
Nebraska is a federally recognized Indian Tribe organized pursuant to
Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934. Our
forefathers were forcibly relocated from lands in and near what is now
the state of Wisconsin. Our Treaty of 1865 is the first in history to
require that the United States provide health care services to tribal
members. The Tribe's 120,000-acre reservation includes lands in both
Iowa and Nebraska and only about 30,000 acres of land within the
reservation is now tribally controlled. There are 3,764 enrolled
members, of whom about 1,238 reside on the reservation.
The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is very active on the economic
front. The Tribe operates several business enterprises, including the
WinnaVegas Casino in Sloan, Iowa, and the Heritage food store and the
Company A Convenience Mart, both in Winnebago, Nebraska. Additionally,
the Tribe has developed a small strip mall located on the reservation;
added tribal revenue is generated by leasing tribal land to outside
agricultural interests. Ho-Chunk, Inc., a wholly-owned tribal
development corporation, owns a Rodeway Inn in Sloan, Iowa,
approximately 3 miles from the Tribe's casino. Ho-Chunk has also opened
hotels in Omaha and Lincoln. Even with the economic contribution of
these projects, tribal per capita income remains significantly below
the poverty level at just over $5,000.
Unlike states, the tribes have little or no tax base or other
revenue sources with which to operate tribal government programs.
Gaming has given a jump start to our economy but those revenues are
decreasing because of commercial competition. The Tribe still relies
heavily on federal funds to provide even the most basic level of
services to tribal members.
indian health service
The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska must, regrettably, ask for the
assistance of this Subcommittee in regard to completion of the design
phase of the Winnebago Hospital.
Over a period of years, Congress made appropriations for design of
the hospital based on estimates provided by the Indian Health Service.
The Congress and the Tribe were advised during the fiscal year 1998
appropriations process that an additional $650,000 would be needed to
complete the design phase for the hospital. Despite our best efforts
and those of our congressional delegation, the Congress was not able to
find sufficient money in fiscal year 1998 for this purpose; however,
the final fiscal year 1998 Interior Appropriations bill conference
report urged IHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
Office of Management and Budget to include funding in the fiscal year
1999 budget submission to complete design for the Winnebago Hospital,
as well as the outpatient facilities at Parker, AZ, and Pinon, AZ.
Unfortunately, and, again, despite our best efforts, the Administration
failed to include this funding in its fiscal year 1999 Budget Request
as directed by the Congress. Needless to say, the Tribe and all of the
Indian people in the IHS service area who will be served by the new
hospital are very disappointed by this omission.
As you may know, the IHS hospital at Winnebago was built in the
1930's and has never been significantly upgraded. The Native American
clients served by the existing hospital are receiving services in a
facility that is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the Nation.
The proposed new hospital was in the works for ten years before the
Congress made the first appropriation for design and engineering. This
process is now very near completion and if work ceases during fiscal
year 1999, the delay will mean significant increases in the overall
costs of the project. We respectfully request that the Subcommittee
include an increase of $650,000 for fiscal year 1999 for completion of
the design phase of the IHS hospital at Winnebago.
bureau of indian affairs
Tribal Priority Allocations.--The Winnebago Tribe urges the
Administration and the Congress to continue to provide additional
resources through the Tribal Priority Allocations account to assist
tribal governments to address basic services for our communities. The
President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an increase of some $34
million over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Although the majority
of these funds are proposed for specific programs, rather than as a
general increase to the base funding of all tribes, we do support
additional funds for TPA in fiscal year 1999.
Under the BIA's TPA program, the Tribe contracts to operate Aid to
Tribal Government, Judicial Services, Employee Assistance, Higher
Education, Credit, Law Enforcement Communications Services, Real Estate
(services related to land management), Services to Children, Elders and
Families, Indian Child Welfare Act services and Wildlife and Parks. The
total 1997 TPA contract was $817,500, a decrease of $42,000 from the
contract amount for 1996 which was $866,000; the Tribe supplemented
this amount with $722,743 from tribal revenues. In the 1998 budget, the
Administration requests $889,100 for the Winnebago Tribe TPA, an
increase of just $23,000 from 1996, and $71,500 from the current year
level. For the current funding year Tribal Allocations to TPA programs
has decreased from $722,743 to $531,082 due to the decline in tribal
revenue. With the unmet need of $301,861 identified by tribal
resolution No. 97-17 in 1997, plus the actual decrease in 1997 in
tribal funding of $191,745, and finally the additional shortfall
identified by our tribal program directors in their programs for fiscal
year 1998, the overall TPA programs show a shortfall of $987,376 just
to maintain basic operations.
The following identifies needs of each program under the Tribal
Priority Allocation program:
Aid to Tribal Government funds 3 positions, a Tribal Planner,
Community Development Specialist, and Office Associate. These positions
were identified in fiscal year 1998 to develop a Planning Department
for the Tribe to aid in leveraging tribal funds to secure grants from
the public and private sectors to provide services in Youth
Development, Youth Employment, Drug and Alcohol Prevention programs,
Senior Employment, Rural Transportation, Juvenile Staff Secure
Facilities, Culture Restoration, and Education programs that have been
defunded or received major cut backs because of decreased tribal
revenue. Additional funding of $69,600, would enable this program to
provide staff to develop individual program planning and assist grant
preparation to increase funding for planned program growth.
Judicial Services averages over 900 cases in civil, criminal,
juvenile, family and traffic cases per year. Court needs includes funds
for court automation. Many activities are still done by hardcopy by
hand. Computer data capability has been provided to the court during
the last two years, but these systems will need to be replaced before
the year 2000. Because we have only one probation officer for all
adults and juveniles, we are unable to proper monitor compliance with
court orders. We are also having difficulty in enforcing child support
orders simply because we do not have the necessary staff. The Tribe
needs at least another $398,688 for judicial services. The Tribe's
Supreme Court which hears all appeals is funded entirely by the Tribe.
Real Estate Services provides services to the tribe in management
and leasing of all tribally owned land and is responsible for ensuring
that trust and fee land is managed in accordance with environmentally
sound practices to guarantee a solid future for generations to come.
Other services include helping locate homesites for tribal members,
many of whom own fractional interests in larger pieces of land and
continue tribal efforts in land consolidation of all tribal lands.
Present funds provide for a program director, and administrative
assistant. Additional funds for this program would provide for a lease
monitor to assure all lease compliance with leasees of tribal
agricultural lands. This position was funded by tribal revenue.
Additional funding of $53,120 is needed to meet this shortfall in
program monitoring of tribal lands.
Services to Children, Elders, and Families is a program which is
underfunded in the area of administrative support. Current funding is
$59,589 which provides for one caseworker and operational costs to
service all of the Tribe's welfare caseload. Additional funding of
$170,400 would provide sufficient funding to hire a Human Services
Director, and three caseworkers to assist the management of this
program.
Children with behavioral and/or emotional problems are sent to a
detention center off the reservation with the tribe responsible for a
majority of the cost for this activity. The center is about an hour
away and, while the facility does allow the Tribe to provide services
for all native American children living on the Winnebago Reservation,
there are rarely sufficient funds to provide the kinds of services the
children need. The Tribe has provided in excess of $150,000 per year to
meet this need. However, the real need to enhance prevention programs
aimed at this group would be a better use of these funds. Most state
and federal programs focus on treating symptoms, leaving the tribe
responsible for funding and implementing prevention. We recommend that
current costs for detention of juveniles be provided under Child
Welfare. This would provide the opportunity for the tribe to redirect
funds to youth prevention activities in the community for all Native
American children living on the Winnebago Reservation.
The Tribe is reorganizing the Human Services Department to try to
realize more benefit from the dollars expended. For example, the tribe
is in the process of combining employment and training programs under
Public Law 477 guidelines. This process will be completed and
implemented by Oct. 1, 1999. The Tribe is also developing a centralized
in-take process to streamline all delivery services (social, health,
education, training, employment, law enforcement, court) to meet the
total needs of families. This holistic approach to confront the total
needs of a family in crisis is an innovative process to stabilize
families and prepare the family unit to become productive members of
the tribe. This process would require case management by a number of
services at once for each family member needing assistance identified
by the in-take process. The benefits and savings of one family becoming
functional would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in future
services to it members and off-spring. This process as run into many
problems do the fact federal and state funds are extremely
compartmentalized and laden with bureaucratic red tape.
Law Enforcement Communications Services is a program overlooked,
and underfunded by law enforcement programs within the BIA. In the 1998
TPA program funding the Winnebago Tribe committed $141,356. to meet the
minimum funding necessary to provide 24 hour communication services to
the community of Winnebago and the surrounding area. Services include
Law Enforcement communications, fire calls, networking with other law
enforcement agencies, and emergency calls. Additional funding of
$157,848 is needed to bring this program into a standard of service
which would meet the needs of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
Wildlife and Parks funds two conservation officers and two part-
time officers during hunting seasons on the Winnebago Reservation.
Without them, there would be no law enforcement of hunting codes on the
reservation. The Tribe has an agreement with the State of Nebraska
whereby the Tribe monitors and manages the reservation wildlife. Needs
of this program are a staff position to oversee the general
administration of this program and a part time biologist to assist
conservation officers in herd management of deer population, wild
turkey and other wildlife management. Additional funding of $137,720,
would meet staffing and operational needs for this wildlife management
program.
Law Enforcement.--We urge the Subcommittee to support the
Administration's request for $25 million for BIA Law Enforcement, to be
used for criminal investigators, uniformed police and basic detention
services, within the Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account. We
support additional funds for law enforcement in Indian country based on
two particular needs experienced by the Winnebago Tribe.
Law Enforcement Center--The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is
requesting a centralized Facility to house our Tribal Court, BIA Law
Enforcement, Tribal Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement Communications
Services, Adult Detention Services, and Juvenile Detention Services on
the Winnebago Reservation. Projected costs for this project would be
$8,400,000 for site preparation and construction, $630,760 to meet
staffing requirements for detention facilities, and $657,000 to meet
operational costs for this facility. The Winnebago Tribe is currently
developing plans and options for cost share on this needed facility for
our community. As mentioned earlier juvenile detention costs are
reaching prohibitive amounts for the tribe. Adult detention requires a
number of adults ordered to detention to be transported to facilities
in South Dakota approximately 150 miles from our reservation. Costs of
transportation, officer transporting time, report filing time, and
returning of prisoners to the Winnebago Reservation are costs that can
only be estimated. Adults and juveniles that must be placed under house
arrest because of funding limitations defeats the process of punishment
for law violations. It is our hope by jointly working with federal
agencies, state agencies, and our tribal government there will be
affordable solutions in cost sharing to enable this project to proceed
in a very timely matter. As part of this request the Winnebago Tribe
ask that General Services Administration (GSA) begin the process to
work out a long term lease with the tribe to secure needed operational
costs, and possible loan repayments for this facility.
BIA Law Enforcement Services/Uniform Division--The Winnebago Tribe
of Nebraska requests that additional funding be made available in the
amount of $1,225,975 to the Winnebago Agency Law Enforcement Services
to be used to bring BIA Law Enforcement Services on the Winnebago
Reservation to a standard that will provide adequate services to the
Winnebago Reservation and all Native Americans living and working
within its boundaries.
Tribal Colleges.--In the fall of 1996, the Winnebago Tribe
chartered and began operation of the Little Priest Tribal College. The
College, the 30th member of the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium began to receive assistance payments under the Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges Act (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) in fiscal
year 1998. Little Priest Tribal College submitted its self-study and
requested a site visit by the North Central Accreditation Agency. It
has initial candidacy status.
The Winnebago Tribe supports the Administration's requested
increase of $5.5 million for operating grants for the 26 Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges, for a proposed fiscal year 1999 level of
$35.4 million.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce Wynne, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Spokane Tribe.
The Tribe is located in Eastern Washington, has 2,145 members and a
Reservation of 156,000 acres. While the Spokane Tribe was historically
a fishing tribe, we now rely primarily on timber for tribal income. The
Spokane Tribe supports the overall increase of $142.1 million over the
fiscal year 1998 enacted level for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
However, there are several program areas within the BIA for which the
Tribe is asking for increased funding over the Administration's fiscal
year 1999 request. We support the President's proposed increase of $5.5
million for funding for the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges. In
the Indian Health Service, the Tribe is asking the Subcommittee to
support funding for new modular units to house the Tribe's clinic and
funding for an elderly assisted living program. In addition, there are
two policy matters: the first is to implement phase one of the
Secretary's proposed settlement of disputed tribal trust accounts, and
the second is the need to include tribes in the decisions related to
restructuring of the Pacific Northwest Energy System.
bureau of indian affairs
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) Account
The Spokane Tribe supports the proposed $34 million increase in TPA
funding for fiscal year 1999. The TPA funding is the lifeblood of
tribal governments. It is the money tribes receive to support services
for their people. The United States' obligation to provide funds for
tribal health, education and welfare programs is part of the treaty
guarantees made to tribes by the United States in return for the
cession of millions and millions of acres of land.
Decreases in prior years in TPA funding have left tribes actually
losing in terms of adjustments for inflation. We use these funds for
many purposes, including tribal government infrastructure, services for
children and the elderly, scholarships, education, courts, law
enforcement, adult vocational education, training, agriculture and
forestry. The funds must be stretched very thin for all programs. The
services the Tribe is expected to deliver versus the amount of our
contracts for these programs does not fulfill the BIA's trust
responsibility. In addition, the introduction of Welfare Reform has
placed an unexpected burden on our Education programs.
Our unmet identified needs total $2,469,207, as shown: $40,000
increase for scholarships; $40,000 increase for fire protection--the
Tribe currently loses 98 percent of all structure fires because of bad
equipment, inadequate communications and remote fire stations; $115,900
increase for tribal courts--the Tribe's court caseload has increased
fourfold in two years; $585,307 increase for UCUT--significant funds
are needed to maintain existing projects and implement new projects;
$588,000 increase for Midnight Mine reclamation--the Tribe needs the
technical expertise to adequately protect our reservation resources;
$100,000 increase for Lake Roosevelt management--the documented needs
falls short by this amount; and $1 million for the thirteen Columbia
Basin tribes to participate in Columbia River Basin governance.
We ask the Subcommittee to support the President's proposed
increase for TPA and to add more if possible to this account which
targets spending at the local level. An across-the-board ten percent
increase over the President's budget would be of great benefit to all
tribes nationwide.
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Act
The President's budget requests an increase of $5.5 million for
operating grants for the 26 Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, for
a proposed fiscal year 1999 level of $35.4 million. The Spokane Tribe
supports an additional increase of $2 million to $7.5 million. We
believe this minimum amount is necessary to maintain stable and
productive colleges on Indian reservations. The Spokane Tribal College
is in its early stages of development. We are proud of our
accomplishments to date and look forward to full participation in the
TCCC's program in the near future.
Johnson O'Malley; Scholarships
The Spokane Tribe requests increased funding for the Johnson
O'Malley program at the fiscal year 1995 level of $24 million. Fiscal
year 1999 request is $18 million. We support the fiscal year 1999
request of $29 million for scholarships, which is an increase of
$488,000 over fiscal year 1998.
Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)
The primary purpose of the UCUT program is to mitigate the harm to
fish and wildlife caused by the construction and operation of
hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries.
UCUT has helped the Northwest Power Planning Council incorporate in its
decisions the fundamental importance of fish and wildlife resources to
the religious, cultural and economic livelihood of the Indian tribes.
UCUT funds are used to implement, monitor and evaluate fish and
wildlife plans as well as for regulatory enforcement, planning and
coordination between State, Federal and Tribal governments.
The Tribe supports the $5 million for a new water quality and
watershed management planning program for reservation lands in the
Missouri, Rio Grande, Columbia and Colorado River basins.
Tribal/BIA Law Enforcement
The Spokane Tribe supports the President's request for $25 million
increase for BIA law enforcement we also appreciate the additional
funds requested for tribal law enforcement in the Justice Department's
budget. However, we urge that the Bureau remain the primary agency
responsible for law enforcement in Indian Country.
indian health service
As a general comment, the Spokane Tribe is concerned about the
inadequate funding base for the Indian Health Service, especially the
failure in the fiscal year 1999 budget request to include more than
$130 million in mandatory cost increases for Federal Pay Act costs,
inflation, population growth and staffing for new facilities. The
proposed small increase ($2.8 million) for fiscal year 1999 does not
include increases for inflation, population growth or staffing at new
facilities and to meet the cost of implementing managed care through
the IHS system. The Tribe is also concerned about the ongoing need for
additional resources for construction funds, since many of the clinics
in the Northwest are outdated, and unable to meet standards for quality
health care. The fiscal year 1999 IHS budget request also assumes an
increase in Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance collections
totaling $25 million to offset the inadequate increase in funding.
The IHS service unit clinic at the Spokane Reservation serves all
of the Indians residing on and near the Spokane Reservation. The clinic
is small and housed in a substandard facility. It is understaffed, with
not enough doctors, dentists and other needed health personnel.
Representative Nethercutt, who is the Spokane Tribe's representative in
Congress, is working with the IHS to obtain modular units to house the
clinic. We ask the Subcommittee's support for his efforts. The cost
will be about $500,000. In addition, we would like to begin an assisted
living program for our elderly citizens through the CHR program at IHS.
A minimum of $200,000 is needed to establish such a program.
The Spokane Tribe supports the proposed diabetes prevention
funding. The actual funds that reach the Spokane Tribe is $35,000. The
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board is working on a
distribution/allocation formula for the Northwest Tribes. The Spokane
Tribe also supports the testimony of the Northwest Portland Area Indian
Health Board in its entirety. We are particularly supportive of the
request to cover unfunded mandatory cost increases
national park service
The Spokane Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), along with
fourteen other tribes, has assumed the duties and responsibilities of
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for those lands within
the exterior boundaries of the Spokane Reservation and all dependent
Indian communities. The assumption is recognized through formal
agreement with the Secretary of the Interior through the NPS. The
amount of funding currently allocated for tribal cultural programs is
not sufficient to run the THPO. The THPO fulfills federally mandated
duties and responsibilities of the NPS. The Spokane Tribe strongly
urges the Subcommittee to consider special set-aside funding for tribal
cultural programs that at least match or exceed entities with similar
duties and responsibilities.
policy matters
The Tribe is very concerned about the proposed plan to implement
the strategic plan of the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, particularly the funds requested in fiscal year 1999 for the
first phase of the Secretary's proposed settlement of disputed tribal
trust funds accounts. We strongly urge the Subcommittee take no action
to implement any part of the proposal until the Tribes have reached
some agreement on the matter. The Spokane Tribe requests a new
appropriation of $1 million annually to the BIA Rights Protection
program for use by the thirteen Columbia River Basin Tribes to complete
planning and begin implementation of a Columbia River Basin governance
process. The process will include those 13 Tribes, with the four
Columbia River Basin States (Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington) and
numerous federal agencies (including NMFS, ACOE, EPA, DOE and DOJ). The
Three Sovereigns (Tribes, States and Federal Agencies) are developing a
more effective regional governance process for the Columbia River
Basin. The Tribes need financial support, consistent with the federal
trust responsibility, to provide for offices, staff, travel and other
necessary capability to effectively participate in the Basin governance
process.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not once again remind the
Congress of its failed obligations to Tribes and our sincerest hope
that this Subcommittee will begin a corrections process. Since 1975,
our funding for tribal programs has not kept pace with funding for
programs that serve other Americans. While BIA education programs
increased an average of $14.6 million per year from 1975 to 1998, in
reality, when factored for inflation, these programs actually lost an
average of $1.4 million each and every year. The Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board reports that between 1995 and 1998, Interior
appropriations decreased by 6.7 percent while Labor, HHS and Education
increased by 9.7 percent.
In addition, there are huge backlogs in federal obligations to
Indian people, including $200 million in environmental clean-up costs
for BIA facilities, $1.8 billion for Indian sanitation facilities, $4.8
billion in Indian roads construction, and $188 million for essential
maintenance and repair for IHS facilities. There is also a significant
backlog in construction needs for schools (over $600 million), juvenile
facilities and jails. The Spokane Tribe strongly urges the Subcommittee
to consider special set aside funding for roads construction, as this
is a critical area with shortages nationwide.
Finally, the Spokane Tribe expects the Subcommittee to observe and
enforce your rules. Once more, the Tribe appreciates the opportunity to
submit this testimony today and we look forward to working with the
Subcommittee during the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle.
______
Prepared Statement of Earl Havatone, Chairman, Hualapai Tribe of
Arizona
Summary.--The Hualapai Tribe of Arizona strongly supports the
President's budget request for funding for Indian tribes through the
Historic Preservation Fund administered by the National Park Service.
The President's budget request for the Historic Preservation Fund
includes two items for tribes: (1) the existing program of grants-in-
aid to Indian Tribes, for which the President's budget requests $3.096
million, an increase of $800,000 over fiscal year 1998; and (2) the
proposed program of millennium Grants to Save America's Treasurers, in
which $3 million would be made available to tribal governments.
Background.--In 1998, the Hualapai Tribe of Arizona became one of
the first Indian tribal governments in the country to take over
responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
that would otherwise be performed by the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). Amendments to the NHPA enacted in 1992 authorize tribal
governments to take on those responsibilities, and so far some sixteen
tribes have done so, even though the amount of federal financial
assistance available for tribes is quite limited. The Hualapai Tribe
was in a position to step forward and take on those responsibilities in
large part as a result of our participation as a cooperating agency in
the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) on the
operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, a project administered by the Bureau
of Reclamation. The Colorado River is the northern boundary of our
Reservation, and there are numerous places throughout the Grand Canyon
that hold religious and cultural importance for our Tribe. The
operation of Glen Canyon Dam causes impacts on these traditional
cultural properties. Accordingly, the Bureau of Reclamation provided
financial assistance to the Hualapai Tribe and other tribes to help
conduct studies to be used in preparing the EIS. That project funding
enabled us to establish our tribal cultural resources program.
Since 1996, our cultural resources program has been funded mainly
through grants from the National Park Service. This has enabled us to
accomplish quite a lot, including the enactment of our cultural
heritage resources ordinance and the establishment of on-going
relationships with federal and state agencies and other tribal
governments.
Need for this funding.--Tribal governments deserve to be full
partners in our national historic preservation program. The American
people need tribal governments to become full partners. As more and
more tribes seek to take on responsibilities like those of the state
historic preservation officers, the amount of funding simply must be
increased. The President's budget is a modest request to meet a very
important need, and we urge you to support it.
______
Prepared Statement of Joseph F. McConnell, President, Fort Belknap
Community Council
The Fort Belknap Indian Community wishes to thank you for this most
important opportunity to present a request for special appropriations
by and for the members of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. My name
is Joseph McConnell, I am the President of the Fort Belknap Community
Council and a member of the Gros Ventre Tribe. I represent both the
Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation.
The Fort Belknap Indian Community is requesting appropriations to
meet the following goals and objectives. (Attached for your review is
justification for each goal and objective for which funding is
requested):
Natural resources
Land consolidation: $7,250,000--appropriations to FBIC for land
acquisition and relending to eligible individual members of the
Community to reduce/eliminate fractionated heirship lands.
Integrated resource management plans: ($1,789,000) year 1 $489,300;
year 2 $325,000; year 3 $325,000; year 4 $325,000; year 5 $325--
appropriations necessary to implement the planning requirements of
Public Law 103-177 entitled Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act.
Water development: $998,000--appropriations to FBIC for water
development to stabilize livestock and farming/ranching industries
through development/improvement of wells and impoundments.
Boundary/interior fences: $2,770,000--appropriations to FBIC to
replace 595 miles of boundary and interior fencing at $4,500 per mile
constructed from 1889 to 1970 and to acquire and install cattle-guards
at $1,000 each to protect the traveling public.
Fort Belknap irrigation rehabilitation and betterment project:
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1998 to address Lower Main Canal ``A'',
Drain ``D-1'' and Drain ``D-3'' in accordance with attached
documentation.
Historical/cultural/religious center: $350,000. The Fort Belknap
Indian Community must develop the capability to protect and preserve
historical/cultural/religious sites and artifacts. We must also expand
our capabilities on ``repatriation''.
Rangeland renovation: Historic abuse of the range (grazing)
resources of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, and other
Reservations, by United States Government Policies and unscrupulous
livestock operations has resulted in the inability of the land to
produce forage for which it is capable. One of the major contributors
to insufficient production is ``clubmoss''. Range Renovation cost
estimate is $602,976 and deferral cost estimates are $703,776 total
estimated cost of Range Renovation Project is $1,306,750.
Irrigation operation and maintenance: $65,000. The Fort Belknap
Indian Irrigation Project is classified as a Category II Project. Under
this category, Congress has authorized the partially subsidize of the
operation and maintenance. This subsidy was not in last year's budget
for the first time in the projects history and has created a severe
hardship on the landowners and operators of the Tribe. The Fort Belknap
Indian Irrigation Project lands are 99.5 percent Indian operated. The
Tribe requests $65,000 for the category II subsidy for fiscal year 1998
and in perpetuity. We are also requesting that any delinquent O&M
assessed to landowners/operators due to inability of the project to
deliver timely/adequate water or lack of drainage facilities be
eradicated.
Municipal, rural and industrial water project feasibility study in
fiscal year 1999: In fiscal year 1999, the Fort Belknap Indian
Community shall need Congressional authorization for the Bureau of
Reclamation to fund a Feasibility Study for a Reservation-wide MR&I
water project. The Tribes request that the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development authorized
the expenditure of $185,000 for a feasibility study for development of
an MR&I water system for the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. This
study shall identify costs and feasibility for the improvement of water
supply systems for the Reservation to meet immediate public health and
economic development needs at Fort Belknap.
Tribal courts
An additional area of major concern to the Fort Belknap Tribal
Government is that of jurisdiction and the increasing attacks on the
Sovereign status of the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. In an
effort to up-grade our Courts system to enable us to withstand these
attacks, we are requesting $868,540 annually for the next five (5)
years in order to up-grade existing staff, increase professional and
support staff and provide proper training, legal documents and expert
witnesses and office support supplies.
Indian Health Service and tribal health
Funding for the medical care of Native Americans has fallen
extremely short over the years. While inpatient and outpatient visits
have increased, the funding has decreased. The President's budget
request will have severe results if funding for some of these projects
is not restored. We are requesting your support for the following:
Hospitals and clinics.--Restore the proposed budget cuts of $9.9
million.
Sanitation facilities.--Restore the proposed budget cuts of $5
million.
Maintenance and improvement.--Restore the proposed budget cuts of
$3.8 million.
Collections.--The proposed requirement includes $25 million to be
collected from other resources (i.e.: medicaid, medicare, etc.). These
are funds that may or may not amount to the $25 million that is
included in the budget. The shortfall would cut into other necessary
funding. This requirement puts a burden on the field offices to collect
this amount. Restore this amount and any collections would be used to
offset this amount.
Indian self-determination.--The budget proposes no additional
funding for the ISD Fund. As of September 17, 1997, those on the
waiting list amounts to $49 million.
Contract support dollars.--There will be a substantial contract
support shortfall for the on-going contracts and compacts.
Pay cost increases.--The only reflect the needs for IHS staff and
does not include the pay cost needs for Tribes.
Fort Belknap Indian Reservation has just recently opened a new
Clinic on the southern end of the reservation, in the community of
Hays. In addition, a new hospital, located at the northern end of the
reservation, is in the final stages of construction and hopefully the
staff will be moving sometime in May or June of 1998. With the new
Clinic in Hays, the outpatient load is sure to increase. No additional
funds were made available for staff housing at the Hays Clinic, nor for
the increase in staff at the new Fort Belknap Agency Hospital. IHS
Engineering Services estimates the cost to be: Fort Belknap Agency,
$3,201,000 for 13 units and Hays Clinic, $3,688,000 for 16 units. The
cost would include the roads, water and sewer, landscaping, etc. In
addition, we are requesting more funding for the Contract Medical Care
Program at the Fort Belknap Agency as promised by Indian Health Service
Staff. With the reduction of hospital beds, the Fort Belknap Hospital
anticipates and increase in contract medical care. As it is, we are
always short in contract medical care funds.
Again I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present to you
some of the needs of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and its
members. If you require any additional information concerning our
request, please contact me or a member of the Staff.
______
Prepared Statement of Mervin Wright, Jr., Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe
I am the Tribal Chairman for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of
Nevada. On behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this written testimony to the Senate Subcommittee
on Interior Appropriations. We express our gratitude for Committee
support in the past, and respectfully request the Committee to fund our
Tribe's priorities for fiscal year 1999: High School Construction,
Water Right Acquisition Program, Judicial Services, Health and Welfare
Services, Housing Improvement Program, Law Enforcement and Cultural
Resource Preservation. A brief history will support this request for
funding.
Tribal history.--The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is one band of the
Northern Paiute Nation and is organized under the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934. The Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation is the largest Indian
reservation in the State of Nevada covering approximately 476,000
acres. Pyramid Lake is the largest terminal lake in the United States
and has a surface area of 110,000 acres. A prehistoric indigenous fish
called the Cui-ui (pronounced Koo-uee) has existed in our lake for
thousands of years, it is the foundation of our traditional culture and
Pyramid Lake is the only place in the world where our Cui-ui is found.
We are traditionally known as the Cui-ui Ticutta or Cui-ui eaters. The
Cui-ui are an endangered species, while another inhabitant fish the
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is a threatened species. These two fish
species were once the primary economic support for our Paiute People.
The enrolled membership of the Tribe is currently 1,987. Our Tribal
Government responsibility is to provide primary services to our
elderly, our children, and the maintenance social order within our
reservation. Cultural identity is a prevalent matter of importance in
preserving the status and well being of our past and future
generations. Education and health care are principle factors requiring
professional attention and care at acceptable standards of our society
addressing social ills and additional pressures of our modern day
society.
Pyramid Lake High School: $8,700,000
Our high school architectural design is 100 percent complete and
Congress appropriated $1.8 million in fiscal year 1998 to begin site
preparation leading to construction completion. Our high school will
enhance acceptable educational standards of achievement that will
promote post secondary education promoting the well being our
reservation community. We are committed to promoting a high standard of
achievement, while each student entering high school will be provided
the opportunity to realize the challenge of success and the completion
of secondary and post secondary educational institutions. Our People
will be positively impacted in realizing the building of social and
economic indicators enhancing community based involvement aimed to
further our ability to educating our youth.
Water Right Acquisition/Water Resources Management: $3,000,000
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is seeking the remaining $2.5 million
to complete its water rights acquisition program. Over the recent
years, Congress has appropriated $9.5 million for this program and the
remaining $2.5 million will complete the federal government's
commitment authorized by 1996 Water Quality Agreement. Under the
Agreement the United States Department of Interior, on behalf of the
Tribe, is obligated to purchase $12 million worth of water rights from
willing water right holders in the Truckee River Basin. Since the
inception of the Newlands Reclamation Project in 1902 and with the
construction of Derby Dam in 1908, Pyramid Lake's aquatic habitat and
environmental structure has been seriously damaged and continues to be
threatened. The Tribe entered negotiations in 1986 to resolve the long
history of outstanding litigation and related issues on the Truckee and
Carson Rivers with upstream and neighboring communities, the States of
Nevada and California and the federal government.
We are directly involved with completing final stage of the
Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Settlement Act (Title II of Public
Law 101-618). However, the management, monitoring and enforcement will
only begin with achieving and approving this settlement. The Pyramid
Lake Paiute Tribe is one of five principle signatories of the
settlement act. As we approach the implementation phase of the
settlement act, we realize and accept the immense administrative
responsibility accompanying its implementation. The Tribal Water
Resources Management Contract will require at least $500,000 in funding
support for technically advanced operations associated with monitoring
flows, establishing water quality criteria, scheduling releases,
managing the accounting of various water supplies and participating in
any further implementation activities. Our role is critical in
achieving full satisfaction among the principle parties.
Health Care/Social Services: $2,500,000
Our health services and social structure on our reservation
continue to be one of fragile capacity. The Tribe manages its own
clinic facility, but the bureaucracy surrounding the service absorbs
much of the funding before actual services can be provided. Service
units are capable of providing equal, if not more efficient
administration without incredible Area Office wasteful spending. This
funding will provide for contract health care services which is used to
treat Indian patients outside the primary care perimeters. Due to
contract health services deficits, our patients are suffering increased
denial of specialty providers as hospitals are refusing to accept our
patients. Our service unit is forced to transfer funding from contract
health services to purchase pharmaceuticals, while the Area Office
budgets increase. Certain unfunded mandates for commissioned corps
salaries and Area Office costs are crippling our capability to provide
health care and restrict actual needed medical care.
Dental services are lacking adequate funding support to accommodate
the needs of our reservation community. We are limited to providing
only one day of service per week and our patients are expected to
utilize surrounding dental care units miles from the reservation. Our
mental health care needs are severely conditioned by the funding
disparity within the service unit. Our People deserve the utmost
attention to address the needs to provide acceptable levels of
professional clinical services.
We thank Congress for providing $35 million for prevention and
treatment of diabetes. We would use this funding amount to supplement
and increase our ability to address the large alcoholism problem, which
plagues every sector of Indian Country. Unlike diabetes, alcoholism
affects the entire family. Alcohol related accidents are the number one
killer of Indian People under the age of 40 and alcohol related deaths
are 10 times higher than that of Caucasian populations. Diagnosed
alcoholism is 10 times greater than that of any other category of
People. We urge Congress to commit funding support to enhance our
ability to combat a historical and longstanding problem.
Our child abuse cases are among the high levels of our society. The
Indian Child Welfare Act provides abilities to address the needs of
Indian children, but without adequate funding levels, we are restricted
to limit services to that of our penal systems. Child placements are a
high cost to our Tribe, from which we can envision funding for
pragmatic skills enhancement, parenting skills and family unity
education programs. Our society has become highly dependent on federal
services to absorb costs, which at times those costs are not
supportable. Therapeutic based services provide welcomed intervention
to families rather than forceful or court ordered counseling sessions.
A positive approach is the best manner to address the problems related
to social ills on our reservation. Our People will be the beneficiary
of these supportable services through this funding.
Housing Improvement Program: $100,000
Our Tribe has incredible unmet housing needs with the majority of
our homes built over 20 years ago. Most of the housing is below
standard living conditions. Our elderly are the sector of our
population that has lived in such substandard and poverty levels. This
funding will be used to address housing needs such as water and sewer
service, renovation, insulation and utility upgrades. HIP grants will
help us to bring many homes of our members up to a livable standard.
Cultural Resource Preservation: $300,000
The overall land acreage of the reservation requires an immense
level of resources to monitor and police areas of sensitivity.
Uninvited encroachment, vandalism and trespass issues are the primary
violations on the reservation. The Tribe has the ability to represent
concerns and issues before federal and state agencies, but does not
have the financial ability to organize an effort to work cooperatively
and in conjunction with such agencies. The aboriginal territory of the
Northern Paiute encompasses five states and crosses many jurisdictional
boundaries. The Tribe will be responsible for planning and developing
stringent representative measures to protect and preserve our vast
amounts of cultural resources.
Law Enforcement: $500,000
Tribal law enforcement requires having the ability to effectively
enforce tribal laws and regulations upon many visitors to the
reservation, which also includes enforcement upon Tribal members. In
enforcing the regulatory requirements for law and order, fish and game
and ordinance compliance, this funding will provide a greater ability
to work cooperatively with federal officials, state officials and local
jurisdictions. It is important that our tribal government accept and
support the needs of adequate law enforcement for proper enforcement
measures to meet community safety needs of our reservation. We also
want to call the Committee's attention to the lack of investigation
abilities of our Tribal law enforcement. Many crimes on the reservation
are not recognized by the Attorney General as important to the United
States, so many acts of vandalism, arson, theft and property crimes go
unpunished because the Tribe does not have investigative certification
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or any other federal agency.
Judicial Services: $400,000
Tribal judicial services includes providing court jurisdiction over
civil and criminal matters occurring within the exterior boundaries of
our reservation. We conduct both juvenile and adult court on a
regularly scheduled basis. Much of our violators are tried in civil
matters, while many are tried in criminal matters. This funding will
provide for additional costs in locating our entire judicial services
in a self-contained facility already established on the reservation,
but aside from the administrative operations on the Tribe. We require
this funding support for elevating the services of our employee duties
and responsibilities of our two judges, court clerk, prosecutor,
defense advocate and probation officer. This will enhance our ability
to better serve law and order of our reservation.
Policy Issues:
BIA and IHS Reorganization.--As Congress continues its review of
the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are serious
concerns with respect to the structure of the BIA which provides actual
services to reservation communities. The structure of the BIA, its Area
offices and its BIA Agency offices tend to regulate the authority of
this federal agency. The services provided through the Interior
appropriation process gets into the system, but normally the Area and
Agency offices tend to absorb the funds intended for Tribal programs on
the reservation. It is a matter of reducing the bureaucracy causing
setbacks, but not cutting funding for services that actually reach
Indian Tribes.
The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) funding must be increased as
many of the people based services are in direct association of this
funding source. The BIA and other federal costs must not be expended
from this TPA source, as the trust responsibility and regulatory
compliance is retained within the BIA system. Tribes should not be
charged with unnecessary costs that is a federal obligation to afford
its own ability to address its bureaucratic problems without reducing
needed funding for our TPA programs.
The IHS is in the same situation. The services are not received at
adequate levels. It is the Area Office and the Headquarters where the
bureaucracy absorbs the funding intended to provide services on the
ground. The purpose or reorganizing the IHS should be viewed as one to
increase the services at the reservation. It is our recommendation that
the process of restructuring the IHS not result in reduced funding for
direct Tribal services. Tribal members are eligible for Medicaid and
Medicare, but the IHS system offers their services as a supplement, not
as an addition to the care provided. Although new medications are
introduced to Indian populations through the IHS, our patients do not
see the research and study results prescribing safe new drugs to IHS
pharmacies. As a result, we are treated as experimental subjects while
our illnesses and diseases are not effectively diagnosed, this is
unacceptable. Our People cannot be treated as expendable to a
bureaucracy controlled agency who may not utilize its own services upon
its own families.
Sovereign Immunity.--Legislation pending in the Senate, S. 1691,
which aims to eliminate the sovereign status of Indian Tribes. If each
member of Congress can expect its representative State to waive its
limited and conditioned sovereign immunity, this bill may be viewed as
fair, but until then this is form another form of a coward's attack. S.
1691 is a meat axe approach to problems that are merely misapplied
perception of non-Indian communities without merit. In a broad scope,
this bill will gut Tribal sovereign immunity without protection for
Tribal authority to govern Tribal affairs. S. 1691 findings are not
valid and are a blatant disregard to the United States' fiduciary
obligation to Tribes. This issue is not considerable by any means.
Trust Responsibility.--The federal trust responsibility is one that
our People know well and is one that I cannot allow to be overlooked or
placed secondary to resources of material content. We are People of
this land, the first People of this land and express our concern for
equal, if not better, services for our People than has been provided by
the Congress over the past 20 years. We expect that the concept of
government to government relations be upheld by the each and every
federal agency of the Interior Department. As long as we can
effectively consult with each agency in decision making processes,
there will definitely be an increased awareness to trust the ability to
meet our expectations.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of Thomas H. Altmeyer, Sr., Vice President,
Government Affairs, 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 1999 programs for the following
agencies: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Fossil Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geological
Survey, the Office of Surface Mining, the Bureau of Land Management,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Forest Service.
Office of Fossil Energy
One of our major challenges as we enter the 21st century will be
both replacement and expansion of the electric generating capacity of
our nation. By 2020, according to EIA forecasts, we will have to add
the capacity to generate up to 1.7 trillion more kilowatt hours than in
1997 (a 45 percent increase). In the same timeframe, much of existing
capacity will be reaching its useful life, or must be relicensed. As we
build new, to replace old and to meet new demands, we must be in a
position to utilize the more efficient and cleaner technologies that
DOE is developing through its R&D Programs. NMA supports continuing the
Federal government's partnership with the private sector as an integral
part of the foundation for enhanced utilization of our vast domestic
energy resources.
Vision 21.--DOE's Vision 21 proposal builds on technology
advancements already being made by the Fossil Energy Program through
the integration of ongoing research and development in advanced coal
gasification and combustion, fuel cells and advanced coal conversion
technologies. The ``energyplex'' concept incorporated in Vision 21 is
integral to the effort to make the coal conversion process as close to
a ``zero emission'' goal as possible by the middle of the next century.
NMA strongly supports this concept.
Research and development dollars spent to increase efficiencies of
utility generating capacity have a greater potential to reduce overall
energy use (and thus all emissions) than dollars spent to increase the
efficiency of end use applications. For this reason, NMA supports
focusing the majority of available research dollars to development and
refinement of generation technology. DOE funding to continue the
advanced clean/efficient power systems (advanced pulverized coal-fired
power plant, indirect-fired cycle, high-efficiency integrated
gasification combined cycle and high-efficiency pressurized fluidized
bed) and carbon sequestration technology should be increased by the
Congress.
The Clean Coal Technology Program.--The Clean Coal Technology
Program is a highly successful industry and government partnership
designed to demonstrate a new generation of innovative coal processes.
Many of the technologies developed by the program will be an integral
part of the energyplex as envisioned by ``Vision 21.'' NMA supports the
budget request to continue the Clean Coal partnership, which to date
has been funded at approximately a 60/40 private industry to government
ratio to obtain the multiple benefits derived from coal utilization
both domestically and internationally.
Coal Research and Development.--The subcommittee should provide
adequate funding for coal preparation and direct and indirect
liquefaction. Advanced coal preparation technologies promise to enable
the nation to continue use of coal in traditional applications in large
industrial and electric utility boilers. Development of cost effective
liquefaction technologies will open new opportunities for high quality
coal use in turbines for power and for liquid fuels. These systems are
important both as an insurance policy against the disruption of
imported oil to the U.S. and a necessary investment in establishing an
economically viable liquid fuels program.
National Laboratories and Cooperative R&D Programs.--The Department
of Energy should continue its emphasis on making maximum use of its
existing research facilities, including those national laboratories
which traditionally have not been active in fossil energy. The National
Laboratory system is important to the future of the mining industry
steering R&D Programs for more efficient combustion technologies, and
since the demise of the Bureau of Mines, a research program to enhance
extraction technologies. Cooperative R&D Programs such as the Western
Research Institute in Wyoming and the Energy and Environmental Research
Center in North Dakota have demonstrated value because of their
potential for near-term payback through commercialization and should
continue to be supported through the DOE budget.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The Industry of the Future Program.--The research priorities
developed through this industry/government partnership will offer
important direction to the Department of Energy, industry and the
Congress in developing a research agenda in coming years. The mining
industry is working with the Office of Industrial Technologies to
develop technology road maps for the mining industry which will be
completed in the fall of 1998. NMA urges the subcommittee to approve
the funding level requested by DOE for this program.
Energy Information Administration
In addition to its value to the nation, the functions performed by
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are of significant
importance to the mining industry. EIA's unbiased analysis and
independent short- and long-term forecast form the basis for reasoned
and responsible policy decisions by the Congress, the DOE and other
government agencies on both the Federal and the state levels. EIA's
independence and objectivity are extremely important as the nation
evaluates the merits of the proposed Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
and the effects on new energy systems should the protocol be ratified.
EIA's energy data collection and dissemination responsibilities are
essential to our industry's ability to evaluate production and market
trends and to make investment decisions which benefit the nation. NMA
urges the subcommittee to support the increase in funding proposed for
the EIA.
Office of Surface Mining
The Office of Surface Mining's Regulation and Technology
appropriation should be regularly evaluated in light of acknowledged
maturation of approved state regulatory programs over the last 20
years. The mining industry supports the agency's new results-oriented
oversight system that emphasizes the effectiveness of state programs
rather than the ill-conceived duplicative regulatory approach to
oversight. Additional opportunities exist to streamline and reduce the
number of OSM activities that duplicate state regulatory functions
including consolidation of existing OSM offices and positions. State
program grants, technical information processing systems, training
state personnel, review of state program amendments and electronic
permitting activities can and should continue to be enhanced as OSM
streamlines its structure.
The mining industry supports increasing the Title IV funding for
these state abandoned mine land programs where priority coal projects
remain to be addressed. We urge the subcommittee to require continued
improvements by OSM and states in the efficient use of abandoned mine
land (AML) dollars for on-the-ground priority, coal projects. Excessive
expenditures for administration and overhead costs, as well as for
projects unrelated to AML priorities should be discouraged. The mining
industry would also note that the coal mining industry continues to pay
substantially more in AML taxes than is used each year. This disparity
of excessive revenue over expenditures--more than $100 million annually
for the last three years--has pushed the cumulative unappropriated
balance of the AML Fund to almost $1.5 billion.
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service
National Mining Association members are engaged in extensive
exploration for and development of minerals on public lands. These
lands are the cornerstone of the nation's mining industry. In turn,
mining operations on public lands generate taxes and employment. In
many cases, mining activity is the major source of employment in rural
communities.
Absent reform of the Mining Law, the mining industry opposes the
Administration's proposal to make the annual maintenance fee for mining
claims on federal lands permanent and to a continuation of a moratorium
on patenting. The mining industry continues to support legislative
proposals to amend the mining law and has consistently sought to
advance economically sustainable modifications including a royalty;
payment for surface land with a reverter to the Federal government if
used for nonmining purposes or upon completion of mining; and a claims
holding fee. Last year, the industry signed a historic agreement with
the Western states to identify and work toward elimination of
disincentives to the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mine lands and other
purposes. Work on the Abandoned Mine Land Initiative (AMLI) is
proceeding cooperatively under the auspices of the Western Governors'
Association. Any additional revenues collected from the industry for
administration of the mining laws should be directly returned to the
states where the AMLI activity is occurring to assist the ongoing
effort.
The mining industry, as well as other natural resource industries,
is faced with increasing impediments to exploration and use of Federal
lands. A significant, yet declining, amount of domestic minerals
production activity is conducted on Federal lands. Withdrawals of land
from exploration by executive fiat and through moratoria, as recently
proposed by the Forest Service, coupled with NEPA compliance and
permitting delays of as long as eight years, are resulting in a marked
decline in domestic exploration and mine development activity--
particularly on land areas under the control of the BLM and Forest
Service. A number of major mining companies have significantly scaled
back or terminated U.S. exploration activities. As a result, our
nation's ability to continue to domestically produce the 40,000 pounds
of minerals annually consumed per citizen is being placed in jeopardy.
The mining industry would suggest that an independent assessment of
the ramifications of this trend on domestic production and minerals
availability would greatly benefit policymakers in evaluating current
and future land use policy. The mining industry recommends that the
Congress direct the National Academy of Sciences through the Board on
Earth Sciences and Resources to prepare such an independent analysis on
an expedited basis.
Pending submission of such an analysis to the Congress, the
industry suggests that the use of Federal resources to conduct ongoing
regulatory activity such as BLM's revisions to the Surface Management
Regulations, which would duplicate existing state programs, and the
Forest Service's proposed 30 million acre moratorium on multiple use be
placed in abeyance.
Available resources in both BLM and the Forest Service should be
utilized for permit processing and NEPA compliance including an
accelerated effort by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to
identify and eliminate impediments to the orderly and timely conduct of
NEPA analysis by the Federal, state, and private sectors. A recently
completed analysis by the mining industry, which identifies existing
problems in the administration of the NEPA, has been provided to the
CEQ, relevant Federal agencies and the Congressional authorizing
committees.
Clean water and watershed restoration initiative
The budget proposal highlights its commitment to the Vice
President's clean water initiatives. In several places in its ``Budget
in Brief'' the Department of the Interior refers to programs designed
to clean up abandoned hardrock mines (AML sites). Six million can be
identified in the BLM request, three million in the USGS request and
$100,000 in the OSM request have been identified for hardrock AML
cleanup. Additional analysis of the full budget document may uncover
additional requests from these and other bureaus. EPA and other
agencies may have made similar requests. However, history records that
government agencies compete, rather than cooperate, with each other and
states in their efforts. The result is that the appropriated money
never ``gets on the ground.'' Further, efforts to clean up these sites
are frequently inhibited by barriers and disincentives to state-led
voluntary cleanups. NMA recommends that Congress urge Interior through
the USGS, BLM, and OSM and other agencies to participate in, rather
than circumvent, state-led initiatives to perform cleanups and help
identify and eliminate the administrative, regulatory, and statutory
impediments to effective abandoned hardrock mine restoration.
U.S. Geological Survey
Federal investments in geoscience research and information have for
decades paid enormous dividends, and the rationale for continued
support of geoscience remains strong. For example, there is a
demonstrated need for an integrated national effort to provide
information about natural resources and geologic hazards. In addition,
the USGS prepares geologic maps utilized extensively in both the public
and private sectors. The Survey is the only source for much of the
statistical data on mining and minerals commodities. This information
forms the basis for informed policy decisions by government and is
extensively used by industry, nongovernmental organizations and
academia. Therefore, NMA strongly advocates that these data collection
and dissemination activities continue to be funded and carried out by
USGS in conjunction with state geologists.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation continues to move
forward on their rule amending their regulations implementing Sec. 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. NMA commented on the
Council's proposed rule in November, 1996, stating that the Council's:
``* * * attempt to expand its limited role under Sec. 106 in a manner
that transcends its statutory authority pervades almost the entire
rule.'' The subcommittee should closely monitor the Council's
rulemaking activity to ensure that the Council: (1) completes its
report and allows Congress sufficient time to respond, if necessary;
and (2) promulgates regulations that do not exceed its limited
commenting role under Sec. 106.
______
Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
introduction
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) is pleased to
offer its views on the role of government in support of energy
research, development, and deployment (RD&D)--as it relates to energy
efficiency programs at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The BCSE is
a diverse group of companies and industry trade associations; our
members include manufacturers, energy producers, suppliers,
distributors, and energy service companies. The BCSE has Fortune 500
companies and small entrepreneurial businesses as members. The Council
supports energy policies and programs that enhance the nation's
economic, environmental, and national security goals through the rapid
development and deployment of efficient, non- and low-polluting energy
technologies.
The Council is highly supportive of the Administration's fiscal
year 1999 request for energy efficiency and alternative energy
programs. The years 1997 and 1998 stand to be watershed years for
energy policy in the United States due to a convergence of at least
three substantial events. They include: (1) The international climate
change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan; (2) The emergence of state and
impending federal electric industry restructuring; and (3) The
possibility of Clean Air Act re-authorization. The BCSE believes that
the least intrusive and most efficient means of addressing domestic and
international environmental challenges is to promote cost-effective
clean energy technological solutions. The BCSE supports the view that
the federal government has an important role in working in cost-shared
partnership with U.S. industry toward the accelerated development and
deployment of energy-efficient and alternative fuel technologies.
The federal government's energy efficiency programs are as diverse
as the activities that consume energy. Given their breadth, the BCSE
will not attempt to address all of DOE's energy efficiency programs.
Rather, we would like to focus on a few programs that the BCSE believes
illustrate the value of the federal government's energy efficiency
effort.
alternative fuel vehicles
Transportation is the fastest growing energy consuming sector. Most
of the forecasted increase in demand for petroleum imports is driven by
the growing consumption of motor fuels. In 1996, DOE reported that
approximately two-thirds of all U.S. petroleum consumption and one-
fourth of all U.S. energy consumption are directly attributable to the
transportation sector. Demand for energy in this sector is actually
projected to grow faster than approximately two-thirds of all U.S.
petroleum consumption and one-fourth than the population due to
increased per capita travel and slower fuel efficiency gains.
Alternative fuel vehicles (AFV's)--including natural gas and electric
vehicles--promise to reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil while
virtually eliminating emissions of criteria air pollutants. The
Administration has been very active in promoting its Partnership for
Next Generation Vehicles (PNGV).
battery technology
A key component of PNGV includes advanced battery technologies for
electric (EV) and hybrid vehicles. DOE has conducted research, in
cooperation with the Advanced Battery Consortium that has led to
significant improvements in battery performance. The Ovonic Nickel-
Metal Hydride battery--produced by Council member Energy Conversion
Devices--has met or exceeded the performance goals set by the
Consortium, affirming the future market viability of EV technologies.
Although the technology is ready for market introduction, further
advancements in battery technology are required before the electric
vehicle becomes commonplace.
natural gas vehicles
While the BCSE is pleased with the Administration's increasing
budgets for PNGV, the Council is also very supportive of natural gas
vehicle (NGV) research. At this Subcommittee's request, the NGV
industry and DOE entered into a joint five-year research plan. The BCSE
supports full funding for the Plan. Accordingly, the BCSE supports DOE
research for engine optimization, tank storage, and infrastructure
equipment. DOE's emphasis should continue in the industry's priority
areas of high-fuel use medium- and heavy-duty fleet vehicles. Finally,
the BCSE continues to be a strident advocate of the Clean Cities
program and its successful effort to create and expand AFV corridors.
combined heat and power
The BCSE supports the highly leveraged advanced gas turbine, fuel
cell, and cogeneration research programs being conducted at DOE. The
Advanced Gas Turbine system offers extremely high efficiencies and low
emissions. The BCSE believes that clean distributed power generation
systems will have a remarkable impact in the electric market in the
coming years. The BCSE supports full funding for both the industrial-
scale and large generation turbine programs. These programs have served
as a model for public/private partnership. In terms of hybrid systems,
the gas turbine has great potential for hybrid applications with other
devices. One option is a natural gas-fired fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid
system that can use waste heat from the fuel cell to drive the gas
turbine as a bottoming cycle. The Council supports DOE forays into
promising hybrid systems of this nature. The Initiative also encourages
DOE to continue work on microturbine (ten to hundreds of kilowatts
scale) development under the Office of Transportation programs.
fuel cell technologies
One of BCSE's members, International Fuel Cell/ONSI, has a
commercially available Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) on the market
for dispersed electricity generation. More fuel cells will be available
in the future in a variety of sizes to fill diverse power-generating
needs. High-temperature, natural gas fuel cell systems that are
currently under development may ultimately be able to achieve a 60
percent fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency. This is extremely
favorable compared with the average of 35 percent fuel-to-electric
efficiency for the mix of generating equipment currently used to supply
the Nation's electricity. Further development of all fuel cell types
must focus on refining system designs to reduce costs, improving
performance, reducing maintenance requirements and developing the
manufacturing technology needed to achieve a market-clearing price. In
order for PAFC's to achieve full commercial status manufacturing
challenges will need to be overcome. However, the lessons learned will
have a wider application and will make U.S. technology more competitive
in the global marketplace.
The two principal U.S. developers of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells
(MCFC) are pursuing different paths in the designs of their cells,
stacks, and power plants. The BCSE supports the diversity of the two-
developer approach. DOE must also play a leading role in initiating MW-
scale demonstrations of the MCFC and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC)
technologies to validate commercial feasibility, build user confidence
in the technology, and attract the investment needed to build a
manufacturing capability.
heat pumps, gas cooling and appliances
Natural gas cooling technologies are especially energy efficient
when measured on a life-cycle and/or full-cycle basis. The societal
benefits of natural gas cooling accrue during the hours of the day and
months of the year that correspond to the peak demand for electricity.
A study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1994 estimated that the
domestic and international use of natural gas cooling will create a net
270,000 annual jobs between 1996 and 2010. This would create and
additional $8.3 billion in wage and salary income. By investing in
advanced gas cooling technologies, U.S. industries will also be able to
capture the growing global market for clean efficient technologies. The
BCSE is highly supportive of these programs and places great emphasis
on robust research for the GAX and large commercial chiller programs.
The BCSE supports DOE's research and training programs on desiccant
dehumidification devices. Desiccants offer the option of decoupling
temperature from humidity loads on a building, thus applying exactly
the amount of energy needed to satisfy each load independently. DOE is
participating in the improvement of this potential new market by
studying the properties of newly developed desiccant materials. Further
materials characterization, combined with analysis of the effects of
desiccant wheel structure and mass on desiccant equipment performance,
offer the potential to improve desiccant system economic effectiveness.
DOE should also continue its research and development of energy
efficient appliances in residential and commercial buildings,
particularly those that utilize alternative fuels. There is an inherent
conflict between national increased efficiency requirements and
consumers' desire for lower first-cost equipment. Increased-efficiency
systems, while offering lower energy costs and (usually) lower life-
cycle costs, are increasingly more complex and more expensive than
lower-efficiency equipment. Increased research is needed to solve this
paradox between efficiency requirements and consumer desires.
In addition to balancing the energy efficiency needs of new
appliances with consumers' demands, DOE should educate consumers about
the benefits of purchasing high-efficiency appliances, both to
themselves and the nation as a whole through reduced energy
consumption. Major appliance manufacturers such as Maytag are willing
to work with DOE to help promote efforts to encourage consumers to
replace older appliances with newer and more energy efficient models.
utility programs
DOE also has worked effectively with utilities and power
authorities to promote energy efficiency. Through voluntary programs
such as Climate Wise, DOE has obtained the commitment of utilities to
reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Generally, activities that
reduce emissions also reduce energy use. Climate Wise participants--
such as Council member Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)--
have premised their programs on sound economic principles. In fact,
SMUD attributes its aggressive support for energy efficiency as a
primary reason it has been able to stabilize its electricity rates.
standards and insulation
DOE has played a constructive role in providing educational and
technical support of building codes and standards such as the Model
Energy Code and ASHRAE 90.1. These codes and standards--promulgated by
private-sector organizations--help ensure that our nation's housing
stock reflects good building construction practices and is reasonably
energy efficient. In addition, DOE is currently providing educational
and technical support to help industry implement the guidelines. DOE
also has provided valuable technical assistance to the polyurethane
foam insulation industry, helping the industry to find substitutes for
some blowing agents used in insulation installation. The new
polyisocyanurate insulation performs as efficiently as the prior
product.
federal energy management
Finally, the BCSE is extremely supportive of the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) efforts at reducing federal energy usage
through the use of energy service performance contracting, reducing
energy usage while minimizing up front capital outlays. The federal
government spends over $3 billion annually to light, heat and cool the
interior of buildings it owns and operates. FEMP's progressive program
is a model of public/private partnership. Federal facilities, like
those occupied by private industry, often can be economically upgraded
and retrofitted, reducing the energy required to provide essential
building energy services. The BCSE is proud that two of its members,
Honeywell and Pacific Enterprises, won DOE competitive regional
solicitations to perform this important work. We believe every agency
of the federal government should increase its utilization of energy
service performance contracts to take advantage of this approach for
upgrading facilities and reducing energy expenditures.
conclusion
The Council recognizes that the Administration's fiscal year 1999
request for energy efficiency programs represent an increase over
fiscal year 1998. However, the BCSE believes that the federal
government's participation in cost-shared public/private partnerships
aimed at developing cost-effective non and low-polluting technologies
is the best and least intrusive manner for the government to address
our environmental challenges.
______
Prepared Statement of Kerry L. Sublette, Sarkeys Professor of
Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa; Director, Integrated
Public/Private Energy and Environmental Consortium [IPEC]
``train the trainer'': expanding environmental know-how among native
americans
Damage from past oil production can be found throughout
historically active oil and gas producing areas of Oklahoma. Perhaps
one of the most persistent problems is contamination resulting from
spills or intentional surface discharge of produced water brine. The
sites of these spills are seen today as scars on the land, devoid of
vegetation, and highly eroded. In many cases the parties responsible
for these brine spills can no longer be identified. For example,
historic brine scars are clearly visible on aerial photos from
northeast Oklahoma from 1937. Historic brine scars not only represent a
loss of use of land but also a continuing source of pollution of
valuable surface waters and groundwater. Many of these brine scars are
located on tribal lands near public and private sources of drinking
water. These sources of drinking water are jeopardized by runoff and
drainage from brine scars carrying brine components. The only way to
prevent these scars from acting as continuous sources of brine
contamination is to remediate them. However, local tribal authorities
rarely have the environmental know-how to remediate these problems
although the remediation of crude oil spills and brine scars does not
require expensive instrumentation or highly trained environmental
professionals. Members of tribal organizations with a high school
education can be easily trained to do site assessment, site
remediation, and, where necessary, ongoing monitoring. The major
equipment required is earth moving equipment. Most tribes have
equipment of this type currently used for road work and other municipal
projects. Once trained, members of the tribes can train others to
perform these remediations.
The University of Tulsa respectfully requests an appropriation of
$500,000 for fiscal year 1999 to provide much-needed training in
remediation and spill response to tribal organizations in areas of the
State of Oklahoma impacted by past oil and gas exploration activities.
The ultimate goal of this training will be give Native Americans
environmental know-how that they can pass on to others.
integrated public/private energy and environmental consortium (ipec)--a
progress report to congress
In fiscal year 1998, after a three year campaign and the strong
support of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation, the Congress provided
$1.5 million in dedicated funding for the Integrated Public/Private
Energy and Environmental Consortium (IPEC), for the development of
cost-effective environmental technology and technology transfer for the
domestic energy industry. The funding was provided in the fiscal year
1998 appropriations bill for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
As envisioned and proposed by the consortium, State-level matching
funds have been pledged to support IPEC, creating a true Federal-State
partnership in this critical area.
IPEC officers have met with the Agency and are working to satisfy
all of EPA's internal requirements for funding as a research center.
Although it will be some months before IPEC finalizes a grant with the
EPA, IPEC is proceeding in our solicitation and review process so that
we will be in a position to fund projects as soon as funds are made
available. We have solicited research proposals, formed our Industrial
Advisory Board, and had all proposals evaluated by the IAB for
relevancy to our mission. Of 36 proposals received thus far, five have
been approved by the IAB to proceed further in the evaluation process.
So you can see our IAB takes its job very seriously.
Although IPEC's close ties to the independent sector of the
domestic energy industry have resulted in a strong working relationship
with the National Petroleum Technology Office in the Office of Fossil
Energy, IPEC continues to have broad applicability across the
Department of Energy. For example, IPEC is in the second year of a
major three-year effort to support risk-based regulatory decisions at
hydrocarbon-contaminated sites. This work is funded by the Biological
and Environmental Research (BER) Program of DOE ($973,000). Further, as
I noted previously, IPEC's Industrial Advisory Board has thus far
approved five research topics as relevant to our mission. Of these
five, four concern bioremediation of contaminated soils using plants
and microbes, issues relevant to the missions of both FE and BER.
Fiscal Year 1999 Office of Fossil Energy Budget Request
In its presentation of its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the
Office of Fossil Energy proposes a significant increase in fiscal year
1999 for the development of technologies that decrease the cost of
effective environmental protection and regulatory compliance. These
goals are certainly consistent with those of IPEC and we endorse the
proposed budget increase. However, the fiscal year 1999 proposal
eliminates funding for downstream (i.e., refining) processing
technology. The Nation needs to continue to improve the economic
viability of our remaining refineries and prevent further lost of
domestic refining capacity. Therefore, IPEC urges the Subcommittee to
continue funding of this vital research in fiscal year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of Kateri Callahan, Executive Director, Electric
Transportation Coalition
introduction and overview
This testimony is presented on behalf of the Electric
Transportation Coalition (``the Coalition''), a national, non-profit
organization of electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, state and
local governments and other entities that have joined together to
advocate greater use of electricity as a transportation fuel. (A
membership list is attached.) A principal activity of the Coalition,
which was formed in 1989, is to encourage the adoption of incentive-
based policies and programs to support the development of a widespread
and sustainable market for electric modes of transportation.
The Coalition believes the role of the federal government, in
partnership with industry, is four-fold. First, to continue to
participate in efforts to advance the state of electric transportation
technologies through programs like the United States Advanced Battery
Consortium (USABC); second, to join industry in the test and evaluation
of the latest electric vehicles technologies through programs like the
Department of Energy (DOE) Field Test and Evaluation program; third, to
work with communities and industry to assure deployment of
infrastructure required to support the convenient and safe operation of
EV's; and fourth--and perhaps most important at this stage in EV
commercialization--to use the purchasing power of the federal
government to ``kick start'' the market for EV's through acquisition of
commercially-available products for use in federal agency fleets. The
Coalition requests that the Subcommittee provide funding to a number of
DOE EV-related programs, as detailed below, to assure that the federal
government is a full partner with industry in introducing technology
that can further the national policy objective of increasing the use of
clean, domestically-produced, alternative fuels--like electricity--
within the transportation sector.
industry goals and objectives
Three years ago, the Coalition adopted a strategic business plan to
assure the successful commercial launch of electric vehicles (EV's).
The plan, known as the ``EV Ready Market Launch Framework'' calls for
the building of a partnership between the auto industry, the electric
utility industry, the federal government and several key communities
around the U.S. to establish the basis for a long-term and sustainable
market for EV's. The goal of our plan is to demonstrate the viability
of EV's through the successful deployment of up to 5,000 EV's in ten
urban areas.
To achieve this goal, the Framework focuses on preparing the
infrastructure systems in the ten target communities to support
electric vehicles. Under the plan, ``infrastructure'' is defined to
encompass not only charging systems, but also financial and non-
financial incentives, training, code and standard modifications, and
public awareness.
The six principal elements of the Framework, which are intended to
direct and guide industry and government in efforts to launch the EV
market are: Initiation of a commercial demonstration of up to 5,000
EV's in up to ten areas throughout the U.S.; Government (federal, state
and local) purchase an agreed-upon number of EV's; Utilities in
selected areas purchase an agreed-upon number of EV's and secure
investment of up to $2,000 per vehicle for charging infrastructure;
Vehicle manufacturers will provide, and support the sale of EV's to
selected areas; Auto and electric utility industries will seek a
$10,000 per vehicle government incentive to offset the initial
incremental cost differential for EV's; and, Auto and electric utility
industry will seek to ensure that one-half of the vehicles placed
through the Framework are equipped with advanced batteries and/or other
enabling technologies.
role of doe in meeting industry goals and objectives
A number of the on-going DOE EV-related programs are providing
critical support to a number of areas that are key to the success of
this new, efficient and clean transportation technology. These DOE
programs complement, and augment, other work that is being undertaken
by industry separately or in partnership with other federal agencies.
If fiscal year 1999 appropriations for these DOE programs are
significantly reduced or eliminated, the requirements for funding would
fall to other parties who may not be able to increase investments even
further in order to move this technology into the marketplace.
the united states advanced battery consortium (usabc)
The Coalition urges support for the funding level of $7 million
requested by the Administration for the USABC. (In fiscal year 1998,
the Congress appropriated $15.8 million to this program.)
The USABC is a battery research and development program, critical
to the advancement of EV's. Full-size battery packs and their
components, such as cells and modules, are being developed through
research contracts and then tested by the developers, U.S. automobile
companies, and national laboratories. Battery packs also have been
installed in prototype EV's being operated at electric utilities and
testing facilities of U.S. automobile companies.
It is important to note that without the limited federal assistance
already invested, the advancements in battery technology accomplished
to date through the USABC probably would not have been achieved.
Individually, companies cannot, or are unwilling to, make the
significant investment required to conduct advanced battery research.
Largely as a result of the USABC partnership, all three domestic
automotive manufacturers have announced that nickel metal-hydride
batteries will be offered in limited numbers of EV's beginning later
this year.
The majority of fiscal year 1999 funding will be directed toward
long-term, lithium-based battery research; however, the Coalition urges
the USABC to consider using some of the funding being sought for the
program to help ``buy down'' the purchase price of early-to-market
nickel metal-hydride batteries.
funding for the hybrid propulsion systems development program
The Coalition supports efforts underway by industry and by the
federal government working with industry to develop a consumer
attractive, ultra-low emission vehicle with high fuel economy. While
continuation of the Department's Hybrid Propulsion Systems Development
Program is supported by the Coalition, it should be noted that
international and domestic auto manufacturers appear to have stepped up
individual efforts to develop hybrid electric vehicles. Indeed, as of
the end of 1997, Toyota began selling hybrid electric vehicles in Japan
for approximately $17,000 per vehicle.
The Coalition urges the Department and its partners to review the
interim and long-term goals of the program to determine whether
modification to the goals and/or scope of work is required given the
new hybrid electric vehicle availability dates announced by the
automotive industry. (Currently, the interim goal of the hybrid
propulsion program calls for completion of production feasible hybrid
propulsion systems that can double the fuel economy of passenger
vehicles, compared to 1995 models, by all three domestic auto
manufacturers by the year 2000. The long-term goal is to develop a
production prototype hybrid electric vehicle, which will meet the PNGV
goal of 80 miles per gallon, in the year 2004.)
funding for the vehicle field test and evaluation program
The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund the Vehicle Field
Test/Evaluation program at $5.45 million, or $2 million above the level
recommended by the President. The program provides critical federal
support to industry efforts to test, evaluate and undertake fleet case
studies of electric vehicles manufactured by original equipment
manufacturers. Two test teams, known as ``Quality Vehicle Test Sites
(QVTS)'' have been selected under the program to establish a uniform
set of procedures to be used in undertaking baseline performance,
reliability and fleet testing of EV's and for the conduct of such
testing on EV's as they become available.
Importantly, some of the funds made available in fiscal year 1998
through this program are to be used by the Department to acquire, and
to assist other agencies in acquiring, electric vehicles for use in the
federal fleet. DOE intends to focus federal acquisitions of electric
vehicles on those equipped with advanced batteries that have been
developed through the United States Advanced Battery Consortium. The
additional $2 million in funds being requested by the Coalition for
this program can allow the federal government to acquire at least 500
EV's as part of its obligation, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-486), to transition to the use of alternative fuel
vehicles (AFV's).
An announced goal of the Department for fiscal year 1999 is to add
15,000 AFV's to the federal fleet. (Generally, the federal government
acquires roughly 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles annually.) Currently, the
federal government operates only about 150 EV's in its entire fleet of
more than 400,000 vehicles. Further, current 1998 federal agency
acquisition plans indicate that there may be no more than 200 EV's
operating in the federal fleet by the end of 1998 unless further action
is taken.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's position that all
costs for AFV's should be borne by the federal agency acquiring the
vehicles. However, we believe that in the instance of electric vehicles
an exception to this tenet is warranted for the following reasons:
First, electric vehicle technology has largely been developed
through industry and DOE partnerships. The federal government,
principally through this Subcommittee, has invested significant funding
into the development of this technology; these investments cannot
provide a return unless the product (EV's) are commercialized. ``Early
adopters'' who are willing to try new products, and pay a premium for
the technology, are key to building volume (thereby lowering costs) and
attracting infrastructure and technology improvement investments
(thereby improving market potential). The federal government, using its
purchasing power, is an extremely important ``early adopter'' market.
Second, electric vehicles, if successful in the market place, offer
significant environmental, energy security and energy efficiency
benefits. Even given the emissions from power plants that result from
the creation of the EV ``fuel''--electricity--EV's offer significant
reductions in VOC's and NOX, the major precursors to ozone.
Further, EV's--which are highly efficient in their use of energy--offer
the potential to significantly reduce transportation-related greenhouse
gas emissions. And, finally, at a time when the U.S. is importing more
than one-half of the oil it consumes, EV's offer the advantage of being
domestically-produced, from a wide variety of fuel feedstocks.
The President, through an Executive Order (E.O. 13031) directing
federal agencies to convert agency fleets to AFV's, has recognized the
need for DOE assistance to the agencies in order to initiate the use of
EV's within the federal fleet. The President has directed DOE to
provide financial assistance of a limited amount (no more than $10,000
per vehicle) to agencies that choose to acquire EV's to fulfill some or
all of their vehicle acquisition requirements.
We are respectfully requesting that the Subcommittee provide
relatively modest funds ($2 million) to allow the DOE to assist federal
agencies in acquiring a limited number of EV's. These federal
acquisitions will be matched--and exceeded--by electric utility
acquisitions. And, if the industry is successful in reaching the target
level of acquisitions for calendar year 1998--3,250 vehicles into no
more than 10 communities, the Coalition believes we will be well along
the way toward development of a sustainable market for EV's in the U.S.
other department of energy programs of interest
In addition to the programs outlined above, the Coalition also
supports funding to a number of other alternative fuel-related programs
administered by the Department of Energy.
To assure that the marketplace is prepared and receptive to new
forms of transportation like EV's--especially in the ten Market Launch
communities--the Coalition strongly encourages full funding, at the
levels requested by the Administration, of DOE's programs designed to
create an infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, including
electric vehicles, and to build public awareness and confidence in
these new modes of transportation. These funds include $6 million for
the Clean Cities initiative; $2 million for infrastructure, systems and
safety activities; and, $1.3 million for EPAct replacement fuels
programs. These outreach, education, organization and infrastructure
deployment activities by DOE encourage investment by industry and help
to build market acceptance for alternative fuel vehicles.
conclusion
1998 and 1999 are critical junctures in industry's efforts to
determine the type(s) of vehicles that will be used in the 21st
century. The automotive manufacturers, government and the electric
utility industry have focused upon electric drive systems because of
their efficiency, environmental profile and flexible use of fuels. The
automotive industry has begun to introduce the first generation of this
technology--battery-powered electric vehicles. This Subcommittee can
play an important role to assure that we can capture the full return on
investments made to date, and realize the national benefits that will
accrue from widespread use of EV's by providing adequate levels of
fiscal year 1999 funding to the important industry and government
partnership programs to advance EV's that are currently administered by
the Department of Energy.
______
Prepared Statement of James A. Beck, President, Seneca Resources Corp.
Introduction
Chairman Gorton and members of the panel, I appreciate this
opportunity to testify before you. My name is James Beck, President of
Seneca Resources Corporation (``Seneca Resources''). I am pleased to be
here today to represent the interests of Seneca Resources regarding
payment for drainage in the West Delta Field. Congress, under Title IV
of Public Law 105-83, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998 (``the Act''), provided that the drainage
compensation would come from the newly created Environmental
Improvement and Restoration Fund (``the Fund''). The purpose of my
testimony is to propose methods of payment from the Fund or by other
means that would provide the most cost effective disbursement mechanism
to satisfy this $32 million obligation.
Seneca Resources and the State are innocent parties that suffered
substantial economic loss when they were drained for many years by an
offsetting federal lease at West Delta. Even though the drainage was
improper and the Minerals Management Service (``MMS'') controlled a
mechanism to prevent this wrong, the Secretary of the Interior at the
time allowed it to happen and took no action to stop it. Both Seneca
and the State pursued a number of measures to end the drainage but were
unsuccessful. Although the MMS disputed the drainage occurrence and
amounts, a Congressionally appointed Independent Factfinder confirmed
that drainage had in fact occurred and determined its magnitude during
the period under study. Since the Independent Factfinder's study
covered just a three-year period, the $32 million obligation that
Congress has recognized represents only a portion of the resources that
were drained. Drainage continued after the study was published.
We are pleased that Congress, through this legislation, has again
acknowledged the government's obligation to appropriate the funds
authorized by Section 6004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (``OPA
1990''). Seneca Resources, in cooperation with the State, hopes to work
with Congress to bring the West Delta Field drainage issue to a close
through the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process. It would appear
that the newly established Fund is the intended vehicle from which to
obtain the compensation. However, if the Fund is somehow not the right
vehicle, then we respectfully request an appropriation of $32 million
be made in fiscal year 1999 to pay the settlement. In addition, Seneca
Resources is willing to explore other options that might be available,
such as Outer Continental Shelf (``OCS'') royalty relief.
My testimony includes some background on the issue and discusses
how the Fund may most efficiently compensate the State and its lessees,
including Seneca Resources, for oil and gas drainage in the West Delta
Field.
Company Overview
Seneca Resources is a natural gas and oil exploration and
production subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Company (``National Fuel'').
National Fuel, incorporated in 1902, is an integrated natural gas
company with its corporate headquarters in Buffalo, New York. The
company has three major business segments: exploration and production
and other non-regulated activities, utility operation and pipeline and
storage. Seneca Resources is active onshore in Alabama, California,
Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming.
In addition, we operate offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico off of
Louisiana and Texas.
History of West Delta 17/18
In August 1985, the State's lessees and Federal lessees began to
produce a natural gas field in the West Delta region of the Outer
Continental Shelf (``OCS'') that underlies both Louisiana and Federal
waters. In November of 1985, the State's lessees began to notify the
MMS that a federal lessee was draining the West Delta field at the
expense of the State's lessees \1\. Officials at MMS and the Department
of Interior (``DOI'') disagreed with the lessees, the Governor of
Louisiana and the Louisiana Congressional delegation regarding the
availability of relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EDC suffered no drainage losses because it also owned an
interest in the Federal leases and, therefore, was excluded from the
drainage calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 1986, Louisiana Governor Edwin W. Edwards formally
notified DOI, pursuant to Section 8(g)(3) of the OCS Lands Act
Amendments of 1986 (OCSLA) of common reservoirs in the West Delta
blocks. When the MMS allowed an acceleration well to be placed on
production, the State and its lessees filed a suit (April 25, 1986)
against DOI, the MMS and the Federal lessee, seeking to compel the
Secretary of the Interior into a unitization or other form of royalty
sharing agreement. On May 22, 1986, the MMS changed its policy of
cooperation (confirmed May 30, 1986) and resorted back to the outdated
Rule of Capture, only to the extent that it applied to an adjoining
State's leases. On December 19, 1986, the Federal Court in the Western
District of Louisiana held that at West Delta 17/18, the Secretary of
the Interior was not obligated to cooperate under Section 8(g) of the
OCSLA.
On August 17, 1987, litigation was proceeding concurrently with
that in the West Delta unitization, in the Federal Court in the Eastern
District of Louisiana. In that case (Clark \2\) the MMS was actively
asserting its authority to force unitization of adjoining federal
leases to avoid the undesirable affects that were fostered by the
application of an unmodified Law of Capture at West Delta. The Eastern
District Court in that case held that ``* * * the Conservation Manager
(predecessor to the MMS) intended and was authorized to modify the Law
of Capture * * *'' and ruled that his ``* * * decision to require
unitization was a proper exercise of his authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Clark Oil Producing Co. v. Donald P. Hodel, et. al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To resolve the dispute between the MMS and the State, the DOI and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989 was enacted containing a
provision (Section 117) that directed the Secretary of the Interior to
appoint an independent fact finder to determine if drainage was
actually occurring. On March 21, 1989, Rider Scott, the Independent
Factfinder, filed the Third Party Factfinder Louisiana Boundary Study
with Congress. The report found:
--The State and its lessees had suffered significant drainage of
state natural gas and oil resources through the actions of the
Federal lessees.
--Total dollar losses to the State and its lessees at West Delta 17/
18, in market prices at the time of the drainage, was
$18,115,147.16.
--44 percent of the loss was suffered by the State.
--56 percent of the loss was suffered by the State's lessees.
Authorization under OPA 1990
Based on these findings, the Louisiana Congressional delegation
sought and obtained a Congressional authorization of appropriations for
compensation. OPA 1990, under Section 6004(c), authorized the
appropriation of sufficient funds, including interest, to the State and
its lessees, for net drainage of oil and gas resources as determined in
the Rider Scott study.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The amount of compensation authorized is the amount determined
by a Congressionally authorized third party fact finder, who set
compensation at $18,115,147.16, plus interest. The Senate
Appropriations Committee Report on the fiscal year 1991 Interior
Appropriations bill specified an annual interest rate of 8 percent.
Interest continues to accrue at $1,449,211.77 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated Funding
Last year, Congress reaffirmed the obligation to compensate the
State and its lessees by establishing the Fund under Title IV of the
Act, and designating the State and its lessees, together with certain
federal agencies, as beneficiaries of that Fund.
Conclusion
In its inclusion of corrective legislation in OPA 1990, Congress
recognized the improper drainage in the West Delta Field and again
directed the MMS to employ ``the cooperative development of an area''
so as to prevent the harmful effects of unrestrained competitive
production, including, among other things, ``economic waste,
environmental damage, and damage to life and property.'' Last year,
under Title IV of the Act, Congress reaffirmed the need and established
the Fund from which to compensate the State and its lessees for the
West Delta drainage. As stated in that law, a portion of this Fund is
to be used ``for payment to the State of Louisiana and its lessees for
oil and gas drainage in the West Delta Field.''
We are pleased that Congress has acknowledged the need to bring
this matter to a close and are ready to work to make that happen. The
issue at hand is how to most efficiently accomplish this in a cost
effective manner to compensate the State of Louisiana and its lessees
for the drainage that did occur and for which compensation has been
authorized and reauthorized.
Options for Fulfillment of Obligation
Congress has three viable options available to satisfy its
obligation to the State and its lessees.
The first option is to pay the State and its lessees from such
portion of the 80 percent of the first year's interest generated by the
Fund as set forth under Title IV of the Act so as to complete the
payment in fiscal 1999, and thereby avoid the further accrual of
interest expense. Presuming an annual interest rate on government
securities of 6 percent, the Fund would generate $48 million each year.
This would be adequate to cover the entire $32 million current
obligation and still provide substantial funds to satisfy needs of the
four agencies named under Sec. 401(c)(1).
A second option would be a direct appropriation of $32,607,260 in
the fiscal year 1999 budget.
A third option would allow the government to satisfy its obligation
to the State and its lessees without making use of direct
appropriations. Seneca Resources pays the MMS on the order of $20
million a year in OCS royalties for production from some 18 leases.
Under this option, Congress would direct the MMS to grant Seneca
Resources royalty relief until the government's obligation to the State
of Louisiana and its lessees for drainage in the West Delta Field is
fulfilled from the royalty withheld. From each dollar of royalty
withheld, Seneca would pay forty-four (44) cents to the State of
Louisiana and eleven point eighty-five (11.85) cents to the Energy
Assets lessees.The benefits of this third option are that the impact on
OCS revenue to the MMS would be kept to a minimum. Also, more of the
interest generated by the Fund would be available to benefit the four
agencies for whose benefit it was also established.
If none of the above options are fully suited in themselves, a
final option is to have the payments to the State and Seneca Resources
to come from a combination of the three. We believe that these options
establish mechanisms that allow for a broad range of needs to be
satisfied. I would leave it to the members of this panel to determine
which option would best satisfy the parties involved. It should be
noted that the State of Louisiana has indicated its support for each of
these options.
Closing
In summary, we are pleased that last year Congress again recognized
the need and established a fund from which to compensate the State and
its lessees for drainage in the West Delta Field. Mr. Chairman, I thank
you for the opportunity to testify on this matter and offer my services
in working with you and your staff in crafting a payment option which
will satisfy the needs of all the parties involved.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald Mason, President-Elect, Ground Water
Protection Council
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Donald Mason and I am President-Elect of the Groundwater
Protection Council and Commissioner at the Ohio Public Utilities
Commission. Previously, I held the position of Chief of the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas. That agency is
responsible for the environmental safeguards related to oil and gas
exploration and production, solution mining and the re-injection of
waste such as produced salt water into geologic formations deeper than
the deepest underground source of drinking water. Such deep zone
injections protect which 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 RBDMS system. 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
reducing the cost of compliance to industry.
We would like to thank the Committee for the previous support of
approximately $750,000 in the fiscal year 1998 budget. The funding has
given the states the opportunity to develop additional software the
enables state and local government to make decisions that result in the
best possible balance of exploration and environmental considerations.
We, in turn share that information with the industries 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 and gas agencies and the
independent oil and gas industry with continued funding of the Risk
Base Data Management Systems (RBDMS) last year and would urge the
Committee to increase funding for RBDMS to $1.5 million for fiscal year
1999 so we can expand the system to every oil and gas producing state.
The system is currently operational in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska,
Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio and we are installing it in Alabama and
California. Additional funding would allow each remaining state to
initiate the program as well. This amount would 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. In addition to
providing the system to smaller producers, additional funding will
allow the GWPC to expand the system to include oil field surface
facilities including tanks, pipelines, and storage units. Before I go
into detail on the how RBDMS works, I want to make the point that
states are dedicating their own resources to RBDMS. For example Ohio,
is using almost $600,000 in state capital improvement and $400,000 of
operations funding to implement RBDMS. I know all other 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.
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 and 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.
Additional funding at $1.5 million for fiscal year 1999 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 industry,
working with government, can improve both industry production and
environmental protection at the same time. Included with my testimony
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 as each state as there
is not a good ``one size fits all'' national approach that would work
as efficiently as a cooperative state effort.
In summary, the increased 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,
and (4) continued oil 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, I will
submit it for the written record. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
______
Prepared Statement of General Electric Power Systems
This testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power
Systems (GE) for consideration by the Committee in connection with its
deliberations on the fiscal year 1999 budget requests of the U.S.
Department of Energy. GE fully supports the Administration's request
for $43 million through the Fossil Energy budget for the Advanced
Turbine Systems (ATS) program in fiscal year 1999. DOE's request
reflects the importance of the ATS program to the nation's energy
security and environmental objectives. GE is extremely grateful for the
continuing support of Congress in assuring that adequate resources are
provided for the ATS program, and welcomes the opportunity to update
the Committee on the status of the ATS program.
ats program status
As the Committee is aware, the DOE Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS)
program is a multi-phase, heavily cost-shared program initiated in 1992
to support the development of the next generation power system for
utility and industrial applications using advanced gas turbines. In
1993, GE was one of three companies competitively selected to
participate in the Conceptual Design and Product Development phase
(Phase 2) of the utility portion of the ATS program, which is
administered through DOE's Office of Fossil Energy. In August 1995, DOE
selected GE as one of two companies to proceed to the Technology
Readiness Testing and Pre-Commercial Demonstration phase (Phase 3) of
the utility-scale ATS program.
In March 1997, DOE issued a Request for Proposals to the ATS
contractors for a restructured program. Instead of the original
demonstration phase (Phase 4) of the ATS program, which included the
siting of the first commercial unit at a host site, the program would
be restructured to extend the technology validation phase (Phase 3).
The restructured program will feature full-speed no-load testing of the
ATS, including design, procurement and installation of unique tooling
and test instrumentation. Importantly, the restructured program is
designed to achieve the ATS program's technical goals in the timeframe
established by the ATS program plan.
GE responded to the Department of Energy with a proposal for a
restructured ATS program in July 1997. Subsequently, GE submitted a
final revised proposal to DOE in December 1997. Negotiations with the
Department regarding the restructured ATS program concluded in late
March with the execution of a cooperative agreement for the revised
Phase 3 of the ATS program.
The new cooperative agreement reflects the continuing commitment of
GE and DOE to the ATS program. The central goal of the ATS program--
producing technology by 2000 that is ready for commercial application--
is unchanged. Under the restructured ATS Phase 3, GE will manufacture
and perform a full speed, no load test on a 60 Hertz machine by the end
of 1999 at GE's Greenville, South Carolina facility. DOE cost sharing
is critical to this aggressive schedule.
benefits to the nation of the ats program
Energy efficiency.--The goal of the ATS program is to achieve fuel-
to-electricity efficiencies of 60 percent or greater, resulting in
significant reductions in fuel consumption.
Lower electricity costs.--These fuel savings will, in turn, lower
electricity costs, benefitting the competitiveness of U.S. industries
in the world marketplace. The ATS program has had as its goal a 10
percent reduction in the cost of electricity produced relative to
current (F-level) combined cycle power plants.
Emissions reductions.--Natural gas fired gas turbines produce no
particulates, ash, heavy metals, toxins, or sulfur oxides.
Additionally, the ATS will achieve a significant reduction in emissions
of oxides of nitrogen, and will further reduce carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbon emissions relative to the current fossil fueled power
generation base. The high efficiency of gas turbine systems makes this
power generation concept the most effective method of reducing carbon
dioxide emissions from fossil fueled electricity generation.
Stimulating jobs retention and growth.--Tens of thousands of
Americans already work to manufacture gas turbines and to provide key
components. Manufacturing jobs in this industry already have been lost,
and the remaining jobs are at risk because of uncertain U.S. market
conditions and stiff international competition. U.S. jobs depend on
continued U.S. global leadership in turbine technology, which the ATS
program is designed to support.
the technical challenge
Through the ATS program, the Federal government has challenged
industry to develop the technology that will enable gas turbines to
achieve fuel to electricity efficiencies of 60 percent or more, a step
increase from current levels, rather than merely inching beyond today's
efficiency limit. The Federal/private ATS partnership is central to
industry's ability to achieve the technology breakthroughs needed to
meet this high efficiency level, and to achieve the other aggressive
technical goals of the program.
Existing gas turbine technology has benefited from the knowledge
gained from years of national investments in military aircraft engine
technologies. Now, however, the need to meet high efficiency and low
emissions requirements simultaneously for power generation systems in
2000 and beyond requires the development of a steam-cooled turbine
generation system. The power generation industry is facing the
challenge, for the first time, to develop a new technology specifically
for power generation applications. Government is sharing in this
challenge through the ATS program.
the market opportunity
Industry and government working together can take on more risk,
confront bigger technical challenges and speed the development and
application of technologies which ultimately will gain market
acceptance and provide potentially large energy, economic,
environmental and strategic returns to the nation. The ATS program
offers a prime example of how government technology leadership can
bridge the gap between market opportunity and current market realities.
ATS technology ultimately will be supported in the marketplace,
both domestically and internationally. But despite the important
benefits of ATS technology, because of the continuing technical risks,
today the market alone is not sufficient to bring this technology to
the point of commercial acceptance. The likely users of this technology
in the U.S., both utilities and independent power producers, are not in
a position today to make multi-hundred million dollar investments in
technologies and systems that are not yet proven by actual, full-scale
operation.
Industry's R&D risk/reward window is often more focused on the
short-term than government's, which can address broader, national
priorities that may not yet be adequately valued in the marketplace.
With the support of the ATS Program, U.S. manufacturers will be better
able to compete in the projected international market in electricity
generating systems--a marketplace in which foreign competitors
frequently receive significant assistance from their governments.
Successful completion of the ATS program will position U.S. technology
for immediate introduction into global markets, and will enable U.S.
technology to surpass leading foreign competitors, solidifying U.S.
market share in the worldwide market. U.S. success in the export of
power generation technologies translates directly into jobs in the
United States.
The ATS program will assure that clean power technologies are
available when required by the domestic market. The same key enabling
technologies being developed through the ATS program are required for
both international and domestic applications. Domestic market
uncertainty resulting from electric industry restructuring makes
potential investors in new technologies more risk averse, underscoring
the need for government participation in the ATS program.
program accomplishments
GE's work over the course of the last two years has focused on the
technologies and components necessary for high temperature operation
and steam cooling. Major program accomplishments include the following:
--Completion of full-scale, steam-cooled, first-stage nozzle cascade
design validation testing at ATS turbine operating conditions.
The first stage nozzle and buckets are the most critical high
temperature component in the ATS.
--GE's design for the gas turbine combustion system permits its ATS
to achieve high firing temperatures while minimizing production
of oxides of nitrogen. Initial tests of the ``H'' series
combustor design have been completed at the component level and
in a full-scale combustion test stand that permits testing at
full pressure and flow design conditions.
--GE has also worked with suppliers to develop ``single crystal''
casting technology to provide the high temperature strength
required for these very large buckets and nozzles. While single
crystal casting has been applied in the aircraft engine
context, the size of the castings required for the ATS is
unprecedented.
--Rig testing of the one-third scale H compressor has been completed,
to validate the fundamental design approach of the compressor
in heavy duty gas turbine operation.
--Elements of the steam cooling system have been tested extensively
in component rigs and utility field test conditions. To resolve
concerns about the effects of impurities in the steam on the
operation of the cooling system, GE has designed a particulate
filter which has been fully validated in testing at an
operating combined cycle power plant.
--GE's activities have also addressed manufacturing technologies
essential for the success of the ATS. For example, thermal
barrier coatings (TBC) are ceramic coatings applied to parts in
the path of the hot gas that flows through the ATS; effective
TBC are critical to the steam cooling system. In addition to
testing to validate the performance of the TBC in utility
customers' current gas turbines under actual conditions, GE has
also designed a robot to assure proper application of the
coatings. In addition, GE has improved the forging process to
allow for production of the largest gas turbine Inconel wheels
ever made.
--GE has also developed testing processes which will permit product
quality to be confirmed without necessitating destruction of
expensive parts, including nondestructive inspection techniques
for single-crystal airfoil production, and new analytical tools
to model the startup and shutdown of the gas turbine component
of a combined cycle unit in greater detail than ever before
required.
It is anticipated that fiscal year 1999 funding will be used to
continue testing of full scale components and sub-systems. The
manufacturing capability for the first test engines will be completed,
and full speed, no load testing of H series engines will begin.
conclusion
Through R&D investments, the Federal government can assist industry
in raising its sights and taking on high risk, high payoff
opportunities that require challenging accepted technological limits.
This has been, and will continue to be, the effect of DOE's ATS
program. GE appreciates the Committee's strong support for the ATS
program in the past, and urges the Committee to continue to provide the
resources necessary to see this program through to completion in its
restructured form.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
Services Programs
The National Association for State Community Services Programs
(NASCSP) is pleased to offer testimony in support of continued funding
for the Weatherization Assistance Program operated through the U.S.
Department of Energy's Office of State and Community Programs (DOE).
NASCSP is a membership organization representing state directors of the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the Community Services Block
Grant.
DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program is one of the largest
energy conservation programs in the nation. Its purpose is to increase
the energy efficiency of homes occupied by low-income persons,
particularly the elderly, those with disabilities, and families with
children, while ensuring their health and safety. The Weatherization
Assistance Program operates in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia. It serves between 60,000 and 70,000 households per year.
Last year, Washington state's Weatherization Assistance Program
operated through the Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development provided energy conservation services to over 5,000
households. Forty percent of those served were households of elderly or
disabled persons. The services were delivered by a network of 26
community based non-profit organizations and local governmental
organizations. They used the Department of Energy's $2.3 million to
help leverage over $7 million in non-federal resources. Washington's
program applies up-to-date technology to determine the most cost
effective measures to install in each home. This assures significant
energy use reduction and cost savings for low-income residents. As an
indirect benefit, the program created or sustained up to 700 jobs and
infused an estimated $27 million into the state's local economies.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory recently published a report entitled
State Level Evaluations of the Weatherization Program in 1990-1996: A
Metaevaluation That Estimates National Savings. The findings revealed
that the Weatherization Assistance Program has significantly improved
its energy savings over the past seven 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 greater savings are based in large
part on the introduction and use of more sophisticated diagnostic tools
and audits. The report also concluded that the Weatherization
Assistance Program possesses 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.
We believe the Weatherization Assistance Program has an even
greater national impact and serves national interests by creating the
technological and programmatic foundation for the individual state
programs it funds. The Program's contribution in achieving national
energy and social goals includes: Cleaner air through reduced
CO2 emissions--the program reduced CO2 emissions
by 63,215 metric tons in 1996 that would otherwise have been released
into the air; reduced consumption of imported fuels by reducing
residential consumption; reduced demand on other social programs like
fuel assistance, housing and health care; and implementation of
innovative energy conservation technologies and transfer of this
technology into the private market. These are examples of how the
Weatherization Assistance Program helps conserve energy and advances
the national interest.
Since the 1990 reauthorization in the State Energy Efficiency
Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 101-440), the rules promulgated by
the Department of Energy insured greater flexibility in the program
which has led to even greater energy efficiency and savings in the
homes of low-income persons. Based on this reauthorization language,
the program now includes cooling measures. The language also called for
a review of the factors in the funding formula, leading to the
development of an entirely new funding distribution method. The new
formula addresses issues of equity that had long troubled members of
Congress. With the new funding formula and the inclusion of cooling
measures, this program is a national energy conservation program. The
Weatherization Assistance Program can no longer be characterized as a
cold climate state program, but must be recognized as a national effort
that acknowledges energy as a commodity that every American household
consumes.
The Weatherization Assistance Program, like all successful
businesses, understands the need for constant change and self-
improvement. When the 1989 evaluation noted that greater savings were
achieved by the use of more sophisticated auditing techniques, states
moved immediately to incorporate them. Other important advances include
the increased use of blower-door directed air infiltration reduction,
in-depth furnace efficiency analysis, duct system diagnostics, and air
quality improvement measures. Trained professionals employed by local
agencies use state of the art diagnostic equipment and techniques along
with twenty years of practical experience to make homes more energy
efficient, safer, and more affordable.
The Department of Energy supports state program efforts to ensure
that the individuals involved in the implementation of the program at
the local level have adequate training on the latest and best energy
conservation practices. The states of New York and Vermont joined
together to create the Building Performance Institute (BPI) to set
competency standards and establish a training curriculum that can be
transferred throughout the country. North Carolina also participates in
the BPI. California, Virginia, and Nevada are considering joining.
Illinois uses the state's community college and vocational education
systems to offer ongoing standardized training. Indiana and Ohio have
created their own training centers and Pennsylvania supports a training
center at the Pennsylvania State University School of Technology.
California sponsors the Stockton Training Center and West Virginia has
recently opened a regional training center for furnace efficiency
improvement. In Florida, the Solar Energy Center provides training on
warm climate weatherization measures. Whichever option is selected for
transferring technology and skills improvement, the results are the
same, i.e., trained competent people using the latest technologies to
provide the most cost effective and energy efficient measures in low-
income households.
The Department of Energy has invested significant amounts of money
in energy conservation research through its laboratories. The
Weatherization Assistance Program has been the testing ground and
provided a fertile field for the deployment of their research. The Oak
Ridge National Laboratory developed the National Energy Audit for use
by local agencies in assessing cost effectiveness of service delivery.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has recently completed an
audit that can be used to conserve energy in mobile homes. The Oak
Ridge Building Technology Center is testing the use of storm windows as
replacement windows for use in warm climate states. The Florida Solar
Energy Center and the state of Hawaii are working on the development of
cost effective solar hot water heaters. The state Weatherization
Assistance Programs throughout the country will be the front line in
the deployment of these technologies and the citizens of their states
will be the beneficiaries.
Equally important, these technologies are tested by the
Weatherization Assistance Program and from there are adopted by private
contractors and builders. The rigorous conservation standards of the
Weatherization Assistance Program are not found in the building
industry. In fact, the Program has introduced many new technologies and
best practice protocols to this industry. Many of the subgrantees of
the Weatherization Assistance Program are private contractors. The
Program provides the perfect mechanism for transferring technology from
the public to the private sector thus benefiting not only low-income
households, but all households. This is one of the less discussed
benefits of the Program, but an enormously important one nonetheless.
Testimony of the Weatherization Assistance Program's success in
delivering professional, competent, and valued services to its
customers is evidenced by the extensive use of the Program's state and
local agencies by utility companies as the delivery system for many
Demand Side Management Programs and local energy efficiency efforts.
Some examples include:
--The Public Service Company of Colorado committed $2.6 million to
the Colorado Weatherization Assistance Program for use in the
1997-1998 fiscal year.
--In Texas, four utility companies have elected to operate their
Demand Side Management programs as an added service through the
Texas Weatherization Assistance Program. Their contribution to
the Texas Weatherization Program will soon exceed $5 million.
--In Maryland, five utility companies make an annual commitment of
more than $2 million to supplement the Weatherization
Assistance Program. These funds are used to expand both the
service delivery options for each household and the number of
households served.
--In Florida, a pilot project has been started with the Florida Power
Corporation. The utility is providing $800,000 in rebates for
energy saving weatherization activities.
In each of these states, and many others that receive utility
funding for weatherization activities, the utility funds would not be
available without the presence of the federal program. The
Weatherization funding, appropriated by Congress and distributed to the
states, serves as the foundation on which program core capacity is
developed and bridges are built to leverage other resources. In 1997,
the Weatherization Assistance Program leveraged $1.72 for every dollar
invested by the federal government. More than 60,000 families received
energy conservation services through the federal investment. More
importantly, an additional 50,000+ families were served by the Program
because of the states' ability to leverage resources--an ability that
would not exist without Congressional support. Simply stated, the more
funding made available to the states, the more families can be served
by the states through a combination of federal and non-federal
resources.
It is also important to note that many utilities are abandoning or
severely reducing their Demand Side Management programs in an effort to
maintain a competitive edge. There is a question as to how long the
arrangements that states have with utility companies will continue. The
electric and gas industries are in the midst of changes that will
affect nearly every American business, institution and household. The
changes that will occur as a result of restructuring will have a major
impact on both the Weatherization Assistance Program and the households
it serves. The funding now being generated will not be available within
the next few years. It is more crucial than ever that the Program
retains an economically viable presence and the core capacity of the
program remains intact to guide the residential energy conservation
efforts during the next decade.
The average household served by the Weatherization Assistance
Program has an income of less than $8,000 per year. These families
spend between 14 to 20 percent of their income to pay their energy
bills while an average household spends only 3.5 percent of its income
on home energy. A 15 percent reduction in energy costs through
restructuring would only reduce these households' energy burden to
12.75 percent, still over 3 times the average. The problem facing these
families must be addressed as both a ``cost'' and ``consumption''
energy issue. Utility restructuring will help control costs. The
Weatherization Assistance Program serves the vital role of helping
these families control their energy consumption and their burden on
already limited resources.
To put national numbers in perspective, last year in West Virginia
70 percent of the households that were served had annual incomes of
less than $10,000 and well over half of all households were occupied by
persons who were elderly or disabled.
Utility restructuring may present significant future opportunities
to help the Weatherization Assistance Program complete its mission of
aiding families in need. These opportunities can only be maximized if
there is an established network ready to take advantage of the new
possibilities. The need for a commitment to energy efficiency is
acknowledged by its inclusion in many of the deregulation proposals at
the state and federal level. The continuation of the federally
supported Weatherization Assistance Program will ensure that it remains
as a catalyst for utility involvement and that low-income energy
conservation activities remain strong.
The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program has
always been the budgetary, as well as technological, foundation of the
low-income energy conservation network. Congress has recognized the
need for and the benefits provided by the Program and has continued to
provide funding--although sparse in the past three years. The
Weatherization Assistance Program is a proven federal, state, local and
private partnership that leverages additional funds, develops and
transfers technology, saves energy, creates jobs, puts dollars into
local economies and helps a needy segment of our society. For these
reasons, we urge you to support the Weatherization Assistance Program
by approving the Administration's request for $154 million in fiscal
year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) wants to express
appreciation for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the U.S Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Fossil Energy. We strongly support DOE funding at the level
requested in the Administration's budget.
PTTC is a national non-profit organization formed in 1994 by
industry to accelerate the dissemination of exploration and production
(E&P) technologies to companies that find and produce domestic oil and
gas. Primary funding for PTTC comes from DOE's Office of Fossil Energy.
Additional cost-share is provided by several state governments,
universities, state geological surveys, and industry. Thus, PTTC is a
prime example of how the federal government can work with industry and
state governments in a successful partnership to enhance our national
energy security.
We would like to make several key points in support of continuing
DOE's oil and gas programs, especially those that are working to apply
technologies that benefit the national interest.
The nation's small independent operating companies are increasingly
using PTTC to gain access to DOE's research and development (R&D)
programs. As independents continue to participate in PTTC's network of
resource centers, workshops and Internet websites, they are able to
make use of the information and technologies being made available from
years of federally funded R&D efforts. As a result, DOE technologies
are helping increase the recovery of U.S. oil and natural gas
resources--and helping address the problem of 17,000 marginal wells
being abandoned every year in this country.
With DOE's support, PTTC has created a multi-disciplinary network
for transferring practical and cost-effective technological solutions
to U.S. oil and gas producers. These companies use the technology in
the field to improve production efficiency and help prevent the
premature abandonment of the thousands of marginal wells in the 33
producing states. Also, because PTTC programs are led by independent
producers, a two-way communication stream has been established on an
ongoing basis between the producing industry and the R&D community.
To determine the industry's technology needs, PTTC conducted a
series of problem identification workshops that covered nearly all of
the nation's major reservoirs and geological plays. The results were
complied in a 1996 report that presented a national perspective on the
technical problems and needs of producers. The report, Technology and
Related Needs of U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Producers, offered an
important tool to be used by America's research institutions and
technology providers to target their R&D efforts to the specific needs
of independents. PTTC is in the process of updating that report with a
new survey of the highest-priority technology needs of independents.
The results are expected to be released this fall, and again will be
provided to DOE, the national laboratories, and other R&D groups.
Industry and Government Should Share in R&D Investments
During the last decade, major petroleum companies have been
consolidating their operations in the U.S. and focusing increasingly on
overseas opportunities. Many independent producers are struggling to
survive in the new business environment. At the same time, industry
investment in petroleum-related technology and R&D is being cut to the
bone. Thus, DOE needs to continue to invest wisely in its R&D and
technology transfer programs so that they are focused toward the
industry's most important needs. This means identifying where advances
in geosciences and petroleum engineering can achieve the greatest
return in deferring premature well abandonments and maximizing
incremental oil and natural gas production.
Public and private research projects continue to achieve advances
in petroleum E&P technology that could yield significant national
benefits in the form of increased domestic production, reduced oil
imports, and increased public sector revenues. Technology advances
resulting from ongoing R&D projects promise to amplify these potential
benefits. Both industry and the public sector stand to gain from the
development and application of advanced E&P technologies; thus both
should share in the investments. Government also has an essential
stewardship role--to ensure that America's domestic resources are
produced efficiently and with respect for the environment. To achieve
these goals, industry and government must work together.
Effective Technology Transfer Is Essential to Realize R&D Benefits
The full economic potential of new and existing technologies will
not be achieved if producers are not aware of the technology,
understand its economic potential, or feel comfortable with applying
it. Nor will it be achieved if known resources are abandoned in the
reservoir before the technology can be applied. Effective technology
transfer is essential to achieve the full benefits of this potential
and to sustain a viable domestic petroleum industry.
Investments in research and technology are worth little if the
results are not aggressively transferred and applied to produce more
oil and natural gas. Preliminary analyses indicate that some 80 percent
of the potential benefits of improved technologies could be foregone
without technology transfer. The government has already invested vast
sums through the years in federally funded research at national
laboratories, DOE laboratories, universities, and other R&D providers.
To truly obtain value from this investment, it is critical to continue
funding the technology transfer and related programs of DOE's Office of
Fossil Energy.
PTTC performs various technology transfer functions (workshops,
resource centers, Internet system, etc.) to inform producers of
potential technologies to economically address their problems. Where
solutions are not available, PTTC reports the technology gaps and their
relative urgency to the R&D community to help guide and focus the
direction and priorities of public and private research.
PTTC has helped DOE in targeting upstream R&D efforts on practical,
short-term projects with immediate applications in the field. As a
result, informing users of new and on-going research projects
accelerates the public and private R&D process.
On a practical level, PTTC has sponsored many workshops for
independents to transfer the results of DOE programs. One example is
that PTTC conducted a series of traveling workshops for DOE to
disseminate results of its Reservoir Class Demonstration Project, and
additional workshops are expected.
Further, PTTC technology workshops serve as catalysts for bringing
new partners into R&D consortia and other industry groups. An important
benefit is that small independent operating companies (those without
the staff or budget for R&D) have new access to cost-efficient
technologies to maximize the recovery of oil and natural gas reserves.
Although PTTC is coordinated through the national organization, it
is the local expertise and activities that are the heart of the
technology transfer program. Each region tailors its activities to meet
the particular needs of the independent producers in that region. A few
years ago, DOE designed its outreach program based on the PTTC
structure and the regional DOE-PTTC teams are working closely together
to meet industry's technical needs.
PTTC is also supportive of the Advanced Computational Technology
Initiative, the Natural Gas Supply Program, the Environmental Program,
and all aspects of DOE's Technology Transfer Program.
Programs for U.S. Oil and Gas Production
In less than four years, PTTC has achieved its original goals--and
gained the credibility within the upstream petroleum industry that is
vital to success in increasing domestic energy supplies and preventing
the premature abandoment of oil and natural gas wells. The main program
areas include:
Technology workshops are held in various locales to provide real-
world information and solutions to address specific exploration and
production challenges. In fiscal year 1998, PTTC conducted nearly 60
technology workshops around the country, focusing on a variety of
topics from 3-D seismic applications to produced water disposal. In
fiscal year 1999, many more workshops are planned to focus producer's
attention on available technologies and information that can help them
resolve specific high-priority technological problems at current
prices. The number of workshops is nearly double if one includes the
functions that PTTC co-sponsors with other organizations such as the
professional societies, Gas Research Institute, state and regional
producers associations, etc.
Regional resource centers are successfully operating as hubs for
the technology transfer activities in each region. They provide
operators with access to technical and referral assistance, libraries,
and computer workstations with software demonstrations and regional
data covering project histories, field and reservoir data. Commercial
vendors of technology, software, and other information have been
enthusiastic about donating their products and services to the PTTC
resource centers, and helping to train producers in state-of-the-art
technologies to solve their most important technical problems.
Internet websites are part of the PTTC electronic network, allowing
petroleum producers and other users to share information through 10
regional websites and a national website. It includes an up-to-date
calendar of events, technical summaries and access to exploration and
production data, software, and other information.
Other outreach efforts are conducted through a variety of regional
technology events, exhibits at industry conferences, and user groups
for oil and natural gas producers. PTTC also publishes technical
reports, fact sheets, and other publications aimed toward industry. The
national PTTC newsletter, PTTC Network News, is published quarterly and
posted on the national website. Many regions publish their own
newsletters that inform local producers about technology transfer
activities and the results of DOE research programs.
Conclusion
Congress should continue to support an active DOE role in
petroleum-related R&D and technology transfer. Oil and natural gas are
strategically and economically critical to national energy security.
The value of DOE programs in these areas extends far beyond geoscience
and engineering research. Through technology transfer efforts, the
results of federally-funded research will reach operators in the field,
where it can be used to preserve and expand our national resource base.
We encourage Congress to provide the funding that DOE has requested and
to continue support for its vital oil and natural gas programs.
In particular, PTTC delivers demonstrable and measurable benefits
to the producing industry and to the nation. The investment by DOE in
technology transfer programs will be returned in multiples through
incremental federal revenues from new projects and additional energy
production that will be stimulated by effective technology transfer.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and please let me know
if we can supply any additional information for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of Joseph N. Darguzas, Sargent & Lundy
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Committee Members: Thank you very much
for this opportunity to provide testimony concerning an extremely
critical issue facing the United States and our energy independence. As
a Registered Professional Engineer in many states and as a citizen of
the United States, my professional opinion is that continued Federal
and State cooperation in fossil energy development and demonstration
projects is essential.
For the past several years, the U.S. Department of Energy has
financially supported the majority of the bench scale and pilot plant
work necessary for the development of a new Low Emission Boiler System
(LEBS) that will significantly benefit our economy and our environment.
The Illinois Office of Coal Development and Marketing has also provided
support appropriate for the prior project development.
The technology is now at a state of development where the Prairie
Energy Project team are ready to build a nominal 80 MW Proof-of-Concept
Facility at Zeigler's Turris mine near Elkhart. Once this plant is in
service and the technology demonstrated; no further Government grants
will be required. However, because of economies of scale, to compete in
our deregulated utility industry with larger generators; one final
Federal and State grant will be required.
We are in support of maintaining the President's $15 million Budget
line item for Advanced Pulverized Coal-Fired Power Plant development
for fiscal year 1999. This is the same funding level as fiscal year
1998 and will allow the benefits of previous years' funding to be
realized and the final Phase of the Low Emission Boiler System (LEBS)
project work to be completed.
Our total project value will be approximately $127 million. State
of Illinois co-funding is expected to be $25 million with the balance
from private industry sources. Our company, Sargent & Lundy, has
invested millions of dollars in research, development and demonstration
programs. However, we cannot afford to continue without the backing of
Federal government.
The Combustion 2000 LEBS project is also important to direct
stakeholders from Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Utah, and
also to the future of U.S. industrial development through lower cost of
electricity. Benefits are also being seen by our Industry Group from
Ohio, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, New York,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, Alabama, Tennessee, and Virginia. Of
equal importance, the advanced, more efficient, low emission
technologies being developed through this program will be ready for
commercialization when tougher environmental regulations will be in
place in the year 2000 and without continuing Government support.
Funding significantly lower than the above level will cause
significant project delays that will result in this window of
opportunity being lost to foreign competition. It would also leave U.S.
companies at a disadvantage in competing in emerging foreign markets.
In the end, the overall cost to the Government and the people of the
United States will be greater.
Finally, please accept our sincere appreciation for the strong
support you, the rest of the Committee, and the staff have provided to
us in the past. We look forward to working closely with you all in the
future.
______
Prepared Statement of Roger Duncan, Director, Planning, Environmental
and Conservation Services, City of Austin, TX; Chair, Urban Consortium
Energy Task Force, Public Technology, Inc.
This testimony is submitted for the information of the Subcommittee
during the consideration of the fiscal year 1999 budget requests for
the Department of Energy (DOE). The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
(UCETF) appreciates this opportunity to update the Subcommittee on the
progress of the applied energy research and development activities
being undertaken through the DOE's Municipal Energy Management Program
(MEMP).
The UCETF is made up of local government energy policymakers and
administrators from major urban areas around the United States.
Currently, 23 jurisdictions are represented on the UCETF: Albuquerque,
NM; Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dade County, FL; Denver, CO;
Greensboro, NC; Hennepin County, MN; Kansas City, MO; Long Beach, CA;
Memphis, TN; Monroe County, NY; Montgomery County, MD; Orange County,
FL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; San Antonio, TX; San
Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; and
Washington, D.C. The UCETF is a subgroup of the Urban Consortium, an
organization of the nation's largest cities and counties joined
together to identify, develop and deploy innovative approaches and
technological solutions to urban issues. The Urban Consortium is a
program of Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), which is the non-profit
technology organization of the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, and the International City/County Management
Association.
The goal of the UCETF is to act as the premier technology research,
development and deployment organization dealing directly with the
energy problems and needs of local government. The UCETF meets this
objective, in part, by managing an applied energy program that
leverages federal, state and local funds for the conduct of energy
research and technology transfer projects. In furtherance of its
objective of serving as an urban energy laboratory, and with funding
provided by the Department of Energy, Municipal Energy Management
Program, the UCETF annually conducts a program of applied energy
technology research and development, application and replication
projects that address locally-defined energy needs. Projects are
competitively selected for funding based on merit, and conducted by
local government staff, in furtherance of the UCETF mission to improve
the energy management capabilities of local governments.
All programs must demonstrate strong partnerships, which in many
cases include cost-sharing, from the private sector and other
government agencies, in order to maximize the successful application of
project results.
The UCETF also undertakes a variety of technology transfer and
solution deployment activities designed to widely disseminate the
knowledge gained through the performance of local government energy
projects to jurisdictions throughout the United States.
the ucetf responds to local government energy needs
Through its focus on annual work programs, the UCETF is in a
position to respond to changing emphases and issues in the energy
field. Local governments are in the forefront of the nation's response
to interrelated energy supply, clean air and, increasingly, energy-
related climate change issues. Larger urban governments in particular
have found means to utilize energy policy and programs as a tool to
help reduce the cost of government and stimulate the local economy,
thereby producing more revenues that can be used to deliver priority
services to local populations.
The ability of local governments to respond to new challenges and
make prudent policy choices in the energy area for the benefit of local
citizens is directly enhanced through the UCETF program. The program
responds to needs identified by local governments for specific support
in addressing and resolving local energy issues. DOE support has
enabled the UCETF to competitively select and co-fund nearly 300 energy
projects to address locally-defined energy priorities in jurisdictions
all across the United States. UCETF projects have focused on energy
efficiency (increasing the efficiency of energy use in local government
buildings through new technologies, efficient lighting, improved HVAC
systems and building controls; efficient building design; increasing
residential energy efficiency, including ``Green Builder'' guidelines
and home energy rating systems); energy supply (district heating and
cooling; biomass district energy systems; fuel cell power; methane
recovery from municipal landfills; application of renewable energy in
local communities); reduction of transportation energy use
(alternatives to conventional transportation fuels, including alcohol
based fuels, electric vehicles and vehicles operating on compressed
natural gas, light and heavy duty vehicle applications including fuel
cells for urban buses, transportation demand reduction, telecommuting);
and sustainability (emphasizing the linkage between energy,
environmental and economic development objectives in local
communities).
the ucetf's 1997-1998 applied energy program
The 1997-1998 UCETF program is supporting projects focusing on
energy as a tool for economic development; issues and opportunities for
local governments in electric industry restructuring; and strategies
for environmentally responsible local energy production and usage.
Concurrently, the UCETF is working to share among local governments the
knowledge and information necessary to assess the implication of
changes in the electric utility industry for local governments;
information on public charging of electric vehicles; and options for
encouraging renewable energy in local communities. Specific energy
technology development/application or technology transfer projects are
underway in the following topical areas:
Energy and Economic Development.--Energy efficiency activities can
contribute to creation of a sustainable urban environment. Urban
governments also have important roles to play in bringing energy
efficiency technologies and techniques into the marketplace. Urban
areas are well positioned to serve as testbeds for such technologies,
as part of an overall effort to increase energy efficiency. The UCETF
continues to focus on projects that make the linkage between energy,
environmental and economic concerns in local communities. Hennepin
County, MN, is developing telecommunications and energy management
design standards for urban redevelopment projects; Santa Barbara
County, CA, is developing a system to track and measure economic
savings attributable to energy efficient development targets attained
through an incentive program with local developers; Philadelphia, PA,
will produce model specifications for improvements in traffic signal
hardware and operations in conjunction with the development of all-
color LED signal displays, which reduce energy usage and maintenance,
and provide enhanced lighting; and Seattle, WA, will cooperate with
local developers in the effort to assure the use of sustainable
development practices throughout the Northwest.
Municipal Governments and Utility Policy.--Again this year,
significant attention in the 1997-1998 program is being devoted to
issues involved in the introduction of increased competition in the
electricity industry. This issue has the potential to significantly
influence--for better or for worse--all local governments. But because
of the breadth and complexity of the issues involved, many local
governments are ill-prepared to deal with the demands of the changing
marketplace. Through research projects in jurisdictions around the
nation, and technology transfer activities, the UCETF seeks to become a
leading national resource for municipal governments on approaches to,
and the implications for local governments of, coming changes in the
structure of the electricity industry. The UCETF is conducting five
projects focusing on local aspects of the restructuring issue. San
Jose, CA, is conducing a project to determine how the city can align
the interests of residents and businesses with opportunities to procure
increased energy efficiency and renewable energy that may become
available as the result of the restructuring of the California
electricity marketplace; Kansas City, MO, is developing a metropolitan-
area wide deregulation strategy, to identify means for the many local
entities in the Kansas City metro area to maintain local flexibility,
authority, and environmental quality in a restructured utility
environment; Chicago, IL, is studying electric load aggregation, and
will develop an energy supply strategy for five municipal entities in
the wake of restructuring and legislative action in Illinois to
introduce competition; Portland, OR, is developing a program for local
government to serve as a mechanism to assure that the ``benefits'' of
electricity restructuring are available to renters, small businesses
and low income families within the community, through consumer
education, bundling of energy efficiency and renewable energy program
offers that may be available in the marketplace, and pilot programs;
and Salt Lake City, UT, will address a key issue in restructuring from
the local government perspective--potential loss of tax revenues--by
identifying mechanisms for mitigating revenue impacts.
Energy Usage and Supply.--Local governments face continuing
requirements to cut energy usage and costs, and opportunities to apply
new technologies expressly suited to local climatic conditions and
utilizing local energy resources. San Francisco, CA, is developing and
will demonstrate a comprehensive energy efficiency program for office
machines, including a guide to maximizing office machine energy
efficiency in an institutional setting; Mayaguez, PR, is developing a
program to utilize used cooking oil to generate electricity from fuel
cells, and for the production of biodiesel; Yolo County, CA, will
address methane enhancement for energy generation through accelerated
landfill decomposition; and Albuquerque, NM, will evaluate the
logistical, regulatory and economic feasibility of producing biogas
(methane) from diverted organic municipal solid waste.
Technology Transfer.--The UCETF is conducting five projects
specifically designed to document and transfer lessons learned through
local government energy programs. Chittenden County, VT, is developing
a tool kit for municipalities on biomass district energy opportunities;
Anaheim, CA, is preparing an electric vehicle public charging tool kit
also aimed at municipal governments, which will complement other DOE-
funded activities to support ``EV readiness'' in cities around the
nation; San Jose, CA, will utilize the unique expertise of city staff
in developing a program to encourage the use of renewable energy within
local governments; Philadelphia, PA, will analyze the issue of
securitization of ``stranded costs'' resulting from electricity
restructuring; and Barnstable County, MA, building on its expertise in
assessing the implications of and preparing for electricity
restructuring, will implement a community choice pilot project,
documenting results for the benefit of local governments in other
states where competition is being introduced.
In addition to these specific technology transfer projects, the
UCETF program features peer to peer exchange and dialogue on a variety
of issues, and is concentrating in particular on effectively
documenting products available for transfer from prior year programs.
Specific efforts are underway in several areas to conduct direct
transfer activities to share widely the benefits of Federally-supported
energy technology development and application programs. In addition to
continuing to distribute the primer on electricity restructuring for
local governments, entitled ``Keeping the Lights On,'' and its
companion document on power marketing, the UCETF has prepared a
``workshop in a box'' of information for local government on
restructuring issues. The forthcoming publication of case studies of
local government restructuring projects funded through the UCETF/MEMP
program will also be designed to provide first hand experience in
meeting the challenges of restructuring to other local governments
around the country.
conclusion
Local governments are a crucial component of the national effort to
maintain the United States as the world's leader in developing,
applying and exporting sustainable, environmentally benign and
economically competitive energy technologies. The UCETF's activities
through the DOE Municipal Energy Management program enhance the ability
of local governments to identify, design and implement energy policies
that support local economic objectives, including jobs growth and
retention. The MEMP program offers the nation a proven successful
method to identify ways that energy technologies can be applied to aid
in addressing community issues; to share information among local
governments; and to prepare local officials to respond to the energy
and energy-related environmental issues in their own communities.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert H. Trent, Director of the School of
Mineral Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to support the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 1999 Natural Gas Research Budget Request of $5.3
million for Gas-To-Liquids. This appropriation is important for the
continued development of novel gas-to-liquid (GTL) technologies which
will enable the utilization of Alaska's vast natural gas reserves, one
of America's largest reserves of hydrocarbon energy, second only to
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil fields.
Experts estimate that the United States has substantial remote gas
reserves (defined as natural gas which cannot be economically brought
to market in a gas pipeline), including offshore reserves in deep
waters in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Pacific coast, and most
significantly, the vast recoverable reserves on the Alaskan North
Slope. The technically recoverable natural gas resources in developed
and known undeveloped oil fields on the North Slope total approximately
38 TCF (trillion cubic feet), and in a recent circular, the United
States Geological Survey estimates that there is nearly double that
amount of technically recoverable reserves in undiscovered fields.
Alaska's challenge for years has been how to economically produce
and transport its remote natural gas to market in an environmentally
responsible way within a very competitive international economy.
Domestic oil production, especially the large fields in Alaska, is on a
decline, and petroleum imports are projected to exceed 60 percent of
our needs by 2010. Already, in Alaska, 4 out of 11 (36 percent) of the
operating pumping stations for the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS)
have been shut down and placed on standby, as the production decline
continues, the long-term viability of the TAPS is uncertain. Therefore,
developing a means to recover and transport remote natural gas in
Alaska is of vital importance to the Alaskan economy, the nation and
potentially to the future of the TAPS. Unfortunately, commercially
available technologies are far too costly for reserve owners to bring
most of Alaska's gas to market.
A promising technology solution is to convert remote gas to
transportable liquid products which could be easily delivered to the
market in the lower 48 states using the existing petroleum
infrastructure in Alaska, including the TAPS.
The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering,
is proposing to work with the Department of Energy to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of various methods for transporting gas-to-
liquid products, commonly called ``white crude,'' through the existing
TAPS. Utilizing the TAPS for GTL transport will significantly increase
its operating lifetime. In addition, it will further enable the
recovery of 1-2 billion barrels of oil from the North Slope, which
would remain unrecoverable if the pipeline were to be prematurely shut
down.
However, gas-to-liquids conversion technology is dependent on
developing a low-cost alternative to synthesis gas production, the
first processing step, in which natural gas is converted to a mixture
of hydrogen and carbon monoxide before being processed further to make
liquids. Through a team led by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. of
Allentown, Pa., the Department of Energy's Natural Gas Research Program
is sponsoring development of an important new synthesis gas
technology--referred to as ITM Syngas. This technology is based upon a
novel ceramic membrane reactor that could significantly reduce the cost
of syngas production, enabling economic gas-to-liquids conversion. The
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering, is a
participant in the ITM Syngas project team, along with ARCO, Argonne
and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Ceramatec, Chevron, Eltron
Research, McDermott International (formerly called the B&W Alliance
Research Center, in Alliance, Ohio), the University of Pennsylvania and
Penn State. The technology exists at the laboratory scale, and if
successfully developed, could result in a major step change in the way
alternative liquid fuels, chemicals, and even hydrogen are produced
from natural gas. Although the significant progress of the research has
nurtured considerable optimism for the technology, many technical
hurdles remain. The ITM Syngas process will require substantial
development and financial investment by both the private and public
sectors before a commercial technology can be realized. In response to
a competitive procurement completed in 1997, the Air Products-led
project team has committed a 68 percent private-sector cost-share
toward ITM Syngas development and has also agreed to full payback of
the Federal funding contribution should the technology be successfully
commercialized.
In addition to the direct energy benefits for Alaska and the
nation, a major reduction in the cost of producing syngas via ITM
Syngas technology will have a cross-cutting impact on the domestic
economy; many U.S. industries depend upon syngas as a raw material in
the manufacture of numerous commodity chemicals and consumer goods,
such as clean-fuel additives, rubber, polyester textiles, urethane
foam, plastics, paint, detergents, and fertilizers. Also, cheaper
hydrogen made possible by ITM Syngas will help the petroleum refineries
meet increased hydrogen demand for Clean Air Act-driven oxygenated
gasoline, reformulated gasoline, lower-sulfur diesel fuels and
upgrading of heavier and high-sulfur crude oils.
Furthermore, the ITM Syngas technology will have a favorable
environmental impact on the North Slope due to a substantial reduction
in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants (CO2,
CH4, NOX and SOX). A viable GTL
technology will virtually eliminate the need for the current practice
of flaring and will reduce gas combustion requirements for wellhead
reinjection, all of which are sources of pollutants.
In conclusion, I would like to restate the importance of the
Department of Energy's Natural Gas Research--Emerging Processing
Technology Applications program. This shared investment by government,
industry, universities and national laboratories in developing new
energy technology to efficiently use our natural gas resources is
integral to our nation's efforts to protect our future economy from
escalating energy costs and to improve environmental quality. I
strongly believe that new gas processing technologies, such as the ITM
Syngas technology supported by the DOE, will not only benefit the
citizens of Alaska, but will also enhance the global competitiveness of
our industries as we move forward into the 21st century.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council for Chemical Research, Inc.
Issue.--The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
Industrial Technologies (OIT) is to help U.S. industries realize
substantial improvements in energy efficiency, waste reduction, and
productivity. As a leading federal interface for the nation's major
process industries (chemicals, aluminum/mining, forest products, steel,
metal casting, glass, and agriculture), OIT funds high-risk, cost-
shared, industry-driven cooperative R&D through the partnerships of the
``Industries of the Future'' (IOF) program. The leveraging of resources
represented by this program is an important element to ensure the
competitiveness of these industries in global markets.
Position.--The Council for Chemical Research believes that the full
potential of the ``Industries of the Future'' program can be realized
through appropriate funding levels and the strategic use of the
capabilities and facilities of the nation's academic and industrial
research infrastructure, and the DOE national laboratories.
Specifically, CCR supports the Administration's fiscal year 1999
request of $166.6 million for DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies,
an increase of $30.4 million (including $19 million for reducing
greenhouse gases) over fiscal year 1998 and a reflection of the value
of the ``Industries of the Future'' program.
Rationale.--Industry uses more than a third of the energy delivered
in the U.S. and spends tens of billions of dollars annually for
pollution abatement and control. Seven industries account for 82
percent of the energy used in manufacturing: pulp and paper; steel;
aluminum; metal casting; chemicals; petroleum refining; and stone, clay
and glass. These industries also account for more than 80 percent of
the air emissions and 90 percent of the waste produced by U.S.
manufacturing. The Office of Industrial Technologies focuses on
developing innovative technologies to assist major industry sectors in
becoming more resource efficient and, thereby, more productive and
competitive, and less polluting.
The ``Industries of the Future'' framework that OIT has facilitated
puts ownership for the future of U.S. industry where it belongsin the
private sectorwhile providing leveraged resources for addressing
industry's most critical, long-term technology needs. Technology
roadmapping and implementation efforts provide opportunities for the
highly skilled scientists and engineers residing in our nation's
university- and industrial-based research and national laboratory
facilities to lend their expertise to this process.
Long-term research to develop enabling technologies for the major
process industries can create economic value and enhance the quality of
life. Strategic use of collaborative research teams across industry,
academe, and government laboratories can positively affect these
industries and our Nation.
______
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS/NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
Prepared Statement of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) is pleased to
submit this testimony in support of funding at $136 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 1999, for the hearing
record of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations.
Appropriations Request
In support of a budget request of $136 million for the National
Endowment for the Arts, NASAA and the member state arts agencies
believe that a steady federal commitment is important, as a foundation
for funding the arts, to enable communities to maintain their artistic
resources.
NASAA advocates for federal arts funding, working in partnership
with state, local and private funding sources, to: enable people in
communities nationwide an equal opportunity to participate in the arts;
increase the ability of all Americans, through the arts, to excel in
education; contribute to a healthy economy; and support innovative
projects with national significance to enlarge the federal role in
supporting the arts.
A basic level of federal financial support is important to the work
of states arts agencies to serve all Americans. When federal arts
funding is cut, those reductions in dollars are sorely felt at the
state and community levels.
Widening Public Access to the Arts
In 1998, state and federal funds totaling $348.7 million are
available for distribution through state arts agency-funded projects.
The state arts agencies are the mechanism for distributing federal arts
funds equitably throughout the country. Where NEA dollars do not go
directly to communities in states around the country, the federal funds
going to state arts agencies do the job. Over 5,600 communities in
every county, parish and U.S. congressional district receive state arts
agency grants, using federal and state appropriations.
Public arts spending is especially important in rural areas, for
example, which are often artistically underserved due to their
geographic and economic isolation. To improve access to the arts in
these areas, state arts agencies direct an aggregate of 30 percent of
their awards and 12 percent of their funds to non-metropolitan
grantees. Federal funds from the NEA to state arts agencies for grants
to underserved areas are an important source of this support.
Utah.--The Utah Arts Council has created the Alternative Funding
Resources Program to assist individual artists and small arts
organizations which increasingly face the need to identify non-
traditional sources of funding, especially in light of recent federal
funding cuts. The Utah program lends assistance by providing
information on granting opportunities, assisting in grant applications,
and working with communities to create new opportunities for
collaboration. The program, which is the only state-sponsored program
of its kind in the country, represents the commitment of the Utah Arts
Council to preserve the presence of the arts within the state.
State arts agencies use federal dollars to broaden access to state
and federal funds by regranting public funds for the arts, often in
partnership with local governments to decentralize grant dollars for
distribution to smaller community organizations. Regranting invokes a
multiplier effect in matching funds, which states have capitalized upon
in recent years by nearly tripling their regranting dollars.
Presenting and touring grants are another way that state arts
agencies expand the reach of both federal and state public arts
dollars. State arts agencies use these grants to expand audiences and
provide opportunities to experience a wider variety of art forms. But
for public funding, these opportunities would not likely be available
for Americans in communities across the country.
Arts in Education
All state arts agencies, with assistance from the NEA, support arts
education programs. Artist residencies, curriculum development, teacher
training are some of the ways state and regional arts agencies
incorporate the arts into learning to make children better students.
The NEA's Arts in Education (AIE) grants support programs that make
the arts basic to the education of students in pre-kindergarten through
12th grade. AIE money to state arts agencies is regranted locally,
encouraging both state legislative and local investment in arts
education programming.
For years, parents, legislators, civic leaders, educators and
business owners have been calling for change in our education system.
Communities are demanding that their schools promote higher student
achievement, reform the teaching process and improve the environment in
which students are expected to learn.
The arts address all of these needs. Educational research shows
that instruction in the arts improves student achievement. Arts
programs improve students' communication skills, self-discipline, and
self-concept. And arts in education produces the kind of resourceful
and creative problem solvers that employers today prefer.
The Arts Build a Healthy Economy
Public spending on the arts is a good investment in the economic
growth of every community in the country. Data gathered from economic
impact studies conducted by city, county and state governments have
repeatedly shown that the economic benefits of the arts exceed the
investment of public support. The nonprofit arts industry alone
generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, supports 1.3
million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the federal government in
income taxes.
Cultural development is a vital part of urban revitalization and
economic development strategies, attracting businesses and new
residents and generating jobs. Cultural institutions enhance the market
appeal of an area, encouraging corporate relocation.
The arts have been the anchor to restore declining downtown
districts from Charleston, South Carolina, to Providence, Rhode Island,
to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In community after community are excellent
examples of adaptive reuse of buildings. Old banks, post offices, train
depots, churches, jails, city halls, schools, opera houses and movie
theaters are arts centers, museums and theaters.
The arts also attract tourism dollars, America's third largest
retail sales industry. Americans spent $987 million a day on travel and
tourism in 1995, and that means more jobs and employment possibilities.
In fact, the nonprofit arts are a major factor in tourism and state
arts agencies invest in a number of innovative approaches to tourism,
from publishing cultural guides in Ohio and Arizona, to launching the
First Night festival in Boston, Massachusetts, to show-casing local
crafts at tourist information centers in North Carolina and South
Carolina.
Washington.--With a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts,
and in collaboration with the Washington State Department of
Transportation, the Washington State Arts Commission has produced a
tour guide and cassette tape documenting both the visible (geology,
architecture and geography) and invisible landscapes (music, songs and
stories) for those traveling through central Washington on a designated
State Heritage Corridor. The 38-page booklet, with the history of the
land, the geologic forces that shaped it and the people who have lived
there, and the cassette connect the places along this route with their
stories and songs. The taped documentation has gathered songs from
places that range from churches to a tire shop, as well as stories,
poems and sermons told by local residents and artists.
California.--The California Arts Council, a trio of local arts
agencies, three convention and visitor bureaus, Hyatt Hotels and the
California Division of Tourism have formed a coalition to market San
Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco through promotion of their arts
and culture. With $150,000 in seed money from the National Endowment
for the Arts, the partners have committed to matching this grant with
$450,000, which will be used to develop brochures and other materials
outlining different itineraries which highlight cultural attractions,
as well as shops and restaurants in each city.
The California Cultural Tourism Coalition has published a guide to
its first 13 cultural heritage itineraries, each suggesting 4-15 day
trips in California's three urban cultural centers. As part of a
national marketing effort, an insert summarizing the project and
itineraries was included in the March issue of Travel and Leisure
magazine, mailed to 200,000 American Express cardholders and
distributed to the travel trade. Aside from publishing the guide, the
coalition has also created a Web site, CalforniasEdge, which includes
the itineraries, a list of resources and background on the project.
The Federal Partnership
State arts agencies depend on the NEA as a full partner in projects
to promote the arts around the country. The reductions in
appropriations to the NEA have a negative impact on the federal-state
partnership in funding the arts in all areas. The result of the deep
cuts already made in the NEA's budget is a loss in the public's access
to cultural resources in classrooms and communities across the country.
By combining our arts dollars--federal, state, and local--with
other funding partners, we are able to increase the impact of the
available arts money to reach more people and benefit many more lives.
Arts endowment funding is an essential part of the work of state arts
agencies so they can fund the arts in diverse ways that strengthen our
arts organizations and extend the reach of all forms of artistic
discipline and expressions.
With the kind of modest increase in federal appropriations proposed
by NASAA, the states, and indeed all arts organizations, can expand on
those possibilities and bring to all Americans full opportunities to
experience the arts.
______
Prepared Statement of Edward H. Able, Jr., President and C.E.O.,
American Association of Museums
``A museum can be a place to gather and debate community problems
and community-based solutions. It can educate citizens in the
community's needs. It can train leaders. It can break down isolation,
recreate feelings of obligation toward one another, reinvigorate civic
commitment. In short, it can do the kinds of things neighborhoods did
before the suburbs fragmented them, the League of Women Voters did
before its potential recruits became lawyers and CPA's, and the heads
of locally owned businesses did before the out-of-town corporations
bought them.'' Journal Star, Peoria, IL (Editorial, December 9, 1996)
My name is Edward H. Able, Jr. I am President and C.E.O. of the
American Association of Museums (AAM), the national museum organization
that has served America's museums and their staffs since 1906.
For over 30 years, the Federal cultural agencies have provided
invaluable financial assistance to museums of every kind as they make
public service a focal point of their missions. I urge you to continue
this effort by funding the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the modest levels
requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 1999. In addition,
I encourage you to fund the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) at $40 million for
fiscal year 1999. To illustrate how these agencies are helping museums
fulfill their missions, I will focus on two major themes: education and
cultural tourism. I could easily testify for an equal amount of time on
other themes. Also, as my time is very limited, I will simply mention
the critical support the NEH and NEA provide museums, but I will focus
on the importance to museums of OMS General Operating Support (GOS)
grants.
The last two decades have transformed museums. They have become
what a recent three-page article in USA Today's weekend magazine
describes as ``The New Public Square.'' Museums are and will continue
to be places for scholarly research, lifelong learning, and quiet
contemplation of beauty, our cultural heritage, and civilizations past
and present with their primary focus on their educational missions. No
doubt because museums put tremendous resources into ensuring that what
they do and how they do it is intellectually understandable and
enjoyable to the broadest public, the New York Times recently reported
that ``[w]hile dance companies, orchestras, serious theater groups and
other ``high arts''--with the possible exception of opera--struggle to
retain their audiences, American museums are setting one new attendance
record after another.''
The lead editorial from the Peoria Journal Star quoted above is an
apt description of museums as community institutions at their best.
What inspired the editor was experiencing this ``new public square''
during a visit to The Public Museum of Grand Rapids, Michigan--a museum
that enjoys 470,000 visits annually in a city with a population of
189,000.
Museums, more than ever, are being asked to be many things to many
people. They greet this call with enthusiasm and a strong sense of
responsibility engendered by their public trust missions. However, this
places tremendous demands on museums' infrastructure. The main reason
for establishing the OMS--``to ease the financial burden borne by
museums as a result by their increasing use by the public'' (Public Law
94-462, Title II, Museum Services Act)--has never been more true than
today. OMS General Operating Support (GOS) grants are more important
than ever.
According to a recent AAM survey, nine-tenths of museums believe
that ``funding to meet basic commitments'' is a critical need for the
coming years, with 70 percent ranking this issue first among their
needs. Only 8 percent believe that the museum community has adequate
resources to cope with the critical issues in the near future--
especially funding issues.
GOS grants are structured efficiently to stretch limited funds as
far as possible. For example, GOS grants span two years, can be no more
than 15 percent of a museum's budget, are capped at $112,500, and must
be matched. GOS grants are in high demand; in the 1997-98 grant round
only 202 out of 1,061 applications received awards. Due to this high
demand and the agency's limited funding, the OMS instituted a new
measure that prohibits successful applicants who have received
consecutive grants from applying the following year (i.e., a museum
that receives a grant for 1996-97 and 1998-99, cannot reapply until
2001). OMS's budget was significantly cut in 1995, which has resulted
in a cumulative loss to the field of $20 million or 245 grants over
three years, while the demand in terms of museum applicants has not
fallen off despite a rigorous application process.
For fiscal year 1998, the OMS was funded at $23.28 million. By
contrast, the Office of Library Services within the IMLS received
$146.3 million--a $10.3 million increase above fiscal year 1997.
General operating support funds for museums, though fundamental, are
very difficult to obtain from foundations or corporations, which
generally prefer to fund higher profile programs.
GOS grants, especially critical to small and medium-sized museums,
help a broad spectrum of institutions serve their communities in
numerous ways. For example, The Silver City Museum in Silver City, New
Mexico, a repository of local history for the southwestern part of New
Mexico, is primarily using its current General Operating Support grant
to make its photograph collection more accessible to the public. The
Museum has a collection of 11,000 historical photographs, which are in
great demand, but are very difficult to access. The images get used by
a large variety of people ranging from students to genealogists to
authors to scholars. With the GOS funds, the Museum has been able to
catalog the photographs, and is in the beginning stages of digitizing
the entire collection. When this process is complete at the end of the
summer, the entire collection will be available to the public from a
computer at the local history research library. It is the largest
collection, and also most requested, but without digitization it's
hardest to get access to--it currently requires an individual
appointment with the curator.
Another example, The Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center in Haines,
Alaska, a history and ethnographic museum focusing on Tlingit Indian
Culture, has used GOS funds over the last decade in various ways to
help bring it from a ``mom and pop'' museum to a professional AAM-
accredited institution. The museum's director told us that OMS GOS
grants have been the museum's ``life's blood'' and are the most
valuable type of funding because they allow the flexibility to
accomplish a wide array of necessary tasks. The museum's most recent
GOS grant allowed it to contract with professional curator to
computerize its collections data and bring the collections cataloging
and archives up to date--a task too overwhelming for its full-time
three-person staff. The funds also brought a conservator up from a
museum in Juneau to work for a week to provide a healthy start for the
museum's program of transcribing oral history preserving it for many
generations to come. Similarly, the Crested Butte Mountain Heritage
Museum in Crested Butte, Colorado, received a Conservation Assessment
Program grant. It is a small institution in transition from ``home-
grown to professional,'' and the CAP grant helped it figure out its
most pressing needs, and what the responsibilities of a curator will be
once he or she is hired. Small institutions such as the Mountain
Heritage Museum do not have the personnel or time to investigate
private grant opportunities for such a specialized project. The
availability of federal funds, even in such small amounts--their grant
was only $6,000--makes a huge difference to small, rural institutions.
Education.--In 1992, AAM issued a landmark policy report, entitled
Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums,
reaffirming museums' place in the education enterprise.
To explain the role museums now have in education, I can do no
better than to quote the report itself: ``Museums have a vital place in
a broad educational system that includes formal institutions such as
universities, schools, and professional training institutes and
informal agents of socialization such as the family, workplace, and
community. Museums have the capacity to contribute to formal and
informal learning at every stage of life, from the education of
children in preschool through secondary school to the continuing
education of adults. They add a tangible dimension to learning that
occurs in formal settings.''
Museums are actively engaging students of all ages in educational
experiences that transcend the stereotypical after-school program or a
one-time field trip. For The Museum of Art at Washington State
University in Pullman, Washington, which serves the citizens of that
state and beyond, as well as the residents of the surrounding rural
area, GOS grants have enabled the museum to afford better exhibits,
improve exhibit presentation, offer more open hours to the public, and
promote the use of museum exhibitions in local schools. In addition,
GOS grants have funded free art workshops for schoolchildren, who are
given the opportunity to visit the museum and work with a professional
artist. Unfortunately, if this museum is successful in the next grant
round (1999/2000), it will be precluded from reapplying until 2002.
Museums have developed extensive curricula working closely with
schools, for use in the classroom and on-line. For example, at the
Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, GOS funds support the
museum's art educator, who brings art programs and projects into
schools, working with teachers and providing them with the tools to
continue art education in the classroom. GOS support enabled The
Children's Museum of Portsmouth, New Hampshire to hire a full time
education director. With this new staffperson, the museum for the first
time had the resources to reach out and establish several off site
museum-quality exhibits for schools with Head Start programs and at-
risk youth in addition to developing hands-on arts and science
educational programming for area schools. Another example is The Health
Adventure, Asheville, North Carolina, which uses GOS funds to help it
reach 95,000 children each year. According to the museum's director,
without the funding, approximately 12,000 children from disadvantaged,
low income, rural Appalachian areas could not attend important health
education programs at little or no cost, and teaching props, materials,
and supplies would be limited; it would not be able to keep quality,
degreed educators; and/or maintain transportation for outreach programs
to the far reaching, low-income counties of western North Carolina.
Unless a museum is strong, it cannot fulfill its potential in
education. OMS-GOS grants allow museums to realize their potential.
They have supported numerous museums with education programs, helping
to reach millions of children, adults, and families.
One point I want to make clear about these examples: Museum
education programs and regular school instruction are not fungible
commodities. They are synergistic. Museum educators need and want to
work with teachers in the schools.
Cultural tourism.--Tourism is a $473 billion industry in this
country, and museums and other cultural organizations are primary
contributors to its robust success. According to the Travel Industry
Association's Travel Industry Fast Facts 1998: ``Cultural and Historic
Tourism is one of the more popular sectors of the travel industry. A
recent TIA survey found that 53.6 million adults said that they visited
a museum or historical site in the past year * * *. Cultural and
historic travelers spend more, stay in hotels more often, visit more
destinations and are twice as likely to travel for entertainment
purposes than other travelers.'' Museums are becoming increasingly
sophisticated in their ability to collect hard data and assess the
economic impact of cultural tourism on their communities. For example,
the 1996, three-month Cezanne exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of
Art injected an estimated $86.5 million into the Philadelphia's
economy; the 1997, two-month Faberge in America exhibition at the
Cleveland Museum of Art had an economic impact of nearly $11 million in
the eight-county regional area; and while all the details are not yet
in, the Picasso exhibition at the Woodruff Arts Center, which includes
the High Museum of Art, in Atlanta, Georgia, is expected to have an
economic impact of at least $30 million.
AAM recognized the impact in cultural tourism and took a leadership
role in establishing a working partnership among a number of national
cultural, preservation, and heritage organizations. AAM last year
conducted a series of regional cultural tourism leadership forums
intended to initiate local, state, regional, and national strategies to
promote cultural tourism. These forums enabled the leadership of
America's cultural community to participate in a dialogue and planning
process with state tourism directors, convention and visitors bureau
officials, tour operators and destination management organizations. I
have here the report, Partners in Tourism: Culture and Commerce, based
on the findings of the forums, that I would like to submit for the
record. It details the issues that surfaced at the forums, highlights
some of the action steps to which individual states committed, and lays
out the challenges for the future. We continue to receive reports about
numerous public/private partnerships the forums and the report have
spurred.
OMS, NEH, and NEA provided the seed money for the national
organization of these forums and provided invaluable input in their
planning. They also helped disseminate this report to state and
regional arts and humanities groups; state and regional museum
associations; major heritage and culturally specific organizations;
local arts agencies; state tourism directors; convention and visitors
bureaus; and, key travel industry contacts.
This is an example of the national leadership the cultural agencies
provide in response to the developments in the field, making them a
critical partner in attracting and coordinating with state, local, and
especially private funders to sustain and enhance our nation's cultural
life.
GOS funds also play a role in cultural tourism. The director of the
Western Carolina University, Mountain Heritage Center in Cullowhee,
North Carolina, the major museum west of Asheville, which portrays
Southern Appalachian history, culture, and natural history, tells us
that GOS funds are critical to the region's cultural development. He
stressed that OMS funding is especially crucial for museums located in
rural areas, which attract a very large number of visitors through
cultural tourism.
In closing, the OMS is of enormous support to the museum field
beyond providing GOS grants. OMS provides much needed funding for
conservation, professional development, and also funds a critical
program to improve individual museums' standards and performance--the
Museum Assessment Program, which is produced by AAM. This year, the
agency's National Leadership Grants will inaugurate an invaluable
opportunity for museums to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate
information about model programs of museum cooperation with libraries
focusing on community service, technology, or education. And OMS will
explore more deeply the issue of community by holding a forum,
``Museums in the Community,'' this spring that will include hands-on
training sessions for working with community groups and access to
successful community-based models.
Finally, I again respectfully ask that you recommend funding for
the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS) $40 million and recommend funding for the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) at the modest levels requested in the President's
budget.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Able, Edward H., Jr., president and CEO, American Association of
Museums, prepared statement.................................... 586
Allen, W. Ron, tribal chairman and executive director, Jamestown
S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement............................ 502
Altmeyer, Thomas H., Sr., vice president, government affairs,
National Mining Association, prepared statement................ 557
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.. 540
Armstrong, Hon. Bennie J., tribal chairman, Suquamish Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 506
Babbitt, Bruce, Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary, Department of the Interior.......................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Barnett, Jack A., executive director, Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement..................... 463
Beard, Daniel P., senior vice president, National Audubon
Society, prepared statement.................................... 445
Beck, James A., president, Seneca Resources Corp., prepared
statement...................................................... 567
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah..................35, 44
Questions submitted by....................................... 209
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared
statement...................................................... 2
Questions submitted by....................................... 198
Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas................... 25
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statement........................................... 315
Questions submitted by................................167, 278, 305
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 560
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia...........41, 340
Questions submitted by.....................................185, 423
Cagey, Henry, chairman, Lummi Nation, prepared statement......... 514
Callahan, Kateri, executive director, Electric Transportation
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 564
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado.......43, 312
Questions submitted by....................................... 226
Capoeman-Baller, Pearl, president, Quinault Indian Nation,
prepared statement............................................. 525
Chicks, Robert, chairman, Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of
Mohican Indians, prepared statement............................ 543
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi................ 24
Questions submitted by................................278, 299, 402
Council for Chemical Research, Inc., prepared statement.......... 583
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho, questions submitted
by......................................................179, 312, 404
Darguzas, Joseph N., Sargent & Lundy, prepared statement......... 578
Davis, Julia A., chair, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board, prepared statement...................................... 491
Dean, Henry, chairman, Interstate Council on Water, prepared
statement...................................................... 489
Dombeck, Mike, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.. 309
Prepared statement........................................... 335
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by.................................................169, 299
Dorgan, Hon Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota, questions
submitted by............................................204, 306, 438
Duncan, Jennifer, Evaluator, General Accounting Office........... 231
Duncan, Roger, director, Planning, Environmental and Conservation
Services, city of Austin, TX; chair, Urban Consortium Energy
Task Force, Public Technology, Inc., prepared statement........ 579
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement.... 486
Ferris, William R., Chairman, National Endowment for the
Humanities..................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement............... 571
George, Merv, Jr., chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe of California,
prepared statement............................................. 496
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington........1, 39, 231, 309
Prepared statement........................................... 233
Gover, Kevin, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior..................... 231
Biographical sketch.......................................... 257
Prepared statement........................................... 250
Gregg, Hon. Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire................ 35
Guenthardt, Robert, chairman, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 527
Havatone, Earl, chairman, Hualapai Tribe of Arizona, prepared
statement...................................................... 552
Hoopa Valley Tribe, prepared statement........................... 499
Hooper, Helen, director of public policy, Land Trust Alliance,
letter from.................................................... 484
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, questions
submitted by................................................... 193
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement.................... 499
Janger, Stephen A., president, Close Up Foundation, prepared
statement...................................................... 465
Jones, Gerald J., tribal chairman, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 529
Judd, Joe, commissioner, Kane County, UT, prepared statement..... 461
Lewis, Dr. Robert, Deputy Chief, Research, and Development,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 309
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement.................... 495
Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement.......................... 499
Lyons, James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......... 309
Prepared statement........................................... 329
Mallory, Kenny, chairman, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, prepared
statement...................................................... 547
Manuel, Hilda, Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior..................... 231
Biographical sketch.......................................... 257
Marques, Jose, executive director, Children's Forest Association,
prepared statement............................................. 486
Mason, Donald, president-elect, Ground Water Protection Council,
prepared statement............................................. 570
McArthur, Eugene ``Bugger,'' tribal chairman, White Earth Band of
Chippewa Indians, prepared statement........................... 531
McConnell, Joseph F., president, Fort Belknap Community Council,
prepared statement............................................. 553
Mejia, Margie, chairperson, Lytton Rancheria/Lytton Band of Pomo
Indians of California, prepared statement...................... 545
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, prepared statement............ 499
Miller, Tom, administrator, Hannahville Indian Community Tribal
School, prepared statement..................................... 533
Morris, Joann Sebastian, Director, Office of Indian Education,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior........... 231
Biographical sketch.......................................... 258
Naiberk, Sue, Assistant Director, Energy, Resources, and Science
Issues, General Accounting Office.............................. 231
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, prepared statement..... 584
National Association for State Community Services Programs,
prepared statement............................................. 573
National Indian Child Welfare Association, prepared statement.... 492
Novack, Yvonne, NIEA president, National Indian Education
Association, prepared statement................................ 534
O'Leary-Higgins, Hon. Kathryn, Acting Chairman; Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Labor, National Endowment for the Arts...... 1
Biographical sketch.......................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Old Bear, David, Sr., tribal council chairman, Sac and Fox Tribe
of the Mississippi in Iowa, prepared statement................. 528
Pandolfi, Francis, Special Assistant to the Chief, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 309
Parker, Margaret A., president, Meigs County Historical Society,
prepared statement............................................. 468
Penney, Samuel N., chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive
Committee, prepared statement.................................. 537
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement........ 576
Phillips, Randle, Budget Coordinator, Department of Agriculture.. 309
Quinault Indian Nation, prepared statement....................... 499
Rainwater, Stephanie, president, Ketchikan Indian Corp., prepared
statement...................................................... 518
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions submitted
by............................................................. 439
Rezendes, Victor S., Director, Energy, Resources, and Science
Issues, General Accounting Office.............................. 231
Prepared statement........................................... 236
Runnels, Bruce, chief conservation officer, The Nature
Conservancy, prepared statement................................ 455
Sac and Fox Nation, prepared statement........................... 499
Shanklin-Peterson, Scott, Senior Deputy Chairman, National
Endowment for the Arts......................................... 1
Biographical sketch.......................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Stevens, Hon. Ted., U.S. Senator from Alaska..................... 231
Questions submitted by....................................... 167
Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys professor of environmental
engineering, University of Tulsa; Director, Integrated Public/
Private Energy and Environmental Consortium [IPEC], prepared
statement...................................................... 563
Thomas, Edward K., president, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, prepared statement.............. 522
Tice, R. Dean, executive director, National Recreation and Park
Association, prepared statement................................ 443
Trent, Dr. Robert H., director, School of Mineral Engineering,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, prepared statement............ 582
Werner, Gary, chair, Partnership for the National Trails System,
prepared statement............................................. 449
Whitener, Dave W., chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 510
World Wildlife Fund, prepared statement.......................... 458
Wright, Mervin, Jr., chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 554
Wynne, Bruce, chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians, prepared
statement...................................................... 550
Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
California, prepared statement................................. 461
Zunigha, Curtis, chief, Tribal Council, Delaware Tribe of
Indians, prepared statement.................................... 520
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Accountable decisionmaking....................................... 361
Additional committee questions................................... 373
Allocation criteria............................................358, 359
Backlogged maintenance........................................... 352
Bipartisan solutions............................................. 314
Bridge safety.................................................... 326
Budget request................................................... 309
Chief's reviews.................................................. 365
Communications plan.............................................. 310
Conservation philosophy.......................................... 371
Control board.................................................... 362
Coopers & Lybrand report......................................... 364
County commissioners............................................. 367
Course to the future............................................. 325
Custodial forest management...................................... 329
Dutch John transfer, town of..................................... 356
Decisionmaking................................................... 363
Financial:
Friction..................................................... 366
Management................................................... 349
Forest Service:
Appreciation for personnel................................... 355
Staff........................................................ 340
Forestry research related issues................................. 344
Former Chief's quote............................................. 372
Four corners development proposal................................ 353
Franklin County Lake...........................................311, 346
GAO accountability report........................................ 310
Hardwoods technology center...................................... 341
Hot shots........................................................ 347
ICBEMP:
Apprehension of.............................................. 367
Congressional directive...................................... 368
Environmental impact statement for........................... 368
Private property impact of................................... 369
Public participation in...................................... 369
Reaction to.................................................. 368
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality........................ 348
Interior Columbia basin ecosystem management project............. 366
Land:
Acquisition................................................351, 360
Exchange..................................................... 352
Litigation and multiple use...................................... 354
Long-term roads policy........................................... 360
Management:
Action taken................................................. 334
Business...................................................333, 362
Problems..................................................... 313
Mississippi forestry research..................................343, 345
National:
Forest Foundation............................................ 358
Forest System management..................................... 324
Recreation strategy.......................................... 325
Natural resources agenda......................................... 324
New England forest recreation use................................ 358
Olympics 2002.................................................... 355
Overhead costs.................................................364, 366
Personnel:
Flexibility.................................................. 362
Reductions................................................... 366
Plum Creek land exchange......................................... 370
Pulling punches.................................................. 363
Red Butte Dam.................................................... 356
Regional budget declines......................................... 348
Research:
New Mexico................................................... 352
West Virginia forestry....................................... 342
Riparian proximity grazing....................................... 353
Roads:
Heavy-use.................................................... 329
Decommissioning.............................................. 327
Maintenance and reconstruction backlog.....................327, 350
Moratorium.......................................310, 326, 327, 349
Impact on timber......................................... 355
Recreation use............................................... 326
Routt National Forest windstorm.................................. 312
Seneca Rocks Visitors Center..................................... 341
Sustainable forestry principles.................................. 325
Taos drainage problem............................................ 352
Thompson Creek mine.............................................. 371
White Mountain National Forest................................... 357
Working together................................................. 373
West, frustrations in the........................................ 346
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Additional committee questions................................... 278
Education.................................................258, 259, 267
And unemployment............................................. 268
Instructional programs....................................... 265
Federal:
Funding for Indian programs.................................. 270
Indian policy................................................ 270
Funding for Indian programs...................................... 273
Indian:
Affairs leadership........................................... 269
Country, unemployment in..................................... 258
Gaming....................................................... 272
Needs based analysis............................................. 267
Private sector business on Indian reservations................... 274
Profits from business ventures................................... 273
School facilities..............................................262, 265
TPA task force distribution....................................260, 275
Tribal:
Community colleges and vocational schools.................... 268
Priority allocations......................................... 266
System................................................... 262
Tribes:
In Alaska.................................................... 261
With small populations....................................... 264
Water rights negotiations........................................ 266
Office of the Secretary
Additional committee questions................................... 79
Budget request................................................... 39
Columbia basin ecosystem management plan......................... 55
Completing the necessary review.................................. 59
Concessions reform............................................... 64
Corridor H....................................................... 56
ESA and money for private landowners............................. 62
Federal highway system funds..................................... 67
Fee demonstration project........................................ 54
Financing mechanism.............................................. 70
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument...................... 44
Haskell versus SIPI.............................................. 71
Indian:
Colleges..................................................... 71
School repair................................................ 69
Mescalero Elementary School...................................... 73
Natchez Trace Parkway............................................ 66
Presidio......................................................... 55
Buildings status............................................. 61
Reductions in heritage efforts................................... 60
Reinventorying of lands for wilderness........................... 44
Role of State historic preservation officer...................... 57
San Raphael Swell Heritage Area.................................. 44
Sand Creek Massacre Site......................................... 60
Southwest Fisheries Technology Center............................ 74
State historic preservation office............................... 58
Surplus BLM land................................................. 77
Tribally controlled colleges..................................... 71
Vanishing treasures initiative................................... 76
Virgin River..................................................... 62
Yazoo complex NWR................................................ 65
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
Amount of grants................................................. 22
ArtsREACH initiative......................................8, 14, 20, 25
B-2 bomber grant proposal........................................ 9
Budget:
Administrative............................................... 9
Increase, proposed use of requested.......................... 8
Request...................................................... 1
Education:
Arts......................................................... 16
Importance of arts........................................... 8
Hearings, House appropriations................................... 24
Multistate grants................................................ 15
National Council on the Arts..................................... 19
NEA presence in North Dakota..................................... 4
New council members.............................................. 3
Office of Enterprise Development................................. 23
Priorities, fiscal year 1999 funding............................. 22
State:
Arts agencies................................................ 22
Fifteen percent cap for...................................... 20
Underserved States............................................... 21
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
Funding of Regional Humanities Centers........................... 36
Geographical distribution of grants.............................. 37
Public/private partnerships...................................... 33
Relationship with State humanities councils...................... 36
Summer seminars and institutes................................... 34
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Additional committee questions................................... 277
Impediments to getting information............................... 241