[Senate Hearing 106-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-382 , Pt. 1 deg.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2466, 3423/S. 1292
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
National Gallery of Art
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Smithsonian Institution
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
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
54-218 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-060259-9
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 FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
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 ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Leif Fonnesbeck
Kurt Dodd (Minority)
Administratvie Support
Joseph Norrell
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
Page
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts................... 1
National Gallery of Art.......................................... 1
Smithsonian Institution.......................................... 1
Woodrow Wison International Cenfer for Scholars.................. 1
Thursday, March 18, 1999
Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary.................... 45
Wednesday, April 14, 1999
Department of the Interior:
Office of the Special Trustee................................ 129
Bureau of Indian Affairs..................................... 129
Thursday, April 15, 1999
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 187
Thursday, April 22, 1999
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 315
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 471
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:32 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton and Stevens.
JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE J. WILKER, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART
STATEMENT OF EARL A. POWELL, III, DIRECTOR
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT OF I. MICHAEL HEYMAN, SECRETARY
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
STATEMENT OF LEE H. HAMILTON, DIRECTOR
budget request
opening statement of senator slade gorton
Senator Gorton. Today we welcome the directors of four of
our preeminent national cultural institutions to testify before
the Interior Subcommittee: Larry Wilker of the Kennedy Center;
Rusty Powell of the National Gallery of Art; Mike Heyman of the
Smithsonian Institution; and Lee Hamilton, in a new and
different position from the one he occupied with such
distinction for so many years, of the Woodrow Wilson Institute
International Center for Scholars.
The budget requests submitted by each of these institutions
for the fiscal year 2000 reflect the challenging budget climate
within which we all operate. Requested increases from the four
agencies total $45 million. The major portion of that amount,
more than $33 million, is composed solely of the uncontrollable
cost increases, necessary maintenance, and security needs of
these agencies.
While this subcommittee once again anticipates struggling
with the constraints that have faced it in previous years, we
are aware of our responsibility to provide adequate support to
those institutions for which the Federal Government has a
primary responsibility and we will attempt to meet the basic
requirements of each to the extent the overall budget
parameters permit us to do so.
Before we turn to the statements and questions, I want to
note both a pending departure at the Smithsonian and new
leadership at the Wilson Center, as I already have. The
Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mike Heyman, recently announced
his intention to retire at the end of this year and return to
California.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his
many accomplishments during his tenure at the Smithsonian. He
will leave an institution that is stronger and more vital
because of his efforts and he will be missed by everyone here.
I have already welcomed Lee Hamilton. After leaving a
distinguished career in the House of Representatives, he has
taken on an institution which has been surrounded by a certain
degree of controversy, given the relatively small size of its
appropriation. I have every confidence in his ability to guide
the organization into a productive future era.
Without objection I would like to insert the prepared
statement of Senator Thad Cochran.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of
chief officers of our Nation's cultural institutions. Spending in the
areas of arts and scholarly study are remarkably small compared to our
total annual budget outlays, but, it is a rich investment.
I especially want to mention my great appreciation to Mr. I.
Michael Heyman, who has announced his retirement as Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution the end of this year. It has been my great
honor to serve on the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents during
his tenure.
He is the first Secretary of the Institution who has not been a
scientist by profession, so he was brave to take on this living
institution which is more than ``The Nation's Attic.'' His commitment
to the mission, ``to increase and diffuse knowledge'' could not be more
genuine, nor his service more effective. He has led the considerable
reform of how new exhibits are developed and presented; faithful to the
facts revealed by science and scholarly research, thoughtful and
socially responsible. This is a difficult balance to achieve. Secretary
Heyman has managed admirably.
Under his leadership he has readied the Institution for the 21st
century. Interactive distance learning, new K-12 education programs, a
World Wide Web site, world class research across the fields of science,
affiliations with local museums, a digital catalogue of the
collections, are all examples of the growth in programing putting the
Smithsonian experience within reach of all Americans.
We certainly regret Michael Heyman's leaving, but most whole
heartedly wish him well and good fortune on his return to California.
I would also like to thank Larry Wilker, President of the Kennedy
Center. His testimony describes very innovative programs which make
Kennedy Center performances available to a wide audience. I'm
especially grateful for the National Symphony's American Residency
program, which will send the National Symphony to Mississippi next
month under a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. The
Symphony members will not only perform, but will also engage in
educational programs in several towns and cities. This is a unique
opportunity for Mississippians of all ages.
It is also a good example of how a modest Federal investment pays
off. By our providing funds at a national level for the nurturing and
development of world renown artistic training, performance,
preservation, exhibition, and study, we provide personal opportunities
to millions of Americans in their own home towns.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to express my thanks to the
gentlemen on this panel of witnesses and to all the people who serve
under their direction, for providing enrichment to our lives and
heritage.
Senator Gorton. Why don't we work perhaps just from my left
to my right here? Your written opening statements will be
included in the record as if read in full. I think it is
appropriate, for us and for the audience, for each of you to at
least summarize what you are about and what you hope to
accomplish in the next year.
summary statement of Lawrence J. Wilker
Mr. Wilker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I am Larry Wilker, President of the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts. Appearing with me today on behalf of
the Kennedy Center are William Becker, General Counsel; Clif
Jeter, Vice President for Facilities; James Kirkman, Project
Executive; and Jared Barlage, Senior Liaison Officer.
I previously have submitted to the Subcommittee my written
statement concerning the Kennedy Center's activities,
operations, and fiscal year 2000 budget justification which, as
I request and you have noted be included in the record of this
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
Subcommittee. It may be useful to give a brief background on
the history of the Kennedy Center.
The genesis of the Kennedy Center dates to 1955 when
President Eisenhower initiated efforts to build an appropriate
performing arts facility in the Nation's Capital. With the
support of the Congress, President Eisenhower signed into law
in 1958 an act establishing the National Cultural Center as an
independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian
Institution.
Following the death of President Kennedy in 1963, many in
the Congress believed that a lively center for the performing
arts was the most suitable National Memorial to the young
president who understood that the excellence and freedom
inherent in the arts would be one of America's lasting
legacies.
In 1964, the National Cultural Center was constituted a
living memorial to President Kennedy, a monument building but a
memorial also, with performing arts and education activities as
an essential part of the board's memorial function.
The Kennedy Center opened in 1971. The Kennedy Center hosts
over 3,500 performances on its main stages each year and
thousands of free performances, touring performances, and
workshops and educational activities throughout the United
States. The Kennedy Center offers opportunities for everyone to
participate in the performing arts. The Center commissions
choreographers, composers, and playwrights to develop new
American works.
The Center also has an active program called Imagination
Celebration to create new works for the stage for young people
and their families and then tours these works across the
country. Since 1978, more than 6 million young people and their
families have attended Imagination Celebration activities.
The Center's recent production of Tales of a Fourth Grade
Nothing toured nationally last year with 147 performances in 45
cities in 21 States. This year, Tales again will be on tour,
due to popular demand, along with Little Women, which is on
tour this year with 66 performances in 27 cities in 16 States
and The Nightingale, which will tour with 80 performances in 25
cities in 15 States. An estimated audience of over 180,000
children will see these plays.
The Kennedy Center's arts in education programs reach more
than 4 million people across the United States each year and
are at work in all 50 States. Because everything we do at the
Kennedy Center is a result of the firm belief that the arts are
essential to a child's complete education, the Center works
with partners across the country to improve the quality of
education through the inclusion of the arts.
Through the Performing Arts Centers and Schools program,
the Center brings together school districts and performing arts
centers in 37 States, forming 67 partnership teams dedicated to
improving education through professional development for
teachers. These partners have created over 500 new programs for
teachers in their own communities.
The Kennedy Center Alliance for Arts Education Network is
comprised of 46 state organizations that operate in partnership
with the Center to work for the inclusion of the arts in every
child's education. As the national center for the performing
arts, the Kennedy Center is committed to bringing quality and
diversity to its stages and the board of trustees places the
highest priorities on making the arts accessible to all
Americans.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Center celebrated the second
anniversary of the Millennium Stage. The Millennium Stage,
which hosts free performances seven days a week, 52 weeks a
year, at 6 p.m. in the Grand Foyer has attracted more than
400,000 persons since it began 2 years ago. Many of these
people are new to the Center and some of them are attending a
live performance for the very first time. Also on this stage,
the Kennedy Center has presented artists and performing groups
from throughout the Nation.
Last year, the Kennedy Center brought the Millennium Stage
to Capital Hill during the summer months for free concerts on
the Capital grounds every Tuesday and Thursday at noon. More
than 4,000 visitors to the Nation's Capital enjoyed these
concerts, provided for with private funds. The Kennedy Center
continues its tradition of offering free public events,
including its Open House and holiday celebration, together
which host over 60,000 visitors each year.
Since September, 1971, the Kennedy Center has conducted a
reduced price ticket program for students, disabled persons,
senior citizens, enlisted military personnel, and others on
limited incomes. More than 50,000 individuals each year see
performances at half price through this program.
The Center has expanded its reduced price program to offer
half price day-of-performance tickets to all patrons through
Ticket Place, a facility the Center established at the Old Post
Office on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Center also regularly
schedules pay-what-you-can days, allowing the public to pay
whatever they can afford for regular performances.
More than 4.5 million visitors pass through the doors to
the Kennedy Center each year. Transportation for these visitors
is facilitated by Show Shuttle, the shuttle bus service funded
by the Center board through trust funds. More than 700,000
riders now use this service each year. Roughly half of those
visitors come to the Center solely to visit the presidential
memorial.
To compliment the work of the 650 Kennedy Center volunteers
who perform or arrange visitor services, plans are currently
underway for the interpretive program to include informative
kiosks, displays, printed materials, and a top-notch,
continuously running wide screen format film telling the story
of the performing arts in America.
As we all know, the Internet is an incredible resource
through which outreach can be increased by leaps and bounds.
Through the World Wide Web, the Kennedy Center provides
information for patrons and visitors on the Center's artistic
and educational programs and its status as a living
presidential memorial.
Also, through ArtsEdge, the interactive communication
network designed to provide practical, easy to access
information for teachers on arts education, can be put to use
in the classroom and at home. Perhaps one of the most exciting
ways the Center is reaching out to people across the country,
and indeed the world, is by offering live performances on the
Internet. Beginning April 1, the Kennedy Center will make
history by harnessing the power of the Internet with live
broadcasts daily at 6 p.m. Washington time from the Millennium
Stage, making the performing arts accessible to people
worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a detailed report of
the many artistic and educational programs and activities of
the center which reach all 50 States.
Senator Gorton. It will be accepted.
Mr. Wilker. Thank you. Now, let me focus on the Center's
budget and our request for appropriated funds for the fiscal
year 2000.
Since the fiscal year 1995, the board has received direct
appropriations for the operation, maintenance, and repair of
the facility. The board's statute restricts the use of
appropriated funds to the basic operational expenses and
capital repair of the Kennedy Center, which is a Federal
building.
The Center is an example of a successful public/private
partnership at work. The government funds the care and repair
of the monument building, which is a Federal asset, and the
trustees raise the funds required for artistic and educational
programming.
Of the total annual operating income of $120 million,
approximately $86 million is derived from ticket sales and
other earned income and through grants and contributions.
Federal funds appropriated annually to the Kennedy Center
comprise two separate accounts: operations and maintenance and
capital repair. These funds cover basic operational expenses of
the Federal building, including utilities, housekeeping, minor
repair and maintenance, security, and interpretive services.
A portion of these funds is allocated to reducing our
backlog of many years worth of minor repair work items,
estimated currently at $9.5 million. Appropriated funds are
also expended for capital repair and replacement of the
Center's antiquated building systems, as well as to bring our
1960's designed facility up to current accessibility and life
safety codes while maintaining functionality.
For fiscal year 2000, the Center's request for funding for
operations and maintenance totals $14 million, a $1 million
increase over last year's request. This increase is requested
to address the backlog of minor repair work items while
maintaining building operations and maintenance at current
levels.
The request for the capital repair account is $20 million,
level with last year's appropriation. This amount will allow
the Center to move forward with phase two of our comprehensive
building plan, which includes modifications to the center block
of the facility to bring it into compliance with ADA codes and
life safety codes.
Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy Center board has overseen a
number of successful capital repair projects, from replacement
of the main roof and roof terrace to the installation of energy
efficient heating and cooling systems which replaced the
obsolete system which was original to the building.
In October 1997, the board was pleased to reopen the
renovated Concert Hall, which offers patrons with disabilities
a totally accessible hall with wheelchair accommodations in all
sections of the hall. Egress for all patrons has been improved
and appropriate fire safety systems are now in place.
This project was on time and on budget, and in fact was $3
million less than the original government estimate for the
project.
For those members of the subcommittee not so familiar with
the Kennedy Center facility, let me provide a brief description
just to give you a feel for the size of the Center. The Center
is open 18 hours a day, 365 days a year. It consists of 1.5
million square feet of usable space on 17 acres of land.
It contains six main theaters and two stages for
performances in the Grand Foyer, three public restaurant
facilities, nine special event rooms, five public galleries, 23
elevators and sets of escalators, 2,000 doors, 108 crystal
chandeliers, 200 valuable paintings, sculptures, tapestries,
and textiles.
Mr. Chairman, the board takes most seriously responsibility
to be good stewards of the Federal assets and the Federal
operating funds.
prepared statement
On behalf of Jim Johnson, the chairman of the board, and
all the members of the board, I thank you for the opportunity
to bring this report of the Center's operations to the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior. I am pleased to answer
any questions the members of the subcommittee may have. Thank
you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement of follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lawrence J. Wilker
introduction
On behalf of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, I am pleased to
submit to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior the fiscal
year 2000 budget for appropriated funds for the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts, the nation's center for the performing arts
and a living presidential memorial. The Center's fiscal year 2000
budget justification includes $14.0 million for facility operations and
maintenance, an increase of $1 million over the fiscal year 1999
request, and includes $20.0 million for capital repair, level with the
fiscal year 1999 request. Appearing for the first time before this
subcommittee, I appreciate having this opportunity to provide an
overview of operations of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, an independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian
Institution.
A national monument, the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to
President John F. Kennedy with a mandate to provide leadership in
America's performing arts and in performing arts education. The Board
fulfills this mandate with a commitment to providing opportunities for
all Americans to participate in the excellence and the inspiration
inherent in the performing arts.
The Center commissions, produces, and presents diverse performances
of the highest artistic standards, and then does something that very
few other performing arts centers are able to do--the Center makes
these outstanding performances available to the broadest possible
audience through: national touring programs, free and low-cost
performances and education activities, and through the World Wide Web.
Beginning April 1, the Kennedy Center will make history by harnessing
the power of the Internet with live broadcasts daily at 6:00 PM EST
from the Millennium Stage, making the performing arts accessible to
people worldwide.
Although the monument building is located in Washington, the Center
is a vital presence in communities throughout the United States through
its tours of performing companies, grant programs, and educational
programs, and through its electronic ``stages,'' radio, television and
the World Wide Web.
history
The Kennedy Center originated with the administration of President
Dwight D. Eisenhower who envisioned a national center for the
performing arts in the nation's capital. In 1958, President Eisenhower
signed into law the bipartisan legislation known as the National
Cultural Center Act (Public Law 85-874), which established the Center
as an independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian. Following
the death of President John F. Kennedy in 1964, Congress named the
National Cultural Center after the late president. The Center was
established as a living memorial with a mandate to the Board to present
performing arts programming and to be a leader in the arts in
education.
The original act of 1958 charged the Board of Trustees with
responsibility for constructing and administering the nation's center
for the performing arts. The Kennedy Center was constructed between
1964 and 1971 with a combination of private contributions of $34.5
million, Federal matching funds of $23.0 million, and $20.4 million in
long-term revenue bonds held by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Dozens
of foreign countries gave gifts of building materials, chandeliers,
artwork and artifacts.
The facility opened to an eager public in September, 1971, with
three operating theaters. The public visited the monument in numbers
that exceeded all expectations. In 1972, Congress authorized the
National Park Service to provide maintenance, security, and other
services necessary to maintain the public building. Friends of the
Kennedy Center volunteers provided visitor and interpretive services,
as they do to this day.
Between fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1995, the National Park
Service received direct annual appropriations for the operations and
maintenance and repair of the presidential monument.
By 1993, the building showed significant signs of deterioration.
The Board of Trustees, with the support of the Department of Interior,
sought a more efficient approach to management of the building, with
one entity responsible for both tending to the physical plant and for
the activities of the living memorial. In 1994, with bipartisan support
from Congress and the administration, legislation was enacted (P. L.
103-279), which authorized the transfer to the Board of all
appropriated fund responsibilities, as well as 55 full-time equivalent
National Park Service employees, and all unexpended balances of funds
previously appropriated to the National Park Service. The transfer of
authority was effective October 1, 1994.
Since the transfer, the Board has prepared, with regular updates, a
Comprehensive Building Plan, which establishes a program to bring the
monument up to current life safety and accessibility standards by the
year 2009.
We have already accomplished much, with completion of parking
garage renovations, the replacement of the roof and the roof terrace
and antiquated HVAC systems, and renovation of the Concert Hall. The
next major focus of our building rehabilitation program is the Center
Block of the building, including the Opera House. This 3-year program
is beginning this fiscal year.
board of trustees
The Center's originating statute (20 U.S.C. 76h) established a
Board of Trustees to maintain and administer the Center. Since 1996,
the Chairman of the Board has been James A. Johnson. I, as president,
direct the day-to-day operations of the Center. Kenneth Duberstein and
Alma Powell are Vice Chairmen of the Board.
The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees consists of 49 members: Thirty
citizen members serving 6-year terms are appointed by the President of
the United States; nine ex-officio members represent local and Federal
Government agencies; and ten members represent the legislative branch,
five each from the Senate and House of Representatives. A list of
current Board members is submitted with this statement.
As required by the Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 761), the Board
reports annually to the U.S. Congress on both its appropriated fund and
trust fund operations. In addition, the Board reports annually to the
Secretary of Education on its national performing arts in education
activities.
the kennedy center building
The monument from which the Board operates and serves the visiting
public and the scope of the Board's operations are immense. The
building is open to the public 365 days each year, from 10:00 a.m.
until midnight. Of the 4.5 million visitors annually, as many as
700,000 take advantage of the Kennedy Center's free shuttle bus service
to and from METRO.
The building consists of 1.5 million square feet of usable floor
space and is constructed on 17 acres of land. It contains six operating
theaters and two stages for free performances in the Grand Foyer, three
public restaurant facilities, nine special event rooms, five public
galleries, halls and foyers, 11 rehearsal rooms for rehearsals and
education programs. The Center's Facility Management staff maintains
complex heating and cooling systems, 23 elevators and six sets of
escalators, 133 restrooms, more than 2,000 doors, 13 mechanical rooms,
108 crystal chandeliers, and 200 valuable paintings, sculptures,
tapestries and textiles. Support systems in the building often operate
at capacity in excess of 18 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a
year.
sources of income
Since the start of fiscal year 1995, the Board has been responsible
for all appropriated and non-appropriated fund activities at the
Center. The annual operating budget of the Center now is more than $100
million.
Performing arts programming and administration represent 80 percent
of the Center's total operating budget. Ticket sales (50 percent);
other earned income (20 percent); and grants and contributions (30
percent) support programming activities of the Board. The Board of
Trustees raises $30 million in grants and contributions per year,
roughly the current annual level of direct appropriations, $32 million
dollars.
The Center's success is based on a public/private partnership: the
government provides funding for the care of the monument building--a
Federal asset, and the Trustees raise all the funding required for the
artistic and educational programming of the living memorial. Federal
appropriated funds make up 20 percent of the Center's total operating
budget. The annual appropriation of approximately $32 million is made
to the Board of Trustees for the operation, maintenance, and capital
repair of the building. Appropriated funds are used only for basic
operational expenses such as utilities, housekeeping, security, minor
repair and maintenance, and capital repair. I would note for the
Committee that the Center's authorizing statute specifically prohibits
the use of appropriated funds for direct expenses incurred in the
production of performing arts attractions.
use of appropriated funds
Federal funds appropriated annually to the Kennedy Center comprise
two separate accounts: (1) operations and maintenance, and (2) capital
repair. The appropriation for the operations and maintenance account
for fiscal year 1999 was $12,187,000. The capital repair appropriation
was $20 million, the authorized limit established last year in Public
Law 105-226 to allow the Board to continue with the Comprehensive
Building Plan to bring the facility into compliance with fire and life
safety codes as well as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements while maintaining the functionality of the structure.
The Federal appropriations received in the current fiscal year
cover basic operational expenses of the Federal building, including
utilities, housekeeping, minor repair and maintenance, security, and
interpretive services. A portion of these annual operating funds are
allocated to reducing a significant minor repair backlog that
accumulated over many years and the cost of which is estimated at $9.5
million. Appropriated funds are also expended for capital repair and
replacement of the Center's antiquated building systems. Under our
capital repair program, we are bringing the building, designed in the
mid- 1960's, up to current accessibility and fire and life safety codes
while maintaining the functionality of the facility.
Since assuming control of building operations, maintenance, and
capital repairs, the Board has implemented several measures to
streamline operations and increase efficiencies aspects of appropriated
fund management. The Board retains the services of the General Services
Administration for contract and financial management services, engages
the services of other agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and
the National Park Service to assist in performing various procurement
functions, and employs an in-house contracting officer to supervise and
facilitate contracting for goods and services. Policies such as these
have proven successful in keeping the Center's overhead as low as
possible.
During the last fiscal year, the Center completed installation of
an integrated facility management information system that allows us to
enhance our performance on a work order by work order basis, and
promote improved preventative maintenance. The Board has improved
security operations at the Center by increasing the number of officers
and upgrading the quality of the guard force.
The Board's management of the capital repair account has yielded
the successful completion of many capital repair projects. Since fiscal
year 1997, the Board has facilitated installation of a new heating and
cooling system. When it opened in 1971, the Kennedy Center was the
world's largest all-electric facility and until 1997, was still using
its original chillers that had become inefficient to the point of
obsolescence. Other successful projects include the complete
replacement of the main roof and roof terrace materials--which has
resulted in a greatly improved roof drainage system, and accessibility
and fire safety rehabilitation work in the Concert Hall. Both of these
projects were on time and on budget. The newly renovated Concert Hall
offers patrons with disabilities a totally accessible hall with
wheelchair accommodations in all sections of the hall. Egress for all
patrons had been improved, and appropriate fire safety systems are in
place.
fiscal year 2000 operations and maintenance program
The Center's request for fiscal year 2000 funding for the
operations and maintenance account totals $14.0 million. This is an
increase of $1.0 million over the fiscal year 1999 request and is
consistent with the Kennedy Center's long-range operational plans to
adequately maintain the structure to avoid increased deferred
maintained such as that which accumulated from 1971 through 1994. This
increase in funds is required to address a portion of the backlog of
minor repair work items facing the Center while maintaining building
operations and maintenance at current levels. In addition to minor
repair needs, the operations and maintenance account also covers
utilities and basic operations and provides for a proactive routing
maintenance program which over time will alleviate the compounding
backlog of minor building repairs. A decrease in the budgeted request
will adversely affect the Center's program to reduce the accumulated
minor repair backlog, because virtually all other operation and
maintenance expenses such as electricity and water and sewer, security
and life safety, building personnel costs are not discretionary. A
decrease in minor repair expenditures will increase future operating
and capital repair costs. The operations and maintenance account funds
personnel compensation and benefits for 49 full-time equivalent (FTE)
personnel. This FTE level is unchanged from the fiscal year 1999 level.
The operations and maintenance request reflects a 3.1 percent Federal
pay-raise adjustment.
fiscal year 2000 capital repair program
The Center's request for fiscal year 2000 funding for the capital
repair program is $20.0 million, level with the fiscal year 1999
request. This amount will allow the Center to continue with Phase 2 of
its Comprehensive Building Plan which includes modifications to the
Center Block of the building to bring the facility into compliance with
current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and fire and
life safety codes.
The capital repair account funds personnel compensation and
benefits for six full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel. This FTE level
is also unchanged from the current fiscal year. The capital repair
request reflects a 3.1 percent Federal pay-raise adjustment
general accounting office (gao) audit requirement
Under Public Law 103-279, the 1994 Amendments to the Kennedy Center
Act, the GAO was required to audit the appropriated fund accounts of
the Kennedy Center every three years. GAO has concluded its first audit
since the Kennedy Center assumed responsibility for operations and
maintenance and capital repair of the building. After reviewing the
accounts and procedures, GAO reported no problems. Instead, GAO
recommended that their 3-year audit requirement be terminated because
it duplicates the annual audit by the Kennedy Center's certified public
accountant, whose report is submitted to the Congress.
kennedy center artistic programming
Performance and education are our primary goals at the Center. More
than 3,500 performances are presented annually. Since it opened in
1971, the Kennedy Center has:
--produced and presented works by many of America's most talented
playwrights;
--participated in strengthening musical theater through producing and
touring revivals of great American musicals and developing new
works;
--diversified its programming through partnerships with local and
national performing arts and educational institutions;
--entered a new and exciting phase in orchestral music with Leonard
Slatkin as the artistic director of the National Symphony
Orchestra, and in jazz under the direction of Dr. Billy Taylor;
and
--commissioned new works by American playwrights, composers, and
choreographers.
The Kennedy Center has a special responsibility to support,
present, and produce American artists and places special emphasis on
American-bred forms like jazz, musical theater, modern dance, and on
the range of cultural influences that are American. The Kennedy
Center's commitment to developing new works and nurturing innovative
artists is also reflected in its theatrical productions and
commissions, which range from blockbuster revivals of classic American
musicals to new works for youth and family audiences. (The Center's co-
production of Titanic received the 1997 Tony Award for Best Musical.)
The Kennedy Center Fund for New American Plays, now in its 13th year,
has helped develop more than 50 works, including three Pulitzer Prize
winners, and more recently, a new work by former U.S. Poet Laureate
Rita Dove, The Darker Face of the Earth, which was produced at the
Kennedy Center last season.
The Kennedy Center continues to be a national leader in the
creation and preservation of American dance. This season marks the
inauguration of a major 3-year commissioning initiative celebrating two
of our great American indigenous art forms, modern dance and jazz.
Already we have presented new works by David Parsons, Pilobolus and
Paul Taylor. Next month, Kennedy Center audiences will see a
commissioned world premiere by Bill T. Jones featuring a composition by
jazz great Fred Hirsch.
The Kennedy Center's artistic affiliate, the National Symphony
Orchestra, next month will embark on its seventh American Residency
program. The NSO will travel to Mississippi for an extended residency
featuring more than 140 public and in-school performances, master
classes for young musicians, workshops for teachers, and cultural
exchanges. In past years, the NSO has conducted residencies in Alabama,
Alaska, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, bringing the
orchestra to states not served by major symphony orchestras. During
last year's residency in Alabama, tens of thousands of people, from
pre-schoolers to senior citizens, participated in about 150
performances and educational events. From each of the residency states,
a local composer is commissioned to create a work for the NSO, a
teacher is chosen for the intensive Kennedy Center/NSO Teaching
Fellowship at the Center, and several young music students are chosen
to travel to the Center for the NSO's month-long Summer Music
Institute.
kennedy center education programming
For more than two decades, the Kennedy Center has shown through its
local and nationwide arts education programs that the inclusion of the
performing arts in a broad-based curriculum dramatically improves the
quality of a child's educational experience. The Center has played a
leadership role in making the arts an integral part of the curriculum
of America's schools, as mandated in the Kennedy Center Act, through
its professional development programs for teachers; its performances
for young people and families; its programs that help arts centers and
their local school districts work together; its professional training
programs for young musicians, actors, and dancers; its residency
programs; and much more. All told, the Kennedy Center's programs in
arts education reach more than 4.5 million people across the United
States each year.
The Kennedy Center is working with partners across the nation to
improve the quality of education through the inclusion of the arts. The
arts teach discipline, inspire creativity, and help young people to set
and reach goals. The arts help good teachers teach better and makes
participating schools' exciting, challenging places for children--
places where they are encouraged to explore, to think creatively, and
to reach their full potential.
The leadership of the Kennedy Center in education is in evidence in
communities across the country. Just a few programs are:
Kennedy Center Performing Arts Centers and Schools Program
67 participating teams representing 37 States (The Center last
month hosted its eighth annual meeting in Washington, D. C. Team
members attended workshops and activities to further strengthen their
community partnerships).
Teacher Development Workshops
Since 1994, the Performing Arts Centers and Schools teams in
conjunction with the Kennedy Center have presented 202 professional
development opportunities for teachers in more than 32 States.
Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration On Tour
The Kennedy Center commissioned and produced three new productions:
Brothers of the Knight, freely adapted from Twelve Dancing Princesses,
written, directed, and choreographed by Debbie Allen, and composed by
James Ingram; Louisa May Alcott's classic Little Women, adapted by
playwright Paulette Lauder and directed by Albert Takazauckas; and The
Nightingale, which combined dance, music, martial arts and narration,
conceived and choreographed by Dana Tai Soon Burgess, written and
directed by Mary Hall Surface and composed by David Maddox.
The Kennedy Center's production of Judy Blume's Tales of a Fourth
Grade Nothing toured nationally last year with 147 performances in 45
venues in 21 States.
Kennedy Center Alliance for Arts Education Network
46 independent State Alliance organizations are operating in
partnership with the Kennedy Center for the inclusion of the arts in
every child's education.
Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival
Participation by more than 400,000 college students representing
more than 600 colleges and universities throughout the United States.
National Symphony Orchestra
During its 1998 American Residency in Alabama, the NSO participated
in 150 events in 10 days. This successful residency follows those in
Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Montana and Wyoming. Next month the
NSO will travel to Mississippi for its 1999 Residency.
Summer Music Institute
Since 1993, 221 high school and college students from more than 22
States have participated in this program that offers young musicians
master classes, ensemble training and performance opportunities in
Washington, DC.
One of the most exciting things about the Center's education
activities is that they transcend both the Center itself and the
classroom. Under a cooperative agreement with the National Endowment
for the Arts and the U.S. Department of Education, the Kennedy Center
for several years has been home to ARTsEDGE, an interactive
communications network designed to provide practical, useful and
easily-accessible information important to teachers, artists, parents,
and anyone concerned with the inclusion of the arts in the education of
young people.
More than 10,000 visits per day are received on ARTsEDGE. ARTsEDGE
can be accessed through the Kennedy Center's Home Page on the World
Wide Web. The Center's Home Page provides complete information for
patrons and visitors on the Center's artistic and education programming
and its status as a living presidential memorial. Patrons can now
purchase tickets directly through the Center's Home Page at: http://
kennedy-center.org.
In addition, a series of live interactive educational programs
featuring Kennedy Center artists are broadcast through the Prince
William County Public Schools Media Network over educational TV cable
channels to school districts locally and across the country.
performing arts for everyone
More than four and a half million visitors pass through the doors
to the Kennedy Center each year. Transportation for these visitors is
facilitated by ShowShuttle, the METRO shuttle service funded by the
Kennedy Center Board through trust funds. More than 720,000 riders now
use this service. Roughly half of those visitors come to the Center
solely to visit the presidential memorial. Twenty-five years after the
Center first opened its doors to the public as the sole national
monument to the late president, the Board continuously looks for new
ways to provide a more engaging and exciting interpretive experience
for visitors.
To compliment the work of the 650 Friends of the Kennedy Center
volunteers who perform a range of visitor services, plans are currently
underway for the interpretive program to include informative kiosks,
displays, and printed materials, and a top-notch, continuously running,
wide-screen format film telling the story of the performing arts in
America.
As the national center for the performing arts, the Kennedy Center
is committed to bringing quality and diversity to its stages and the
Board of Trustees places the highest of priorities on making the arts
accessible to all Americans. Just two weeks ago, on March 1, 1999, the
Center celebrated the second anniversary of the Millennium Stage--where
free daily performances take place in the Grand Foyer. Two years ago,
the Center launched ``Performing Arts for Everyone,'' a program
designed to expand and increase access to the performing arts for local
area residents and visitors to the nation's capital through free daily
performances at the Center. Every evening, seven days a week, 52 weeks
a year, there is a free performance on the Millennium Stage and tickets
are never required. With this new program, the Center has attracted
more than 400,000 persons in the last two years, many of them new to
the Kennedy Center, and some of them attending a live performance for
the very first time. Last year, the Kennedy Center brought the
Millennium Stage to Capitol Hill during the summer months for free
concerts on the Capitol grounds every Tuesday and Thursday at noon.
More than 4,000 visitors to the nation's capitol enjoyed the concerts
provided for with private funds.
The Center also presented artists and performing groups from 49
States through the State Days series of free performances on the
Millennium Stage.
The Kennedy Center continues its tradition of offering free public
events by sponsoring its annual month-long Holiday Celebration that
showcases more than 30 local performance groups and attracts more than
20,000 patrons. The annual Kennedy Center Open House will kick off the
millennium season in September with a day of free performances on
stages throughout the building. The Center's larger-than-ever free Open
House celebration is attended annually by more than 30,000 people.
Since September, 1971, the Kennedy Center has conducted a reduced-
price ticket program for students, disabled persons, senior citizens
over age 65, enlisted military personnel, and others on limited
incomes. More than 50,000 individuals per year see performances at half
price through this program. The Center has expanded its reduced-price
program to offer half-price, day-of-performance tickets to all patrons
through TICKETplace, a facility at the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania
Avenue. The Center also regularly schedules ``pay what you can'' days
allowing the public to pay whatever they can afford for regular
performances.
With more than 3,500 performances in Washington alone, and hundreds
of touring performances, workshops, and other activities across the
country, the Center's doors are open to everyone.
conclusion
Recognizing that the challenges are great, the Kennedy Center is
enthusiastic about its mission. The Trustees, employees, educators, and
artists associated with the Kennedy Center are committed to the
congressional mandate established for this living memorial.
We are appreciative of the support in Congress for our programs and
for the unique public/private partnership that is the basis for the
Center's financial success. I am grateful for this opportunity to
submit a statement to the subcommittee and would be pleased to respond
to any questions you might have.
______
1998 American College Theater Festival Participants
university/college
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
Troy State University, Troy, AL
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
Auburn University at Montgomery, Montgomery, AL
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
University of Montevallo, Montevallo, AL
Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Huntingdon College, Montgomery, AL
Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL
University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK
Phoenix College, Phoenix, AZ
Glendale Community College, Glendale, AZ
Scottsdale Community College, Scottsdale, AZ
Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ
Eastern Arizona State University, Thatcher, AZ
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Lyon College, Batesville, AR
Philander Smith College, Little Rock, AR
University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR
University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR
Arkansas State University, Beebe, Beebe, AR
Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR
University of the Ozarks, Clarksville, AR
Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR
Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR
Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR
El Camino College, Torrance, CA
Fullerton College, Fullerton, CA
American River College, Sacramento, CA
City College of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Cypress College, Cypress, CA
College of Notre Dame, Belmont, CA
California State University, Fresno, Fresno, CA
Fresno City College, Fresno, CA
California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA
California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA
California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Chapman University, Orange, CA
Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks, CA
California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA
California State University, Chico, Chico, CA
California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA
Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA
California State University, Hayward, Hayward, CA
Cerritos College, Norwalk, CA
Chabot College, Hayward, CA
Citrus College, Glendora, CA
Concordia University, Irvine, CA
California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA
University of Redlands, Redlands, CA
Ventura College, Ventura, CA
Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA
Santa Ana College, Santa Ana, CA
Los Angeles Valley College, Van Nuys, CA
Grossmont College, El Cajon, CA
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA
Compton Community College, Compton, CA
Senator Gorton. Before we go to Mr. Powell, we have the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee here. Since my ability
to fund each and every one of you will depend on the allocation
that Senator Stevens provides for me, we will defer to him for
any remarks that he would like to make.
Senator Stevens. I'm sorry to be late. I have several
subcommittees I am going to stop in to visit this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see so many friends here,
and sad to hear about your departure, Lee. We'll have to talk
about that some other time. But, indeed, it is nice to see you
here in your new capacity representing the Wilson Center.
I have no questions at the moment.
Thank you very much.
Summary statement of Earl A. Powell, III
Senator Gorton. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens. It is
my pleasure to be here with you this morning, and I want to
thank you for the opportunity to meet with the subcommittee
about the National Gallery of Art. We are pleased to present
our fiscal year 2000 budget for the Senate's consideration.
We have also submitted a longer statement for the record,
but I will go through an overview of that here and will be
available, of course, for questions afterwards.
The National Gallery of Art is dedicated to serving the
country by preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and encouraging
the understanding of works of art at an exemplary level. Over
the years, the Gallery has consistently hired and retained the
best available curatorial, educational, and management staffs.
Day-to-day operations support our mission through the care,
maintenance, and security of the works of art and the
facilities.
The National Gallery is unique in the Nation in many ways.
It is one of the great examples of a public/private
partnership. It is not only an art museum of the first rank but
an institution of higher learning created and sustained by
government and private citizens.
The Gallery's founder, Andrew W. Mellon, set a standard for
artistic excellence which the Gallery has consistently
maintained. Through a joint resolution adopted in 1937, the
Congress accepted Mr. Mellon's gift to the people of the United
States and pledged to provide funds for the upkeep,
administration, and operations of the Gallery, including the
protection and care of works of art, so that the National
Gallery would be open to the general public free of charge.
All works of art in the National Gallery collection have
been acquired by donation or through purchases with private
funds. A collection of international stature has been created
by the generosity of some 2,000 donors who have presented the
Nation with approximately 100,000 works of art.
This spirit of philanthropy, coupled with an understanding
and supportive government, has created a remarkable institution
in the National Gallery of Art.
As a further example of this partnership, in the Gallery's
immediate future is the opening in late May of this year of the
National Gallery of Art Sculpture Garden which is in
construction on the Mall. Many of you may have watched its
emergence over the last several years in the six-acre block
adjacent to the West Building on Constitution Avenue.
Designed to offer year-round enjoyment to the public in one
of the most preeminent locations on the National Mall, the
Sculpture Garden features flexible spaces to display outdoor
sculpture in the Gallery's collection. In the winter, the
fountain will return to an ice skating rink, long a favorite to
Washington area residents and tourists.
The Sculpture Garden is made possible by a 1991 agreement
signed by the National Park Service and the Gallery and
approved by the National Capital Planning Commission that
transferred jurisdiction of the site from the Park Service to
the Gallery. Construction of the National Gallery Sculpture
Garden has been made possible by a gift from the Morris and
Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation.
fiscal year 2000 Request
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request, in line with
the Gallery's strategic plan, focuses on two basic areas:
continued funding at the present no-growth level of our day-to-
day operations and special exhibitions program, plus essential
monies for the repair, restoration, and renovation of the
Gallery's two architecturally important buildings.
The National Gallery's Federal funds request to Congress
for fiscal year 2000 is $67,749,000, a net increase of
$3,500,000 compared to the 1999 budget. This includes
$3,391,000 for mandatory/uncontrollable costs, and $109,000 for
five FTE's for security of the new Sculpture Garden.
A major priority for the Gallery is and will continue to be
the upkeep of the West and East Buildings, important national
monuments as significant as the great works of art which they
house. The West Building will be 59 years old in 2000. The East
Building will be 22 years old.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Gallery faces a
steady ongoing program of repairs and renovations to keep these
buildings functioning efficiently, securely, and safely.
Recognizing the need for a planned, comprehensive program
of building and system repairs and maintenance, a master
facilities plan was developed for the Gallery in order to
determine when replacement of a building system or component is
appropriate for inclusion in future budget requests. $6.3
million of our total request is for the repair, restoration,
and renovation account.
This funding will allow us to work on two groups of master
facilities plan projects, structural exterior repairs and
restoration and interior mechanical/electrical equipment
replacements, plus continued work on the fire protection system
which is presently underway, as well as the ongoing renovation
program.
I am pleased to report that we are nearing completion of
the West Building's skylight and building automation projects
and much of the fire protection project. I want to take this
opportunity to thank the chairman, the subcommittee, and the
U.S. Senate for the support so crucial to these projects.
When completed, the skylight project will allow the Gallery
to reopen all of the permanent galleries in the West Building,
and it will be the first time in many, many years we will have
been able to show the entire range of the Gallery's collections
in that building.
The fiscal year 2000 special exhibition schedule is an
ambitious and international one. It will include exhibitions
such as Art Nouveau 1890-1914, a thematic exploration of the
first expansive, worldwide modern art movement; The Triumph of
the Baroque: Architecture in Europe, an architectural models
show that will present a panorama of architecture in Europe at
this exciting time, which builds on the very successful
Renaissance Models exhibition we had several years ago; and
Monet and the Impressionists at Argenteuil, a selection of more
than 50 paintings, some of the most lyrical and dazzling
pictures of the day by the major impressionists, including
Monet, Manet, and Renoir. The Gallery will also honor Paul
Mellon with an exhibition focusing on Degas and other works
drawn from his many gifts to the Nation over many years.
In 1998, we welcomed over 5.3 million visitors from all 50
States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and some
80 foreign countries. The crucial, ongoing support of Federal
funding makes it possible for the American people and visitors
from around the world to visit the Gallery 7 days a week, 363
days a year, free of charge.
Access to the Gallery's collection and educational programs
has been increased by the dramatic development of our web site,
launched just 2 years ago. In calendar year 1998, the Gallery
Web site had 23,000 to 27,000 visitors per day, bringing our
resources to national and international audiences. It has won
innumerable awards for its content as well as its design.
On the eve of the new millennium, the Gallery looks forward
to continuing on a path set in place over a half century ago,
dedicated to the vision and high standards of excellence
established by Andrew W. Mellon and the 1937 joint resolution
of Congress.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, the Gallery is very
appreciative and grateful for your continuing support. I will
be happy to answer questions following the other testimony.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Earl A. Powell, III
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
be here with you this morning. Thank you for the opportunity to meet
with the subcommittee about the National Gallery of Art. We are pleased
to present our fiscal year 2000 budget for the Senate's consideration.
The National Gallery of Art is dedicated to serving the country by
preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and encouraging the understanding
of works of art at an exemplary level. Over the years the Gallery has
consistently hired and retained the best available curatorial,
educational, and management staffs. Day-to-day operations support our
mission through the care, maintenance, and security of the works of art
and the facilities.
The National Gallery is unique in the nation. It is not only an art
museum of the first rank but an institution of higher learning created
and sustained by government and private citizens. The National
Gallery's founder, Andrew W. Mellon, set a standard for artistic
excellence which the Gallery has consistently maintained.
The use of Federal funds to operate the National Gallery stems from
the 1937 Joint Resolution of Congress, which accepted Andrew W.
Mellon's unprecedented gift to the people of the United States. Mr.
Mellon's gift consisted of his art collection, funds to construct a
building (now the West Building) and an endowment fund. Mr. Mellon
stipulated that the gift not bear his name so that other Americans
might ``contribute works of art of the highest quality to form a great
national collection.''
The National Gallery is a model of public-private partnership by
its creation. In accepting Andrew Mellon's gift the Congress, in turn,
pledged the faith of the United States to provide funds for the upkeep,
administration, and operations of the Gallery, including the protection
and care of works of art subsequently acquired by the Board of Trustees
so that the National Gallery would be open to the general public free
of charge.
All works of art in the National Gallery collection have been
acquired by donation or through purchase with private funds. A
collection of international stature has been created by the generosity
of some 2,000 donors who have presented the nation with approximately
100,000 works of art. This spirit of philanthropy, coupled with an
understanding and supportive government, has created a remarkable
institution in the National Gallery of Art.
As a further example of this partnership, in the Gallery's
immediate future is the opening in late May of this year of the
National Gallery of Art Sculpture Garden. Many of you may have watched
its emergence over the last several years in the six-acre block
adjacent to the West Building on Constitution Avenue. Designed to offer
year-round enjoyment to the public in one of the preeminent locations
on the National Mall, the Sculpture Garden will feature flexible spaces
to display outdoor sculpture in the Gallery's collection. The garden
will also provide an elegant yet informal setting featuring new
plantings of native American species of trees, shrubs, ground cover,
and perennials. In the winter, the fountain will return to the ice
skating rink, long a favorite, to Washington area residents and
tourists. The Sculpture Garden is made possible by a 1991 agreement,
signed by the National Park Service and the Gallery and approved by the
National Capital Planning Commission, that transferred jurisdiction of
the site from the Park Service to the Gallery. Construction of the
National Gallery Sculpture Garden has been made possible by The Morris
and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request, in line with the
Gallery's Strategic Plan, focuses on two basic areas: continued funding
at the present no-growth level of our day-to-day operations and special
exhibitions program, plus essential monies for the repair, restoration,
and renovation of the Gallery's two architecturally important
buildings.
The National Gallery's Federal funds request to Congress for fiscal
year 2000 is $67,749,000, a net increase of $3,500,000 compared to the
1999 budget. This includes $3,391,000 for mandatory/uncontrollable
costs, and $109,000 for five FTEs for security of the new Sculpture
Garden.
A major priority for the Gallery is and will be the upkeep of the
West and East Buildings, important national monuments as significant as
the great works of art which they house. The West Building will be 59
years old in 2000; the East Building will be 22 years old. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the Gallery faces a steady, ongoing program
of repairs and renovations to keep these buildings functioning
efficiently, securely and safely.
Recognizing the need for a planned, comprehensive program of
building and system repairs, a Master Facilities Plan was developed for
the Gallery in order to determine when replacement of a building system
or component is appropriate for inclusion in future budget requests.
Providing an organized framework for a comprehensive and effective
implementation of infrastructure improvements and renovations, the
Master Facilities Plan will phase in major repairs and systems
replacements over the next decade. The intent is to successfully
identify those projects that will ensure the continued high performance
of the Gallery facilities and to minimize the impact on visitors and
Gallery programs while proactively maintaining these national monuments
for many generations to come.
$6.3 million of our total request is for the Repair, Restoration
and Renovation account. This sum will allow us to continue work on two
groups of Master Facilities Plan projects: ``Structural/Exterior
Repairs and Restoration,'' and ``Interior Mechanical/Electrical
Equipment Replacements,'' plus continue work on the ``Fire Protection
System'' as well as the ongoing renovation program. I am pleased to
report that we are nearing completion of the West Building Skylight and
Building Automation projects, as well as much of the Fire Protection
project. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman,
the Subcommittee, and the United States Senate for the support so
crucial to these projects.
The fiscal year 2000 special exhibition schedule is an ambitious
and international one. The year includes exhibitions such as: Art
Nouveau 1890-1914, a thematic exploration of the first expansive,
worldwide ``modern art'' movement; The Triumph of the Baroque:
Architecture in Europe 1600-1750, an architectural models show that
will present a panorama of architecture in Europe at that exciting
time; and Monet and the Impressionists at Argenteuil, a selection of
more than fifty paintings by the six major Impressionists--Monet,
Boudin, Caillebotte, Manet, Renoir, and Sisley--who were fascinated by
this site in France and who painted many of the most lyrical, dazzling,
and progressive pictures of the day at Argenteuil. The Gallery will
honor Paul Mellon with an exhibition focusing on Degas and other works
drawn from his many gifts to the American public.
Federal operating funds have a multiplier effect specifically for
special exhibitions. Private funding from corporate and foundation
sponsors match Federal dollars to cover exhibition costs. Many museums
in this country and abroad look to the Gallery to organize and to share
major special exhibitions. Recent examples of exhibitions originating
at the Gallery and then traveling to other venues include Van Gogh's
Van Goghs, now at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the Mark Rothko
survey at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York; and the M. C.
Escher graphics exhibition now at Norfolk, Virginia's Chrysler Museum.
Our current major exhibition of the works of John Singer Sargent will
be on view this summer at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Last year, we welcomed over 5.3 million visitors from all 50
States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, and from some
80 foreign countries. The crucial, ongoing support of Federal funding
ensures the operations of the Gallery and the protection and care of
the works of art. This support makes it possible for the American
people, and visitors around the world, to the visit the Gallery seven
days a week, 363 days a year, free of charge. Access to the Gallery
collection and educational programs has been increased by the dramatic
development of our Web site, launched just two years ago. (http://
www.nga.gov). In calendar year 1998, the Gallery web site had 23,000 to
27,000 visitors per day, bringing our resources to national and
international audiences.
On the eve of the new millennium, the Gallery looks forward to
continuing on the path set in place over a half century ago, dedicated
to the vision and the high standards of excellence established by
Andrew W. Mellon and the 1937 Joint Resolution of Congress.
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, the Gallery is very
appreciative and grateful for your continuing support. I will be glad
to answer any questions you may have about the National Gallery, its
operations, and its programs.
Summary statement of I. MICHAEL HEYMAN
Senator Gorton. Well, at least for the purposes of this
subcommittee, Mr. Heyman, your swan song.
Mr. Heyman. Let me start with thanking you very much for
your kind words. I really regret leaving the Smithsonian
immensely. It is a wonderful place. But I must say, I also look
forward to returning to the Bay Area and to renewing my ties
with the University of California, which is what I will be
doing.
My priority as Secretary has been to maintain the quality
of the programs that we offer and to enhance the visitors'
experience while touring our museums and utilizing our research
facilities. Each time I come to a hearing when my colleagues
and I are together I think how fortunate they are to be dealing
with one or two buildings.
I deal with 16 museums, four very large research
facilities, and a number of others at the National Zoo, all of
which is extraordinarily exciting, but it is somewhat difficult
to keep my arms around all of them.
Affiliations program
I have been quite dedicated, as I think many know, to
sharing the experience that one has, for instance here in
Washington, with people outside of Washington and to make our
programs and collections more accessible to the nation. We have
done that through three programs, two of which have been
enhanced considerably; in fact, both created during the last
four and a half years. One of those is the Affiliations Program
in which we enter into arrangements with local museums or
museums that are coming into being, and under the right
conditions, if they can take care of our collections and can
utilize them well, we are willing to make long-term loans of
objects. It seems to me this is a win-win game in many ways.
It is obviously good for the institutions with which we
work, but it is really very good for the Smithsonian to be able
to give access to collections which otherwise would probably
not be seen but rather remain in storage.
We are dealing now with 23 active affiliations. This
program began in 1996, or was created then. We have five that
have been fully implemented and one could watch last week as a
huge number of huge objects from the collections displayed in
the Arts and Industries Building started to go up to Bethlehem,
PA where they will be housed in a new National Museum of
American Industrial History, a 501(c)3 that has been created.
It is part of the revival of the city of Bethlehem in
Pennsylvania.
A huge building has been dedicated, and at the expense of
that museum and its supporters we are curating a very large
show on the history of the American industrial revolution,
something we never could do in the space that we have here. But
I think it is going to be a fine show. The curators in the
American History Museum who are involved in this are very
excited with the possibility of being able to do that.
A lot of other affiliation agreements are being discussed.
I think 15 or 20 years from now we are going to look back and
think this program was one of the most important that has been
created in a long time by the Smithsonian in terms of bringing
our articles, our objects, our artifacts elsewhere.
outreach Programs
We have been doing some very interesting work, as Senator
Stevens knows, in Alaska. We have very deep collections of
Alaskan materials. He discovered part of them about 15 years
ago with one of our fine curators at the National Museum of
Natural History.
A lot of those now are on tour and on loan to new museums,
small museums, many in native villages in Alaska. That is
turning out to be really a very good program, and an outreach
program which is very important to us.
Smithsonian institution traveling exhibition service
Of course, the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition
Service goes on, and enlarges, because it has begun to be able
to garner some corporate and foundation support for its
programs. In the packet that I have given to you, you have a
good description of what the SITES projects are and where those
tours have been. One of the programs that SITES runs is called
Museum on Main Street, and it is designed for small, rural
communities.
It has 100 participating communities at the moment. If I
had at my hand, Senator Gorton, the five communities in
Washington where we are at the moment, I would recite those.
But that is just an example of the breadth of this program.
We do other kinds of touring, obviously, as you will find
out later, if not before, when the National Museum of American
Art and the National Portrait Gallery are closed because of the
renovation of the Patent Office building. We will be touring
major collections from both of those museums around the
country.
Internet access
We too are very involved in the Internet. We really got
into that in the last three years or so. It is a bottom-up
project at the Smithsonian with each of the museums, research
institutes, and major programs having their home page. They are
all collected on the Smithsonian Institution home page, but, in
all, we must have 50 hours of materials on the Internet. It
covers everything. It covers exhibitions. It covers
collections.
Some of it is technically very sophisticated, and becoming
more so. Right now, we are in the process of putting together a
virtual show for a millennium exhibition which will echo the
150th tour that we made a few years ago. The people who have
been working on this in the central administration and the
Secretary's office in the Smithsonian are showing a lot of
ingenuity in terms of the technical abilities to present that
material.
The Internet also permits us to deliver not only informal
education of the sort that I am talking about, but formal
education also. We are deeply involved with a number of
projects. Perhaps in the lead at the moment is the National
Museum of Natural History, which has been creating segments of
new and old courses which are being used in many contexts.
One of the most interesting ones is an after-school
activity for both the normal school period and also during the
summer. That seems to be working very well.
This is the time for me to put in a plug for that request
in the budget for information systems. Because, basically, it
will enable the Smithsonian to create and enhance the
infrastructure for the Internet and for collection management.
It is really absolutely crucial to the growth and the building
of this outreach kind of activity. I could go on with regard to
that, but it is all in the testimony which I have submitted.
Visitorship
I would like to highlight just a few of the things that
have been occurring at the Smithsonian over this past year. I
am deleting most of this because I would go on much too long.
But we did record over 31 million visits this past year to the
museums plus the zoo. That is up about 4 percent from last
year. Last year we were up about 15 percent from the year
before. I suspect my colleagues are having the same experience.
In part, it is because we are all doing wonderful things,
and in part because a lot more people are coming to Washington,
which may have something to do with that. But whether or not
that is the case, the phenomenon is that attendance has been
going up a lot.
Star-Spangled Banner preservation Project
On December 1, 1998, we took down the Star-Spangled Banner,
which you know is to be conserved and preserved. We took it
down and it is now in a specially-built container for it. It is
soon to be moved to a conservation lab where the conservation
activities will occur.
That laboratory is designed and has been constructed so
people can watch the actual preservation and conservation of
that flag. I think that exhibit in itself, over the 2-year
period, is going to be a fascinating one and I'll bet you a lot
of people are going to be interested in seeing that.
Smithsonian research institutes
You know, we have a number of research institutes. The
Smithsonian started in 1846, and the first Secretary saw it as
a place of basic research. Soon thereafter, it took on the
responsibility for being a museum. Those two sets of
activities, research on the one hand and a museum or exhibition
on the other--because obviously a lot of research is related to
exhibition--have gone on since the middle of the nineteenth
century.
We have some extraordinary research facilities, including
the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and the
Astrophysical Observatory that is located in Cambridge that,
with Harvard University, runs the Center for Astrophysics. We
have a number of telescopes in Arizona, and we are in the midst
of finishing the Submillimeter Array on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
SAO is very big-time, as astronomical organizations go.
Smithsonian environmental research center
I want to just bring to your attention one that has not had
quite that fame, which is the Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center, in Edgewater, MD. One of the reasons that I
bring it to your attention is that we have just completed a
building with private funding that permits us to bring student
groups, school groups, down there in a much better way than we
could previously.
SERC is involved with estuarine studies. It is involved
with the study of water quality. It is involved with the impact
of uses of land on the quality of water, and the Chesapeake Bay
is obviously an extraordinary place for doing that.
One of SERC's very large projects is identifying non-native
species that come to the Chesapeake in the ballast of ships
from all over the world, because when they let the ballast go
which they have picked up in foreign places, out comes not only
water but a whole variety of kinds of animals and flora.
At the moment we are looking at non-native species of
bacteria that can cause cholera. It is a part of the largest
research project in the United States dealing with the origin
and the impact of alien invasive species.
In addition to that, SERC is playing a major role in
demonstrating that stream-side forests and restored wetlands
can reduce nutrient runoff into coastal waters. If one can do
that by the dedication of a relatively small amount of land
through natural means, the opportunity of being able to carry
on what otherwise are viewed as inconsistent uses can be
maximized.
Smithsonian's fiscal year 2000 budget request
There is so much more going on in the research institutes
that I would like to share with you, but time presses. I do
want to talk a little bit about our request for fiscal year
2000. We are asking for $447.4 million, which is an increase of
$35.1 million above the fiscal year 1999 appropriations.
But remember, our responsibilities include 16 museums, a
zoo, and a lot of research facilities. Of this amount, $380.5
million is for salary and expenses and $66.9 million for our
capital program. And more than half of the S&E requested
increase is for mandatories.
The balance, which is $14 million, is for the following:
one is for $2 million and 14 term positions, not permanent
positions, at the Dulles Center to work on the restoration of
aircraft for the Dulles Center when we have raised the money
and it is built.
It might seem well in advance of the time that the Dulles
Center will be completed, but at this level we can renovate
about four planes a month. If we are going to be in a position
to really fill up that Dulles Center by the time that it is
completed, we really should be starting on an enhanced program
of renovation and restoration right now.
There is $5 million and 11 positions for the National
Museum of the American Indian. Most of this request, actually,
is for the Cultural Resources Center in Suitland and for moving
the materials that are stored up in the Bronx down to the new
Suitland Cultural Resources Center, which of course is the
place where we are storing the million artifacts, all that will
not be shown in either the Mall Museum or in the New York
location.
Some of that money is for the beginning of exhibition
development for the Mall Museum when it opens before 2003. That
is my pledge to myself, in any event, that that shall occur.
I mentioned $5 million that we are requesting for
collection information systems, essentially to support the
electronic capture and digitization of object and specimen
images, which is the base work for everything that we can do
with regard to electronic communication, and $2 million for
security system modernization. That $2 million, in addition to
the $2 million we got in the budget last year and the $4.7
million that we got in the emergency supplemental that went to
OMB for Y2K problems, will permit us to finish all of the
internal electronic systems that we have intended to bring all
of that up to high operational capacity.
We probably will be looking for another $3 million to $3.5
million in the future, but that will be mainly for electronic
surveillance on the perimeters of buildings, not within them or
at their entrances, and to permit us also to think about
whether we want to use more cards for access to portions of
buildings. We are not sure that we think that is such a good
idea at the moment, but we want to evaluate that.
The $2 million this year is going to permit us to finish
the internal electronic security system which will give us a
greater sense of comfort. Our experience with security of this
sort has been excellent. We have lost very few things. We have
had practically nothing defaced.
Our insurance rates are about as low as they possibly can
be for a museum. So we have been very fortunate in that regard.
Largely, that has been because we have a security force that is
really excellent.
capital Accounts
The two remaining items are on the capital side: $47.9
million for R&R and alteration and modification of facilities,
and then $19 million for construction. The $19 million is to
finish the National Museum of the American Indian. I think we
will all be relieved when that occurs. We have run into a
little problem, as you well know, with respect to the
architects.
We have replaced the architects in the sense that we have
now taken over the lead in the management of that project, but
we have hired other people to help us. I believe that we are
going to bring that museum in on time. It looks very, very much
as if we will.
Clearly, we are not going to bring it in within the
original budget, but we are not going to come to the Federal
Government for any enhancements with respect to construction
funds. We will find other money somehow in the private sector
to finish that up.
We are involved with a lawsuit presently, but my lawyer
part of me tells me that I shouldn't be too worried and maybe I
should look forward to collecting a little rather than being in
a position of liability.
repair, restoration and alteration of facilities
That leaves the $47.9 million for R&R. You will recall that
in the past we have analyzed our whole institutional repair and
renovation problem. We have indicated that if we got a steady
appropriation, inflation adjusted, of course, of $60 million,
we could take care of all of our problems looking forward, and
by judicious inspection and also the time of the use of the
facilities. We are very, very confident of that.
Our request at $47.9 million is all that was possible this
year. But I have had conversations with the Office of
Management and Budget and, clearly, if we are not in for major
construction again, they are optimistic about the possibility
of including in the President's budget $60 million. I know I
have gotten a lot of support in the Congress with respect to
adequate R&R funds.
The major project that we are indicating that we will be
proceeding with presently is the complete repair and renovation
of the Patent Office Building where the National Portrait
Gallery and National Museum of American Art and the Archives of
American Art are located.
The Patent Office Building is the fifth oldest building in
Washington and it has not had serious work done in it since
1964. It really needs a complete job.
We are costing that at $60 million. There are others who
think we should spend considerably more. But we are hopeful
that for $60 million we can replace all of the systems, we can
replace the roof, we can do all of the things that are
necessary to bring that back, and we can increase the public
space in the Patent Office building. We are in for $8 million,
the first of four increments that will be necessary in order to
fund this.
There is a request for an advanced appropriation, which
would permit us, of course, to sign a contract for the whole
amount. Signing a contract for the whole $60 million at the
outset would save a lot of money in many ways. I don't know
whether that is going to be feasible with the Congress.
But if it is not, I would strongly recommend that there be
language of assurance in the conference committee report, or in
the report to the individual houses, that will give us the
comfort of being able to go forward with a contract for the
whole.
Secretary Heyman's Objectives
Well, that is about it. I am going to be working very hard
between now and when I leave at the end of December. I pledge
myself at least the accomplishment of four objectives. One of
them is to break ground for the National Museum of the American
Indian sometime this year, after the budget obviously is
passed.
The second one is to make sure that our capital campaign is
well defined and ready to go. I intend to play some role, in a
volunteer role after I leave, with respect to that capital
campaign.
Third, I want to bring to fruition the acquisition of a
building someplace downtown which will permit us to carry out
the plans that we have for the Patent Office building, the
relocation certainly of a number of the activities that are
within it so that we can create more public space in the Patent
Office building.
prepared statement
Finally, I am going to be working very hard on a new
organization that we just formed, that had its first board
meeting yesterday, to carry on business enterprises in the
Smithsonian, hopefully at a level that will return a greater
amount of unrestricted revenue on the trust side for the
Institution to use.
I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today,
and there is a little regret in the fact that this will be my
last opportunity. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of I. Michael Heyman
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
Smithsonian Institution and to present a summary of our activities and
our fiscal year 2000 budget request.
As you may know, after considerable deliberation, I have informed
the Smithsonian Board of Regents that I will step down as Secretary at
the end of 1999. I do this with regret, of course, but also with
pleasant anticipation. I regret departing from the Institution that is
so important in our national life, and from those people who are
responsible for what it does. But I look forward to returning home to
California and reestablishing my ties to the University of California
and the San Francisco Bay Area.
I have tried to use my years as Secretary to promote a greater
sense of the combined strength of the Smithsonian as a positive force
in providing quality research and education programs for the nation. My
priority as Secretary has been to maintain the quality of the programs
offered by the Smithsonian and to enhance the visitor's experience
while touring our museums and utilizing our research facilities. I have
been equally dedicated to sharing that experience with people outside
of Washington and to making our programs and collections more
accessible to the nation. Increasing the Institution's outreach to
other educational institutions and the general public is crucial in
meeting this priority.
Three Smithsonian programs that seek to promote outreach to every
American have been particularly important to me during my tenure with
the Institution--the Affiliations Program, the Smithsonian Institution
Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES), and electronic access to the
collections. The goal of the Affiliations Program is to promote greater
public access to the Institution's collections by providing an
alternative means for their exhibition outside of Washington. Since the
inception of the Affiliations Program in 1996, there have been more
than 150 separate inquiries from organizations interested in forming
affiliations. There are currently 23 active affiliations projects and
five have been fully implemented. Recently a long-term agreement with
the National Museum of Industrial History in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,
was finalized, and a 19th-century locomotive and hundreds of other
industrial artifacts from our collections were moved to that site.
A long-time Smithsonian program, SITES, has been sharing the wealth
of the Institution's collections, research, and exhibitions with
audiences around the world through short-term exhibitions of
collections and representations. Each year, millions of people beyond
Washington, D.C., experience these programs. SITES popularity has been
significantly enhanced as it continues to secure substantial corporate
and foundation support for its programs. Two new projects highlight
this success: a grant to host an interactive traveling science
exhibition Microbes: Invisible Invaders, Amazing Allies, which opens
Memorial Day weekend on the National Mall and an alliance with a theme
park located in Branson, Missouri, to present the children's geography
exhibition, Earth 2U, Exploring Geography and the exhibition, American
Glass: Masters of the Art.
In recent years, SITES has developed a rural initiative in
partnership with the Federation of State Humanities Councils. Called
Museum on Main Street, this program has brought SITES exhibitions to
more than 100 rural communities across the country and has generated
tremendous enthusiasm and participation.
In many ways, Internet-based learning is rapidly changing the
nature and scope of education in America. The Smithsonian has witnessed
a dramatic increase in the number of people who access our Internet
website. At a rate already in excess of 30 million ``hits'' per month,
our objects, databases, research, virtual exhibitions, lesson plans,
and visitor services are being made available to schools, businesses,
libraries, and individuals around the nation and the world. It is our
goal to bring a large portion of our display collections on-line,
making it possible for anyone with access to a computer to see and
study these objects. We believe this evolving technology greatly
enhances our ability to make Smithsonian programs and museums publicly
accessible. We are pleased that the Administration has recognized our
efforts in this area and has identified the Smithsonian as a key
partner in its Digital Library initiative.
The cornerstone of these important institutional outreach
activities is education. The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)
is expanding its efforts to become a national hub for science
education. Last fall, six school districts around the nation began
testing Mammals in Schools, a program to promote museum-style, object-
based learning in middle school science classes. An electronic
classroom with two-way videoconferencing links between the Museum's
exhibition labs and classrooms enables teachers and NMNH scientists to
assist students as they analyze mammal specimens, study their habitats,
and build exhibitions based on what they have learned. Electronic field
trips that simultaneously link several classrooms to Museum science
labs via videoconferencing equipment are also being developed. For more
than a year, the Museum has been providing an after-school learning
program based on NMNH research on the ice age which has been presented
to more than 10,000 young people in 25 States.
Also on the education front, the National Science Resources Center
(NSRC) received a grant in support of its Leadership and Assistance for
Science Education Reform (LASER) Project. During the next six years,
LASER will help local leaders introduce and implement inquiry-centered
kindergarten through 8th-grade science curriculum materials in more
than 300 school districts that serve approximately one million students
nationwide. To accomplish this, NSRC has formed partnerships with eight
regional sites located in Alabama, California, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington.
Now, let me highlight some of the Smithsonian's achievements in the
past year. We are very pleased to report that there were more than 31
million visits recorded at the Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo
in 1998, an increase of more than 4 percent from the 1997 total and the
highest recorded total attendance since 1984.
The National Air and Space Museum, the most visited museum in the
world, attracted almost 10 million visits in 1998. This level of
attendance last year was due primarily to the success of Star Wars: The
Magic of Myth, an exhibition commemorating the 20th anniversary of the
Star Wars trilogy. During its 15-month run, nearly one million people
viewed the exhibit.
The Air and Space Museum has also enjoyed the success of the IMAX
feature Everest at the Langley Theater. Since the movie premiered in
March 1998, more than 110,000 people have attended, making Everest the
best-selling film ever in the evening schedule.
Visits to the National Museum of American Art and the National
Portrait Gallery increased last year, in part due to the revival of
downtown Washington and the 7th Street art district. Looking to build
on this momentum, both Museums are now participating in Third Thursday,
a monthly art celebration organized by the downtown business and arts
community, with special evening hours and guest lectures.
In the past year, a number of exhibitions suggested the array of
programs available at the Smithsonian: Theodore Roosevelt--Icon of the
American Century, The Jewels of Lalique, Celebrity Caricature in
America, Faces of Time: 75 Years of Portraits from Time Magazine, and
Speak to My Heart: African American Communities of Faith and
Contemporary Society. Also, a series of concerts was preformed by the
Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra to mark the 100th anniversary of
the birth of Duke Ellington. In November 1998, the ``Rock Hall'' opened
at the NMNH, completing the final piece of the major, permanent
exhibition complex that makes up the Janet Annenberg Hooker Hall of
Geology, Gems and Minerals.
On December 1, 1998, the National Museum of American History
witnessed a virtually flawless ``takedown'' of the Star-Spangled Banner
from its display in Flag Hall to begin a major conservation and
preservation project. The History Channel, in collaboration with Museum
staff, aired a documentary on the history of the flag and the
preservation project, which is the largest textile conservation project
ever undertaken by a museum. In October, the preservation project began
in earnest when walls were erected to enclose the conservation and
exhibition area, and a NASA expert, using near-infrared spectrometry,
began assessing the amount of moisture and surface dirt on the flag.
Currently, the flag is protected in a specially built 30-foot container
while construction of the conservation lab and exhibition is completed.
The new space is slated to open in April. Once the flag is relocated to
the conservation lab, visitors will have the opportunity to observe the
preservation project in progress.
After a 4-year renovation, the Cooper-Hewitt, National Design
Museum and its Design Resource Center in New York re-opened in June
1998. With its state-of-the-art environmental systems and storage
equipment, the Center is a model for managing museum collections and
making them more accessible to the public, while maintaining the
integrity of the historic structure.
The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Edgewater,
Maryland, ushered in a new era of learning for school groups with the
opening of its new Philip D. Reed Education Center. The Center also
doubles as a visitor center, featuring an orientation hall, a teacher
resource library, office space, and an 80-seat multipurpose room. In
order to provide school groups and the public with the latest
information about SERC research, the building will be connected to SERC
labs via video and audio networks.
SERC's facility on the Chesapeake Bay provides a unique opportunity
to study a variety of interconnected ecosystems whose impact is felt
across the globe. Scientists at SERC have identified non-native species
of bacteria, from ballast water on ships in the Chesapeake Bay, that
can cause cholera. This is part of the largest research project in the
United States dealing with the origin and impact of alien, invasive
species in coastal and estuarine systems. Non-native species can
endanger native species, disrupt food chains, and cause environmental
and infrastructure damage exceeding, according to one estimate, $120
billion in 1998. This research has produced tools and strategies that
are being tested as a means to control invasive species. SERC is also
playing a lead role in research that has demonstrated that streamside
forests and restored wetlands can reduce nutrient runoff into coastal
waters. In addition, collaboration with other institutions has enabled
SERC to find ways to detect and quantify the toxic organism Pfiesteria,
which can kill fish and poison humans.
In the past year the Smithsonian has made tremendous advances in
many other ongoing research efforts. At the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory (SAO), in partnership with the Harvard College Observatory,
scientists' have developed low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
which extends the technology to areas in the human body that could not
be imaged previously, such as the lungs and sinuses. This technology
will have applications ranging from detection of hard-to-reach tumors
to use by people with pacemakers.
Research efforts at the Smithsonian benefitted from John Glenn's
historic return trip to space last fall. The Shuttle flight carried
Spartan 210, a solar physics experiment package that included an
ultraviolet coronagraph spectrometer (UVCS) built by SAO, to observe
the Sun's outer atmosphere. Also, NASA's Submillimeter Wave Astronomy
Satellite (SWAS) carried an instrument, designed by SAO scientists, to
observe the heavens in submillimeter radiation and study the birth of
stars.
At the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) a study has
revealed new data on conditions that support species diversity in
ecological systems such as rainforests, grasslands, coral reefs, and
lakes. The research conducted in a Panamanian rainforest on Barro
Colorado Island, has led to developing methods for sustaining
endangered species that are threatened with depletion and destruction.
While research and planning for the 1999 Smithsonian Folklife
Festival, featuring the State of New Hampshire, is well under way, the
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage is still experiencing the
positive impact of previous years. The 1997 Festival featuring
Mississippi and the 1998 Festival featuring Wisconsin were both
replicated back home in the two States last summer. The Folklife Center
is currently completing work on a cultural education kit for school
children in the Mississippi Delta growing out of the 1997 Festival. A
documentary, Wisconsin Folks, based on the 1998 Festival, aired on
Wisconsin public television stations in December. In the year 2000, the
Folklife Festival will feature the District of Columbia, the Rio
Grande/Rio Bravo Basin (largely Texas and New Mexico), and a program on
Tibetan culture.
Now to summarize the Smithsonian's request for fiscal year 2000:
for all operating and capital accounts we seek a total of $447.4
million, an increase of $35.1 million above the fiscal year 1999
appropriation. Of this amount, $380.5 million is for Salaries and
Expenses, and $66.9 million is for our capital program.
Of the requested increase in the Salaries and Benefits account, 58
percent is attributable to mandatory costs for sustaining base
operations and the remainder is for priority program requirements. For
fiscal year 2000 these program priorities total $14 million and 25
positions, and include activities related to the Dulles Center of the
National Air and Space Museum, the Mall museum building of the National
Museum of the American Indian, access to collections information, and
modernization of the Institution's security system.
For the Dulles Center, $2 million and 14 term positions would be
used for the preparation of artifacts for relocation from the Garber
Facility in Suitland, Maryland, to the new site in Virginia.
For the National Museum of the American Indian, $5 million and 11
positions are required for operational support at the new Cultural
Resources Center in Suitland, Maryland, the move of objects from New
York to Suitland, and exhibition development associated with the
opening of the Mall museum.
For access to collections information, $5 million is needed to
support the electronic capture and digitization of object and specimen
images, enrichment of related data, and storage, as well as retrieval,
of that material.
For security system modernization, $2 million is necessary to
continue replacement of the Institution's current security system, and
to provide engineering support for and staff training on a new system
as well as its installation, testing, and documentation.
In this request the Institution has consolidated its capital
accounts, thus unifying all repair and restoration activity in one
account and all construction in a separate account. Within the
consolidated accounts, $47.9 million is identified for Repair,
Restoration, and Alteration of Facilities and $19 million is identified
for Construction.
The $47.9 million requested for repair and restoration will target:
--the repair and restoration of buildings on and near the Mall as
well as buildings at the National Zoological Park
--major capital renewal projects at the National Museum of Natural
History and the renovation of the old Patent Office Building,
which houses the National Museum of American Art and the
National Portrait Gallery
For renovation of the Patent Office Building the Institution
requires $8 million in fiscal year 2000 and requests advance
appropriations in order to award a single $60 million contract for this
project. Receipt of the additional advance funds will allow cost-
effective and time-critical renewal of the structure. We propose that
$17 million of the advance appropriation become available on October 1,
2000; another $17 million on October 1, 2001; and $18 million on
October 1, 2002.
Finally, in the Construction account, the Institution requests $19
million for the Mall museum building of the National Museum of the
American Indian. Of that amount, $13 million will be used to complete
construction and $6 million will be used to equip the building. This
final increment of funding will complete the Federal share--two-thirds
of the building cost--authorized in the legislation enacted on November
28, 1989. The other third, which totals $36.7 million, has been raised
through the generosity of individuals, tribes, corporations, and
foundations in this country and around the world.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, 1998 was an active year for the
Smithsonian and I personally intend to have a very active final year at
the Smithsonian. There are four chief priorities on my agenda. First, I
plan on participating in the groundbreaking for the National Museum of
the American Indian Mall museum this spring and taking all steps
necessary to assure that it will open before 2003. Secondly, I expect
to see that the Institution's capital campaign is well-defined.
Thirdly, I want to bring to fruition the acquisition of an additional
facility in close proximity to downtown Washington for the activities
presently located in the Patent Office Building, with settled plans for
renovation and appropriate organizations and programs. Finally, I
intend to establish a new organization within the Smithsonian to carry
on our business activities by appointing its board of directors and, at
their recommendation, the chief operating officer.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today,
and I have enjoyed working with you for the past five years. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you and the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have concerning our fiscal year 2000 budget request or
on any other matter related to the Smithsonian Institution. Thank you.
Summary statement of LEE H. HAMILTON
Senator Gorton. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Hamilton. Senator Gorton, thank you very much. It is a
privilege to be here with you, back on Capitol Hill again, and
with my colleagues this morning.
I am requesting $6.04 million for fiscal year 2000. And
that is the same----
Senator Gorton. Certainly the most modest----
Mr. Hamilton. Well, Senator, after listening to my
colleagues make their requests, I have been very tempted to add
a couple of zeros to that this morning.
The request is the same as last year. I have only been at
the Woodrow Wilson Center for a couple of months, so obviously
I have a lot to learn there. But I have benefitted from a very
talented staff there and from the scholars and fellows in
residence, the board of trustees members, and what we call the
Wilson Counsel, a group of advisors.
I might say parenthetically that I was very pleased to have
George Shultz join us on the Wilson Council just a few days
ago.
As you know, the Center is now situated in marvelous new
facilities at the Reagan Building. I hope you and members of
your staff will feel free to come down. We would be honored to
have you join us as guests sometime. I certainly want to work
closely with you and the staff to try to make the Center
responsive to requests from Capitol Hill.
I look back with considerable gratitude to the three past
directors, Ben Read and Jim Billington and Charles Blitzer. As
you probably know, we were saddened recently by the death of
Charles Blitzer. He played a very important leadership role in
bringing the Center to the Ronald Reagan Building.
I benefit from the wise counsel, of course, of our
Librarian of Congress, Jim Billington. I have had tremendous
support from the former Chairman of the Board, Joe Flom, a New
York attorney, and from the present chairman, Joe Cari, from
Chicago.
The Wilson Center is really quite an exciting place to be.
It is an independent, wide-ranging institute for advanced study
where vital current issues and their deep historical, cultural,
and societal backgrounds are explored through research and
dialogue. I think you might be pleased if you were to drop into
one of the more than 200 meetings that take place there each
year. You would find a very objective, non-partisan, free,
open, dispassionate discourse taking place at the Center. We
have state-of-the-art communication facilities which enable us
to reach a large audience.
My immediate goals are, first, to expand and strengthen the
activities of the Center, second, to increase its visibility,
third, to boost the private sector funding, which you and other
Members of Congress have expressed an interest in. We are well
on the way to getting that done.
I also want to ensure that the work done by the Center is
relevant and coherent, focused, and beneficial both to the
policy maker and to the scholar.
It was President Wilson's idea that the scholar and the
policy maker, or the politician, are engaged in a common
enterprise. The Center really tries to carry out that basic
concept. We have had very able leadership by the interim
director, Dean Anderson, to address the problems and I am very
pleased to try to take over.
Let me try to give you a flavor of some of the activities
at the Center, if I may. We will have during the course of the
year 150 scholars in the institution. Scholars and thinkers
really, not all of them from academia. One-third of them will
be foreigners.
They work on almost every issue you can think about:
national security, capital punishment, telecommunications,
statistical work in the Federal Government, changes going on in
Iran and Iraq and China, Ukraine, and many other places in the
world.
We have got a remarkable group of scholars. We have a young
woman, a Chinese scholar/journalist working on a biography of a
Beijing professor who was an early reformer in communist China.
Her story, incidentally, is worth a few newspaper articles and
maybe a book in and of itself. She is a remarkable woman.
We have got a scholar working on telecommunications policy
and meeting with government officials. We have got another
scholar working on standards and statistics, working closely
with the Census Bureau and has been in close touch with
Congressman Dan Miller's subcommittee.
We are working with the Close Up Foundation to develop
three international programs for high school students. These
programs will be aired nationally through C-Span and they will
be on the cold war history, on America's role in the post-cold
war period, and on 21 century environmental challenges.
We are launching a project on the information revolution
and its profound impact on the global economy. This rose out of
meetings I had with entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley not too
long ago.
They are deeply concerned, as you very well know, coming
from the State of Washington, about the relations between that
industry and government, the private sector and all of the
concerns that they have with regard to the information
revolution. The project will be called Sovereignty in the
Digital Age.
Senator Lugar, from my home State of Indiana, and former
CIA director, Jim Woolsey, will come soon to the Center to talk
on energy security. They had an article in Foreign Affairs on
that subject just recently. We have a conference coming up on
space and foreign policy in the next century. All kinds of
conferences on NATO, the EURO, United States and Taiwan, and
many, many other programs. And one of our former scholars, here
recently, has now become the top political advisor to the new
king in Jordan.
We have, as you very well know, the Wilson Quarterly, which
is a unique, popular publication and one of the most widely
circulated magazines of ideas. It has a circulation of about
60,000, which is very high for that kind of a magazine. We have
a Dialogue radio program now heard over 200 public and
commercial stations.
It reaches an audience, we think, of about 300,000. A
number of your colleagues from the Senate will be joining us on
that Dialogue program in the next few weeks.
You asked in your opening comments about what direction we
want to go in the institutions that we represent, those of us
here at the table. Let me identify several directions for the
Wilson Center.
I intend to make the work of the Center more visible, more
coherent, more focused. We are bringing on a public affairs
director in a few days now. I know we have to work closely with
key constituencies in the policy world, including you and your
colleagues. We are now exploring collaborative programs with
other institutes and universities and the Library of Congress.
I think maybe the reason I am at the Wilson Center is to
try to promote more interaction between the world of scholars
and the world of the policy maker. And I want to try to do
that. I want to bring more focus to the work of the Center by
making it focused more on several themes instead of just going
into a great variety of topics, an unending number.
We want to focus on several themes: the U.S. role in the
world, governance issues, key long-term future challenges, and
projects that help frame the context and provide essential
backdrop for some of the key public policy debates that we have
today in this country.
Second, I want the Wilson Center to be a very lively place.
I want it to be an intellectual center. We are going to have
the NATO Summit in this town in April. A lot of that is going
to take place in the Reagan Building, and much of it will take
place at the Wilson Center.
We will have major events there and bilateral meetings. The
National Security Advisor is coming to speak. The Secretary of
State has already been there. She is going to come again. I
have asked Bob Livingston to come down and talk a little bit
about his experience as an appropriator. You might have some
sympathy with his comments, Mr. Chairman.
David Dreier, the Rules Committee Chairman, is coming down
to speak to us about the Congress and the rules of the House. I
am currently trying to get former Speaker Gingrich to come in
and reflect on his speakership before the scholars at the
Wilson Center.
Another thing I want to do is expand some of our programs
and activities and capabilities. It is probably correct to be
critical of the Wilson Center. We do not have the kind of
balance that we should have. For example, I have been appalled
that we really haven't been doing anything on Africa and very
little on the Middle East. So I want to bring more balance into
the programs that we have.
Some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have
scolded me a little bit because we don't have enough diversity
in the staff and in the program. I think they are right in
their criticism, and we are going to try to correct that in the
years ahead.
Like all of these institutes, or institutions you have been
hearing about this morning, we have got a lot of modifications
and modernization steps to take. Anybody dealing with library
capabilities knows that scholars now are turning more and more
to the electronic library rather than to the hard cover
library, and that means a considerable upgrade of our
facilities and equipment has to be brought about.
I mentioned we are increasing our fund-raising efforts. We
have brought on board an outstanding development director, Fred
Bush, who is doing excellent work in trying to raise additional
money in the private sector. The Center really is in good
financial shape. We are on track to have our best year yet in
unrestricted giving. We have had an investment policy committee
that has done awfully well.
We have had a little help, of course, from a bull market
stock market. But our endowment has gone up substantially. But
we do not want to rest on our laurels. More than 50 percent of
the funding of the Center now comes from the private sector,
and that will surely increase.
Let me just conclude by saying that I think the Wilson
Center--at a time when this country is very deeply concerned
about the quality of political discourse in the Nation--I think
the Wilson Center gives us a model of how political discourse
should proceed in a representative democracy.
It is a place where the world of ideas and the world of
practice come together. Neither is suppressed and both are
encouraged. Our premise is that by listening to all points of
view, stepping back to take a broader view, and engaging in
discussion and persuasion, a people can make better decisions
in a representative democracy.
We believe that at the Wilson Center. We deeply believe in
the free trade of ideas, that the best test of an idea is its
power to get accepted in the competition of the market, and
that in the end better ideas will prevail.
prepared statement
My task, I think, is to make the Center a bright and
shining intellectual Mecca where we offer a place for
thoughtful, objective, serious, non-partisan dialogue on the
toughest issues that this country confronts. And with your help
and support we will make it a unique presidential monument in a
city of monuments. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lee H. Hamilton
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Byrd, Members of the Subcommittee: It is a
privilege to have this opportunity to return to the Congress, an
institution in which I had the honor to serve for over three decades.
It is also a special, personal pleasure to be with former colleagues. I
appreciate having this chance to speak in support of the Wilson
Center's request for an appropriations of $6.04 million for fiscal year
2000, the same request as last year.
I have been at the Woodrow Wilson Center for two months. I have
benefited from the extraordinarily talented staff of the Center, the
scholars and fellows in residence, and the Board of Trustees and the
rapidly expanding Wilson Council that George Shultz recently joined.
The Center is now fully ensconced in its marvelous new facilities in
the Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope each member
of the Subcommittee and your able staff will visit the new Center.
I want to work closely with you and your staff. With your help and
support, I look forward with enthusiasm to the challenge of helping
this Center do its important work.
Let me also say at the start that I look back with gratitude to the
three previous directors--Ben Read, Jim Billington, and Charles
Blitzer--whose unstinting efforts helped make the Center what it is
today. We were saddened by the recent death of Charles Blitzer: he
played a leadership role in bringing the Center to the Ronald Reagan
Building. I continue to benefit from the wise counsel of Jim
Billington, the Librarian of Congress and a member of our Board. And I
also want to commend Joe Flom, the former Chairman of the Board of
Trustees, for his strong leadership and to express enormous confidence
in Joe Cari, the new Chairman of the Board.
As I meet with people around town and with some of my former
colleagues, I am impressed with the strong support the Center enjoys.
Scores of policymakers, academicians, and friends of the Center have
sought me out to express their admiration for the Center's work. These
people form a remarkable network across the country, indeed across the
world.
The Wilson Center is an exciting and vibrant public/private
partnership. The Center remains Washington's only independent, wide-
ranging institute for advanced study where vital current issues and
their deep historical and societal background are explored through
research and dialogue. The Center provides a unique forum for
objective, non-partisan, free and open, and dispassionate discourse,
and it has some state of the art communications equipment.
My immediate goals for the Center are to expand and strengthen its
activities, increase its visibility, boost its private sector funding,
and ensure that the work done by the Center is relevant, coherent,
focused, and mutually beneficial for the policymaker and the scholar.
I recognize that the Center has had some problems in recent years,
including the problem of relating its work to current policy issues.
Steps have been taken under the able leadership of interim Director
Dean Anderson to address these problems, and I believe that the Center
is now moving in the right direction.
activities at the center
Let me give some specifics and some flavor of the good and useful
activity at the Center which you are helping to support:
--We are hosting a good, even pre-eminent, group of thinkers. 150
scholars and fellows will work here at some point during 1999.
A third of them will be foreigners. They work on diverse
issues: national security, adoption, capital punishment,
telecommunications, statistical work in the U.S. Government,
Iran, Yugoslavia, economic change in China, the United States
and Ukraine, and Iraq.
We have a Chinese scholar and journalist working on a biography
of a Beijing professor who pushed for reform in the earlier
Communist years in China. She is a remarkable person whose own
story as an advocate of reform is a book in itself.
I hear many heartening vignettes of our scholars and fellows
getting around town and interacting with policymakers. Let me
cite two examples. One scholar, working on US
telecommunications policy history, meets regularly with Federal
Communications Commission colleagues. Another scholar, working
on standards and statistics, is engaged in discussions with
experts at the Census Bureau on improving statistical work. She
has also been in touch with Members of Congressman Dan Miller's
subcommittee. I am encouraging more such activity.
You can find any number of interesting activities taking place at
the Center:
--Working with the Close Up Foundation, we are developing
international programs for high school students. Programs will
start to be aired nationally this spring by C-SPAN. The first
three topics are: cold war history, America's role in the post-
cold war world, and 21st century environmental challenges.
--We are launching a project on the information revolution given its
profound impact on the global economy and on relations between
governments and the private sector. This project brings
together entrepreneurs, policymakers and scholars. A first
series, entitled ``Sovereignty in the Digital Age'', will
explore how to balance national sovereignty with the need for
new international rules in an age in which the Internet and
electronic commerce operate across borders.
--Senator Lugar and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey will soon discuss
their proposal for increasing our energy security in the next
century.
--We will host a March conference on space and foreign policy in the
next century.
--Conferences will also be held on NATO, the EURO and its
implications for the United States, the United States and
Taiwan, North Korea, Indonesia, China, including China's
environmental policies, and several transborder issues, such as
informal economies, crime, water issues, and the role of women
and of ethnic minorities.
--The Kennan Institute, which does superb work on Russia, Ukraine,
and the Newly Independent States, has opened an office in Kyiv.
Several presidential candidates in Ukraine will speak this year
at the Center. The Kennan Institute will also have a conference
on rural Russia and a major conference on Stalin in the fall.
Because of its lengthy association with Russia, the Kennan
Institute has a standing and a credibility that few, if any,
other American institutions enjoy.
--The Latin American program has recently organized meetings in
Mexico that opened an important new dialogue concerning peace
in the Chiapas province. A similar type of effort to forge an
internal peace process in Colombia is underway.
--The Center is often facilitating Track Two, non-official diplomacy.
The Center plays this key role because of the deep respect it
has gained internationally.
An important part of the Center's outreach involves not just the
dozen or so books that the Center will publish a year on policy issues,
but its journal and radio program.
The Wilson Quarterly, the Center's journal, is a unique, popular
publication and one of the most widely circulated magazines of ideas,
providing a one-stop survey of the world of ideas. Its 60,000-plus
readers are spread across the country; less than 15 percent of them are
academics. The Quarterly's recent articles include: America's
``hyperdemocracy,'' the digital economy, the state of rural America,
the politics and future of Brazil, the history of money and politics in
America. The next issue will feature an article on Nelson Mandela's
five years in office. And the Quarterly's section entitled Periodical
Observer surveys more than a hundred academic and intellectual journals
and reviews a few dozen of the more important articles.
The Dialogue radio program has been extraordinarily successful.
Dialogue, a forum for the discussion of ideas, is now heard on over 200
public and commercial stations nationwide, 23 European stations over
the World Radio Network, and worldwide by way of the Armed Forces Radio
Network. Its domestic audience is well over 300,000. In the month or
so, Senators Lugar and Moynihan, former Senator Paul Simon, and Jim
Woolsey are among the guests on the show.
where the center goes from here
As impressed as I am with what happens at the Center, I think we
can and will do better. I want to move the Center in several
directions:
First, I intend to make the work of the Center more visible, more
coherent, and more focused: a public affairs director will be in place
this month to spearhead a more coordinated effort. The Center must work
closely with its key constituencies in the policy world, including you
and your colleagues. Collaborative programs with other institutes,
universities, and the Library of Congress are also being explored.
Coherence can be achieved through better interaction between our
visiting scholars and policymakers. The policymaker and the scholar are
engaged in a common enterprise, said President Wilson, and both can
benefit by this process.
I especially want to bring more coherence to the Center's work by
putting more focus on a few central themes at the core of the Center's
mission. Let me mention a few such themes:
--The United States role in the world and issues of partnership and
leadership;
--Governance issues, including such issues as the key features in
developing democratic institutions, democratic society, civil
society, and civic participation;
--Key, long-term, future challenges facing the United States and the
world, such as limiting the spread of weapons of mass
destruction or sustaining global financial stability;
--Projects that reflect the broad interests of President Wilson; and
--Projects that help frame the context and provide the essential
backdrop for some of our key public policy debates.
Not all research and program activity can or should fit into this
or any straightjacket, but broad themes can increase coherence in the
work at the Center.
Second, I want the Wilson Center to be a lively place, Washington's
intellectual center. The April NATO Summit will take place in and
around the Ronald Reagan Building, and some 60 heads of States may be
here. We expect to schedule several major events and bilateral meetings
during the Summit in our facilities. Other speakers are expected soon.
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, a Board member, is coming, and
Secretary Albright, another Board Member and a recent visitor, has
indicated that she wants to return to speak where she once was a
scholar-in-residence. I am working to schedule appearances at the
Center for Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and David Dreier. Foreign
leaders will also speak at the Center.
Third, I would like to expand some of our programs, activities and
capabilities. For example, I want to see the Center do some work on
Africa and expand work on the Middle East. In the United States
Program, I am interested in such issues as: why do many Americans not
vote, how do you increase civic participation, and how do you attract
better people to government service. Some modifications in the Library
are also needed to allow for greater use by scholars, and for better
``electronic library'' capabilities. And while the new facilities at
the Center contain state of the art communications, I feel the Center
should work towards an all electronic media infrastructure that can
significantly enhance our outreach capabilities. Such expansions will
lead to increased requests at the appropriate time.
Fourth, we are increasing our fund raising efforts. I know this is
a key concern of many of you. I am committed to increasing our private
sector giving, and we will do so under the able leadership of Fred
Bush, our Development Director, but the Congressional appropriations
remains the essential base for our fund raising efforts.
The Center is in good financial shape, and we are on track to have
our best year yet in unrestricted giving. And thanks to the wisdom of
our investment policy committee (and with a little help from the bull
market), our endowment has gone over the $30 million mark.
But we can't rest on these laurels. More than fifty percent of the
Center's funding now comes from sources other than those appropriated
for the Center. That trend toward greater reliance on private funding
needs to continue. Our future growth will depend in large part on
successful, private fund raising. I am committed to making several fund
raising trips around the country in order to expand sources of funding
for the Center.
conclusion
The Wilson Center provides the model of how political discourse
should proceed in a representative democracy. The Center is the place
where the world of ideas and the world of practice come together--
neither is suppressed; both are encouraged. Our premise is that by
listening to all points of view, stepping back to take a broader view,
and engaging in discussion, deliberation, and persuasion, people can
make better decisions in a representative democracy. We believe in the
free trade of ideas, that the best test of an idea is its power to get
accepted in the competition of the market, and that, in the end, better
ideas will prevail.
Our task is to make the Center a bright and shining intellectual
mecca: we offer a place for thoughtful, objective, serious, nonpartisan
dialogue on the key public policy issues of the day. With your
continued support, the Wilson Center can remain a unique presidential
monument in a city of monuments.
Thank you.
Budget reductions
Senator Gorton. Lee, we concluded with you, so perhaps I
will ask you your questions right now and be finished.
First, did you have anything to do with the budget
submission that we have before us now?
Mr. Hamilton. Not very much. It really was put into shape
before I got there, and it is transmitted by me to you. It was
shaped principally by Dean Anderson, who was the acting
director.
Senator Gorton. What is your reflection on the reductions
in the last several years? Has much of that been made up by
private contributions?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, I think the serious part of the
reductions has been the sharp decline we have had in the number
of scholars we were able to bring on board. We are going to
make up some of that with private funding. But we have had a
fairly sharp drop in the number of scholars, especially public
policy scholars. Too sharp a drop, in my judgment.
Senator Gorton. Has it been a drop in quality as well as in
quantity?
Mr. Hamilton. I do not think so. I am uniformly impressed
with the quality. We have a very rigorous selection process. I
think almost any academic panel would look upon our scholars as
being preeminent. They are very, very good. We are going to
keep that quality high.
Senator Gorton. If you have more support, either public or
private, will a restoration in the number of those scholars be
your first priority?
Mr. Hamilton. It will be among my first priorities. We have
some things that have to be done. I mentioned the library
electronic facilities. We want to upgrade some of the
communication facilities. So along with those matters, and
perhaps a couple of others, the priority would be for the
scholars, yes.
Senator Gorton. Your predecessor said that getting everyone
together under one roof was going to have a very, very positive
impact. In a sense you weren't that familiar with them
beforehand, but is that the reaction of----
Mr. Hamilton. I think so. First of all, we are very proud
of the facilities. It is a very nice working atmosphere. Having
everybody together is a tremendous help for us in terms of
internal communication. I think it will be a tremendous
advantage for us.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much. I have welcomed you
before. We talked about this toward the end of your last term.
I think the Wilson Center is very, very fortunate to have you,
Lee.
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. We are going to be happy to work with you.
Mr. Hamilton. I appreciate that.
National Air and Space Museum--Dulles center
Senator Gorton. Mr. Heyman, I think I will go backwards
across the panel here. I would like you to tell me a little bit
more about the Air and Space Museum extension at Dulles. It
seems to me the schedule is an extremely ambitious one,
considering the amount of money that has been raised. Is 2003
realistic? How are we going to get that money?
Mr. Heyman. Well, I will know better just before I leave
how realistic that is. We have a very enthusiastic director of
the Air and Space Museum in Don Engen, and he refuses to view
any situation pessimistically. He might well be right.
We have--he, but with our help, has reorganized his
campaign staff recently and I am considerably more optimistic
now about its capacities to raise that money.
But as I say, there are going to be some very big asks made
in the next 3 to 4 months. If those come in close to the asks
themselves, then I will be able to report not only optimism but
optimism based upon some facts. But I am optimistic.
Senator Gorton. Is $8 million to $10 million a year still
your best estimate for the operational expenses when it is
open?
Mr. Heyman. Well, you know, I have not gone over again how
we budgeted that. I do know perfectly well that we are going to
have to come in for some Fderal help with regard to staff,
especially for maintenance and security.
What the sources of revenue are going to be for staff over
time, I am not sure. The more endowment we can raise,
obviously, the more we are going to be able to make that self-
sufficient. The more that the enterprises out there, parking,
theaters, restaurants, and shops are really successful, the
less we will have to be looking for Federal help. But I think
we will be ready by the next budget cycle to give you some much
better estimations of what our future requests might be.
Smithsonian business ventures
Senator Gorton. Talk to me for a few minutes about your
business ventures and the partial spinoff there. Obviously, you
have been very successful and have the opportunity to be even
more successful in that connection. But how does it relate to
the senior management--how does the mix take place?
Mr. Heyman. Let me start this way: business enterprises, or
the auxiliary enterprises of the Institution, reached their
peak someplace in the mid-eighties, and since then they have
not grown.
The nets that are realized have really not grown, even
before inflation adjustment. The dollar figures have been
pretty steady. We have given an awful lot of thought to whether
or not those can be enhanced. We have examined, with the help
of consultants, what other institutions that are somewhat
similar to ours, nonprofits that carry on some of these kinds
of activities, have done. We looked at a number of models with
respect to trying to enhance the success of these auxiliary
enterprises.
We put to the Regents three choices. One was that we should
not do anything; one was that we really ought to spin these off
and make them a for-profit corporation which is a subsidiary in
some way to the Smithsonian; and the middle path was to try to
proceed by getting a new organization internally to carry on
the activities, which hopefully will enhance the success of
these enterprises.
Well, under Howard Baker's sage leadership--you know,
Howard is a Regent and has been chairman of the Regent's ad hoc
committee on business--we chose the middle path. So what we are
doing is, we are putting together a board of directors for the
business enterprises.
Those are largely the magazine, the shops, the catalog
sales, product development and licensing, and whatever it is
that we are going to do in the media world, mainly in
television and in film, and also what might go on commercially
with respect to the Internet.
We have put together the first half of a board which
consists of three non-Smithsonian people and three Smithsonian
people. Actually, it is four and two, because our consultant
for all of this is a member of that board. But he will be going
back completely into the private sector pretty soon. They are
going to select a CEO who has a kind of a background that will
hopefully help bridge the gap between a very entrepreneurial
activity and a cultural institution of our sort.
Obviously, having two Smithsonian members of that board,
the Under Secretary and Bob Fri, the Director of the Natural
History Museum, is going to help a lot with respect to that
kind of coordination.
As I said, we had our first organizing meeting yesterday.
The group heard a report from consultants who have been looking
for potential candidates for CEO and concluded that there are
some who look good, but they wanted to go a little more broadly
in terms of the search. Then we will see, when a new CEO comes
in, with hopefully a lot of advice from some of us in the
Institution, but really putting them in a kind of separate de
facto category.
Final decisions of note still are going to have to go
through the Secretary. There are issues that will certainly
still have to go to the Regents. But the Regents and the
Secretary have concluded that we are going to try to keep our
hands off the operations, to the extent feasible, in order to
permit it to enhance itself.
Now, what will be the result of this? I suspect, for
instance, just to give one mundane example, we will probably go
to specialized catalogs as well as a single catalog, and we
will be looking at practices that others are carrying on.
Probably our conversations that have been going on now for
2, 2\1/2\ years with especially film media will get enhanced by
having people who are more expert in the business as well as in
the content in those conversations. We might go into additional
magazines in addition to the Smithsonian Magazine. There are
just a lot of potential possibilities within the framework of
what we do presently. I expect that is what will start to
occur.
It is a brave venture, from my point of view, to mix these
cultures. But, you know, there are other places that are doing
it. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has had some experience with
that. The National Geographic Society surely is having a lot of
experience with that presently. Minnesota Public Radio has.
There have been a number of bench marking opportunities for us,
which would make one optimistic about the outcome.
woodward and lothrop building
Senator Gorton. Thank you. When you lost the Woodward and
Lothrop building you lost one possibility for more space. What
is the alternative?
Mr. Heyman. Well, there are a number of other suitable
buildings in that general neighborhood, and we are busy at work
at the moment making inquiry concerning them. Our probabilities
are pretty high that we are going to be able to take care of
most of the problems that we wanted to take care of with
Woodward and Lothrop.
The joy of Woodward and Lothrop was not only location but
its size and being able to come up with 350,000 to 400,000
square feet, which is sort of the range we need in order to be
moving over rent-paying activities from other places to help in
the financing of that building. But there are opportunities
around and we are spending a lot of energy right this instant
on exploring those.
Senator Gorton. I think maybe I will skip over to you, Mr.
Wilker, because Woodward and Lothrop reminds us of the opera,
and now you've got it. How has that impacted on the capital
improvements at the Center?
Mr. Wilker. Now that the opera has decided to remain at the
Kennedy Center as its home it has caused us to look again at
the center block project, since the opera will be the largest
user of the Opera House, and that is one of the largest
portions of the center block project.
We will be in discussions with them over the course of this
spring to determine what sort of impacts that will have on the
way we go about doing our accessibility and life safety
renovations of that particular facility.
So we haven't delayed the center block project. But we have
reordered within that the elements that we will take first. So
we are working on the building systems and other areas and will
push back the Opera House about a year.
Senator Gorton. You say they will be the principal user of
the----
Mr. Wilker. In terms of dates. They will have about 26 out
of the 40-week regular season of the Opera House.
Senator Gorton. You were ecstatic, it seems to me, when you
described the first renovation of the Concert Hall. It lived up
to your expectations and everything that you thought would
happen happened?
Mr. Wilker. Then some. And more. Not only was it a cost
effective renovation, but I think from a patron's standpoint,
in terms of usability, in terms of accessibility, particularly
for disabled patrons, it was a successful renovation. It has
been called by many members of the press a model of
accessibility for cultural institutions in the performing arts.
So we are very proud of having a facility that is so accessible
and so user-friendly.
Senator Gorton. Back when this whole series of projects was
first proposed, the 10-year plan was supposed to cost $171
million. How accurate now is that figure?
Mr. Wilker. We feel very confident that we can remain
within that figure which we established at the beginning of the
comprehensive plan. Each year we revisit the plan and update it
and resubmit it to Congress, and we feel very good about
staying within that budget.
Restrictions on Paul Mellon's bequest
Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Powell, you get to be last.
With Paul Mellon's will, money, and paintings, do you have
any restrictions on the use of the money or the way in which
the paintings will be displayed?
Mr. Powell. The bequest of funding is restricted to the two
primary areas that Mr. Mellon has always been supportive of,
which are acquisitions and educational programs. As far as the
works of art go, we have no particular restrictions in terms of
an obligation to display them all of the time or not. But they
will be of such quality that we will want to display as many of
them as we can.
Attendance
Senator Gorton. In your gratifying and high attendance, how
do you ascribe the portions of that attendance that are due to
these very highly publicized special exhibitions as against
your regular exhibitions themselves? How much have they
enhanced attendance?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think the Special Exhibitions Program
is part of the equation that attracts the public as well as
scholars. We have had enormously popular exhibitions in the
last few years. And Secretary Heyman mentioned earlier that the
attendance at the Smithsonian has been increasing. Ours has
likewise been increasing incrementally each year. Part of that
is due to special exhibitions.
Many people come from outside the Washington area for
special exhibitions, but the core audience is here. They tend
to enhance one another. People who come for special exhibitions
also then usually--I would say the vast proportion of them--go
to the permanent collections.
Special exhibitions tend to also attract first-time
visitors to museums. They might tend to come for a Van Gogh or
a Sargent and then go on and see other aspects of the museum.
So they are very much hand and glove.
Senator Gorton. Do you ever have lines just stretching
around and around the block on a regular day?
Mr. Powell. We have lines stretching not quite around the
block but inside the National Gallery, down in the Rotunda, for
the Sargent exhibition. Most of those folks seemed to be going
off into the American and the Northern Galleries afterwards or
before.
art care Funding
Senator Gorton. One small budget item that I would like to
ask about. Art care seems to be, as I understand it, $2 million
less in the way that the budget request came to us than what
was submitted to OMB. Is that a problem?
Mr. Powell. We had put in a request for some support for
the Art Nouveau exhibition----
Senator Gorton. I see.
Mr. Powell [continuing]. The millennium exhibition, and
that did not go forward. But that would not impact on anything
other than that program.
Senator Gorton. I see.
Mr. Powell. We are actively looking for support for that as
we speak.
Senator Gorton. All right then. I should like to thank each
of you for your dedicated service and for the great enthusiasm
each one of you has shown for his institution, enthusiasm that
we think is well-warranted. And assuming that the budget
resolution and Senator Stevens are generous enough, we hope to
be able to help you out.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gorton. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Bryan L. Dorgan
museum of the american indian
Question. When will the ground-breaking occur and how long will
construction of the Museum take?
Answer. The ground-breaking for the National Museum of the American
Indian Mall museum is scheduled for September 28, 1999. Site
preparation work will begin this summer. We expect to have a general
contractor for the building on site by spring 2000. Our projected
public opening date is December 2002.
Question. How is the collection being displayed in the interim?
Answer. The collection is one of the world's largest assemblages of
artifacts of the indigenous cultures of the Western hemisphere and
includes nearly one million objects ranging from the Arctic Circle to
Tierra del Fuego, and includes the Caribbean. Eighty percent of the
collection is archaeological and 20 percent ethnographic.
A portion of the collection is on display at the George Gustav Heye
Center in the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House in Manhattan. The
Museum also has objects on display in Canada, Alaska, California,
Virginia, Minnesota, Georgia and New York. And, three inaugural
exhibitions are being planned for the opening of the Mall museum in
2002.
The majority of the collection currently is stored at the Research
Branch which is located in the Bronx in New York. The Museum has
initiated the process of relocating the collection to the Cultural
Resources Center in Suitland, Maryland, which will be the home of the
collection and serve as a research, conservation program and reference
center for the Museum. In preparation for the move, a digitized image
will be taken of each object which will make the collection more
accessible to the public.
Question. What is the status of repatriation of Indian remains and
grave goods (pursuant to Public Law 101-185) held by the Smithsonian?
Answer. National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Activity.--
Summary reports of potentially sacred or patrimonial objects were
completed and mailed to all federally recognized tribes in February of
1997. A total of 170 reports encompassing approximately 40,000 items
from 193 cultures were produced and mailed to more than 1000 Native
American organizations. A listing of some 200,000 culturally
unidentified objects was distributed to the tribes in July of 1997.
By June 1, 1998, the Repatriation Office completed and distributed
inventory reports of the human remains and funerary objects held in the
anthropology collections to all federally-recognized Native American
tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and Alaska Native groups. These
reports met the NMNH's long-standing commitment to finish an inventory
of its Native American collection, distribute the results to the
tribes, and meet the deadline requirements of the 1996 amendment to the
National Museum of the American Indian Act. More than 1000 reports were
sent to Tribes, Native Villages, Native Corporations, and other Native
groups. More than 15,000 cataloged sets of human remains in the
physical Anthropology collection and more than 230,000 items in the
archaeology collections were reported in the inventories. Each
inventory report contained a complete list of all human remains and
archaeological objects from a specific State or group of States
depending on the aboriginal territories of the groups involved.
To date, skeletal remains of more than 3,224 Native Americans have
been repatriated. By the end of 1999 an additional 1,500 sets of
remains will be repatriated to tribes in the northern plains. This
total, almost 5,000, returned by the beginning of the year 2000,
represents approximately \1/3\ of the collection of Native American
skeletal remains in the Museum. This number constitutes, by far, the
largest number of repatriations by any organization in the United
States. In addition, the NMNH has already returned more than 1,000
funerary objects, of cultural patrimony, or sacred objects subject to
repatriation under the law.
For complete details on the NMNH Repatriation Office and all of its
activities please visit our web site at: http://www nmnh.st.edu/anthro/
repatriation
National Museum of the American Indian Repatriation Activity.--The
National Museum of the American Indian's Repatriation Office has
developed a strategy for the return of human remains and funerary
objects to their affiliated indigenous communities at the
recommendation of the NMAI's Board of Trustees. This plan anticipates
the Museum repatriating remains directly from the Research Branch, in
the Bronx, New York, rather than after their relocation to the new
Cultural Resources Center in Suitland, Maryland. The current time line
for the relocation of the collection from New York to Maryland is
approximately five (5) years. The goal during this five year period is
to facilitate the return of as many previously deaccessioned human
remains and funerary objects as possible. NMAI staff members
responsible for the treatment and disposition of the human remains
agree that this is the most respectful approach to this sensitive
issue, avoiding any unnecessary handling or disturbance of the human
remains.
outreach to areas outside of washington
Question. What specifically are you doing to increase the
accessibility of the Smithsonian's collection to people who are unable
to visit Washington?
Answer. The Smithsonian Institution lends approximately 200,000
objects and specimens to over 1,300 domestic and 700 foreign
institutions annually. Through this lending program, SI has assisted
thousands of institutions with specific exhibitions and research
projects. The Board of Regents adopted the Smithsonian Policy on
Collections-Based Affiliations in September 1996 with the goal of
dramatically increasing outreach to other educational institutions, and
thereby a broader public, through longer-term loans that would be paid
for by a third party.
At this time, there are 22 active affiliations in 10 different
States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and another 12 are in
negotiation. A large number of 19th century collections from the Museum
of American History have already been sent on long-term loan to
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to the new National Museum of Industrial
History.
The Institution has also begun an aggressive program to digitize a
large number of the Institution's collections for the purposes of
research, preservation and increased public access. Digitized images
will be linked to information on the object, as well as to associated
exhibits and educational curriculum material. The capabilities of the
World Wide Web are being utilized to deliver rich data from the
Smithsonian's vast collections and research on these collections.
Question. You referred to the SITES program and its outreach to
rural communities. Can you provide me with a list of the communities
served by the program? Are there any in North Dakota?
Answer. SITES' mission is to share Smithsonian collections and
resources through traveling exhibitions to educational, scientific,
cultural, and commercial institutions across the United States. Since
1952, SITES has circulated hundreds of exhibitions to thousands of
locations in every State in the Union. Through an initiative called
Museum on Main Street, SITES, in partnership with State humanities
councils, provides rural museums with top-quality Smithsonian
exhibitions and related public programs. Since 1994, 112 communities in
20 States (see list below) have participated in this program,
enlivening the cultural landscape in isolated communities, and at the
same time, reaffirming the Smithsonian's role as the ``nation's
museum.'' The North Dakota State Humanities Council has received
information on Museum on Main Street, and SITES is awaiting their
response to the most recent invitation to participate.
In addition to its Museum on Main Street exhibitions, SITES reaches
smaller communities through a partnership with the American Library
Association and through an innovative railroad project called Artrain.
Two exhibitions from these programs are scheduled for North Dakota: Art
in Celebration! was presented onboard Artrain in Minot from July 23-26,
1998; The Jazz Age in Paris: 1914-1940 will be shown at the Fargo
Public Library from August 19--September 30, 1999. In addition, The
Prairie Schoolhouse: A Photo Essay was shown at the Plains Art Museum
in Fargo from November 28, 1998, to January 10, 1999.
Rural Initiative
participating communities
Butler, AL
Elberta, AL
Monroeville, AL
Scottsboro, AL
Bisbee, AZ
Jerome, AZ
Parker, AZ
Payson, AZ
Corona, CA
Lompoc, CA
Marysville, CA
Tulare, CA
Cartersville, GA
Cordele, GA
Dublin, GA
Gainesville, GA
La Grange, GA
Moreland, GA
Thomasville, GA
Waycross, GA
Boone, IA
Corning, IA
Spencer, IA
Wellsburg, IA
Carrollton, IL
Dixon, IL
Effingham, IL
Galena, IL
Lacon, IL
Lawrenceville, IL
Peru, IL
Pontiac, IL
Union, IL
Boonville, IN
Plymouth, IN
Salem, IN
Vincennes, IN
Arkansas City, KS
Colby, KS
Elkhart, KS
Fredonia, KS
Hiawatha, KS
Highland, KS
Lindsborg, KS
Winfield, KS
Alpena, MI
Caspian, MI
Cass City, MI
Charlotte, MI
Coloma, MI
Escanaba, MI
Grand Haven, MI
Lake City, MI
Milford, MI
Port Huron, MI
Ray, MI
Three Rivers, MI
Doniphan, MO
Madden, MO
Park Hills, MO
West Plains, MO
Auburn, NE
Cozad, NE
Fairmont, NE
Harrisburg, NE
Kidron, OH
McArthur, OH
Paulding, OH
St. Paris, OH
Astoria, OR
Grants Pass, OR
Heppner, OR
Milton-Freewater, OR
Moro, OR
Newport, OR
North Bend, OR
Philomath, OR
Prineville, OR
Brownsville, TN
Butler, TN
Clifton, TN
Greenville, TN
Castle Dale, UT
Delta, UT
Ephraim, UT
Heber City, UT
Kanab, UT
Monticello, UT
Payson, UT
Vernal, UT
Wellsville, UT
Culpeper, VA
Lancaster, VA
Pulaski, VA
Bremerton, WA
Dayton, WA
Goldendale WA
Ilwaco, WA
Metaline Falls, WA
Redmond, WA
Vancouver, WA
Westport, WA
Elkins, WV
Lewisburg, WV
Mannington, WV
Point Pleasant, WV
Ripley, WV
Romney, WV
Sutton, WV
Weston, WV
Wheeling, WV
lewis and clark
Question. As you are aware, the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
expedition is fast approaching. What is the Smithsonian doing to
commemorate the event? Are any events or programs planned to occur at
locations along the Lewis and Clark trail?
Answer. The Missouri Historical Society (MHS) is planning a major
exhibition to open in St. Louis in January 2004 with loans of up to
1,000 objects from collections nationwide, and expects to share it with
up to five museums across the country. Several Smithsonian curators and
staff members are consulting on content and presentation. SITES is in
the earliest stages of discussions with the MHS to develop a smaller
version of the exhibition that can be shown at locations along the
Lewis and Clark trail.
The National Museum of Natural History's (NMNH) Natural Partners
Program is developing several national educational outreach projects
using the Lewis and Clark theme. These projects will allow students and
teachers to learn about the Lewis and Clark expedition by incorporating
object-based learning utilizing the Smithsonian's collections. Several
of these projects will involve a web site which will contain elaborate
databases, curriculum, learning games, and project ideas. All of these
projects will show how scientists conduct their research. The projects
are as follows:
Digital Collections Database.--Natural Partners will be digitally
recreating the natural history specimens, tools, weapons, instruments
and other objects documented in the Lewis and Clark journals. They will
develop an access and use strategy of the combined digital collections
to maximize their value as a research and educational database for
school children, teachers and scholars. The digitization project will
be launched in 2002 to coincide with the Lewis and Clark 200th
anniversary.
Mammals in the Schools.--Mammals in the Schools will bring mammal
specimens to the classroom. This project will provide object-based
learning activities based on the mammals that Lewis and Clark
encountered on their expedition. Mammals in the Schools will also be
launched in 2002.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Please describe the extent of the Smithsonian's
collection related to the history and development of the movie
industry, particularly California's contribution to this industry.
Answer. The Photographic History Collection (PHC) in the National
Museum of American History (NMAH) focuses on the professional and
amateur developments in the history of the science, technology and art
of photography. In 1896, the unit was established by the Smithsonian's
first official photographer, Thomas Smillie. Because PHC arose out of
the photography-producing unit of the Smithsonian, there has been a
strong apparatus, process and technological interest in its 100+ years
of collecting. PHC preserves approximately 150,000 images and 10,000
pieces of still and moving picture apparatus. The objects in the early
motion picture apparatus collection in PHC are the roots of today's
film industry.
The motion picture apparatus collection in PHC consists of
approximately 1000 objects of which some 300 pieces (cameras,
projectors, accessories and patent models) are pre-cinema and early
motion picture (1790-1915). Films were transferred to the Archives
Center, NMAH and the Motion Picture Branch at the Library of Congress.
The question regarding California's contribution to the movie
industry is more fully answered by the professional historians in
California, like Herb Farmer at the UCLA archives. The Smithsonian
recognizes this important history and will continue to work
collaboratively with places like UCLA to ensure that the Institution's
collections and expertise reach the broadest possible public.
Question. The spring 1998 issue of Sixteen Frames, the Journal of
the Movie Machine Society, reports that the Smithsonian has an
extensive collection of early American movie apparatus which he
describes as ``valuable treasures, valuable because these machines so
eloquently speak the language of American technological thinking. In
them we find shadows of the long gone men who conceived and built them.
Some of these treasures have not been seen for years.'' The article
notes that the public does not have access to this collection in that
there have been no exhibits.
What are the plans for preserving this collection?
Answer. The importance of the pre-cinema and early motion picture
apparatus collection has re-emerged thanks to the recent efforts of
John Hiller, a long-time Smithsonian staff member, who has been
detailed part-time to PHC. Hiller, a California native, and an
experienced and talented Smithsonian cameraman, has spent the last year
and a half cataloging, describing and researching the collection. This
work has resulted in a large database, with images, that will be mapped
to the museum-wide collection information system database. Eventually
this database will be available within the Museum and on the World Wide
Web.
One of the benefits of Hiller's work has been his networking with
motion picture and magic lantern societies, connecting with film
historians and writing articles indicating to researchers, historians,
scholars, film professionals and students that this collection exists
and is available for study. The spring 2000 issue of the History of
Photography Journal, the field's most prestigious and widely read
periodical, has devoted an entire issue to PHC. Among the articles is
one by Hiller. His article contextualizes the motion picture apparatus
collection and its relationship to the rest of the collection.
The Museum's early motion picture apparatus is stored off-site at
the Museum Support Center in Suitland, MD with the rest of PHC's
equipment collection. Over the last seven years, the Museum spent
considerable time and energy rehousing and cataloging every PHC object
that went to the Suitland.
Question. Are there plans to expand it?
Answer. PHC actively collects in the history of early motion
pictures as donation and purchase opportunities arise.
Question. Are there plans to prepare an exhibit for the public or
otherwise provide the public an opportunity to view the collection and
learn about the early years of the industry?
Answer. Like many of the collecting units at the Smithsonian, we no
longer have a specific gallery in the Museum for permanent exhibitions.
The Hall of Photography was disassembled in 1992. Those objects and
others are made available as requested. As we move further into the
digital age, more of the objects will be publicly accessible. In 1995,
the Museum curated a History-in-the-News showcase, Magic Lanterns Magic
Mirrors: A Centennial Salute to Cinema. The virtual exhibition can be
viewed on the NMAH web site at: http://www.si.edu/nmah/ve/cinema/
cinema.html. There are no current plans for a specific early motion
picture exhibition. Creating such an exhibition would require extensive
outside funding. However, the National Museum of American History is
crafting the exhibition, ``New Views into the Collections'' in which
PHC objects will be included. The Museum will continue to consider
loaning objects to appropriate educational institutions for their
exhibitions. PHC has also made objects available at several conferences
and lectures for lecture attendees and conference members to view,
study and discuss. PHC stafff requently answer individual inquiries
about motion picture apparatus and are amenable to taking researchers,
scholars, museum personnel and others to visit off-site storage.
Question. Is there a curator for this collection?
Answer. The Photographic History Collection department staff
currently consists of three full-time staffwith the Curator of Graphic
Arts as Acting Curator of Photography.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gorton. The subcommittee will stand in recess until
2 p.m., Thursday, March 18, when we will receive testimony from
Hon. Bill Richardson of the Department of Energy, on energy
conservation, fossil energy research and development, and other
DOE programs.
[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., Tuesday, March 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. Thursday,
March 18.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Campbell, and Byrd.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF ENERGY
ACCOMPANIED BY DAN REICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. We will start this hearing. I certainly
want to welcome you, Mr. Secretary. This is your first
appearance before this subcommittee, though you do spend a fair
amount of time up here before one committee or another.
Your fiscal year 2000 budget request for programs under
this subcommittee's jurisdiction is a mixed bag. On the one
hand, there is a 33-percent increase for the Energy
Conservation Program; while a $256 million deferral is
requested for Clean Coal Technology; a 5-percent decrease in
the Fossil Energy R&D Program; and no funds for the Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.
Each of these requests raises questions that we will get to
later in the hearing. For now, I would like just to put the
President's request in its proper context, given where I think
we are heading in this budget.
The budget request, as a whole, employs a variety of new
taxes, fees, and accounting gimmicks to reach a total
discretionary spending level that is $25 billion above the
fiscal year 2000 statutory discretionary cap enacted in 1997.
Very few of the proposals that produce this $25 billion in
additional spending will be enacted by this Congress, and
virtually none of that amount is likely to be available to the
Appropriations Committee when it begins to work on the bill for
the year 2000.
The Interior Subcommittee's pro-rata share of this $25
billion would be about $625 million, which would eliminate a
large share of the $1 billion increase requested by the
President for Interior bill programs.
We are, however, likely to take far more than a pro-rata
share of this reduction, as it is the intention of the
Republican leadership to make increases in education and
defense spending high priorities within the existing caps.
This ultimately means the subcommittee will be fortunate to
so much as maintain the fiscal year 1999 funding levels. It is
also worth noting that the increases in pay costs for federal
workers and GSA rental rates, items over which this
subcommittee has very little control, will amount to more than
$290 million for the Interior bill agencies in fiscal year
2000.
These costs must either be funded or absorbed by programs.
While we will continue to challenge agencies to find ways to
deliver programs more efficiently, in the context of flat or
reduced subcommittee allocations, these mandatory cost
increases leave no room for large program increases, such as
those contemplated in the President's request for energy
conservation programs.
In this environment, Mr. Secretary, we will need your
assistance and that of your staff in setting priorities. We
will be compelled to make tough choices, but I firmly believe
we will make better choices if we have the benefit of your
expertise and candor.
Senator Byrd is now here. And Mr. Secretary, I must confess
to you that right now there is a Kosovo briefing going on
upstairs in the Capitol. There are two rollcall votes on the
floor of the Senate, set for approximately 2:30. I am a member
of the Budget Committee. We will have three votes sometime
shortly after that.
So, as a practical matter, I think we have got 30 minutes
for your statement and for questions. That does not reflect the
importance of what you have to say or our view of the
importance of the programs that you are backing here.
And I, once again, reiterate that we are really going to
want your help and cooperation as we go through a difficult
year, and to tell you that from my own personal point of view,
your response to my requests, since you have been confirmed as
Secretary, have been thoughtful and--and really reasonably
affirmative. And I certainly thank you for that and have
enjoyed our relationship.
Given our short period of time, Senator Campbell, I would--
--
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, we have a
very short period of time. And I think what I will do is submit
my questions for the Secretary in writing.
I just have to say, I am happy to see that he is here and
healed up pretty well since yesterday's being a witness in
front of our joint committee. But I did want to say, since I
will also have to leave, that I have some real concerns.
I am--I--my friend from New Mexico, by the way, Mr.
Chairman, we--we voted on the southwest Colorado when I was in
the House side serving with him on the Interior Committee. He
was from north New Mexico. And so, we spent a lot of time
together. And he is very, very knowledgeable about all of the
things we face out there.
Today, I would hope that--even though it is not perhaps
directly in your testimony, that you would reassure us that you
are absolutely and firmly committed to getting that annum
sublata done.
And second, we obviously have this problem with Rocky Flats
in our State. And I would--he has made it a priority. I think
that is reflected in the Administration's budget this time, but
I am concerned with one thing that I am hearing through the
DOE, that they are talking about building temporary facilities,
like tents, to store some materials that are radioactive, some
hazardous, called TRUW or Transuranic Waste. And I want him to
assure us that that is not going to prolong the closing in
2006. And that, in fact, it is temporary.
And also, I understand the DOE is talking about adding more
work to Rocky Flats. And I cannot understand how you are going
to put more work into Rocky Flats and still be committed to
closing it by 2006.
But I just wanted him to know that I am going to explore
some language to put in this committee's bill that would
require that if those temporary facilities are built here, that
they are safe, they are temporary, and in fact, they will not
add to the timing of the closures.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, if I have the time, I might
ask a few questions later, but I would ask you--the Secretary
to send his answers back to us if we do not get back to him.
Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, you, obviously, are very
welcome here. As you know, we have rollcalls at--votes at 2:30,
and then a Budget Committee Markup.
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Senator Gorton. So, I think this is going to be a fairly
short time with the Secretary, but we would be delighted to
hear what you have to say, because your State is certainly
affected by this budget.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary. You are here to defend the President's budget
proposal for some of these programs that are very vital to the
nation. But I am not sure that this budget request is
defensible.
The President proposes sizable funding deferrals and
reductions in the Clean Coal Technology Program and in fossil
energy research and development, two of the most important
programs in the Interior bill.
These two programs are critical to the resolving of climate
change issues in this country and also overseas, and can
provide significant sales for U.S. companies abroad.
In my opinion, the budget request of the Administration
indicates a lack of understanding about the importance of these
programs and a lack of cohesive energy and climate change
policy. And it seems incredibly out of balance with the energy
research and technology needs to move our country and the world
into the 21st century.
Now, taking a close look at Clean Coal Technologies, coal
is an important, abundant, and cost-effective source of energy
for our country and the world. And we have made great progress
in developing technologies for burning coal more cleanly and
efficiently. But there is more important work to be done.
About $385 million in program obligations of the original
plan remain to be funded. Yet the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2000 proposes a huge deferral of $256 million.
Does not this deferral and the companion threat of no
future funding place the program in jeopardy? Deferral sounds
so harmless. Well, we are just delaying that. Just putting it
off. You come back next year with your appropriations for it.
But it is difficult to come back next year and get the
appropriations, because we have to find offsets next year for
any appropriations we add.
So, we make for ourselves real problems for the next go
around, when we have these deferrals.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
So, what assurances can you offer that the Clean Coal
Technology funds proposed for deferral in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget will ever be made available to complete
the current obligations of the Clean Coal Technology Program?
Senator Gorton. OK. I think we better give you your--your
opportunity at this point. And if you would like to answer that
question as part of your opening statement----
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON
Secretary Richardson. First of all, I am delighted to
testify before you and this committee, and not on China.
Second----
Senator Gorton. Good thinking.
prepared statement
Secretary Richardson I will also not give a 30-minute
opening statement, which I had.
Senator Gorton. We'll include that in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Richardson
Mr. Chairman, and Senators, it's my pleasure to be with you to
discuss the Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
Thank you for your support in helping ensure that the Department of
Energy continues succeeding in its missions which are crucial to
America's future. I know that several of you have major DOE facilities
in your States and you work closely with our people. In return, we want
to be good neighbors to you. I plan to spend a lot of time ``on the
ground'' at these sites. I've already visited more than 25 of our sites
since coming to the Department this past August. I look forward to
working closely with you to maximize the value of DOE's presence in
your States.
I knew I was taking on an important challenge by coming to the
Department. For several years now, DOE has been asked to do more for
the nation while using fewer resources. Our staff has been cut by 25
percent in less than four years while its responsibilities have grown.
Also, quite frankly, the Department needs a thorough examination and
infusion of the same pioneering spirit that enabled it and its
predecessor agencies to achieve spectacular successes and to benefit
our nation immensely. As I view DOE today, it doesn't need rebuilding,
but I think its batteries need a good recharging. That's where I see my
role. I'm here to help provide a new perspective to the Department and
to help make it one of our best cabinet agencies.
science, security and energy: powering the 21st century
In this year's State of the Union message, the President set a bold
agenda to lead our nation in meeting the challenges of the 21st
Century. The Department's capabilities place it at the forefront of
America's technological advance into the next millennium. This budget
will enable our people to use DOE's capabilities in science, security
and energy to power the 21st Century with American ingenuity,
competitiveness, and technological breakthroughs that will dramatically
improve our quality of life.
The President's agenda and budget build on a record of
accomplishment. For example, just five of the technologies and
innovations developed through this Committee's funding are responsible
for over $33 billion in net savings to consumers and businesses--that
is, energy savings less any additional costs of the associated
efficiency improvements. The five innovations are: the flame retention
head oil burner, the efficient refrigerator compressor, building design
software [DOE-2], the electronic fluorescent lamp ballast, and advanced
window coatings. All were developed by DOE, and are successful
commercial products, today holding market shares from 15 to 100
percent. DOE's total cost to develop these technologies was less than
$30 million. Our success formula seeks to improve technologies and
methods and to work with industry, consumer groups, and other
organizations to accelerate market acceptance of those improvements.
Another example of the value of federal and private sector
partnerships in research and development is the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). DOE is cost-sharing with private
industry to develop a smarter, smaller, less expensive electric power
system for the ``car of the future.'' They've already shrunk this
system from the size of a large suitcase to smaller than a shoe box.
Now they're working to cut its $10,000 cost to less than $500.
Our environment is cleaner today than at any time in the past
quarter century. Still, global climate change poses major environmental
challenges for the entire world. Our efforts at Kyoto helped negotiate
an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an
environmentally strong and economically sound way. Research and
development, and accelerated use of energy efficient and clean energy
technologies are major components of the President's Climate Change
Technology Initiative (CCTI). Even without global climate change, these
investments are wise national policy, increasing our energy security,
improving our air quality, and strengthening our national economic
competitiveness. Our budget seeks to increase support for CCTI programs
by about 25 percent. Included among this broad and balanced R&D
portfolio are: clean, advanced fossil energy technologies; carbon
sequestration; and, energy efficiency applications in the building,
industry, and transportation sectors.
We are requesting a 33.4 percent increase for Energy Conservation.
Programs benefitting the most are in the Building Technology,
Transportation and Industrial sectors, and the Federal Energy
Management Program, which will enable us to pursue our ambitious goals
of: cutting energy use in new homes 50 percent by 2010; lowering power
bills for America's most energy intensive industries, making them even
more competitive internationally; continuing cuts in federal energy use
so by 2005, it's reduced by 30 percent from its 1985 level;
weatherizing nearly 80,000 homes to make winters warmer and summers
cooler for low-income residents, while lowering utility bills; and,
providing ways to cut school energy costs through ``Energy Smart
Schools''.
The U.S. is expected to remain dependent on fossil fuels for about
85 percent of its energy consumption for at least the next 20 years.
One of the Department's key goals is to ensure that economic benefits
from low-priced fossil fuels do not come with unacceptable
environmental costs or energy security risks. Natural gas can play a
key role in slowing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and be a
bridge to a renewable energy future. The programs in this budget
include a portfolio of activities designed to accomplish this.
Preserving America's energy security is among the Department's
chief responsibilities, and one which this Committee has worked hard to
ensure. Today's world-wide, near-record-low oil prices have adversely
affected domestic oil production, as well as increased U.S. oil
consumption, resulting in greater dependency on imported oil. In fact,
as the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels, the U.S. imported
about half its 1998 daily oil consumption of 18.7 million barrels.
The 1973 oil embargo pointed out how vulnerable we had become to
supply disruptions in foreign oil. Since then, we've diversified our
suppliers and prepared for unexpected supply disruptions. In fact, with
this Committee's help, we've stored 561 million barrels in the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). We're requesting $164.0 million to
operate the SPR in fiscal year 2000, without having to rely on the sale
of oil. As you know, we are planning to partially refill the SPR with
federal royalty oil from the Central Gulf of Mexico, which I announced
two weeks ago. In a cooperative transfer from the Department of
Interior, we plan to replace about 28 million barrels which were sold
in fiscal year 1996 and 1997, largely for deficit reduction purposes. I
feel it makes good business sense to take advantage of today's low oil
prices to rebuild our reserves. At the same time, we're enhancing our
national energy security, increasing our strategic assets, and getting
a very good deal for the American taxpayer. This plan would enable the
government to add oil to the SPR without an appropriation or any budget
offsets.
To concentrate its resources on the most pressing problems, the
Department's Fossil Energy program has integrated its R&D activities in
petroleum and natural gas to maximize advantages of technologies that
benefit both oil and gas production. Examples of this shared R&D
include advanced seismic technologies, new drilling systems, and more
cost-effective environmental compliance options. This work could yield
an extra one million barrels of oil per day and more than two trillion
additional cubic feet per year of domestic gas production by 2010.
These expected DOE and industry breakthroughs could ultimately save the
oil and gas industry $16 billion in environmental compliance costs by
2010.
fy 2000 budget request
The Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request, before the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, proposes
funding of $1.229 billion, a 1.9 percent reduction, or $23.7 million
below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The reduction in budget
authority is the result of an increased deferral of Clean Coal
Technology funding, from $40.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to $256.0
million in fiscal year 2000, and the ability to fund the required $21.2
million operating budget of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve
account entirely from prior year balances. A total of $375.0 million is
proposed for Fossil Energy R&D, offset by $11.0 million in prior year
balances.
Within the total request, we are proposing $837.5 million for
Energy Conservation; a 2.4 percent increase, to $164 million, for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and an 11.0 percent increase, to $2.0
million, for Economic Regulation activities. The request for the Energy
Information Administration rises by 3.0 percent, to $72.6 million.
Following are highlights of some of the specific activities we are
proposing for fiscal year 2000.
energy efficiency
The Energy Efficiency programs funded by this Subcommittee improve
fuel economy of automobiles and other vehicles, increase productivity
of the nation's most energy-intensive and polluting industries, and
improve energy efficiency of buildings and appliances. The fiscal year
2000 budget requests $837.5 million for the Department's Energy
Conservation programs, an increase of $209.8 million over the fiscal
year 1999 level. An amendment to the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution
and Restitution Act, contained in the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999, transferred
most of the refined product funds held in escrow for payment of refund
claims to EE for use in Energy Conservation programs in fiscal year
1999. As a result, there will be no PODRA funds used for funding EE
during fiscal year 2000.
Transportation economies for the 21st Century.--The U.S.
transportation sector depends on oil for 97 percent of its fuel
requirements. The Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) funds
research, development and deployment of technologies that can
significantly alter current trends in energy usage. Developing and
commercializing these innovative technologies and alternative fuels is
the nation's best strategy for diversifying our use of fuels and
dramatically reducing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions
from the transportation sector. The DOE is a leader in the government's
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) which focuses on
significantly improving automobile energy efficiency and reducing
emissions. The fiscal year 2000 PNGV request of $143.1 million, a $15.0
million increase, will focus on key component technologies, including
fuel cells, advanced direct-injection engines, exhaust control,
advanced batteries, and electronic power controllers. An increase of
$2.8 million in the Clean Cities program, providing $10.7 million for
fiscal year 2000, will advance infrastructure development to speed the
deployment of alternative fuels in over 65 communities.
Industrial energy technologies.--Industry consumes over one-third
of the energy delivered in the U.S. and spends tens of billions of
dollars annually for pollution abatement and control. Nine industries
account for 75 percent of the energy used in manufacturing: forest
products, steel, aluminum, metal-casting, chemicals, petroleum
refining, agriculture, mining and glass. These industries also account
for over 80 percent of pollutant emissions and over 90 percent of the
waste produced by U.S. manufacturing. The Office of Industrial
Technologies focuses on developing innovative technologies to assist
the nation's most energy-intensive industries to become more resource
efficient and economically competitive, and pollute less. The budget
requests $171.0 million for the Industries of the Future program. This
amount reflects a reduced requirement of $21.0 million in the Turbine
program, which has reached a stage where less government funding is
needed. Thus, the $171.0 million request actually represents an
increase in all the remaining Industries programs.
Improved energy efficiency for building technologies.--America's
homes and offices consume $232.0 billion worth of energy each year.
Heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and equipment account for
over one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The Department is
requesting $335.9 million for the Office of Building Technology, State
and Community Programs (BTS), including $88.2 million for Building
Research and Standards, $41.4 million for Building Technology
Assistance--non grants, and $154.0 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program and $37 million for the State Energy Program. The
budget allows the Department to implement technology roadmaps and
provide the next generation of energy-efficient, environment-friendly
technologies industry requires.
Federal Energy Management Program.--As America's largest energy
customer, the Federal Government spends $8 billion each year on energy
for its facilities and operations. The Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP) helps federal agencies identify, finance, and implement
energy efficiency improvements for their facilities. This saves money
for U.S. taxpayers through reduced federal energy spending. The FEMP
request for fiscal year 2000 is $31.9 million, an increase of $8.1
million over fiscal year 1999.
Management Improvements.--During the past year, the Department of
Energy has intensified its efforts to increase competition, achieve
results-oriented quality and performance program measures, and increase
efficiencies in management of construction. As part of these efforts,
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has been focusing
on resolving long-standing management issues to increase dividends from
its investments in new energy technologies. Specific management reforms
accomplished this past year, and new initiatives, include:
Strategic Planning for Results and Technology Roadmaps.--EERE is
developing a results-oriented strategic plan, building on technology
roadmaps being developed, and focusing on procurement and business
strategies.
Increasing Competition and Refining Merit Review Processes.--EERE
is increasing funds competitively awarded, by issuing both targeted and
broad-based solicitations for research, development, and demonstration
proposals, and for information dissemination and outreach. The Broad-
Based Solicitation for Information Dissemination and Outreach, issued
in December, 1998, has attracted more than 400 applications. We are
convinced it will bring many new, high quality participants, including
leading universities and researchers, into DOE's energy-efficiency
community. Also, in 1998, the Department completed the competition for
its billion-dollar management and operating contract for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in record time and with an improved focus
on mission results.
Managing Smarter.--EERE has reduced its uncosted balances for
Energy Conservation Research and Development programs by 38 percent
between the beginning of fiscal year 1996 and the beginning of fiscal
year 1999. It also has increased the proportion of funding for mission
functions and reduced the proportion for support costs.
Strengthening Program Integration.--Recognizing solutions to energy
challenges often cross sector lines, EERE is increasing integration
across technologies and across their applications. Two leading examples
are Bioenergy and the EnergySmart Schools Initiative.
Leveraging Federal Investments by Expanding Partnerships with
Federal, State and Other Entities.--EERE is working closely with
national laboratories, businesses, universities, nonprofit
organizations, and the Congress to establish R&D priorities, conduct
high-priority research, facilitate private-sector technology
deployment, and disseminate information. Their EERE Regional Support
Offices are strengthening delivery of services at State and local
levels.
Increasing Emphasis on Project Management.--As EERE increases its
role in demonstration projects, it will strengthen its capabilities in
project management of costs, schedules, and performance.
Emphasizing Program Evaluation and Continuous Improvement.--EERE
has discontinued activities that have not met predetermined goals and
will continue to modify its strategies based on results from its
program analysis and evaluation.
fossil energy research and development
The fiscal year 2000 request for Fossil Energy Research and
Development is $375.0 million, including $11.0 million from prior year
balances for a net fiscal year 2000 request of $364.0 million. This
level continues investments in advanced technological concepts, such as
the capture and sequestration of CO2, and development of
advanced, highly efficient, power generation and fuel producing
technologies that together could reduce, or perhaps nearly eliminate,
carbon emissions from fossil fuel facilities. In a world nearly 90
percent dependent on fossil fuels, development of new technologies
along these lines will help maintain strong economic growth while
meeting existing and new environmental goals.
The Department's fiscal year 2000 Natural Gas and Petroleum
programs continue to emphasize technology transfer, especially to
independent producers that make up an increasingly large share of the
domestic oil and gas industry. The fiscal year 2000 program also
includes support for follow-on advanced oil recovery projects,
especially where prior field tests have shown that such projects could
be the difference in keeping oil flowing in fields that otherwise would
be abandoned.
Coal.--The fiscal year 2000 request for advanced coal-related R&D
technologies is $122.4 million, which is basically the same as fiscal
year 1999. The program will begin to couple progress made to date in
advanced gasification and combustion systems, coal conversion, and
environmental controls, with potentially revolutionary approaches to
carbon sequestration, in a concept called the ``Vision 21 Powerplex.''
Its goal is to develop a set of advanced technology modules that could
be configured into a new class of fuel-flexible facilities for both
central and distributed energy production in the 2010-2030 time frame.
These new facilities would be capable of co-producing electric power,
process heat, and high value fuels and chemicals at peak efficiencies
with virtually no emissions of air pollutants. The $28.9 million for
the Vision 21 concept could ultimately be combined with the $9.1
million in fiscal year 2000 funding elsewhere in the FE R&D budget for
carbon sequestration, to produce a class of fossil fuel-based energy
complexes with virtually no environmental impacts outside of their
physical ``footprints.'' Work also continues on characterizing and
reducing pollutants such as particulates (PM2.5), air toxics, and
NOX from existing powerplants.
Petroleum.--The fiscal year 2000 request for Oil Technology
activities is $50.2 million, an increase from the fiscal year 1999
appropriation of $48.6 million. The majority of the Department's Oil
Technology program continues to focus on providing independent
producers with advances that can keep oil flowing from U.S. reservoirs
that would likely be abandoned with conventional technology. In the
fiscal year 2000 budget, funding for a preferred ``Petroleum Upstream
Management Practices'' (PUMP) program will be initiated, focusing on
best management practices, data management, and effective environmental
compliance.
Gas.--The fiscal year 2000 request for gas-related R&D is $105.3
million. The supply portion of the Gas budget, $25.9 million, will
continue to focus on advanced technologies that can locate and produce
gas that otherwise would be bypassed or unmarketable. In addition, a
small $2.0 million R&D program in methane hydrates is being initiated
with the long-term goal of converting the large potential gas hydrate
resource (estimated at up to 200,000 trillion cubic feet, or over one
hundred times the amount of US conventional gas resource) into economic
gas reserves. The gas budget also continues to support two high-
priority power generation technologies--High Efficiency Gas Turbines,
and Advanced Fuel Cells--that could enhance the future use of natural
gas, as well as ultimately contribute to higher-efficiency coal-based
power generation. In the power generation Advanced Gas Turbine program,
DOE is requesting $41.8 million, which will enable it to complete full-
scale component/subsystem testing and engine manufacturing, and begin
full speed prototype testing of a new class of gas turbines with
unprecedented efficiency and environmental performance. DOE is
requesting $37.6 million for the Fuel Cell program in fiscal year 2000,
to continue R&D to reduce costs and improve performance for market-
ready systems early in the next decade. In fiscal year 2000, the
program will begin testing of the first market prototype solid oxide
fuel cell at commercial sites for distributed power applications. In
addition, $5.0 million of fuel cell activity is included in the Vision
21 activity in the Coal program.
strategic petroleum reserve
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) remains a crucial element of
our national energy security policy. The fiscal year 2000 budget
request for SPR operations and maintenance is $159.0 million, a 1
percent reduction from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation and a 44
percent reduction from fiscal year 1996's peak level of $284.1 million.
These reductions reflect the successful completion in fiscal year 2000
of the Life Extension Program and Weeks Island Decommissioning, as well
as the completion of treatment for gas-in-oil by the end of the first
quarter fiscal year 1998. This 1 percent decrease reflects the
resumption of post Life Extension Program full standby operations and
maintenance activities offset by the reduction in funding for the Life
Extension Program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the SPR
Petroleum Account is $5.0 million. At the end of fiscal year 1998, the
account's remaining balance of $33 million was capable of supporting
approximately 55 percent of a full SPR emergency drawdown for a six-
month period. This addition assures the capability to sustain drawdown
operations for close to four months of the six-month performance
criteria.
Although the budget does not request funding for oil acquisition,
the Administration has determined that the very low price of oil makes
this an ideal time to replace the oil that was sold during 1996 and
1997 for budget balancing purposes. In addition to the transfer of 28
million barrels of federal royalty oil from the Department of Interior,
I have directed that the remaining unutilized capacity of the SPR be
offered for private storage, thereby adding oil to the SPR.
clean coal technology
The fiscal year 2000 budget reflects a net amount of $246.0 million
of previously appropriated budget authority be deferred until fiscal
year 2001 and beyond. The proposed deferral of funds reflects schedule
delays, primarily resulting from project restructuring activities. The
40 active projects have a total cost of $5.7 billion, of which DOE has
committed $1.9 billion. At the end of fiscal year 2000, 29 projects are
expected to be completed and one additional project is expected to
complete operation and begin preparing final reports. Four projects are
expected to be in operation, three projects in construction, and three
projects in design. At the end of fiscal year 2000, two projects are
expected to have outstanding obligation commitments. In fiscal year
2000, the Clean Coal Program will complete the demonstration of Pinion
Pine, the third integrated gasification combined cycle project, using
air-blown gasification and hot gas cleanup for improved thermal
efficiency; and continued operations of the Polk project in order to
establish the engineering foundation leading to a new generation of 60
percent efficient powerplants.
naval petroleum reserves and oil shale reserves
The fiscal year 2000 budget of $21.24 million is to be funded
entirely from prior year balances. No new funds are being requested for
fiscal year 2000. During the fiscal year, ongoing activities will be
funded from prior year balances which resulted, in large part, from
terminating operations at NPR-1 during fiscal year 1998. Fiscal year
2000 ongoing activities include the continued operation of the Teapot
Dome Oilfield, the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center,
environmental remediation activities at Teapot Dome, environmental and
cultural resource assessments at NPR-1, with some remediation activity
anticipated, finalization of NPR-1 equity shares with Chevron, and
continued oversight of the NPR-2 property and leases.
Elk Hills School Lands Fund.--Section 3415 of Public Law 104-106
provides for the settlement of longstanding claims to certain Elk Hills
lands by the State of California. Under the terms of the settlement, a
contingency fund has been established in the Treasury for payment of
nine percent of the net sales proceeds generated from the divestment of
Elk Hills over a seven-year period. Provided funds are appropriated
annually, the Department will pay the State of California Teachers'
Retirement Fund $36.0 million each year for five years which began in
fiscal year 1999. Any remaining balance due after the five years shall
be paid in two equal installments in years six and seven unless the
seventh payment is deferred due to delay in the equity finalization
process. For fiscal year 2000, the Department is requesting $36.0
million for the second payment to the State of California Teachers'
Retirement Fund.
The Office of Fossil Energy has modified its research and
development program significantly through the use of the strategic
planning process and the development of detailed program plans and road
maps often done in conjunction with the industrial and technical
communities as well as other portions of the Department.
Field operations have been successfully consolidated into the
Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) which is now fully operational.
In addition, the privatization of the National Institute of Petroleum
and Energy Research (NIPER) has been recently completed, reducing the
costs of conducting oil research and increasing the amounts of funding
for competitive research.
With the sale of the giant Elk Hills oil field in California, we
have begun to significantly reduce the Federal presence in competition
with the oil industry. The Oil Shale Reserve in Colorado has been
transferred to the Department of the Interior for leasing and other
reserves will be transferred or closed in the next several years.
energy information administration
The fiscal year 2000 budget request is $72.6 million which will
fund EIA data and analysis activities supporting issues related to
energy use. This level will enable EIA to produce approximately 240
reports and analyses covering a wide variety of energy issues, respond
to about 300,000 inquiries and requests for energy information,
overhaul their energy consumption surveys and continue overhaul of
their electricity and natural gas surveys and data systems. The
following programs are included: efficiency and renewable data
collection and analysis; end-use energy consumption surveys; greenhouse
gas data collection studies; mid-term energy demand modeling; and
integrated end-use energy data compilation.
economic regulation
The budget request of $2.0 million, for the Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA), is for processing applications for refunds and for
related activities arising from the regulatory program initiated under
the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. OHA will transfer a
portion of the money collected by the Department with respect to crude
oil price violations to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction.
conclusion
The Department of Energy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000
will provide our scientists and engineers with the tools, facilities
and processes to help lead this nation into the new millennium. The
technological breakthroughs which lie ahead will provide improvements
to the quality of life of all Americans. With your continued support,
the Department of Energy will produce the science, security and energy
to power this nation in the 21st Century.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
Secretary Richardson. I will go straight into answering
questions, if that is agreeable to you.
Senator Gorton. All right. Why don't you answer Senator
Byrd's question, first----
Secretary Richardson. Yes; I will.
Senator Gorton [continuing]. Since he just presented it to
you.
Secretary Richardson. Senator Byrd, I do not want you to
take a signal on the deferral that we are not committed to the
Clean Coal Technology Projects. The funding being deferred is
not needed until fiscal year 2001, and later for the two
remaining projects; one in Illinois and one in Utah, that are
not fully funded together.
We have recently approved restructuring and design
extensions for both of these projects for purposes such as
obtaining environmental permits. Both projects have adequate
funding to complete these tasks. We have funded 38 out of the
40 projects that I believe are out there.
I want to commit to you, Senator--I know that you care a
lot about coal--that we will develop cleaner, more efficient
coal technology. I want you to know that I am committed to deal
with being more positive and generous toward coal, both in the
budget and in terms of our policies.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, are we asking questions at this
point or not?
Senator Gorton. We are. The Secretary sort of just put his
opening statement on the record, because we only have a few
more minutes. Would you like a follow-up question on that?
Senator Byrd. I would like.
Senator Gorton. Go right ahead.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Byrd. Well, I am deeply troubled by the
implications of this proposed deferral. It appears to be a
clear indication that the Administration does not understand or
appreciate the importance of fossil energy and fossil energy
research.
This budget proposal sends a signal to the industry and the
power community that coal is not needed. The deferral, in
essence, robs one proven and worthy program to pay for other
increases included in the President's budget.
The deferral means that the committee will be asked in the
out years, to find replacement funding for the Clean Coal
Technology Program. I look forward to working with you and
other members of the committee to resolve this issue in a
positive fashion, that leaves no doubt as to the importance of
coal to our society.
My follow-up question is this: Why does the President's
budget include a decrease for fossil energy research? Most of
the other energy programs show at least modest increases in the
President's budget. But this program, which is so important to
the energy stability and health of our nation, is decreased.
Proposed funding for coal research is down and so is the
proposed funding for natural gas research.
Overall, the amount proposed in the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2000 for the Fossil Energy Research and
Development Program is $20 million less than was enacted for
fiscal year 1999.
Now, why is that?
Secretary Richardson. Senator, let me just say that I know
you would have preferred a plus-up in the fossil energy budget,
relative to the fiscal year 1999 level. I, too, wanted to do
more for fossil energy, but the budget caps were too tight. We
did win a victory with OMB, in that we were going to experience
a deeper cut, but we have come very close to last year's
request.
The $364 million requested for fiscal year 2000 in fossil
energy continues investments in technology, such as the capture
and sequestration of carbon dioxide, development of advanced
power generation and fuel producing technologies that could
reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I also want you to look at the recent initiative, Senator,
that I've done on oil and gas, that involve the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, that involve making it easier to drill in
federal lands, and that involve several other initiatives to
help the oil and gas industry.
We also need to consider the multi-billion dollar Clean
Coal Technology Program, which has been successful over its
lifetime. As I said, we got $50 million more than what was
contained in the original passback from OMB.
But Senator Byrd, I said to you that I was going to be a
Secretary of Energy that would not turn his back on coal; that
will do more for coal. I commit to you that when I have full
control of my budget--in the next cycle, because, as you know,
I came in September--that you should look at my coal research
budget. And I think you will be pleased. But we will work with
you to keep the monies in there, the projects going, and
recognize the importance of coal in our future.
Senator Byrd. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. And
we will work together in this regard.
I just point out, Mr. Chairman, that as I indicated
earlier, most of the other energy programs show at least modest
increases in the President's budget. But this program, this
program which is so important, is decreased. And support for
the program directly supports FETC. It creates jobs in West
Virginia. It helps the energy economy of the State. And the
President's budget for fiscal year 2000 takes the program back.
We appropriated $384 million to the program for fiscal year
1999. The President's budget takes it back to $364 million. And
the DOE request to OMB for the program's fiscal year 2000
budget, was $440 million. So, I want to give the Secretary
credit for that, which would be an increase of $55 million
above the enacted level.
But anyhow, my time is consumed. I thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Let us work together and see if we cannot do the
right thing by coal, because it is going to be very, very
important. And our Clean Coal Technology Programs are so
important, if we think about global climate problems and
change.
Secretary Richardson. Well, Senator Byrd, you know you have
persuaded me on that position.
Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
FEDERAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS
Senator Gorton. One of the areas of endeavor in the
department, that the department for many years has most
fiercely defended, has been cooperative research and
development leading to the actual use of new technologies in
the market place.
You talk about some of them in your written statement, but
I'd like you, if you can, to give me two or three recent
examples and tell me how, specifically, the department was
involved; why it got involved in them; and why these advances
would not have been made if we'd left it to the private sector
alone.
Secretary Richardson. Senator, I will answer this question.
The two that I would say to you is, one is the Partnership for
a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), including support for the
Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technology.
This PNGV project, initiated in 1993, is a cost-shared
partnership whose goal is to develop technologies in
partnership with industry that would enable a family sedan to
achieve 80 miles per gallon by the year 2004.
We are working with industry to development technologies
which improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions without
sacrificing safety. These programs are the hybrid electric
vehicles, fuel cells, improved engines, and lightweight
materials. I saw a lot of these at the Detroit auto show.
But I think one recent development in the lightweight
materials is the establishment--and I know you are familiar
with this--of the Northwest Alliance for Transportation
Technology, which is a combination of industrial partners in
the northwest United States brought together to improve
American technology. And I know you have been a leader in this
area.
My Assistant Secretary, Dan Reicher, is the expert on this,
but I think this is our best example. Dan, can you give
another?
Mr Reicher. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I have two things.
One are the advanced industrial turbines. These are very high
efficiency turbines that run on natural gas. And there has been
very important work done, cost shared between industry and the
government, to develop these turbines. They are going to make a
huge difference.
They are making a huge difference today in industry,
allowing industry to generate power much more efficiently, and
in some cases, actually sell it into the grid.
We feel strongly that the development of these turbines
either would not have happened or would have been much delayed.
And there is a big international market for these.
The second example is gasification technology. This is to
gasify wastes and other materials from both the forest products
industry and from agriculture, which will allow us to produce a
gas that can fire a turbine. And in the forest products
industry, this is the number one technology priority of that
industry.
If this kind of technology could go into that industry, it
could go from a net user of energy to a net producer of energy,
and radically change the bottom line for the industry.
So, those are the two I would say.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING
Mr. Secretary, wearing another hat or wearing the same hat
in a different committee, you are very much aware of the
controversy and the progress surrounding the restructuring of
the electric power industry, and especially in the marketing of
power. And I understand, soon we will have a recommendation
from the Administration on that subject.
But, of course, the industry has been changing more rapidly
than the laws have been. It is going on quite rapidly.
How has that restructuring affected federal energy research
and development programs? Are--does this have any impact on the
actual use in the market place of new techniques? And does it
give us some caution as to whether or not we ought to let some
of these restructurings work their way out before we know what
research and development directions we should take?
Secretary Richardson. Senator, let me say that we think
that having a federal restructuring bill will improve the input
and impetus for new technologies.
As you know, a lot of the States--I think it is 19--have
already moved with restructuring legislation. We are going to
have, very soon, a restructuring bill. It is going to include--
I know this is an issue of concern to you--a BPA (Bonneville
Power Administration) title. We are discussing that.
And it is generally going to be consistent with the
recommendation made by the region's governors. So, we will work
closely with you on that.
But on the technology issue, Senator, we think that it is
important that we have a strong effort to improve our energy
technologies. What we want to make sure is that our objectives
are consistent.
Senator Gorton. I have several more, but Senator Campbell,
you were here, plenty on time. Have you got any questions that
you would like to put to the Secretary while he is still
present?
ROCKY FLATS
Senator Campbell. Well, I might just say, Mr. Secretary,
that I particularly was pleased with the amount of money that
the Administration has requested, $657 million, to continue the
clean up with Rocky Flats.
We had to--this committee put an additional $30 million
last time around, in addition to what the President had asked.
So, I think we are in the right direction, but I would like you
to comment on two things I said in my opening statement.
By the way, as you probably know, by the time this thing
gets cleaned up and finally shut down, we will have spent
something like $500 billion of taxpayers' money that could have
gone to energy research and developing alternative fuels and
new technology and all kinds of things to make the lives of
Americans a little better. We are still stumbling along, trying
to get that shut down by 2006.
I would like you to just comment on two things. One, on
this proposal I heard of putting additional work in there;
whether that is going to prolong the shut down--the closing of
Rocky Flats. The second is the so-called temporary locations,
which I've heard described as tents, which I--they may be in
some very safe sounding containers, but I have to tell you that
the communities around Rocky Flats are kind of up in arms about
the possibility of very, very flimsy or substandard structures
to house this waste in; some of which obviously is radioactive;
some of which is hazardous.
I would like you to comment on both of those things. By the
way, I understand the difficulty of opening WIPP. We were
neighbors, and for a long time, your home State was New Mexico.
I guess if things were turned around, Colorado would not be in
a particular hurry to accept any kind of waste from New Mexico
being shipped into Colorado.
So, I can fully understand the lawsuit that is going on,
but I would also like you to comment on that; if DOE can do
anything to help resolve that, so that WIPP can be opened--
those three things.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
Secretary Richardson. Senator, the Judge, hopefully on
Tuesday, will rule in our favor on the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP). And we can move waste there. This has been an
endless bureaucratic delay that----
Senator Campbell. This coming Tuesday you expect that
decision to be made.
Secretary Richardson. Yes. The Department of Energy has
been precluded bureaucratically by my own State to do its job
to open WIPP. And I am working vigorously to make sure that
WIPP opens and it is ready to open.
Senator Campbell. Does that mean that they can be--
shipments transported immediately after that or is there a time
frame?
Secretary Richardson. Yes.
Senator Campbell. It can be.
Secretary Richardson. No; I think right after that. And we
are ready to move right away.
Senator Campbell. What is the need for temporary
structures, then?
Secretary Richardson. Well, if it doesn't open on time--the
Judge may rule against us. I hope he does not, but we would run
out of site storage for this waste. In other words, we would
need temporary storage.
So, let me just tell you a little bit about the tents. And
let me, at the start, say to you that if I deem that these
tents are not safe, I will reassess this decision. I commit
that to you.
But I have been informed by the site that these tents were
previously used to store lower level waste. And these are tents
that are being reinforced to withstand winds of more than about
100 miles an hour. These tents----
Senator Campbell. Winds through Boulder of 130 and 140 that
tear up planes off of the tarmac, that are chained down.
Secretary Richardson. If that is the case, and if they are
unsafe, I will reassess this. But I am told that these are
stainless steel, red fabric covered structures. It is an
effective short-term option for us. But I will consult with you
before I do this.
You know, WIPP--I have also got an Idaho problem. That is
not your problem, but it involves----
Senator Campbell. You have got a lot of problems.
(Laughter.)
Secretary Richardson. Now, Senator, I promise you, we will
have closure on Rocky Flats by 2006. Let me just say that it
should not be any signal.
We are accelerating the whole contracting process to meet
the 2006 standard. I have made no decision on the contract, but
it is going to be focused on whether we meet the 2006 goal. And
we are committed to that.
But Senator, do not listen to the contractor, who is going
around saying they need more money to meet the 2006 goal. The
money that I have requested from you, Mr. Chairman, is all they
need. So, they will come and tell you that they need more. Do
not believe them.
Senator Campbell. OK. I will not listen to them. I will
listen to you. And I am sure the people that live around that
area will be looking forward to your earliest visit, which you
promised me, with great anticipation. And I will remind them of
your promise. Thank you.
Secretary Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES
Senator Gorton. Let me go back to research and development.
I think it was just yesterday's newspapers here that had a
major story on fuel cells.
To what extent does the development of fuel cell vehicles
threaten to overtake the developments that you have talked
about here with respect to combustion engines and other, you
know, alternatives? Is it reasonably imminent or so far in the
future and so expensive that all of these other alternatives
are justified, as well? And again, when is industry going to be
able to go on its own on this?
Secretary Richardson. Well, Senator, we have some goals in
some years that we want to see these vehicles go commercial on
the market. We have worked very closely with industry up until
that point. They are working with us on joint research. Their
technology is good. They are committed. Their record is good.
I was in Detroit. I saw what they were doing. I think this
is a very exciting new technology. Our hope is that in terms of
time lines, that they meet this goal that has been imposed in
the agreement they signed with the Administration. Dan?
Mr. Reicher. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
say that we are 5 years into what is a 10-year research and
development program under the partnership for a new generation
of vehicles. We are on track. This is what the co-chairs of
Chrysler and other auto companies say about the project.
It is a very strong partnership. With respect to your
specific question about fuel cells overtaking other
technologies, I think what we have been able to do in the
partnership is narrow down, from a whole host of propulsion
technologies, to essentially two: the so-called hybrid vehicle
and the fuel cell vehicle.
Both of those have real market potential; the hybrid
vehicle somewhat before the fuel cell vehicle. And they are
very complementary in terms of the next generation of cars to
be put on the road.
So, we are down from a much larger stable of propulsion
technologies that this subcommittee supported. We are down to
these two. We are making very good progress on both. We have
healthy competition from across the globe.
And if it is something that we want to win as a nation, in
terms of our auto industry, it is something we should continue
to fund in this very vital partnership.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Today 2:30 meant 2:30 on this
vote, Mr. Secretary. We have a couple more minutes.
I have one more I would like to put to you now.
Secretary Richardson. Sure.
ENERGY USE MEASUREMENT
Senator Gorton. Last year, both the House Committee and the
Senate Committee reports urged the department to make a greater
effort to increase the use of source measurement techniques in
departmental programs within the parameters of the law under
which you operate.
In part, this reflects the Committee's interest in seeing
that the measurements used in assessing the relative success of
various departmental programs reflect as accurately as possible
the actual public benefits of these programs.
Have you taken significant steps in response to the
Committee report language? And are you concerned that measures
used to assess the success of any of these programs do or do
not accurately reflect their actual benefits?
Secretary Richardson. Senator, we are going to continue to
use methodologies in determining appliance standards that are
consistent with the applicable statutes. These are what are
called point-of-use measurements of emissions and energy costs,
as opposed to looking at the full fuel cycle in a more complex
way.
We have taken input from the language and the bill from the
advisory committees. Mr. Reicher, maybe, can supplement what I
have said.
Senator Gorton. Glad you came, Mr. Reicher.
Mr. Reicher. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. There is a great
difference of opinion between essentially--to be very candid--
the natural gas industry and the electric industry over how to
measure energy, site versus source. And as the Secretary
indicated, we are looking at both.
What we are trying to do is actually help broker this
difference of opinion. We are in the middle of a study right
now that looks at ways that we can find some common ground in
this dispute and do a better job of both measuring improvements
in site energy use, which gets to the efficiency of the
appliances and the equipment themselves, and also do a better
job of seeing what kind of impact that has back at the source
of that energy; what we are doing to the overall use of energy.
Senator Gorton. When are we likely to see that study?
Mr. Reicher. In the next couple of months. We put it into
play shortly after we got the language from you. It is being
done by the Rand Corporation. They are essentially interviewing
all the people in what I can only describe as a small holy war
that is going on with respect----
Senator Gorton. We are aware of it.
Mr. Reicher. Yes.
Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, would you like to ask one
more?
Senator Byrd. I will ask one more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. Secretary, considerable attention is being focused on
climate change. This is an area in which I have a great
interest, because of the potential cost to energy users, the
risks contained in premature decisions, and the possible energy
and economic impacts from proposed steps to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
And there is no one answer to these difficult questions; no
single silver bullet to fix the problem. We need to build upon
science and research to help resolve the issues. Whatever
approach we take, must balance fuel diversity, domestic energy
security, energy efficiency, technological development, and
economic growth.
In the next century, the greatest growth in greenhouse gas
emissions will be in the large developing countries, like China
and India. This growth provides an opportunity to promote the
sale of our clean coal technologies abroad, and ensure that
developing nations become partners in global solutions to
climate change issues.
In my opinion, the Department is not doing enough to take
advantage of this opportunity to help developing countries
sustain the environment through the sale of our clean coal
technologies.
This is my question: What plans does the Department of
Energy have to facilitate the sale of U.S. clean coal
technologies abroad and encourage developing nations to install
and use these clean coal technologies?
Secretary Richardson. Senator Byrd, we appreciate your
leadership on this issue. And your resolution with Senator
Hagel, which basically said that we cannot seriously address
climate change without developing nations participating; makes
a lot of sense.
We are focusing, at the Department of Energy, through
technology, to deal with developing nations on utilizing clean
coal technologies. This year, I will convene the Energy
Ministers of Latin America and Africa, precisely on that point.
How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a joint
technology project? And a lot of it is due to your leadership
and that resolution.
Second, with China, India, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil,
leaders of the developing world, we need to have more
concentrated strategies. We need to make these countries more
familiar with American technology by cooperative research and
development, technical assistance, and workshops. We have to
have better incentive packages for them--financing--that can
reduce the costs of these new technologies.
And we need to continue our research and development
program. But I can tell you that we got the message that you
let us have in that resolution by the fact that in the last
Buenos Aires conference, only Argentina and Kazakstan supported
us in our efforts.
So, we need to do more to get more support. So, we commit
to you a strategy that is already in place to bring technology
and our expertise in environmental climate change to developing
countries.
Senator Byrd. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want
to work with you in this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Secretary, like Mr. Holyfield,
you are saved by the bell. And I think you did a somewhat
better job than he did on Saturday night.
Secretary Richardson. Senator, I was there. He did lose. I
was there.
Senator Gorton. OK.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
accomplishments
Question. You mentioned in your opening statement a few examples of
technologies that have been developed with DOE assistance and
successfully deployed in the marketplace. Can you describe a few of
these or other examples in more detail, and talk a little bit about how
specifically the Department was involved, why the Department was
involved, why these advancements wouldn't have been made without
federal support, etc.? If possible, please choose examples of successes
that have occurred in the last year, and pick a number of examples from
different program areas.
Answer. Some of the most significant technology developments
emerging from DOE-sponsored research include the following:
--Lower-cost pollution controls: In the mid-1980s, the only available
technologies for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOX)--the
pollutant that contributes to smog, ground-level ozone, and
acid rain--cost nearly $3,000 per ton of NOX. Today,
DOE's research and development and Clean Coal Technology
efforts have helped develop the low-NOX burner which
can reduce nitrogen oxides at costs of only $200 per ton.
Had DOE not been involved in the development of these low-
polluting burners, utilities would have likely opted for higher
cost control options to meet new federal Clean Air regulations
and passed the additional costs on to ratepayers. Recent data
shows that U.S. utilities have installed one of the three major
types of low-NOX burners demonstrated in DOE's
program on 150,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity. Sales to
date have totaled approximately $2 billion. As utilities make
continuing investments to comply with the Clean Air Act
Amendments over the next few years, sales are expected to reach
270,000 megawatts and total nearly $4.5 billion.
Another way to control nitrogen oxide pollutants is to create a
``reburn'' zone in the boiler to break down the pollutants into
environmentally harmless gases. The first units have used
natural gas as the reburn fuel, but recently as part of a DOE
project, the feasibility of using micronized coal was shown. As
a result, Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York, has decided to
use the technology to meet its NOX reduction
requirements, not only continuing its use at the demonstration
site but installing it on at least two other units after the
DOE program is finished.
--The ``next generation'' of power plants: Until the 1990s, power
plants had basically one way to generate power from coal: burn
it. In the last few years, DOE's coal technology program has
helped pioneer a new, significantly cleaner and more efficient
way to use coal to generate electricity. The integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process changes coal into a
gas that can be cleaned of virtually all of its pollutant-
forming impurities, then burns the gas in a gas turbine and
captures excess heat for use in a conventional steam turbine
generator.
DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program shared the costs and risks of
building the first three commercial-scale test units for this
process in the United States--each test unit targeted at a
different application in the power market. This year, one of
these first-of-a-kind plants--the Tampa Electric IGCC project--
set a new power production record, generating 325 megawatts of
electric power, exceeding its ``nameplate'' capacity of 310
megawatts. To date, Tampa's 21st century power system has
accumulated more than 11,000 hours of operation on gasified
coal. Another of the demonstration plants, in Indiana, produced
its millionth megawatt-hour of electricity and processed its
500,000th ton of coal in October 1998, both significant
accomplishments in proving the operational reliability of this
new, super-clean, power generating technology.
Had DOE not been involved, the innovative technology would have
likely been confined to smaller-scale research for several more
years, perhaps for a decade or more. DOE's involvement
accelerated full-size testing of the process and positioned it
for commercial market applications at a time when many nations
are looking for cleaner power options to support economic
expansion.
--Smaller oil and gas ``footprints.'' A smaller wellpad is an
environmentally better wellpad. DOE's research and development
program has given industry a greater number of tools--and the
confidence--to use new approaches such as horizontal drilling
and, particularly in the last year, ``slimhole'' drilling, to
reduce the size of wellpads. If research and development had
stopped in the mid-1980s--at the point where many of the larger
oil producers in the United States began shifting their
attention to more lucrative prospects overseas--today's drill
pads in the United States would have covered an additional
17,000 acres of land, an area roughly the size of nearly 13,000
football fields.
--Four-dimensional seismic technology. One of the most significant
advances in petroleum technology has been the development of 3-
D seismic imaging--which gives producers the ability to ``see''
potential oil- and gas-bearing formations in three spatial
dimensions. But a DOE cost-shared project showed that imaging
technology did not have to be limited to only three dimensions.
A fourth--time--could be added to reveal entirely new and
valuable data about the productive potential of an oil
reservoir. In some fields, for example, 4-D seismic showed that
reservoirs were actually being replenished by oil migrating
upward through natural fractures from deeper sources. Tapping
into self-replenishing reservoirs fed by these fracture systems
is proving, in many cases, to be significantly more
economically attractive than drilling large numbers of deep,
expensive holes to less prolific sources. Because of DOE's
investment to move the technology out of the laboratory and
into practical application, 4-D seismic technology accounted
for more than $500 million in commercial oil and gas services
in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998.
--Subsalt seismic imaging. One of the nation's largest oil-bearing
regions may have been hidden beneath the large irregularly
shaped salt formations the extend beneath nearly 40 percent of
the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Now, an industry team
working in partnership with DOE's Los Alamos National
Laboratory is developing advanced seismic processing techniques
that increase the resolution of potential oil-bearing
formations that lie below the complex salt structures. In the
last year, this technology has spurred producers to begin new
subsalt wildcat wells. Now over 30 such wells have been drilled
by 16 producers. Eight successful discoveries have been
reported so far, three of which contain reserves of more than
100 million barrels of oil. Industry experts now predict at
least a 30 percent success rate for subsalt drilling in the
Gulf--a rate that would have been unattainable without DOE's
involvement in enhanced seismic processing and modeling
techniques.
restructuring
Question. The electric industry continues to undergo major
restructuring, based on a combination of market forces and actions
being taken in state legislatures. Federal legislation on this subject
will again be a topic of considerable debate in this Congress. How has
the industry restructuring affected federal energy research and
development programs?
Answer. The two main ways that incipient and actual electric
industry deregulation and restructuring has affected federal energy
research and development programs are as follows:
--The electric industry has reduced funding for research and
development.
Under regulation, electric companies were for the most part able
to pass the costs of research on to their customers, with the
approval of regulators. But under restructuring, where
competition and profit will depend crucially on reducing costs,
electricity companies have decreased their own research and
development as well as industry-wide contributions to EPRI.
Because EPRI and individual firms cost-share research and
development with DOE, federal research and development suffers
as well.
--Products of research and development must be able to compete even
more on the basis of cost.
Although regulated utilities would always prefer to cost
minimize, it is also true that if regulators could be persuaded
to put costs into rate base, the utility could recover its
costs with a profit, even if the equipment wasn't as low cost
as it might have been. Now, however, electricity companies will
concentrate even more on choosing the cheapest technology that
gets the job done. If they were to do otherwise, the result in
lost profits would immediately go to their bottom line. Thus
there is an even greater sensitivity to using research and
development to produce low- cost, emission reducing products or
technologies with a longer payback time.
Question. With the industry in a state of flux, are the new
technologies being developed in these programs having trouble making it
into the marketplace?
Answer. Many Fossil Energy programs are long-range in nature; for
example, the Vision 21 technologies and carbon sequestration
activities. The program goals are for these programs to be economic by
the time they are introduced to market, sometime in the 2010 to 2020
time frame, depending upon the specific technology involved. Therefore,
it is too early to judge whether they would have trouble making it into
the marketplace, but some indicators suggest there should be a strong
market demand.
Several recent, shorter-term Fossil Energy research and development
technologies have been very cost-effective, including low-
NOX burners, which reduce NOX at a cost about
one-tenth of previously available post-combustion technology. Low
NOX burners have not had any difficulties in penetrating the
market. Close to half the existing coal power plants are using them.
Question. Should we be more conservative in making federal
investments in energy generating technologies until the industry
restructuring settles out, and it becomes more clear what types of
technologies are likely to be accepted in the marketplace?
Answer. In this period of uncertainty, as electric companies focus
their energies and dollars on the pressures of restructuring--market
share, mergers, domestic versus foreign growth, and so on--the need for
new technologies to provide lower environmental emissions is unlikely
to wait. Domestic energy needs, too, will continue to grow, as the
economy continues its remarkable expansion. A good argument can be made
that, with private industry mostly otherwise occupied, the need for
federal environmental research and development is high. Longer term,
60+ percent efficient coal units and 70+ percent natural gas units
(efficiencies calculated before any credit for use of waste heat), with
virtually zero-emissions, will take 10 to 20 years to develop. Given
the desire of citizens to continue to have ever more clean emissions,
development of these technologies should not be postponed.
site versus source measurement techniques
Question. Last year, both the House and Senate committee reports
urged the Department to make a greater effort to increase the use of
``source'' measurement techniques in departmental programs, within the
parameters of current law. This in part reflects the Committee's
interest in seeing that the measurements used in assessing the relative
success of various DOE programs reflect as accurately as possible the
actual public benefits of those programs. What steps has the Department
taken in response to the Committee report language?
Answer. The Department has not had to make changes in the
measurements used to assess the benefits of various programs since the
Department has always used a number of different measurements to assess
public benefits. For example, in evaluating the impacts of appliance
energy efficiency standards, the Department considers the full range of
impacts, including consumer and national impacts. In the analysis of
consumer impacts, the Department considers the energy directly consumed
by the product at the point of use. This, DOE believes, provides useful
measures to consumers since it can be directly related to information
readily available, that is, utility bills. In examining the impacts of
standards on the nation, however, the Department considers the total
energy consumed over the fuel cycle as well as emissions and energy
costs. In this manner, the analysis captures the total impact of the
standards.
Question. Is the Department concerned that the measures used to
assess the success of any of its programs do not accurately reflect the
actual benefits of the programs?
Answer. The Department believes that its selection of measures
accurately reflects the benefits of its programs.
carbon sequestration
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes increased
funding in a number of programs for research on carbon sequestration
technologies such as bioprocessing of coal, CO2 storage in
coal seams, and other novel sequestration techniques. Is the research
proposed in any way driven by an assumption that the Kyoto Protocol
will be ratified?
Answer. Fossil Energy's sequestration research is targeted to
produce a suite of practical technologies for deployment in the 2015
timeframe, with significant expansion in scope and reduction in cost
for sequestration in the following decade. In contrast, emission
reductions under the Kyoto Protocol are required over the 2008 to 2012
time period. Hence, the research is not directly related to the Kyoto
Protocol. However, such technologies could prove useful as we define
the potentially more difficult long-term goals of stabilizing
greenhouse gas emissions on the long term. Additionally, several
sequestration technologies have potential worth pursuing without any
consideration of the climate issue, as they could increase U.S. energy
resources when used in conjunction with enhanced oil recovery or
methane recovery from unmineable coal seams.
Question. What other agencies are conducting research on carbon
sequestration technologies?
Answer. Other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Department of Interior (DOI), and Environmental
Protection Agency, are conducting research on various aspects of carbon
sequestration. USDA and DOI have been represented by the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and U.S. Geological survey, respectively. All of these
agencies have been actively involved in the production of DOE's draft
report titled ``Carbon Sequestration: State of the Science.'' In this
report, USDA has been actively involved in the sections which address
sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems (soils and vegetation) and
advanced biological processes. All of the agencies have served in
drafting and reviewing the report, and have participated a technical
workshop that was held on this subject in October 1998. In addition,
DOE is working closely with the USFS to demonstrate enhanced
productivity from marginal soils by supplying needed nutrients from
coal combustion by-products such as flyash and flue gas desulfurization
waste. These products are being applied as a part of a USFS biomass
mulching research program.
Question. In your view, is the research proposed by the Department
likely to result in economically feasible sequestration techniques at
any time in the foreseeable future?
Answer. Fossil Energy's sequestration research is targeted to
produce a suite of practical technologies for deployment in the 2015
timeframe, with significant expansion in scope and reduction in cost
for sequestration in the following decade. Our long-term goal for this
program is to create a portfolio of technologies which can sequester
hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases per year for under $10
per ton of carbon equivalent.
Question. Would these funds be more productively spent on some of
the other, ongoing research and development programs under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction that promise near or mid-term efficiency
improvements that will also help reduce carbon emissions?
Answer. It is not an ``either-or'' issue. While the Fossil Energy
strategy reflected in the budget does focus on key long term goals to
achieve critical public needs and benefits, it also addresses promising
near and mid-term opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce
emissions.
Fossil Energy believes that a balanced portfolio of options is
necessary to address the climate change issue. Fossil Energy has three
program elements which address climate change both over the short and
long term. These are increased efficiency of electric power generation,
carbon sequestration, and more efficient use and production of natural
gas. Development of higher efficiency power generation technologies
will reduce the amount of carbon produced per kilowatt hour generated.
Research to improve the nation's ability to supply, store, transport,
distribute and utilize natural gas in an economically efficient and
environmentally beneficial manner will reduce carbon emissions because
natural gas is the least carbon intensive fossil fuel. The purpose of
the Fossil Energy sequestration program is to develop and demonstrate
technically, economically, and ecologically sound methods to capture,
reuse and dispose of CO2, in the post-2015 time frame. The
Department believes that resources being requested to pursue improved
fossil energy technologies are appropriately balanced with resources
requested to pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies.
direct liquefaction
Question. The budget request contains funding for continued bench
scale research on liquefaction technology, but does not include funds
for deployment of a demonstration plant. What funding level would be
required in fiscal year 2000 to support deployment of a demonstration
plant?
Answer. On February 15, 1999, the Department solicited proposals to
perform a feasibility study, research and development and a preliminary
engineering design of an Early Entrance Coproduction Plant. Industry
would be responsible for the subsequent detailed design, construction
and operation of the plant in the 2004 to 2007 time period. The plant
must be designed to produce some combination of electricity (or heat),
fuels and chemicals through the gasification and indirect liquefaction
of coal, alone or in combination with other feedstocks such as wastes
and biomass. Since there is limited commercial interest in Direct
liquefaction, the technology is likely to be deployed a number of years
after the establishment of an indirect liquefaction industry. Thus, the
bench scale research is directed toward smaller-scale tests with longer
range perspective. If the Department were to conduct preliminary
activities for direct liquefaction technology, these activities would
include feasibility studies, supporting research and site specific
preliminary designs. These are activities that would create the data
base needed for U.S. industry to participate in international direct
liquefaction projects (for example, China).
Question. Is this something the Department considered during fiscal
year 2000 budget formulation?
Answer. The Department's current strategy is to conduct preliminary
activities for demonstration of an Early Entrance Coproduction Plant
which would utilize indirect liquefaction technology to produce ultra-
low emission transportation fuels, chemicals and electricity. The
commercial deployment of direct liquefaction technology in the United
States is likely to be a number of years later than indirect
liquefaction, thus the research on Direct Liquefaction is now focused
on smaller scale laboratory and bench-scale tests. The Department did
support bench scale and proof-of-concept activity with HTI to conduct a
feasibility study for a potential demonstration of direct liquefaction
technology in the Peoples Republic of China. No consideration was given
to a domestic direct liquefaction demonstration in the United States
since it is believed that the first liquids plants would be based on
gasification of carbonaceous feedstocks such as petcoke, wastes and
coal and, therefore, utilize the indirect conversion route to making
fuels and chemicals.
indirect liquefaction
Question. The request includes funds to continue feasibility study
and conceptual design for a pioneer Fischer-Tropsch plant in
conjunction with an industry consortium. How long does the Department
anticipate this study will take to complete?
Answer. On February 16, 1999, the Department issued a solicitation
for the Early Entrance Coproduction Plant. Proposals were due on April
30, 1999. The activities to be conducted within this procurement
include three phases: feasibility and market studies to address the
technical, economic, and environmental issues associated with the
proposed plant concept; supporting research; and a site specific
preliminary design. It is planned to fund at least three teams to
complete all three phases. Each team's schedule would depend on the
specific scope of work the team needs to perform prior to doing a
detailed plant design. However, it is estimated that to conduct these
three phases would require an average of four years to complete. It is
estimated that the first phase feasibility study will take 12 to 18
months to complete.
Question. Does the Department intend to move to a detailed design
and construction phase in this program?
Answer. On February 16, 1999, the Department issued a solicitation
for the Early Entrance Coproduction Plant. Proposals were due on April
30, 1999. The activities to be conducted within this procurement
include three phases: (1) feasibility and market studies to address the
technical, economic and environmental issues associated with the
proposed plant concept; (2) supporting research; and (3) a site
specific preliminary design. The Department has not committed to
funding the remaining phases that would encompass the detailed
engineering design, construction and operation of the plant. With the
information obtained in the first three phases, it is anticipated that
the industrial teams will be able to obtain private sector funding for
the detailed design and construction phase of the program. During the
initial phases, the teams may also identify innovative financing
strategies.
Question. If so, when will these stages likely be reached?
Answer. The objective of the three phase pre-detailed design
activities is to provide the technical, economic, and environmental
basis upon which the industrial teams will be able to secure private
sector funding. It is planned that their plants could be ready for
detailed design and construction as early as 2003.
Question. How much will construction of a pioneer plan likely cost?
Answer. The actual construction cost for an Early Entrance
Coproduction Plant cannot be accurately established until the three
preliminary design phases are conducted. The cost will also depend on
the degree of existing facilities that are available to the industrial
consortium. Preliminary economic analysis for ``generic'' Early
Entrance Coproduction Plants'' based on Gasification configurations for
a power plant and refinery locations provided ballpark estimates of $75
to $350 million depending upon the availability of existing facilities.
advanced research and environmental technology
Question. The request indicates that fuels research focus in this
program is shifting in part to hydrogen storage for fuel cell
applications. How will the work that would be supported by the Fossil
program relate to and be coordinated with the work being supported by
the Office of Transportation Technologies?
Answer. The part of the Fossil Energy program that is shifting to
hydrogen storage methods that may be applied to fuel cell applications
is twofold; chemical storage and physical storage. The chemical storage
work is the study of hydrogen release by the decomposition, under mild
conditions, of coal-derived, hydrogen-containing liquid fuels. The
physical storage work studies the storage of hydrogen in nano-
structured [structures on the molecular scale] carbons by a sorption
mechanism. Both would be applicable to fuel cell powered vehicles but
are also be useful in many other applications of interest to Fossil
Energy.
Generally, Fuels Advanced Research and Environmental Technology
(AR&ET) funds more exploratory work (for transfer to Fossil Energy line
programs when the technology is ready for further development). The
Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) has funded work of a more
mature nature. For example, OTT (co-funding with the Energy Efficiency/
Office of Power Technology H2 program) is working on carbon-
fiber-reinforced tanks for storage (Thiokol Corp) of either liquid or
pressurized gaseous hydrogen for use onboard a vehicle. The advantage
of carbon is its high strength-to-weight ratio as a fibrous material.
In this case, the carbon fiber is on a macro-scale, much like
fiberglass, and is a physical component of a lightweight, hydrogen
storage tank assembly suitable for vehicle use. The nano-structured
carbons of AR&ET interest, on the other hand, would be used as storage
vessel filler material that would hold the hydrogen as a sponge holds
water, releasing the hydrogen on mild heating or depressurization for
feeding into the fuel cell. These materials are not yet well understood
and are much further from being commercialized.
Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency/OTT are acutely aware of each
other's work and are careful about redundancy. Work done by Fossil
Energy that is applicable to OTT is well known to them; OTT/Office of
Advanced Automotive Technology is a partner in co-funding the work in
the chemical storage area. All three programs are coordinated through
periodic meetings and program reviews.
Question. The request indicates that the Department will continue
to work with the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
(CFFLS) in fiscal year 2000. What level of support does the Department
anticipate providing CFFLS in fiscal year 2000 from the AR&ET program?
From other departmental programs?
Answer. The Advanced Research & Environmental Technology budget
provides $300,000 for this activity in fiscal year 2000 at the
reference budget level. This is the same funding level provided from
this budget line in the current fiscal year (fiscal year 1999). In
addition to the $300,000 budgeted by the AR&ET program, the Indirect
Liquefaction and Gas-to-Liquids budgets will each contribute $50,000,
for a total of $400,000 from Fossil Energy programs. No additional
Departmental funding is provided for this activity.
Question. Mercury emissions remain a significant problem in the
utilization of coal. What progress has been made in recent years in
developing cost-effective mercury control technologies?
Answer. The Department has developed accurate methods to measure
specific forms of mercury in flue gases, investigated the
transformation of mercury in coal combustors, and evaluated numerous
sorbents for mercury control. Bench- and pilot-scale testing on
injection of activated carbon in conjunction with conventional
particulate control devices, novel particulate control techniques that
work in combination with existing particulate control equipment, and
concepts that convert elemental mercury in the flue gas to the oxidized
form are being developed. Significant mercury removals, up to 90
percent, are possible if most of the mercury is in the oxidized form
and the power plant is equipped with Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization.
Results from the pilot-scale tests have provided more definitive
mercury control cost data, which was incorporated into EPA's Mercury
Report to Congress. Because all of these concepts are at the pilot
stage, field testing experience would be needed before
commercialization and widespread application to the utility industry.
Question. What barriers remain to deployment of such technologies?
Answer. The most significant barrier to deployment is developing
mercury control technologies that have widespread applicability across
the utility industry. Coal, when combusted, produces several distinct
chemical forms of mercury, which require specific control strategies.
For example, subbituminous coals generate mostly elemental mercury
while combustion of bituminous and lignite coals result in varying
amounts of oxidized and elemental mercury. Control concepts that can
reduce emissions of elemental mercury are not effective in reducing
oxidized mercury. Because different control methods are required to
capture all forms of mercury in coal combustion flue gases,
considerable uncertainty exists over the costs of mercury control. More
research is also necessary to determine the stability of mercury in
solid or liquid byproducts from potential mercury control technologies
to ensure that the mercury is not reintroduced to the environment.
Question. What work is being done in this area in fiscal year 2000
and in what program elements?
Answer. The testing of promising mercury control concepts will be
completed in fiscal year 2000. The Department is planning to request
proposals to obtain field experience for promising mercury control
technologies in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. Projects
selected from this request would be implemented in fiscal year 2000.
The mercury control technology research and development activities are
conducted in the Air Toxics/Fine Particulates key activity in the
Advanced Research and Environmental program.
In addition, the Environmental programs at the FETC and at
headquarters are each contributing $50,000 to a multi-agency study of
mercury exposure and diet in the United States. The collaborative study
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug
Administration, to cost $825,000 over 3 years, is co-funded by EPA,
FDA, DOE, NOAA, DHHS, and NIEHS. It is scheduled to be completed in
2001.
low emission boiler system
Question. The reduction in the request for the LEBS program
reflects the fact that funds have already been appropriated for
construction of the proof-of-concept facility. What is the status of
the DB Riley team's effort to obtain the required cost sharing,
financing, and power sales agreements necessary to enable this project
to go forward?
Answer. As of mid-January 1999, $3 million of the $25 million full
Illinois cost-share has been appropriated. The State of Illinois
supports this project and has authorized $25.2 million in coal
development bonds for the project and is committed to providing the
remaining $22 million necessary to complete this project. The Governor
of Illinois included the $22 million in his budget for fiscal year
2000. The Illinois legislature will act on this budget which takes
effect July 1, 1999.
The participants have indicated that several conditional letter
agreements regarding the purchase of the full power output from the
Prairie Energy Project have been received. Prospective purchasers
include independent power producers and development arms of U.S. based
Fortune 500 electric utilities. The project team is currently
negotiating with prospective power purchasers, but is not able to
divulge any details due to the confidential nature of these
proceedings. The participants expect negotiations to be completed in
the April to May time frame, at which time the results will be made
public. The project requires private debt financing of $50 million. A
financial business plan was released to lenders in February 1999.
Responses from lenders are anticipated in time to have a loan
commitment by June 1999. Project financing is expected to be complete
by October 1999.
Question. If the project proceeds on the schedule currently
anticipated, does the Department anticipate obligating all of the $3
million included the budget request during fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes, the Department intends to obligate the $3 million in
the year 2000.
Question. For what specific purposes will these funds be used?
Answer. The funds will be use for Phase IV, the final portion of
the program, which includes detailed design, construction, and
operation of a proof-of-concept facility.
Question. Is the Department aware of the alternative proposal that
would site the proof-of-concept facility at the Savannah River site in
South Carolina?
Answer. Yes, the Savannah River site was offered as an alternate
site in the DB Riley proposal submitted at the end of Phase II and III.
Question. Has the Department evaluated this proposal in any detail?
Answer. Yes, the DB Riley proposal for Phase IV, which included the
Savannah River site as an alternate site, was evaluated in 1997. The
Elkhart, Illinois, site was selected on the merits of the proposal.
Question. If the Illinois site were not viable for some reason,
would the Savannah River site provide the type of operating information
required to validate the technology?
Answer. Because Phase IV is cost-shared between industry and
government, with industry bearing more than 50 percent of the total
project cost, to build at any site other than Elkhart, Illinois, is the
initiative of the DB Riley team, not the Department. Thus, the details
of constructing and operating a proof-of-concept facility at another
site would depend on what DB Riley proposes.
indirect fired cycle
Question. $1 million is requested for combustion and furnace module
development and systems design. How does this work relate to work
performed in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The High Performance Power Systems (HIPPS) program is being
restructured. Phase III, which originally was to construct and operate
a prototype HIPPS, has been eliminated. Those elements of HIPPS Phase
II that are appropriate to Vision 21 will continue. The combustion and
furnace module development and systems design are among those elements.
Question. Does this represent a new direction in research, or is
this simply an ongoing program element being displayed in a different
manner in the justification?
Answer. This is not a new direction in research since these
activities were included as part of the original Phase II program.
However, the focus of the HIPPS program is geared towards developing
modules that can eventually be used in Vision 21. Therefore, those
modules of HIPPS appropriate to Vision 21 will continue.
advanced research and environmental technologies
Question. Significant increases are requested for various
components of the AR&ET program. What additional work will the increase
requested for Fine Particulate Control enable the Department to do?
Answer. Additional work will be carried out in: the development of
cost-effective control technology for both primary fine particulate
emissions (for example, fly ash) and secondary fine particulate
precursor emissions (SO2 and NOX); the collection
and chemical analysis of ambient fine particulate matter; the
characterization of emissions from coal-based power systems; and the
assessment of source-receptor relationships.
Question. At what locations is the Department currently supporting
particulate monitoring stations?
Answer. The Department is currently supporting particulate
monitoring stations in the upper Ohio River valley (southwestern
Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, and northwestern West Virginia); in
Atlanta, Georgia; in Birmingham, Alabama; in the Big Bend National Park
in south central Texas; and in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park
in eastern Tennessee.
Question. How are decisions made regarding the location of
monitoring stations in this program?
Answer. Decisions regarding location of monitoring stations are
based on discussions with key public and private sector stakeholders
including USEPA, state and local agencies, and the electric utility
industry, to meet the Department's overall goal of better understanding
the relationship between coal-based power generation and ambient air
quality. Decisions on location of monitoring stations are also made
based on opportunities to leverage Department funding in ongoing
monitoring programs such as those in Atlanta, Birmingham, the Great
Smoky Mountain National Park, and Big Bend National Park, that are also
designed to provide a better understanding of the potential
contributions from coal combustion to ambient particulate matter and
regional haze.
Question. How is this work coordinated with other federal and state
agencies doing similar monitoring work?
Answer. The Department works closely with USEPA and state agencies
to ensure that its monitoring activities are well coordinated. The
USEPA serves on the Department's technical advisory committee for the
monitoring program in the upper Ohio River valley region. DOE and EPA
also participate together in NARSTO and on the federal Air Quality
Research Subcommittee. The Department talks with USEPA on a regular
basis on fine particulate monitoring issues. In addition, DOE has
established memorandums of agreement with the states of Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and West Virginia and with the Allegheny County (PA) Health
Department related to collaboration on fine particulate monitoring in
the tri-state region, and is also coordinating with the mid-Atlantic
region Air Management Association, which represents air quality
managers from several mid-Atlantic states.
Question. How long do the Department and its partners plan on
operating these stations?
Answer. The Department anticipates collaborating with its partners
on particulate monitoring in parallel with the current fine particulate
National Ambient Air Quality Standards implementation schedule, which
calls for the collection and analysis of ambient fine particulates
through 2005.
Question. What is the status of funds appropriated in fiscal year
1999 for Greenhouse Gas Control?
Answer. The funds are being used to support research efforts under
two programs related to greenhouse gas control under the Fossil Energy
portion of the Climate Change technology Initiative: advanced, clean,
efficient power generation technologies; and carbon sequestration
research. The Fossil Energy budget for the Climate Change Technology
Initiative in fiscal year 1999 is $24 million.
Question. Please provide for the record examples of the types of
research that has been funded thus far in this program element.
Answer. Examples of the type of research funded so far include the
following:
--$18 million in fiscal year 1999 to initiate research to double the
efficiency of coal powerplants and virtually eliminate all
emissions, including carbon emissions with sequestration.
--$6 million in fiscal year 1999 for carbon sequestration research
and development. The carbon sequestration work includes
technologies to capture and separate carbon dioxide from fuel
gas or flue gas, as well as technologies to dispose of the
captured carbon dioxide through various approaches, including
depleted oil and gas reservoirs, underground saline aquifers,
and unmineable coal seams.
Although not in the CCTI budget, Fossil Energy also has programs to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the nation's ability to
supply, store, transport, distribute and utilize natural gas in an
economically efficient and environmentally beneficial manner. Natural
gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of useful energy than any other
fossil fuel.
Question. Will the increase in this program be used for additional
solicitations, follow-on work on proposals already selected, in-house
research, or all of the above?
Answer. The increased funding for the program will be used for all
of the above. At previous levels of funding for sequestration (below $2
million per year), the research program was limited to paper studies
and highly leveraged Fossil Energy contributions to research conducted
by other organizations. At fiscal year 1999 and 2000 funding levels it
is possible to take the better concepts emerging from our earlier
research and conduct small scale field tests and experiments.
advanced research and technology development
Question. How does the CO2 sequestration work being done
in the Coal Utilization Science program differ from the sequestration
work being supported from the Advanced Research and Environmental
Technology, Greenhouse Control program?
Answer. The sequestration work being done in the Coal Utilization
Science program has broad crosscutting application and supports all of
the Fossil Energy Coal and Power Systems programs, including the
Advanced Research and Environmental Technology program, which focuses
on more applied areas of sequestration research such as sequestration
in coal seams and depleted oil and gas reservoirs.
Question. Does the Department work with other federal agencies and
programs (such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
in the Bioprocessing program?
Answer. The Department works with other agencies and programs to
coordinate its Bioprocessing program; specifically, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers, and several state agencies.
Question. Is there a working group or council that coordinates
federal research in this area?
Answer. Within the Department of Energy, there is a Bio Energy
Coordinating Committee that Coordinates research in the biotechnology
area. The Committee consists of representatives from the Offices of
Science, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and
Environmental Management. In addition, within AR&TD there are working
groups formed within FETC specifically to coordinate and direct this
research.
Question. Can you provide for the record some recent examples of
research supported by the University Coal Research program that has
proven useful to or incorporated into the principal programs of the
Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development?
Answer. Research supported by the University Coal Research program
supports all of the principal programs in the Office of Fossil Energy's
Research and Development portfolio. This is accomplished by the active
involvement of FE headquarters and field staff to identify and develop
the highest priority research topics to be sponsored under an annual
grant solicitation to U.S. universities. These research grants have
resulted in significant accomplishments. An example of one of the most
recent is highlighted below.
One of the grants that was awarded in 1996 was to the University of
Arkansas to investigate the fundamental problems related to the
electrostatic beneficiation of coal for cost effective sulfur
reduction. The results from this project led to the development of a
new laser based instrument called an Electrostatic Spray Dynamics
Analyzer (ESDA). It was designed to provide clean coal, by
electrostatically separating the mineral matter from coal in an
environmentally safe and economic manner. The instrument measures, in
real time, the magnitude and polarity of electrostatic charge
distributions on individual particles in air. No such instrument is
commercially available and the technological development of this
project, therefore plays a unique role in applications where
electrostatic properties of particles are employed. These applications
include spin-off benefits in the areas of powder coating,
electrophotography (used in copying machines and laser printers) as
well as in electrostatic beneficiation of coals and minerals.
Question. Can you provide for the record some recent examples of
research supported by the University Coal Research program that has
proven useful to, or incorporated into, the principal programs of the
Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development? The HBCU program?
Answer. Generally, this program's focus is not on technology
applications but rather on support of basic research that is
appropriate for masters theses and doctoral dissertations. However,
there are several notable and promising research projects that have or
promise to move into further research programs at DOE and industry. Two
recent examples include the following:
--A project at Hampton University titled ``Attrition-Resistant Iron-
Based Fischer Tropsch Catalysts'' is being conducted together
with the University of Pittsburgh and an industry partner. They
have developed, and are seeking to patent, a highly successful
new catalyst formulation. This is a candidate project to be
incorporated into Fossil Energy's Liquefaction program, should
funds be available.
--A North Carolina A&T University presentation at the recent (March
1999) HBCU Symposium in Miami, Florida, entitled
``Dehydrogenation of Cyclohexane in a Palladium-Ceramic
Membrane Reactor by Equilibrium Shift,'' produced exciting
results for selective production and removal of H2
for which patents have been applied. This is an extremely
important area of research for the Office of Fossil Energy
since H2 separation is an important enabling
technology for Fossil Energy's Vision 21 concept.
Question. What about technologies stemming from this program that
have been incorporated into actual products currently in the
marketplace?
Answer. Though the topics addressed in the annual solicitation for
the HBCU/OMI program are those that are deemed of specific interest in
helping the Office of Fossil Energy achieve their research objectives,
grant awards do not specifically target technology commercialization or
market entry activities. Instead they support basic research that is
appropriate for Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations.
Question. Information provided by the Department indicates that a
portion of Coal Technology Export funds are allocated to non-DOE
entities such as the Southern States Energy Board, the National
Association of State Energy Officials, and the United States Energy
Association. Are these allocations for specific cooperative agreements?
Dues?
Answer. All are for cooperative agreements.
Question. How did these particular entities come to receive these
funds?
Answer. They were previously conducting programs funded by states
and the private sector, which were focused on goals and objectives
shared by DOE. The Department plans to provide an estimated $325,000 to
Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) in fiscal year 1999. SSEB is in the
unique position of being organized specifically to work with the
legislative industrial and social leaders of the south eastern states
which represent a major coal producing region. Consequently, they have
the capability to introduce DOE to key issues, opportunities and
contacts that have a direct impact on efforts to promote the use of
coal and coal technology in other countries.
The Department plans to provide $54,150 to the National Association
of State Energy Officials (NASEO) to promote peer exchange between U.S.
and foreign government policy makers relating to information on Coal
and Power Systems export. NASEO has an existing International PEER
exchange program in place to facilitate these efforts and, therefore,
is uniquely qualified to help leverage DOE's program.
In addition, the Department plans to provided $250,000 to continue
its cooperative efforts with the United States Energy Association
(USEA) to promote coordination between the World Energy Conference and
the International Energy Agency related to improved environmental and
efficient energy use in China and the Pacific Rim. The USEA has an
extensive network of cooperative programs with both government and non-
government organization including the China Utility Partnership
Program, which provide unique capabilities for disseminating
information and leveraging resources.
Question. Is allocation of these funds reevaluated on an annual
basis?
Answer. Yes, as a requirement of cooperative agreements, an annual
evaluation of activities is conducted during the year by DOE.
great plains gasification plant
Question. Last week you announced an agreement under which the
Department would facilitate the construction of a carbon dioxide
pipeline from the Great Plains Gasification Facility in North Dakota to
oil fields in Canada. This pipeline would allow the Great Plains
facility to sell the carbon dioxide that it produces and use the
revenues from those sales to keep the facility operational. What is the
value of the tax credits being used to finance this venture?
Answer. Dakota Gasification Company has the right to claim
production tax credits generated by operation of the Great Plains
project during the period January 1, 1999, through January 1, 2002, in
an amount not to exceed $270 million. However, Dakota Gasification
Company may only retain net proceeds (gross proceeds from the sale of
the credits less applicable income taxes paid by Dakota Gasification
Company) in an amount equal to 90 percent of the capitalized cost of
the carbon dioxide pipeline project and 100 percent of the capitalized
cost to improve the plant's environmental performance. Current
projections of these costs total $140 million. All net proceeds
generated in excess of this amount will be returned to the government.
Question. Why did the Dakota Gasification Company waive its right
to claim Section 29 tax credits when it purchased the gasification
plant in 1988?
Answer. Dakota Gasification Company waived its right to claim
Section 29 tax credit credits as an element to enhance its offer to
purchase the gasification plant in 1988. The other finalists in the
bidding process offered a partial waiver of the Section 29 tax credits.
Question. Did the waiver of the Section 29 tax credits affect the
sale price of the facility?
Answer. The offers to purchase the Great Plains facility had
several different components which included cash payments, revenue
sharing, full or partial waivers of Section 29 tax credits, and
commitments to continued operation. All finalists offered at least a
partial waiver of the Section 29 tax credits.
Question. What justification exists to essentially reverse this
waiver?
Answer. Substantive potential for plant closure existed in 1998.
Lower than expected gas and commodity prices jeopardized the prospects
for long term operation and the return of DOE trust funds as well as
scheduled settlement payments to DOE. The DOE agreed to make a
``limited release'' of the Section 29 tax credit waiver in order to
provide the necessary capital to construct a project to compress and
transport carbon dioxide to be used in tertiary recovery of oil and to
make additional environmental improvements to the Great Plains Synfuels
Plant. These projects significantly enhance the prospects for long term
operation of the Great Plains facility while protecting the
Government's investment and scheduled payments.
Question. What arrangements exist to guarantee that the value of
the tax credits used to finance the pipeline will be repaid?
Answer. Under the terms of the third amendment to the Asset
Purchase Agreement, Dakota Gasification Company has an obligation to
make fixed payments totaling $3.3 million annually. In addition,
effective January 1, 2002, Dakota Gasification Company is obligated to
pay a variable payment calculated using an applicable percentage of
positive cash flows.
Question. Will the CO2 purchaser have a binding legal
obligation to make the $3.3 million annual payments?
Answer. PanCanadian, the CO2 purchaser, has an
obligation to pay Dakota Gasification Company a monthly demand charge.
Within 10 days of receipt of the monthly demand payments Dakota
Gasification Company has a binding legal obligation with DOE to make
the $3.3 million annual payment in monthly installments under the terms
of the Third Amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement.
Question. Is there any financial risk to this portion of the deal
based on possible changes in oil markets, etc.?
Answer. The CO2 agreement is structured as a long-term
take-or-pay contract with fixed demand payments as well as levels of
production. Substantial costs are required to terminate the agreement.
Question. Will the CO2 demand charges and any positive
cash flow to Dakota Gasification be deposited in the Treasury, or will
they be available to the Department of Energy?
Answer. As with previous receipts (revenue sharing, interest on
trust accounts, return of principal from trust account funds, and
settlement payments) the CO2 demand charges and any payments
to the Department of Energy of applicable percentage of positive cash
flows will be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts and
not be available to the Department.
Question. If no private entity is willing to finance construction
of the CO2 pipeline, why is the Department of Energy
fulfilling this role?
Answer. The prospects for continued operation of the Great Plains
facility and return of DOE trust funds and scheduled payments to DOE
were in jeopardy. A restructured and amended agreement established a
unique funding plan. DOE agreed to let Dakota Gasification Company use
the previously waived Section 29 tax credits but required that the
proceeds only be used to finance the CO2 project and to fund
the additional environmental improvements necessary to resolve the
environmental issues at the plant. These modifications are subject to a
repayment mechanism that returns the money lost to the U.S. Treasury
back to the federal government.
Question. Is construction and operation of the pipeline expected to
produce any information of scientific value?
Answer. The construction and operation of the pipeline for use in
enhanced oil recovery significantly enhances the prospects for
continued operation of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. The pipeline
also develops the capacity for additional enhanced oil recovery
projects in western North Dakota and Montana. The limited release of
the section 29 tax credit waiver also provides the funding for
additional environmental improvements including the installation of a
wet electrostatic precipitator to resolve pending environmental issues
and improvements to a first of kind commercial application of an
ammonia based scrubbing system.
Question. How specifically does DOE's participation in this project
relate to the Department's goal and objectives under the Government
Performance and Results Act?
Answer. DOE's participation in this project is consistent with
DOE's strategic goal to promote secure, competitive, and
environmentally responsible energy systems that serve the needs of the
public. Specific objectives within this goal include reducing the
vulnerability of the U.S. economy to disruptions in energy supplies;
increasing the efficiency and productivity of energy use, while
limiting environmental impacts; and carrying out information
collection, analysis, and research that will facilitate development of
informed positions on long term energy supply and use of alternatives.
The objectives of the DOE strategic plan are used for reporting results
under the Government Performance and Results Act.
natural gas research
Question. The budget request includes $1.985 million for methane
hydrates research. How will these funds be administered?
Answer. The methane hydrates program will be administered through
the Office of Fossil Energy (FE). The Office will coordinate its
activities with the hydrates research and development work of other
government groups, including the U.S. Geological Survey, Naval Research
Lab, Minerals Management Service, National Science Foundation, and
Ocean Drilling Program. In addition, a Management Steering Committee
(MSC) will be formed, comprising government and private organizations
that finance methane hydrates research and/or will use the products of
the program. The MSC will ensure that work under the methane hydrates
program will complement other work conducted by federal, state, and
commercial organizations and coordinate with International groups
conducting hydrates research and development.
Question. Will the funds be used for in-house work, research
contracts with other entities, or other types of activities?
Answer. Funding recipients have not yet been determined but will
almost certainly include industrial partners; other Government
organizations (such as the Naval Research Lab, U.S. Geological Survey,
the Ocean Drilling Program, National Science Foundation, and Minerals
Management Service); national laboratories; academia and oceanographic
institutions, including university consortia and the Federal Energy
Technology Center; and Rocky Mountain Oilfield Test Center. This is
consistent with the draft Methane Hydrates Research and Development Act
of 1999, which encourages ``partnerships among government, industry and
institutions of higher learning.''
Few, if any, competitive procurements would be possible at the $2
million funding level, but at higher funding levels anticipated as the
program matures, open solicitations would be added to the procurement
mechanisms used to implement the program.
Question. Given the current state of knowledge regarding methane
hydrates, could the Department effectively spend more money for
research in this area if funds were available? If so, how much?
Answer. Yes, the Department could effectively spend more on methane
hydrates research in fiscal year 2000. The Department considers the
fiscal year 2000 Congressional budget request of $1.985 million to be
the appropriate level of funding. Any proposed funding addition will
have to be offset by funding reduction elsewhere to maintain the
discretionary budget cap imposed by the BEA of 1990.
Question. How would these additional funds be used?
Answer. While specific procurement plans will not be finalized
until appropriations have been approved by Congress, the Department
anticipates that program activities could include the following work,
depending on the funding level. Most of the funding would be used to
leverage existing methane hydrates expertise at DOE and other
government agencies. No competitive solicitations are planned. At the
proposed $2 million funding level the program would:
--Initiate databases of hydrate locations and research results,
--Collect samples and conduct geologic/geophysical studies to define
the location and quantities of naturally occurring hydrates,
--Conduct laboratory and modeling studies of hydrate dissociation,
--Initiate preliminary seismic evaluation of subsea hydrate structure
and strength, and
--Monitor subsea hydrate sites.
At a $10 million funding level, for example the program could also:
--Conduct laboratory studies of the geologic, geochemical,
thermodynamic, and acoustic properties of hydrates;
--Correlate field samples with geologic, geophysical, and geochemical
data;
--Develop predictive models of hydrate formation and dissociation;
--Site selection and test design for onshore production test;
--Develop preliminary production process models;
--Monitor dispersed hydrate sites and the geologic record relative to
methane release; and
--Assess methane hydrate storage options.
At the higher funding level, the program would issue competitive
solicitations for work by academia, national labs and industry.
Multiple approaches would be pursued and varied sites would be studied.
Question. Funds are requested in the turbine program for
investigation of mid-size turbine configurations for use in ``Vision 21
powerplex applications.'' Does the incorporation of turbines into a
Vision 21-type power system present large technological hurdles that
will require significant additional research, or can the use of
turbines in this fashion be accomplished with relatively little
reconfiguration?
Answer. Many of the Vision 21 configurations will present large
technological hurdles for gas turbine integration. For example, current
ATS turbines have been developed for operation with natural gas. Vision
21 systems are intended to be fuel flexible--capable of using coal,
gas, biomass in combination with other fuels. Further development is
needed to make advanced turbines compatible with these fuels. Another
example of a major turbine integration challenge would be associated
with Vision 21 systems employing fuel cells in a hybrid fashion, which
constrains operating temperatures, pressures, and mass flows.
Integrating these hybrid systems with a gasifier will be especially
challenging.
To meet the aggressive goals set for Vision 21 systems, significant
effort will be required in both integration and controls as well as in
improvements in gas turbine performance. Under the proposed Next-
Generation Gas Turbine Systems program, enabling technologies and
products will be developed to support the Vision 21 program. As clear
goals and objectives emerge from the Vision 21 program, turbine-based
concepts will be defined that can be integrated into Vision 21 plants.
Currently, Vision 21 gas turbine based modules are conceptualized as
High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) and are expected to include
evaluation of ultra-high efficiency systems such as reheat,
recouperative cycles, hydrogen turbine systems, and intercooled
advanced cycle systems, adaptation of improvements made for natural-
gas-fueled turbines to coal fuels or other opportunistic fuels, and
development of ultra- high efficiency power modules using novel or
innovative concepts for combustion or steam power conversion devices.
Question. Is this likely to be an area requiring significant
additional resources in future years, or can the adaptation of turbines
for this purpose be accomplished with relatively little DOE support?
Answer. Though there are near-term market spinoffs expected from
the turbine portion of the Vision 21 program (referred to as High
Efficiency Engines and Turbines or HEET), industry will not be able to
the support this longer-term research and development effort on their
own. In addition, market restructuring has all but eliminated public
utility research and development efforts related to power generation
equipment. Government/industry partnerships are needed to induce
manufacturers to invest in technically risky, longer term, research and
development efforts.
Question. The request includes $32.59 million for the Advanced
Turbine Systems program, a decrease of roughly $3 million from fiscal
year 1999. Assuming Congress provides the requested amount in fiscal
year 2000, what will likely be the level of the Department's fiscal
year 2001 budget request for this program?
Answer. The Department is currently developing its budget proposal
for fiscal year 2001. It depends on Congressional Appropriations as
well as other factors. Thus it is almost impossible to speculate on
fiscal year 2001 funding levels for a program of this magnitude at this
time.
Question. In fiscal year 2002? Do we know yet whether the ATS
technology developed in this program will actually meet or exceed the
goals established at the outset of the program?
Answer. Both Siemens-Westinghouse and General Electric expect to
meet the goals set forth in the ATS program. Test results, to date,
indicate that they are on track. It is expected that the full-speed,
no-load tests and full-scale ATS demonstrations (not being fund by DOE)
will confirm that the ATS program goals have been met. By fiscal year
2002, we expect that the utility scale testing will have been completed
successfully, while the base technology program will continue to
support improvements on turbine blades, address fuel flexibility, with
a transition to intermediate scale turbine development.
Question. The amount requested for the Gas-to-Liquids program
represents a decrease of $1.5 million from the fiscal year 1999 level.
Is the amount requested sufficient to maintain work on the ITM SynGas
program in fiscal year 2000 at the level contemplated in the original
work plan?
Answer. No, higher levels of funding were estimated in the original
work plan.
Question. If not, how much additional funding would be required to
do so?
Answer. The Department considers the fiscal year 2000 budget
request to be the appropriate level of funding. The fiscal year 2000
budget currently includes $5.1 million to complete Phase I project
activities that entail selecting a single membrane material composition
and developing necessary ceramic-to-metal sealing technology. Phase I
is scheduled to end during the first quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Additional funds of about $1.5 million would be required to initiate
Phase II; DOE does not propose to initiate Phase II in fiscal year
2000.
Question. What additional work, if any, could be accomplished in
fiscal year 2000 if additional funds were provided?
Answer. If additional funds are provided in fiscal year 2000, we
would put additional funds on the Ionic Transport Membrane (ITM)
contract. The ITM project is a three phase, $86 million, 8-year,
competitively-selected effort directed to the development and
demonstration of selected ceramic membrane(s) to separate oxygen from
air and enable the precise partial oxidation of natural gas within a
single reactor to make a ``synthetic gas'' (syngas), which then can be
converted to a liquid in a second reactor.
Air Products and Chemical, Inc. (APCI), the prime contractor for
the effort, and DOE believe that the present Phase I deadline for
completion of March 30, 2000 will be met. APCI hopes to more quickly
move into Phase II work (assuming a go-ahead decision by DOE in late
1999) with the goal of completing the initial, two major ITM-Syngas
process tests in less time than the present 3\1/2\ year schedule.
Question. Does the request include any funding in support of the
alternative gas-to-liquids technology being developed by a university
team led by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks?
Answer. No funding has been requested in the fiscal year 2000
budget for this work because it will be fully funded with fiscal year
1998 and 1999 appropriations.
Question. What is the status of funds appropriated to date for this
project?
Answer. On April 16, 1999, DOE announced the award of a 2-year,
$3.1 million university effort in support of BP Amoco's alternative
approach to one-step oxygen separation and methane partial oxidation.
DOE will provide $2.5 million to the University of Alaska-Fairbanks for
the project. The project will also receive $625,000 in private sector
cost-sharing. Joining the University of Alaska will be the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Houston, the
University of Illinois-Chicago, and the University of Missouri-Rolla.
This project will be fully funded with fiscal year 1998 and 1999
appropriations.
Question. The request for the coal mine methane program is level
with fiscal year 1999. What is the current status of this program?
Answer. The program is in Phase II which is the design phase of the
field demonstration of technologies for capturing and using emissions
from coal mining operations.
Question. Has there been a downselection of demonstration proposals
developed in this program?
Answer. No, downselection has not yet taken place.
Question. If not, when will this selection be made?
Answer. Downselection for the field demonstration projects will
begin in late summer of 1999.
Question. How many projects is the Department likely to continue
supporting?
Answer. The Department plans to choose two projects for field
demonstration.
Question. Assuming the amount requested in fiscal year 2000 is
provided, what will be accomplished in this program in fiscal year
2000?
Answer. The program funding for fiscal year 2000 will allow for the
initial implementation phase of the field demonstrations.
Question. What is the estimated funding profile for the remainder
of the program?
Answer. There will be 50-percent industry cost-sharing with the
field demonstrations. The estimated funding profile for the remainder
of the program will be as follows:
Fiscal year Amount
2000.......................................................... $500,000
2001.......................................................... 1,000,000
2002.......................................................... 1,000,000
2003.......................................................... 1,000,000
Question. The request proposes a 75-percent increase in Outreach
and Technology Transfer within Natural Gas Research, but does not
explain what the increase will accomplish. Why is this increase
requested?
Answer. This modest increase of $187,000 would be used to provide
independent natural gas producers with better information on current
and upcoming environmental regulatory issues that affect their
operations and potentially increase their costs. This outreach will
include information on compliance, reporting, and permitting
requirements and will provide training for operators on least-cost,
environmentally protective methods of compliance. Surveys of operators
have identified the need for better environmental regulatory and
compliance information as a top priority need of independent producers.
It is anticipated that the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council and
possibly others would implement this environmental outreach effort.
fuel cells
Question. The request includes $30 million for continued work on
two molten carbonate fuel cell systems and one tubular solid oxide fuel
cell system. Assuming the budget request is provided, what will MC
Power and ERC accomplish in fiscal year 2000 in their molten carbonate
development programs?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the budget request for Fuel Cells is
$37,649,000 for the continuation of the three major development
efforts, plus an additional $4,950,000 is requested in the High
Efficiency Integrated Gasification/Combined Cycle program for the
development of advanced fuel cell systems for Vision 21 gasification/
combustion applications.
Siemens Westinghouse will test a 250-kilowatt fuel cell turbine
hybrid system at the National Fuel Cell Research Center in California.
Siemens Westinghouse will also be involved in development of advanced
fuel cell systems for Vision 21 gasification/combustion applications.
ERC plans to complete a 250-kilowatt tall stack test in the grid
connected mode of operation at ERC's 400-kilowatt test facility, and
also plans to complete a 2500-kilowatt power plant demonstration at a
U.S. site. The results of the demonstration will provide the basis for
a commercial design for a plant in the 250-kilowatt to 3-megawatt size
range.
MC Power plans to complete a 250-kilowatt endurance stack test to
validate the lifetime and performance of stack components that will
provide the basis of a total plant systems demonstration on the 250- to
500-kilowatt size.
Question. What work will likely be done in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. ERC plans to complete the commercial design for a plant in
the 250-kilowatt to 3-megawatt size range, and plans to conduct a
megawatt scale power plant test to validate its commercial design. MC
Power plans to initiate a 250- to 500-kilowatt plant system
demonstration to validate its commercial design.
Question. How much has the Department spent thus far on molten
carbonate fuel cell development?
Answer. The Department has provided approximately $364.1 million to
molten carbonate fuel cell developers through 1998 and expects to
provide an additional $26.3 million in the current fiscal year.
Question. What is the Department's estimate of when these
technologies will be ready for market entry?
Answer. Commercial entry could occur in the 2003 to 2004 time
frame, following pre-commercial demonstrations and the completion of
the current projects.
Question. When does the Department expect to cease supporting these
two development contracts?
Answer. The current contracts are scheduled to end in 2002-2003. As
with many new technologies, the first generation of commercial fuel
cells (phosphoric acid fuel cells) have encountered significant hurdles
competing with low cost, albeit less environmentally pristine,
conventional technology. However, market studies have indicated that
even with the high initial costs, there are distributed generation
markets for these fuel cells, particularly in applications where
premium power (high quality and reliability) is in demand. The next
generation (molten carbonate and solid oxide) fuel cells ought to be
more economically attractive, but significant cost reduction will be
needed to enable the capture of major market shares. DOE is currently
assessing the need for an advanced program focused on major reductions
in cost for fuel cell and balance of plant components.
Question. Does the Department intend to downselect to one molten
carbonate contractor during fiscal year 1999 or 2000? If not, why not?
If so, when?
Answer. A decision to downselect to one molten carbonate contractor
has not been made, but that option will be considered in the course of
a periodic process for evaluating the progress of each of the fuel cell
developers and their ability to provide their cost share. DOE will
initiate such a review at the end of May 1999, and a determination
concerning downselection will occur at that time.
Question. What would likely become of the technology and data
developed with DOE support under the terminated contract?
Answer. The outcome depends on specific contract provisions,
whether the contractor is a small business or a large business, and the
value of the technology and data. By statute, small businesses get an
automatic right to retain title to their inventions and there is no
specific requirement to obtain DOE's approval to transfer those rights
to another entity, including a foreign entity. However, the entity
receiving those rights can only exercise them subject to statutory
requirements that apply to small businesses, including a requirement
that products for use or sale in the United States must be
substantially manufactured in the United States. No such requirement
applies for use or sale outside the United States.
Large businesses must obtain a waiver of patent rights from DOE in
order to retain rights to inventions made with Government funding (that
is, subject inventions). Advanced waiver clauses require DOE approval
before transferring patent rights to a foreign company. The large
business and any entity to which it would transfer patent rights must
substantially manufacture in the United States and products for use or
sale in the United States. Violation of this requirement subjects the
contractor to repay all funds provided by DOE and either license
subject inventions to a third party U.S.-owned entity who agrees to
commercialize the technology or return title to subject inventions to
DOE. There are additional requirements to license background patents
necessary to practice the technology to the third parties.
The fuel cell awards also have adequate recognition provisions
requiring DOE approval of any contract, license, or other agreement
that transfers fuel cell technology developed at least, in part, with
government funding to a foreign entity. However, it is not known
whether adequate recognition provisions are enforceable against a small
business because there is no such restriction in the statute that gives
small businesses title to their inventions.
The contractor can use the data developed under the government
award for its private purposes as long as its reporting requirements to
the government have been met. These fuel cell contractors have the
ability to withhold certain information from public disclosure for up
to 5 years under the Energy Policy Act. However, there is nothing to
prevent the contractor from transferring such data under confidential
arrangements to a foreign entity. The only contractual restrictions on
the contractor's private use of the data are related to patent and
security issues, and these restrictions are not likely to impede the
flow of data to a foreign entity.
The current value of the technology would be a factor in
determining whether the contractor would attempt to sell the technology
and data, and what options DOE might choose to exercise to prevent a
significant loss of the U.S. taxpayer's investments and loss of the
technology.
Question. Have the three principal contractors in the fuel cell
program each lived up to the cost sharing requirements of their
individual research agreements?
Answer. Yes, the principal contractors have lived up to the cost
sharing requirements. Earlier in this fiscal year, MC Power began to
fall behind in meeting their cost-share requirements. DOE slowed the
obligation of funding until the delinquency was corrected. MC Power is
currently meeting the cost-share requirements.
Question. Is the Department confident these cost sharing
requirements will be met in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes, at this time we are confident.
Question. Has the Department yet made a decision whether to proceed
to Budget Period 4 of the research program with MC Power? If not, when
will this decision be made? Is so, what is the decision and the nature
of the arrangement for Budget Period 4?
Answer. No, the Department has funded the cost overrun in Budget
Period 3. Depending on the progress made in Budget Period 3, a decision
will be made whether or not to fund Budget Period 4. This decision will
be made by late spring of 1999.
Question. How has the Department acted to protect the federal
investment in the fuel cell program as a result of the Siemens-
Westinghouse merger?
Answer. Siemens-Westinghouse has agreed to a provision to ensure
the United States obtains Adequate Recognition. A specific contractual
clause requires the substantial manufacture of technology first
developed under DOE's program in the United States and provides for
verification. In the event that Siemens-Westinghouse does not
substantially manufacture in the United States, Siemens-Westinghouse
must repay the U.S. government all monies, with appropriate interest,
granted to them.
oil technology
Question. The 1998 Strategic Plan for the Office of Fossil Energy
sets a goal of stopping the decline in domestic oil production by 2005,
and increasing production by 500,000 barrels per day by 2010. Is it
possible to achieve this goal if oil prices remain as low as they are
currently?
Answer. No, if oil prices remain below about $14 per barrel, we
believe that it will not be possible to arrest the decline in domestic
oil production by 2005, and to increase the production by 500,000
barrels per day by 2010. The sharp decline in oil prices caused DOE
concern about achieving the stated goal. Therefore, we have initiated
the Preferred Petroleum Upstream Management Practices (PUMP) program,
starting with $500,000 requested in fiscal year 2000.
The original PUMP program was designed to supplement existing DOE
mid- and long-term research and development through the involvement of
the nation's oil technology experts in industry, government, and
academia. The program would focus on integrated and expedited
application of advanced technologies through field demonstrations, best
practices, and resolution of environmental and regulatory constraints.
Strategies are threefold: use known technology mechanisms; regional
approaches; and integrated solutions to technology, regulatory and data
constraints.
Question. Is the additional production needed to achieve this goal
likely to come predominantly from enhancements to existing wells and
fields, or from development of new fields?
Answer. The additional production needed to achieve this goal would
come mostly from enhancements to existing wells and fields (about 75
percent of total), and also from the development of new fields and
field extensions (about 25 percent of total). Additional oil production
from enhancements to existing wells and fields will result from
improved oil recovery technologies, and field demonstration of
technologies, such as the Reservoir Class program. Additional
production from new fields will result from research on sophisticated
computational techniques needed for much more accurate reservoir
characterization and interpretation of seismic data, such as subsalt
imaging in the Gulf of Mexico.
Question. Oil development on the North Slope presents a number of
challenges. What work is being done in the Oil Technology program that
would lower the cost of recovering heavy oil in locations such as the
North Slope?
Answer. The currently ongoing research that directly relates to the
recovery of heavy oil and that has potential for lowering the cost of
recovering heavy oil in locations such as the North Slope are as
follows:
--Modification of Chemical and Physical Factors in Steam Floods to
Increase Heavy Oil Recovery (University of Southern California)
--Quantitative Methods for Reservoir Characterization and Improved
Recovery: Application to Heavy Oil Sands/Fundamental Geoscience
Awards (Clemson University)
--North slope Heavy Oil Recovery (CRADA with BP Exploration, Inc.,
BDM International)
--Heavy Oil Recovery Mechanisms (Stanford University, ARCO, Chevron,
Texaco, INTEVEP, Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Elf)
--Transport and Phase Equilibria Properties for Steam Flooding of
Heavy Oils (Prairie View University HBCU grant)
--Reactivation of an Idle Lease to Increase Heavy oil Recovery
through Application of Conventional Steam Drive Technology,
Reservoir Class III (University of Utah, ARCO Western, Utah
Geological Survey)
--Increasing Heavy Oil Reserves in the Wilmington Oil Field through
Advanced Reservoir Characterization and Thermal Production
Technologies, (Reservoir Class III)
--Removal of Heteroatoms and Metals from Heavy Oils by Bioconversion
Processes (Texaco, Exxon, Unocal, Energy Biosystems, Baker
Chemicals, Chevron)
--Fundamental Chemistry of Heavy Oil Thermodynamics (Oak Ridge
National Laboratory)
Past research that directly relates to heavy oil recovery in areas
such as Alaska, includes the development and demonstration of double
insulated tubing for steam injection and a downhole steam generator.
Both are important in areas where permafrost is encountered and both
were commercialized, but not widely used due to low oil prices.
Question. In what program elements is this work being performed and
with what research partners?
Answer. Projects 1 through 5 below are performed under the
Exploration and Production Supporting Research; projects 6 and 7 are
performed under the Recovery Field Demonstration, and; projects 8 and 9
are performed under Effective Environmental Protection.
--Modification of Chemical and Physical Factors in Steam Floods to
Increase Heavy Oil Recovery (University of Southern California)
--Quantitative Methods for Reservoir Characterization and Improved
Recovery: Application to Heavy Oil Sands/Fundamental Geoscience
Awards (Clemson University)
--North slope Heavy Oil Recovery (CRADA with BP Exploration, Inc.,
BDM International)
--Heavy Oil Recovery Mechanisms (Stanford University, ARCO, Chevron,
Texaco, INTEVEP, Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Elf)
--Transport and Phase Equilibria Properties for Steam Flooding of
Heavy Oils (Prairie View University HBCU grant)
--Reactivation of an Idle Lease to Increase Heavy oil Recovery
through Application of Conventional Steam Drive Technology,
Reservoir Class III (University of Utah, ARCO Western, Utah
Geological Survey)
--Increasing Heavy Oil Reserves in the Wilmington Oil Field through
Advanced Reservoir Characterization and Thermal Production
Technologies (Reservoir Class III)
--Removal of Heteroatoms and Metals from Heavy Oils by Bioconversion
Processes (Texaco, Exxon, Unocal, Energy Biosystems, Baker
Chemicals, Chevron)
--Fundamental Chemistry of Heavy Oil Thermodynamics (Oak Ridge
National Laboratory)
Past research that directly relates to heavy oil recovery in areas
such as Alaska, includes the development and demonstration of double
insulated tubing for steam injection and a downhole steam generator.
Both are important in areas where permafrost is encountered and both
were commercialized, but not widely used due to low oil prices.
Question. Are there particular problems associated with directional
drilling and other advanced drilling technology in Arctic conditions?
Answer. Yes, all drilling projects--vertical and directional--must
address problems associated with the surface location in addition to
problems associated with the subsurface reservoir. Drilling projects
must address diverse, often extreme, surface environments, numerous
species of wildlife, wilderness, sparse population, remoteness, and
limited infrastructure: offshore extremes from arctic to subarctic
climates; earthquakes and associated tsunamis; volcanic activity that
can result in dust fallout, toxic gases, land slides, floods, tidal
waves, or other associated hazards. Commercial fishing is an important
industry in Alaska, and offshore oil exploration must be conducted in a
manner which does not interfere with these activities. Other challenges
on the surface which must be met by operators drilling in the Alaska
offshore areas include: extreme wave heights and long wave periods;
high tides, high currents, and strong winds; intense storms; the
remoteness of the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea; temperatures and
associated conditions require the use of special steels, safety
devices, and procedures for the protection of personnel and equipment;
and annual sea ice and pack ice dictate seasonal operations or drilling
and production structures. Downhole, there are other issues being
addressed, such as the following:
--Refrigerated mud systems are necessary when drilling in areas with
permafrost;
--An independent third party review is required for new or untried
technology;
--Real-time well control equipment and technology, and improved
accuracy and sophistication of equipment for monitoring of
wellbore and drill string parameters provide early warning of
abnormal down hole conditions;
--Computer application and automation of safety sensing devices and
equipment; prediction or detection of abnormal pressure through
seismic data analysis or drilling measurements, automated drill
pipe handling equipment, and top drive or improved rotary
swivel equipment;
--Avoidance of wellbore collision in areas of high well density; and
--The use of new wells versus sidetracks; conventional rotary rigs
versus coiled tubing drilling unit, horizontal and/or high
angle completion profiles versus vertical, short radius
directional build profiles versus medium radius; slotted liner
completions versus solid and selectively perforated casing,
chrome production tubing versus carbon-steel tubing, thru-
tubing rotary drilling and multi-lateral well designs, ultra-
slim diameter mud-pulse-telemetry directional drilling tool for
application through 3\1/2\-inch tubulars to drill directionally
steered 2\3/4\-inch boreholes at Prudhoe Bay using coiled
tubing as a directional extension of the horizontal section
below the existing 3\1/2\-inch tubing string.
Question. If so, are these problems the focus of any work being
performed in the Oil Technology program?
Answer. Yes, the Department's Oil Advanced Drilling, Completion and
Stimulation program includes investigation of problems associated with
surface conditions including miniaturization of equipment both uphole
and downhole, and problems associated with the reservoir environments
encountered during the drilling phase. The program includes the
following projects which have application to drilling in Arctic
regions:
--Fiber Optic Sensor Technology Development--optical fiber sensors
for the measurement of pressure, temperature, flow, and
acoustic waves.
--Stimulation Research--investigation of advanced acidization
treatments, formation consolidation techniques, microbial
processes, formation fracturing, and real time seismic data
acquisition.
--Optimization of Horizontal Well Completion--development of
guidelines and software to optimize the horizontal well
performance.
--Compact Three-phase Separator--to reduce the amount of surface area
needed for fluid separation operations on offshore platforms or
onshore situations benefitting from extremely small footprint.
--Advanced Cuttings Transport Facility--assessment of the ability of
aerated and compressible drilling fluids to transport cuttings
under various conditions of high temperature and pressure.
--Tulsa University Drilling Research Program--acquisition of results
of experimentation on the ability of aerated and compressible
drilling fluids to transport cuttings under conditions of low
temperature and pressure.
--Wellbore Stability and Heat Flow--experimentation and data
collection for use in predictive models that will assist in
basin development.
Question. A number of refineries in the United States have been
operating under EPA waivers for sulfur dioxide emissions. That waiver
will soon expire, which may have a severe impact on smaller refineries
that cannot afford costly equipment to reduce emissions. What
technologies are being developed to lower the cost of reducing sulfur
dioxide emissions?
Answer. There are several commercial technologies that are
available to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from refineries. These
technologies are constantly being improved by their developer. The most
utilized technology is the Claus process. To achieve lower emissions of
sulfur, two other methods are being used, enhanced Claus conversion
(for example, BSF, Selectox, Sulfreen, Cold Bed Absorption, Maxisulf,
and IFP-1 processes) and gas scrubbing (for example, SCOT and Beavon
processes).
Question. What departmental programs are supporting this type of
work?
Answer. There are no programs which are intended to directly
support developing technology for capturing SO2 emissions
from refineries. The Environmental Systems program has developed a
number of systems for reducing SO2 emissions from coal fired
power plants and this research is ongoing. Some of this technology may
be useful for reducing SO2 emitted from refineries also.
Question. A $500,000 increase is requested for Analysis and
Planning in the Exploration and Production Supporting Research program,
but the justification does not explain the purpose of the increase. Why
are the additional funds necessary?
Answer. The additional funds will be used to improve the oil and
gas models used by Fossil Energy. These models are used to assess the
costs and benefits of competing RD&D initiatives to help pick the most
beneficial RD&D; to provide metrics to identify the benefits of oil and
gas programs as part of the presentation of the budgets; and to assess
the costs and benefits of wide-ranging policy initiatives affecting the
petroleum industry to support DOE, the Administration, and Congress in
determining the relative merits of these proposed policies.
The additional $500,000 requested will be used to: integrate the
oil and gas models that are currently separate, and add modules for
offshore, environmental regulations and costs, and downstream
operations. These improvements will allow the integrated model to more
accurately simulate how the industry operates in terms of having an
integrated perspective on oil and gas development. They will also give
the program the ability to better model new or evolving areas of the
program--that is, offshore, environmental, and downstream. This will
provide significant benefits in all three model applications described
in the previous paragraph.
Question. What would be the impact if the increase were not
provided?
Answer. The immediate and ongoing impact would be the loss of the
information that comes from these models as described in the three
types of model applications outlined previously. This information is
vital to all aspects of the oil and gas programs in terms of providing
information on the best RD&D paths to choose, metrics information to
supplement the budget process, and information to support DOE's wide-
ranging policy initiatives. These policy initiatives include:
environmental issues, financial and tax issues affecting the industry,
and impacts of federal lands development policies on the domestic
petroleum industry.
The longer-term impact would be that, it will be more expensive to
do these model improvements in the future then it would be to do them
now. This is because this model development process has been underway
since 1998 and a group of knowledgeable modeling experts have been
assembled and trained to do this work. Right now these modelers can do
this work with maximum efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If this work
is not funded now those modelers will be moved to other work. Then, if
it is decided these model improvements should be made some time in the
future new modelers may have to be assembled and trained, or if the
same modelers are available, they will have lost the level of knowledge
they currently have on the workings of the models and will have to be
retrained.
Finally, while this is a $500,000 increase in the Analysis and
Planning budget as compared to the 1999 budget ($3.7 versus $3.2
million), this is only a $200,000 increase in budget as compared to the
1998 budget when this modeling initiative began ($3.7 versus $3.5
million).
Question. The Department will continue to provide funding for the
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council in fiscal year 2000. Was it
originally intended that the Council eventually would become self-
supporting and not rely on Department of Energy funds?
Answer. The Council was first funded in fiscal year 1993 with the
intention that after 5 years full support would come from industry.
Question. If so, when were federal appropriations for the Council
to cease according to the original program plan?
Answer. The original plan was to provide federal support for a 5-
year period, with DOE providing most of the funding for the first few
years. Because of budget constraints, DOE funding for the first 5-year
period was significantly below the proposed levels. This resulted in a
longer than anticipated time frame to set up the Council structure.
Question. What is the current projection of when federal support
for the Council will cease?
Answer. The current grant to the Council started May 1998 and ends
May 2003. At the end of the current grant the Department will evaluate
the need to continue supporting the Council. Continuation of support
will depend on the need for the type services that the Council provides
toward meeting the Department's mission and the ability of the Council
to remain a strong technology transfer organization to the industry
without federal support. The Council has been an economical and
effective tool supporting the Department in meeting its mission by
assisting in the dissemination of technology developed by the
Department's research and development programs to the independent
petroleum producing community.
program direction
Question. The justification indicated that roughly $7.5 million
will be allocated in fiscal year 2000 for the SBIR and STTR programs.
How are these funds allocated each year?
Answer. These funds are set aside, by law, as a percentage of the
extramural budget (funds other than those used for in house research or
for salaries). The SBIR offset is 2.5 percent and the percentage of
funds for STTR programs is 0.15 percent. The funds are then competed.
Question. What are some examples of the types of activities funded,
and their relationship to Fossil Energy Research and Development
program goals?
Answer. These activities are designed to provide broad support to
Fossil Energy Research and Development program goals. For Example, the
SBIR topics are coal and gas turbine systems, and recovery and
utilization of fossil fuels in SBIR; the STTR topics are
instrumentation for sampling, measuring and monitoring green house
gases, coal-fired related pollutants and hydrogen.
Question. The justification indicates that four additional FTE's
will be supported in fiscal year 2000 at the National Petroleum
Technology Office. What is the rationale for these additional
positions?
Answer. With the closing of the National Institute for Petroleum
and Energy Research (NIPER), the workload for the former Bartlesville
federal employees now located in Tulsa, has increased significantly. In
order to alleviate some strain on the staff, four federal employees
from the Elk Hills California Oil Field site were transferred to Tulsa.
These employees are very knowledgeable of oil industry activities and
of the Department of Energy.
advanced metallurgical processes
Question. It has been several years since the Albany Research
Center was transferred from the Bureau of Mines to the Department of
Energy. Has the transition been successful from the point of view of
the Fossil Research and Development program?
Answer. Yes, the program at ARC has been successfully redirected to
address Fossil Energy research and development needs. This has been
made possible by extending the cross-cutting research expertise and
capabilities resident at ARC. In addition, the Fossil Energy research
efforts at ARC are being effectively leveraged throughout a number of
other program offices in DOE.
Question. Is the transition complete?
Answer. Yes, as new Fossil Energy research program needs developed
and emerged, and partnership opportunities presented themselves during
the past three years, appropriate mission priorities at ARC were
realigned and refocused. Today all activities in the Advanced
Metallurgical Processes program support Fossil Energy research and
development goals.
Question. Does the work currently being performed at the ARC
directly support the goals of the Fossil Energy Research and
Development program?
Answer. Yes, as examples, two primary cooperative research
opportunities addressing needs associated with the Vision 21 EnergyPlex
were identified within Fossil Energy and research was initiated at ARC
late in fiscal year 1998. Those two technology efforts consist of
gasifier refractory materials research and mineral carbonation for
CO2 sequestration research. Support from the Coal Technology
Research and Development-Advanced Research and Technology Development
and from the Advanced Power Systems programs is being matched with
Advanced Metallurgical Processes funding in pursuit of this work during
fiscal year 1999 and is expected to continue into fiscal year 2000 for
both of these research areas. Continued and further coordination of the
ARC program with Fossil Energy research and development goals is being
accomplished through ARC participation on the Advanced Research Product
Team at the FETC. It is anticipated that ARC will continue to be a
significant contributor to critical materials enabling technologies
needed for future Fossil Energy systems.
Question. What about other DOE programs?
Answer. The Albany Research Center's (ARC) approach for integration
into its parent Office of Fossil Energy includes efforts at
establishing partnerships with other offices within the Department of
Energy (DOE) where ARC's core capabilities are relevant and applicable.
ARC is attempting to create a balanced approach to this integration by
developing a research portfolio which complements both the Office of
Fossil Energy and also other offices within the DOE, while at the same
time retaining current private sector and other government customers.
An underlying corollary to this strategy is the identification of
potential future customers having needs which can be met under the
umbrella of the adaptable and flexible core capabilities of the Center.
Currently, it is anticipated that ARC will play a significant role in
the joint Fossil Energy/Energy Efficiency Mining Initiative.
Question. How much work for others is currently being performed at
ARC?
Answer. Research efforts for organizations other than DOE (both
public and private) is currently being conducted through 19 agreements
representing a total of $370,000. Work for other DOE offices includes
EE-OIT for $350,000 and EE-OTT for $225,000. In addition, research is
being conducted for other programs within Fossil Energy for a total
value of $600,000.
Question. What is the total operating budget for ARC in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The total operating budget for ARC in fiscal year 1999,
excluding specific directed ES&H activities, is $7,300,000.
Question. How many personnel are currently employed at ARC?
Answer. Currently 83 personnel are employed at ARC representing an
FTE level of approximately 81.
clean coal technology
Question. The budget requests a $256 million deferral in Clean Coal
Technology appropriations. Will this deferral, if enacted, have any
impact on any remaining go/no-go decisions for projects remaining in
the program?
Answer. If the proposed deferral is enacted, it will not impact
remaining go/no-go decisions. The two projects with remaining go/no-go
decisions are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) planned for Illinois and the Clean
Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a combined
steel making and power generation project planned for Utah. For the
Clean Energy project, the Department recently approved a re-siting of
the project to Carbondale, Illinois and a restructuring of the team
members. For the CPICOR project, an extension was necessary due to a
change in the technology vendor. The next decision point for both of
these projects is in December 2000, at the start of the construction
phase. The proposed deferral includes a specific schedule for the
return of deferred funds that will enable the Department to meet
funding commitments for these two projects.
Question. Will the deferral have any impact on outstanding
decisions on whether to approve project re-siting proposals?
Answer. The Department recently approved a re-siting/restructuring
proposal for the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) planned for Carbondale, Illinois.
The only CCT project without a firm site is the Commercial
Demonstration of the NOXSO NOX/SO2 Removal Flue
Gas Cleanup System. The participant for the NOXSO project is in Chapter
11 Bankruptcy. A suitable host site and participant financing is
required for this project to continue. Since the full DOE-commitment
for this project has been obligated, the proposed deferral would not
impact on the decision to proceed with this project.
Question. Please provide for the record a description of all
projects remaining in the program for which go/no-go decisions remain
to be made, or for which project re-siting is under discussion.
Answer. There are two projects with remaining go/no-go decisions.
These projects are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project and the Clean
Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project. Both of
these projects are in the design phase with construction scheduled to
begin in December 2000. Project re-siting is required for the
Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO NOX/SO2
Removal Flue Gas Cleanup System to proceed. The participant for the
NOXSO project is currently in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A suitable host
site and participant financing is required for the NOXSO project to
continue.
The CPICOR project will demonstrate the integration of a direct
iron-making process with the co-production of electricity using various
U.S. coals in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner. The
project will be located at the Geneva Steel facility in Vineyard, Utah.
The project will utilize the HIsmelt Technology for producing
direct reduced iron (DRI) and the high temperature but low Btu by-
product gases from HIsmelt will be used to generate electricity. The
technology is ideal for both basic oxygen furnace and electric arc
furnace steel makers and will handle a wide range of ores and coals.
The Clean Energy project will demonstrate the commercial scale-up
of the British Gas/Lurgi (BG/L) slagging, fixed-bed gasifier with
combined-cycle power generation. In addition, the operation of a molten
carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) on coal gas will be demonstrated. The BG/L
gasifier utilizes steam, oxygen, limestone flux, and coal to produce a
coal gas that is cooled and cleaned prior to combustion in a turbine to
produce electricity. The project will be located at AMEREN
Corporation's Grand Tower Station in Carbondale, Illinois. The AMEREN
Corporation intends to provide a 50-percent ownership position in the
project and provides financial strength and the ability to market the
electricity.
The NOXSO project will utilize a dry, regenerable system capable of
removing both NOX and SO2 in flue gas from coal-
fired utility boilers burning medium- to high-sulfur coals. In the
process, flue gas passes through a fluidized-bed adsorber containing a
sorbent for capturing NOX and SO2. The captured
NOX is released back to the boiler where equilibrium
processes cause destruction of the NOX. The captured
SO2 is recovered from the sorbent and used to produce
elemental sulfur that can be processed to produce liquid
SO2, a saleable by-product. The process is expected to
achieve SO2 reductions of 98 percent and NOX
reductions of 75 percent.
In addition to these go/no-go decisions, the Department anticipates
requests to share in project cost growth for the Wabash River Coal
Gasification Repowering Project and the Self-Scrubbing Coal: An
Integrated Approach to Clean Air project.
Question. Please provide for the record the 5-Year Obligation
Timing Profile for the program.
Answer. The 5-Year Obligation Timing Profile for the Clean Coal
program is in the table on the following page.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM--FISCAL YEAR 2000--5 YEAR OBLIGATION TIMING PROFILE
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years-- Remaining
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- obligations
Project fiscal
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 years 1999-
2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean energy.................................. ........... ............ ............ 152,241 ........... 5,389 21,803 179,434
CPICOR........................................ ........... ............ ............ 135,662 ........... 4,969 ........... 140,631
Wabash \1\.................................... ........... 9,000 ............ ........... ........... ........... ........... 9,000
McIntosh 4B................................... 95,672 ............ ............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
McIntosh 4A................................... 87,295 ............ ............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Thermochem.................................... 2,799 ............ ............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total........................... 185,766 9,000 ............ 287,903 ........... 10,358 21,803 329,065
Program Direction............................. 15,000 14,900 14,399 13,919 13,459 13,019 11,597 81,294
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Obligations....................... 200,766 23,900 14,399 301,822 13,459 23,378 33,401 410,358
=========================================================================================================
FY99 Budget (105-277)......................... ........... (40,000) 10,000 15,000 15,000 ........... ........... ...........
FY00 Request (BA)............................. ........... ............ (256,000) 189,000 40,000 27,000 ........... ...........
EOY Unobligated............................... 424,174 360,274 99,875 2,053 43,594 47,216 13,815 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Remaining obligation requirement shown is for an anticipated cost growth that would require ASFE approval. DOE has obligated all currently committed
funds.
Question. What are the principal technology benefits of the two
Clean Coal projects for which major obligations remain?
Answer. The two Clean Coal Technology projects that have major
funding requirements are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an
Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle (IGCC) planned for Illinois and
the Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a
combined steel making and power generation project planned for Utah.
The British Gas/Lurgi (BG/L) technology being demonstrated in the Clean
Energy project is a needed addition to the other gasification
technologies being demonstrated in the CCT program. The BG/L gasifier
offers the highest cold gas efficiency (over 90 percent) of any coal
gasification technology. The gasifier does not require elaborate coal
feed and handling systems, as the preferred coal size is 3 inches and
has the lowest oxygen requirements of any ``modern'' gasification
process because of the moderate operating temperature of the gasifier.
Environmental performance of the BG/L gasifier is expected to be
superior to other gasifiers or among the best performing. The BG/L
gasifier in an IGCC system can potentially offer the lowest capital and
operating costs and highest performance of any of the existing gasifier
technologies. Also, the integration of a molten carbonate fuel cell
with the IGCC technology will assist in establishing the foundation for
high efficiency, Vision 21-type EnergyPlex plants of the future.
The CPICOR project will demonstrate the HIsmelt
Technology for producing direct reduced iron (DRI) with the co-
production of electricity. The principal benefit of the direct-iron
making technology is the elimination of the need for coke in the iron-
making process. The HIsmelt process is capable of producing
high-quality pig iron (over 95 percent iron) by simply mixing run-of-
mine ores and coals in a smelter furnace. No coke, sinter, or pellets
are required as in a conventional blast furnace. A variety of coal
types and ore grades can be used in the process. The direct iron-making
process offers improved economics and reduced emissions over the
conventional coke oven and blast furnace technology.
Question. Do the technologies to be demonstrated in these projects
(projects for which major obligations remain) represent entirely new
technologies, or are they variations on technologies previously
demonstrated within the Clean Coal program?
Answer. The two Clean Coal Technology projects that have major
funding requirements are the Clean Energy Demonstration Project--an
Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle (IGCC) planned for Illinois and
the Clean Power From Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a
combined steel making and power generation project planned for Utah.
The British Gas/Lurgi technology to be demonstrated in the Clean
Energy project is the fourth utility-scale gasification technology in
the Clean Coal program. While all four projects are IGCC systems, each
project demonstrates unique gasification and coal-gas cleanup
technologies. Since gasification technology is viewed as one of the
most promising electric power generation options for the future, it is
vital to demonstrate the leading gasification technologies in a
commercial operating environment to enable comparisons of performance,
reliability, and economics.
The direct iron-making process along with the co-production of
electricity to be demonstrated in the CPICOR project is unique in the
Clean Coal program. There have been two other projects awarded in this
program relating to the use of coal in the steel industry. The
Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Applications
demonstrated an innovative process for removing hydrogen sulfide and
ammonia from coke oven gas generated in the production of coke used in
blast furnaces. The project withdrew from the Clean Coal program when
coke-making operations were suspended at the host site. The Blast
Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration project involved
the use of both granulated and pulverized coal as a blast furnace fuel
supplement and began operation in late 1995. The coal-injection
technology reduced the use of coke in the blast furnace but did not
eliminate its use and did not offer the co-production of electricity.
While both of these projects were in the steel industry, they were
completely different technologies than what is planned for the CPICOR
project.
Question. As the Clean Coal program winds down, how does the
Department intend to handle the reduction in personnel supported by CCT
funds?
Answer. The Department intends to manage reductions in Clean Coal
Technology personnel by absorbing those reductions within the overall
staffing levels provided for Fossil Energy programs under the Strategic
Alignment Initiatives. Under this approach the CCT personnel would be
reduced through attrition and transfers to other Fossil Energy
programs.
Question. Are all of these personnel likely to be absorbed into
other Fossil programs through normal attrition and vacancies?
Answer. The Department anticipates that most of the Clean Coal
Technology personnel will be absorbed into other Fossil programs
through the savings achieved under the Strategic Alignment Initiatives.
Certain Clean Coal Technology activities, such as those related with
recoupment, will continue for some time beyond the end of the program.
strategic petroleum reserve
Question. You recently announced your intention to use existing
authorities to use royalty oil to add 28 million barrels to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Would you provide for the record the
statutes that provide you with the legal authority to fill the Reserve
in this manner?
Answer. The authority to use royalty oil to fill the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve exists both in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
and in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Section 160 (a)(2) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6240) authorizes the
Secretary of Energy to place in storage, transport or exchange crude
oil which the United States is entitled to receive in kind as royalties
from production on federal lands. Section 27(a)(3) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353) authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to transfer any royalty oil to the Secretary of Energy
for disposal within the federal government.
Question. Because the royalty oil being diverted to the Reserve
would otherwise take the form of a cash royalty payment to the
Treasury, this proposal will in fact have a cost. Does the use of
royalty oil in this manner lower OMB's receipts estimates?
Answer. At the time this initiative was announced, the
Administration estimated that the Treasury would forego about $370
million in cash royalty receipts due to this transfer of royalty oil.
This revenue impact would be spread across fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Since that initial estimate, oil prices have increased due to eventual
impact on the Treasury could be larger.
Question. Does the use of royalty oil in this fashion manifest
itself in federal bookkeeping in any manner?
Answer. Yes, at the time the oil is transferred from the Department
of the Interior to the Department of Energy and becomes part of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve it has a market value. That value will be
entered into the Department of Energy balance sheet for the Reserve
that is reported annually as the DOE Accountability Report.
Question. If not, why not fill the Reserve to capacity in this
manner?
Answer. In its Statement of Policy on the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve issued in May 1998, the Administration determined to conduct a
study of the Reserve's appropriate size prior to year 2000. That study
is scheduled for completion this summer. The appropriate method of
financing inventory expansion would be addressed only if the
Administration concludes that it should increase the inventory of the
Reserve above 590 million barrels. However, it is true that use of
royalty-in-kind oil does have a cost and this would be considered in
the event that further expansion of SPR was appropriate.
Question. The budget request includes $5 million for the SPR
Petroleum Account to bolster emergency drawdown readiness. What is the
current unobligated balance in the SPR Petroleum Account?
Answer. The unobligated balance in the SPR Petroleum Account at the
end of fiscal year 1998 was $33,018,989.
Question. What is the total amount required to meet 100 percent of
anticipated emergency drawdown requirements?
Answer. The estimate to sustain a full 6-month drawdown capability
is $60,516,000. A maximum rate drawdown requires staff augmentation in
New Orleans and the sites, an increase in maintenance workload,
additional posting hours for security subcontractor personnel, and
significantly higher power costs at the sites. Additionally,
terminalling/throughput charges are required for pipeline and marine
deliveries.
Question. Would the need for additional readiness appropriations
for the SPR account be obviated if the Department had a mechanism
whereby it could borrow from the Treasury to cover the costs of a
drawdown during the fourth quarter of a fiscal year, then repay such
borrowed amounts from the proceeds from oil sales?
Answer. If an emerging drawdown of the SPR became necessary, and
there were insufficient funds available, balances in other DOE accounts
could be transferred to the SPR oil account.
Question. Would the Department work with the Committee to see if
such a mechanism could be developed?
Answer. The Department will work with the Committee if such a
mechanism is developed.
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
Question. No appropriations are requested for the Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, in anticipation that unobligated balances will
be sufficient for program operations in fiscal year 2000. What amount
of unobligated balances were carried over from fiscal year 1998 to
1999?
Answer. Unobligated balances carried from fiscal year 1998 to the
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves program in fiscal year 1999 are
shown on the following page:
NPR-1 and NPR-2 Operations and Maintenance.............. $20,086,100
NPR-3 Operations and Maintenance........................ 65,200
Naval Oil Shale Reserves................................ 7,496,100
Program Direction (including equity/divestment
activities)......................................... 6,562,400
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total NPR....................................... 34,209,800
Question. What is the current estimated carryover into fiscal year
2000?
Answer. The current estimated carryover is about $21.2 million,
calculated as follows:
Fiscal year 1998 End-of-Year Carryover.................. $34,210,000
Plus fiscal year 1999 Appropriation..................... 14,000,000
Less Anticipated fiscal year 1999 Obligations........... -27,000,000
Anticipated fiscal year 1999 End-of-Year Carryover...... 21,210,000
Question. Assuming no new appropriations are provided in fiscal
year 2000, what level of unobligated balances does the program expect
to have at the end of fiscal year 2000?
Answer. As much as $25 million of unobligated balances may be
available at the end of fiscal year 2000, based on de-obligating funds
from various contracts at Elk Hills. Earlier this fiscal year, we began
identifying how much money currently found on NPR contracts could be
considered ``excess'' and redirected for use in other areas of NPR's
operations. The majority of these contracts were originally put into
place to support operations at the Elk Hills oil field or its
divestment. We believe that between $8 and $25 million might be
available for de-obligation: $5 million from ``inactive'' contracts, $3
million from revenues generated from the sale of natural gas from Naval
Oil Shale Reserve No. 3 (which transferred to the DOI on May 1, 1999,
for leasing), and perhaps as much as $17 million from the former Elk
Hills oil field management and operating contractor pending the outcome
of various lawsuits. Whatever money is deemed ``excess'' will be de-
obligated from existing contracts and used elsewhere within the
program.
There are a number of ``imponderables'' which will affect the funds
available at the end of fiscal year 2000 and beyond. First, there are
numerous lawsuits against the former Management and Operating
contractor arising from Elk Hills operations that DOE may be
responsible for paying. This may prevent DOE from de-obligating the
full $17 million estimated above. Second, as required by several
agreements associated with the sale of Elk Hills, some environmental
assessment and cultural resource activities are underway. Depending
upon the findings, DOE may have to perform some environmental
remediation work, thus increasing planned expenditures. Finally, the
finalization of equity with Chevron is an exacting and contentious
process that, if further delays ensue, could require funding above
currently planned levels, as shown below:
Estimated Funding Requirements
Estimated unobligated balance, end of fiscal year 1999.. $21,210,000
Obligated balances redirected from contracts............ 25,000,000
Estimated balance available, end of fiscal year 2000.... 46,210,000
Fiscal year 2000 anticipated obligations................ -21,240,000
Estimated remaining balance, end of fiscal year 2000.... 24,970,000
Question. The justification indicates that $3.3 million will be
spent for NPR-1 closeout activities, including retirement benefits for
M&O contractor employees. For how many years will NPOSR appropriated
funds be required for this purpose?
Answer. DOE will fund the retirement benefits of some former
contractor employees as a result of the sale of the Elk Hills oil field
which caused the termination of all current and future contracts for
the management and operation of Elk Hills by their employer, Bechtel
Petroleum Operations, Inc. (BPOI). Consequently, all of the BPOI
employees were required to find new jobs or to retire. As a result of
their service, some of these employees had earned the right to post
retirement or post employment medical and dental benefits. Consistent
with DOE policy and practice under contracts for management and
operation of its facilities and sites, DOE is responsible for funding
such post-retirement medical benefits for these former retirees. (If
DOE had merely selected a new contractor to operate the Elk Hills oil
field, then the successor contractor would have been required to
fulfill this obligation as a part of their operating contract.
Currently, Bechtel Nevada is administering the BPOI post-retirement and
post-contract plans through its contract with DOE at Nevada. Funding
for the BPOI plan is provided from Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserve appropriated funds.) The estimate of costs for this obligation
is up to $1 million annually for up to 40 years for these former
employees and their eligible dependents.
Question. The estimated program level for environmental restoration
at NPR-3 declines in fiscal year 2000 from $3 million to $1.4 million.
Does the Department anticipate those costs will continue to decline in
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No, but we are not anticipating a sharp increase, either.
Environmental restoration activity will gradually increase until the
oil field is eventually abandoned. We have just started the process of
putting together our fiscal year 2001 budget and early estimates are
that the program may spend about $2.2 million on environmental
restoration activities at NPR-3 during that year.
Question. FTE levels under Program Direction drop by 23. Why do
associated program levels drop by only $876,000?
Answer. The overall drop of $876,000 would be more significant if
it were not for the change in the way the program reports divestment-
related obligations in its fiscal year 2000 budget. While salaries and
benefits are somewhat reduced in fiscal year 2000, there are slight
increases in travel and contractual services due to the inclusion of
divestment expenditures. Most divestment activities, primarily equity
finalization, are funded from program direction.
Divestment expenses are paid from funds that were reprogrammed as
program direction from various operating accounts. Since divestment
expenditures are paid from prior year funds that had already been
appropriated, prior budget submissions did not include anticipated
divestment-related obligations under program direction. In fiscal year
2000, the program is not seeking any new appropriation of funds for any
part of its program, but believes that it is prudent to list all
anticipated obligations for the year--thus causing a less significant
decrease in program direction than would otherwise be expected.
Question. Why does the program level for contractor services
increase by $1.473 million?
Answer. The increase is mainly due to a change in philosophy by the
program in reporting the anticipated obligations and does not represent
an actual increase in obligations from fiscal year 1999. The fiscal
year 2000 budget for the Naval Petroleum Reserve includes program
direction funds anticipated to be obligated in support of divestment
activities, specifically, finalization of equity shares with Chevron.
In prior years, unobligated balances had been reprogrammed to support
such divestment activities. Such expenditures were not included in
previous budget requests because no ``new'' money was being requested
to support them. The program is still utilizing those reprogrammed
dollars in support of divestment activities, but have included them in
the fiscal year 2000 budget because we are describing all of the new
obligations that may be entered into, and not just those to be made
from ``new'' money. The program is not seeking any newly appropriated
funds for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Does this represent more than just the adoption of the
seven FTEs from the NPR-3 site?
Answer. The increase is mainly due to a change in the way the
program reports its anticipated obligations and does not represent an
actual increase in obligations from fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year
2000 budget for the Naval Petroleum Reserve includes program direction
funds anticipated to be obligated in support of divestment activities,
specifically, finalization of equity shares with Chevron. In prior
years, unobligated balances had been reprogrammed to support such
divestment activities. Such expenditures were not included in previous
budget requests because no ``new'' money was being requested to support
them. The program is still utilizing those reprogrammed dollars in
support of divestment activities, but have included them in the fiscal
year 2000 budget because we are describing all of the new obligations
that may be entered into, and not just those to be made from ``new''
money. The program is not seeking any newly appropriated funds for
fiscal year 2000.
energy conservation
building research and standards
Question. The justification indicates that the Lighting Research
and Development program in fiscal year 2000 will support work on hybrid
lighting systems. Within the $6 million request for Lighting Research
and Development, how much does the Department plan on devoting to this
effort?
Answer. The ongoing industry-driven Lighting Roadmap and the
analysis on hybrid lighting being done by ORNL this fiscal year will
provide the guidance for prioritizing activities in this research area.
Provided the technical and market analysis currently underway supports
the decision and that the recommendations of the industry-driven
Lighting Roadmap prioritizes this technology, meritorious proposals for
hybrid lighting received under the fiscal year 2000 competitive
solicitation will be funded.
Question. How would the Hybrid Lighting Partnership be involved?
Answer. The Hybrid Lighting Partnership is participating in the
ongoing Lighting Roadmap. If industry agrees in their roadmap
recommendations that this technology is a priority in meeting its
vision, hybrid lighting will be offered as one of the topics of
opportunity in the fiscal year 2000 competitive solicitation. The
Hybrid Lighting Partnership will have the opportunity to respond to the
competitive solicitation.
Question. The Department is requesting additional funds for field
testing of GAX heat pumps that will lead to commercialization in fiscal
year 2001. How much will the Department be contributing to this effort
in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The total fiscal year 1999 appropriation for the
Residential Absorption Heat Pump was $5.91 million. This funding is
being used for a variety of research, development, and demonstration
activities. Significant field testing of GAX air conditioners and heat
pumps is being started in fiscal year 1999. GAX technology is being
applied to a number of different products planned for market
introduction over several years. The first production equipment using
GAX technology will be introduced into the marketplace in 1999 (GAX
chillers used for air conditioning). This will be followed by
additional product introductions currently projected for 2001 (mild
ambient heating and cooling heat pumps) and 2002 (cold ambient heat
pumps). The GAX family of products is being introduced with the
simplest to manufacture products being introduced first and the more
complex products following in order.
A 180-unit GAX field test is planned to begin in a new subdivision
(Village Green) scheduled to begin construction in May of 1999. Village
Green is a ``PATH'' subdivision located in Los Angeles, California.
This subdivision will be almost 100 percent air-conditioned using early
production gas-fired GAX air-conditioners. Construction and occupancy
of the dwellings is scheduled to occur over a 2-year period (1999-
2000). As initial prototype GAX heat pumps (mild ambient heating and
cooling heat pumps) become available, they will be installed in Village
Green (likely starting in 2000). The Village Green GAX field test is
being cost-shared by Southern California Gas Company and Robur Corp for
50 percent private sector cost-sharing. As pre-production prototype GAX
hydronic, mild ambient, and cold ambient heat pumps become available,
they will be placed in field test locations at various sites throughout
the country in cooperation with natural gas utilities.
Question. In fiscal year 2000 request level?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request for the residential absorption
heat pump program is $6.5 million. These funds will be used for the
residential GAX heat pump and the residential/light commercial ``Hi-
cool'' heat pump. Field testing of at least 12 prototype residential
GAX heat pumps will begin at various locations. A light commercial
eight-ton prototype ``Hi-cool'' heat pump will be fabricated and
laboratory testing will begin.
Question. What is the level of cost sharing with industry in this
phase of the program?
Answer. In the GAX and HI-cool activities, cost share by the
private sector is 35 percent coming from the manufacturers and the gas
industry.
Question. Will funds be requested for additional GAX heat pump work
in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. It is anticipated that funds will be requested for GAX heat
pump work in fiscal year 2001. This would be principally for the
continuing development of the mild ambient and cold ambient GAX heat
pump technology along with the associated field testing and
demonstration. Some fiscal year 2001 funding would be used for
continuation and completion of field testing started in 1999 and 2000.
Question. The request also indicates that in fiscal year 2000 the
department will ``. . . complete field test of the commercial prototype
and facilitate the commercialization of a 450-ton DCC chiller . . .
with York International.'' How much will be devoted to this effort in
fiscal year 2000, assuming the requested level of funding?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 funding of $1.5 million would be devoted
to the Triple-Effect field test to be located in the Government Center
of Clark County, Nevada. This fiscal year 2000 funding is projected to
be sufficient to complete the field testing program. This field test is
being co-funded principally by York International.
Question. How will the Department ``facilitate the
commercialization'' of this technology?
Answer. Commercialization of the technology will be facilitated
principally through the efforts of the partners in this program during
and after the field test. For example, the Clark County Government
Center was selected in part for the accessibility and visibility of the
test site. In the October 27, 1998, letter of intent for the field
test, witnessed by the Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, Clark
County agreed to cooperate in the publication and dissemination of
information about the chiller's performance through appropriate media.
The fiscal year 2000 funding will be used principally for demonstration
of the Triple-Effect chiller. Specifically, the funding will be used to
complete design and fabrication of the full size direct gas-fired
Triple-Effect chiller, installation and testing of the Triple-Effect
chiller, providing technical assistance and monitoring at the test
site, analyzing the test data, and documenting the performance in
published reports. This field test demonstration step is important in
verifying the efficiency and economic benefits of the Triple-Effect
chiller technology for large commercial buildings. This dissemination
of information documenting the predicted substantial energy and
operating cost savings of the Triple-Effect chiller in actual operation
should facilitate the commercialization of this technology by York.
Question. Why is the Department involved at all in the
commercialization phase of this technology?
Answer. The Department is principally involved in development and
demonstration of this technology. Technology transfer activities
intended to result in accelerating utilization of this emerging
technology in commercial and institutional buildings through
information dissemination would only be a small part of the total
Department effort. This small effort is important to the development of
this technology, as field verification activities provide information
on any final technology changes needed to complete the development
cycle.
Question. The Committee provided $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for
the demonstration of modular fuel cells at federal facilities. How are
these funds being administered?
Answer. The funds are being administered under the Office of
Building Technology, State and Community Programs Fuel Cells for
Buildings program. Preliminary discussions have been held with a
potential supplier of the modular fuel cell. Issues of cost-sharing and
demonstration vs. test and evaluation are being addressed. In addition,
efforts are underway to identify an appropriate site. A work/test
proposal is being prepared and this program will begin in fiscal year
1999.
Question. The Department has worked with industry since 1997 to
develop a roadmap for technology improvements in the heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors. The
Department has reportedly been very supportive of this Air-conditioning
and Refrigeration Technology Initiative (ARTI). Have any funds been
provided in support of ARTI?
Answer. Yes, in fiscal year 1998 the Department completed the last
increment of funding of a successful multi-year program totaling $10.5
million through ARTI for research and development in Materials
Compatibility and Lubricant Research. DOE also began work in fiscal
year 1998 to establish a co-operative agreement with ARTI to initiate a
new more comprehensive program of research for the twenty-first
century, referred to as the ARTI 21-CR program. This co-operative
agreement has recently been approved for funding the ARTI 21-CR
program.
Question. If so, how much and from what program elements?
Answer. Fiscal year 1998 funding was provided to ARTI for the
Materials Compatibility and Lubricant Research program from the Space
Conditioning and Refrigeration program.
Question. If not, does the Department intend to allocate any funds
for this purpose in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $1 million will be provided to support
the ARTI 21-CR Research and Development program. Funding will come from
the Space Conditioning and Refrigeration program and the Technology
Road Maps and Competitive Research and Development program.
Question. Are any funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request
for this purpose?
Answer. Yes, funds are included in the fiscal year 2000 request
under both the Technology Road Maps and Competitive Research and
Development program activity, and the Space Conditioning and
Refrigeration program for the ARTI 21-CR program. The level of funding
will be dependent on the level of appropriations for these program
elements.
lighting and appliance standards
Question. The Department is seeking a $6.5 million, 100-percent
increase for the Lighting and Appliance Standards program, which
follows on a $1 million increase provided in fiscal year 1999. What
specifically will be accomplished in the Codes and Standards program in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Department plans to issue Notices of Proposed
Rulemakings (NOPR) for energy efficiency standards for ballasts,
clothes washers, and residential water heaters. A final rule for energy
efficiency standards for gas kitchen ranges and ovens will also be
issued in fiscal year 1999. The Department also plans to issue NOPRs
for test procedures for dishwashers, commercial furnaces, boilers,
water heaters, air conditioners, and heat pumps. A final rule for large
electric motors test procedures will be issued in fiscal year 1999.
This effort is a priority of the Assistant Secretary and an aggressive
schedule to complete the activities has been adopted by the office.
Question. What rulemakings will be issued in fiscal year 2000? In
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Standards rulemaking activities are determined through a
prioritization process which solicits public input. The selection
process for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 has not been completed yet.
However, in fiscal year 2000 the Department expects to publish the
following:
--Both an advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and NOPR proposing
energy efficiency standards for residential central air
conditioners;
--Final rules for energy efficiency standards for ballasts, clothes
washers, residential water heaters; and
--Final rules for test procedures for dishwashers; commercial
furnaces, boilers, water heaters, air conditioners, and heat
pumps; and distribution transformers.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department expects to issue a final rule
for energy efficiency standards for residential central air
conditioners and NOPRs proposing standards for the following commercial
equipment: furnaces, boilers, water heaters, air conditioners, heat
pumps, and distribution transformers. If sufficient funds are
available, the Department would also conduct a study to determine the
potential energy savings that might be realized if standards were
established for high-intensity discharge lamps and small electric
motors, as directed in the Energy Policy Act.
Question. If the program is held to the fiscal year 1999 funding
level, what work would not be accomplished in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Increased investments in buildings technology research,
development, pre-commercial deployment and codes and standards are of
critical importance to meeting the energy and environmental challenges
of our times and the next century. However, we realize the existence of
budget constraints and will work closely with the committee staff to
identify priorities.
Question. The Committee recognizes the effort the Department has
put into reforming the Codes and Standards program, but given the
contentious history of the program, why is the Department in such a
rush to issue so many rulemakings in fiscal years 2000 and 2001?
Answer. In many instances the Department is more than 5 years
behind the rulemaking schedule established by Congress. The Department
is trying to catch up with this schedule because of the huge economic
and environmental benefits which these standards will produce for
consumers and the nation. By the year 2010, the cumulative national
effect of standards for five appliances (refrigerators, dishwashers,
clothes washers, clothes dryers, and room air-conditioners), will be
5.9 quads of primary energy savings and $24 billion (in 1997 dollars)
in savings to consumers. The standards we are currently working on for
ballasts and water heaters as well as the revisions to the clothes
washer standard will collectively generate additional savings equal to
or greater than the 5.9 quads and $24 billion. The funds requested in
fiscal year 2000 will enable the Department to accelerate the analysis
and rulemaking regarding energy conservation standards for commercial
furnaces, boilers, central air conditioners, heat pumps and water
heaters.
federal energy management program
Question. Information provided by the Department indicates that
federal energy use has been reduced by 17 percent from 1985 and that
the Department's goal is to reach the 20-percent level by fiscal year
2000. Is any of the 17-percent gain attributable to a reduction in
space occupied by the federal government since 1985?
Answer. No, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 specifies that the goal
is to be measured by energy use per gross square foot, which is a
measure of efficiency. Progress toward the goal is calculated using
reported current year energy use divided by current year square footage
in goal buildings.
Question. Is any of the gain attributable to efficiency gains from
closure of old facilities or the movement from old to new facilities
that would have taken place regardless of the existence of the Federal
Energy Management Program (FEMP)?
Answer. Yes, renewal of the building stock is one component of
efficiency change. However, the extent of change attributable to these
circumstances is not calculable, as agencies report only aggregate
square footage and energy use; individual buildings are not tracked
other than those excluded from the goal calculation. Some of the
increased efficiency in new federal buildings can be attributed to FEMP
efforts to promote energy efficient new construction through design
assistance activities, designation of federal showcase facilities,
collaborative efforts with GSA, as well as the established federal
building code.
Question. Have these statistics been verified by entities outside
of the Department?
Answer. No, there is no requirement or funding for independent
third party verification or audit of these statistics. Third parties
have examined the annual reports to Congress, have commented on
progress toward established goals, and have made suggestions for
improvement. These reviews, however, have not actually audited or
verified the reported data.
Question. Is the primary goal of the FEMP program to reduce energy
costs to the federal government, or to reduce energy consumption
generally?
Answer. The FEMP program is structured to save both energy and
energy costs. Federal energy management goals established by the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 and Executive Order 12902 are energy efficiency
improvement goals, measured in BTU per gross square foot reductions
from a 1985 baseline. The achievement of these goals is to be
accomplished in a life- cycle cost effective manner, as specified in
the code of federal regulations.
Question. What are the Department's Government Performance and
Results Act performance measures for the program?
Answer. The Department's Government Performance and Results Act
performance measures for FEMP are the Energy Policy Act goal of a 20-
percent reduction in energy use per gross square foot of goal building
area by 2000, and the Executive Order 12902 goal of a 30-percent
reduction in the same measure by 2005. Both are measured against a 1985
baseline. Intermediary performance measures are focused on putting in
place, and implementing Energy Savings Performance Contracts that
enable agencies to invest in efficiency, renewable and advanced
technologies.
Question. Is the 17-percent reduction in energy use calculated
using primarily ``source'' or ``site'' based techniques?
Answer. Progress toward the goal is measured in site energy.
Question. How do you respond to criticisms that energy savings
since 1985 measured on a ``source'' basis are close to 0 percent?
Answer. When measured on a primary energy (source-based) basis,
energy consumed in fiscal year 1997 in federal buildings per square
foot was 4 percent below the fiscal year 1985 baseline. Source-based
measures effect the reporting of electricity and steam consumption and
include the consumption of resources used to generate and transport the
energy to the point of use. As such, source-based calculations are an
estimate based on the average heat content of those constituent fuels
and the generation efficiency. The FEMP uses 11,600 Btu per
kilowatthour of electricity to estimate primary energy consumption for
electricity used. This is compared to the heat content of a site-
delivered kilowatthour of 3,412 Btu. Using a source-based measure of
consumption increases the proportion of electricity in the fuel mix by
more than three fold, resulting in a consumption trend that more
closely mirrors that of electricity. Electricity intensity increases in
federal buildings peaked in fiscal year 1994, at 17 percent above
fiscal year 1885 consumption per square foot. Since fiscal year 1994,
however, electricity intensity in federal buildings has decreased more
than 4 percent.
The federal government uses site-based energy accounting because
federal agencies can measure and report based on their site metered and
billed consumption. This method is direct and accurate, comparable
across regions, and readily converted into economic terms. While
program goals have been set on a site energy basis, we have tried to
provide additional direction to federal energy managers. All federal
energy management decisions are to be based on a life- cycle cost
basis. The Interagency Energy Policy Committee has provided guidance
instructing that energy projects that save source (total) or site
energy should be completed where there are cost savings to the
government. The choice whether to switch from one energy source to
another, where the source versus site issue arises, is left to
individual agencies and sites, based on all relevant factors and local
conditions they face when making that decision.
The success of federal energy management is reflected in an
estimated program impact of approximately $900 million (1997 dollars)
in annual energy cost savings in 1997 from the 1985 baseline. Total
reduction in the energy bill for federal buildings was $2.16 billion in
1997 from 1985 levels, reflecting all factors influencing buildings
energy use (that is, reductions in square footage, energy price
reductions, building retirement and new construction, changes in
mission, and changes in equipment).
Question. Can the Department do more to ensure that the FEMP
program promotes both cost savings and reductions in energy use
measured on a ``source'' basis?
Answer. The FEMP program supports the pursuit of all life-cycle
cost-effective energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced
technology investments by federal energy managers. The Interagency
Energy Policy Committee has provided guidance instructing that energy
projects that save source (total) or site energy should be completed
where there are cost savings to the government. The choice of whether
to switch from one energy source to another is left to individual
agencies and sites, based on all relevant factors and local conditions.
Question. I understand the Administration is actively considering
an Executive Order designed to ensure that federal agencies move
aggressively to implement energy management projects that provide both
cost savings and reductions in energy use. What is the status of this
Executive Order?
Answer. A draft Executive Order is being prepared by the Office of
the President at this time.
Question. Pursuant to language included in the Interior
appropriations bill several years ago, the Department can be reimbursed
by other agencies for work performed in the FEMP program and use such
reimbursements for additional work within the program. The budget
justification estimates total reimbursements to be $1.2 million in
fiscal year 1999 and $3.5 million in fiscal year 2000. Will the
Department's estimates for fiscal year 1999 hold up?
Answer. The status of reimbursements for FEMP technical and
contracting services associated with the Super-ESPC program as of March
30, 1999, is as follows:
Funds in hand................................................. $203,000
Billed or billable............................................ 460,000
Anticipated near-term......................................... 330,000
Anticipated long-term........................................\1\ 200,000
\1\ Approximate at fiscal year-end.
Total available and anticipated receivables are approximately $1 million
by year-end.
Question. To what level does the Department estimate such
reimbursements will rise in the future?
Answer. At this time the Department estimates that up to $36
million in direct and indirect costs associated with servicing the FEMP
Super-ESPC contracts could be recovered by reimbursement by customer
agencies through fiscal year 2005. The actual amount recovered is
dependent upon the extent to which agencies choose the FEMP Super-ESPCs
as a financing mechanism, and the extent to which agencies need to
access FEMP's technical resources in support of their efficiency
projects. Additional amounts of reimbursables are anticipated from
support of agencies technical needs associated with utility-financed
projects. The FEMP will be closely monitoring the federal market
response to the various available financing mechanisms, and adjusting
its budget requests to reflect infrastructure, staffing, and
contractual requirements to meet demands for FEMP technical assistance
and Super-ESPC use. The distribution of receipts of reimbursable funds
across the performance period is dependent upon the timing of demand
for FEMP services and whether or not agencies choose up front or
delayed reimbursement of the Department for those services.
Question. Can this Committee at some point anticipate a budget
request for FEMP that will be level or actually decline from the
previous year based on the availability of these reimbursements?
Answer. Among the chief assumptions were meeting the Executive
Order 12902 fiscal year 2005 30-percent goal, full funding of the
budget requests, and sufficient market demand for FEMP Super-ESPCs to
generate the projected reimbursable funding stream. Appropriations
significantly less than those requested in fiscal year 1999 resulted in
lower FEMP levels of ESPC services and delivery order activity, and
proportionate loss of reimbursable activities and funds, which delays
and decreases the potential for lower budget requests in the out years.
Lower than expected demand for FEMP Super-ESPCs in the early years
would also decrease the potential of receipt of reimbursed funds, and
subsequent decreases in budget requests. The federal market of
alternatively financed energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
is dynamic, and FEMP will closely monitor the market and adjust its
budget requests to reflect the level of demand for FEMP technical and
contracting services accordingly. The fiscal year 2000 budget request
includes funding to support alternative finance approaches to mobility
energy efficiency, water conservation, and efficiency in federal leased
space. These are new activities that will require appropriations
support over and above the fiscal year 1999 appropriations level.
Lower outyear appropriations requests for FEMP alternative
financing activities are possible, given adequate appropriations in
early years to establish a base of reimbursable activities, and
sufficient utilization of FEMP services and contracts by agencies.
Additional appropriations requests in the out years are possible for
new, currently unknown, initiatives associated with energy and cost
savings opportunities in the federal government. The FEMP will strive
to hone its program to the highest value activities, and to submit
budget requests aligned with achieving the greatest benefit to the
government in terms of energy and costs savings outcomes.
Question. The FEMP program now has in place ``Super Energy Savings
Performance Contracts'' in various regions to facilitate the
development of energy savings at federal sites. How much actual work
has been contracted with this mechanism thus far?
Answer. Seven projects have been awarded under the Super-ESPCs for
the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, the General
Services Administration, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. These projects are being financed with over $27.5
million of private sector funds. The projects will result in gross
savings of $57 million. The contractors' investments will be paid from
these savings.
Question. Is progress to date as great as predicted by the
Department in presenting its fiscal year 1999 budget request?
Answer. Progress to date is on track. There are currently about 190
delivery orders signed, in progress, or supported by FEMP under the
Super-ESPCs. Several of those cover multiple facilities which have been
bundled together under a single delivery order. This bundling will make
the contracts easier to administer for both the government and the
energy service company. Of the 190, about 62 have already either signed
delivery orders (7) or selected a specific a contractor (55) to
evaluate the facility and prepare a proposal specifically tailored to
the site. Within the 190, we have some Department of Defense sites we
have worked with to move toward a delivery order. Some of those sites
are likely to use the contracts that the Army and Air Force have
awarded but the results will still be the same, the agency will realize
energy savings and cost savings.
We do not expect to ``close'' each of the delivery orders we now
have in process, but since starting the Super-ESPC process, we are
continually responding to new requests for delivery order assistance.
Our projection for 1999 reflects our estimate of the total number of
agency requests for support in developing delivery orders.
Question. If not, why not?
Answer. We now have lessons learned that will help to speed up
project implementation. The ESPC process is a new way of doing business
for the federal government. We are working with agencies' technical,
contracting, legal, and budget personnel to guide them through the
process. One additional delay in the delivery order process was caused
by agencies developing processes for required notifications to Congress
for projects with cancellation ceilings in excess of $750,000. Since
most agencies are now signing their first ESPC delivery orders
requiring Congressional notification, they are having to set up
processes within their organizations to manage the notification. This
usually slows the first delivery orders and improves somewhat in later
orders. However, DOE intends to submit a legislative recommendation to
raise the notification limit from $750,000 to some higher level, yet to
be determined, in order to minimize these delays in future.
Question. Is there anything that this Committee can do to encourage
other federal agencies to pursue energy savings contracting more
aggressively?
Answer. Yes, the FEMP has been given the authority to accept funds
from agencies for assistance they receive from FEMP for achieving
energy efficiency through Super-ESPCs. The cost the Department is
seeking to recover from other agencies is quite modest, from $10,000 to
$50,000 for a delivery order, depending on the level of services
required by a particular federal site. These costs are far less than
what it would cost an agency to develop and implement an energy savings
performance contact from scratch. In addition, the time from initiation
to completed project is greatly reduced through utilization of the
existing FEMP-based contracts. In spite of these advantages some
agencies and sites are reluctant to commit to use of the contracts
because of reimbursement requirement, citing lack of funding or an
unwillingness to lose part of their projected savings. The Committee
could be helpful if it encouraged all agencies to utilize FEMP services
and the private sector energy savings performance contracts.
transportation technologies
Question. Within the limitations of its funding allocation, this
subcommittee has been supportive of the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PGNV) program. How does progress within the
program to date measure against the goals established at the outset of
the program?
Answer. Today, at the halfway point, we consider the PNGV to be a
successful partnership. When PNGV began, some said that the auto
manufacturers and government could not work together. Five years of
cooperation have proven the skeptics wrong. This unprecedented
partnership is now viewed by many as a model for government and
industry working together to meet technology challenges of national
importance. The program is on schedule. As planned, research and
development activities have been narrowed to those technologies
identified as ``most promising'' by the technology selection process in
1997. Concept cars employing these technologies are under development
and expected in 2000. Pre-production prototype vehicles are due in
2004. The concept cars displayed by companies at the January 1999 North
American International Auto Show in Detroit include technologies
developed or enhanced through the PNGV program and provide public
evidence that significant progress is being made. We expect that many
PNGV technologies will be used in sport utility vehicles, pickups, and
medium and heavy trucks, not just mid-sized sedans.
Question. A focus of the Transportation program has been
development of ``clean diesel'' engines that would increase efficiency
and lower emissions of sport utility vehicles. What are the significant
barriers remaining in the development of `clean diesel' engines that
would be affordable and acceptable to consumers?
Answer. The major remaining technical challenge is to reduce the
exhaust emissions of the diesel engine to near-zero levels, to meet
upcoming California Air Resources Board and Environmental Protection
Agency standards. The specific emissions-related barriers that require
further federal research and development support are reductions of
nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. An advanced formulation, low-
sulfur fuel is also critical to overcoming these barriers. High volume
use of diesel-powered passenger cars in the European market will
continue to drive reduction of engine cost, but fuel injection and
emission control system costs will increase in the near-term to meet
these more stringent requirements. Other factors important for consumer
acceptability such as noise, vibration, cold starting ability, and
acceleration are being addressed primarily by engine manufacturers.
Question. Who are the Department's major partners in this effort?
Answer. The major Department of Energy industry partners include
the three principal U.S.-based automakers, General Motors, Ford, and
Daimler-Chrysler. Within the federal government, the Department of
Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, and
several other federal agencies are included in the Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). In parallel with research being
carried out directly with, or through, PNGV participants, additional
research and development programs are being established under cost-
shared agreements directly with major suppliers. For example, in June
1999, DOE expects to award contracts to Detroit Diesel Corporation and
the Cummins Engine Company, two major U.S. diesel engine manufacturers,
to develop emission control systems for diesel passenger cars which can
also be scaled up for light truck applications. Through recent DOE
initiatives, working relationships also are being established among
DOE's national laboratories and four major catalyst manufacturers--
ASEC, Johnson-Matthey, Degussa, and Engelhard--through the
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, to integrate and test
state-of-the-art emission control components.
Question. At what point in the development process will the federal
government step out of the picture and let the industry ``go it
alone''?
Answer. Compression-ignition, direct-injection (CIDI) engine
technology efforts under the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles (PNGV) follow a research and development roadmap, including
schedules and technical targets, developed in cooperation with the PNGV
Four-Stroke, Direct Injection (4SDI) Technical Team. This team is
composed of scientists and engineers from the auto industry, federal
government agencies, and federal laboratories who specialize in such
areas as combustion and emission control systems. To ensure that the
CIDI effort is focused on the candidates most likely to achieve the
objectives, go/no-go decision milestones have been incorporated within
the technology development schedule. Technology development will
continue beyond a decision milestone only if the technical targets for
that milestone have been achieved. Failure to achieve the targets will
result in project termination or revision of the roadmap. Once the
desired performance has been validated, and the established targets
achieved, federal research efforts will conclude and each industry
partner will determine where, and in what configuration, the technology
will be commercialized.
Question. There has been significant media attention this week on
the fuel cell automobiles being produced by Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and
other automakers. What are the significant barriers remaining in the
development of fuel cell cars that will be affordable and acceptable to
consumers?
Answer. Fuel-flexible fuel cell systems that can operate on
gasoline or advanced petroleum-based fuels are considered by DOE
necessary for the successful early introduction of fuel cell vehicles.
This relates simply to the issue of fuel availability. To date, no fuel
cell developer or auto company has built an automotive-size integrated
fuel cell system operating on gasoline. Beyond that, the cost of the
automotive fuel cell system is currently estimated at ten times higher
than that needed to be competitive with the internal combustion engine.
Significant barriers are as follows:
--On-board fuel processing technology that can meet system
efficiency, size, weight, start-up and transient response
targets.
--Lack of low-cost, high-volume fabrication processes for fuel cell
systems and components.
--Integration of fuel processor, fuel cell stack, and balance of
plant components needed to enable successful resolution of
system level issues such as durability, freeze-thaw
performance, and thermal/water management.
Question. To what extent does the development of fuel cell vehicles
threaten to ``overtake'' developments in advanced combustion engines,
alternative fuel vehicles, and other advanced transportation
technologies?
Answer. The extent to which fuel cell vehicles will succeed in the
marketplace, thus ``overtaking'' competing technologies, is dependent
on a number of factors that include: price of fuel, emissions
regulations, mass production cost, progress of competing technologies,
fuel cell technical progress, foreign activity, and the economy. The
difficulty in predicting these factors makes it impossible to
accurately forecast if and when fuel cell technology will be
commercially available in vehicles. Lowering the cost of fuel cells to
compete with technologies which primarily have only technical barriers,
such as advanced internal combustion engines, suggests it will be a
number of years before fuel cell vehicles move beyond the concept and
prototype stages. However, each technology has significant development
risks sufficient to prohibit identification of a clear winner at this
stage. The benefits of fuel cells--extremely high efficiency, very low
emissions, and utilization of renewable and alternative fuels--make a
compelling case that the technology will ultimately succeed.
Question. Is the development of practical and affordable fuel cell
technology so far in the future that these other technologies are
likely to have a life span in the market that will justify the federal
investment in them?
Answer. The Department has structured the investment in
transportation technologies to be complementary. These technologies are
not necessarily in direct competition, where one technology will
``win'' over another. For example, our work in electric vehicles
(motors, batteries and power electronics) is directly applicable to
compression-ignition, direct- injection (CIDI) hybrids, gasoline
hybrids and fuel cell vehicles since all are electric drive vehicles
that require those components. Technologies other than fuel cells in
which the federal government is investing to improve vehicle fuel
economy and emissions are likely to have shorter term payoffs.
In the case of fuel cells versus other advanced technologies such
as CIDI, it is likely that the fuel cell will have significant market
penetration later due to cost considerations. As fuel cells enter the
market, different technologies will likely start to dominate certain
market segments (that is, sport utility vehicles, automobiles, and
vans). Full conversion over to a single technology, presuming that a
clear ``winner'' emerges, will take at least a few decades.
Question. At what point in the fuel cell development process will
the federal government step out of the picture and let the automobile
industry ``go it alone''?
Answer. Fuel cell research and development activities are currently
conducted under the PNGV program; the completion strategy is based on
achieving established targets and transferring the technology to
America's automakers and their suppliers to ensure a viable,
competitive domestic fuel cell industry. The federal government should
step out of the fuel cell development picture when the established
targets of cost, efficiency, and performance are met or when the
likelihood of meeting those targets falls below an acceptable level in
light of other alternative technologies.
Question. The Transportation program has been working with the
Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technologies (NATT), a consortium
of aluminum and titanium producers, truck manufacturers, Boeing, the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and others. Are you familiar yet
with the work being done by NATT?
Answer. Yes, the Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT), in
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has worked with
NATT since its inception in 1997, and has supported NATT's activities
which are helping to accomplish OTT's mission.
Question. Is it your impression that NATT is making a valuable
contribution to Department of Energy programs?
Answer. Yes, the NATT's expertise in aluminum, magnesium, titanium,
metal-matrix composites, glazing, and polymer-matrix composites has
provided an important dimension to the materials research and
development work supported by OTT. Its collaboration with industry in
the Northwest also bodes well for more rapid commercialization of
developed technologies.
Question. What is the status for funds appropriated for NATT in
fiscal years 1998 and 1999?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, $2.39 million of the Lightweight
Materials funds were committed and distributed to NATT for automotive
applications. The Lightweight Materials program within the Office of
Advanced Automotive Technologies (OAAT) has committed $3,725,000 to
NATT in fiscal year 1999; all but $575,000 has actually been sent to
NATT. the Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (OHVT), has been sent to
NATT, for Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA)
activities.
Question. Have all such funds been obligated to research contracts?
Answer. The $575,000 of committed research funds yet to be
distributed to NATT from OAAT's fiscal year 1999 program resources are
planned for specific research projects. Of funds already provided to
NATT, $250,000 are for NATT program management; that amount will not be
obligated to research projects. All OHVT funds for NATT are to be
obligated to specific research project areas that are currently being
planned and are nearing CRADA status.
Question. What are some of the specific research areas being
targeted by NATT, and how do these research areas relate to PNGV
program goals?
Answer. Specific research areas targeted by NATT under the OAAT
program for automobiles include aluminum, magnesium, titanium, metal-
matrix composites, glazing, and polymer-matrix composites. The work
accomplished in all these areas all contributes to the PNGV goal of 40-
percent vehicle weight reduction at comparable cost. These areas
contribute to high structural strength, with no degradation in
durability and reliability, and are also important for achieving a high
efficiency, 10-mile-per-gallon heavy truck in the OHVT program.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 budget request include funds
for NATT?
Answer. Yes, funding for NATT is in the Lightweight Materials
Technology program request within the Materials Technologies program
managed by OTT.
Question. If so, how much and in what program elements?
Answer. Funding proposed for NATT in fiscal year 2000 is
$3,175,000. These funds are in the Lightweight Materials Technology
portion of the transportation programs request. Specific research areas
to be addressed by the fiscal year 2000 work will again include
aluminum, magnesium, titanium, metal-matrix composites, glazing, and
polymer-matrix composites.
Question. How will the proposed reduction in Lightweight Materials
Research impact the NATT program?
Answer. Ongoing efforts will be ``stretched out'' over more years
at reduced annual funding. Industry partners may be asked to assume
higher cost-share on more mature projects. No new projects will be
started.
industries of the future
Question. The budget request for the Industries of the Future
program includes a large increase ($9 million) for the Forest Products
program. This increase will fund demonstrations of black liquor
gasification technology that would substantially lower NOX,
SO2 and CO2 emissions from paper mills and would
make these mills much more energy efficient. Can you tell me a little
more about this project?
Answer. The Department of Energy has partnered with the Forest
Products industry to develop a research and development strategy, known
as Agenda 2020. Through this effort technology roadmaps have helped
prioritize research and development areas that offer the most
significant benefits for the industry and the nation. Demonstration of
black liquor and biomass gasification systems are considered key
elements that can provide a pathway to an energy sustainable future.
Multiple gasification technologies are needed to meet the diverse needs
of the industry and achieve the energy and environmental goals of the
nation. There are risks associated with demonstrating these
technologies that one company alone cannot endure and therefore
justifies government participation. The fiscal year 2000 President's
budget request for Energy Conservation includes a $9 million increase
for biomass and black liquor gasification; this funding will support
the initial year of a competitive solicitation for multi-year field
evaluations.
Question. How many demonstrations does the Department intend to
fund?
Answer. The planned release of the fiscal year 2000 solicitation is
dependent on favorable House and Senate appropriation marks. Proposals
submitted to the solicitation will be evaluated by merit and program
policy review committees. Selections will be made based upon the
outcome of the reviews and availability of appropriated funds. The $9
million that was requested in fiscal year 2000 can support up to
multiple technologies in the initial year.
Question. Why this many?
Answer. Due to a variety of gasifiers, feedstocks and processing
technologies several demonstrations performed simultaneously (rather
than sequentially) are necessary to provide the industry adequate
information to make timely decisions for replacing their aged boiler
infrastructure (40 to 50 years old).
Question. Who are the industrial partners and what is the level of
non-federal cost sharing?
Answer. Naturally, the industrial partners will depend on the
outcome of the fiscal year 2000 solicitation. However, the Forest
Products industry has proposed an initiative which has aligned several
key paper companies with gasification suppliers. Champion International
Corporation is teaming with Kvaerner Chemrec AB to develop a
pressurized Oxygen-Blown Black Liquor Gasification and Integrated
Combined Cycle system. This project has recently been selected for
funding in fiscal year 1999 for preliminary engineering designs, cost
estimates and supporting analyses, which will be used to determine the
economics of demonstrating integrated gasification combined cycle
technologies in pulp mills. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, together with
StoneChem, Inc, is proposing to demonstrate a Steam Reforming Black
Liquor gasification system. This project is being considered for
funding in fiscal year 1999, as well. Weyerhaeuser and FERCO are
working together to demonstrate biomass gasification combined cycle
systems to replace inefficient power and lime kiln boilers. Babcock and
Wilcox has also discussed interest in black liquor gasification.
Proposals for the fiscal year 2000 solicitation will require a minimum
of 50 percent industry cost-share.
Question. How long will the program last?
Answer. A gasification program that fully supports the Forest
Products industry will be approximately 5 to 8 years in duration,
depending on allocation of appropriated funds. Milestones will be
incorporated into project schedules and go/no go decisions will be
established throughout the life of the projects.
Question. What will the fiscal year 2001 funding requirements be?
Answer. Total cost per demonstration project is estimated to be $50
to $60 million over five to six years. The fiscal year 2001 funding
requirements will be based upon the amount of appropriated funds in
fiscal year 2000, number of projects ready for design phase versus
implementation, and levels of cost sharing from a variety of sources.
Question. What are the barriers to industry development and
demonstration of this technology without federal support?
Answer. As with all initial large-scale process technologies,
installations will require larger capital costs than subsequent units
and will incur larger initial operating expenses. Without DOE cost
share, the risks associated with implementing gasification technologies
are too burdensome for one company to withstand. Additionally, industry
is working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to acquire
innovative technology waivers for MACT II regulations. Since the new
technologies provide significant environmental benefits, it is expected
that the EPA will grant leniency for the host sites to comply with
these rules. However, if this does not occur, the advancement of these
demonstrations may be jeopardized.
Question. What is the relationship of this program to the
Department's Bioenergy Initiative?
Answer. The gasification effort is part of a broader Bioenergy
Initiative, which will accelerate the use of fuels, energy crops, and
feedstocks in power generation, industrial processing and manufacturing
and transportation activities. The Bioenergy Initiative research and
development will produce an array of technologies that will enable
production from a variety of energy crops of multiple products (fuels,
power, and chemicals) for various markets in different regions. In this
way, a ton of biomass could be as fungible as a barrel of oil today.
This effort will provide an integrated, long-term strategy with the
chemical, forestry, agricultural and energy communities and will help
strengthen the nation's energy and economic security, protect the
environment and revitalize rural America. Successful demonstration of
gasification technologies in the forest products industry will provide
a springboard for applications in other industries and bioenergy areas,
such as the agricultural sector.
Question. Do any funds in the budget request outside of the Forest
Products program support the black liquor gasification project? If so,
how much and in what programs?
Answer. There are no other requests outside of the Forest Products
program that support black liquor gasification activities. The $9
million increase within the fiscal year 2000 President's budget request
for Energy Conservation appropriation will support the initial year of
a competitive solicitation for multi-year field evaluations.
Question. The budget request also includes increases for the Mining
($3 million) and Agriculture ($4 million) industry programs that were
initiated in fiscal year 1999 and a $1 million request to restart the
Petroleum Refining industry program. What is the status of the Mining
Industry Technology ``roadmapping'' process? Of the $2 million
appropriated in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Mining Industry of the Future is currently soliciting
50 percent cost-shared proposals from industry, academia, and national
laboratories to address the needs identified in the ``Mining Industry
Roadmap for Crosscutting Technologies''. This roadmap, available from
both the National Mining Association and the DOE Office of Industrial
Technologies, provides a prioritized list of needed technologies
identified by both hardrock and coal mining industry partners in the
United States. The funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999 will be
directed to the national laboratories in order to start addressing
these needs as soon as possible.
Question. What is the status of the Agriculture industry technology
``roadmapping'' process? Of the $2 million appropriated in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. Our industry and grower partners convened two roadmapping
sessions late last summer in Indianapolis, Indiana. The first focused
on current crops in current processing systems; the second focused on
modified plants for new processing methods. Over one hundred experts
from both the public and private sectors attended or participated in
the review process for the draft roadmap. The roadmap was published in
February and is being used in the Agriculture Team's first solicitation
for proposals now underway. We are seeking new research and development
ideas from the high priority targets identified by industry in the
processing and utilization categories. Proposals are due by April 23rd
and we plan to make our selections for financial awards by June 9th.
Question. How is the Agriculture program being coordinated with
other Department of Energy biomass programs and with the Department of
Agriculture?
Answer. The Office of Industrial Technologies' Agriculture Team is
a member of the broader Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) Bioenergy Team, and as such, is a full participant in the
planning and activities of that new initiative. Representatives of
EERE, as well as the Department's Office of Science, have been invited
to key Agriculture Team events, such as the roadmapping workshops last
summer; they also were given the opportunity last year to review the
draft strategic vision and technology roadmap.
Similarly, there is a broad and active web of interaction and
collaboration between the Agriculture Team and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Various agencies at USDA have attended key meetings
sponsored by the Agriculture Team and offered comments on key
documents. The Agriculture Team likewise attends on a regular basis
meetings of the USDA's Biobased Products Coordinating Council;
participated in the Council's strategic review last fall; and, visited
recently the USDA's National Center for Agricultural Utilization
Research in Peoria, Illinois, to expand contacts collaboration with
scientists at that premier facility. We are also exploring the
possibility of adding a USDA staff member to the DOE Merit Review
Committee for the Agriculture Team's first solicitation for research
proposals.
Question. What types of research will be funded in this program?
Answer. The Agriculture Team will be guided in its research funding
decisions by the suggestions and priorities set by its industry and
grower partners. They came together voluntarily last year to form the
Executive Steering Group, an informal oversight body responsible for
producing the technology roadmap for Renewables Vision 2020. The group
also recommended that the Agriculture Team focus its first solicitation
on the roadmap barrier areas of processing and utilization; the team
agreed. Those categories contain research and development targets for
bioprocessing, bioseparations, and biocatalysis; all proposed projects
also have to meet our office missions of reducing energy use and waste.
We will be looking to establish a balanced portfolio of research
projects, ranging from short to long term in duration and with a broad
array of partners and topics to advance the strategic goals of the
renewable bioproducts industry.
Question. How is this research distinct from research being funded
by the Department of Agriculture or other DOE programs?
Answer. No other program in the federal government duplicates the
unique research and development focus and decision-making process of
the Office of Industrial Technology Agriculture Team. We are targeting
100 percent of our research funding to the high priority targets
established by our industry and grower partners in their published
technology roadmap for renewable bioproducts. These targets are tied
directly to the ambitious long-term goals set by the private sector for
the use of crops, trees and agricultural wastes as basic chemical
feedstocks for a wide range of consumer goods, such as plastics, paints
and adhesives. Research projects also have to result in significant
energy efficiency gains and reduction of wastes. Our solicitations are
competitive and open to the public. The solicitations require teaming
and 50 percent cost-sharing for proposals. Proposed projects will be
screened and reviewed by a mix of industry and federal experts,
including from the USDA.
Question. Given the existence of the Agricultural Research Service
with USDA, why is the Department of Energy involved in this area of
research at all?
Answer. The basic philosophy guiding the 1995 Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of Agriculture and Energy was
that the skills and technologies of the two departments are largely
complementary and can be brought together to benefit the industry and
agriculture of this country. The USDA's Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) celebrates a proud tradition of research successes, but its
focus, mission, and method of operations are nonetheless quite
different than the ``Industries of the Future'' program's Agriculture
Team. ARS is the main research arm for the USDA and that research is
done basically by its own federal employees. In the area of renewable
bioproducts, the Agricultural Research Service has tended to focus more
on basic plant sciences and crop production issues, rather than on the
efficient processing or utilization of those plants; the latter
categories have traditionally been the strong suits of the Energy
laboratories, with their expertise running more to the core physical
sciences, high-speed computing, and sensors and controls. Moreover, the
Agriculture Team's focus is energy-related and seeks new research ideas
from the public through open, competitive solicitations. The
Agriculture Team is working closely with a unique coalition from the
agricultural, chemical and forestry communities across-the-board.
To reach industry's stated goal of winning 10 percent of the market
for basic chemical feedstocks from plants--a five-fold increase in just
2 decades--will require the sustained and concerted efforts of a
multitude of groups from both the public and private sector across the
country; not just the ARS, but other relevant offices at USDA, as well
as the DOE and possibly other federal and state agencies, academia,
environmentalists, industry, and farmers. Much more inter-disciplinary
collaboration and cross-fertilization of approaches also will be
crucial to grow this new industrial sector. Success will require new
mixes of talent and equipment. One part of one federal agency working
alone will not be able to bring all of the necessary talent, equipment,
ideas and funds to bear in the time required to help reduce our
increasing reliance on imported oil.
Question. Are there any specific barriers to USDA funds being used
for research at DOE's national labs?
Answer. No, there are not, but USDA would have to meet the rules
and regulations governing ``Work for Others'' or any other type of
technology transfer mechanisms, just like any other organization. The
USDA can even propose to fund a portion of the work at a laboratory for
a project to be submitted under the Agriculture Team's current
solicitation, given that all the requirements of that Request for
Proposals are met.
Question. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency is
releasing a proposed rule that would dramatically reduce the amount of
sulfur allowed in gasoline. Given that current sulfur reduction
technologies are expensive and energy intensive, this rule could have
significant impacts on the cost of gasoline and the amount of energy
used to produce gasoline. What kind of research is the Department
supporting to address this challenge?
Answer. The Office of Industrial Technologies has been supporting
pioneering research in gasoline biodesulfurization since fiscal year
1997. This technology is likely to have lower capital and operating
costs than the conventional technology, hydrodesulfurization, and, as
such, has the potential to meet industry needs for a low cost
technology which is also less energy intensive and retains the quality
and value of the gasoline by not degrading octane. Over $1.8 million
has been committed to this project since inception in fiscal year 1997.
Additionally, the Office of Fossil Energy is supporting three
research and analytical efforts within the Oil and Gas and Coal and
Power programs, to produce cleaner transportation fuels. The Gas-to-
Liquids program is concentrating on the development of ceramic membrane
technology for combined air separation to produce oxygen and partial
oxidation of natural gas to produce a lower cost synthesis gas. This
synthesis gas could be used to produce ultra-clean transportation fuels
which contain no sulfur or aromatics. The Oil program is supporting
activity for effective environmental protection. It includes
identifying various pollutants such as sulfur in petroleum, and
developing process technology to reduce these potential pollutants more
efficiently and at lower cost.
The Advanced Clean Fuels Research Program for Indirect Liquefaction
is supporting development of technology to convert synthesis gas from a
variety of feedstocks, including coal, petroleum coke and refinery
bottoms, to ultra-clean diesel and gasoline fuels. These fuels would
not contain sulfur or aromatics and therefore would achieve
significantly lower regional emissions of SO2, Volatile
Organic Compounds, NOX, and particulate matter when blended
with conventional transportation fuels.
Question. In what programs is such research being proposed in
fiscal year 2000 and at what amounts?
Answer. Gasoline biodesulfurization is being pursued through the
OIT Petroleum Industries of the Future (IOF) Program. $1 million has
been proposed for all OIT IOF Petroleum projects in fiscal year 2000.
The industry-formulated roadmap will prioritize industry needs. This
will determine the percentage of total proposed budget to be allocated
to this project in fiscal year 2000.
The Fossil Energy Oil and Gas funding request for fiscal year 2000
includes $5.3 million for gas-to-liquids and $3.4 million for effective
environmental protection identification and development activities
related to sulfur and other regional and global pollutant reduction.
The Advanced Clean Fuels Research budget, also managed by DOE's Office
of Fossil Energy, includes $6.6 million for indirect liquefaction
activities to produce ultra-clean transportation fuels.
Question. Does the budget include funds for research on
biodesulfurization of coal? If so, in what programs and in what
amounts?
Answer. No funds are included in the OIT budget for
biodesulfurization of coal research.
Question. Has the petroleum industry identified this technology as
a research priority in its industry ``vision'' process?
Answer. The ``Technology Vision of the U.S. Downstream Petroleum
Industry'' notes the prospect that bioscience will be increasingly
introduced into refining operations as this technology advances. It
states further that bioprocessing may be able to provide environmental,
performance and cost benefits in fuel processing that the refining
industry seeks and singles out the biodesulfurization of fuels as being
a research priority in its vision.
advanced turbine systems
Question. The budget request for the Advanced Turbine Systems
program within the Office of Industrial Technologies is $12 million
below the fiscal year 1999 level, reflecting the fact that the ATS
program is nearing completion. How much has the federal government
invested in the ATS program to date?
Answer. The federal government has invested $151 million dollars in
the Advanced Turbine Systems program (industrial) to date.
Question. What has been the level of industry cost sharing?
Answer. Overall program cost share is 50 percent. Specifically,
Solar Turbines cost share is 69 percent, Allison Engines cost share is
38 percent. The materials base technology program cost share is
approximately 25 percent
Question. Do we yet know whether the technology developed in this
program will meet or exceed original program goals?
Answer. The Department is confident that the advanced engine
developed in this program will exceed the 40-percent efficiency goal
and demonstrate single digit emissions. Thus far, cost, reliability,
maintainability, durability and availability remain on target to meet
goals. Once the technology demonstration is completed, the Department
will confirm.
Question. Is the Department and its industry partners confident
that the technology developed in this program will move rapidly into
the marketplace?
Answer. The Department and its industry partners are confident that
most of the technology is already moving into the marketplace.
Technology, such as the Mercury 50, Solar Turbines Advanced Turbine
Systems is well position to move rapidly in the market with its orders
booked for 1999 and the year 2000. Other sub-system technologies
including coatings and low sulfur alloy development are currently being
incorporated in the supplier base. For example, Howmett and PCI are
currently processing alloys with the low sulfur technology developed
under the program. Sub-system advanced technologies such as ceramics
and catalytic combustion will not move rapidly into the market without
additional funding.
energy information administration
Question. The budget request for EIA includes funds to develop
better modeling capabilities for international carbon mitigation
analysis. How many years does EIA anticipate it will take to develop
this capability to the planned level?
Answer. Assuming receipt of the requested funding in fiscal year
2000, EIA will need an additional 2 years to complete the development
and integration of the modeling enhancements to attain the planned
analysis capabilities level.
Question. Does EIA anticipate future increases in funding
requirements beyond that requested in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. EIA does anticipate investment funds will be needed beyond
that requested in fiscal year 2000. Specifically, EIA anticipates $1.0
million will be needed in fiscal year 2001, and $500,000 will be needed
in fiscal year 2002 representing the minimum level needed to develop
the modeling capabilities required to provide reliable assessment of
carbon mitigation alternatives and reliable assessment of our potential
trading partners mitigation efforts. As with any analysis or modeling
effort, this level of funding provides a certain capability. Additional
funding could provide additional regional detail, a longer forecast
time horizon, additional policy analysis capabilities, or a faster
development schedule.
ramjet technology
Question. The Committee has been monitoring the development of
technology that applies ramjet technology from the aerospace industry
to electric power generation. The Committee further understands that a
prototype of this technology has been constructed, and that a proposal
has been submitted to the Department to test this prototype engine
using coal mine methane as a fuel. Is the Department aware of this
proposal?
Answer. An unsolicited proposal was received from Ramgen by the
Department several weeks ago. The three-phase, 3-year effort would
demonstrate the use of the Ramgen engine on coal bed methane.
Question. What is the status of the proposal?
Answer. The Federal Energy Technology Center is in the process of
reviewing the proposal.
Question. What are the potential benefits of successfully
demonstrating and deploying this type of technology?
Answer. The market potential for the Ramgen engine would be a full
range of distributed generation applications ranging from unit sizes of
750 kilowatts to 40 megawatts. The Ramgen engine design is expected (by
Ramgen) to allow capital costs which are one-third lower than
equivalent power systems. Ramgen also expects the engine to have the
ability to operate on a wide range of fuels while maintaining high
efficiency and low nitrous oxide emissions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
the role of fossil energy
Question. What percentage of the energy needs of the United States
are currently supplied by fossil fuels?
Answer. In 1997, the latest year for which complete data are
available, fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) accounted
for 85 percent of the nation's energy needs.
Question. What percentage of the nation's energy needs are fossil
fuels expected to supply in the year 2020?
Answer. According to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
Annual Energy Outlook 1999 reference case, fossil fuels are expected to
supply 90 percent of the nation's energy needs by 2020.
Question. What percentage of the energy needs of the world are
currently supplied by fossil fuels?
Answer. In 1996, the latest year for which complete data are
available, fossil fuels accounted for almost 86 percent of the world's
energy needs.
Question. What percentage of the world's energy needs are fossil
fuels expected to supply in the year 2020?
Answer. According to the EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998
reference case, fossil fuels are expected to supply 89 percent of the
world's energy needs by 2020.
Question. How much electricity does the United States currently
generate each year? How much does the world generate?
Answer. In 1997, the last year for which complete data are
available, the United States generated 3.5 trillion kilowatthours of
electricity. Total world electricity generation in 1996, the last year
of complete data, was 13.1 trillion kilowatthours.
Question. What is the projected annual electricity generation for
the United States and the world by the year 2020?
Answer. EIA projects in its Annual Energy Outlook 1999 reference
case that electricity generation will be 4.8 trillion kilowatthours in
2020. EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998 reference case projects
total world electricity consumption will be 23.1 trillion kilowatthours
in 2020. Assuming a similar ratio between generation and consumption as
existed in 1996, generation would then be about 25.2 trillion
kilowatthours in 2020.
Question. How much electricity in the United States is currently
generated by coal-fired power plants each year?
Answer. EIA estimates coal-fired utility power plants generated 1.8
trillion kilowatthours of electricity in 1997.
Question. How much electricity will be generated from coal in the
year 2020?
Answer. EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1999 reference case projects
that coal-fired generating units will produce 2.4 trillion
kilowatthours of electricity in 2020.
Question. What are comparable numbers for the world?
Answer. EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998 reference case
estimates world coal consumption for electricity generation in 1995 to
have been 51 quadrillion (quads) British thermal units (Btu) and a
projected 87 quads Btu in 2020. Based on an average of 10,500 Btu per
kilowatthour of electricity generated, total coal-fired generation
would have been approximately 4.8 trillion kilowatthours in 1995,
rising to 8.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2020.
Question. How many gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity are
projected to be built in the United States in the next 20 to 50 years?
Answer. Between 1997 and 2020, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1999
reference case projects that 31 gigawatts of coal-fired generating
capacity will be built in the United States. EIA does not project
beyond 2020.
Question. How many gigawatts of current coal-fired capacity are
expected to receive major rehabilitation?
Answer. EIA does not project major rehabilitation for coal-fired
generating units. It is assumed that plants are maintained at
sufficient operating condition through their annual maintenance plans.
It is generally assumed in EIA's projections that coal plants will
operate at least 45 years, with extensions of up to 20 years depending
on the cost of competing new technologies. In EIA's Annual Energy
Outlook 1999 references case, approximately 3 gigawatts of coal-fired
generating plants are projected to retire between 1997 and 2020. EIA
projections do not go beyond 2020.
Question. Are generating costs projected to decline over the next
20 years for coal-fired and gas-fired power plants; and if so, by how
much?
Answer. Generating costs (fixed and variable operating costs,
including the cost of fuel) are projected to decline for coal-fired gas
plants, but to rise slightly for gas-fired plants between 1997 and
2020. EIA estimates that the operating costs of a typical coal steam
unit running at a 70-percent capacity factor will decline by about 27
percent from 1997 to 2020, to about 1.4 cents per kilowatthour produced
from an estimated 1.9 cents in 1997. For a natural gas combined- cycle
unit, the operating cost is expected to go up slightly, from 2.2 cents
per kilowatthour to 2.3 cents per kilowatthour, mainly because of
higher fuel costs (all costs are in 1997 dollars). The decision to
build new generating capacity will also be based on capital costs,
which are approximately twice as high for coal as they are for natural
gas.
Question. In the transportation sector, what percentage of energy
consumption is currently met with fossil fuels? How does that
percentage change in the next 20 years?
Answer. In 1997, fossil fuels accounted to 99.5 percent of energy
consumption in the transportation sector. By 2020, EIA's Annual Energy
Outlook 1999 reference case projects that fossil fuels will account for
98.3 percent of total transportation energy consumption, due to
additional consumption of ethanol and electricity.
Question. What can the Department of Energy do in the future to
better educate and inform the other parts of the Administration as to
the importance of and the economic and environmental benefits of the
fossil energy research program?
Answer. We believe that DOE has successfully worked within the
Administration to convey fossil energy information and analyses. For
example, our development of a ``state-of-the-science'' analysis of
carbon sequestration technology--in preparation for ``roadmapping'' a
coordinated research and development program--was developed jointly
with the DOE Office of Science, in close cooperation with other federal
agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, in addition to others.
Our research and development efforts in alternative liquids from both
coal and natural gas are being linked closely with the development of
high-efficiency, cleaner engines in DOE's Partnership for New
Generation Vehicles overseen by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency.
Our efforts in methane hydrates research are being planned as an
Administration-wide effort involving the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Naval Research Laboratory. Recently our Federal Energy Technology
Center signed a ``memorandum of understanding'' with the U.S. Office of
Surface Mining to apply fossil energy technologies to mitigate acid
mine drainage and other environmental concerns associated with mining.
fossil energy research--coal
Question. What is the future of coal as an energy source for both
domestic and international energy markets, and how does the fiscal year
2000 budget proposal contribute to this future?
Answer. According to estimates by the Energy Information
Administration, domestic consumption of coal will increase 28 percent
between 1996 and 2020. During the same period, coal consumption in the
rest of the world is expected to increase 80 percent. Beyond 2020, coal
use is expected to continue to increase at a substantial rate,
especially in developing Asia. These projections assume implementation
of current environmental regulations. They do not consider, for
example, new regulations for meeting PM 2.5 ambient air quality
standards in the United States or possible future climate change
mitigation requirements.
The fiscal year 2000 budget anticipates such requirements and will
contribute to reducing the environmental impacts of coal use as well as
reducing the cost of electricity generated from coal. Vision 21 coal-
fired power plants will generate electricity 10 percent cheaper than
current coal technology while producing near-zero emissions of
SO2, NOX and particulate. Our cost goal for
reducing CO2 emissions, should that be required, is $10 per
ton of carbon. These low emission characteristics will become
especially important in a world with a greatly increased population
combined with global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Long-
term economic, yet environmentally sound, energy from coal will
contribute to growth of the domestic economy as well as economies of
developing nations.
Question. What is the long-range role of coal as an energy source
for this country and the world?
Answer. In the coming decades, coal use is expected to increase
substantially in the United States and increase even more rapidly in
developing nations which have economies and populations that are
growing rapidly. According to the Energy Information Administration,
domestic coal use will increase 28percent by 2020 while increasing 80
percent in the rest of the world.
Coal is an attractive fuel because it is relatively plentiful in
many countries, including the in the United States, and low in cost.
However, coal use also presents environmental problems. In the past,
collaborative research and development between DOE and industry have
found solutions to these types of problems. It is our belief that we
can continue to enable the United States to enjoy the benefits of low
cost coal use by development of additional technologies to protect the
environment.
Question. How many years worth of coal reserves and resources does
our country have?
Answer. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has recently developed
estimates of the U.S. coal resource. The USGS publication, Coal
Availability Studies: A New Look at Resource Estimates, available from
the USGS web site, indicates that the coal demonstrated reserve base is
475 billion tons, or enough to meet projected energy needs for almost
200 years, based on current production rates (not all of the reserve
base is recoverable). The current production rate for coal in the
United States is 1.1 billion tons per year.
Question. How many years worth of natural gas?
Answer. The USGS has recently developed estimates of the U.S.
natural gas resource base. A publication available from the USGS web
site, A Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey 1995 National Assessment
of Oil and Gas Resources, indicates that the Unites States has 1,073
trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. The natural gas reserves are
roughly equivalent to 55 years of supply based on current production
rates of approximately 19 trillion cubic feet per year.
Question. What are some of the success stories associated with coal
research and development funded by the Department of Energy?
Answer. Below are listed several success stories of the DOE Coal
Research and Development and Clean Coal Technology (CCT) programs. The
CCT successes--mostly demonstrations of pre-commercial, new
technologies--could not have occurred without earlier DOE research and
development. The research and development successes that culminated in
CCT demonstrations include the following:
--Low NOX burners: Far less expensive than preceding
technology for removing NOX (oxides of nitrogen,
precursors of smog) emissions, about one-half of U.S. coal-
fired capacity today has these burners. Sales to date are about
$1.5 billion, and will likely double by January 1, 2000.
--Atmospheric Fluidized Bed power plants: DOE/industry investments in
this clean technology have resulted to date in at least $9
billion in domestic and foreign sales ($6.2 billion domestic,
$2.8 billion foreign).
--Advanced Scrubbers: Three advanced scrubbers have been demonstrated
by DOE, one of which earned Power magazine's 1993 Power Plant
of the Year award.
--Tomorrow's Power Plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or
IGCC, and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, or PFBC): These pre-
commercial, virtually pollution-free plants have the potential
of far higher efficiencies (thus, 20 to 40 percent lower
CO2 levels).
--The Rosebud SynCoal and Encoal
processes are two different ways to upgrade low-rank coals to
cleaner, more efficient fuels. Both processes are being
marketed worldwide.
DOE supported coal research and development successes that occurred
with no involvement with the CCT program include the following:
--Microcel coal cleaning, now a commercial technology worldwide.
--Super 9 Chrome Alloy, which allows increased efficiency in power
plants because of its ability to withstand higher heat than
predecessor materials.
--Tomorrow's Gas Turbines, initiated in 1992, has already resulted in
many new commercial components to increase efficiencies of
turbines, using either natural gas or gasified fuels.
--The ASPEN Model, fully commercialized computer software for energy/
chemical firms.
--Toughened Ceramics, which increase efficiencies in many energy and
power uses.
--Neural Networks for Pollution Control (GNOCIS system), which
continually adjusts boiler firing conditions, reducing
NOX emissions by 15 percent while increasing
efficiency. GNOCIS will be installed at 21 U.S. sites this
year.
--Several spinoff applications, including components for a better,
safer artificial heart, and technology now used for more cost-
effective aluminum recycling, with other possible applications,
including vitrification of low-level radioactive waste.
advanced clean fuels research
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a 22-percent
decrease below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for coal preparation
and a 48-percent decrease below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for
Direct Liquefaction. What is driving the reductions proposed for these
programs?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Advanced Clean
Fuels Research program continues its transformation to a focus
primarily upon the environment. Its emphasis is on affordable, ultra-
clean, low emission transportation fuels, composite solid feedstocks
which incorporate biomass, and light-weight, high-strength premium
carbon products which will:
--Enable U.S. vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle
emissions standards,
--Improve the nation's regional air quality by reducing emissions of
SO2, NOX, Volatile Organic Compounds, and
particulates, and
--Reduce potential global climate change gases.
The activities proposed are market driven to insure program
relevancy, highly leveraged with private cost-sharing dollars, and of
significant interest to industry. The budgets proposed are appropriate
to continue this refocus in fiscal year 2000. In line with this
thinking, emphasis is being placed on Indirect Liquefaction
technologies that will permit:
--Coproduction of highly efficient electric power, ultra-low
emissions transportation fuels, and strategic chemicals;
--Development of a ``new generation'' of ultra-clean transportation
fuels, compatible with the existing infrastructure, which are
to be used in advanced high efficiency engines being developed
by the Office of Transportation Technologies' PNGV and heavy
vehicle programs; and
--Production of hydrogen from fossil resources without CO2
by-product generation (since many now believe fossil fuels are
the primary resource capable of enabling the ``hydrogen
economy'').
The Direct Liquefaction program is primarily looking toward the
development of longer term advanced research activities, and the Coal
Preparation program is primarily emphasizing environmentally preferred
feedstocks, premium carbon products, and the development of
precombustion Hazardous Air Pollutants removal technologies (for
example, mercury).
Question. Is either of these programs being de-emphasized?
Answer. Current Direct Liquefaction Technology is being de-
emphasized because there is little commercial interest in this
technology at this time and little prospect to its use domestically.
Advanced research aimed at significant, innovative changes to direct
liquefaction concepts is being emphasized instead. The Coal Preparation
program is being re-focused to emphasize environmentally preferred
feedstocks, premium carbon products, and the development of
precombustion HAP's removal technologies (for example, mercury). The
budget proposed is appropriate to continue this refocus in fiscal year
2000.
Question. What research activities would be undertaken if coal
preparation was funded at a level of $5 million above the fiscal year
1999 level?
Answer. If additional funds in the amount of $5 million were made
available, research would be initiated in advanced, cross-cutting
separations technologies, and sensors and controls applied to all
phases of mineral mining, extraction, and processing. Additionally,
currently sponsored work would be increased in the use of coal as a
non-fuel resource (that is, premium carbon products), the development
of coal/waste/biomass composite fuels, the development of coal
combustion by-product separation and use, and the development of
technologies permitting the precombustion control of HAPS (for example,
mercury).
The Advanced Separations Technology Initiative ($2 million) would
incorporate work for enhanced, environmentally benign processing
operations designed to minimize wastes and reduce costs. The Advanced
Sensors and Controls Technology Initiative ($2 million) would
investigate the development of non-intrusive diagnostics, directed
toward resource mapping, and sensors and controls for ``smart'' mining
machines.
Additional funds ($1 million) would also be used to expand the
number of Phase II projects participating in our existing Grand
Challenge program component, as well as the number of projects
participating in our premium carbon products from coal program
component, both currently sponsored program activities. In the Grand
Challenge area funds would be used to support the development of coal/
waste/biomass composite fuels, the development of coal combustion by-
product separation and use, and the development of precombustion HAPS
control technologies. These on-going activities are cost-shared by
industry at more than 50 percent, and will be demonstrated at
commercial sites. In the production of premium light-weight, high-
strength carbon products from coal funds will be used to sponsor
additional cost-shared, industry-driven projects as part of the
Consortium for Premium Carbon Products from Coal.
Question. What would be the benefits of these activities?
Answer. The work supported in the development of innovative
concepts for coal preparation would produce several benefits. Advanced
Separations Technology Initiative will develop technology that can
support sustainable mining operations characterized by near zero
wastes, reduced ground-water pollution, and improved energy
efficiencies. Advanced Sensors and Control Technology Initiative will
permit rapid discovery and exploitation of coal resources and other
minerals while minimizing the production of excess wastes. When linked
to ``smart'' mining machines and their attendant sensor arrays,
innovative diagnostic technologies will reduce costs of coal and
minerals production and minimize environmental impacts by combining
resource mapping, real-time recovery, and on-site processing.
Strong industry, cost-shared, participation in each of the Phase II
projects of the Grand Challenge program, as well as in the projects of
the premium carbon products from coal program, is accelerating the
identification and development of innovative technologies that, when
developed, will expand markets, ensure market relevance, and instigate
early commercialization of technologies that will expand the use of
coal as a source of energy in an environmentally responsive manner.
The work ongoing in the area of Coal Liquefaction has been
refocused to develop technologies and processed to produce affordable,
ultra-clean, low emission transportation fuels that will: enable U.S.
vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle emissions
standards; improve the nation's regional air quality by reducing
emissions of SO2, NOX, Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC), and particulates generated by the transportation sector; reduce
potential global climate change gases; enable the coproduction of
highly efficient electric power, ultra-low emissions transportation
fuels, and strategic chemicals; produce a ``new generation'' of ultra-
clean transportation fuels, compatible with the existing
infrastructure, which can be used in advanced engines being developed
by the Office of Transportation Technologies PNGV and heavy vehicle
programs, to significantly increase their efficiency and performance.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes to increase
funding for Indirect Liquefaction. A portion of this funding is to
initiate advanced shift, separation research for hydrogen preparation.
What benefits would come from this higher funding level?
Answer. The Advanced Clean Fuels Research program (of which
indirect liquefaction is a significant portion) continues to emphasize
the production of next generation ultra-low emission fuels, and the
development of multiple feedstock, multiple-product, energy
coproduction plants. In the ultra-low emission fuels area, we are
developing gasification based Fischer-Tropsch and oxygenated fuels,
fuel blendstocks, and fuel additives capable of achieving EPA's 2012
vehicle emission targets (that is, 1 gram NOX, 0.05 gram/
bhp/hr particulates) when used in combination with advanced diesel
engine power plants currently under development. In the coproduction
plant area, we are developing gasification based plants capable of
using coal (or coal in combination with other feedstocks such as
petroleum coke, refinery bottoms, refinery wastes, and biomass), and of
economically coproducing low emission clean fuels, strategic chemicals,
and electric power (for either export or internal consumption).
The increased funding requested will be used to perform technical,
economic, and market analysis, preliminary concept design and initial
supporting research for at least three gasification based coproduction
concepts (to be sited at an existing refinery, chemical plant, and
power plant), each capable of using multiple feedstocks, and producing
multiple products; and to initiate development a ``new generation'' of
advanced ultra-low emission transportation fuels to be used in advanced
vehicles systems, such as the highly efficient diesel engines for
sports/utility, light truck, and passenger vans currently being
developed by the Department's Office of Transportation Technologies.
DOE will also continue to develop key supporting technologies, such
as those which can economically produce low cost hydrogen and synthesis
gas from fossil feedstocks, while concomitantly reducing the amount of
CO2 produced. The hydrogen preparation activity intends to
develop advanced separations technology capable of producing low cost
hydrogen from mixed gas streams, and from synthesis gas in a clean and
affordable manner.
These activities will keep to foster lower cost clean fuels and
improved regional air quality with reduced emissions of SO2,
NOX, VOC, and particulates. Each of these program components
is market driven and highly leveraged with participant cost sharing in
order to insure program relevancy and industry interest.
Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposed $3 million to
complete Phase IV of the Low Emission Boiler System (LEBS) program
which involves the design construction and operation of a proof-of-
concept facility. This project, known as the Prairie Energy Project,
will operate as a source of independent power and will serve as a
showcase for LEBS technology. What is the total estimated cost of the
Prairie Energy Project?
Answer. The total cost of Phase IV of the LEBS program is $127
million. The estimated cost of the proof-of-concept facility alone is
$113 million.
Question. How much of this project is cost-shared?
Answer. DOE is funding 27 percent of the project's cost.
Question. What are the other sources of funding beyond DOE's
contribution of $34 million in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
Answer. The sources of funds for LEBS Phase IV in 1998, 1999, and
2000 are as follows:
LEBS PHASE IV FUNDING SOURCES
[In million of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Source Other --------------------------- Total
years 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. DOE........................................................... 1 15 15 3 34
State of Illinois.................................................. ....... ....... 3 22 25
Owner.............................................................. 11 1 3 3 18
Lender Debt........................................................ ....... ....... ....... 50 50
--------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 12 16 21 78 127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much of the total estimated cost of the project is
for construction versus non-construction?
Answer. The total cost of Phase IV of the LEBS program is $127
million. The estimated construction cost of the proof-of-concept
facility alone is $113 million. Thus, non-construction represents $14
million of the project.
Question. When will the effort be completed?
Answer. Commercial test operations are scheduled to be complete in
December 2001. The LEBS Phase IV is scheduled to be complete in June
2002.
Question. Why is DOE involved in developing this power plant which
will operate commercially after the test phase?
Answer. This technology developed competitively in a partnership
between government and industry, reduces NOX (an ozone
precursor) and SOX, and is more efficient (less greenhouse
gas per kilowatt) than existing technology. To facilitate early
commercial use and showcase the technology the DOE cost-shared the
design, construction and test operation of a proof-of-concept facility.
Question. A significant increase is being proposed in fiscal year
2000 for the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. What would these
funds be used for?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $38.661 million
represents a 19-percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
appropriation of $32.388 million for the Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) Program. This increase in funding ($6.273
million) would support the research and development needs for the
Vision 21 program. The Vision 21 program is geared to the development
of energy plants of the future that will be highly efficient facilities
producing an array of energy products while simultaneously achieving
near-zero discharge of solid, liquid, and gaseous pollutants. The
energy products include electrical power, steam for industrial heating,
hydrogen, environmentally superior liquid fuels, and premium chemicals.
Gasification-based technologies being developed in the IGCC program are
major ``building blocks'' of the Vision 21 energy plants from which
these energy products can be produced. Gasification must become more
feedstock flexible, that is, capable of processing all carbon-based
materials including coals of all ranks, petroleum coke and residuals,
industrial and municipal waste, and blends, while simultaneously
producing a high quality, extremely clean synthesis gas that can be
integrated with downstream advanced technologies such as hydrogen
membranes, synthesis gas conversion, fuel cells, advanced combustion,
and future ``H'' class gas turbines.
Specifically, the increase in funding will be used to continue
development of the advanced transport gasifier at the Wilsonville PSDF;
complete construction and shakedown of the Gas Processing Development
Unit at FETC; investigate advanced gas cleaning technologies for ultra-
clean synthesis gas for integration with fuel cell and co-production
technologies; develop ion transport membranes for low-cost oxygen
production from air; develop membrane technology for high-temperature
hydrogen separation; investigate concepts for CO2
concentration; develop advanced fuel cell systems for coal-based
gasification/combustion applications in conjunction with gas-based fuel
cell system development; and conduct experimental investigations on the
co-feeding of coal with various carbon-based feedstocks. The IGCC
funding profile is as follows:
IGCC FUNDING PROFILE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity ---------------------- Change
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Management Support............. 223 381 +158
Gasification Systems................... 11,244 14,045 + 2,801
Gas Cleaning & Conditioning............ 2,605 3,761 + 1,156
Products/By-products Utilization....... 1,050 700 -350
System Analysis........................ 3,791 3,524 -267
Vision 21 Support...................... 13,475 \1\ 16,25 + 2,775
0
--------------------------------
Total............................ 32,388 38,661 +6,273
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $4,950 included for Fuel Cell for Vision 21.
Question. What is the Federal Energy Technology Center's role in
this program?
Answer. The Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) is responsible
for the implementation and administration of all research and
development activities for the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC) Program. These activities include both in-house research and
cooperative developmental efforts with industrial stakeholders. FETC's
in-house research team continues to conduct both laboratory and bench-
scale particulate removal and sorbent research for power generation
applications and is expanding into the production of ultra-clean
synthesis gas for Vision 21 applications. The capabilities of FETC's
new Gas Processing Development Unit at Morgantown, West Virginia, are
also being expanded to investigate advanced gas cleaning methods for
integrating gasification technology with the Vision 21 energy plants.
FETC's scientists have also become an integral part of the advanced
hydrogen separation membrane development effort, focusing on the
evaluation and performance testing of high temperature membranes being
developed by ANL and ORNL for the separation of hydrogen from shifted
synthesis gas. In addition, as a result of their prior experience in
CO2 hydrates, FETC in-house scientists are assisting in the
development of a low-temperature approach for separating hydrogen from
shifted synthesis gas via the formation of CO2 hydrates.
FETC's IGCC Product Team is responsible for strategic program
development, planning, and outreach, while project managers administer
the individual research and development contracts with various
technology developers.
vision 21
Question. Explain the concept of the Department's ``Vision 21
Energy-Plex.''
Answer. Vision 21 is a government-industry-academia collaboration
to develop technology that will effectively remove all environmental
concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels for producing
electricity and liquid transportation fuels and will almost double the
efficiency of coal powerplants. The approach is to develop technology
modules that respond to key public needs (for example, the production
of clean burning transportation fuels, clean, efficient, affordable,
electricity generation from all of our fossil fuels, alleviating
municipal waste issues by using this waste as a feedstock) and can be
integrated into a variety of configurations to meet specific market
needs in multiple applications (for example, electricity generation,
fuels/chemicals coproduction, cogeneration). Vision 21 builds on a
portfolio of technologies already being developed, including clean coal
combustion and gasification, turbines, fuel cells, and fuels synthesis.
To these, the Vision 21 program adds other critical or ``enabling''
technologies such as membrane gas separation, advanced combustion
technologies, and alternative fuel utilization technologies.
Vision 21 is part of the Department of Energy's work to maintain
our nation's economic prosperity by ensuring a future supply of
affordable, clean energy. The specific performance targets, costs, and
timing for Vision 21 plants are as follows:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TARGETS, COSTS, AND TIMING FOR VISION 21 PLANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-Electricity Generation...... 60 percent for coal-based
systems (based on fuel HHV);
75 percent for natural gas-
based systems (LHV) with no
credit for cogenerated steam.
Efficiency-Combined Electricity/Heat... Overall thermal efficiency
above 85 percent; also meets
above efficiency goals for
electricity.
Efficiency-Fuels Only Plant............ When producing fuels such as H2
or liquid transportation fuels
alone from coal, 75 percent
fuels utilization efficiency
(LHV).
Environmental.......................... Near zero emissions of sulfur
and nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, trace
elements, and organic
compounds; 40-50 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions by
efficiency improvement; 100
percent reduction with
sequestration.
Costs.................................. Aggressive targets for capital
and operating costs and RAM;
products of Vision 21 plants
must be cost-competitive with
market clearing prices when
they are commercially
deployed.
Timing................................. Major benefits, e.g. improved
gasifiers and combustors, gas
separation membranes, begin by
2006 or earlier; designs for
most Vision 21 subsystems and
modules available by 2012;
Vision 21 commercial plant
designs available by 2015.
Question. What is the goal of ``Vision 21'' and how does it fit
into the overall Coal Power program?
Answer. The primary goal of the Vision 21 program is to close to
double the efficiency of coal power plants and to effectively remove
all environmental concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels for
producing electricity, liquid transportation fuels, and high value
chemicals. The approach is to develop and integrate high-performance
technology modules to create energy plants which are cost competitive,
with zero emissions, and which allow us to responsibly and cost
effectively use all of our abundant fossil resources.
Vision 21 builds on the technological successes in the current Coal
and Power Systems, Natural Gas, and Fuels programs. The aggressive
goals set for Vision 21 systems demand innovative approaches along with
dramatic improvements in cost and performance of our technologies.
Early spinoffs from the Vision 21 program are expected to provide near-
term economic and performance benefits to the U.S. economy in general
and to the DOE sponsored energy products in particular.
Question. What program activities are supported by the key
technology program elements of the Coal and Power Systems program?
Answer. Our economic future depends on a supply of affordable
electricity to run our factories and heat and light our offices and
homes, and on clean fuels for transportation. The bottom line is that
the United States will need to rely on fossil fuels for the major share
of its electricity and transportation fuels well into the 21st century.
To achieve radical improvements in the performance of fossil fuel-based
power systems and to virtually eliminate environmental issues as a
barrier to fossil fuel use will require a new paradigm for the
development of both technology and systems that incorporate the
technology. Vision 21 is the Department of Energy's role in helping to
maintain our nation's economic prosperity by ensuring a future supply
of affordable, clean energy.
Vision 21 activities are supported by the Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC), Pressurized Fluidized Bed (PFBC), Fuel Cells,
Indirect Fired Cycle/High Performance Power Systems (IFC/HIPPS),
Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS), Advanced Research and Technology
Development (AR&TD) and the Advanced Clean Fuels (ACF) programs. Under
the IGCC program, Vision 21 activities include: advanced oxygen,
hydrogen, and carbon dioxide separation technologies; advanced gas
cleaning technologies for fuel cell application; advanced IGCC/fuel
cell system studies; experimental investigation on co-firing fuels. The
PFBC program will support Vision 21 activities which include co-firing
with carbon neutral fuels, cycle studies which examine carbon dioxide
recycle, oxygen enrichment, and integration of fuel cells and other
components. In the fuel cell program, Vision 21 efforts are focused on
performance enhancement and cost reduction of fuel cell hybrid systems.
Some advanced heat exchanger work and combustion studies in IFC program
will directly support the Vision 21 program. The ATS program will fund
fuel flexible and high efficiency turbine work for Vision 21. The AR&TD
program will continue research toward the Virtual Demonstration Plant,
CO2 capture, and sequestration in support of Vision 21 power
and fuels complex; will conduct systems analysis of Vision 21 concepts
to identify critical research areas; will implement projects to develop
critical enabling technologies for advanced power and fuel systems in
support of Vision 21 and incorporate the results into the Virtual
Demonstration. Finally, the ACF program will study options for
incorporating fuel and chemical modules in Vision 21 plants and conduct
research on fuel and chemical production aspects of Vision 21
technologies.
Question. How much is included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for
each of these program activities in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
Answer. The funding for Vision 21 from each of the program areas is
listed in the following table:
VISION 21 FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Program --------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IGCC................................... ......... 14,000 16,250
PFBC................................... ......... ......... 1,600
Fuel Cells............................. ......... ......... 5,085
IFC.................................... ......... 1,000 1,000
ATS.................................... ......... ......... 800
AR&TD.................................. ......... 2,990 3,457
ACF.................................... ......... ......... 575
--------------------------------
Total............................ ......... 17,990 28,767
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If there is an increase in fiscal year 2000 over the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level, explain what the increase is for.
Answer. Our economic future depends on a supply of affordable
electricity to run our factories and heat and light our offices and
homes and on clean fuels for transportation. The bottom line is that
the United States will need to rely on fossil fuels for the major share
of its electricity and transportation fuels well into the 21st century.
To achieve radical improvements in the performance of fossil fuel-based
power systems and to virtually eliminate environmental issues as a
barrier to fossil fuel use will require a new paradigm for the
development of both technology and systems that incorporate the
technology. Vision 21 is the Department of Energy's role in helping to
maintain our nation's economic prosperity by ensuring a future supply
of affordable, clean energy.
In fiscal year 2000, increases in Vision 21 activities occur in all
program areas except the IFC. The PFBC, Fuel Cell, ATS, and ACF
programs had no dollars specifically for Vision 21 activities in fiscal
year 1999. The IGCC fiscal year 2000 higher funding level for Vision 21
activities will be used to increase levels of effort in advanced gas
separation, gas cleaning, fuel cells integration, and co-firing
investigations. Fiscal year 2000 funds in the PFBC program support co-
firing with carbon neutral fuels, cycle studies which examine carbon
dioxide recycle, oxygen enrichment, and integration of fuel cells and
other components. In the fuel cell program, the fiscal year 2000 Vision
21 funds support efforts which are focused on performance enhancement
and cost reduction of fuel cell hybrid systems. Vision 21 fiscal year
2000 ATS program funds support fuel flexible and high efficiency
turbine work. In the AR&TD program, work on advanced materials for
hydrogen and oxygen separation membranes progresses from the initial
solicitation stage of fiscal year 1999 to working on breakthrough
concept in fiscal year 2000. Finally, with fiscal year 2000 Vision 21
funds, the ACF program will study options for incorporating fuel and
chemical modules in Vision 21 plants and conduct research on fuel and
chemical production aspects of Vision 21 technologies.
fossil energy research--natural gas
methane hydrates
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $1,985,000 for
methane hydrates research and development. What specifically will these
funds be used for?
Answer. While specific procurement plans will not be finalized
until appropriations have been approved by Congress, the Department
anticipates allocating the funding as follows:
--Approximately 50 to 55 percent would be used for characterizing
methane hydrate reservoirs. This will involve geologic,
geochemical, microbiological, and thermodynamic studies of
hydrates, the development of a data base documenting hydrate
locations and research results, and collection and analysis of
Arctic and marine hydrates.
--Approximately 20 to 25 percent will be used for laboratory tests
and to develop models of the ways hydrates dissociate. This
research would be a precursor to developing specific production
technologies.
--Approximately 15 to 20 percent would go to developing sensors and
monitoring subsea hydrate sites to determine what role hydrates
may be playing in the release of methane that could contribute
to global climate change.
--Approximately 15 to 20 percent would be used for seismic and well
logging to evaluate subsea hydrate zone structure and strength.
This will be important information to assess safety and sea
floor stability issues.
Question. Who will perform the work?
Answer. Funding recipients have not yet been determined but will
almost certainly include industrial partners, other government
organizations (such as the Naval Research Lab, U.S. Geological Survey,
the Ocean Drilling Program, National Science Foundation, and Minerals
Management Service), National Laboratories, academia and oceanographic
institutions including university consortia, the Federal Energy
Technology Center, and the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Test Center. This is
consistent with the draft Methane Hydrates Act of 1999, that has been
reported out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which
encourages ``partnerships among government, industry and institutions
of higher learning.''
Question. Why is this work important?
Answer. As much as 200,000 trillion cubic feet of methane may exist
in hydrate systems in the U.S. permafrost regions and surrounding
waters. This is over a hundred times greater than the estimated
conventional U.S. gas resource. The volume that may be economically
producible is unknown. However, these enormous resources, if proven,
have significant implications for U.S. energy security and global
environmental issues, particularly global climate change. In addition,
because the bulk of these methane hydrates are located on federal
lands, gas production would provide significant resources through
royalties and leases.
The United States will consume increasing volumes of natural gas
well into the 21st century, and methane hydrates can contribute to a
reliable and low-cost domestic supply. Gas demand is expected to grow
substantially throughout the first half of the 21st century because of
an expanded transition to a role as a transportation fuel or a
competitive source of transportation liquid fuel (gas-to-liquids
conversion) and hydrogen for fuel cells.
The technology to locate and safely produce methane from hydrates
does not currently exist, and industry is unable to conduct the
necessary research and development. In the current low oil and gas
price environment, there is almost no industry research for methane
production from hydrates. DOE's fossil energy research and development
program, including methane hydrates research and development, is
developing advanced concepts that are well beyond the timetables and
performance goals of private sector research and development.
coal mine methane
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $500,000 to
continue the coal mine methane project. How does this program fit into
the Natural Gas Research and Development program?
Answer. The Natural Gas Research and Development program seeks to
develop and demonstrate for commercial readiness, technology by which
economical gas supplies can be produced and made available for
productive domestic utilization. The Coal Mine Methane program
addresses technology needed to harness and utilize methane that is
naturally released in the course of underground mining of coal.
Question. What is its objective?
Answer. The Coal Mine Methane program objective is to ensure that
coal producers have a documented knowledge base of how methane released
in the course of underground coal mining can be economically captured
and utilized in productive ways. Accordingly, the program has
requested, through a competitive process, proposals to design and
demonstrate advanced means by which mine released methane can be
captured and readied for commercial use and/or directly used.
Question. How much is required in the out years to complete this
program?
Answer. Outyear budget estimates for the 50-percent cost shared
program to completion are estimated at $1 million each year from 2001
to 2003. This will allow the completion of no more than two projects.
advanced turbines programs
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $41.8 million in
fiscal year 2000 for the Advanced Turbines program, which is $2.7
million less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. How
does this lower level of funding affect the program's schedule?
Answer. The lower funding level in fiscal year 2000 is due to the
ATS Utility program nearing completion. No slippage in the current
schedule, due to funding level, is expected. However, due to the
acquisition of Westinghouse by Siemens, there may be some delays in the
Siemens-Westinghouse program.
fuel cells
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $37.6 million for
Fossil Energy's fuel cell program which is a decrease of $6.6 million
(15 percent) below the fiscal year 1999 level. What impact will this
lower level of funding have on the program?
Answer. No significant impacts are expected to result from the
reduction because the decreases are largely offset by increases in fuel
cells in other Fossil Energy program areas; for example, $4.95 million
in the High Efficiency Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program
is for the development of advanced fuel cell systems for Vision 21
gasification/combustion applications, in conjunction with gas-based
fuel cell systems development. In addition, no funding was requested in
fiscal year 2000 to continue the multi-layer ceramic technology
initiative for fuel cells because awards for that effort are scheduled
to occur in the July-August 1999 time frame although the work will
continue through most of fiscal year 2000.
fossil energy research--offsets
Question. What is the rationale for proposing to use $11 million of
prior year balances to offset the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
Fossil Energy Research and Development?
Answer. The effort to provide funding for high priority projects in
the Fossil Energy program, it was thought that prior year balances
would become available to cover future budget activities.
Question. What was the $11 million originally budgeted for and what
will not be accomplished as a result of using these funds to offset the
fiscal year 2000 budget request?
Answer. These carryover funds resulted from two types of actions.
First, through the contract closeout process, approximately $4 million
has been recovered from contracts that are no longer active. Second, as
a result of delays in the procurement process, various amounts from
Coal, Oil and Gas programs were not obligated by the end of fiscal year
1998. However, these funds will be obligated during fiscal year 1999.
We believe that additional procurement delays will occur in fiscal year
1999, and additional contracts will be closed out to make available
sufficient funding at the end of fiscal year 1999 to cover this offset.
Question. Before taking into account the use of prior year
balances, the Department of Energy is providing a $9 million (2
percent) decrease from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for Fossil
Energy Research and Development in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year
2000 budget request for Energy Conservation Research and Development is
a $121 million (23 percent) increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. Was there consideration given to using prior year balances to
offset the increase being proposed in the Energy Conversation budget?
If so, how was the decision reached? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, consideration was given to using prior year balances
in the Energy Conservation budget request. In fact, the Energy
Conservation account is offset by balances from the Biomass Energy
account.
clean coal technology
Question. What is the Department's rationale for proposing a net
$246 million deferral in fiscal year 2000 for the Clean Coal Technology
program?
Answer. Only two Clean Coal Technology projects have remaining
funding requirements. These projects are the Clean Energy Demonstration
Project--an IGCC project planned for Illinois and the Clean Power From
Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project--a combined steel making
and power generation project planned for Utah. DOE recently approved
project restructuring and design phase extensions for both of these
projects. These extensions were necessary to complete teaming
arrangements, perform design activities, and to obtain environmental
permits. Both projects already have adequate funding to complete these
tasks. Since funds for the construction phase will not be needed until
fiscal year 2001, DOE has proposed to defer these funds until they are
needed to meet project commitments.
Question. What is the impact of the fiscal year 2000 deferral on
the out years?
Answer. DOE's fiscal year 2000 request has proposed a specific
schedule for the return of the deferred funds that will enable DOE to
meet funding commitments for the two CCT projects with future funding
requirements. DOE has proposed that the deferred funds be made
available starting with $189 million in fiscal year 2001, $40 million
in fiscal year 2002, and $27 million in fiscal year 2003. Provided the
deferred funds are made available to DOE following this schedule, there
will be no adverse impacts to the CCT program.
Question. What happens if the net $246 million deferral is accepted
and the outyear repayment of this deferral is not provided?
Answer. If the funds proposed for deferral in fiscal year 2000 are
later rescinded, DOE would not be able to fulfill the existing funding
commitments as defined in the Cooperative Agreements for two projects:
the Clean Energy Demonstration Project and the Clean Power From
Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICOR) project. These projects would
not proceed if federal funds were not available. Since these
Cooperative Agreements require at least 50 percent industry funding,
private-sector investments in these projects would also be lost and
there could be resulting litigation.
Question. What is the current status of the Clean Coal Technology
projects and what are some of the recent milestones in the program?
Answer. The CCT program currently has 40 active or successfully
completed projects. Twenty projects have successfully completed all
requirements and three additional projects have completed operation and
are preparing final reports. Of the remaining 17 projects, 9 are in the
operation phase, 1 is in construction, and 7 are in the design phase.
Below are listed several success stories of the DOE Coal Research
and Development and Clean Coal Technology (CCT) programs. The CCT
successes--mostly demonstrations of pre-commercial, new technologies--
could not have occurred without earlier DOE research and development.
Research and development successes that culminated in CCT
demonstrations include the following:
--Low NOX burners: Far less expensive than preceding
technology for removing NOX (oxides of nitrogen,
precursors of smog) emissions, about one-half of U.S. coal-
fired capacity today has these burners. Sales to date are about
$1.5 billion.
--Atmospheric Fluidized Bed power plants: DOE/industry investments in
this clean technology have resulted to date in at least $9
billion in domestic and foreign sales ($6.2 billion domestic,
$2.8 billion foreign).
--Advanced Scrubbers: Three advanced scrubbers have been demonstrated
by DOE, one of which earned Power magazine's 1993 Power Plant
of the Year award.
--Tomorrow's Power Plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or
IGCC, and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, or PFBC): These pre-
commercial, virtually pollution-free plants have the potential
of far higher efficiencies (thus, 20 to 40 percent lower
CO2 levels).
--The Rosebud SynCoal and Encoal
processes are two different ways to upgrade low-rank coals to
cleaner, more efficient fuels. Both processes are being
marketed worldwide.
Some of the recent project specific milestones include the
following:
--Delivery of the 18-cylinder engine for the coal diesel project
(January 1999). The coal diesel project will demonstrate the
performance and durability of a coal-fueled diesel engine
during 6,000 hours of operation.
--Completion of the first year of operation for the Healy combustors
project (January 1999). The advanced slagging combustors is
demonstrating reliable and low-emission operation on a blend of
run-of-mine and waste coal.
--Completion of the Pneumatic Fuel Project for the Rosebud project
(January 1999). The Pneumatic Fuel Project was needed to
improve the handling of the SynCoal product, allowing
the participant to enter into a long-term supply agreement with
a utility customer.
--Approval of proposed restructuring/resiting of the Clean Energy
project (December 1998). The restructuring/resiting approval
significantly improved the likelihood for a successful
demonstration of the British Gas/Lurgi gasification technology
and the operation of a fuel cell on coal gas.
--Completion of the third year of operation for the Wabash River
project (November 1998). During the third year of operation,
the syngas facility had an availability over 72 percent and a
capacity factor of approximately 68 percent.
--Approval of new technology vendor for the CPICOR project (October
1998). The new technology vendor will enable the direct
production of iron without the use of coke along with the co-
production of electricity, providing an economic and
environmental advantage over the traditional coke and blast
furnace technology.
--Completion of long-term testing of micronized coal reburning for a
cyclone boiler (September 1998). The micronized coal reburning
technology offers an economical approach for reducing
NOX emissions with minimal boiler modifications.
--Completion of the operating phase for the NYSEG flue gas cleanup
project (June 1998). The project demonstrated an advanced wet
scrubber with high sulfur capture efficiency in combination
with low NOX burners that resulted in a system with
minimal power requirements, zero waste water discharge, and the
production of usable byproducts instead of wastes.
--Completion of final reports for four environmental control projects
during calendar year 1998:
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent
Injection.--Project demonstrated NOX reductions of at least
60 percent and SO2 reductions of at least 50 percent on two
different boiler configurations.
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired
Boiler.--Project demonstrated 50 percent NOX reduction using
low NOX burners, advanced overfire air, and the use of an
advanced instrumentation and control system.
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOX Burners on a
Wall-Fired Boiler.--Project demonstrated 70 percent reduction in
NOX emissions using Foster Wheeler's low-NOX
burners and gas reburning.
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project.--
Project demonstrated a utility retrofit of a high sulfur-removal
technology that produced a dry solid waste product.
Question. Given the rescissions that have been made to the Clean
Coal Technology program and the proposed deferral for fiscal year 2000,
is there sufficient funding for its successful completion?
Answer. Of the 40 projects in the Clean Coal Technology program, 38
projects are fully funded. The two projects with remaining funding
commitments will not require additional funding until fiscal year 2001.
Provided the deferred funds are made available in the out years as
proposed, DOE will have sufficient funding for the successful
completion of the CCT Program. Prior rescissions were achieved through
savings resulting from project restructuring and project withdrawals.
Question. How many projects are yet to be completed and what is the
current plan to complete them?
Answer. Of the 40 projects in the Clean Coal Technology (CCT)
program, 20 projects have successfully completed all requirements and 3
additional projects have completed operation and are preparing final
reports. Of the remaining 17 projects, 9 are in the operation phase, 1
is in construction, and 7 are in the design phase.
Of the nine projects currently in the operation phase, only the
Custom Coals project is anticipated to have difficulty completing
remaining activities. Recently, the Custom Coals' processing facility
was sold at auction and the new owner of the facility has approached
DOE about completing the CCT project.
The Coal Diesel project is the only project in the construction
phase. The diesel engine was delivered to the project site in January
1999. In April 1999, the participant indicated that a significant
funding shortfall is anticipated for the project and that project
activities have stopped until additional funds are identified. DOE
previously has already committed to provide nearly the full 25 percent
cost growth maximum allowed in the Clean Coal Program. Additional
funding from DOE over the 25 percent maximum is not allowed by law. If
the participant cannot secure additional project funding, the coal-
fueled diesel technology may not be demonstrated.
A total of seven projects are in the design and permitting phase.
Three of these projects have been delayed due to protracted contract
negotiations between the project participants and the technology
suppliers. DOE believes the parties are close to reaching agreements
and the projects will be moving forward as planned. Two additional
projects were recently granted extensions to allow for restructuring
activities. While these projects are early in the design and permitting
phase, DOE believes these projects are on track to begin construction
activities within 2 years. The two remaining projects are the
ThermoChem project in Baltimore, Maryland, and the NOXSO project. The
ThermoChem project was recently granted approval to proceed with a
reduced-scope project and the project is ready to initiate construction
activities. The participant for the NOXSO project is in Chapter 11
bankruptcy. A suitable host site and participant financing is required
for this project to continue.
Question. Do you plan to terminate any ongoing Clean Coal
Technology projects?
Answer. No projected terminations are planned. The Department is
committed to the successful completion of all ongoing Clean Coal
projects.
Questions: What are your plans if significant cost overruns occur
in any of the projects?
Answer. Cost overruns in the Clean Coal Technology program are
capped by legislation. If cost overruns occur they would be evaluated
for merit and the existing cost overrun reserve of $13 million could be
utilized. In addition, if any of the existing projects terminate, the
excess funds related to those projects would be available as an overrun
reserve.
Question. Is the Clean Coal Technology program producing results?
Answer. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program has and continues
to produce results that are changing the face of the electric power
generation industry and other major coal use industries. Of the 40
active projects, 23 have completed operation, 20 of which have
submitted final reports. These reports are made available to the public
and a bibliography is produced and updated to aid interested parties.
The reports represent a comprehensive compilation of timely information
invaluable to the utility sector and other coal users faced with
increasingly stringent air pollution standards.
Below are listed several success stories of the DOE Coal Research
and Development and Clean Coal Technology (CCT) programs. The CCT
successes--mostly demonstrations of pre-commercial, new technologies--
could not have occurred without earlier DOE research and development.
Research and development successes that culminated in CCT
demonstrations include the following:
--Low NOX burners: Far less expensive than preceding
technology for removing NOX (oxides of nitrogen,
precursors of smog) emissions, about one-half of U.S. coal-
fired capacity today has these burners. Sales to date are about
$1.5 billion.
--Atmospheric Fluidized Bed power plants: DOE/industry investments in
this clean technology have resulted to date in at least $9
billion in domestic and foreign sales ($6.2 billion domestic,
$2.8 billion foreign).
--Advanced Scrubbers: Three advanced scrubbers have been demonstrated
by DOE, one of which earned Power magazine's 1993 Power Plant
of the Year award.
--Tomorrow's Power Plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or
IGCC, and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, or PFBC): These pre-
commercial, virtually pollution-free plants have the potential
of far higher efficiencies (thus, 20 to 40 percent lower
CO2 levels).
--The Rosebud SynCoal and Encoal
processes are two different ways to upgrade low-rank coals to
cleaner, more efficient fuels. Both processes are being
marketed worldwide.
Of the 23 completed projects, 9 demonstration projects continued in
commercial operation. Almost all the environmental control device
demonstrations have completed operations. The resultant body of
information represents the largest demonstration database ever compiled
on advanced environmental controls. The technologies incorporated in
the database cover the full range of potential utility applications.
The fact that it contains demonstration-based data enables potential
users to assess cost and performance of the various options for their
site-specific situations. Movement of the technologies into the
commercial market underscores the value of the data.
The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., Nucla
Station repowering project provided the database and operating
experience requisite to making atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed a
commercial technology option at utility scale. Through the Ohio Power
Company's repowering of the Tidd Plant (70 megawatts), the potential of
pressurized fluidized-bed combustion as a highly efficient, very low
pollutant emission technology was established and the foundation laid
for commercialization (through extensive documentation of the
operational, environmental, and cost performance). Three Integrated
Gasification Combined-Cycle projects, representing a diversity of
gasifier types and cleanup systems, are producing information on a new
approach to coal use that could revolutionize the power generation
industry. The projects are attracting interest from utilities
worldwide.
ENCOAL recently completed documenting their successful
demonstration of a unique technology that produces both clean, high
energy density solid and liquid fuels from low-rank coal. Demonstration
data enabled the technology supplier to conduct five feasibility
studies in three countries that have high potential for resulting in
commercial projects. Data coming out of the ongoing demonstration of
the Liquid Phase Methanol process (LPMEOH) suggests
that coproduction of electricity and methanol may provide a clean,
cost-effective energy option. A project with Bethlehem Steel
Corporation is providing proof that coal can be substituted for coke
for a significant portion of the carbon requirement in steelmaking,
enabling a major reduction in pollutant emissions.
DOE is making every attempt to disseminate the results of the
demonstrations to customers and stakeholders. The annual Clean Coal
Technology Demonstration program: Program Update briefly summarizes
progress and accomplishments on all ongoing projects and, for projects
that have completed operations, provides a more extensive summary of
results. A Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Project Fact
Sheets document updates project information mid-year. The annual Clean
Coal Technology Conference and associated proceedings provide a yearly
snapshot of how each of the active projects is progressing along with
an in-depth presentation of technical findings. The CCT Compendium
provides an electronic database, incorporating the CCT program
publications that can be accessed on the Internet (http://www.lanl.gov/
projects/cctc).
Question. What are some of the recent major accomplishments
associated with the Clean Coal Technology program?
Answer. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program enabled the utility
industry to respond cost effectively to the first wave of
NOX control requirements imposed and has positioned the
utility industry to respond to NOX control requirements in
the 21st century. Under Title IV, Phase I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), NOX emission limits were
established for wall- and tangentially-fired boilers, effective January
1, 1996. The CCT Program not only positioned industry to respond to the
regulations with low-NOX burners, but provided valuable
input to the regulatory process by furnishing realtime data. Similarly,
the CCT Program has been instrumental in preparing the utility industry
for Title IV, Phase II CAAA NOX control requirements,
effective January 1, 2000, addressing the balance of the boiler types
and imposing more stringent requirements on wall- and tangentially-
fired boilers. Also, the technologies demonstrated under the CCT
program have positioned the utility industry to respond to even tougher
NOX emission standards, effective in May 2003, recently
imposed on 22 states and the District of Columbia in an EPA ``SIP
Call.'' Technologies demonstrated include combustion modification
control technologies, such as low-NOX burners and coal- and
gas-reburning, and post-combustion NOX control methods, such
as selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction.
To date, over one-third of coal-fired generating capacity in the United
States has installed low-NOX burners, with sales exceeding
$1.5 billion.
The CCT Program has also provided a portfolio of SO2
control technologies to enable utilities to respond cost effectively to
year 2000 CAAA emission levels. Technologies are available for the full
range of units from small space-constrained boilers to large,
relatively new boilers. The technologies also span a range of costs
commensurate with performance, but significantly less than conventional
technologies existent before the CCT Program. For example, the two
advanced wet flue gas desulfurization technologies demonstrated under
the CCT Program redefined the state-of-the-art for sorbent-based
scrubbers by: halving operating costs and significantly reducing
capital costs; producing by-products instead of waste; and mitigating
plant efficiency loses by using high-capture-efficiency devices.
The CCT Program was instrumental in commercializing atmospheric
circulating fluidized-bed combustion (ACFB) technology through the Tri-
State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., project in Nucla,
Colorado. An industry consortium joined with DOE to fully evaluate the
potential of the technology for utility application. The results and
the attendant comprehensive database served to establish ACFB as a
commercial offering, which has realized an estimated 9.5 gigawatts of
capacity installation worldwide. Today, every major boiler manufacturer
offers an ACFB system in its product line. Power magazine has called
fluidized-bed coal combustion ``the success story of the last decade in
the power generation business. This success [is] perhaps the most
significant advance in coal-fired boiler technology in more than half a
century.''
Pressurized Fluidized-bed Combustion (PFBC) technology is also
beginning to make market penetration as a result of work performed at
The Ohio Power Company's Tidd Plant. The CCT Program demonstration and
associated development work have resulted in several commercial sales,
including a 360-megawatts unit in Japan and a 220-megawatt unit in
Germany. The technology represents a new generation of advanced power
systems, with efficiencies far higher than conventional coal-fired
systems and pollutant emissions far below new source performance
standards, without need of add-on emission controls.
Three Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle (IGCC) demonstration
projects, representing a diversity of gasifier types and cleanup
systems, are pioneering the introduction of a new approach to power
generation. Two of the technologies are currently operating in a
commercial dispatch mode, gaining invaluable performance data. The
units are attracting worldwide interest because of their potential to
significantly improve efficiency, reduce pollutant emissions, and serve
as building blocks for even more advanced systems.
ENCOAL recently completed successful demonstration of a coal
processing technology capable of producing a high energy density solid
fuel and a liquid product from low-rank coal. The solid fuel is low
enough in sulfur to be considered a compliance fuel; that is, capable
of meeting CAAA standards for 2000. Also, the solid product has
demonstrated combustion characteristics that enable reduced
NOX emissions. The liquid product has most potential as a
chemical feedstock, but can be used as a low-sulfur boiler fuel.
Efforts are progressing toward establishing a commercial plant in the
United States and detailed feasibility studies have been carried out in
Indonesia and Russia.
The Liquid Phase Methanol process (LPMEOH) being
demonstrated at the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee is
showing promise as a cost effective means of coproducing electricity
and methanol. Continued stable production of methanol at or beyond
design rates from high-sulfur bituminous coal suggests that IGCC with
LPMEOH offers a very clean, highly efficient means of using high-sulfur
coal in chemical and electricity production.
Demonstration of granular-coal injection at Bethlehem Steel's Burns
Harbor blast furnace operations is proving that coal can replace up to
40 percent of the coke requirement in ironmaking. This has significant
environmental and cost ramifications. Coke production in the United
States has been severely cut because of the magnitude and extent of
resultant pollutant emissions. Steel producers have had to rely on
foreign coke, which is often of poor quality. Granular-coal injection
allows substitution for much of the coke. Emissions from the injected
coal are controlled in the blast furnace.
Question. What lessons have been learned from the Clean Coal
Technology program that could be applied in the future?
Answer. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program has proven to be an
effective means by which the government can work cooperatively with the
private sector in developing and introducing new technologies into the
commercial marketplace. Several guiding principles evolved during the
implementation of the program which could be applied to future programs
meeting the following conditions: the objective is to place a product
into the commercial marketplace; the technology has evolved to the
stage where the private sector is willing to fund at least 50 percent
of the project costs; and the projects are large enough to truly
reflect its intended commercial configuration under commercial
operating conditions. The principle lessons learned during the CCT
program are as follows:
--A strong and stable up-front commitment by the government is needed
for the life of the projects.
--The technical agenda is determined by industry not the government
with industry given the flexibility to use their expertise and
innovation to define the technology and to propose a project in
response to the government's defined objective. Multiple
solicitations spread over a number of years enabled the CCT
program to address a broad range of national needs with a
portfolio of evolving technologies.
--At least 50 percent cost-sharing throughout all project phases
demonstrated industry's commitment to fulfilling the project
objective and to confirm the market potential continued over a
period of time.
--Allowing for cost growth to be shared at the ratio of the original
agreement recognized the risk involved in first-of-a-kind
demonstration while confirming the need for industry's
commitment to share in the total cost of the project.
--Industry retains the real and intellectual property rights in order
to avoid relinquishing their competitive position in
technologies developed to the point of demonstration.
--Roles of the government and industry are clearly defined with
industry responsible for technical management of the project
and government supporting the project as long as project
milestones and terms and conditions of the negotiated
cooperative agreement are met.
--Industry must be committed to commercialize the technology and make
the technology available to potential users on reasonable
commercial terms.
climate change
Question. A recent study by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
assessed the most cost effective ways for the world to control the
buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Their preferred scenario
controlled greenhouse gas at lowest cost, thereby providing for
continued economic growth. In this least cost scenario, world
utilization of fossil energy doubles while about half of the carbon
dioxide produced is sequestered. Given the large role that
sequestration could play in cost-effectively reducing emissions, does
the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request adequately fund the
carbon sequestration program?
Answer. Much of the Department's budget for climate change related
work is in the area of increased energy efficiency and in the
development of renewable and other no-carbon forms of energy. Fossil
Energy has two related programs in this area: advanced, clean efficient
power generation technologies and carbon sequestration research.
Sequestration is a relatively new carbon mitigation strategy and the
current budget request reflects its developmental status. If practical
low-cost sequestration options can be developed, millions of tons of
carbon could be reduced, and the United States and the world might
avoid drastic shifts in fuel use or severe economic penalties.
Sequestration is the only carbon mitigation option that is completely
compatible with the existing energy infrastructure.
The requested budget is an attempt to balance competing budget
priorities, and reflects a relatively near-term focus for climate
change mitigation research. A longer term focus with emphasis on
capping atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, as suggested by
the study you referenced, would likely favor greater resources for
carbon sequestration options.
Question. Is it technologically possible to develop cleaner, more
efficient systems to produce electricity from fossil fuels?
Answer. Yes, we agree with the conclusions of the Pacific Northwest
Lab Study that economically viable, clean, very high efficiency, fossil
fueled electric generation systems, which can sequester carbon in a
cost-effective manner are possible. The Department's Vision 21 program,
coupled with carbon sequestration, is a government-industry-academia
collaboration aimed at bringing these generation systems to commercial
readiness.
Question. Under almost any scenario, fossil fuels will continue to
dominate the power generation sector both domestically and
internationally for a very long time. If ultra-high efficiency power
generation technologies coupled with carbon sequestration were used for
all new plants built in the United States over the next 50 years, what
would the impact be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has conducted a screening
analysis of the impact on carbon emissions if ultra-high efficiency
natural gas and coal-fired power plants began to deploy in 2005 and
2010, respectively. The generation efficiency of new gas-fired plants
reached 70 percent by 2015 and the efficiency of new coal-fired plants
coming on line reached 60 percent by 2020. Sequestration technology was
assumed to be available for all new plants coming on line after 2020.
Under these assumptions, carbon emissions from U.S. electricity
generation in 2050 would be reduced from 850 million metric tonnes of
carbon per year to 75 million metric tonnes per year--a 91-percent
reduction. In this scenario, carbon emissions from power generation
have not fallen to zero because some power plants built before 2020 are
still assumed to be in the inventory. If there were an incentive to
retire those remaining plants which do not have carbon sequestration,
carbon emissions from power generation could be zero in 2050. In 1995,
carbon emissions from this sector were 495 million metric tonnes per
year.
Question. Assume that the Energy Conservation program in the
Department of Energy is successful and that the United States achieves
energy efficiency halfway between current U.S. and European levels.
This is a reasonable goal in view of the vastly higher energy prices in
Europe and the broader geographical expanses in the United States. If
successful, how much could this program reduce the projected growth in
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years?
Answer. If successful, the programs of the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy are
expected to achieve a significant reduction in the projected growth of
greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years. In the Department's
analysis conducted for the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), its energy efficiency programs are projected to yield annual
carbon savings of over 200 million metric tons of carbon equivalent by
the year 2010. The GRPA analysis does not extend beyond 2010; however,
the Department is presently conducting a study which will look at the
benefits of energy efficiency and renewable technologies to 2020. A
focus of this study will be an analysis of the energy, environmental,
and economic impacts of different public policies and programs, and the
identification of policy implementation pathways that can form the
basis for national solutions to those challenges. We expect that this
report will be published by September 1999.
There are few studies which examine the impact of energy efficiency
technologies beyond the year 2020. One such study is entitled Energy
Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a Clean Environment, (Alliance to
Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, and Union of Concerned
Scientists, 1997). By using energy efficiency and renewable
technologies, the study claims there is the potential for carbon
emissions to drop to 45 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The
authors state that such a reduction could be attained by a set of
program and policies that could guide our economy toward lower cost,
less polluting, more secure, and more sustainable ways of producing and
using energy. The authors maintain that technological progress would be
the cornerstone of such an achievement.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $2.1 billion
in its Energy Resources business line. Fossil Energy Research and
Development is funded at $163 million. These advanced systems, when
fully commercialized, could reduce energy usage by 10 quads per year
and combined with sequestration could reduce carbon emissions by over
750 million tons per year. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for
Energy Conservation is $837 million, and this technology could reduce
carbon emissions by 400 million tons and reduce energy usage by 20
quads. Overall, these technologies appear to have a similar impact. In
light of this, is the allocation of resources in the Department's
fiscal year 2000 budget request appropriate?
Answer. First, we should note that the request for the Fossil
Energy Research and Development account is $364 million, not $163
million. That also does not include funding on- going Clean Coal
projects. The comparable number for Energy Conservation--the research
and development component without weatherization and state formula
grants is $646 million, so the actual difference in funding is
substantially less than it appears.
The allocation of funding within the Department's fiscal year 2000
budget request is based on analysis of how each program can contribute
to the nation's multiple energy goals as articulated in the National
Energy Strategy. Both fossil energy and energy conservation programs
are important to meeting these goals. However, increased investments in
energy efficiency technologies are the most cost-effective means of
meeting the broad set of national energy goals. The increase proposed
for energy conservation reflects this fact.
Question. Please describe what Climate Change Technology Initiative
activities are included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for Fossil
Energy.
Answer. Fossil Energy has two related programs contained in the
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI): advanced, clean, efficient
power generation technologies, and carbon sequestration research. The
FE budget for the CCTI in fiscal year 1999 was $24 million; in fiscal
year 2000 the budget request is $37 million. The main components of the
budget request are as follows:
--$18 million in fiscal year 1999 ($28 million in fiscal year 2000)
to make advanced natural gas and coal powerplants' more
efficient and compatible with carbon sequestration (IGCC, PFB,
Fuel Cells, Turbines).
--$6 million in fiscal year 1999 ($9 million in fiscal year 2000) for
carbon sequestration research and development. This includes
exploratory research on innovative approaches to sequestering
carbon, research to investigate a spectrum of techniques for
sequestration of carbon in geological formations, and initial
efforts to conduct field study and small scale experiments to
gather ``real world'' data on the fate of sequestered carbon.
Question. What other activities are funded in the Fossil Energy
budget which will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer. The Fossil Energy technologies most focused on climate
change mitigation are those identified under the Climate Change
Technology Initiative, and include Vision-21 technologies and
sequestration technologies. However, the remaining power systems
budget, including coal and natural gas fueled systems, will also lead
to lower cost and more efficient electricity generating technologies,
which translates to lower carbon dioxide emissions. These technologies
include indirect fired cycles, integrated gasification combined cycle,
pressurized fluidized bed, fuel cells, and advanced gas turbines. Other
activities funded in the Fossil Energy budget which will contribute to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions include programs to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by improving the nation's ability to supply, store,
transport, and distribute natural gas in an economically efficient and
environmentally beneficial manner, because natural gas is the least
carbon-intensive fossil fuel.
Question. Why does the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Climate Change Technology Initiative reflect a 53-percent increase in
Fossil Energy Research and Development while the overall Fossil Energy
Research and Development budget for fiscal year 2000 is $20 million
below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level?
Answer. Most of the funding shown for climate change research and
development is part of an integrated coal research and development
program focused on developing technologies for using coal in the
cleanest and most efficient manner possible, while at the same time
reducing the cost of energy. This research and development effort
responds to key public needs and would be pursued with or without
climate change considerations. The increased amount for climate change
reflects a change in the nature of the work associated with our Vision
21 clean power program: inclusion of some fuel cell work in the climate
change category and an increase in long range work on carbon
sequestration. The overall reduction in the Fossil Energy's budget
reflects two items: a $12 million decrease in the Low Emission Boiler
System (LEBS) program, which is being completed; and the use of $11
million in obligated balances from fiscal year 1998 to offset new
appropriations requirements. The remainder of the program is consistent
with fiscal year 1999 levels.
Question. What role does the Department of Energy have in the
development of climate change policy?
Answer. The Department has been an active participant in the
interagency process that has developed and supported the
Administration's climate change policy. DOE was an early and strong
supporter of flexible, market-based mechanisms, which include
international emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism,
have become central to the U.S. climate policy and were incorporated in
the Kyoto Protocol. DOE was also a successful advocate for the
inclusion of all major greenhouse gases and carbon sinks in any
international agreement.
DOE funding and technical expertise led to the development of the
Second Generation Model, which in one of the economic modeling tools
used by the Council of Economic Advisers to assess the potential
impacts of international climate agreements on the U.S. and world
economy. DOE's five-lab study of the potential of technology to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions helped lead the Administration to boost its
budget request for climate-related energy research and development, and
to propose selected incentives for investment in new energy
technologies. DOE continues to be an active participant in the U.S.
team participating in international climate change negotiations and in
the interagency process that continues to develop and refine U.S.
policy in this area.
Question. What role does clean coal and other fossil fuel
technology research and development have in developing a sound climate
change policy?
Answer. Current programs in three areas in the Office of Fossil
play a role in developing a sound climate change policy. These are
increased efficiency of electric power generation, carbon
sequestration, and more efficient use and production of natural gas.
Development of higher efficiency power generation technologies will
reduce the amount of carbon produced per kilowatthour generated. In
addition, both the Integrated Gasification Combined cycle (IGCC)
technology and the fuel cell technology, which have been under
development for several years, can produce a concentrated
CO2 waste stream which requires minimal processing prior to
reuse or disposal.
The purpose of the Fossil Energy sequestration program is to
develop and demonstrate technically, economically, and ecologically
sound methods to capture, reuse and dispose of CO2. Fossil
Energy also has programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
improving the nation's ability to supply, store, transport, distribute
and utilize natural gas in an economically efficient and
environmentally beneficial manner. This will be accomplished by taking
advantage of opportunities to develop technology for increasing supply
from both conventional and unconventional sources.
federal energy technology center
Question. In December 1996, as part of the Department of Energy's
Strategic Realignment Initiative, the Morgantown, West Virginia, and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, research centers were consolidated into one
Federal Energy Technology Center with two coequal locations. Another
aspect of the Strategic Realignment Initiative was an agreement that
efforts would be made to make better use of the Federal Energy
Technology Center's expertise in the execution of various DOE programs,
not only those funded by the Office of Fossil Energy. What efforts have
been taken to ensure that the Federal Energy Technology Center
portfolio of programs is widely mixed?
Answer. The Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) has undertaken
efforts to broaden the portfolio of programs since the consolidation
including new program initiatives in environmental technology, energy
management services, and water quality. These efforts have helped FETC
to apply its extensive in house technical and managerial expertise to
other DOE activities.
Question. What are the total dollars and staffing associated with
each source of funding provided to the Federal Energy Technology Center
for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
Answer. The total dollars and staffing associated with FETC's
primary sources of funding are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Budget 1999 Budget 2000 Request
Source of Funding authority authority ---------------------
--------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE Dollars FTE Dollars FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil R&D (FE) \1\........................... 488 481 607 504 600 482
Environmental Rest. and Waste Management (EM) 94 66 64 65 54 51
\2\..........................................
Former BOM \3\................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 14
Energy Efficiency (EE)........................ 29 ......... 22 ......... 20 .........
Other, DOE.................................... 11 ......... 8 ......... 8 .........
Other, non-DOE................................ 34 ......... 16 ......... 16 .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 656 547 717 569 698 547
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTEs reflect authorized levels for Fossil R&D, including Clean Coal Technology.
\2\ Prior to fiscal year 2000, EM provided funds for 29 FTEs that were transferred to the FETC from the former
Bureau of Mines (BOM). In fiscal year 2000, EM will only fund 15 of these FTEs, with no funding in fiscal year
2001.
\3\ Former BOM FTEs requiring funding in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Is the funding in the budget request adequate to fully
support the efforts being un dertaken at the FETC in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Fossil Energy funding request for salaries in the
fiscal year 2000 budget is adequate to fully support the employees on
board at the FETC. A proposed reduction of $1.5 million in the
Environmental Management funding will place about 14 employees at risk.
The FETC intends on pursuing reimbursable work to compensate for this
loss of funding.
Question. What activities are proposed in the fiscal year 2000
budget request for the Federal Energy Technology Center to undertake in
support of the DOE offices of Environmental Ma nagement, Energy
Efficiency, and Defense programs?
Answer. The FETC's efforts on behalf of the Environmental
Management program for fiscal year 2000 include the following:
--Support the remediation and waste management of Environmental
Management sites through the development, demonstration and
deployment of environmental technologies by private sector
industries and universities.
--Develop, demonstrate and deploy technologies to reduce life-cycle
costs/mortgages and reduce risk to the public/workers/
environment for the deactivation, decontamination and
decommission of DOE's contaminated surplus facilities.
--Operate Environmental Management's Center for Acquisition and
Business Excellence (CABE), to provide all aspects of business,
cost engineering, and project management assistance to
Environmental Management headquarters and DOE wide
Environmental Management program.
--Environmental Management program direction funds to support FTEs,
and related travel and supplies for FETC performed
Environmental Management work.
For Energy Efficiency programs:
--Technical and project management support for the Energy Star
program, Rebuild America program, and the cooperative research
and development program to advance energy efficient building
equipment and envelope technologies.
--Technical and project management support for the Mining Industry of
the Future.
--Project Management for Energy Efficiency/Fossil Energy jointly
funded programs to convert natural gas to clean fuels for the
transportation sector.
--Project Management for Energy Efficiency/Fossil Energy joint funded
industry/University Consortium for the Advanced Turbine System
program.
For Defense programs:
--FETC will provide Defense program technical, environmental,
management, quality assurance, and engineering support to the
Office of Tritium Production, in the Commercial Light Water
Reactor (CLWR.) project, the Accelerator Production of Tritium
Project (APT) targets, and the Tritium Extraction Facility at
DOE's Savannah River site. This work includes the support of
the EIS for the CLWR Project Alternative.
appliance efficiency standards
Question. What statute governs how appliance efficiency standards
are set by the Department of Energy?
Answer. The Department of Energy's appliance standards program is
conducted pursuant to Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
Question. Does this statute require the Department of Energy to
determine appliance efficiencies based on measurements of site energy
usage?
Answer. The statute requires that in prescribing new efficiency
standards, the Department determine the maximum efficiency level that
is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining
whether the standard is economically justified, the Department is to
consider the costs/benefits to the consumer. The measures of energy
efficiency and energy use are, by statute, based on the energy consumed
at the point of use and these are the measures of energy use that are
used in the consumer analyses, for example, life-cycle-cost.
Question. Does the Department of Energy appliance efficiency
standards program adhere to this statute?
Answer. Yes, when considering a new efficiency standard, the
Department not only determines the consumer life-cycle-costs savings,
but also carefully evaluates the impact of a new standard on
manufacturers, the potential energy savings to the nation, impacts on
gas and electric utilities and the environmental benefits of the
proposed standard, as prescribed by the statute.
Question. Is the Department of Energy developing any plans to
change how it measures appliance energy efficiencies for the purpose of
setting energy standards?
Answer. The Department is always looking for ways to improve the
analysis used as a basis for establishing new efficiency standards. In
1996, the Department undertook an effort to revamp the way it does
standards rulemaking and established new procedures in the Appliance
Standards Process Rule issued July 15, 1996. At that time the
Department established an Appliance Standards Advisory Committee to
advise it on efficiency standards rulemaking issues. One of the
recommendations made to the Department by the Advisory Committee was to
use the full range of consumer marginal energy prices rather than a
national average price in examining the impact of standards on consumer
life-cycle-costs. Similarly, the Department intends, with stakeholder
input, to use a range of energy price forecasts and energy conversion
factors and associated emission reductions based on electric power
generation displaced by standards rather than averages, for the
standards analysis.
Question. From an appliance buyers perspective, isn't the actual
energy cost to the user at the site of use the most important variable
for setting appliance standards?
Answer. DOE believes site energy prices provide the most useful
measure to consumers since these can be directly related to information
readily available, that is, utility bills.
Question. Is the Administration's interest in setting ``source''
efficiency standards rather than ``site'' efficiency standards for
appliance energy usage a back door approach to trying to implement the
Kyoto protocol or a government plan to encourage fuel switching?
Answer. The Department is not implementing the Kyoto Protocol
through either a backdoor or front door approach. The Department is not
changing the basis on which efficiency standards are set from ``site''
to ``source.'' The statute requires that the Department determine the
consumer life-cycle-costs, which are based on site energy prices, and
national energy savings, which is measured as source energy savings,
when prescribing a new energy efficiency standard. The Department has
always done this and will continue to do this in the future.
Furthermore, the Department considers the likely impact new standards
will have on fuel switching to try to find ways to minimize fuel
switching.
In response to direction from the Senate and House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittees in their fiscal year 1999 appropriations
bills, the Department is analyzing the site versus source issue.
However, no changes in the basis for setting efficiency standards are
anticipated at this time and none will be considered without extensive
consultation with Congress and the relevant stakeholders.
Question. I understand that the Department of Energy has contracted
with the Rand Corporation to do a study of site measurements versus
source measurements with regards to appliance efficiency standards. Why
has the Department of Energy undertaken to do this study?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
has contracted with the Rand Corporation to provide EERE with an
independent assessment of the implications of measuring energy using
site or source measurements. The main outcome will be a quantitative
assessment of the impacts that may be associated with the different
measurement approaches as a means of providing objective information to
DOE for addressing future policy issues. The study will not focus on a
particular standard and goes beyond the appliance standards to include
issues in measuring energy use in homes.
Question. Why did the Department of Energy chose the Rand
Corporation for this study?
Answer. The Department contracted with Rand because Rand has a long
history of providing objective information to policy makers addressing
major national policy problems. While high-quality, objective research
on national security became the institutions first hallmark, today Rand
researchers continue to operate objectively on a broad front, assisting
public policy makers at all levels and private sector leaders in many
industries. Rand brings a unique perspective to informing this debate,
one that is independent and grounded on rigorous analysis and
objectivity. Rand's process is inclusive and open, which provides for
inputs from all interested parties.
Question. How much will the study cost? What funds are being used
for the study (please be specific)?
Answer. The study will cost about $110,000 and is using fiscal year
1998 funding provided for Assistant Secretary cross-cutting activities.
Question. When will the study be complete?
Answer. We expect the study to be completed by the end of June
1999.
Question. How does the Department of Energy plan to use the results
of this study?
Answer. The Department will use the results of this study to both
inform it's own position on this complex issue and to begin a new round
of stakeholder discussions on the appropriate use of site and source
energy measurement in various programs and policies. Hopefully, the
study results will be able to replace some opinions with measured and
verified facts.
Question. Can the Department of Energy make any use of the results
of the study without federal authorizing legislation?
Answer. The information can inform issues related to Energy Star
homes and the joint DOT/FTC Energy Guide labeling system, as well as
coordination with states that have varying degrees of codes and ratings
for homes. It can help shape future analysis for appliance standards
and help inform the dialogue with stakeholders.
clean coal technology program
Question. Doesn't this ``deferral,'' and the companion threat of no
future funding, place the program in jeopardy?
Answer. The proposed deferral reflects a rescheduling of outyear
funding for the Clean Coal Technology program. It is the Department's
intent to use these funds as they become available if Congress approves
the deferral language as proposed in the budget. If for some reason
such funds did not become available, it would indeed jeopardize the two
projects affected by the proposed deferral.
Question. Did the Department of Energy include this deferral in
funding for the Clean Coal Technology program in its budget submission?
Answer. The Department requested a deferral of $59 million in its
fiscal year 2000 OMB budget request. The deferral amount was later
increased in recognition of the schedule delays encountered in the
Clean Energy and CPICOR projects.
Question. What assurances can you offer that the Clean Coal
Technology funds proposed for deferral in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget will ever be made available to complete the current
obligations of the Clean Coal Technology program?
Answer. The Department has stated before this committee and others
that we are committed to completing the clean coal projects and meeting
our obligations under the project agreements. We have proposed specific
language in our fiscal year 2000 budget request which provides for the
deferred funds to be returned in subsequent fiscal years to ensure
timely completion of project funding.
fossil energy research and development program
Question. Mr. Secretary, why does the President's budget include a
decrease for fossil energy research?
Answer. The Fossil Energy fiscal year 2000 budget request was about
$20 million below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Part of this
reduction is due to the fact that the Low Emission Boiler Systems
program which was funded at $15 million in fiscal year 1999 has been
fully funded, thus only $3 million was needed for this project in
fiscal year 2000. The remainder of the reduction is attributed to
reductions in Congressionally added funds for Fuel Cells ($2 million),
and reductions in the Advanced Turbines Program ($2 million), and the
Gas-to-Liquids Program ($2.0 million), both of which are adequately
funded.
Question. Did you request an increase in this program for the
fossil energy program above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level in your
budget submission to OMB? Why wasn't the increase supported?
Answer. Yes, the Department submitted a $439,000,000 request to the
Office of Management and Budget for the Fossil Energy Research and
Development account. The increase was not supported because of the
Administration's commitment to stay within the budget caps and because
other priority projects were ranked higher in the allocation of limited
dollars within the President's budget.
Question. Isn't it true that fossil energy and research on fossil
energy are critical to our future? Don't you agree that the fossil
energy research program managed by your Department provides major
benefits to energy users through lower costs from more efficient
systems and effective fuels, to the environment through the development
of cleaner fuels and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and to the nation by enhancing national security and providing economic
advantages to U.S. companies?
Answer. I agree with you. Fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--supply
85 percent of U.S. energy, and that figure could approach 88 percent by
2015. Our fossil energy research and development program can benefit
energy consumers by reducing the costs of additional pollution controls
that will likely go into effect over next 10 years under the Clean Air
Act Amendments, perhaps lowering costs to ratepayers by $5 to $7
billion per year. In addition, beyond just cost savings for pollution
controls, our research and development program to develop higher
efficiency power systems, fueled by both goal and natural gas, could
reduce the cost of electricity by 10 to 20 percent compared to
currently-available conventional power generating technology.
Over the longer term, in the post-2015 time frame, our research and
development could lead to a pollution-free power plant fueled by coal
and other fuels. We may also be able to develop ways to sequester
greenhouse gases, preventing their buildup in the atmosphere, at costs
several orders of magnitude below the likely costs of the limited
carbon control approaches available today. We are also working on new
technologies that can diversify our domestic supplies of natural gas
and as a result, keep natural gas prices affordable even as demand for
natural gas escalates in the future.
Cost reduction is also a major objective of our oil technology
program, although the price impact on consumers is often overshadowed
by global oil price trends that are outside of our control.
Nonetheless, research and development that reduces costs in our
domestic oil fields has the beneficial effect of making available U.S.
resources that might otherwise have been uneconomical to produce. This
research and development can also reduce the oil- and gas-related
environmental regulatory costs incurred by state and federal agencies.
Overall, in fact, our oil and gas technology research and development
program could potentially save as much as $16 billion in environmental
regulatory and compliance costs by 2010, allowing these dollars to be
directed toward additional domestic oil and gas exploration and
production.
There are also environmental benefits beyond just regulatory cost
savings. More accurate oil and gas exploration technologies can ensure
a greater success rate in finding producible resources, reducing dry
holes and associated environmental disturbances. Better drilling
technologies--for example, horizontal and slimhole drilling systems--
can significantly reduce the surface ``footprint'' of oil and gas
operations. New oil and gas waste treatment technologies can
significantly reduce the amount of wastewater and other production
wastes that must be handled and disposed of properly.
climate change activities
Question. Mr. Secretary, what plans does the Department of Energy
have to facilitate the sale of U.S. clean coal technologies abroad and
encourage developing nations to install and use these clean coal
technologies?
Answer. The Department considers international deployment (that is,
sales) of improved U.S. technologies important both for the global
environmental benefits that accrue, and for the benefits which flow to
the U.S. economy. U.S. clean coal technologies are inherently lower in
emissions of traditional pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides. In addition, they are also more efficient than
conventional coal technologies, which makes them lower in carbon
dioxide emissions and reduces pressure on global climate change.
The Office of Fossil Energy has a number of efforts to assist in
the deployment of clean coal technologies in developing countries,
particularly in China and India which are projected to increase coal
use substantially over the next decades. For example, in China we are
working with the Chinese government, and U.S. and Chinese universities,
and have created the U.S.-China Center for Energy and Environmental
Technology. This center will facilitate information exchanges between
the U.S. and China and promote U.S. technologies for use in China's
energy sector. Types of activities covered include identification of
market opportunities in China and U.S. technology capabilities;
training and education related to the environment, technology, and
financing of projects; and assistance by U.S. experts on energy and
environment. In India, the Office of Fossil Energy has conducted
workshops on coal beneficiation and other clean coal technologies. In
addition, the Department has supported trade missions to specific
countries, and continues to participate in international conferences
and other fora where the advantages offered by advanced technologies
are addressed.
The Department is also considering various incentives which would
aid in the accelerated deployment of advanced technologies abroad. We
have offered technical advice to the World Bank, which is considering
implementing such incentives on a limited scale, and we are examining a
package of incentives proposed by U.S. coal stakeholders. These
incentives include investment tax credits, performance guarantees, and
production credits for a limited number of advanced, high efficiency
coal-based technologies.
Question. Do you agree that no realistic or effective solutions
regarding climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
can ignore the domestic and international importance of coal as a power
source and of clean coal technologies for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions?
Answer. Yes, we agree. Fossil fuels provide more than 85 percent of
the energy consumed in the United States and 75 percent of the world's
energy and are key to both developed and developing countries economic
growth projections. Combustion of these fuels, to varying degrees,
creates greenhouse gases. Current programs in two areas in the Office
of Fossil Energy reconcile the prevalence of coal use and greenhouse
gas reduction. These are: increased efficiency of electric power
generation, and carbon sequestration. Development of higher efficiency
power generation technologies will reduce the amount of carbon produced
per kilowatt hour generated. In addition, the Integrated Gasification
Combined cycle (IGCC) technology and the fuel cell technology, which
have been under development for several years, can produce a
concentrated CO2 waste stream which requires minimal
processing prior to reuse or disposal. The purpose of the Fossil Energy
sequestration program is to develop and demonstrate technically,
economically, and ecologically sound methods to capture, reuse and
dispose of CO2.
federal energy technology center
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have indicated over the past few
months that you would welcome a visit to the Morgantown site of the
Center. I want to encourage you to fit such a visit into your schedule.
I think you would find it very rewarding and stimulating. Do you think
such a visit might occur in the near future?
Answer. I had the pleasure of visiting the Federal Energy
Technology Center's (FETC) Pittsburgh site on October 6, 1998. During
my visit, I held a meeting with all of the employees from both
Pittsburgh and Morgantown--some of the Morgantown employees were there
in person and others participated through TeleVideo. I was asked that
very question during my visit--whether or not I would visit the
Morgantown site--and my answer was ``yes.'' A visit to the site is
still on my agenda for the near future.
Question. Will you work with your immediate staff to include the
Center more completely in climate change issues?
Answer. The FETC already plays a crucial role in supporting
development of low or no carbon emission technologies. However, until
recently, the contribution such technologies could make to a future
with restrictions on carbon emissions has not been explicitly factored
into detailed studies of mitigation strategies.
We intend to more fully involve the Office of Fossil Energy, and
FETC in particular, in comprehensive, integrated analyses of mitigation
strategies. This will allow us to make use of the large existing base
of knowledge within FETC in advanced gas turbines, fuel cells, carbon
sequestration, and advanced coal-fired power system concepts, such as
Vision 21.
Comprehensive, integrated analyses of mitigation strategies would
compare a range of energy-supply and end-use technologies, exploring
the benefits and costs on a common basis. This common basis would
incorporate a variety of criteria into the evaluation, including
economic criteria, environmental benefits, and the pursuit of other
acknowledged national goals.
Question. Would you please provide for the record your thoughts as
to how these activities can receive greater emphasis in developing
future budgets for the defense environmental restoration and waste
management program?
Answer. In a carbon-managed future, all new technologies should be
developed recognizing of their full impact on carbon emissions. These
technologies (for Environmental Management) need to be evaluated for
their possible impact. In addition, it is probable that innovative low
carbon emission technologies could benefit by transferring knowledge,
techniques, and sensors from this arena to development of energy
technology.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much for coming. The
subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
April 14, when we will receive testimony from Kevin Gover,
Asst. Sec. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., Thursday, March 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m, Wednesday,
April 14.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999
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, Domenici, Burns, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Special Trustee
STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. THOMPSON, ACTING SPECIAL TRUSTEE
FOR AMERICAN INDIANS
Bureau of Indian Affairs
STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Budget request
opening statement of senator slade gorton
Senator Gorton. Good morning. We will bring to order the
Interior Subcommittee with the third of its hearings for the
fiscal year 2000 budget request for agencies funded through the
subcommittee.
This morning we will hear testimony on the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee for American
Indians.
Mr. Gover, I want to welcome you to your second hearing
before this subcommittee as the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs and acknowledge publicly your efforts over the course
of the last year and a half. I am very pleased, as I have told
you privately as well, about the opportunities we have had to
work together.
Your candor and intellect, and forcefulness for that
matter, provide me with valuable insights in connection with my
work as subcommittee chairman. You are a welcome change for the
way I thought that the bureau was run for a number of years.
Mr. Thompson, we want to welcome you to your first hearing
as the Acting Special Trustee for American Indians. I know both
of you have been compelled to testify before several committees
in both the House and Senate during the course of the last
couple of months. I appreciate your taking time to be with me
here today.
I would ask Mr. Thompson to present the budget of the
Office of Special Trustee first. Then after we have had an
opportunity to direct questions to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gover
on the Office of the Special Trustee and the Trust Management
Improvement Project, we can move on to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
I want to remind my colleagues that the special trustee
does not report to Assistant Secretary Gover. Authority flows
directly from the Secretary of the Interior to the special
trustee. The BIA, however, is involved in our government's
efforts to clean up trust management. As Mr. Gover can attest
personally, Judge Lamberth is not drawing much in the way of
distinction between the two agencies and their responsibilities
for addressing the problems of trust management.
For the moment, I would like to put the President's request
for these two agencies in context, given where this
subcommittee may be headed in fiscal year 2000. The President's
budget is replete with initiatives that require passage of
separate authorizing or taxing legislation, and very few of
those initiatives are likely to be enacted by this Congress.
In addition, the President's budget overall is $25 billion
above the fiscal year 2000 statutory cap on discretionary
spending enacted in 1997. The Interior Subcommittee's pro rata
share of this $25 billion is about $625 million, which, if
eliminated, will cut out much of the $1 billion increase
requested by the President for interior bill programs.
We are likely to get more than a pro rata share of this
reduction, as it is the intention of Congress to secure
increases in education and defense spending within the caps.
This means that for most interior bill programs, we will be
fortunate even to maintain fiscal year 1999 funding levels. In
total, the budget request for the BIA is $1.9 billion, a $156
million increase over the fiscal year 1999 level, roughly 9
percent.
Major increases are requested for law enforcement and
education, two areas to which I have committed my support.
The Office of the Special Trustee is requesting to more
than double its budget, a total of $100 million compared to
$39.5 million provided for this year. This figure does not
include $21.8 million requested by the office in supplemental
funds. We have not completed work on the supplemental but are
acutely aware of the troubles at the Office of the Special
Trustee.
As members of this committee and subcommittee know, I have
made every effort to increase funding for tribal programs paid
for by this subcommittee since I became chairman.
The chart provides indicates where we have gone since 1996.
The future health and welfare of the next generation of Indian
children depends on adequate education, health care and on safe
communities. The chart outlines the funding provided by the
committee for the BIA and IHS since 1996.
For example, I took the initiative to increase the
appropriation of the Indian Health Service by $35 million over
the President's request last year. I would like to continue to
focus the subcommittee's limited resources within targeted
areas during the upcoming appropriations process. As I
mentioned, however, the task will be made doubly difficult this
year. And I am looking forward to hearing from both of you.
Mr. Gover and Mr. Thompson, I hope you will work with us to
identify the most important priorities for your agencies. We
will be compelled to make tough choices, but I believe we will
make better decisions if we have the benefit of your expertise
and candor.
It may very well be that the two of us who are here now,
Senator Burns and I, may be the only ones here. We have
conflicting hearings. I know that Senator Campbell is in a
closed oversight hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on Chinese espionage at the Department of Energy. In
fact, both of the members who are here are members of that
committee as well. I suspect that Senator Burns may want to
spend some time there.
So please do not take the relatively sparse attendance at
this hearing as an indication that there is not great interest
in the work that both of you do. That interest is very much
there.
With that, Senator Burns, do you have anything that you
would like to----
opening statement of senator conrad burns
Senator Burns. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
statement. But I think you laid it out pretty well when we all
start to set our priorities in Indian country. Of course, we
are all very, very much interested in the problems of the
trustee and what will finally become of that. I think we have
the responsibility now to reform that in how it is kept.
I was very distressed when I found out that there are
accounts all over the country, rather than one account or one
central place that controls or is a watchdog of that money. I
think the chairman is very, very much aware of our problems
right now and we need to fix them as soon as possible.
Another one of our big problems is safety and law
enforcement. I hear that everywhere I go in Indian country. All
the citizens of Montana that talk to me, that seems to be one
of their primary concerns.
Then I drop from there to education. Without a doubt, we
have one of the best educators there is in this country. I
would put Joe McDonald up on the Flathead Reservation, the 2-
year college up there, against anybody. I have never seen a man
so dedicated to education. He runs a great, great school.
When you get great leaders like that, I think it tells us
that there is something going on that is very, very good. I
have some problems with the infrastructure of education,
because we have to build a couple schools. We have children
that are absolutely sitting on top of one another, and that is
not a learning environment. We must correct that situation. I
have committed all the resources that I know how to address
those areas, because education, law enforcement, and safety are
primary, if we are to see people progress in this great
country.
So I think the chairman has laid out his priorities very,
very well and the responsibility that this Government has, and
also the responsibility that tribal governments have in
fulfilling these areas of great concern.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I look forward to
listening to the witnesses. I am going to duck out and go up to
the other hearing. I suppose you were going to do about the
same thing. It seems like we are not short of work here after
coming back after a 2-week break.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
summary statement of thomas m. thompson
Senator Gorton. Mr. Thompson, we would like to hear from
you now.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Burns.
I appreciate the opportunity to present the Office of
Special Trustee's fiscal year 2000 budget to the committee. As
Secretary Babbitt has stated in previous testimony to the
House, the reform of Indian trust management is his highest
priority. He is saying that every day at the Interior
Department. He has appeared before various committees with us
and as our point man, as Senator Burns knows, to support this
effort. Time and again he has expressed his commitment to clean
up this problem on his watch.
With this committee's assistance, I would like to talk a
little bit about some of the things we have done in the last
year to show you that we have been using the resources provided
by the committee to make improvements and to start on this
rather long journey we have to go on.
As you know, the Department published its High Level
Implementation Plan, its general road map to the reform of
Indian trust management, in July of last year. It basically
covers in general terms 13 areas that need to be worked on in
some detail in order for the Department to meet its trust
responsibilities as outlined in the Indian Trust Reform Act of
1994.
The sub-projects are scattered across five different line
bureaus and offices of the Department of Interior who have
major responsibilities for administration and management of
Indian trusts. That includes the Office of Special Trustee in
its oversight role and some line authority, certainly the
Bureau of Indian Affairs with major responsibilities for land
management and title control.
In addition, we have the Minerals Management Service
responsible for royalty collections, the Bureau of Land
Management dealing with issues on lease inspection, rail
inspection, and then the Office of Hearing and Appeals, who
deals with probate issues for the Department.
We have made substantial progress since last year. We
successfully ran a pilot of the new trust fund accounting
system, the replacement system for the basic trust accounting
system that BIA had developed some 30 years ago. We piloted
that project in Phoenix, Sacramento, and Juneau in August of
last year.
In January of this year, we move it onto the Albuquerque
and Navajo areas. At the end of February, we converted all of
the tribal accounts.
Today we can tell you that about $2.7 billion of the $3
billion in trust is on the new system. The new system is
exciting to us because it is commercial, off-the-shelf
technology, provided by SEI Investments of Oaks, Pennsylvania.
This company provides about 40 percent of the technology for
trust management across the country to the 7,000 banks that do
this sort of business. They are a major provider, and they are
right on the edge of technology.
We have asked them to provide the system and to operate it
for us. We provide the data; they provide the reports back to
us. It is a major advance. It gives us a lot more power and
authority.
With contractor assistance before we did this conversion,
we went to work on cleaning up the individual trust account
file jackets, so that when we looked at a file on the system,
we could back it up with the documentation. A key problem that
has been identified time and again is the issue of records
management, or the lack of records management, on this issue
over time.
With the work of another contractor, Data Comm Sciences, we
have gone through nearly 311,000 file jackets. We have cleaned
up about 250,000 of those file jackets at this point. Not
unexpectedly, we found problems. Nearly half of those file
jackets are missing essential documents that a normal trustee
would find in a jacket in a bank or such an account.
At this point, we expect to finish this work with the
contractor, the pre-conversion work, in June of this year. The
work is on time, ahead of schedule, and, believe it or not,
under budget. This work as expected, is identifying other
cleanup work that we will have to address as part of the post-
systems conversion effort. And we have a similar effort working
forward.
About a year after we began our work, BIA started its work
on its new system, the trust asset and accounting management
system. That system contract was let to a major developer of
trust system software, Artesia Company out of Dallas, Texas.
They are now in the design process prior to beginning the
pilot of that system in June of this year in the Billings area
of BIA. Again, this is a commercial, off-the-shelf system that
is being modified somewhat to meet BIA's requirements,
principally in the area of land title and title information.
BIA also awarded a cleanup contract to work in the Billings
and Juneau areas. That work began in February of this year.
In another arena, BIA commenced a pilot to work on the
fractionization problem. With the help of the Congress, we
received $5 million in fiscal year 1999 and are beginning the
work to purchase the small interests caused by the
fractionization of lands over the last 120 years out of the
General Allotment Act of 1887.
The BIA expects to purchase some 20,000 to 30,000 small
pieces of land owned by interest owners in the Minneapolis
area. The proposal is to start to consolidate those pieces of
land and roll them back in to the tribe.
Once the fund to pay for the land is reimbursed, we will
turn those lands over to tribes, who will operate them in a
much more efficient manner than we can do with upwards of 1,100
owners on a single 80-acre tract.
In addition, we have managed to make all of these systems
Y2K compliant, with the help of the contractors, obviously. We
have continued our other work on improving internal controls
with daily reconciliations with Treasury on the cash balances,
a central----
Senator Gorton. Are you telling me that you are one of the
government agencies that is not going to have any Y2K problems
whatsoever?
Mr. Thompson. I can tell you OST will not have any Y2K
problems. We are ahead of the power curve on that. I believe
Kevin will probably tell you pretty much the same thing, as far
as the trust accounts are concerned.
Senator Gorton. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. A success story for a change.
In addition, we have all been training the people on trust
business. We have set up a central lock box for returned checks
when they go out without an address that is current and
accurate. We have contracted for annual audits. We have also
contracted for centralized safekeeping of investment
securities.
We are also working to propose a methodology to address the
historic multi-million dollar imbalance on account variances
between the Department of Interior and the Treasury Department
that has existed for decades.
You will note that many of these initiatives are being
handled by contractors, people who are well-versed in trust
practices and trust business, people that we do not have to
train on how to do this sort of job.
The fiscal year 2000 request is $100 million, as you noted.
It is a little over $90 million for OST, of which about $40
million will go directly to BIA to support their trust
improvements. There is an additional request for $10 million
for continuation of the land consolidation pilot that I
mentioned earlier. It is a $60 million increase. We understand
the issues with the budget caps.
This is the single largest increase for any office or
bureau in the Department of Interior, reflecting the
Secretary's and management's commitment to fixing Indian trust
management on the Secretary's watch.
We will spend $65 million for trust improvements, which is
an increase of $48 million over this year. This reflects the
fact that these systems are coming on line in both OST and BIA.
We will acquire and upgrade trust management accounting
systems, finish cleanup of the account data in the pre-
conversion stage, and work on eliminating backlog and probate
and other such functions.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we have requested a
supplemental. We have had some success in the House in getting
those amounts recognized. The money is essential if BIA is to
continue moving forward in its data cleanup effort. It is
obviously essential and of interest to Mr. Gover and the
Secretary and to me, because it is going to be needed to
support our work with Judge Lambert or the Special Master who
was appointed to oversee our efforts to produce documents in
the Cobell v. Babbitt litigation.
I have to also mention that we are obviously feeling an
impact of this litigation. The logistics and the manpower
required to support this effort and to work on this litigation
is rather massive. The commitment is certainly there. It was an
embarrassment for which we apologized. We do not plan to make
the mistake twice.
Of course, that requires the commitment of resources and
the commitment of people who are already strained working on
trust improvements and carrying out the daily business of the
Department.
prepared statement
We expect there will be some impact on some of these
schedules. We do not see the overall schedule slipping, but we
will have to do some internal adjusting to make this thing
happen.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my remarks now and
respond to any questions you or the committee would have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas M. Thompson
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to present the President's fiscal year 2000
budget request for the Office of the Special Trustee for American
Indians (OST). The total 2000 request for OST is $100 million, $90.025
million for OST and $10 million for Indian Land Consolidation. This is
a $60.5 million increase over the 1999 enacted level of $39.5 million,
and the single largest percentage increase for any bureau or office in
the Department.
In addition, OST also has requested fiscal year 1999 supplemental
funding totaling $21.8 million; $6.8 million for the trust fund
improvements based on the High Level Implementation Plan; and $15
million for additional expenses related to the class action lawsuit,
Elouise Pepion Cobell et. al. v. Bruce Babbitt et al.
The Secretary has stated in his testimony previously before this
Committee that one of the highest priorities of the Administration is
to successfully resolve the Indian trust fund management problems that
have accumulated over the last 70 years. The Secretary has also
committed to clean up this problem on his watch.
indian trust management reform progress
I am happy to report that with this Committee's assistance, much
has been accomplished since OST appeared before the Committee last
year. Most significantly, the Department developed and published its
High Level Implementation Plan, a general roadmap to the 13 Sub
Projects which comprise the Department's Trust Management Improvement
Project. The Plan contains information on and describes each of the Sub
Projects, responsible Bureaus and Offices, supporting tasks, critical
milestones, work plans, resource estimates and accountable officials.
Substantial progress has been made, including:
--Following a successful Pilot in Phoenix, Sacramento, and Juneau,
OST is implementing a new commercial off-the-shelf Trust Funds
Accounting System to administer all 300,000 Tribal and
Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts and investments.
Albuquerque and Navajo areas were converted in January 1999,
and all tribal accounts were converted in February 1999. The
balance of accounts will be converted by December 1999. This is
an off-the-shelf, and contractor operated system provided by
SEI Investments Company of Oaks, Pennsylvania.
--With contract assistance, OST has gathered, organized, and updated
systems data for more than 237,000 of the estimated 300,000 IIM
File Jackets in conjunction with the new Trust Funds Accounting
System. The entire pre-conversion data cleanup will be
completed by June 1999.
--The Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) has contracted with Artesia
Data Systems of Dallas, Texas, for a new Trust Asset and
Accounting Management System (TAAMS) to replace BIA's aging,
antiquated, and non standardized automated systems for land
title operations and land and lease management functions. The
system will be piloted in the Billings area beginning in June
1999, and the balance of areas are expected to be converted by
December 2000.
--BIA awarded a data cleanup contract for Billings and Juneau areas
in February 1999. BIA is utilizing the same contractor
currently finishing the pre conversion data cleanup for OST in
this initial effort. BIA's pre conversion data cleanup process
is expected to be completed by December 2000.
--The Department's automated trust systems and accompanying
infrastructure have been made Year 2000 Compliant.
--OST has contracted for a central lockbox for returned checks to
ensure control and timely redeposit to trust accounts.
--OST has contracted for training of 70 employees within OTFM in
commercial trust management operations and practices through
the Cannon Financial Institute, one of the industry's leading
training firms for commercial trust banks.
Many of these initiatives are either being accomplished by
contracting, or assisted by contractors, not just hiring additional
employees. Indeed, an estimated 74 percent of fiscal year 1999
obligations for trust management improvements will be through
contracts.
It should be noted that as a result of the Cobell v Babbitt
litigation and other requirements, the Department is currently
evaluating its ability to maintain the above schedules.
fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations
As you are aware, the Department has two fiscal year 1999
supplemental requests totaling $21.8 million. The 2000 budget included
a $6.8 million request for supplemental funding in 1999 to implement
the Trust Management Improvement Project. We appreciate the
Subcommittees inclusion of this request in its supplemental bill. The
pace of obligations for the trust management improvement project (TMIP)
has increased, as the most significant Sub Projects have passed from
the planning phase to the implementation phase. In particular, about
$34 million in contracts for BIA and OST data cleanup, TFAS, TAAMS,
records management, training, and other TMIP Sub Projects will be
renewed or let in 1999. Given these pending obligations, the Department
estimates that currently available funding for implementation of the
trust management improvement project will be fully committed by the
third quarter of 1999. Reprogramming flexibility provided by Congress
in fiscal year 1999 to meet unfunded TMIP needs has allowed the
Department to reduce its TMIP shortfall from a high of $16.2 million at
the beginning of 1999 to a current shortfall of $7.3 million.
Supplemental funding of $6.8 million will cover most of this shortfall,
and the balance of the shortfall can be met through other means.
An additional supplemental request in the amount of $15 million was
transmitted to support Department-wide estimated fiscal year 1999 costs
of the IIM litigation.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Federal District Court Judge Lamberth
found Secretary Babbitt, Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, and Assistant
Secretary Gover in contempt for failing to comply in a full and timely
manner with certain discovery orders. These matters and the claims of
approximately 300,000 IIM account holders remain before Judge Lamberth.
The basis for his decision is a matter of public record. The Department
has apologized to the court for the government's failures in this
litigation and intends to do all that we can to be fully responsive to
the Court's orders. The government recommended the appointment of a
Special Master, as a way of addressing many of the discovery issues
that have proven to be difficult. The Special Master will oversee the
discovery process and administer document production, compliance with
court orders, and related matters.
As a result of the ruling, there will be significant additional
costs to BIA, OST, MMS, BLM and the Solicitor's Office in searching for
and producing documents of predecessor accounts and other documents
previously thought to be beyond the scope of the original request. A
portion of these costs can be funded from resources previously
requested, and appropriated by Congress, for document production
related to performing a statistical sample. The $15 million
supplemental will cover the balance of the Department's costs, as well
as other costs stemming from the litigation, primarily, the cost of
document production for the anticipated statistical sample.
In regards to the supplemental request, Mr. Chairman, these funds
are needed to cover our current best estimate of anticipated costs. I
can tell this Committee that numerous staff members from OST, BIA, the
Solicitors Office, Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land
Management and the Department have spent thousands of hours, often late
into the night and on weekends working on this case. In many cases,
these are the same staff responsible for daily ongoing responsibilities
in meeting the milestones and achievements of the High Level
Implementation Plan. While supplemental funding will greatly enhance
the ability of the Department to meet litigation demands without
comprising trust reform efforts, the litigation does have an indirect
impact on reform efforts because many of the employees involved in
fixing the system also have responsibilities for producing documents
stemming from the IIM litigation. Additionally, because plaintiffs are
seeking an as yet undefined, new system for trust fund management that
may be different from either the system in place and/or the systems
envisioned by the High Level Implementation Plan, this case places
substantial demands on the Department in terms of trial preparation,
responses to plaintiff discovery requests, depositions, and testimony.
While the Department is, to the extent possible, utilizing contract
assistance and deploying staff from other program areas to assist in
meeting litigation demands and trust reform schedules, these demands do
place significant workloads on the Department's employees.
The House has included the total $21.8 million in its pending
supplemental. While we greatly appreciate the Senate's provision of
$6.8 million in its supplemental, we respectively request your support
for the additional $15 million in Conference. Without funding, the
Government's ability to adequately defend this case will be severely
compromised, and the Government will face substantial risks of
additional court sanctions for failure to meet court ordered
activities.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
The budget request for Program Operations, Support and Improvements
is $88.4 million an increase of $50.5 million over the 1999 enacted
level. Of this amount $65.3 million will be available for continued
implementation of the trust management improvement project, an increase
of $42.9 million over 1999, net of a $5.1 million transfer from BIA.
The OST request also includes $5.2 million to support settlement
and litigation activities, and $10 million for continued implementation
of the Indian Land Consolidation Pilot, which will commence in 1999 on
three reservations in Wisconsin. The pilot is aimed at consolidating
highly fractionated interests in allotted Indian lands, to improve the
economic productivity of and reduce the cost of administering these
lands. The 2000 request will allow the pilot program to be expanded to
one or more additional reservations. While funded under OST, BIA will
continue to lead pilot implementation.
Improvement initiatives
The 2000 request provides a total of $65.3 million for trust
management reform activities of OST, BIA, and the office of Hearing and
Appeals, which will be necessary to continue systems contracts already
in place, eliminate programmatic backlogs, and strengthen support
functions. Specifically, the request provides:
--$21.8 million to replace BIA's key trust management systems (lease
management, accounts receivable, land records, and trust
resources management) by the end of 2000 and related pre
conversion data cleanup costs.
--$12.6 million to eliminate appraisal and probate backlogs in BIA
and OHA to ensure trust beneficiaries receive timely
distributions of trust assets.
--$16.4 million for OST's off the shelf trust fund accounting system
that will be installed nationwide by the end of 1999, and
related post conversion data cleanup.
--$14.5 million for strengthening support functions: internal
controls, records management, policies and procedures and
training.
--Approximately $50 million of the $65 million requested for trust
management improvements or 75 percent of these funds will be
obligated through contracts.
Operations
The OST's budget includes $17.9 million to be utilized to conduct
day-to-day operations of financial trust activities at the Office of
Trust Funds Management (OTFM) including the field staff and support
services. Included in the request is an additional $.7 million for
fixed costs such as pay raises, and space costs paid to the General
Services Administration and other fixed costs.
Settlement & litigation support
An increase of $1.9 million is requested to fund the Office of
Trust Litigation Support and Records ongoing activities in litigation,
including Cobell vs. Babbitt document production requirements and
funding needed to prepare and begin implementation of a Tribal
settlement legislative proposal.
Executive direction
The budget provides $1.6 million for Executive Direction, which
supports staffing of the immediate Office of the Special Trustee and
includes $250,000 for support of the Intertribal Monitoring Association
and $85,000 for the Advisory Board. These groups advise the OST on
trust funds matters. The funding for the OST staff will be essential
for the implementation of the trust improvement efforts.
This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be
pleased to answer questions of the Subcommittee.
fiscal year 2000 funding
Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Thompson, you have given us a
wonderful report of very real success. But, of course, the
better the report is, the more relevant the question becomes.
Assuming that you get your supplemental, if your year 2000
appropriation is no larger than this year's together with the
supplemental, will you not be able to keep up the same degree
of progress?
Mr. Thompson. What it will do is retard our ability to roll
out these systems further than we have them right now. BIA will
not be able to take the trust asset and accounting management
system beyond the pilot in Billings area. That will rule out
for the rest of the BIA as scheduled for year 2000. The funding
we have now supports only the initial stages of that system.
We are in the process of rolling out the trust fund
accounting system in the OST office. We will have to re-look
and decide if we can move it out into all of the BIA offices
with the amount of funding we have right now. I do not believe
we can do that.
future budget requests
Senator Gorton. Would there be major increases beyond the
year 2000 or will you be able to get all of these initiatives
accomplished with this appropriation?
Mr. Thompson. We would expect that the request for
appropriations in future years will come down. This is the peak
year by the way the schedule was set up. It peaks because we
have major systems development and major cleanup activities
occurring at the end of 1999 and through 2000. That is not to
say that the work will all be done, but this clearly is the
peak year. We will bring the figure down from 2001 on out.
Senator Gorton. Well, whatever our ability to do that, I
can tell you that we will work with the House to come up with
an appropriate supplemental for you.
Mr. Thompson. We cannot ask for anything more.
consolidation of trust functions
Senator Gorton. We do think you have started out on your
proposed course of action very, very well. Is the process of
consolidating and gathering trust functions into your office
complete?
Mr. Thompson. The effort to consolidate trust functions is
centered on our internal business of operating the trust fund's
management side. As you know, the Secretary in 1997 said that
we were going to make these reforms under the current
organizational structure. That is, we would not move to the
structure recommended by the former Special Trustee, Paul
Homan, who recommended we take these functions out of the
Department of the Interior.
The Secretary wants to try and work this out internally.
That is why you see Kevin Gover and I sitting arm in arm here
at the table. It is working well now. Time remains to see how
it is going to work in the future.
In our case, we are moving to consolidate some of our
accounting business in the Albuquerque office of the trust
fund's management. Included in that is moving to centralize the
data entry. We are also moving to centralize our trust records
at a single site in Albuquerque.
staff support for improvements
Senator Gorton. Mr. Gover, maybe this part of the question
is for you: Has the Secretary created all the new support
offices he needs to address trust management reform?
Mr. Gover. I believe that we have, Mr. Chairman. We have
established a separate project team to attack the Cobell versus
Babbitt document production. Within, of course, Tom's
organization there are various project teams to work on their
elements of the overall project.
Within BIA, we have established a similar structure, where
we have project directors on each of our three primary projects
and then an overall director of our trust management
activities.
So I believe that structurally we are in the right position
now. Maybe it really should have been done sooner, but we are
ready now. Tom is right, that if we can get this money in
fiscal year 2000, then by the end of fiscal year 2000 we will
be so far along that I think we would be able to declare a
success in overhauling the system.
gao report
Senator Gorton. Back to you, Mr. Thompson. In a report, a
draft report, to Chairman Campbell, the GAO is critical of
Interior's trust improvement plan, especially with respect to
computer systems. What can you tell us, or what can either of
you tell us, about these concerns and the way in which they
have been responded to?
Mr. Thompson. Sure. Mr. Chairman, the GAO has been working
closely with us over the past year and a half as we move
forward in this process. Their draft report, which the
Department has responded to, had recommendations in two areas.
One dealt with the manner in which the high level
implementation plan was put together and rolled out, for which
I was responsible.
The second deals with the manner in which the BIA is
planning and moving forward with its implementation of the
trust asset and accounting management system. Our basic problem
with the GAO report is that it is looking at a point in time
that is probably 9 months ago and does not reflect what has
happened----
Senator Gorton. Would you have sent your own criticisms to
Mr. Homan?
Mr. Thompson. I am sorry, sir?
Senator Gorton. I say is that--well, let us see. It is
about 9 months ago, is it not, when you were Deputy Special
Trustee, that you were critical of some trust management
aspects of the plan?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, and let me turn to that quickly. That
was a note that I wrote to Mr. Homan the day before I presented
the high-level plan for publication to the Department.
Senator Gorton. I see.
Mr. Thompson. In that I addressed what I considered to be
risk to success in the way some of the plans were put together
and the approach that some of those plans laid out. They
reflected my professional opinion, my experience in the
Department. Basically, the Secretary and the Department
recognized those issues, pointed out that it was a very
aggressive plan, and decided to move forward with the plan.
There are lots of ways to do a plan, lots of ways to put a
system out. That reflected my personal view.
Senator Gorton. But you are saying that the GAO report was
as of about that time.
Mr. Thompson. That is correct. The GAO report, to go back
to that, basically thought that the high-level implementation
plan should have had more background and design documentation
behind it. They were looking for some historical documents in
our view that did not exist and that they thought should be
developed before we move forward.
With the Cobell litigation, with the time frame and
commitment of the Secretary, we felt it was worth the minimal
risk to move forward with a high-level plan and supplement that
plan downstream with more detailed project plans, which we have
done in many situations.
The other issue that the GAO brought forward was the
approach to developing the trust asset and accounting
management system. They had very specific criticisms of that
approach. In the sense of many people in the Department,
including the Chief Information Officer, those views reflected
a methodology for systems development that was basically 10-12
years old.
It was the sort of comments and the sort of concerns you
would raise if you were developing a major mainframe computer
system, where you develop all of the software from the ground
up, from scratch, and you did not understand the functions that
you were trying to take care of.
In the case here, since we are buying these systems from
commercial vendors who do this job every day, we felt
comfortable that they had probably proven the systems and had
dealt with the issues that the Department had not and had the
foresight to see. It is a bit of a risk, but it was worth the
risk in the view of the departmental management.
iim litigation
Senator Gorton. I do not know which one of you this
question is primarily addressed to. But apparently Judge
Lamberth has set a trial date for June 10. Is that earlier than
you expected? And does that have any impact on your budget
request?
Mr. Thompson. It is certainly earlier than we had hoped. It
does not impact our budget request. The production of documents
does not have to be completed before that trial. So in that
respect, it is not affected.
Mr. Gover. The impact from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, is
that the trial, this trial, is on the adequacy of the high-
level implementation plan. We made commitments that we plan to
move forward to correct in these 13 areas. We have done work in
several of them successfully. Of course, driving those plans,
supporting those plans, are the resources to do the job. They
will watch very carefully our success in front of this
committee.
land fractionation
Senator Gorton. Give me a little bit more, if you will, Mr.
Thompson, about the fractionation of Indian lands and trust
management. You gave me a certain statistic with respect to
Minnesota. Repeat that and tell me how widespread that is and
what your long-range plan is in connection with it.
Mr. Thompson. I may ask for some help from Kevin on this.
Senator Gorton. That is fine.
Mr. Thompson. Basically in 1887, Congress passed the
General Allotment Act, which basically divided lands into
allotments of 160, 80 and 40 acres. The intention was to give
this land to Indian tribal members as an allotment, and then in
25 years deed those lands to these tribal members, these
individual Indians.
However, the land never was deeded to these indiviual
Indians and remains in trust. Therefore, without further
guidance, we ended up with what is called fractionation. As the
Indian population died intestate, the land became divided among
the heirs. Basically, it gives each heir undivided interest in
a parcel of land.
I do not have the statistics at my fingertips about where
we sit exactly. There are thousands and thousands of such
interests.
Senator Gorton. We were just handed this chart.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. This gives you an idea of what happens
over five generations. This is what happens to the ownership of
the land over four or five generations, also.
Mr. Gover. What we do know is that the average piece of
Indian allotment property now has 40 owners. That is the
average. Some have literally over 1,000. Those are, obviously,
the oldest allotments and tend to be in the Great Lake states.
Senator Gorton. What policy change is proposed to deal with
that?
fractionation legislation
Mr. Gover. Primarily the fractionation legislation that was
actually introduced, I believe, in the House last year. We have
asked again for the Indian Affairs Committee to consider this
legislation. It would establish a revolving loan fund that
would allow us to acquire from willing sellers the small
interests. The interests, the loan, the money used to purchase
the small interests, would be repaid out of revenues generated
from the property itself. At the point it was----
Senator Gorton. Well, now, would the BIA own those
interests then?
Mr. Gover. We would then turn the interest over to the
tribe.
Senator Gorton. OK.
Mr. Gover. So the idea is to consolidate ownership in the
tribe itself.
Senator Gorton. So there would no longer be an allotments
to individuals----
Mr. Gover. Right.
Senator Gorton [continuing]. Of those lands.
Mr. Gover. Yes.
Senator Gorton. The income that the tribe received from the
lands would go to pay off the loans.
Mr. Gover. Correct, and replenish----
Senator Gorton. Then after that would be tribal interest.
Mr. Gover. Right. That is right.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
budget priorities
Mr. Thompson, and for both of you, I appreciate your
testimony in this regard. I think given the nature of the
budget problems with which we are faced, I am going to need you
to think and at least privately communicate with us what the
situation would be with respect to programs, if you do not get
that full $100 million, you know, what your priorities are,
what would come first or what would drop off first. We need to
understand that.
I would like very much to get this job done just as rapidly
as you would. I just do not know whether I will be granted an
allocation that is sufficient to do it. So we are going to need
the help of both of you in setting priorities.
With that, this portion of the hearing is over. Mr.
Thompson, you and your people can leave or stay and listen, as
you will, but your time is done. If you have more important
things to do, we certainly understand that.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will drop back
here and wait a few more minutes to see if any other questions
arise in this area to support Kevin.
Senator Gorton. Fine.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you for your time.
summary statement of kevin gover
Senator Gorton. With that, Mr. Gover, we will hear your
opening statement on general BIA matters.
Mr. Gover. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With me is
Michael Anderson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs.
Let me first thank the chair for all of the candor and the
cooperation that we have received in the past year,
particularly for the help we received in the fiscal year 1999
budget.
We are able to accomplish some important things with the
additional law enforcement money and with the money that goes
to the land consolidation pilots, so that we can prove this
concept that if we go out and start buying these small
interests, we can begin closing accounts, reducing
administrative costs and reconsolidating land in tribal
ownership.
Let me make it as clear as Mr. Thompson did that the trust
program is our top priority. Obviously, when we deal in many
areas of human need, it is difficult to designate a single
priority. Yet, it is clear to us that unless we attack this
particular problem of trust management with everything we have,
we are not going to get it done.
We have seen halting starts in the past, where they got
halfway through a reform and for some reason it just never
crossed the finish line. So we are anxious to do everything
that we possibly can in that area. To that end, as I stated
before the committee on the other side, if other things have to
suffer, they simply have to suffer in order for us to
accomplish this objective.
Having said that, we also appreciate the constraints within
which the committee has to operate and know that not every
request can be granted. We do want to designate our priorities
to the committee, both in the trust area and in other program
areas.
Our two other priorities beyond trust are the same as
yours. They are law enforcement and education. We have made a
request for an additional $20 million for our law enforcement
programs. Last year's money has been very effectively spent. As
we promised the committee, less than 10 percent went to the
creation of the new regional administration for law
enforcement. Over 90 percent went to uniformed officers,
criminal investigators, prison guards, and equipment and
services for the tribes.
The $20 million we are requesting this year would again be
spent in a variety of ways, I think ideally on more uniformed
officers. This would be the first priority. We have also put in
a specific request for some high-grade radio equipment. One of
the things that is happening to our officers is far too often
they find themselves out of touch without any backup.
That is due to distances, due to terrain, but mostly due to
an old system that we have been sort of holding together for a
number of years. With these new radios, we would be able to
ensure that our officers are never alone in the field, or at
least not out of communication with assistance.
Let me also note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that in the
past year, three tribal and BIA law enforcement officers died
in the line of duty. In each case, they were car accidents,
usually related to very long hours and the long distances that
tribal police and BIA officers are forced to work.
Turning next to schools, we have asked for increases in
both the area of construction and school operations. If forced
to choose between the two, I am confident that the problem with
facilities is our most severe problem at this point.
In the past year, we find ourselves responding to various
crises in our facilities, whether it be a sprinkler system that
does not work to much more serious issues, like PCB
contamination in our classrooms.
We had another incident where there was a very severe lead
contamination to an entire school campus because of old heating
equipment and some poor methods of disposing of the ash from
the boiler.
So as Senator Burns said earlier, our schools no longer
represent in many cases an effective learning environment.
While I am very pleased with the kind of progress that our
instructional program is making in terms of educational
reforms, in terms of the quality of the teachers and the
personnel involved with the schools, we are basically providing
a modern education in sub-modern facilities. We are very
anxious to do something about that.
Under the proposal we made this year, were the committee to
grant our request and the necessary authorizing legislation be
enacted, we would be able to complete the school construction
priority list that has existed since 1992. The last of the 16
schools could all be begun, not completed.
But certainly the funds for all those schools could be
committed in fiscal year 2000, so that we could turn our
attention to the known backlog of other schools that need to be
replaced.
We estimate a minimum of 60 other schools that have to be
replaced at a cost of a minimum of $1 billion. We realize that
those are very large numbers.
Senator Gorton. What share of all Indian students do these
schools educate, as against the general public school systems
of the states in which they are located?
Mr. Gover. About 10 percent of all Indian students are in
BIA schools, about 53,000 students.
Senator Gorton. What determines those 10 percent? Are they,
generally speaking, located far from an available public
school?
Mr. Gover. They do tend to be----
Senator Gorton. How is it broken down?
Mr. Gover. They do tend to be extremely rural. Of course,
there was a time when BIA had schools at virtually every
location, on every reservation. As time has passed and most of
the reservations become far less remote, the Congress has
chosen to provide that the kids would go to public school.
The schools that remain, though, are, in general, in places
like the Navajo Nation in the desert Southwest, in the northern
great plains, and tend to be very remote from public schools.
Senator Gorton. The public school districts that encompass
Indian reservations and educate Indian children are
beneficiaries of impact aid, are they not?
Mr. Gover. Yes, they are. But without going into a
dissertation on Impact Aid, it is not having all of the effect
that one would expect, certainly not a dollar-per-dollar effect
because of the equalization formulas that are in place in some
states.
So Impact Aid is good in the sense that it is additional
resources for a school system, but it is not a dollar-for
dollar addition to operating budgets in those school districts.
So still, the public school districts are finding it extremely
expensive to educate reservation children. Yet they continue to
do so for 90 percent of the kids.
Senator Gorton. Please go on.
Mr. Gover. Let me mention quickly, Mr. Chairman, two
committee directives that we received in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations legislation, and report on their progress.
First, again, let me apologize for the fact that we have not
produced the TPA report by the April 1 date. We are very close
to completing that work.
We spent a good 9 months working with a workgroup
consisting of tribal leaders, tribal program directors and BIA
personnel, to develop some information that I think you are
going to find very useful in understanding just how it is we
allocate TPA.
We think that it turns out that, in general, TPA is
allocated in a rational way. There are exceptions, and we will
point some of those out for the benefit of the committee, along
with some suggestions on how those disparities ought to be
dealt with.
The committee also directed us to prepare a report on tort
liability. We have again been working with tribal leaders and
others to develop that report. We will be sending out a survey
instrument to all of the tribes and to their insured by the end
of this week. We expect a pretty quick return on that. It is
not a complicated survey. We are very hopeful of having their
report available to the committee by mid-summer.
So we are making progress in both areas. We wish we might
have moved a little faster, but we are doing the best that we
can.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, we obviously have a number of
other specific requests that are all in the written statement.
Let me just mention one relatively small ticket item, which is
that we request the reestablishment of the Office of Alcohol
and Substance Abuse Prevention. It is a $400,000 request.
What we would like to do is simply to keep this issue on
the front burner. It is a primary problem in most Indian
communities. It is, in my mind, the single largest obstacle to
real progress in the social and economic condition of
reservation Indian people.
While it is not appropriate for BIA to administer a large
programmatic initiative to fund tribes to do this, it does seem
to us that there is a place for the Bureau in the coordination
of the many agencies in the Federal Government that fund these
sorts of activities.
We have established both a governmental workgroup and a
tribal leader workgroup looking at these issues. They will
produce two documents. One is a directory of resources
available from the Federal Government for all aspects of
alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment. Second, a
catalog of successful tribal programs that have been identified
by our tribal workgroup, most of whom are people who are
themselves in recovery from alcoholism or addiction.
Senator Gorton. Would such an office not be more
appropriate in the Indian Health Service?
Mr. Gover. We think that--well, first of all, the Congress
has directed the establishment of an office in BIA. IHS does
have a major initiative, but we have been working closely with
them. We believe that should be the centerpiece of the effort.
As I say, we do think there is a role for the Bureau in
coordinating the various agencies throughout the Government.
There are alcohol and substance abuse prevention funds
everywhere from the Justice Department to the Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Education, and the White House.
We found that they do not talk to each other a lot. We
found that it has been a good place for us to be the ones to
convene everyone so that we can coordinate our activities in
working with the tribes a little better.
prepared statement
Most of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it just sends an
important message to Indian Country that it is part of the
business of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to deal with this
critical problem. To not have an effort, even if a small one,
sends exactly the wrong signal, because this is the most
disabling malady in virtually any Indian community in the
country.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Gover
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: The
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) is the primary agency of the Federal
Government charged with the responsibility to administer Federal Indian
policy and to fulfill the Federal trust responsibility for American
Indian Tribes, Alaska native villages and Tribal organizations. Federal
Indian policy and the trust responsibility are derived from the special
legal and political relationship between the Tribes and the Federal
Government. This unique (legal and political) relationship is rooted in
American history. Much of Federal Indian policy evolves around this
``special'' relationship which is often broadly expressed in terms of
legal duties, moral obligations and expectancies that have arisen from
the historical dealings between Tribes and the Federal Government.
Today, the Bureau 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 Bureau programs is extensive and covers virtually the
entire range of state and local government services.
More importantly, the Bureau's programs are funded and operated in
a highly decentralized manner with more than 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 Bureau 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.
The Bureau's most basic responsibilities are its trust obligations
and facilitating Tribal self-determination. However, while the
protection of trust resources is a fundamental responsibility, Tribal
communities struggling to meet the basic needs of their communities
must compete for the same limited resources the Bureau uses to protect
trust resources. The Bureau's success relies on judiciously balancing
these competing mandates.
organization
The Bureau has two service components reporting to the Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs:
The Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs has line authority over
12 Area Offices, 83 Agency offices, three subagencies, six field
stations, and two irrigation project offices. The Deputy Commissioner
provides program direction and support through the Directors for the
Offices of Tribal Services, Trust Responsibilities, Law Enforcement,
Economic Development, Management and Administration, Indian Gaming, and
the Facilities Management and Construction Center.
The Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs supervises
26 education line officers stationed throughout the country and two
post-secondary schools. During the 1997-98 school year, the Office of
Indian Education Programs supported the operation of 115 day schools,
56 boarding schools, and 14 dormitories which house Indian children who
attend public schools.
The Bureau's headquarters offices are located in Washington, D.C.
and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Bureau's organization and regions are
outlined in the justifications. As a highly decentralized organization,
nearly 95 percent of Bureau's staff work is performed in schools, Area
and Agency offices, and other field locations.
In fiscal year 1996, the Office of Trust Funds Management was
transferred from the Bureau to the Office of Special Trustee pursuant
to Secretarial Order 3197.
At the end of fiscal year 1998, the Bureau's total employment was
9,687 full-time equivalents.
fiscal year 2000 budget summary
The 2000 budget request for the Bureau is $1,902,054,000 in current
appropriations, an increase of $155,626,000 above the 1999 Enacted
level. The budget stresses the resources Tribes need to provide basic
reservation programs and develop strong and stable governments, ensure
accreditation of Bureau schools, address critical infrastructure needs,
and meet the Secretary's trust responsibilities. The Bureau continues
to keep administrative costs low; more than 9 of every 10 dollars
appropriated to the Bureau is provided directly to programs on Indian
reservations. The request allows the Bureau to attain its goals which
are designed to meet the commitment to American Indians and Alaska
Natives as outlined in its Strategic Plan and annual performance plans.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Bureau seeks to
maintain core existing programs on behalf of our trust responsibilities
and commitments to facilitate self-determination for American Indians
and Alaska Natives. While the Bureau has evolved in its role as trustee
for the American Indian and Alaska Natives from the paternalism of the
1800's to its role today as partner, Tribes continue to turn to the
Bureau for a broad spectrum of critical and complex programs
administered either by the Tribes or the Bureau--from an education
system for more than 53,000 elementary and secondary students; to 28
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges; to law enforcement and
detention services on more than 200 reservations; to social services
programs for children, families, the elderly and the disabled; to
management of the forest, mineral, fishery and farmland resources on
trust land; to the maintenance of more than 25,000 miles of roads on
rural and isolated reservations; to economic development programs in
some of the more depressed areas in the nation; to the implementation
of legislated land and water claim settlements; to the replacement and
repair of schools; and to the repair of structural deficiencies on high
hazard dams. The joint Trust and Federal responsibilities are daunting
as the Bureau strives to uphold the President's commitment to the
American Indian and Alaska Native; Indian Country needs in every
program are massive.
operation of indian programs
For fiscal year 2000, the total request for Operation of Indian
Programs is $1,694,387,000, an increase of $110,263,000 over the fiscal
year 1999 Enacted level.
Tribal priority allocations (TPA)
TPA provides the principal source of funds for local units of
Tribal Government, most of which are small and lack independent
resources to meet the increasing costs of Tribal government operations.
Beginning with fiscal year 1998, TPA comprises nearly half of the
Bureau's operating budget. Increased funding in TPA is consistent with
the Bureau's Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan. For fiscal
year 2000, the TPA activity is funded at $716,139,000, an increase of
$17,131,000 over the fiscal year 1999 Enacted level, which will help
Tribes address some of the unmet needs in these basic programs.
Shortfalls in these programs have become particularly serious with the
reductions in this activity since 1995.
Program increases proposed in this budget submission include
$2,058,000 for New Tribes to support 8 new Tribes as they begin to
establish viable Tribal government operations. Federal recognition,
supervision and support over some Tribes was terminated by an Act of
Congress. Others may not have become Federally recognized because they
made no treaty with the United States prior to 1871 when treaty-making
was prohibited by the Congress; or they may have negotiated a treaty
which was not ratified by the Senate. A Federal court ruled in 1975
that the United States has a trust responsibility to existing Tribes,
regardless of whether the Government has acknowledged that
responsibility by past Federal actions or previous recognition of the
Tribe.
An increase requested for Contract Support will provide $6,447,000
over the 1999 Enacted level. In fiscal year 1998, the Bureau was able
to provide only 80.34 percent of contract support needs, which has
resulted in significant concern, anger and hardship with Tribes
throughout Indian Country. Tribes are discussing the possibility of
retrocession of programs back to the Bureau because appropriations are
not sufficient to meet the rates as negotiated between the Tribes and
the Office of the Inspector General. Given the downsizing at the
Central, Area and Agency level that resulted from the severe budget
reductions in fiscal year 1996, the Bureau has neither the staff nor
the funding to resume Tribally-operated programs. The end result of
retrocession would be no services provided to Indian families and
communities, which is in direct conflict with the President's
commitment of self-determination to Tribes. Given the level of budget
reductions and increasing populations in Indian communities throughout
the country in recent years, Tribes are challenged every day to
maintain even level services.
An increase of $3,000,000 is proposed for Small Tribes to support
the operation of viable Tribal Governments in the State of Alaska. The
requested funds will go entirely to small Tribes in the State of Alaska
to move those Native Alaskans toward the Task Force recommended minimum
level of funding of $200,000. An increase of $2,048,000 is requested
for Welfare Assistance geared towards its Tribal Work Experience
Program (TWEP) component. TWEP programs are administered by the Tribes
for eligible general assistance recipients to provide these Indian
individuals with the resources and means to gain proper work experience
and job skills needed to successfully compete in the job market. It is
an investment in recipients today to move them towards self-sufficiency
tomorrow.
An increase of $2.0 million is requested for Adult Care Facility
Rehabilitation to bring 7 adult long-term care facilities on the Navajo
Reservation to standard condition. Once the standard is attained, the
facilities are eligible for funding of their operation and maintenance
costs from the State Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
Other recurring programs
The prominent theme for the new millennium described by the
President is the education of our children. The Bureau 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. The request for school Operations, which will fund schools
and dormitories serving more than 53,000 elementary and secondary
students in 23 States, is $503,568,000, a program increase of
$27,482,000 over the fiscal year 1999 Enacted level. The increase will
ensure that schools can deliver quality education and provide safe and
adequate transportation for an estimated increase in enrollment.
Increases are also proposed in facilities operations, facilities
maintenance, and administrative cost grants to encourage the
continuation of schools going into grant status and under Tribal
control.
The budget increases operating grants to the 28 Tribally controlled
community colleges by $7,100,000 over fiscal year 1999. The colleges
have been successful in providing Indian youth with college degrees and
eventual professional employment. They also promote entrepreneurship on
reservations.
An increase of $1.0 million is requested to assist Tribes in the
return of the bison to Indian homelands and for the prudent development
and management of bison herds and habitat on Indian reservations. Bison
are sacred to American Indians and represent a powerful symbol of
America and its heritage as a Nation.
Non-recurring programs
The budget includes trust investments crucial to program
performance in the out years. The request level for the Bureau's
environmental management program is $9,809,000, an increase of $3
million more than appropriated in fiscal year 1999, to begin to address
an estimated $200 million backlog of environmental cleanup work in
Indian communities throughout the country. The EPA has demonstrated a
vigorous interest in the Bureau's environmental compliance in recent
years and has directed its enforcement actions at Bureau locations. The
request level will provide the resources for the Bureau to conduct
baseline assessments of all Bureau facilities and operations by the end
of fiscal year 2002. An additional $1,247,000 is requested for
endangered species to increase the number of Federally listed
threatened and endangered species as well as 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 $4,002,000 for Water
Rights Negotiation, $1,000,000 for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
re-licensing activities.
Other programs
An additional $400,000 is proposed for the establishment of the
Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention to help stem the flow
of alcohol abuse and illegal drugs in Indian Country. An increase of
$900,000 is requested for a post secondary school, the Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Institute, to handle the increased need for
resources due to its rising curriculum and enrollment.
construction
The request for the Bureau Construction appropriation is
$174,258,000, with $108,377,000 for Education Construction. The Bureau
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 the Bureau's Facilities
Management and Construction Center awarding and approving officials
until the Tribes and Agencies are fully trained to take over the
construction contracting challenge.
special initiatives
Law enforcement in indian country
Fiscal year 2000 represents the second year of the multi-year
Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, a
jointeffort by the Bureau and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to
combat the rising crime rates in Indian Country to fulfill the
Presidential directive to the Secretary of the Interior and the United
States Attorney General to work with Tribal Leaders to improve public
safety in Indian Country.
Pursuant to the Final Report of the Executive Committee for Indian
Country Law Enforcement Improvements, significant investment by the
Government is necessary to stem the increasing problem of crime in
Indian Country. In simple terms, current resources are inadequate;
continued infusion of manpower and financial resources are necessary to
ensure that Indian communities receive the same quality and quantity of
law enforcement services as their non-Indian counterparts.
The initial investment in fiscal year 1999 for the Initiative
provides the foundation from which the Bureau can begin addressing the
shortages in law enforcement, but much more resources are needed to
adequately respond to the concerns as outlined in the Final Report. The
requested increase of $20.0 million continues to build on this
foundation while complementing the efforts of the DOJ to maximize the
use of the Federal dollar.
tribal courts
Going hand in hand with increasing the resources for law
enforcement in Indian Country is the ability of Tribal Governments to
handle the accompanying increase in caseloads; the fiscal year 2000
increase requested is $2,565,000. More than 250 Tribal justice systems
and courts of Indian offenses (serving 40 Tribes) are supported by
Bureau funds. These Tribal courts must face the same issues State and
Federal courts confront every day, such as child sexual abuse, alcohol
and substance abuse, gang violence, and violence against women. Tribal
court systems have historically been under funded and understaffed.
With the Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country
underway to improve law enforcement services in Indian Country, it is
essential that additional support be provided to Tribal courts as it is
expected with the effort to clean up crime, Tribal courts caseloads
will increase dramatically. Tribal courts must have the capacity to
adjudicate the resulting criminal cases and resolve disputes. This
effort complements the Department of Justice's efforts to provide one-
time (competitive) grant support to Tribes.
In addition, Public Law 103-176, the Indian Tribal Justice Act,
recognizes the situation in Indian Country to improve its judicial
function to assist in keeping law and order for its constituency. The
Bureau's requested increase will also focus on providing initial
funding to Tribes for implementation of the Act.
alcohol and substance abuse
Another factor in the efforts to reduce crime is the influence and
effect of alcohol and substance abuse in Indian Country. An additional
$400,000 is requested in fiscal year 2000 to establish the Office of
Alcohol and Substance Abuse to provide training and technical
assistance on prevention efforts and implementation by Tribes of their
Tribal Action Plans regarding programs designed to reduce the incidents
of alcohol and substance abuse in their communities.
education construction
Replacement school construction
Eight-two percent of the Bureau's building square footage is
education space; the majority of the buildings are old and often in
poor condition. With the Bureau responsible for the only major domestic
elementary and secondary education system operated by the Federal
Government, it is vital that we provide adequate facilities for this
Nation's Indian school children to obtain an education. Research has
demonstrated that placing instructional and residential programs in
facilities that do not meet health and safety codes distract from the
educational program. A point made by the President in Executive Order
13096, which calls for creating educational opportunities for American
Indian and Alaska Native students in our nation.
To this end, the fiscal year 2000 request provides for a requested
level of $39,859,000 for replacement of two schools--Seba Dalkai and
Fond du Lac Ojibway--on the existing priority list for school
replacement. As the President has stated in his call for modernization
of our schools, it is through construction that our Nation will begin
to meet our generation's historic responsibility to create 21st century
schools. Schools may be operated directly by the Bureau or operated by
Tribal organizations under the contracting authorities of Public Law
93-638, as amended, or Public Law 100-297 grant.
The Bureau's request is an intricate part of the President's
education agenda which seeks to reduce class size and help communities
renovate and build new schools. The request is also part of the
Department's 5-Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan.
The Bureau is moving forward to eliminate its code and standard
deficiencies, currently estimated for school-related facilities alone
at approximately $743.0 million; the Bureau's total facilities backlog
for education and non-education facilities is nearing the $1.0 billion
mark. Projects included in the Plan outline the comprehensive strategy
of the Department to address the most critical needs in the Bureau's
backlog of construction and maintenance requirements. It is the most
in-depth analysis and display of the enormity of the dire situation
facing the Bureau in trying to maintain its facilities for the
consumers we serve. It is a comprehensive list, causing the Bureau to
reassess and validate its many facilities located throughout the Nation
to fully capture the challenge we face in maintaining our
responsibilities for Bureau-owned facilities and providing for safe and
health environments for our constituency. The requested funding level
of $39,859,000 for replacement school construction, a key factor in the
success of the President's revitalization of Indian education, will
greatly assist in reducing the mounting backlog of construction needs.
School bond initiative
An increase of $30 million is requested in fiscal year 2000 for
school construction to enable Tribes and/or Tribal organizations to
defease qualified school construction bonds by ensuring the repayment
of principal to bond holders. This proposal is part of the
Administration's school modernization initiative to provide school
repairs and replacement in needy public school districts throughout the
country. Funding for additional school construction or repairs is
proposed as part of the second year of the Administration's facilities
restoration initiative. These funds emphasize the Administration's
commitment to the long-term stewardship of Federal lands and
facilities.
secretary's trust management improvement project
Over $37 million is requested in the Office of the Special
Trustee's 2000 Budget for the Bureau's components of the Trust
Management Improvement Project's High Level Implementation Plan. Since
the Plan's publication last July, BIA has been making steady progress
in its trust reform efforts. Most significantly, in December 1998, the
Bureau contracted with Artesia Data Systems of Dallas, Texas, for a new
Trust Asset and Accounting Management System to replace the aging and
antiquated automated systems for land title operations and land and
lease management functions. The system will be piloted in the Billings
area in June 1999, and the balance of areas are expected to be
converted by December 2000. Additionally, in February, the Bureau
awarded a data cleanup contract for Billings and Juneau areas. BIA's
pre-conversion data cleanup process is expected to be completed by
December 2000.
This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be
pleased to answer questions of the Subcommittee.
law enforcement
Senator Gorton. You started with law enforcement, so I will
start with law enforcement, too. Tell me the source of all law
enforcement funds. Are the funds that are appropriated by this
subcommittee the only funds that go into law enforcement on
Indian reservations? Do some come from the Department of
Justice or some other Federal programs?
Mr. Gover. All three of those. The primary and the largest
source of funding is the Office of Law Enforcement Services.
Those funds are spent on the reservations in three ways, either
by the Bureau directly--and we do maintain our own police
forces.
Our own BIA personnel carry out the law enforcement
function in many communities--through self-determination
contracts, where the tribe contracts with us using funds we
provide to provide those law enforcement services in the
community, and finally through self-governance compacts, which
are similar to the contracts in that we provide the funding for
the tribe to carry out the services themselves.
In addition, we have done a survey, based on your question
to me last year, and found that at least $30 million additional
dollars are put into tribal law enforcement programs by the
tribes themselves. That is a partial number, because we have
not heard from every tribe. But of the, I believe it was, 150
tribes we did get responses from, we know that they are
contributing at least $30 million in addition to what the
Bureau provides.
Finally, the Department of Justice was provided $88 million
by the Congress last year to support reservation law
enforcement. I believe $30 million to $35 million of that was
for uniformed officers on the reservations. That in total comes
to probably around $160 million, $170 million.
Senator Gorton. Did the tribes get all the money they were
entitled to out of the Department of Justice funds?
Mr. Gover. Not yet. But the grants--the time for when those
grants go out has just arrived. So those grants will begin to
be made this month, in fact.
Senator Gorton. How do you determine the distribution of
the funds that go to the tribes themselves, either by contract
or to self-governing tribes, as opposed to your own BIA people?
I rather suspect you have applications for more money than you
can distribute, do you not?
Mr. Gover. We do. In the past year what we have had to do
is focus on the BIA-operated programs. Approximately 60 percent
of the $20 million increase went to the BIA programs. They
tended to be the least, or the most, understaffed and under-
funded in the country. So we did do that.
Plus the tribes are eligible for the Justice Department
grants and Bureau of Indian Affairs programs are not. So given
that the tribes had other options and the BIA had none, we
thought it important to bring the BIA programs up to at least a
level where we do not have single officer locations out there.
That was all too common prior to fiscal year 1999.
Senator Gorton. I do remember your testifying to that last
year. To refresh my recollection, are the BIA officers
generally used on smaller reservations? Is there any
correlation between the size of the reservation and whether it
has its own officers or yours?
Mr. Gover. Some correlation. It tends to be the smaller
reservations, but there are many exceptions to that
observation. We do provide law enforcement services on several
of the larger reservations.
Senator Gorton. Let us go now to education. You said it is
my priority and yours as well, although we have the triple
problem of attempting to determine how much goes to operations,
how much to construction and how much to repair. By my notes,
Congress has provided funding for 10 of the 16 schools on the
BIA's replacement school priority list. The remaining 6 would
cost, we understand, about $111 million. You have asked for $40
million for 2 of those.
In requesting funds for Seba Dalkai and Fond du Lac, the
Bureau skipped over Shiprock in New Mexico and the Tuba City
school. I understand that Tuba City's design is not complete,
but Shiprock would be ready for construction. Concerned tribes
have contacted us, and I am sure you, about this.
I have had the general feeling that we ought to follow the
priority list, rather than to deal with this in any kind of
political fashion. Can the funding be phased in such a way as
to follow the priority list?
Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, I actually do not know the answer
to that. I can certainly ask our construction staff if that is
a possibility. That is a good idea. We would prefer not to skip
over a school. I think very simply the decision was made that
even though the money to construct the schools were smilar, it
was better to build two schools than just one. Had we gone with
Shiprock, that would have been a single school in the
construction program in fiscal year 2000.
Senator Gorton. Will we get the same answer from you next
year?
Mr. Gover. Let me find out if we can phase that in, because
I think that is an excellent compromise to having to chose
between the schools.
[The information follows:]
Phased Funding for School Construction
Full funding for an entire capital project is preferable,
particularly if the project cannot be divided into more than one useful
segment. The replacement schools that are proposed in the fiscal year
2000 President's budget are designed as single integrated structures.
Providing phased funding could result in construction scheduling delays
and lack of functional facilities to house the students in a timely
manner. Also, Tribes that undertake construction or repairs through
contract of grant are reluctant to accept phased funding because of
difficultly in sub-contracting phases of a project. There is the
potential for different companies being awarded sub-contracts on phased
projects, which would interfere with one another and the overall
continuity of construction of the facilities. Of the two schools
proposed for replacement in the budget request, one is being contracted
with the Seba Dalkai School Board, Inc. and the other is proposed for a
grant award with the Fond du Lac Ojibway Tribe. In addition,
incremental funding for a capital asset, in which funds could be
obligated to start the segment (or project), despite the fact that the
funds are insufficient to complete a useful segment or project, is
inconsistent under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11,
Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates.
Shiprock Alternative School is scheduled to completer design in
September 1999, thus the school would be ready for construction funding
as early as fiscal year 2000. Although, phasing is not recommended, the
school construction could be addressed in the same manner as Pyramid
Lake and Sac and Fox School were in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations.
schools
Senator Gorton. I can certainly sympathize with your
problems. The highest priority I find in members of my
subcommittee is always the school in their state.
Mr. Gover. Yes; well, two schools represent four votes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Gorton. Both here and there, I assume.
Now, you have already told us that for the long range you
have a billion dollars' worth of school construction. For how
many schools?
Mr. Gover. For at least 60 that we know we have to replace.
We are very close, in fact, we have delivered to OMB the report
that I guess it was this subcommittee that requested it last
year, a 5-year plan for doing away with or eradicating the
backlog. We expect that to be ready, again, before the end of
the month. The committee will have that available as well.
The bottom line, of course, is money. We are trying and
using every advantage that the scoring system offers to try to
generate more funds in as painless a way as possible and
without diminishing other priorities. But, for example, the
additional $30 million that we request beyond the $30 million
that you mentioned will support about $70 million to $75
million in bonding.
It would allow the principal repayment of $70 million to
$75 million in bonds, if the President's School Construction
Initiative were enacted.
Senator Gorton. Well, that is a good question, and of
course a big if.
Mr. Gover. Yes.
Senator Gorton. Do you know where that legislation is at
this point?
Mr. Gover. I do not. I do not know. I am not aware that
there has been a sponsor. I am sure that the legislation is
prepared, because I have seen it. But I do not even know that
it has been sent to the Congress yet.
Senator Gorton. Was the Bureau an active part in drafting
that bonding legislation?
Mr. Gover. We were in the sense that once the idea began to
make the circuit around the various agencies, we were certainly
allowed our input. I think our comments were taken seriously
and reflected in the legislation.
Senator Gorton. Where would the money come from to repay
the bonds?
Mr. Gover. The money to repay the bonds would--basically
what we would do is take this $30 million and invest it so that
in 15 years, it would represent the amount necessary to pay off
the principal of the bonds, whatever that might be. That is why
I say the $30 million would support about $70 million to $75
million in bonds, because we would invest it, and repay the
bonds at the end of 15 years.
Senator Gorton. You would invest it where?
Mr. Gover. In Federal securities, obviously in T-bills and
that sort of thing, so they are no-risk investments. The
interest payments on those bonds come in the form of tax
credits to the bondholders. That is the idea behind the
President's initiative.
So for that $30 million, the tribes would be able to issue
over $70 million in bonds. That would allow for that much
school construction. That is why we say we could finish the 16-
school priority list in fiscal year 2000 were the authorizing
legislation to be enacted and were the committee to grant our
request.
Senator Gorton. Let us go on to school repair. Are we even
keeping up with repair and maintenance and remodeling needs?
Mr. Gover. No. We are losing ground in repair as well. What
you see in the request that is before you, represents only the
most critical health and safety needs. It does not represent
the money that we need to properly maintain these facilities.
One of the questions the Congress has to ask and that we
have to address is, it will make no sense for us to build a lot
of new schools only to have them fall into disrepair and fall
far short of their useful life. So we really are talking about
a major commitment.
Even were the Congress to fund all the school construction
that is necessary, the maintenance requirements would be large,
but well worth it. It is better than replacing all these
schools. One of the reasons we need to replace so many schools
is they were never properly maintained.
Senator Gorton. Before going on, I would just like to say I
do not have any particular questions about school operations,
but obviously the day-to-day operations, the teachers, your
recruitment and the like, is vitally important as well. Part of
the excruciating nature of dividing up an inadequate amount of
money for all of our programs, both within Indian programs and
across our subcommittee's jurisdiction, is just that. It is
setting priorities of money needs to various entities.
Obviously, my statement is the same to you as it was to the
special trustee. You have heard this before. It really is
doubtful that all of these initiatives are going to pass that
are of a legislative nature, or that we are going to have the
kind of money that I would consider quite appropriate for the
Department of Interior programs.
So again this year as we had last year, we are going to
need your help, at least informally, in setting priorities.
Senator Dorgan is here now. Each of the members who has
been here has either two or three hearings going on at the same
time. Both the one on the Olympics and the one at the
Department of Energy are hearings of committees on which I am a
member.
So, Senator Dorgan, I think I will simply turn it over to
you for whatever statement you would like to make. When you are
finished, you may adjourn the hearing, unless someone else is
here. If that is the case, you can turn it over to them.
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be
able to conduct a fair amount of business in your absence.
[Laughter.]
Senator Gorton. In my absence, I suspect you will. You do
not have a sufficient quorum to spend any money, though.
Senator Dorgan. You are right. You are correct.
Senator Gorton. So we will trust you.
Senator Dorgan [presiding]. You are correct about that.
[Laughter.]
Let me just mention to you that I have been at the Commerce
Committee hearing and following this have to go to the hearing
on the Energy Committee and the security at the labs. That is
why I was not here for the statement.
I have read Mr. Gover's statement, and I appreciate
especially the work that you have done as subcommittee chairman
on these issues. I would like to ask a couple questions. Thank
you very much for your courtesy.
Mr. Gover, let me focus just for a moment on Indian
schools. Then I want to talk to you just for a moment about
housing, as well, and health care. But on schools, the chairman
indicated, and you know well, that we face a tremendous
backlog. Frankly, the administration budget, I think at your
urging, finally does begin to take some steps, halting steps,
and probably inadequate steps, but some steps in the right
direction.
With these steps, we are not going to get to where we need
to get to to make sure that these young children who are our
responsibility, our trust responsibility, are being served the
way we should serve them from an educational standpoint. Let me
just mention a couple of schools for you. I could mention
schools in other states that I know about as well, but let me
mention the ones in North Dakota.
At the Ojibwa Indian School there is report after report
after report that tells us that these children are going to
school in circumstances that are not appropriate and, in many
cases, not safe.
As you know, the central school building there is over 100
years old and has been condemned. So the result is that you
have all these kids placed in trailers.
I have been there. I have seen exposed wiring. I have seen
conditions that should not exist. We have reports that describe
the circumstances. Some day, God forbid, there will be a fire
in the middle of the winter that will sweep through those
portable trailers, and there will be loss of life, loss of
young lives. Everyone will scratch their heads and say: How did
that happen?
It happened because the Congress and the administration
have not responded with the resources necessary to give those
kids what they deserve, a school that is safe and a school that
is good for their education needs.
The Standing Rock School. I was at the Standing Rock
School, as you know, last year. I worked with you extensively
on that. Instead of worrying about their ABCs, those kids are
worrying about PCBs. I mean, that school was closed. Those kids
were all herded to the gymnasium with temporary partitions.
When I grabbed the partition, you could swing them 6, 8, 12
inches. I worried that those partitions would fall on those
kids.
We had to spend months and months cleaning up a PCB mess in
a school, and that school still needs apparently anywhere from
$8 million to $10 million investment.
Cannon Ball Elementary School. That is not your
responsibility, but it is a school just north of Fort Yates
that has no tax base. A little third grade girl named Rosie
said to me as I toured the school--it has 140 kids, two
bathrooms and one water fountain and no capability to hook a
computer into the Internet, over-crowded classrooms, a terrible
situation. The bulk of that school has been condemned. One of
the rooms they have to evacuate about weekly because of sewer
gas coming up into the rooms these kids are using.
The little girl said to me, ``Mr. Senator, can you build me
a new school?''
Well, regrettably, I cannot do that by myself. But that
young third grader walking into a classroom is not well-served.
Her future is not served by our lack of responsibility here to
the needs of her and her classmates.
So I just want to say to you that this need exists in a
very critical way. We are not, the administration and the
Congress are not, taking aggressive enough steps to meet it. In
the majority budget that was just passed, Senator Domenici, I
believe, added provisions for up to $200 million more in school
construction above the administration budget. But we have to
tell the President and OMB, and you know this, Mr. Gover, that
this is a priority.
Those children cannot fend for themselves. They are our
responsibility. We have trust responsibility for them. The fact
is we should be ashamed, we should be ashamed, for having put
off the needed investments to make sure these kids are going to
safe schools and good schools.
It is unfair to these children, unfair to young second and
third graders and fourth and fifth graders, to send them into
classrooms that do not adequately prepare them and do safeguard
them.
So I just want to put in my statement again this year that
I appreciate that you have gotten the administration to move in
a halting way to add some things here. In fact, I know it is
your work, because I worked with you to have the administration
make certain that part of this school modernization program
would apply to Indian schools as well. That only happened
because we pushed to make that happen.
But can you give me some response to how we not just get
rid of this backlog or get rid of the list--no one even knows
how the list was developed--but then how do we go beyond that
to do what is necessary to meet our responsibility?
Mr. Gover. Well, first, Senator, I agree with everything
you have just said. As you know, we have advocated within the
administration to increase the commitment to Indian schools. I
am scared to death that what is ultimately going to happen is a
tragedy like you described. Then everybody is going to say:
Well, we have got to do something. You know, let us go fix
this.
But it is too late at that point. I do believe, and I will
say this in defense of the administration, we made a certain
request last year. We did not get what we asked for. We are
reluctant to make a request that goes far beyond anything we
have ever received until we start seeing the incremental
increases that we have been asking for.
I will also say that the total request this year represents
$100 million in school construction. That is a lot. Yet that is
not enough. That is not enough, but it is a lot. It is much
more than has been thrown into the problem in the past.
We are going to send the committee a report that will
describe the schools that we believe need to be replaced, that
estimates the amounts. It basically says: Here is what has to
be spent in order to achieve this result of putting every BIA
pupil in a safe school.
From there, Senator Dorgan, I find it very frustrating that
we even have to explain the obligation the United States
undertakes when it chooses to have an elementary school. It
offends me that--for example, we begin to look at the DOD
school system that is maintained for military dependents. As
one would expect, they have a sparkling school system,
wonderful buildings, excellent teacher pay, and a great
program.
The only other school system the United States is
responsible for directly are the BIA schools. Yet for some
reason, notwithstanding the resources that go into the DOD
schools, the BIA schools go begging year after year after year.
One is left to draw the unfortunate conclusion--and I have
had tribal leaders and school administrators say to me, ``Is it
because we're Indians?'' I mean, how can they do this? How
could the United States, the richest country in the world, do
this to schools that it is responsible for?
I will continue to push OMB. I will add that OMB has to
clear the report we are going to send you that addresses this
5-year plan. I am going to need your help to push these
proposals through the administration. But I think, Senator, we
just continue to make these points over and over again. I would
love to have a conversation with the President about this,
because I know he would not stand for it, if he knew this. But
getting that message to the President is difficult.
Senator Dorgan. Well, it is the President. It is this
President, the past President, the one before him. It is the
Congress, this Congress and every Congress before it, that has
not met its responsibility. Just in recent weeks I toured a
school on a military base, a wonderful school, one I was proud
to see.
I was proud of the teachers. I was glad that the students
had the capability they had. These young tykes were showing me
how they were doing all kinds of work on the Internet. What a
great school, and what a wonderful thing for these students.
Then I go to Ojibwa or I go to the gymnasium at Standing
Rock and see the difference. I think, you know, it is the same
responsibility that we have, and we are not meeting it. It is a
tragedy for these young children. It is not their fault. I
mean, it is not their fault they live in circumstances, in many
cases, in circumstances of poverty where there is not an
adequate tax base.
We ought not walk a second or third grade young woman like
Roseie through a school door and have to be ashamed of the
school that young child enters when that school is our
responsibility. We have a responsibility to do something about
that.
I would hope--incidentally, when you talk about OMB, I
would hope that with Mr. Lew and others you would say to them:
Here is what we need. None of this incremental nonsense. Here
is what we need next year, now, in this budget to fix the
schools and repair the schools and build the schools necessary
to meet our responsibility to these kids. If they say, well,
that is something we cannot even entertain, let us have a fight
about that. But at least let us fight about the real number.
You know, last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill that
passed, $1 billion in emergency funds was stuck in for national
missile defense, $1 billion that was not asked for, was not
needed, was not requested by the Defense Department. I checked
just in the last week, they could not use the $1 billion.
They found a way to put $600 million of it in national
missile defense contracts in very unique and creative ways, but
it was creative to do that because they did not want it and did
not need it, said they could not use it. The Congress said,
``We demand we give you $1 billion more for national missile
defense.''
So even being very creative, they were able to find $600
million to stick it in some of these little accounts; $400
million they could not even use.
Now that is last October, a priority by some here saying:
National missile defense, the sky is the limit. We are willing
to throw money at it. But education of Indian kids, sorry, that
is just not a big priority. That is wrong.
Now, Senator Domenici is coming in the room, and he has
spent a lot of time and effort on this issue as well. We need,
in my judgment, with this Congress and this administration, to
confront this issue in a very significant and aggressive way to
meet our responsibility to these kids.
Let me just go to one other point, and then I know Senator
Domenici will want to talk about this.
Senator Domenici, we have been talking about education,
repair, construction of these schools and the responsibility,
the administration's budget, the responsibility of the
administration and Congress in the recent two decades or so on
this issue.
I want to just turn to one other point. I have been trying
to arrange a meeting at the White House, as you know, and we
had to cancel it. It was scheduled for last Monday with Indian
tribal leaders and others, talking about the emergency that
exists in housing and health care.
I told on the floor of the Senate a story about Sarah Swift
Hawk, who, on January 2, died on the Rosebud Reservation. She
was a grandmother. She went to bed at night in a house. Where
windows would have been, there was thin plastic sheeting
covering the holes. There was one cot. So the grandmother used
the cot. Four children and the mother and father, they slept on
the floor with two blankets, huddled together. The grandmother
slept on the cot.
It was 45 below zero that night. The next morning when they
woke up, they found Sara dead, frozen to death. That is not in
a third world country. That is here. That is in our country,
and circumstances where we have a housing emergency as well in
many of these areas.
It is almost unthinkable, a house without windows, without
adequate furniture, without heating. You have a grandmother
laying on a cot freezing to death on January 2. I mean, it is
just unthinkable. You read about this in third world countries,
but not here.
So we have this housing emergency. I have been deeply
involved in trying to move houses that are going to be
destroyed from military bases. We have saved hundreds of them
from being bulldozed over. Instead, we are moving them to
reservations. But we need money for infrastructure to hook them
up to water and sewer and to heat.
So all of these things represent just an overwhelming need:
housing, health care, education. I have to confess to you,
there are many times over the recent years I have thought, you
know, the best thing is probably just to decide to let us
abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Let us just flat out
abolish it. I do not know of anybody that has been able to come
and grab the reins and make much of a difference.
It probably pains you to hear that from me. I know you are
trying very hard. But frankly, we do not have the resources.
The resources have not been put into these accounts. I am not
convinced that the BIA is not so bureaucratic it could not
effectively use them anyway.
So I just have this terrible frustration about the
emergencies that I think exist in education for these innocent
children, who so much deserve our help, and housing and health
care. The stories, I could go on for an hour about what I have
seen in housing and health care.
You know, I hope that we can find a way to add substantial
resources. I hope one day somebody would decide that sticking
$1 billion in a program that nobody asked for and they cannot
use would be much less a priority than using that money to help
children and help others who are suffering immensely on some of
these reservations.
Mr. Gover. Well, again, Senator, I agree with most of what
you said. I do think there is some good news here. For one
thing, we have overhauled the way that the BIA spends its
education construction money and reduced the amount of time it
takes for us to build a school from 7 years down to 3 years and
even manage to build one school in a single year, from design
to ribbon cutting.
That is very much to the credit of the Facilities
Management and Construction Center, who literally have
overhauled the way they do their business.
Second, we are going to be begin to take new applications,
applications for replacement school construction, for the first
time since 1992. Now that is in anticipation that we are going
to see some substantial funds so that we can complete the
existing priority list. But nevertheless, at least we can begin
to have that next generation of schools. So schools like Ojibwa
can know that they are on the list at long last and that the
trailers are not a permanent condition.
I, too, wish that we had all the resources we need just to
meet the basic human needs in Indian Country. We know that we
fall far short. The TPA report that we will be providing later
this month will demonstrate that very clearly.
If it were up to me, we would get three times the money we
get. I do believe we could spend it and spend it well. Most of
our funds still go directly to the tribes so that they can
provide the services. We would love for all of our service
operations on the reservations to be handled by the tribes
themselves.
I think that if we got more money, more tribes would
contract. The BIA has to be unique in the sense that the more
money we get, the smaller our agency becomes, the fewer Federal
employees there are, because that means the tribes are taking
over these programs. That is what we want to see.
So I sometimes get this overwhelming sense of despair, when
you see the scope of the problems that exist in Indian Country.
But I do not see that giving up is an option. So we will
continue to try.
Senator Dorgan. I am not suggesting giving up. I am
suggesting being much, much more aggressive and trying to find
a way in which we in Congress and the administration can
understand our responsibility does not allow us to compromise
on this issue. You cannot compromise on what you must provide
for education purposes for these young children. They are our
responsibility.
You make the point, and I think it is absolutely accurate,
and probably Senator Domenici has done the same thing. You go
to a school on a military base and it is a wonderful school.
You go to a school 50 miles away on an Indian reservation, in
which we have the same responsibility, but they are different
kids, and you find deplorable conditions.
Now that is intolerable, and it ought to change. We must
stop it.
Let me call on my friend, Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Are you the acting
chairman this morning?
Senator Dorgan. I have done a lot of business in the
absence of the real chairman. He indicated that we should
continue our questioning and then adjourn the hearing.
Senator Domenici. Well, first, Mr. Secretary, let me
apologize to you for being late. I would share with everyone
the reason I was not here is we are having a closed hearing
with reference to the espionage efforts by the People's
Republic of China versus our nuclear weapon secrets. It is
obviously a very serious problem. I called in a couple times to
make sure you had not gone before I could get here.
First let me say--if no one has said it, I will. If
somebody else said it, it deserves being said again--you are
doing a good job. You are very forthright with Members of the
Congress. It is your objective to indicate where we cannot do
what Indian people ask us to do, and you indicate clearly to us
what you think we ought to do that we are not doing, and I
compliment you for that.
I think the Bureau is being run a little better, and thank
you for that.
Mr. Gover. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I do not think any good comes from saying
we will solve the problem by getting rid of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. I think you were speaking figuratively, but
what we need to do is make it work right.
Now, we could get to a point where BIA cannot be as
productive as it ought to be. Then we might get you up here and
ask for some major way to change it. I do not think that date
is too far away.
Now having said that, let me just say, last year in the
appropriations process, not merely in the budget resolution, we
put language in the Interior report asking the President of the
United States, and thus you--you cannot act without OMB's
permission--to submit a school construction plan. We asked you
to produce for us a 5-year plan to totally take care of the
school construction needs in Indian country for BIA schools.
Now we were not joking. We said we think if you do it, Mr.
President, the President of the United States, we think
Congress would fund it.
Now frankly, I have to say, the administration fell far
short of that. In fact, I do not think we still have a 5-year
plan to build all the schools that need to be rebuilt and the
major construction and maintenance issues that are there,
which, incidentally, could be more than $1.2 billion, according
to some estimates.
Now what we got instead was, in my opinion, a very meager
proposal regarding Indian school construction. I am not blaming
you, Mr. Secretary. You have to do what you are told. I would
not be surprised if, in the exchange of information that
occurred, as you went through your two or three cycles with
OMB, that you probably on behalf of the Indian people asked for
a lot more money for Indian school construction than was given
to you.
But to come up with this small increase and then say we
could participate in some bonding issue, when we are kind of
bonding ourselves because it is the Government issuing bonds--
well, we do that when we spend more than we take in. We borrow
money.
So why would we have some special way to treat the taxpayer
differently on those bonds? There are other bonds that are out
there, if we want to incur debt. Just add it to that. We do not
even have to incur debt. We have a surplus.
So, look, I want to say to the Indian people, I do not know
how much we will get this year. But we are trying very, very
hard to get substantially more than the President suggested, to
get on a path that we can tell you and tell Americans we are
going to meet this responsibility once and for all. We are
going to stop putting other priorities ahead of it.
Now for anybody that does not believe this was not given a
priority, then I would ask how come the President in his budget
could have some 80 new programs and spend, you know, scores of
millions of dollars for new things and not fund this need.
I mean, I think a simple proposition could have been:
Before we start anything new, could we take care of this? That
would not have been a very difficult proposition. Frankly, you
could have found the money, because you found the money in your
budget for these other things.
So I am very disturbed. I am sure my good friend, Senator
Dorgan, is going to join me on appropriations in trying to get
the maximum amount appropriated. But Senator Slade Gorton is
going to be faced with a very difficult problem, because he has
many, many things in that bill that Americans insist upon: Fish
and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service,
all the management things that are out there on the public
domain, and many other things.
We recommended the highest priority be given to a $200
million appropriation by him in his bill. That does not mean he
has enough money for it. It depends on a lot of other things.
But we will be fighting for it, and we will continue to push
the administration to give us a plan.
Now, I have a number of parochial questions, and I am not
going to burden this entire crowd with some further New Mexico
issues. I am just going to give them to you for a response.
Mr. Gover. OK.
Senator Domenici. I think you know the questions, and I
think you know the answers. It would be nice to have the
answers as soon as possible from your Department.
Now having said that, I also think we have some very
excellent institutions wherein Indian people are getting
educated for today's job market. I would hope that because we
are short of money, that we do not penalize those that are
doing a good job.
I mean, we have a number of them in our state. We have a
number of them in Indian country that are technical vocational
schools that in today's market are producing trained young
Indian people so they can go into $25,000, $30,000, $35,000
start-up jobs in high tech industries. I mean, those schools
are working in Albuquerque. They are working in Shiprock. They
are working in other places.
I hope you keep in mind that when the schools work, we have
to keep them going. We have to try to get the rest of the
Indian country to follow suit in these areas of appropriate
training for today's job market. There should not be such
difficulty in terms of employment among our Indian people,
although they would have to move distances to take the jobs.
Right now the most difficult problem for American business,
believe it or not, is that it cannot find enough trained
workers. I mean, if you put out a poll among medium-sized
American business, and asked what is the principal impediment
to growth, they will say, ``We cannot find enough workers to
fill the jobs.''
The jobs may take a year's training, but that is a truism,
what I just said. Frankly, that should provide some very good
opportunities, like it is to everybody.
I am going to close on this and just ask you one question.
What is the status of the 5-year construction planning effort?
I am hearing reports that there is a two-tier plan that is
being developed. The first tier would be to allocate about $100
million a year to the backlog. The second tier would be to give
the full cost of upgrading all BIA elementary and secondary
schools.
Is this the case? Could you briefly tell us what all this
means?
Mr. Gover. Yes. I am not familiar with this two-tier
concept. That may be something that was under consideration at
one point. We have now received from the construction staff a
5-year plan to address repair or replacement of all Bureau-
funded schools. I misspoke earlier. I said it was OMB. It is
actually under review in the Department. It will go to OMB this
week or early next week. That means we should have the report
to the committee by the end of the month.
I do not see any way around spending a lot of money. If we
are going to do it in 5 years, that means, you know, assuming
it is $1 billion, that is $200 million a year. I have not heard
anything about a tiered approach.
It may be we want to sort of ramp up so that in the first
year we are less than $200 million, but in year five we are
over $200 million, so that we can expand our ability to spend
the money.
But there is no alternative to spending an awful lot of
money on this issue. I think it is overdue. It still astonishes
me, as I was discussing with Senator Dorgan earlier, that we
have to explain this to anyone in the administration or
elsewhere, that this is a Federal responsibility.
While certainly we appreciate being included in the
Presidential Initiative, in the Bonding Initiative, the tribes
are asking a very insightful question, which is, why should
they issue bonds and incur long-term debt for Federal
facilities? It does not make any sense for the poorest
communities in the country to incur debt on behalf of the most
powerful Government and the richest nation in the world.
So we are not where we need to be. I do feel free to say
that Assistant Secretary John Berry agrees that we are not yet
where we need to be, and that he will--he has been a great
advocate for the Indian schools. We keep trying, and we
appreciate all the help that you are providing. We will just
keep beating on this drum until somebody listens.
Senator Domenici. Well, you make the best point. Whatever
responsibility the U.S. Government has to help with public
education in America, it is clearly optional on the part of the
U.S. Government.
We have gone from helping public education with 10 percent
of the national budget of public education to 6 percent, back
up to 8 percent, because we feel like we ought to put something
in the local institutions that are not Federal, that belong to
counties, districts, school districts, and states.
But it is pathetic when we neglect the only one we are
obligated to pay for--and if we do not, no one will. I mean,
who will? I mean, it is our job. So we are doing all that,
proposing to help the inner city schools rebuild. Yet here we
sit with the only school system that belongs to the U.S.
Government, except the military, and we do not pay for it.
So you have to make that point with these people. If we
need to get them over here, even OMB, we can haul them over
here and set them out front and ask them: What in the world are
you thinking about in terms of priorities? I mean, I would be
glad to do that.
If you think it would help, let us ask the chairman and
bring them over here. We will bring in our good friend from
OMB, Mr. Lew. He will explain. He will explain it well. If you
have this big a crowd, it would be nice, though. He will have a
sense that we worry about it.
With that, I am going to turn the hearing back to our
acting chairman for me to go to another hearing, and I assume
you are about ready to go.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask one
additional question, or make one additional point. Then I am
intending to leave as well.
But I wanted to make a point--well, let me also agree
that--I did not say at the start of my conversation that when
we went through the process of confirmation for your
appointment, we had some lengthy discussions. I agree with
Senator Domenici that you have done a good job under difficult
circumstances. I have confidence that you have the right
instincts and urges to do the right thing. I hope we can get
you the resources to help.
But let me just mention the issue of the Indian schools,
such as the Wahpeton Indian School. In Wahpeton, North Dakota--
I do not remember how many of those schools we have across the
country, but the Wahpeton School, for example, is a boarding
school that houses a lot of children who are sent there from
all across the country, in many cases by tribal courts and
others, children from troubled backgrounds, dysfunctional
families, are sent to this boarding school.
We need to have a therapeutic model there in order to help
these children, because only part of their need is education.
Part of it is also to respond to some of the serious problems
they are confronting. We do not yet have a full therapeutic
model to meet all those children's needs.
To describe what kind of children these are, Joyce Burr,
the woman who is the superintendent down at the Wahpeton
School, told me of a young grade schooler who asked if he could
stay at the school while the school is closed down over
Christmas, he would be willing to pay for whatever meals he
had, because he had no place to go, no family, no home.
So he said, ``Could I just stay here alone at the school,
if I would be willing to pay for whatever I eat, just to have a
place to be over Christmas?''
I mean, that is the kind of circumstances that students
face. Schools like this have an awful time trying to meet their
responsibilities, because it is not just education. It is
therapeutic. They need the psychologists and the trained
experts to help these kids deal with their needs.
I hope you will help us also push for the resources
necessary to do that.
Mr. Gover. Senator Dorgan, I am grateful for that question.
I have noticed the same thing. I mean, I do not have a large
background in Indian education, but it became immediately
apparent to me in seeing some of the situations that we have at
several of our boarding schools that we need exactly what you
describe, a therapeutic program.
These kids are troubled young people. What we are doing for
them is simply inadequate. I have asked the Acting Director of
the Office of Indian Education Programs--I will not say I asked
him. I will give him credit.
He came to me and said, ``I want to work on such a
therapeutic model. I want to work with IHS and see if we can
find the resources to give these kids the kind of assistance
they need.''
So we will bring you a--I do not want to say a proposal,
because it may not require money. It may just be a matter of
using the money we have a little smarter. But understanding
that these are not ordinary students and they need some
additional assistance. But we will bring you a report on this
matter by summertime, I would say.
Senator Dorgan. That is very helpful. Would you also pass
on to Assistant Secretary Berry that we appreciate his work? I
know of his support on these issues. I think it is important to
have him there fighting and working to try to resolve them as
well.
Mr. Gover. I will do so.
Additional committee questions
Senator Dorgan. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Office of Special Trustee
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary Gover, in his prepared
testimony on the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs before the Indian Affairs Committee, noted the
Bureau was proposing a transfer of $5.068 million in base funds to the
Office of the Special Trustee (OST) to begin implementation of the High
Level Implementation Plan for the Trust Management Improvement Project
(TMIP), with increased funding for the Bureau's responsibilities under
the plan being sought in OST's fiscal year 2000 request, which, from
his submitted testimony for today's hearing, appears to exceed $37
million.
The Senate has provided $6.8 million in the Supplemental for TMIP,
but also directed that no funds will be spent in fiscal year 1999 to
implement Secretary Babbitt's Order No. 3208, which would reorganize
the Office of the Special Trustee.
Finally, the Office of Special Trustee's fiscal year 2000 budget
request is $100 million, an enormous increase of $60.5 million over the
1999 enacted level of $39.5 million, with much of the requested
increase going to the trust management improvement project.
I know that you share our deep concern with the extraordinary
problems that have been uncovered with respect to Indian trust
accounts. Regrettably, it appears that the costs associated with
solving these problems continue to escalate. While I appreciate the
encouraging update you have provided in your testimony, I would like
for you to clarify for the Committee, if possible, the bottom line for
solving these problems.
Question. Specifically, can you provide the Committee with your
best estimate as to WHEN you expect to complete the reform of the
system and what do you anticipate to be the Total Cost, including any
expenditures required for litigation and settlement costs?
Answer. The Department shares the concern of the Congress regarding
the problems in trust fund accounts and is committed to resolving these
long standing problems. Systems reform as outlined in the High Level
Implementation Plan will substantially be implemented by the end of the
year 2000, if the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Office of the Special Trustee is provided and a successful pilot of
BIA's replacement lease management, accounts receivable, land records,
and trust resource management systems is completed. Specifically, OST
will complete nationwide implementation of the Trust Funds Accounting
System (TFAS) by May 2000. Pending completion of the pilot, BIA plans
to complete implementation of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management
System (TAAMS) in the Area Offices by September 2000. Due to the
extensive data clean-up requirements in the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
implementation of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System in
some locations may not be fully operational until approximately June
2001.
While it is true that the Department is requesting increased budget
authority for trust reform efforts in 2000, the Department does not
concur with the characterization that costs for trust reform continue
to escalate. On the other hand, costs to support litigation may very
well continue to escalate. Additionally, court decisions stemming from
the phase of the case that began trial June 10, 1999, could impact the
costs of reform.
In July 1998, the Department completed its High Level
Implementation Plan (HLIP) for the Trust Management Improvement Project
subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 1999 President's Budget
to Congress. At HLIP's completion, the Department recognized that
fiscal year 1999 cost estimates for HLIP implementation exceeded the
amount requested in the 1999 President's Budget. Congress recognized
this situation, and provided the Department increased flexibility in
fiscal year 1999 to reprogram funds to meet any unfunded HLIP needs.
This flexibility allowed the Department to reduce it's HLIP shortfall
from a high of $16.2 million at the beginning of 1999 to $7.3 million
at the time the Department forwarded its fiscal year 1999 supplemental
request to the Office of Management and Budget. While cost estimates of
the various sub-projects continue to change, overall, the total
estimates of HLIP have not changed significantly. At the time the
President's Budget was submitted, the cost estimates to implement BIA,
OHA, and OST components of HLIP in 2000 was $65.3 million; and the 2001
estimate was $34.1 million. The Department expects to have revised cost
estimates when it updates HLIP this summer.
Litigation costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time for a
number of reasons. The retrospective portion of Cobell v. Babbitt is
still in the discovery phase of the case, and the Department could have
substantial additional costs to support this aspect of the litigation.
The Department continues to face the possibility that the court could
order an accounting for each individual Indian's trust fund account.
The Department could also face additional litigation from tribes in the
absence of tribal trust fund settlement legislation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
I am disturbed by Secretary Babbitt's January restructuring of the
Office of Special Trustee. Specifically, I call into question the
independence of the Office in the wake of the restructuring.
In March, I sent a letter to the Secretary regarding your March 3,
``certification'' that the department's budget and reform plan would
enable the Secretary to meet his trust responsibilities. But 8 months
earlier you were very critical of the planned reforms and thought they
were so bad you wrote ``I am grateful that I'm not responsible for
implementing the plans.''
Question. Are my fears about lack of independence confirmed by
these events?
Answer. No, these are unrelated actions. The July 1998 note to
Special Trustee Paul Homan expressed concerns about the adequacy of
project planning and efficacy of project approaches by BIA in support
of the High Level Implementation Plan. The Department and Secretary
acknowledged these problems and, the aggressive nature of BIA's
schedule in approving the Plan, and committed to additional management
oversight. The ``certification'' memorandum of March 1999 simply
attests to the Department's requirement and need for $100 million in
fiscal year 2000 to continue implementation of reforms contained in the
High Level Implementation Plan necessary to enable the Secretary to
meet trust responsibilities under the Reform Act. The memorandum
clearly indicates the Acting Special Trustee's view that the Department
is not yet in full compliance with the trust obligations as defined in
the Reform Act.
Language I proposed to the Supplemental Appropriations bill would
suspend the implementation of the Secretarial Order restructuring the
OST, but would allow reform efforts to proceed.
Question. Why is the Department opposed to this provision?
Answer. The Special Trustee's statutory responsibilities are
outlined in the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. The
Secretarial Order in no way alters the Special Trustee's statutory
authorities and responsibilities and is designed to strengthen the
organization with the establishment of the Principal Deputy Special
Trustee/Chief Operating Officer concept which places total
responsibility for all operations, reforms, and other activities in a
single position reporting directly to the Special Trustee who, in turn,
continues to report to the Secretary.
The proposed amendment may preclude the Department from
implementing these planned improvements and may be contradictory to the
intent of existing law. It could be construed to require the Department
to:
--Abolish the position of Principal Deputy Special Trustee;
--Abolish the Office of Trust Litigation Support and Records; and
--Restore the position of Deputy Special Trustee for Operations.
Elimination of the Principal Deputy Special Trustee and return to
the previous reporting relationship with the Office of Trust Funds
Management would negatively impact day-to-day oversight of field
operations. This organizational alignment, placing a principal deputy
to manage day-to-day operations, is an approach that is used in nearly
every other bureau and office in the Department. Additionally, given
that many employees are involved in both day-to-day operations and
implementation of the High-Level-Implementation Plan, abolishing the
Principal Deputy Special Trustee would leave the organization with no
single day-to-day manager in place who is held accountable for both
trust reform and day-to-day operations. The Department is engaged in an
aggressive reform effort and subject to significant workloads stemming
from the Cobell v. Babbitt litigation. The absence of a single day-to-
day accountable manager could seriously jeopardize the Department's
ability to achieve trust management reform and also meet litigation
demands.
If the language is construed to eliminate the Office of Trust
Litigation Support and Records Management it could have significant
adverse impacts on the Department's ability to meet litigation demands
and continue making progress in reform efforts. Trust records
management and litigation support are areas of significant importance
to the Department. The Office is charged with specific responsibilities
that will permit it to concentrate on the monumental effort required to
meet immediate litigation demands as well as effecting needed reform to
Indian trust records management. Prior to the Secretarial Order, the
office operated under an informal organization led by a Special
Assistant to the Special Trustee, with staff detailed from the Office
of Trust Funds Management. The Special Trustee had proposed
establishment of a similar, larger office in 1998; establishment of the
Office was deferred until more progress was made on an agreed upon
records management approach. Continuation of this informal organization
would blur lines of authority and responsibility, and hamper the
ability of the Department to respond to litigation demands and achieve
records management reforms.
In May 1999 the Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget,
Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs, and Acting Special Trustee agreed
upon a joint records management plan, including a single office--the
Office of Trust Litigation Support and Records Management being
responsible for day-to-day records management operations of both BIA
and OST, hiring, training and managing records officers, developing
records management policies and procedures.
We expect to receive a GAO report in the days ahead that is very
skeptical of the High Level Implementation Plan. Specifically, it
charges that the technology and systems chosen are not properly
coordinated and will not do the job. We were originally told the Plan
would cost $147 million from 1997 through 2000, with $60 million on
improving management systems.
Question. Have we seen the high-water mark in terms of requests to
fix, once and for all, the trust funds problem at Interior?
Answer. It is estimated that funds requested in fiscal year 2000 to
address trust fund reform, including data clean-up and systems
implementation are a peak level. While operational costs for the
systems will be needed in the out-years, these costs will be less than
the amounts needed in fiscal year 2000. However, fixing the trust
problems goes far beyond just implementing new systems and data-
cleanup. Trust funds problems are not fully resolved until two other
significant issues are also addressed, compensating tribal and
individual Indians for any deficiencies in past management of trust
funds and Fractionation of Indian Lands. It is likely that these two
additional requirements will also involve substantial costs.
Question. Along with Senator Murkowski, I introduced a bill to
allow tribes to use their discretion to pull their identifiable
balances out of the Department and invest them in qualified banks to
increase the rate of return on that money. As you work to clean up
documents and determine accurate account balances, shouldn't tribes
have this option?
Answer. The Department strongly supports tribal withdrawal of trust
funds pursuant to Title II of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (the Act). S. 739 is intended to meet similar
objectives by providing opportunities for tribes to have their trust
funds managed by banks in order to receive increased rates of return.
However, the Department strongly opposes the mechanism proposed in S.
739 to achieve this objective, as the Secretary would maintain
significant responsibilities for monitoring and oversight of funds that
would no longer be in the Secretary's control. The Department believes
S. 739 is counter to principles of self-determination.
______
Question Submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
school construction bonding initiative
You are requesting $30 million as seed money for a bonding
initiative to assist tribes in building new schools. The BIA has been
included as a very small part of the Administration's fiscal year 2000
School Modernization Initiative, which seeks the renovation of public
schools throughout the U.S. by providing Federal tax credits in lieu of
interest payments to those investing in school bonds. For the BIA
schools, the Administration proposes that Congress give the Tribes
authority to issue up to $200 million in bonds in each of the next two
years, a total of $400 million, for the repair or replacement of
Bureau-funded schools in their communities.
Question. Did the Bureau actively participate in formulating the
bonding initiative? Were the Tribes consulted, and what do they think?
Answer. The Bureau held several meetings with the Departments of
Education and Treasury concerning steps that would be necessary in
implementing the bill. Treasury staff outlined the eneral process that
would be followed in implementing this legislation. The Department and
the Bureau will continue to consult with these agencies and outside
experts in this field. As a part of BIA's preparing to implement this
proposal, a Five-Year Education Deferred Maintenance and Construction
Plan and School Replacement Guidelines have been developed. A
prioritized list of replacement schools projects will be completed in
September, 1999, and the new list can be added to what remains of the
fiscal year 1993 list of the highest priority 16 schools that needed
replacement.
The Tribes did not participate directly in the initial discussions
on the Bonding Initiative. They have shared their views with the Bureau
since its introduction ranging from those that were in favor of the
Initiative to others that were concerned about an equitable
distribution in the allocation of the bonding authority between Tribes.
This initiative requires the passage of legislation that is the
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
Question. What's the status of the legislation?
Answer. Senate Bill 223 was introduced in the Senate on January 19,
1999, and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. The
Bureau is not aware of companion legislation in the House, to date,
however, it is anticipated soon.
As of six weeks ago when staff were briefed on the Initiative, the
Bureau had not determined specifically how this Initiative would work
with the Tribes.
Question. What do you think about the initiative?
Answer. The Bureau favors the Bonding Initiative as it would
increase the funding authority available for addressing the huge
backlog of priority health and safety deficiencies in Bureau-funded
school facilities.
The Initiative would allow a creative solution to addressing the
educational backlog of facilities needs by leveraging private capital.
The initiative anticipates the investment of the community into bonds
that would finance the construction of schools.
Question. Given the poverty in much of the Dakotas and in other
parts of Indian Country, who is going to invest in these bonds?
Answer. Investors would be affluent individuals, companies, or
foundations, primarily non-Indians, who acquire the bonds to receive
benefit of tax credits. With the payment of the principal guaranteed by
a fund set aside for that purpose and tax credits in lieu of interest
payments, the Bureau believes the bonds will be attractive to many
investors. Thus, the Bureau will not be looking to needy communities to
invest in these bonds.
The Administration proposes that we put $30 million in escrow in
fiscal year 2000 to assist the Tribes in paying off the $200 million in
bond principal. The BIA would then seek another $30 million in fiscal
year 2001 for the second $200 million worth of bond principal. The BIA
estimates that if it is provided $30 million for fiscal year 2000, $72
million would be available for principal repayments in 15 years. Growth
is based on the assumptions of 6 percent annual interest rate; 15 year
life of the bond; and monthly compounded interest.
If $72 million will be available to repay $200 million in bonding
authority, $128 million of bonding authority will remain.
Question. The BIA's briefing materials state that the remaining
authority would be available to ``Tribes able to secure principal
through other sources.'' What does that mean? How will it be determined
how the $72 million in bonding authority is allocated among Tribes?
Answer. The Bureau's $30 million proposal in its budget for fiscal
year 2000 will grow to an estimated $75 million over a 15-year period
at 6 percent interest, thus leaving roughly $125 million of bonding
authority still available in fiscal year 2000. This estimated $125
million in remaining bonding authority will allow those Tribes not
allocated a portion of the Bureau's $30 million program to use the
remaining authority to pursue other creative solutions to addressing
school construction needs, such as partnering or cost sharing.
With regards to allocation of the bonding authority, schools with
critical health and safety needs are the Bureau's priority. The Bureau
will continue to use what remains of the list of 16 Replacement Schools
established by the Congress in fiscal year 1993. Additional schools
will be added to the list of sixteen after being identified through a
priority ranking process to be completed by September, 1999. Facilities
Improvement and Repair Projects that may be eligible will continue to
be ranked based on their code and standard deficiencies.
Question. Has BIA determined who will determine which Tribes are
eligible for ``assistance'' in paying off the bond principal? Will any
Tribes be declared ineligible because they can afford to pay the
principal completely from other sources?
Answer. No determinations have been made as to which Tribes will
participate in the Bonding Initiative program. The Bureau will first
use the new authority to complete what remains of the list of 16
replacement schools established by the Congress in fiscal year 1993.
Additional schools will be added to this list after being identified
through a priority ranking process to be completed by September, 1999.
Facilities Improvement and Repair Projects that may be eligible will
continue to be ranked based on their code and standard deficiencies.
Question. Will the Tribes be allowed to replace any BIA schools on
their reservations, or will they be confined to replacing only the
oldest schools? What are the criteria for a school to be eligible?
Answer. Tribes selected to participate in the Bonding Initiative
program will be selected based on their proposals to replace schools
that meet the Bureau's priority of replacing schools with critical
health and safety needs. The Bureau will first focus on replacing the
remaining schools on the list of 16 replacement schools established by
the Congress in fiscal year 1993; additional Bureau-operated and funded
elementary and secondary schools will be added to this list after being
identified through a priority ranking process to be completed by
September, 1999. Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R) Projects that
may be eligible will continue to be ranked based on their code and
standard deficiencies.
The Bureau's budget justifications state that the ``Secretary would
have the discretion to select which bond proposals would be eligible to
receive funding from the $30 million.''
Question. On what would the Secretary rely to select proposals that
are eligible for assistance?
Answer. As stated previously, a school would have to be one of the
185 schools operated or funded by the Bureau and would have to be on
Bureau established Replacement School or FI&R list. The Tribe would
have to apply for bonding authority and be approved by the Bureau. The
school's proposal would be evaluated based on its ranking on the
replacement or FI&R lists.
The Department of the Interior does not have the authority to
invest the $30 million the Bureau is requesting. According to those who
briefed staff, the funds would be allocated to the Tribes for them to
invest.
Question. Which office will have oversight responsibility to assure
bondholders that they will get their principal in 15 years? Will there
be limitations on where Tribes' escrow can be invested? Will these
investments be government-backed?
Answer. As sovereign nations the Tribes have the oversight
responsibility to assure bondholders of return of the principal in 15
years.
While there are currently no restrictions on where the Tribes'
escrow can be invested, the Administration has recommended an amendment
to the Internal Revenue Code to provide for restrictions to the kinds
of sinking funds that can be used to fund school construction. The
Treasury Department has already recommended that the bond issues be
invested in Federal securities or in State and Local Government
Securities (SLGS). These investments are government-backed.
Question. What will the Federal government's liability be to
bondholders on the principal?
Answer. The Federal Government will have no liability, except to
establish guidelines that assure that Tribes invest in only certain
security instruments and to monitor Tribal investments.
school improvement and repair
This Committee has provided significant increases for school
improvements and repairs over the last several years because repair and
maintenance are critical to getting the BIA schools out of the cycle of
dilapidation and replacement. We provided increases of $8 million in
both fiscal years 1998 and 1999, taking funding from $24 million to $40
million in two years.
Nevertheless, the backlog appears to be growing. The estimate in
1998 was $695 million and now stands at $743 million.
Given the growing backlog, it would make sense to me to increase
funding for School Facilities Improvement and Repair. But the funding
request is $4 million lower for this program for fiscal year 2000, $36
million rather than the $40 million we provided last year.
Question. Why has the Bureau requested fewer funds for school
repairs for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 request for education
construction funding is the highest since 1992. Quite often, replacing
a school is a more cost effective measure than Facilities Improvement &
Repair (FI&R). The replacement of the Seba Dalkai and Fond du Lac
schools will produce a reduction in the maintenance backlog, because
those costs are foregone by replacement.
Also, the $30 million requested in the President's Budget for the
bonding initiative would result in a significant reduction in the
maintenance backlog overall. Current budgetary limitations on
appropriations preclude a major infusion of funds due to the existing
and competing overwhelming needs and requirements on a Bureau-wide
basis. Ideally, if new construction is possible to reduce the backlog,
it will have a corresponding reduction on FI&R needs.
Last year, when we realized we would not be able to fully fund all
of the requested increases for programs, you and I worked together to
focus on education and law enforcement programs. I am still committed
to those program areas. We still have much to accomplish.
chief leschi school
Question. What is the status of the various investigations at Chief
Leschi School? I understand that a whistle blower at the school alleged
that the school received about $1.5 million more than it should have
for bus transportation miles that were claimed but were not accurate. I
understand that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office began an
investigation in early 1998 and that this past January the BIA and U.S.
Attorney met with the Puyallup Tribe.
Answer. According to the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, this case remains under active investigation. The OIG
has requested that the Committee direct specifics concerning the case
to their office.
Question. How much do you think the school owes the government?
Does the BIA intend to recover misappropriated funds? When?
Answer. The School owes the Federal Government in excess of $4
million, which includes interest. Because of the ongoing investigation,
the Bureau has been requested to delay collection actions by the U.S.
Attorney. The recovery of these funds will be coordinated with the
Offices of Inspector General, the Solicitor, and the U.S. Attorney. At
this time, the Bureau cannot state with certainty what amount may be
recovered.
I also understand that, as a result of the transportation funding
controversy, BIA conducted a review of Chief Leschi's programs.
Question. What are the results of that review?
Answer. The Bureau's Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP)
conducted a program review of the Chief Leschi School. The review
included school administration, school operations, Indian School
Equalization Programs, and consolidated school reform plan. The
significant findings of the OIEP review included:
1. Budget.--There was no record that the school year 1998-1999
budget had been submitted for approval to the School Board. Since
converting to grant status, the School has operated under one grant
agreement with annual amendments, which make reconciliations difficult.
2. Procurement.--Procurement procedures and forms need updating.
Purchase orders contained only vague descriptions of items to be
bought.
3. Construction.--The School, without Bureau approval, used ISEP
funds in excess of $2.0 million to construct the School's auditorium.
4. Administrative Cost Grant.--The School was overpaid $546,400 in
administrative grant funds for the school years 1993-1994 through 1997-
1998 because of the overpayment of the transportation funds.
5. Personnel.--Despite a School policy that work days be limited to
7 hours, 179 employees worked and were paid for 8-hour days.
6. Pay Scale.--The School has used several pay scales the last two
school years that were not equitable or based on experience and
qualifications. The School has not provided retirement benefits to
staff for the past 3 years, which has been cited by some staff as the
reason for leaving.
7. School Board.--The School Board has not provided adequate
oversight and direction for the operation of the School.
8. School Operation.--There appears to be a loss of focus on the
objective of providing quality education for Indian children which has
resulted in increased problems with discipline, violence, and drugs.
School enrollment has declined. Some staff members question the quality
and level of expectation of the School's curriculum and the textbooks
and material. There is no approved organization chart. Supervisory
responsibilities and chain of commands are not identified clearly.
9. Indian School Equalization Program.--Record keeping in this area
was good. The School counted 639 students in grades K through 12 during
count week; all but 11 student records had the required documentation.
10. Consolidated School Reform Plan.--Implementation of the plan
has been sporadic and inconsistent. Despite extensive revisions over
the past two years, implementation plans were set aside this year. The
revised plan has not been distributed widely or discussed with the
staff.
Question. What academic standards must Chief Leschi meet?
Answer. The Chief Leschi School must meet either regional
accrediting standards or State standards. The school is currently
accredited by the State of Washington.
Congress provided $27 million for design and construction of the
Chief Leschi School. Despite having been told that before funds were
expended and work was done, the Tribe's construction contracts exceeded
the amount available by about $2 million.
Question. What is the status of that situation?
Answer. The School's single audit reports and the Department's
Office of Inspector General identified total construction expenditures
of $31,873,131. This includes construction, furnishings, and interest.
The September 24, 1998, financial report submitted by the School listed
the total Federal share of expenditures through September as
$28,845,942. The Bureau has paid $25,822,182 for the construction of
the School. The Bureau has required the School to contract with a CPA
firm to review the construction billings to determine the actual cost
of construction and the Federal share, based upon the scope of work
approved by the Bureau.
Sadly, as a result of these investigations, some parents have
pulled their children out of the school, and enrollment has declined in
the last year from 758 students to 639 students. I regret that parents
have had to do it, and yet I understand why they would do it. I fully
support the complete investigation of these problems. You can count on
my support.
Question. Finally, could the BIA please explain the per student
funding allocation at Chief Leschi School. Specifically, is the school
claiming both a per pupil BIA allocation and a per pupil Washington
allocation for every Washington resident student? As I understand it,
all of Chief Leschi's students are Washington residents and most are
Native Americans. Is this double-dipping? Is that typical of BIA
schools?
Answer. The Chief Leschi School System (School System) and the
Puyallup School District have entered into a local agreement. This
agreement provides that Indian students within the public school's
boundaries are to be counted for funding purposes by the public school
district. The school district receives State education funds for these
students. A portion of these funds are kept by the public school for
administrative purposes with the remainder going to the School System.
The School System did enroll the students and provide the basic
academic program. The State deems this to be a legal arrangement under
State law. The School System is reviewing the local agreement to decide
if it will be continued in the future. This is not a typical
arrangement for other Bureau schools.
unlawful investments by grant schools
In December 1998, the Inspector General submitted to Congress its
Final Report on ``Investments and Deposits of Grant Funds by Schools
Operated by Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations''. The objective of
the survey was to determine whether schools invested BIA grant funds in
accordance with law.
The IG found that at least 18 of the 41 schools reviewed did not
invest Bureau grant funds in accordance with the law requiring that
grant funds be invested only in obligations of the United States or in
obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by the United
States.
At least three schools lost grant funds of about $691 thousand that
were invested in obligations, securities, and accounts which were not
adequately insured or guaranteed.
Question. What is being done to recover those funds?
Answer. The Bureau does not have the authority to recover the
funds. Certain provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended), which are
incorporated into the Tribally Controlled Grant School Act, bar the
Bureau from disallowing grant expenditures identified in Single Audits
unless notice has been given within one year of receipt of the school's
Single Audit report.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) relied on the Single
Audit reports for its audit. All of the audits in question had been
submitted to the OIG more than one year prior to the date of the OIG
report. On October 8, 1998, the Bureau requested an opinion from the
Office of the Solicitor (SOL) based on the following scenarios:
``If a Single Audit Report accurately identifies inappropriate
charges to or conditions concerning Bureau awards but does not
specifically question the charges or identify a reportable condition,
does the issuance of a subsequent audit report by OIG/GAO that
identifies the same inappropriate charge serve as a basis for the
Bureau to initiate collection action?''
``If a Single Audit Report which was accepted by the OIG contains
insufficient information, and subsequent OIG/GAO analysis questions
costs in a later audit report, may BIA initiate collection action?''
In a March 16, 1999, response to this request, the SOL's response
was that neither of the situations described above would serve as a
basis for the Bureau to initiate collection actions.
Question. When recovered, will these funds be available for other
education programs?
Answer. Any recovery of disallowed costs is credited to the
appropriation account that was originally charged with the obligation
and the availability of funds is governed by the availability of the
original appropriation. Thus, recovery of funds charged to a no-year
account would be available for future obligation. The appropriations
for school operations are available for obligation from July 1 of one
fiscal year through September 30 of the subsequent fiscal year. So, for
example, funds available for obligation on July 1, 1997, would have to
be repaid prior to September 30, 1998, in order to be available for
obligation. Since the Grant School legislation only requires that
schools submit audits every other year, it is highly unlikely that any
funds would ever be recovered within the timeframe allowed for re-
obligation of available funds.
Question. Given the IG Report that almost half of the schools
surveyed did not know the law or were not following the law, what is
the Bureau doing to address the problem?
Answer. When the Bureau received the draft IG report, the Director,
Office of Indian Education Programs, contacted each of the Education
Line Officers who award grants and instructed them to include in the
grant award the specific restrictions contained in statute governing
the investment of grant funds. The restrictions are now contained in
all grants to schools.
Question. Could this situation--investment in uninsured
securities--be repeated in the proposed construction bond program?
Answer. No, the terms of the school bonding initiative reiterate
this policy that limit the funds being invested to only specific
Government securities.
Question. Do you think misinvesting is a widespread problem, or a
case of ``a few bad apples?''
Answer. The failure to maintain advanced Federal funds in accounts
fully covered by depository insurance or collateral is fairly wide
spread among grant schools, self determination Tribal contractors and
self governance compact Tribes. In an effort to improve compliance with
the law, the Bureau has included special audit testing requirements in
the Single Audit Compliance Supplement which is issued by the Office of
Management and Budget. Unfortunately, the Bureau learns of these
improper investments only long after the time when Single Audits are
submitted. Moreover, some Tribes and school boards maintain that the
Bureau has no authority to limit investments and even that it cannot
sanction failures to comply with the Single Audit Act. In its efforts
to reduce Bureau interference in the affairs of the Tribes and school
boards, the Congress has deprived the Bureau of the ability to oversee
vigorously the use of appropriated funds.
law enforcement
The per capita rate of violent crime involving Indian victims is
estimated to be more than twice as high as the national average.
Arrests of Indians for alcohol- related offenses in 1996 were also more
than double the national average. These statistics are devastating.
In response, Congress provided $95.3 million for law enforcement in
Indian country in fiscal year 1999, a $20 million increase over fiscal
year 1998. These funds are part of a joint effort Congress is funding
through the Department of Justice to improve law enforcement in Indian
Country.
Question. To what degree is the Department of Justice involved in
the initiative in Indian Country? How is the distribution of funding
among reservations determined?
Answer. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau continue to
combine efforts in combating the rising crime rate in Indian Country.
The Bureau continues to concentrate on providing direct permanent
resources to both Bureau and Tribal programs, while the Department of
Justice (DOJ) continues to concentrate on providing grants to Tribes.
In FY1999, DOJ appropriations total $88.7 million for Indian Country
criminal justice programs; included in this level is $34.0 million for
construction of new detention facilities. In the past three years, DOJ
has provided $68.0 million to Tribes to hire additional police officers
through its COPS program. Since the Bureau is not eligible for DOJ
grant funds, the Bureau has concentrated on providing resources to
those programs still operated by the Bureau.
While the $20 million in new funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999
to the Bureau is very helpful, it only allows the Bureau to begin
addressing the most basic of identified needs. Therefore, Bureau funds
were made available to existing Tribal 638 contracts, Tribal self-
governance compacts and to Bureau-operated law enforcement programs on
a ``neediest of the needy'' basis. Some criteria for determining need
included: population, land base, crime statistics, current levels of
funding and staffing, and equipment. No fiscal year 1999 Initiative
funds were used to start up new law enforcement programs; instead, with
the need so great, the Bureau focused on improving existing law
enforcement programs.
Question. How much of the law enforcement services are the Tribes
providing through contracting?
Answer. There are 203 law enforcement programs in Indian Country
operated by the Bureau, Tribal 638 contracts, and Tribal self
governance compacts. Of this total, at least 13 Tribes fund their own
law enforcement programs and 93 law enforcement programs are contracted
through Public Law 93-638, as amended.
Question. Are the Tribes getting any direct funding from the
Department of Justice's programs?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, DOJ was appropriated $88.7 million for
Indian Country criminal justice grant programs. Prior to fiscal year
1999, DOJ provided $68.0 million to Tribes to hire additional police
officers under its grants programs, such as COPS. DOJ continues to
concentrate on providing direct grants to Tribes to fund police officer
positions along with related police equipment through its COPS grant
program.
The Ramah Navajo case is evidence that other agencies, including
the Department of Justice, refuse to pay their share of contract
support to the Tribes. This has come back to haunt the Bureau, which
has been held liable for the contract support of other Federal
agencies. I understand that some Tribes are unable to participate in
the ``COPS'' program because Justice refuses to pay contract support.
Question. What are your recommendations regarding the failure of
agencies to pay their share of contract support?
Answer. The Bureau cannot meet its own contract support obligation,
much less those of other agencies, within the current budgetary
constraints. We believe other Federal agencies should pay their own
contract support costs to the Tribes. Tribes have expressed their
positions that participation in DOJ's COPS program was limited, not
because of the lack of contract support, but because they could not
guarantee retention of COPS-funded police officer positions after the
grant period expired or the availability of funds to properly outfit
the officer. A number of Tribes also advised the Bureau they could not
meet the matching funds requirement for DOJ grants and therefore did
not apply for the grants.
For fiscal year 2000, the Bureau is requesting another $20 million
increase for law enforcement. Of that amount, roughly $12 million is
for personnel: new uniformed officers, dispatchers, investigators and
detention personnel. The request includes $2.5 million for replacement
of police vehicles.
Question. How many more years of substantial increases in law
enforcement do you anticipate? Will the Administration continue to keep
this a priority beyond the initiative?
Answer. The Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian
Country is a four-year initiative. At the end of the four-year
Initiative, if funding is increased each year, both the Bureau and DOJ
will have addressed the core law enforcement issues in Indian Country.
While the Administration will leave office before the Initiative is
concluded, we hope our successors will continue to support law
enforcement as a priority program.
contract support
You are requesting $22.8 million in program increases for TPA. Half
the increase, $11 million, is for new and existing contracting. Last
year, we struggled with the problems of contract support and imposed a
one-year moratorium on new and expanded BIA and IHS contracts.
Last year Congress provided an $8 million increase for contract
support to close the gap between the obligation and the discretionary
funding available. With the increased funding, the Bureau is able to
pay about 83 percent of contract support in fiscal year 1999.
You're requesting a $6 million increase this year.
Question. Will this increase cover contract support at 100 percent
of your obligation? If not, what can you tell us about the one-year
shortfall you would have, and what's the status of the total multi-year
shortfall in contract support?
Answer. The Bureau estimates that the fiscal year 2000 request
level will allow the Bureau to meet approximately 84 percent of Tribes'
contract support fund need in fiscal year 2000, with an estimated
shortfall of $23.3 million.
On December 4, 1997, the Department of the Interior Board of
Contract Appeals issued its decision in Alamo Navajo School Board Inc.
and Miccosukee Corporation v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.
The Board held that the Miccosukee Corporation was entitled to full
funding of contract support costs, notwithstanding an appropriations
cap, under the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act.
The United States filed an appeal of the Board's decision with the U.
S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 26, 1998. The
appellees recently filed briefs with the Court and all parties are
awaiting further instructions from the Court.
Because of the growing shortfall and the lawsuits that have been
filed on the unmet obligations, we imposed a moratorium last year on
new and expanded contracts. This year, you are asking us to lift the
moratorium and provide $5 million for new contracts.
Question. When you know you aren't asking for enough to pay
contract support for existing contracts, and this shortfall subjects
the government to liability, why are you asking Congress to lift the
moratorium?
Answer. The moratorium on contracting Bureau programs did not and
will not address the real problem, which is full funding for existing
ongoing contractors. The Indian Self Determination (ISD) Fund has fully
funded the contract support needs of new Tribal contractors. As the
Bureau pointed out during the Congressional appropriations process last
year, new and expanded contracting is not the problem. The Bureau
distributes the ISD Fund on a first-come, first-serve basis. Once the
funds have been completely distributed, contracting Tribes must wait
until the next available appropriations before they receive Contract
Support Funds (CSF). In addition, the $5 million request for the ISD
Fund has historically been sufficient to meet the total requests for
new contracting. The Bureau also proposed in its previous budget
request to transfer the ISD monies to the main CSF to assist in
covering the new contractors from the previous year.
At the request of the Bureau, we have placed a cap on the amount of
BIA funding available for the payment of contract support since 1994.
Without the cap, the Bureau would have had to reprogram funds away from
Tribes that have chosen to continue to receive services directly from
the Bureau. Now, there are several lawsuits pending related to contract
support. The Bureau has reached a partial settlement in the Ramah
Navajo case for $76.2 million. That settlement covers contract support
claims through 1993, when we first implemented a cap on contract
support.
Question. What's the status of this settlement?
Answer. On May 14, 1999, the District Court for the District of New
Mexico entered Partial Final Judgement in favor of the class for a
total of $79,903,529 inclusive of pre-judgement interest and attorney
fees but exclusive of post judgment interest. The Partial Settlement
represents damages for indirect costs for the years 1989 to 1993. The
Judgement Fund is to pay, but certain issues (like whether the
Department will have to reimburse the Judgement with its operation
funds) is not ripe and the Court retained jurisdiction to hear the
issues if and when they arise.
The Court awarded attorney fees in the sum of 11 percent of the
Gross Common fund (which equals $8,338,000), plus 11 percent of the
post judgement interest earned on the Common Fund. The Court also
awarded $170,036.37 for costs.
Claims still pending are years 1994 to present (years in which
there was an appropriation cap on contract support costs) and an
equitable claim for how the Department determines indirect cost rates
in the future.
The settlement of Ramah will be paid initially out of the Judgment
Fund. The Contract Disputes Act, which is the law used by the
plaintiffs in their suit, requires repayment by the BIA. Briefing
materials from the BIA budget office state that ``the actual
responsibility for reimbursement is still under discussion.''
Question. What is the status of a determination of the Bureau's
source of reimbursement?
Answer. The settlement of Ramah will be paid initially out of the
Judgment Fund within the Department of Justice. The Contract Disputes
Act, which is the law cited by the plaintiffs in their suit, requires
repayment by the Bureau. The actual responsibility and plan for
reimbursement is still under discussion, but the Bureau may have little
choice except to cover the repayment from appropriations, thus
adversely impacting Tribal and Bureau programs.
Question. What is the status of litigation regarding the
sufficiency of the cap language the Bureau has had for the last six
years?
Answer. On December 4, 1997, the Department of the Interior Board
of Contract Appeals issued its decision in Alamo Navajo School Board
Inc. and Miccosukee Corporation v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
Interior. The Board held that Miccosukee Corporation was entitled to
full funding of contract support costs, notwithstanding an
appropriations cap, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act. The United States filed an appeal of the Board's
decision with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on
October 26, 1998. The Bureau understands that the appellees have very
recently filed briefs with the Court and all parties are waiting
further instructions from the Court.
Currently, the Indian Self-Determination Act is inflexible. The
Secretary has no discretion to decline to enter into a contract--even
if no funding exists to cover the costs of the contractual obligation.
Question. Would the Administration support an amendment to the
Indian Self- Determination Act resolving the contract support shortfall
by giving the Secretary discretion to refuse to enter into contracts
when insufficient annual funding is available?
Answer. No, as denoted in a previous response, new contracts are
not a problem when Congress grants the Bureau's request for the ISD
Fund. However, if the Committee is referring to terminating contracts
with existing Tribal contractors in order to meet 100 percent of the
Contract Support Fund (CSF) need, the Bureau would be put in a very
difficult predicament. The Bureau distributes CSF for existing
contractors based on Congressional direction requiring equitable
distribution of the available funds on a pro rata basis. Should the law
be amended to take such action, existing regulations would have to be
modified and difficult decisions would have to be made as to which
Tribal contracts would remain in place and receive CSF funds. Efforts
in the past to modify the regulations in response to the 1994
amendments to the 638 law took 18 months and an estimated $500,000 in
Bureau funds to complete the process. These kinds of resources are not
available within the Bureau's limited budget. The more appropriate
response is to continue allowing the Tribes to contract in their
discretion. The Tribes are aware of the shortage in funding, and take
on these obligations understanding the problem. The Congress should
continue to make clear, however, that the Bureau will not be liable for
payment of contract support beyond the amount appropriated for that
purpose.
If the moratorium is lifted, according to budget justifications,
the BIA expects about 50 new or expanded contracts in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What are the Bureau's estimates on the saturation point--
when will all the interested Tribes have taken everything they're
interested in? Do you have estimates on the final, total contract
support costs?
Answer. During the hearing, the Bureau provided testimony that
addressed the number of new Tribal contracts/compacts which may be
awarded within the next five years. Based on a recent polling of the
Tribes and Bureau locations addressing historical trends, the Bureau
believes that Tribal contracting and compacting of Bureau programs may
be leveling off due chiefly to the level of appropriations available in
the Bureau's budget. The Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act authorizes Tribes, not the Bureau, to determine whether
and when to enter into new contracts. Therefore, the Bureau cannot
predict with any certainty what new contracts/compacts will be awarded
and to the amount of CSF required for such contracts/compacts. The
Bureau believes the majority of Tribes interested in contracting and
compacting are now doing so based on the level of appropriations
available in the Bureau's budget. Any increases in the contracting
level will result from Tribes adding to their contracting/compacting
volume and/or contracting by newly recognized Tribes. For fiscal year
2000, the projected CSF requirements totals approximately $145 million.
When a tribe takes over all programs and services, it enters into a
compact that results in, for lack of a better term, a block grant to
the tribe. As part of that block grant process, the tribes have been
successful in negotiating for funds equal to a percentage of a Bureau
employee, even though, in reality, significant numbers of employees
must remain to provide services to the tribes, usually the less
sophisticated, poorer tribes, which are not contracting with the BIA.
Question. What kinds of discussions are going on in the Bureau or
in Indian Country related to the fact that, in contracting, the winners
tend to be those Tribes that got ``in the door first,'' and are the
more sophisticated Tribes; and the losers are, again, the Tribes that
truly rely on the Bureau for services?
Answer. Following the directives contained in the fiscal year 1998
Conference Report on Bureau appropriations, the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs established a joint Bureau/Tribal Task Force to review
and determine a distribution method for allocation of available Tribal
Priority Allocation (TPA) funding for fiscal year 1998. This initial
workgroup evolved into a separate workgroup, the BIA/Tribal Workgroup
on Tribal Assessment, to focus on the development of accurate and
meaningful data to address funding inequities, unmet Tribal needs, and
funding shortfalls. This effort is currently being finalized, thus
results are not yet available. Once completed, the report will be
submitted to the Committees.
Question. You have established a Bureau/Tribal Workgroup on
Contract Support Costs in conjunction with the National Congress of
American Indians. What is the status of this workgroup? When will we
receive its recommends? Can you share any of the ideas with us today?
Answer. The Workgroup is currently finalizing two reports on the
issue for submission to the Congress. One report will focus on the
position of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and a
second will reflect the Bureau's recommendations through its efforts
with the Workgroup. The Bureau's report is expected to be sent to the
Committees by mid-summer. Several significant concerns will be
addressed in both reports that have been a matter of contention for
years, including such issues as the payment of direct contract support
costs, establishment of each Tribe's contract support requirement, and
the current pro rata distribution.
BIA distributes contract support on a pro rata basis, so that any
shortfall in funds is spread evenly over all contracting Tribes. The
IHS chose to fully fund the oldest contracts and puts the rest of the
contracts into a ``queue'' where they remain unfunded until increases
are obtained. I agree with the Bureau's pro-ratadistribution method.
Question. Is this pro rata method up for discussion or change under
any of the findings and efforts of the contract support cost workgroup?
Answer. The issue of the current pro rata method was one of the
topics considered by the joint Workgroup. While the final report of the
Bureau has yet to be finalized and submitted, the Bureau's report will
not recommend a change in the pro rata distribution method.
water rights litigation
The Administration is requesting a $4 million increase for water
rights litigation and negotiations. This is a fairly significant
increase over the $11 million we provided last year.
Question. Can you tell us what the Bureau has been accomplishing
with funding in this account, and tell us about the status of efforts
in water rights negotiations around the country?
Answer. Adequate water rights negotiation and litigation funding is
critical to carrying out the United States' core trust responsibility
of protecting Indian water resources. Negotiation and litigation
funding is used to conduct various evidentiary studies necessary to
support the United States' claims to water on behalf of Tribes. Failure
to adequately prepare and support such claims may subject the United
States to actions for breach of trust. Furthermore, in many instances,
water rights litigation is initiated by states or individual non-Indian
water users; the United States is named as a defendant in such cases
and the only alternatives are litigation or negotiation. If funds are
not made available for negotiating settlements, they will have to be
expended in typically costly litigation, which often extends over
decades. While both litigation and negotiation have attendant costs,
the benefit of a settlement is that the needs of both Indians and non-
Indians can be met. Conversely, in litigation, there may be no
mechanism by which the needs of the ``losing'' party can be met. The
Department believes that workable solutions secured through negotiation
rather than litigation serve the best interests of both Indian and non-
Indian citizens alike, and that funding this effort is well worth the
investment.
Specifically, funding from the Water Rights Litigation and
Negotiations account is used to support the ongoing efforts of 18 water
rights claims negotiation teams, as well as 15 settlement
implementation teams, in California, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. For each
unique Indian water rights claim where the state and non-Indian parties
have formally indicated their willingness to work toward settlement, a
Federal negotiating team with representatives from the various involved
Federal agencies has been established. Each Federal team, working with
the other parties, attempts to reach a negotiated settlement that will
to the maximum extent possible prevent disruption of existing water
uses while simultaneously preserving future Tribal water use and
development. The Department is mindful of the fact that $4 million is a
significant increase relative to the $11 million appropriated in fiscal
year 1999, but it is noted that the President's budget requests over
the past 6 years have averaged $15.2 million, and demand among the
Bureau's stakeholders for that funding has averaged $23.7 million.
Additionally, the Department views this increase in funding as
critical because it is prudent to address Indian water rights claims
sooner rather than later. The Department's experience has shown that
delay in addressing Indian claims ultimately leads to significantly
increased costs to the United States in the future. In part, this is
because non-Indian parties increasingly use more and more water in
systems in which Tribal rights have not been quantified and/or
implemented, and as they do so, they come to rely on using water that
may actually belong to a Tribe. As long as residential and commercial
dependence on such Tribal water exists and grows, it is impractical to
assert a Tribe's valid claim to the water, and thus more and more
difficult to resolve competing claims. In sum, the longer non-Indian
dependence persists and expands over time, and as water becomes more
scarce, the more costly settlements are likely to be.
Question. Are we nearing the end of water rights disputes with the
Tribes?
Answer. The Department is involved in negotiations in most of the
major general stream adjudications across the West. At present, there
are 18 active water rights claims negotiation teams in 10 states. While
the Department is hopeful that these negotiations will result in
successful settlements, it is difficult if not impossible to predict
the timeline that these complicated undertakings will follow. Whereas a
handful of these claims may be ripe for settlement within the next 18
months, others, though they may be ardently pursued, may require
several years or more before they approach a final settlement.
In addition, the Department cannot reliably anticipate when states
or individuals may initiate new general stream adjudications or other
water related litigation. There are hundreds of Tribes in the West that
may have valid claims which have not yet been asserted for any number
of reasons. However, as the population in the West grows and as cities
and their attendant development expand, it is very likely that more
Tribal water claims will surface. It is therefore difficult to assess
when disputes over Tribal water rights may reach an end, but it would
be misleading to say the end is near.
environmental management
The Administration is requesting $9.8 million for environmental
management, compared to $3 million provided for fiscal year 1999. The
budget justifications state only that the Department ordered the BIA to
develop the program and conduct assessments of all Bureau facilities by
2002.
Question. Can you be more specific about what this funding is for?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1999, the Bureau was annually
appropriated approximately $3.7 million under a program element
entitled Waste Management. In fiscal year 1999, the Bureau was
appropriated $6.7 million for its environmental programs: $3.7 million
under the Waste Management line item and an additional $3 million under
a new program element entitled Environmental Cleanup. For fiscal year
2000, the Bureau decided to combine those two program elements into
one, entitled Environmental Management, to more accurately reflect the
Bureau's vast array of environmental expenses--some of which do not
neatly fall under the ``waste management'' or ``environmental clean-
up''. This reflects the Bureau's commitment to aggressively managing
its environmental responsibilities.
Thus, the $9.8 million requested in fiscal year 2000 in the newly
combined line item is a $3.1 million increase over the fiscal year 1999
appropriation.
The requested increase of $3 million will be used for two main
purposes. First, it will fund the clean-up of open dumps in Indian
Country either as part of the Interagency Solid Waste group chaired by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to requests for
assistance from Tribes, and/or where the Bureau has contributed to an
open dump and therefore may have some responsibility for closing it.
The Bureau expects that the majority of the additional $3.1 million
requested will fund solid waste projects. (The Indian Health Service
has estimated that it will require $120 million to close approximately
1,200 open dumps in Indian Country.)
Second the increase will fund the corrective actions that are found
to be necessary under the Bureau's environmental auditing program. The
Bureau will not know the exact magnitude of those costs until it
actually performs the audits, but audits conducted in fiscal years 1998
and 1999 required corrective actions costing between $100,000 and
$1,000,000 per quarter. Thus, it is possible that four quarters of
audits in fiscal year 2000 could lead to total corrective action
expenses as high as $4 million. The increased funding will pay for a
portion of these corrective actions.
Question. Can you explain why $3.8 million of the $6.8 million
increase are identified as ``uncontrollable'' changes?
Answer. The $3.8 million reflected under ``Uncontrollable and One-
Time Change'' consists of a transfer of $3,771,000 from the Waste
Management program element to the Environmental Management program
element to properly align the environmental programs in the budget
structure as outlined in the previous response; $38,000 is also
included for pay raises. The increase requested for fiscal year 2000
for the program is the same as that requested and appropriated for
fiscal year 1999: $3 million.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Assistant Secretary Gover, I have been impressed with the
cooperation from your office in addressing the problem of deteriorating
BIA elementary and secondary schools. Last year this Subcommittee asked
for a report on the extent of the problem and a five year plan to
address the problem.
Question. What is the status of that planning effort? I hear
reports that a two tier plan is being developed. The first tier would
allocate about $100 million per year to the backlog; the second tier
plan would give us the full cost of up-grading all BIA elementary and
secondary schools. Do you have an estimate of when this Subcommittee
will have this information?
Answer. In Senate Report 105-227, the Bureau was directed to
develop an alternative administrative plan to complete the repair,
renovation, and reconstruction (including new construction), of all
education facilities in five years, on an annual basis. The Department
submitted this plan to the Committees on June 8, 1999.
Question. Among the 16 top priority BIA schools for replacement,
the Shiprock Alternative School was next on the national list for
funding, yet it was skipped over in the President's budget, and a BIA
school in Minnesota (Fond du Lac Ojibway) was recommended for funding.
Please give this Subcommittee a brief explanation for this action. Is
there any possibility that the Shiprock Alternative School construction
program could be funded in the fiscal year 2000 budget?
Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 Budget request did not
include construction of the Shiprock School because design of the
project will not be completed until Fall, 1999. The Fond du Lac School
project is presently being designed by the Tribe and will be ready for
construction in June, 1999. Additionally, inclusion of the Shiprock
Alternative project at its full funding level would have required the
Bureau to offset the Shiprock costs in the Education Facilities
Improvement Repair construction program, leaving only approximately $10
million in the program. This would have negatively affected the
Bureau's ability to provide portable classrooms and make repairs that
attribute to the nearly $1 billion backlog of repair work in Bureau
facilities, including roofing and repair projects, minor improvement
projects, and address environmental problems in and around Bureau
facilities. Fifty-one schools would have been affected as opposed to
one school, Shiprock.
In response to funding the Shiprock Alternative School construction
program in fiscal year 2000 within the President's budget request,
funds would have to be reduced from either the Fond du Lac project or
by reducing the number of repair and improvement projects. The Bureau
is opposed to taking such action. OMB Circular A-11 requirements
related to phasing of capital improvements requires that capital
improvement segments, if phased, must be usable when completed. The
Shiprock Alternative School Board, working with their architect, is
developing a phasing plan, but have indicated that it will not be
available until sometime in May, 1999. Consequently, the Bureau does
not have the phasing scope or costs per phase at this time. Funding for
site work such as utilities, grading and earthwork, paving/parking, and
access roads as a phase is not considered to be a funding phase option
because it will not result in a complete and useable facility.
Secondly, the Fond du Lac school situation presents real and potential
risks to the students and staffs. It is critical that the Bureau
advocate for construction and completion of Fond du Lac school as soon
as possible so that the risk of loss of life can be minimized.
There are several post-secondary BIA schools in New Mexico that
have some fundamental concerns.
Question. For over a decade now, the Crownpoint of Technology in
New Mexico on the Navajo Nation has been struggling to meet annual
operating costs. How is it that the United Tribes Technical College
(UTTC) in North Dakota continues to receive line item funding in the
BIA budget while CIT does not? This is of particular concern to me as
the number of full time students in class, the number graduating, and
the number placed in jobs is consistently higher at CIT. Is there a
legislative change necessary to place CIT on equal footing with UTTC
for BIA funding? If so, would you please provide this Subcommittee with
such a recommendation?
Answer. The United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) is a Tribally-
controlled residential vocational school founded in 1969. It is
accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools at
the Certificate and/or Associate of Applied Science level, offering
eight certificate programs, 11 Associate of Applied Science Degrees,
and provides pre-school, K-8 and day care services for families with
dependent children. It also provides counseling, placement, medical
services and other support services, all focused on the unique social
and cultural context of its students. UTTC also works in cooperation
with the State Welfare to Work program to provide work related and
child care services for State referred Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families recipients. This year the college is celebrating 30 years of
academic and cultural excellence. In that time, the College has
graduated over 10,000 Indian students from more than 45 Federally
recognized Indian Tribes across the nation.
The UTTC has been funded by the Bureau for 20 years to provide
training services to eligible Indians from across the nation.
Initially, for many years, appropriations for UTTC were earmarked by
the Congress. After several years, the Bureau included the funding in
its annual budget request to Congress. Appropriation for UTTC is under
specific statute--Indians- Employment on or Near Reservations (Public
Law 959), with a ceiling of $3.5 million to be appropriated annually.
Crownpoint college is similar to UTTC. The Bureau would not object
to funding for Crownpoint, but not at the expense of UTTC. There could
be separate authorizing legislation for Crownpoint, or as a second
option, the ceiling of $3.5 million in the current authorizing law for
UTTC could be increased. A third option the Congress might consider is
revising the authorizing statutes for the Tribally Controlled Community
Colleges to include UTTC and Crownpoint, with increased appropriations
to accommodate all the schools.
Question. The Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) has a
large and growing student population of over 650. SIPI's success rate
is very high, above 85 percent job placement rate. To keep their
accreditation, a new science building is needed. Would you please tell
this Subcommittee how the BIA views capital needs like this one in
terms of responsibility and possible funding assistance?
Answer. Capital needs at the Southwestern Polytechnic Institute
(SIPI) in terms of responsibility and possible funding assistance can
be addressed separately from the replacement school construction
priority setting process. In the fiscal year 1991 Senate Report, the
Committee indicated, ``With respect to the facility requirements of the
post secondary schools (SIPI and Haskell), the Committee concurs with
the recommendation of the House that master plans, rather than priority
ranking process for education facilities, be used to address the
comprehensive facility requirements at these locations.'' Both schools
have completed facilities master plans. The Bureau will work with SIPI
to develop a plan for the review and implementation of the Bureau-
approved Master Plan, and work toward implementation of the first
increment of work in the initial fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Question. The Dine College campus in Shiprock, New Mexico, had a
severe fire last year, and I thank you for your prompt emergency
assistance. Now Dine College is planning a new campus at a different
location in Shiprock with costs estimated to be in excess of $40
million. Can you give this Subcommittee any guidance about how the
plans for such a campus and its related funding might be possible?
Could you also explain to this Subcommittee where the responsibility
lies for capital improvements at this and other Dine college campuses
(8 total)?
Answer. The Dine College is not on the Bureau's construction
priority list. The Navajo Community College and the Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges all have specific Congressional legislative
authority that governs their respective post-secondary institution as
stated in the fiscal year 1991 Senate Report. Many of these
institutions have been authorized to establish foundations as a
mechanism to solicit the private sector for contributions and
investment for their operations. Portions of the philanthropic gifts
and other non-Federal funding sources could be placed in interest
bearing accounts and applied to facilities and related infrastructure
needs.
On another topic, I am very interested in the proposed law
enforcement budget for next year. As you may have heard, there is a
virtual heroin epidemic in Rio Arriba County and northern Santa Fe
County. The per capita heroin death rate is the highest in the nation
in this area.
Question. Are there any plans to allocate some of the proposed new
law enforcement funds to help the affected Pueblos in the area, like
San Juan, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Nambe, and Pojoaque?
Answer. The core focus of the Presidential Initiative on Law
Enforcement in Indian Countryhas been to address the ever evolving law
enforcement needs in Indian Country. In fiscal year 1999, a survey of
law enforcement needs in Indian Country was conducted by the Bureau to
determine the ``neediest of the needy''. Based on the results of that
survey, an additional $92,000 of Initiative funds were provided to the
Pueblo of San Juan, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and the Pueblo of Pojoaque
to replace 4 vehicles with mileage over 100,000. Additionally, the
Bureau provided $285,000 to the Northern Pueblos Agency to hire 3
uniformed officers, replace 3 vehicles, and obtain needed equipment
such as body armor and weapons. The Agency provides direct law
enforcement services to the Pueblo of Nambe and the Pueblo of
Ildefonso. In fiscal year 2000, the Bureau will again assess the law
enforcement needs in Indian Country and make distributions based on
those findings, taking into account the assistance provided in fiscal
year 1999. Should the Congress provide the fiscal year 2000 increase of
$20 million, the Bureau will continue to strengthen law enforcement
programs across the nation. Thus, based on the factors denoted, the
Pueblos may be eligible to receive additional assistance in staffing
and equipment needs.
Question. Is there a planned juvenile detention center in northern
New Mexico for the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos?
Answer. The Bureau developed a priority list of 17 detention
centers which was published in the Federal Register on December 30,
1993; the Northern Pueblos Detention Facility was ranked 15 on this
list. To date, only the top five priority projects have been provided
appropriations by the Congress. As part of the Presidential Initiative
on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, funding for construction,
modernization and repair of detention centers in Indian Country is
included in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) budget request(s) and
therefore no funds were requested in the Bureau's request for
construction of detention facilities in Indian Country in fiscal year
1999 or fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 1999, DOJ was appropriated $34
million for this purpose. DOJ's budget request for fiscal year 2000
includes another $34 million for the construction of detention
facilities in Indian Country. The Bureau has provided DOJ with its
construction priority list (which includes the Northern Pueblos
facility) and has urged DOJ to consider its existing priority lists
because a great deal of time, energy and funds have already been
invested to identify, plan and design some of the facilities. The
Bureau will continue to encourage DOJ to give consideration to the
projects identified on the Bureau's priority list.
The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) system remains a vital issue
for most Tribes. In New Mexico, you mentioned to me that you were
interested in a pilot program of accountability for these TPA funds. I
now have a request for completing the planning for Nambe Pueblo as an
initial pilot ``needs-based'' program. This small pueblo now receives
less than $200,000 in TPA funds annually. Yet they seem to believe that
your pilot accountability program will allow them to request almost $9
million for the first year of a three year effort to meet their needs.
Question. With at least five other pueblos (of the Eight Northern
Indian Pueblos) looking at the Nambe example and planning similar
increases, this pilot accountability model of yours could easily
balloon into requests exceeding $100 million per year for these
northern New Mexico Pueblos alone. How do you envision this
accountability pilot working, and is it your plan to encourage such
huge increases in funding to make it work?
Answer. The pilot you are referring to is not a Bureau initiative;
it is the effort of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council (NIPC).
The Bureau is interested in the effort for two reasons. First, it is
presented as a needs-based approach to Tribal budget requests. Second,
it is portrayed as increasing accountability and reporting
accomplishments that support the Government Performance and Results
Act. The Bureau has not been provided with a final Nambe Pueblo plan
and has not discussed the cost estimates. The Bureau does not have a
plan to include this proposal in the fiscal year 2000 request and has
told Nambe representatives and the NIPC that large increases in funding
are not likely. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs has further
stated that he will not support the plan if it takes funds away from
other Tribal governments.
Question. Do you support the pilot TPA effort in northern New
Mexico as a way to make a statement about full funding of each and
every statutory requirement supported by TPA funds? Is there a
misunderstanding about this pilot effort that has raised the hopes of
getting such large annual increases? Do you see the statutory
requirements being cited to support these increases as different from
other statutory requirements to achieve other national goals? For
example, the Housing Act of 1936 envisions a safe and sanitory home for
each and every American, yet Congress has never been able to fully fund
the national housing need.
Answer. The Bureau has not provided support to the proposal other
than attending a briefing on the proposal and acknowledging the
Bureau's support for a needs-based approach to requesting TPA funds.
The Bureau has not encouraged NIPC or Nambe to believe that their
approach would result in any significant increase in funding. The
Bureau was told that the Northern Pueblos were interested in this
approach even if no additional funding was provided because it was a
logical, rational approach to requesting funds. The Bureau has seen no
presentation of statutory requirements and would not see a difference
between what is presented to the Senator and requirements for other
national goals.
Question. Finally, is the ``need based'' program pilot at Nambe
Pueblo an idea encouraged by you as an alternative to current TPA
commitments as a national pilot? What are the conditions for your
support of this pilot TPA accountability program at the Eight Northern
Indian Pueblos?
Answer. The only encouragement provided to Nambe and NIPC was that
their approach as explained was a tangible example of a needs-based
approach to determining a Tribal budget request. The request would be
supported by analysis of Tribal needs, meet Tribal membership concerns,
and provide a mechanism for a Tribe to prioritize usage of financial
resources from various sources, not just the Bureau. It seemed very
consistent with the efforts of the TPA Workgroup on Tribal Needs
Assessment in attempting to provide a mechanism to distribute future
TPA increases, except that Nambe had considerably more Tribal
involvement, greater details, and was broader than just TPA funding.
The Assistant Secretary and his representatives have stated that
the Bureau will not support the Nambe proposal if it takes funding away
from other Pueblos, Tribes in New Mexico, or Tribes elsewhere in the
nation. If additional TPA funds were available and Nambe had a viable
needs- based plan for allocation of a part of those funds, the Bureau
would support a pilot to test both the ability to satisfy the needs and
report accomplishments under such a system. In addition, it would be
necessary that any Tribe contract for the programs if the Tribes are
truly going to be responsible for implementation of a needs-based plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. Has the TPA Work Group developed ways to quantify the
core serviceneeds of an average Tribal government so that they can be
used to provide a ``Benchmark'' for allocation TPA funds?
Answer. The Workgroup on Tribal Assessment of Needs established a
subgroup that attempted to determine standards for a variety of Tribal
needs. The purpose was to establish a benchmark that would allow for
the best distribution of future TPA increases by allocating funds to
Tribes where the need is greatest. The Workgroup attempted to determine
standards for all programs within TPA, including Tribal government, but
also the human service and trust related programs. Development of a
benchmark for Tribal government became the most challenging part of the
effort. For the most part, the Workgroup used either industry standards
or similar governmental programs as the basis for a benchmark to
determine need. In the case of a Tribal government, it is exceedingly
difficult to find a similar model, such as a state or local government,
and acquire enough data to make a reasonable comparison. In addition,
many Tribes, like local governments, have a variety of funding
resources to support their activities beyond TPA funding. Even when a
model of a Tribal government is described and defined, it will not be
clear that the TPA budget category should be providing funding for all
the activities.
Question. I recently introduced legislation (S. 612) to require all
federal agencies, not just the BIA and IHS, to identify and quantify
Tribal needs and to submit that information to Congress so we have a
better idea of what needs there are and whether they are being met or
not. Does the Administration favor this approach? Could you provide us
your comments on that bill?
Answer. The Administration will support a needs-based approach to
funding Tribes. However, the Bureau is not in a position to commit the
Administration's support for S. 612 at this time. The Bureau will
develop comments on S. 612 and clear them through the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and other agencies while establishing an
Administration's position on S. 612 as written.
Question. I am very concerned about the ability of the Department
to put in place proper trust management systems. I am even more
concerned, frankly, that because the trust funds mess has gone on for
so long that Congress gets fed up and stops providing money to fix the
problem. What confidence do you have that the ``High Level
Implementation Plan'' will provide a workable Trust funds system?
Answer. The High Level Implementation Plan (HLIP) provides a road
map to a comprehensive, coordinated, inter-Bureau effort to correct the
many well-documented problems associated with the Department's
management of Indian Trust funds. The HLIP incorporates supporting
tasks, critical milestones, work plans, resource estimates and
accountable officials who are charged with the responsibility to ensure
its success. The HLIP was implemented under the guidance and oversight
of the Trust Management Improvement Steering Committee, chaired by the
Secretary of the Interior with membership including the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs, Assistant Secretary -Land and Minerals
Management, Assistant Secretary--Policy Management and Budget, Special
Trustee for American Indians, Solicitor and Chief Information Officer.
The bureaus are individually responsible for implementing trust
management improvement activities in their respective line
organizations. On behalf of the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary--
Policy, Management and Budget conducts semimonthly meetings with top
bureau officials to report on the activities associated with the plan
and to deal with any resource issues, roadblocks, or other matters.
Since the approval of the HLIP by the Secretary, there are notable
successes evident in the Plan's Sub projects. The Department is
confident the HLIP is an appropriate mechanism to articulate the
strategies to address the longstanding Trust management system
problems.
Question. On April 28 the Indian Affairs Committee will have an
oversight hearing on the BIA's Capacity and Mission to determine
whether we are asking the Bureau to do too much, or the wrong things or
whatever. In the next 10 years do you see the Bureau primarily as a
service provider or a technical assistance provider?
Answer. Currently, Bureau programs are approximately 50 percent
under contract, compact, or grant. In the next 10 years, the Bureau
will continue to be in transition and serving both as a service
provider and provider of technical assistance. The ``mix'' of each role
depends largely on how much funding is provided for Bureau programs..
The primary impediment to Tribes' interest in taking programs under
contract or compact is that funding is insufficient to properly execute
those programs. Nonetheless, as Tribes secure funds from other sources,
Tribes continue to accept the responsibility for additional programs so
the Bureau will continue to turn programs over to Tribes once the
contract/compact moratorium is lifted. It is clearly the intention of
the Bureau to encourage Tribes to manage their own programs and reduce
the Bureau's role to providing technical assistance and a Federal
Government contact for the government-to-government relationship
promised the Tribes.
Question. Public Law 93-638 has been very successful for the Tribes
that have chosen to administer their own programs. Should Congress
require that all Tribes provide services by administering self
determination contracts and compacts? If not, how long can the Bureau
continue to be an effective service provider to non-contracting Tribes?
Answer. The Congress should not require Tribes to provide services
or to establish Tribal consortia that provide services. At the same
time, it does become increasingly difficult for the Bureau to function
as an adequate service provider. The most difficult problem exists
where most of the Tribes in an Agency or Area decide to contract but a
single Tribe remains, requiring direct Bureau provision of service.
Fortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule. In places such
as the Aberdeen Area and the Billings Area, most of the Tribes continue
to expect services to be provided by the Bureau. They view that service
as a right guaranteed by the Federal Government and would only consider
assuming responsibility for providing service if significant increases
in funds were available. This allows the Bureau to be reasonably
effective and take advantage of a larger scale operation. In those
places where only a few Tribes demand direct service, the Bureau will
have to continually reorganize to provide services where they are
needed.
Question. Can you briefly explain the proposed regulations on ``Fee
to Trust Land Acquisitions'' by Indian tribes?
Answer. The proposed regulation will amend the current fee-to-trust
acquisition regulation found at 25 CFR 151 as follows:
A. The proposed regulation will make acquisitions in trust easier
for individual Indians and Tribes when the property is located on-
reservation. Each applicant will still have to comply with the
following factors: (a) existence of statutory authority to take lands
into trust; (b) the need for additional land in trust status; (c) state
how the land will be used; (d) supply title insurance or abstract of
title; and (e) provide information that allows the Secretary to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act and Hazardous Substances
Determinations. Applicants will not be required to address the impact,
jurisdictional issues, taxation, or regulatory issues affecting the
state and local governments. In other words, the Secretary will lean
toward a more favorable decision to Tribes acquiring lands in trust
inside their reservations.
B. The proposed regulation will make acquisitions in trust more
difficult for Tribes when the property is located off-reservation. The
applicant will still have to comply with all the current factors for
on-reservation acquisitions, which are: (a) authority; (b) need; (c)
proposed use; (d) for individuals, amount of land already owned and
decree to which the individual needs assistance in handling his
affairs; (e) impact on the state and local governments; (f)
jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts; (g) whether the Bureau
is equipped to discharge additional responsibilities; and (h) provide
information that allows the Secretary to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act and Hazardous Substances Determinations.
In addition, the applicant must also address: (1) the past,
present, proposed use of the land, and any future anticipated uses of
the land; (2) the location of the land in relation to the reservation,
Bureau's Agency, Bureau Area Office, and the State boundary; (3) impact
to local governments from loss of tax revenues; (4) any agreements with
the state or local governments for payments of lost revenues; (5)
ability of local governments to provide public safety services (fire
protection and emergency medical services); (6) past, present, and
future law enforcement on the land; (7) an analysis of road capacity
and traffic impacts; (8) impacts on available water supply and local
utilities; and (9) impact on local sanitation and sewage services. In
other words, the Secretary will lean toward a more favorable decision
to the non-Indian community when Tribes are acquiring lands in trust
outside their reservations.
C. Lands that are contiguous to a Tribe's reservation will be
considered as off-reservation for acquisition purposes.
D. The proposed regulation allows Tribes without reservations to
establish a ``Tribal Land Acquisition Area'' which will be considered
as on-reservation for purposes of acquiring lands in trust.
E. There are new provisions for Congressionally-mandated
acquisitions.
F. The Secretary will continue to not take lands into trust in
Alaska except for the Metlakatla Indian Community.
G. The Secretary will not take lands into trust until all
administrative and judicial appeals are exhausted.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
land consolidation pilot program
Three Wisconsin Tribes have been identified to participate in the
Land Consolidation Pilot Program. These Tribes have expressed a number
of concerns about the implementation of the pilot program, and in
particular, are concerned that BIA has set up the pilot program in a
manner that unduly limits the role of the Tribes.
Question. The tribes have indicated that key parcels of land are
being overlooked. Why have the tribes been prevented from identifying
parcels of land for acquisition?
Answer. The Appropriation language specifically states:
``For implementation of a pilot program for consolidation of
fractional interests in Indian lands by direct expenditure or
cooperative agreement, $5,000,000 to remain available until expended,
of which not to exceed $250,000 shall be available for administrative
expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may enter into a cooperative
agreement, which shall not be subject to Public Law 93-638, as amended,
with a tribe having jurisdiction over the pilot reservation to
implement the program to acquire fractional interests on behalf of such
tribe: Provided further, That the Secretary may develop a reservation-
wide system for establishing the fair market value of various types of
lands and improvements to govern the amounts offered for acquisitions
of fractional interests: Provided further, That acquisitions shall be
limited to one or more pilot reservations as determined by the
Secretary: Provided further, That funds shall be available for
acquisition of fractional interests in trust or restricted lands with
the consent of its owners and at fair market value, and the Secretary
shall hold in trust for such tribe all interests acquired pursuant to
this pilot program: Provided further, That all proceeds from any lease,
resource sales contract, right of way or other transaction derived from
the fractional interest shall be credited to this appropriation, and
remain available until expended, until the purchase price paid by the
Secretary under this appropriation has been recovered from such
proceeds: Provided further, That once the purchase price has been
recovered, all subsequent proceeds shall be managed by the Secretary
for the benefit of the applicable tribe or paid directly to the
tribe.''
The Bureau has met with Tribal officials from each of the three
Tribes and discussed the project, Tribal participation, why the program
was developed and its intended objective of producing a measurable
reduction in fractional interests on the three Reservations. It is
vital that the Tribes participate in the program to assist the Bureau
in achieving the objectives of the pilot project and to seize increased
economic opportunity on lands that are consolidated into Tribal
ownership.
To that end, the Tribes have been offered funding to assist the
Bureau in a number of functions which will be necessary to effect the
transactions. Given the importance of achieving success with this
project and since it is a pilot demonstration, it is critical that the
focus be on the reduction of small fractional interests as opposed to
expanding the pilot to accommodate certain interests which are not
entirely devoted to this goal.
The Tribes are permitted to identify certain tracts as long they
meet the intended goals and objectives of the project. The Bureau has
not received any requests from the Tribes indicating their priorities,
nor have they communicated any preference, in such acquisitions. The
purpose of the project is to reduce and, in some cases, eliminate
fractional interests for tracts of land on these Reservations. As long
as the Tribes' priorities are aligned with this requirement, the Bureau
will accommodate them. The difficulty exists with attempting to
implement the project in such a way that would provide the most cost
effective process in reducing fractional interests. The bottom line is
to purchase as many small fractional interests as possible. If the
project's focus is allowed to shift to interests which are larger, this
would defeat the purpose of the project resulting in a smaller impact
on the reduction of record keeping responsibilities for the Bureau. The
project's primary objective is not to be a means for land acquisition
but rather to reduce and eliminate a pervasive problem of Indian land
titles and management. Certainly, one of the benefits is that the
Tribes will obtain ownership and control of properties that would have
continued to be unproductive and a drain on existing resources.
Question. What role does the Bureau envision the tribes playing in
future acquisition decisions? Does BIA intend to maintain the same
level of control over future land consolidation projects?
Answer. This project is a pilot and any future projects will be
somewhat dependent on its outcome. It is too early in the
implementation of this project to determine and provide any clear
indication as to how future possible projects will be addressed.
However, it is important that the Tribal Governments participate in the
process to assist the Bureau in obtaining a successful result. After
the requirements and results are determined for this project, contracts
with Tribes could be considered as another approach that could be used
for future allocations.
Question. According to the tribes, there are key parcels of land
that have ownership of less than three percent. Why has the threshold
been set at less than two percent?
Answer. The priority for acquiring less than two percent interests
is because they constitute the highest percentage of all interests in
these properties. They also represent the largest number of record
keeping responsibilities for the Bureau and result in additional
probates, leases, right-of- ways, financial accounts, etc. The Bureau
has not ruled out acquiring interests above the two percent level, as
long as it fits within the goal of overall reduction. For example, if
an individual has multiple two percent interests and has a number of
interests in the two to five percent range, it would be reasonable to
attempt to purchase all of that person's interests to prevent further
fractionation.
Question. What would BIA's position be on a provision to permit
Tribes to contract for the pilot project under Public Law 93-638?
Answer. This project is a pilot and any future projects will be
somewhat dependent on its outcome. It is too early in the
implementation of this project to determine and provide any clear
indication as to how future possible projects will be addressed.
However, it is important that the Tribal Governments participate in the
process to assist the Bureau in obtaining a successful result. After
the requirements and results are determined for this project, contracts
with Tribes could be considered as another approach that could be used
for future allocations. However, the Bureau would consider contracting
only on terms that ensure that our primary objectives are addressed.
Acquisition of land for the Tribes is not the primary objective.
Instead, the primary objectives are the consolidation of unproductive
interests and the reduction of administrative costs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
indian trust funds
In 1996, five Native Americans filed suit against the Clinton
administration for mismanaging billions of dollars in trust funds held
for Indians. BIA funnels $500 million a year into 300,000 trust
accounts held by individual Native Americans.
Much of the money cannot be accounted for, but BIA contends that a
massive records overhaul will correct the problem.
In a recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth found
Secretaries Babbit and Rubin in contempt for withholding trust fund
records and other documents during the hearing. The judge assigned a
Special Trustee, Mr. Thompson, to monitor the financial dealings of BIA
and correct the problem.
Question. What are your plans to overhaul the records management
system for Indian trust accounts?
Answer. The plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Babbitt have requested that
we produce all records (title reports, leases, probate orders, etc.)
related to their individual trust accounts, including those of their
predecessors dating to the original trust patents issued in the late
1800's. Judge Lamberth ruled Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin and the
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs in contempt due to our failure to
produce all trust fund documents for five named plaintiffs and their
predecessors in interest. The judge assigned a Special Master, Mr. Alan
Balaran, to oversee the discovery process and administer document
production compliance with court orders and related matters. The costs
to produce documents for the five-named Plaintiffs and thier
predecessors in interest based on the Government's definition of
predecessor is estimated to be $13 million. The definition of
predecessor remains before the Special Master for decision. The
Solicitor has advised that the definition advocated by the Plaintiffs
would add thousands of individuals to the definition. If Plaintiffs
prevail, the costs to produce these documents will increase by tens of
millions.
In accordance with the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform
Act of 1994, the Special Trustee is charged with trust fund reform
oversight. Mr. Thomas Thompson is currently serving as the Acting
Special Trustee while the Administration conducts a search to fill the
post permanently. In April 1997, the Special Trustee submitted his
``Strategic Plan to Implement the Reforms Required by the American
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994''. Notwithstanding the
Secretary's reservations about certain aspects of the Strategic Plan,
the Secretary and the Special Trustee agreed that selected trust system
improvements and data clean up efforts in the Strategic Plan should
proceed. The approach selected to implement the Secretary's decisions
on portions of the Special Trustee's Strategic Plan is centered on 13
major Sub Projects outlined in the Department of the Interior's High
Level Implementation Plan. This Plan outlines the comprehensive,
coordinated, inter-Bureau effort to correct the many well- documented
problems associated with the Department's management of Indian trust
funds. Implementation of this Plan will cost $136 million through
fiscal year 2000.
Presently, the Office of the Special Trustee and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs are developing and implementing two systems--the Trust
Funds Accounting System and Trust Assets Account Management System--
which will facilitate management of trust funds and trust land
transactions. Records management considerations are being incorporated
into the information system development. For example, all existing
electronic information systems will have their data and documentation
scheduled under the Federal Records Act requirements.
In addition, the Secretary's High Level Implementation Plan
contains a Records Management Sub project to resolve Indian Affairs
long standing records management weakness in the Bureau. The scope of
the Sub project includes Indian Affairs records policy, management,
storage, access, control and disposition and electronic records-
keeping, including imaging technology. The Sub project was further
refined based on a recent study of the Bureau and Office of Special
Trustee's (OST) records management activities. The recommendations and
actions to be taken to implement each of the recommendations that
resulted from the study follow. While OST has requested $7.4 million in
fiscal year 2000 to reform Indian Affairs records management, senior
officials from the BIA, OST and the Department will share in the
responsibility of overseeing the reform efforts. Please see attached
High Level Implementation Plan--Records Management Sub Project.
Question. What is BIA doing to compensate the Native Americans
whose trust accounts have been lost?
Answer. In November, 1997, the Department submitted its
recommendations for settlement of disputed Tribal trust fund accounts
to the Congress. The recommendations were based on the Tribal
Reconciliation Project, a five-year, $21 million study of Tribal
accounts undertaken by Arthur Anderson, LLP under the supervision of
the Department. The Department drafted legislation and, after a series
of consultation meetings with Tribes, submitted the proposal to the
Congress. The Administration's proposal envisioned immediate payment of
known errors, a good faith settlement offer to all Tribes with trust
accounts that did not accept the good faith settlement offer, and
finally, litigation for those circumstances where a settlement could
not be reached. It was introduced by Congressman Miller by request on
April 30, 1998 (H.R. 3782). A joint hearing of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee and the House Resources Committee was held on the
proposal on July 22, 1998. The Inter Tribal Monitoring Association
(ITMA) offered its own proposal as well. The 105th Congress ended
without the adoption of any Tribal settlement legislation. Departmental
officials have met several times this year with ITMA representatives to
discuss principles for a new consensus settlement bill. The Department
invites active involvement of the Congress in developing Tribal Trust
Funds settlement legislation.
The administration of Individual Indian Monies accounts for
individual Indians is the subject of the Cobell v. Babbitt et. al.
litigation. While Plaintiffs in this lawsuit contend that they have
claims for recovery of ``lost'' funds and/or for damages for alleged
mismanagement of trust lands (or other assets), this lawsuit does not
involve a claim for monetary relief. Lawsuits for such claims have yet
to be filed.
more teachers in native american schools
In an effort to reduce class size in Native American Communities,
Education Secretary Riley has introduced a program to train 1,000
teachers to teach in Native American communities.
The BIA Office of Education Programs will receive $3.46 million
from the Department of Education's Class Size Reduction Program for the
173 schools funded by BIA. Although the funds are to target reducing
class size in grades one through three, each BIA-funded school is
eligible to participate.
At this time, the Department of Education feels funds should be
distributed based on student enrollment. However, if this method of
distribution is used, only 62 of the 173 Bureau funded schools will
receive enough money to hire one teacher.
Question. How does the BIA propose the money from the program be
distributed?
Answer. The Bureau is working with the Department of Education
(Department) on the distribution methodology for the Class Size
Reduction program funds. The Department is currently requiring that
these funds be distributed to schools based on enrollment and level of
poverty. As BIA's 185 schools qualify for the free and reduced lunch
program and as high poverty schools the Bureau is working with the
Department to re-evaluate its distribution method.. In addition, the
Bureau funds many schools with small enrollments due to the isolation
and rural conditions where Bureau schools are located. If funds are
distributed based on enrollment, the Bureau will have some schools
receiving only $900, which is not sufficient to effect a reduction in
class size. The Bureau is recommending that the funds be distributed
equally to each school. This would result in each school receiving
approximately $20,000, which in some locations is enough to hire a
beginning teacher. The Bureau will continue to work with the Department
on this issue.
ishi's remains
Three weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Smithsonian's Museum of
Natural History Director regarding the repatriation of the remains of
Ishi, the last of the Yahi Indians.
For over 80 years, it was widely believed that Ishi's entire body
was cremated by officials at the University of California, Berkeley
after his death from tuberculosis. But in February, two historians
found that a Berkeley anthropologist offered Ishi's brain to the
Smithsonian.
Ishi's remains are currently stored in a formaldehyde tank at the
Smithsonian Institution's Maryland storage facility. The discovery has
angered American Indians in Northern California, and around the nation,
who believe that an Indian's spirit cannot travel to the afterlife
unless his remains are buried whole. The rest of Ishi's body was
cremated and buried in a cemetery in Colma, California.
Museum policy dictates that Native American remains can only be
returned to ancestors of a person's tribe. However, Ishi was the last
of his tribe.
Question. The Smithsonian can only return Ishi's remains to Indians
with close cultural, linguistic and dietary ties to Ishi's people. What
can the BIA do to help in the search for possible ancestors of the Yahi
tribe?
Answer. Under the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), remains are returned to the Tribe with which
they have a close cultural affiliation. This distinction is
significant, because the closest affiliation may, in fact, be a quite
distant relationship. Under NAGPRA, museums are responsible for
determining which Tribe has the closest cultural affiliation to a given
set of remains. The Bureau has no statutory or regulatory role in that
process. The Bureau may, however, serve as a source of information for
museums who are seeking to make determinations of closest cultural
affiliation.
subcommittee recess
Senator Dorgan. Thank you all very much for appearing. The
subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
April 15, when we will receive testimony from Mike Dombeck,
Chief, U.S. Forest Service, and James R. Lyons, Under
Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, USDA.
[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., Wednesday, April 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
April 15.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Domenici, Burns,
Bennett, Byrd, and Kohl.
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:
VINCETTE GOERL, DEPUTY CHIEF, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
RON STEWART, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION
GLORIA MANNING, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
CLYDE THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, BUSINESS OPERATIONS
JANICE MC DOUGLE, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE
FORESTRY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. Good morning. As we begin this hearing I am
delighted to welcome as witnesses Jim Lyons, Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and the Environment, of the Department of
Agriculture, and Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service,
both of whom are familiar with this subcommittee and have been
here frequently before.
budget resolution
Before we take up the Forest Service budget request for the
fiscal year 2000, let me make some observations about the
current fiscal climate in which this subcommittee is required
to do its work. Based on a budget resolution, which will be
passed later today, the total for non-defense discretionary
spending available for the entire appropriations subcommittee
will be less than a freeze level. This subcommittee can expect,
therefore, that its allocation will also be less than last
year's.
Accordingly, I do not see how the Congress can provide more
than the $1 billion increase proposed by the President for this
year's Interior and related agencies' bill. It is against this
backdrop that we must examine the Forest Service budget.
budget and accountability
After the various gimmicks are set aside, the President
proposes to increase the agency's budget by $172 million over
1999. Even if we were not faced with the current budget
constraints, it is increasingly difficult for members in either
the House or Senate to support such large increases in the
Forest Service budget. There is a widespread feeling that the
Forest Service has not become accountable when it becomes to
policy issues or how it spent its money.
For example, the Forest Service's financial statements have
been subject to an annual audit by the USDA Inspector General
and the General Accounting Office since fiscal year 1991. The
agency has yet to receive a clean audit opinion despite
repeated promises to improve its performance. Moreover, in
January 1989, the General Accounting Office added the Forest
Service to its list of agencies at ``high risk'' of waste,
fraud, abuse and mismanagement due to the unreliability of the
agency's financial statements.
The agency does not fare much better when it comes to
fulfilling its policy mission. Indeed, the Forest Service seems
each year to move farther and farther away from its statutory
mission of multiple-use to one solely of preservation. The
agency's year 2000 budget proves the point. While the Service
proposes large increases in many of its non-commodity programs,
the only program slated for a significant decrease is the
timber program.
Let us review some of these programs in a little more
detail. First, there is $53 million in increases for the
purchase of conservation easements and for USDA rural business
loans as a part of the administration's land legacy smart
growth initiative; second, $37 million in increases for
research in the areas of vegetation management and wildlife and
aquatic habit; and third, $23 million more for fish and
wildlife habitat management.
As I said, the only Forest Service program slated for a
large decrease is timber sales. Apparently, the 75 percent
decrease in timber harvest levels on Forest Service lands since
1990 does not fit with the agency's agenda, because the fiscal
year 2000 budget proposes to cut the timber sales program by
another $30 million and reduce its harvest level an additional
400 million board feet, and that is not all.
By the Forest Service's own estimates the agency's recently
announced interim rule implementing a moratorium on road
building in roadless areas will also serve to delay 170 million
to 260 million board feet currently planned for offer in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000.
Other funding priorities in this budget raise troubling
questions. The Forest Service wildfire preparedness program,
which performs critical work concerning human safety and the
protection of Federal and private property, were frozen at last
year's levels. But according to the agency's own formula this
represents a 7-percent decrease in the preparedness level.
I do not see the merits of this decision when recent data
compiled by the GAO shows that 39 million acres of national
forest lands in the interior west are a tinderbox. Likewise,
the agency's decision to fund the recreation management program
at last year's level in the face of ever-increasing demand for
recreation by the public raises questions about how the agency
is allocating its resources. I find it difficult to reconcile
increases of 600 percent for programs that focus on acquiring
easements on private land with the decision to hold level or
cut many of these other critical programs that serve existing
forest service lands.
Do not misunderstand me. Acquisition programs like Forest
Legacy have done good work on the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway,
and other projects across the country, but the magnitude of the
proposed increase in this program in light of other funding
needs seems excessive.
budget restructuring
Finally, at last year's hearing we discussed the issue of
budget restructuring. Chief Dombeck and Mr. Lyons, along with
then Chief Operating Officer Francis Pendolfi emphasized the
need for significant budget restructuring as a necessary part
of fiscal accountability for the Forest Service.
Last year's bill directed the Forest Service to eliminate
the general administration line item as a part of larger budget
restructuring proposals that the agency would work out with
Congress prior to your submission of the fiscal year 2000
budget. I see that this budget still contains the general
administration line item, and that the fiscal year 2000 budget
includes only minor restructuring.
It does not seem that budget restructuring has been taken
seriously. At a minimum the Forest Service has disregarded the
explicit direction of Congress. As I said last year, while we
may disagree on some policy issues, I believe that we should be
able to work together on a budget restructuring proposal that
will enhance the Forest Service's ability to account for
appropriated dollars and get work done on the ground. I look
forward to hearing from you about any proposals the Forest
Service is working on in this area.
With that, I will turn to my distinguished ranking
Democratic member, Senator Byrd.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a
question about the Wood Education and Resource Center. The
President's budget request for the Forest Service funds for the
center is $1.5 million, which covers basics such as salaries,
but not much else.
In fiscal year 1999, at my request, and with the direction
of this committee and the Congress, the Forest Service took
over the Hardwood Training Center and renamed it the Wood
Education and Resource Center. We added $2.5 million directly
to the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for that center. It is
now being operated by the State and private forestry part of
the Forest Service, but the Forest Service has also formed a
partnership between the Wood Education and Resource Center.
Were you asking for questions at this point, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Gorton. Well, basically, I was letting people have
their opening statements, and I will let the two witnesses
testify first, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Fine. Let me just postpone the remainder of
my statement and question until you are ready for that.
Senator Gorton. OK. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. I have no statement. Mine will come in the
form of questions, Mr. Chairman. I am just absolutely ecstatic
and elated waiting in anticipation of the witnesses before us.
Senator Gorton. Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. I am sure the witnesses are as well. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for an opening
statement. I want to welcome Secretary Lyons and Chief Dombeck.
I have met with them both in anticipation of their testimony,
and I have appreciated the way in which they have always kept
the lines of communication open and worked with me on issues
relating to Utah.
I must raise one issue generally, which I have raised with
them privately, but need to get on the record, which I think
may not be a parochial issue, and from the chairman's opening
statement does not sound to me like it is completely parochial.
FOREST HEALTH
The Forest Service's new direction seems to be aimed at
eliminating timber sales. We have a forest health crisis in the
Dixie National Forest. Over 200,000 acres of the forest have
been decimated by beetles, and there is concern that the Forest
Service has not done enough to stop the decimation, and the
problem is that the local mills are starving, for lack of wood,
and by coincidence the local forest is starving too, because
the beetles are not being dealt with, and the cutting down of
trees that would stop the infestation of the beetles is not
being allowed.
There are those that have gone so far as to say that, in an
effort to prevent timber sales, which seems to be the mission
of the Forest Service currently, or some portions of the Forest
Service, they are allowing a condition that is destroying the
forest, and we will end up with neither forest nor forest
sales.
So that is an issue we think we ought to pursue, and I am
looking forward to hearing from the witnesses on that and other
issues relating to the timber sale question that the chairman
raised.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
I think at this point we should hear from the witnesses. I
believe Mr. Lyons, you are schedule to go first.
summary statement of Hon. James R. Lyons
Mr. Lyons. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Fine.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, sir. It is a pleasure to be
here this morning and to be joined by Senators Byrd, Burns, and
Bennett to discuss issues related to the Forest Services fiscal
year 2000 budget.
forest health and sustainability
Last year when I testified before the subcommittee I
emphasized that despite the many contentious debates we have
had over Forest Service management issues, I believe the
Congress and the administration agree in many more areas than
we disagree, at least in terms of our overall goal of
protecting the health and sustainability of the nation's
forest, and we worked together last year over the fiscal year
1999 appropriations debate, and I think worked out some very
contentious issues.
For example, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we worked very
closely with you to try to resolve issues over conveyance of
the Wind River Nursery of Skamania County in exchange for
county lands while protecting the research values of the Wind
River Experiment Station, and I think that project is
proceeding nicely.
I think there may be some technical changes to what we
agreed to last year, but I think all parties are in agreement
that we can get this issue resolved.
Similarly, we worked diligently to finalize a complex land
exchange between the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee
National Forest and Plum Creek Timber Company, which I think is
going to benefit both the company and the public in that region
of the country. We also worked closely with Congress on a range
of broad national issues.
One of those, of course, was the forest health issue, and
we are pleased with your granting us the authority to develop
an experimental program we call the Stewardship Contracting
Program to help improve forest health in collaboration with
local interests through long-term contracts designed to address
forest health concerns. I think in a number of instances,
although we agreed to disagree in others, we were able to work
together to accomplish some very important things.
This year's budget, despite the concern we have for the
overall budget resolution and the atmosphere in which we are
working, would recommend a 6.5-percent increase in our
appropriations over the 1999 appropriations act. The budget
continues to emphasize critical investments necessary for the
management, restoration, and protection of the agency's 192
million acres of public lands as well as needed reinvestments
in the State and private arena, as well as in the research
programs.
lands legacy initiative
There are a number of initiatives that were identified in
the budget that I would like to highlight for the members of
the subcommittee. First of all the President's budget includes
a new Lands Legacy Initiative, which you referenced in your
opening statement, Mr. Chairman. The Lands Legacy Initiative is
a $1 billion Federal program which includes about $218 million
in Forest Service funding.
It is an initiative that focuses on working with States,
local governments, and willing partners to protect great
places, conserve open space for recreation and wildlife, and to
preserve forests, farmlands, and coastal areas.
Currently, 30 million people live within an hour's drive of
national forest system lands, and that has changed dramatically
the management and the pressures that are placed on our forest
supervisors.
Recently, the front page of the Portland Oregonian, for
example, highlighted a decision by the Mount Hood National
Forest supervisor to reevaluate a proposal to limit hiking on
the parts of the forest's wilderness lands. When the supervisor
proposed to limit access the public outcry was such that he
elected to pull back and take another look at how to better
manage the recreation use on the Mount Hood, which is growing
at an exponential rate.
The national forests adjacent or in close proximity to
cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Boise, Salt Lake, Albuquerque, Boston, and Durham, New
Hampshire, and many others are increasingly challenged to meet
the multiple and expanding needs of customers who also share in
the ownership of these resources.
Two elements of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative
would support the acquisition of long-term conservation
easements, the forest lands, and open space threatened by
development. To be clear, these programs are to be used only to
acquire lands and interest in lands on a willing seller basis,
but we believe additional investments in the Forest Service's
land acquisition and the Forest Legacy program are critical
components of the fiscal year 2000 budget.
puget sound map photographs
I want to also highlight another element of the Lands
Legacy Initiative, Mr. Chairman, by use of satellite photos. I
will put that up now. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you are very
familiar with this part of the world.
Senator Gorton. I can tell what that is a map of.
Mr. Lyons. I thought you would. What is interesting about
this map, and I want to credit American Forests for working
with the Forest Service in putting this information together,
is that there has been a tremendous loss of tree cover in the
Puget Sound region over the past few years. In fact, the total
loss during this time period has been 37 percent of the tree
cover in that particular region.
I think this helps to illustrate the point that the loss of
forest cover and rapidly urbanizing environments like Seattle
is a risk to watersheds, to viewsheds, and in general, the
quality of life in the region. You are all too familiar, Mr.
Chairman, and, in fact, I realize that you recently had a
hearing on issues related to salmon and salmon listings in the
region, this deforestation and the extent to which it is
occurring is one of the issues that is exacerbating concerns
related to future salmon habitat.
Now, the Forest Service administers programs designed to
work with communities to help maintain forest cover, to
preserve open space, and those quality-of-life elements that
are disappearing from the Puget Sound region. The specific
program I am referring to is the Urban and Community Forestry
Program.
urban and community forestry
It is one of the programs we have proposed for an increase
in funding this year, and hopefully for permanent funding,
should the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] legislation
be authorized this year by the Congress.
It is a program that is vital to helping communities help
themselves protect their national resources, whether they are
in their communities, neighborhoods, or backyards. I want to
point out that we also have active Urban and Community Forestry
Programs in all 50 States, especially in the Salt Lake area,
that I know Senator Bennett is very familiar with.
Just 3 weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you when
Mike and I came to visit, I was part of a wetlands restoration
effort on the Dwuamish estuary, and I would acknowledge, as you
pointed out, that we are not likely to save the Dwuamish
estuary through one wetlands restoration effort.
I think the participation in that restoration work does a
lot to not only engender community spirit, but a greater
understanding of the role that communities can play in long-
term conservation.
clean water action plan
The President's fiscal year 2000 goal for the Clean Water
Action Plan is to further enhance Forest Service programs which
assure that all the nation's lands, not just the National
Forest lands, provide clean water, healthy fish and wildlife,
as well as sustain the production of goods and services the
public demands from our forested lands. Certainly, the debate
over salmon and the future of listed species of salmon,
steelhead, and bulltrout has brought the issue of watershed
health and watershed protection to national focus.
insects and disease
Equally important to watershed health would be appropriate
investments in sustainable forestry, particularly, as Senator
Bennett pointed out, where insects and disease have killed
thousands of acres of productive forest lands, oftentimes
leaving a powder keg of dead and dying trees awaiting ignition.
I know some of the members have seen this forest risk map
that we are displaying now. I want to refer in particular, for
an example, to the insect and disease problems we are facing in
Northern Idaho. In recognition of the problems reflected by the
threat in Northern Idaho, we are working cooperatively with the
State to limit the impact of bark beetles on high-value stands,
particularly in recreational and wildland-urban interface areas
where the risk of wildfire to life and property is significant.
We are using various means to address the beetle
infestation, as well as removing currently infested trees,
conducting thinning, and establishing field breaks to reduce
hazardous fuels, and to restore stands to a drought resistant
and insect and disease tolerant situation.
payments to states
The fiscal year 2000 budget contains additional initiatives
as well. As was proposed last year, the administration again
intends to forward legislation to stabilize payments to States.
I believe it is essential to provide these payments through a
process that does not link the output of forest products to the
education of our rural school children or the quality of roads
used by their parents.
On this subject, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the debate is
centered around the future of the timber sale program, as if
this is the only issue at hand, but I would implore the
Congress to take a different look at the issue. The reality is
that this issue is about education.
Is it right to continue to balance the education of
thousands of children in rural communities on the backs of the
timber sale program? If you asked a parent of one of these
children if they were more comfortable with a stable funding
base for their children's education needs, as opposed to
funding that depended on future Federal timber sales, they
might provide you with a different perspective.
roads
Let me briefly focus on one additional issue, Mr. Chairman,
and that is the Forest Service Road System. The fiscal year
2000 budget seeks an increase in funding of about $23 million
for the maintenance of roads important to rural transportation,
as well as investments that will help obliterate roads that are
no longer needed or beyond repair. Although we are pleased with
this increase, it is important to emphasize that the
maintenance and capital improvement needs of the Forest Service
road system continues to grow. This chart helps to illustrate
that fact.
maintenance
As you can see, the annual maintenance needs for our road
system today are about $568 million compared to the fiscal year
1999 funding level of just about $100 million. Until we close
this gap, either through increased funding or reducing the size
of the road system, the $8.4 billion backlog in forest road
maintenance will continue to grow significantly each year.
Mr. Chairman, I want to end my remarks by restating that I
am confident that with your support we can work together to
build a Forest Service program that accomplishes the long-term
land health objectives that we have, that helps to ensure
delivery of clean water, provides quality access, assures
diverse recreational opportunities for all Americans, and helps
to preserve and protect the natural legacy that we are
entrusted to manage.
prepared statement
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the numbers are tight, and
we are going to face a very difficult challenge, but as you
demonstrated in the past, I am confident with your continued
leadership we will be able to get through this issue as well,
and I look forward to addressing any questions that the
subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Lyons
Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.
background
Last year when I testified before this Subcommittee, I emphasized
that despite many contentious debates we have had on Forest Service
management issues, Congress and the Administration agree more than we
disagree on our goals for the sustainable use of our national forests.
Despite differences regarding budget priorities and the environmental
riders which were part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations debate,
we worked together to develop a bill which moved the Forest Service
forward to resolve some of the contentious issues we faced in
addressing high priority watershed and forest health concerns.
Let me note some examples of this cooperation: In your home State
of Washington, Mr. Chairman, we worked closely with you to convey
portions of the Wind River Nursery to Skamania County in exchange for
county lands while protecting the research values of the Wind River
Experimental Forest. We worked with you to finalize a complex land
exchange between the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National
Forests and the Plum Creek Timber Company which will enhance recreation
opportunities, improve wilderness management, and result in more
efficient administration of Forest Service and Plum Creek lands. We
also worked closely with Congress on broad national issues including
developing an experimental program for end results contracting to
improve forest health in collaboration with local interests. We jointly
addressed the sensitive issue of anchor bolts in wilderness areas by
increasing public involvement as part of the decision making process.
As these examples show, I continue to believe we have common interests
and greater agreement than disagreement, although I'm sure we'll be
involved in tough debate again over this year's budget.
As for the Forest Service fiscal year 2000 budget, it would provide
for an overall increase in discretionary appropriations of 6.5 percent
compared to the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act. The budget
continues to emphasize critical investments necessary for the
management, restoration, and protection of the agency's 192 million
acres of public lands. In addition, the budget proposes a substantial
increase of $37.2 million to enhance the agency's leading role in
Forest and Rangeland Research. Finally, the budget also proposes
increases in selected State and Private Forestry programs, which are
key components of the agency's management portfolio that has been
largely overlooked.
presidential priorities
The President has proposed several initiatives in the fiscal year
2000 budget, as well as continued investment in the Clean water Action
Plan, first initiated as part of the fiscal year 1999 budget.
The President's budget includes a new Lands Legacy Initiative, the
largest one-year investment ever made in the preservation of America's
lands. The Lands Legacy Initiative is a $1 billion Federal program, and
includes $217.6 million in Forest Service funding. The initiative
focuses on working with States, tribes, local governments, and willing
private partners to protect great places, conserve open space for
recreation and wildlife, and to preserve forests, farmlands, and
coastal areas.
Currently, 30 million people live within an hour's drive of
national forest system lands. The pressures on these lands to meet
growing recreation demand are tremendous. Recently the front page of
the Portland Oregonian highlighted a decision by the Mount Hood
National Forest Supervisor to reevaluate a proposal to limit hiking on
parts of the forests' wilderness lands. Limits were proposed to
maintain the wilderness character of these hiking experiences, yet
public outcry required a new look at the proposal.
National forests adjacent or in close proximity to cities like
Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boise, Salt Lake,
Albuquerque, Boston, Durham, NH and many others are increasingly
challenged to meet the multiple and expanding needs of customers who
also share in the ownership of these resources.
In New England, for example, the Forest Service has made judicious
use of limited land acquisition funds to purchase key recreation areas
and lakefront properties to ensure continued public access. The Lake
Tarleton acquisition completed last year in partnership with the Trust
for Public Land provides one good illustration of how limited
acquisition dollars can have a large impact in the region.
Similarly, in partnership with the governors of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, the Forest Service has committed
funds from the Forest Legacy program to aid in acquisition of key
timber and utility lands that are now being put up for sale in large
blocks. This is the same program, Mr. Chairman, that we've used in
partnership with the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust and other land
conservation groups in the Pacific Northwest to preserve important
recreation areas and hiking trails such as those that line the
Interstate 90 corridor.
Two elements of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative would
support the acquisition of long term conservation easements of
forestlands and open space threatened by development. To be clear,
these programs are used only to acquire lands and interest in lands on
a willing seller basis. But we believe additional investment in the
Forest Service's land acquisition and Forest Legacy programs are
critical components of the fiscal year 2000 budget.
I want to also highlight another element of the Lands Legacy
initiative by use of satellite photographs. I'm sure you recognize this
part of the world, Mr. Chairman. It's the Puget Sound region and the
three photos illustrate the degree to which tree cover has disappeared.
In fact the total loss in this time period has been 37 percent of tree
cover in the 24 years between 1973 and 1997 as growth occurred in the
area. I want to thank American Forests for providing me with these
photos to help illustrate the point that the loss of forested cover in
rapidly urbanizing environments like Seattle is a risk to the
watersheds, viewsheds, and, in general, to the quality of life of the
region. The Forest Service administers programs designed to work with
communities to help maintain forest cover, preserve open space and
those quality of life elements that are disappearing in the Puget Sound
region. The specific program I am referring to is the Urban and
Community Forestry Program and it is one of the programs proposed for
increases (and, hopefully, permanent, funding) in the President's
budget.
This program is vital to helping communities help themselves
protect the natural resources in their communities, neighborhoods, and
backyards. Just three weeks ago, I participated in a project to restore
a wetland in the Dwuamish estuary in the industrial part of Seattle. I
know you know that area, Mr. Chairman. I won't suggest to you that we
can bring back the Dwuamish entirely, but I can assure you that the 50
or so schoolkids who participated in the project and the Federal,
State, and local partners who joined in probably got more benefit out
of the project than the watershed. Projects like this occur every year
in communities in every State in the nation and the Urban and Community
Forestry Program makes that possible. This program needs your continued
and expanded support.
The President's fiscal year 2000 goal for the Clean Water Action
Plan is to further enhance Forest Service programs which assure that
all the nation's lands, not just National Forest lands, provide clean
water, healthy fish and wildlife habitat, as well as the sustain
production of goods and services that the public demands of our
forested lands. Certainly the debate over salmon and the future of
listed species of salmon, steelhead, and bulltrout has brought regional
if not national focus to the importance of clean water. It is important
to keep in mind the fact that approximately 25 percent of the water
that flows in the west originates in the national forests. Yet the
health of many national forest watershed has been adversely affected by
excess roading, logging, and the management activities whose cumulative
effects are a cause for concern.
Equally important to watershed health will be appropriate
investments in sustainable forestry, particularly where insect and
disease have killed thousands of acres of productive forests leaving a
powderkeg of dead and dying trees awaiting ignition. For this reason,
renewed focus is being placed on investments in thinning forest lands
and treating devastated watersheds through tree removal and prescribed
fire.
I know some Members of the Committee have seen the forest risk
maps. Let me refer to the insect and disease map now. Note the severe
problem in Northern Idaho as identified by the large red area. In
recognition of this problem the Forest Service is working cooperatively
with the State of Idaho to limit the impact of the bark beetles in high
value stands in recreational and wildland/urban interface areas using
pheromones to manipulate local beetle populations. The Forest Service
is proposing watershed restoration work on National Forest System lands
to improve forest health by removing currently infested trees, reducing
the build-up of hazardous fuel, and implementing stand treatments to
restore stands to drought resistant and insect and disease tolerant
species composition with greater proportions of white pine, western
larch, and ponderosa pine.
The fiscal year 2000 budget contains additional initiatives. As was
proposed last year, the Administration again intends to forward
legislation to stabilize payments to States. I believe it is essential
to provide these payments through a process that does not link the
output of forest products to the education of our rural school children
or the quality of the roads used by their parents. If enacted, the
legislation will result in long-term predictability of payments needed
by the States and counties of America.
On this subject, Mr. Chairman, I implore the Congress to take a
different look at this issue. Unfortunately, some would have this be
another debate over the future of timber harvests on the national
forests. But this describes the issue in too narrow a context.
The reality is that this issue is about education. Is it right to
continue to balance the education of thousands of children in rural
communities on the back of the timber sale program? If you asked a
parent of one of those children if they were more comfortable with a
stable funding base for their children's education needs as opposed to
funding that depended upon future Federal timber sales, they might
provide you with a different perspective. And that's not to say that
the Administration and the Forest Service are not committed to a
sustainable timber supply from the national forests. We've made clear
our opposition to ``zero cut.'' But the uncertainties of timber supply,
dictated by budgets, an annual debate in the halls of Congress, public
opinion, and local challenges are such that greater certainty is needed
in terms of the payments to counties for education.
Let me briefly focus on the forest road system. The fiscal year
2000 budget seeks increased funding of $22.6 million for maintenance of
roads important to rural transportation, and to obliterate roads no
longer need or beyond repair. Although we are pleased with this
increase, it is important to emphasize that road needs are significant
and the backlog of deferred maintenance and capital improvement needs
continues to grow. Let me show you a chart that depicts this. As you
can see the annual maintenance needs for our road system today is $568
million as compared to a fiscal year 1999 funding level of $99 million.
Until we close this gap, either through increased funding or reducing
the size of the road system, the $8.4 billion backlog will continue to
grow significantly each year.
Finally, the President's budget includes a significant increase in
funding for the Forest Service's Research Program. Research and sound
scientific information are the foundations for natural resource
management and critical elements in guiding future natural resource
management decisions. As recommended in the recent report of the
Committee of Scientists, we are seeking to enhance our research
investments to build a stronger link between science and management.
The proposed increases in research funding in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget are vital links to a sound scientific foundation for
sustainable forest management.
summary
Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks simply by restating that I am
confident that with your support we can work together to build a Forest
Service program that accomplishes long-term land health objectives,
delivers clean water, provides quality access, assures diverse
recreational opportunities for greater numbers of Americans, and
continues providing strong livelihoods for communities for generations
to come.
I know that the numbers are tighter and therefore, the challenges
even greater. But, we've done it before and, with your continued
leadership, will do it again. I look forward to working with you in
constructing the fiscal year 2000 budget; the agency's first step
toward its second century of conservation leadership.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
summary statement of mike dombeck
Senator Gorton. We will hear first from Mr. Dombeck.
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Byrd,
committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to
talk about our Forest Service programs.
I have with me the Deputy Chief of the Programs of the
Forest Service, Vincette Goerl, Deputy Chief, Chief Financial
Officer; Ron Stewart, Programs and Legislation; and we also
have Gloria Manning, from National Forest System; Robert Lewis,
from our Research and Technology Development; Clyde Thompson,
Business Operations; and Janice McDougle, from State and
Private Forestry.
I have been in the job now about 2 years, just a little bit
over that. In fact, it has been an interesting ride, seeing the
evolution and being part of the controversy of natural resource
management in the United States, and the issues that the Forest
Service has been involved in, and as one who likes history, it
is interesting to see that many of the controversies we are
dealing with today are very similar to the controversies that
the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, dealt
with. I think one of the premises that I like to keep in mind
is that we need to maintain our view on the long-term interest
and health of the land and the communities that are dependent
upon the land.
The 2000 budget that we will be discussing, I will be happy
to highlight some of those areas, but one thing that strikes
me, especially over the last couple of decades, is that the
makeup of our demographics, the urban growth in the United
States, the continual change in stress on local communities,
that fewer people are viewing the national forest as a
warehouse of commodities to be taken to market, and more people
are putting values on the overall health of watershed
management, forest health, and the moralistic values that the
forest ecosystems provide in this country.
The ensuing controversy that I mentioned has emanated in
many, many ways, and I am sure we will discuss many of those
ways soon, but some people look to you, the Congress, to fix
problems that they see depending on how their interests are
affective. Others push appeals to the limit, so the agency can
get on with either producing timber or not producing it,
depending upon their point of view, and still others ask the
courts to resolve land use policies through litigation, and
oftentimes we find ourselves as the wrestling mat waiting for
someone else to focus on resolving our issues.
I am hopeful that this budget and the continuing dialog
that we can have by working more closely with local
communities, with the communities of interest, will enable us
to move forward in the long-term health of the land, because
healthy watersheds, as the Organic Administration Act points
out, as well a sustainable supply of timber are important to
what we do on national forests.
In fact, I am one who believes that there is room for a
reasonable flow of outflows of timber, livestock, water, the
recreation opportunities, the many, many other wildlife
habitats that are dependent upon national forests.
watersheds
I want focus on water and what watersheds do for us just a
moment here with this graphic. It is interesting to note that
of the world's water supply, .008 percent is renewable fresh
water. This is the very water that agriculture, that humanity
is dependent upon, in a sense, this tiny drop of the entire
amount of water that is on the globe, and we have increasing
urban pressures, increasing populations, and increasing uses of
this water.
If we could take a look at the next graphic we can see that
the national forests are the largest single source of water,
making up about 14 percent, and then if we take a look at all
the forest lands of the United States, about 66 percent of the
runoff comes from all of these lands. The fact is that the best
water quality in the United States is coming off of our
forested lands. These are also the anchors for many of our
aquatic species that we have concerns over.
It is also interesting to note that 60 percent of the
nation's runoff occurs east of the Mississippi, and about 70
percent of that occurs from private forest lands. The picture
is somewhat different in the West.
For example, in California, national forests occupy about
20 percent of the State of California; yet, 50 percent of the
runoff that occurs in the State of California comes off of
National Forest System lands, and water, of course, is one of
the issues that will be of increasing importance to all
Americans as time marches on.
timber harvests
Now, as we move through the debate, there are those that
advocate we move to the timber harvest outputs of 10 years ago,
and then there are those that promote zero cut. My reaction to
that is, we need to have a little more realism in the debate.
In fact, the budget proposals provide funding for outputs,
which we believe are consistent with land health.
I do not visualize timber harvests of 10 years ago, and
also I do not visualize a wealthy nation like the United States
and the science that we have being totally dependent upon
third-world nations that have lesser environmental protections
than ours, so I believe a sensible timber program is important,
and the fact is, we have the best science, the best
technologies in the world here in the United States, and it is
important that we work together to move the debate forward.
sustainable forest management
I would like to now move to sustainable forest management.
I just recently returned from a trip to California where I was
at the Eldorado National Forest, but this is a similar
situation that I believe Senator Bennett spoke of, and I know
in every State in the West at least we had this type of
situation.
This was the Cleveland fire. It occurred in 1992. We lost 2
lives, 22,000 acres, 3,500 acres of Spotted Owl habitat, 41
homes, and other buildings burned. It destroyed the Eldorado
Canal, which supplied water to local communities on the
Eldorado.
Now, if we could take a look at the next graphic. Note the
island that was left behind. There were several islands like
this left behind. The reason that we have these, if you will,
inclusions that survive is because of management practices that
have occurred on that land, prescribed burn, those types of
things, and we need to apply this type of technology every
place that we can, and the fact is, that watershed, for a time,
lost a great portion of its watershed function, and yet in the
areas where we see the inclusions of green, the soils survived,
watershed function was maintained at least in part, and we can
apply these kinds of technologies and need to be applying these
technologies every place we can, and we can afford to.
Now, if we could take a look at the next graphic, this is
another shot on the Eldorado National Forest. This is a before
picture, before management practices were applied, in this
case, thinning some level of harvest that was economic, by the
way. Now, let us take a look at it after.
We see we have a situation here, if we have a tough fire
year, which we are going to have in many parts of the country
this year, like in your State, Senator Domenici, it is
exceedingly dry right now, we may experience a fire there, but
it is likely that it will not be a stand-replacing fire, that,
in fact, the next step in the management practice there would
be to do a prescribed burn, and then enter into a routine of
prescribed burn, and the appropriate level of management to
move forward.
Let us just take a look at the last one. I was at this spot
just a couple of weeks ago, and I believe that if we could all
get out in the field and look at some of these things that many
of the things that we discuss in our hearings and other places
like this that we could reach agreement. The fact is that we
need to apply the best technologies.
What we have on the right-hand side of the road is a fairly
healthy situation, where we have applied the science and the
management techniques. On the left-hand side of the road we
basically have problems that need to be addressed and we need
to make investments in those areas.
financial accountability
I just like to spend a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, making
some comments about accountability and financial management. I
do not think there is another chief of the Forest Service that
has had more hearings on financial management accountability
than I have, and I have only been on the job for 2 years, and
we have gotten the message, believe me, and we are in the
process of moving forward in a variety of things. I have
Vincette Goerl here to talk in detail about those things.
No. 1 is, I feel it is important for the Forest Service to
do what it has to do internally with regard to administrative
procedures, streamlining what we can streamline before we come
to the Congress and ask for changes. We have begun to do many
of those things. For example, we have eliminated retroactive
redistribution, we have reformulated work activity codes and
management codes, we have eliminated, if you will, almost a
million management codes that Vincette will talk about soon.
The business of financial management and accountability
also involves behavioral changes. You have an organization that
has a very decentralized culture, and that is the way resource
management should be, because watersheds and ecosystems are
different in one part of the country than another, but the fact
is a credit and a debit is the same wherever we go, so we are
working hard conducting training sessions and those kinds of
things to make sure that our accounting systems are what they
should be.
I was part of getting a clean financial audit for the
Bureau of Land Management when I worked there a few years ago,
and Vincette Goerl comes highly qualified, was part of the
Custom Service getting a clean financial audit, is currently
the president-elect of the D.C. Chapter of the Association of
Government Accountants, the National Finance Chair of the
Business and Professional Women's Club, and I have made
financial management and accountability as an equal priority to
resource management in the Forest Service by basically creating
a chief financial officer side of the organization that deals
with the business management side that Vincette Goerl is a part
of, as well as maintaining the natural resources side of the
program through the Associate Chief for Natural Resources and
deputies associated with that.
multiple-use management
So we have a lot of ways to go on budget structure. We want
to work on that, but I just in closing want to say that
multiple-use management is alive and well.
The balances may be different, but the fact is our 192
million acres of national forest, we have 380,000 miles of
roads, $30 billion worth of infrastructure, 74,000 authorized
uses, 23,000 developed recreation sites.
We have 35 million acres of wilderness, we have 5.8 billion
board feet of timber under contract. We graze about 2.1 million
animal unit months. We have 960 hard-rock mining operation
proposals that were approved in 1998. We have about 3,400
operations, minerals operations, that we administer. We have
about 500 energy operations, 859 million recreation visits to
the national forest.
What we have in this organization that oftentimes is under
fire, is we have the best forest and rangeland research
organization in the world. We have some of the best technical
assistance that we provide to State agencies through our State
and private forestry program. We have the best wildland fire
fighting organization in the world.
prepared statement
My hope is that our resource policy debates do not detract
from the need to streamline, to focus on what is good for the
land, and I think we all want a smooth running operation that
is efficient, that is effective, and I am sure that is a goal
that we share, Mr. Chairman, and with that I will ask that my
statement be entered into the record, and we would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Senator Gorton. Both your written statement that of Mr.
Lyons will, of course, be included in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Dombeck
Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to
discuss the Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.
In February, I addressed our employees in Missoula Montana about
the state of the Forest Service. I would like to review some of those
remarks today as I discuss the proposed budget for the Forest Service.
I am honored to have served as Chief of the Forest Service for over
two years. During this time, I have had the pleasure to be a part of
the continuing evolution in the direction of the Forest Service. I have
come to appreciate that many of the conflicts we face today over
management of natural resources are very similar to the conflicts faced
by the agency's first Chief, Gifford Pinchot. What made the Forest
Service unique under his leadership was a set of conservation values
that were not always popular, but which reflected the long term
interest of land health. Mr. Chairman, as in the days of Gifford
Pinchot, the values put forth in the President's fiscal year 2000
budget emphasize long term health of the land.
In my testimony today I want to concentrate on the values of
healthy land by elaborating on some key areas: 1) the major changes
reflected in the President's budget that set a new leadership direction
for the Forest Service; 2) how the Forest Service Natural Resource
Agenda reflects these values; and 3) how we are addressing important
accountability issues. Let me first address some overall perspectives
about where the Forest Service has been and where the Secretary and I
want to take it in the future.
Over the last decade there has been a significant change in how
society views conservation values. Many people have ceased viewing
publicly owned resources as a warehouse of outputs to be brought to
market and instead have begun assigning greater value to the positive
outcomes of forest management.
The result of such change is that we often find ourselves caught in
the middle between competing interests. Some look to you, the Congress
to ``fix'' the legislation that they perceive has negatively affected
their interests. Others push to limit the number of appeals, so the
agency can get on with producing timber or stopping timber production,
as the case may be. Still others ask courts to resolve land use
policies through litigation.
Too often we find ourselves waiting for someone else to resolve our
issues for us. I think that must end. The budget we are going to talk
about today sets the framework for the Congress, the Administration,
the States, local governments, and private parties to begin working
together in a new way to collaboratively resolve conservation
conflicts. The central premise of our approach is that by restoring and
maintaining a healthy land base on public and private lands alike, we
can ensure that our children, and their children's children enjoy the
benefits of land and water.
Mr. Chairman, with healthy watersheds as a foundation, there is
room for a reasonable flow of outputs; timber and livestock
specifically, but many other products also. There is and will be the
ability to produce cleaner water. There is a land base which will allow
us to set aside additional places untrammeled by human beings, and
there is an ability and a necessity to preserve now and for generations
to come, additional open spaces before such spaces are fragmented or
degraded due to private land development, urban sprawl, and other such
issues.
For those who advocate a return to timber outputs of 10 years ago,
or those who advocate a ``zero cut'' philosophy, I say it is time to
inject realism into the debate. The President's budget provides funding
for outputs which are consistent with land health. I can not visualize
a circumstance when such outputs will ever be at the level of 10 years
ago, but I say to the other side of the spectrum, timber harvest will,
and should continue. The President's budget contains innovations that
recognize the ability of people to restore ecosystems from those
already degraded, using modern science and technology, where people
have either contributed to poor land health by over using the land,
built roads in unstable or overly steep terrain, or prevented natural
processes such as fire. We can improve the health of these areas, and
do so by not only allowing the removal of forest products but by
demonstrating in some cases such activities can contribute to forest
health. The more timber harvest contributes to ecological
sustainability, the more predictable timber outputs will be. This
budget presents a solid balance that if enacted will help accomplish
these goals.
The Forest Service serves many people. With our 192 million acres,
383,000 miles of roads, $30 billion infrastructure, 74,000 authorized
land uses, 23,000 developed recreation sites, tens of thousands of
dispersed recreation sites, and 35 million acres of wilderness, the
national forests are many things to many people. The Forest Service has
the premier Forest and Rangeland Research organization in the world
which is involved in research to improve land health and to improve the
experiences enjoyed on the land by Americans.
specifics of the president's budget
The President's budget creates a new focus on State and Private
Forestry programs. Over time, our leadership capacity to assist those
who manage the more than 500 million acres of forests outside of the
national forest system has diminished. One of our greatest
contributions to society will be our ability to bring people together
to provide technical assistance and scientific information to States,
private landowners, and other nations of the world. The fiscal year
2000 proposed budget contains an increase of $80 million in State and
Private Forestry, and $37 million in Forest and Rangeland Research to
increase our involvement in this critical collaborative role. Consider
that we have been spending about $2 billion annually to manage the 192
million acres of national forest land, yet spend less than $200 million
in support of the 500 million acres of State managed and privately
owned lands.
With this budget, support to State and locally managed lands and
non-industrial private lands dramatically increases. The budget
proposes $218 million for the Lands Legacy Initiative, which will make
new tools available to work with States, tribes, local governments, and
private partners to protect great places, to conserve open space for
recreation, and wildlife habitat; and to preserve forest, farmlands,
and coastal areas. This $218 million is part of the President's bold
Government wide initiative to provide $1 billion for the Lands Legacy
Initiative.
The President's budget also continues support for key programs
initiated with the fiscal year 1999 budget by targeting an increase of
$89.4 million for the Clean Water Action Plan to maintain priority
attention to the health of watersheds on Federal, State, and private
lands. Let me show you two displays which graphically emphasize the
importance healthy watersheds, not only on the National Forests, but
from all forested lands. As the first graphic shows the total readily
available fresh water represents less than 1 percent of the total world
supply. It is truly a precious resource. The second chart shows that
although water from the National Forests is important, only 14 percent
actually originates from the National Forests. The vast majority
originates from other forested lands in the United States. I believe
this clearly shows the importance of the President's Clean Water Action
Plan.
Forest and Rangeland Research programs are an important aspect of
emphasis in the President's budget. In addition to funds to support
global climate issues, an additional $14 million is proposed for the
Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges project which addresses
science and technology needs related to ecological systems.
The President is also proposing as part of this budget several new
legislative initiatives. Most notably, a proposal similar to one put
forward last year, to stabilize payments to States and counties by
separating payments to counties from a reliance on receipts generated
by commodity production. At the beginning of my testimony, I noted the
need to manage outputs from the national forests in a manner consistent
with land health. In doing so, emphasis for producing those outputs has
changed. For example, today a significant number of timber sales are
sold for stewardship purposes rather than pure commodity objectives.
There is an increase in the sale of dead or dying timber. In these
cases receipts are less than were experienced several years ago. I
expect this trend to continue particularly in the west. What we are
asking is, why should the richest country in the nation finance the
education of rural schoolchildren on the back of a controversial
Federal timber program? The Forest Service has a stewardship
responsibility to collaborate with citizens to promote land health.
Collaborative stewardship implies an obligation to help provide
communities with economic diversity and resiliency so they are not
dependent on the results of litigation, the whims of nature or
unrelated social values to educate their children and pave their roads.
We need to work together so States and counties can anticipate
predictable payments on which to base education and road management
decisions.
natural resource agenda
The President's budget contains many important initiatives. It also
contains a broad program of funding for management of national forest
lands. Just one year ago I announced the Natural Resource Agenda, which
is a comprehensive science based agenda that will lead management of
the agency into the 21st century. As an integral partner with the
Government Performance and Results Act, this agenda focus on four
areas; (1) watershed health and restoration, (2) sustainable forest and
grassland ecosystem management, (3) the national forest road system,
and (4) recreation.
I want to highlight briefly our emphasis in each of these areas. A
retired Forest Service employee offered me some advice a while back. He
said, ``if you just take care of soil and water, everything else will
be OK.'' Multiple use does not mean we should do everything on every
acre simply because we can. We must protect the last best places and
restore the rest. Forest Service lands are truly the headwaters of
America. They contain riparian, wetland, and coastal areas that are
essential for the nation's water supply and prosperity. The President's
budget provides an increase of $48.6 million included in programs such
as wildlife habitat management, watershed improvements, fisheries
habitat management, rangeland vegetation management, threatened and
endangered species habitat management, and State and private forest
health programs. These increases will allow the Forest Service to make
important watershed restoration and protection efforts.
Restoration and maintenance of watershed health is contingent on
quality land management planning. As you know, the Committee of
Scientists has issued final recommendations on forest planning. The
Committee's recommendations will be used to prepare a draft planning
rule so that future forest plans will support how we will:
--provide an informed collaborative basis for decisions about
management activities, protection objectives and restoration
potential;
--provide for the protection, maintenance, and recovery of native
aquatic and riparian-dependent species and prevent the
introduction and spread of nonnative species;
--provide for monitoring to insure we accomplish our objectives in
the most cost-effective manner;
--include the best available science and research, in a collaborative
manner with interested citizens; and
--provide opportunities to link social and economic benefits to
communities through restoration strategies.
I believe our new planning approach will be invaluable in breaking
the forest planning gridlock that is hampering national forest
management in so many areas.
A second area of the Natural Resource Agenda is sustainable forest
and grassland management. The President is proposing a billion dollar
initiative to protect open space, benefit urban forests, and improve
the quality of life for the 80 percent of Americans living in urban and
suburban areas. Through sustainable forest and grassland management,
the Forest Service will play an essential role in accomplishment of
this initiative. The President's budget provides an increase of $113
million in State and Private and Research programs which are integral
to protecting and restoring the lands and waters that sustain us. We
will collaborate with State fish and wildlife agencies, State
foresters, tribes, and others to develop conservation and stewardship
plans for an additional 740,000 acres of non-industrial private
forestland. We will help States protect an estimated 135,000 additional
acres of forestland through acquisitions and conservation easements. We
will acquire environmentally sensitive lands through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and we will include nearly 800 more communities in
efforts to conserve urban and community forests. In addition, 300,000
more hours of conservation training will be provided to local
communities.
Mr. Chairman, I am truly excited about budgetary emphasis in
sustainable forest and grassland management through cooperation and
collaboration. This emphasis will carry into many programs including
fire management where we will employ fire as a tool to give priority to
high-risk wildland/urban interface areas where people, homes and
personal property are at risk. An excellent example of this need can be
understood if we examine the 1992 Cleveland Fire on the Eldorado
National Forest. This fire tragically claimed two lives, destroyed
22,500 acres including 3,400 acres of Spotted Owl habitat, and burned
41 homes and other buildings. In addition, the fire destroyed the El
Dorado Canal which supplied water to the local communities of Pollock
Pines and Camino. In examining this fire, we found there were several
areas of large trees which survived despite the intense flames. Here
topsoils were not destroyed and watershed functions continued, at least
in part. These trees survived because prescribed burns over the
previous 13 years had removed fuels sufficiently to prevent intense
heat that would have otherwise destroyed these trees.
Based on the lessons learned about the benefits of this active
management, the Eldorado National Forest identified 17 other areas
where forest health projects could avert similar fire disasters through
the use of innovative contracting techniques which involved selling
commercial timber as well as removing small diameter trees. The timber
stand which was left provided extensive wildlife and fisheries habitat
and substantially reduced the fire hazard. Not only was forest health
improved, but the timber sales produced positive economic results. The
agency collected $3 million in receipts from an investment of $430,000.
When the positive effect on the economy is considered this effort to
protect land health resulted in a total economic benefit of $4,300 per
acre on an investment of $165 per acre. Let me show you some graphics
which highlight this very successful effort. I don't want to portray a
situation where all such circumstances will result in positive economic
return, but I do want to point out how in many cases we have the chance
to improve forest health and support the local economy.
As a result of this and other experiences we understand that
resources must be devoted to using fire and other tools, such as
thinning, to reduce accumulated fuels adjacent to urban and wilderness
areas alike, to aid threatened and endangered species, and to help
lower long term costs of suppressing wildfires and protect public
safety. The stewardship end-result contracting authority which this
Subcommittee included in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act, gives
us similar opportunities to employ innovative contracting techniques to
improve forest health.
Now I would like to turn to one of the more challenging aspects of
the Natural Resource Agenda. That involves management of the National
Forest Road System. As you know, on February 11, I announced an interim
suspension of road construction in most roadless areas of the national
forest system. We offer this time-out to reduce the controversy of
roadless area entries in order to reduce damage to a road system which
is already in disrepair.
A personal source of frustration is that few people or interest
groups are focused on the issue of our existing road system as opposed
to the roadless area issue. Yet if we care about restoring the
ecological fabric of the landscape and the health of our watersheds, we
must concentrate on areas that are roaded in addition to those that are
not. Let me show you a display which I believe clearly displays the
need to focus attention on the existing road system, not roadless
areas. As the chart shows, of the total estimated road program that
would have occurred in the absence of a suspension only 262 of 9,210
miles, or 3 percent of roads planned for reconstruction or construction
would be affected, and only 221 million board feet of 5.7 billion board
feet, or 4 percent of the planned timber sale volume would be affected.
The President's budget proposes a $22.6 million increase in the
road budget, primarily for maintenance. The agency has an estimated
road maintenance backlog of over $8 billion. Meanwhile we are only
maintaining 18 percent of our roads to the safety and environmental
standards to which they were built. With the proposed funding level in
the fiscal year 2000 budget, we will increase by 50 percent from 1998,
the miles of road to be decommissioned or stabilized. We will increase
the percentage of forest roads maintained to standard from 18 percent
to 24 percent.
With roads that could encircle the globe many times, our road
system is largely complete. Our challenge is to shrink the system to a
size we can afford to maintain while still providing for efficient and
safe public access in a manner that protects land health.
Over the year, we will develop a long term road policy with three
primary objectives: (1) develop new analytical tools to help managers
determine where, when or if to build new roads, (2) decommission old,
unneeded, unauthorized, and other roads that degrade the environment,
and (3) selectively upgrade certain roads to help meet changing use
patterns on forests and grasslands.
Management of roads is very important to local communities that
rely heavily on these roads for livelihoods and rural transportation. I
expect decisions about local roads to be made by local managers working
with local people and others who use or care about our road system. We
will obviously continue to provide access to and through forests.
However, it is clear that we simply cannot afford our existing road
system.
The fourth element of the Natural Resource Agenda involves
recreation. The President's budget provides strong support to the
recreation program. With appropriated funds totalling $288 million, and
additional funds provided from the recreation fee demonstration project
receipts and the ten percent road and trail fund, this program will
continue to provide strong support to the 800 million annual visitors
which we expect to increase to 1.2 billion over the next 50 years.
The Forest Service recreation strategy focuses on providing
customer service and opportunities for all people. The successful
recreation fee demonstration program has served many people at the
sites operated under the program through improved visitor experiences
and repair and upgrade facilities which were badly in need of
attention. I strongly support continuation of this program. I do want
to pass on one caution lest this program is viewed as an answer for
reducing future recreation discretionary funds. The recreation fee
demonstration program serves many people in a limited number of
recreation sites. The Forest Service recreation program is highly
dispersed. It is the place for a family drive or hike on a Sunday
afternoon, a weekend camping trip, or a week long grueling hike in the
rugged backcountry. Many of these experiences do not lend themselves to
a recreation fee demonstration type program. In fact, less than 10
percent of forest recreation visits occur at fee demonstration sites.
As the backyard playground for many Americans, it is essential we
maintain a recreation program that allows enjoyment of the national
forests without charge in addition to fee programs in limited areas.
A key part of enhancing this dispersed recreation is through our
wilderness management program. The President's budget includes an
increase of $7 million for protection and restoration of natural
conditions in wilderness and to mitigate the impacts of high use areas
adjacent to large population centers. The wilderness legacy is a crown
jewel. I am committed to increasing the Forest Service commitment to
the Wilderness Act and intend to give more emphasis through increased
land management planning and re-establishment of a national wilderness
field advisory group.
Each of the four emphasis areas of the Natural Resource Agenda
links directly to one or more of the goals of the Results Act Strategic
Plan. I am pleased that the President's budget supports this plan for
moving forward.
forest service accountability
Successful implementation of the President's initiatives and the
Natural Resource Agenda is dependent on having the trust of Congress
and the American people. To be trusted, we have to be accountable for
our performance. We have to be able to identify where our funds are
being spent, and what America is receiving in return. We have to do
this as efficiently as possible in order to assure that a maximum
amount of funds are spent on the ground for intended purposes without
being diverted for unnecessary overhead.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Forest Service has had problems with
accountability in the past. We have been the subject of more than 20
oversight reports and internal studies. We have been resoundingly
criticized for having poor decision making, either bloated or
inaccurate overhead costs, and non-responsive accounting systems. While
some of this may be exaggerated, I fully acknowledge that some is true.
We've got the message. We will improve dramatically. Let me highlight
several initiatives that are now underway.
First and most importantly, I have made it clear through
organization changes and personal statements that the business and
financial management functions of this agency are equally as important
as attention to managing the resources. I have placed business
management professionals in operations and financial management
positions. We have established a Chief Operating Officer at the
Associate Chief level which reports directly to me, thus placing our
business management functions on an operating level equal to that of
our natural resource functions. We have brought in a new Chief
Financial Officer at the Deputy Chief level to implement the Foundation
Financial Information System. This is her top priority, with a goal of
achieving a clean financial opinion from the General Accounting Office
as soon as possible.
It is also time to reform our budget structure. I want to work with
the Congress and the Administration to design a budget structure that
reflects the work we do and the Results Act Strategic Plan on which the
Natural Resource Agenda is based. The current budget structure does not
support the integrated work necessary to restore and maintain land
health while promoting ecological sustainability.
In order to ensure accountability while implementing a new budget
structure, we will employ land health performance measures to
demonstrate that we can have a simplified budget and improve water
quality, protect and restore more habitat, and improve forest ecosystem
health.
In fiscal year 2000 we will begin to implement reforms to our trust
funds. We will examine alternatives for trust fund management in the
future to avoid unintended incentives to pursue forest management
activities that are not consistent with land health objectives.
For the first time, at the direction of Congress, we have developed
and implemented standard definitions for indirect costs which are in
full compliance with the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
These definitions have been reviewed by several oversight groups. Based
on these definitions, for the first time we have accurately determined
indirect expenses for the agency, which during fiscal year 2000 we
project to be 18.9 percent.
As you know, the issue of indirect costs, often referred to as
overhead, received extensive attention during the 105th Congress, as
did the poor quality of our financial system and records. I want to
make a specific request as your Committee examines our budget in the
coming year. I ask for your patience and support in rectifying much of
our accountability problems. The Forest Service's financial management
and reporting of overhead took a decade or more to fall into disrepair.
It will take more than a year to fix the problem. Let me emphasize that
we are devoting extensive resources to implementing new financial
systems, improving our audit processes, and improving decision making.
The resources we devote to make these fixes involves expenditures of an
overhead type nature. As we concentrate on cleaning up our problems, we
need to have flexibility without legislated limitations which could
prevent us from being successful.
In my testimony today, I have reviewed the President's initiatives,
discussed the Natural Resource Agenda, and described our intent to
improve agency accountability. In conclusion, I want to say that a
Forest Service that meets the needs of the American people and restores
and preserves the health of the nations forests and rangelands, is a
goal we all strive for. I'll leave you with some thoughts based on Aldo
Leopold's Sand County Almanac:
Let us recommit ourselves to an invigorated nation and land
ethic. An ethic that recognized that we cannot meet the needs
of people without first securing the health, diversity, and
productivity of our lands and waters. An ethic that understands
the need to reconnect our communities--both urban and rural--to
the lands and waters that sustain them. An ethic that respects
that the choices we make today influence the legacy that we
bequeath to our children and their children's children.
That concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
wood education and resource center
Senator Gorton. Now, Senator Byrd, why do you not go on
with your questions. I have extensive ones, so I am going to
wait until last, and other members can stay if they wish, but
you can go ahead.
Senator Byrd. Thank you very much.
Chief Dombeck, the President's budget request includes I
believe $1.5 million for the Wood Education and Research
Center, near Princeton, West Virginia, as part of the State and
private forestry budget, but the current funding for the Center
is $2.5 million. Now, does that mean that there is a reduction
of $1 million from its fiscal year 1999 budget?
Mr. Dombeck. Let me ask Janice McDougle, who is responsible
for that program area, to give you the details on that,
Senator.
Senator Byrd. All right.
Ms. McDougle. Yes, Senator, there is a reduction of $1
million from fiscal year 1999's budget. What I would like to
say about this is that in 1998 we had a budget in our economic
action programs of about $11 million. In 1999, it went from $11
million to $16 million, and we are appreciative of that, but 60
percent of that $16 million were earmarks. This is a national
program that serves many forest-dependent programs, and it does
not go very far.
We think that with the help of the partners that we have at
the Center we can leverage those dollars for 2000.
Senator Byrd. I believe the $2.5 million is what I added,
is it not----
Ms. McDougle. That is correct.
Senator Byrd [continuing]. For the fiscal year 1999
appropriations.
Ms. McDougle. Yes, sir.
institute of hardwood technology transfer and applied research
Senator Byrd. Now what you have here, you formed a
partnership between the Wood Education and Resource Center and
the Princeton Research Lab, which is located near the Center.
This partnership is called the Institute of Hardwood Technology
Transfer and Applied Research.
We have been having a lot of problems with the Wood
Education and Resource Center, that was not making a go of it,
so I worked with the Forest Service to have the Forest Service
try to make something out of it that would recompense the
taxpayers for the money they invested in it.
I cannot understand how we can do that if you are going to
reduce the $2.5 million that we had there last year, meaning
fiscal year 1999, reduce it by a million dollars, to $1.525
million. I cannot understand how we are going to do that.
Ms. McDougle. It is our understanding, as has been in the
past, that eventually the Center would be self-sufficient. We
think we have made substantial progress since the fiscal year
1999 budget in terms of partnerships. We have developed
partnerships with the Department of Energy----
Senator Byrd. I am interested in this one item right here.
Tell us about the partners in the Institute.
Ms. McDougle. What is it that you want to know? I am sorry.
Senator Byrd. Well, I asked a question. Please explain the
Institute for Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research
concept, and the partnership between the Princeton Research Lab
and the Wood Education and Resource Center. You say we think we
are making a lot of progress with partners in the various
institutes, or whatever, and I asked the question, are there
any other partners in this institute?
Ms. McDougle. Yes.
Senator Byrd. What are they?
institute partnerships
Ms. McDougle. The Department of Energy, West Virginia Army
National Guard, West Virginia Forestry Association, West
Virginia Wood, the technology center, and the University of
Morgantown.
Senator Byrd. How many people do you have working here at
this Wood Education and Resource Center?
Ms. McDougle. I am not sure of the number we have there at
this time.
Senator Byrd. Well, if we do not know how many people we
have there, how can we say we can stand a $1 million reduction?
Ms. McDougle. We believe that we can maintain the Center
and leverage those dollars in fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Dombeck. What we can do, Senator, is we will be happy
to provide you a breakdown of the partnerships, the
contributions, as well as the employee roster.
Senator Byrd. Would you come to my office and talk with me
about this item?
Mr. Dombeck. I would be happy to.
Senator Byrd. I want to understand why we are reducing this
by $1 million. We are just starting. We just put one foot
forward this year. I am trying to make something out of this
particular center. The Princeton Research Lab has been there
for probably 30 years, the wood marketing research center, and
I got the first $250,000, or perhaps it was $400,000, for it
more than 30 years ago, and that has been doing a good job.
But then we added this other facility, it was not paying
its way, and I suggested the Forest Service take it over and
work with the two facilities and see if we cannot make some
money there for the Forest Service, and here we start out the
very first year after we have created this complex, the very
first year we cut it $1 million. That is not going to fly here.
It is not going to fly, not here in this subcommittee. We have
to have some explanation for that, do you understand that? Do
you?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Senator Byrd. All right. So let us have a little visit in
my office. I want you to explain this in detail to me. Now, do
I have time for one more question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Gorton. You certainly do.
monongahela national forest
Senator Byrd. I want to pick up on what you were saying
about watershed restoration, Mr. Dombeck. The watersheds of the
Monongahela National Forest have been degraded by past logging
practices and wild fires, which have resulted in heavy loads of
fine sediments clogging its streams.
Restoration of these watersheds is important to improving
the wild trout populations and attendant recreational
opportunities. Almost 80 percent of West Virginia's native
trout streams lies within the Monongahela National Forest.
The Monongahela National Forest has identified 25
watersheds that need to be assessed for restoration needs. The
State of West Virginia has identified four watersheds partly
within the Monongahela National Forest that need restoration.
The Monongahela National Forest has spent a total of $2.1
million in the past 2 years on watershed restoration projects.
Now, I commend you on your emphasis on the need for water
supply and pointing out that a very high percentage of the
water supply that we can use that is potable and drinkable
comes from the national forest. Is that what you said?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Senator Byrd. The Monongahela National Forest is one of the
Forest Service units that desperately needs these dollars to
correct old problems and restore some of the important fish and
aquatic resources in West Virginia. While we have started to
make progress in restoring these watersheds, you still have a
way to go.
How much have you recommended as an increase in watershed
improvements in your budget request?
Mr. Dombeck. Nationwide, the watershed health and
restoration items specifically are about $48 million. Now, I
also want to point out that many of the other areas that
influence this, and this relates to our budget structure like
the roads program----
watershed improvements
Senator Byrd. I do not want to hear that right now, and I
do not mean to be discourteous to you. I only have a very
limited amount of time. What is your total increase for
watershed improvements in this budget request?
Mr. Dombeck. About 13 percent for watershed health and
restoration.
Senator Byrd. In dollars how much is that?
Mr. Dombeck. About $48 million.
Senator Byrd. How much is that over 1999?
Mr. Dombeck. It is about a $10 million increase.
Senator Byrd. $10 million. Now, what is the process for
determining which regions will get a portion of the increase?
Mr. Dombeck. What we are involved in with out budget
process is taking a look at the regional allocations, and I can
give you some breakdowns of regional allocations, but I might
ask Gloria Manning, who runs the national forest system, to
give you that breakdown.
regional allocation criteria
Ms. Manning. Senator Byrd, what we have is, we have
allocation criteria that the regions got together with us and
set the criteria. It is based on the resources that are there,
the population, condition of the resources, and we allocate
from the Washington office, based on that, to the regional
office, and then the regional office, in turn, takes their
criteria, which we do not have with us today, but we can
furnish you, to decide which forests get what percent.
Also, I would like to add that we are working with the
States, once they identify the priority watersheds, to focus
that money that we do have to those priority watersheds.
Senator Byrd. All right. So much for the process. How much
is the region, I believe it is region number nine, is it not,
the Monongahela? Are we in region number nine?
Ms. Manning. Yes.
Senator Byrd. How much is going to that region?
Ms. Manning. I do not know the percentage that would
actually go to--the total percentage, but in fiscal year 1999
it was $3.667 million.
Senator Byrd. So now you have asked for a $10 million
increase in watershed improvements, right?
Ms. Manning. Right.
Senator Byrd. How much of that is going to region number
nine?
Ms. Manning. I do not have the breakdown for that. I will
have to get that to you.
Senator Byrd. Well, do you not expect questions like that
from this subcommittee?
Ms. Manning. Yes, sir; we do, but I only had it broken down
by the whole category, which is soil, water, and air, with me.
Senator Byrd. Well, this is another area we need to talk
about. I am glad to hear your emphasis on the importance of
water, and our need for cleaning up the nation's water, and I
want to know more about what you are doing in region number
nine, in particular. So thank you very much, for the moment.
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have a change
going on in the management of the forest, recreation. America
wants to recreate here, they do not want to harvest a renewable
crop. We understand that.
forest access
But does America know that they cannot get in the forest
anyway, Mr. Dombeck? I mean they are limited to the access on
the forest, all of America. I mean if they have to operate
under the same rules that we do, who live locally, is that
true?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, one of the things with the National
Forest is that you do not have to worry about no trespassing
signs, and from the standpoint of that sort of limitation,
there are accesses open. I am sure you have a follow-up in----
Senator Burns. Well, no, but I am OK with the no
trespassing signs, but----
Mr. Dombeck. You are talking about vehicle access.
Senator Burns [continuing]. There are trespassing signs,
are there not? There are times that you cannot get on the
forest. Times when nobody can get on the forest.
Mr. Dombeck. Well, there are limitations with regard to
fire closure, with activities that may result in resource
damage, and things like that.
roads
Senator Burns. But the majority of the people who would
like to--there are some people who would like to enjoy the
forest and cannot get on it, because large areas are closed.
This increase in the road fund that you are getting, you are
going to close roads, is that correct? You are going to
continue to close roads, and remove culverts as seen in those
photos?
Mr. Dombeck. There will be some road closures through the
local road management programs, that is correct.
Senator Burns. In other words you are jerking culverts out,
you are building tank traps, you do not want any access onto
our forest lands.
Mr. Dombeck. The objective, though, is looking at the
resource protection and the long-term benefits of the land.
Senator Burns. We are going to put that ahead of access for
the rest of America. Now, this all sounds funny in Chicago, and
New York, and Philadelphia, that this is your land, we are
going to let you visit it, and we are going to let you enjoy
it, and we are going to manage these resources, yet when they
go out there, they cannot get on it. Some can, there are
hikers, but some of the older people cannot get on it, because
you cannot drive on those roads, they are closed off.
What I am saying is, as a renewable resource we are growing
more wood than we are cutting. I realize that there are some
areas for watershed health that should be protected and not
developed in those areas. I do not want to get that hard, but
all of America cannot get on that forest.
We have some people out West, Mike, to be right honest with
you, that will be just like an old Yellowstone bear, we will
have to stand alongside the road and let some of these folks
pitch us a hamburger every 5 years just to live.
There is no balance here. Jim, I will talk to you later.
There is no balance here. That is what I am saying. I mean any
time that you allow this to go on on your national forests and
allow this kind of erosion to take place, because you do not
want access on there, I think is a little extreme.
We have some folks out there, some conservation people and
water management people that are very concerned about this. I
would be happy to work with you on this. I am trying to be as
nice as I possibly can.
prepared statement
By the way, I have a statement I want to submit for the
record.
Senator Gorton. It will be done.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee
this morning. As you are aware, we have had a number of hearings on
this budget request in both the full Energy and Natural Resource
Committee and the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management.
At the risk of boring the witnesses, I want to reiterate my concern
with the direction the Forest Service has been taking recently. Montana
has vast quantities of our land tied up under the ownership of the
Forest Service, the BLM and the National Park Service. In the past
these agencies were generally tolerated as being good neighbors. They
were our friends and we were able to make a living off the land. We
harvested timber, we extracted minerals and we were able to support our
communities with the money we made off of oil and gas. They weren't
glamorous jobs, but they paid well and they allowed Montanans to make
an honest living. They made Montana what it is today.
Now the Forest Service, under pressure from groups who have never
set foot in Montana, is drastically changing how we use the land. Or
rather, how we don't use the land. We can't log, we can't mine, we
can't explore for oil and gas. In a nutshell, they have declared an
economic war on the West. Don't think it is a coincidence that
Montana's per capita income is now at the absolute bottom of the heap
when compared to the rest of the United States. Natural resource jobs
were the best paying jobs in the State. Now they are gone.
The Forest Service is also pushing recreationists of the land. They
have shut down numerous areas to snowmobiles. Now they are working on
shutting off all off road travel throughout Montana, North and South
Dakota. I have even heard plans of restricting hikers out in Oregon.
When will it stop?
I asked Chief Dombeck a very simple question when I met with him
earlier this year. I asked; if they want to leave the land as God
intended, then why do they need to give them any money? They aren't
managing the land. In our Energy and Natural Resource Committee
hearings it was pointed out that fewer Forest Service dollars are
actually spent on the land each year, despite increasing budget
requests. What are we getting for our money?
I challenge you to travel to Libby, Montana and explain to the
taxpayers up there why we should increase the Forest Service's budget.
Libby is on the verge of becoming a ghost town. Used to be a booming
timber town. Now the timber industry is virtually gone and the Forest
Service's main action seems to be to keep us off the land. They put up
gates, rip out roads and culverts, and stop recreation. Now, Secretary
Babbitt wants to radically increase the amount of land that gets burned
though prescribed fires. Now we are supposed to give the Forest Service
funding to burn the lumber that could keep our towns alive. It is
ridiculous and I am not going to stand here and watch it without a
fight.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to really look at
what is happening. We all know that, nationally, it is more popular to
say we are protecting everything, but look at what is going on. We have
an agency out of control that is running my State, and many others,
into the ground. It's time for a change in direction and I will work my
hardest to see that we begin those changes through the Appropriations
process. This administration is too arrogant to comply with Congress'
direction if we do it any other way.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the
committee.
beetles
Senator Burns. That is where I am coming from. As far as
Mr. Bennett is concerned here on the beetles, we have been
arguing about beetles on the Yaak and the Kookenai for 10 years
and got nothing done, 10 years, and he thinks he is going to
get it done the first year, according to Mr. Lyons. I will
guarantee you that he is not going to get his done. It will
burn. It will burn first.
payments to states
As far as the net proceeds that goes back to counties, that
is just a tax that the Government pays for owning land in that
county. Every other taxpayer pays taxes, too.
Now, if you want to go out and explain to that person that
lives in, let us say, Polebridge, MT, we are going to rely on
an annual appropriations for a payment sort of like PILT. You
are familiar with PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, that the BLM
participates in if we are going to rely on that road, and on
those proceeds, we need a guarantee the Government will fully
fund the program. I will guarantee you this Government has
never funded PILT to the 100 percent of what it has authorized
yet. Not yet.
You get some accountant out there at the Forest Service
that says, ``Well, maybe we ought to use that money for
something else, that we really do not want to pay our amount of
taxes to the local government.''
Balance, that is what I am looking for. I am not going to
go into anything specific, but I am looking for some balance.
If you want to manage this like a park, let us turn the forests
over to the National Park Service. We have parks and we have
forests, and forests are managed for multiple use, and that is
not what is happening now. I am sorry. I just get more and more
disgusted every day.
Now, you said you wanted a year. Give me a year. Well, old
friend, your year is about up. We are in two. I just want to
see some balance, that is all I want to see. You hold up that
thing on Puget Sound on tree disappearance. Tell those people
to move. Is anybody going to go out there and tell those people
to move?
On those trees, any time that you see an increase of
people, you are going to see the loss of trees sometimes. You
can put up the same land SAT here in Washington, DC.
forest access
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife can go out there and tell you
what they--you cannot keep them off the forest, but they can
keep everything off the forest. You want to put them grizzles
down there. I will tell you what, it is pretty sad--I just want
to give you a for instance on what this has caused up at
Whitefish and Kalispell, MT.
When a man stands there on his front porch on his land,
with a little old video camera and watch wolves carry off his
calf crop, 25 cows and 30 calves this spring, and there is
nothing he can do about it, and he only runs 175 cows. Do you
want to put a face on something? I will put a face on it. He
took pictures of it. The director of NASA sat right there and
watched that same film.
He said, ``Why don't you shoot the wolf?'' Well, No. 1,
there are only six of them. Of course, six rounds could do a
lot of work. But you cannot do it. The people that live there,
is there no feeling for the people who live there? None. We are
not there according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. We were
just kind of born there. But I am looking for some balance,
Mike, and it is not there. I am very, very upset about this. I
look at this, and this is stupidity, out and out stupidity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will find something to ask a
question about pretty soon. But that is what you are going to
get your road money for is to dig more holes in the Earth and
make tank traps. If you want to be run like a park, we will put
you under the park department. We do not need two different
outfits out there.
Senator Gorton. I am going to go back and forth. I am going
to go to Senator Kohl, who has only a relatively few questions,
and another engagement.
Senator Kohl.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unlike other members
of this subcommittee whose States have extensive Federal forest
land, 90 percent of the forest land in Wisconsin is not
federally owned.
In addition, in the State of Wisconsin, forest lands are
owned by more than a quarter of a million private owners, and
so the Forest Service cooperative programs of State and private
forestry are of a great interest to me.
gypsy moth
I would like to ask you a question about the Gypsy Moth.
This year we are facing a serious problem with the spread of
Gypsy Moth across Wisconsin and much of the Northeast. In the
past Gypsy Moth infestations have not been a problem for
Wisconsin.
Our harsh winters have usually been too severe for the
moths and their larvae to survive; however, the past few mild
winters have resulted in a dramatic increase in Gypsy Moth
population that has been devastating trees across Eastern
Wisconsin.
In 1998, 18 counties in Wisconsin were guaranteed and
another 13 counties were in transition. In 1999, it is
anticipated that more than half of the State will be affected
by Gypsy Moth and will require traps and treatment sites. So my
question to you is: What is the Forest Service doing to slow
the spread of Gypsy Moth?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, overall we have made significant
investments in research and are making progress with biological
controls, like a fungus agent that works with the control, but
also working with States in applying the technologies. In fact,
I will ask Janice McDougle, from our State and Private Program
to elaborate on the Gypsy Moth program.
Janice.
Ms. McDougle. Senator, in 1998, the Forest Service was
appropriated $3.5 million for our Slow-the-Spread program. In
1999 we got a little over $4 million. The President's budget
for fiscal year 2000 is the first time that, if appropriated,
we will be fully funded to address this issue.
This program is one that we are extremely proud of. It has
been able to reduce and delay the speed of the Gypsy Moth
spread by 60 percent. It is wildly popular with the States,
with the regional and national planning boards, the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National
Association of State Foresters, and American Nursery and
Landscape Association, who also fully support the full funding
of the $8 million. Without that we have learned that we cannot
be effective in reducing the spread.
Senator Kohl. All right. I have requested funds for forest
health management programs, and if the subcommittee agrees, and
I hope they will with those additional funds, then I hope that
you will put this money to good use in working to prevent the
spread of Gypsy Moth, and I think you feel that way, too.
Ms. McDougle. Yes. Thank you.
regional office move
Senator Kohl. Last question. As you may know I have had
concerns over the proposal which reappeared in this year's
budget submission to move the Forest Service's regional office
from Milwaukee to Madison. I am surprised to see this again.
As I understand it, the GSA has addressed your recent
concerns about rent, and that by fiscal year 2000 the rent in
Milwaukee will be reduced by 18 percent. Does the Forest
Service have any current plans with respect to relocating the
Milwaukee office?
Mr. Dombeck. Senator, not at this time. In fact, Tom
Hamilton, who is the Director of the Forest Products Laboratory
in Madison, as well as Regional Forester Bob Jacobs, have
withdrawn that proposal. So I assume if any additional activity
occurs in that, while we will make sure that your staff is
involved, and I assume that that dialogue will occur locally.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
allowing me to ask these questions.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Senator Bennett?
Senator Bennett. Does Senator Stevens want to come in here
and----
Senator Stevens. I would, if you would allow me. I only
have two questions.
Senator Gorton. All right.
tongass record of decision
Senator Stevens. Mr. Lyons, I understand you issued a
decision yesterday, a Final Record of Decision [ROD]. Let me
see if I can summarize what I understand it to be, that you
have issued a Final Record of Decision, rather than deciding
the appeals before you and remanding the plans of the chief
forester.
I understand you have revised the 1979 plan for the
Tongass, and you believe that there is no further need for
public review or comment or a national environmental impact
statement [EIS], because your decision yesterday replaces the
regional forester's 1997 decision in its entirety; thus, in
effect, the regional forester's 1997 decision is nullified as
if it never existed. Would you say that is a fair summation of
what you have done?
Mr. Lyons. No, that is not quite accurate, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Tell me what is wrong.
Mr. Lyons. We actually did decide the appeals that were
pending. There were 33 appeals pending on the 1997 ROD that was
issued by the regional forester at the time, Phil Janek, but we
elected to rewrite and issue a new ROD simply to have a
comprehensive record and to show in context how we had
addressed all those appeals issues.
Senator Stevens. Is that a revision of the 1979 plan?
Mr. Lyons. It is a revision of the 1997 ROD. The 1979 plan,
I suppose that would be accurate.
Senator Stevens. The Record of Decision.
Mr. Lyons. It is a modification of the 1997 ROD that was
issued by----
Senator Stevens. What happens to the 1979 plan?
Mr. Lyons. Well, this supersedes--this is the Final Record
of Decision on that plan.
Senator Stevens. It is the Final Record of Decision, so
your action really nullifies everything that has taken place
since that time, right?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir; it does not. It is a response to the
appeals that have been raised, so what it does is it modifies
some of the decisions that were made in 1997, and then renders
a final decision based on the appeals of the 1997 decision.
So it is not a totally new document in any way. It is
simply a modification responding to the appeals, taking into
account the issues that were raised in the 1997 EIS.
tongass timber reform act
Senator Stevens. Well, this is the appropriations
committee. Let me put it this way. The regional forester's
decision in 1997 has been pending now for 2 years. It is my
judgment that what you have done is you have revised the 1979
plan. This is 1999. We have been working on that now, you have
been working on that for 20 years. This is April 15. This is
tax day. This is the day people pay their taxes. You spent $13
million, and now you have taken action which is contrary to the
Tongass Timber Reform Act, and you have taken action in a way
that unfairly deprives these people an opportunity to be heard.
I really do not have any more questions. I just want to
make a statement to you. I am sorry that I agreed to clear your
nomination. You and I had a talk, and you told me you were
going to be fair to people in Alaska. I think this is the most
unfair decision I have seen in my 31 years in the Senate.
I have never seen a man destroy the lives of people as much
as you have in the Tongass. I can tell you, as long as I am
here, you will not be cleared for anything again. I was at the
Interior Department at one time, as you know, and the concepts
of integrity, honesty, and judgment are just absolutely
frustrated by what you did yesterday.
I can tell you, as far as I am concerned, I am going to do
everything I can to reduce the appropriations for the Forest
Service, maybe even transfer it to the Interior Department. You
have destroyed the timber industry in my State, and we have no
need for a Forest Service without a timber industry. You are a
division of recreation now. There is no longer any
justification for the existing Forest Service, and I intend to
offer some amendments along those lines--severe reductions in
this Forest Service.
I urge you all to study it, $13 million spent on the
process was totally eliminated by the decision yesterday which
revised a plan that was put forward but never approved in 1979.
I am sorry, but I find it impossible to ask questions of a
person that would make a decision like that.
Senator Gorton. Well, Senator Bennett, now it is your turn.
payments to states
Senator Bennett. Maybe I should have gone first and let
that come later. Let me raise a philosophical question that may
not be as incendiary as either Senator Burns or Senator
Stevens, but in your testimony you discussed the
administration's proposal to decouple the 25 percent fund from
timber sale receipts, and I think the comment was that the
timber program should not finance the education of the nation's
rural school children.
I am sympathetic with that philosophic point of view, that
while we have challenges for education, for the nation's rural
school children, and we look for money wherever we can find it,
and I am sure that is the attitude that drove this original
decision, whenever it was made, I can understand that sometimes
the connection between the two gets a little tenuous.
The philosophical problem I have is this, if education is
going to be primarily a local financial responsibility, it
should obviously make sense to keep the local economy as strong
as possible, and the continual destruction of the local
economy, particularly with respect to loggers, truck drivers,
and mill workers, as the timber sales are cut back, puts that
much of a bigger educational burden on the local school
districts.
So my plea to you, and I would like your reactions once
again, there are no actions that Government can take that do
not produce side effects.
balanced forest management
While many times all of us love to give speeches about how
pure our motives are and how wonderful our actions are, all of
us are subject to the criticism that we do not pay enough
attention to the side effects, and the desire to be responsive
to the environmental groups that have a religious objection to
logging may play well in certain circumstances, but the side
effects are to destroy the economies of these rural areas, and
then raise the issue of, well, what do you do about education
for their children and the impact, the very human impact, of
these economic decisions.
Mr. Dombeck, you stressed that multiple-use is alive and
well in the modern forest service, and I am sure you have
gotten now the flavor of those of us who represent States where
timber sales are important, and they are not nearly as
important to me in Utah as they are in some other States, but
you get the frustration, I am sure, that comes as we see these
kinds of situations on the ground.
I agree with you that we all ought to get on the ground. I
have gone on the ground. I have gone through the Forest Service
by horseback. I still remember. Certain portions of my
posterior remind me from time to time. I am not used to riding
horses for the length of time that I did.
I have been out on BLM land, and quite frankly I have seen
where Federal land management practices are less than optimum,
and that in many cases, land management practices on private
land exceed the benefit of land management practices on Federal
land, where the land is healthier if it is not in Federal
hands, where the land is healthier if it is in the hands of
those who are decried as predators and exploiters.
There is more education, there is more wildlife, and there
is more diversity, bio-diversity, on many of the privately
managed lands in my State than there are on the federally
managed lands, and the frustration that comes out of economic
destruction with some of the timber processes, and the land
degradation, leave some of us with the sense that we are in
Alice in Wonderland somewhere in these areas.
Now, I know you are a thoughtful land manager, and you have
right motives and the right desires here, listen to what I am
saying and react so that all of us can get a better sense of
where the Federal direction in this administration wants to go
to achieve some kind of sensible, scientific, multiple-use on
all of these lands.
Mr. Dombeck. Well, we are really talking about the topic of
balance, I think, as was Senator Burns in his comments, and I
think there has been a struggle throughout the entire century
as to what is the best balance that the nation reacted to, the
condition of the watersheds at the turn of the century, and
passed the legislation like the Organic Administration Act, the
Wheats Act, and move it on through. This is the debate that
will follow us for many, many years.
As Jack Thomas told me when he talked to me about this job,
the former chief, as being probably one of the toughest jobs
with regard to balance with sort of all sides converging, and
we are essentially many times a wrestling mat, and I struggle
with questions like why is it that starting about in the 1960's
and the 1970's that actually the third branch of Government
began to become more involved in national resource management
decisions, as we had increases in litigation and things like
that, and the major decline in the forest timber harvest
programs, for example, in the Pacific Northwest that occurred
as a result of the Spotted Owl issue, and the real question
was, well, how much old-growth do we want to have left in the
United States, and those kinds of things. So where is it then
that one goes? I believe in a couple of things. No. 1 is we
have to apply the best science that we have, and No. 2, that we
have to keep our eye on the long haul, on the major issues, and
as we do that we need to be as empathetic and as positive in
our approach in providing assistance and working with local
communities through transitions, because transitions have
always occurred and they will continue to occur, and they are
never really very much fun for anyone who is involved in those
kinds of transitions.
transitional forest management
In fact, this agency, as all public land managers are
involved in this kind of transition today, where we have
increases in demands for water, and one of the few ways that we
can enhance water quality, water quantity, is through our good,
sound watershed management practices, and active management is
part of that, because when people say to me what are the two or
three most serious forest management problems that you see in
the United States today I would give you three.
No. 1 is the invasion of exotic species, and that problem
will continue to increase, because we are basically in a
boundary-less world from the standpoint of ecosystems, with the
international trade, and products moving every direction every
day, and that will continue, and it will be a very serious
problem for us to deal with. The more we can make investments
in things like Gypsy Moth research that Senator Kohl asked
about, the better.
The second issue is the one that I talked about with the
graphics, largely in the Intermountain West, where they
overstocked stands, off-site species, the result of 70 years of
total fire suppression, and then when we do get a very, very
dry year, we are going to have a catastrophe, and that is going
to happen, and we have to then apply the best science we can to
mitigate that, and the graphic, I think, of the Cleveland fire
depicted that well.
education
But the third area is one that we do not talk about very
much, and that is the whole area of education. Bringing a
broader group of the American public into really understanding
what is important rather than sort of us being whipsawed
between the ends of the spectrum to those that think it is a
sin to cut a tree, between those that perhaps want to cut them
all, and education I think is, as our population grows, and we
move into the information age, something that in natural
resources we are going to have to make more investments in, so
we can move forward on the land, because people are ultimately
the delivery system, the local communities, the resource
managers that are there, the community of interest that--the
owners of all the public lands. So I guess I would respond
philosophically in that way.
Senator Bennett. I have two quick comments, and I apologize
if they are presumptuous. First, I am interested in your
description of those who think it is a sin to cut a tree and
those who want to cut them all. I have never met anybody who
wants to cut them all. I have met a lot of people who think it
is a sin to cut a tree.
I am very distressed, you talk about education, with
children who come home from grade school in tears because a
tree was killed for them to have a bed to sleep in. I think we
do a tremendous disservice when we let that kind of notion go
forward that somehow it is better for a tree to be left there
to stand so that it can burn than it is to harvest it so that a
child can have a bed made out of wood, and a new tree planted,
this is, in fact, a renewable resource, and there is nothing
immoral about cutting a tree, but we are having a lot of
propaganda now that says it is absolutely immoral.
It is like the folks who talk about first amendment rights
for animals. I do not want to get off on this. My sister
teaches in the Montgomery County Schools and she sees essays
coming through about first amendment rights for animals, and
she says, freedom of speech for cows, the rights to assemble
peacefully for badgers, and what she finds out is that the
school children know nothing about the first amendment, but
they keep hearing all of this information about animal rights.
I think that is a very bad balance in the educational system. I
will get off that.
You talk about education. As I say, this is presumptuous of
me, but that is one of the prerogatives of being a Senator. Can
I give you a homework assignment? There will be a test at the
end of the hour. Can I ask you to read a book called, ``In a
Dark Wood,'' by Austen Chase? I know in the environmental
community Austen Chase's name is absolute anathema, but before
you decide that everything he says is nonsense will you do him
the courtesy of reading what he has to say? I think it is the
best analysis--by the way, he is a philosophy professor. He has
taught at Harvard.
Can I ask you to read that book and then maybe we can have
another conversation about balance, direction, and unintended
consequences on the national forest?
Thank you for your good humor and your indulgence. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dombeck. I would be happy to. In fact, this is one of
the best assignments I have ever received from the Senate.
Senator Bennett. It is pretty heavy going from time to
time. It is not easy.
Mr. Dombeck. In fact, I am traveling to a couple of
national forests next week so I have some time in the air that
is about the only time one seems to have these days, so I would
be happy to read the book.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici, are you ready?
Senator Domenici. Am I ready?
Mr. Dombeck. I am ready for the assignment.
Senator Domenici. You just run out of gas sitting here. I
came so refreshed, ready to ask so many questions, and then the
distinguished chairman made me wait 2 hours to have a question,
and he called on all kind of people before me. It is like I am
not busy around here, I do not matter.
Anyhow, I wanted to tell you, Senator, that if this is your
hearing room, the clocks on the wall are confusing. That one
says it is seven-minutes-of-eleven, this says ten. Do you think
you are going to leave them there so that when the time changes
one will be right again, or what?
Senator Gorton. That is correct. Daylight Savings Time has
not gotten that far west.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to tell you, I did not set
my clocks ahead nor my watch on Easter, and I had planned to
have my family over for an 11 a.m., brunch, and got up at 7:30
a.m., and put a leg of lamb in the oven and a couple of other
things and went back to bed, and sleeping away there, knowing I
had a lot of time, and I heard a doorbell, and I said, ``Oh,
let's let them ring. Who the hell could that be?'' In about 5
minutes we heard one of our daughter's beautiful voices,
``Mama, Papa, we are here.''
Well, we were having brunch and we were still in bed, but
anyway, we ate 1 hour and 15 minutes later than we should have,
and a good time was had by all, and I am asking questions about
1 hour and 20 minutes later than I thought, and I am going to
have a good time.
environmental litigation
Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, in their presence if you
would listen to me on a couple of things and see if you could,
as your bill proceeds through, provide some assistance. First,
I would like to ask this Department of the Federal Government
to submit to this committee how much has been spent in New
Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, and break it down, on environmental
litigation. I would like you to also tell us how much the
courts awarded to environmental plaintiffs in litigation
involving your department.
Now, Mr. Chairman, since you have jurisdiction over the
other entities that are part of this litigation, like Fish and
Wildlife, like BLM, I would wonder if you would mind or think
it relevant to submit a similar question to them in my behalf.
I would share another question with you, another
observation, and I think they are aware of this as it affects
their Department.
When an environmental group or a conservation group, I do
not say this with any--I think I am just stating a group of
people, I am not passing judgment, but when they litigate with
the Forest Service over such a thing as Spotted Owl habitat, or
when a group in my State litigates over a silver minnow in a
river that, while I was growing up, ran dry many, many years, I
lived 10 or 12 blocks from it, and the purpose of the
litigation is to make the river run wet all year so we can
protect a silver minnow, which is an endangered species, or
could be, and the suits never include those people who are
adversely affected. You read some of them. It will be such and
such environmental group versus Fish and Wildlife.
Now, I believe that is wrong, and I believe we ought to
think together about how do we make it such that the affected
parties can get in that lawsuit. Now, I know this is a big
issue, because the plaintiffs in these causes resist mightily
the court letting any of them, and they may even have a little
precedent on their side. I do not know.
But it seems to me if you are a cattle permittee, we did
not add to that extreme, there are actually groups who want no
grazing on the public domain and there are groups who want it
just like it was 50 years ago, or 30 or 40 years ago, and we
are required to do some balancing, but the plaintiff does not
want the permittee in the lawsuit, even though when it is
finished it adversely affects them, and this kind of lawsuits
on the silver minnow and its right to use much of our stored
water for its protection in a desert State in a middle of a
drought, which is this year, the city of Albuquerque ought to
be part of that litigation. They are going to take their water.
The farmer and ranchers in that valley ought to be a part,
and I would like you to think with me about that and see if we
might use your appropriation bill to make them at least such
that they can petition to be in, not indispensable, as you and
I remember it, but it may be necessary.
Now, having said that, first, you tried to get a hold of me
and I missed you and you missed me, and I will make myself a
available today on the telephone. I do not expect you to talk
to me about whatever you wanted to speak to me about on the
telephone.
drought assessment
But I do want to know, do you have an assessment of the
condition of drought in the State of New Mexico? Have you been
advised by your experts what it looks like in our State?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, we have. In fact, we are part of the
drought commission that has been meeting at least on a biweekly
basis, watching very carefully through all of the Ag programs,
and the Forest Service has been part of that.
Senator Domenici. We are in serious jeopardy----
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. Of having one of the worst
droughts we have ever had, is that correct----
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. Because we do not have much
snow left up in places which feed our rivers. Are you prepared
to tell us or could you prepare to tell us from your
Department's standpoint what you think we might need by way of
some extraordinary type of assistance so that we might prepare
ourselves? Is there anything we could be doing in advance?
We just have to sit by and watch this drought come, but we
know some things are going to happen. We know water wells are
going to be in trouble, we know crops are going to have
problems. Could you share that with us today, or could you
share it with us personally at another time?
fire risk assessment
Mr. Dombeck. Well, I can make a few comments, but I think
it would be very beneficial to provide that kind of information
to people who could be affected; for example, things like with
fire risks beyond what they normally are, because of the
drought.
I sure hope people are taking care of the fuel loads that
might be close to their buildings, any of their buildings,
things like that, making sure that we are following the
groundwater table trends, the aquifer trends, and those that
perhaps could have problems with water are aware that they are
near some level of risk. I think there are a wide variety of
things.
I think this sort of moves into this area of education that
Senator Bennett and I were philosophizing about. If you would
like, Janice McDougle can speak I think in more detail to the
fire situation that could occur.
Senator Domenici. If you would, submit for the record the
fire assessment, and if there is anything that you need by way
of emergency to get ready in advance I would hope you would
submit it quickly, because we are going to have one or two
supplemental bills going through, and just as sure as we are
sitting here, the State of New Mexico is going to have some
extraordinary government expenses about 3 or 4 months from now,
because this drought is going to take place about half-way
through the summer or less from what we understand already. Can
you ask your Department----
Mr. Dombeck. Of course, NRCS, also oversees, is right now
doing a similar assessment, so why do we not pull together a
comprehensive assessment for you and----
Senator Domenici. I would very much appreciate it. If you
need some other sister departments----
Mr. Dombeck. We have already talked to James LeWitt, FEMA,
for example. Why do we not try to organize something and get it
to you as quickly as possible in terms of the overall----
in-holdings
Senator Domenici. All right. I would appreciate it. The
President has a $1 billion program called the Lands Legacy
Initiative. What percentage of that funding or land
acquisition, if we do set that in motion, would go towards the
purchase of existing in-holdings from willing sellers?
Mr. Lyons. Let me point out Senator Domenici that the
actual acquisition portion of the funds in this proposal that
would go to the Forest Service is $118 million. In terms of
actual in-holding acquisitions, we have a breakdown, and it may
be better if I gave you that detail later on. We have actually
prioritized each acquisition that would be covered by the $118
million.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would
inquire of the departments like this one that are part of the
proposed acquisition, expenditure of $1 billion, how much, if
any, do they intend to use for in-holdings within the lands
that they have jurisdiction over that should already have been
purchased, but are sitting there, with people waiting to be
paid for their in-holdings, if we could get that from each of
them.
Senator Gorton. We will be happy to make that request, and
we will not get a responsive answer. They will say they do not
know.
Senator Domenici. I mean look at the $1 billion, you know
what land they are buying, they are either buying in-holdings
or they are not buying it, but anyway, I appreciate it.
I want to say I am not very sanguine about another billion
dollars being spent on a legacy of lands when we still owe
hundreds of millions of dollars to property owners in America
for in-holdings in national parks, national monuments, and
other things, and we have not paid them for it yet. You did not
want to comment on this, did you?
land acquisition priorities
Mr. Dombeck. I would like to say to the chairman, I think
we can provide that information through our prioritization of
land acquisition projects, which are in-holdings and the
objectives of each of the acquisitions that are proposed. We
will be happy to provide that.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, do you consider the billion
dollar program, maybe you do not want to answer yet, do you
think it has any chance of proceeding with any large amounts of
money being put in it?
Senator Gorton. I believe it needs an authorization, and I
do not believe that your budget is going to give me the money.
Senator Domenici. I am thinking that is the case.
[Laughter.]
But I am thinking also, you know, that before we set about
on many of these new initiatives, we ought to look at some
initiatives that we ought to be doing to help the communities
that are land-locked by Federal land.
In northern New Mexico more than anything we need a change
in the legislation to permit a local community to acquire some
acreage from the BLM or the Forest Service for a land disposal
site, for an expansion of community service buildings. I mean
they are just like this, with public land around them, and we
have minimal opportunity for them to acquire Federal land, and
it is very difficult. In fact, I have been passing legislation
to get them that.
There are three of them we have already passed this year.
That should be ministerial. It should be they applied, there is
a need, it does not harm the forest, and it is diminimus in
size.
So if you could look into that, I would like to expand the
current definitions by statute so that we could help the
communities instead of doing some new things, when they are
sitting there wondering what is wrong with us. Do you
understand the problem we have, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, I do, Senator Domenici. As you know, we
have some limited authorities, but we would be glad to sit down
with you and look at specific cases and see how we might make
adjustments.
Senator Domenici. I appreciate it. I have about five
parochial questions and I do not believe there is anyone from
the press of New Mexico covering this hearing. Some of you-all
may have thought your press was covering it a while ago, but I
am just going to submit mine. Thank you. I appreciate your
hospitality.
Senator Gorton. Senator Craig.
Opening statement of Senator Larry Craig
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of
being an observer here this morning for quite some time, like
my colleague from New Mexico, and I say that with a certain
amount of reaction to the Chief and to the Secretary, because
while I have not heard any detailed questions this morning, I
have heard a huge outpouring of frustration, and in some
instances, anger.
I would have to think that ought to be recorded amongst you
as being relatively significant, because you are dealing with
Senators from large public land States, in which there are
large forest land holdings, Federal land holdings.
In my lifetime of living in and around the forests, and
with Forest Service green suits sitting at our dinner tables,
at our ranches, working with us cooperatively, and this has
been going on since my grandfather homesteaded there and was
anxious to establish a Federal forest reserve along with BLM to
protect the public lands, I have never known such frustration
or anger.
We sit back here, and you sit back here, and some sit back
here and pull strings and design a grand new national scheme
based on some people's image, and in most instances it denies
the relationships that other chiefs have understood and known
as a result of the Organic Act between the public land and the
immediate communities of interest in a broad national spectrum
and in a broad national understanding. Whether it is the
Senator from Utah, or New Mexico, or Alaska, or Washington, or
this Senator from Idaho, what you hear today is frustration,
and in some instances, absolute anger, and we are simply
projecting from our population bases what we hear, communities
dying, families without jobs, schools without money, all based
on former or existing policy that does not appear to be working
under the current constraints.
Now, I understand what you are doing, and some of it I
disagree with, and we have dealt with that already head on. We
have had two hearings on your budget before the Energy
Committee and before my subcommittee, and I will deal with a
few more details today, but first of all, out of that
frustration let me state a positive note.
douglas fir beetle
First of all, let me thank you for your decision as it
relates to the Douglas Fir Beetle in the Panhandle and in the
Colville Forests. While you may be trying to reflect a broader
perspective of the population's interest in our public lands,
we should never deny the obvious of disease and the ability to
react to that in good management, because while it may be
politically popular to react in some of the ways you are
reacting, if it does not prescribe good management in a
reasonable sense or in a scientific or knowledge-based sense,
we somehow have to balance that out, and I think you are doing
that with the Douglas Fir Beetle.
We have an epidemic on our hands, so we could see 300,000
or 400,000 acres infested, and broad landscapes turning red out
there in the near future. You have given us a chance to deal
with 4,000 acres immediately in an emergency sense. We are
looking at I think an additional 21,000 and we are working it
through the NEPA process, and we hope that that is done in an
expeditious way. It is critical.
Can I go ahead with questions now?
Senator Gorton. Yes. It is your turn.
Senator Craig. All right. Let me walk you-all through a
couple of questions that have dealt with the past budgets and
current budgets.
interior columbia basin ecosystem management plan
As you know there was a lot of debate over the
implementation of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Plan, and I think part of the criticism circles
around the lack of inclusion of the local governments in that
planning process, or an inclusion that would appear to be an
exclusion or a jettison of some of their concerns and some of
their input.
Consequently, language was included in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill, directing you to include affected States
and local governments in the process by developing a new
approach to the plan. What is the Forest Service doing to
ensure that the affected States and local governments are
included in that process? Chief? Jim? Either one.
public involvement
Mr. Lyons. Senator, let me point out that both as a result
of conversations that Mike and I had with you and Subcommittee
Chairman Gorton, as well as the commitments we made in writing,
we have followed through and are in the process of reissuing an
EIS supplemental so that we can engage in further dialogue
about options for management of the lands in the Interior
Columbia Basin. As a part of that, outreach to the affected
counties and communities is continuing.
As you know, there continues to be a great deal of debate
about that. I know we have taken to heart the notion that
sufficient flexibility has to be built into any management
decision so that local conditions can be reflected in those
decisions.
That is what we are seeking to accomplish in this new EIS
and the alternative that will be chosen, while at the same time
recognizing that we are dealing with a regional challenge in
listings of some stocks, trout, steelhead, salmon, and dealing
with other landscape-level issues, such as the forest health
concern that you just identified.
It is a difficult challenge. It provides sufficient
guidance to deal with those regional issues, while at the same
time the flexibility to make sure that local managers can make
decisions that are responsive to local conditions. But we have
taken that to heart. We will be issuing an EIS and moving
forward with another comment period to address these concerns.
Senator Craig. Well, I hope you are sensitive to it,
because while some of our stakeholders have used existing law
as trip wires, I have a feeling that there is a growing concern
out there because the Forest Service has really kind of ground
to a halt in any kind of activity decision making, that if this
one does not work, a whole new set of stakeholders are going to
use it as a trip wire, and we will see another decade of
gridlock on our public lands and the concern of the Chief that
the third branch of Government will be the decision maker who
is going to be out there, unless we can gain a majority here in
the Congress that will work with us and then we will simply
start mandating again in public policy and clarifying that.
I know what you are trying to do, but your credibility with
the collaborative process or inclusion process is at stake on
this one.
Mr. Lyons. We recognize that, Senator.
noxious weeds
Senator Craig. Chief Dombeck, as you know, noxious weeds
are a serious problem on both public lands and private lands.
You talked about those invaders a moment ago. I am in the
process of taking, I have the permission of all 50 States'
Departments of Agricultures now, we are introducing a noxious
weed bill, and we are using some of the President's Executive
order in it.
I do not think 18 months of talk is anything necessary
anymore. We all know what is needed, and we need to come to
people like the chairman and others and put some money behind
it and maybe some new policy, and my bill will do that.
It is a serious problem, and some of your lands are
habitat, if you will, or they are harboring. The Plant
Protection Act of 1999 that I have introduced will focus on
efforts in the Federal land a better fight on this concern, and
APHIS will be given expansion of its authorities to move, and
it will be the lead Government agency.
I have declared an all-out war on weeds in the West, and I
was absolutely amazed at the army that appeared out of the
weeds to fight, because we recognized what is going on out
there finally, and I did it, because of the interest of the
State, only to find out that 50 States immediately stood up and
said, oh, thank you very much, somebody is finally speaking out
on a problem that most have been silent on or at least limited
on.
I guess my question to you will be: Are you willing to join
in that fight?
invasive species
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, we will. In fact, as I said, one of the
major problems with resource management across the country is
the invasive species, and it is true all over the country. It
is not only the Starthistle, or the Nap Weed, or the Leafy
Spurs in the West, you have Mellowluke in the Everglades, and
Kudzu in the Southeast, and it is Gypsy Moth, Asian Long Horn
Beetle.
We could go on and on and list problem species, and I would
also hope that as you move that forward that you would take a
look at the research needs, because one of our best defenses
against this, of course, is to avoid the problem of coming to
our shores to begin with, but then once it is here, the more it
can be isolated the better, and we are making increased
investments in research with regard to these, but the need is
much greater.
Senator Craig. Well, if we can bring State, Federal, and
local universities, private resources together, and there are
some of the new biological efforts that are underway, makes
some sense, this is something that we just need to spend more
time at working, I suspect, harder.
Mr. Dombeck. Our technology transfer capabilities in our
work, with strong support from the State foresters, I know the
land commissioners are all going to be in town next week, the
State land commissioners, and----
Senator Craig. Well, I have been working with them, and
they are very excited about a greater coordinated effort. I
hope we can get there.
prescribed burns
It is my understanding that some prescribed burns are
planned for the Boise National Forest. I will only say as an
added commentary, I find it fascinating that the Secretary of
the Interior is out flying over the Boise Forest prescribing
burns instead of the Chief of the Forest Service.
I said to the press in Idaho, ``Do not listen to Bruce
Babbitt, he does not manage the Forest Service, he just thinks
he does.'' I trust you two will continue to do that. Anyway, he
was out there getting great press over burning down the Boise.
I do not think that is going to happen, but anyway, last
year we put language in your appropriation bill, directed line
officers to see to it that commercially viable and harvestable
timber is not burned, recognizing that fire is necessary and we
ought to be doing some burning out there to create our uneven-
ages, and our mosaics, and the health of our forests.
Be that as it may, that was to be done and the public was
to be consulted in that. What is being done on the Boise
National Forest to ensure that you are complying with that
language?
Mr. Dombeck. What I can do is give you--I cannot give you
the specifics of what is being done on the Boise, but we would
be happy to check with Dave Rittenhaus and get back with you.
Senator Craig. I wish you would, and we will chat with
Dave, too. All of a sudden, when I saw the Secretary out
talking about burning the Boise, I thought maybe he has not
read the law, but then again, not too surprising on that issue.
prescribed fire
Mr. Dombeck. I try and reinforce that fire is a natural
part of the system----
Senator Craig. Absolutely.
Mr. Dombeck [continuing]. And we need to understand that,
but our assessment is that about 10 percent of our at-risk
acres can be burned without some other kind of treatment,
whether it is mechanical thinning, salvage, harvest, some type
of other fuel reduction mechanisms. So we need the whole regime
to be applied. Not one of those single methods is the answer in
itself.
Senator Craig. Well, we agree on that. We absolutely agree
on that, but there is a frustration. If there is commercial
timber out there, and our mills are setting idle, and our
people are without work, and our mill operators or loggers are
without work, and we are burning commercially valuable timber
for the sake of forest health, when we could be thinning and
cleaning, we have a problem, and we have a little more pouring
out of anger, and then you are going to hear a little more
anger coming over this dais at you, so that is why that
language is in the bill, now law, and we hope you look at that
to make sure that we are working in that direction.
Chief, an issue that has come to my attention, which I
think disturbs me, is the discrepancy between the Forest
Service's funding for the timber sale program and the funding
for timber roads.
roads and timber sales
Numbers from your agency show that you provide one level of
funding for timber sales and another level for timber roads,
which is I think inconsistent. Based on numbers we received
from you, on a national level, the various regions requested
$48 million in road money to support a timber offer level of
about 2.5 billion board feet. The agency is providing about $35
million to accomplish that level. Why is there such a large
discrepancy?
Mr. Dombeck. I can get you the numbers in detail, but here
is my view of that. First, in all areas I do not think we have
a program area where our region is getting all that it has
requested. We have heard requests for increased funding in
programs here this morning, and other places----
Senator Craig. Sure.
Mr. Dombeck [continuing]. So that is a given, but also I
believe some of the requests likely involve a request for road
support, for overhead, for other things that may not directly
be road construction. The second thing I believe occurred was
that through the conference report last year that harvest was
increased by about 200 million board feet, and dollars were
added, I believe, to the forest management program, but to my
knowledge I do not think those dollars, commensurate dollars'
were added to the roads program. I believe that is correct,
right, Ron?
Mr. Stewart. That is correct.
Mr. Dombeck. But we will give you a breakdown of that.
Senator Craig. Well, we need that, because if these are
accurate, you cannot make those timber targets, and I say this,
I have been told that there has been a particular problem in
region ten.
According to reports from the region, roughly one-third of
their fiscal year 1999 timber program may be in jeopardy,
because it was not given enough money for roads. Are you aware
of that problem?
Mr. Dombeck. I am not aware of that one, no.
Senator Craig. That is pretty significant. I mean I
understand the dislocations of numbers, but when you set
targets, then you ought to be able to back them up with the
necessary tools to at least under normal, reasonable
circumstances meet those targets.
tongass land management plan
Jim, let me pursue with you only briefly the issue of the
Tongass. I am not going to be as impassioned as my colleague
from Alaska, because I guess for the simple reason that the
Tongass is not in Idaho, but at the same time I have followed
that episode in that process before the committee of
jurisdiction that I chair and working with Senator Murkowski
for a good number of years.
I must tell you that yesterday I think my reaction would be
that we found the Tongass Land Management Plan is so
significant as a final decision that it warrants the signature
not from the regional forester, not from the Chief of the
Forest Service, but yourself as the Under Secretary of
Agriculture.
What I am trying to understand about this process is
process, because your credibility rests on process on both
sides, all stakeholders, and how we get it defined, and how we
understand appeals, and the credibility of those appeals, and
working our way up and down the ladders from the region to the
chief's office, and back down.
I got a strange feeling that all of a sudden somebody
walked in and just went, chunk, and whatever happened below
does not count any more, I am going to make a decision from the
top, that is it, take it, or sue me.
If that is the case, I can understand why the senior
Senator from Alaska was so exorcized, because our credibility
around here is one of being believable, and trusting, and that
processes that are prescribed as law work. So let me walk you
through some questions that I am concerned about, because,
first, I can assume that your decision involved no
participation from the Council of Environmental Quality or
other White House offices, as George Frampton testified before
the House the day-before-yesterday.
Mr. Lyons. That is correct.
administrative appeals
Senator Craig. Were the administrative appeals you decided
yesterday first filed on September 24, 1997?
Mr. Lyons. I believe--I could not tell you the specific
date, but those are the appeals that were filed on the 1997
plan, that is correct.
Senator Craig. Do not the Forest Service regulations
indicate that the agency will try to decide these appeals
within 160 days?
Mr. Lyons. That is correct, and as you know, we were
delinquent in doing so on litigation related to that issue.
Senator Craig. In light of the extraordinary delay for a
response, have not some of the appellants maintained that you
have constructively denied their appeals and sought redress in
the Federal district court?
Mr. Lyons. I think that is the litigation I was
referencing, Senator.
Senator Craig. What will you tell the court about their
claims, and how will the Government advise the court to deal
with those claims that have been resolved by yesterday's
decision?
Mr. Lyons. Well, we had told the court previously that we
intended to resolve the appeals issue as expeditiously as
possible, and, in fact, that was one of the reasons that I
elected to take the appeals. As Senator Stevens pointed out, it
has been over a decade that this issue has been debated, and,
therefore, I was attempting to expedite resolution by simply
moving past the chief's appeal level to bring this to closure,
and then if the----
Senator Craig. Then how about the claims that were not
resolved by your decision yesterday?
Mr. Lyons. I think we addressed all the appeals that were
raised yesterday, either individually or as they were
consolidated, as I think the appellants were aware of.
Senator Craig. So you tried to persuade the court to
dismiss all claims, even though some may still be substantively
relevant, and force these appellants to refile.
Mr. Lyons. Well, there is no right of further appeal, as
you know. When I elect to take----
Senator Craig. I guess that is right. It is just sue now.
Mr. Lyons. Well, one of the reasons to resolve this issue,
and this is a unique decision, but not unprecedented, is to try
and bring these issues to closure as quickly as possible.
Senator Craig. Will you try to get the courts to dismiss a
suit if one comes?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think we----
Senator Craig. One is pending. You have one pending now.
tongass land management plan
Mr. Lyons. Yes, and I think our argument would be, though I
am not the Department of Justice, that the final decision
rendered yesterday should resolve that pending suit.
If I could make one point, Senator, and that is, I think we
all agree that this issue has gone on long enough, and that
there was need to seek resolution. We had, in fact, received a
request from some staff that this issue be remanded.
We felt we could work within the issues that were raised in
the original EIS, that the public had an opportunity to comment
on within the alternatives that were presented in the EIS to
address the relevant and I think significant issues raised by
some of the appellants to render----
Senator Craig. I think all of us are frustrated by time,
Jim, but why would it not be appropriate under the current
process to allow the pending litigation to proceed to a
conclusion on any issues unresolved or any new matters that
might be raised as a result of your decision yesterday?
Mr. Lyons. Well, Senator, I think my view was that we can
go on and discuss this issue forever. It was about time for
someone to make a decision and move on with the debate, which
will now be addressed in the form of the district court.
As far as the claim that the public had not had adequate
opportunity for input, I point out that there was extensive
comment on the 1997 EIS, there has been comment throughout this
whole process, and so we dealt with issues which were in the
context of the----
Senator Craig. Will you allow the court to continue? I mean
you----
Mr. Lyons. Well, the court will make that decision.
Senator Craig. Pardon?
Mr. Lyons. I said I guess the court will make that
judgment.
Senator Craig. What will the Government recommend? I mean
obviously you are going to recommend something.
Mr. Lyons. I assume we will recommend that we want to be
able to proceed, and to implement the 1999 decision, which was
a modification of the 1997 ROD issued by Phil Janek.
Senator Craig. OK. Let me see if I can summarize your
rationale for proceeding the way you have, that is, issuing the
Final Record of Decision rather than deciding the appeals and
remanding the plan to the chief or to the regional forester. As
I understand, and Jim, you probably ought to listen to this----
Mr. Lyons. I am sorry.
Senator Craig. As I understand it, you are justifying this
course of action by asserting that your decision is a revision
of the 1979 plan, and there is, therefore, no need for further
public review or comment or NEPA analysis, because your
decision yesterday replaces the regional forester's 1997
decision in its entirety, thus the regional forester's 1997
decision is nullified as if it never existed. Is this a fair
summation of how you would justify your course of action?
Mr. Lyons. No. As I mentioned, Senator Stevens, I do not
think that is a correct characterization of what was done.
Senator Craig. OK.
Mr. Lyons. What we did was, we decided the appeals that
were pending, I decided the appeals that were pending, with
regard to the 1997 Record of Decision, and modified--both
affirmed the 1997 decision and modified it in response to the
issues raised by the appellants, and a ROD was issued simply to
provide for those issues to be described in context.
So it was a matter of simply trying to, if you will,
present the entire story, as opposed to simply presenting a
response to each individual appeal, which is another way in
which we could have presented it.
forest plan development process
Senator Craig. Has not your course of action blurred the
process normally followed to first develop a forest plan under
the National Forest Management Act, second, conduct
environmental analysis under NEPA, and third, later hear
appeals of final decisions in such a way that it is hard to
follow the logic behind just exactly what you did yesterday, or
put differently, is yesterday's decision a final National
Forest Management Act plan, or is it a response to appeals on
what was a final National Forest Management Act plan? I do not
think it can be both at the same time, so what is it?
Mr. Lyons. Well, as I said, Senator, I think what we did
was, we resolved the issues that were raised by appellants with
regard to the 1997 plan, and modified that plan in rendering a
Final Decision yesterday. That is, I believe, fully consistent
with the forest planning process.
We went through public review, a NEPA process, there was
public comment on that, a Record of Decision was issued in
1997, it was subject to appeal, and I simply resolved the
appeals yesterday.
Senator Craig. It is arguable to say that you just rewrote
a new plan, or you just wrote a new plan.
Mr. Lyons. I do not think we should confuse the mechanism
we used to issue a Final Decision with whether or not it was
simply a resolution of the appeals issues.
Senator Craig. OK.
Mr. Lyons. It is not a wholly new plan, it is an
affirmation of the 1997 plan, with modifications.
Senator Craig. Well, let us assume for a moment that we
accept your rationale, that you were really making a final plan
decision, describe for me how, without engaging expert
communications, you had sufficient information for a decision,
even though you could not even talk to the people in the
regional office who wrote the plan, that does not now exist.
Mr. Lyons. We had a sizeable record, as you might imagine,
having been accumulated over a decade, from which to work. We
assembled a team of individuals with expertise relevant to the
issues raised by appellants and with some knowledge and
experience of Alaska issues, that team then worked with the
existing record to address the issues raised by appellants, and
to help guide me in making this Final Decision.
Senator Gorton. Senator Craig, I am pretty quick going to
have to intervene.
Senator Craig. OK. I have a couple more, and I will quit.
Senator Gorton. OK.
Senator Craig. Thank you. I think it is important that we
get this for the record, because, Mr. Chairman, I am very
concerned that the Under Secretary's decision yesterday is
precedent-setting in very significant legal ways, and because I
think that we as policymakers and the prescription of process
was sought and denied in a significant way yesterday. So let me
ask this question.
record of decision authority
Do you as the Under Secretary even have the authority to
approve a Record of Decision under 36 CFR 21910C-1,
specifically calls for the regional forester to prepare a
record of decision for a plan?
Mr. Lyons. I do not know that I can answer that question,
Senator. I frankly do not understand it. I know the Secretary
has final authority to render a Decision on the appeals that
were filed on the 1997 decision, and that is what we exercised
yesterday under our appeals rule.
Senator Craig. OK. Well, let me ask one last question, and
then I am going to bring it back to the chairman, because I
want the chairman to understand what I am trying to do here.
Mr. Lyons. And I am trying to understand.
Senator Craig. Maybe it will justify his patience. In every
appeal decision that I have reviewed, the decision resulted in
either affirming the plan or remanding it to the deciding
officers for changes. In every instance with which I am
familiar where these changes were major, they were construed to
require a significant plan amendment.
This is triggered both by NFMA public participation and
NEPA environmental analysis requirements. Are you trying to
tell me that the changes that you made in the 1997 Record of
Decision or in the 1979 Record of Decision, whichever you claim
to be changing, were insufficiently major that they did not
involve a revision or a significant plan amendment?
Mr. Lyons. What I am telling you Senator is that we worked
within the scope of the record that already existed and
evaluated it in making the decision to affirm the 1997 plan,
with modifications, and that is what we did yesterday.
interior columbia basin ecosystem management plan
Senator Craig. Well, my concluding thought, Mr. Chairman,
as it relates to ICBEMP, or our regional ecosystem analysis, I
believe dangerous precedent was set yesterday, in that while we
have created, or the Forest Service has caused to be created by
NEPA and NFMA, a rather complicated process, with tiers of
decision making that are relatively clear cut now, but when
these kinds of actions occur, what happens to all of the kinds
of energies that we in our communities put into efforts like
ICBEMP, and if some group decidedly disagrees, whether they are
in the majority or the minority, but they happen to be
consistent with the politics of the office, and I am talking
about your office or the Chief's office, you make these kinds
of decisions, and it appears to me that you have denied the
process.
Now, I am no lawyer, and my guess is we will find that out
over due time, but it is kind of like I cannot get my way, so I
am going to do it anyway. Now, that is how I have to read these
kinds of decisions. Now, you know the credibility gap we, you
and I, are into right now on efforts like ICBEMP.
I think your action yesterday had a real chilling impact
well down into the lower 48 when it comes to these decision
making processes. That is why I was very curious as to your
thinking and how it aligns.
Mr. Lyons. Senator, I would simply respond by saying that
the issues related to the appeals on the Tongass were decided
in a manner that I think is fully consistent with regulations,
in order to allow us to move on to implementation of what we
think is a solid plan.
I do not view those in the context of ICBEMP, and I think
further discussions we have had both with you and Senator
Gorton, we are going to continue to work through that process
to try and, of course, be true to NEPA and NMFA, and the other
processes in which we are bound to operate, and also to seek
opportunities for public input involvement to hopefully come up
with a sound plan that has broad regional and community
support.
Senator Craig. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience.
puget sound map photographs
Senator Gorton. Mr. Dombeck, would you get your assistant
to put out those three Puget Sound map photographs? Maybe right
in a row, at the base of the dais here. Oh, they are all in
one. You can just put them back the way they were before.
I think you all know that I try to be understanding and
relatively calm, perhaps more so than some of my colleagues
over some of our policy differences, but I have to tell you,
Mr. Dombeck, I regard those photographs as fraudulent.
The color scheme seems to be designed to show that green is
good and black is bad, and that basically what has happened
there has been such a huge urbanization as to destroy the
environment, but the selection of colors is rather peculiar. On
the map on the left, one of the large black areas, of course,
is the metropolitan part of the city of Seattle itself, but the
largest black area is Mount Rainier National Park.
Now, no map or photograph that is designed to educate is
going to have the ice and snow on the top of Mount Rainier in
the same color as the metropolitan downtown area of the city of
Seattle.
Now, I have lived in that area for more than 40 years, and
it certainly is growing rapidly, and between the first
photograph and the last there has probably been a doubling of
the population, but you are trying to illustrate to us, it
seems to me, that the environment of the area has been
irrevocably destroyed.
Again, the very use of black is, of course, negative. It
sort of looks like, coming from the Forest Service, that we had
a wonderful set of forests and they have all burned down at the
same time.
In fact, when I look at the detailed copies of the map I
have here, I will give you two illustrations. In the city of
Seattle itself, within the city limits of Seattle itself, the
clear implication of the difference between the first
photograph and the last photograph is that three of the four
largest parks in the city of Seattle have been destroyed. They
are green on the left map, they are black on the right map.
Now, I know that those three parks have not been destroyed.
In fact, if anything, they have more tree cover now in 1999
than they did 24 years earlier.
My family's vacation home is on one of those two islands in
the upper left-hand corner in all three of the maps. In the map
on the left, 1977, that area is mostly green. In the one on the
right, both of those islands look more thickly settled and more
totally destroyed than does the central district of the city of
Seattle. They are for all practical purposes entirely black.
Now, that is not true on Canano Island and on the south side of
Whidbey Island.
So you have presented to me a set of photographs that I can
only say very bluntly are fraudulent. They do not show land
use, they do not show the state of vegetation, and I will be
damned if I know what they do show. We try to work together on
things like this, and I am given this kind of stuff, it is
supposed to mean something.
It does not mean anything, and I sure hope that you are not
showing these around to prove some cause or another. That is
just flat out wrong, and if you want to use photographs like
that, let us have them shown meaningfully, and colored areas
that are totally different from one another, in a different
fashion.
I do not know where that green, yellow, black color scheme
came from, but it does nothing but obstruct an understanding of
what has taken place in a rapidly growing, mostly, but not
entirely major metropolitan area in the United States.
You can take it down, if your assistant will, but I hope
when you go back to your office you will destroy it, or come up
with something that is more meaningful than what you have shown
us here today.
crown jewel mine
Now, I have a wide range of questions. I may ask a couple
of them. I do not have time for all of them, but I do want to
cover another action in your case, Mr. Lyons, that has taken
place in just the last couple of days, for which I suppose you
are prepared, and it has to do with Crown Jewel, specifically,
and mining regulations, generally,
Two years after this administration, in January 1997,
approved a Record of Decision, after that Record has been
successfully defended by the Forest Service in a Federal
district court, after the company concerned has spent $80
million on the project, after more than 50 permits have been
obtained, after the direction of the Washington Department of
Ecology stated, and I quote: ``No other proposal has received
this level of environmental scrutiny,'' a letter that you
signed together with three others, presumably by the Interior
Department's solicitor, John Leshy, pulled the rug out from
under the entire project, rendered an opinion directly contrary
to the U.S. Forest Service manual, and has not only destroyed
that project, and perhaps the company that did so, but
apparently has had the impact in national markets of causing
almost every mining company in the United States that operates
largely now on public lands to have a tremendous loss in the
value of their securities and grave warnings about their
future.
I guess I have to ask you, Mr. Lyons, no private person
could ever act in this fashion. Does not the Government of the
United States owe at least a minimal degree of fairness to
people who operate in good faith pursuant to the laws, and for
that matter, the regulations that the Forest Service has
kindled?
How possibly can the Government justify, simply justify on
the basis of the most minimal standards of justice, a decision
of this nature?
Mr. Lyons. I agree with the concern about fairness, Mr.
Chairman. I would simply explain that the letter that was
signed by myself, our general counsel, Charlie Walls, as well
as the Solicitor of Interior, John Leshy, and Assistant
Secretary Bacca, was the result of a legal interpretation of
the 1872 Mining Act by the Department of Interior, and as you
know, Interior has jurisdiction over subsurface rights related
to the National Forests, so based on their guidance and their
interpretation of the amount of surface occupancy that is
provided for under the 1872 Mining Act, we were sending that
letter to the company in question.
Senator Gorton. Then it does not represent your own or your
own Department's independent analysis of the law.
Mr. Lyons. Well, it represents the guidance we have
received, based on Mr. Leshy's legal decision----
Senator Gorton. Please answer the question. Does it
represent your view and your Department's view of the law?
Mr. Lyons. It represents what I have been told is an
appropriate interpretation of the law.
Senator Gorton. Does it mean that you will now change your
regulations in the Forest Service manual to the extent that
that manual is diametrically, takes a diametrically contrary
point of view?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think it raises a number of policy
questions, Mr. Chairman, that we are currently assessing. This
is obviously a new interpretation rendered by Mr. Leshy that
serves as the basis for this decision.
Senator Gorton. Are you going to engage immediately in a
new rule making on that subject?
Mr. Lyons. I have asked for an analysis of the
implications.
Senator Gorton. Well, I want to go back and ask the first
question again. Do you believe that there is the remotest
degree of justice or fairness in the Government of the United
States acting in this way with respect to an individual
applicant or for that matter with respect to the wide range of
companies that now apparently are operating in a way
inconsistent with this interpretation?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would agree, Mr. Chairman, it would have
been preferable to have some sense of this interpretation
sooner in the process.
Senator Gorton. That really is not a very good answer. Does
not the Government of the United States owe organizations like
that some minimal degree of fairness?
interpretation of mining laws
Mr. Lyons. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I also have to
acknowledge that we are responsible for implementing the law,
and if this is what the appropriate legal interpretation of the
law is, not being a lawyer, then I have to follow it.
Senator Gorton. Then are you recommending to us that we
reverse this interpretation as a part of our bill this year?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir, I am not doing that.
Senator Gorton. So you think that this interpretation is
not only required by law, but it is fair and to be continued.
Mr. Lyons. I believe it is consistent with the law. I am
not going to make a judgment about the fairness.
Senator Gorton. You do not think fairness falls within your
assignment or job.
Mr. Lyons. I think it does, Senator, and I think it would
have been fairer to give the company some forewarning that this
was likely to be the interpretation of the 1872 Mining Act as
it affected their proposal. Nevertheless, this is the
interpretation that has been rendered, and that is what we have
communicated to the----
Senator Gorton. It is an interpretation that has been
rendered and one that you do not want changed by statute.
mining act implications
Mr. Lyons. You asked if I was recommending that in the
context of the fiscal year 2000 budget. I am not, and I am
asking now for an interpretation of the implications of this,
both for existing operations and future operations.
I think there has been tremendous debate about the 1872
Mining Act in this Congress. There are a lot of issues I think
we would like to revisit in the 1872 mining law. If in that
context we were addressing issues, this is one we might
address.
Senator Gorton. Well, I can only give the editorial comment
that I hope Mr. Lyons that I would have had the courage to
resign rather than to sign such a letter that does such an
injustice.
high-risk agency list
Mr. Dombeck, you did try to cover your various
accountability problems in your opening statement, but I want
you more specifically to respond to the General Accounting
Office's statement earlier this year adding the Forest Service
to its list of agencies of high risk of waste, fraud, abuse,
and mismanagement. Do you agree or disagree with the
assessment?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, based upon their criteria I will agree
with GAO's assessment. Let me ask my chief financial officer if
she would like to provide an interpretation or additional
information.
Ms. Goerl. The listing of the financial management concerns
that the Forest Service is a high risk, when you view the basis
for which they make those determinations, would seem fair, in
view of the past actions that GAO has listed in terms of their
criteria for that. So it was actually not that surprising for
me to learn that we were put on the high-risk list, in view of
my past experience.
Senator Gorton. When you come back here next year will you
be off that list?
Ms. Goerl. I think that the GAO likes to reserve that you
have to get a clean opinion for a couple of years before they
would determine that the long-term health of the financial
management program is enough that they would remove you from
the list, and that has also been their past history.
general administration
Senator Gorton. Mr. Dombeck, last year's conference report
directed you to eliminate the general administration line for
this budget, but you have one. When are you going to comply
with that direction?
Mr. Dombeck. Also let me ask Vincette to address that.
Ms. Goerl. I think that improvement in the budget structure
is essential to improving our accountability, and I believe we
did forward one change this particular year in public asset
protection and management.
I think what we have to do before we do significant budget
reform is to ensure that we have a sound financial basis and a
financial system in place, which we do expect to have by
October 1, 2000. However, we did forward for discussion and
dialogue a proposed budget structure that we would like to have
discussions with you and the Congress over the next couple of
months, so that we can come back in 2001 with a renewed budget
structure that would consider the general administration as
well.
budget structure reform
What we did in that particular proposal that we forwarded
with the budget justification is link it back to what I think
is very important, the strategic plan is long-term outcome
measures, with current performance plan, products, and services
we expect to do in the current year with the new budget
structure.
I think that that is essential, along with a strong
financial infrastructure to ensure that we can report against
that. We would be very pleased to work with you on that
structure together.
Senator Gorton. Given the length of this hearing and given
the fact that I have 30 or 40 more questions by staff, I think
we will submit the balance of them to you.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, I came back to hear you.
Senator Gorton. You missed the good part. [Laughter.]
It went first.
Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, if I could just have one second.
Senator Gorton. Yes.
puget sound map photographs
Mr. Lyons. Since I was the one who raised the issues
related to the photographs of the Puget Sound area I would like
to have an opportunity perhaps to address your concerns at a
later time and maybe come up and visit with you, but I want to
assure you there is no intent, and I do not concur that those
photos are fraudulent, but rather I think the black areas you
identified simply reflect areas where there are no trees,
which, of course, is why Mount Rainier shows up black.
I would like to have an opportunity to explain to you how
those photos were developed and in their utility at least in
guiding us in terms of some of the work we are doing in the
area, and I certainly did not mean to offend you in presenting
that information.
Senator Gorton. You will have that opportunity, Mr. Lyons.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Gorton. Yes.
mining laws
Senator Craig [continuing]. It is not that I want the last
word, but I agree with you and I am glad you pursued the issue
of the letter that both Secretary Lyons and Solicitor Lechey
signed. I worked on mining law for a long while, I have read
the letter, I have read the context and understand it
generally, and my reaction is simply this, I guess I am a
little sorry that Jim got caught up in it. Mr. Leshy has had an
agenda for the mining industry for a long time, it is well
known. He has gone around the country giving political speeches
about it for a long while.
I kind of view this as a way of dragging the industry
kicking and screaming to this administration's vision of reform
of the 1872 mining law. The great tragedy is, of course, that
it may well destroy companies and all of that, but then again,
I guess that is relatively insignificant when one pursues one's
politics.
Thank you.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gorton. 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:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
fire
The Subcommittee is very concerned about the fire risk on Forest
Service lands, particularly in the interior West. GAO Associate
Director for Energy, Resources and Science Issues Barry Hill testified
recently that as many as 39 million acres of the interior West's
national forests are a ``tinderbox.'' However, the budget request for
fire preparedness, is the same as last year. This represents only 67
percent of the optimal level of MEL (Most Efficient Level). This is
down from 74 percent last year. Your own budget states:
At the lower protection levels associated with a smaller percentage
of MEL, there is increased risk of injury and loss of life to both the
public and to firefighters, due to reduced staffing levels and
decreased availability of firefighting resources.
Question. How can the agency justify lowering the preparedness
level in light of these facts?
Answer. The president's fiscal year 2000 budget will allow the
Forest Service to field an effective initial attack suppression force.
There may be fewer initial attack resources available, but they will
not be delayed in their action. Having fewer initial attack resources
available may result in more escaped fires, higher suppression costs,
and damage to resources. Much of this depends on the overall severity
of the fire season.
Question. For the last 10 years, what was the level of funding for
Fire Preparedness and what percent of the Most Efficient Level did it
represent?
Answer. The level of funding and percent of Most Efficient Level
fluctuates from year to year. The 10-year averages for fiscal years
1990 to 1999 are $259 million for Fire Preparedness (WFPR) which
equates to an average of 87 percent of Most Efficient Level (MEL).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Fiscal year WFPR MEL MEL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................. 176.2 196.2 90
1991............................. 179.9 200.1 90
1992............................. 187.5 219.5 85
1993............................. 247.9 275.3 90
1994............................. 257.7 294.2 88
1995............................. 285.1 311.4 92
1996............................. 295.3 328.0 90
1997............................. 319.3 341.0 94
1998............................. 319.3 390.0 82
1999............................. 324.9 430.0 76
10 Year Average.................. 259.3 298.5 87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Department of Interior (DOI) is funding its Fire
Preparedness operations at 83 percent of the MEL, why is there such a
discrepancy between Forest Service funding and DOI?
Answer. The Forest Service funding in terms of MEL was comparable
to DOI up through the fiscal year 1998 budget year, and has averaged 87
percent over a ten-year period. Decreases in program level have
occurred very recently as balances with other equally important
programs within the Forest Service occur, while program and
inflationary cost continue to arise. In addition, DOI's budget
allocation was more generous than the Forest Service's.
Financing a higher percent of MEL should manifest itself as more
available initial attack firefighters. Depending upon the severity of
the fire season, the size of firefighting organization available for
initial attack purposes that is funded by a lower percent of MEL in
fire preparedness could result in more escaped fires, increased costs
of fire suppression, and greater changes to resource values.
Question. Does this mean that DOI is more concerned about limiting
damage from fire than the Forest Service?
Answer. No. Both DOI and USDA are equally concerned about limiting
damage from fire as evidenced by continuing interagency efforts to
improve wildland fire policy and program implementation. But, again,
DOI's overall allocation was higher, giving that agency the ability to
fund the program more aggressively.
Question. Are there any problems caused by this discrepancy in the
level of preparedness between the Forest Service and DOI?
Answer. The Interior and Agriculture Departments have an effective
working relationship, which has not been affected in prior years by
different funding levels, and should not be affected in fiscal year
2000.
Question. Are the costs for maintaining the same percentage of MEL
increasing more rapidly for the Forest Service than the DOI? If so,
why? What can be done to resolve this problem?
Answer. Yes. The Forest Service organizations and program is larger
than DOI's, therefore issues are magnified in relation to budget.
Implementation of actions recommended in various management review
studies, since the catastrophic fire season of 1994, has resulted in
increased costs primarily related to personnel, safety and training.
Also, in the past, fire programs were heavily dependent on shared
personnel from other program areas such as timber, wildlife, and
engineering. As these programs decrease, fulltime fire positions are
needed and greater fixed costs are required to maintain basic program
capability.
The Subcommittee is also concerned about how the Forest Service is
planning to reduce the fire hazard on Western forestlands in the
future. Last year, the Congress fully funded the hazardous fuels
reduction program ($67,000,000). However, the GAO recently testified
that ``the Forest Service lacks a cohesive strategy for reducing fuels
on our National Forests'' and that the Forest Service current plans may
significantly underestimate the number of acres on which fuels must be
reduced annually to adequately reduce fire hazards.
Question. Is GAO correct in its assessment? If GAO is incorrect,
why?
Answer. The GAO testimony was based on a draft report, which was
subsequently released in April 1999 as GAO/RCED-99-65. In the Forest
Service letter offering comments on the draft which is included on
pages 50 and 51 of the final report, we state that: ``We feel that the
GAO report is very comprehensive and does a good job of covering the
problem. GAO has effectively portrayed the existing forest conditions
that exist throughout much of the interior West forests. We agree with
the principal findings of the report.''
We have a strategy in place to accomplish our fuel reduction
program. We will complete a plan similar to the one suggested in the
report that will provide a more accurate estimate of the acres at risk
and a cohesive plan to address the problem. However, not all acres in
the entire system will be treated as this may require management
activities that may jeopardize other ecological or human values. Acres
treated will be decided after the appropriate science, environmental,
and public input.
Question. What is the current Forest Service strategy for reducing
fuels on the National Forests?
Answer. The Forest Service's long-term trend is to increase the
fuel reduction to 3 million acres by 2005. Reduction of fuels is
through a combination of treatment methods including prescribed burning
and mechanical treatments. In addition, the plan noted above will
outline all Wildland Fire and NFS programs that contribute to meeting
this objective. The Forest Service has undertaken a Risk Assessment
effort to identify high-risk areas and opportunities for priority
treatments. We will use the information from the assessment process to
help prioritize the allocation of funds and to address future funding
requirements.
Question. What are the Forest Service's specific plans to address
the serious fire hazards in the interior West? Does the budget
adequately reflect the significance of this problem?
Answer. The Forest Service has undertaken a Risk Mapping effort to
identify high-risk areas and opportunities for priority treatments. The
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $65 million for hazardous
fuel reduction. This level of funding is in line with the planned
increases in funding needed to increase accomplishment from 350,000
acres per year in fiscal year 1994 to 3.0 million acres per year in
fiscal year 2005.
Question. On how many acres of land must fuels be reduced annually
in order to adequately reduce fire hazards?
Answer. The long-term goal is 3 million acres per year by 2005. The
Chief has testified that 39 million acres of critical forested
ecosystems are in an unhealthy condition and are at a greater risk of
severe damage from fires. As the risk assessments are completed we
expect a more accurate figure, but feel that at least 3 million acres
per year of accomplishment is needed to address the problem.
Question. On how many acres of land are fuels reduced using the
following methods: (1) mechanical treatments, (2) prescribed burning,
and (3) timber sales? Please break these numbers out by Region. What
are the average costs for each of these treatments on a per acre basis?
Please provide these numbers broken out by Region.
Answer. We do not collect hazardous fuel reduction accomplishment
data by type of treatment, such as numbers of acres treated by burning
versus those treated by mechanical means. The fiscal year 1998 cost per
acre by region, averaged for all types of treatments, is as follows: R-
1 $52; R-2 $68; R-3 $62; R-4 $52; R-5 $124; R-6 $73; R-8 $12; R-9 $56;
R-10 $240. In fiscal year 1998 over 932,000 acres of the 1.4 million
acres accomplished were in R-8; which contributed to a national average
cost to $33. Timber sales are not reported in this category.
Question. What is the agency's assessment of the fire risk in New
Mexico?
Answer. We are in close contact with the southwest Regional Office
(AZ and NM). While parts of the Region are in extreme fire danger,
other portions have received precipitation which has moderated
conditions. The potential for a more active than normal wildland fire
season is greater than normal, so we have been working with the Region
to minimize fire risk.
Question. How does the current situation compare to prior years?
Answer. Current conditions reflect those seen in 1996. That year
was characterized by an early start to the wildland fire season which
had more large wildfires than normal, and had a length longer than
normal.
Question. What additional actions is the agency taking to respond
to the increased fire hazard caused by the drought?
Answer. Beginning in March, the Forest Service has used the
Severity authorization to support deployment and early hiring of fire
prevention and firefighting resources in the Region. To date, $4
million has been sent to the Region. This money is used to offset
extreme fire danger conditions that occur from time to time across the
country. The southwest Region is using the severity authorization to
hire their fire prevention and initial attack firefighting resources
earlier than normal. The Forest Service, States of Arizona and New
Mexico, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service are
coordinating their activities in regards to fire prevention, public
service announcements, and deployment of firefighting resources.
Severity authorizations will allow the Forest Service and States to
minimize the risk of wildland fire occurrence.
Fire lookouts are in place and initial attack resources are
deployed throughout the Region.
Question. What, if any, plans are there for the Forest Service to
take advantage of advanced satellite technology used by other agencies
to detect and fight fires?
Answer. The Forest Service does utilize some of the satellite
remote sensing from other government agencies, such as National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautic and Space
Administration (NASA) , and the military.
Question. What obstacles does the agency face in attempting to
access this technology? Would the use of such technology increase costs
to the fire program?
Answer. We have not encountered any obstacles to date, and would
not expect any increased cost to utilizing these technologies unless
the agencies providing the service were to begin charging for the
information.
Question. Would particular regions of the country benefit more than
others from the use of this more advanced technology, i.e., more remote
areas where there is a less significant Forest Service presence on the
ground?
Answer. We have a fairly reliable detection system for most regions
of the country. The technology would be most useful for mapping
existing large fires.
recreation
According to the agency's budget, the Forest Service is the largest
supplier of outdoor recreation in the Nation with close to 900 million
visitors annually. The agency's own projections are that demand for
recreation is increasing rapidly. The Service has also stated that the
business of recreation can provide similar economic benefits to
communities that prior uses, like timber, did. Indeed, the budget
states that, ``Tourism and recreation provide economic contributions
equal to, if not greater than, traditional public land uses.''
Question. If demands on the recreation program are increasing
significantly and it supports economic benefits to local communities,
why is the Recreation Management request frozen at last year's level?
Answer. Recreation is just one of many programs funded by the
Forest Service budget. It is one of the emphasis areas in the Forest
Service Natural Resource Agenda. The other emphasis areas are: roads,
watershed health and restoration, and sustainable forest management.
Other agency priorities identified by Secretary Glickman and Under
Secretary Lyons in the hearing before the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee on March 10, 1999, are lands legacy; research; and
accountability.
The Administration has also proposed a series of legislative
proposal that should help provide for long-term funding stability for
much of the recreational program's activities (e.g. concession reform
legislation).
Recreation is just one of many programs funded by the Forest
Service budget. In fiscal year 2000 the Agency has five major
priorities: watershed health; roads; lands legacy; research; and
accountability. While it is true that recreation programs are funded
near the fiscal year 1999 level, other activities of lesser priority
are proposed for funding decreases.
Question. What economic impact will this have on communities that
depend on recreational use of the National Forests to generate revenue?
Answer. Since the Recreation Management budget has remained flat we
see no change. However, over time because of the backlog in maintenance
and the effects of inflation on a level budget there could be some
decline in the quality of recreation experience for visitors. In
addition, many private tourism/recreation related businesses (outfitter
guides, resorts, concessions and lodges, etc.) rely on quality forest
landscapes for their market niche in local, national and sometimes
international tourism markets.
Question. While the Recreation Management line item was held level,
the budget asks for an additional $7,000,000 for Wilderness Management.
What is the historic wilderness recreation use over the last 10 years?
Answer. The agency believes that funding for wilderness has not
been what it needed to be over the past decade to maintain pristine
conditions that the public expects and the law requires. Therefore, an
increase was made to help bring it up to a responsible level.
The estimated wilderness use for the Forest Service, over the last
10 years of available data, are reported below:
[In millions]
Estimated Wilderness
Year RVD's \1\
1986.................................................... 11,489,709
1987.................................................... 11,634,201
1988.................................................... 12,022,736
1989.................................................... 12,221,059
1990.................................................... 12,288,321
1991.................................................... 12,356,925
1992.................................................... 12,667,430
1993.................................................... 12,815,143
1994.................................................... 13,889,700
1995.................................................... 13,862,800
1996.................................................... 13,889,700
\1\ ``Recreation Visitor Day'' is a statistical reporting unit
consisting of 12 visitor hours. A visitor hour is the presence of a
person on an area of land or water for the purpose of engaging in one or
more recreation activities during a period time aggregating 60 minutes.
Question. What is the top priority for the agency with respect to
wilderness recreation use?
Answer. To provide, consistent with management of the area as
wilderness, opportunities for public use, enjoyment, and understanding
of the wilderness, through experiences that depend upon a wilderness
setting. Also, with an ever increasing population, people expect the
Forest Service to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
Question. What is the increase in the number of wilderness areas
created and managed over the last 5 years?
Answer. Seventy-six wildernesses were created in the five year
period 1993-1998. Eight of these are managed by the USDA Forest
Service, four are jointly managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management, and the remaining 73 are managed by the Bureau of
Land Management or the National Park Service. There are currently 624
wildernesses in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Question. Is recreational use in wilderness areas increasing more
than use in other areas of the National Forests? If so, by how much?
Answer. Records do not exist that permit an accurate comparison of
National Forest recreation and wilderness recreation use trends.
Recreation use estimates are not available beyond 1996; from 1994
through 1996, a comparison of the rate of increase of recreation use in
wilderness and in other areas of the National Forests, expressed in
recreation visitor days, shows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation
Wilderness use
Year recreation (outside
Use wilderness)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.......................................... 13,889 835,238
1996.......................................... 14,512 859,210
Percent Increase 1994-1996.................... 4.4 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comparison would indicate that wilderness recreation use is
increasing at a greater rate (4.4 percent) than National Forest
recreation use (2.8 percent).
Question. How does the magnitude of economic benefits that local
communities derive from wilderness use compare to the rest of the
recreation program?
Answer. The Forest Service has not calculated a comparison of
economic benefits to local communities derived from wilderness use as
compared to the rest of the recreation program. Such a comparison would
be difficult for a number of reasons; one reason is that many people
visit wilderness and other national forest areas in the same trip; the
economic benefits are therefore not distinct to one area or the other.
The question also limits the source of the economic benefit to the
actual on-site, recreation visitation activity and excludes other
wilderness or national forest sources of economic benefit, such as
effect on the value of surrounding private lands (and resultant tax
base).
In terms of total gross magnitude, one can presume the economic
benefits to communities from wilderness use is less than that from the
rest of the recreation program for the following reasons: (1) total
numbers of recreationists (in 1996, estimated recreation visitor days
in wilderness were 14,512 million, compared to 859,210 million for
general National Forest recreation), and (2) total land area
(designated wilderness is only approximately 18 percent of the National
Forest System). However, areas such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
in Minnesota, and other large wildernesses where people need to pack in
such things as canoes, other equipment, and food, may benefit more
economically per wilderness visit than those where people drive through
a national forest and stop only briefly.
Question. Estimates from the agency indicate that the use of
concessionaires has increased by 70 percent over the last decade. Prior
to the implementation of the Recreation Fee Demonstration program, how
did the Forest Service treat monies it received from concessionaires
vis a vis the 25 percent payments to states, i.e., were these monies
subject to the 25 percent payments?
Answer. Prior to the Recreation Fee Demonstration program, all
rental fees for concession based authorizations were subject to the 25
percent payments to states. The exception were authorizations issued
under the Granger/Thye Act, which allows permit holders to do work on
government owned structures they occupy in lieu of fees. Campground
concessions are the activity most associated with the Granger/Thye Act.
Question. What, if any, portion of receipts from concessionaires
could be retained for administrative or other costs by the Forest
Service prior to the Recreation Fee Demonstration program?
Answer. As mentioned above, the Granger/Thye Act allows for the
permit holder to do work on government owned facilities they occupy. In
some cases, the permit holder funds the agency to conduct the work for
them. This is generally the case when the agency has the expertise to
do the work. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act allows for 15
percent of fees collected to be retained by the unit to cover the cost
of collecting such fees.
Question. If a portion could be retained, what statutory authority
provided for this?
Answer. See answer to previous question.
Question. What economic impact has the implementation of the
Recreation Fee Demonstration program had on the 25 percent Fund
payments to states? What are the future impacts likely to be?
Answer. Congress exempted the Recreation Fee Demonstration program
from the 25 percent Payment to States requirement when it passed Public
Law 104-134 in 1996. In the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 budgets, the
Administration proposed legislation that would provide a historic level
of return to States as a replacement for the 25 percent payment to
States statutory authority.
In fiscal year 1998, the Forest Service Recreation Fee
Demonstration program reduced historic payments to States by an
estimated $1 million, as $4 million of historic fee sites were
converted to Fee Demo Projects. Approximately $16 million in new fees
collected in fiscal year 1998 were never subject to the 25 percent
payment requirement. Recreation contributions to historic payments to
States make up less than 1 percent of total historic returns--the bulk
of payments have come from Agency commodity programs.
If in the future all remaining Agency managed recreation fee sites
were transferred to the Fee Demonstration Program, historic payments to
States would be further reduced by approximately $1.4 million (25
percent of the remaining $5.4 million of historic receipts not
currently covered by Fee Demo).
Question. What would the impact be of making receipts from the
Recreation Fee Demonstration program subject to the 25 percent Fund
payments to states? (Please provide a specific estimate of the fiscal
impacts on the program.)
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the Forest Service collected $20.8
million gross recreation fee demonstration receipts. If that entire
amount was subject to a 25 percent return to States assessment,
approximately $5.2 million would be available to the States. This
figure would increase as future receipts increased. Note that Agency
available funds would decline by the same amount, limiting Agency
ability to provide visible improvements desired by fee paying visitors.
This could greatly reduce public support for the fee system and might
cause future reductions in receipts.
In fiscal year 1998, costs for the Forest Service to collect and
process the fees collected were about 17 percent of gross receipts. If
25 percent of receipts are shifted to the States only 58 percent of the
gross fees paid by the recreating public would be available to spend on
recreation maintenance and improvements. Moreover, when the public
visits, many are in-state and county residents who may be paying sales
and income taxes to the state and counties. Also, out of state visitors
are utilizing local hotels, restaurants and other facilities which help
counties and states. If the forests cannot use the money to maintain
the quality of these sites, people may choose to recreate elsewhere.
Therefore, the local governments would lose the greater economic
benefit of the people temporarily residing in these communities.
Question. Does the Forest Service have the discretion to do this
now, or would it require statutory authorization?
Answer. Public Law 104-134 explicitly exempts Recreation Fee
Demonstration receipts from the 25 percent payment to States statutory
authority. The Forest Service does not have the authority to give 25
percent of recreation fee demonstration receipts to the States. It
would take new legislation to remove the exemption.
Question. Recently, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a ruling
that will require Forest Service concessionaires to pay wages to their
employees as set out in the Service Contract Act. What is the impact of
this decision on the Recreation program?
Answer. It is too early in its implementation to make any
predictions on levels of impacts. Possible effects include no bids due
to some offerings now being uneconomical, and where there are bids, bid
amounts could be reduced to cover the increased costs.
Question. What are the Forest Service's estimates on the number of
concessionaires who would not re-bid on existing contracts if they are
required to pay wages pursuant to the Service Contract Act?
Answer. It is too early to make any estimates on impacts. Each
concession offering is unique in its content, therefore the Agency has
no basis to make estimates. To date pursuant to the Service Contract
Act, five offerings have been awarded and three offerings did not
receive bids.
Question. What would be the impact on the Forest Service budget, if
the agency has to operate these areas out of appropriated dollars?
Answer. For reasons stated above, a value can not be calculated.
However, should concession opportunities receive no bids and the agency
field unit determines the campground should remain open to meet public
demands, appropriated funds could be used. Currently, the agency is
developing data to determine what it costs the agency to operate
campgrounds. Preliminary information is anticipated to be available in
July of 1999.
Question. What, if anything, is the Forest Service doing to
mitigate the effects of the Department of Labor's decision on the
Recreation program?
Answer. Because the level of effects is not known the agency has
multi-faceted approach: (1) Implement the Service Contract Act
requirements as existing authorizations come due. This will require a
minimum five years cycle time. (2) Use the Recreation Fee Demonstration
program as a safety net to allow operation of selected sites by the
agency should no bidders come forward. As a temporary safety net, the
agency is using the Recreation Fee Demonstration program in funding
operations by allowing fees collected to be used, without further
appropriation for site operations. (3) Over the next two years analyze
the effects and adjust the program with a focus to maintain the
concession campground program within the constraints of statutes and
regulations.
Question. Last year, the agency instituted a national policy
banning fixed anchors in wilderness areas of the national forests
without any public input. Subsequently, the agency postponed
implementation of this national ban while it goes through a negotiated
rulemaking process which includes the public, climbers and
environmentalists.
What is the current status of this process?
Answer. The Forest Service is involved in a negotiated rulemaking
process to determine the appropriate limits on the placement of fixed
anchors for climbing in wilderness areas of national forests. The
following items have been developed by the Forest Service and are
awaiting approval by the Department of Agriculture: We are awaiting
approval from the Department of Agriculture on the FACA requirements
for the negotiated rulemaking and the Notice of Intent (NOI). Upon
approval, the NOI will be published in the Federal register, and the
public will have the opportunity to nominate members to the committee.
The names of committee members will then be published in the Federal
Register and announced through news releases. News releases and FS
Today website postings will also be used to announce committee meetings
and progress on the rulemaking.
We are targeting September through October 1999 as the timeframe
for committee meetings, November 1999 for the final committee
recommendations, and June 2000 for the publication of a final rule in
the Federal Register.
Question. What is the likelihood that a policy can be developed
which satisfies all stakeholders?
Answer. This question is best answered by reading the Convening
Report, ``The Potential for a Negotiated Rulemaking on Fixed Anchors
for Climbing in Wilderness Areas Administered by the Forest Service'',
January 27, 1999, by Philip J. Harter, Mediation Consortium. The Forest
Service contracted with Mr. Harter for this report as the first phase
of the negotiated rulemaking. Mr. Harter investigated all aspects of
the fixed anchor in wilderness issue and interviewed many of the
stakeholders; his findings, impressions and recommendations are
included in the Report. The conclusion of the Report acknowledges that
there are significant aspects of the fixed anchor issue that will make
it difficult to reach agreement, but states, ``In sum, not only does a
negotiated rulemaking appear feasible, it appears to be the recommended
procedure. But, a reg-neg will be successful only in developing a
policy to manage the use of fixed anchors. Negotiated rulemaking is not
the means to issue a rule prohibiting them altogether nor to announce
that there will be no restrictions whatever. If, as an initial matter,
the Forest Service determines that the Act or its internal policies
require either of these endpoints, then reg-neg is not the route to
take.''
The Forest Service is committed to the success of a negotiated
rulemaking to draft a rule for fixed anchors in wilderness, working for
an outcome that is recognized as a success for all stakeholders.
Question. A few weeks ago, news accounts reported that the Forest
Service is considering limiting hikers on some of the most popular
trails in the Mt. Hood National Forest by as much as 90 percent. More
recently, it has been reported that the Forest Service is re-thinking
its proposal.
What is the current status of proposals to limit access on the Mt.
Hood National Forest?
Answer. Over the last five years, the Mt. Hood National Forest has
worked with a variety of interested people and groups in workshops,
field trips, camp trips and interviews to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA) to address how to best protect wilderness character in
the Mt. Hood, Mark O. Hatfield and Salmon-Huckleberry Wildernesses. The
draft EA was released in January 1999. The Forest then invited
interested publics to review and comment on the proposal. Information
was provided through mailings, web sites, open houses, direct contacts
and other means. Written comments to the proposal were due on April 1,
1999.
The Mt. Hood National Forest is now evaluating over 600 written
comments and input received, including those from over 400 people who
attended three public meetings. Preliminary impressions include that
there is broad public support for limiting use to protect physical
wilderness resources. However, there is considerable opposition to
maintaining solitude standards in areas that have historically
experienced much higher levels of use, such as the south side Mt. Hood,
climbing in the Mt Hood Wilderness, and on the Ramona Falls trail.
The Mt. Hood National Forest is still working on the analysis of
public comment and, based on that comment, a new draft EA will not be
ready for public review until late November, at the earliest.
Question. How much of the proposed policy is based on tangible on-
the-ground impacts which have degraded the resource versus subjective
notions of solitude?
Answer. The proposed Mt. Hood National Forest policy was based on
approximately 50 percent on-the-ground impacts and 50 percent on the
need to provide opportunities for solitude. The basis of the proposal
varied and depended on the needs and conditions on individual sites.
Examples include the south side Mt. Hood, a durable terrain (ice and
rock) with high use levels (over 600 climbers on a May or June weekend)
where the proposed limit was predominately based on limiting
encounters, and on trails and popular camping sites where problems with
vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and excessive human debris are
the factors limiting use.
Question. How does the Forest Service define solitude, if at all?
Answer. National Forest Service Wilderness Policy (Forest Service
Manual 2320) does not contain a definition of solitude. The solitude
component of wilderness management originates from the Wilderness Act
of 1964, which defines wilderness in part as an area that ``has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation;'' (Public Law 88-577, Sec. 2 (c)(2)). The American
Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1982), defines solitude as,
``The state of being alone or remote from others; isolation,'' but
acknowledges in explanatory notes, ``Solitude implies the absence of
all other persons but is otherwise not very specific.'' Individual
wildernesses treat the concept of solitude, with public participation,
during the planning process. A Limits of Acceptable Change approach is
often used. Solitude is defined according to specific opportunities and
resources for each wilderness, and standards identified for focusing
management on protecting wilderness resource values and providing
quality wilderness experiences for visitors.
Question. If solitude is used as basis for establishing the maximum
numbers of visitors, what is the methodology for measuring ``solitude''
and determining the appropriate level of visitors?
Answer. The methodology has developed from work conducted by Forest
Service scientists, wilderness managers' experience, and years of input
by wilderness visitors and interested others. Although there have been
a few attempts to study wilderness visitors' perceptions of solitude
directly, most research has focused on number of encounters between
groups rather than on solitude. Researchers have typically assumed that
opportunities for solitude should generally increase as encounters with
other groups decrease. Because numbers of encounters can be more
directly influenced by management actions than solitude can, managing
the number of encounters has become the most accepted means of managing
opportunities for solitude. Wilderness staffs can manage the number of
encounters informally, by such means as suggesting to visitors
alternative trailheads to reduce numbers at one that is overused, or
rerouting trails to change travel patterns (and therefore encounters)
along popular routes. Formal controls, such as a permit system limiting
the total number of visitors in the wilderness at any one time, are
generally the last to be imposed.
Question. To what extent does the agency base public access
decisions in wilderness areas nationwide on the concept of solitude
versus physical degradation of the resource?
Answer. There is no National policy or standard as the basis of
public access decisions in wilderness and we have no plans to establish
such a policy. Since the early 1980's the Forest Service has used the
``Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)'' planning and management process
developed by Forest Service wilderness researchers to address
recreation use in wilderness as part of the forest planning process.
Both the concept of solitude and the physical degradation of the
resources are considered. The LAC process provides for local decisions
including public involvement on a wilderness by wilderness basis to
determine the limits of recreation use and environmental impact that a
wilderness should sustain within the framework of the Wilderness Act.
roadless moratorium
In January of last year, despite the request of a number of members
from both the House and Senate, to work with the Forest Service in
developing a revised road policy, the agency unilaterally issued a
proposed policy imposing a moratorium on road construction in roadless
areas.
Question. What, if any, timber sales or road building were done in
any areas defined by this proposed policy over the last 15 months?
Please provide a complete list of all National Forests in which timber
sales or road building took place in areas defined by the proposed
policy issued in January, 1998.
Answer. We do not have a list of projects that took place within
areas covered by the proposed interim roads rule published in January,
1998, since the policy was proposed and did not apply to, or affect,
any projects in fiscal year 1998. We did not collect information
pertinent to projects that may have been subject to the roads rule
since the rule was not in effect.
In late January, just before the Service announced the roadless
moratorium the agency briefed a number of Senate staff and suggested
that the impact of the moratorium in fiscal year 1999 would be the
cancellation of between 160 and 240 MMBF of timber sales. A press
release issued by the agency suggested that about 200 MMBF of fiscal
year 1999 timber sale volume would be canceled.
Question. How much volume has been, or is now likely to be,
canceled in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The numbers quoted in the preface to the question need to
be clarified. These were estimates for the entire 18-month period
affected by the suspension based on the environmental assessment and
preliminary estimates from the field. Following publication of the
interim rule in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999, each
national forest evaluated their proposed projects to determine which
projects would be suspended. This analysis was completed in early
March. The forests identified timber sales with an estimated volume of
about 219 million board feet that would be subject to the suspension
over the next 18 months. Of this amount approximately 96 million board
feet was tentatively scheduled to be offered for sale in fiscal year
1999 and subject to the suspension. The remaining 123 million board
feet was identified from timber sales subject to the suspension and
proposed for offer in fiscal year 2000. A final volume estimate is not
possible before the end of the fiscal year because forests have the
ability to modify sales affected by the policy or substitute future
sales for any delayed sales.
Question. Please provide the following information: (1) Copies of
the 6-month and 12-month Periodic Timber Sale Program Announcements
generated by each forest that has, or will be, canceling timber sales
in fiscal year 1999; (2) a copy of the revised 6-month and 12 month
Periodic Reports which were generated after the Roadless Moratorium was
announced; and 3) an explanation of why each sale was, or will be
canceled tied to the different land classifications included in the
Moratorium.
Answer. Projects are delayed or curtailed for a number of reasons,
such as, cost of implementation, lack of feasibility, lack of funds,
environmental risk, or public opposition. In order to address the
potential impacts resulting from the interim rule, each forest
evaluated their proposed projects in light of the interim rule. Each
affected project was identified along with the miles of road
construction and reconstruction and any timber volume associated with
suspended timber roads.
Please refer to Enclosure 1, on following pages.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.003
Question. How much volume and on which forests were timber sales
canceled due to roadless area concerns in fiscal year 1998? In support
of the agency's answer, please provide the following information for
the fiscal year 1998 timber sale program: (1) Copies of the six and
twelve month Periodic Timber Sale Announcements generated on each
National Forest in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998; and (2) a
list of sales, and volume of those sales, which were scheduled to sell
in fiscal year 1998 but that were not offered. Please include an
explanation on whether or not the canceled sale(s) fall within any of
the classifications that are included in the Roadless Moratorium. This
information should be displayed on a forest by forest and sale by sale
basis.
Answer. Projects were delayed or curtailed for a number of reasons
in fiscal year 1998, such as cost of implementation, lack of
feasibility, lack of funds, environmental risk, or public opposition.
The interim rule on the temporary suspension of road construction and
reconstruction in unroaded areas was not adopted until March 1, 1999,
therefore, fiscal year 1998 projects could not have been delayed
because of the interim rule.
Question. Please also provide a listing of the average stumpage
price paid for sales sold in fiscal year 1998 on these forests for any
forest that did not fulfill their target (as articulated in the
Periodic Timber Sale Program Announcements for fiscal year 1998).
Answer. There were no sales subject to Section 3006 of the fiscal
year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act, since the interim rule was
not in effect for fiscal year 1998. Therefore, a report on compensation
was not applicable.
Section 3006 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations
bill required the Forest Service to compensate counties for funds lost
as a result of delayed or halted timber sales caused by the roadless
moratorium in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. The agency was to
report the amount needed for such compensation to the Appropriations
Committee. The Committee has not received a report from the Forest
Service.
Question. Has the agency done an analysis of how many sales were
delayed or halted over the last fiscal year as a result of the roadless
policy and what impact this had on 25 percent fund payments to
counties?
Answer. There were no fiscal year 1998 timber sales subject to
Section 3006 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act,
since the interim rule was not in effect for fiscal year 1998.
Therefore, a report on compensation was not applicable.
Question. If no such activity occurred, does that not, in fact,
mean that there were timber sales halted as a result of the roadless
policy and that the affected counties are entitled to compensation from
the Forest Service?
Answer. See answer to previous question.
Question. The Forest Service's own estimates are that 170-260
million board feet will be delayed or halted by the interim rule
implementing the roadless moratorium in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000. How much will be delayed or halted in fiscal year 1999? How
much will be delayed or halted in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The estimate of 170-260 million board feet stated in the
question was a preliminary estimate based on the environmental
analysis. Following publication of the interim rule in the Federal
Register on February 12, 1999, each national forest evaluated their
proposed projects to determine which projects would be suspended. This
analysis was completed in early March. The forests identified timber
sales with an estimated volume of about 219 million board feet that
would be subject to the suspension over the next 18 months. Of this
amount approximately 96 million board feet was tentatively scheduled to
be offered for sale in fiscal year 1999 and subject to the suspension.
The remaining 123 million board feet was identified from timber sales
subject to the suspension and proposed for offer in fiscal year 2000. A
final volume estimate is not possible before the end of the fiscal year
because forests have the ability to modify sales affected by the policy
and substitute future sales for any delayed sales.
Question. Is the agency preparing a report to the Appropriations
Committee for fiscal year 1999 on the impacts to county payments of the
roadless moratorium? When will this report be issued?
Answer. Yes, the agency will document the amount of any payments
resulting from timber sales suspended because of the interim rule on
road construction and reconstruction in unroaded areas in conformance
with Section 3006 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations
Act. The payment can not be calculated until after the end of the
fiscal year in order to take into consideration any substitute timber
sales, as recognized in Section 3006 (b)(2)(A)(ii). The Committees on
Appropriations will be notified and requested to approve the use of
funds for any payments as soon as practicable after the end of the
fiscal year in accordance with Section 3006 (b)(2)(B).
financial accountability
Recently, GAO testified that there are serious problems with
implementing the agency's new Foundation Financial Information System
(FFIS) accounting system which is critical to obtaining a clean audit
opinion of the Forest Service's financial statements. In fact, GAO
stated that because of problems with the system in the three Regions
where it is being piloted, implementation has been postponed from
October 1, 1998 until October 1, 1999.
Question. Will this system be implemented agency-wide by the end of
this fiscal year? Before it is implemented agency-wide will the agency
be able to demonstrate that it works satisfactorily in any of the pilot
Regions?
Answer. Yes. Implementation of FFIS agency-wide for the Forest
Service will begin on October 1, 1999 for fiscal year 2000.
Implementing a new accounting system within the Forest Service is a
complex task, requiring continuous identification and resolution of
operational and technical issues. FFIS pilot testing within two Forest
Service regions and one Forest Service research station has been
operational and ongoing since October 1, 1997. These efforts have
provided Agency managers with a wealth of knowledge on the operation
and maintenance of FFIS. Knowledge gained and lessons learned from
implementation efforts within pilot units have been incorporated into
strategies for full, Agency-wide implementation of FFIS. Also, complete
end-to-end and user acceptance testing of those FFIS system attributes
which were not used and tested by pilot units, but will be used during
Agency-wide implementation of FFIS, will be conducted prior to moving
FFIS to an Agency-wide production environment on October 1, 1999. The
agency will continue to evaluate and learn from the pilot testing
effort right up to and into agency-wide implementation in fiscal year
2000.
Question. When will the agency be able to obtain a clean financial
opinion? Besides implementation what are the primary obstacles to
obtaining a clean opinion? What is the agency doing to remove these
obstacles?
Answer. Our goal is to have a ``clean'' or unqualified audit
opinion on the agency's fiscal year 2000 financial statements. We
recognize that this is an enormous challenge given the amount of change
that needs to take place. One potential obstacle to obtaining a clean
opinion could be the inconsistent application of financial management
principles and procedures. One of the most important changes being
implemented in fiscal year 2000 is the use of the primary purpose
principle for funding work and the charging of expenditures. This
change will reduce the number of lines of accounting in the system
which will increase accountability and improve system response time.
The agency has invested significant time and energy to ensure that this
change is implemented correctly. A video, video guide and
implementation document containing rationale, definitions and examples
have been developed and distributed across the agency. An intra-agency
web site has also been established which will contain all of this
information as well as field-generated questions and agency-approved
answers. Even though this shift to primary purpose is requiring many in
the agency to re-think how they plan, fund and account for work, we are
confident that this change will be implemented consistently and not
prevent us from obtaining a clean audit opinion.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Chief taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. A series of steps are necessary to fully implement these
measures agency-wide. As explained in our fiscal year 2000 Budget
Justification, we are in the process of establishing an inter-
disciplinary team of specialists from all levels of the agency to
ensure implementation of these measures. This team will develop an
implementation plan, assign responsibility for completing tasks, and
have coordination and oversight responsibilities. A number of specific
implementation tasks may be worked on by that team. Tasks will include
defining performance measures, identifying units of measure, developing
protocols and standards for measuring and collecting, evaluating and
reporting information. The agency also intends to work with an outside
contractor to ensure that information system needs for implementing
these performance measures are in place and compatible with other
systems, including our new financial management system, FFIS.
The agency's leadership is identifying the key long-term measures
that will be focused on in fiscal year 1999. It is expected that these
measures will be implemented as appropriate in fiscal year 2000. During
fiscal year 2000, another set of measures will be worked on for
implementation in fiscal year 2001.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The performance elements of the agency's senior executive
service contain accomplishment targets for each of the GPRA performance
indicators which tie directly back to the goals and objectives in the
Forest Service GPRA Strategic and Performance Plans.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. As mentioned above, SES employees receive targets for each
of the GPRA performance measures. They are held accountable for
achieving their assigned performance goals. In addition, field unit
performance accomplishments from the previous year are used to assign
performance goals and distribute funding to the field units in the
following year. Those units that demonstrate the ability to perform are
assigned higher targets and may be more competitive for higher funding
in subsequent years.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
the funding the agency request in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. Each year the starting point for the President's Budget is
based upon prior year accomplishment information. This forms the basis
for the instructions to the field. Field units respond with any changed
conditions, shifts in emphasis, etc. which is considered along with
other information to develop the national levels for both funding and
outputs. An example would be Noxious Weeds treated acres, The
Washington Office proposed 67,000 acres as a starting point. The field
responses indicated 51,410 acres the fiscal year 2000 request is 56,000
acres to be accomplished.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. Using the Natural Resource Agenda, the Agency is able to
emphasize the Results Act's goals and objectives such as Watershed
Restoration and Recreation. We continue to refine our allocation
criteria which allows for a more accurate reflection of regional
workload which in turn provides for a better starting point in future
budget proposals.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. To the extent possible, GPRA performance indicators, are
linked directly to a specific GPRA goal and objective, and where
possible link to a single budget line item.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification includes a
section on budget structure reform. Please refer to Table 2, Outcome-
based Performance Measurement structure.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. To the extent possible, performance measures with reliable
data are used in the fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan. In several
instances however, new measures are included which will require several
years of data collection before performance trends can be evaluated.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. The agency is in the process of developing sound,
scientific protocols for those measures that are currently not
measured. Where measurement protocols exist, the agency is completing
the necessary inventories to establish baseline data against which
accomplishments can be compared.
Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance.
Answer. Actual performance from previous years is used as a
starting point for distributing targets and funding in subsequent
years. Efforts are being made to reduce the variation or disparity
between targets (or projections) and actual accomplishments including
greater emphasis to line-officer performance standards.
state and private forestry
The budget for the State and Private Forestry program proposes to
spend $62 million in Land and Water Conservation funds for the Forest
Legacy, Urban & Community Forestry, and Stewardship Incentives
activities.
Question. Will the agency send proposed legislative language to the
authorizing committees to permit expenditure of these funds in this
fashion, or is it the agency's position that the appropriations
committee will provide it with this authority as part of the budget?
What is the agency's rationale for this decision?
Answer. Language is included in the fiscal year 2000 Budget
Justification.
Question. The budget proposes spending $50 million in State and
Private on the Forest Legacy program which acquires conservation
easements. This is a 600 percent increase over last year's level. What
is the basis for providing a 600 percent increase in Forest Legacy when
the agency has stated that there is an $8 billion backlog in road
maintenance and a $1 billion backlog in recreation facilities
maintenance on the lands that are already under its management
authority?
Answer. The President's Budget balances many important priorities
to assure sound management across all the nation's forests. The support
for the Forest Legacy program responds to increased demands from the
private sector to maintain threatened habitat types and unique
ecosystems. Since the 1996 Farm Bill, the majority of Forest Legacy
acquisitions are in fact made by the States, not the Federal
government. The current project list contains $85 million worth of
potential Forest Legacy acquisitions, located in several different
states. Some of the States have several projects on the list, others
have only one.
Question. Why shouldn't the agency place more emphasis on
management of lands already under its stewardship before spending large
amounts on the acquisition of easements on private lands?
Answer. The Forest Service mission is to both care for federal
lands and to assist private landowners, in cooperation with state
partners, in the management of private forests. The Forest Legacy
program operates in most participating states with an emphasis on
conservation easements on private forests, leveraging additional non-
federal funds to assure the conservation of unique and valuable forest
lands. Legacy tracts lie within the priority areas identified when the
state conducts an assessment of need when joining the program.
Management of acquired tracts and easements is supported by the
relevant state or local organization. Thus, the Forest Legacy Program
focuses on keeping important forests in productive, private ownership
while protecting the forest from development and fragmentation, in a
cost-effective manner for the American public.
We should take care of the lands we currently administer while
acquiring the priority lands that will help the Forest Service meet it
mission and provide for future public recreation demands. The Forest
Service land acquisition program provides lands critical for wildlife
habitat, watershed protection, outdoor recreation opportunities and
improved management efficiency of adjacent National Forests.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification states that
over half of the funds for the Forest Legacy program are for national
commitment and the Washington Office. What national commitment will be
funded out of this program? How much will go to the Washington Office
for overhead/indirect expenses?
Answer. In keeping with the established fiscal year 2000 allocation
process, one half of the funds will be allocated in the initial
allocation and the balance will be allocated later to support the
national Forest Legacy Program priorities. Please refer to pages 353
and 354 of the fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification.
Question. Six Regions of the Forest Service do not participate in
the Forest Legacy program. Will states in these Regions participate in
the future? When?
Answer. Eight Forest Service (FS) regions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
10), the Northeastern Area (NA), and the International Institute of
Tropical Forestry (IITF) are the responsible field units for
administering the Forest Legacy program. Seventeen states and
territories from five (4, 5, 6, NA, IITF) of these ten FS units
currently participate in the program and will be joined this fall by an
additional six states (TN, SC, NC, MT, MN, PA), including states from
two FS Regions (1, 8) not currently in the program. At that time there
will be seven of ten FS units represented. Six additional states (NM,
IA, VA, OH, GA, WI), including a state from one FS Region (3) not
currently in the program, are interested in the program and may choose
to prepare an Assessment of Need plan in the next year. We expect that
a year from now eight of ten FS units will be represented.
Question. The agency has requested a $15,000,000 increase in the
Stewardship Incentives Program. What is the state-by-state breakdown of
funds provided under the SIP program for fiscal years 1995-1998? What
is the planned breakdown for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Please refer to enclosure 2, on following pages.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.005
The fiscal year 2000 President's budget includes $5 million for the
Stewardship Incentives Program and $10 for the Smart Growth Initiative.
Question. Based on agency projections, what are the long term
effects on future timber production from this program which are
attributable to the increase in requested funding? What is the total
number of landowners that will receive funding?
Answer. SIP is a multi-resource program, increasing the ability of
landowners to implement a wide variety of forest stewardship practices
such as fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, recreational
improvements, forest stand improvements, agroforestry, and many others.
While we track the numbers of acres on which SIP practices are
implemented, including forest stand improvement and reforestation, we
do not keep statistics on the program's effects on timber production.
Since its inception in 1991, the SIP program has enabled the States
to assist over 36,000 landowners (an average of 5,000 landowners each
year).
Question. According to industry statistics, the majority of
timberland is in private ownership (not including timber industry
ownership). What statistics are available to identify how the SIP
program improved productivity from these lands? If so, what do these
statistics show?
Answer. The Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) assists landowners
to implement multi-resource priorities on non-industrial private forest
land. The wide variety of practices that can be cost-shared through SIP
include reforestation and afforestation, forest improvement, wildlife
habitat enhancement, soil and water protection and enhancement, forest
recreation enhancement, agroforestry, and fisheries enhancement. As of
October 1998, close to 3.5 million acres had benefited from the
application of one of these practices.
The importance of USDA cost-sharing programs to the sustainable
management of non-industrial private forests (NIPF) is great. According
to the Sampson and DeCoster report ``Public Programs for Private
Forestry'', USDA forestry cost-share programs have funded almost 40
percent of all tree planting on NIPF lands in recent years. There is
also documented evidence that, in the southern region, where NIPF
owners hold the majority of the productive pine forest lands, both
cost-sharing and tax credits are important in achieving reforestation
after harvest.
Question. Since fiscal year 1996, from which line items has the
International Programs activity been funded? Please provide a break-out
for each year.
Answer. Please refer to enclosure 3, on following page, for a
funding distribution for international activities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.006
Question. What are the indirect and direct costs for each line item
within the State and Private Forestry program? Please provide a
complete breakout. Within these two categories please also provide a
narrative identifying what the bulk of the costs are attributable to,
i.e., salary, rent, travel, personnel, etc.
Answer. Current estimates for fiscal year 2000 are--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
budget Direct Indirect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Health, Federal........... 40,325 38,105 2,220
Forest Health, Cooperative....... 21,400 21,294 106
State Fire Assistance............ 31,509 31,411 98
Volunteer Fire Assistance........ 2,001 2,000 1
Forest Stewardship............... 28,830 26,122 2,708
Stewardship Incentives........... 15,000 14,993 7
Forest Legacy.................... 50,012 49,982 30
Urban & Community Forestry....... 39,540 39,360 180
Economic Action Programs......... 16,305 16,023 282
Pacific NW Assistance............ 7,000 6,706 294
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 251,922 245,996 5,936
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 2 percent of the State & Private Forestry appropriation will
be spent on indirect costs.
About 59 percent of the indirect portion will be spent on salary
and benefits; 5 percent, travel; 10 percent on rents, communications,
and utilities; 3 percent, supplies and materials; 3 percent, equipment;
and 21 percent on other services. About 20 percent of the direct
portion will be spent on salaries; 3 percent, travel; 60 percent,
grants and agreements; and 17 percent on other services.
research
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $37,000,000
increase for research. What are the top priorities for the research
program for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Forest Service Research and Development needs to retain an
array of scientific disciplines to address a range of important natural
resource research issues. Our program is described in the fiscal year
2000 Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations under
four program areas: Vegetation Management and Protection research;
Wildlife Fish, Water, and Air Research; Resource Valuation and Use
Research; and Forest Resources Inventory and Monitoring Research. The
Budget Justification outline program emphasis in these areas.
Major areas of interest in the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
include: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ($10 million);
Application of Mathematical Programming and Computer Simulation to
National Forest System (NFS) Planning ($5 million); Non-native Invasive
Species ($5 million); Climate Change Technology Initiative ($6
million); Global Change Research Program ($6 million); Ecosystem
Productivity ($5 million); Inventory and Monitoring ($4 million); and
Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) ($1.2 million).
Question. How have the priorities for the research budget changed
from that proposed last fiscal year?
Answer. The Forest Service remains committed to maintaining a
strong research base capable of addressing the Nation's many competing
priorities. Some of the increases requested, such as an additional $4
million for forest inventory and monitoring, were also agency
priorities last year with which Congress concurred. Some increases are
new this year, such as the additional $10 million for wildlife and fish
research, and represent new support within the Administration, to keep
pace with the growing need for more research in these areas. Other
proposed increases, such as the proposals for global change research
and climate change technologies, represent continued Administration
support for ongoing inter-agency science initiatives. The fiscal year
2000 President's Budget represents a balanced set of priorities that
collectively serve important Congressional, interest group, agency, and
Administration priorities.
Question. How much of the Research budget is devoted to funding of
work by other entities like private and public universities?
Answer. Over the past 5 years, approximately 8 to 10 percent of our
total budget has been used to fund cooperative research with experts at
private and public colleges and universities. Of the $37.2 million
increase proposed in the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, we
estimate that $10.2 million (27.4 percent) would be used to fund
cooperative research with universities through existing research grants
and agreements authorities. The collaborative research envisioned
extends across all research areas.
Question. Is there other work being done by the Forest Service that
could effectively be done by Universities. Please identify the
particular work and the amount of money being proposed in this year's
budget for this activity.
Answer. America's forest research capacity is of significant
concern to us. Since 1982, Forest Service Research & Development
research capacity has decreased by 50 percent. Anecdotal evidence from
our university collaborators indicates that their capacity has also
declined this decade. Industry and interest group research capacity
ranges from limited to non-existent. Our concern over this shrinking
capacity led us to commission a study by the National Research Council
to formally document the scope of the situation and recommend areas
where research capacity needs to be buttressed and rebuilt--at
universities and in the Forest Service--to meet America's forest
research needs in the 21st Century. We expect this study to be
completed prior to Congress considering the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget. Results from that study will provide a clearer and
more specific answer to this question than can be given today.
At present, when in-house scientific capacity does not exist or the
existing work load does not permit for the research to be done, we seek
expertise from university scientists through cooperative grants and
agreements. Over the past 5 years, approximately 8 to 10 percent of our
total budget has been allocated to colleges and universities for Grants
and Agreements. Of the $37.2 million increase proposed, we estimate
that $10.2 million (27.4 percent) will be used for cooperative research
with universities.
Question. Given the possibility of leveraging funds, shouldn't the
agency attempt to maximize the amount of work it funds at these
institutions? If not, why?
Answer. In addressing natural resource issues, we carefully
determine the most appropriate level of collaboration with university
partners. Leveraging occurs in a number of ways. We share some research
equipment with universities, which enables them and us to accomplish
work that we would not be able to afford to do separately. We provide
field research sites on our experimental forests for university
researchers. For example, there are over 125 university collaborators
working with us at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire.
Because many of our research units are co-located on university
campuses, we leverage each other's expertise in a number of ways, such
as having our scientists serve as graduate student advisors and hosting
university scientists on sabbaticals. A major strength of in-house
Forest Service research is our ability to pursue long-term studies.
Field experiments installed on the Bartlett Experimental Forest, New
Hampshire, in the 1930s are still being actively followed by a third-
generation of agency researchers. University institutional capacity to
do research over extended periods is significantly lower than Forest
Service capacity. Graduate students only work on a single project for 3
to 5 years. Further, new university professors who are struggling to
gain tenure in 3 to 7 years need to show immediate results and
immediate impact and thus have little initial interest in picking up
long-term studies of their predecessors unless results are close at
hand. These factors predispose universities to conduct relatively
short-term, often low-risk, research in contrast to the longer-term,
higher-risk research often undertaken by the Forest Service. Given
these differences, we do try to utilize university professors and
graduate students in situations where there are mutual benefits to both
of us so that the federal investments are leveraged to the extent
possible. By doing so, we strengthen and nurture strong partnerships
with universities.
Question. The Forest Inventory program currently operates on a 10-
12 year cycle. What would be the cost to the program of conducting the
inventory on 5-year cycle?
Answer. Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of
1998l passed last June mandated that a Strategic Plan be prepared
describing how the Forest Service could put its national FIA/FHM
inventory program on an annualized 5-year cycle. This Plan submitted to
Congress on April 7, 1999 indicates that this inventory cycle
implemented uniformly for the entire country would cost $82 million
annually. Conference language accompanying this Bill does allow
departure from this cycle when deemed appropriate by State Foresters,
and based on State Forester preferences, a program costing $56 million
is preferred. This program would provide a base Federal program with a
7-year cycle east of the Great Plains and 10-year cycle west of the
Great Plains (except for interior Alaska where a longer cycle is
acceptable). Some States in the East plan to augment Federal
appropriations by contributing their own funds and people to the
program, which will lower the cycle to 5 years in participating States.
Question. Are there particular factors peculiar to individual parts
of the country that favor a longer or shorter cycle? Please identify
these factors and discuss their application to the various regions of
the country.
Answer. Yes. Several factors provide opportunities to consider
varying plot remeasurement periods and in turn cost of operations.
Areas with low rates of growth or vegetative change and areas with
extremely poor access offer possibilities for longer intervals between
measurements while rapid growth rates and easy access would suggest
shorter periods. Examples of such areas might include the juniper lands
of the interior west and interior Alaska for longer remeasurement
periods or lower sampling intensity and the South with its faster
growth rates would be a candidate for shorter remeasurement periods.
Question. Which states currently share the costs of the inventory
program?
Answer. States currently cost sharing for FIA/FHM inventory work in
fiscal year 1999 are Maine, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Indiana,
and Wisconsin. Total financial support from these States in fiscal year
1999 is about $3.8 million.
Question. In what Regions is inventory work being on National
Forest lands being paid for from the National Forest System
appropriation? What is the total amount being paid in these Regions?
Answer. Although the level of commitment and amounts of funding
differ among Regions, all Regions made some commitment to national FIA/
FHM grid inventory in fiscal year 1999. Each Region determines the
priority for this inventory work separately. Regions 8, 9, and 10 have
had long-standing agreements to fund data collection on national
forests by Station inventory crews. The annual cost of these agreements
is $1,127,000 in fiscal year 1999. A new agreement with Regions 1, 2,
3, and 4 is in the final stages of negotiation and has already been
approved by three Regional Foresters. This master agreement will
replace a number of separate agreements with individual national
forests and Regions and strengthen the consistency of data collection
procedures and comparability of results across Regions. The annual cost
of this master agreement is $1,854,000. Regions 5 and 6 currently
collect their own data, causing some difficulties with consistency and
comparability of data. The estimated cost of having Station crews
collect the data in Regions 5 and 6 would be $1,290,000. These figures
just represent the cost of collecting FIA program data. It would cost
an additional $2 million to collect forest health monitoring (FHM)
program information on all national forests.
Question. Why isn't there a standard national policy governing
payment for inventory work done on national Forest System lands? Is a
standard policy being considered by the agency?
Answer. NFS does not consider this work to be a national priority
and allows funding and priority to be determined at the Regional level.
Each year the FIA/FHM grid inventory work on NFS lands must compete
against all other NFS priorities for funding. While the work is
considered important in those Regions who have signed annual agreements
with Stations, at this time there is no standard agency policy for
funding this work on NFS land. Stakeholder concerns about the lack of
consistency and comparability of data from national forests led the
Second Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Forest Inventory to recommend that a
standard policy be created. Forest Service Research & Development
endorses that recommendation because it takes considerable Station
effort to negotiate individual agreements and to repair inconsistencies
in the data that could be otherwise devoted to reducing the inventory
cycle.
Question. If all inventory work being done on National Forest
system lands were paid for by the National Forest system appropriation,
what would the total expense to the NFS appropriation be?
Answer. Total cost for covering NFS lands at standard sampling
intensity would be $6,271,000 annually. This would include both the FIA
and FHM detection monitoring grid plot data collection.
Question. What percentage of the Research Budget is devoted to
activities that directly enhance the productivity of forest lands and
utilization of wood fiber? Please identify specific work and associated
costs. How has this percentage changed over the last 10 years?
Answer. We have readily available detailed records for the last 5
years under the new Research Budget Attainment Information System
(RBAIS) that does a better job of tracking research funding.
Information for previous years is available but was not categorized in
a way to easily obtain the information that was requested.
For the fiscal year 1995-2000 President's budget, 34 to 38 percent
of the total research budget was devoted to productivity of forest
lands and utilization of wood fiber. While this represents a fairly
constant percent, the amount of actual funding increased by 20 percent,
($66.5 to $80 million.)
Refer to enclosure 4, on the following page, for a detailed list of
the research work and funding history.
ENCLOSURE 4.--RESEARCH FUNDING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY OF FOREST LANDS AND UTILIZATION OF WOOD FIBER, FISCAL YEAR 1995-2000
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year 2000
1995 Percent 1996 Percent 1997 Percent 1998 Percent 1999 Percent President's Percent
budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetation Mgmt. & Protection Res.:
1.2 Silvicultural Applications.......................... $15,701 8 $13,884 8 $14,850 8 $16,238 9 $14,958 8 $17,317 7
1.4 Forest & Rangeland Mgmt............................. 8,976 5 9,333 5 13,924 8 13,868 7 13,479 7 16,428 7
1.6 Forest Operations Engineering....................... 4,404 2 4,009 2 3,833 2 3,457 2 3,415 2 3,762 2
1.7 Insects/Diseases/Exotic Weeds....................... 19,403 10 18,024 10 19,253 11 19,121 10 19,584 10 24,972 11
Resource Valuation & Use Res.: 3.5 Forest Prod. Util. & 18,054 9 16,702 9 16,310 9 15,477 8 15,517 8 17,700 8
Processing.................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Prod. & Util. Wood Fibers.................... 66,538 34 61,952 34 68,170 34 68,161 36 66,953 35 79,879 35
Other Research.............................................. 126,971 66 116,048 65 111,616 62 119,635 64 130,491 66 154,765 66
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total research........................................ 193,509 ....... 178,000 ....... 179,786 ....... 187,796 ....... 197,444 ....... 234,644 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill
included language that required 5 full-time employees be stationed in
Sitka to establish a wood utilization Laboratory. Is there funding in
the fiscal year 2000 budget for this operation? If not, is the Forest
Service still committed to having this facility fully operational with
5 FTE's in fiscal year 2000. What is the agency's schedule for
establishing the lab?
Answer. There is no funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Sitka Laboratory. Because of the delay in the fiscal year 1999
appropriation, the fiscal year 2000 Department Allowance had already
been established, and the Forest Service could not add the need to its
Agency Request. Funds committed to date total $748,000 from the
Washington Office Research & Development budget. Under the direction of
the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW), a highly qualified senior
researcher has been detailed to Sitka for one year as acting team
leader; a technical and administrative support person is on board; an
Economist for marketing and economics expertise will report June 1,
1999; and a personnel recruitment outreach effort is currently in
progress for the remaining positions, including a permanent team
leader.
legislative proposals
Question. The Forest Service budget includes $111 million in
savings from several legislative proposals. However, only sketchy
details of these proposals are contained in the budget justification.
When will these proposals be sent to the Congress? Will all of them be
sent at once? Why is it taking so long for the Administration to send
these proposals to the Congress?
Answer. We expect that the Administration's legislative proposals
described in the fiscal year 2000 budget will be submitted to Congress
in the very near future. These proposals will most likely be submitted
in a single package. Because this package will include the budget-
related proposals from all the executive departments, additional time
has been required to complete the materials for submission.
Question. Are there other legislative proposals that the Forest
Service is working on that are not included within the scope of this
year's budget that would have the effect of increasing revenue to the
Forest Service? If so, what are these proposals? What are the agency's
projections with respect to the amount of revenue that could be
generated? When will these proposals be finalized?
Answer. The Forest Service does not have other proposals that we
intend to submit related to the fiscal year 2000 budget. There may be
preliminary proposals at various stages of internal review that we
might submit in future budgets, but it would be premature to describe
those at this point.
Question. Another legislative proposal concerning the Forest
Service involves stabilizing payments to counties which have National
Forest lands. Last year, the Administration proposed to fix these
payments by formula and decouple them from timber sales. This proposal
went nowhere. Will the agency send up the same proposal as last year?
Answer. We are proposing a broader special payment formula base, 76
percent of the average three highest years between 1986 and 1995. Under
the proposal, no state would receive a lower payment than the fiscal
year 1998 payment, and no state would be able to receive greater than a
25 percent increase above the fiscal year 1998 payment. Most recently
Secretary Glickman indicated that he would recommend Administration
support for an amendment to be offered by Congressman Peter DeFazio of
Oregon which would provide 100 percent of the average of the three
highest payments received between 1985 and 1999 adjusted annually for
inflation assuming acceptable offsets can be identified.
Question. When will this proposal be sent to Congress?
Answer. The proposal was submitted to Congress on June 7, 1999.
Question. How will this proposal be funded?
Answer. Through offsetting revenues elsewhere in the General Fund
of the Treasury.
Question. How much did each county receive in revenue from their 25
percent share of timber receipts for the years 1986 through 1996?
Please provide an itemized breakdown for each county.
Answer. Please refer to enclosure 5, on the following pages.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.023
Question. Critics argue that decoupling removes any accountability
from the Forest Service to use active management tools like timber
harvesting. How does the agency answer this charge?
Answer. The Forest Service will continue to be held accountable for
resource management decisions to the Congress, under existing statutes
and regulations and to the public after enactment of a stabilization
proposal just as the Forest Service would have been prior to enactment
of a stabilization proposal. The decoupling affects not only timber
harvest, but other commodity programs such as minerals, non-recreation
special uses, and grazing. The Forest Service is accountable to
Congress and the public for managing all of these activities,
regardless of what happens to the Agency's decoupling proposal.
Question. A number of groups have circulated a proposal which
contains an ``either/or'' provision that would set the payments to
counties at the larger of either the amount they would receive based on
the actual harvest or the statutory formula level. Would the agency
support such a proposal? If not, why not?
Answer. The Administration does not support such a provision. The
Administration does not believe that resource management decisions
should be a factor in local school district decisions about whether
schools remain open or should be closed. The unpredictable nature of
such issues as to whether, and which, timber sales are awarded and
harvested, does not provide a stable foundation for local budgeting
purposes.
timber program
Question. By far, the largest decrease in the Forest Service fiscal
year 2000 budget is in the Timber Sales program. The agency proposes to
reduce the Timber Sales program by $30 million which will reduce the
timber harvest level by another 400 million board feet in fiscal year
2000. Isn't this level far below the allowable sales quantity contained
in the agency's existing forest plans?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget proposes a $29.3
million reduction from the final fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
However, the fiscal year 1999 final appropriation includes $19.229
million in Congressional earmarks that put the fiscal year 1999 final
appropriation above the requested level. Much of this additional
funding did not result in additional capability to offer timber sale
volume in fiscal year 1999. The timber volume expected to be produced
in fiscal year 2000 is 2.25 billion board feet with the regular timber
sale program, a reduction of 261 million board feet from the expected
fiscal year 1999 level. These levels are significantly under the
approximate 7.3 billion board feet of ASQ identified in the forest
plans. Congress has not funded full implementation of the forest plans
for any program and the Administration has not requested this because
many plans are outdated.
Question. If the forest plans do not establish the appropriate
timber harvest level, how does the agency determine what level of
harvest it will fund?
Answer. The forest plans establish the allowable sales quantity
(ASQ) as the average annual chargeable volume that could be planned for
sale during the first decade of the forest plan. These volume levels
could be offered if no other constraints are placed on timber sales
following plan finalization, and if adequate funding is provided. Since
many of these plans need revision, there are several forests that now
have additional constraints that further limit their timber sale
capability below the established ASQ levels. In addition, Congress has
not funded the Forest Service to accomplish full forest plan
implementation for any program. Thus, our agency timber sale offer
levels are calculated based upon considerations of these constraints
and the actual funding levels provided.
Question. If the funds were provided, how much additional volume
could the Forest Service prepare?
Answer. We have identified the ability to produce an additional 290
million board feet under the regular program if the funds were
provided.
Question. To achieve this level, how much additional funding would
be required?
Answer. To achieve an additional 290 million board feet under the
regular program would require about $19.4 million in timber sales
management funds, plus $4.7 million for engineering support. The
average unit costs of $65.99 per MBF for timber sale preparation plus
$16 per MBF for engineering support are reasonable unit costs to use
for any additional increase over the volume capability provided in the
fiscal year 2000 President's Budget.
Question. Aren't timber sales the most cost effective way of
addressing the fire hazard and forest health problems caused by overly
dense tree stands, an especially significant problem in the interior
West? Can the agency afford to thin these millions of acres relying
solely on other methods?
Answer. Timber sales are oftentimes more expensive to plan and
administer than other types of vegetative treatments--e.g., prescribed
burning, use of chemical herbicides, and mechanical treatments such as
cut-and-leave. However, commercial timber sales generate revenues that
can help to offset, in whole or part, any sales preparation and
administration costs that the government incurs. As a result, timber
sales are oftentimes the ``least net cost'' method of achieving
different vegetative management goals. This fact was clearly shown in
an August, 1994 agency report entitled ``Evaluating the Use of Timber
Harvest on 19 National Forests: An Exploratory Study of Below-Cost
Timber Sale Issues and Changing Management Conditions''. This study
found that if plan goals such as improving forest health, reducing
forest fuels, and creating desired wildlife habitat conditions were
kept constant, eliminating the agency's ability to use commercial
timber sales as a management tool would, in most instances, increase
rather than decrease net operating costs.
Many of the stands in need of treatment to address fuel loading and
forest health concerns will have to be mechanically thinned before they
can be prescribed burned. The agency recognizes this fact and is
responding in several ways. One response is the new ``Forest Ecosystem
Restoration & Improvement'' line item that has been included in the
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 at a level of $15
million. These funds would be used, in part, to thin timber stands that
presently have little or no commercial value. Another response is the
agency's initiative on ``Watershed Restoration and Fire Protection
Through Small Diameter Utilization''. This is a joint National Forest
System, State and Private Forestry and Research undertaking that is
designed to take a comprehensive look at what can be done to improve
the utilization of small diameter and currently under-utilized
material. Under the structure of this initiative, and consistent with
the authorities provided by Congress in Section 347 of the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, the agency is
also presently testing an array of new processes and procedures that
could enhance its ability to effectively and efficiently manage small
diameter, low value material. This testing is occurring through a
series of 28 stewardship contracting demonstration pilots being
implemented around the country.
icbemp
Question. Last year, many frustrations were expressed over the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) project.
Many of the people in the affected region felt that their concerns were
not listened to by the agencies involved in the project. The
Administration is now conducting a supplemental EIS on the project. How
is this process proceeding? What feedback has the agency received from
local communities within the projects boundaries?
Answer. The preparation of the supplemental draft EIS is going
quite well. Project staff and Regional Executives have been meeting
with State, Resource advisory councils, County, and Tribal officials to
discuss the progress made in the preparation of the supplement. We do
not expect significant feedback from local communities until we release
the supplement for public review and comment in September.
Question. What is the agency's schedule for completing the
supplemental EIS and issuing a Final Record of Decision on this
project?
Answer. A supplemental draft EIS is scheduled for release in
January 2000 and the Record of Decision issued in fall of 2000.
Question. What was the total cost of this project? How much will be
spent in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Actual agency costs through fiscal year 1998 and projected
costs for fiscal year 1999 total $46.4 million of which Forest Service
cost totals $35.4 million. The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget
includes $5.2 million to develop the Supplemental and Final EIS and
Record of Decision. The Forest Service portion of the fiscal year 2000
cost would be $3.5 million.
Question. How much will it cost to fully implement the Final Record
of Decision?
Answer. We will not know the estimated cost for implementing the
final decision until we know what that decision is. At the time the
Supplemental Draft EIS is issued we will have the estimated costs for
each alternative.
land management planning
Question. The Committee of Scientists recently issued its
recommendations for improvements to the National Forest System Land and
Resource Management Planning Process. How will these recommendations
affect the completion and substance of the new forest planning
regulations?
Answer. The Forests Service is considering the full text of the
Committee's Report in the development of the proposed planning
regulation.
Question. When will the agency finalize its new forest planning
regulations? What, if any, impact will the new regulations have on the
Forest Service budget?
Answer. Our goal is to have a final regulation by early CY 2000,
depending on when the proposed rule is out for public comment. We do
not expect the final regulation to impact the Forest Service budget.
Question. Will the new regulations make the forest planning process
more or less expensive?
Answer. The new regulation would create efficiencies and lead to
better decisions. Our expectation is that future planning would be less
expensive. We are continuing to evaluate this, however.
Question. Does the Forest Service intend to more closely link its
future forest plans to its budget and to performance measures?
Answer. The agency is working to ensure that future forest plans
will be developed using consistent assumptions and procedures for
incorporating budget information into the development and evaluation of
alternatives. This will make forest plan information more useful in the
development of national budgets.
With regard to performance measures, annual planned levels of
performance are based on field knowledge of resource needs and
capabilities. This information comes from regional and local
assessments and forest or other local plans and will form the basis for
the annual set of outcomes, products and services addressed in the
agency's GPRA Strategic Plan goals and objectives.
law enforcement
Question. What portion of the law enforcement budget is devoted to
cooperative agreements with local governments for the provision of law
enforcement services?
Answer. There are two types of cooperative law enforcement
agreements that the Forest Service utilizes with local governments. The
first type is the Cooperative Law Enforcement Patrol Agreements. The
amount anticipated to be expended on these agreements in fiscal year
1999 is $5,339,000. The second type is Cooperative Law Enforcement Drug
Enforcement Agreements and the Forest Service expects the cost for
these agreements to be $832,000 in fiscal year 1999. The expenditures
for the regular patrol and drug enforcement agreements equates to
approximately 9.5 percent of the NFLE budget line item.
Question. Could the Forest Service rely more on local governments
to furnish law enforcement services and reduce its costs?
Answer. The Forest Service is currently preparing a response to
language contained in Senate Report 105-227 dated June 26, 1998. When
that response is submitted, it should answer this question.
Question. What, if any, complications or concerns are there with
relying on local entities to provide such services? To what extent may
state and local law enforcement personnel enforce federal law?
Answer. The Forest Service is currently preparing a response to
language contained in Senate Report 105-227 dated June 26, 1998. When
that response is submitted, it should answer this question.
Section 2915(f) of legislation which established the Midewin
National Tallgrass Prairie (Title XXIX of Public law 104-106) provides
that receipts collected may be used for administrative activities.
These activities include law enforcement. The Subcommittee expects the
Midewin unit to eventually become self-sufficient with receipts earned.
Part of this self sufficiency is to provide public safety services
through internal Forest Service law enforcement staffing.
Question. Are any internal law enforcement activities funded
through Midewin receipts? If so, at what level? If not, why not?
Answer. No internal law enforcement activities are currently funded
through rental or user receipts. Rental receipts are primarily used for
prairie improvements and are declining. Sufficient user receipts have
not been collected to date. However, in future years as user receipts
increase, law enforcement activities can be funded.
Question. The Subcommittee understands that law enforcement costs
have increased substantially as a result of additional entitlements
including special law enforcement pay and retirement costs. In order to
maintain a base level of services without reducing cooperative law
enforcement programs, what level of additional funding is required to
offset these increased costs?
Answer. The additional entitlements that the Subcommittee makes
reference to are Law Enforcement Availability Pay for the criminal
investigators and Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime for the law
enforcement officers. To maintain a base level of services without
reducing cooperative law enforcement programs, additional funding in
the amount of $5,390,000 would be required. This level is based on
fiscal year 1999 costs and does not include expected cost of living
increases for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Certain law enforcement activities, including unplanned
events and emergencies, apparently can not be planned for or
anticipated, yet cause budgetary impacts to the program. What are these
unplanned or emergency events? What has been the budgetary impact of
these events in the past three years? What would be the
Administration's position on language which authorizes use of any funds
available to the Forest Service for law enforcement activities in the
event of unplanned events or emergencies?
Answer. Unplanned events and emergencies include the search for
Eric Rudolph, the recent search and rescue efforts associated with the
death of one of our own officers, assistance provided during the FBI
search for the three women abducted near Yosemite National Park,
natural disaster occurrences where Forest Service law enforcement
personnel have assisted the United States Marshal Service, timber sale
protests, the bison issue in Western Montana, the Sturgis motorcycle
rally, large group gatherings, arson task forces, 2002 Olympic
preparation, and directed projects such as protection of public lands
from the impacts of immigration along the Southwest Border.
The documented costs for these events and emergencies for fiscal
year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and through March of fiscal year 1999 have
total $4,756,000. It is estimated that another $1,000,000 has been
spent, but not specifically designated in the accounting system.
general
The Subcommittee has been informed that the Malheur National Forest
had a positive net growth rate of approximately 300 million board feet
per year in 1993 and that now in 1998 the forest reports they are
experiencing negative net growth as a result of fires, insect and
disease events which have occurred during the Administration's tenure
as the stewards of the Malheur National Forest. And that a large
salvage sale designed to salvage timber from a large burn on that
forest was canceled because part of that salvage sale is in RARE 11
Roadless area which has twice been released for management in the
Malheur National Forest land management plans.
Question. Is this correct? If so, doesn't this suggest modification
of the agency's current roadless policy is necessary?
Answer. The Malheur National Forest is unaware of any report or
inventory done in 1993 that states a positive net growth of
approximately 300 million board feet for that year, nor has the Forest
published a report on net growth for 1998.
The information for growth rate for the current Malheur National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is based on a 1980 inventory.
This inventory showed an annual growth rate of 130,124 MBF for trees
over 9'' dbh to a 6.0'' top diameter and an estimated 5 year mortality
of 215,055 MBF. A current vegetation survey completed in 1994 showed an
annual growth rate of 163,330 MBF and an estimated 5 year mortality of
717,275 MBF for trees over 9'' dbh to a 6.0'' top diameter. Further
inventory data was collected in 1998, however this information has not
yet been analyzed.
The area burned by the Summit Fire in 1996 includes two former RARE
II areas that are allocated by the 1990 Malheur National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan to uses that allow non-scheduled timber
harvest under certain conditions (Wildlife Emphasis and Scenic Area).
While these lands are not normally available for timber management, the
Record of Decision for the Final Supplemental to the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Summit Fire Recovery Project calls for harvest
of 50 MMBF from the total fire area. This harvest includes 23 MMBF from
former RARE II areas (6 MMBF from Jumpoff Joe and 17 MMBF from
Greenhorn Mountain) and has not been cancelled.
Question. The Forest Service fiscal year 2000 budget justification
references a possible proposal to put the timber trust funds on budget.
What percent of your agency's spending authority is provided by the
following trust funds: Brush Disposal, the timber salvage sale trust
fund, and the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification does indicate
that we would work with Congress in fiscal year 1999 to determine
whether or not making these three trust funds a part of the annual
appropriation process would improve disclosure, accountability, and
incentives for natural resource management. The Brush Disposal fund is
0.6 percent, Salvage Sale Fund is 3.7 percent, and Knutson-Vandenberg
is 4.1 percent of the total Forest Service budget. Although these
percentages seem quite small when compared to the total dollar figure
for the agency, when the salvage sale fund is compared to the operating
budget for timber sales it represents 40 percent and when it is
compared to total National Forest System budget it is 10 percent.
Similarly, for the K-V fund it represents 61 percent of the
reforestation and timber stand improvement operating budget and 10
percent of the National Forest System budget.
Question. What are the advantages of putting these funds on budget?
Given the current fiscal constraints, wouldn't putting these funds on
budget raise the likelihood that less money would be provided for the
work currently funded out of these trust funds?
Answer. Placing these funds under the normal appropriations process
accomplishes improving disclosure for the use of the funds and greater
accountability as well as eliminating any perception that they are an
incentive for a higher harvest level.
If these three trust funds were placed ``on budget'' and we did not
receive in-kind replacement funds through the appropriations process,
there would be less work accomplished. Some items that may not be
accomplished include reforestation and the treatment of insect and
disease problems.
Question. If less money were provided to perform work currently
funded by the trust funds, what would the impact be to the timber
program, reforestation, and other environmental restoration activities?
Answer. For the salvage sale fund, unless sufficient funds are
appropriated to replace our current salvage fund account, the sale of
salvage material in emergency situations in some cases could be
affected because funding might not be available to expedite timber sale
preparation and harvest administration. In addition, we manage this
fund with some flexibility to reallocate funding to a particular
geographic area in response to an unplanned, catastrophic event without
impacting other Regions. However, once appropriated funds are allocated
to the Regions and ultimately to the forests, it becomes much more
difficult to reallocate funds to meet emergency situations without
severe impacts to those units relinquishing the funding.
The regular timber sale program may also be reduced if the K-V fund
is not replaced by appropriations for needed reforestation following
regeneration harvests. NFMA requires the Agency to make a determination
prior to a regeneration harvest that the lands can be adequately
restocked within 5 years of final harvest. Thus, if an area will not
regenerate naturally following harvest, it must be seeded or planted,
and K-V funds are customarily collected to accomplish this work.
Without appropriations to replace the K-V collections already made, and
needed in the future, all necessary regeneration work could not get
done. Once this occurs, the agency would begin modifying its
silvicultural prescriptions in favor of lower volume intermediate
thinnings rather than higher volume regenerations harvests that would
be unsound if regeneration could not be assured. Currently about one-
half of all K-V funding goes for reforestation projects.
Not replacing the K-V funds with appropriations would also impact
our ability to carry out other renewable resource management activities
such as timber stand improvement (TSI), wildlife habitat improvement,
soil and watershed improvement, and recreation and range improvements.
Currently about 25 percent of all K-V funding is used for timber stand
improvement activities and another 25 percent is used for wildlife,
fish, soil, watershed, recreation and range improvements.
Not replacing funds for brush disposal work following timber
harvest would place this requirement on timber sale purchasers to treat
the activity fuels associated with their timber sales. For purchasers
to do this themselves would result in less revenue being received for
the timber sold because the purchasers would have to reflect this
additional requirement in their bids.
Question. The Chief recently told the audience at the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference in San Francisco that
he planned to re-initiate the national-wilderness field advisory group.
Where in the Forest Service budget is this group authorized and what
funds will be used to pay for the operating expenses of this group?
Answer. The wilderness field advisory group will consist of Forest
Service employees involved in wilderness management. The purpose of
this group will be to advise upper level management regarding
wilderness issues. The funding for this is included in the agency's
wilderness management program budget as this function is directly
related to enhancement of the Forest Service wilderness management
program.
Question. Recently, the Forest Service announced that it had
unilaterally extended the deadline for completion of the EIS on the
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Plan (SNEP). Last year's Interior
Appropriations bill required that this be completed by July 31, 1999.
Why is this deadline being extended? Why weren't the relevant
Congressional committees consulted?
Answer. Our intent has been the same as the Committee's since the
initial agreement: to complete the Sierra Nevada Framework
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as quickly as possible. It became
increasingly evident that due to the complexity of the analysis,
evaluation of public comments and consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service that we would be unable to make the July 31 date. It
was our intent to consult with members of Congress prior to the public
notification of a new target date to complete the EIS. To that end we
consulted with the local representative for Congressman Doolittle, who
has served as the key contact for California, about the need for the
additional time to complete the EIS in a thorough and professional
manner. We believed this would provide the needed notification. We
regret the misunderstanding and have taken steps to insure this will
not happen in the future. This includes sharing weekly briefing papers
and increasing the number of briefings with Congress.
Question. What, if any, impacts will the decision to extend the
time frame for preparation of the SNEP have on the Quincy Library pilot
program? Will the Quincy Library pilot program be affected in any other
ways by the SNEP?
Answer. The timeframe extension for completion of the EIS portion
of the Sierra Nevada Framework Project did not delay preparation of the
DEIS for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) pilot
program. The Record of Decision and the FEIS were signed on August 20.
Project specific planning and implementation are ongoing since release
of the Record of Decision. Concerning the SNEP Framework D EIS effort
and the HFQLG project, the current intent is to treat the HFQLG area
separately for the duration of the HFQLG pilot project. However, it is
possible that some of the issues addressed in the Sierra Nevada
Framework DEIS, including wildlife habitat management and riparian
guidelines, may require some changes to the HFQLG pilot project.
The committee has received information that facilities on the North
Kaibab Ranger District in Fredonia, Arizona are inadequate.
Question. Does the agency currently have plans to replace those
facilities?
Answer. The Kaibab National Forest Facilities Master Plan, approved
in 1993, identifies the need for new office, shop, and storage
facilities to replace the obsolete existing facilities. They range in
age from 20 to 35 years old. Replacement of these facilities will
likely be the next major project submitted by the forest for capital
investment funding but that opportunity is several years off.
Question. How many full time employees are located at the station?
How many temporary employees are located there during the summer?
Answer. At present there are 37 full time employees and 6 temporary
employees at the station. There are 40-50 temporary employees located
at other field stations on the District.
Question. What is the total space requirement? What is the total
vehicle parking and warehouse storage space requirements? What is the
total area space requirements for grounds, parking, storage, and
facilities?
Answer. Our space needs are as follows:
Office--10,700 square feet
Shop and Storage--10,200 square feet
Vehicle Parking--45 visitor and employee spaces, 50 government
vehicles including heavy equipment
Area Space Required 10--acres
Question. What is the estimated cost if new facilities were
constructed by the agency?
Answer. $2,750,000 assuming utilities are available at the lot
line, $3,000,000 if they are within \1/4\ mile. Both estimates include
design and contract administration costs but not overhead.
Question. If the city of Fredonia were to construct adequate
facilities, would the Ranger District be prepared to lease those
offices and support facilities?
Answer. No. Due to budget constraints it is not feasible for the
Ranger District to vacate government-owned facilities and move into
leased facilities. At current fair market leasing rates we estimate the
annual lease payments would be approximately \1/3\ of the Ranger
District's annual budget for all of the facilities described earlier.
Question. How could the agency participate with Fredonia in
determining design criteria?
Answer. We would commit the services of Forest Service architects
and engineers to work with the city to determine the design criteria.
Question. Could the agency contract directly with the city or would
the agency have to advertise for competitive bids?
Answer. The agency would have to advertise for competitive bids.
Federal regulations prohibit the agency from entering into a sole
source, non-competitive procurement with the city unless it can be
justified this is in the best interest of the government.
Question. Salmon recovery is a major issue in the Pacific
Northwest. What cooperative efforts and through what specific programs
is the agency assisting other federal, state, and local agencies in
this recovery program?
Answer. The USDA Forest Service has been and is involved in a
number of on-going cooperative and collaborative efforts in the Pacific
Northwest for the restoration of Pacific salmon habitat and
populations. We are partnership the states, tribes, and other Federal
agencies involved with the Northwest Power Planning Council to develop
the multi-species framework plan for the Columbia River Basin. We are
part of the Federal Caucus where all Federal agencies are pooling their
resources to address anadromous fish issues. We are participating in
the development of the 4H's paper to address Hydropower, Hatcheries,
Habitat, and Harvest lead by the National Marine Fisheries Service. We
are part of the Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) made up of
representatives of the USFWS, FS, BLM and NMFS to implement the
Biological Opinions on the Northwest Plan. At a local level individual
Forests are providing expertise to local watershed restoration groups.
Question. How much funding has been spent relative to salmon
recovery in the last three years? What are the projected expenditures
for this program over the next three years?
Answer. In Oregon, California and Washington, $30.1 million has
been allocated to anadromous fisheries over the past three years. In
Alaska $15.1 million has been expended over the same time period. It is
anticipate that $33 million will be expended over the next three year
in Oregon, California and Washington and $17 million in Alaska.
Additional funds such as watershed and soils also benefit anadromous
fish.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
In fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $170 million for the
State and Private Forestry Program.
But after reviewing both your actual expenditures in fiscal year
1998 and your projected costs in fiscal year 1999, it appears that a
lot of the money is being eaten up in federal salaries to administer
the grants and federal overhead expenses.
According to the USDA National Finance Center accounting records
for 1998:
--You had 642 employees running the program.
--Their salary and benefit costs exceeded $35 million.
--Agency staff spent another $5 million flying around to different
states to look at state and private projects.
--Another $7 million was spent for federal rent and other indirect
costs.
--A total of $42 million was spent in overhead at the federal level--
or about a quarter of the available funds. And once grants were
made to states and others, they also have overhead expenses.
Only $104 million of the $170 million budget was provided to states
and private foresters through grants and the Stewardship Incentives
Program.
Question. Wouldn't it make more sense to block grant this program
to the states and let them decide how to use the money? It would save
well over $40 million in federal overhead expenses. It would get the
resources to the states faster because they wouldn't have to waste time
filling out paperwork to apply for funds. It would let them, as opposed
to Washington bureaucrats, set their own priorities. And, most
importantly, it would maximize the resources that are allocated on the
ground to improve forestry practices.
Answer. At the present time, State and Private Forestry authorities
do not enable issuance of block grants to States. Block grants would
provide the States with unlimited discretion as to how they expend and
account for funds, regardless of the purpose for which the funds are
appropriated by Congress and granted 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 and are advanced in a coordinated effort.
Administration budget proposals and Congressional appropriations
underscore this role, and the determining the appropriate mix of
different programs and expanded budget line items. The shift toward
performance based budgeting reinforces the need to associate budget
allocations with planned program outcomes. Financial management
responsibility requires agency accountability for appropriate
expenditure of federal funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
surplus land disposal/inholder relief
A very large portion of the President's proposed budget includes
funding for a ``Lands Legacy Initiative,'' which predominantly
considers land acquisition throughout the Natural Resources agencies. I
worked diligently with the Administration last year for legislation on
federal acquisition and management of a unique piece of property in New
Mexico, and I appreciate the value of public ownership of special
property. Over 30 percent of New Mexico is in federal ownership.
However, I have always advocated federal maintenance of the property
the government already owns, and providing relief to those who have
waited years for federal purchase of their property.
Question. What percentage of the funding for land acquisition in
your proposed budget would go towards the purchase of existing
inholding from willing sellers?
Answer. The Forest Service will use approximately 90 percent of the
funds for the purchase of inholdings within the National Forest System
boundaries. The approximate 10 percent for lands that would not go
towards inholdings would go towards lands outside of but adjacent to an
existing National Forest boundary as directed under Section 7 of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. All purchases will be
negotiated and consummated only with willing sellers.
Question. Do you have an inventory of inholdings available and
awaiting purchase by the Department?
Answer. There is no inventory of all inholdings. There is
information available on projects proposed in the President's budget
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For example, in fiscal year
2000 for Pacific Northwest Streams the President proposed $6.0 million.
Information was provided to both the Senate and House Appropriation
Committees on acres acquired to date, what acres are proposed for
acquisition if fiscal year 2000 funding is available, and what are
future needs. This type of information was provided on all projects
proposed in the President's budget.
I also worked very hard with the Administration last year on
legislation which would facilitate disposal of surplus federal property
and provide relief for inholders. My legislation would allow the
proceeds from sales of disposal property by DOI and the Forest Service
to be used for purchase of inholder properties from willing sellers who
have been waiting to sell to the federal government. You would be able
to purchase these properties without coming to Congress each time.
Question. Do you support this proposed legislation?
Answer. S. 1184, ``National Forest System Community Purposes Act.''
The Forest Service strongly opposes S. 1184 for the following
reasons: (1) adequate statutory authority exists to make lands
available for recreation and other public purposes; (2) taxpayers will
not receive fair market value for their assets; and (3) the purposes
for land conveyance are too broad in scope.
There are several existing authorities by which National Forest
lands can be made available for community purposes. Under the Townsite
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may convey, for fair market value, up
to 640 acres of land to established communities located adjacent to
National Forests in Alaska and in the eleven contiguous western states.
Within certain limits, the Sisk Act of 1967 authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to exchange lands with states, counties, or municipal
governments or public school districts for lands or lands and money.
Moreover, the Secretary of Agriculture can exchange National Forest
lands with state and local governments under authority of the General
Exchange Act of 1922. The Secretary of Agriculture also has existing
authority to accommodate public uses on National Forests through
permits and leases.
These authorities have some common themes in the management and
disposition of Federal lands:
--Balancing of Interests.--The conveyances of federal land are based
on considerations made by our managers to assure that the
benefits of conveyances outweigh the public objectives and
values of keeping lands in Federal ownership.
--Assuring compatible uses.--Terms and conditions may be imposed by
the federal land manager to assure that lands will be used for
their intended purposes and will not result in undue
environmental damage.
--Consideration.--Lands are conveyed for fair market value, assuring
the public full reimbursement for its assets.
S. 1184 changes these existing authorities by allowing the disposal
of National Forest lands for less than fair market value. Congress
established the public policy generally mandating the receipt of fair
market value for the conveyance or use of the Federal lands, most
clearly stated in the Independent Offices Appropriations Act and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is sound fiscal management
to get value received in return for value granted. Further, the general
public should benefit from the use and disposition of the public's
land. The Administration objects to legislation that would reverse that
policy by opening the door to less than fair market value consideration
for the disposition of National Forest lands.
In addition, we are concerned about the breadth of purposes for
which S. 1184 authorizes conveyance of National Forest lands. The scope
of application will allow wholesale disposal of highly valuable
National Forest lands for nominal fees.
rural community assistance
A very large portion of the President's proposed budget includes
funding for a 11 Lands Legacy Initiative,'' which predominantly
considers land acquisition throughout the Natural Resource agencies.
Out of President's $1 Billion Lands Legacy Initiative for fiscal year
2000, $268 million represents USDA's portion.
Over 30 percent of New Mexico is in federal ownership. We have many
small communities completely surrounded by forest lands, who are
dependant on their resources for survival. In recent years, communities
such as Taos have been assisted by small grants from the Forest
Service's rural community assistance programs. Unfortunately,
communities like this are now being told there is no longer funding for
these kind of programs. I do find it interesting that the Forest
Service's proposed budget focuses its State and Private Forestry
Program towards presidential priorities such as land acquisition, while
programs state foresters and local communities benefit from on the
ground are shrinking.
Question. Please provide for me a breakdown of what portion of the
fiscal year 2000 budget will be going to support community programs,
compared to what is requested for land acquisition.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Forest Service budget includes $40.04
million for Urban and Community Forestry programs, $16.305 million for
Economic Action Programs, and $7.0 million for Pacific Northwest Rural
Community Assistance programs, for a total of $63.345 million that
supports community capacity building, growth, and development.
The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes $50.012 million for the
Forest Legacy program, to protect private forest land from conversion
to non-forest uses. The land remains privately owned when conservation
easements--the program's primary tool--are used. The Forest Service
delegates the administration of federally owned easements to the
States, and when the easement is acquired in the name of the State, it
becomes their responsibility.
The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes $118 million in the Land
Acquisition budget.
Question. Of the amount requested for land acquisition in the
Forest Service Budget, what portion is expected to go to purchase
existing inholdings?
Answer. Approximately 90 percent of the funds requested for land
acquisition will go toward the purchase of existing inholdings within
National Forest System boundaries. All of the dollar amount requested
is within the authorizations of the Forest Service as all lands to be
purchased are either in or adjacent to Forest Service management
boundaries.
four corners sustainable forestry initiative
I supported a grassroots effort last year to establish sustainable
community-based forest enterprises. The Four Corners Sustainable
Forestry Initiative, consisting of State foresters, community and
tribal leaders, and non-profit organizations, received $500,000 in
fiscal year 1999 to begin a five year effort to encourage forest
restoration and risk reduction in cooperation with the Forest Service.
This is exactly the type of community program that benefits forest
dependant rural communities that I mentioned earlier.
Question. Please provide me an update on this initiative?
Answer. The Four Corners Sustainable Forestry Initiative has
established a steering committee with representatives from each of the
four states as well as tribal representatives. The committee also
includes representatives of federal, state and local governments, non-
profit associations, and private businesses. The steering committee has
initiated three primary activities to achieve its goal of encouraging
forest restoration, maintenance, and risk reduction through
sustainable, community-based forest enterprises, as follows:
Assessment.--A contractor team has been selected to undertake an
assessment of the current status of Four Corners region forest
resources, wood products industry, current and potential markets for
small diameter timber, and socioeconomic conditions and demographics
relating to the development of a forest restoration infrastructure. The
assessment will gather and synthesize currently available information
on the above topics in a manner which will help Initiative partners
communicate forest restoration needs to the public. This information
will also be used in the development of a long term strategy to achieve
forest restoration and economic development goals. A report is to be
completed by August 1999, for presentation at the Taos Roundtable.
Demonstration projects.--A request for proposals has been released
for projects that demonstrate innovative techniques and approaches to
community-based forest restoration. Demonstration projects can be
undertaken by individuals, government entities, non-profit
organizations, and businesses. Projects will be selected based on their
ability to meet the goals of the Initiative in a measurable way. More
than 20 proposals are expected to be received, with requests for
funding greatly surpassing the $275,000 in funding available for this
year's funding cycle.
Sustainable Forestry Roundtable.--The steering committee has begun
planning a Roundtable conference for August 25-27 in Taos, New Mexico.
The goal of the conference is to bring together a wide variety of
stakeholders to review the results of the assessment, develop a long-
term strategy for forest restoration and rural economic development in
the region, create partnerships for the development of new forest
restoration enterprises, and educate people about the latest in
sustainable forestry technologies.
The Initiative is also building a broader network of resource
providers to assist in the development of a forest restoration
infrastructure in the Four Corners region.
Question. Since these kind of projects have such potential benefit
for so many communities at so little cost, why has funding requests in
Forest Service Economic Action programs dropped?
Answer. The Economic Action Program funding level in fiscal year
2000 is proposed at $16.305 million. This is $1 million less than the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $17.305 million. However, the fiscal
year 1999 enacted level included $6.745 million of Congressional
earmarks which were outside the Economic Action Program components.
Thus, the effective level of funding for Economic Action Program
delivery in fiscal year 1999 was $10.56 million. The proposed fiscal
year 2000 budget proposal for Economic Action Programs represents a 54
percent increase over that amount.
carson national forest drainage problem
The Town of Taos contacted me last year regarding flooding problems
resulting from storm drainage in the Paseo Del Canon drainage channel.
The majority of the drainage area which contributes to the flow in this
channel comes from land owned by the Forest Service in the Carson
National Forest. Taos applied to the Forest Service for a grant under
the Rural Community Assistance Program. The Forest Service responded
that while the Town's proposed solution to the problem was an excellent
proposal, the Forest Service did not have adequate funding to address
the problem. $1 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to allowing
for lining of this channel, covering the costs of the Forest Service's
share of liability.
Question. Please provide a status report on this project.
Answer. The Town of Taos is in the process of developing NEPA
requirements, Army Corp of Engineers permits, if needed, and other
necessary preparatory work. As soon as this work is completed, the
grant for the one million dollars will be issued.
southwest conservation strategy
In December 1997, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of
Agriculture Dan Glickman, and Environmental Security Undersecretary of
Defense Sherri Goodman unveiled a ``strategy'' for natural resource
management and endangered species issues in Arizona and New Mexico.
The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Albuquerque, New Mexico is apparently ``co-chairing'' this multi-agency
effort with the Regional Forester of the Forest Service, Eleanor
Townes.
In the President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget, once again,
multiple agencies are funding this Southwest strategy. I have had many
constituent inquiries as to the status and accomplishments of this
strategy. I asked you to provide details of funding for this strategy
in the February 25, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing.
(Note: We do have these answers, since NFS provided the answers to
questions 213 through 216 as part of Senate Energy hearing questions.)
Question. Specifically how much of the Forest Service's Budget
request is planned to go towards this strategy in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. No special funds are designated for the Southwest Strategy.
Costs associated with this effort are coming from existing allocations.
Question. Have any recovery issues have been identified for
immediate attention?
Answer. The focus for immediate actions regarding implementation of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been to improve interagency
coordination. One of the best products of the Southwest Strategy to
date is Section 7 (ESA) consultation streamlining. As a result of
improved communication and increased coordination through the Southwest
Strategy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service
completed the biological assessment needed for programmatic
consultations regarding on-going management of hundreds of grazing
allotments in record time. As a result, permittees were provided with
information more quickly regarding the need for changes, if any, in on-
going livestock grazing management on the allotments.
Due in large part to the Southwest Strategy, the States of New
Mexico and Texas, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Land Management developed an agreement to conserve the Pecos pupfish.
The fish was proposed for federal listing under the Endangered Species
Act. New Mexico Lieutenant Governor Bradley recently credited his
interaction with the Southwest Strategy as a rationale for signing the
agreement.
Another example of a collaborative response to species recovery is
the involvement of participating agencies in a programmatic approach to
ESA Section 7 consultation for fire-related management activities.
These activities are helping to restore ecosystems in Arizona and New
Mexico, and contributing to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl and
certain other species listed under the ESA.
The Southwest Strategy is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Luke Air Force Base and other Department of Defense training
activities on the Barry M. Goldwater Range and Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge to accomplish recovery activities for endangered
species. The Barry M. Goldwater Executive Committee and the Southwest
Strategy Regional Executive Committee are working in cooperation on
this and other issues.
Question. Has the strategy ``team'' made any decisions regarding
actions to be taken, and, if so, have they collaborated with state and
local agencies?
Answer. The Regional Executive Committee of the Southwest Strategy
has agreed to support existing collaborative efforts in Arizona and New
Mexico and to facilitate the development of new efforts. Increased
collaboration with tribes, states, and local agencies has occurred and
is continuing. The groups have been asked how they want to increase
collaboration with federal agencies and what issues they would like to
discuss. For example, New Mexico Lieutenant Governor Bradley and the
Regional Executive Committee agreed to meet on a regular basis. The
Committee's desire is to identify and regularly meet with cabinet level
state officials who have a shared interest in natural resource issues.
Through these types of efforts, the Southwest Strategy seeks to do a
better job of ensuring that state, tribal, and local interests are
incorporated in planning for work that the involved federal agencies
already are mandated to conduct and for which they have appropriations,
and that opportunities to share information, expertise, and assistance
can be expanded.
Question. Have stake holders been alerted or involved in
development of this strategy?
Answer. Yes. Numerous formal and informal contacts and
presentations have been made with local level existing collaborative
efforts, as well as state and local government agencies and tribal
governments. Some of the organizations include the Eastern Arizona
Association of Counties, New Mexico Association of Counties, Arizona
Board of County Supervisors, and the Arizona Round Table. Meetings with
tribal executives have occurred in each state. Southwest Strategy
Regional Executives attended a Catron County Citizens Council field
tour. The Southwest Strategy also sponsored training in the
collaborative process in Safford, Arizona. Additional training sessions
are planned for Cloudcroft, and Espanola, New Mexico. The South Central
Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council, covering
Lincoln and Otero Counties, is co-hosting the Cloudcroft workshop with
the Lincoln National Forest.
u.s. forest service--litigation costs
There has been a question on my mind for quite some time as I look
at the work of the public lands agencies of the Department of Interior
and the U.S. Forest Service that have a significant presence in the
West. That question is:
Question. How much money has been spent in New Mexico and Arizona--
Region 3--and since Senator Bennett is also present, I would add in
Utah--on environmental lawsuits?
Answer. Responding to lawsuits requires the effort of many
employees in addition to those who specialize in litigation. For
example, line officers, project managers, resource specialists,
scientists, and clerical support are often involved at various times
depending on the demands of a particular case. The Forest Service does
not keep records of costs for each lawsuit so we are answering this
question by estimating the salary for staff time required to respond to
cases. Estimates were made for all cases involving challenges under
environmental laws (e.g., NFMA, NEPA, ESA). Using fiscal year 1998 as
the base, Forest Service costs in New Mexico and Arizona (Region 3) are
estimated at $1,900,000. fiscal year 1998 costs in the State of Utah
are estimated at $230,000.
Question. In these lawsuits, how much has been awarded to the
plaintiffs?
Answer. Fees were only paid on one lawsuit during fiscal year 1998.
This was a case in Region 3 where $16,905 was paid under the Equal
Access to Justice Act.
I raise this issue because it's beginning to seem as if the federal
government is paying more on legal fees, court costs, and settlements
of lawsuits than on managing the actual natural resources over which
they have custodianship for the American people. The American people
are also the taxpayers paying these legal bills.
A second issue I'll mention comes to mind because of the possible
listing of the silvery minnow as an endangered species. In this case,
the litigation has been brought by environmental groups against the
federal government, but the people who are likely to be most adversely
affected in this litigation, which could include the City of
Albuquerque, for example, are never given any consideration in the
lawsuit. I don't think that makes much sense, and this issue should be
given some attention by Congress.
I note, Mr. Chairman, that Interior Secretary Babbitt will be
before the Subcommittee next week. I think these are appropriate
questions to be asked of the Department of Interior agencies as well.
u.s. forest service--southwestern drought
The Forest Service is behind in its forest management activities
nationwide, such as prescribed burns, that could help mitigate fire
danger in our natural forests. In the Southwest, we are looking down
the barrel of what could be one of the worst drought years ever. I know
that you, Chief Dombeck, have been trying to reach me by phone, and
we've missed each other, but I need to be advised on what you are doing
regarding drought and fire danger in the Southwest.
Question. Please tell me what specific measures are being taken to
mitigate fire danger in New Mexico this fire season.
Answer. To date, using our Severity authorization, the Forest
Service has sent $4 million to our southwest Region. This money is used
to offset extreme fire danger conditions that occur from time to time
across the country. The southwest Region is using the severity
authorization to hire their fire prevention and initial attack
firefighting resources earlier than normal. The Forest Service, States
of Arizona and New Mexico, Bureau of Land Management, and the National
Park Service are coordinating their fire prevention activities, public
service announcements, and deployment of firefighting resources. Fire
lookouts are in place and initial attack resources are deployed
throughout the Region.
Question. Please explain what assistance you will need from
Congress, especially in appropriations, to address fire danger and
other drought-related disasters this year.
Answer. The President's Budget and the available contingency funds
should be adequate to cover the increased fire disaster needs.
Question. Please promptly provide a review of what you are doing
for fire assessment in conjunction with other agencies--particularly
the NRCS and FEMA.
Answer. The Forest Service is working with the States of Arizona
and New Mexico, as well as with other Federal agencies, to coordinate
fire prevention efforts, public service announcements, firefighting
resource deployment, and fire detection programs. The States of Arizona
and New Mexico are working with FEMA to obtain grants to preposition
firefighting resources. Interagency Coordination Centers are monitoring
fire danger conditions and planning deployment of resources based on
these conditions. The Forest Service has provided Seasonal Severity
financing so that fire prevention personnel, fire detection lookouts,
firefighters, and equipment can be hired earlier than normal. This has
been done in cooperation and coordination with the States of Arizona
and New Mexico, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park
Service.
I raise this issue because we need to know now what can be done in
advance of any drought-related disasters this summer.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
general
I am getting the impression that the Forest Service is closing off
a lot of public lands in Montana through various administrative actions
such as the: road closure moratorium; hard rock mining moratorium on
the North Slope; and proposed Off-Highway Vehicle (OHVs) ban on certain
public lands.
Question. Since the Forest Service was established to manage these
public lands for multi-use, what specific actions are you taking to
foster multi-use of these public lands?
Answer. The President's budget provides a balance of initiatives
supporting broad nationwide goals as well as emphasis on protecting and
restoring the health of National Forest forests and rangelands. We
believe the funding emphasis contained in the President's budget is
important for America and, as the table of selected performance
indicators below shows, will continue to provide balance.
USDA FOREST SERVICE--SELECTED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
estimated estimated estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated 26,459 22,633 22,600
Recreation Special Use Permits
(number)........................
Recreation Visitor Days (million) 344 347 347
Timber Volume Sold (million cubic 569.6 701.0 614.4
feet)...........................
Grazing allotments (number)...... 4,113 4,389 4,000
Watershed Improvements (acres)... 38,497 20,000 30,165
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the Forest Service is again proposing to de-
couple timber receipts from payments to counties. This concerns me
since this proposed action appears to violate the principle of helping
local communities.
Question. What policies has the U.S. Department of Agriculture
considered to stabilize annual Federal payments to the counties with
public lands? What specific policies and/or programs have you
considered to maintain the economic viability of these counties?
Answer. The Administration has proposed legislation which would
establish a permanent fixed formula payment which would provide local
governments more money and greater predictability than current reliance
on revenue from unpredictable timber sales.
In addition, Secretary Glickman has recently indicated he would
strongly recommend the President support an amendment by Rep. DeFazio
to pending de-coupling legislation sponsored by Rep's. Deal and Boyd
which would provide a payment equal to the average of the three highest
payments received by the states between 1985 and the present. This
would include an annual adjustment to reflect changes in the consumer
price index. This payment would result in a nationwide payment of $443
million in fiscal year 2000, $201 million more than the states would
receive under current law.
While the Forest Service and other Federal agencies such as the
Rural Development Administration in USDA and the Economic Development
Administration in the Department of Commerce have programs that provide
loan or grant assistance to economically disadvantaged communities,
these are not intended to take the place of private sector development
spurred by a healthy economy.
new burn policy
Question. Given that Secretary Babbitt has announced an aggressive
new policy to increase the number of acres burned throughout the West,
what is the Forest Service's response to this DOI policy?
Answer. USDA, Forest Service and DOI are all signatories of the
1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Our policies are
essentially the same. The Forest Service has increased the number of
acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels. Since 1994 we have increased
our hazardous fuels treatment from approximately 380,000 acres annually
to 1.48 million treated in 1998. Our treatments include a balance of
prescribed fire and mechanical treatments.
Question. What is your assessment of the fire condition of the
National Forests this year going into the summer burn season?
Answer. Generally, a normal season throughout the country, except
for the southern part of the country that is affected by La Nina.
Potential exists for an above normal fire season in the southwest,
Texas, and Florida.
Question. What does this mean for Montana in the number of acres
burned and communities affected?
Answer. Based on early indicators Montana could have a near normal
fire season.
Question. Are you saying that if communities can't get enough
timber to harvest, maybe they can get enough timber to burn? Somehow
this seems backward to how best to manage the lands. Why not increase
the number of selective timber cuts to reduce the underbrush?
Answer. The Forest Service does not plan to award communities
contracts to burn forestland. Burning is intended to reduce fuels that
pose the risk of catastrophic wildfire. In many cases, prescribed
burning would not be feasible unless it is preceeded by mechanical
removal of both commercial and non-commercial trees. This work would
not necessarily reduce the amount of brush, which could not be sold
anyway. Thus, prescribed burning to remove brush may still be necessary
to complete the task of fuels reduction.
forest stewardship contracts
Question. I understand that certain activities that would have
normally be conducted, are being folded under the new Forest
Stewardship contracts authorized in last year's appropriations act. In
doing this, you avoid sharing 25 percent of any receipts received by
these activities with the counties. I am very concerned about this
situation since it further reduces the traditional support by the
Forest Service.
Answer. There has been no deliberate attempt to shift work to the
stewardship pilots in order to avoid the need to make 25 percent
payments to states and counties. Congress enacted Section 347 of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, which
authorized the Forest Service to enter into no more than 28 stewardship
end-results contracts. The purpose of these ``pilot-test'' contracts is
to evaluate an array of new processes and procedures intended to give
national forest managers greater administrative flexibility to
implemented needed ecosystem restoration and maintenance treatments
while simultaneously meeting the needs of local and rural communities.
Under the legislative language, any receipts received from these
contracts are to be ignored for purposes of determining the 25 percent
payments due states and counties. This provision was included in the
legislation to provide a better basis for evaluating the potential
usefulness of the ``goods for services'' concept. For the most part,
the stewardship pilots are being carried out in situations where,
because of the limited commercial value of the timber to be harvested,
a standard timber sale cannot be used. Given these situations, if 25
percent of receipts were returned to states and counties, little or no
residual would be available for performing desired ecosystem
restoration and maintenance work. The agency feels that in most
instances the economic benefits that will flow from the projects that
are conducted--e.g., the employment and income that is generated--will
probably be more important to states and counties than the 25 percent
payments. This issue highlights the need to address 25 percent payments
from these kinds of projects before deciding whether or not to make
``goods for services'' a permanent practice.
road and mineral closures
Question. I am concerned that more roads in the National Forests
are being closed to the public. Also many existing roads are
deteriorating and causing problems with erosion into streams. What are
your policies to repair existing roads on the National Forests as
opposed to closing them? What are your plans to repair existing roads
in Montana and how many miles of existing roads will be closed by your
fiscal year 2000 Budget request?
Answer. If a road is needed for management of the National Forest,
the road is retained on the road system. The fiscal year 2000 road
maintenance budget of $123 million covers only about 22 percent of the
identified annual repair and maintenance needs of $568 million. The
maintenance funding we do receive is directed toward high priority
safety and environmental protection work.
Some existing roads, if needed for long term National Forest
management, are put into a storage category by closing to protect the
road from use and reduce maintenance costs. Other existing roads that
are not needed for National Forest management are programmed for
decommissioning as funds become available.
In fiscal year 2000, Montana will reconstruct approximately 410
miles of its existing transportation system. This is 1.4 percent of the
road miles. In addition to the reconstruction activities that are
ongoing, forests within Montana are also analyzing the transportation
system and identifying those components that should be decommissioned
or closed. In fiscal year 2000, we are projecting that 218 miles of
classified roads and an additional 65 miles of unclassified roads
within Montana will be decommissioned or closed.
Question. The mineral withdrawal of 430,000 acres of National
Forest land in Montana has raised a lot of attention. Why wasn't this
action pursued through the normal forest planning process? Will this
mineral withdrawal affect exiting mining operations on these lands and
if so, how?
Answer. The Forest Plan was completed in 1986, before any claims
had been staked in this area. However, this proposal must be consistent
with the Forest Plan or the Plan must be amended. The lands have not
actually been withdrawn. They have been segregated, or temporarily
closed to establishing new mining claims for a two-year period. During
that time a study will be done to determine whether to withdraw the
lands. The proposal will be subject to public review and, if the
decision is made to withdraw the lands, Congress will be notified and
will have 90 days to review the decision.
The current two-year segregation, and the possible withdrawal of
these lands, are both subject to valid existing rights. As such, the
only affect on existing or proposed operations will be a relatively
short delay to determine whether the operator has valid existing
rights, the most important element of which is that there must be
evidence as of the date the segregation order was published in the
Federal Register that a valuable mineral deposit had been discovered.
smoke jumpers ceremony in montana
I am very interested in this summers upcoming memorial of the
anniversary of the 16 smoke jumpers killed in Mann Gulch Fire in the
Helena National Forest. I have been contacted by many citizens in
Montana asking about what is the Forest Service's plans participation
in this memorial event.
Question. Since Montana is the home of the Forest Service smoker
jumpers, I'm sure you are going to be involved, right? What are the
Forest Service plans to participate in this summers memorial event?
Answer. The Forest Service is planning the ceremony. The Helena
National Forest has the lead.
Question. I think it would be great if you made a good presence at
this event. I understand the Forest Service is reluctant to do a
ceremonial jump? Is that true and is there any help that I could give
you to support this event?
Answer. We are planning to do a ceremonial jump. But we cannot
commit more than 1 or 2 jumpers because that is the height of the fire
season.
forest service reorganization
I have received a number of letters this year about a proposed
reorganization of your human resources office. Now I support less
government, however, I am concerned about the impact your plans may
have on not only local citizens employed by the Forest Service but also
the services the Forest Service provides to local Federal employees.
Whether you realize it or not, your office in some communities are the
only real Federal office that provides information and support services
to these retired people. I am concerned about this reorganization and
will provide you a letter soon outlining my concerns.
Question. However, what are the current status of this
reorganization? I expect you to advise me of your final plans before
your release them formally. Is that acceptable?
Answer. The agency is developing a model to deliver Human Resource
(HR) services which keeps HR specialists at field locations providing
personalized service to local management, employees, and the public.
Local line officers will determine the number and location of these
``local HR advisors.'' Specifically the proposal:
1. keeps local HR advisors at local sites to provide support to
local managers, employees and the public,
2. simplifies and lessens the workload of these local HR advisors
by providing experts in service centers to deal with complex or rarely
performed activities,
3. provides employees with expert advice offsite in selected areas
such as retirement counseling and self service options like changing
tax exemptions, and
4. performs processing work which does not need to be performed
locally at operation centers.
We believe this model has the best of all worlds. It improves the
quality of our services, keeps HR advisors at local sites, minimizes
need to move employees to other jobs, and is efficient.
An advisory group is recommending to Forest Service management that
we ``test'' this model in our Denver and Atlanta regions. After a one-
to three-year test, the Forest Service will make a final determination
regarding expanding this model Service-wide. Prior to implementing this
model on a Service-wide basis, we will consult with you.
new legislation for more revenues
I am very interested in your proposed legislative changes to
provide more revenue for the Forest Service. However, we haven't
received any language yet.
Question. Are you going to provide us with any proposed language?
If so when could we expect it?
Answer. The Administration's legislative proposals described in the
fiscal year 2000 budget were submitted to Congress on May 19, 1999 and
July 9, 1999.
Question. Also since these legislative proposals are designed to
provide $111 million in offsetting receipts, what are your plans to cut
your own budget if these legislation proposals doesn't get enacted this
year?
Answer. The Forest Service submitted it program proposals to the
Department in accordance with normal schedules. The timing of agency
involvement in the legislative proposals which contribute to the
estimated savings of $111 million varied with the specific proposals.
As the Subcommittee is aware proposals concerning special forest
products and concession reform have been in the development stage for
more than a year. Other proposals contributing to the $111 estimated
savings have been in development for a shorter period of time. The
Forest Service provided specialized expertise to the development of
these proposals and the development of estimates of revenue or other
savings. This dialog has been ongoing as part of the routine budget
development process.
Question. I understand your legislative proposal would decouple the
sharing of Forest Service natural resource (e.g. timber, mining,
grazing) receipts with the states. If this is so, wouldn't this create
more disincentives for people to utilize the vast wealth of natural
resources found on Forest Service lands?
Answer. The Administration's stabilization proposal would not
create any disincentives to make decisions relating to resource
utilization. There are many other factors that affect resource
utilization decisions that are unrelated to payments to states.
Question. Is this another attempt to lock up the public lands in
the west from any further development such as that being proposed with
the mining moratorium on the Rocky Mountain Front?
Answer. The decision to initiate a payments to states stabilization
proposal was not influenced by, or connected to, decisions relating to
the mining moratorium. The Agency has long considered delinking
revenues from forest resources.
Question. Also why do you propose to share less Forest Service
receipts with the states when, on the other hand, you propose in your
budget to increase Forest Service receipts?
Answer. Overall projected Forest Service receipts are expected to
decline by approximately $57 million in fiscal year 2000. Under the
Administration payments to states stabilization proposal, and per the
President's Budget Justification, states would receive approximately
$27 more in fiscal year 2000 than they would receive under current law.
The formula allows states to select the high three years over a ten-
year span. Therefore, the states could select the years that generated
the highest revenues as their basis for annual receipts.
Question. How would you pay for the annual payment to states if you
do not tie them to Forest Service natural resource receipts?
Answer. The payment would be made from offsetting receipts out of
the General Fund of the Treasury.
Question. If you use annually appropriated funds, won't that limit
future funding for the U.S. Forest Service to stay within budget caps
while making annual payments to the states?
Answer. The proposal would not rely on annually appropriated funds
but would be a permanent payment set by statute.
How can I be assured that you will not decrease the annual payments
to the states if annual budget caps are reduced?
Neither the Forest Service nor OMB would have discretion over the
amount of the payment once it is enacted into law by Congress. The
payment would continue at the set amount without further action by the
Administration or the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The only way that the payment could be reduced or changed in any way
would be if, in the future, Congress chose to amend or repeal the
statute.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
wood education resource center
Public Law 105-277, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999, provided for the
transfer to the Forest Service of the Hardwood Technology Center in
Mercer County, West Virginia. This transfer was effected on November
20, 1998 and the name of the center has been changed to the Wood
Education Resource Center. Since the official transfer, the Forest
Service has begun a process of restructuring and reorganizing the
center to promote the sustainable use of eastern hardwood resources
through the development of an institute of hardwood technology
transfer. I am pleased that the Forest Service is moving ahead quickly
to carry out the directions of the Congress for this facility and would
like more information as to its progress in achieving the goals of the
transfer.
Please describe the structure and organization of the new center:
Foreword.--The following questions and answers speak specifically
to the Institute of Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research
and the Wood Education and Resource Center. The following definitions
are important to the understanding of both the questions and associated
answers:
--The Wood Education and Resource Center. This is the new name of the
former Hardwood Technology Center located in Gardner, West
Virginia (across the street from the Forestry Sciences
Laboratory). It is referred to in the question and answers as
the Center. The Center is the property of the USDA Forest
Service, United States Government.
--State and Private Forestry Liaison. The existing position of the
Northeastern Area, located at Princeton, West Virginia,
designed to integrate the cooperative programs, especially the
Economic Action Programs, into applied research, technology
transfer, and education.
--The Forestry Sciences Laboratory. The existing organizational unit
at Princeton, West Virginia consisting of three major Research
Work Units with a regional and national focus on hardwood
utilization and economic information.
--The Institute Concept. The original concept whereby the USDA Forest
Service (both State and Private Forestry and Research and
Development) and the original Hardwood Technology Center would
coordinate planning, work activities and collaborate on shared
outcomes. This concept was discussed in a paper prepared by the
Director of the Northeastern Area and presented to Congress in
May 1996.
--The Institute. This is the name of the newly formed Institute of
Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research. The
Institute consists of the Wood Education and Resource Center,
appropriate State and Private Forestry (S&PF) functions,
including the current S&PF liaison position, and the Forestry
Sciences Laboratory of the Northeastern Research Station. The
Institute will work much the way that was described in the
original concept. A new organization will not be configured, as
we traditionally do. The Directors of the Northeastern Area and
Northeastern Research Station will provide overall guidance and
leadership. The overall point of contact for the Institute to
the headquarters of the Forest Service is the Director,
Northeastern Area.
Question. What are the major functions of the center and how do
these functions fit into the overall goals of the Forest Service?
Answer. The focus of the Center, under an overall vision of
improved hardwood stewardship, will be to advance technologies and
ideas; promote effective applications; build partnerships; promote
community sustainability; and disseminate timely, accurate, relevant
information. The operating principles of the Center will include
leading edge technical assistance and high quality customer service;
collaboration; and community development. The short-term strategy for
the Center will focus on training seminars; conferences; and developing
grants for applied research. Examples of this applied research will
include light on the land harvesting technology that reduce
environmental impacts; improved primary processing; improved secondary
processing; and, improved market-oriented information. The long-term
strategy calls for the Center to be operated by a private group under
the close guidance and counsel of the Directors, within the framework
of the Institute.
Initially the Center was designed to assist small, independent
operators to get established in the secondary hardwoods processing
industry through training in leading-edge technology in hardwood
manufacturing as well as product demonstration produced with world-
class technology and equipment. Some of these original objectives will
be retained, but now within a much broader and expanded framework.
A major goal of the USDA Forest Service is sustainability through
adequate forest stewardship, including the wise use of wood fiber to
extend the resource. The vision of the Center and the Institute focus
on the wise, expanded use of America's hardwood forest. The Institute
and Center are unique and clearly augment the agency's mission of
caring for the land and serving people.
Question. What are the major assets of the center?
Answer. The existing Center consists of a 23,000 square foot
facility for training, equipment time-sharing, and office space and a
38,000 square foot dimension mill for additional equipment time-sharing
and selected manufacturing (component parts; finger jointing; and
veneer splicing). The Center contains a variety of leading-edge wood
processing equipment and a core staff of five employees. The Center was
transferred to the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, on November
20, 1998 and is now the property of the United States Government.
Question. Who is providing the leadership for the new center? Who
is the point of contact for the new center to the headquarters of the
Forest Service?
Answer. Currently, the leadership of the Center is under the State
and Private Forestry liaison, Mr. Al Steele, located at Princeton, West
Virginia. Mr. Steele is an employee of the Northeastern Area, State and
Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service. Mr. Steele's telephone number is
(304) 487-1501. The point of contact for the Center to the headquarters
of the Forest Service is Mr. Michael T. Rains, Director, Northeastern
Area, State and Private Forestry. Mr. Rains can be reached at (610)
975-4103.
Eventually, a contractor under the overall guidance of the State
and Private Forestry liaison position will help operate the Center. The
search for a contractor is now underway.
Question. What are the appropriation sources and levels for the
center in fiscal year 1999 and proposed for fiscal year 2000 in the
President's budget? Are there any other sources of funds? If so, what
are they?
Answer. The appropriation source for the Center is the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee. Funds are provided to the
USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, through the Economic
Action Programs budget line item. fiscal year 1999 funding for the
Center was $2,500,000.
The fiscal year 2000 President's proposed budget will continue
funding for the Center at $2,500,000, within the Economic Action
Programs of State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service.
In the future, some funding could come from earnings generated by
the Center. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Bill provided adequate
authority to retain any funds earned to help augment the operations of
the Center and/or offset future Federal appropriations. Since fiscal
year 1999 is the initial year of the restructured Center, it is
estimated that there will be little or no outside earnings to report.
Question. What are the major assets of the new institute?
Answer. In addition to the Center, the Institute includes program
components and associated resources of the Forestry Sciences Laboratory
at Princeton, West Virginia as well as the appropriate State and
Private Forestry functions. Accordingly, any resources and existing
partnerships associated with these two mission areas, including the
laboratory facilities at Princeton, are assets available to the
Institute.
Question. Who is providing the leadership for the new institute?
Who is the point of contact for the new institute to the headquarters
of the Forest Service?
Answer. A new Institute organization will not be configured, as we
traditionally know. The Directors of the Northeastern Area and
Northeastern Research Station will provide overall guidance and
leadership while maintaining the separate Research and Development and
State and Private Forestry mission areas. Day-to-day on-site work will
be under the guidance of the State and Private Forestry liaison
position (Mr. Al Steele) and the Project Leader at the Forestry
Sciences Laboratory, Dr. John Baumgras, both located at Princeton, West
Virginia.
As with the Center, the point of contact for the Institute to the
headquarters of the Forest Service is Mr. Michael T. Rains, Director,
Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry.
The Mission of the Institute is to promote sustainable use of the
eastern hardwood resource.
The Scope of work is development and transfer of information and
technology to benefit forest-based communities and industry.
The Vision is efficient and environmentally responsible use of
eastern hardwood forests.
The Goal of the Institute is to create a focal point for training
and collaborative problem solving to advance:
--Sustainable economic development using eastern hardwood resources.
--Mitigation of environmental impacts from hardwood harvesting,
processing, and disposal.
--Improved competitiveness of hardwood products industry.
Formal focus groups will help refine and further shape these
objectives.
Question. What are the appropriation sources and funding levels for
the institute in fiscal year 1999 and the proposed for fiscal year 2000
in the President's budget? Are there any expectations for other funding
for fiscal year 2000? If so, what are they?
Answer. The appropriation source for the Institute is the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee and any outside
earnings that may be generated through the Center. Appropriated funds
are provided to the USDA Forest Service for both the Research and
Development and State and Private Forestry mission areas. Within State
and Private Forestry, the Economic Action Programs budget line item is
the traditional funding program source. In fiscal year 1999 the funding
level for the Institute was $3,600,000. This included the Conference
Report Earmark of $2,500,000 within State and Private Forestry Economic
Action Programs line item, an additional $200,000 from the same line
item for the S&PF liaison position, and $900,000 for the Forestry
Sciences Laboratory's related work.
The fiscal year 2000 President's proposed budget for the Institute
is $3,600,000. This includes $1,525,000 for the operation of the
Center, $200,000 for the State and Private Forestry liaison position
and $975,000 for technology transfer from the Economic Action Programs
(the forest products conservation and recycling program component), and
a continued component of $900,000 for the Forestry Sciences Laboratory
from the Research and Development appropriation. Net earnings from the
Center are estimated to total about $200,000 in fiscal year 2000 and
could be used to offset appropriations required in subsequent years.
Question. What non-Forest Service partners are included in or being
sought for inclusion in the institute? Are any West Virginia State
agencies participating? Are any academic institutions, such as near-by
Concord College, connected to the institute? What industry groups are
interested in becoming more closely involved in the institute?
Answer. Partnerships with other wood-based training and technical
assistance organizations are currently being developed. These include
the West Virginia Wood Technology Center at Elkins, West Virginia, West
Virginia University, West Virginia Development Office in Charleston,
and the West Virginia Division of Forestry.
State and Private Forestry has met with the West Virginia's
Governor's Office to help ensure full and effective collaboration with
all potential interests. The West Virginia Forestry Association is
participating with the Institute in a needs survey of West Virginia
wood using industries.
Other actions have been taken to make more effective use of the
facilities. Recent commitments have been made with the West Virginia
Army National Guard to use the Center for Distance Learning and to
further assist Concord College in the same venture. Distance Learning
is the use of the latest Internet and videoconference technology to
more efficiently link long distance customers.
Current work with focus groups will continue to identify additional
opportunities to extend the contributions of the Institute. We expect
to develop potential partnerships with other local colleges and
Universities in the surrounding region.
The goal is to make the Institute national in scope. All actions of
the Institute and the Center will continue to target national
associations and groups as working partners to advance a cohesive
hardwood stewardship mission.
Question. What are the processes by which industry and academia can
help make the dream of the institute a reality?
Answer. The formal focus groups will be an important mechanism. In
addition, industry, academia, other state, Federal, and local
government entities, and private groups will be encouraged to work
directly with the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area and
Northeastern Research Station, to ensure adequate input into the vision
of the Institute. Mr. Steele and Dr. Baumgras will ensure the process
is adequate, and well communicated.
Question. What progress has been made to developing and hosting
focus groups as part of the road mapping and strategic planning
exercise?
Answer. Specific contractors have been identified and contracts for
services have been signed. The next step will be the design of the
focus groups by the contractors. Focus groups are expected to convene
in June through mid-July of this year.
Question. When do you believe that sufficient input and analyses
from the focus groups will complete such that you can share the
results?
Answer. We will begin to document and share results of the focus
groups almost immediately after their completion. However, while focus
groups will ultimately play a key role in defining many high priority
actions and costs, indications are there will be significant
participation and input from outside the focus groups as we shape the
final vision and mission of the Institute. It is expected that most of
the input and analyses will be completed by October through December
1999.
Question. What do you project the budget needs of the center and
the institute will be in the future years beyond fiscal year 2000?
The estimated fiscal year 2000 budget for a operational Institute
is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Additional
Mission area budget needs Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&PF Liaison..................... $200,000 ........... $200,000
WERC............................. 1,525,000 $975,000 2,500,000
Forestry Sciences Laboratory..... 900,000 ........... 900,000
--------------------------------------
Total, Institute........... 2,625,000 975,000 3,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated fiscal year 2000 revenue from the Center will be about
$200,000. Revenues could be used to offset future years'
appropriations. This is an update of the table dated November 23, 1998.
If the net revenue projections are correct, the funds could be
applied to help augment the Center, typically capital reinvestment, or
to help offset Federal funding needs.
It is estimated that the fiscal year 2001 net revenues will range
from about $400,000 to a maximum of $500,000. If these projections are
accurate and offsets to Federal funding are applied, a total of
$3,100,000 would be required in fiscal year 2001 and the immediate
future to fully operate the Institute--$900,000 for the Forestry
Sciences Laboratory; $200,000 for the State and Private Forestry
liaison; and $2,000,000 for a fully operational Center. The fiscal year
2001 budget requirement may need refinement as the goals and objectives
of the Institute are better defined as a result of analysis of inputs
from the focus groups.
seneca rocks visitor center
The Seneca Rocks area of the Monongahela National Forest hosts more
than 250,000 people annually and is one of the busiest Forest Service
visitor center sites in the eastern region. It is located within a 4-
hour drive of one-third of the nation's population. I understand that
great progress has been made on the new visitor center at Seneca Rocks,
which is scheduled to officially open this summer complete with
exhibits. I am concerned, however, that the Forest Service will not
provide sufficient recreation management resources for operating this
wonderful new center.
Question. Please provide a 6-year (fiscal year 1995--fiscal year
1999 enacted and fiscal year 2000 proposed) budget table showing the
funds made available in the recreation management budget line item for
the national forest system, the eastern region (region 9), the
Monongahela National Forest, and the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center.
Answer.
RECREATION MANAGEMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS.................................................. 159,426 164,256 164,314 170,318 144,953 144,953
Region 9............................................ 17,412 18,044 15,594 16,402 14,212 14,125
Monongahela......................................... 1,695 1,558 1,349 1,108 1,058 974
Seneca Rocks........................................ 85 85 87 90 132 227
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2000 figures for the FS and R9 are based on the
numbers that appear in the fiscal year 2000 Budget Justifications for
the Committee on Appropriations. The Monongahela's number represents
their average percent of the Region's recreation funds.
The operation costs for the Visitor Center for fiscal year 1995-
1998 are for a small temporary center. This center has been staffed by
a Center director and 3 to 5 Senior Conservation Service Enrollees
(SCSEP). The Forest is presently transitioning to the new center which
is a much larger facility. In addition to higher utility costs the
fiscal year 2000 proposed budget includes funds for two additional
permanent staff which are needed to provide high quality visitor
services.
Question. Is the new visitor center still on track to open
(complete with exhibits) this summer?
Answer. Yes, it is still on track. The latest estimate from USDA
Design Services is for exhibits to be delivered to the site in June
with installation in late June through early July. The grand opening of
the facility is tentatively scheduled for mid to late July.
Question. What private sector partners are involved in the exhibits
and operations of the new visitor center?
Answer. At this time the Forest has secured the following partners:
--Pendleton County Historical Society has placed a display in the
exhibition hall.
--Seneca Trails Art Guild is exhibiting tradition art and craft
materials.
--A local mountain music group is providing music once a month
throughout the year.
--Friends of Seneca, Seneca Rocks Climbing School, and Seneca Rocks
Mountain Guides are assisting with the funding and installation
of the climbing wall, will provide some instruction, and are
involved in the partners' exhibits.
--Augusta Heritage Center, Davis and Elkins College has provided an
exhibit and assistance in marketing programs and classes at the
Center.
--West Virginia Trout Unlimited is scheduled to teach classes this
year.
--West Virginia Office of Tourism is providing funds to pay for two
visitor service staff .
--Potomac Highlands (an organization supporting tourism based
businesses) will provide and maintain a brochure rack.
--Snowshoe Mountain Resort is working with the National Forest
Foundation and Forest to furnish one area in the Center.
--West Virginia University is assisting in providing seasonal student
interns at the Center.
Question. What has been the level of local involvement in plans for
operating the new visitor center?
Answer. The Forest has provided tours for the center (both during
the building construction phase and before it opened to the public) and
has kept the local public informed of the plans for the center. The
local public has provided numerous suggestions which are being
evaluated at this time. Many local artisans are scheduled to
demonstrate their craft this summer. Also local artisans are exhibiting
examples of Appalachian art and craft products in the Center.
Question. What is the status of plans to create an institute at the
Seneca Rocks Visitor Center?
Answer. The project to create an institute at the Visitor Center is
moving forward. The Forest partners have scheduled six classes for the
1999 season. As the program continues to develop the Forest partners
hope to add more classes in 2000. Lack of enabling legislation limits
greater Forest Service participation in the institute.
Question. What is the status of the partnership established at the
Seneca Rocks Visitor Center between the Forest Service and the National
Forest Foundation?
Answer. The formal partnership between the Forest and the National
Forest Foundation (NFF) has ended (as of April 30, 1999). However,
local personnel, who formerly worked for the National Forest
Foundation, continue to work with the Forest, as volunteers, in the
development of the interpretive plan and restoration of the Sites
Homestead through recruitment and use of other interested volunteers.
Question. NFS What will be the hours of operation for the new
Seneca Rocks Visitor Center for fiscal year 2000? What will be the
hours operation for the Cranberry Glades Nature Center for fiscal year
2000?
Answer. The hours of operation for the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center
are 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM seven days a week. In the summer the Center will
be open until 6:00 PM. If budgets allow, it will remain open on a daily
basis year-round. If not, it will be open on weekends only (10 AM to 4
PM) after Thanksgiving and remain open only on the weekends until April
2000.
Cranberry Mountain Nature Center hours of operation are as follows:
January-April--Saturday and Sunday 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
May/Sept--Friday, Saturday, Sunday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Memorial Day-Labor Day--9:00 AM to 5:00 PM seven days a week
October 1-21st--9:00 AM to 5:00 PM seven days a week
October 22-31st--Friday, Saturday, Sunday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
November--Saturday and Sunday 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
December--Closed
monongahela national forest radio system
The Monongahela National Forest has a totally inadequate radio
system that places employees and the public at risk in fire and other
emergency situations. The current low-band system is obsolete,
unreliable, and requires high maintenance. This is of particular
concern because decreases in staffing levels have made it necessary to
send out more and more individual employees without partners. In
addition, many parts of the Monongahela National Forest are in ``dead
spots'' where no current radio capabilities exist due to previous
requirements for low-band instrumentation dictated by the presence of
the Green Bank Observatory operated by the U.S. Navy.
Question. Have advancements in the ability of Navy at the Green
Bank Observatory to filter out undesirable radio waves made it possible
for the Monongahela National Forest to switch over to a high-band radio
system?
Answer. Yes, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
personnel informed Forest Service personnel in 1997 of upgrades to
electronic equipment which will filter out radio waves in the high band
frequencies which are assigned for use on the Mononghala National
Forest.
Question. Would such a high-band radio system improve the coverage
on the Monongahela National Forest and provide for better employee and
visitor safety?
Answer. Yes, the target for the new system would be 90 to 95
percent coverage. The existing system is in the range of 65-75 percent
when all base and repeater stations are working properly. In addition,
the new system will provide radio communications for all air operations
which is extremely important for fire detection and suppression,
natural disaster response, and search and rescue.
Question. What would it cost to design and implement a new high-
band radio system on the Monongahela National Forest?
Answer. The cost to design and implement a new high-band radio
system is estimated to be $500,000. The fiscal year 2000 President's
Budget does not include funding for this activity.
allocation of funds among the regions
Over the past four years, the funding for the National Forest
System (NFS) has increased by about four percent. This translates into
about a one percent increase on average each year, which does not
provide sufficient funds to cover fixed cost increases such as
salaries, utilities, and rents. During the same time frame, NFS funding
for the eastern region (Region 9) has decreased by almost three
percent, and NFS funding for the Monongahela National Forest has
decreased by about thirteen percent.
Question. Please verify that these numbers are correct.
Answer. The following information is provided for the past four
year period 1996-1999. In 1996, funding for the National Forest System
was 1.256 billion dollars. In 1999, funding for the National Forest
System was 1.298 billion dollars. This represents an increase of
approximately 3 percent over a four year period.
In 1996, National Forest System funding to Region 9, was 106.5
million dollars. In 1999, initial funding from National Forest Systems
to Region 9, was 102 million dollars. Road Maintenance funds totaling
7.3 million dollars were transfered from NFS to the Construction
Appropriation. An additional allocation of 1-million dollars was added
from Washington Office carryover funds to offset costs associated with
management of the Midewin Tall Grass Prairie Unit. The final 1999,
total of 103 million dollars (NFS only) represents a reduction to the
Eastern Region in NFS funding of approximately -3 percent.
In 1996, NFS funding to the Monongahela was 7.256 million dollars.
In 1999, NFS funding to the Monongahela was 7.654 million dollars.
This represents an increase of approximately 5 percent for the
four-year period.
Question. Why has the NFS funding for the eastern region decreased
more than the rest of the National Forest System?
Answer. Funding to Regions will vary from year-to-year based on
changes in the Regions' programs. National Forest funds are allocated
based on allocation criteria that every Region was involved in
developing. These are reviewed on an annual basis for most programs,
and adjustments are made where needed. In 1999, Congress moved Road
Maintenance Program dollars from the NFS Appropriation to
Reconstruction/Construction, which caused the Eastern Region's NFS
Appropriation to drop by 7.3 million dollars. When added back for
comparison purposes, the Region's 4-year trend (1996-1999) for National
Forest System funding indicates an increase of approximately 3 percent.
Question. Why has the NFS funding for the Monongahela National
Forest decreased more than the NFS funding for rest of the eastern
region?
Answer. The information provided by the Eastern Region indicates
that from 1996-1999, National Forest System funding for the Monongahela
did not decrease, but actually increased by approximately 5 percent.
Construction funding for the Monongahela has decreased during that 4-
year period, but that is primarily due to an earmark for construction
of the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center, which has been completed.
Question. What is the general process by which the Forest Service
allocates its funding to the regions? What modifications does the
Forest Service anticipate to this process, to the criteria upon which
the process is based, and to the data applied to the criteria?
Answer. The Forest Service uses a set of budget allocation criteria
which considers multiple factors pertinent to agency resource
management needs. This criteria varies by budget line item. We expect
modification to the allocation criteria in the future for two reasons:
--As the agency implements financial accountability reforms, a key
element of this process is the application of ``primary
purpose'' expenditures. With primary purpose, only a single
line of accounting will be charged for an activity. This
differs from the present process where several line items can
be charged. As a result we anticipate needing a realignment of
funds between line items. Correspondingly a change will also be
needed in the criteria.
--The Forest Service is pursuing a significant change in budget
structure. Assuming there is such a change, the criteria will
need to be modified to reflect the new structure.
Question. Please describe the degree and extent to which the Forest
Service is satisfied with its NFS budget allocation process. Does the
Forest Service use the concept of ``base-level'' budgeting in devising
its NFS budget request and allocating its NFS funds? If not, why not?
Answer. The agency is satisfied with the existing budget allocation
criteria. No ``cookbook'' approach to allocating funds can be totally
responsive to agency needs and changing priorities. However, the
agency's criteria does provide for adjustment in allocations consistent
with the need to recognize national priorities and emerging issues.
Accordingly the criteria are adequate for the existing budget
structure.
Question. Please provide a single table showing the actual amounts
that each region received from the Forest Service through the
allocation process for the NFS and reconstruction/construction accounts
for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 as well as estimates of what
each region will receive from the Forest Service based on the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. Please see enclosure 6, on following page.
ENCLOSURE 6.--FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999 FINAL ALLOCATIONS AND FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ALLOCATION
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National
forest Reconstruction/ National forest Reconstruction/ National forest Reconstruction/
system Construction system Construction system Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1......................................... 115,203 13,892 108,169 29,682 104,080 40,270
Region 2......................................... 110,353 13,586 104,624 25,566 102,781 33,275
Region 3......................................... 103,297 12,572 97,000 27,401 97,919 33,298
Region 4......................................... 128,397 15,407 125,633 31,487 125,393 38,318
Region 5......................................... 184,233 19,984 170,171 40,527 160,627 51,513
Region 6......................................... 217,028 31,747 178,702 46,988 166,681 67,043
Region 8......................................... 139,514 21,392 129,461 33,435 124,182 37,113
Region 9......................................... 109,778 15,367 103,436 19,597 103,269 27,353
Region 10........................................ 68,791 13,859 76,859 19,488 66,428 19,494
Washington Office................................ 153,645 7,680 178,526 9,630 154,794 8,437
Forest Products Laboratory....................... 1,624 225 1,507 600 1,394 1,485
International Institute of Tropical Forestry..... 820 199 782 975 472 965
Intermountain Research Station................... 3,261 498 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
North Central Forest Experiment Station.......... 1,468 268 1,391 1,108 1,297 257
Northeastern Area and Station.................... 404 3,006 3,741 5,225 2,878 841
Pacific Northwest Research Station............... 3,702 235 2,414 994 1,121 649
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exper. Sta.... 2,117 449 1,900 1,599 1,394 1,466
Rocky Mountain Research Station.................. 4,733 375 7,455 405 5,130 680
Southern Research Station........................ 5,393 270 5,093 774 4,143 1,035
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, allocations......................... 1,353,761 171,011 1,296,864 295,481 1,223,983 363,492
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 1999 the Intermountain Research Station was consolidated with the Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Question. What suggestions do you have for helping ensure that the
President's budget request and the appropriations act do not contain
any unanticipated and unexpected reductions at the Forest level?
Answer. The Forest Service is committed to accomplishing a maximum
amount of work on the ground and maximizing the amount of available
funding for this purpose. The agency recently implemented standard
definitions for indirect expenses, which will enable quality assurance
reviews of areas where indirect expenses appear to be excessive. These
guidelines are consistent with the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board definitions. With effective management of indirect
expenses, unanticipated and unexpected reductions at the forest level
can be minimized. In addition to management of indirect expenses,
careful management of personnel stationed in the Washington Office and
Regional units is necessary to assure maximum availability of funds for
field expenditures. Although some additions to headquarters and
regional office staffing have been necessary to rectify accountability
issues, the agency remains committed to keeping these increases to a
minimum.
Question. What suggestions do you have for helping ensure that all
the regions and forests of the National Forest System receive a clear,
sound, and understandable budget request that can be supported by the
Congress?
Answer. The agency believes that a ``clear, sound, and
understandable budget request'' is challenging to submit under the
present budget structure. The recent study conducted by the National
Academy for Public Administration concurs that the present structure
does not reflect the work being accomplished on the ground. There is an
urgent need to develop a budget structure that reflects the integrated
nature of the work performed. Currently the agency proposes a budget
(within the 6 principle appropriations) that includes 21 budget line
items and 35 expanded budget line items. This structure does not
recognize the fact that work performed at the ground level delivers
multiple benefits. The Agency will be working with the Administration
and Congress to develop a budget structure that reflects the integrated
work performed.
west virginia research centers
The Forest Service operates three research labs in West Virginia:
Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown. According to information I have
been given, these three research labs are supported at last year's
level in the President's budget request for operations (Princeton,
$2,234,000; Parsons, $1,747,000; Morgantown, $1,766,000). At the same
time, I understand that an additional unallocated decrease is contained
in the President's budget that might reduce the funding for these labs.
Question. What are the full staffing levels for each of these
research centers?
Answer. Following are the full staffing levels for the West
Virginia Research Centers for fiscal year 2000. The number of full-time
equivalent employees is being held at the same level as fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999:
Morgantown--14 FTEs
Parsons--21 FTEs
Princeton--19 FTEs
Question. Please provide a table showing the actual funding and
staffing levels for these three research centers over the past ten
years.
Answer. Please see enclosure 7.
[enclosure 7]
West Virginia Research Centers
The Forest Service operates three research labs in West Virginia:
Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown. According to information I have
been given, these three research labs are supported at last year's
level in the President's budget request for operations (Princeton,
$2,234,000; Parsons, $1,747,000; Morgantown, $1,766,000). At the same
time I understand that an additional unallocated decrease is contained
in the President's budget that might reduce the funding for these labs.
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Princeton Parsons Morgantown
Fiscal year appropriation -----------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Staffing Funding Staffing Funding Staffing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990.......................................... $1,960 31 $1,037 24 $2,345 17
1991.......................................... 2,116 34 1,526 24 2,402 18
1992.......................................... 2,238 32 1,590 26 2,524 19
1993.......................................... 2,140 32 1,711 26 2,543 19
1994.......................................... 2,143 34 1,674 28 2,521 17
1995.......................................... 2,091 27 1,791 28 2,098 16
1996.......................................... 1,184 25 1,786 24 1,766 13
1997.......................................... 2,234 23 1,747 24 1,766 14
1998.......................................... 2,234 19 1,747 21 1,766 14
1999.......................................... 2,234 19 1,747 21 1,766 14
2000 PB....................................... 2,234 19 1,747 21 1,766 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please verify that the President's budget request, after
all reductions and additions are factored in, does support these three
research facilities at the staffing and funding levels contained in the
budget enacted for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The Forest Service intends to maintain the same level of
funding to all three facilities in West Virginia as requested in the
fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, and will maintain staffing levels
to the extent possible given increases in salaries and fixed costs.
highland scenic highway landslides
Two landslides were discovered in April 1997 on the fill slopes of
the Highland Scenic Highway in the Monongahela National Forest. In
early summer 1997, one of the slides encroached onto the aggregate
shoulder of the road. The Monongahela National Forest, with assistance
from the Federal Highways Administration, developed a preliminary
estimate of $1.4 million to repair both slides after site visits in
August 1997. After review, this estimate was lowered to $935,000 and
this amount was made available to the Forest in fiscal year 1998 to
repair the slides. The Forest entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers (Huntington District) in
June 1998 to perform the actual design of the repairs and oversee its
construction. Upon an in-depth analysis, using some of the fiscal year
1998 appropriated funds, the Corps determined that the slides were far
more extensive in size and scope than initially estimated.
Question. Why was the size and scope of the slides (and
consequently the greater amount of work required) not determined
earlier in the process?
Answer. The two slides were discovered in the second half of fiscal
year 1997. At that time, funds were not available to perform a detailed
analysis to determine the cause of the slides and design the repair.
Forest engineering personnel, with assistance from a Geotechnical
Engineer from the Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands
Highway Division, developed the initial cost estimate based on survey
data and a visual analysis of the slides. The estimates did not have a
very high confidence level because of the many unknowns related to
subsurface conditions of the slide areas. When the Army Corps of
Engineers, under agreement with the Forest, performed an in-depth
analysis of each slide the proposed designs were larger in scope than
originally estimated. This additional work was needed to restore
stability to the fill slopes.
Question. What is physically required to repair the two landslides
and stabilize the slope and surface of the Highland Scenic Highway?
Answer. The recommended repair method for both slides is the same.
The only difference is in the volume of material to be removed and
replaced. The requirements are as follows:
--Construct an access road from the Highland Scenic Highway to the
toe of the slide. This will be utilized to remove unsuitable
material and for delivery of rock backfill.
--Excavate and remove unsuitable material and construct a stable
foundation for rock backfill.
--Install perforated pipe underdrains to remove excess water.
--Place rock backfill, in layers, from foundation elevation to top of
slope.
--Place aggregate base course on excavated road and shoulder.
--Pave and stripe disturbed sections of the Highland Scenic Highway.
Question. What is the current estimate for the cost to repair the
landslides that threaten the Highland Scenic Highway? What funds are
currently on hand to be used to address these costs? How much
additional funding is needed?
Answer. The estimated cost for the repair of Slide #1 is
$1,400,000. The estimated cost for the repair of Slide #2 is
$1,235,000. The Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, under agreement with the Forest, is providing engineering
services, the contractor, and administration of the construction
contract for the repair of Slide #2. The project is being funded by
$935,000 in fiscal year 1998 CNES funds allocated to the Forest for
this project, and $300,000 in CNRD funds from the fiscal year 1999
Forest allocation.
The Forest does not have any additional fiscal year 1999 funds to
allocate for the repair of Slide #1. $1,400,000 in additional funding
is needed to repair Slide #1 on the Highland Scenic Highway.
Question. Is the Forest Service satisfied with the evaluation by
the Corps of Engineers and with its role in accomplishing the task of
repairing the road and stabilizing the slope?
Answer. The Forest is satisfied with the engineering services
provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have a highly
skilled and experienced staff of specialists. The Corps has been
working closely with Forest engineering personnel through the design
phase to develop a cost effective repair for each slide. The repair
project on Slide #2 has started and the Forest is satisfied with the
professional management of the project by Corps of Engineers personnel.
elk river limited partner land acquisition and donation
The Monongahela National Forest has been approached by the Elk
River Limited Partnership about a potential sale and donation. As part
of an agreement between the two groups, Elk River Limited Partnership
is proposing to sell a 731-acre inholding to the Monongahela National
Forest Service and to donate substantial mineral (coal, not oil and
gas) holdings to the Forest Service as part of its liquidation
proceedings. These holdings include the rights to mine deep coal on
about 53,000 acres (these rights will revert to U.S. ownership in
2035), mostly underneath lands of the Monongahela National Forest. The
731 acres to be purchased by the Forest Service in connection with this
donation are located in the Cheat Bridge area along the Shavers Fork
River. The West Virginia Chapter of the Nature Conservancy is helping
to negotiate and facilitate the sale and donation.
Question. Are the proposed 731 acres to be acquired in fee simple
totally within the boundaries of the Monongahela National Forest.
Answer. Yes. It is bordered on three sides by National Forest
System lands.
Question. What is the estimated cost of acquiring the 731 acres in
fee simple from the Elk River Limited Partnership? What funds are on
hand for helping to meet this cost? What additional funds are needed?
Answer. The estimated costs would be $650,000; $275,000 will allow
completion of the acquisition. The remaining funding to be acquired is
available from other sources.
Question. Will the Forest Service incur any additional liabilities
by acquiring these lands and accepting the mineral holdings as a
donation?
Answer. Yes, we will incur additional liabilities associated with
monitoring the rehab areas. We are willing to accept the liability.
watershed restoration needs of the monongahela national forest
The watersheds of the Monongahela National Forest have been
degraded by past logging practices and wildfires, which have resulted
in heavy loads of fine sediments clogging its streams. The Monongahela
National Forest has identified twenty-five watersheds that need to be
assessed for restoration needs. The State of West Virginia has
identified four watersheds partly within the Monongahela National
Forest that need restoration. Restoration of these watersheds is
important to improving trout populations and attendant recreational
opportunities. Almost eighty percent of West Virginia's native trout
streams lie within the Monongahela National Forest.
Question. NFS Please provide a table showing the amounts
appropriated and provided to the Monongahela National Forest for
watershed improvements (assessments and restorations) over the past 4
years (including for fiscal year 1999).
Answer. Please see enclosure 8, on the following page.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP15.024
Question. How much more funding is estimated to be required to
complete the assessments and to restore the remaining degraded
watersheds on the Monongahela National Forest?
Answer. Comprehensive watershed assessments and specific cost
estimates are not available at this time, but a 1998 estimate by the
Monongahela National Forest indicates that at least $17.6 million is
needed to restore watersheds across the Forest. In addition to actual
restoration costs, it is further estimated that about $60,000 per year
over the next five years is needed to properly conduct watershed
assessments to identify overall needs. In addition, specific project
design costs are expected to cost $80,000 per year as assessments are
completed.
Question. What level of funding is included in the President's
budget request (including the proposed $10 million increase for
watershed improvements) for this watershed assessment and restoration
work on the Monongahela National Forest?
Answer. Watershed funding for the Monongahela National Forest in
the President's Budget is projected at $342,000. This includes $163,000
for Soil, Water and Air Operations (NFSO) and $179,000 in Watershed
Improvement funds (NFSI).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. What laws or changes to regulation have allowed the USFS
to use a budget development and allocation process that doesn't appear
to consider Forest Plan implementation as the driving need?
Answer. There is no law or regulation that directs the Forest
Service to consider or not consider forest plans as a part of the
budget development and allocation processes. The agency's budget
development process results in regional submissions of program funding
mixes and performance information for a range of total funding levels
established by the Washington Office. These total funding levels
reflect a reasonable set of increases and decreases around the most
recent President's Budget. This gives the Washington Office a range of
production capabilities and associated program costs, all of which
implement Forest Plans. This information is used to develop the
specific budget proposals contained in the agency request package that
is sent to the Department. Upon enactment of an appropriations bill,
funds are allocated to regions using allocation criteria for each
program. These criteria reflect workload and complexity factors related
to each program that were identified and agreed to by field units. They
are designed to provide an objective starting point for making an
equitable distribution of funds to regions that will assist in
implementing the direction established in forest plans. The funds
allocated to the field are influenced by many factors such as
congressional earmarks, presidential initiatives, and other new
initiatives and uncontrollable exigencies that are not reflected in
forest plans. These items are also taken into consideration when field
level allocations are made. We believe that the current budget
development and allocation processes consider many factors, including
meeting the goals of forest plans.
Question. There has been a lot of discussion that a new budget
process is being developed that is somehow linked to Strategic
Planning. What assurances do we have that this new budget process will
meet the essential requirement that individual Forest Plans will be a
consideration during the development and allocation of the budget?
Answer. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993
directs each federal agency to develop annual performance plans that
link direction in its Strategic Plan to the budget through outcome-
based performance measures. Goals and objectives from the agency's
Strategic Plan will be incorporated into revisions of Forest Plans.
Forest Plans will provide resource information that is used in
developing subsequent revisions to the agency's Strategic Plan. Forest
Plans will also continue to be used as the tool to determine the
management direction for a particular administrative unit and be the
basis for Forest-level budget submissions.
Question. Most people agree that there are many problems with
allocation by budget criteria. Why is the Forest Service still
utilizing an allocation system that doesn't appear to meet the needs of
the Forests and their customers?
Answer. The Forest Service has used a criteria based approach for
allocating funds in the Agency's budget process for several years. This
criteria-based approach was developed in response to field concerns
about equity in developing constraints for formulating outyear budgets
and allocating current-year funds. The criteria establish a visible and
rational basis for allocating resources by identifying differences
among regions in their resource conditions, programs of work and other
elements. Budget criteria also improve internal and external
communications because they help focus attention on program goals and
objectives by using key resource conditions and planned or actual
accomplishments to allocate funds. While we feel that the current
approach is vastly superior to how allocations were made prior to use
of criteria, we recognize that the criteria have not pleased everyone.
It is a formulaic approach and appears too rigid. However, it is
important to remember that, at the national level, the formula-driven
results are only the starting point for a completed allocation process.
Adjustments to the results can and should be made to reflect changing
conditions, unexpected situations, and agency-wide priorities. The
criteria were never intended to eliminate or reduce management
discretion or prerogative to review and adjust the results. The only
requirement is that adjustments be documented in the Program Budget
Advice, our allocation document. A similar approach is now being used
in most regions. With our criteria-based allocation approach, the
internal and external debates about equity are now focused on specific
criteria or types of criteria. While we recognize the need to continue
refining the basis for our allocations, we also feel that no approach
or set of criteria used to distribute scarce resources will always make
everyone happy.
Question. Is the Forest Service considering development of a new
budget allocation process?
Answer. The Forest Service is working on a number of efforts that
will eventually affect how resources are allocated. In fiscal year 2000
the agency is implementing a new financial management system (FFIS) and
will be using a different concept for planning work and charging
expenditures called Primary Purpose. The primary purpose concept will
shift some responsibilities among programs and could affect the
criteria used to allocate funds in some programs. Our new financial
system will allow us to better align expenditures with work which
should eventually allow us to use unit costs in conjunction with
performance information to allocate funds. The agency is also working
with the Congress and the Administration to simplify our budget
structure. The consolidation of funding sources, coupled with a greater
reliance on performance measures to assess agency performance, will
necessitate a change in the basis for allocating funds. Whether this
basis will still be referred to as criteria or something else will be
determined later.
Question. Last year, the Stewardship Incentives Program was not
funded. What effect has this had on the ability of the U.S. Forest
Service or state forestry departments to work with private landowners
to develop sustainable forestry practices?
Answer. SIP encourages landowners to adopt a wide variety of
sustainable forestry practices including fish and wildlife habitat
improvement, recreational improvements, timber stand improvements,
agroforestry and others. Many of these practices provide benefits that
extend beyond the boundaries of the ownerships on which they are
implemented. SIP fills a somewhat unique niche in the Forest Service
and State array of services to non-industrial private forests in that
it allows the provision of cost-shares to landowners who otherwise
might be unlikely to initiate such practices. Since its inception in
1991, the SIP program has enabled the States to assist over 36,000
landowners (an average of 5,000 landowners each year). Without SIP, the
ability to encourage landowners to adopt sustainable forestry practices
will be severely reduced.
Question. On those lands that receive technical or financial
assistance from U.S. Forest Service Cooperative Programs, how much
board feet is produced annually? How does the cost of production on
those lands compare to production on public forest lands?
Answer. The Stewardship Incentive and Forest Stewardship Programs
support the sound stewardship of non-industrial private forest (NIPF)
lands. The Forest Service 1993 RPA Timber Assessment Update estimated
that in 1991 approximately 4,238 million cubic feet of softwood and
5,252 million cubic feet of hardwood (i.e. a total of 9,490 million
cubic feet) was harvested from NIPF lands. A rough conversion to board
feet would be: 21,190 million (softwood); 26,260 million (hardwood);
and 47,450 million (total).
There are no national figures available comparing the cost of
timber production from NIPF lands with that of production on public
lands. Timber production costs vary significantly from region to region
depending upon nature of terrain, tree species, and other ecological
factors, as well as cost of labor and level of management. It has
generally been asserted that the cost of timber production on federal
lands is higher than that on State government or private lands.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Chief Dombeck, last week a bipartisan group of seven
members of Congress wrote you expressing concerns with implementation
of the Quincy Library Group legislation. What is the Forest Service
doing to address those concerns?
Answer. The Agency recently met with staff from offices of
concerned Members and Committees to answer their questions. That
discussion proved productive and helpful. The Agency is also responding
directly to the concerns in a letter that the Members should receive
shortly.
Question. The Forest Service has told the Quincy Library Group and
my staff that it interprets the Quincy Library Group legislation to
preclude any planning for fuel breaks prior to completion of the
Environmental Impact Statement. Under this interpretation, it is
possible that no fuel breaks will be constructed until 2001. Such a
slow implementation of the law certainly was not Congress' intent, and
I am pleased to see that in a memo dated April 8, the Forest Service
now says they will begin planning for Quincy Library Group projects
this year. When do you intend to begin such planning? Will fuel breaks
be constructed in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. It is true that planning for specific projects will happen
after a decision is reached through the EIS/NEPA process. However, the
Agency's intent is to both plan for and begin implementing Quincy
Library Group projects in fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Forests
are doing more generalized planning in fiscal year 1999 not
specifically related to the decision that will come from the EIS, but
helps set the stage for implementation of QLG projects.
Question. The Forest Service says it will only plan Quincy Library
Group projects this year as staff resources and funding allow. Since
the Forest Service received $8 million to implement the Quincy Library
Group project in fiscal year 1999, and since the Forest Service informs
my staff that the Environmental Impact Statement will cost only $2
million, doesn't it seem that funding is sufficient for extensive
planning to occur this year?
Answer. The priority in fiscal year 1999 is the completion of the
Environmental Impact Statement by 8/17/99. Funds not expended in fiscal
year 1999 for the EIS effort will be carried over to fiscal year 2000
and be used for the planning and implementation of individual projects.
Question. Is the Forest Service on schedule to complete the
Environmental Impact Statement by August 17, 1999--the date mandated by
the legislation?
Answer. The Record of Decision for the HFQLG was signed on August
20.
Question. How will the Sierra Nevada Framework Environmental Impact
Statement impact the Quincy Library Group pilot project? It is of
paramount importance that the pilot project be implemented as fully as
possible.
Answer. The timeframe extension for completion of the EIS portion
of the Sierra Nevada Framework Project did not delay preparation of the
DEIS for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) pilot
program. The Record of Decision and the FEIS were signed on August 20.
Project specific planning and implementation are ongoing since release
of the Record of Decision. Concerning the SNEP Framework D EIS effort
and the HFQLG project, the current intent is to treat the HFQLG area
separately for the duration of the HFQLG pilot project. However, it is
possible that some of the issues addressed in the Sierra Nevada
Framework DEIS, including wildlife habitat management and riparian
guidelines, may require some changes to the HFQLG pilot project.
Question. Given the Administration's support for the Quincy Library
Group legislation, why doesn't the President's budget include any funds
specifically to implement the Quincy Library Group project?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget includes $5.4
million that would be used specifically to implement the Quincy Library
Group Project in fiscal year 2000. This represents the base level
funding for the Forests involved. In addition, $6 million from the $8
million Congressional earmark funding in fiscal year 1999 will carry
over to fiscal year 2000 and be available to fund QLG projects.
Question. In 1997 President Clinton committed $25 million in new
money over two years to restore the environment at Lake Tahoe. But that
two year period has expired, and in fiscal year 2000 the President is
requesting only about $5 million for environmental projects at Lake
Tahoe, including $4.2 million for the Forest Service. What steps are
you taking to ensure that Tahoe remains a priority area for water
quality improvements and fire risk reduction?
Answer. Success in meeting the environmental challenges posed at
Lake Tahoe will rely heavily on building and maintaining collaborative
relationships among individuals and organizations linked to the Lake.
These cooperative efforts will allow the Agency and others to make the
most effective use of the dollars allocated. The Forest Service
continues to support a range of collaborative efforts with those goals
in mind, including the Federal Advisory Committee, the Federal
Interagency Partnership, interagency watershed assessments, the Forest
Health Consensus Group, and collaborative efforts with the Washoe
Tribe.
Question. I am currently writing a bill that would authorize $30
million annually over 10 years to improve water quality and reduce the
risk of catastrophic wildfire at Lake Tahoe. Will the Administration
support this bill as a way to protect and restore one of America's most
special places?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to restoring and
maintaining the health of Lake Tahoe's ecosystems while providing high
quality recreational experiences. We would carefully consider any
legislation that achieves the Administration's environmental protection
goals for Lake Tahoe.
Question. How did the Forest Service decide on the five areas of
emphasis for the Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework Environmental
Impact Statement?
Answer. Initially, a number of concerns were identified in the
Sierra Nevada Science Review by a team of scientists building on
previous works, such as the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report of
1996. In the Science Review, a set of conservation priorities were
determined from these concerns using a set of screening criteria (new
information, broad-scale concerns, urgency for attention, ability to
affect through national forest management, and problems that were not
well addressed elsewhere). This set was refined and adjusted, taking
into consideration public comment and other factors, resulting in the
five emphasis areas.
Question. What was the impetus for launching the Conservation
Framework project?
Answer. The Framework was a response to concerns on two levels. On
a broader Sierra- wide level, a variety of recent efforts (most notably
the 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report), reinforced the
conclusion that because the Sierra Nevada's problems were complex,
interrelated, and multi-jurisdictional, they demanded an exceptionally
high level of cooperation and collaboration among a broad spectrum of
interests if they were to be addressed effectively. A primary goal of
the Framework is to work toward that higher level of collaboration. At
the same time it was also recognized that the Land Management Plans for
the national forests across the Sierra needed to be updated in light of
new information and to improve consistency of management. The current
EIS portion of the Framework effort is aimed at meeting this need.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gorton. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 22, when
we will receive testimony from the Honorable Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., Thursday, April 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
April 22.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Cochran, Domenici,
Burns, Campbell, and Byrd.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, welcome to your fifth
appearance before this subcommittee and in support of the
Department of Interior's budget request. It is a very real
pleasure to see you here again.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of
the Interior can only be classified as generous. The request is
more than $7.75 billion for departmental agencies under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction, an increase of 11 percent. The
increase would put funding for Interior programs fully $1
billion over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
Mr. Secretary, there are a large number of programs under
the Department's jurisdiction that I would be happy to see
receive increases, but the sheer magnitude of the Department's
request, the number of new programs it contains, and the nature
of the broader budget in which the request is contained make it
difficult to take it seriously.
Lest anyone in this room need reminding, we are still
functioning under the statutory spending caps passed by the
Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1997. The
President's fiscal year 2000 budget employs a variety of new
taxes, fees, and accounting gimmicks to reach a total
discretionary spending level at least $25 billion above the
statutory discretionary cap for the year 2000.
Few of the proposals that generate this $25 billion in
additional spending will be enacted in this Congress, and
virtually none of that amount is likely to be available to the
Appropriations Committee when it begins marking up fiscal year
2000 spending bills.
Indeed, this subcommittee is still waiting for the Forest
Service to submit legislative proposals for which the
President's budget claims some $111 million worth of savings. I
do not think we will ever see the proposals. In any case, the
subcommittee will be fortunate to so much as maintain fiscal
year 1999 funding levels, much less receive a $760 million
increase.
Many have speculated that spending caps will be raised this
summer. This may or may not happen. But to the extent that the
caps are raised, there are any number of program areas that
will compete for these additional funds. Just 2 or 3 weeks ago
we would have talked about education, defense, health care, and
the like.
Now the list is about to be overwhelmed by the war in
Kosovo, which in the view of the chairman is going to have a
seriously adverse impact on discretionary spending for other
programs. I cannot imagine that this Congress is going to
follow President Johnson's example of attempting to finance
both guns and butter at the same time.
I make this point, Mr. Secretary, in the hope that you will
share with us today some of your priorities that will help us
make the difficult decisions that lie ahead at least a little
bit less difficult. Is continuing to fund the basic operation
needs of your agencies the number one priority or are you
willing to take reductions in existing functions to fund some
of the new programs that are proposed?
I hope you will take this remark as a compliment and not a
criticism, but it is not clear that you had to make any of
these difficult choices in developing your budget request. It
looks as though you got just about everything that you asked
for.
That said, Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing from
you today. A full text of your statement will be included in
the record so that you can summarize your opening remarks and
leave that much more time for questions.
And with that, for opening statements I will of course turn
to my friend and ranking Democratic member, Senator Byrd.
Opening statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Department funded by this subcommittee is $759 million more
than was appropriated for the current fiscal year. This
represents an 11 percent increase in funding, as has been
pointed out by our distinguished chairman, from $7.01 billion
appropriated for fiscal year 1999 to $7.77 billion requested
for fiscal year 2000.
We look forward to your testimony today in support of your
budget. The Committee on Appropriations' overall funding level
is $536 billion in budget authority, which according to the CBO
is $10 billion below a freeze.
While it is unlikely that the budget allocation for this
subcommittee will allow for an increase in your budget, much
less one of the magnitude proposed in the President's request.
I assure you that Chairman Gorton and I, insofar as I am able
to do so as the minority member, will do the best that we can
to secure an allocation for this subcommittee sufficient to
fund the highest program priorities in your Department.
I applaud your persuasiveness in achieving an 11 percent
increase for your programs in the President's budget. However,
such eloquence in support of program increases will come to
naught in Congress without a higher allocation than is
expected.
The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee expects to have to
craft a spending bill for fiscal year 2000 that has a tightly
constrained bottom line and your help, Mr. Secretary, in
identifying spending priorities at lower funding levels than
included in the President's request will be appreciated.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I think since I have a
conflict I will just go when I have the time to ask the
Secretary some questions.
Senator Gorton. OK. Senator Burns.
Prepared statement
Senator Burns. I have a written statement too, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
To alert the Secretary, we will be dwelling on George W.
Beaver and a little coal in southeastern Montana.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the
committee this morning. I appreciate having the opportunity to spend
another morning with Secretary Babbitt.
As you well know, we continue to have a number of disagreements
with how the agencies under Secretary Babbitt's control are being
managed. It is no coincidence that Montana's per capita income has
plummeted in relation to the rest of the country while the Clinton
Administration has waged war on Montana's industries. In the western
portion of the state our logging industry has been virtually shut down
by the actions of the agencies under the control of the man sitting
before us.
I receive reams of letters asking why Congress has not done
anything to rein in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service, but every time we try to do anything President Clinton forces
a government shut-down. The administration continues to more forward
with an arrogance rarely witnessed in public service. After expressing
our concern in past exchanges with Secretary Babbitt, the situation
only seems to worsen. Recent decisions by his employees have ominous
implications for the future of the West.
One recent decision, the Leshy decision on the Crown Jewel mine
application, will make mining a thing of the past in the United States.
No one knows what the impact will be on a global basis, but those of us
from mining states know that it means the death of many of our
communities. Add to this a roadless moratorium that is killing the
timber industry, wolf reintroductions that are crippling the livestock
industry, Endangered Species Listings that make farming almost
impossible, and you begin to see a picture that is extremely bleak for
those of us trying to make an honest living off the land.
Everyone sitting here that has heard me in prior committee hearings
with Bruce has already heard the tune I am singing. Let me add some new
comments. Let's talk about our Tidal Basin Beaver. You all know the
beaver that I am talking about. The beaver that chopped down the cherry
tree. We'll call him George W. Beaver. The National Park Service says
the Tidal Basin is prime beaver habitat. Well, then why did we move
George and his family out? Because it was inconvenient. If we tried to
do that in the West, Bruce Babbitt and his disciples would have run us
up a flag pole first, and sued us second. They would have asked for an
Environmental Impact Statement. They would have asked us why we had the
audacity to move an animal out of its habitat. But here, in mighty
Washington, D.C. we don't have to abide by those rules. Those are just
for the little people out in Montana who don't know any better.
Another example is the proposed rebuilding of the Wilson Bridge.
Seems we are a little behind in the environmental assessments necessary
to make the project fly. The answer some people are coming up with is
that we need to pass legislation to exempt them from complying with all
the laws so the project will stay on schedule. Forget it. Learn to live
by the rules you have subjected to rest of us to. We miss deadlines
everyday because of your laws, now join us in mutual frustration. Maybe
you will begin to see just how ludicrous the system has become. I hope
we find an endangered species right where you plan to put your on-ramp.
Maybe we will finally see some action on Endangered Species Act reform
if the commute to Washington is disrupted over a subspecies of beetles.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you sense my frustration. Secretary Babbitt
and his agencies are real good at telling us what to do and then
turning a deaf ear when problems arise. We have asked him to listen
since he first sat in front of us. He continues to refuse to act on our
problems, and when the same laws affect urban areas a loophole is
always discovered. It's too bad small, independent logging companies
aren't offered the same loopholes. It is time to send a message to
Secretary Babbitt. If you keep ignoring us, we are going to hit you
where it hurts. In the budget. I don't care if you want to grandstand,
but something has got to change. The lives of too many Montanans are
being ruined by the actions of our land management agencies.
Summary statement of Hon. Bruce Babbitt
Senator Gorton. All right. We get to you pretty rapidly,
Mr. Secretary. There seems to be a great deal of anticipation.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, with those overwhelmingly
positive and generous remarks from all members of the
committee, let me see if I may briefly respond.
The President's budget includes a nearly 11 percent
increase. Now, the question you posed is what is it and what
kinds of offsets and reductions would we propose in an
alternative scenario. I would remind the committee respectfully
that of the budget of this Department 80 percent is in fixed
personnel costs and overhead. Eighty percent.
The numbers of employees in the Department, from the peak
when I first came before this committee in 1993, have been
reduced by 12,000. That is about 15 percent. There is nothing
left in that. We have cleared out the Washington office. We
have flattened our organizational structures and taken really
extreme steps.
This year's budget does have a personnel increase in it,
which accounts for a modest piece of that $759 million. The
increase in personnel that is proposed would bring our
personnel levels back to the level of 1986, 14 years ago.
I respectfully suggest that our responsibilities in terms
of the national parks, visitors, public lands, the
administration of the Endangered Species Act, mineral leasing
are self-explanatory in terms of our needs. We cannot scale
back personnel. We simply cannot. It would be short-sided,
counterproductive, and I think indefensible for me to advocate
that.
So that takes us, it seems to me, to what are the increases
in the President's budget. I would like to mention two. The
first one you are all familiar with. It is the Lands Legacy
Program. Now, I confess paternity as to this program.
It is our feeling, and has been and was last summer, that
this Congress and this Government should attempt to go back and
capture the intent of the original land and water conservation
legislation that was passed these many years ago. The idea
being, as I understand it, that $900 million of Federal
receipts from the expansion of off-shore oil production would
be made available on an annual basis for, in the broadest
sense, mitigation, a sense of protection and acquisition of
important natural resources.
As we all know, that promise has--implied promise at the
very least--has never really been fulfilled. That is very
simply what is behind the President's proposal for a Lands
Legacy Program of $1 billion a year to be set up on a permanent
funding basis, with approximately 50 percent of that revenue to
be subverted or granted directly to the States for important
preservation projects such as the northern forests in New
England and a whole variety of other really very urgent State
conservation issues.
Within that $1 billion Lands Legacy Program, in terms of
increases in our budget, I think there are approximately $350
to $400 million. So in terms of the requested increase in our
budget, half of it is the Interior share of the Lands Legacy
Program.
There is one other item in the budget that I must
inevitably single out which accounts for a substantial amount,
and that is a $50 million increase in the Indian Trust Funds
administration.
I do not propose to go into the full history of Indian
Trust Fund administration, which originated--the roots go a
long way back. The issues originated on March 3, 1849. We are
dealing, I think, with the help of Congress, up front and
forthrightly with a massive attempt to try to sort this thing
out.
Not withstanding the occasional admonitions from various
quarters around this town and the press reports, we are making
strong, significant progress. I would be happy to elaborate on
that, but I----
Senator Gorton. That was the subject of a previous hearing.
Secretary Babbitt. OK. The important thing is that in order
to meet the court deadlines, the court mandates, and to keep
this on track, we really must find some way to have that
additional $50 million.
Perhaps I should stop right there. I would simply say that
generally I think things are moving along well. Our Y2K
compliance is 100 percent. We have all of our systems up. They
have been tested by outside advisers in a redundant manner.
They are up and ready to go.
This past year we have had clean audits Department-wide for
the second consecutive year. We are making excellent progress
in the Everglades. It is a large item in this budget this year.
There is a GAO report out. I believe, again, that would be the
subject of a separate hearing.
prepared statement
I just want to say that I think the GAO report is helpful
and that the suggestions contained in it are issues that need
attention, particularly in terms of the long-range direction
and governance of this project after the Congress gets the
Corps of Engineers restudy this summer.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should stop right there and submit
myself to your tender mercies.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Babbitt
I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Department of the Interior.
The 2000 budget is a landmark budget because it will be the first
budget of the new century, and because it is a bold and forward looking
statement by the President of the importance of resource and Indian
trust stewardship. Focused around the theme, ``Guardians of the Past;
Stewards for the Future,'' the 2000 budget will allow us to make
important investments in land and resources, and to meet our
responsibilities to Tribes.
As we approach the 150th anniversary of the creation of the
Department of the Interior, this budget gives us cause for optimism and
sets a new direction for the next 150 years. Since I became Secretary
in 1993, this Department has aggressively streamlined operational
programs and processes to improve efficiency and the delivery of
services to the public. As a result, we are more unified, more clear in
our purpose and mission, and are well-positioned to undertake the
challenges of the next century.
The Department's activities are a part of the day-to-day lives of
all Americans and touch on all aspects of the economic and cultural
life of this Nation. Every year 379 million people, more than the
population of the United States, visit our National Parks, National
Wildlife Refuges and public lands. The 445 million acres of lands that
this Department manages are a source of meaningful outdoor and
educational experiences for these visitors. In addition, we supply
water to approximately 31 million people throughout the west and
provide services and support for self-determination to 1.2 million
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
This broad mandate for the Department of the Interior had its
genesis with the creation of the Home Department, which was established
in March 1849 to house agencies concerned with the management of
domestic issues. Since that time, the mission of the Department has
been shaped by the changing needs of the American people, evolving from
the Home Department of the 19th century, through the bygone eras of
great westward expansion, the conservation age at the beginning of the
20th century, the Great Depression and Civilian Conservation Corps
years, and the post World War II baby boom. Today the principal mission
of the Department is the conservation and management of natural and
cultural resources, the protection and encouragement of Indian self-
determination, and the fulfillment of Federal trust responsibilities to
American Indians.
Driven by the strong, continuous growth of the economy and the
public's appetite for outdoor recreation and outdoor experiences, the
Department has evolved new approaches that consider the twin goals of
growing the economy and protecting and restoring the Nation's natural
and cultural resources. We have made great strides in recent years by
embarking on the restoration of precious ecosystems in a way that
enriches neighboring communities, resulting in the following success
stories:
--in South Florida we are working in partnership with the State and
others to restore the Everglades, recreating the 17,000 square
mile sea of grass;
--we continue our work with States, Tribes, communities, and private
landowners to implement new, innovative approaches to the
Endangered Species Act. For the first time in 60 years we have
healthy, reproductive populations of gray wolves in Yellowstone
National Park;
--we are embarking on the fifth year of Forest Plan implementation,
demonstrating how cooperative partnerships between Federal
agencies and local interests can effectively promote wise land
stewardship; and
--in partnership with the State of California, we completed the
purchase of the 7,400-acre Headwaters ancient redwood forest,
the largest stand of privately-owned ancient redwoods in the
country.
In addition, the Department has developed five-year plans for
maintenance and construction to improve management and accountability
for the Department's infrastructure and to focus funding on the highest
priority health and safety and resource protection needs. We are proud
of these accomplishments and appreciate the Subcommittee's support of
these efforts.
budget overview
The 2000 budget requests $8.7 billion in funds subject to annual
appropriation. This request is fully funded within the President's
balanced budget and includes an increase of $832 million, or 11
percent, over 1999 funding levels. An estimated $2.2 billion will be
provided in permanent appropriations.
For Department programs under the jurisdiction of theSubcommittee,
the request for annual appropriations is $7.8 billion for 2000. This is
an increase of $717 million in current budget authority from total
appropriations provided in the 1999 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Within this increase, $139 million or 18 percent of the increase is
requested for uncontrollable cost increases in order to continue
Departmental programs at current operational levels in 2000. The
budget:
--proposes funding for the President's Lands Legacy Initiative, to
protect America's land resources and establish a new
partnership with States, Tribes and local governments;
--provides resources for broad-based restoration efforts including
public lands restoration and science tools to support these
efforts, continuation of our successful ecosystem restoration
efforts, restoration of species and cultural resources, and
facilities repair and rehabilitation; and
--requests funding to continue to improve life in Indian Country
through enhanced education programs, school construction, law
enforcement, Tribal buffalo programs, and aggressive efforts to
resolve trust management problems.
The level of staffing proposed for 2000 is comparable with
employment levels in the Department in 1987. The 2000 budget proposes
to increase staffing by only two percent, as compared to the increased
funding request of 11 percent. The Department will continue to operate
efficiently, having taken an aggressive approach to streamlining,
reducing headquarters staffs and management layers, reengineering
processes, and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our
program delivery at the field level. Between the period 1993-1997,
staffing was reduced by 15 percent. The new staff we are requesting for
2000 will focus on direct service to the public and on-the-ground
restoration.
lands legacy
At the start of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt called on
Americans to save the best of our natural endowment for all time. His
legacy is seen across the country in parks, forests, and wildlife
refuges. President Clinton's Lands Legacy Initiative renews America's
commitment to its natural environment. This 2000 budget proposal
provides significant new resources to protect local green spaces and
increases protection for our oceans and coasts. It recognizes that
carrying out this commitment must include not only resources for
Federal land acquisition, but also resources directed to States, local
communities, and Tribes to address their local needs in their own ways.
The interagency Lands Legacy Initiative provides roughly equal amounts
of funding for Federal land acquisition and funds to States, local
communities, and Tribes for acquisition and other conservation
purposes. The initiative includes $900 million from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), marking the first time any Administration has
requested the full $900 million authorized to be deposited in LWCF in
its annual budget. The initiative includes $579 million for Department
of the Interior programs, which is an increase of $84.5 million from
the 1999 level.
The Lands Legacy Initiative includes $295 million for Federal land
acquisition by Interior, an increase of $84.5 million over current year
levels. With this infusion of funding, we have an opportunity to
preserve aspects of our natural and cultural legacy for all time. Our
efforts will focus particularly on five major areas, including the
California Desert, Civil War Battlefields, the Lewis and Clark Trail,
refuges in the Northern Forest, and the Everglades. Funding for these
five areas totals $163.7 million. An additional $130.3 million is
requested for land acquisition in other areas to protect priority
natural and cultural resources, like the addition of 31 acres at
Florida's Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, established as the
first refuge by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903.
A total of $80 million, an increase of $66 million, will allow
States and localities to continue to grow while conserving and
recovering imperiled species. Funding will be provided to States and
local communities for habitat conservation planning and land
acquisition, candidate conservation agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements,
and other collaborative strategies to help communities deal with the
pressures of economic growth in a context of declining habitat. This
proposal is a win-win approach to species protection, as it will
provide incentives for landowners to protect plants and wildlife on
their property and will accelerate the States' ability to restore
declining species in time to keep them off the endangered species list.
The Lands Legacy Initiative includes $150 million for a LWCF
competitive grants program that will assist States, local communities,
and Tribes to preserve green space. This is an opportunity for us to
establish new partnerships with States, Tribes, and local governments
to enrich our cities, towns, and suburbs. In America today there is a
resurgent sense of the need to preserve open space and the quality of
life in our communities, and this program can provide dramatic results
by leveraging Federal funds with non-Federal sources. This proposal
will allow us to work with the Congress on framing a viable program
that will result in increased open spaces, greenways, and other areas
for outdoor recreation, urban parks, wildlife habitat, and coastal
wetlands.
Open space protection is gaining momentum at State, regional, and
local levels as a means to protect farmland, maintain natural
surroundings, and combat sprawl. Across the country in ballot measures,
the American people are supporting the need for local p lanning and
protection that guides development and the establishment and protection
of open space. The 2000 budget includes $50 million for matching grants
to States and Indian Tribes to support open space planning. An
additional $4 million is proposed for matching grants and technical
assistance for the restoration of parks in economically distressed
urban communities.
livability
The Lands Legacy Program is complemented by a second Administration
initiative, the Livability Agenda, which encompasses a broad array of
issues that relate to quality of life, including transportation, safe
streets and economic competitiveness. The Li vability Agenda proposes
that the federal government work in partnership with local communities
to protect green space for wildlife and recreation, ease traffic
congestion, and pursue regional ``smart growth'' strategies.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request to support major
livability programs, includes $39.5 million for an interagency
Community/Federal Information Partnership that will accomplish two
primary objectives. First, approximately 60 percent of the funding will
be available as competitive, matching grants to local, regional, and
national non-Federal agencies and organizations to build local capacity
to use GIS technology. Second, the remainder of the funding will be
used to improve public access to geographic information residing in
federal agencies. Six pilot projects have been launched and are
designed to show how geospatial data and maps from various government
agencies can help communities make sound decisions about local issues
such as watershed and water quality management, disaster preparedness
and recovery, and land use planning. The Department has a lead role in
this partnership and under this program, USGS would receive $10
million, and BLM, $2 million.
restoration
At the turn of the century the concept of preservation was firmly
adopted by the American public. Deeply rooted in the ideals of
President Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, and Aldo Leopold, preservation
was the clarion call that created a national imperative to preserve
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, national parks, and wildlife
refuges. These national treasures are an admirable and important legacy
and we are the guardians of that legacy. Moving beyond our
responsibilities for stewardship of these national treasures we have
come to understand the importance of the entire landscape that extends
outside the boundaries of our public lands.
Migratory birds follow historic flyways in their routes from summer
to wintering habitat that know no park, refuge, or other boundary.
Salmon and trout move in rivers and streams in a natural rhythm that
links to a world that existed before boundaries were established. To
protect these wild stocks and heal the land, we have to understand that
all the components of an ecosystem are interconnected. Cut too many
trees in the headwaters of a stream, and you send a pulse of sediment
into the current impacting aquatic life. Our role as guardians of the
past and stewards for the future compels us to approach issues and
identify solutions on a landscape scale. This budget proposes
significant resources to restore public lands and work outside these
boundaries in the restoration of fish, wildlife, and natural
communities.
restoring ecosystems
The President's Northwest Forest Summit in April, 1993 brought us a
new vision for approaches that serve nature and the Nation's economic
future. This vision recognizes that understanding landscapes as
complex, living, and integrated systems can result in better ways of
living on and prospering from the land, while protecting species and
preserving nature's special places. Over the last six years the
Administration has implemented three large scale restoration efforts
that embrace this vision using new methods, partnerships, and renewed
public participation. The 2000 budget includes $68.1 million for the
Department to press ahead with implementation of the Northwest Forest
Plan. The Department will also continue to lead the Administration's
efforts to restore two priority watersheds, the Florida Everglades and
California's Bay-Delta.
Since 1993, when the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
was established, over $955 million in Federal funds and $1.5 billion in
State funds have been directed to this project, which is the largest
watershed restoration effort ever undertaken. We recently completed
negotiations to acquire the 50,000 acre Talisman properties and have
issued a draft multi-species recovery plan addressing the habitat and
individual needs of 68 listed species. In 2000, the Department's
request for Everglades restoration totals $151.5 million, an increase
of $7.4 million over 1999, which will support park and refuge
operations, hydrologic modeling, multi-species recovery, research, land
acquisition, and construction of the Modified Water Delivery Project
for Everglades National Park.
The 2000 request for the Energy and Water Development bill also
contains $75 million to continue implementation of the California Bay-
Delta ecosystem restoration program and $20 million to initiate high
priority activities to address water use efficiency, water quality, and
watershed management issues.
restoring parks, refuges and public lands
In NPS, FWS, BLM, and OSM increased funding is requested for
operational programs in order to conduct restoration activities.
--NPS is requesting an increase of $25 million for management of
natural resources which will accelerate efforts to acquire data
on natural resources, completing all natural resource
inventories in seven years. NPS will control 11,000 additional
acres of exotic species annually (a 43 percent increase) and
restore an additional 150 acres disturbed by mines, roads, and
other facilities that are no longer in use.
--For FWS, an increase of $18.1 million will fund habitat restoration
projects on 200 refuges and eradication of invasive, nuisance
species on 48 refuges. Planned projects will restore historic
wetland habitat, endangered species habitat, and unique
ecosystems.
--BLM will dedicate an increase of $10.9 million to rangeland
improvements and an aggressive weed control effort to sustain
productive landscapes.
--OSM is requesting $25.3 million to increase by 15 percent the
reclamation of land damaged by past mining practices to
productive use and to restore water resources contaminated by
acid mine drainage.
The wildland fire program will promote ecosystem health, while
lowering the risk of severe fires and long-term suppression costs. In
2000, the request of $350.9 million will allow us to treat more than
one million acres of land and reduce hazardous fuel loads, a tripling
of effort since this program began.
science
In 1996, we consolidated the science and technology functions of
Interior. As a result, the USGS is able to provide a full spectrum of
scientific expertise to the Department, other agencies, and the public.
This multi-disciplinary expertise is critical to the effectiveness of
our land management and restoration programs supporting the development
of advanced tools including modeling, decision support systems, and
monitoring protocols. The 2000 budget includes $18.5 million in new
funding to aggressively respond to the science needs of land management
bureaus and provide the tools that are needed for wise stewardship of
the landscape.
restoring species
The near extinction of the buffalo and the extinction of the
passenger pigeon at the end of the 19th century brought an end to the
American myth of endless abundance. As President of the United States,
Theodore Roosevelt created five national parks, four big game refuges,
and 51 national bird reservations in order to preserve natural
resources which were, in his view, an essential part of the American
landscape and culture. As we approach the end of the 20th century, the
importance of protecting and restoring ecosystems and individual
species components of ecosystems is widely accepted. The Congress
enacted landmark legislation including the Bald Eagle Protection Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
African Elephant Conservation Act in recognition of the importance of
protecting and recovering individual species as components of healthy,
viable ecosystems.
Through partnerships with States, local communities, and non-profit
groups, and expanded involvement with private landowners, the
Department has been able to more effectively protect threatened and
endangered species, while allowing economic development to proceed. The
efforts of the FWS, Forest Service, and State of Nevada in the Spring
Mountains exemplify our new approach to endangered species
conservation. In these snow capped mountain ranges, these three
agencies have come together to craft a conservation agreement that will
safeguard 57 rare and sensitive species while accommodating the growing
numbers of recreational visitors.
The 2000 budget includes $115 million for FWS endangered species
operations, an increase of $24.1 million to expand the use of
innovative tools that protect species and permit sound economic
development. In partnership with States, local communities, non-profit
groups and private landowners, FWS will utilize candidate conservation
agreements to keep species off the list of threatened and endangered
species, expand habitat conservation planning to allow economic
development to proceed while protecting species on private lands,
continue the no-surprises policy to assure private landowners that
agreements jointly negotiated will be honored, conduct streamlined
consultations, and increase Safe Harbor Agreements to ensure that
community and species goals can be met. This operational funding level
is supported by the request of $80 million for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund that I described earlier.
More than 160 parks provide important, protected habitat to restore
endangered species. At least 168 Federally-listed species occur on NPS
lands and are the subject of over 2,000 recovery tasks assigned to the
National Park Service. Recovery tasks include wolf re-introduction in
Yellowstone National Park, control of exotic species in Hawaiian parks,
and public education and law enforcement patrols for endangered species
collectors. The 2000 budget includes $4 million for native and exotic
species management which will, in part, address recovery of species
including the Kemp's ridley turtle and the black-footed ferret which
depend on the National Park System for their survival.
In 1986 Congress enacted revisions to the Federal Power Act of 1920
that changed the relicensing process for the nation's 2,600 privately-
owned hydroelectric dams. These changes required the consideration of
fish and wildlife, energy conservation, and rec reational
opportunities, and have led to modifications in dam operations to
increase stream flows, installation of fish passage facilities, and
protection of local riparian lands. We successfully demonstrated the
success of modifying dam operations to restore habitat and recreational
uses without negatively impacting power and water use with the flooding
of Glen Canyon Dam in 1996. The 2000 budget requests $7.6 million to
restore native fisheries including acceleration of hydropower
relicensing review activities. Through a collaborative process with dam
operators and other stakeholders, FWS will use a balanced approach to
address fisheries needs while meeting needs for power, agriculture, and
recreation. A companion request of $3.9 million will fund on-the-ground
restoration projects to be matched by organizations such as Trout
Unlimited and $1 million for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's efforts in fisheries restoration.
focus on emerging biological problems
In 1915, the Sierra Nevada in California was filled with the sound
of croaking frogs and toads. Biologists who surveyed the amphibians
recorded one species, the western toad, as ``exceedingly abundant.''
When researchers revisited the study sites in 1995, they recorded only
one adult western toad and a small group of tadpoles. Amphibians are
the ``canary in the coal mine'' for ecosystems, letting us know with
their disappearance that something is wrong. The 2000 Interior budget
proposes to increase fundi ng by $8.1 million in order to investigate
the causes for amphibian population declines.
Called the ``rain forests of the sea,'' coral reefs are one of the
most biologically complex and diverse ecosystems on earth, providing
habitat for one-third of all marine fish species. In addition, coral
reefs provide a protective barrier for shorelines and are crucial to
the tourism industries of many States and territories. President
Clinton recently signed an Executive Order establishing the U.S. Coral
Reef Task Force to coordinate interagency efforts to protect and
restore our coral reefs. The 2000 budget for Interior includes $7.2
million for coral reef protection, management, and restoration.
The geographic and ecological areas that encompass Alaska and
Hawaii are unique and rich in natural resources. These areas share
other common qualities in that they are remote and are home to species
and habitats that are found nowhere else. In a focused program to
address the unique problems and restoration challenges in Alaska and
Hawaii, the Department is requesting $4.4 million to conduct natural
resource protection and restoration activities, and expand public use
and educational opportunities.
safe visits to public lands
The Department manages an extensive infrastructure to meet the
needs of 379 million visitors to national parks, national wildlife
refuges, and other public lands. Well-maintained facilities are
critical to the safe enjoyment of these visitors and to the safety of
45,000 employees and 53,000 students attending BIA schools. In 1999 the
Department proposed an aggressive Safe Visits to Public Lands
Initiative to improve management and accountability for the
Department's infrastructure and focus funding on highest priority
health and safety and resource protection needs.
The Department has developed a five-year plan that provides a
framework for improved planning and management of maintenance and
construction programs. The plan provides an improved understanding of
the scope of deferred maintenance and a baseline to monitor progress
toward correcting health and safety and resource deficiencies at
Departmental facilities. In order to implement the plan, the
Department's 2000 budget includes $910.1 million, including $555.8
million in maintenance and $354.3 million in construction, an increase
of $51.2 million, or six percent, over 1999.
One final component of the restoration theme is the Save America's
Treasures program. The Subcommittee worked with us last year to
initiate a program that provides matching grants to public-private
partnerships to preserve America's cultural treasures and increase
opportunities for learning. The 2000 budget includes $30 million to
continue this program. In addition, the 2000 budget includes $15
million for badly needed repairs to preserve structures of great
historic significance at historically black colleges and universities
and $5 million to develop a national digital library of records of
American achievements in history and arts and sciences.
seven generations into the future and past
When deliberating an issue, American Indians take into
consideration lessons learned by past generations and the potential
impact on future generations. This simple, yet sage approach provides
an important framework for current policy decisions. The 2000 budget
request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $1.9 billion, an increase
of $155.6 million above the 1999 enacted level, providing increases for
educational programs, school facility construction, law enforcement,
natural resources management, and other priority funding needs.
Throughout Indian Country, children are learning in schools that
present serious health and safety threats. Many schools have leaky
roofs, peeling paint, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate heating
and cooling systems that impede students' ability to learn. In spite of
improved efficiencies, BIA's education repair needs are growing and now
exceed $740 million. In 2000, the Administration is proposing a School
Bonding Initiative that will provide $400 million in bonding issuance
authority over two years. Tribal governments will be able to use this
authority to issue bonds to investors who will receive tax credits for
the life of the bond in lieu of interest. To help Tribes participate in
this Initiative, $30 million is included in the BIA's 2000 budget
request. The 2000 request also includes $75.9 million to replace Seba
Dalkai School in Arizona and Fond Du Lac Ojibway School in Minnesota
and to complete repair work at existing facilities.
An Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education
sets forth six goals to improve academic performance and reduce the
dropout rate for Indian students, including improved reading and
mathematics, increased school completion, improved science education,
and expanded use of education technology. The 2000 budget for School
Operations includes an investment of $503.6 million in support of these
goals, to cover increased costs for teachers, transportation of
children to schools, and expanded operations to respond to a growing
student population. The budget also provides a $7.1 million increase
for operating grants to 28 tribally controlled community colleges.
These colleges are a critical component of efforts to help Native
Americans secure professional employment and promote entrepreneurship
on reservations.
American Indians are victims of violent crimes at more than twice
the rate of all U.S. residents, while tribal law enforcement receives
only one-fourth the resources of comparable rural law enforcement
agencies. In order to combat rising crime rates in Indian Country, a
multi-year program was initiated in 1999, implementing a plan developed
by Interior and the Department of Justice, in collaboration with tribal
governments. The 1999 appropriation provided $20 million for BIA and
$89 million in Justice grant funding to begin to improve tribal law
enforcement programs. The 2000 budget includes $20 million increase for
the second year of this initiative, which will allow BIA to increase
the number of criminal investigators and uniformed police, upgrade
radio systems, and strengthen detention center services. The Department
of Justice is requesting $124.2 million in 2000 to strengthen law
enforcement programs and direct funding to drug testing and treatment,
juvenile justice, assistance to tribal courts, and detention center
construction.
A close spiritual and cultural connection exists among the buffalo,
American Indians, and the ecosystem of the plains. For thousands of
years the buffalo took care of Indian people, providing warmth, food,
and a way of life. Tribes are reestablishing herds of buffalo, and over
the last ten years have created hundreds of jobs by raising buffalo. To
strengthen tribal efforts to bring back the buffalo, a $1 million
increase is requested in the 2000 budget to be used to support tribal
buffalo programs, rangeland management, and related economic and
development efforts.
tribal trust management improvement
One of the highest priorities of the Administration is to
successfully resolve the Indian trust fund management problems that
have accumulated over the last 70 years. I have committed to clean up
this problem on my watch. Significant progress has already been
achieved as the Office of the Special Trustee has initiated action to
replace key systems for lease management, accounts receivable, land
records, and trust resources management, and is installing an
accounting system.
The 2000 budget requests $100 million to continue the
implementation of trust management improvements, which will provide an
increase of $50.5 million for trust reform activities. The budget
includes $10 million for continued implementation of the Indian Land
Consolidation Project, which will commence on three reservations in
1999. The 2000 budget increase of $5 million will allow the pilot
program to be expanded to one more reservation in 2000. Beginning in
2000 we will make a significant change in the budgetary classification
of tribal trust funds, approximately $2.1 billion of tribal trust funds
will be reclassified as non-budgetary, similar to the classification of
individual Indian money accounts.
conclusion
I believe that the 2000 budget for the Department of the Interior
sets a bold, new direction for the new millennium and the next 150
years of operation of this Department. I look forward to working with
you on this budget and resolving the challenges that come our way
throughout the year.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Gorton. There is a vote on the floor of the Senate
at 11:30, which is in effect the terminus of this hearing. As
usual, with the large number of questions I have, I am going to
defer my own until last. So for any other member who is still
here, I am going to take the last part, so there should be some
limitation.
I am going to recognize Senator Byrd first for questions. I
know my three Republican colleagues who are here now, each of
them has one kind of priority or another. You were here in the
order of Campbell, Burns, Domenici, but if you want to settle
among you any different order of being recognized, you can do
that in the next couple of minutes.
With that, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will operate on
the 5 minute----
Senator Gorton. That is awfully restrictive. I just ask you
to--ask the members to be reasonable.
Senator Byrd. Yes. OK. You are about the most sensible
chairman I have seen around here in a long time. I find it kind
of hard to confine myself to 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
That is no reflection on the other chairmen. They are fine,
too.
corridor h
Mr. Secretary, you are one of my favorites, too.
Let us talk about Corridor H. Mr. Secretary, would you
report on the status of the Keeper's response to West Virginia
on determination of eligibility for Corridor H?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, as the subcommittee may know,
having been summoned to your office and horsewhipped in, I
might say, appropriate fashion some months ago, I responded by
making a trip to Charleston to meet with the Governor of West
Virginia, summoned in the Keeper, and have paid close attention
to this issue.
I think we are making progress. On April 16 the Park
Service completed its evaluation of the two requests that were
submitted back in March by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Park Service completed its evaluation and at this time
there are no requests for determinations of eligibility pending
before the Keeper. We have that part of this problem, I
believe, taken care of.
Senator Byrd. Let me compliment you on the attention that
you have given to this matter and on the suggestions that you
have made. I think you have been very helpful.
For this Corridor H package, did the Keeper withhold any
final action pending receipt of additional information or
overturn any of the eligibility determinations made by the
State?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I believe of the 33 properties
that were submitted, there were three where there was
insufficient information. The Keeper, I think, on those has
asked the Federal Highway Administration to provide the
material. I think that no eligibility determinations were
overturned, because one small boundary change and this
remaining information, I believe, is the one additional thing
that we need to dispense with. Actually, there are a couple of
those.
keeper responsibilities
Senator Byrd. What additional responsibilities does the
Office of the Keeper have with regard to completing Corridor H?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, first, the Keeper needs to
complete the final action on those three properties once we get
the information from the Federal Highway Administration. I
believe the Highway Administration will also be submitting a
request for determination of eligibility for the Coketon area,
which the FHA, I think, has said they will submit in the next 2
weeks.
Once these evaluations are completed, the Keeper's role in
Corridor H will terminate.
Senator Byrd. Once the State has submitted the additional
material as requested by the Keeper for the three items
included in the March 8 package, how long will it take the
Keeper to rule on those three items?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the Keeper, under the
regulations, is required to respond within 45 days from the
date of receipt of that material by the Keeper.
In this case, I think the review period is going to be
shorter, basically because the Keeper is essentially familiar
with the properties in question. They have not yet seen the
documentation for Coketon, and that will require perhaps a
little more detailed review. But as a result of our little
session some months ago, I believe that the Keeper understands
that the deadlines will be met with no exceptions.
Senator Byrd. I remain unconvinced that the Keeper should
have the power to overturn decisions of the State in
determinations of eligibility. If the State has an approved
historic preservation program and the State historic
preservation officer rules in agreement with the appropriate
Federal agency that a particular property is or is not eligible
for inclusion in the National Register, then the Keeper's
review and ruling appear to be superfluous and wasteful.
It seems to me that this is another case where the Federal
Government is abrogating State rights and responsibilities and
bogging down the process in additional red tape and costing the
taxpayers additional dollars.
Our discussions on this matter, Mr. Secretary, over the
past several years have focused on the need for speeding up the
process of making determinations of eligibility. I realize that
the process is to a certain extent dictated by regulation and
that to change regulations is a time consuming process itself.
In your reply of February 9 of this year to my letter of
October 22 of last year you indicated an additional position
would be delegated to making determinations of eligibility, for
which I thank you, but that other ways of expediting the
process were either not possible or practical.
Would you please provide for the record a table showing the
number of determinations of eligibility that were made by the
Keeper for each of the past 5 years, the number of
determinations of eligibility that were eligible for an
expedited review under current regulations, and the number of
expedited reviews conducted by the Keeper?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
Determinations of Eligibility by the National Register of Historic
Places
determinations of eligibility
The National Register of Historic Places made determinations of
eligibility on 1,013 properties during fiscal years 1994 through 1998
in response to requests from Federal agencies. This total is displayed
by fiscal year as follows:
Determinations of
Fiscal year eligibility
1994.............................................................. 104
1995.............................................................. 89
1996.............................................................. 43
1997.............................................................. 164
1998.............................................................. 613
expedited review
National Park Service regulations (36 CFR 63.3) provide that when
agencies and State Historic Preservation Officers ``agree that the
property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register,'' the
Keeper of the National Register shall make determinations of
eligibility within 10 working days of receipt of the request. All other
properties are evaluated within 45 days of receiving adequate
documentation.
The NPS cannot provide the total number of determinations of
eligibility that were eligible for an expedited review, or the number
of expedited reviews conducted during the last five years. The National
Register Information System (NRIS) database cannot currently identify
10-working-day determinations of eligibility or properties that SHPOs
and Federal agencies agree are eligible. In conjunction with work to
update the NRIS and make it Y2K-compliant, however, the NPS will be
able to report on these determinations in the future.
determinations of Eligibility
Senator Byrd. Making accurate and efficient determinations
of eligibility is absolutely critical to moving forward on many
State and Federal projects, not just in West Virginia but all
across our land, and yet it is clear from the budget
justification for the National Park Service that making
determinations of eligibility is not a priority of the National
Register Program.
The listed priorities are, and I quote, ``improving public
access to the National Register, expanding and improving the
data in the National Register database, and improving the
archiving of records.''
Given the ramifications and costs to the taxpayer
associated with delays in eligibility determinations, why are
these determinations not being given the highest priority of
the National Register Program?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the National Register was set
up in a rather complex and information intensive process. As
these properties come up they are identified through the
eligibility process. The most important part of this is the
mandatory review period that applies to nominations and
determination of eligibility.
I cannot change that. But I do believe that your question
about resources is warranted and that we have learned from this
process. I think it is important that we try to make certain
that we are devoting the resources necessary to get this done.
I cannot justify the delays that have occurred in the past.
Senator Byrd. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I have one more
question, if I may proceed with that one.
Senator Gorton. Go ahead.
Role of Advisory Council for Historic Preservation
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I understand that you also
serve on the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. The
State of West Virginia has indicated recently its growing
concerns with this council's impact rulings on Corridor H. What
is your opinion as to the role of this council in completing
Corridor H?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think the bottom line is that
the council does not have statutory authority to impact or
delay projects. I acknowledge that litigants frequently use the
council's opinions in litigation. That is a statutory reality.
I think the original purpose of this council was to try to
facilitate, kind of move in and give technical assistance and
facilitate. I am not sure that has always worked out that way.
I would certainly be ready and willing to, on behalf of the
Department, review any concerns that could be addressed either
through regulation or statutory changes.
Senator Byrd. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici has to--he
has another very tight commitment.
Did you want to ask a question before I go on?
Senator Domenici. I would really ask if I could ask two
questions. I have to preside at a committee hearing at 10:00
o'clock, and I will be a little late to that.
Senator Gorton. Fine, fine. Go ahead.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
new mexico drought
Mr. Secretary, I am going to submit some questions to you
with reference to the drought in the State of New Mexico, which
will essentially be asking you if you can make sure there is a
coordination of all of the Federal agencies, some under you, as
to what might be done.
We are--we are clearly--I do not know if you know this, but
we are destined this year to have the worst drought we have
ever had. Our rivers are going to run dry, and a lot of things
are going to happen that are very, very bad. I will ask you
about that in detail.
But now I want to raise an issue that is related to the
drought and share it with you with reference to the Endangered
Species Law, and I think you are aware of this.
Mr. Secretary, New Mexico, like Arizona, is a very arid
State. Folks here in the Beltway are primarily unaware of the
critical needs for water out there in the West. We are very
grateful that you come from out there and you know about these
needs.
With the lack of snow pack and precipitation in New Mexico,
we are going to have a drought. In fact, parts of the Rio
Grande River which you are familiar with, which historically
has gone dry at various times, may dry up as early as this
week, believe it or not.
endangered species water needs
The traditional stresses of water users are only made more
difficult by litigation regarding the needs for the silver
minnow endangered species. A recent notice of intent to sue by
the Forest Guardians and others--that is an entity in New
Mexico--threatened to force the release of stored water in any
of Heron, El Vado, Abiquiu, and Cochiti Reservoirs to
maintain--quote, ``to maintain the riparian habitat necessarily
for the survival,'' of the silver minnow and the willow
flycatcher.
I am concerned about water necessary for the survival of
New Mexico, our cities which use that water, our irrigators
which have--as you know, under our water system, they have
primacy as per the time they applied it to the ground, and they
own much of that water.
In the lawsuit which sought to force immediate critical
habitat designation, you, as the Secretary of Interior, in the
lawsuit which I will make available to you, you argued that the
Department did not have the data necessary to determine water
amounts needed for the fish.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director Rappaport-Clark stated
in an affidavit that: The Service must comply with NEPA
requirements and perform an economical analysis of the impacts.
The EIS would likely be needed which would require more time
for the habitat designation. The Environmental--the ESA
requires that the Service, when designating critical habitat,
take into consideration the economic impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical.
I wonder if you would share with the committee, as soon as
you can, answers to the following questions, and if you could
answer them right now, it would be very helpful.
Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to. I would be happy
to.
Senator Domenici. Without scientific data available for the
minnow, water needs, nor reliable economic analysis, will not
the Department need additional time to follow through and find
out what the needs are? You have stated that in the lawsuit,
but would you tell the committee if that is the case?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Senator, if I may----
Senator Domenici. Please.
Secretary Babbitt [continuing]. I would like to step back
and frame this issue and then specifically answer your
question.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not think it is any secret
that we have not had much luck in our relationship in finding
common ground in New Mexico.
Senator Domenici. No.
Secretary Babbitt. But this is another tough problem being
served up, and let me just say that notwithstanding our
failures in the past, I intend to do everything I can to see if
we can work our way through this.
Now, let me say this also: I believe that our failure to
work out a reasonable relationship is in some ways due to the
underlying fact that in New Mexico, more than any other western
State, including Alaska, Colorado, Montana and Washington,
these issues are characterized by intransigence on both sides.
I have never worked in an environment in which the natural
resource users have been so rigid and inflexible; and I would
say exactly the same thing of the environmental groups. Now, it
is in that context that we must deal with this problem.
mandated use of critical habitat designation
I have voiced my concerns about the way that we are
mandated to use the designation of critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act. It does not work. It does not produce
good results. It should be modified, because the courts are
driving us to front-end determinations which, more properly,
should be incorporated in recovery plans at the back end when
we, in fact, have the information.
Now, the courts have laid out a set of case decisions here
that have put us in a straitjacket. They are not going to give
us the kind of time we need because the act does not allow it.
So that is just the bottom line.
Do we need more time? Yes. But the Endangered Species Act
does not give it to us. The courts do not give it to us. We are
going to proceed with declaring critical habitat. I would
prefer not to. It is not productive. It is incendiary, and it
will be in this case.
Now, finally, let me say, and then I will back off, that I
believe that there are solutions available here. It is going to
take some movement by those middle ground irrigation districts.
They do not have a reputation for water use efficiency. There
are many ways, I believe, that we could work something out.
They have not shown the flexibility that we have found in other
places, like in Eastern Washington, in Colorado, and elsewhere.
The environmentalists may, in fact, be making--not ``may,
in fact,'' but are, in fact, making some unreasonable demands
about their version of what the hydrology of the Rio Grande
Valley ought to be like.
I would like to continue attempting the work. I have talked
with the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe we have some water
resources that are going to allow us to stagger through this
season, with a little bit of flexibility.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I know I used a lot of the committee's time.
But I compliment you on your statement, and I--while I do
not necessarily agree with your characterization of my fellow
New Mexicans as being intransigent and the worst in America, as
you have just phrased it, but--but I do believe that something
is terribly bad in the way the courts are handling this
situation because you have to close down a river to users
without knowing what the habitat--what the water is needed for
the--what water is needed for the endangered species.
It is an impossibility. Maybe we could fix that here. It
probably would bring the world down on our necks, even if we
tried to do what he suggested. But we ought to think about
that.
water rights
Let me make sure that everybody understands the seriousness
of this problem. I grew up within eight blocks of this river.
For many years of my younger days, I used to walk to this
river, and many times it was dry.
So for those who are used to rivers in your State or in
Alaska that run all year long and were having arguments about
salmon fish habitat, we do not have that. We have a river that,
for much of the time, does not have any water in it.
On the other hand, we built storage places that make it
better now. We do have more water, and we have a different
water system than most of you. Our water system is based upon:
The first one to use it and apply it to a beneficial use owns
it, and they own it as of the date they did it. They are
valuable; you can sell those rights.
Now, the problem we have is that the endangered species
comes along with litigants who know how to use the courts, and
they say, regardless of those water rights, you have to save
the fish, the minnow.
Now, the minnows have survived, I believe, during eras that
I have told you about. When there is no water running in the
river, they have survived in some other place in the river
where there is water.
Now what we have is a drought and rivers that do not always
run wet, and we have at the worst possible time a lawsuit
against him and his Department saying, ``Create an endangered
species, Mr. Judge,'' and now ordering them to try to get water
out of the reclamation projects, even if they have to dump our
lakes that are there for irrigation purposes and other things,
to save the minnow.
Now, that is a very frustrating position for a State to be
in, and for a Senator, when the Endangered Species Act is a
national law. I do not know whether we want them to go to court
and see if they really have water rights under the Endangered
Species Law.
That is a nice question. Everybody has been kind of dancing
around it, except for a couple of courts--you could guess
where--from California, California Circuit. They have kind of
ruled that they have water rights even though they are not part
of New Mexico's water ambiance at all.
The Secretary is indicating that perhaps people have been
intransigent regarding their water rights. I can tell you they
may have been. But if you were under the gun all of the time
about whether you are going to have enough water even though
you own it, you would be kind of nervous about sharing it with
anybody.
I think that is kind of what happened, and then put on the
800,000-population city which gets its water from an
underground aquifer that is fed by this river, and they own a
lot of water in order for their future, and you have a real
tough situation. So I may need the Senators' assistance.
But I will tell you for now, Mr. Secretary, I hope you are
not alluding, in terms of intransigence, to your and my
difficulties earlier in your Secretarial term. They are there,
and they are acknowledged, and they will kind of be wounds for
a long time on both of us.
But this is a new ball game with a new problem, and I
clearly intend to work with you if you will work with me to see
if we can find a way to get through this on a temporary basis
until we can fix it up in some permanent manner.
Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Senator, would you yield just for 1
minute?
Senator Domenici. I am finished. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. My friend, I think that is the most
enlightened statement about the Endangered Species Act that I
have heard from any administration official since that act was
passed, and I was here when it passed. I am going to get a copy
of that, and I do believe that we can work on that basis.
The one thing that I was going to say to the Senator from
New Mexico, though, is if the collision is worse in his State
than it is in mine, do you wear armor when you go into New
Mexico? [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. Well, that is why I think he is
exaggerating. Your State is the bad State. [Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield to me just--I have
a committee to chair, too.
Mr. Secretary, just two short things. I do not want to take
much time, because I have to go. And I know we are holding up
the people who have been here before me.
north star project
But the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone against the
recommendations of the EPA, the Coast Guard, the Corps of
Engineers, and the State and local governments on the North
Star project, which was the one possibility of substantial
employment in my State this summer.
I am sure we all know, because of the low oil price, our
economy is screeching to a halt. I would urge you to see if
there is any way that we can avoid the litigation that is
obviously going to come if we cannot resolve this issue.
It has gone back to the Corps of Engineers now, as I
understand it, to consider the objections of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. To my knowledge, they are the only agency,
State, Federal, or local, that objected to this project. It was
substantially worked out with EPA and the Corps, but now the
Fish and Wildlife Service has intervened.
I am not asking you for a commitment now. I am just asking
you to review it and see if there is any way that it can be
resolved.
national petroleum reserve of alaska
My question is on the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska.
There are bids scheduled for May 5. We have an enormous merger
coming now between BP and ARCO. It will be a subject for
continual review by the Federal Trade Commission, and others,
including our State. Other States are involved in it too.
I have looked into it now. The proponents of that merger
are each bidding under conditions that have been approved by
the FTC. They are not merged yet. But I hear that there may be,
because of the merger, some inclination on the part of your
Department to delay those bids. Now, this is another area of
substantial interest to independent oil people in Alaska. The
bid areas are close enough to the pipeline that transportation
is available.
Is there any truth to the rumor that you might postpone the
May 5 bid?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, this is the first I have heard
of it. And unless there are some facts that I do not know, the
answer is it is going to happen on May 5.
Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Gorton. Well, Senator Campbell, you have been very
generous. But we are going to----
Senator Campbell. Does that give me an extra 5 minutes?
Actually, I came in today for this hearing with the
intention of being quiet, refined, and civil. And Senator
Domenici started the momentum going. So the heck with it, I
guess I will just have to pile on too. [Laughter.]
He brought up something dear to my heart, and that is what
I think flies in the face of common sense. That is how we
administer the Endangered Species Act. I listened to you very
carefully, and I have to take at least some exception about the
water people, and particularly ranchers, are somewhat
intransigent.
I have to tell you that in my part of the county the San
Juan National Forest is right next to where we live. There is a
natural migration, as an example, back in that area of mountain
lions. Ranchers worry about that a little bit. There have been
some attacks on people jogging, as you know, in Colorado. Yet I
do not know one single rancher that is really upset about the
increase in mountain lions in our area. They just accept it.
Even though some of them lose sheep, they lose animals some
times, they sort of accept that. But that is a natural
migration. They are coming back in.
canadian lynx
Now, let me compare that to the relocation of the Canadian
lynx that are being put in the San Juan National Forest. I do
not know if you have been following the press, but I think
there have been about 8 or 10 put in there now. Of that number,
5 have died. They have starved to death.
The Fish and Wildlife were told by ranchers that since
these lynx live primarily on snowshoe hares--there are not very
many of them down there. There are not very many of those kinds
of rabbits. They have done autopsies on these cats, because
they have collars on them, and they have found that they all
starved. Only one of them caught a rabbit.
A couple of them had caught squirrels. And, in fact, one of
them had gotten into it with a coyote and had part of the
remains of a coyote inside of him.
To me, when you relocate animals by force it is a real
mixed bag. I do not know what it is costing. I remember hearing
that to relocate the wolves up in Senator Burns' country it was
about $100,000 a wolf. So I would imagine the cats are costing
about the same amount.
What kind of common sense is it to gather up these cats in
Canada, put them in an area they are unfamiliar with and then
watch them starve to death? In fact, even some of the
environmental groups and the animal rights groups are calling
it sentences of death to these cats.
I do not know where we are going with that. But when we did
one hearing with the Forest Service, in committee, I asked them
is it going to endanger any of our logging sales. And they told
me 14 sales had been canceled since the introduction of these
cats.
What we are obviously worried about is the cats are being
put in there by force, relocating them. They are dying. Is
there a chance of them then being put on the threatened or
endangered list which would further endanger our sales of
timber which results in less payments for the counties that
need that money?
Could you reflect on these cats a little bit? Then we will
talk about mice.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the lynx project is a project
undertaken, to the best of my knowledge, in the exclusive
control of the sovereign State of Colorado.
Senator Campbell. Say that again.
Secretary Babbitt. It is a Colorado project.
Senator Campbell. Yes. It is a Colorado project. But is it
not being administered by the Fish and Wildlife?
Secretary Babbitt. They may be cooperating, but it is not
our project and it is not mandated by Federal law.
preble's meadow jumping mouse
Senator Campbell. I am getting some mail from the Town of
Castle Rock, that it planned to build a new center for a police
department, a commissioner's office, and so on. They tell us
that they cannot do it because since the Preble's meadow
jumping mouse have been put on the threatened list on the front
range, that it is just holding up literally any building.
Yet, to my knowledge, that was not put on with any
scientific proof about how few there are. It was put on simply
because they do not see them around much. Would you comment on
that?
Secretary Babbitt. Sure. It was put on the list as a result
of an adequate and thorough scientific effort. It was listed
properly. I went out there and stood up with the Governor and
said the Endangered Species Act is working. What the listing of
this mouse is about is the destruction of riparian areas on the
front range.
There is no need to develop on the front range by
destroying wetlands. I believe that most people in Colorado and
in the Denver area understand that.
This is not a moratorium on development or expansion. It is
an application of the Endangered Species Act that I think is,
first, scientifically valid; second, in the best interests of
Colorado, its citizens, and its developers; and, third, that is
and will continue to be acknowledged by most planners and
developers on the front range.
Now, with respect to the Castle Rock issue, I believe that
has been resolved. But it is a cautionary incident about the
need to be careful about locating in wetlands. There are not
that many wetlands on the high plains and the Colorado front.
This listing affects, I would guess, a few percent of the land
in the Denver area--in the front range at the very most.
Senator Campbell. OK. I will not belabor that.
indian trust fund
In your presentation you mentioned the Indian Trust Fund
appropriation of $50 million. The primary use of that money, is
that going to be for staffing to try to straighten out those
records?
Secretary Babbitt. It is going to be for compliance with
court ordered discovery and production.
Senator Campbell. I imagine compliance is going to mean
that you are going to have to hire a bunch of people to be able
to do the compliance. After you comply with it, what then
happens? Do they remain as permanent employees or what?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the answer is I cannot tell
you. But it does not necessarily follow.
Senator Campbell. OK. Thank you.
animas-la plata
Maybe the last comment too is on the Animas-LaPlata. We
have talked about that over the years.
Could you tell the committee what the current status of
negotiations are between the tribes and the Department on
fulfilling what they call Animas-LaPlata, light, ultra light,
extra light and all of those?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, once again I take
responsibility and paternity for ultra light. That was a
proposal that I personally went out and made in response to the
requests of the Colorado delegation that we try to work
something out. We have laid a proposal on the table. I believe
that for----
Senator Campbell. Are you getting any closer to an
agreement with the tribes and the water users?
Secretary Babbitt. The tribes, I believe, are quite
affirmative. We have some remaining issues with the water
users, and I believe that we are making some progress.
In the spirit of candor which is pervading this hearing,
let me say this. I believe that those negotiations are flagging
from time to time because of the perception by some parties
that they can end run the process and go back to the old time
proposal directly in the U.S. Congress.
Senator, if you were to go out there and say to them I want
you to close on a mutually acceptable deal, it would get done
as long as they think they still have a chance, the various
groups. Mr. Chairman, you can see that I have been here 7 years
and am a lame duck. I guess lame duckery tends to sort of
inspire reckless candor. [Laughter.]
Senator Campbell. Well, get that water project built and we
will have a place for your retirement as a duck.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, it will be built.
Senator Campbell. Well, I do not want to take any more
time, but I do want to tell you that I have told folks out
there, including the water users, I am not going to have any
more to do with it until they reach some kind of an agreement
and they have it signed in iron clad terms with the Department
and the administration.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if you do that I am confident
that we can get a project.
Senator Campbell. I have told them that.
Secretary Babbitt. OK.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming down this
morning.
otter creek
I want to ask a question with regard to Otter Creek. Have
you made a counter proposal to the State of Montana for the $10
million worth of coal?
Secretary Babbitt. I have spoken directly with the Governor
and shown him a map and said I would be ready and willing to
discuss alternative mineral right deals.
Senator Burns. He has those proposals in his hand.
Secretary Babbitt. He has written me a letter saying that
he does not want to negotiate.
Senator Burns. Where do we go from here then?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, the law, as I read it, says that
in 2001 if we have not reached a deal the default provision
will be conveyance of the Otter Creek property.
We are opposed to that. I believe that the Otter Creek
property is not a good site for mineral development. I stated
that up front. It should be kept from coal production and put
into other uses. We are opposed to giving that property. If we
do not have an agreement by 2001, and Congress does not respond
to our request to amend the law, there is a default provision.
Senator Burns. What do you think it should be used for?
Secretary Babbitt. I believe that the Otter Creek area
should--that the BLM property there should be administered, in
consultation with the community, for multiple uses. The problem
with coal mining is it is an exclusive use. The other multiple
uses are gone once you start scraping up coal.
Senator Burns. Do you look in the reclamation areas that
are not too far from those leases? Are they back into multiple
use now?
Secretary Babbitt. I have seen some very nice reclamation
in Montana. There is no question about it. Up in the Powder
River Basin and in those areas it is quite appropriate.
We have, in fact, offered Montana a variety of choices up
in those areas, because coal mining is very appropriate.
Senator Burns. This is compliant coal and sought after by
the power companies throughout the United States so they can
get in compliance with the Clean Air Act. With the ability to
reclaim, and to even make the land more productive than before
the mining took place, I fail to see the reasoning why you
would just seal it off. Is there something else that we do not
know about?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, there are a variety of mineral
leasing studies and land use plans. In all of those, the ones
that have been done over the last 20 or 30 years, is one
assumption.
That is that we should mine these coal resources in an
orderly way across the landscape rather than hopping, skipping,
and jumping across a lot of areas that have many other values.
There is plenty of room on BLM land.
Senator Burns. When was your last coal sale off of BLM?
Secretary Babbitt. I would have to look that up and get
back to you.
Senator Burns. I think it has been about 25 or 30 years.
Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to get back to you.
There is no lack of coal mining on BLM land. I will tell you
that.
Senator Burns. Well, we are looking at a way to fix this,
because a little deal was struck with Congress and with this
administration on that coal mine up there. Now we are finding
that the administration wants to backpedal on the deal. I find
that very hard to accept, even with your statement supporting
multiple use, that the transfer has not been made.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, we oppose the transfer. We will
comply with the law and seek to change it.
off-stream storage sites
Senator Burns. In light of the problems that they are
having in New Mexico with the Endangered Species Act, and
looking at the face of a drought, should we be about our way in
developing new off-stream storage sites?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, it entirely depends. I mean,
that is what Animas-LaPlata is, and we are developing. But I
would say that, west wide, what we should be doing is making
more efficient use of the water as the first alternative.
Senator Burns. You do not think we should be supplying any
more diversions for storage?
Secretary Babbitt. That is not what I said. I said that we
are working on the Animas-LaPlata Project. We have looked at a
variety of projects in Montana in connection with the Rocky
Boys water settlement and are prepared to do so. We have not
ruled it out.
I do think, as Senator Gorton is aware, that there are some
places in the west where dams should come down.
Senator Burns. I am not talking about damming. I am talking
about diversion for storage. Not damming any stream, not any
live stream. In other words, if this water storage increases
and enhances our in-stream flow and creates habitat and other
wetlands, why are we not doing that?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, we are.
Senator Burns. Where?
Secretary Babbitt. Animas-LaPlata.
Senator Burns. One in the whole west?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I would be happy to get you a list
of all of the issues that we are looking at that relate to off-
stream storage.
[The information follows:]
Off-Stream Storage
The Bureau of Reclamation has occasionally developed off-stream
storage as a feature of its projects. Currently, Animas-La Plata is the
only project for which Reclamation is actively planning an off-stream
storage facility. In addition, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, in which
Reclamation is participating, is evaluating a number of potential off-
stream storage sites.
george w. beaver
Senator Burns. What did we do with George W. Beaver?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I am afraid that I have never
heard of George W. Beaver.
Senator Burns. Well, the little beaver that chewed down
your cherry trees.
Secretary Babbitt. The beaver who chewed down the cherry
trees. Well, let me say Mrs. Chenoweth has filed a petition to
list that beaver as a geographical sub-area. As you know, I
give equal respect to all requests from all 535 members of the
U.S. Congress.
So the answer is that a petition has been filed under the
Endangered Species Act, and it will be accorded full and
careful consideration.
Senator Burns. Going on to some way to control the
population, would you consider some wolves down there?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Babbitt. The wolves, I must say, are doing
terrific.
Senator Burns. They really are. They are eating very well.
Secretary Babbitt. They are indeed. It is great.
Senator Burns. Our cattle.
Secretary Babbitt. Elk.
Senator Burns. That too. They are doing very well.
grizzly bear reintroduction
Tell me about your plans for the reintroduction of the
grizzly back into the Bitterroot-Selway.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the same answer as last year. I
do not mean to be disrespectful, but we have discussed this
before. There is a reintroduction plan, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service proposes to go forward subject to the will of
the U.S. Congress.
Senator Burns. Without any----
Senator Campbell. Will the Senator yield just for a moment?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Secretary, if you--maybe you do not
have the answer to this, but if you reintroduce grizzlies into
an area and somebody gets injured or killed by that grizzly is
the Federal Government liable?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, it depends.
Senator Burns. On what?
Secretary Babbitt. The laws of negligence and the laws
which imply a duty of reasonable care in administering----
Senator Campbell. If a person is just out there walking
around and a grizzly attacked him and hurt him, then the
Government could be liable. But if the person was aggravating
the bear, then maybe you couldn't. Is that kind of----
Secretary Babbitt. Well, that is kind of the question that
I pose to my son over the dinner table as he heads off to law
school. That is what the legal profession prospers on--posing
those kinds of questions to judges.
Senator Burns. Who recommended that profession to that
young man? [Laughter.]
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Babbitt. I know I have failed in my
responsibility as a father.
Senator Burns. Well, I think there could be some negligent
abuse here.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not----
Senator Burns. But the reintroduction of the bear though
finds very little local support up there. I know we have gone
through some of these hearings. If I thought it was good for
the bear then that would be fine. But I am not really sure it
is good for either the bear or the people that live there.
I want to go back--we have more mountain lions than we have
ever had. We have more predators now, Mr. Secretary. When you
can take pictures in an ordinary little homegrown video camera
of wolves packing off your calves and your sheep, and they lay
out there on that little flat across the creek from a guy's
cabin and lambing barn just waiting for another calf to drop, I
do not know how we deal with this.
I do not know how we deal with this, but it has a profound
effect on how we make a living in that particular area of my
State. I find nobody that is very sensitive to that. I guess I
am just making an appeal that we cannot end up--like, when I
first went to Montana and went through Yellowstone Park. There
were a lot of bears that stood alongside the road, and a
gathering of cars, they would take pictures. They would toss
the bear a hamburger.
Today there aren't as many bear jams. But I do not want to
end up being that bear, waiting for some person to drive along
and throw me a hamburger every now and again.
We have got to have some way to make a living. I do not
find understanding of that fact prevalent in the Department
right now. This delay on the coal is a cumulative thing, let us
put it that way, that makes us very nervous. For your salute
out there we may provide it. Who knows. But I want somebody in
the Department, in your Department, to become sensitive to the
people who live there.
rock creek parkway telecommunications tower
Now, you have denied a placement of a tower for telephone,
cell phones, on Rock Creek Parkway. Is that true?
Secretary Babbitt. It is my understanding that the National
Capital Planning Commission denied that license.
Senator Burns. Well, but you had a--you played a role in
that.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I must, in all seriousness----
Senator Burns. Well, not you personally but your
Department.
Secretary Babbitt. Let me finish, because this town is a
pretty contentious, suspicious place these days.
I have, after much deliberation and consultation with my
solicitor, recused myself from any consideration of cell phone
towers on public lands of any kind. I respectfully decline to
discuss that in any way.
Senator Burns. Well, I just want to----
Secretary Babbitt. I will refer you to somebody in the
Department who can.
Senator Burns. OK. We are going to pass an enhanced 911
bill this year which allows those folks making emergency calls,
911 calls from cell phones, to be automatically located. I am
wondering if the people understand what they have done when you
deny a tower site when it comes to public safety and under
those kinds of conditions.
So it is just not in the west. It is also here in
Washington, D.C. I want to make that very clear that we think
that public safety and emergency tools for the American people,
if it is available, is very, very important. That tower would
be a part of that grid that locates 911 calls, emergency calls.
So we will keep taking care of those wolves as we best know
how, but I would like to see a little more sensitivity out of
the Department of Interior to people, and because I do not have
very many wolves that vote.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Senator Cochran.
commendation to park service employees
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, one of the
things that I enjoy doing very much when I am out driving
around my State or in other States is stopping at National Park
Service facilities and looking at the exhibits and listening to
the Park Service officers talking about the historical
significance of the place, whatever it is, whether it is a
Civil War battle site or George Washington's home place in
Virginia. I must say that I think that we owe words of
commendation to those who make those facilities a pleasure to
visit through their patience and their thoughtful treatment of
visitors.
My experience--and they did not know I was a U.S. Senator--
I try not to let them know that while I listen and ask
questions along with the others who are there. I have really
been impressed, and maybe in recent years more so than in the
past, with the quality of the people and their dedication and
their hard work who I encounter in these stops at these sites.
I pass that on. I know you do this sort of thing all of the
time, but they know who you are and they are very nice to you.
They don't have any idea who I am. Occasionally I will sign the
book, but I try to do it as I am leaving so I am gone by the
time they say my gosh, that was a U.S. Senator.
In my home State, for example, you have got some really
outstanding leadership at the Vicksburg National Military Park.
Terry Winchel is the historian, and he does a wonderful job on
tours and just in making sure people appreciate the history
that surrounds the Vicksburg National Military Park. The park
superintendent, Bill Nichols, also comes to mind.
Recently, I had an opportunity to be in Vicksburg for the
rededication of monuments to two of the founding commissioners
of that national military park, one of whom was a former
Confederate general, Steven D. Lee, from Columbus, MS; the
other Gen. William Rigby, a Union general who shared the
responsibility for administering that park for its first 30
years of its existence.
But the whole point is, both of these Park Service
officials gave talks at the ceremonies and they were very
impressive. Everyone who attended enjoyed this event very, very
much. I did not make a speech, but I listened. So I pass on
those words of commendation to those individuals. There are
many others I could single out.
natchez trace parkway maintenance
We also have resources under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service in our State that need more attention in
terms of maintenance and upkeep, I know this is true all over
the country. But I worry about the deteriorating condition of
the Natchez Trace Parkway, for example.
I am told that it takes resurfacing about every 20 years of
a parkway such as the Natchez Trace Parkway to maintain it in a
safe and sound condition, and that during the last 20 years
only 41 miles of the parkway in our State have been resurfaced.
This parkway is almost 500 miles along. Of course, it goes
through Alabama and Tennessee as well as Mississippi. I wonder
if you could inquire of the Park Service people or your budget
officer whether or not you have requested in this budget any
funds for resurfacing and maintenance of the Natchez Trace
Parkway and whether or not that will be enough to maintain that
parkway in a safe condition for those who are traveling it.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think you are going to see
some considerable progress there. The reason is that in the
Schuster Transportation bill last year we got a--with the help
of Senator Thomas and others of you, we got a significant bump
up for road maintenance for the National Park System. That is
really where we have to look. It is not in this budget but in
the Transportation budget. I think we got an extra $60 million.
I cannot promise all of it for the Natchez Trace, but I
hear you and I think we will have some coming.
Senator Cochran. I am aware that in the TEA-21 bill there
is an increase in funding for what is called Federal Lands
Highway Programs and you do have access to those new funds. I
hope you will undertake to allocate whatever is needed to the
Natchez Trace Parkway.
I am sure others will compete for those funds too. You are
going to have to set up priorities. I just hope you will take a
careful look at the past neglect of resurfacing at the Natchez
Trace Parkway and take that into account as you assign
priorities.
lower mississippi river 10-year plan
There is one other concern that I want to raise, and that
is something called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 10-
year plan for the lower Mississippi River. One thing that I
want to ask is whether or not there is such a plan and what
does it entail?
It would be good if we could include in the record--and I
know you do not have all of this in front of you right now--
some explanation of this 10-year plan for the lower Mississippi
River. There are some, particularly those who live alongside
the river, who are worried about what new Federal regulations
may be imposed on them and the lands that they own all of a
sudden without much notice or opportunity to discuss or hear
about these plans.
One other question that I would like to have answered for
the record is whether any additional legal authorization is
planned to be requested of the Congress, or does authorization
exist already for the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a
plan that would restrict the use of lands along the Mississippi
River?
If so, to what extent can we expect a plan to provide new
regulations? What funding will be needed to carry out this
plan? These are questions that I hope can be answered for the
record.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to provide
detail. Just a very brief rejoinder. But to the extent that
there is a 10-year plan, it would have to be carried out within
the existing organic laws of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
So I do not anticipate as a general matter that there would
be any land use restrictions unless they were specific
applications of the Endangered Species Act or something else.
With regard to the lower Mississippi River, let me just
phase out of this by saying I believe the day is coming for an
urgent look by the U.S. Congress at the lower Mississippi
River. The delta and the wetlands in Louisiana are simply
disappearing. The legislation that has been passed and the
funding that is available has really been just kind of Band-
Aids.
Obviously those issues relate to the management and
operation of the river all of the way up through Mississippi as
well.
[The information follows:]
Lower Mississippi River 10-Year Plan
A 10-Year Plan for the Lower Mississippi River was developed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Lower Mississippi River ecosystem team to
identify a course of action for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
efforts for conserving and managing what is considered the Nation's
largest wetland ecosystem. The Plan will allow the Service to integrate
diverse program activities on an ecosystem basis and thus more
effectively identify actions needed to address the decline of critical
fish and wildlife resources, including the restoration of federal trust
species, in the Lower Mississippi River basin. The planned actions
will: (1) protect and manage National Wildlife Refuge units and
National Fish Hatchery units; (2) maintain viable populations of native
fish and wildlife species; (3) provide for migratory bird habitat; (4)
accelerate coastal habitat conservation and restoration; (5) restore
and manage floodplain fisheries; and (6) increase public awareness and
outreach.
The Plan does not call for additional federal regulations to be
placed upon the users of the River or those who live within its basin.
No new legal authorization is required to fully implement the Plan.
Current legislative authorities for the Service identifies
responsibilities for the protection and conservation of fish and
wildlife resources.
The Service has already achieved significant accomplishments in the
restoration of fish and wildlife resources in the Lower Mississippi
River Valley. In fiscal year 1999, restoration and enhancement efforts
included the rehabilitation of: 4,550 acres of moist soil habitat,
3,960 acres of wading/shorebird habitat, 36,700 acres of fall/winter
water on agricultural lands, 5,000 acres of forested habitat, 4,150
acres of marsh, and 125 acres of native grassland. Over 50 agreements
with Government and nongovernment partners were initiated. Working with
the Agriculture Department's Natural Resource Conservation Service over
12,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods were planted and Service personnel
assisted with conservation planning for over 30,000 acres in the
Wetlands Reserve Program. Over 40,000 paddlefish were tagged and
released in the Lower Mississippi River. Efforts were initiated to
restore riparian/wildlife corridors and nonpoint source pollution
reduction projects on major Lower Mississippi River tributaries. The
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cooperatively
utilize Geographic Information System technology to cost effectively
develop and implement natural resource planning efforts.
Senator Cochran. Let me say that in the case of Louisiana,
most of that is marshland. That has been a big problem for a
long time and continues to be probably the most significant
wetlands loss problem in the country.
I am going over after I leave here to make some remarks at
something called Earth Day celebration on the Mall and talk
about what is being done in agriculture to try to ensure that
agriculture practices are compatible with our environmental
concerns.
I plan to point out that my State of Mississippi has made
the most significant strides in restoring wildlife habitat and
wetlands by using the Wetlands Reserve Program and other
programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. We
are very anxious to do more to help ensure that we protect
wetlands in our State.
We are doing that voluntarily, so I do not know what this
Mississippi River plan is going to do to try to improve upon
the progress that is already being made. I hope we do not have
somebody come in and try to reinvent our efforts and change it
in a way that will make it worse rather than better. We are
making a lot of good progress.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will respond to you. Let me
just say that I acknowledge your efforts and there are a lot of
people who are very grateful for your efforts on these river
and wetland issues, your leadership in the North American
issues and the council, and the use of the agricultural
programs.
I think it is really working and that we are really
improving enormously the habitat availability in the lower
Mississippi River Valley. It is very impressive.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Gorton. You created a great deal of interest in
members of the committee in your response to Senator Domenici
in what you would like to do and the way in which you thought
the Endangered Species Act ought to be administered and what
you felt the courts would require you to do. As a matter of
fact, I have never seen quite that degree of attention to one
of your comments on the part of Senator Stevens.
kempthorne bill
Were the changes that you spoke to as being desirable
included in last year's Kempthorne bill?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, they were not.
Senator Gorton. Are they simply ideas of your own or are
they incorporated in or are they likely to be incorporated in
any formal recommendation you or the administration makes to
the Congress?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have no intention of making
any recommendations to Congress. We labored long and hard. I
personally put in, I would say, a couple of hundred hours in
leading and working in drafting sessions on the Kempthorne
bill.
There was an enormous disappointment because the leadership
of the Senate said no way is this bill coming to the floor. In
the absence of a leadership commitment, there is no way that we
can ever make any progress on this. I say that regretfully
because we made an enormous effort and it is just not going to
happen.
Senator Gorton. Let me just follow up on that. Now, you
said the specific proposal you made was not a part of the
Kempthorne bill.
Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
Senator Gorton. Was the Kempthorne bill something of which
you approved?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes.
Senator Gorton. Well, I think you have given me excellent
answers on that question. I do not know whether we could get
such a commitment this time around. It is my own view that his
frustration over all of the more hours than you put into it is
the primary reason that Senator Kempthorne is our Governor. But
many of us would like to make progress in that connection.
budget priorities
You spoke to three subjects in your opening statement, Mr.
Secretary. First, the personnel and the general administration
of the Park Service. You did that before Senator Cochran was
here. But I think that his tribute to many of the people who
work for you, under the circumstances you described, is
particularly noteworthy. It is a matter greatly to your credit
that that kind of reaction is as broad and general as it is
given those circumstances.
The second subject to which you spoke, of course, was a
Land's Legacy, the wide range of bills. The third was the
necessity to do something with respect to the trusteeship
relation with the Indians and the various trust properties.
In that connection, the Land's Legacy and the earmarking of
certain funds outside of the control of this subcommittee is a
matter for a different committee than this one.
I did attend the committee hearing on those matters, and I
must say, as much as I favor many of the ideas contained in
them, I was rather frustrated by Members of Congress, and for
that matter the administration, who say by golly, we are not
going to break the caps.
We are going to save Social Security first and we are going
to spend a billion a year on these various matters that can
only come out of the Social Security trust fund, unless we pass
new taxes or other policy changes, the possibility of which
seems to me to be somewhere between remote and none.
So I come back to the very point that Senator Byrd made.
When we start through this whole process we are not going to
have anything like the amount of dollars that he and I would
like for many of your very legitimate policy recommendations.
We are going to have to try to set up priorities.
I agree with you with respect to the Indian Trust. I hope
there is a way for us to find money to get that job
accomplished, because it is one that has a beginning, a middle,
and an end, and is not a permanent increase, one hopes, when we
solve the problem.
But I guess the dilemma that I am going to face with
Senator Byrd and with everyone else is, if we do not have
enough money, is the most important aspect of our job to keep
going what you have, to try to see to it that we are managing
the properties, especially in the National Park Service but
also in your other areas of responsibility, in a way that
brings the kind of credit and compliments that Senator Cochran
set out even at the expense of many of the acquisitions and
many of the new programs that not only you but most of us would
like to engage in or to finance?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, three thoughts. I do not
propose or advocate that we can fund the Lands Legacy program
by offsets from the Interior budget for the reasons I have
explained.
Senator Gorton. Right.
problem with offsets
Secretary Babbitt. We have had a strong working
relationship over all of these years and we have affected a lot
of important savings in our budget. But we have got this
personnel wall and I am not prepared to support offsets that
result in personnel cuts.
As I look at the programs in that other remaining piece, I
cannot do that either. We cannot cut science programs. We
cannot start scaling back on construction and maintenance,
which is another small portion of it. So the answer is there is
no solution there.
The Indian Trust Fund issue has to be done. I cannot offer
any offsets for that. I simply cannot. Now, in previous years I
think we have kind of dissolved this hearing by mutual pledges
to keep looking. Of course, I offer that. I must say that the
cupboard is, in year 7 of my tenure, really bare in terms of
offsets.
Senator Gorton. Well, I believe it is myself. That was the
reason for my question. I guess I find the chairmanship of this
subcommittee to have been a great pleasure when I was able to
grant a large number of specific program requests from almost
every colleague I have, all 99 of them.
But it looks to me this year that I may have to be the
Grinch if we are going to keep you operating in the way you
are. I do not think you are going to find us trying to find a
lot of this money out of further elements and your
administration of the lands for which you are already
responsible.
But, inevitably that means, and especially if we try to
find the $50 million for the Indians in this fashion, we are
going to have an extremely tight budget on everything else. I
take your answer to be that first things first, and first
things are what we are doing now.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I understand. I do not want to
step above my pay grade, but the Lands Legacy Program is in the
context of an administration budget which I believe makes
sense. Now I recognize the Kosovo issue. But let me just say
now that we have reached a balance in the larger sense, in
budget accounts, I feel quite strongly that there ought to be
room for this Lands Legacy Program. There is, in fact, an
enormous amount of member interest which is reflected in a
whole variety of bills which have been filed. I recognize your
dilemma as subcommittee members, but I do think that the debate
must and should go beyond the confines of the traditional
process.
Senator Gorton. Yes. So I guess it is your view, as it is
mine, that if we are going to engage in these ambitious new
programs there must be another source of money for them, not
the traditional discretionary appropriations from this
committee out of which you have run your general operations.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, that, in my opinion, should not
entirely discount the process of such a distinguished
subcommittee chairman and ranking minority member carving out a
larger 603-B allocation.
Senator Gorton. No. It certainly will not. We will do the
best we possibly can.
recreation fee demonstration program
A few questions on the Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program. The Park Service especially, within the Department,
has had some criticism for not making Fee Demonstration funds
available for actual projects in a timely manner. Is this a
legitimate criticism? If so, why and what is being done?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have heard some of that.
Knowing the way we operate, I suspect that there is probably
some truth to that.
I guess what I should say is I will be happy to look into
it. I do not have a better answer at this point.
[The information follows:]
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
timeliness of approving projects funded with recreation demonstration
fee receipts
Department of the Interior position: In actuality, approval of the
projects funded through Recreation Demonstration Fees has been as
timely as possible given the fact that the program is new. Agencies
have needed time to develop expenditure-approval procedures and set up
accounting systems to manage the funds. In the two full fiscal years
the program has been in operation (1997 and 1998), the three
participating Interior agencies have collected over $189 million in
Recreation Fee receipts. It takes time to plan and implement
expenditure projects. Some of the smaller units are saving their fees
until they have enough for sizable projects. Nevertheless, the Agencies
are improving the rate of project accomplishment.
The Department is working with the Interior agencies to ensure
accountability by instituting procedures for management of the fee
demonstration receipts, including procedures governing the approval,
expenditure, and reporting on the projects. The Department and the
agencies are working to streamline the approval process.
program coordination among the four agencies
Department of the Interior position: It is true that the GAO's
evaluation of the fee demo program concluded that there is a need for
greater coordination among the four agencies involved. The Department
plans to review Recreation Fee Demonstration sites for ensuring
coordination wherever feasible and appropriate. Agency fee managers are
meeting on a regular basis to discuss plans, problems, and solutions
related to greater coordination of the program. On January 6, 1999, the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget proposed an
internal review of all fee demonstration sites throughout the
Department to determine where coordinating and consolidating fees is
feasible and appropriate.
gao report
Senator Gorton. A related question, of course, is that
there are--the GAO report said that there is a lack of
coordination among the four agencies that are involved, which
leads to a certain degree of inefficiency. Have you examined
that element of the GAO's concern?
Secretary Babbitt. I have, and I think there are some
unresolved issues there. The place where we are seeing that
most is with the Golden Eagle Pass.
The National Park Foundation has come in, just as an
example on this coordination, with a study which suggests that
if the Park Service were to sell a park system pass we could
get tens of millions of dollars every year in purchases which
were not made for economic reasons, but were made for saying I
am a supporter of the National Park Service. There would be
enormous sort of pizazz for that kind of card.
It runs into conflict with the arrangements for the Golden
Eagle Pass, which is a system-wide one which will never have
the same cache, if you will. It just is not, because it is a
public lands pass that does not carry that. I would like to get
that sorted out.
The other issue I think that comes up is, to the extent
that we start wrapping too much into a pass and making it too
broad, I think we provoke some resistance, understandable out
west particularly, from people who say with this project we
were not indicating our support for fees to go on public lands.
I think we ought to be real careful to stay away from that,
because I understand that and I agree that we should not get
into this fee for access syndrome.
Those are kind of the cross-currents that I do not have an
answer to. I would like to get the Park Service one worked out.
I think there is a lot of money there.
Senator Gorton. Is there legislation for the program for--
--
Secretary Babbitt. Yes. There is legislation. I think it is
at OMB right now, which means it will appear sometime in the
coming century. But, seriously, I believe that there will be
legislation out in the light of day during this calendar year.
Senator, let me say that John has just told me the Park
Service, anticipating your earlier question, has approved $199
million in projects which covers fees collected through the
first couple of months of this year. They have apparently heard
your question.
Senator Gorton. I believe there is also something in the
GAO report about whether or not we should earmark as high a
percentage of those fees for the park in which they are
collected. On the other hand, it has always seemed to me that
that was one of the reasons that it has the degree of public
acceptability that it did. Do you have any comment?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would back away from that
figure very reluctantly for the public acceptability reason and
the bureaucratic acceptance of the program.
We have learned in the past that if there is not a direct
incentive in a park for people to collect fees, all of a sudden
they do not get collected. People are shortening the hours, and
you have more and more of those times when a sign says go
through. So I would be cautious about changing it.
automated land and mineral record system
Senator Gorton. A completely different subject. Recently,
GAO testified that the Bureau of Land Management had spent some
$411 million on an automated land and mineral record system
over the course of the last 15 years, but that the software
component of it, $67 million, has serious problems or is a
complete failure. Can anything be salvaged? What are we going
to do?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the $67 million is gone. It has
been discarded. It has no value.
I made a mistake when I came here. The ALMRS Program was
either 2 or 3 years underway, and I briefly considered
scrapping it. It was a big mistake not to have done it.
Now, what is the lesson? The lesson is that we have gone
through a period in which modernizing systems was being done by
reference to 1960s information processing and software
companies who were still peddling the old 1960s giant
centralized CPU-driven systems. I regret that I did not step up
to that and scrap it.
Now, the remaining $400 million, $350 million or whatever
it is, is usable and useful. It is not going to meet the
original thing, but it consists of records which in fact are
being converted and which are in fact in data processing
systems which can be used.
There is an important lesson here, and I think OMB deserves
recognition. They have caught onto this and they have started
to get onto the agencies. The answer is no big central,
expensive systems. They are obsolete, and people are still
peddling them.
Now, if I may anticipate your next question, are we coming
up on another one of these with the Indian Trust records? The
answer is an adamant no. After a lot of pushing and shoving we
have firmly established that the so-called TAAMS system is an
off-the-shelf deal. It is totally decentralized, and I am
absolutely confident it is going to work.
Now, why is that? Because we went out to the oil industry
and bought an oil industry package that these guys use for
essentially all of the same kinds of stuff. It can be put up in
modules. It can be operated independently. It can be hooked up.
But there is no grand design, and I think that is the lesson.
Senator Gorton. I hope that lesson is institutionalized in
the Department in a way that it will survive your lame duckery.
If you are able to accomplish that goal, you will have made a
major contribution.
indian gaming
There has been an on-going war, obviously, over Indian
gaming operations and compacts. You very promptly used the fact
that Congress did not totally pass a supplemental
appropriations bill by March 31 to issue final regulations on
the subject. On the assumption that that supplemental
appropriations bill passes and is signed by the President some
time in the next month with that provision included in it, what
will your response be?
Secretary Babbitt. You are referring to the moratorium
provision.
Senator Gorton. Yes.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not think it is a good
idea. I think it is a mistake by all of the various
stakeholders to be advocating these kinds of moratoriums. It
does not serve anybody's interest. Now, let me explain why.
The reason we put those regulations out and did it so
quickly and affirmatively is we have got to get this issue into
the courts in the most orderly, concise way we can, because we
do not have a majority in favor of anything in the Congress.
The next best thing is to get it into the courts and see if
they will give us some direction rather than just telling us
that it is inappropriate.
Now, in the course of structuring that litigation, it will
be up to the Justice Department to decide whether or not to
stay pending applications' consent to a kind of injunctive
relief. Let me just say that we have no intention of rushing
into the application of these regulations.
I much prefer to say to this committee and to the Congress
let us just try to stay together, expedite the litigation, use
ADR to the extent we can, keep talking, and we will keep you
apprised. A moratorium drags us back into this adversary
relationship. It may or may not be necessary. It puts me back
into the advocates box. You put up a moratorium and I am, I
think, properly and inevitably driven into an adversary
position. I do not want to be there.
Senator Gorton. You have answered my second and most
important question. It is not your view then that you want to
create an irrevocable situation on the ground before our court
has made a decision.
Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
biological resources division in usgs
Senator Gorton. At this point in time do you consider the
creation of the Biological Resources Division in USGS a
success?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I absolutely do, and I am most
grateful for your assistance in getting it.
Senator Gorton. What role do you play in coordinating its
activities with those of the land management agencies?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I try to stay out of it. We
formed, a couple of years ago, a science council inside the
Department where the land management agencies and the GS meet
about four times a year to try to get some togetherness going
and to try to figure out ways to draw the line between basic
wide-ranging science and site specific applied science. For
example, if the North Rim Trail in the Grand Canyon has been
washed out and is a pile of rubble, and we have some indication
that was due to the fact that it was not located in the right
place, it was on a fault line or whatever, before we
reconstruct the trail we would like to get a geologist out
there.
They ought to have a geologist to do that in a big park. A
BRD should not be doing that, that kind of micro although very
important science.
What we try to do is sort those things out and set up a
kind of system to start moving priorities out at a BRD that
have a lot of input from land management agencies.
Senator Gorton. Last week we had the Forest Service and the
Department of Agriculture in front of us, Mr. Secretary. I went
after them on something that I think is really more your
responsibility.
crown jewel mine application rejection
It is my view that your solicitor's opinion which resulted
in a rejection of the Crown Jewel application, whatever the
court may ultimately say as to its legality, is clearly not the
way in which a Government ought to treat its citizens.
When a company or a group of companies has spent at least
half a dozen years, maybe 8, and $80 million, has gone through
a record of decision, has had the record of decision upheld by
the courts, has dozens--I cannot remember the number right
now--of permits granted, and literally is told to come in and
pick up its permit and then the next morning is told it is not
there because we have changed the rules, I think personally
that we reach an ethical or a moral position that just is not
the way that any person or any government ought to treat its
citizens after that kind of investment. I would like your
comments on that.
You know, you reverse your manuals, you reverse the rules,
you reverse what has gone on, Lord knows, I suppose for this
entire century more or less, after the fact.
Is there not quite a distinction between saying well, in
the future as people start down this road here are going to
bend the rules--but to apply it in that fashion and in a
fashion which I understand has caused the stock value of a wide
range of other companies engaged in mining on public lands to
have collapsed considerably. It seems to me it would be a
terrible way to use the powers of Government.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I appreciate your concerns.
This is an issue which is in the courts all of the time. Does a
ruling have retroactive or prospective application? What about
the transition cases?
No. 1, the existence of this issue has been no secret. It
has been widely known in the industry. Permits have been
granted in the past, not because there was a policy, but
because nobody was paying any attention. I mean, it was kind of
a failure to enforce the law, not a reinterpretation of the
law.
I guess I would counsel the company to look at the
functioning of its lawyers and consider to what extent they had
notice and should have notice, because the law, I think, is
quite clear.
The opinion has been out there for 18 months. But I
understand it was perceived as a change. I would suggest it was
not a change, but it did say, for the land management agencies,
you have got to quit ignoring this law.
Now, last, there are other tracks that this company can
take. They can apply for a site lease under FLPMA. In the past,
a number of companies have used land exchanges. That is a
little more cumbersome. You don't get a title that way. But
they can apply for a FLPMA land lease.
Senator Gorton. A few minutes ago, Mr. Secretary, I leaned
over to Senator Byrd and said one of the refreshing elements of
having you in front of us against what we just had a week ago
is that when you are asked a question we get an answer, whether
we like it or not. Senator Byrd walked out of the hearing last
week because he was not getting answers.
I must say, you are pushing me pretty close to the edge on
that one. I think that is a highly bureaucratic answer and that
it does not change my view that this was an extraordinary
unfairness. I have no way of predicting how the litigation will
come out on this.
I do not believe the alternative you set up to me is a
practical alternative in the real world. I would just have to
say it will, I suppose, ultimately be decided in the courts.
But that really is not the way people ought to be treated by
their Government.
dams
Where are we with respect to dams? We had an opportunity,
you and I, last year when, reflecting back on it, a lot more
money was going to be available than there is in this
appropriations bill to make dramatic moves with respect to the
Elwha in exchange for some significant protections for dams on
the Columbia and Snake Rivers that ultimately floundered not
over what I understood your view to be with respect to Federal
dams but with respect to nonfederal dams that are far more
important to the economy of the Pacific Northwest than even the
four dams on the Snake are.
Are we going to be able to reach any agreement that will
allow us to go forward on the Elwha, even at a somewhat slower
speed than we would have had when we started last year, and
provide a degree of protection and public consent with respect
to major decisions on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, or are we
going to continue with an administration position that will
allow no conditions other than those which actually state
present law?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have given this a lot of
thought since we had those conversations last year, and I am
not prepared to support or advocate a linkage. I have gone to
school on this issue a little bit.
Just as one example, the FERC licensing of dams is
derivative from a huge debate in earlier years in this U.S.
Congress in which Theodore Roosevelt himself laid out the case
for the Federal licensing and periodic relicensing of dams. It
has worked well. I just think it is inappropriate to freeze a
system that is working over apprehensions that I think are
entirely unjustified.
Now, another event that I think has crystallized my
thinking in the last year is the emerging agreement over the
Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in your part of the
country. We are about ready to sign off on an agreement that is
acceptable to all of the parties. In the context of this
history, I just do not see the need for this and I would oppose
it.
Senator Gorton. That Condit Dam remark, of course, is
exactly what we want in connection with anything else that we
do, something that is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Of
course, it is exactly what many of our public utility districts
and other public entities fear is not going to be available to
them. The simple oral assurance that nothing is going to happen
is insufficient for them or for me.
Secretary Babbitt. I understand, and I think we have a flat
out difference of opinion. It can be argued both ways, but I
believe that history and reality argue for using the existing
system and that it has never led to an inappropriate result,
and I do not think it is going to.
Salmon recovery
Senator Gorton. Finally, none of the $100 million allocated
for coastal salmon recovery in the Northwest is recommended by
the administration for the Interior budget, though last year
the $20 million that was appropriated for that purpose did come
from the Interior budget, and there may very well be some more
this year. Do you have any suggestions as we go through this
process for ensuring that this money gets to the ground to
local conservation groups and is used efficiently?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, two or three thoughts. The $20
million in our budget last year was a tough hit for the Fish
and Wildlife Service, because I think it can be viewed as
having offset implications.
There is going to be a lot of resistance, which I think is
entirely justified, for loading this money into our budget in
light of the conversation that we have just had here. So I
recognize your prerogative. I urge you to go easy because that
is the nature of the beast.
As I listen to the debate about the Pacific Northwest, I am
confused. We have not yet converged on a salmon recovery vision
for the Northwest. But, with all respect, we are not going to
get it by handing this back to the states. We are going to get
it by some kind of convergence. So I express some skepticism,
but without really being able to offer you an alternative
vision. We are not there yet.
One thing I would leave with you, and that is that I think
that the science piece of this is one area where we ought to
put together a coordinated effort. That ought to be relatively
easy to do.
Rather than handing off science money to Washington and
Oregon Federal agencies, I think we could quite easily reach a
kind of coordinated virtual view of how we do that. Researchers
are good at it. Scientists know how to do it. It is a very
small step.
Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, do you have anything else you
would like to add?
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions which I
would like to submit for the record. If the Secretary would
provide answers I would appreciate it very much.
Other than that, let me thank you for your typical
courtesy. I have served on your subcommittee here for quite
some time. I find always that you are very courteous to the
other members. You allow them to proceed with their questions
while you take on the heavy duty work of staying around and
doing the rest of it by yourself, closing up the door and
locking it, turning the lights out. I appreciate that. I just
wanted to call attention to that in the record.
Also, I want to say to the Secretary that I have been
around this Hill now for 47 years. This is my 47th. Abraham was
175 years old and Jacob was 180--no. Wait a minute.
Abraham was 175, Isaac was 180, Jacob was 147, and Joseph
was 110. Strom Thurmond is 96, I believe, or 95. But I have
been around a long time. I think this is the finest Secretary
of the Department of the Interior that I have had experience
with. He does not always please us with his answers, but he is
pretty forthright, even more so than most secretaries of most
departments, may I say. You will never find one that is as
forthright as the blade of an ax, but this secretary comes
pretty close. I want to thank him for the good work he has
done. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. You are welcome.
Mr. Secretary, you are never going to get a better
compliment than that.
The only amendment that I might have to make to your
remarks, Senator Byrd, is that I am afraid that it may be this
administration that is turning out the lights, not me.
Additional committee questions
Thany 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:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
Departmental Management
government performance and results act--department
Both GAO and the Department's Inspector General have repeatedly
reported on the lack of consistent, accurate, and reliable data from
the Park Service and other Interior agencies on the scope and extent of
deferred maintenance on the resources they are responsible for
protecting. The performance plans for the Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and other Interior agencies have performance goals that
attempt to measure progress towards addressing their deferred
maintenance needs.
Question. What is the Department doing to ensure that the quality
of data developed by the respective agencies will overcome the
deficiencies it has had in the past so that useful, valid measurements
of performance can be determined?
Answer. The Department of the Interior and its bureaus have
embarked on a number of initiatives to improve the quality of
facilities management information.
In fiscal year 1998, the Department developed standardized
definitions to help resolve some of the inconsistencies among the ways
annual maintenance, deferred maintenance, and capital improvement
(construction) are reported. In addition, a set of standardized
information was defined for describing deferred maintenance and capital
improvement projects in the budget formulation process. These standards
were used in the development of the fiscal year 2000 Five-Year
Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan which has been submitted to
the Congress. The Department also intends to begin a facilities
condition assessment process starting in fiscal year 2000. Through this
process we hope to validate our facilities inventory, obtain a more
definitive measure of the magnitude of deferred maintenance throughout
the Department, and develop facilities condition metrics. It is
expected that the condition assessment process will take approximately
five years to complete one full cycle on all facilities.
In fiscal year 1999, a maintenance management system selection team
composed of bureau representatives has been chartered to assess the
availability and feasibility of using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
software for facilities maintenance management within the Department.
The team is currently evaluating the requirements of current system
users and potential users. The software functionality needed at large,
complex locations as well as at the many smaller, less complex
locations is being defined. An assessment will then be made of how well
the requirements can be satisfied by commercial software and which
requirements will require customized software solutions. Standardized
facilities management data elements for the Department are also being
defined as part of this effort.
Collectively, these efforts will provide the facilities management
information needed to assure valid performance management.
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
Department to achieve performance-based management within your agency,
as required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The Department has taken a number of steps over the past
several years to move toward performance-based management and an
orientation toward results. We have organized cross-departmental
management groups to ensure that the Department is focused on
performance, and we are using performance information to help guide
management practices. For instance, the Department has instituted a
quarterly data reporting system to track progress toward achieving our
annual GPRA performance goals. Each bureau reports to the Department on
a quarterly basis on each of its annual performance goals. This system
is a source of continuous information about performance, and allows
Departmental and bureau managers to identify areas needing additional
management attention. The Interior Management Council, which consists
of the Deputy Directors of Interior's bureaus and offices and
Departmental management offices, also reviews GPRA implementation
issues on a regular basis.
Although the current fiscal year is the first year in which we are
operating under a GPRA annual performance plan, we are already finding
utility in the performance information generated through the GPRA
process. In many cases, we have used performance information and
projections as a meaningful factor in managing our programs. For
example, the National Park Service has developed park-specific
strategic plans and annual performance plans for each of its units as a
means to set a consistent and measurable set of goals for the
organization. In addition, we have established performance goals for a
number of cross-cutting areas of national concern, including the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, the Northwest Forest Plan, and
the Wildland Fire Program. We are currently participating in a pilot
program through the Natural Resources Performance Management Forum, a
consortium of natural resource agency planners, to develop a more
coordinated federal planning approach to clean water management. In
addition, the Department is searching for ways to improve our planning
processes and streamline our GPRA plans. The fiscal year 2000 annual
plan contained significantly fewer goals and measures than the fiscal
year 1999 plan. Interior plans to revise its strategic plan by March
2000. In this revision, we plan to streamline our plans and goals even
further.
Question. How are your senior executives and other key managers
being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Building accountability for results is one of the key
elements in successfully implementing GPRA, and Interior is taking
steps to link individual accountability with results. For example,
Interior's SES performance appraisal system has been closely tied to
the goals and objectives in the Department's GPRA strategic plan. The
Department's October 16, 1998 guidance on developing SES performance
agreements for 1998-1999 stated, in part: ``the performance elements
and standards included in the individual 1998-1999 SES performance
agreements must reflect the initiatives, commitments, and goals
included in the Department's ``Government Performance and Results Act
Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan.'' The guidance addresses the
need to directly link mission outcomes with the individual performance
of the Department's senior managers. In addition, the Department is
taking action throughout the year to build accountability. The
Department is currently conducting GPRA review meetings with each of
Interior's bureaus. The meetings are attended by senior managers from
the bureaus and from the Departmental management offices. During these
meetings, the group reviews bureau quarterly performance information
and discusses a wide range of performance management issues.
Many of our bureaus are also building accountability processes
tailored to their own management systems and cultures. For example, the
National Park Service has included GPRA performance elements in all
performance appraisals for all park superintendents and supervisors.
This has focused the attention of field-level managers on the goals and
objectives that have been established for their areas of responsibility
through the strategic planning process.
recreation fee demonstration program
The Department has now been administering the recreation fee
demonstration program for several years.
Question. Can you describe for the Subcommittee how much revenue is
being generated in this program for the three participating Interior
agencies?
Answer. In the two full fiscal years the program has been in
operation, 1997 and 1998, the three participating Interior agencies
have collected $189,580 thousand in rec fee demonstration receipts.
Some criticism has been leveled at the Department, particularly the
Park Service, for failing to make fee demonstration funds available for
actual projects in a timely manner.
Question. Why has this been the case?
Answer. In actuality, approval of the projects funded through fees
has been as timely as possible given the fact that the program is new.
Agencies have needed time to develop expenditure-approval procedures
and set up accounting systems. It also takes time to plan and implement
expenditure projects. Some of the smaller units are saving their fees
until they have enough for sizable projects. Nevertheless, the Agencies
are improving the rate of project accomplishment.
Question. What is the Department doing to ensure fee demo funds are
available in a reasonable time frame, while maintaining adequate
oversight of the program as a whole?
Answer. The Department is working with the agencies to ensure
accountability by instituting procedures for management of the fee
demonstration receipts, including procedures governing the approval,
expenditure, and reporting on the projects. The Department and the
agencies are working to streamline the approval process.
The GAO's evaluation of the fee demo program concluded that there
is still insufficient coordination among the four agencies involved,
and that this lack of coordination has in some cases resulted in
duplicate or overlapping fee structures in areas where there are
multiple public land units.
Question. Do you think this is a valid criticism?
Answer. The Department concurs that more coordination is needed.
The Department plans to review Recreation Fee Demonstration sites for
ensuring coordination wherever feasible and appropriate.
Question. What is being done within the Administration to respond
to this criticism?
Answer. Agency fee managers are meeting on a regular basis to
discuss plans, problems, and solutions related to greater coordination
of the program. On January 6, 1999, the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget proposed an internal review of all fee
demonstration sites throughout the Department to determine where
coordinating and consolidating fees is feasible and appropriate.
The GAO also suggested that Congress may wish to consider reducing
the amount of fee revenues that remain in the collecting unit, thereby
increasing the amount available for other units.
Question. What is your response to this suggestion?
Answer. The Department appreciates the significant benefits brought
about as a result of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, and
recognizes that the program was established as a pilot only three years
ago. The Department believes there may be room for improvements to the
program, such as perhaps reducing the share of the collecting units in
order to provide a greater share to the other units. The Department
would like to work with the Appropriations Committees to determine the
best approaches for improving the program.
Question. Do you have any other observations about the fee program
that you would like to share?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes an increase of $2.5
million in the NPS budget for management of the Recreation Fee Program.
This increase is critical to providing sufficient staff to ensure the
program maintains accountability as well as timely expenditure of
funds.
Question. Does the Administration intend to propose specific
legislation to permanently authorize a fee program based on the fee
demo program?
Answer. This is under consideration, given that the original
program was intended to be temporary. The Department would like to work
with the Appropriations Committees to determine the best approaches for
permanent authorization.
five year plans
The Department has submitted to the Committee a series of 5 year
plans to address the deferred maintenance and construction backlogs of
the three Interior land management agencies, the Geological Survey, and
the BIA. As part of this process, the Department and the individual
bureaus have spent considerable time in identifying the maintenance
backlogs of those agencies based on a consistent set of definitions.
Question. Are the 5 year plans delivered to the Subcommittee based
upon a common set of definitions for maintenance backlog that enables
this subcommittee to fairly judge the relative needs of these agencies?
Answer. The 5-year plans are based on a common set of definitions
developed by the bureaus and DOI for maintenance needs. However, the
Department did not seek to compare the merits of individual projects
across bureau lines because of the varied Congressionally mandated
bureau missions that requires emphasis on different goals.
Question. How is the Department balancing the need to establish
uniform criteria and standards for bureau maintenance plans against the
need to avoid adding another layer of bureaucracy or duplication to
agency planning efforts?
Answer. During the initial year of the first 5-year plan, both the
bureaus and the Department were heavily involved in detailed feedback
and reviews because of the first-time ever use of common definitions
across the bureaus. Because this required some of the bureaus to
redefine terms, Departmental oversight was essential in assuring
consistent use of terms and scoring of projects among the bureaus. By
working cooperatively with the bureaus in developing criteria and
standards and in preparing 5-year plans, the Department is able to
avoid duplication of effort. The bureaus nominated projects for
inclusion in the 5-year plans.
Question. Describe the Department's role (as opposed to individual
bureaus) with respect to developing the 5 year plans.
Answer. Bureaus nominated and scored projects in the 5-year plans.
Then the Department reviewed projects for consistency with definitions
and scores attributed to each. If an individual project did not appear
to be consistent with definitions/weighting factors, the Department
sent it back for reassessment/better descriptions to the bureaus and
then re-reviewed it.
Question. What will be the Department's role in ensuring that
bureaus are true to their plans?
Answer. The commitment of Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management,
and Budget John Berry in fiscal year 1999 continues. On a project-by-
project basis, the Department and bureaus annually will report
completions by project after the end of the fiscal year as well as any
changes to the project list based on (1) work already completed, (2)
unfunded emergency work that required immediate attention, (3) changes
resulting from unforeseen site conditions, and (4) work that no longer
needs to be accomplished. In addition, the fiscal year 2000 request
includes funding put in place maintenance management systems that will
facilitate this tracking and reporting.
The 5 year plans identify roughly $2.4 billion worth of projects,
including, for example, $1.13 billion for the Park Service.
Question. Based on the 5 year plan, is it now safe to say that the
maintenance backlog for the Park Service is $1.13 billion?
Answer. No. The five year plan represents reviewed and approved
repair/rehabilitation and line item construction projects that have
been identified as priorities. While the majority of these projects are
deferred maintenance projects, they do not represent the entire
National Park Service backlog of deferred maintenance.
The NPS currently estimates an identified deferred maintenance
backlog of about $3.54 billion as reported in the 1998 Chief Financial
Officers report, including facilities, costs for housing, paved roads
and bridges and dams. However, this total is only a conceptual cost
estimate based on costs for similar work accomplished by the
construction industry and past National Park Service estimates. This
estimate was prepared without a fully defined scope of work, and
without a complete inventory and condition assessment of the facilities
managed by the National Park Service. Since the actual cost of
correcting deferred maintenance cannot be known until a comprehensive
inventory and condition assessment has been completed, and a fully
defined scope of work has been developed, this amount is by necessity a
very general, or Class C, estimate. In addition, this backlog includes
only the deferred facility maintenance projects reviewed and approved
by NPS and listed in the Project Management Information System, and
does not include projects identified as backlog by parks but not yet
reviewed by NPS.
Also, this estimate is for maintenance repairs to existing
structures as a snap shot of their current condition. It does not
include the funding level needed in order to maintain those facilities
at an acceptable level once their condition has been restored. Because
this estimate is so uncertain, it is difficult to use as a measure of
performance in addressing deferred maintenance needs. Instead, we
intend to use our 5-year plans to monitor progress in completing
priority construction and facility maintenance projects.
Keeping with the Park Service, the 5-year plan includes a numeric
rating for most of the projects included in the plan. There are a few
exceptions, however, where projects are given a ``special'' or ``NA''
rating. Examples of these would be the utilities repair at Glen Echo,
rehabilitation of the Carderock Stables in the C&O Canal National
Historic park, and construction of an Environmental and Education
Center at Virgin Islands National Park.
Question. Why is a numeric rating for these projects not included
in the plan? How did such projects come to be included in the plan?
Don't you think the scattering of such unrated projects throughout the
plan diminishes the integrity of the plan itself?
Answer. Not all projects in the 5-year program list competed for
priority in the Choosing by Advantage (CBA) system. However, this
situation is not unique to the current 5-year construction program. In
most NPS budget requests, there are projects that are sufficiently
compelling to NPS/DOI officials that they are selected over projects
that competed for and received an NPS priority. The projects in the
program marked as ``special'' or ``NA'' did not compete in the CBA
process, but were included due to special circumstances or needs.
An explanation for each of the projects designated as ``special''
or ``NA'' follows:
(1) Everglades National Park, Modify Water Delivery System. This
project is an ongoing Administration initiative, is critical to the
Everglades Restoration Project, and is of such size and complexity that
it could not compete reasonably with other NPS projects in the CBA
process.
(2) Olympic National Park, Restore Elwha River Ecosystem. The same
explanation as provided for the Everglades project applies to this
project.
(3) Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Complete Lighthouse
Relocation. This project was initiated before the CBA process was in
use. A policy decision was made that ongoing projects did not have to
compete in the new CBA system. This allows projects that received
priority consideration under the former system to be completed.
(4) Independence National Historical Park, Complete Rehabilitation
of Merchants Exchange Building. Like the Cape Hatteras project, this
project was initiated in a prior year and ranked under the old system.
(5) George Washington Memorial Parkway, Glen Echo Utilities. This
project did not compete in the CBA process but was included because it
presents an excellent opportunity to partner with the State and local
government to solve major utility system problems at the park. The
Federal share of this project will be only \1/3\ of the total project
cost. In this case, the benefit of the sizeable match of nonfederal
funds was determined to outweigh other criteria used in the CBA
process.
(6) San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Rehabilitate
Schooner, C.A. Thayer. This project was evaluated and ranked using the
CBA process. It received very high ranking as a resource protection
project. However, because of the heavy emphasis placed on health and
safety, this project was not scheduled until fiscal year 2002. In the
course of finalizing the fiscal year 2000 budget, NPS and Departmental
officials determined that this resource could not wait until 2002 to
receive attention. Also, there is a public campaign now underway by the
park's cooperating association to raise funds to contribute to saving
the ship. The fund-raising effort will be enhanced by demonstrating the
Federal commitment to attain its share of the funds as soon as
possible.
(7) Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Carderock
Stables. This project consists of construction of a new stable area for
the United States Park Police (USPP) horse-mounted unit at the
Carderock Picnic Area in Maryland. This horse mounted USPP unit patrols
the towpath of the C&O Canal National Historical Park, and is the
primary law enforcement presence in the park along 22 miles of towpath
between the beginning of the canal in Georgetown and Riley's Lock in
Seneca, Maryland. The unit was formerly staged at Glen Echo Park in
Maryland, but needs relocation during reconstruction of the utilities
at the park. Temporary quarters for this unit has been established at
Edgewater Stables in Rock Creek Park for the past three years. This
facility serves as a training center for the USPP horse mounted units
and is currently overcrowded with the addition of the unit from Glen
Echo. This project did not compete for priority through the CBA process
in the NPS review session that took place during the summer of 1998.
The project was later reviewed by NPS and DOI officials, however, and
found to be critical to the protection of the visitors along the canal
and inserted it into the 5-year program.
(8) Virgin Islands National Park, Environmental and Resource
Preservation Center. This project is for the construction of an
environmental heritage center that will provide interpretive exhibits
and interactive displays, an environmental classroom for the visiting
public and local students, a venue for craft demonstrations, and
program office space, equipment storage and a meeting room for use by
park partners. Visitation at the park has risen dramatically in recent
years and will double within two years with the advent of the Eagle
Class cruise ships. Additionally, there is a growing need for park
education programs for area youth in environmental awareness and
responsibility. Interpretive programs for local schools have increased
over 200 percent both in the field and in the classroom through an
acclaimed environmental heritage program. Many groups have been turned
away highlighting the need for increased programming and facilities.
Facilities to house and support these programs do not exist. The
project was not in the CBA priority review process. The criteria
applied in the CBA and DOI priority setting process weighs heavily in
favor of health, safety, and resource protection projects. This project
would not have scored high in that review. Nonetheless, NPS and DOI
officials determined that the lack of visitor facilities at this park
coupled with the significant and increasing visitor use justified
overriding the strict application of the NPS/DOI priority setting
system.
land and water conservation fund
A series of legislative proposals have been introduced that would
permanently appropriate a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf oil
and gas revenues for a wide variety of programs; land acquisition,
Stateside grants, the UPARR program, historic preservation, endangered
species programs, etc. Not surprisingly, these are some of the programs
that generate the most interest in the Interior bill.
Question. Are you concerned at all, Mr. Secretary, that enactment
of such legislation could have a detrimental effect on other
Departmental programs?
Answer. No. The Lands Legacy Initiative would appropriate the full
authorized amount of annual receipts credited to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund from offshore oil drilling to conservation efforts.
The other programs within Interior do not rely on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to secure their funding. Those programs should
continue to receive the appropriate level of funding this year and into
the coming years.
Question. Assuming that funds currently appropriated for these
programs would be ``backed out'' of this Subcommittee's allocation
should such legislation be enacted, do you think future Members of
Congress, future OMB Directors, and future Presidents will remain
interested in protecting what remains of the Department's discretionary
programs, whether it be BIA operations, Departmental Management, or the
Office of Surface Mining?
Answer. Yes. The Administration believes that it is likely the
Congress, future OMB Directors, and future Presidents will continue to
be as interested as they are now in appropriating funding to national
parks, refuges, BIA operations, and the Department's other
discretionary programs. These programs continue to support activities
authorized by the Congress and are important to Administration goals
including: protection and conservation of the Nation's natural and
cultural resources; stewardship of Indian trust responsibilities;
management of public lands; providing recreational and educational
opportunities; and many others.
fines
Question. For each of the land management agencies under your
jurisdiction, are civil and/or criminal fines assessed and collected by
those agencies deposited in the Treasury, or are such fines retained by
the collecting agency? To the extent fines are collected under various
authorities, please describe those authorities, to which agencies they
apply, and the treatment of collected fines pursuant to those
authorities.
Answer. The authorities, types of activity for which fines and
penalties may be imposed and their disposition, and fiscal year 1998
collections are shown in the following table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment and use
Bureau Statutory authority \1\ Activity fined \2\ \3\ Fiscal year 1998 \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management......... Mineral Leasing Act, as amended Failure of operator to comply Deposited to $69 thousand.
and supplemented (30 U.S.C. with regulations, terms of any Treasury General
181 et seq.), the Act of May lease or permit, and Fund, 14-1099,
21, 1980 (30 U.S.C. 301-306), requirements of any notice or Fines, penalties,
the Mineral Leasing Act for order; failure of operator to and forfeitures Not
Acquired Lands, as amended (30 install blowout preventer or Otherwise
U.S.C. 351-359), the Act of other equivalent well control Classified.
March 3, 1909, as amended (25 equipment, drilling without
U.S.C. 396), the Act of May approval or causing
11, 1938, as amended (25 disturbance on Federal or
U.S.C. 396a-396q), the Act of Indian surface preliminary to
February 28, 1891, as amended drilling without approval, and
(25 U.S.C. 397), the Act of failure to obtain approval of
May 29, 1924 (25 U.S.C. 398), a plan for well abandonment
the Act of March 3, 1927 (25 prior to commencement of such
U.S.C. 398a-398e), the Act of operations; failure of
June 30, 1919, as amended (25 transporter to permit
U.S.C. 399), R.S. 19441 (43 inspection for proper
U.S.C. 1457), the Attorney documentation by any
General's Opinion of April 2, authorized representative;
1941 (40 Op Atty. Gen. 41), failure or refusal to permit
the Federal Property and lawful entry or inspection;
Administrative Services Act of willful or knowing failure to
1949, as amended (40 US.C. 471 notify the authorized officer
et seq.), the National . . . after any well begins
Environmental Policy Act of production on which royalty is
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. due or resumes production . .
4321 et seq.), the Act of . ; willful or knowing
December 12, 1980 (94 Stat. submission of false,
2964), the Combined inaccurate or misleading
Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of reports, notices, affidavits,
1981 (95 Stat. 1070), the records, data or other written
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty information; and willful or
Management Act of 1982 (30 knowing removal,
U.S.C. 1701), the Indian transportation, use, or
Mineral Development Act of diversion of any oil or gas
1982 (25 U.S.C. 2102), and from any Federal or Indian
Order Number 3087, dated lease site without valid legal
December 3, 1982, as amended authority to do so.
on February 7, 1983 (48 FR
8983) under which the
Secretary consolidated and
transferred the onshore
minerals management functions
of the Department, except
mineral revenue functions and
the responsibility for leasing
of restricted Indian lands to
the Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Land Management......... Title I of the Interior part of 43 U.S.C. 1735(a). Any moneys Deposited to 14X5017 Information not available.
the Omnibus Consolidated received by the United States as an available
Appropriations Act, 1999 as a result of the forfeiture receipt. (Besides
(Public Law 105-277) Provided, of a bond or other security by fines, penalties,
That notwithstanding any a resource developer or and forfeitures,
provision to the contrary of purchaser of permitee who does deposits to this
section 305(a) of Public Law not fulfill the requirements account include:
94B579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), of his contract or permit or charges for
any moneys that have been or does not comply with the administrative
will be received pursuant to regulations of the Secretary; expenses and other
that section, whether as a or as a result of a compromise costs related to
result of forfeiture, or settlement of any claim processing
compromise, or settlement, if whether sounding in tort or in applications for
not appropriate for refund contract involving present or use and disposal of
pursuant to section 305(c) of potential damage to the public public lands and
that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), lands shall be credited to a resources, for
shall be available and may be separate account in the monitoring,
expended under the authority Treasury and are hereby construction,
of this Act by the Secretary authorized to be appropriated operation, and
to improve, protect, or and made available. termination of
rehabilitate any public lands facilities in
administered through the conjunction with
Bureau of Land Management use authorizations,
which have been damaged by the and for
action of a resource rehabilitation of
developer, purchaser, damaged.).
permittee, or any unauthorized
person, without regard to
whether all moneys collected
from each such action are used
on the exact lands damaged
which led to the action.
Fish and Wildlife Service......... Lacey Act P. L. 97-79 16 U.S.C. Importation, exportation, Deposited and Civil--$710.3 thousand.
3371-3378. transportation, sale or credited to a Criminal--$31.4 thousand.
purchase in interstate or general fund
foreign commerce, of fish and account 14X1611,
wildlife taken or possessed in Resource
violation of state, federal, Management.
Indian tribal or foreign laws. Obligated for
rewards and
temporary storage
of evidence.
Fish and Wildlife Service......... Endangered Species Act 16 Importation, exportation, Deposited and Civil--$86.7 thousand
U.S.C. 1531-1544. taking or commercialization in credited to an Criminal--$141 thousand.
interstate or foreign commerce appropriated
of fish, wildlife, or plants general fund
that are listed as threatened account 14X1611,
or endangered species. Resource
Management.
Obligated for
rewards and
temporary storage
of evidence.
Fish and Wildlife Service......... Migratory Bird Treaty Act16 Pursuit, hunting, killing, Collected into an $3,716.8 thousand.
U.S.C. 703-712. capturing, possessing, buying, unavailable receipt
selling, purchase, or barter account, 14-5241,
of any migratory bird, then warranted and
including the feathers or spent as an
other parts, nests, eggs, or available receipt
migratory bird products. in 14X5241, North
American Wetlands
Conservation Fund.
Obligated for the
purposes of the
North American
Wetlands
Conservation Act,
16 U.S.C. 4406.
Fish and Wildlife Service......... Not specifically identified.... Fines assessed by the courts in Deposited to $31 thousand.
suits brought for trespass, Treasury General
and accidental or malicious Fund14-1099.
environmental damage; and
suits under the Debt
Collection Improvement Act.
National Park Service............. NPS authority is derived from Violation of regulations The Ranger Traffic related citations,
16 U.S.C. 1, which gives the necessary for safe management Activities Division $3,294 thousand.
Secretary authority to issue of the National Park System. of the National Non-traffic related
any regulations necessary for Park Service does citations, $2,616 thousand.
the safe management of the not collect
National Park System. In park criminal fines; the
areas under the legislative fines go to the
jurisdiction of the United Central Violations
States, NPS enforces 16 U.S.C, Bureau, U.S.
18 U.S.C, 21 U.S.C, 25 U.S.C. Department of
and 42 U.S.C. as well as 33 Justice. The courts
CFR, 36 CFR, 40 CFR, 43 CFR assess civil fines,
and 50 CFR. and if any money is
received by the
NPS, it is usually
as reimbursement of
expenses. Civil
fines are credited
to NPS
appropriations as a
reimbursement of
expenses.
National Park Service............. 22 Stat. 243, chapter 389, The same powers and duties as United States Park $6,670.5 thousand.
August 5, 1882; 41 Stat. 364, the Metropolitan Police in Police does not
chapter 1, section 3, December Washington, D.C. Also, on and collect criminal
5, 1919; 45 Stat. 721, May 23, within the roads, parkways, fines; the fines go
1928; 46 Stat. 482, May 29, and other Federal reservations to the Central
1930; 62 Stat. 81, March 17, in the environs of the Violations Bureau,
1948, and Public Law 94-458, District of Columbia over U.S. Department of
90 Stat. 1939, October 7, 1976. which the United States has, Justice. Tickets
or shall hereafter acquire, written or fines
exclusive or concurrent imposed for parking
criminal jurisdiction, the (or similar
United States Park Police violations) in the
shall have the power and District of
authority to make arrests for Columbia
violation of any Federal law metropolitan area
or regulations issued pursuant go the D.C. Bureau
to law. In 1976, the Secretary of Traffic
of the Interior was authorized Adjudication or
to designate certain officers other local
of employees of the Department governments. Civil
of the Interior who shall fines are assessed
maintain law and order and by the courts, and
protect persons and property if any money is
within areas of the National received by the
Park System. NPS, its is usually
as reimbursement of
expenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authority under which fines are collected (provide P.L and Stat., or U.S. Code citations).
\2\ Description of activity for which fines are imposed.
\3\ Deposited to General Fund--deposited to special fund, but subject to appropriation; or retained and spent either as an available receipt or as an
offsetting collection credited to an appropriation. If use is authorized, describe how the revenue may be used.) Specify account symbol and title.
\4\ Collections--Actual amount of fines collected in fiscal year 1998.
independence for functions of contract rate setting and audit in the
department
Within the Department of the Interior, the Office of the Inspector
General both establishes the contracting rates and audits them. In
contrast, the Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Cost
Allocation sets contracting rates for thousands of contractors. Audits
of rates are conducted by a different office. The GAO has raised the
issue of independence of the two functions.
Question. Shouldn't the rate setting function and the auditing
function be independent of one another? The Office of Policy and Budget
is the obvious place for rate-setting, and the issue has come up in the
past. Why hasn't the Department established independence for these
functions?
Answer. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) negotiates cost rates
with approximately 350 Indian organizations, 50 state agencies, 20
insular government organizations, and five non-profit organizations. In
general, however, the OIG does not conduct audits of the tribes or
other grantees. Under the provisions of the Single Audit Act, certified
public accountants from the private sector audit the expenditure of
Federal funds by grantees and Indian tribes. When there are specific
requests to the OIG to conduct audits related to overhead rates, such
as close-out of a construction contract, the OIG usually arranges for
these audits to be conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
In 1989 the Department proposed to transfer the function of
negotiating indirect cost rates from the Office of Inspector General to
the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget.
The Inspector General and the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget supported the transfer on the basis that the
negotiation of indirect cost rates is a program function. However,
Indian Tribes did not support the transfer, as expressed in a May 5,
1989, letter from then-Senator Quentin Burdick to Senator Robert Byrd
which stated:
``Tribes oppose the transfer on a number of grounds. They
have found negotiations with the Inspector General's Office to
be a fair and objective process. They are concerned that if the
function is transferred, it will be used as a vehicle for
cutting the budget justification. . . . I request that in the
Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year (fiscal year)
1990, the Committee prohibit the transfer of the indirect cost
function to the Office of the Secretary. I enclose bill and
report language that would accomplish this result.''
No funds were provided for the transfer in fiscal year 1990.
The Department has not thoroughly revisited this question since
that time. We do believe it is acceptable to have both functions in one
organization. The segregation of duties does not require that the
functions be performed by independent organizations--just by separate
individuals--or subject to supervisory review when there may be
inadequate segregation of duties. All OIG audits are subject to several
levels of supervisory review, and there are further checks and
balances, since the OIG does not have the authority to compel action by
bureaus.
In any case the Department believes that it can not change the
process for negotiating the rates until the Ramah Navajo Chapter v.
Babbitt lawsuit is resolved. On May 8, 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in Ramah that the method used to negotiate indirect costs
by the Inspector General violated Public Law 93-638 (the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended). [The Bureau of
Indian Affairs equates indirect costs to contract support. Contract
support represents the amount of funds which the Bureau annually
estimates Indian organizations will need to administer Public Law 93-
638 contracts]. As a result of the decision in Ramah, the Department
must either change the method for negotiating indirect costs or develop
a different system for estimating the amount of contract support. In
that regard, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the
National Congress on American Indians are currently preparing their
recommendations for changes to the system for determining contract
support. Until a decision on a new system is made, the District Court
has authorized only the ``continued negotiation of indirect cost rates
under the system in place prior to the Tenth Circuit decision.'' (Civil
No. 90-0957, Order of District Court for the District of New Mexico,
November 4, 1997.)
Before a transfer could be implemented, the Department would have
to consult with tribal governments, in accordance with the President's
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, dated
April 29, 1994. The Memorandum requires each executive department and
agency to ``consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the
extent permitted by law, with tribal governments prior to taking
actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments.''
Bureau of Land Management
almrs
Recently GAO testified that BLM has spent over $411 million on this
project over the last 15 years but the $67 million software component
of this system has serious problems.
Question. Can any part of this software be salvaged so that it
meets users' needs, or is it a total loss?
Answer. The BLM is conducting an analysis, with the assistance of
an outside expert third party contractor, of the developed system to
determine what parts might be used and at what cost. Initial
assessments indicate that some parts of the ALMRS software performed
well, met user requirements, and probably could be salvaged for future
use. The results of this analysis are expected to be available by mid-
summer.
The ALMRS project relied on a combination of custom software and
commercial off-the-shelf software. The new technologies we acquired
(Internet access, reporting database, user-friendly query tools, etc.)
have been incorporated into the Y2K-compliant Legacy Rehost 2000
Project and will be used for future land and resource information
systems. Furthermore, commercial off-the-shelf software we purchased is
currently being used in BLM's overall data management and development
of the Spatial Display and Query Module.
While we are not deploying ALMRS as originally conceived, we
collected a significant amount of user requirements, documented
critical business processes, and defined information requirements that
will be useful in any future development efforts. The BLM also
benefited from establishing data standards, and from collecting,
analyzing, and cleaning up the legacy data. The Geographic Coordinate
Data Base (GCDB) we built will be critical to be able to spatially
display land information in the future. This data is currently being
used throughout BLM and by the public and will be used in future
systems.
Question. What are BLM's recommendations on how to proceed with the
automation of its record systems?
Answer. Our recommendation is to build on the lessons learned from
the ALMRS project and proceed in a deliberate and thorough manner to:
--re-validate our users' business needs;
--re-engineer our business processes before automating them;
--carefully analyze our options, including risks, costs, and
benefits, before selecting a course of action;
--obtain outside expertise in areas of critical technical skills;
--adopt a management methodology that clearly identifies risks and
prevents proceeding to subsequent steps until the risks and
problems of previous steps are addressed and resolved and also
establishes reliable, achievable plans and schedules;
--involve users continuously throughout the development, testing,
implementation, and operations and maintenance phases of any
new efforts;
--build new systems in a more incremental, modular fashion; and
--identify opportunities for partnering, such as with the U.S. Forest
Service on common lands data, where we have similar needs.
The overall emphasis of the recommendations above is to give the
BLM sufficient time and resources to enable BLM to organize and manage
for improved results in the next generation of projects.
Question. What are the costs associated with these recommendations?
Answer. Since the analysis of a number of different options on how
to proceed and the identification of the re-usable parts of the
previous investments is still underway, it is not possible to provide
an accurate estimate of future costs at this time. We expect to be able
to answer this question in the near future.
Question. Based on its experience with ALMRS, does BLM plan to
improve the process by which it makes acquisition decisions for
information technology? If so, how will this process be improved?
Answer. Yes, the BLM does plan to improve its information
technology acquisition decision process. The BLM will incorporate a
system life cycle methodology to maximize the value of system
acquisition, integration and mitigate the risks. The Bureau will be
directed to adopt a rigorous, structured process to select, control and
evaluate its information technology investment compliant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act. The BLM has already established the Information
Technology Investment Board, consistent with the recommendations of the
Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, for this purpose. An
Investment Analysis will be conducted before a system is developed to
ensure sound capital investment decision making. The BLM has been
advised to use the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity
Model approach to assess information technology capabilities in system
acquisition, increase long term management training, and augment
information technology skills from consulting firms.
The Department has provided guidance in project management,
information technology infrastructure, and software development
methodologies. The BLM is re-validating its business needs with its
users and customers, guided by the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen
Act. The Bureau is carefully reviewing its business processes to
identify opportunities to re-engineer those processes to streamline
them, reduce the time they take, reduce costs, and improve customer
service. Recognizing the need to obtain and retain technical talent to
oversee software development, BLM is building its project management
and technical skills for information technology projects. The BLM has
retained several outside expert contractors to assist in its planning
efforts and assessment of needs, and to recommend the means to meet
those needs in the future. The Y2K compliant approach to BLM's legacy
land and mineral systems will meet immediate requirements. The BLM is
reexamining its long-term land and mineral program needs and evaluating
the potential gap between these needs and the Y2K systems. The BLM will
then acquire and/or develop systems and technology to support any unmet
high priority needs.
The BLM is conducting an analysis, with the assistance of an
outside third party contractor, of the developed system to determine
what parts might be used and at what cost. This type of analysis is
also taking place on BLM's Legacy Rehost 2000 Project. The BLM has
asked its users to validate the Bureau's objectives and prioritize key
business processes. These efforts will form the basis to recast BLM's
concept of operations. However, more analysis needs to take place to
clearly identify the systems and modules that need to be developed,
including the National Integrated Land System. This analysis will
include a detailed business analysis and a return on investment
analysis.
Users will be continuously involved from the project's inception
and will identify the business requirements. The users will also review
the information technology response to the requirements, the test
script preparation, the testing, the training material preparation as
well as the presentation. Finally they will become responsible for user
support for the system.
The BLM is adopting the Managed Evolutionary Development (MED)
methodology to develop systems. MED is conducted by producing
successive iterations of specified documents at each stage of a
project. These documents identify uncertainties which translate into
risk. MED requires that analysis be conducted to reduce the risk before
a project may proceed. The BLM is contracting with Mitretek to assist
in implementing MED. Mitretek will also provide quality assurance to
ensure that all tasks and risks are identified and that appropriate
mitigation is applied.
Future development will follow these principles:
--design, testing, and fielding will be done in modules;
--``off-the-shelf'' software will be used as much as possible;
--software will be designed with performance requirements and
maintainability built in from the beginning; and
--project management will use risk management techniques to ensure
investments in new modules does not begin until risk and
uncertainty has been reduced to a reasonable level.
This modular type of approach will not be as prone to excessive
delays or cost overruns because each module will be small enough to
manage well, and the duration short enough so that reliable estimates
can be made at the beginning of the module development.
coalbed methane permits
BLM's oil and gas program continues to experience significant
growth due to industry's interest in coalbed methane in the Rocky
Mountain states, particularly Wyoming. Documents from BLM indicate that
the agency expects that in Wyoming alone 1100-1200 additional
applications for permits to drill (APDs) will be received each year
over the next five years. According to BLM's budget only enough funding
is requested to process 200 more APDs across the entire nation.
Question. How does the agency plan to address the increased number
of APDs for coalbed methane in Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain states?
Answer. BLM's oil and gas program is experiencing significant
growth due to industry's interest in coalbed methane. BLM's projections
indicate over 8,700 APDs may be filed in a four state area in the next
four years.
In Wyoming, the BLM is reallocating personnel and resources from
some of their current assignments to handle part of the anticipated
coalbed methane workload. However, that will not allow the BLM to fully
process all of the coalbed methane applications. The BLM will have to
forego other work throughout the State to meet these needs.
In Utah, the BLM has no additional staff that it can allocate to
this growing workload, and therefore the BLM is unable to process all
the APDs in a timely fashion. In Wyoming and Utah, we have informed
industry of expected delays in processing requests for approval. In
Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico, the BLM is utilizing existing
personnel to complete environmental documents for coalbed methane areas
in anticipation of a large increase in coalbed methane APDs and
associated workload.
As part of the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation, an additional $1.0 million was redirected from other BLM
funds to assist in the development of coalbed methane. The Bureau does
not explicitly budget for development of coalbed methane. At present,
permit review and associated work is funded from the ``Oil and Gas
Management'' subactivity, for which BLM requested a modest increase--to
$55,326,000--in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The magnitude of
increased industry demand for coalbed methane was not anticipated at
the time the President's budget was prepared. However, some additional
work on processing CBM requests can and will be accommodated within the
amount included in the 2000 request for Oil and Gas Management.
Question. How many additional applications for permits to drill
(APDs) for coalbed methane does the agency expect in fiscal year 2000
versus fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Based on the BLM's and industry's projections, the BLM
anticipates approximately 8,700 APDs for coalbed methane to be filed
between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2003. In 1999 and 2000, the
BLM anticipates receiving about one third of this work, primarily in
Wyoming, Utah, and Montana.
Question. How much additional money is needed to process all
expected APDs?
Answer. The BLM currently estimates that the costs to address
priority coalbed methane activity could range as high as $4 to $5
million in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that Wyoming could use as
much as $2-$2.5 million for its activities, primarily leasing and
processing of APDs. The remaining costs will be split between Utah,
Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico to complete any necessary NEPA
requirements and permitting work for APDs.
Question. Shouldn't a high priority be placed on processing APDs,
since the earlier wells go into production the sooner the royalty
revenue can be collected?
Answer. The BLM recognizes the need to process APDs and all other
approvals in a timely manner as these decisions impact revenue and
other public interests. However, this unanticipated high level of
industry activity will not allow the BLM to meet its usual standards
for timely processing of all post lease applications. The BLM will
continue to make every effort to process APDs in the shortest time
possible.
Question. What is the impact of increased activity in the permit
processing for coalbed methane on other aspects of the agency's energy
and minerals program? How does BLM plan to address these impacts over
the long-term?
Answer. As funds and personnel are shifted to APD processing, other
post-APD and other work may become backlogged. The BLM will seek budget
increases if shifts alone are not able to meet the demand. Budget
increases would allow BLM to hire additional personnel to process the
anticipated APD workload.
grazing permits
Due to the ``Comb Wash Decision'' issued by the Interior Board of
Land Appeals in 1997, the BLM must now conduct NEPA compliance and Land
Use Plan conformance reviews before re-authorizing livestock grazing
permits or leases. According to the agency's budget justification 1,000
permits which are due to expire in 1999 will have to be addressed in
2000. This is in addition to the 1,900 permits that will expire in
2000. The BLM has requested $2.5 million more to handle this workload.
Question. Is $2.5 million sufficient to complete the environmental
review of all the grazing permits that will expire in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The proposed $2.5 million requested in the fiscal year 2000
President's Budget, when combined with existing BLM resources, will
provide sufficient funding to compile and analyze the data necessary to
review and complete the permits expiring in fiscal year 2000.
Question. If all permits set to expire in 2000 will not be
processed, why is the Administration proposing to delete language from
last year's Interior Appropriations bill which provided that grazing
permits that would otherwise expire are renewed on the same terms and
conditions until BLM completes the processing of the permit?
Answer. The BLM expects to have the backlog completed by the end of
fiscal year 2000 and be able to keep pace with expiring permits in
fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
Question. Does the Administration have another proposal to address
expiring permits in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The BLM is making every effort to achieve the timely
completion of environmental review/permit renewal prior to their
expiration. The BLM plans to address the renewal reviews during a 5 to
6 month period between the end of the grazing season in 1999 (for most
operations this is November 1999) and the beginning of the 2000 grazing
period (April 2000 for most operators), or a similar lead time before a
permit expires. This strategy will enable the BLM to use lead time for
completing renewal actions, provided there are no fiscal year 1999
permit renewals carried over from 1999 having resulted from commitment
of work forces to an active fire fighting season, emergency fire
rehabilitation demands or increases in litigation/appeal workload.
Question. Does this mean that if the BLM doesn't complete the
environmental review of grazing permits that the holders of these
permits will be thrown off the public lands?
Answer. The BLM is exploring all options within applicable laws and
regulations to avoid disrupting permittees' or lessees' grazing
operations in cases where it appears that permit renewal will not be
completed in a timely manner.
fire
The Department of Interior is funding its Fire Preparedness
operation at 83 percent of the Most Efficient Level (MEL), while the
Forest Service is funding its preparedness operations at 67 percent of
MEL.
Question. Does this discrepancy between the Forest Service funding
and DOI funding create any problems in fire fighting? If so, what
problems?
Answer. The magnitude of any impact depends on the severity of the
fire season. The number and type of fire suppression resources and
support are planned for the average annual workload. When the
firefighting resources available, regardless of the agency source, are
less than those planned for the average annual workload, at the most
efficient level (MEL), more fires will escape initial attack. These
fires may become large, and consequently both suppression costs and
damages could increase dramatically. The MEL is the least total cost of
preparedness, suppression, rehabilitation, and resource losses.
Although no agency is being provided full MEL funding, as the
percentage of MEL funding decreases, the amount of fire suppression
resources that agencies have will decrease accordingly. More fires will
escape initial attack leading to a greater total workload for the
interagency fire community. For years, the five federal agencies with
wildland fire management programs (BLM, BIA, FWS, NPS and USFS) and the
States have coordinated and cooperated on all wildland fire activities.
The fire community shares their resources, both in the initial attack
phase and for large fires, and all of the agencies endorse the
``closest forces'' and ``total mobility'' firefighting concepts. When
events such as dry lighting storms occur, there are often an
overwhelming number of multiple ignitions resulting in wildland fires.
Adequate response to these situations is especially dependent upon
interagency assistance. When one agency's funding is significantly less
than MEL, especially if they are a large agency such as the Forest
Service, there could be a direct and immediate impact on the total fire
community.
Question. As the costs of fire increase in terms of property damage
and suppression costs, how is the MEL affected? In other words, will it
cost more to maintain the same level of the MEL in the future? What are
the agency's projections over the next five years to maintain the
current level of MEL?
Answer. The MEL-based fire management organization is designed to
manage the average annual wildland fire workload most effectively and
efficiently, at the least total cost, in accordance with land
management objectives. Total cost is defined as the sum of the costs of
preparedness, suppression, rehabilitation, and damages. As populations
shift and grow, and there are more values at risk in wildlands, more
preparedness resources will be required to maintain a given level of
protection. Technology changes, to maintain efficiency and ensure
safety, will require enhancements in engines, aircraft, global
positioning systems, radios, and remote sensing capabilities. These
improvements could increase the costs of preparedness. Inflation of the
costs of goods and services used in the emergency sector have increased
at a greater rate than the overall national average. Due to factors
such as these, the MEL has increased over the last ten years, for the
four Interior agencies, at an average annual rate of slightly less than
seven percent. We anticipate a five to six percent annual increase over
the next five years. Somewhat slowing the growth in preparedness costs
is an expected counteracting effect from the Interior and Agriculture
Departments' fuels treatment programs. As fuel loads are reduced when
more and more Federal acreage is managed by use of prescribed burns and
mechanical means, the Departments expect that the rate of increase in
preparedness costs will slow. Whether that drop in costs will take
place within the next five years is a question still being researched.
Question. What is the BLM's strategy for addressing the wildland
fire issues in the urban interface?
Answer. The BLM has cooperatively initiated a fire awareness/
education campaign in many parts of the country where the wildland/
urban fire interface issues are significant. This effort is tied to
State Forestry programs, and local, city, and county Fire Departments.
The BLM is also initiating a program to formally increase cooperative
training and sharing of wildland suppression resources with key Rural
Fire Departments (RFDs) that have intermixed suppression
responsibilities with BLM. While grass and brush is the most common
vegetation on BLM lands, it does not present the classic fuels build-up
situation found on forested land. Where BLM forest and woodlands exist,
the emphasis is on conducting prescribed burns and mechanical
treatments that will result in hazardous fuels reductions in the urban
interface. The intermix of public and private lands poses significant
management challenges to the BLM. Much of this intermix does not fit
the ``classic'' interface situation characterized by long, continuous
boundaries between public and private lands. Rather, the BLM intermix
can be characterized as a complex mixture ranging from small parcels,
with extensive public--private land boundaries located right up to the
edges of developed subdivisions and towns, blending into larger parcels
and higher percentages of public land the farther you go from developed
centers. Because of this situation it is imperative that BLM, the RFDs,
and the land owners work together to reduce hazards and improve
suppression effectiveness. The BLM has worked to develop Fire Safety
Councils and Fire Prevention Cooperatives to solve local problems. The
BLM has also completed workshops with our Field Offices to perform a
hazard risk analysis and identify where losses may be the greatest,
focusing on intervention in these areas. At the national level, the BLM
was instrumental in providing a technical advisor for the creation of
the recent IMAX film on wildfires. Actions such as these, along with
the development of an Internet web page (www.firewise.org), provide
local communities, homeowners, and fire departments with important
technical information on how to assess their risks and take actions to
protect their properties. In summary, this is a long term challenge,
for all of the Interior fire management bureaus, that is being
addressed cooperatively. Success will be measured through awareness,
partnerships, and on the ground mitigation measures that are
periodically repeated.
crown jewel project
Based on a recent Department of Interior Solicitor's opinion, the
Plan of Operations at the Crown Jewel mine in Washington state was
denied. This was after the EIS and Record of Decision for the project
were finalized and upheld in court against a legal challenge. The
company involved has invested over $80 million in the project to date.
Question. Did the Department of Interior take into account the
advanced state of the project and fairness to the companies involved
when it sent the letter revoking the Record of Decision?
Answer. The Solicitor's Opinion regarding the mill site acreage
limitation in the Mining Law of 1872 was issued on November 7, 1997--
more than sixteen months before the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture notified Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMG) by letter dated
March 25, 1999 that the proposed Crown Jewel plan of operations could
not be approved. The issuance of the Opinion, including the fact that
it would be applied to pending proposed plans of operations, was
reported in the mining industry trade press shortly after it was
issued. When the Solicitor met with representatives of Battle Mountain
Gold Company on March 3, 1999 to discuss the history of the proposed
project, the company's representatives acknowledged that they were
aware of the November 1997 Solicitor's Opinion shortly after it was
issued.
The Opinion does not propose a novel interpretation of the law. As
the March 25, 1999, letter to BMG states:
``After careful and thorough consideration of your arguments,
we believe that it is appropriate to apply the mill site
limitation to this project for two reasons. First, we have no
authority to enlarge the rights granted under the Mining Law;
that power is reserved to Congress. Second, the mill site
limitation is not, as BMG's March 9 letter argues, comparable
to the proposed part 3809 regulations, which contain
substantive changes in the requirements for mining operations
that would justify a transition period. As the Solicitor's
Opinion notes, the limitations on mill sites in the Mining Law
have been widely appreciated by mining industry lawyers for
decades. Adherence to the Mining Law's limitation on allowable
mill site acreage by all mining claimants thus should not
thwart any legitimately-held expectations.''
Question. Does the Revocation Letter embody or create a rule that
the Department of Interior will apply to every pending plan of
operations? If so, what is the rule?
Answer. The March 25, 1999 letter to BMG did not create any new
rule or policy. It reflects limitations on mill sites that have been
mandated by the Mining Law since 1872, as explained in the November
1997 Solicitor's Opinion. The Solicitor's Opinion advised BLM not to
``approve plans of operations which rely on a greater number of
millsites than the number of associated claims being developed unless
the use of additional lands is obtained through other means.'' As to
other proposed plans of operations, this advice will continue to apply.
Question. Before the Revocation Letter was sent, had the rule ever
been applied to a pending plan of operations?
Answer. As mentioned in the 1997 Solicitor's Opinion, limitations
on mill sites in the Mining Law have been widely appreciated by mining
industry lawyers for decades. See Attached Solicitor's Opinion, at 12-
14; see also 4 American Law of Mining Sec. 110.03[1] (2d. ed. 1987)
(``Because of the relatively uncertain tenure of mill site claims, few
miners choose mill sites as a location for permanent mining support
facilities.'') The decision with respect to the Crown Jewel mine is the
first occasion since the Solicitor's Opinion was issued that the mill
site limitation in the Mining Law has been applied to disapprove a
proposed plan of operations.
Question. Did the Department of Interior study the effect of the
rule on the mining industry?
Answer. Because the mill site limitation is imposed by statute, the
Department has no discretion to refrain from applying the law based on
its effect on the mining industry. The effect of the limitation on the
industry has been considered in numerous publications cited in the
Solicitor's Opinion. See, e.g., Office of Technology Assessment,
``Management of Fuel and Nonfuel Minerals in Federal Land, at 127
(April 1979) (cited in S olicitor's Opinion at 13).
Question. Does the rule conflict with the BLM manual?
Answer. The following discussion on this point appears in the 1997
Solicitor's Opinion:
The first regulations issued by the General Land Office in 1872
stated unequivocally: ``The law expressly limits mill-site locations
made from and after its passage to five acres, but whether so much as
that can be located depends upon the local customs, rules, or
regulations.'' Mining Regulations Sec. 91, June 10, 1872, Copp, U.S.
Mining Decisions 1270, 292 (1874) (emphasis in original).
The current BLM regulation on millsite patenting continues to refer
to the five acre limit, and is fairly interpreted to prohibit locating
more than one five-acre millsite in connection with each mining claim:
[P]arties holding the possessory right to a vein or lode
claim, and to a piece of nonmineral land not contiguous thereto
for mining or milling purposes, not exceeding the quantity
allowed for such purpose by R.S. 2337 . . . may file in the
proper office their application for a patent, which application
. . . may include, embrace, and describe . . . such
noncontiguous millsite. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3864.1-1(b) (emphasis
added).
The regulation speaks of millsites exclusively in the singular: a
party holding the right to ``a'' mining claim and ``a piece of
nonmineral land'' may apply for a patent, and shall describe ``such . .
. millsite'' in the application. There is no suggestion in the
regulation that more than one millsite may be patented in connection
with a mining claim.
BLM's Handbook for Mineral Examiners, on the other hand, currently
provides that ``[a]ny number of millsites may be located but each must
be used in connection with the mining or milling operation.'' BLM
Handbook for Mineral Examiners, H-3890-1, Ch. III Sec. 8 (Rel. 3/17/
89). The handbook cites no authority for this interpretation.
This provision may come from a handbook that is often used by BLM
mineral examiners: Terry Maley's Handbook of Mineral Law (5th ed.
1993). In this handbook Maley, himself a BLM mineral examiner, states:
There is no specific direction in the Federal law or
regulations concerning how a millsite may be located or how
many mill sites may be located. . . . [T]here is no limitation
to the number of mill sites that may be located as long as each
mill site is properly ``used or occupied'' for ``mining or
milling purposes.'' Id. at 191.
No authority is cited for these statements. There is no legal
analysis or discussion of the legislative history, regulations and
caselaw related to this provision. These assertions may, however,
explain why some BLM field offices apparently have, in recent years,
ignored the limitations of the Mining Law and BLM's regulations.
BLM's Instruction Memorandum dated August 17, 1998, sets up a
procedure to apply the Solicitor's Opinion to pending plans of
operations.
Question. In what circumstance is the Instruction Memorandum being
used?
Answer. The Instruction Memorandum provides policy guidance for BLM
staff reviewing proposed plans of operation that do not comply with the
mill site limitations in the Mining Law. It does not apply to lands
administered by the Forest Service.
Question. Was the Instruction Memorandum procedure followed in
issuing the Revocation Letter to Battle Mountain?
Answer. Most of the lands encompassed by the proposed Crown Jewel
project are National Forest lands; consequently, BLM's Instruction
Memorandum had little application to this project.
wild horse and burro
Last year's Appropriations bill required the Wild Horse and Burro
Advisory Board to file a report with the Subcommittee by March 1, 1999
regarding the cost, efficacy, and social acceptability of various
methods of controlling horse and burro populations.
Question. When will this report be issued? What are the key
findings of this report on these issues?
Answer. The Advisory Board report to the Appropriations Committee
was forwarded to the Appropriations Committees on May 21, 1999.
The Board has met a total of five times since its inception in
January 1998, focusing heavily on off-the-range issues such as
adoption, marketing strategy, animal training, gelding and program
management. This level of scrutiny by the Board was necessary to
address the problems associated with the large number of older and
difficult to adopt animals in holding facilities. Despite the off-the-
range focus, the Board did discuss and offer some recommendations for
on-the-range issues such as immuno-contraception and euthanasia. The
report incorporates these recommendations and their status.
A key policy recommendation made by the Board addressed when and
how euthanasia should be used on unhealthy animals. BLM issued and
implemented policy on the humane destruction of unhealthy animals,
including those animals residing on the Prairie National Wild Horse
Refuge in Oklahoma.
The Board will concentrate on issues affecting on-the-range
management of wild horses and burros for the remainder of its term,
addressing this issue in depth in the final report.
Question. What, if any, changes to the program might result from
the findings contained in the report?
Answer. The Board did not specifically recommend changes to the
program regarding population control. However, BLM continues to pursue
immuno-contraceptive research. The BLM began research in 1992 on
immuno-contraception as a technique for managing fertility in wild
horse populations. The researchers are focused on developing an immuno-
contraceptive vaccine requiring only one injection that is effective
for three or more breeding seasons and can be applied to meet specific
herd management criteria. Currently a single injection, one year
vaccine, with an efficacy rate of greater than 90 percent is being used
and analyzed as a management tool.
BLM initiated field management studies of the one-year vaccine in
Nevada beginning in November 1998, in the Antelope, Antelope Valley,
Monte Cristo Sand Springs East and Sand Springs West Herd Management
Areas. These field trials have two objectives: (1) evaluate the
reformulation of the vaccine designed to improve its efficacy; and (2)
evaluate application of the vaccine on a population-wide basis to slow
reproduction by at least 50 percent. BLM treated a total of 761 mares
with the vaccine.
In November 1999, BLM will implement field trials of the two year
vaccine requiring one injection. Final results of these trials will not
be available until fiscal year 2001. It is estimated that between 1,500
and 2,000 mares can be treated each year depending on gathering needs,
weather conditions, availability of the vaccine, and budget. Of these
constraints, the most limiting is vaccine availability. The current
research team, under contract with BLM, is the only source of the
vaccine. Their ability to produce the vaccine in quantities needed by
BLM for widespread application will require hiring additional personnel
and is dependent on BLM funding. The vaccine drug costs approximately
$80.00 per application.
As recommended by the Board, BLM is providing vaccine application
training through the contractor to BLM Wild Horse and Burro
Specialists. The first formal training is scheduled to take place in
Billings, MT, during August of 1999.
Knowledge gained from current research efforts on herd health and
dynamics will dictate the scope at which BLM implements widespread
application of the vaccine. In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), planned gathers along with site-
specific fertility control applications (HMA level) will be subject to
complete analysis of the potential affects on herds, and on other
associated resource values.
Question. What is the current status of the adoption part of the
program? Has the backlog of corralled animals been reduced? How many
animals per year for the next three years does the agency expect to
provide for adoption?
Answer. As directed by Public Law 105-83, the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, the BLM
utilizes the competitive bid process for adoption events where
appropriate. Over 60 percent of the adoption events held thus far in
fiscal year 1999 were conducted using competitive bid. This percentage
will continue to increase with time. Unrelated to adoption method
(i.e., competitive vs. non-competitive), the number of animals adopted
over the last several years has decreased due to a general decline in
public demand for wild horses. To compensate for the decline in demand,
BLM has increased both marketing efforts and the number of adoption
events, improving visibility of the animals and the program. An
additional challenge facing the program is that approximately 500
unadopted animals have been in the adoption system over six months even
though BLM is using all means available to improve the animal's chances
of being adopted. Efforts included gelding, training, gentling and
individual advertising on the Internet. BLM is currently considering
other innovative options.
BLM has implemented a selective removal policy that requires the
removal of only those animals that are five years old and younger from
the range in order to provide animals that are more desirable to
adopters. The average number of animals maintained in holding
facilities has decreased because BLM is controlling the number of
animals removed from the range. These removal policies are contingent
on the flow of animals through the facilities to willing, eligible
adopters. A reasonable projection for animals to be removed over the
next few years with a static adoption market averages approximately
7,300 to 8,500 animals per year. The projected number of mares BLM will
treat with the immuno-contraceptive vaccine is 1,500 to 2,000 per year.
Adoption and fertility control currently remain the only available
tools for population control on the range. In spite of efforts to
improve the adoption program and the use of the fertility control
measure, populations will likely increase at a rate higher than our
capability to remove and adopt excess animals. As a result range
resources and herd health will be at risk.
national petroleum reserve--alaska
Question. What is the current status of the proposed lease sale in
the NPR-A? Will the sale occur as scheduled? If not, why not?
Answer. The NPR-A lease sale was held on May 5, 1999, offering 431
tracts on approximately 3.9 million acres. We received high bids
totaling $104,635,728 for 133 tracts covering 867,450.39 acres. The
overwhelming number of bids was focused in the northeast corner of the
lease sale area on tracts rated by the BLM as having high potential for
oil and gas.
Question. What is the expected level of interest in this project
from industry? What impact will the additional work load created by the
NPR-A have on other aspects of the BLM's oil and gas program in Alaska?
Has the agency requested sufficient funds for the Alaska office so that
its other programs will not be impacted?
Answer. The BLM expected some interest in tracts with high oil and
gas potential, and less interest on a few of the low potential tracts.
The number of bids received and the tracts receiving bids exceeded our
expectations. If this new leasing results in increased discoveries, we
anticipate an additional workload in development and compliance
activities but currently the program is working within its budget
constraints and is effectively balancing its priorities.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The Director has produced a 5-Year Strategic Plan which
lays out long-term direction for BLM, as well as Annual Performance
Plans which define performance measures and establish target levels of
accomplishment for each measure. These plans have been incorporated
into the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget request to the Congress.
The BLM's budget documents anticipated performance levels for major
program areas.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Top-level managers have program and strategic goals
incorporated into their performance reviews and evaluations. Senior
Executives are also held accountable for accomplishing the work
identified in the annual budget. Since 1997, BLM has published Annual
Reports documenting performance related to mission goals, stewardship
assets, and finances. BLM is beginning to provide incentives for
improving employee and organizational performance, exemplified in part
by holding offices responsible for meeting performance goals via
budgetary incentives.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. BLM developed a Management Information System to track and
report performance and customer satisfaction information. This
information will be available to all managers, and can be used to
compare performance within organizational units. These data can be
accessed throughout the year, enabling the BLM to inquire about areas,
offices, or organizations that are achieving below expectations.
Performance-based information has raised the BLM's goals from measuring
completion of project work to evaluating whether the project work is
effective in helping the BLM reach its program or mission goals.
Performance measures and data collection improvements will be completed
over the next few years to provide better management information which
can affect decision-making.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. Budget increases for initiatives and programs were tied to
performance goals in the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan.
Funding requests were illustrated with expected changes in performance
and workload accomplishments. Where funding increases were requested,
programs showed corresponding improvements in performance. Where
funding was level and technologies, automation, or process efficiencies
themselves could not improve BLM's ability to improve performance,
performance was shown to be level or declining.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. BLM has made an effort to tie funding to performance goals
and the work needed to achieve these goals. This has had an effect of
focusing program work to those areas that have the greatest impacts on
improving performance. The implementation of a Management Information
System has enhanced the agency's ability to track work, financial data,
and accomplishments, resulting in a better understanding of the
linkages and how to direct funding to get the best results. In some
areas, process improvements and organizational changes have been
implemented to improve performance. In other cases, organizations have
had to shift work priorities to achieve performance targets.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. BLM's budget structure often does not directly relate to
performance goals or performance measures/results. It is more directly
related to programs, work processes, or outputs. The BLM has initiated
an Activity Based Costing (ABC) process to help break down the costs of
achieving individual activities and tasks. From this information BLM
believes it can roll up these costs to better reflect the achievement
of specific performance goals and/or measures.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. As BLM gains experience in the use of ABC they may develop
recommendations to modify its budget structure to improve the linkages
between budget development and budget execution. At this time BLM is
not recommending changes.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. At this time, only one or two measures have not yet
established a baseline. BLM is working on these few measures with hopes
of obtaining the required information by the end of 1999.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. Data collection is currently underway for all measures. BLM
is increasing the reliability of all measures by improving the data
specifications which define the required accuracy and boundaries for
data collection. This is a continual improvement process. In some
cases, new goals and measures are being considered for which data is
more reliable and the measures can better drive management decisions.
Question. How will the agency's future funding request take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance?
Answer. Program funding is directly related to BLM's ability to
accomplish work. The effectiveness of this work is evaluated using
actual performance information. Actual performance data will aid in
identifying opportunities for BLM programs or offices to improve
efficiencies or where additional funding is required to achieve desired
outcomes. BLM will continue to be challenged in directing its limited
funding to strategic mission accomplishments based on their ability to
get the most performance for the least amount of funding. Actual
performance data along with financial records and management leadership
will be used to re-direct future funding requests.
central hazmat
Question. On how many sites is the department conducting activities
funded by the Central Hazardous Materials program? How many of these
sites are on the National Priority List?
Answer. The Department is funding work at eighteen sites. Six of
these sites are on the NPL with one site likely to be added in the next
year. Of the six NPL sites, the Department is listed as the lead agency
at three sites.
Question. What are the agency's estimates of the costs to clean up
all the sites it is responsible for on the NPL? Where are they located?
Answer. Current estimates for the completion of cleanup of NPL
sites where the Department is the lead agency range from $83.9 million
to $88 million. These sites are located at the Great Swamp NWR
(Operable Unit 3) in New Jersey, the Crab Orchard NWR in Illinois, and
the closed Lee Acres Landfill in New Mexico. Cost recovery has been
completed at Great Swamp Operable Unit 3. Cost recovery and cost
sharing work is on-going at the remaining two sites.
Question. What efforts is the department making in terms of
collecting funds from other Principal Responsible Parties?
Answer. The Department has substantially expanded its efforts to
the recovery of response costs from potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) having liability for some or all of the response costs incurred
in cleaning up releases on Departmental lands. The Office of the
Solicitor has created a separate branch, the Branch of Federal
Facilities Compliance (BFFC), to spearhead the legal efforts associated
with recovering costs or persuading PRPs to perform cleanup at the
direction of the Department. This effort includes close work both with
the Department of Justice( DOJ) and with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and to pursue PRPs. Our efforts are
currently focused on the Cuyahoga NRA, OH and the Crab Orchard NWR, IL.
Case development or negotiations with PRPs is underway at more than
a dozen sites under the jurisdiction of the Department. In addition,
preliminary investigations to identify PRPs have been or are being
initiated by the bureaus at dozens of other sites around the country
including abandoned mines, landfills, and other hazardous substance
release sites. To facilitate these investigations, BFFC staff have been
providing training and consultation to bureau field staffs.
Many of these efforts show great promise for success but the time
frame for realizing such success is long, often measured in years. It
is premature to evaluate these efforts in terms of only monetary
results accomplished. Groundwork laid by the PRP pursuit efforts
involving consistent legal support and policy guidance, better record
keeping and enhanced cost estimation are all necessary steps needed to
ensure future success and concomitantly are the stepping stones for
overall program success.
Question. How successful have these efforts been?
Answer. To date, settlements with PRPs have resulted in savings to
the Department of over $40 million. In addition, negotiations with PRPs
are ongoing at several sites where the Department's objective is to
reach settlements that combined will result in further savings of
millions of dollars.
Question. What are the Department's estimates for the amount of
money that can be collected from PRPs in future years?
Answer. The Department does not have an estimate of the amount of
money that can be collected from PRPs. The variables that affect this
figure include: (1) what costs we will incur; (2) what sites have
viable PRPs; and (3) what percentage of costs at each of those sites we
will recover from PRPs.
Question. Could the bulk of the necessary cleanup work ever be paid
for through monies received from PRPs? If so, when?
Answer. No, the Department does not believe that funds from PRPs
will ever eliminate the need for cleanup funds through direct
appropriations. It is the policy of the Department that the polluter
pays for site contamination. This policy includes Departmental
oversight costs as well as the actual cleanup cost. All settlements
must be approved by DOJ. Aggressive PRP pursuit and settlement
negotiations have resulted in savings of over $35 million.
Appropriations since the CHF was established are $57 million, so the
work completed to date totals approximately $92 million.
In addition to the recovery of funds, the Department also pursues
cost contribution actions against PRPs. Cost contribution claims must
be proved by demonstrating the specific percentage of liability is
properly allocated to each PRP, based on a variety of factors related
to each PRPs involvement at a site. Given the fact that at many
Department sites, PRP activity occurred decades ago and the
availability of records or other proof is often limited or nonexistent,
this is a more demanding, time consuming and costly approach to site
liability allocation than is required of EPA. The DOJ has advised the
Department that this approach will be required at most CHF projects due
to our landowner status.
The goal of the Department is to increase the percentage of savings
relative to appropriation. However, we are not able to say that the
bulk of the cleanup funds will be received from PRPs at this point in
the program due to the significant variables mentioned previously.
general
The Subcommittee has received information that current facilities
for the agency's Arizona Strip District are inadequate.
Question. Are there current plans to improve or replace those
facilities? What would be the estimated cost?
Answer. The administrative facilities for the Arizona Strip
District are in St. George, Utah. These facilities are new and are
meeting all administrative needs. There are currently no plans to
improve or replace these facilities.
Question. If the City of Fredonia constructed office space for the
Forest Service to be leased by the North Kaibab Ranger District, would
a similar arrangement for the BLM as part of a government complex be
considered favorably? What, if any, problems would there be with such
as arrangement?
Answer. As stated above, the headquarters for the Arizona Strip
District are new and are located in St. George, Utah. In addition, BLM
has another administrative site in the City of Kanab, which administers
public lands in southern Utah; additionally, the U.S. Forest Service
has an existing facility in Fredonia. Typically, administrative support
for the BLM's Arizona Strip District is provided by either one of these
facilities, therefore the BLM does not see a need for a separate
facility in Fredonia at this time.
Minerals Management Service
offsetting receipts
Over one-half of the Mineral Management Service's budget for fiscal
year 2000 is derived from offsetting receipts which come from rents
collected by the agency on federal leases. The Department has proposed
increasing the existing cap on these receipts in fiscal year 2000 from
$100 million to $124 million.
Question. How have lower oil prices affected the agency's
projections for how much it will collect in offsetting receipts for
fiscal year 2000? Will the agency collect more than $124 million?
Answer. At the time of the initial estimate, $124 million seemed a
reasonable target. Recently oil prices have been very uncertain. This
was evident at the recent Gulf of Mexico sale which resulted in $3.57
million in additional offsetting collections as compared to $17.14
million from the same sale last year and $18.9 million from the sale
the year before. After adjusting for the decline in oil prices and
incorporating data from the most recent Gulf of Mexico sale, MMS now
projects offsetting collections in fiscal year 2000 to be approximately
$115 million. The actual amount of the shortfall could be affected by
future sales.
Question. How would the agency make-up the shortfall in its budget
if the cap on offsetting receipts is raised to $124 million? What
agency activities would be affected the most?
Answer. If the projected shortfall of approximately $9 million
materializes, we would delay implementation of the Royalty
Reengineering Initiative and reduce environmental studies.
valuation
Question. What is the current status of discussions between
industry and the agency regarding proposed valuation regulations? What
is the likelihood that a resolution can be reached concerning valuation
and the duty to market which satisfies all stakeholders?
Answer. In response to many requests from Members of Congress and
parties interested in moving the process forward to publish a final
rule, on March 4, 1999, the Secretary announced plans to reopen the
comment period for the Federal oil valuation rule.
On March 12, MMS reopened the comment period for 30 days until
April 12. MMS also announced three public workshops to discuss
resolution of outstanding issues on the rule. The workshops were held
in Houston, Texas on March 24, in Albuquerque, New Mexico on March 25,
and in Washington, D.C. on April 6 and 7. Representatives from
industry, States, and public interest groups all presented various
proposals at these workshops. On April 12, MMS extended the comment
period an additional 15 days to April 27.
Now that the comment period has ended, we will evaluate and give
consideration to all of the proposals and comments received at the
workshops and in the written comments. However, until we finish our
review of all of the comments submitted, we cannot comment on the
likelihood that a resolution can be reached that satisfies all
stakeholders. We remain committed to assuring that the American
taxpayer receives full market value for its mineral resources.
The fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations extended
the moratorium on the valuation of crude oil until October 1, 1999.
Question. What impact has the agency's decision to extend the
comment period had on the time frames for issuing the new valuation
regulations?
Answer. The result of MMS's decision to extend the comment period
resulted in review of additional comments received. Furthermore, the
fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations extended the
moratorium, which will delay publishing another proposed rule until
fiscal year 2000.
Question. What are the agency's current projections on how much
additional money will be paid in the form of royalties by industry
under the new regulations? How has the lower price of oil affected
these estimates, if at all?
Answer. In its February 1998 proposal, MMS's analysis of 1996 data
showed the proposed Federal oil valuation rule would have had an
economic impact of approximately $66 million in increased royalty
collections annually. These estimates were based on a comparison of
Federal oil royalties received in 1996 for both onshore and offshore
production to those we would have expected under the provisions of the
February 1998 proposal. The Indian oil valuation rule would have an
annual impact of approximately $4 million as estimated by a similar
comparison.
The lower price of oil has not impacted this estimate because the
difference between market prices and the posted prices used by industry
to pay their royalties has remained relatively fixed as prices have
dropped. Regardless, we are pleased for the domestic petroleum industry
to see that oil prices have rebounded in recent weeks.
Question. What specific measures is the agency taking to help
producers most affected by low oil prices? Are any other measures under
consideration?
Answer. MMS issued a proposed rule on January 12, 1999, that will
provide six relief options for marginal properties. This rule will save
industry over $1.2 million per year in reporting costs alone. On
February 4, 1999, the Department announced that it would grant relief
to small oil operators producing on public lands by allowing them to
suspend operations for up to two years without losing their leases.
The MMS has updated two Notices to Lessees (NTL) to help the
domestic industry adjust to and survive low prices. By issuing the two
NTL's, MMS has taken two important steps to ease the number of early
abandonments and to lower the threshold needed to qualify for royalty
relief.
For the second time in five months, MMS lowered price forecasts
used by existing leaseholders that apply for deepwater royalty relief.
Fields in water deeper than 200 meters in the Central and Western Gulf
of Mexico (GOM), that demonstrate economic need at these prices,
qualify for suspension of royalty payments. MMS has reduced its 1999
estimate price to better reflect prices companies are currently
experiencing.
MMS has revised its guidelines for those applying for deepwater and
end-of-life royalty relief. In addition, MMS has identified the need
for relief outside these formal programs. Under the formal process, for
instance, a lessee who has invested significant resources to lower
production costs would be required to wait at least a year before
applying for end-of-life royalty relief. Under the new approach, a
lessee who has made a commitment of capital and meets additional
criteria would be able to apply immediately during this period of low
oil prices. End-of-life royalty relief and exceptional circumstance
relief are aimed at situations where resources would be prematurely
abandoned without the relief being granted.
MMS is now paying interest to lessees when they overpay royalties.
MMS issued a proposed rule on the appeals process on January 12, 1999.
MMS is also revamping its appeals process to streamline it, resolve
disputes within 33 months, and allow lessees to self-bond.
MMS will continue its dialogue with oil and gas operators about how
best to deal with low oil price environment and is analyzing other
actions for possible adoption.
destin dome
Question. What is the current status of the Destin Dome project
located off the Alabama and Florida coastlines? When will the coastal
zone management determination be finalized?
Answer. The MMS will complete the draft EIS on the Destin Dome
project in July 1999. The draft EIS will be filed with EPA in July/
August 1999 and released to the public. The public hearings on the EIS
will be held in August/September 1999.
The State of Florida's coastal zone review was received by MMS on
February 18, 1998. The State objected to Chevron's consistency
findings. Chevron appealed the State's objection to NOAA on April 3,
1998. The State filed a request with NOAA on May 6, 1998, to hold a
public hearing on the objection. The proposed hearing is tentatively
scheduled for the fall of 1999 in Pensacola, FL. NOAA published a new
Federal Register Notice advising that the public comment period will be
extended until 30 days following the appeal hearing. NOAA will accept
comments within 30 days of the appeal public hearing. A date for a
final decision on the State's Coastal Zone Management objection is
unknown.
Question. What is the State of Florida's position on this project?
How has the agency worked with the State of Florida on this issue?
Answer. The State has objected to the project and has found it
inconsistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. The State's
finding of inconsistency was based on (1) the lack of sufficient
information and analyses, (2) insufficient time to review responses to
the State's earlier requests for additional information, (3) failure to
supply requested information, and (4) inconsistencies with provisions
of Florida Statutes. Florida laws enacted in 1989/1990 prevent oil and
gas activities in State territorial waters. In 1991, Florida adopted a
policy to prevent oil and gas activities within 100 miles of its coasts
due to the potential for impacts to marine, coastal, land and economic
resources.
The MMS consulted with the State and Chevron in December 1997 in an
attempt to get all parties to agree to a revised CZM consistency time
frame. However, agreement could not be reached. Subsequently, the MMS
has consulted with the State throughout the preparation of the draft
EIS on technical issues of concern and responded to numerous questions
raised on every aspect of the project.
Question. What, if any, estimates does the agency have for the
total gas reserves located on this lease? If fully developed, what
would be the expected royalty income to the United States from this
project?
Answer. Destin Dome unit consists of 11 blocks, of which 2 have
been drilled. Preliminary mapping indicates resource and reserve
potential of between 425 billion cubic feet and 3 trillion cubic feet
of natural gas. Our estimate for royalty income, over the life of the
project (at \1/6\ royalty and between $1.75 and $2.00/million cubic
feet), is between $12 5 million and $1.0 billion.
international activities
Question. The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes an increase
of $250,000 to participate in international fora. What specific
conferences and what international organizations does the agency plan
to participate in during fiscal year 2000? What activities will this
additional money pay for?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 funds will be used to participate in
meetings of the International Organization for Standards (ISO).
In August 1998, MMS became an active participant in the U.S.
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO Technical Committee 67
(Materials, Equipment and Offshore Structures for Petroleum and Natural
Gas Industries).
In fiscal year 2000 we plan to participate in the ISO Subcommittees
dealing with Pipeline Transportation (SC2), Drilling and Completion
Fluids and Cements (SC3), Drilling and Production Equipment (SC4), and
Offshore Structures (SC7), as well as Line Pipe (SC1), Casing, Tubing,
and Drill Pipe (SC5), and Processing, Equipment and Systems (SC6).
In addition, the budget request will support our participation in
conferences and workshops for other standards-developing organizations
and International Fora including the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and the London Convention. Issues having a direct
impact on U.S. offshore oil and gas operations, such as standards for
drilling mud discharges, platform removal requirements, and Floating
Production Storage and Offloading facilities are currently being
discussed in these fora.
Question. To what extent does the agency currently participate in
such international organizations? How much is spent? What are the
particular benefits to the U.S. government and to industry of MMS
participation?
Answer. MMS' participation in the ISO has been limited in the past
due to budget constraints. As a result, MMS has not always been able to
ensure that a U.S. perspective is considered as international standards
have been developed. MMS incorporates standards into our regulations to
address changes in offshore oil and gas technology as appropriate.
Hence, MMS must participate in the meetings of the ISO in order to
ensure that these standards address U.S. operating requirements.
Several other agencies within the U.S. Government, such as the Coast
Guard and the Department of Energy, have specific monies appropriated
for these types of international activities.
The MMS believes it is critical to participate in international
fora such as the International Maritime Organization and the London
Dumping Convention. As we addressed in our previous response, the
issues being discussed in these fora have a direct impact on U.S.
offshore oil and gas operations.
Question. The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget states that it will
use $250,000 from data conversion funds to pay for international
activities. What will be the impact on the data conversion efforts? How
long will these conversion activities be extended because of the
decrease in funds?
Answer. Progress is being made on the data conversion efforts. The
most complex effort focuses on correcting historical well data. Since
the initial estimates were made, MMS has found the project to be much
more complicated and controversial than first expected. Consequently, a
contract was issued for a pilot effort to further scope out the
problems, examine MMS processes, and develop a statement of work for
the full contract. Since that time, MMS has integrated the results of
that pilot effort into a proposal for a full contract. We anticipate
issuing a procurement solicitation to determine qualified bidders in
May/June 1999. Thus, MMS is satisfied that redirecting $250,000 in
fiscal year 2000 is viable. At this time, it is premature to predict
how long, or if, the conversion activities would be extended because of
redirecting $250,000 in fiscal year 2000. Any extension in the project
may end up being more a result of the complexities of the project
rather than a result of redirecting $250,000 for international
activities in fiscal year 2000.
marine minerals research center
The agency proposes eliminating funding for the marine mineral
research center at the University of Mississippi.
Question. Why is funding for this program being eliminated when
much of the focus of the research at the university involves deep water
issues which appear to be increasingly important? Isn't work being done
at the university helpful in learning about important issues relating
to deepwater development in the Gulf of Mexico?
Answer. The Marine Minerals Research Centers (MMRCs) were
reauthorized under the Marine Minerals Resources Research Act of 1996,
and placed under oversight and management of the Department of the
Interior. The MMRC at the University of Mississippi was funded in the
amount of $600,000 in fiscal year 1999. The mission of the MMRC is to
conduct research on the exploration and extraction of minerals from the
seabeds of the continental shelves, deep ocean, and arctic regions,
including deepwater research.
The MMS recognizes the importance of the investigations and
technological development that this center pursues, particularly the
longer term research. However, due to higher research priorities for
oil and gas exploration and extraction MMS is proposing to eliminate
MMRC funding in fiscal year 2000.
reengineering
The agency's budget proposes a large increase to support its
reengineering efforts.
Question. How is this effort proceeding? Are all the scheduled
deadlines being met? Are any unanticipated issues arising?
Answer. The Reengineering Initiative is proceeding consistent with
the project implementation action plan and schedule. The acquisition
strategy and approach being used has been well received by the vendor
community. Contract award is scheduled for September 1999 for the
financial system and relational database management system. Completion
of the installation is scheduled for September 2001. Procurement action
to acquire the compliance component will begin in fall 1999.
To date, MMS has not experienced any unanticipated issues.
Question. What are the agency's current estimates of how soon this
effort will pay for itself through more efficient, accurate collection
of royalties? Will the reengineering effort reduce the costs of
collection to MMS? If so, how? And how much?
Answer. MMS estimates that upon completion, the investment in RMP
systems modernization can be recovered in two years. Expected benefits
of approximately $19 million annually will be realized through
increased revenues and operational cost savings. The operational cost
savings components of the benefit estimates are expected in the areas
of simplified reporting and improved systems efficiencies. Simplified
reporting is expected to reduce MMS costs by approximately $1.5 million
annually. With the implementation of simplified reporting changes, MMS
estimates significant improvements in overall reporting efficiency, and
a reduction in reporting burden to royalty payors of 40 percent. Upon
full implementation, improved systems efficiencies are expected to
reduce MMS costs by approximately $2 million annually and increase
revenue collection by approximately $15 million. An integrated
accounting system that would eliminate many stand alone, personal
computer based, applications and a fully deployed relational database
management system are the major contributors to the projected costs
savings.
royalty-in-kind
Question. How are the agency's royalty-in-kind projects proceeding?
What, if any, conclusions can be drawn from the pilots to date?
Answer. MMS's royalty-in-kind projects are going well and are
proceeding on schedule. To date we have sold crude oil in Wyoming in
two successive auctions and moved gas from section 8(g) leases to
offshore Texas. While it is too early to draw conclusions, one
important message that is being demonstrated by the pilots is that
royalties from leases with small and marginal production, and oil
production not connected to pipeline systems, are clearly unattractive
for the Federal government to take in kind. Further, in the limited
cases where the logistics are attractive, the Federal government can
realize some benefit by delivering natural gas to Federal facilities
for direct consumption.
Question. Under what circumstances does RIK make good economic
sense for the government? When, if ever, does it not?
Answer. This is the question that the RIK pilot programs have been
designed to help answer. Conceptually, since under RIK the government
must bear costs now borne by the lessee, unless we can sell the
production more effectively than the lessee, the Government will lose
revenue. The ability to aggregate some of our production as well as the
ability to sell our production further downstream may help to offset
these higher costs. Until the pilots have run their course, however, we
will not know whether these offsetting benefits exist, or if they do,
whether they will be sufficient to prevent us from losing revenue. RIK
can only make sense on a case by case, lease by lease, basis. If we
have learned anything to date, it is that every circumstance is
different and no generalized rules for RIK seem to apply. Flexibility,
discretion, and choice are essential for a successful RIK program.
Without them, RIK can not make good economic sense.
Question. Wouldn't moving to an RIK system nationally resolve the
current disputes concerning valuation for royalty purposes? What
potential problems, if any, would there be if such a system were
implemented nationally?
Answer. The potential is that it would just replace one set of
royalty disputes with others. Transportation cost issues would remain,
and royalty revenue audits would be replaced by royalty production
volume audits, as well as by audits of marketing contractors and others
providing services to the Government necessary for RIK. The main
potential problem, if an RIK system were implemented nationally, would
be loss of revenue to the Nation. Based on what we have learned from
our RIK pilot programs, a mandatory system across the Nation may not be
economically viable.
sand and gravel
The fiscal year 2000 budget states that charging a fee to Virginia
Beach was the first time the Secretary used his discretionary authority
to assess a fee.
Question. Will this fee be charged to all future participants in
the sand and gravel program?
Answer. A fee of $198,000 was charged for the use of 1.1 million
cubic yards of OCS sand to nourish Sandbridge Beach. Public Law 103-426
authorizes MMS to negotiate agreements for the use of OCS sand and
gravel, e.g., to support beach nourishment project construction, and to
assess a fee for its use. Assessing a fee is discretionary, and the
decision will be made on a case-specific basis, except that no fee is
assessed against a Federal agency. MMS policy is to assess a fee
consistent with the criteria established in the law, and exceptions are
expected to occur only for limited circumstances. The precise case(s)
for exceptions to a fee cannot be defined in advance because a judgment
is required, for each situation, that either the public interest
benefits from the use of OCS sand warrant no fee, or that a fee would
be so burdensome as to prevent construction of an otherwis e acceptable
project.
Currently, in both the Senate and House versions of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (S. 507 and H.R. 1480) there is a
provision that would prohibit MMS from assessing fees. S. 507 also
provides for reimbursement for any fees paid to MMS (i.e., the fee paid
by Virginia Beach).
Question. What is the criteria for deciding to charge a fee and for
determining the amount of the fee? How do these fees compare to what
other owners of sand and gravel charge?
Answer. Consistent with congressional intent, future requests for
use of OCS sand will include fee assessments as part of the negotiated
terms. As described above, any decision not to assess a fee would be
based on specific circumstances, and would be limited.
Public Law 103-426 provides direction that the assessment of a fee
balance resource value with public interest served--the fee is to be
``based on an assessment of the value of the resources and the public
interest served by promoting development of the resources.''
In October 1997, MMS prepared, and distributed widely, guidelines
on how we will determine fees. The guidelines were prepared as internal
guidance for MMS employees, when negotiating agreements, but were also
shared with the public to assist governmental sponsors with planning
for project costs and funding. The guidelines were reviewed and found
acceptable by the Secretary's OCS Policy Committee. Under the approach
developed in the guidelines, assessment of fees first requires a
determination of the resource value. A current estimate of market value
is determined based on an assessment of what other owners of sand and
gravel charge. But the law provides that the public interest served by
the project also be considered in the determination. Therefore, MMS
provides for adjustments to the estimated resource value to reflect
public benefit from project construction, like hurricane and storm
damage reduction, wetlands restoration, habitat restoration, etc. To
reflect public benefits in the fee determination, the guidelines
provide a discount for State and local government based on the same
percentage (typically 65 percent) used to represent the congressionally
mandated Federal share of the costs of shore protection project.
alaska projects
Question. What is the current status of the Liberty and North Star
projects in Alaska? Have all necessary permits been issued?
Answer. The Northstar Project is still awaiting permits. The
Northstar Production Island is located in State of Alaska waters, but
the reservoir underlies both State and federal waters. The State of
Alaska and the North Slope Borough have approved the project. The
controlling permit to start construction is the Corps of Engineers
(COE) 404 permit (dredge and fail). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
objected to the COE draft decision with regard to the pipeline route
and elevated the decision to COE headquarters. The final COE decision
was alternative two, which was the preferred British Petroleum
Pipeline, a nd a 404 permit was issued.
The MMS has begun to complete its process for the Development
Production Plan and accompanying oil discharge contingency plan.
EPA issued the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) on May 21, 1999, and the effective date is June 21, 1999.
The Liberty Project and reservoir are entirely within OCS waters
but with the pipeline routing going through State of Alaska waters and
lands. BP submitted a Development Production Plan to the MMS in early
1998. Because of the delays to Northstar, last fall BP asked that MMS
delay issuance of the draft EIS until after decisions on Northstar.
This month BPAmoco has delayed its estimated production startup for
Liberty until 2003. MMS, the Corps of Engineers, and BPAmoco have
decided to hold facilitated meetings with the permitting agencies to
discuss development options for Liberty, especially regarding the
pipeline designs, to try to ensure all issues are identified up front.
Under this approach, the Draft EIS will be completed in late spring
2000.
Question. What other agencies are involved in the review of these
projects? What, if any, obstacles remain for these projects to enter
the production phase? What is expected royalty income for the United
States from these projects?
Answer. Federal agencies involved in the review of both projects
include the Corps of Engineers (COE), EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Minerals Management Service, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. State of Alaska agencies and the North Slope Borough
are also involved in reviewing both projects. The COE was the lead
federal agency for the Northstar EIS. MMS is the lead agency for the
Liberty EIS.
The Northstar Project must obtain permits from the COE to construct
the gravel island and pipeline. All agencies concurred that the project
and pipeline were safe; however, some disagreement existed on the
routing of the pipeline. If the COE finally approves the BPAmoco plan
and pipeline route, gravel island construction should proceed in the
winter of 2000. If the COE chooses another pipeline route, the
applicant will have to amend its plans, and the State and North Slope
Borough will have to reopen their reviews of the new route.
Liberty is still at the beginning of its permitting process.
BPAmoco will need all State, Borough, and federal permits for the
project. Some agencies have asked for a review of alternative pipeline
designs for Liberty, and the facilitated process will be used to define
options to review.
Royalties from federal production at Northstar are estimated at $75
million for the life of the field. Because these leases are within the
8(g) zone, an estimated $20 million will be shared with the State of
Alaska. Royalties from federal production at Liberty are $178 million.
Because these leases are within the 8(g) zone, an estimated $48 million
will be shared with the State of Alaska.
Question. What are the agency's future expectations with respect to
leasing in Alaska?
Answer. MMS surveyed the industry in late 1998 regarding their
views on Alaska leasing. The Beaufort Sea remains the area of most
interest, especially the central Beaufort in the area closest to
infrastructure. Because of the amount of development activity, State
sales, and the NPRA sale, industry expressed interest in a one-year
delay for the next OCS Beaufort Sale, and MMS will delay the sale to
fiscal year 2002. The State of Alaska will continue to offer its
Beaufort State waters for lease, and future federal sales can
complement the areas offered by the State. Industry holds a good
inventory of leases in State and Federal waters with a number of good
prospects for development. MMS has and will continue to assist the BLM
on lease management for the NPRA, and expects interest to continue.
Companies expressed a longer term interest in Cook Inlet, the
Chukchi Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska. They asked that these areas remain
available in the next 5 Year Plan, but did not see a need for sales in
these areas in the next few years. Thus MMS will postpone sales in
these areas until the next 5 Year Plan.
deepwater issues
Question. Given the complex issues related to deepwater drilling
and production, what is the anticipated budgetary impact on the
agency's Leasing and Environmental Assessment, and Environmental
Studies program in the future? How do the costs of preparing a sale and
providing all necessary review through the production stage in
deepwater compare to costs for other sales?
Answer. No impact is expected on the portion of our operating
budget devoted to conducting lease sales. Lease sales are traditionally
``area-wide'' in scope, and this has not changed due to deepwater
leasing. However, increased lease administration workload due to the
great increase in leased tracts, and the more complex issues associated
with industry business practices for these expensive ventures, may
strain our budgetary resources.
Environmental assessment
The complexity and increased level of activity of oil and gas
activities in deep water have had considerable impact on the
environmental assessment-related workload in the Gulf of Mexico OHS
Region. Numerous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents are
currently under preparation regarding deepwater activities. An
Environmental Assessment (EA) is nearly completed that addresses
activities unique to operations in deepwater, and a contract for
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has just been
awarded to evaluate the potential impacts of the possible use of
floating, production, and offloading systems (FPSO's) in the Gulf.
Additional evaluations are needed for several major topics, including
riserless drilling, fate and effects of potential oil spills from
deepwater blowouts, chemical product usage, and the storage and
offloading of hydrocarbons during initial well testing. These
evaluations are expected to be prepared in-house, but are currently on
hold due to workload constraints. The Office of Leasing and Environment
in the Gulf of Mexico Region has recently reorganized to support
efforts to re-engineer work processes for greater efficiency. As the
re-engineered work processes mature, we hope to be able to resume work
on these important environmental protection projects in addition to
coordination and assessment of site-specific deepwater plans.
Environmental studies program
With the deepwater supplemental budget of $4,000,000 for fiscal
year 1998, 14 new studies were started which focused on GOM deepwater
issues. In fiscal year 1999, 8 new deepwater studies have been
initiated for another $4,000,000. Elements are now in place for a
strong deepwater program which provides information for our many NEPA
responsibilities. But, following this initial effort, the cost of
maintaining a maturing deepwater program will increase. A major
deepwater physical oceanographic study of the processes of the slope
and rise is in planning with estimated costs for funding exceeding $10
million. An extensive deepwater benthic study will cost about $5
million. Meeting our environmental responsibilities in deepwater areas
will be a challenge given the expense of performing studies in that
environment.
Costs of preparing a sale
As noted above, the costs for preparing a sale that includes
deepwater tracts is virtually the same as the costs for preparing
previous sales, since all sales since 1983 have been ``area-wide.''
Operating costs for administering deepwater leases are the same as
for other sales. But, the many leases and related activities
(especially, bonds and assignments) due to the record-breaking,
deepwater-focused sales of the last few years have increased our
workload.
There has been a significant increase in the data costs for
deepwater lease sale tract evaluations compared to the costs associated
with evaluation efforts on the shelf. This is due to the fact that deep
water is a frontier area. In many cases no historical data is available
with which to evaluate the area. The real problems come with the need
for reprocessed seismic data (converting 2D data to 3D data) in subsalt
areas of the deep water and the effort to identify which companies have
reprocessed data. Additional time is needed for the evaluation of this
reprocessed data.
Costs of environmental reviews
Assessing plans in deep water is more complex and more demanding in
time and financial resources than for similar plans in shallow water
where the agency has years of experience evaluating industry activity.
Most of the additional cost of assessing plans in deep water is related
to the increased cost of obtaining deepwater environmental data and
information, and the additional time and effort required for staff to
evaluate and understand the potential impacts associated with
industry's use of new technology to operate in the harsher conditions
of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
Costs of operational reviews
As a result of the significant differences and technological
complexities of each facility and the fast tracking of each project in
deep water, compared to similar activity on the Continental shelf, the
agency now requires the submittal of Deepwater Operations Plans (DWOPs)
for all projects in water depths greater than 1,000 feet and for all
subsea completions. This three-part plan covers the life of the project
from the conceptual phase of the project to final abandonment.
In addition, the enormous cost of deepwater projects has led
operators into a position which sometimes favors quick recovery of
investment at the expense of long-term conservation considerations. To
address this issue the agency now requires the submittal of
Conservation Information Supplements with all DWOPs. Reviews of these
documents require a broader and deeper knowledge and understanding of
petroleum geology, geophysics, and engineering, as related to every
facet of reservoir management, in order to ensure the conservation of
petroleum resources.
Due to the increased technology and costs associated with deepwater
exploration and development, applications and formation of units have
significantly increased. The passage of the Deepwater Royalty Relief
Act (DWRRA) signed into law on November 28, 1995, has generated
applications for deepwater royalty relief that require extensive
reviews and evaluations. Co-development of deepwater leases and units
has greatly complicated suspension of production reviews and approvals.
In deepwater, significantly greater changes in pressure and temperature
conditions occur during production; and hydrocarbons behave very
differently, sometimes forming solids that cause uneven production.
Therefore, production measurement and, consequently, the review of
associated industry proposals are more complicated in deepwater leases.
There are also policy issues, such as deep water royalty rate relief,
to be considered in the review that make the review itself more
complex.
The impact of royalty relief associated with ``new'' leases in deep
water has caused a significant increase in manpower needs associated
with new field identification and evaluation. The field determination
process in deep water is much more rigorous since the inception of the
DWRRA, as there is increased scrutiny by oil and gas industry analysts
of this determination process. The increased scrutiny is due to the
enormous amount of royalty-free production (17.5 to 87.5 million
barrels of oil equivalent depending on water depth) associated with
each field determination. As a result of the significance of these
field determinations, the deepwater fields are evaluated much more
thoroughly using 3-D seismic data and digital well logs.
inspections
Question. How does the increased level of activity in deep water
affect the agency's inspection program? How does the number of
incidents of noncompliance (INC's) in deep water compare to other
areas? With more activity in deep water which is farther offshore, will
more inspectors be needed to maintain current safety levels?
Answer. In contrast to shallow water production activity on the
Continental shelf, where procedures are now routine and equipment is
``off the shelf'', deepwater technology is continuously evolving. The
hardware and procedures to drill, produce, and ultimately abandon
operations in deepwater represents the most advanced and unique
technology that the industry currently employs. The review, approval,
and inspection of this new technology demands state- of-the-art
training for all those currently involved in the operational review
process. Because of the evolving nature of these deepwater projects,
additional training will be necessary as the technology continues to
advance. Staffing requirements will also necessarily evolve to keep
pace with the deepwater trends. As the number and complexity of these
deepwater facilities continues to increase, the skill base of the
organization will need to be assessed to insure that, not only is there
a sufficient number of properly trained employees, but also that the
agency skill mix is appropriate. The use and implementation of this new
technology demands new technical specialties, and MMS must insure that
these specialties are captured in the workforce.
To date, the number of incidents of noncompliance for deepwater
activity is much less than for similar types of operations on the
shelf. The newer and more automated facilities in deep water are also
staffed at higher levels as compared to facilities on the shelf.
However, as reflected in MMS's budget request for fiscal year 2000,
we do need some additional resources for the inspection effort,
including an additional helicopter. Deepwater facilities are farther
from shore requiring longer flight times. This degrades inspector
efficiency because significantly more time is consumed in transit to
the remote locations. The larger, more complex, facilities often
require a team of inspectors versus single inspectors, and deepwater
platforms are often in less densely populated areas without an existing
infrastructure. This results in additional transit time between
structures. At the same time, the increase in activity and the remote
location of facilities in deep water has led to new inspection
strategies including sampling inspections and overnight stays of
inspectors at deep water facilities to increase inspection efficiency
and effectiveness. As the number of facilities increase in deep water,
it may again become necessary to increase inspection personnel and to
acquire additional/upgraded helicopter resources to accomplish the
agency mission.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
Answer. The Director of MMS has continually demonstrated the
leadership and commitment necessary for effective implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act. The Director has established a
standing GPRA team to coordinate and facilitate the MMS transition to
performance based management. This team, comprised of managers and
staff from across MMS, is guided and directed by the MMS Quality
Council (MMS Director and Associate Directors) in implementing GPRA and
performance management. The Director's immediate involvement has
provided the leadership that is critical to successful performance
management. Our approach at MMS is driven top down as well as bottom up
with involvement and accountability being created at all levels
throughout the organization.
Question. How are the agency senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. GPRA annual performance goals have been included as a
performance element in the Senior Executive Service Performance
Agreements for 1999. Through these agreements, the senior executives
will be held accountable for achieving GPRA results as part of their
overall performance review. We are currently evaluating the development
of subordinate measures to the GPRA goals that can be used to further
cascade down and hold managers and employees accountable for their
contributions to the performance of the organization.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. The MMS is continuing to gain more experience and a broader
understanding of performance based management and is making real
progress in the use of performance information in managing the agency.
For example, the Royalty Management Program (RMP) has developed and
began using a performance matrix in fiscal year 1997. The matrix
includes GPRA measures and other measures that managers find useful in
managing the program. The information is updated and used monthly by
the RMP Quality Steering Committee to manage resources and monitor
progress toward annual goals. In addition, MMS is gathering available
performance information and data, on a quarterly basis, on each of the
goals contained in its fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan. This
information forms the basis for discussion among senior managers in the
Bureau and at the Department on progress toward achieving our annual
goals. This active monitoring highlights where we are exceeding our
goals and where we may be falling behind and provides the opportunity
to make mid-course management corrections.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request and annual
performance plan, MMS attempted to link program performance to budget
changes. Each mission goal section contains a discussion of the impact
of fiscal year 2000 budget changes on the accomplishment of that
particular goal. For example, in fiscal year 2000 MMS, in conjunction
with its reengineering initiative, is requesting funding to upgrade
RMP's information technology systems. The systems currently in use are
too old and inflexible to efficiently support redesigned business
processes or changing mission requirements such as expanded Royalty-in-
Kind programs. The mix of aging mainframe-based systems and substantial
changes needed to support reengineered business processes represents a
major risk to future systems reliability and operational stability.
These factors jeopardize the programs ability to meet its performance
objectives for accurate and timely disbursement of receipts and for
compliance with royalty regulations. Therefore, additional funding was
requested to upgrade the technology and systems to support these goals.
The GAO review of the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan and
budget highlighted, as an effective portrayal of resources and
performance, the MMS effort to identify funding and full time
equivalent staffing for each performance goal and provide a narrative
that identified how the resources were being used. For example, in
support of the goal for ensuring safe mineral development on the outer
continental shelf, the budget justification was explicit that
approximately $45.469 million and 338 full time equivalents (FTEs) with
backgrounds in petroleum engineering, offshore production and
operations, geology, computer and statistical analysis, management, and
various support services were required to successfully fulfill the
programmatic results. The GAO complimented MMS's descriptive
information relating resources to goals.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. Keeping in mind that fiscal year 1999 is the first year
that a strategic plan and performance goals are in place under the
Government Performance and Results Act, the MMS, like other agencies,
is beginning to identify opportunities and make changes in its
processes and programs to better address its performance goals. The
offshore program has established teams to look at issues that effect
our goals. For instance, an oil price team has been working to
determine the effect of low oil prices on fair market value. Also, in
support of our environmental and safety goals MMS is evaluating ways to
disqualify operators who have traditionally demonstrated poor safety
and environmental records. Additionally, MMS is developing a Safety and
Environmental Program (SEMP) which is designed to give companies more
latitude in the manner in which they meet safety targets while still
meeting the outcomes needed for MMS to achieve its safety and
environmental goals. The Royalty Management Program is developing
operational models that will reengineer their processes to directly
support their strategic goals. The Royalty Management Program has
established partnerships with key stakeholders to allow their
participation in the development of reengineered compliance and asset
management processes.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The MMS annual performance plan for fiscal year 2000 links
the goals contained in the plan to the budget activities by using a
``GPRA program activities structure'' which was developed by
aggregating and disaggregating the program activities included in the
P&F schedules against the GPRA program activities used in the annual
plan. The GPRA program activities used by MMS were the MMS mission
goals. Each discussion of a mission goal in the annual performance plan
includes a listing of related budget accounts and an estimate of the
total aggregate funding for that goal.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. Currently there is not a one-to-one relationship between
budget accounts and activities in the budget justification and the
goals contained in the annual performance plan. This lack of alignment
results in budget accounts supporting multiple goals and goals being
accomplished with funding from several budget accounts. Realigning the
budget account and activity structure with the goals contained in the
strategic and annual plans is premature at this time. However, this
linkage is made in the annual performance plan as explained in the
previous answer.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The MMS has focused over the past year on making sure that
data for all measures contained in the fiscal year 1999 annual
performance plan will be available and reliable. Baselines have been
established for 100 percent of the 22 measures contained in the plan.
MMS has worked extensively to put the methodology and systems in place
to gather, analyze, and report its performance information in an
accurate and timely manner. At this time MMS anticipates having
reliable data for all its goals available in time for the March 2000
report. However, measures relative to oil and gas production and
reserves as well as oil spills and accidents from offshore operations
rely on external sources for information. While delays are not
anticipated in getting this information from the external sources, a
prolonged delay would affect our ability to report complete information
for a few goals.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. The data is expected to be available.
Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance?
Answer. In its first GPRA strategic plan, published in fiscal year
1997, the MMS established long term targets for each of its goals. As
we begin to get actual performance data, we will evaluate each goal and
our ability to achieve the targeted performance, not only for that
year, but also for future years. Future targets, as well as future
resource needs, will be evaluated and adjusted based on these
evaluations. Future funding requests will reflect the need to shift
funding resources to ensure effective performance.
Office of Surface Mining
aml increases
The budget justification for the Office of Surface Mining states
that the singular highlight of its fiscal year 2000 budget is the
Administration's proposal for a multi-year effort to fund the Abandoned
Mine Lands (AML) program at a level commensurate with fee receipts by
2003. The agency proposes a $25 million increase for these activities
for fiscal year 2000.
Question. What level of increases in the AML program does the
agency forecast over the next three years to get to the level of
receipts?
Answer. We project that fee receipts will be approximately $317
million in fiscal year 2003. This is approximately a $100 increase over
the fiscal year 2000 request. While budgets for the out-years have not
yet been developed, one scenario would be for approximately equal
increases over the next three years to reach the level of fee receipts.
Question. Will proposed increases in the AML program over the next
three years mean that the agency will propose decreases in other
programs as an offset? If so, what activities will be affected and to
what extent?
Answer. It is not clear at this time how proposed increases in the
AML program will be funded in fiscal year 2001-2003 or if offsets will
be necessary. If offsets are needed the Department will determine the
necessary offsets as each fiscal year's budget request is developed
based on a review of all accounts to determine where offsets can best
be made.
The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget justification states that $22
million of $25 million increase for AML reclamation program will be
directed to states and tribes doing projects that support the
President's Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP).
Question. What criteria are used to determine whether a project is
a Clean Water Action Plan project?
Answer. An AML project that would correct conditions such as acid
mine drainage from abandoned gob piles, sedimentation of streams as
waste piles erode, and acid mine drainage formed as water enters
underground mine workings and emerges as a pollutant, as well as other
of the CWAP key action items, would be a project that is consistent
with the President's Clean Water Action Plan. A State/Tribe would state
in its grant documents that the increased funds would be used for such
projects.
Question. Would any states or tribes be ineligible for a part of
this increase because they do not currently have CWAP projects. If so
what states or tribes?
Answer. Every time a State or Tribe cleans up an AML site there is
a positive aspect on associated waters. Moreover, based on a staff
review of unreclaimed sites listed in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory
System, and discussions with States and Tribes, we believe that all
have eligible problem sites that could be reclaimed in support of the
President's Clean Water Action Plan. Thus, we anticipate that all State
or Tribe AML programs will be eligible for a part of this requested
increase.
The Subcommittee is concerned about the funding of the Small
Operator Assistance Program (SOAP).
Question. What level of funding is necessary to fully support this
program for fiscal year 2000? How many operators will receive funding
from this program in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. We believe that we will have sufficient funds in fiscal
year 2000 to support 170 operators expected to request assistance. The
funds will be a combination of: (1) the requested appropriation of $1.5
million; (2) recoveries from closed out projects; and (3) unexpended
funds from the fiscal year 1999 approved reprogramming of $2.08
million. Further, if necessary, adjustments will be made in some grant
periods. With the recently approved reprogramming, OSM will obligate
more than $4 million in SOAP operational grants to States during fiscal
year 1999. These grant awards, obligated during fiscal year 1999 but
with budget periods lasting through part of fiscal year 2000, are
expected to result in unexpended funds which will be used in fiscal
year 2000. The fiscal year 2000 request of $1.5 million plus
anticipated recoveries and carryover are projected to total
approximately $4 million, sufficient to fund the program until fiscal
year 2001.
Question. What are the agency's projections for the next three
years in terms of number of operators who will participate in the
program and the amount of money needed to fully fund it?
Answer. The numbers of operators expected to be assisted are:
Fiscal year Operators
2000.............................................................. 170
2001.............................................................. 172
2002.............................................................. 174
The best current estimate is that approximately $4.0 to $4.5
million is needed to fund SOAP operational expenses for a 12-month
period. The States and OSM now are forming a team to conduct an in-
depth review of the ongoing funding needs for this program. Requests
for fiscal year 2001 and beyond will be based on the results of joint
review and the work to develop a formula-based approach to determining
actual one-year funding needs.
appalachian streams initiative
The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $3,000,000 increase
for Appalachian Streams Initiative.
Question. How much additional Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) could be
remediated with this additional funding? How many states currently
receive funds through the ASI program? Will more states receive money
if increased funds are provided?
Answer. We anticipate that remediation will start on up to 42
Appalachian Clean Streams projects (planning, design, or construction)
in fiscal year 2000 with this increase in funding. Once funds are
appropriated, the States will select those projects to be funded
through the grant program. Currently, 12 states receive funds through
the Clean Streams program. These States are Alabama, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia. These are the States that historically
have participated in the program.
Question. To what extent, have ASI funds been leveraged with state
and private funding? Does the agency plan to utilize more leveraging in
the future? What are the goals and expectations?
Answer. At this time, the ratio of appropriated funds to leveraged
funds is approximately 1:1. This includes partners' funds committed for
activities within the watershed of the specific project. There also are
numerous instances of in-kind services being provided for which a
dollar value has not yet been established. The in-kind services, for
example, project design or the use of construction equipment, are
significant in certain cases. Our goal is to continue expanding the
number of non-government partners and to increase leveraging capability
with cooperators to a 1:1.4 ratio. We anticipate that for fiscal year
2000 approximately 60 percent of the total funds involved in the
projects will be from other than OSM's Appalachian Clean Streams
Initiative.
contractor offsets
Question. When will the agency issue new rules concerning the
offset of contractor's reclamation costs by allowing the contractor to
remove and sell coal incidental to reclamation efforts?
Answer. The final rule was published in the Federal Register
(Volume 64, number 2, page 7471) on February 12, 1999.
Question. What were the main issues raised by the public comment on
the proposed rules?
Answer. The AML Enhancement rule has as its goal to use coal that
can be recovered at abandoned mine sites to help finance the cost of
the reclamation. By allowing the reclamation contractor to sell this
coal and keep the proceeds, we are reducing the overall cost of the
project to the government. This stretches the limited AML dollar,
making money saved on these types of projects available for additional
projects. The rule also can have an impact on helping to keep small
operators in business, since many are involved in remining efforts. For
these reasons, the great majority of commenters supported the rule. Two
commenters were concerned that this rule could allow for remining to be
conducted under the AML program when it should be conducted under a
Title V permit.
Question. How will the agency's final rule respond to these
concerns?
Answer. The final rule contains significant safeguards. In order to
proceed, the regulatory authority first has to determine that the site
is not likely to be remined under the Title V regulatory program. This
determination is made after taking into account the economic and
technical feasibility of remining the area. It is made in a
consultation between the Title V and the Title IV authorities. We also
reiterated the many environmental protections already in place in the
AML program and pointed out the additional safeguards we added to the
regulations for these specific types of AML sites.
state minimum funding
The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990 establishes a minimum
State grant funding level of $2,000,000 per State. However, since
fiscal year 1995 funding for the program has been limited to $1,500,000
per State. The agency recommends increasing the minimum State share to
$2,000,000.
Question. Is there sufficient high-priority work in each State that
increasing each State's minimum share will not reduce efforts to
complete highest priority work nationwide? What would be the impact, if
at all, on the agency's other work if this increase were provided?
Answer. Based on our review of the unreclaimed sites listed in the
Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System, currently all States eligible for
minimum program level, with the exception of New Mexico, have
sufficient high-priority work to cover the requested $2,000,000 minimum
program level. In the case of New Mexico, the State is determining if
there are additional eligible coal high priority sites that should be
added to the Inventory. If not, the State would receive only the amount
needed to reclaim the listed unfunded high-priority eligible sites.
There will be no impact on other OSM work if this increase is provided.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)?
Answer. The Director has taken several significant steps to
establish a comprehensive process for achieving performance-based
management within OSM including: (1) defining specific outcome-based
measures that relate to mission responsibilities; (2 ) developing
reliable cost data on critical OSM activities and initiatives; (3)
aggressively pursuing feedback from customers and stakeholders on OSM's
performance; (4) cascading performance measurement throughout the
organization; and (5) holding manager's responsible for accomplishing
specific objectives that support the agency's overall goals.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Resources are allocated to managers in support of the goals
and objectives outlined in our strategic plan and they are held
accountable through their individual performance agreements.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. We manage our program activities by:
--defining performance outputs by program activity;
--holding managers accountable through individual performance
agreements;
--assigning unique account codes to identify costs for each output;
--applying indirect administrative overhead costs to programs; and
--providing program cost data to managers to determine if measures
are meaningful and if appropriate priorities are being
identified.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
the funding the agency re quested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. Through consultation with our stakeholders, we identified
increased funding for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands as a
strategically critical high priority. As a result, we have proposed a
$25 million increase in the AML reclamation program to aggressively
accelerate the restoration of abandoned mine sites adversely affected
by past coal mining practices. Performance measures showing the on-the-
ground results in terms of additional acres reclaimed and streams
cleaned were used to support OSM's request for increased funding in the
fiscal year 2000 budget. Specifically, we estimate that an additional
1,800 acres of AML land and hazards would be reclaimed with the
additional requested funding.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. We have made the following program changes and enhancements
based on increasing our program performance:
--reallocated resources to the AML program to accomplish reclamation
now, rather than later--an additional 1,800 acres of hazardous
lands to be restored beginning in fiscal year 2000;
--emphasized our Clean Stream Initiative to increase the use of non-
agency funds to undertake reclamation;
--introduced the AML Enhancement Initiative--a revision of Federal
regulations to allow coal mine operators to reclaim AML sites
without significant additional cost to the AML fund or the
government;
--established a high priority issues identification program of
outreach to all of our employees to determine what regulatory
and reclamation issues need to be addressed;
--enhanced our outreach to our stakeholders (States, industry,
citizen and environmental groups) to continually improve our
programs and services;
--established a succession planning initiative for workload/workforce
analysis, due to aging workforce and changing roles for OSM, to
recommend long-term resource allocation.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. There is a direct link between OSM's annual performance
goals and the strategic plan and OSM's budget request to Congress. Our
new appropriation account structure is based on ``business lines''
identified in the strategic and annual plans. These business lines more
clearly reflect the activities that we do in carrying out our mission
and in meeting our goals. At this program activity level, there is a
one to one relationship with appropriation account codes and
performance measures.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. There are no further changes to the appropriation structure
required at this time. We are making internal changes by redefining
program activities and definitions to facilitate activity based cost
accounting and to be able to associate costs with performance outputs.
We are accomplishing this by amending our internal organizational and
accounting codes.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. We are currently collecting data for all our current
performance measures which will be available for the first performance
report.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. We continue to work with the States to improve the
reliability of their data and are adjusting our own performance data as
necessary. We collect performance data from 26 States, many having
slightly different reporting systems and interpretations of the data
requirements. We are working together to remedy the differences.
Question. How will the agency's future funding request take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance.
Answer. We will shift our program focus and revise future budget
requests, where necessary, to accomplish more effective performance
output with the most efficient investment of our resources.
U. S. Geological Survey
competition with the private sector
Question. Last year, this Subcommittee heard complaints that USGS
was providing or seeking to provide a variety of commercial services to
Federal and non-federal entities in direct competition with the private
sector. As a result, language was included in both the fiscal year 1999
Senate Report and the Statement of the Managers urging USGS to review
its practices and use the services of the private sector wherever
feasible and cost-effective. Please describe what, if any, action has
been taken at the Department level to assure that GS is not competing
unfairly with the private sector. Are there specific areas where
improvements have been made to existing practices?
Answer. The USGS has used private sector services for many years,
having begun to emphasize the use of contracting in the early 1980's as
a valuable option for achieving program objectives. In 1992, the USGS
formally endorsed this business practice with a written policy to use
private sector services in all cases where appropriate. For the past
few years, the USGS has been working with Congress, particularly the
Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and the House, to ensure
that map and digital data production activities conform with
Congressional expectations for the use of private sector services by
Federal agencies. Both Congress and industry advocacy groups have
expressed appreciation of USGS efforts in this arena. In fiscal year
1999, the USGS will spend over $32 million to acquire geospatial data
through the use of private-sector firms.
The Secretary of the Interior, under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, established the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI)
chaired by the Department of the Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science. During an August 1998 meeting, ACWI established
a task force to examine the content and the conduct of the Federal-
State Cooperative Water Program (Coop Program) of the USGS. The Task
Force, comprises a balanced representation of 22 members from Federal,
regional, State, tribal, local, and municipal government agencies, and
the private sector. The Task Force selected Mr. Larry Rowe, Western
Water Company, San Bernadino, California, as its Chairperson and Mr.
Fred Lisnner, Manager, Ground Water and Hydrology Department, Oregon
Department of Water Resources, Salem, Oregon, as Vice-Chairperson.
Under the Terms of Reference, the Task Force is addressing four
topics, including ``conduct of work.'' Nearly all of the work in the
Coop Program is performed by USGS scientists and technicians. This
arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national
consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a
stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide. The Task Force
is considering whether this arrangement might be improved without
sacrificing its benefits; what is the appropriate relationship with the
private sector, States, universities, etc.; and what would be the
implications of altering current work arrangements on the unique
qualities of the Coop Program and water management nationwide. The
American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) and the American
Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) have made statements of concern
about competition to the ACWI. Prior to and after the August 1998 ACWI
meeting, the USGS has had meetings and correspondence with AIPG and
ACEC on this issue. The Task Force convened two panels of private
sector individuals, including representatives from AIPG and ACEC, to
discuss the issue of competition and to define the appropriate role of
the USGS. The Task Force will complete its work by the end of June 1999
with a report of findings that ACWI will use as the basis of
recommendations on modifications or enhancements to the Coop Program.
The ACWI will announce the availability of the draft report for public
review and comment in the Federal Register before transmitting the
final report to the Director of the USGS.
Question. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act passed by
Congress last year mandates that each department and agency provide an
annual inventory of its commercial activities to the Office of
Management and Budget. The deadline for submission of this inventory is
June 30, 1999. Are preliminary lists of these activities for DOI
bureaus, including GS, available at this time? What has this data
demonstrated to you in terms of the Department's contracting procedures
and outsourcing practices?
Answer. The Department's scheduled due date for submissions from
the Bureaus is June 15. Information is not yet available on which to
draw conclusions.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The Director has refocused the strategic and annual plans
which has:
--established common goals that are being implemented across the
organization;
--encouraged integration, synergy, and shared measures among
scientific disciplines; and
--ensured that every measure is part of a chain of cause and effect
linkages that measure m ovement of the organization in its
strategic direction.
Customer-involvement is the focus of the new plan's strategic
direction and permeates all aspects of the plans. Further, aggregation
in the new strategic and annual plans has substantially reduced the
number of Business Activities or mission goals from eight to two,
strategic or long-term goals from 67 to two, and performance measures
from 112 to 10. In addition, the USGS has developed and begun using a
web-based Intranet system for gathering performance information, and
monitors and evaluates progress internally as part of their Budget
Execution Review process and with the Department Planning Office as
well.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The USGS has developed an accountability framework with
specific performance targets and is in the process of implementing them
throughout the organization with full intent of holding senior
executives accountable. Executive Leadership Team meetings held twice a
year bring all USGS senior executives, regional directors, and selected
program managers together to discuss progress in advancing their
strategic direction and achieving targeted performance and outcomes.
Their long-term goal is to reinforce the strategic plan through the
rewards system, linking the reward of individual or team contributions
to the achievement of the strategic direction and goals.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. Progress is reviewed with senior managers at quarterly
program and budget reviews and is reported quarterly to the Department.
As more performance information becomes available, management decisions
will increasingly derive from it.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request was formulated on the
basis of the strategic plan and addresses both of the USGS mission
goals.
The Hazards mission goal which focuses efforts on predicting and
monitoring hazardous events in near real time is being advanced by the
Real-Time Hazards request for an increase of $5.45 million. Funding
will be used to accelerate instrument modernization and expand the use
of real-time telemetry that allows rapid notification of emergency
response agencies that deal with natural disasters. The baseline rate
of improvement of the flood and earthquake networks is 100 streamgages
telemetered per year and 20 improved earthquake sensors installed per
year. The request will add telemetry to an additional 150 streamgages
and install an additional 80 earthquake sensors. Increasing
availability and accessibility of hazards information is also being
promoted with an $8 million increase requested for a Disaster
Information Network.
The Environment and Natural Resources mission goal (focusing
efforts on expanding understanding of environment and natural resources
issues on regional, national, and global scales and enhancing
predictive/forecast modeling capabilities) is being advanced by the
Integrated Science request for an increase of $17.4 million to
intensify multidisciplinary scientific support for Department of the
Interior issues, and Community/Federal Information Partnerships request
for an increase of $10 million for coordinated interagency efforts to
make new information and tools readily available to local communities.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. In addition to the specific program change examples cited
in the previous answer, the USGS has refocused its strategic plan to be
customer driven. This commitment follows through in the USGS budget and
accompanying annual plan with increased emphasis on providing natural
science data and research that meet the highest priority needs of
customers in fulfilling their missions. This focus strengthens USGS'
contribution to the resolution of complex issues and strengthens USGS'
tie to the outcomes achieved by their customers through science-based
decisionmaking.
Returning to the Integrated Science example, in providing science
for a changing world, the Department has a planned outcome that
resource managers will make decisions based on accurate, reliable, and
impartial scientific information. One of the strategies to achieve this
outcome is to ensure that the scientific research program focuses on
understanding, assessing, and monitoring ecosystems to provide
scientific understanding and technologies needed to support sound land
and resource management. In fiscal year 2000, a DOI-wide process is
being piloted with NPS, FWS, and BLM to assess the status of current
science support, identify gaps and cross-bureau applications, formulate
priorities for USGS research in support of land management needs and
obtain land management bureau input for defining GPRA metrics and
science outcomes. The request provides the first step in establishing a
broad partnership with these Federal managers to enhance scientifically
sound management of the lands and resources under their stewardship.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The GPRA Program Activity concept is used to better relate
goals to the existing budget structure, to present both budget and
performance information in a more issue-focused way, and to enhance the
plan's informative value. The two mission goals from the USGS refocused
Strategic Plan are used as the GPRA Program Activities in the Annual
Performance Plan. Each mission goal or GPRA Program Activity has one
associated long-term goal which identifies target levels and the time
frame of performance for the Strategic Plan. Each of the Strategic
Plan's long-term goals has one associated annual goal which identifies
the annual performance increment necessary to achieve the long-term
goal as well as any change proposed to result from program and budget
initiatives. Each annual goal has five performance measures--a total of
ten for the entire Annual Plan.
The GPRA Program Activity concept captures the contribution of all
program activities to a common mission requirement by applying a single
set of annual goals and performance measures across all five of USGS'
budget activities: National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological
Research; and Integrated Science. The two remaining activities, Science
Support and Facilities, support all programmatic activities and their
funding is distributed on a prorata basis to the two GPRA Program
Activities. The funding contributions of each programmatic budget
activity to achieving these mission goals are identified in each
Activity Summary in the fiscal year 2000 budget and discussed further
in the fiscal year 2000 Annual Plan. Conversely, the performance
targets are disaggregated to show the contribution of each budget
activity to each GPRA Program Activity in tables in the Appendix of the
fiscal year 2000 Annual Plan.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. The basic activity structure of USGS budget has been in
place for most of the USGS' 120 year existence. Because much of the
budget structure predates GPRA, it does not optimize linkage of
resource amounts to performance goals. For the fiscal year 2000 budget
submission USGS added a budget activity, Integrated Science, to the
budget structure, and consolidated facilities costs as well as bureau
level administrative costs. These changes improve the presentation of
GPRA performance information, and are designed to begin migration of
the budget structure to a more meaningful and useful format and
position the organization to better link resource needs and
performance. As USGS continues to gain experience in communicating,
budgeting, and implementing their initial strategic plan, budget
structure changes that will optimize resource and performance linkage
may be developed.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The USGS believes that reliable performance data will be
available for the fiscal year 1999 performance report due March 2000.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. The USGS will continue to verify and validate performance
data and measures.
Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance?
Answer. As actual performance data become integrated into the
performance planning process which accompanies budget formulation,
progress toward achieving strategic (long-term) goals will be monitored
and funding requests adjusted to direct resources in a manner that will
achieve stated goals.
Fish and Wildlife Service
sportfish restoration grants to states
TEA21 increased the Boat Safety transfer to the Coast Guard from
$20 million in 1998 to $64 million in 1999. TEA21 also authorized a new
program for outreach with a first year cost of $5 million. The total
reduction of $49 million comes from the Sport Fish Restoration Grants
program. TEA21 was intended to replace the Coast Guard's discretionary
appropriation for Boat Safety with a permanent source of funding. It
calls for $64 million to be transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration
Account to the Boat Safety Account in 1999, instead of $20 million
under previous authorization. Members of Congress asked OMB to allow
the $64 million for fiscal year 1999 to be taken from current year
receipts in the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund instead of being
transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration Account. OMB determined
that this was not authorized. Most states have prepared budgets for
fiscal year 1999 based on a preliminary apportionment of SFR grants
which did not take into account the $64 million deduction. The
reduction equates to about two months' funding. The Fish and Wildlife
Service advises that a legislative solution is required if the States
are to receive relief this fiscal year.
Question. What is the status?
Answer. A legislative solution would be required to amend the
language in TEA21 that caused a 22 percent reduction in the Sport Fish
Restoration (SFR) Fund Final Apportionment to the states for fiscal
year 1999. The FWS has met with representatives of the state fish and
game departments and advised them of administrative alternatives
available for any near-term state budget shortfalls. The following four
administrative actions were recommended:
1. Use any leftover obligation authority from fiscal year 1998 to
proceed until October 1999, when the fiscal year 2000 SFR apportionment
becomes available.
2. De-obligate funds remaining for projects in which the original
amount obligated exceeded actual project costs.
3. Defer major obligations such as equipment purchases, awarding of
contracts, etc., until October 1999.
4. Defer awarding major contracts for boating access projects until
October 1999. (The minimum 15 percent expenditure of SFR funds for
boating access applies to the state's 5-year average expenditure for
boating access, not to the annual expenditure for boating access.)
Question. When can we expect to see a legislative proposal from the
Administration that fixes the problem?
Answer. The Department does not plan to develop a legislative
proposal on this issue since the administrative alternatives provide
workable solutions this fiscal year. The increase in the amount of the
Boat Safety transfer is a one-year problem in fiscal year 1999 only.
refuge revenue sharing
Question. What is the status of efforts to address problems in the
Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge revenue sharing program?
Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund has provided less than
the 100 percent entitlement payments each year since fiscal year 1981.
For most refuges, the entitlement payment formula is based on appraised
market value of the lands that had been purchased. Over the past
decades these lands have increased in market value. Because the FWS
acquires additional lands each year, the total number and amount of
payments have also increased over this period.
In fiscal year 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service has requested
$10 million in appropriations to supplement the estimated $6 million in
net receipts that will be available for refuge revenue sharing
payments. The combined $16 million will cover about 53 percent of the
full, formula-based, entitlements ($30 million). Since the national
refuges are managed for the protection of wildlife and their habitats,
the generation of additional receipts from timber harvesting, grazing,
and other economic activities are limited by compatibility statutes and
regulations. Because of other policy and program priorities and fiscal
constraints, the FWS fiscal year 2000 budget could not shift an
additional $14 million to the refuge revenue sharing program to meet
the full entitlement payments. The FWS will consider other options in
its fiscal year 2001 budget plans.
It should be noted, however, that the national wildlife refuges
bring other economic benefits to communities through public visitation,
as well as the refuges' employment and purchases of supplies and
services. These benefits are highlighted in a recent study, Banking on
Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife
Refuge Visitation. A copy of this report is provided to the Committee
on Appropriations.
Question. Why hasn't the Administration requested full funding for
this program?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the FWS estimates that $30 million
would be needed to fully fund the refuge revenue sharing program. An
annual appropriation of $24 million would be needed to supplement the
projected $6 million in net receipts collected by the refuges. The FWS
fiscal year 2000 budget requests $10 million in appropriations. Because
of policy priorities, the FWS could not propose shifting $14 million
from other ongoing program needs to the refuge revenue sharing program
for meeting the full entitlement payments.
Question. Does the Administration intend to submit a legislative
proposal to address inequities in the existing refuge revenue sharing
program?
Answer. At this time, the Department does not plan to submit a
legislative proposal that would change the existing pro rata formula
used to distribute refuge revenue sharing payments to counties.
government performance and results act
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance based on management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. Recently, the FWS Director issued an annual performance
goal accountability memorandum to all Regional Directors which commits
the Regional Directors to meeting the performance measure targets in
the fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan. These targets were
established by the Washington Office program managers and revised based
on input from the regional offices. So far, the Service has only
reported performance data for first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The
FWS is in the process of developing a performance planning and
management system. The objective of this system is to manage a business
system based on goals and performance measures throughout all regions
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As the FWS continues to record
accomplishment data, it will be in a better position to integrate the
results of performance in the management process.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The senior executives of the FWS are held accountable for
delivery of the annual performance goals through two mechanisms. First,
each senior executive commits to key performance objectives for the
year in a performance agreement with the Director. One of the key
performance objectives is the provision of sound leadership in
strategic planning and in development of performance goals and measures
to achieve desired outcomes. The second mechanism is issuance of the
Director's memorandum of annual performance goal accountability. This
memorandum provides the final fiscal year annual performance goals and
performance targets and the regional contributions necessary to
successfully meet those targets.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. The FWS has reported performance data for the first quarter
of fiscal year 1999. Many of the FWS performance measures can only be
reported annually. For example, migratory bird populations status is
collected at the end of the year through annual surveys, and all refuge
operational data is collected nationally at the close of each fiscal
year through the Refuge Management Information System. Through the
second quarter of fiscal year 1999, the FWS has reported on eight
performance measures. The FWS expects to increase the number of
measures that it reports quarterly as it develops a performance
planning and management system. With this system, FWS managers will be
able to track, analyze, and report on the annual performance goals.
Thus, the FWS will be in a better position to use performance
information to manage the agency after completing its first year of
reporting.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. In the FWS's fiscal year 2000 budget submission to the
Congress, each major program was linked to one or more fiscal year 2000
annual performance goals and related performance measures. Also, each
proposed fiscal year 2000 program increase contained a separate section
entitled, Relationship to Performance Goal, which describes how the
proposed increase would contribute to one or more annual performance
goals.
For example, in the Habitat Conservation program, the Coastal
Program is requesting a $1.5 million increase. These additional
resources will contribute directly to the FWS's annual performance goal
2.3.1, which seeks to improve the fish and wildlife populations
focusing on trust resources, threatened and endangered species, and
species of special concern by enhancing and/or restoring, or creating
wetlands, uplands and riparian habitats partnerships and other
conservation strategies.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plan?
Answer. The FWS is actively engaged in continuous improvement
opportunities through reengineering current processes and program
delivery mechanisms. One such improvement was the refocusing and
streamlining of the FWS's first Strategic Plan. In this revision, eight
long-term goals and 60 performance measures were incorporated into a
broader set of outcome goals that the FWS could more clearly articulate
its contribution to the public. In this first year of full bureau-wide
participation in the GPRA performance management process, the FWS has
been pursuing quarterly monitoring and reviewing performance
measurement data to assure successful delivery of our annual goal
commitments. It should be noted that the FWS's ability to meet its
strategic and annual goals is directly related to receiving
appropriations consistent with the budget request.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The FWS has linked its proposed fiscal year 2000 program
increases to the fiscal year 2000 annual performance. For example, each
proposed fiscal year 2000 increase has a separate section entitled,
Relationship to Performance Goals, which describes how the proposed
increase would contribute to one or more annual performance goals. The
FWS's base budget is linked to the three FWS Mission Goals, not to the
Annual Performance Goals.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. The long-term and annual performance goals for the FWS
provide strategic (horizontal) approach to delivery of various programs
and activities of the FWS. Therefore, there is no direct alignment or
linkage of the budget structure with the goal structure.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The FWS anticipates that reliable data will be available
for all performance measures necessary to report the successful
accomplishment of the fiscal year 1999 annual performance goals in the
annual performance report due March 2000.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. The FWS anticipates that reliable data will be available
for all performance measures necessary to report the successful
accomplishment of the fiscal year 1999 annual performance goals in the
annual performance report due March 2000.
Question. How will the agency's future funding request take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance?
Answer. Because the FWS recently completed a revision of the
Strategic Plan, which set new goals and baselines, it was not
appropriate to take into consideration performance related to the
funding request for fiscal year 2000. During the development of the
funding request, the existing strategic plan was streamlined to ensure
more meaningful performance goals and performance measures.
National Park Service
construction program reform
Under direction from this Subcommittee, the Department has
undertaken significant reforms of the Park Service construction
program.
Question. What is the status of the Department's efforts to
implement the reforms recommended by the National Academy of Public
Administration and this subcommittee?
Answer. The National Park Service has made the following progress
in implementing the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
recommendations:
NAPA Recommendation 1. Contract out about 90 percent of the design
work and all of the construction supervision and inspection.
The Denver Service Center (DSC) is working on approximately 60
percent of the construction line item program. Parks and Regions do the
remaining percentage. In fiscal year 1999, the DSC split between
Architectural/Engineering (A/E) contracts and in-house work is
approximately 50/50. This ratio exists because DSC's workload is still
representative of continuing prior year work that cannot efficiently be
converted to an A/E contract. In fiscal year 2000, the DSC split is
proposed to be 85 percent A/E and 15 percent in-house; the remaining,
continuing work at Sequoia National Park will put DSC slightly beyond
the 10 percent threshold. By fiscal year 2001, DSC will meet NAPA's
prescribed 90 percent/10 percent program split.
In fiscal year 1999, the park/region split between A/E and in-house
work is 53/47. In fiscal year 2000, the park/region split is proposed
to be 95 percent A/E and 5 percent in-house. In fiscal year 2001 the
park/region split is proposed to be 87 percent A/E and 13 percent in-
house.
Construction inspection/supervision is being done by contract.
Eight employees (down from 45 in August, 1998 and approximately 60 a
year ago) remain in the field to complete current phases of
construction inspection through December 1999. By the end of fiscal
year 1999, Denver Service Center will have completed current
construction contracts and returned all field staff to Denver except
for two people. These two people are assigned to projects that will not
be complete until fiscal year 2000.
NAPA Recommendation 2. Improve DSC's management of A/E firms
performing design activities.
DSC has begun to involve A/E firms as team members during the pre-
design phase of projects. This provides for a more seamless transition
from pre-design to design. To form a more effective partnership with A/
E firms, DSC has established the process of asking for the A/E's input
prior to writing the scope of services for their work. DSC is holding
more discussions in lieu of passing paperwork back and forth, thus
cutting down on the time it takes to get the firm under contract. Once
the A/E firm is in full production of plans and specifications, the DSC
project manager and pre-design team members remain as part of the team
to assure that the programming phase is understood and the design
intent is carried through.
NAPA Recommendation 3. Utilize A/E firms that have experience in
the general locale of the project and that have solid reputations.
Following Public Law 92-582 (the ``Brooks Act'') procedures, the
most technically qualified firm is selected for any given project.
Utilizing this selection process, DSC has increased the weight of two
significant selection criteria: geographic location (and/or expertise)
to the site and past performance. Any new contract awards will be based
on both geographic proximity and solid reputations. In addition,
utilizing some of DSC's large, nationwide, indefinite-quantity
contracts, DSC is able to place design task orders with the most
appropriate firm from a geographic standpoint.
Examples of compliance with this recommendation include A/E
contracts presently being let in the northeast portion of the country.
DSC will be selecting firms from Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington,
D.C. to accomplish design work in those areas. Denver Service Center
will also be awarding contracts to very competent design firms in some
of these areas utilizing the 8(a) program of the Small Business
Administration.
NAPA Recommendation 4. Adopt standardized design and construction
practices, and obtain professional services to prepare standard design
drawings and specifications.
Specific work has not started on this recommendation. The Service
has prepared a scope of services for preparing standardized designs but
has not begun the project. The NPS Development Advisory Board is
collecting comparative cost data on facilities that will be useful on
this project.
NAPA Recommendation 5. Make planning and management of contracts a
critical and major function of the DSC.
DSC has made major changes in contract methodology. DSC is using
competitive negotiation procedures in lieu of low bid awards. This
allows the selection of construction contractors based on their
expertise in the locale, past performance and experience, as well as
price. DSC has streamlined this process to the point that it can be
accomplished in the same timeframe as sealed bidding. DSC is involving
construction management firms not only in on-site inspection services
but also in estimating, reviewing of bidding documents, and value
analysis. As each project begins, DSC is looking at ``design/build'' as
well as other innovative ways to accomplish the work. Currently, DSC
has two successful ``design/build'' projects underway. DSC has also
used formal partnering on some of our larger construction projects,
such as the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial.
NAPA Recommendation 6. Assign responsibility and accountability for
line item construction projects to the park superintendents and give
them training.
Curriculum is being developed to train superintendents in how to
oversee an overall construction program in their park. Four courses are
scheduled for this year.
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, new processes are in place for the
allocation of construction planning and construction management related
funding. In the past and continuing in the future, funding for the
line-item construction projects (actual construction dollars) were
allocated to the Regional Offices, in accordance with the amounts in
the NPS line-item budget. In fiscal year 1999, funding for construction
planning and construction management activities will be allocated in a
similar fashion.
Regional Offices, parks, the Denver Service Center and the Harpers
Ferry Center will identify funding needs for the planning and
construction management program. Project needs will be reviewed by the
Washington Budget Office in order to determine if they are commensurate
with the funding sources authorized. As the projects proceed, funding
will be requested by the lead project office from the Regional Office
for each activity related to that project. The Region will request the
specific amount related to award of an A/E contract, purchase order, or
some other procurement need, from the Washington Budget Office. Once
that has been approved, the funding will be allocated to the Regional
Office. As a result, superintendents and the Regional Director have
responsibility for ensuring that the funds requested are within the
NAPA percentages, are being requested for authorized activities (A/E,
other contracted services), and are within the confines of the original
project budget.
NAPA Recommendation 7. Establish a National Park Service project
management control system to provide visibility of project status.
The tracking system that the Committee directed the National Park
Service to establish is currently in place for monitoring and tracking
projects in which DSC is involved. The system is being monitored for
effectiveness and usability. Feedback from DSC users indicates that the
system is working well and provides information in a variety of
formats. After additional user evaluation, the system will be studied
for expansion in fiscal year 2000 to include tracking of all National
Park Service projects.
A group of four construction management professionals reporting to
the NPS Associate Director for Professional Services is in place to
manage the NPS project management control system and to exercise
oversight of the line-item development program for the Director.
NAPA Recommendation 8. Establish an external review group to assess
line-item construction projects for functional suitability and cost-
effectiveness.
The Director has established and appointed an external review group
to review line-item construction projects. The group of ``Advisors to
the Director'' will consist of five primary advisors and three
alternates with diverse backgrounds in policy and budget
administration, cultural and natural resources, architecture,
historical architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering.
The eight advisors are:
--David Morehouse--Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
--James Caufield--Chief Architectural Services, Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission
--Yvonne Ferrell--Director, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
--David Freeman--Chief Engineer, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
--Rodney Stokes--Chief, Parks and Recreation, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
--Gary Bush--Chief, Office of Landscape Architecture, California
Department of Transportation
--James Kirkman--Project Director, Kennedy Center
--Alice Morehouse--Deputy Division Administrator, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation
An orientation session for the special advisors is planned in
April. The advisors began the review of projects at the May meeting of
the NPS Development Advisory Board (DAB). During DAB meetings the
advisors will review and fully participate in discussions of the
presented projects. Findings and recommendations of the advisors will
be reported to the NPS Director for follow-up and action. NAPA
Recommendation 9. Base fund the DSC civil service activities that
support the general management planning and line-item pre-design and
project management activities.
DSC is base funded in fiscal year 1999 for activities associated
with the line-item program. The dollars provided by Congress will
support 151 FTE. Non-base funding support for 109 FTE comes from the
General Management Plan Program, Federal Highway Administration, and
other reimbursable sources.
NAPA Recommendation 10. Use standard estimation factors in
developing the line-item program.
All line-item projects for fiscal year 2000 and beyond are
estimated and will be managed within the NAPA guidelines.
NAPA Recommendation 11. To control NPS housing costs, compare the
estimated costs with the Tri-services Military Family Housing Cost
Model prior to budget submission and prior to construction.
The NPS is using the Tri-Military Cost Model, as recommended by
NAPA, beginning with the upcoming construction cycle. Where the cost
estimates exceed 10 percent of the model estimate, NPS would require
the park superintendent to justify additional costs and obtain approval
from the Director before proceeding with the construction.
Based on the NAPA recommendations that 90 percent of the planning,
construction management and construction should be contracted out, the
Committee directed that the Denver Service Center staff be reduced by
50 percent. In order to help achieve that goal, the Committee provided
buyout authority and encouraged transfers to parks or Regional Offices.
Implementation of these reforms will require personnel reductions
at the Denver Service Center.
Question. How are these reductions being made?
Answer. Reductions have been made and will continue to be made
utilizing a combination of buyout authority, transfers to other
National Park Service offices and parks and to other Federal agencies,
and lastly, through reductions-in-force.
Question. What have been the personnel levels at Denver for the
past two fiscal years, what is the personnel level now, and what is the
anticipated personnel level at the end of fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The authorized personnel ceiling for the Denver Service
Center was 493 full time equivalency positions prior to the
implementation of the NAPA recommendations. The current employment
ceiling is 292, and the anticipated ceiling by the end of fiscal year
1999 is 260.
Question. Assuming the levels in the President's budget request,
what will happen to personnel levels in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Personnel levels for the Denver Service Center for fiscal
2000 will remain at the proposed end of fiscal year 1999 level--260
full time equivalency positions.
Question. How many Denver personnel are likely to be absorbed into
other Park Service program areas?
Answer. Through February 28, 1999, 126 employees have transferred
to other positions within the NPS and other Federal agencies.
Outplacement services that were established to assist employees find
employment elsewhere will remain in force for the foreseeable future;
at this time it is unknown how many employees will eventually be
absorbed into other N PS organizations before the end of fiscal 1999.
land and water conservation fund
Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Act authorizes the
``Stateside'' program as a formula grant program for land acquisition
and other recreation purposes. The Administration's budget essentially
rewrites this section of the LWCF Act by requesting $50 million for
competitive land use planning grants, and $150 million for a
competitive grant program in which funds could only be used for land
acquisition.
Question. Why are you proposing to recreate the Stateside program
as a competitive grant program?
Answer. The Administration believes that the State grant program is
an excellent means of leveraging Federal dollars with State and local
matching funds, that such State and local projects will reduce
pressures to acquire additional units for the Federal system, and that
such units will slow the growth of Federal operating funds for new
units.
Question. Do you think you or your staff can make better decisions
than the States about local conservation and recreation needs?
Answer. Criteria for grant selection will be developed through a
public process where input will be obtained from all interested
parties, including State and local governments, and the Congress.
Further, proposals to implement priorities cited in State, regional,
and tribal plans, addressing open space preservation, smart growth
strategies/urban sprawl management, park and recreation needs, and
wildlife conservation will be given priority consideration. With the
limited funds available, it is thought that the best projects nation-
wide should be funded. For instance, criteria could take account of the
lack of Federal recreational lands in many States and allocate funds to
those areas with the greatest unmet need.
natural resources initiative
The budget request includes a $14 million increase for the Natural
Resources Initiative, which in large part is focused on creating an
inventory of the natural resources existing in parks and implementing
measures to protect those resources.
Question. What is the relationship between the Park Service and the
Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in
implementing this initiative, and in generally supporting the science
needs of the park system?
Answer. The National Park Service identifies its research,
inventory and monitoring, and resource management needs and plans and
implements management activities to restore, preserve, and protect its
natural resources. Examples of such activities include: using standard
protocols to inventory parks for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians,
and vascular plants; restoring disturbed areas such as abandoned mines
and roads by establishing appropriate soil characteristics and planting
native plants; applying pesticides or mechanical controls to invasive
species; protecting the nesting sites of endangered species from
disturbance; reviewing and approving plans or permits for activities
that may adversely affect park resources and seeking appropriate
controls and restrictions to avoid impacts; restoring a native species
to an area from which it has been extirpated; and monitoring the health
of the resources and the results of management actions. These are the
types of activities proposed for funding in the NPS Natural Resource
initiative.
The U.S. Geological Survey assists the NPS in three principal
fashions: it develops protocols for inventory and monitoring for NPS
and others to implement; it conducts research that is broadly
applicable to NPS management needs, such as new techniques for
restoring specific plant species or for controlling invasives; and it
conducts research to meet the specific management needs of specific
parks. The U.S. Geological Survey also provides some technical
assistance to help parks concerning their resource management
activities, such as consulting about which methods should be employed.
Question. Will any of the funds requested for this initiative flow
to BRD? If not, why not?
Answer. No. A significant portion of the NPS fiscal year 2000
increase is for the Inventory and Monitoring Program. Research elements
of the program were transferred from the NPS with funding when the
National Biological Service, now BRD, was created. These were protocol
development and the regional scale vegetation mapping program, which
had national applications. The BRD continues to conduct these portions
of the program with the funding that was transferred with the program
responsibilities. The NPS retained responsibility and funding for
purchasing data such as digital cartographic data and for conducting
routine surveys using approved protocols. The NPS fiscal year 2000
budget would accelerate these latter activities. The funding would not
go to BRD, although some of the data are purchased from the USGS and
from other Federal agencies, specifically the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (for soils maps).
Another example of related, but not overlapping, responsibilities
with fiscal year 2000 budget implications is funding for high priority
park projects. The NPS Natural Resource Preservation Program (NRPP) was
designed originally to meet the highest natural resource needs of parks
and is allocated competitively each year under careful criteria, using
field evaluation panels. This fund was split into Research and Resource
Management, the former portion going to BRD, when it was originally
formed. The NRPP remaining in the NPS implements resource management
activities; biological research is specifically ineligible as this is
conducted by BRD.
The USGS/BRD consults with the NPS and other bureaus to determine
bureaus needs in their budget formulation process. The NPS requests BRD
to seek increases for those functions that the Biological Resources
Division performs on behalf of the National Park Service.
Question. Does BRD currently perform work in support of the park
system purposes for which the Natural Resource Initiative funds are
being requested?
Answer. No. As indicated above, the Biological Resources Division
currently performs related functions, but not those for which fiscal
year 2000 NPS funds are requested. The natural resource initiative
addresses on-the-ground application of research in order to address in-
park resource management activities.
The request indicates that $6.5 million of the $8 million increase
requested for Inventory and Monitoring will fund biological
inventories.
Question. Would this increase be used to create new full-time
science positions within the Park Service, to reimburse BRD for work
performed on the Park Service's behalf, for contracts with universities
or other non-Federal entities, or some combination of the above?
Answer. Of the proposed $8 million, most would be used for site-
specific biotic surveys by the NPS. These surveys use accepted
protocols. One means by which the BRD is assisting the NPS and other
bureaus is by compiling information on acceptable protocols.
It is anticipated that most of this NPS work would be performed
through cooperative agreements with universities. Up to seven positions
to manage the cooperative agreements would be established in the field.
This will allow more effective partnerships at a local level with area
colleges and universities. In addition, some resource management
positions will eventually be established in parks to carry out
monitoring programs designed by BRD, for about $2 million. Once the
research and design work is completed, the BRD turns over the operation
of the monitoring programs to the NPS, since operation involves routine
sample collection, not normally undertaken by research scientists.
There are several such programs now in the design stage using BRD funds
that will shortly be ready for the NPS to take over. Finally, a small
amount of the increase would be used to complete nonbiological surveys.
Some of this funding will go to other Federal bureaus and agencies to
purchase data sets that parks can use in daily operations.
A Park Service concept paper in support of the Natural Resources
Initiative states that ``Service leadership must have unimpeded access
to advice from resource professionals.''
Question. How is the Service leadership currently impeded from
access to such professionals?
Answer. The NPS lacks sufficient trained professional resource
management personnel to carry out resource management applications
itself, and also lacks staff to leverage assistance from others.
Examples include assessing invasive species problems and carrying out
necessary control measures (such as pesticide application and
mechanical removal), identifying endangered species on NPS lands,
working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to assure that the Park
Service is carrying out appropriate protection and recovery measures,
and other management applications.
The NPS is also impeded from taking full advantage of the
information generated by the scientific community, both in academia and
the Federal sector. Again, this is largely due to the lack of dedicated
staff for making appropriate use of available information. To assure
close coordination with the BRD and with academia in meeting land
management science needs, new cooperative efforts at universities are
being tested. The Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units (CESU) are one
vehicle for making connections between the NPS and its needs and the
research community. By placing representatives of Federal research
agencies and Federal research users on campuses, increased
collaboration between the researchers and the research-users will
result. And, land managers will be able to consolidate their research
needs, further eliminating chances of duplication. Also, NPS personnel
will have access to training, libraries, and a broad range of technical
assistance from academic personnel. This requires only one NPS person
stationed at a CESU, and eventually, about 16 CESUs. The NPS intends,
through its natural resource initiative, to develop effective, more
ways to increase access to available expertise.
Within the Natural Resource Initiative, $1.5 million is requested
to implement the Resource Protection Act.
Question. How does this request relate to the funds requested for
the department-wide Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)?
Answer. The National Park Service request is for implementation of
the Park System Resource Protection Act (16 USC 19jj). The Park System
Resource Protection Act is a separate authority, distinct from the
Department of the Interior's Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
Program, authorities which arise primarily from the Clean Water Act as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The
Department-wide program supports all bureau activities related to
damages resulting from oil spills or releases of hazardous substances.
Question. How does the NRDA statute differ from the Resource
Protection Act?
Answer. The NRDA statute allows the Secretary to conduct
restoration and recover damages for injuries to natural resources under
the ownership, management, or control of the Department resulting from
the release of oil or hazardous substances into the environment. The
Park System Resource Protection Act allows the Secretary to recover
damages for injuries to any park system resource, from any cause as
long as the Federally-owned park resource is within the boundaries of a
unit of the National Park System. The Park System Act thus allows the
Secretary to collect for damages to cultural resources and park
facilities, as well as to natural resources, resulting from any kind of
incident that causes injury and not just resulting from an oil spill or
hazardous substance. As a result, the Park System Resource Protection
Act is unique in its application to National Park Service resources. It
is narrower than OPA or CERCLA because the Act's application is limited
to damages to Federally-owned and NPS managed resources within units of
the National Park System. It is broader than OPA or CERCLA because it
applies to all resources and to damages arising from any source.
Recoveries under the Act must be used for restoration, replacement, or
acquisition of the equivalent of the damaged resource.
vanishing treasures
An increase of $994,000 is requested for the Vanishing Treasures
program.
Question. With only $197,000 of this request going to ``managed
emergency projects'' (for a total of $821,000) why is $103,000 required
for ``Project Management and Oversight''?
Answer. Only $2,000 of the $103,000 increase request for ``Project
Management'' is for program oversight. The remainder of this part of
the total Vanishing Treasures increase request includes the cost for an
engineer/conservator position, who will be stationed at an as yet
undetermined park, and will not be a program oversight position.
Question. What would be the function of the Engineer/Conservator
position, and how will the role of this person be different from that
of the additional park staff that have been hired with funds already
appropriated for Vanishing Treasures and transferred to park base
budgets?
Answer. Most of the personnel hired to date are considered ``hands-
on'' staff charged with the specific responsibility of preserving
Vanishing Treasures resources on a day-to-day basis. The primary
purpose of the Engineer/Conservator position is to develop a program of
engineering and structural monitoring evaluation of problems in
prehistoric and historic ruins, and hazardous rock and soil masses.
This is a highly specialized position that will be park-based and
dedicated to providing assistance to the Vanishing Treasures parks.
Some of the primary tasks performed would include assessment of the
structural soundness of Vanishing Treasures resources, developing
systems to detect movement and settlement of individual structures and
the environment that they are built within, developing effective and
efficient monitoring systems, assessment of the effects of ground and
air vibrations on Vanishing Treasures resources, and developing,
designing, and installing bracing systems for unsupported walls. This
position will work directly with park preservation specialists and
managers to inspect resources to determine needs, project planning,
programming, implementation, and training.
repair and rehabilitation
A $5 million increase is requested for the Repair and
Rehabilitation program.
Question. Why is $2 million of this request to be allocated to the
National Capital Region, thereby providing a single region with a more
than 60 percent increase?
Answer. Due to the short deadline for the fiscal year 1999 repair
and rehabilitation project call, the National Capital Region was not
able to adequately document all of the Region's project needs. The
fiscal year 2000 repair and rehabilitation request better represents
the National Capital Region's needs as it is based on an inventory of
the total health and safety needs within each Region, the ability to
obligate funds and complete projects in a timely manner, and the number
of assets in ``poor condition'' within each Region.
park police
Section 801 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998
requires that a task force be appointed to report on Park Service law
enforcement needs, including the needs of the U.S. Park Police.
Question. What is the status of Park Service implementation of this
provision? When will the report be available?
Answer. The task force has been appointed and work on the report is
well underway. The report is expected to be sent to the Secretary in
August, with the due date to Congress of November 13, 1999, set by
Section 801 of the Act. The report will include a separate analysis for
the United States Park Police, as required by the Act.
The National Park Service Director, to whom the Secretary delegated
responsibility, has appointed a task force composed of field and
management personnel from many professional backgrounds, and from the
United States Park Police. The Director has authorized a task directive
to guide the study that seeks economy by conducting the process in-
house. Accuracy and objectivity are to be ensured by stipulating that
all recommendations be drawn from data or base information that may be
independently verified by the critical reviewer.
Question. What are the telecommunications needs of the Park Police?
Answer. A recent study performed by the National Park Service Radio
Managers and Office of Information Resources Management staff
identified the following short-term United States Park Police needs:
improve the system's preventative maintenance; adjust telephone line
interfaces and augment and better train communications staff; contract
an engineering firm to analyze the radio system; and provide
alternatives to correct cited problems including the conversion to
narrowband operations and the availability of commercial and leasing
options. The cost of the initial short-term needs has been estimated at
$255,000. This amount is proposed for funding in fiscal year 2000 in
the Construction and Major Maintenance appropriation.
Long-term needs include implementing the results of the engineering
study to include newer ``trunking'' technology and an increase of
technical staff to include the New York and San Francisco Field
Offices. It was further recommended that a Computer Aided Dispatch
system be implemented to improve Park Police response time, automatic
identification of callers, and officer location information. The cost
to implement the long-term needs is estimated at over $13 million and
will be addressed through funding proposals over a number of years.
Question. How much has been spent on meeting those needs in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
Answer. To date, the United States Park Police has spent less than
$50,000 for this conversion.
Question. How much will be dedicated for this purpose in fiscal
year 2000, assuming the request level, and from what sources?
Answer. The cost of the initial short-term USPP needs has been
estimated at $255,000 and is proposed for funding in fiscal year 2000
in the Construction and Major Maintenance appropriation account. The
funds will be used to improve the system's preventative maintenance;
adjust telephone line interfaces and augment and better train
communications staff, contract an engineering firm to analyze the radio
system, and provide alternatives to correct cited problems including
the conversion to narrowband operations and the availability of
commercial services and leasing options.
The increase requested for ``Special Parks'' includes $2,661,000
for the Park Police: $800,000 to operate and maintain the new
helicopter and $1,861,000 to establish a higher base level for officer
training.
Question. At the request level, is the training of new officers
likely to keep pace with officer attrition in fiscal year 2000 and
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. It is expected that the budget request will allow training
to keep pace with the attrition rate.
Question. Will the rate of attrition likely be exceeded?
Answer. Funding is requested at a level intended to increase the
number of Park Police officers, taking attrition into account. The NPS
would like to build to an on-board strength of 625 officers, about 70
more than is expected to be on-board at the end of fiscal year 1999.
With $500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999, the proposed increase of
$1.861 million for fiscal year 2000 would establish a base amount of
$2.361 million dedicated to funding two recruit classes annually. Given
the current rate of attrition, and the approval of the fiscal year 2000
increase request, the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 recruit
classes would allow the Park Police to reach a level of 625 sworn
officers.
Question. Assuming the requested funding is provided in fiscal year
2000 and maintained in future years, when does the Park Service
anticipate that the Park Police will reach fully authorized staffing
levels?
Answer. There is no ``authorized'' level of officers for the Park
Police. The NPS has identified a need for 625 officers. The proposed
increase for fiscal year 2000 would establish a base amount dedicated
to funding two recruit classes annually. Given the rate of attrition
and the current on-board strength, it would take three to four recruit
classes beginning in fiscal year 2000 to reach 625 due to the current
rate of attrition caused by retirements.
Further requirements will be evaluated, with base funding for
permanent salaries and support requested as needed. The base funding
for the two recruit classes would remain to run subsequent classes. The
Service believes this plan will allow the USPP staffing needs to be
addressed in the most efficient and expeditious manner.
Question. Assuming additional funds beyond the requested amount
were available, what is the maximum amount of training that could be
provided within the limitations of existing infrastructure, both in
terms of numbers of recruiting classes and trainees?
Answer. The National Park Service has identified a need for 625
officers. Given the rate of attrition and the current on-board
strength, it would likely take at least three to four recruit classes
beginning in fiscal year 2000 to reach this number due to current high
rate of attrition caused by retirements.
The National Park Service's budget request for fiscal year 2000
includes an important request to provide base funding for two recruit
classes per year. This increase of $1.861 million, coupled with
$500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999, would establish a base amount
dedicated to funding two recruit classes annually. Plans are to conduct
two recruit classes a year for the foreseeable future, should the
funding request in fiscal year 2000 for base funding for recruit
classes be approved. The $2.361 million would be used to cover salary
costs for the 48 park police cadets (each class will contain 24
candidates) during their training, travel, lodging expenses, initial
uniform, equipment issuance, applicant physicals, background
investigations, and incidental costs incurred at the Federal Law
Enforcement Center (FLEC). At the conclusion of training, the new
officers will fill existing funded vacancies. The funding for the
recruit classes would continue to remain available for two more recruit
classes every year, as needed. We believe this plan will allow the USPP
staffing needs to be addressed in the most efficient and expeditious
manner.
Assuming additional funds were available to cover training costs,
including the salary costs during training, a third training class
could be undertaken. Additional funding to cover the permanent base
salaries for this class at the conclusion of training might be
necessary and would have to be addressed through the normal budget
process. However, given current funding constraints, the NPS believes
that the plan to implement two classes annually represents the best
approach to raising the sworn officer strength to a minimum of 625.
Question. What funds beyond those requested would be required to
sustain training at this level?
Answer. One additional Park Police training class for 24 trainees
would cost an estimated $1,180,000 annually during the period of
training.
presidio
The budget request for the Presidio is reduced to $5,850,000, a
reduction of $4,239,000. This reduction flows from the continued
transfer of responsibilities from the Park Service to the Presidio
Trust.
Question. Does this Department anticipate that the request for
Presidio operations will decline further in fiscal year 2001? If so, by
how much?
Answer. The Department does not anticipate that the request for
Presidio operations will decline further in fiscal year 2001.
Question. At what level will funding requirements for the Presidio
likely stabilize?
Answer. The $5.85 million request for fiscal year 2000 is the
stabilized long-term funding level. It meets the NPS continuing, long-
term obligation to provide for Area A operational and site management
expenses, including law enforcement, fire protection/emergency medical
services, public safety dispatch, maintenance and facility management,
utilities, administrative and management support, legal support,
resource management, planning and compliance. The fiscal year 2000
request also meets the NPS obligation set forth in the law establishing
the Presidio Trust, to provide for visitor orientation and
interpretation on all Presidio lands.
Question. What is the current FTE level at the Presidio supported
by Park Service appropriations?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 Presidio budget provides for an FTE
level of 115.
Question. What is the current level supported by the Presidio Trust
through reimbursements?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999 the total FTE supported by the Presidio
Trust through reimbursements is 53. Thirty-seven of this 53 FTE is for
United States Park Police (USPP) law enforcement, through an
arrangement mandated by the Trust law. In addition to USPP services,
the NPS is providing the following other services in fiscal year 1999
to the Presidio Trust on a reimbursable basis: maintenance (through
December 31, 1998 only), environmental remediation management,
environmental and cultural compliance, special park uses/special events
management, planning and professional services, Advisory Commission
support services, and miscellaneous administrative support.
Question. What is the FTE level anticipated at the end of fiscal
year 1999? Fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Current projections are that the NPS will utilize 115 FTE
during fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, the NPS level will
decrease to 73 FTE funded by NPS appropriations. Most of the decrease
is due to the shift of 75 percent of the funds for the Presidio Fire
Department and public safety dispatch operation from the NPS to the
Presidio Trust within the fiscal year 2000 budget. In fiscal year 2000,
the total FTE funded through reimbursable agreements is expected to be
74, which includes the current 37 law enforcement FTE plus an
additional 37 FTE for public safety dispatch services. The NPS does not
anticipate the Presidio Trust to request any other reimbursable support
over and above the 74 FTE.
Question. How have the personnel reductions been handled to date in
terms of numbers of RIFs, personnel maintained with Presidio Trust
funds, etc.?
Answer. The Presidio Trust law specified that no National Park
Service employees would lose their jobs as a result of its
implementation. The NPS, therefore, developed a Servicewide, voluntary
priority placement program. This program, combined with retirements,
the availability of a voluntary separation incentive, and hiring of NPS
employees by the Presidio Trust, enabled the NPS to meet its downsizing
targets. A major factor in the Service's success was its building of a
high level of flexibility within the Golden Gate NRA /Presidio
organization in anticipation of the need to downsize. Because it met
its downsizing target for the Presidio, the NPS was able to suspend its
priority placement program in March 1999. (The outplacement effort
resulted in 22 career employees accepting voluntary separation
incentives, 12 career employees being placed in other NPS units, and 45
career employees accepting positions with the Trust). Aside from the
already discussed reimbursable agreements with the Trust, no other NPS
personnel are ``maintained'' with Trust funds.
Question. Is the Department confident that the request for the
Presidio represents the lowest funding level possible while still
providing for appropriate Park Service management of Area A?
Answer. The Department is confident that the fiscal year 2000
request represents the lowest funding level that will provide for Area
A management expenses, and provide for visitor orientation and
interpretation expenses on all Presidio lands as mandated in the Trust
law. It should be noted that NPS responsibilities for Area A today are
far different from its responsibilities for the lands permitted to the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area pre-base closure. Area A today is
325 acres, more than double the pre-closure acreage permitted to GGNRA
(even without including 423 acres offshore). Area A concentrates
exceptional natural, recreational, and scenic resources, intense
visitor use, and a host of complex and active planning and
transportation issues. And unlike during the Army's tenure at the
Presidio, the NPS is responsible for all operational, management, and
supporting expenses. Virtually all recreational visits to the Presidio
(an estimated 3 million annually) involve visits to the bluffs, trails,
and beaches of Area A. Area A also includes the $25 million Crissy
Field park development (including restored wetlands) which is being
funded through a major community fundraising effort. As the very
visible ``front yard'' of the Presidio, a safe and well maintained Area
A is essential to Trust leasing efforts.
Question. What would be the impact of an additional reduction of
$500,000 in the Presidio's fiscal year 2000 budget?
Answer. A large component of the fiscal year 2000 request is
essentially ``fixed'' expenses, representing the Area A share for
Presidio-wide law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical
services, and public safety dispatch. Other fixed costs are for NPS
utility and facility management expenses. The impact of a $500,000
reduction would, therefore, need to be absorbed by the remaining
programs, including maintenance, interpretation/visitor services,
resource management, and administrative support. An estimated eight to
ten positions would need to be cut. This would reduce Area A services
below existing levels for many functions. When the NPS negotiated the
split of functions and dollars with the Presidio Trust beginning in
fiscal year 1999, with the exception of three additional maintenance
workers added for Crissy Field, no programs were increased. Existing
funding levels were divided between the NPS and Trust depending on who
had the responsibility to provide each function. To absorb a $500,000
reduction, the following cuts would need to be taken:
--Reduce Area A maintenance by 20 percent. This eliminates two
positions. Affected would be beaches, trails, and other highly
visited areas, including the new Crissy Field park area during
the critical new plant establishment phase.
--Reduce interpretive and education programs conducted cooperatively
with school districts, and reduce operations of the William
Penn Mott Visitor Center. This would result in a decrease of 25
percent, or two positions.
--Reduced oversight of the Natural Resources Stewardship program
which mobilizes community volunteers to provide 100,000
volunteer hours annually to restore and protect wetlands,
riparian habitat, creeks, rare and endangered species habitats,
resulting in a decrease of 20 percent, or one position.
--Curtail public and prospective tenant access to the museum
archives, and reduce access, preservation, and accountability
for the extensive museum collection transferred to the NPS from
the Army. This would be a decrease of 15 percent, or one
position.
--Eliminate NPS oversight of approximately $25 million in
environmental remediation activities in Area A, under a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Army, Presidio Trust,
and the NPS. Curtail ability to exercise NEPA and NHPA
obligations with respect to Area A projects and planning, as
well as cooperating agency role with respect to Area B. There
would be a decrease in budget and contracting office support.
(Eliminates up to four management and administrative support
positions.)
Additionally, to outplace the additional employees would
necessitate the reactivation of the suspended Servicewide employee
outplacement program and require re-identification of positions to be
potentially eliminated.
Impacts of this cut could still be greater, given current
uncertainties in negotiations with the Presidio Trust on setting
utility rates and other charges impacting the NPS.
energy conservation
The justification indicates that a super energy savings performance
contract is under development at Yosemite National Park.
Question. What is the status of this effort?
Answer. The park was in contract negotiations with the Department
of Energy and The Bentley Company for eighteen months discussing and
making modifications to the detailed energy study for the energy
conservation project. The Delivery Order was signed by Yosemite
National Park on April 15, 1999, by the Department of Energy in late
April, and signed by The Bentley Company on April 29, 1999. Anticipated
construction completion date is January, 2000.
Question. What types of projects does the Park expect to undertake
pursuant to this contract?
Answer. Projects include lighting retrofits or replacement of
lights in offices, campgrounds, and workshop stations throughout
Yosemite National Park. In the campgrounds, the addition of a ``down''
lighting system will protect the night skies of Yosemite.
All PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyl's), contaminated capacitors and
heavy metals such as mercury (from lamps) will be removed from the site
and incinerated or recycled in accordance with applicable Environmental
Protection Agency and State of California requirements.
A voltage upgrade for the El Portal Maintenance Complex and the El
Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant will be completed whereby Yosemite
National Park will install their own distribution asset to replace
equipment provided by the local utility. The new distribution assets
will change the point at which the utility meters the park's electrical
service. The utility will then charge a reduced rate reflecting the
absence of a utility-owned distribution asset serving that location.
The park will install variable frequency drives on aerator systems
at the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plan. This will modulate the
speed of the motors based on the monitored response provided by the
oxygen sensors.
A variable air volume conversion will be completed and a new set of
dampers installed to vary the amount of supply air being delivered.
The park will install a temperature based, air-side economizer on
the air handling unit in the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant
building.
A boiler will be replaced at the Valley District Building. The
existing boiler, #2 fuel oil-fired boiler, provides steam and hydronic
hot water for heating as well as domestic hot water at less than 75
percent efficiency. The new, higher efficiency boiler (90 percent
efficiency) will reduce operating costs through an increase in
efficiency over the existing boiler. The new boiler will be connected
to the propane tank that will replace the old diesel tank oil burner.
This new boiler can be modified for future conversion to natural gas
that could be a future consideration.
Finally, time of day controllers will control airflow for the
existing HVAC system.
facility condition assessments
The request includes a $2.5 million increase for the Park Service
to initiate a detailed condition assessment of Park Service assets.
Question. How will this $2.5 million project improve upon the
current system, whereby asset protection, repair and rehabilitation
needs are presumably assessed by park staff on a continual or annual
basis and addressed through the budget formulation and new five-year
planning process?
Answer. Currently, inventory and condition assessment of National
Park Service facilities and infrastructure is performed inconsistently
and without uniformity. Because of this, the data generated are not
considered to be uniformly reliable.
The intention of the National Park Service is to institute a
Servicewide program to collect detailed information on the most
critical assets. This facilities inventory condition assessment
information will provide a baseline against which remediation progress
can be measured, which in turn will provide performance indicators upon
which to base future management decisions and planning. The Service
proposes to start an inventory condition monitoring process in fiscal
year 2000 and include a more comprehensive needs assessment to assist
the Service in determining which facilities are mission-critical and
which could be excessed from our inventory. This process will
acknowledge that, given limited fiscal resources, not every asset in
the Park Service will receive the same level of attention, but will
allow us to identify the most critical. Further, the Service will
monitor the percentages of facilities improved from poor or failed
condition, to good condition, as our principal performance measures and
indicators in determining the efficacy of NPS regional maintenance
programs.
Question. Would these funds be better spent on actual repair and
rehabilitation of park assets known to be in need of such work?
Answer. The NPS first needs to establish an institutionalized
Servicewide asset management program that includes a comprehensive
needs assessment system to document an accurate inventory and condition
assessment of National Park Service facilities needs that will fully
identify deferred maintenance requirements in all national park areas.
This will provide management with the necessary information upon which
to base future management decisions and planning, as well as with sound
data to measure progress.
y2k
The fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included funds to
address the Y2K computer problem.
Question. How much has the Park Service received from this fund to
date?
Answer. The National Park Service has received $19,464,000 in Y2K
Emergency Appropriations funding.
Question. Has the availability of these funds obviated the need to
use other funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for information
systems or other related purposes? If so, how much?
Answer. The NPS had estimated a total need of $45,000,000 to
replace computers and computer related systems with Y2K related
problems. The availability of Y2K Emergency Appropriations will not
obviate the need to use other funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999
for information systems or other related purposes.
Question. Have these funds been reprogrammed for other purposes?
Answer. No.
Question. Has the availability of these funds obviated the need for
any of the funds requested for fiscal year 2000 for information systems
and related purposes?
Answer. The availability of Y2K Emergency Appropriations will not
obviate the need for any of the funds requested in fiscal year 2000,
which include funds for the support of new web-based information
systems (the Project Management Information System and the Operations
Formulation System), continuation of the program to modernize equipment
(especially in parks), and participation in the Department's financial
systems integration. In addition, other information management
requirements remain, such as the need to purchase software site
licenses and enhanced system security.
external administrative costs
The justification lists a number of unbudgeted GSA space rental
adjustments, for which an increase of $1.471 million is requested?
Question. What is the cause of the $444,000 increase at Santa
Monica NRA?
Answer. In April 1998, the headquarters and visitor center for the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area were relocated from
Agoura, California to Thousand Oaks, California under a GSA lease
program. The new facility provides 5,576 square feet of additional
space to accommodate a larger visitor center, office space for 25
additional employees over the next five years, and an expanded visitor
parking area. GSA space rental charges will total $444,000 per year for
the Thousand Oaks location. The budget inadvertently included the total
need without factoring in the current cost ($301,655) to lease the
Agoura facilities. The budget overstated the additional need for Santa
Monica for the Thousand Oaks location by this amount. The increase
amount requested should be $142,345 rather than the $444,000 requested
in the budget. But this apparent savings will likely be offset by other
changes not always within the control of the NPS. For example, since
the fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted, the NPS has determined that
the Accounting Operations Center must be relocated from its current
location in Reston, Virginia to another facility nearby, due to
longstanding and unresolved problems with the current building and
landlord. This move will result in an increased annual rent of
$400,000.
Question. How does the request for increased rental space at Brown
v. Board of Education National Historic Site relate to the Monroe
School rehabilitation project?
Answer. The space provides for ranger offices, a library/resource
room for researchers and visitors, and a video/exhibit room that
accommodates groups of 50 to the site. Visitation to Brown vs. Broad
has increased 160 percent since fiscal year 1997 and the rental space
allows the park to accommodate this increase until the Monroe School
rehabilitation project is completed.
Question. Will the rental space be required once the Monroe School
project is completed?
Answer. No. The planning for the rehabilitation of the Monroe
School had identified space on the 2nd floor to be allocated for
administrative and ranger offices, along with a visitor exhibit area to
be located on the 1st floor. This project is scheduled to be completed
in 2002.
The justification indicates that the $25,000 requested for leased
space at the C&O Canal NHP is being sought in lieu of funds for
construction of a new facility.
Question. How does this request relate to the Construction funds
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the C&O Canal?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 funding approved for the new visitor
center at Cumberland, Maryland in the amount of $1.2 million in fiscal
year 2000 is to design and fabricate exhibits for expanding the visitor
center at Cumberland, Maryland. None of these funds are for building
construction or building renovation. The $25,000 is requested to pay
for the lease of the physical space from the Canal Place Preservation
and Development Authority.
Question. Why is the Park Service both using funds to build or
rehabilitate the visitor space as well as paying increased rent?
Answer. The Service is not using funds to both build or renovate a
visitor center and pay for increased rent. The fiscal year 1999
appropriation was for the design and fabrication of exhibits that will
be installed in leased space owned by the Canal Place Preservation and
Development Authority (CPDA), a Maryland State Heritage area designee.
The Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority is responsible
for the renovation of the Western Maryland Railroad Station, 13 Canal
Street, Cumberland, Maryland. The lower floor of the building will be
devoted to depicting the history of the area with emphasis on the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and its importance in the Cumberland area.
CPDA is responsible for renovating and refurbishing the building
proper. This space will be rented by the NPS under an approved plan for
the Western Maryland Railroad Station via a cooperative agreement. CPDA
is renting the space to the NPS at a greatly reduced rate to foster the
presentation of history in western Maryland.
The budget request includes an increase of $25 million for
``special park'' operations.
Question. By what process was this list of park operational
increases developed? Who was involved, and over what time period was
the list developed?
Answer. The specific park operational increases included in the
fiscal year 2000 budget represent the highest priority needs of the
Service as identified by its park managers. The priority setting
process begins in the February/March time frame at the park level,
almost a year prior to the submission of the NPS budget request to
Congress.
The park superintendent and other park professionals are in the
best position to evaluate the relative merit and urgency of the need at
their park. After the park identifies all unfunded needs over the
coming five-year period and enters the requests into the Servicewide
database for unfunded operational requirements--the Operations
Formulation System--``park priorities'' are then set by park
management. All increases at the park level are considered in the
context of the park's Annual Performance Plan and the NPS Strategic
Plan, as mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act.
In the April/May time frame, the requests are reviewed at the
appropriate Regional Office, where increases are ranked and prioritized
by senior managers and executive committees of park superintendents,
based on the urgency of the requirement, as well as on initiatives
contained in the Departmental budget guidance and the budget priorities
set forth by the NPS Director and the National Leadership Council. The
funding requests are then forwarded to NPS headquarters where they are
reviewed and evaluated for appropriateness in schedule, adequacy and
accuracy of information, and consistency with policy. A Servicewide
list of park increases is developed by the budget staff during late May
and early June. Regional ``allocations'' for this Servicewide list are
based on many factors, including the proportion of the operational
funding level of a region to other regions, the soundness of the
requests, the number of parks in a specific region, the types of park
in a region, consistency in meeting certain initiative and policy
requirements, and the total identified requirements of the parks within
a particular region. In general a region such as the Pacific West
containing a greater number of parks, including many of the most
complex and larger parks in the System, would receive a greater
proportional share of the increase than the smaller Midwest Region, for
example.
Once a preliminary list is developed, the increases are reviewed
and approved by top NPS management, the Department and OMB. Though some
specific new increases may come to light, or surface to match an
initiative, the list submitted to Congress accurately represents NPS
priorities within the context of overarching Administration initiatives
and current fiscal constraints.
Question. Please provide for the record lists of special park
increases that would be provided if only a $10 million or $15 million
increase were to be provided.
Answer. All of the $25 million in park increases requested in the
Budget Justifications represent high priorities of the Service. Should
budget allowances preclude funding of the entire list of increases, the
NPS has identified the following list of increases, totaling
approximately $12 million, to be most urgent.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Funding request Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Memorial Park............ Improve Park Operations $95
and Protect Resources.
Big Cypress NP.................... Manage 146,000 Acres of 353
New Lands.
Biscayne NP....................... Restore and Protect Coral 320
Reefs.
Boston African American NHP....... Maintain and Operate 250
Restored Historic
Structures.
Buck Island Reef NM............... Improve Law Enforcement 110
to Protect Coral
Resources.
Cumberland Island NS.............. Protect and Interpret 300
Plum Orchard Mansion.
Denali NP and Preserve............ Expand Visitor Services 300
and Increased Visitation.
Devils Postpile NM................ Enhance Visitor Services 75
and Protect Resources.
Dinosaur NM....................... Provide Partnership 144
Support.
Dinosaur NM....................... Enhance Visitor 114
Experiences.
Dry Tortugas NP................... Establish Resources 240
Monitoring for Coral
Reefs.
Eugene O'Neill NHS................ Maintain Resource and 50
Provide Interpretation.
Everglades NP..................... Establish Oversight Team 250
for South Florida
Projects.
Fort Clatsop NM................... Provide for National 240
Bicentennial Event.
Fort Union Trading Post NHS....... Provide for National 84
Bicentennial Event.
Grand Portage NM.................. Maintenance Program 32
Support.
Hawaii Volcanoes NP............... Restore Science Program 165
to Protect Resources.
Home of FDR NHS................... Complete Funding for 80
Operations of Top
Cottage.
Homestead NM of America........... Provide for National 28
Bicentennial Event.
Independence NHP.................. Maintain Historic 499
Structures and Grounds.
Jefferson National Expansion Provide for National 80
Memorial Bicentennial Event.
Kaloko-Honokonau NHP.............. Improve Park Operations 250
and Protect Resources.
Kaloko-Honokonau NHP.............. Protect and Monitor 100
Marine and Water
Habitats.
Kalaupapa NHP..................... Establish Coral Reef..... .........
Klondike Gold Rush NHP............ Operation and Maintain 15 287
Restored Historic
Buildings.
Klondike Gold Rush-Seattle NHP.... Improve Visitor Safety 50
and Park Operations.
Knife River Indian Villages NHS... Provide for National 97
Bicentennial Event.
Lewis and Clark NHT............... Provide for National 300
Bicentennial Event.
Marsh-Billings NHP................ Establish Conservation 270
Study Institute in New
Park.
Missouri NRR...................... Provide for National 128
Bicentennial Event.
Natchez Trace Parkway............. Provide for National 60
Bicentennial Event.
Nez Perce NHP..................... Provide for National 160
Bicentennial Event.
Niobrara NSR New Park Operations on 449
Niobrara Scenic River.
National Park of American Samoa... Initiate Coral Reef 125
Monitoring Programs.
Palo Alto Battlefield NHS......... Provide Site 61
Interpretation and
Visitor Services.
Petroglyph NM..................... Develop Visitor Services 111
for Additional
Management Areas.
Petroglyph NM..................... Protect and Maintain 165
Ceded Management Areas.
Richmond NBP...................... Operate Visitor Center... 250
Saguaro NP........................ Provide for Protection 423
and Study of New Lands.
San Juan Island NHP............... Provide Resource 78
Protection.
Springfield Armory NHS............ Implement Resource 185
Protection Program.
Theodore Roosevelt NP............. Provide for National 135
Bicentennial Event.
Trail of Tears NHT................ Improve Cultural 57
Resources Interpretation.
United States Park Police......... Establish Base Funding 1,861
for Officer Recruit
Classes.
United States Park Police Maintain Aviation 800
Operational Upkeep.
Virgin Islands NP................. Provide Swimming Safety/ 300
Sanitary Beach
Facilities.
Virgin Islands NP................. Protect Primary 385
Resources, Including
Coral Reefs.
War in the Pacific NHP............ Develop Coral Reef 85
Management Program.
White Sands NM.................... Implement Resource 161
Protection Program.
Wrangell-St. Elias NP and Preserve Provide Services for 495
Increased Visitation.
Yellowstone NP.................... Provide Ecosystem 300
Coordination.
----------
Total....................... ......................... 12,007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the $16 million level, the following increases would rank next
highest in priority, and would be additive to the previous listing:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Funding request Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands NP....................... Actively Manage and $238
Monitor Black-Footed
Ferrets.
Bent's Old Fort NHS............... Maintain Natural and 108
Cultural Resources.
Canyon de Chelly NM Implement Archeological 100
Preservation Program.
Casa Grande Ruins NM.............. Implement Permanent 50
Resource Management
Program.
Cane River Creole NHP............. Implement Resource 150
Management and
Protection.
Cane River Creole NHP............. Statutory Aid for Cane 100
River Heritage
Commission.
Charles Pinckney NHS.............. Expand and Improve 75
Educational Services.
Christiansted NHS................. Improve Visitor Services 165
at 6 Historic Buildings.
Denali NP and Preserve............ Establish Essential 500
Telecommunications
Operations.
Fort Laramie NHS.................. Halt Deterioration of 145
Historic Park Structures.
Gates of the Arctic NP and Educate and Involve 291
Preserve. Public in Wilderness
Planning.
Hubbell Trading Post NHS.......... Enhance Maintenance and 67
Curatorial Activities.
Lowell NHP........................ Preserve Significant 500
Historic Resources.
Mammoth Cave NP................... Provide Increased Sewage 220
Costs for New Facility.
Minute Man NHP.................... Protect Threatened 333
Archeological Sites.
Mississippi NRR................... Operate Partnership 93
Facilities in Science
Museum.
Point Reyes NS.................... Protect Critical Natural 106
Resources.
Redwood NP........................ Manage and Protect 490
Endangered Species.
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Operate and Maintain New 354
Reserve. Boat Docks.
----------
Total....................... ......................... 4,085
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.3 million is included within the special parks initiative for
activities related to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
Question. Is it the Park Service's intention to pull these
increases out of those parks' base budgets following the bicentennial
for allocation elsewhere?
Answer. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial covers the years until
2006. Activities commemorating the historic event will continue to
build throughout the next seven years. The increases, which focus on
education programs related to the significance of the expedition and
its impact on the growth of the United States, will be incorporated
into the daily operating programs of each of the parks. The NPS will
evaluate the situation at each park as the end of the bicentennial
comes closer to determine if the funds should remain in each park's
base budget.
Question. Is the increase requested for the Gateway Visitor Center
at Independence NHP still necessary based on the estimated completion
date of the visitor center itself?
Answer. The Gateway Visitor Center is now scheduled to open in
fiscal year 2001. At this time it does not appear likely that the
$425,000 increase will be necessary during fiscal year 2000. When
opened, the full annual NPS operational share of the Gateway Visitor
Center remains unchanged at $1.7 million.
Question. What was the genesis of the Conservation Study Institute
proposed to be established at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP?
Answer. Mary F. and Laurance S. Rockefeller gave the park to the
United States ``so that the story of the conservation history of this
country may be told and spread throughout the land.'' Public Law 102-
350 (1992), ``The Marsh-Billings National Park Establishing Act'',
directed the National Park Service ``to interpret the history and
evolution of conservation stewardship in America.'' In 1993, the NPS
and the Woodstock Foundation, convened a group of 50 conservation
professionals from within and outside the National Park Service who
recommended the new park develop a center as a key part of its
interpretive and educational program for ``on-going research,
conferences, and training in conservation stewardship, and using new
technologies to provide access to primary resources related to the
history and evolution of conservation in America.'' The 1999 Marsh-
Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park General Management Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Statement recommended that the Institute
work with the University of Vermont to ``create opportunities for
dialogue, inquiry, and lifelong learning in conservation history.''
Question. Given the often cited operating shortfalls for routine
maintenance and visitor service activities throughout the park system,
why is this a priority?
Answer. The Institute is a fundamental component of Marsh-Billings-
Rockefeller National Historical Park's interpretive, visitor service,
and educational program on stewardship and environmental leadership,
reaching a broad audience of park visitors, students, educators, and
professionals. This is a priority for accomplishing the park's core
mission as defined in its enabling legislation and general management
plan.
Question. What would the University of Vermont be contributing to
this effort?
Answer. The University of Vermont's School of Natural Resources is
contributing expertise in conservation history, and the related
disciplines of conservation biology, management of natural resources
and forestry, tourism, recreation management, social science, historic
preservation, and geographic information systems. In addition, the
University is assisting the park's educational efforts with state-of-
the-art facilities for distance learning and computer technology. The
University is contributing matching funds to involve faculty and
graduate students in collaborative research with the park.
Question. Why is $93,000 requested to operate partnership
facilities at the Science Museum of Minnesota when the Park Service did
not receive the funding requested in fiscal year 1999 to participate in
this facility?
Answer. At the time the budget was submitted, the NPS was
optimistic of obtaining funding for the areas within the Science
Museum--the Mississippi River National Center and the Mississippi River
Exhibition Gallery. The Service is still investigating other avenues
for funding. Nevertheless, the role and responsibilities of the NPS in
interpreting the Mississippi River watershed would remain intact
regardless of whether the NPS had a presence in the new Science Museum
of Minnesota. The only question would be the means and location of the
interpretation.
Question. How is the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee
currently financed?
Answer. The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee is not
currently financed. The participating members contribute to high
priority projects from their operating funds.
Question. What agencies other than the Forest Service and Park
Service would be brought into the ecosystem planning and coordinating
process?
Answer. The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee plans to
include the following agencies as members: The Jackson Elk Refuge, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Question. Is this the highest priority operating need identified by
Yellowstone National Park?
Answer. No, this is not the highest priority operating need for
Yellowstone National Park. However, Yellowstone managers recognize the
importance of establishing a proactive, ecosystem-based approach to the
management of natural resources in the greater Yellowstone area. As a
result, Yellowstone managers agree that the establishment of a Greater
Yellowstone Coordinating Committee Coordinator represents a high
priority for both the National Park Service and the Forest Service.
national recreation and preservation
The justification indicates that all ongoing river studies will be
complete in fiscal year 2000.
Question. How many additional studies are likely to be initiated in
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000?
Answer. No new river studies were initiated in fiscal year 1999 and
none are certain of beginning in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Does the Park Service expect a reduction in workload
within this program beyond fiscal year 2000 as a result of the current
river studies being completed?
Answer. No. Studies for potential additions to the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System and the National Trails System are funded from
the same account. The Old Spanish Trail study will continue in fiscal
year 2000 and the Service anticipates one new trail study to be
authorized this year, the ``Star Spangled Banner Trail,'' sometimes
referred to as the ``War of 1812 Trail.'' This account also provides
for other program needs and activities including management direction
for river and trail studies and management planning and coordination
with other agencies with responsibilities for river and trail studies.
The justification indicates that publication of final rules
regarding the National Natural Landmark program will be followed by
distribution of the rules to affected landowners, and that the legal
mandate for Section 8 report expires after 1999.
Question. Has issuance and distribution of the final rules
occurred? If not, when will this likely occur?
Answer. No. Issuance in the Federal Register is expected to occur
in May, 1999. Distribution will start within 10 days after that
publication.
Question. What are the significant changes in administration of the
landmark program embodied in the new regulations?
Answer. Significant changes in the administration of the National
Natural Landmark (NNL) program include the following:
--Owners of sites under consideration for possible national natural
landmark designation are fully notified in advance of such
consideration and have the opportunity to comment on the
proposals. (This was always the general operating protocol but
it is now more explicit in the regulations).
--There is no entry onto private lands for purposes of new national
natural landmark evaluation without written permission. (This
was always the general operating protocol but it is now more
explicit and requires ``written'' rather than verbal
permission).
--No property receives the national natural landmark designation if
the owner requests within a specified period of time that their
land not be designated. (This was ambiguous in the old
regulations).
--Owners of existing national natural landmarks can have the
designation removed if they do so as specified in the
regulations and within a specified time period.
--The National Park System Advisory Board will review all future
designations. (This was the procedure used in the 1970s and is
being reinstituted).
The effects of national natural landmark designation are described.
Question. Does the Department intend to prepare a Section 8 report
for 2000?
Answer. No decision has yet been made as to whether the Department
will prepare a Section 8 report for 2000.
Question. With the release of the revised regulations and the
uncertain status of the Section 8 reporting requirement, why are
program needs not reduced?
Answer. Since there has been a moratorium on listing activity since
1989, the NPS expects a significant workload in evaluating new national
natural landmark proposals once the final rules are published and
distributed. Many designation proposals were in the final review
process in 1989 and others were in earlier stages of consideration.
These site evaluation reports will require updating per specifications
in the new regulations. In addition, a few sites will be given priority
to receive new onsite evaluations. Over the longer term, other sites
that have never received onsite evaluations will need them. In the
short-term, the Service also expects a significant workload responding
to national natural landmark owner questions and requests.
Finally, the fact that Section 8 reports are no longer required to
be submitted to Congress does not mean that the NPS no longer has any
interest in NNL conditions. National Park Service staff periodically
visited these locations as a routine program procedure before the
Section 8 requirement became law in 1976. With or without a formal
Section 8 report, the NPS expects that its most significant workload
will continue to be in maintaining contact with national natural
landmark landowners, maintaining a general awareness of the condition
of NNLs, and answering questions about existing national natural
landmarks.
national center for preservation technology and training
Nearly $2 million was allocated in fiscal year 1999 for the
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training in
Natchitoches, Louisiana.
Question. How is the work conducted at the Center distinct from
work performed at other Park Service training facilities?
Answer. The National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training (NCPTT) in Natchitoches, Louisiana, serves as a research and
development office within the National Park Service, and undertakes
work through three components: research, training, and information
management. The center researches and develops new preservation
technologies, trains in new preservation technologies and advanced
skills, and develops and dis tributes technical information.
The work of the Center's training component is distinct from the
work of other NPS training facilities in three chief ways: mission,
audience, and partners.
Mission: The training work of the National Center for Preservation
Technology and Training focuses on (1) interdisciplinary approaches to
preservation, including historic architecture, historic landscapes,
archeology, objects and materials conservation and history, (2) turning
advanced preservation research into preservation training
opportunities, and (3) researching new training technologies and
technology transfers applicable to training.
Audience: In addition to NPS employees, NCPTT's training audience
includes practitioners in State and local government agencies, and
private practitioners.
Partners: The National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training training projects are completed in partnership with
universities, non-profit and professional organizations, Federal State
and local government agencies, and private practitioners.
Question. Could efficiencies be gained from collocating the Center
with other NPS facilities or programs?
Answer. National Park Service programs that are devoted to
archeology or historic architecture or training are distributed
throughout the United States, and NCPTT shares expertise and projects
with these programs. Although some efficiencies might be gained from
co-locating the National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training with another NPS facility or program, even greater
efficiencies are gained from continuing and enhancing NCPTT's
collaborations with the broad range of related Park Service programs
and col leagues across the United States.
Within the Statutory or Contractual Aid activity, the Park Service
proposes to continue support for some entities while terminating
support for others.
Question. What criteria does the Park Service and/or the Department
use in determining which of these programs will be included in the
budget request?
Answer. The primary consideration for continuing support for items
within the Statutory or Contractual Aid activity is whether a
particular entity has proper authorization. In recent years, the NPS
has also begun to place a lower priority on statutory aid funding for
organizations that could potentially be capable of self-sufficiency.
This policy is expected to be continued in coming years, as funding is
shifted to the support of legislatively established heritage areas.
save america's treasures
A number of changes have been proposed in the statutory language
relating to the Save America's Treasures program.
Question. Does the Park Service plan to review or change the grant
criteria that were used to allocate funds provided in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The criteria used to allocate fiscal year 1999 funds were
primarily set by Congress in the language of the appropriations bill.
The justification for the fiscal year 2000 language states that part of
the reason for the requested changes in statutory language is to ``open
up the eligibility criteria to also include non-Federal entities.''
The justification states part of the reason for the requested
changes in statutory language is to ``open up the eligibility criteria
to also include non-Federal entities.''
Question. Aren't non-Federal entities proposed to receive a
significant portion of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes. The nonfederal entities that are proposed to receive
funds in fiscal year 1999 were all submitted through the following
three Federal agencies: Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and National Endowment
for the Humanities (NEH).
By law, the National Archives and Records Administration and the 24
Federal agencies, departments, and organizations funded through the
fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act were
eligible to compete for Save America's Treasures funding. Although
eligible to compete, IMLS, NEA and NEH are granting organizations that
do not own intellectual and cultural artifacts or historic structures
and sites, for which funding was provided. The House and Senate
Appropriations Committees agreed that, for fiscal year 1999, these
three agencies could accept applications from nonfederal entities,
review the applications for completeness and eligibility for funding
under the Save America's Treasures guidelines and project selection
criteria previously approved by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, rank the applications according to the Project Selection
Criteria, and forward selected applications to the NPS as their
agencies' submissions to compete for the national program awards.
The following examples illustrate that each agency's mission,
authorities, programs, and guidelines enable it to administer grants to
nonfederal entities for the full spectrum of intellectual and cultural
artifacts and historic structures and sites eligible for Save America's
Treasures funding. These examples are meant to be indicative, not
comprehensive.
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Under its Conservation Project Support program, the IMLS awards
matching grants for a broad range of conservation activities.
Applications for grants in the categories of Treatment and
Environmental Improvement are particularly analogous to the types of
applications received through the Save America's Treasures program. In
addition, the guidelines for treatment grants state that an applicant
may request funds ``to conserve, preserve, or stabilize collections and
historic structures.''
National Endowment for the Arts
In the authorizing legislation for the NEA (20 CFR 26), the
Congress declares that ``the Federal Government must transmit the
achievement and values of civilization from the past via the present to
the future,'' a philosophy echoed in the President and First Lady's
multi-faceted Save America's Treasures initiative, of which the Federal
grants are one component. The legislation further defines ``the arts''
to include music, dance, creative writing, architecture, film and
video, traditions practiced by the diverse peoples of this country, and
numerous other disciplines (Section 952(b)). Finally, the legislation
grants the NEA the authority ``to develop and enhance the widest public
knowledge and understanding of the arts'' (Section 952(d)) and to
renovate facilities (Section 952(d)(2)).
National Endowment for the Humanities
The NEA funds the full spectrum of cultural and historic resources
for which it received Save America's Treasures applications, in
particular through its Division of Preservation and Access and Office
of Challenge Grants. Preservation and Access grants include support of
the preservation of intellectual content and the stabilization of
material culture collections, including through the proper housing and
storing of objects and the improvement of environmental, security and
safety systems that preserve collections. The Office of Challenge
Grants provides funds for direct capital expenditures in cases of
compelling need that clearly relate to improvement in the humanities.
historically black colleges and universities (hbcu's)
The justification indicates that roughly half of the $7 million
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for restoration of historically black
colleges and universities has been awarded to specific institutions.
Question. Have additional funds been awarded since submission of
the budget request? If so, how much and to which institutions? If not,
when will these awards be made?
Answer. The second round of fiscal year 1999 HBCU grants (totaling
$3.304 million) will be apportioned in June 1999, based upon the onsite
condition assessments currently being completed by a multi-disciplinary
team of historic preservation experts employed under a Cooperative
Agreement with the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Question. Does the Park Service anticipate that all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 2000 will be awarded to specific institutions
during fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes, all funds will be awarded during fiscal year 2000 to
the HBCUs listed in section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act (Public Law 104-333).
Question. Is work at these sites likely to commence during fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Are matching funds available for all of the funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes, we believe that the required nonfederal matching funds
are available.
Question. Are matching funds likely to be available in fiscal year
2000 for the funds requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget request?
Answer. Yes, to our knowledge, the required nonfederal matching
funds will be available.
Question. Have any funds been awarded to institutions that have not
secured a non-Federal match? If so, why?
Answer. No funds have been awarded to institutions that have not
secured a nonfederal match.
Question. Why have some institutions been awarded grants in excess
of the levels authorized in Public Law 104-333?
Answer. There is authority to fund above specific school
authorization amounts within the total program authorization amount, if
a condition assessment identifies such a need. Of the 12 HBCUs listed
in section 507 of Public Law 104-333, two Alabama HBCUs (Concordia
College and Stillman College) received amounts in excess of the levels
stipulated. At Concordia, $200,000 was authorized, but $276,842 was
awarded to repair Bakke Hall. At Stillman, $250,000 was authorized and
$295,649 was awarded to repair Snedecor Hall. In both cases, the
decision was deemed necessary to ensure that critical preservation
needs were addressed, that additional funding would not be required,
and to guarantee that these buildings would be made safe and usable at
the completion of the project. These funding decisions were made based
upon the recommendations of the professional and experienced condition
assessment teams assisting in this initiative. The total amount awarded
in excess of the specified levels ($122,491) was drawn from the $6.1
million that was not earmarked for specific HBCUs in the overall $29
million authorization.
national constitution center
The Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal year 1999
conference report included language urging the City of Philadelphia and
the National Constitution Center to enter into a binding legal
agreement under which the City would take responsibility for operation
of the Center should the Center itself fail to be self-sustaining as
planned.
Question. Is the Department aware of any such agreement being
drafted or under discussion?
Answer. The Department of the Interior has been advised by the
National Constitution Center (NCC) that a ``binding legal agreement''
is not possible due to the City of Philadelphia's Home Rule Charter.
The City cannot obligate funds beyond a given legislative year. The
City has, however, appropriated $5 million dollars for fiscal year 2000
as further evidence of its good faith intention to stand behind the
project.
The NCC has commissioned an accounting firm to evaluate its
projected income and operating expenses. The draft study has confirmed
the NCC's projections and anticipates an operating surplus for the
facility. This study, however, has not yet been evaluated by the NPS.
everglades modified water delivery system
The Justification indicates that $52 million has been appropriated
for the Modified Water Delivery System at Everglades National Park.
Question. How much of this amount has been obligated to date?
Answer. The total amount obligated for the project to date is
$33,614,906.
Question. How much is expected to be obligated by the end of fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. An estimated $70 million, inclusive of obligations by the
Corps of Engineers for infrastructure project obligations and of
Everglades National Park for project management related costs, is
expected to be obligated by the end of fiscal year 2000, if the
President's budget request is enacted.
Question. Are all of the completed projects within this program
currently operational? If not, why not?
Answer. The only project features that have been completed
associated with the Modified Water Deliveries Project are the S-355 A&B
structures and the raising of the Tigertail Indian camp. Both of these
features are operational. The S-355A&B can release water into the L-29
canal as intended but current operations and water level conditions in
the region dictate that these structures not discharge any water. When
regional conditions change to allow use of these structures, they will
be operated to release water from Water Conservation Area 3B into L-29
and Northeast Shark Slough.
Question. What specifically will be done with the funds requested
in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 funds will be used to:
--Perform engineering analyses and design for seepage control
features along the L-30/L-31N alignment (S-356 pump station
feature);
--Perform hydrologic modeling and feature designs for conveying water
from Water Conservation Area 3A to Water Conservation Area 3B
(L-67 A&C project features);
--Perform engineering analyses and design associated with the raising
of Tamiami Trail between L-30 and L-67 extension;
--Complete NEPA compliance of the flood mitigation component for 8.5
Square Mile Area; and
--Remove derelict roads in the East Everglades.
construction projects
The justification states that a portion of the funds requested for
Fort Sumter will be used to clean up contaminates that have leaked onto
NPS lands.
Question. Why is the Park Service paying for this cleanup?
Answer. As the Federal land manager of property on which releases
of hazardous substances have occurred, the NPS has both the obligation
and authority to respond to the releases in order to protect human
health and the environment. Further, the NPS has the obligation to
respond, assess, and restore injuries to park system resources
resulting from the releases. Consequently, the NPS has proceeded with
response actions at the tour boat facility. In addition, these response
actions have been required for obtaining approval from State and
Federal regulatory agencies to proceed with construction of the
facility. A full investigation and remediation of the adjacent Calhoun
Park Area site is being addressed by the South Carolina Electric and
Gas Company (SCE&G).
Question. Will the Park Service be reimbursed for these costs?
Answer. The NPS is working with the DOI Solicitor and the
Department of Justice to pursue recovery of all response costs and
other damages. Approval of the NPS request for costs and damages, and
authority to proceed to negotiations and/or litigation is being
processed within the Justice Department. Although the time frame is not
certain, approval is expected to occur in the near future. We will then
seek reimbursement from responsible parties, including SCE&G. The South
Carolina Electric and Gas Company has indicated an interest in
resolving this matter without litigation. We expect to recover most, if
not all, costs.
glen echo park
The justification indicates that $12 million in non-Federal funding
will be available for the rehabilitation of facilities at Glen Echo
Park.
Question. What is the proposed source of the non-Federal funds?
Answer. There are three proposed sources of non-Federal funding
that will be available for the rehabilitation of facilities at Glen
Echo Park. The sources are the Montgomery County and State of Maryland
governments, and the Glen Echo Park Foundation.
Question. How much of this amount is currently in-hand?
Answer. To date, the Glen Echo Park Foundation has collected
$270,000.
Question. How much is expected to be available by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. There should be $5,600,000 available in fiscal year 2000 if
funding from all parties, State, County and Federal governments, is
approved. The State of Maryland legislature has approved $1,300,000 for
fiscal year 2000, contingent on receipt of matching federal dollars.
The State has also given commitment for the full $6,000,000 over the
next three years. Montgomery County is also committed to funding the
project.
Question. Have any non-Federal funds been spent on this project to
date? If so, how much?
Answer. No non-Federal funds have been spent on this project to
date.
fdr memorial
Funds are requested to ``fulfill the Federal Government's
commitment to construct an addition to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial that would provide recognition of President Roosevelt's
disability.''
Question. Given that the use of Federal funds for this project
directly contradicts the statute which authorized the addition to the
Memorial, what has changed since passage of that Act that justifies
Federal dollars being used for construction?
Answer. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Memorial, which was
constructed using a combination of appropriated and privately raised
funds, was dedicated on May 2, 1997 by President Clinton. On July 24,
1997, President Clinton signed into law an act that directed the
Secretary of the Interior to plan for the design and construction of a
permanent addition to the FDR Memorial. The National Park System
Advisory Board established the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Committee
to advise the Secretary on appropriate recognition. Working with the
designer of the FDR Memorial, Lawrence Halprin, the committee
unanimously recommended a plan for the addition, which achieves that
recognition while remaining consistent with the design criteria
established for the entire memorial by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. The plan was
accepted by Secretary Babbitt and announced by Vice President Al Gore
on July 2, 1998. The forecourt will be created by Lawrence Halprin,
Robert Graham, sculptor of the memorial's First Inaugural and Social
Programs, and master stone carver John Benson, who designed the letters
and carved the inscriptions in the memorial.
The main entrance to the memorial will be reconfigured to create a
forecourt that will be integrated into the whole with the same granite
paving and walls, bronze sculpture, inscriptions, seating areas,
lighting fixtures and landscape plantings used throughout the memorial.
Located in the new forecourt will be a human scale statue of President
Roosevelt in the small wheelchair he invented. The statue will be
freestanding and located at grade to depict FDR as a person who was
paralyzed, used a wheelchair, and was President of the United States.
The granite wall behind the statue will contain associated bas-relief
sculpture and carved quotations reflecting FDR's life before he became
President. The artwork is bronze, placed in relationship to an
extension of the large granite wall that acts as the spine of the
memorial. The location of the forecourt is chronologically consistent
with the order of the four outdoor rooms of the memorial, which
represent the four terms of his presidency.
The preliminary estimate for the project is $5 million, which
includes both construction of the forecourt and acquisition of the
artwork. The artwork--bronze sculpture and stone carving--will be
funded through private donations of $1.5 million. The preliminary
estimate for the design, engineering, and construction of the forecourt
is $3.5 million. Construction costs include demolition and site
preparation, substructure, pilings, a 74-foot long, 12-foot high
granite wall to contain the artwork, a pair of granite seating walls
totaling 142 feet, 2,600 square feet of granite paving, site furniture,
utilities, lighting, landscape plantings, and irrigation.
Existing law requires that the addition be constructed with private
funds. The National Organization on Disability (N.O.D.) has agreed to
raise $1.6 million for acquisition of the artwork and inscriptions,
maintenance fund, and to cover the cost of fundraising. The Secretary
is seeking authorization and an appropriation in the fiscal year 2000
budget for the remaining $3.5 million necessary to construct the
forecourt into which the artwork will be placed.
dams removal
$12 million is requested for projects related to the removal of the
Elwha Dam.
Question. Have funds appropriated for purchase of the dam been
obligated? If not, why not?
Answer. To date $29,915,000 has been appropriated for acquisition
of the Elwha and Glines Dams, as authorized by Public Law 102-495. A
small portion ($75,000) of these funds have been obligated at this time
to begin the hazardous materials survey work required prior to
acquisition of lands. Additionally, it is anticipated that a request
for proposal for title services will be advertised in June, 1999, and
funds will be obligated for title services. The source of these funds
is $415,000 appropriated in Title V of the fiscal year 1998 Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and identified as ``transaction
costs'' over and above the amount of $29.5 million identified in Public
Law 102-495 as the purchase price of the Projects (Section 3(b)).
Per Public Law 102-495, Section 3(a), ``Effective sixty days after
submission to the Congress of the report referred to in section 3(c),
the Secretary [of the Interior] is authorized to acquire the Elwha and
Glines Canyon Projects, and all rights of the owner and local
industrial consumer therein, subject to the appropriation of funds
therefor: Provided, That the Secretary shall not acquire the projects
unless he has determined pursuant to subsection (c) that removal of the
Project dams is necessary for the full restoration of the Elwha River
ecosystem and native anadromous fish and that funds for that purpose
will be available for such removal within two years after
acquisition.'' in accordance with this clause, the actual purchase of
the Projects may not occur until the Secretary has determined that
funds are available for removal of the dams and restoration of the
ecosystem.
The National Park Service is diligently working to complete all
steps of the acquisition process which may be done beforehand. This
will allow obligation of the moneys to purchase the Projects as soon as
funds for removal have been appropriated.
Question. Why should Congress appropriate $12 million towards the
removal of a facility it does not own?
Answer. Congress should appropriate $12 million so that the
Secretary may determine that the removal of the dams and restoration of
the ecosystem can be accomplished pursuant to the requirement of Public
Law 102-495.
everglades land acquisition
The justification indicates that the ``Land Acquisition Limitation
Amount Remaining'' for Everglades NP and Grant to the State of Florida
is ``not applicable''.
Question. Is there any limitation in existing law on either land
acquisition in Everglades National Park or for grants to the State of
Florida?
Answer. There is no limitation in existing law for either
Everglades National Park or for grants to the State of Florida.
equipment replacement
The request includes an increase of $4,463,000 for the Equipment
Replacement program, but does not explain how this increase will be
used.
Question. For which of the three components of the Equipment
Replacement program, as identified in the justification, will these
funds be used.
Answer. $3,000,000 of the increase request will be used to continue
the Service's modernization of its information resources management
equipment and programs, and to cover the costs associated with annual
maintenance fees in maintaining equipment and software. This program
was not funded by Congress in fiscal 1999. The remaining increase of
$1,463,000 will be used to further the Service's efforts to comply with
provisions contained in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 which
directed Federal agencies to convert all civilian Federal radio systems
to the new technology known as ``narrowband.''; if accepted by
Congress, total funds available for this program in fiscal year 2000
would then be $2.5 million as $1.037 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 1999 and is the ``base'' upon which this increase is being
requested.
government performance and results act
Question. How is your Department using performance information to
manage the agency?
Answer. On a park-by-park basis, performance information is used to
identify strengths/weaknesses and monitor public perception.
Servicewide, the information is utilized to analyze programmatic and
resource needs.
Question. How did program performance factor into your decisions
about the funding you are requesting in fiscal year 2000? Please
provide examples.
Answer. Because the Service will not be able to use actual fiscal
year 1999 performance until the end of this fiscal year (the first year
required), it was not incorporated in the fiscal year 2000 request.
Question. What specific program changes have you made to improve
performance and achieve the goals established in your strategic and
annual plans?
Answer. There has been park-by-park improvements in park goal
setting. The NPS has set Servicewide goals, developed standard
performance indicators, and established a process for reporting
performance.
Question. How does your budget structure link resource amounts to
performance goals?
Answer. The budget structure is based on function and does not
directly link resource amounts to performance goals. However, NPS
Strategic Plan data bases include information to link resource amounts
to performance goals.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in your budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. To establish a direct linkage, the NPS budget structure
would need to reflect the mission rather than how the mission is
accomplished. There may be options to explore to improve the linkage
without changing the budget structure.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance 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 Service expects reliable data for all goals except for
the one regarding water quality. That goal is now being reworked for
inclusion in a revised NPS Strategic Plan that will be finalized by the
end of the year.
Question. If so, what steps are you planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. All goals need to have objective, measurable performance
indicators. The water quality goal is being rewritten to accomplish
that, and other goals are being analyzed to improve the measurability
and significance of their performance indicators, as needed.
Question. How will your future funding requests take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance?
Answer. We believe and expect that future funding requests will
use, and be affected by, GPRA performance data, but cannot say how
until we have those data at the end of fiscal year 1999. There are
currently processes in the NPS GPRA system that allow for the changing
of targets in annual performance plans based on changing conditions,
including those caused by differences in expected versus actual
appropriations.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal?
Answer. There currently exist processes to reflect the full costs
of resources being used by goal, both at the park and servicewide
levels. The Service, however, is working to improve the linkage by
which central office and other indirect spending is associated with
specific agency performance goals.
Question. For example, are overhead costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Yes, they are, but improvements to this process are still
being refined.
park service acquisition
Question. The Park Service requests $5.7 million for Gettysburg
National Military Park. Is this funding for the tower?
Answer. As of March, 1999, appropriated funds in the amount of $5.1
million are available for land acquisition at Gettysburg National
Military Park. It is expected that some of these funds combined with
some of the funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request for land
acquisition at the park will be used to acquire the Gettysburg National
Tower. However, an appraisal of the tower property has not yet been
completed and approved by the service.
Question. Do we have a willing seller and an agreed-upon price for
the tower? If not, what do you recommend be done?
Answer. Though the owner has indicated an interest in selling the
tower property, the Service has not yet obtained and approved an
appraisal of the property. Negotiations to acquire the property cannot
begin until an appraisal is approved by the Service. The Service hopes
that negotiations, once commenced, will be successful in permitting
acquisition of the tower property for the amount of the approved
appraised value. If not, the Service is permitted to file a complaint
in condemnation and have the Court determine the just compensation
required for acquisition of the property.
park service housing
A March, 1999 report by the General Accounting Office assessed Park
Service progress in the implementation of its employee housing policy.
The GAO found ``some evidence to suggest that park managers have not
accepted the new housing policy or the need to minimize the agency's
housing inventory.'' The GAO also noted that there is a disincentive to
implementing alternatives to in-park housing, as the funding for many
alternatives would come from park operating budgets.
Question. What is the Park Service doing to implement its revised
housing policy?
Answer. The National Park Service has begun to implement its
revised housing policy. In response to Congressional direction the
Service also undertook a park by park review of its housing needs based
on the revised policy. Through this first phase (needs assessment) of
the process, once the policy had a chance to be field-tested, there
were instances where parks were able to apply the policy as written.
Fifty-one parks have identified an excess in housing and have begun to
reduce their inventories. In addition, 12 parks have located
alternative housing which has resulted in those parks no longer needing
employee housing on-site, which will result in inventory reductions.
But there were other situations where park managers expressed
serious concerns regarding their ability to fulfill their mission-
related duties that must be further explored in order to fully
implement the revised housing policy.
Over the next few weeks, in conjunction with the continuation of
the three-phase housing evaluation, which includes the physical
inspection of units, Deputy Director Galvin will work with a group of
senior level managers and regional representatives. This group will
look at the stated housing policy and issues that include: housing
assignments for cooperators; volunteers, and unpaid staff; housing
assignments to protect historic structures; clarification of policy
relating to response time and deterrence; and consistency of required
occupancy assignments. The group will address whether or not
refinements are necessary to interpret broader policy guidance.
Additional inventory reduction decisions are anticipated in
conjunction with the completion of the Condition Assessments. Final
decisions on housing reductions will reflect a cost/benefit analysis
for each park, which will allow managers to explore housing
alternatives, where feasible, depending on mission need and facility
condition findings.
Question. What is being done or what can be done to remove
disincentives that may lead park managers to rely too much on in-park
housing?
Answer. The NPS has completed the first phase in the evaluation of
housing need. This needs assessment phase identified some alternatives
to in-park housing. The next phases will be to identify the condition
of housing inventory and conduct a cost/benefit analysis to aid in
determining the best use of existing housing units. After these steps
have been accomplished the NPS fully intends to explore further
alternative approaches with the private sector. The NPS has not
finished the process.
Several parks have explored the feasibility of such alternatives as
leasing in the private sector in lieu of on-site construction. We will
continue to pursue alternatives
Question. Does the Park Service agree that these disincentives
exist?
Answer. There may not be sufficient incentives for park managers to
seek non-park housing.
The NPS will continue to examine the costs and benefits of housing
alternatives taking into account the unusual demands in isolated parks
and the practice of relying on private markets for employee housing.
Question. What can this Committee do to help remove these
disincentives?
Answer. The NPS hopes to work with the Congress to address the
needs of the Housing Program, realizing that employee housing is
intertwined in many other NPS programs. Changes to the housing program
may ultimately affect other programs such as the historic leasing
program, the employee relocation program, and the volunteer-in-parks
program; and NPS goals such as diversity, retention, and recruitment.
Principal reasons for not implementing some of the alternatives are
budget structure issues, use of existing structures to meet historic
preservation, resource protection, and/or visitor protection
objectives. There may be a disincentive for a park since funding to
lease housing and administrative space from the private sector, for
example, would come from park operating funds and would compete for
funding against all other park operating needs, while funding for
housing is currently derived from the centralized construction account.
Often, identified alternatives are not implemented largely due to cost/
benefit analysis from either the viewpoint of the Service or potential
partners or both. Many alternatives have significant budgetary
implications.
We hope that Congress will work with the NPS to develop incentives
for park managers to explore and possibly implement alternatives.
Implementing alternatives is sometimes not simple or within currently
available resources or legal authorities of the agency.
The NPS may propose new housing programs on a pilot basis or a
demonstration program at a park site where the cost of housing in the
private sector has proven to be prohibitive for essential seasonal
employees. The NPS will examine the costs and benefits of housing
alternatives, taking into account the unusual demands of isolated parks
and the practice of relying on private markets for employee housing.
Question. Does the Park Service agree with the suggestion by some
park managers that the housing needs assessment is attempting ``to
address a problem that does not exist''?
Answer. GAO Reports and Inspector General audits have indicated
that there is a problem. The NPS agreed that it would be beneficial to
the agency to have an outside determination of need, and to have
extensive information on the private housing markets near park areas.
The Service hopes Congress will consider and appreciate the
significant portion of work already accomplished and the commitment
shown by many top managers. NPS hopes that Congress will support the
NPS as we continue the process.
The Contractor retained to conduct the housing needs assessment
arrived at a far different needs assessment about total housing needs
than did park managers.
Question. Has the Park Service developed an official agency
position regarding the total housing need that narrows or eliminates
this gap?
Answer. The NPS's main goal is the same as Congress' goal that we
have a carefully thought out, prudent, and justifiable basis for
building and maintaining employee housing where appropriate. As stated
earlier, the NPS is currently, in conjunction with the other phases of
the housing evaluation, looking at the stated housing policy and the
need for refinement or amplification of that policy.
It must be stressed that the Service will not be removing
structures that are in good condition, where the economic analysis
favors continued use. In those instances where the contractor and park
managers are in agreement with the numbers of units needed the park can
immediately take necessary steps to reduce inventory. In instances
where there is a difference between the contractor findings and the
park, no action will be undertaken until all three phases of the
process are complete. Further decisions as to the future of any units
may need to wait until the other phases of the evaluation have been
accomplished. However, it must be stressed that as the NPS works to
reach manageable decisions regarding housing management the NPS will
not be able to develop an official agency position on an appropriate
number of total housing units needed Servicewide that will be fixed.
The additions of new park areas, park expansions, changes in park need,
based on mission-related activities, and changes in local market
availability will prohibit the NPS from identifying an appropriate
number of housing units needed that will not change. Park managers will
continue to re-evaluate their housing needs and will be expected to use
feasible cost/beneficial alternatives and reduce inventory where
possible. The NPS housing need will be evaluated on a regular basis,
and it is not unreasonable to expect that the need will change during
these evaluations, either in the form of a reduction or increase in
inventory.
Question. If not, will this be done?
Answer. As stated above, the NPS is working steadfastly at reaching
a justifiable number of housing units, however, this number will not be
static. NPS housing needs that will provide adequate necessary services
for the protection of Government property while taking into account the
availability of private-sector housing and the mission of the park will
require a continual re-evaluation. Not only will NPS needs likely
change but also the availability of private sector housing will
probably change. Measures have been put into place already that will
require park managers to re-evaluate their needs based on private
market availability every two years, and when funding is requested that
need will be re-evaluated on a annual basis.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
contract support on tribal contracts
The federal government, particularly the Indian Health Service and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is facing severe financial penalties from
litigation related to contract support costs for contracts with tribes.
The Bureau, which has been contracting with tribes longer and which
has, up to this point, refused to negotiate or pay direct costs such as
workers compensation and unemployment, is in slightly better position
than the Indian Health Service, which does pay direct costs. However,
as part of the recent discussions between tribes and the federal
government to address the problems, the Bureau is re-evaluating its
position on direct costs. A decision to begin paying direct costs could
further obligate the federal government between $10 and $30 million a
year, according to the General Accounting Office.
Question. Please address any re-evaluations the Bureau and the
Service might be making. Why did the Administration fail to request
full funding for contact support?
Answer. The Bureau is working in collaboration with the Indian
Health Service and Tribes and expects to release a report on contract
support in June, 1999. As part of this process, the Bureau has been re-
evaluating the payment of direct contract support costs at the request
of Tribes who are requesting payment of these costs, including
potential increases in the amount required to cover such costs. The
Bureau is in the process of finalizing its report on this issue. As the
report is not yet finalized, results are not yet available.
The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes an increase
of $6,109,000 for Contract Support, which will meet approximately 84
percent of Tribes' contract support need in fiscal year 2000. Competing
priorities in the Bureau's budget did not allow all categories of needs
to be requested for funding at the 100 percent level. Contract Support
is just one of many under funded programs and priorities identified
within the Bureau's budget. To fully fund one program would mean less
funding for other priority programs. There are just not sufficient
resources within the target funding levels to meet all the needs in
Indian Country.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The Bureau developed a Strategic Plan in 1997 and is
currently amending the Strategic plan in accordance with the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
guidance developed by the Departmental Performance Management Office.
The Plan sets forth mission goals for each budget sub-activity level
and outli nes performance management areas for each.
Recognizing the importance of achieving the intent of GPRA, the
Bureau established an office to serve as the primary strategic planning
contact for the Bureau to coordinate and provide oversight on GPRA
efforts. To ensure participation on a nationwide basis throughout the
Bureau, each of the Bureau's 12 Areas and all Central Office
directorates have established GPRA coordinators. The staff serve key
functions and are responsible for the collection and submission of
quarterly performance data as well as serve as the first line of
analysis in determination of goal achievement. This was part of the
first phase of implementation of GPRA on a Bureau-wide basis.
Meetings have been held with the GPRA coordinators nationwide to
ensure full compliance with the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance
Plan. In addition, senior Bureau managers have taken an active role in
working to achieve the success of these efforts. With quarterly reports
underway, the Bureau has been able to target areas needing refinement
to achieve improved measurement of performance activities needed to
achieve the Bureau's mission.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The Bureau has efforts underway to incorporate the
achievement of the GPRA performance goals within individual performance
plans for staff at all Bureau levels. Senior managers are held
accountable for the submission of quarterly performance data within the
prescribed time lines as well as other GPRA requirements with a
reflection of compliance affecting their individual performance
reviews.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. The Bureau is providing quarterly reports to the Department
which outlines its progress towards goal achievement. The Bureau
reviews these reports to determine its current state of affairs with
regard to goal achievement. The report allows program managers to
determine what areas of their program may be falling short of goal
attainment and subsequently allows focus on these areas to accomplish
the goal.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. The Mission goals in the Performance Plan were developed at
the budget subactivity level and all areas of the Bureau's fiscal year
2000 budget request relate to achievement of the mission and the
accompanying goals. Requested increases were directly related to
attainment of the performance goals outlined in the fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan. Denoted below are examples of the direct
correlation between the Annual Performance Plan and the fiscal year
2000 budget request:
--$2,565,000 was requested for Tribal Courts to allow for the
implementation of Stage 2 of the 5- year plan to meet the
requirements of the Indian Tribal JusticeAct. Goal
01.01.02.01.00.
--$1,292,000 was requested to support increasing the number of
Endangered Species benefiting from the Endangered Species
program. Goal 03.07.01.05.00.
--$2,000,000 was requested to support rehabilitation of Adult Care
Facilities to allow them to qualify for State Medicare Provider
status, which would allow their current funding to be available
to offset other human services needs. Goal 02.02.01.03.00.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. With the Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plan
established for the Bureau, program managers are refocusing their
efforts on how to accomplish the goals and overall mission of the
Bureau. Key in this effort has been changes in the instruction provided
to field staff on the front line of providing Bureau programs to Tribes
on what is to be achieved and focused on as well as reporting
requirements for compliance.
The Bureau continues to maintain an open forum with the Bureau's
GPRA coordinators, providing not only dialogue on the current state of
affairs, but also in providing training to improve their development in
attaining the goals set forth in the Plan. This has allowed valuable
input from field staff (``the front line'') in refining the goals to
reflect the performance to be achieved and improve accountability for
field participation in performance achievement.
The Bureau utilizes the quarterly reports to assess attainment of
the established goals. Using this information, the Bureau will continue
to focus on areas in need of refinement to achieve its mission as well
as ensure accountability of its program managers throughout the Bureau.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performancegoals?
Answer. The organization of the Bureau's fiscal year 2000 Annual
Plan and its fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects the Department's
approach to improve and streamline the Plan to improve its link with
the budget. The Plan presents the Bureau's goals and measures,
consistent with the core of the Strategic Plan and budget proposal. The
Bureau's Plan includes a section in each goal category which lists the
related budget accounts and activitie s which tie back to the Bureau's
budget structure.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. To have a total mirror comparison between the Bureau's
budget structure and the Annual Performance Plan, a major overhaul of
the current budget structure would be required. The Plan is structured
on its foundation of the Mission Goals and accompanying annual goals
which crosses many of the current budget categories in the existing
budget structure. The budget structure is based on recommendations
adopted by the Joint Task Force on Reorganization of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs based on its intent to illustrate how funds were
distributed and expended.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Several of the goals established in the Bureau performance
plan only collect data for actual statistical figures on an annual or
mid-year basis.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. The Bureau's reporting efforts for fiscal year 1999 have
included providing quarterly narrative status for the goals. These
narratives outline the Bureau's efforts and progression toward
attainment of the goal targets and allows for review of program
performance for potential areas of default.
Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
consideration actual perf ormance compared to expected or target
performance.
Answer. The Bureau will take into consideration the degree of
attainment of the goals in the Annual Plan to determine what action is
necessary to improve performance.
Office of Insular Affairs
virgin islands
Question. According to the agency's budget justification, the
Virgin Islands has been running deficits in excess of $100 million
since fiscal year 1996. Recently, the Island's fiscal problems have
gotten even worse. Indeed, just this month, Department of the Interior
officials informed staff that the Virgin Islands' government would
likely not meet its full payroll obligations. What, if anything, is the
Department of the Interior doing to assist the Virgin Islands'
government with this fiscal crisis?
Answer. Long before the Virgin Islands' current fiscal crisis, the
Department of the Interior identified weaknesses in the Virgin Island
government's financial management apparatus and provided resources to
address the problem. The Department of the Interior sought and received
a fiscal year 1996 Supplemental Appropriation of $9,450,000 to address
the destruction of then DOI-owned Water Island from Hurricane Hugo
($3,790,000) and the financial management deficiencies in the local
government. We informed the Government of the Virgin Islands that the
supplemental request had been approved and asked them to prepare
proposals indicating how funds could be utilized to improve financial
management. In July 1996, a team of OIA officials met with Government
of the Virgin Islands officials and proposals were later submitted by
representatives from Finance, Internal Revenue, Public Works, Office of
Management and Budget, the Roy Schneider Hospital, and the University
of the Virgin Islands. The supplemental funds for financial management
improvements were broken down in the following manner: $3,000,000 for
VI Department of Finance, $1,092,000 for VI Bureau of Internal Revenue,
$1,200,000 for USDA Graduate School, and $20,000 for the VI Office of
Management and Budget.
These amounts went toward comprehensive financial management
systems improvements including the purchase of software and hardware
for computer systems upgrades and training. Although the immediate
purpose of the emergency supplemental funding was to strengthen the
Virgin Islands government's ability to effectively and accurately
manage and account for the infusion of FEMA disaster assistance, these
investments made permanent improvements in the Virgin Island
government's financial management capabilities. More recently, in June
1997 at the request of former Governor Schneider, OIA provided the
Virgin Islands government assistance to develop an immediate-term
action plan for fiscal recovery. On June 5, 1997, OIA awarded the
Virgin Island's $275,000 for that effort and stipulated that if OIA was
satisfied with the immediate-term plan, additional funds would be
provided in fiscal year 1998 for the completion of a five-year fiscal
recovery plan. The Virgin Island's selected Consultants for Resource
Evaluation (CORE), a Washington, D.C. based management consulting firm,
to develop the immediate-term action plan. OIA was pleased with the
immediate-term fiscal recovery plan submitted by CORE. They have
instituted aggressive procedures for the collection of back taxes from
both individuals and businesses, the hospital instituted procedures to
collect monies owed by individuals and insurance companies, and the
Virgin Islands renegotiated the insurance premium cost for insuring
government property. In addition, the island government analyzed the
possibility of privatizing or leasing certain government functions such
as the VITRAN public transportation.
On April 10, 1998 DOI provided the Virgin Islands $650,000 for
Phase II of the VI Fiscal Recovery Plan. Phase II calls for the
implementation of a comprehensive five-year action plan which will lead
to fiscal recovery. The five-year plan will include an economic
development strategy and an offshore private sector investment
development strategy. The efforts of CORE were applauded by Governor
Turnbull's new administration. OIA's most recent efforts with respect
to the Virgin Islands' latest fiscal crisis are discussed in the next
response.
Question. Does the Department have any other proposals besides
permitting the Virgin Islands to keep all of the U.S. excise tax on
rum, that would help the government with its financial problems?
Answer. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Governor
Charles Turnbull met in January 1999 to discuss the plight of the
Virgin Islands. Their discussions resulted in the establishment of a
Joint Virgin Islands/Federal Fiscal Recovery Task Force. The Federal
group is comprised of representatives from the White House, the
Department of the Interior, and FEMA. The objective of the task force
is to develop additional ideas and options for addressing the Virgin
Islands' fiscal crisis. Such options include, but are not limited to
enhancing natural resources in the Virgin Islands to spur tourism and
to consider the possibility of providing debt relief to the Virgin
Islands' government for FEMA Community Disaster loans from Hurricanes
Hugo and Marilyn.
In addition, in response to a request from Governor Turnbull, the
Department has agreed to help fund the preparation of the 1998
financial statement and a Single Audit of 1995. The urgency of this
request was underscored by an OIG report last September on deficiencies
with the Interfund Loan and Federal Grant Balances. OIA has committed
$400,000 of Technical Assistance funds to assist the GVI with their
audit. OIA has asked the Virgin Islands to provide us with a detailed
scope of work. To date, we have not received the aforementioned
documentation.
Question. If the Congress, agreed to the Administration's proposal
to allow the Virgin Islands to retain all of the excise tax on rum,
should there be a requirement that this revenue be de dicated to
reducing the Islands' budget deficits?
Answer. DOI believes that the additional revenue from the retention
of rum excise taxes should be linked to the reduction of their budget
deficit, while providing some flexibility to address immediate
concerns.
american samoa
Question. What, if anything, has the American Samoa government done
to address the issue of unpaid medical bills to Hawaiian hospitals?
Answer. According to a recent letter from Governor Sunia to the
Office of Insular Affairs, the American Samoa Government (ASG) has paid
out over $5,000,000 for unpaid bills in the last year to medical
hospitals in Hawaii. The ASG Treasurer and his staff have been writing
letters to the creditors in an effort to reconcile billing statements
with original invoices. ASG has instituted a payment schedule with
those creditors who have completed a reconciliation. The OIA has not
received from ASG a list of which creditors they have reconciled with
and to what extent the payment schedules it has instituted will satisfy
those creditors.
Question. What role has OIA played in trying to resolve this
problem? What recommendations does the agency have to expedite
resolution of this issue?
Answer. OIA has worked closely with the ASG to resolve the problem
of unpaid medical bills to Hawaii hospitals. In efforts to assist ASG
resolve this issue, OIA has recommended that hospital officials
investigate alternative financing, including funding efforts to explore
the use of private and government sponsored medical insurance. In
addition, OIA has repeatedly recommended that the Medical Center
Authority increase hospital fees. The current fee for an out-patient is
$2.00 and the in-patient fee is $7.50 a day; yet, the estimated daily
medical cost to the hospital per patient is approximately $400.00 per
day. OIA has also suggested to hospital officials that it allocate a
portion of its operations subsidy to revolving accounts with certain
medical providers or suppliers to enable the Medical Center to purchase
pharmaceutical and medical supplies without interruption.
Unfortunately, the hospitals are a few of the many vendors who are owed
substantial amounts of money from ASG. The OIA has had several
discussions with medical providers in and out of Hawaii to get an
accurate accounting of ASG's debts related to medical services.
coral reef initiative
Question. The agency proposed to spend $1,000,000 on the Coral Reef
Initiative in fiscal year 2000. How will these funds be allocated to
various projects? What specific projects will be funded?
Answer. OIA will use the $1,000,000 to fund the highest priority
needs for coral reef protection identified by the insular areas in the
U.S. Islands Action Plan (Plan). The Plan, developed in 1997,
identifies approximately $3,000,000 of high priority actions and needs
for protecting and managing coral reefs in the insular areas. These
activities range from research and development of restoration
techniques to education and outreach on management and protection of
coral reefs in local communities. Several of the priority projects
identified in 1997 have been initiated with current OIA funding. For
example, in fiscal year 1999, OIA funded research to develop techniques
for the mass culture of coral larvae, a ``coral reef road show'' to
educate villages about the value of coral reefs, and development of a
CD-ROM for use in Guam's public and private schools. OIA is sponsoring
a workshop to revise and update the Plan in conjunction with the 1999
Coastal Zone Management meeting in July. The updated Plan will likely
contain similar themes, with specific requests incorporating the
lessons learned from recent projects and addressing recent events that
have affected the health of coral reefs in the insular areas. OIA
funding for fiscal year 2000 will be allocated to those projects that
are given the highest priority ranking in the revised Plan and are
deemed both feasible and potentially successful in achieving the goals
put forth in the Coral Reef Initiative.
Question. What other agencies is OIA working with on this
initiative? How does OIA's role fit with these other agencies?
Answer. OIA works closely with the Geological Survey, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service within the Department, as
well as the other Federal agencies that are members of the Coral Reef
Task Force (e.g., NOAA, EPA, Department of State, USAID), to develop
and implement coral reef protection programs. OIA plays a key role in
the coordinated Federal effort to conserve coral reefs, with staff
serving on the Coral Reef Task Force and chairing the Task Force's
working group on Ecosystem Science and Conservation. These interagency
groups are the principal mechanisms for coordinating the Federal effort
to address the dramatic decline of coral reefs worldwide:
representatives from the various agencies work together to identify
priority actions and coordinate funding decisions. OIA is one of the
leaders in this Federal effort and works with its partners to avoid
overlap and ensure that different agencies' projects are complementary.
OIA also plays a unique role in the Federal effort to conserve
coral reefs in that it is the only agency specifically authorized by
Congress to provide the territories with technical assistance to manage
and protect their natural resources. This authority is significant,
considering that ninety-five percent of the Nation's estimated
1,786,500 acres of coral reefs and associated habitats are located in
the insular areas. Over the past few years, OIA has worked with NOAA
and the island governments to develop strategies and plans, laid out in
the U.S. Islands Action Plan (Plan), to address coral reef protection
and management for each island as part of the U.S. Coral Reef
Initiative. At its recent meeting, the Coral Reef Task Force adopted a
resolution that the projects identified in the updated version of the
Plan would be given priority consideration for receiving any new
Federal funds appropriated for the coordinated coral reef effort. OIA
will play a critical role in this process, sponsoring a workshop to
update the Plan and providing direct funding to implement the
priorities that are identified. In addition to its direct assistance,
OIA also plays an important role in facilitating the interaction of
insular area representatives and Federal agencies, highlighted by the
Task Force's decision to invite the governors of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands to become full members of the Coral Reef Task
Force.
brown tree snake
Question. How much has been spent to date by OIA on the Brown Tree
snake program? What are expected expenditures over the next three
years?
Answer. As of May 1999, $5.6 million has been obligated on the
Brown Tree snake program. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Brown Tree snake program totals $2.6 million. We have not yet developed
estimates for this program for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
Question. What progress is being made in research on biocontrols
and other methods to control or eradicate the snake? When will this
research result in on-the-ground application?
Answer. Improved traps and barriers are two examples of research
into controls that have already resulted in ``on-the-ground''
application. We expect significant improvements in barrier design to be
placed in operation this year and have set aside $300,000 for barrier
construction. Some of the other critical research still needs more
testing before we can begin application. This includes the use of
fumigants and toxicant, that require both testing and regulatory
approvals. The use of heat and electronic sensors are still in early
research stages, as is development of artificial attractants.
Artificial attractants, as a substitute for live bait in traps (usually
mice), is extremely important for ultimately detecting small snake
populations and delivery of toxicant or biocontrols. In the area of
biocontrols, most of our research to date has been on viruses, and we
are now looking at ways to upset the reproductive process. We are many
years away from field testing in this area. Biocontrols may represent
the ultimate ``silver bullet'' that will allow eradication of snakes
over large areas, but it is a long-term process that must be subjected
to serious epidemiology studies and environmental safeguards.
Question. What other agencies is OIA working with on the Brown Tree
Snake?
Answer. In addition to the Department of the Interior, the Brown
Tree Snake program relies on efforts from the Departments of Defense,
Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation. We also work with State
agencies in Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Within the
Department of the Interior, program efforts involve the Biological
Resources Division within USGS and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as
well as OIA and the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget.
Question. What is the nature of OIA's role in connection with these
other agencies?
Answer. OIA's major role is to fund research and operational
efforts and make sure the work is performed as agreed; to coordinate
interagency efforts by developing a Memorandum of Agreement and
arranging meetings and briefings with signatories; and to brief and
advise the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget on
priorities and needs for current and future years. The Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget is the principal manager
for this interagency effort. We enter into reimbursable support
agreements with the USGS for research, with the Fish and Wildlife
Service for planning and support, and with the USDA for research and
control efforts on Guam. We issue and manage annual brown tree snake
control grants to Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the State of
Hawaii. For the last three years, we also have administered grants to
the Smithsonian Institution (National Zoo) for research they are
performing on snake viruses.
impact assistance
The agency proposes taking $5,400,000 in capital improvement grants
to CNMI for the next three years and giving it to Guam as impact
assistance.
Question. How was the amount of funds for capital improvement
projects to CNMI initially established? Was it done by mutual agreement
between CNMI and the United States?
Answer. The special representatives of the President and the
Governor of the CNMI initially established the amounts of funds when
negotiating the third Agreement of the Special Representatives of
Future Federal Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands.
The agreement was signed on December 17, 1992.
The Agreement called for Federal and Commonwealth contributions of
$120,000,000 each during a seven-year period (1994-2000) and contained
a schedule for matching ratios. The Federal matching ratio was to be 71
percent in 1994, and would fall to 29 percent in 2000. The
Commonwealth's contributions complemented the Federal share.
The Third Agreement was never carried out in this format. Because
Congress did not act on the new Agreement until 1996, the CNMI
continued to receive $27,720,000 in annual Covenant grants in fiscal
year 1993, fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. The grants were
administered as if the Third Agreement was in effect, with CNMI
providing matching funds of 20 percent, 26.6 percent, and 40 percent.
The enactment of Public Law 104-134, the fiscal year 1996 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, changed the original amounts and the matching
ratio. To approximate the $240 million program stated in the Agreement,
Congress mandated Federal and Commonwealth shares of $77 million each,
and added the amount of the Federal grants and matching funds already
in effect.
Question. Is it fair to change these amounts unilaterally? How was
the amount of the reduction determined?
Answer. The amounts were already changed unilaterally in the 1996
legislation. The decision to shift funding from the CNMI to Guam was
made possible by the large balance of undisbursed CNMI Federal grant
funds. The CNMI has to date expended none of the grants made available
to it in fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 or fiscal
year 1999. It has disbursed approximately $24 million of the $71.5
million in Federal funds granted to it in fiscal year 1993-1995. The
Administration believes grant funds can be used more effectively in
Guam. CNMI can utilize unspent balances to maintain its large
construction program.
Question. Doesn't CNMI also face significant impacts as a result of
the Compact?
Answer. The Compact immigration impacts faced by the CNMI are
significant, but not on the same scale as Guam.
One of the rationales the agency gives for taking capital
improvement money from CNMI is the difficulty CNMI has in meeting the
matching requirements for use of these funds.
Question. Has the recent appropriation by the CNMI of $23 million
for capital improvement projects changed the agency's position? Will
the recent completion of the Capital Improvement Plan by CNMI help the
CNMI government with meeting matching requirements and getting projects
done?
Answer. The lack of matching funds is an issue of recent vintage.
The CNMI has matching funds in the bank for the Federal grants made to
it in fiscal year 1993-95. It has nevertheless only expended $24
million of the $71.5 million of the Federal funds.
The barrier to using fiscal year 1996-1999 Covenant grants was the
CNMI's failure to develop the Capital Improvement Plan. The plan is
required by the Third Agreement and Public Law 104-134. Governor Pedro
Tenorio's administration was the first to seriously address the
planning requirement. With some technical assistance provided by the
Department, the CNMI created a task force and completed a very good
plan in December 1998. This allows the CNMI, after appropriation of the
local matching funds, to begin work on projects.
The completion of the plan has no effect upon the Department's view
of local matching funds. The Department administers the matching
requirement using grant management procedures. When funds are needed to
pay for a project's accrued expenses, the Department pays half the
total amount expended, as reported by the CNMI. This is a self-policing
process. If the locally appropriated funds are not available in the
bank, the CNMI cannot pay its contractor and the project stops. We have
confidence in the financial managers of the CNMI that they would not
initiate a project for which they could not pay. The real issue
concerning local appropriations is the viability of the local revenues
that support them. The CNMI's economic situation is difficult, and it
remains to be seen if all of the projected revenues will be collected.
prior service trust fund
The Subcommittee is concerned about the financial condition of the
Prior Service Trust Fund. The Subcommittee has been told that within
the next few years the fund will not have adequate resources to pay all
beneficiaries.
Question. What is the agency's position concerning this issue?
Answer. The prior service benefits program was not included in the
negotiated Compact agreements implemented in 1986. Congress decided to
continue this program and added $8 million to the 1986 appropriation
for that purpose. Although the $8 million was less than had been
requested, the legislative history spoke of a cut-off date for new
registrants and the actuary for the program stated that $8 million
would be sufficient based on assumptions at the time. Management and
total control of the program was turned over to an independent body
working on behalf of the four involved insular governments. Management
chose to continue signing up beneficiaries, incurring high programmatic
and administrative costs in so doing. When the Department of the
Interior was informed of the cost overruns, the additional cost had
risen to $15 million against a program initially funded at $8 million.
The Department has considered funding for the program in the last three
budgets, but the program has not been of sufficient priority to be
included in the final request to Congress.
Question. How much money would it take to fix this problem?
Answer. If appropriated for fiscal year 2000 in a single lump sum,
it would require approximately $20 million. If appropriated in annual
amounts only, the funding required for fiscal year 2000 is $1.2
million. That amount would have to be appropriated at a gradually
decreasing rate over the next 45-50 years.
Question. Does the agency plan to request funds in the future to
address this issue?
Answer. There are no specific plans to request funds, but the issue
could be reconsidered in future budget deliberations.
hawaiian impacts
The agency's fiscal year 2000 budget indicates that the Compacts
have had large impacts on Hawaii. No funding for Hawaii is provided in
the agency's budget.
Question. Does OIA have the authority to provide funds to states
like Hawaii for impact assistance? If not, what statutory or other
changes would need to be made?
Answer. The Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 clearly
contains authority for appropriations to the State of Hawaii for impact
assistance.
Question. What is the estimated impact on Hawaii of the Compacts?
What is it expected to be over next five years? How does the Department
plan to deal with the impacts of Compacts in future Compact
negotiations?
Answer. As reported in OIA's impact report of March 1999, Governor
Cayetano stated that the primary impact in Hawaii was in education,
health, and welfare. Estimated costs for programs of the State of
Hawaii in these areas to serve Micronesian migrants was about $10
million in the last year (1997-98 school year). With the Micronesian
migrant population rising, that cost is expected to increase over the
next five years. A new census of Micronesians in Hawaii to be conducted
by the Office of Insular Affairs and the Census Bureau in 1999 will
better determine the rate of growth.
The Department plans to deal with impact through increased emphasis
on education, training, and health care in the freely associated states
in future Compact negotiations. This will help to reduce the rate of
migration and increase the contribution that future migrants can make
to the receiving areas.
gpra
Question. What specific steps has the Director taken as head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within the agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. Adjustments were made in OIA's organizational structure so
that it aligns with our strategic goals. This makes it easier to tie
organizational performance goals to individual performanc e standards.
Question. How are the agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The strategic goals and performance goals are directly
linked to organizational structure and managerial responsibilities so
that accountability for achieving organizational performance goals is
now linked to individual performance standards and appraisals.
Question. How is the agency using performance information to manage
the agency?
Answer. We do not yet have adequate performance information to
relate performance data to man agement decisions, other than
anecdotally.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
the funding the agency requested in fiscal year 2000? Please provide
examples.
Answer. There are very few activities in OIA that receive
discretionary funding, therefore program performance measures were not
a significant factor in budget decisions.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the agency's
strategic and annual plans?
Answer. The operations and maintenance improvement program
(Maintenance Assistance funding) has been redesigned to emphasize past
performance in the awarding of future grants. The timeliness by which
insular governments develop work plans and begin and complete project
implementation has become a criteria in awarding additional grant
money. Similar methods are being considered for other technical
assistance activities. We are currently examining the American Samoa
operations grant to develop specific performance standards that will
meet conditions of the grant.
Question. How does the agency's budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The budget line items fit cleanly into our performance
goals. Only our administrative funds are prorated among multiple goals.
This makes for a very clear linkage between the budget and the annual
performance plan.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No changes are needed.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the agency's first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Yes. Much of the data OIA relies upon comes from the
insular governments and neither the data needs nor a method for data
collection have been fully defined. It is a significant challenge to
develop meaningful performance measures that can be collected and
interpreted uniformly among seven insular governments with
significantly differing data collection and reporting capabilities.
Question. If so, what steps is the agency planning to improve the
reliability of these measures?
Answer. The agency is focusing some of its technical assistance
resources on improving insular data collection, analysis, and
reporting. OIA hopes to make a concerted effort in fiscal year 2000 to
reach agreement with the insular governments on necessary performance
measures so that uniform baseline and performance data can be
collected.
Question. How will the agency's future funding requests take into
consideration actual performance compared to expected or target
performance?
Answer. In our technical assistance activities, it is unlikely that
future funding requests will be tied directly to performance measures.
This is because our technical assistance is provided on a discretionary
basis to seven different insular governments. Therefore, performance is
more likely to be a consideration in the allocation of discretionary
funding among the governments rather that the total needs reflected in
the budget. We are striving to develop some direct linkages between the
American Samoa operations budget and their performance in achieving
mutually agreed performance standards.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
fish and wildlife service--wolf questionnaire
Secretary Babbitt, last December I sent you a letter regarding a
Fish and Wildlife Service questionnaire that was sent to hunters who
received valid Elk permits from the New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish. I asked that you personally review the survey because I was sure
you would agree that it was accusatory, threatening, and totally
inappropriate for a United States agency to send to its citizens.
The questionnaire was supposedly trying to elicit information
regarding recent shootings of reintroduced wolves in New Mexico. Among
the dreadful tone of the questionnaire, I found it disturbing that the
FWS chose to target hunters who were not otherwise under suspicion
except for the fact that they were legally hunting in an area where
reintroduced wolves have been found shot. I recognize that the Fish and
Wildlife Service has an obligation to investigate the recent shooting
of reintroduced wolves. I have no sympathy for those, if any, who are
taking out their frustration with wolf introduction by killing these
animals. Such individuals should be dealt with to the full extent of
the law. However, I feel this document produced by your Department is
outrageous and deplorable in its own right.
I will submit this questionnaire for the record. However, I will
briefly give a few examples of how the document arguably violates
numerous fundamental Constitutional rights. The cover letter, from a
Fish and Wildlife Special Agent, implicitly threatens that failure to
return said survey would invite a Special Agent's personal meeting with
the recipient. A sample of the questions, after the recipient is told
to write in pen and make no corrections, includes inquiries into ``Did
you shoot the wolf'' to asking why the FWS should believe the
recipients' answers, to a direct entrapment question asking how much
would you pay for a wolf--a taking of an endangered species.
I did hear from Assistant Secretary Barry and Fish and Wildlife
Director Clark that the questionnaire, while shocking, was not unusual
in certain circumstances to elicit information from suspects in a
criminal investigation, but it ``might not be proper'' for mass
distribution. The FWS issued a statement that, despite appearances,
answers were voluntary and the FWS would appreciate any information
hunters in the area had that would aid the investigation. I would point
out that perhaps is the tack the FWS should have taken to begin with,
especially considering the volatility of the issue of wolf
reintroduction.
Question. I asked that you investigate the decision-making chain of
command responsible for this questionnaire. and consider removing the
responsible parties from their current positions. What investigative
actions have you taken regarding this situation, and what actions
subsequent to the investigation have you taken?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget
requested that the Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety, Law
Enforcement and Security Team (LEST) conduct research to determine the
legitimacy of the SCAN/VIEW technique and whether other agencies were
using this investigative tool. The LEST determined that ``Statement
Content Analysis'' is taught and used by numerous Federal and State
agencies. These include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United
States Secret Service, and the other 71 agencies which receive staff
training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The questionnaire mailed to New Mexico hunters was used according
to the guidelines presented to Federal law enforcement officers during
their training on the SCAN/VIEW technique. The Special Agent received
approval from his immediate supervisor and concurrence from the Deputy
Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement prior to mailing the
questionnaire.
Both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department are concerned
about the questions that have been raised by the use of this technique.
Therefore, the use of mailed questionnaires has been suspended within
the Department pending further review.
Question. Has the Department of Interior defined its policies so as
to ensure such an inflammatory document will no longer be ``mass
mailed'' to general ``suspects'' in Department in vestigations?
Answer. The use of the SCAN/VIEW technique by mail has been
suspended until such time as the Law Enforcement and Security Team is
able to conduct further research and make recommendations. The LEST has
not undertaken further review of the use of mailed questionnaires as of
the date of this response.
fish and wildlife fws--silvery minnow
Secretary Babbitt, New Mexico, like Arizona, is an arid state. I
note that folks within the Beltway are primarily unaware of the
critical need for water in the West. With lack of snowpack and
precipitation, New Mexico is facing a severe drought this summer. In
fact, parts of the Rio Grande river, which historically has gone dry at
times, may dry up as early as this week. The traditional stresses of
water users are only compacted by litigation regarding the needs of the
endangered silvery minnow.
I am deeply concerned about the impacts of laws such as the
Endangered Species Act, no matter how well-intentioned, on a desert
state like New Mexico. A recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordering
of immediate critical habitat designation for the Rio Grande silvery
minnow only dramatizes the growing conflict between the federal
Endangered Species Act and water for Rio Grande users. I can only hope
that the potential needs of this silvery minnow will not deplete
reservoir holdings on which Albuquerque and Santa Fe depend for
drinking water.
A recent Notice of Intent to sue by the Forest Guardians and others
threatens to force the release of stored water in any of the Heron, El
Vado, Abiquiu, or Cochiti reservoirs to ``maintain the riparian habitat
necessary for the survival'' of the silvery minnow and the willow
flycatcher. I am concerned about water necessary for the survival of
New Mexicans, their well-being and way of life.
In the lawsuit forcing immediate critical habitat designation, you
argued that the Department did not have the data necessary to determine
water amounts needed for the fish. Fish and Wildlife Service Director
Jamie Rappaport Clark stated in an affidavit to the Court that the FWS
must comply with NEPA requirements and perform an economic analysis of
the impacts of designation. An EIS would likely be needed, which would
require more time for habitat designation. The ESA requires that the
FWS, when designating critical habitat, take into consideration the
economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Question. Without scientific data available for the silvery
minnow's water needs nor a reliable economic analysis available, won't
the Department need additional time to follow the NEPA process?
Answer. The FWS believes that the needed scientific data is
available to allow an estimation of the Rio Grande silvery minnow's
water needs. The Recovery Plan for this species has been drafted and is
under internal review. Included in the plan are descriptions of the
conditions needed in the Rio Grande River watershed throughout the year
for the survival and recovery of the species. This plan will soon be
available in draft form to the public for review and comment. At this
time, the FWS believes that the primary constituent elements of habitat
required to sustain the Rio Grande silvery minnow include:
--stream morphology that supplies sufficient flowing water to provide
food and cover needed to sustain all life stages of the
species;
--water of sufficient quality to prevent water stagnation (elevated
temperatures, decreased oxygen, carbon dioxide build-up, etc.);
and
--water of sufficient quantity to prevent formation of isolated pools
that restrict fish movement, foster increased predation by
birds and aquatic predators, and congregate disease causing
pathogens.
In February 1999, the U. S. District Court of New Mexico ordered
the FWS to designate critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow
within 30 days. The FWS responded to the Court with a request for
reconsideration of the specified time frame. In that request, we
explained to the court that critical habitat designation was not
possible within 30 days, and that completing the required analyses and
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including
opportunity for meaningful public involvement, would require a minimum
of 8 months, and that if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were
required, an additional 12-18 months would be necessary. Critical
habitat designation, while providing little or no additional benefit to
most listed species, is a time and resource intensive process,
particularly within the Tenth Circuit, where the court has ruled that
critical habitat designations require compliance with NEPA.
The Court responded to our request for reconsideration with an
order that extended the deadline for completing the designation to 120
days (June 23, 1999). The FWS is working to meet the court-ordered
deadline and will complete the designation to the best of our ability
within the time allotted by the court. The FWS believes that for highly
imperiled species, which are restricted to very specific, localized
habitats, such as the Rio Grande silvery minnow, no additional
protection is gained by designating critical habitat. Protection is
already afforded to the species by virtue of being listed as an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.
Question. Isn't a full EIS a likely outcome for designation along
the Rio Grande?
Answer. For most species, no additional protection is gained by
designating critical habitat; the needed protection is already afforded
to the species by being listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Therefore, the FWS believes that it is unlikely that we will determine
that designation of critical habitat will have a significant
environmental impact (a determination which would necessitate an EIS).
However, the draft environmental assessment (EA) and economic analysis
were released on April 7, 1999, and are currently being reviewed by the
public. The comment period closed on May 7, 1999. If comments and
information received during that period cause us to determine that an
EIS is necessary, the FWS will work with the Department of Justice to
determine how that factor affects the current Court order.
Question. Are the Interior Department' s agencies working together
in this process, since Bureau of Reclamation's operations are
implicated in the litigation?
Answer. Yes, the FWS has been working closely with the Bureau of
Reclamation, to ensure that the Bureau is in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act, and that the Rio Grande silvery minnow and its
habitat are protected. The FWS and the Bureau have been working
cooperatively for the last few years to conserve the silvery minnow and
take necessary actions to restore important habitats for listed species
along the Rio Grande. Both agencies have been engaged in the section 7
consultation process under the Act. Through that process, we have been
able to develop reasonable approaches to implement proposed projects
while minimizing project impacts to listed species.
Question. Isn't it true that the little scientific data available
indicates that the minnow needs more water than the River can provide,
even without consideration of the needs of human users?
Answer. No, the FWS does not have any data to indicate that the
minnow requires more water than the Rio Grande can provide. The major
threat to the Rio Grande silvery minnow is the loss of habitat. This
loss of suitable habitat has been caused by changes in hydrology
throughout its historical range.
This species was historically one of the most abundant and
widespread fishes in the Rio Grande basin, occurring from Espanola, New
Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico. It was also found in the Pecos River, a
major tributary of the Rio Grande, from Santa Rosa, New Mexico,
downstream to its confluence with the Rio Grande. It is now completely
extirpated from the Pecos River and from the Rio Grande downstream of
Elephant Butte Reservoir. Throughout much of its historical range,
decline of the silvery minnow may be attributed to modification of
stream discharge patterns and channel dewatering by impoundments, water
diversion for agriculture, and streamchannelization.
Decline of the species in the Middle Rio Grande probably began in
the early part of this century with the construction of Elephant Butte
Dam; eventually there were five major main stream dams constructed
within the minnow's habitat. These dams allowed manipulation and
diversion of the flow of the river. Often this manipulation resulted in
the drying of river reaches and elimination of fish.
Prior to extensive habitat alteration and the resulting flow
modification, it is likely that portions of the river naturally dried
periodically during drought conditions. However, the overall flow
throughout the range of the species was sufficient to provide for the
needs of the species at that time. Present day water management can be
altered to provide sufficient water and thus sufficient habitat for
this species.
Question. How can critical habitat be designated without
consideration of all water user needs along the river?
Answer. The designation of critical habitat requires public
participation and an examination of the economic impacts attributable
to the designation. The public comment period for the proposed
designation of critical habitat, the draft EA, and the draft economic
analysis closed on May 7, and the FWS is reviewing the comments.
One of the purposes of the comment period is to ensure that the FWS
has not overlooked any considerations involving water user needs along
the river. If the FWS finds that a particular need has been overlooked,
this omission will be corrected when the FWS makes a final
determination regarding the court-ordered designation of critical
habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow.
It is also important to recognize that the FWS believes that
designation of critical habitat will have little or no impact above and
beyond the effects that accrued from listing the species as endangered.
This is because the prohibitions associated with critical habitat are
duplicative with those associated with the listing. Section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat.
Implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402) define ``jeopardize the
continued existence of'' a species and ``destruction or adverse
modification of'' critical habitat in virtually identical terms. Thus,
for most species, actions satisfying the standard for adverse
modification are nearly always found to jeopardize the species
concerned, and in most cases the existence of a critical habitat
designation does not materially affect the outcome of consultation.
This is often in contrast to the public perception that the adverse
modification standard sets a lower threshold for violation of section 7
than the jeopardy standard. In fact, biological opinions that conclude
that a Federal agency action is likely to adversely modify critical
habitat but not to jeopardize the species for which it is designated
are extremely rare historically and have not been issued in recent
years. The Rio Grande silvery minnow is a highly imperiled species and
the FWS believes that the measures needed to ensure the survival and
recovery of this species will be the same, with or without the
designation of critical habitat.
Because of the duplicative nature of the adverse modification and
jeopardy standards, critical habitat designation provides little or no
value to the species in question, and comes at the expense of higher
priority conservation efforts. However, the FWS is being inundated with
citizen lawsuits for our failure to complete the process, and we have
been challenged on numerous ``not prudent'' critical habitat
determinations (meaning that the designation of critical habitat was
determined to be not prudent for that species).
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
we are utilizing much of our very limited listing program resources in
litigation support defending active lawsuits and Notices of Intent
(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and complying with the
growing number of adverse court orders. In the meantime, our efforts to
respond to listing petitions, to propose listing of critically
imperiled species, and to make final listing determinations on existing
proposals are being significantly delayed. There are species not yet
listed in Regions or geographic locations where litigation support has
and will continue to consume much of our funding resources.
For example, in Hawaii a single court order remanded 245 ``not
prudent'' critical habitat determinations. There are other species in
Hawaii that are not yet listed and are literally facing extinction
while precious resources are being depleted on critical habitat
litigation support and the reexaminations of critical habitat prudency
determinations for species already listed. Litigation over critical
habitat issues for species already listed and receiving the Act's full
protection has precluded or delayed many listing actions nationwide.
surplus land disposal/inholder relief
Mr. Secretary, a very large portion of the President's proposed
budget includes funding for a ``Lands Legacy Initiative,'' which
predominantly considers land acquisition throughout the Natural
Resources agencies. I worked diligently with the Administration last
year for legislation on federal acquisition and management of a unique
piece of property in New Mexico, and I appreciate the value of public
ownership of special property. Over 30 percent of New Mexico is in
federal ownership. However, I have always advocated federal maintenance
of the property the government already owns, and providing relief to
those who have waited years for federal purchase of their property.
Question. What percentage of the funding for land acquisition in
your proposed budget would go towards the purchase of existing
inholdings from willing sellers?
Answer. It is hoped that $249.4 million of BLM, FWS, and NPS
proposed federal LWCF acquisitions, after negotiations with landowners,
will go toward the purchase of existing inholdings at the appraised
value from willing sellers, including the management funding needed to
effect those acquisitions. None of the funds included in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request are presently designated for the acquisition
of land from non-willing sellers. Excluded from the DOI total request
of $295.0 million is the $45.6 million grant to the State of Florida
for the Everglades.
However, it is important to note that the term inholdings for NPS
technically refers only to pre-FY 1960 tracts within unit boundaries.
Requested funds for these NPS inholdings/exchanges total $4.0 million
in fiscal year 2000. The balance of the NPS funds is $122.9 million
that will be used for acquisition of tracts within recently authorized
(post-FY 1960) boundaries within NPS units.
One hundred percent of the acquisitions proposed in the 2000 BLM
budget request are within BLM managed or Congressionally designated
special areas.
Question. Do you have an inventory of inholdings available and
awaiting purchase by the Department?
Answer. The inventory of inholdings available and awaiting purchase
for BLM, FWS, and NPS follow:
The most recent November 1998 land acquisition list compiled for
the Bureau of Land Management indicates that 825,720 acres within 71
project areas, located in ten States are identified for acquisition.
The estimated cost in 1998 dollars to acquire these properties is
$664,365,000. Identified land and interest in land may be acquired by
purchase, exchange, and/or donation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has 2,662,000 acres remaining to be
acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies at 148 refuges.
The total cost is estimated to be $3.157 billion.
The post-fiscal year 1999 acquisition requirements of the National
Park Service as of March 9, 1999 are composed of $256,829,000 for 2,281
tracts with 29,013 acres for inholdings and another 7,903 tracts with
1,039,945 acres for $1,097,280,350 for recently authorized areas (after
fiscal year 1960) within NPS unit boundaries. These total 10,184
tracts, 1,068,958 acres, and $1,354,109,350.
These NPS numbers reflect a change to the February 17, 1999 list
submitted to the Committee because of re-evaluation of acquisition
needs at two projects that resulted in a net increase of $1,239,000.
The Lake Mead updating of estimates resulted in an increase in costs of
$1,439,000. Great Basin was removed from the list due to mining claims
that were invalidated and no longer in need of being acquired and
resulted in a reduction of $200,000.
I also worked very hard with the Administration last year on
legislation which would facilitate disposal of surplus federal property
and provide relief for inholders. My legislation would allow the
proceeds from sales of disposal property by DOI and the Forest Service
to be used for purchase of inholder properties from willing sellers who
have been waiting to sell to the Federal government. You would be able
to purchase these properties without coming to Congress each time.
Question. Do you support this proposed legislation?
Answer. The Administration supports the concept of the proposed
legislation. The Department will continue to work with your staff to
develop a mutually beneficial piece of legislation that will make the
sale and acquisition of Federal lands easier. The Administration, as
part of the Budget, is developing similar legislation that would allow
receipts from land sales to be used to acquire lands adjacent to or
surrounded by land now managed by the Department of the Interior.
southwestern drought
Secretary Babbitt, when the Forest Service appeared before the
Subcommittee last week, I had a discussion with Chief Dombeck about the
Forest Service being behind in its forest management activities
nationwide, such as prescribed burns that could help mitigate fire
danger in our natural forests. In the Southwest, we are looking down
the barrel of what could be one of the worst drought years ever. I know
the Department of Interior agencies have to be concerned about the
drought potential as well.
Chief Dombeck indicated that the Forest Service has been working
with a drought commission set up by the State of New Mexico. He also
committed to working with this commission and with other federal
agencies on a comprehensive strategy to address the upcoming drought.
This line of questioning goes to the activities Department of the
Interior agencies can undertake regarding drought and fire danger in
the Southwest.
Question. Please tell me what specific measures are being taken, or
can be taken, to mitigate fire danger in New Mexico this fire season?
Answer. The Interior fire management bureaus, in cooperation with
their interagency partners, have provided severity funding to augment
initial attack capability. These resources include pre-positioning of
additional fire crews, staffing engine modules seven days a week, and
early activation of firefighting resources. To date, the Interior
bureaus have approved $943,000 for severity activities in New Mexico.
Plans have been made to activate fire prevention teams to increase
public awareness of the severe conditions and provide public education
on measures to reduce unwanted fires. Past examples of such actions
include having UPS distribute flyers when making deliveries in remote
areas, public announcements, and internet postings.
In New Mexico, the Department of the Interior has focused much of
the hazardous fuel reduction projects on local community protection.
For example, intensive projects have been conducted on Horse Mountain
in Catron County, and outside the communities of Pinos Altos and
Timberon as well as in Organ Mountains to protectadjacent subdivisions.
Question. Explain what assistance you will need from Congress,
especially in appropriations, to address fire danger and other drought-
related disasters this year.
Answer. In the 1997 appropriation, Congress provided $100 million
in emergency funding to cover unusually high suppression and emergency
preparedness costs in severe wildfire years. In 1999, about $94 million
of this funding remains available; $50 million of it contingent on a
future declaration of emergency by the President. Drought conditions
throughout many areas in the U.S make it increasingly likely that at
least some of this contingency funding will need to be used during this
year's fire season. At the present time, it appears that this funding,
combined with regular 1999 Wildland Fire Operations appropriation, will
be adequate to cover these additional emergency needs. We will monitor
this situation on a regular basis throughout the year and request
additional funding as necessary.
Question. Is the Department involved in fire assessment work in
conjunction with other agencies--particularly USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service and FEMA?
Answer. The Department is working closely with the U.S. Forest
Service and the States to assess the current fire situation. The land
management agencies are working together in the Southwest Fire
Management Board (Geographic Area Coordination Center), and the
Southwest Strategy Drought Task Force. The agencies coordinate with the
National Resources Conservation Service via the Southwest Strategy
Group and with FEMA through New Mexico State Forestry, a member of the
Southwest Fire Management Board.
Question. What can the Department specifically contribute to the
comprehensive strategy the Forest Service is putting together to
prepare for the drought?
Answer. We are a full cooperating participant with the Forest
Service in drought strategy planning. Severity planning and actions
outlined above are routinely implemented on an interagency basis.
litigation costs
Question. There has been a question on my mind for quite some time
as I look at the work of the public lands agencies of the Department of
Interior and the U.S. Forest Service that have a significant presence
in the West. That question is: How much money has been spent in New
Mexico and Arizona on environmental lawsuits?
Answer. We estimate that the Department of the Interior has spent
about $3.6 million over the last few years in defending environmental
lawsuits arising in New Mexico and Arizona under the Endangered Species
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. It should be noted that
a number of these cases were brought, not by environmental
organizations, but by state and local governments, irrigation
districts, and interest groups such as the cattle growers associations
in the two states. Based on the information provided by each bureau and
office, a breakdown of these costs from fiscal year 1997, 1998, and the
first half of 1999 is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Bureau/office --------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Solicitor.......... $291,8000 $256,800 $107,300
Bureau of Reclamation............ 72,000 20,000 12,000
Bureau of Land Management........ 65,000 120,000 87,000
Fish and Wildlife Service........ 1,040,000 1,040,000 520,000
--------------------------------------
Totals..................... 1,468,800 1,436,800 726,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional $226,700 has been spent defending lawsuits under the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These lawsuits involve matters
growing out of the regulation of oil and gas development in relation to
other resources, such as other mineral resources and cave resources. A
breakdown of these costs from fiscal years 1997, 1998, and the first
half of 1999 is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Bureau/office --------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Solicitor.......... $3,500 $4,200 $6,900
Bureau of Land Management........ 35,900 113,500 62,700
--------------------------------------
Totals..................... 39,400 117,700 69,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In these lawsuits, how much has been awarded to the
plaintiffs?
Answer. Except in the lawsuits under the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, these cases involve requests for declaratory and
injunctive relief. The amounts awarded are therefore limited to court
costs and attorney fees. A total of $590,300 was awarded during this
period (FY 1997-99). No takings cases pending during this period have
yet gone to judgment, so no determinations as to liability or damages
have been made.
bureau of indian affairs
Secretary Babbitt, I have been impressed with the cooperation from
your office in addressing the problem of deteriorating BIA elementary
and secondary schools. Last year this Subcommittee asked for a report
on the extent of the problem and a five year plan to address the
problem. When Assistant Secretary Gover testified before this
Committee, he told us that this report would be reviewed soon by the
BIA Central Office and OMB.
Question. What is the status of this review of the planning effort?
Do you have an estimate of when this Subcommittee will have this
information?
Answer. In Senate Report 105-277, the Bureau was directed to
develop an alternative administrative plan to complete the repair,
renovation, and reconstruction (including new construction) of all
education facilities in five years on an annual basis. The effort to
estimate the cost of replacing or repairing/renovating the schools in
the Bureau school system has been completed. The Department plans on
submitting the five-year alternative administrative plan to the
Committees before the end of May, 1999.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
lands legacy initiative
One big area of concern for me is the Administration's $1 billion
land grab, more commonly called the Administration's Lands Legacy
Initiative.
Question. Why are you proposing to acquire more public lands when
you are not spending enough to maintain existing public lands?
Answer. The Department believes that among its responsibilities, it
needs both to continue to address the deferred maintenance needs and to
acquire important lands that are increasingly subject to both
development and cost inflation. Through the 5-year plans, DOI is
addressing the highest priority critical health and safety projects and
critical resource protection projects. Through the Lands Legacy
Initiative and its proposed full funding of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the public will be able to enjoy lands for
recreation, historical and cultural education purposes through use of
the receipts from the sale of oil and gas on Federal lands.
Question. How much of this $1 billion initiative is related to in-
holdings versus new purchases of land?
Answer. Responses for each of the three DOI land-managing bureaus
follow:
The Bureau of Land Management's proposed acquisitions under the
President's Lands Legacy Initiative include the acquisition of 357,000
acres of Catellus Corporation ``checkerboard'' inholdings within the
California Desert at a cost of $28.9 million (these acquisitions
include critical desert tortoise habitat and inholdings within
Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas). Inholding acquisition
within the Congressionally-designated Upper Missouri National Wild and
Scenic River corridor, an area of national significance (including the
nearly pristine route of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail),
at a cost of $5 million, is also proposed. All ten of BLM proposed
acquisitions, totaling a request of $43.9 million, are within BLM
approved or Congressionally designated special areas and face imminent
conversion from agricultural use to rural residential subdivision.
The Fish and Wildlife Service defines an inholding as any lands not
in Federal ownership within an approved project. All of the $73.6
million in lands proposed for acquisition are considered to be
inholdings.
Except for $45.6 million to be granted to the State of Florida for
acquisition related to the restoration of the Everglades, the portion
of the Land Legacy Initiative designed for Federal land acquisition
within the National Park System will be used to acquire only those
high-priority, non-Federal lands which are located within the
authorized boundaries of units of the System. It is important to note
that the term inholdings for NPS technically refers only to pre-fiscal
year 1960 tracts within unit boundaries. Requested funds for these NPS
inholdings/exchanges total $4.0 million in fiscal year 2000. The
balance of the NPS funds is $122.9 million that will be used for
acquisition of tracts within recently authorized (post-fiscal year
1960) boundaries within NPS units.
Question. Since you stated that you can accomplish this Initiative
under current laws, what specific statutory provisions authorize it?
Answer. The President's Budget recognizes that several existing
authorized programs in the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture,
and Commerce serve conservation purposes similar in nature to those
authorized to be funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
What is proposed for fiscal year 2000 is that this be done through the
appropriations process. For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the
President has indicated a desire to work with Congress on legislative
authority that would provide a permanent source of funding to meet the
Lands Legacy Initiative goals.
Additionally, there will be regular coordination and information
sharing among the Federal interagency team to ensure that the programs
and funding are efficiently deployed.
pilt funding
Along the same lines about the Administration's lack of adequate
funding for land in their trust, I understand the Administration once
again is proposing to provide insufficient PILT funding to the states.
Question. Why does the administration continue to avoid fulfilling
this responsibility to our counties?
Answer. The Department understands the phrase ``avoid fulfilling
this responsibility to our counties'' to refer to the disparity between
appropriated funding levels and those authorized by Congress in the
1994 amendments to the PILT Act. In fact, the Administration has
consistently submitted what it considers to be good faith budget
requests for the PILT program within the constraints imposed by
discretionary funding caps. That support is reflected in a funding
increase of nearly 25 percent from implementation of the amended PILT
Act in 1995 to the present budget request. That level of increase is
greater than many of the programs for which the Department is
responsible, among them remediation of hazardous waste sites,
management of cultural and historic resources on the public lands, and
various on-the-ground management improvements.
The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for PILT is $125 million, the
same as the amount agreed to by the House and Senate in passing the
Department's 1999 appropriation. In addition to PILT, other program
revenues are paid directly to States and counties for their use.
Moreover, the Administration is proposing a program to stabilize at a
predictable and high level payments to counties and States in which
harvest of timber on Federal land takes place. This proposal will
complement other cooperative arrangements involving State and local
government that are included in the Lands Legacy initiative.
Question. Why is the Department proposing to expand holdings of
public lands while not providing sufficient payments to reimburse
states and counties for the reduced amount of taxable lands upon which
they depend for their economic base?
Answer. The Lands Legacy initiative will allow the Department to
help fulfill some of its underlying stewardship responsibilities in a
manner that improves the quality of life for all people. This will be
accomplished by protecting the Nation's open spaces for recreation and
wildlife, and by preserving historic and cultural resources for future
generations. As discussed above, the Department is limited in proposing
large funding increases for PILT by limitations on discretionary
spending that constrain the Department's entire request. However, in
fiscal year 2000 the public lands will generate an estimated $1.4
billion in receipts from various sources including the sale of land and
materials, grazing fees, timber sales, recreation use fees, and mineral
leasing operations. In part, these receipts supplement PILT payments as
nearly one half of these receipts is shared with the states and
counties. Additionally, the BLM's contributions to state and local
economies goes well beyond PILT payments and revenue sharing,
particularly when one considers the impacts of tourism on economic
development and the benefits that communities derive from conservation
efforts.
Question. I presume you believe in making full payment to local
communities for land withdrawn from their tax base by the Federal
government. If so, what are you doing to ensure this is done?
Answer. The Department of the Interior fully understands that PILT
payments are an important source of income for many counties, as are
other revenue sharing programs. However, an increase for PILT was not
included in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the
Department would not support additional funding for PILT at the expense
of BLM operating funds or other Administration priorities. Increased
funding for BLM operations supports programs that provide significant
services, resources, and tangible benefits to the public. Federal
payments to counties and States supplement those benefits in supporting
the health of local economies.
maintenance and capital improvement plan
I am glad to see that the Department of the Interior has developed
a 5-year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan among its bureaus.
This is an important step to restore deteriorating assets of our
national lands.
Question. What is the Department's value of its total long-term
maintenance backlog?
Answer. According to data collected in response to the fiscal year
1998 Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Standard Number Six,
DOI's estimated unmet deferred maintenance needs range from $7 billion
to $16 billion. Better estimates will become available as the
Department and bureaus begin the multi-year cycle of condition
assessments proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Question. How much of this backlog will be addressed by your fiscal
year 2000 request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget for BLM includes a
request for $12.7 million in the Management of Lands and Resources and
$2.6 million in the Oregon and California Grant Lands accounts for
deferred maintenance work. All of these funds are targeted to project
work that will reduce deferred maintenance. In addition, approximately
$2.2 million of the construction request and $4.2 million of BLM's
portion of the fire facilities request would be directed to reducing
the deferred maintenance needs. Bureau-wide $21.7 million in reduced
deferred maintenance needs will be addressed.
The USGS expects that the $1.5 million request for each year of
fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004 will address $5.628 million or
approximately eight percent of the USGS health and safety deferred
maintenance needs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently proposes to target
$605 million of the most critical health, safety, and natural resource
protection needs.
The fiscal year 1999 FWS appropriations and special Title V funding
will reduce the targeted critical maintenance needs by 15 percent. The
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $64.5 million in
maintenance, equipment replacement, and construction projects which
will reduce the most critical needs by another 10.7 percent. The FWS
Five-Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan includes another
$236.5 million to address critical current deferred maintenance and
equipment replacement needs over the 2001-2004 fiscal years. Also,
annual maintenance funding will help reduce the long-term problem by
correcting smaller maintenance projects to keep them from growing
larger.
The NPS anticipates addressing approximately $112 million in
deferred maintenance as a result of its fiscal year 2000 proposal, as
contained in the 5-year Plan. During the life of the 5-year plan as
currently proposed, a total estimated at $704 million would be devoted
to deferred maintenance.
With the requested BIA funding level for fiscal year 2000, the
deferred maintenance will be reduced by $25.3 million for Facilities
Construction and Repair and by $23.3 million for Resources Management
construction.
Question. What is your planned schedule to fully address this
existing long-term maintenance backlog of existing public lands and
facilities?
Answer. Rather than developing a schedule to address the full
existing long-term maintenance backlog, the Department and bureaus in
fiscal year 2000 have determined that the best use of available funding
is to first address the highest priority critical health and safety and
critical resource protection projects in a 5-year plan that will be
updated annually. These lists submitted to the Congress set out the
priority work; and accomplishments will be reported on a project-by-
project basis after the conclusion of the fiscal year.
grizzly bear reintroduction
I am really concerned about the eagerness of your Department to
consider listing species as ``threatened or ``endangered'' under the
Endangered Species Act. For example, you proposed listing of the
Mountain Plover and the Black-tailed Prairie Dog without sufficient
scientific data on the populations of these species. Also you continue
to list the grizzly bear even though there is convincing evidence that
they can survive and prosper. Finally, I understand you have numerous
additional species to consider for designation as ``threatened'' or
endangered''.
Question. What scientific basis do you have for continuing to
introduce the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot-Selway area in light of
data that shows the bear has a less than one in one million chance of
going extinct without this introduction effort?
Answer. The recently released report on the probability of
extinction of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears actually identifies a wide
range of extinction probabilities, based on different assumptions
(Boyce 1999) Without establishment of a Bitterroot population, the
estimates for probability of extinction ranged as high as 3 in 1,000.
Establishment of a Bitterroot population reduces the probability of
extinction by 88-99 percent in different cases. The report concludes
that ``adding additional areas . . . greatly improves the probability
of existence and therefore the effectiveness of conservation for the
grizzly bear.'' The projection of one in one million was based not on
today's circumstances, rather it was based on future projections once
all five grizzly bear ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains are recovered.
Question. What does it take to demonstrate that grizzly bears are
not endangered and should be delisted?
Answer. Population numbers in all of the ecosystems, with the
exception of the Yellowstone ecosystem, need to improve considerably
before the goals established in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan can be
attained. Once recovery goals are reached in each ecosystem, a status
review of each population and a re-analysis of the five listing factors
will be necessary steps leading to delisting. At this time, only the
Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly population is under study for potential
delisting.
Question. How do you involve the states in your review of proposed
designations?
Answer. It is our policy to coordinate all Endangered Species Act
activities closely with state fish and wildlife agencies, because they
possess important expertise and broad trustee and jurisdictional powers
on fish, wildlife, and plant species. We published a Notice of
Interagency Cooperative Policy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in
Endangered Species Act Activities in the Federal Register (Vol. 59, No.
126, page 34274), that explains our procedures.
Question. How many other candidate species is the Department
working on now for consideration as ``threatened'' or ``endangered?''
Answer. As of April 30, 1999, the FWS has a total of 154 species
(72 animals and 82 plants) that are candidates for listing. A candidate
is defined as a species for which we have on file substantial
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a
proposal to list as threatened or endangered.
domestic energy industries
I am concerned about your Department's view of limiting economic
development of our domestic energy industries (such as oil, natural
gas, and coal) given record low oil prices, record layoffs in these
industries, and record shut-down of wells.
Question. What is the Department doing, beyond granting lease
extensions, to enhance production of our domestic energy industries?
Answer. The Department has not granted any lease extensions for
onshore wells, or any other wells for that matter. The Department, as
well as many in the oil and gas industry, does not support granting
lease extensions. The Department believes that a lease term of 10 years
is ample time for a company to decide whether to drill or not.
The Department has, however, recently given operators of stripper
oil properties the option of suspending operations on those stripper
properties for up to two years, as long as the price of West Texas
Intermediate crude oil is below $15 bbl. If this option is exercised,
then the operator pays no minimum royalty or rentals and the lease
stays in force during that time period, thus preserving a very valuable
domestic resource until better economic conditions exist.
Question. What is your policy on access to public lands for energy
exploration and/or development?
Answer. As you know, the Department operates federal lands under a
multiple-use mandate. This means that the Department policy must
balance multiple and sometimes competing uses for federal land. Given
this fact, the Department and the Administration have actively
supported and advocated many measures that have contributed favorably
to the economic competitiveness of the domestic oil and gas industry
over the past six and one half years. These measures include support
for the Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act, Deepwater Royalty
Relief, repeal of the Alaska North Slope export ban, and heavy and
stripper oil royalty rate reductions on Federal lands. Also, the
Department of the Interior is working jointly with the Department of
Energy (DOE) to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with 28
million barrels of Federal royalty-in-kind oil from the Gulf of Mexico,
which will enhance our nation's energy security.
Question. Has the Department of the Interior given any thought to
expanding the royalty relief program to all uneconomic oil wells which
are beyond 15 barrels per day?
Answer. The Department has been approached by industry concerning
expanding its royalty rate relief threshold above 15 barrels per day.
Today, on an individual basis, producers may request relief from the
BLM if they can demonstrate that producing under current conditions is
uneconomic. To grant royalty relief across-the-board for all uneconomic
wells would require a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits
of such an expansion of the program.
crown butte agreement
I am concerned that the Administration is once again trying to
avoid its commitment in the Crown Butte agreement to transfer $10
million of Federal mineral rights to the State of Montana following the
Crown Butte Settlement. This settlement recognizes the need to
compensate the revenue lost by the State of Montana following the
Administration's interference with a proposed mine location. Despite
previous promises, the Administration does not want to honor their
agreement with the State of Montana.
Question. What actions is the Department of the Interior taking to
honor this commitment?
Answer. The Department of the Interior is complying with Section
503(a) of the fiscal year 1998 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which
requires the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate with the Governor
of Montana on the conveyance of ``$10,000,000 in federal mineral
rights.'' Only if such negotiations are not successful does the statute
contemplate the possible conveyance of the Otter Creek tracts. The
Secretary has met with Governor Racicot of Montana to discuss
implementation of this section. Governor Racicot has expressed interest
in the Otter Creek tracts but has not responded to the Secretary's
efforts to discuss other options. The Secretary will continue to pursue
negotiations with Governor Racicot until the statutory time frame for
negotiations expires on January 1, 2001.
Question. What action do you propose I take to satisfy my state's
needs, short of specific mandates in your appropriations?
Answer. Any assistance that the Montana delegation could offer in
bringing the State of Montana to the table to negotiate the transfer of
$10 million in federal mineral rights is appreciated.
Question. What is objectionable about the Otter Creek site?
Answer. The Administration objects to the transfer of publicly
owned mineral assets in Montana to the State. Section 503 sets an
unacceptable precedent by requiring compensation to a State for a
transaction between the Federal Government and a willing seller. This
is why the President included in his fiscal year 2000 budget request a
proposal to repeal Section 503. Transferring the Otter Creek tracts
could be particularly troublesome in opening an undisturbed area to
mineral development with consequential environmental disruption and
local controversy. Transferring other assets (including mineral
resources in more developed areas) would result in fewer ecological
impacts, while still providing the State with the ``federal mineral
rights'' called for in the 1998 appropriation.
Question. What is your preferred alternative site that you have
proposed to the Governor and why is it preferred?
Answer. The Secretary of the Interior is willing to consider
conveying an income stream from producing federal oil and gas leases to
the State of Montana. We have identified a number of properties that
could produce an income stream to satisfy the terms of the statute.
Question. What actions do you believe the state and the Department
need to take now to finalize this deal?
Answer. The deal cannot be finalized until the State indicates a
willingness to reopen negotiations.
Question. What happens if the state and the Department come to an
impasse?
Answer: Under terms of Section 503, the Secretary and the State of
Montana must reach agreement on the mineral rights to be transferred by
January 1, 2001. If no agreement has been reached by that date, and if
Section 503 has not been repealed, the Department will fulfill the
requirements of the law.
montana mineral withdrawal
Recent mineral withdrawal of 430,000 acres of public lands in
Montana has raised a lot of attention and you have told Montana's
governor that coal extraction is no longer needed in eastern Montana.
Question. Why is the Administration continuing to lock out
prospective and economically viable activities on public lands?
Answer. The area in question (430,000 acres) is entirely on lands
administered by the U.S. Forest Service in Montana. BLM is responsible
through the Federal Land Management and Policy Act for accepting and
processing Forest Service withdrawal proposals and forwarding those
proposals to the Secretary for approval of a Public Land Order.
Generally, BLM defers to the managing agency (U.S. Forest Service) to
respond to questions about its management activities.
Question. What is the Administration's ultimate objective on
hardrock mining and how do you propose to implement it?
Answer. The Administration seeks to encourage the environmentally
responsible development of mineral resources. The Administration also
seeks to ensure the public receives a fair return for public land
resources. The Administration recognizes the importance of mineral
development to local communities, particularly in the West, as well as
to the nation's economy. The Administration balances the need to make
lands available for mineral development with its responsibility to
ensure such development is conducted in an environmentally sound
manner.
Question. Finally, why was this action not pursued through the
traditional forest planning process.
Answer. The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for developing and
implementing Forest Plans. As such, the Secretary of Agriculture and U.
S. Forest Service would be the appropriate land management agency to
discuss forest planning matters.
onshore oil and gas regulations
Question. I understand that proposed revisions to BLM's Onshore Oil
and Gas regulations and a proposed new rule on royalty appeals would
institute new fees on the industry that the Department does not
currently collect. Why do you believe now is an appropriate time to
levy new fees on an ailing domestic industry? What impact do you
believe will occur on the industry with these new fees?
Answer. While most of the proposed onshore oil and gas regulations
do not represent a change from current policy or procedures, the
changes that are proposed generally lessen the administrative burden on
industry. Two changes proposed by the BLM will add new fees. The new
geophysical fair market value fee is designed to provide the public a
fair return for the use of its resources. The optional idle well fee is
designed to provide a low-cost alternative to a bond increase in order
to prevent future liabilities from operators who do not comply with
requirements. Economic analysis on the idle well fee does not indicate
a significant cost burden on industry. The Department believes this fee
balances the economic realities faced by operators with the Federal
Government's obligation to protect public resources.
The Minerals Management Service, which has responsibility for
royalty appeals, has proposed a regulation that would charge fees for
processing such appeals. The Department does not view the charging of a
modest fee to process appeals as burdensome on industry. Charging a fee
to process appeals supports the Department's general cost recovery
policy, though the proposed $150 fee in no way covers all appeals'
costs. In addition, the fee may help discourage frivolous appeals of a
sound onshore royalty policy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
In July of 1995, the Department issued a proposed draft rule to
remove the Peregrine Falcon from the Endangered Species list. In August
of 1998, the Department issued a proposed final rule to remove the
Peregrine Falcon from the Endangered Species list. With nearly 1,200
species being added to the Endangered Species list, the Peregrine is
one of only a few that have been recovered.
Question. What is the status of the de-listing of the Peregrine
Falcon?
Answer. The comment period on the draft rule has closed and the
field office is addressing comments and preparing the Final Rule
package.
Question. When will the de-listing be accomplished?
Answer. The Final Rule is expected to be approved and published in
the Federal Register in August 1999.
Question. What is the status of the other species included in your
May 1998 announcement which addresses a more aggressive de-listing
strategy?
Answer. The American peregrine falcon, Dismal Swamp southeastern
shrew, and Lloyd's hedgehog cactus are all close to being delisted. The
FWS anticipates completion of the final rule to delist these three
species by the end of fiscal year 1999. The FWS also has several
species that are in various stages of being proposed for delisting or
reclassified to threatened. These include such species as the Douglas
County population -Columbian white-tailed deer (delisting), Aleutian
Canada goose (delisting), brown pelican (delisting), bald eagle
(delisting), and gray wolf (delisting and reclassification).
The following table includes the expected delisting actions for the
next two years.
POSSIBLE FWS DELISTING AND RECLASSIFICATION ACTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS
1999-2000 \1\
[May 5, 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action being Lead Reason for
Species considered \2\ region action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American peregrine falcon.... FD............ 1 Recovery.
Columbian white-tailed deer PD............ 1 Recovery.
(Douglas Co. pop.).
Hoover's wooly star.......... PD............ 1 Recovery & New
Information.
Tinian monarch (a bird) \3\.. PD............ 1 Recovery.
Tidewater goby............... PD............ 1 Recovery & New
Information.
Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. PR>T.......... 1 Taxonomic
kalaeloana. Revision.
Eureka Valley dune plants \2\ PR>T.......... 1 Recovery.
Santa Cruz cypress........... PD............ 1 Recovery.
Truckee barberry............. PD............ 1 Taxonomic
Revision.
Guam broadbill & Mariana PD............ 1 Presumed
mallard. Extinct.
Brown pelican (Gulf Coast PD/FD......... 2 Recovery.
pop.).
San Marcos gambusia (a fish). PD............ 2 Presumed
Extinct.
Johnston's frankenia......... PD............ 2 New
Information.
Yuma clapper rail............ PD............ 2 Recovery.
Gray wolf.................... PR>T/PD....... 3 Recovery.
Bald eagle................... PD............ 3 Recovery.
Missouri bladder-pod......... PR>T.......... 3 Recovery & New
Information.
Running buffalo clover....... PR>T.......... 3 Recovery & New
Information.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf..... PD............ 4 Recovery & New
Information.
Large-flowered skullcap...... PR>T.......... 4 Recovery & New
Information.
Dismal Swamp southeastern FD............ 5 New
shrew. Information.
Robbin's cinquefoil.......... PR>T.......... 5 Recovery.
Heliotrope milk-vetch........ PD............ 6 Recovery.
Aleutian Canada goose........ PD............ 7 Recovery.
Spectacled eider (Arctic PD............ 7 New
Russia pop.). Information.
Grizzly bear (Yellowstone PD............ 6 Recovery.
ecosystem).
Lloyd's hedgehog cactus...... FD............ 2 New
Information.
Arizona hedgehog cactus...... PD............ 2 Taxonomic
Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD=Proposed Delisting Action
FD=Final Delisting Action
PR>T=Proposed Reclassification (Endangered to Threatened)
\1\ This list is not intended to be comprehensive. Delisting or
downlisting actions may be processed for species other than those
appearing on this list.
\2\ The action actually proposed or finalized may differ from that
currently being considered.
\3\ Although the FWS has received a petition requesting delisting of
this species, the possible delisting or downlisting action is a FWS
initiative rather than a result of the petition.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
harpers ferry national historical park
The Harpers Ferry National Historical Park suffered severe damage
in 1996 and 1997 from flooding and ice storms.
Question. What damage remains to be repaired from these events?
Answer. Harpers Ferry Historical Park has four remaining repair
projects as a result of the flood and storm damage occurring from two
major weather events in 1995-1996. In fiscal year 1999, Congress
appropriated $400,000 to complete the repairs to three of the four
remaining projects. These three projects are the roof and doors of the
Stephenson, Anderson, and Wager buildings, the John Brown Fort, and the
cotton mill on Virginius Island. The fourth, and last, storm project,
is the repair and replacement of roofs on four buildings on Marmion
Row.
Question. How much will it cost to complete the repairs?
Answer. The estimated cost to complete the repairs caused by the
most recent storm is an additional $600,000. This will repair and
replace the roofs on four buildings on Marmion Row. These four
buildings are the Harper House (Bldg 1A), the Wager House (Bldg 1B),
and two Mormion Tennant Houses (Bldgs 1C and 1D).
The West Virginia Division of Highways has begun the replacement of
the U.S. 340 bridge over Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry.
Question. What is the impact of this construction on the Park?
Answer. A wider and longer bridge will replace the existing bridge,
which is scheduled to be removed when the replacement bridge is
completed. This bridge replacement project has been the subject of
extensive environmental review, and all necessary measures to mitigate
the effects of the bridge on the park have been taken. The National
Park Service, West Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, and
the Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation continue to monitor
progress of the bridge construction to assure that the terms of
mitigating the impact of the bridge upon the National Historical Park
are fully implemented.
Question. When will the bridge work be completed?
Answer. The West Virginia Department of Highways is projecting a
completion date of December, 2000.
Question. Is the Park incurring any extra costs because of this
construction?
Answer. The park has been able to absorb all costs related to the
new bridge within existing operating funds. The bridge contract is
comprehensive and all funding necessary to establish new rights of way,
to repair park roads, and to reforest park lands from construction
activities is included in the bridge contract undertaken by the State
of West Virginia. One issue that has surfaced, however, between the
Town of Harpers Ferry, the West Virginia Department of Highways, and
the NPS that was not included in the specifications of the bridge
replacement contract, is the relocation of the Town's waterline and
extension of the waterline to service the park. Discussion is underway,
but a cost estimate has not been prepared. It cannot be determined at
this time what, if any, cost to relocate the waterline might have to be
funded by the NPS.
In fiscal year 1999, $8 million was appropriated to the NPS for
land acquisition matching grants to help preserve Civil War battlefield
sites, of which $1 million was for Harper's Ferry.
Question. What is the status of the effort?
Answer. Currently, the Civil War Trust is taking the lead in trying
to preserve the School House Ridge Battlefield at Harpers Ferry. The
Civil War Trust has recently discussed purchase of 233 acres of the
battlefield from the estate of Dixie Kilham. The estate holds one of
the most significant Civil War properties on School House Ridge. An
appraisal of this property has been ordered by the Trust and a
negotiation with the Executrix of the estate continues. The Trust
expects to make an offer when the appraisal is complete. This property
is adjacent to the 56-acre parcel purchased by the Civil War Trust in
1993 and donated to become part of Harpers Ferry National Historical
Park in 1998. The Civil War Trust has been in contact with members of
the West Virginia State Legislature, regarding West Virginia Civil War
sites and creating a Civil War Discovery Trail linking sites within the
State.
Question. What group is providing the matching funds?
Answer. In order to acquire the property, the Civil War Trust is
seeking partners to raise the matching funds. As yet no specific
nonprofit organization has been identified, but negotiations continue
with various funds sources such as the Conservation Trust.
Question. Does this effort have the support of the county and
residents of Harpers Ferry?
Answer. The Mayor of Harpers Ferry has gone on record stating town
residents favor preservation of the battlefield and want to maintain
the quality of life the community derives from the town's historic
setting. Many Jefferson County Commissioners have stated publicly they
favor protection of the battlefield. However, commissioners find
themselves caught in a dilemma wanting national resources protected,
yet fielding requests from local developers to build on the
battlefield.
Question. What group will be the most likely owner of these lands
in the short-term and the long-term?
Answer. The battlefield is currently a mixture of Federal
Government and privately owned lands. If additional private lands are
acquired, they will most likely be held by private nonprofit
organizations or by private land developers.
Question. What are the greatest threats to preserving and
maintaining the rich history of the Harpers Ferry area?
Answer. The greatest threat to preserving and maintaining the rich
history of the Harpers Ferry area is the impact of development on
nationally significant battlefield lands. School House Ridge is the
State of West Virginia's most significant Civil War battlefield and an
integral part of Harpers Ferry's history. Harpers Ferry is threatened
by three factors. First, a lack of coordinated strategy to protect the
battlefield. Secondly, a lack of greater nonprofit organization
involvement in West Virginia's number-one battlefield issue. And the
third factor is the proposed placement of yet another housing
development on the battlefield.
Without the protection of the School House Ridge battlefield from
housing development and similar intrusions, the attractiveness of the
park to the visiting pubic will be greatly diminished.
harpers ferry center for interpretation and design
Question. What services are provided to the National Park Service
by the Harpers Ferry Center for interpretation and design?
Answer. The Harpers Ferry Center (HFC) plans, designs, and produces
interpretive media to the 378 units of the National Park System,
consisting of the following:
Publications.--park brochures, handbooks, maps, and posters that
provide visitors with important park information, such as significance
and health and safety information.
Museum and Visitor Center Exhibits.--graphics, text and significant
objects, usually encased and placed within visitor centers or museums
to help interpret significant park themes.
Audiovisual Programs.--films, videotape and videodisk productions,
sound tracks, interactive video products, and computer-driven graphic
programs. In addition, HFC provides installation, repair and
replacement services for audiovisual equipment throughout the National
Park System.
Wayside Exhibits.--outdoor text and graphic panels. Historic
Furnishings: historic structures such as rooms or entire buildings that
are furnished with original or replicated objects appropriate for the
time period being interpreted.
Conservation.--treatment and preservation of historic,
ethnographic, or natural objects included in exhibits.
Interpretive Planning.--the development of plans that establish the
modes of interpretation most appropriate for each park, including
program priorities, staffing, and the recommended types of interpretive
media.
HFC staff handle most planning and design work, although there is
increasing reliance on the use of contractors. Virtually all production
(exhibits, exhibit cases, wayside exhibits and many audiovisual
products and historic furnishing replicas) is carried out by
contractors.
Question. How would you characterize the importance and usefulness
of these services?
Answer. Harpers Ferry Center makes a major contribution to the
mission of the National Park Service by enhancing, expanding, and
establishing professional standards to support the parks' interpretive
and educational missions thus creating a better informed and more
appreciative park visitor. The payback for this is greater support for
the preservation and protection of the invaluable natural and cultural
resources for which the agency is responsible.
A distinguishing characteristic of the National Park Service is
that not only does it preserve and protect natural and cultural areas
but it also undertakes the task of educating the public about these
places. The National Park Service believes it is important that the
public understands the significance of these places in the natural
world or in the history of the Nation, how they function, and why they
are important to all Americans. This responsibility is carried out with
the full realization that park visitors are generally in a hurry and
park interpretive staff may only have their attention for a small
fraction of any travel day for personal-service interpretation, such as
guided talks and theater presentations.
It is important to be able to condense a large amount of
information and encapsulate it in a compelling and accurate manner.
This is done through the employment of ``interpretive media,'' in the
form of park brochures, handbooks, and posters, museum exhibits trail
or wayside exhibit panels, and audiovisual programs. The Harpers Ferry
Center is responsible for providing these media to the parks and thus
helping to ensure the success of each park's educational/interpretive
mission.
Question. How has the role of the Center for the National Park
Service evolved over the past ten years?
Answer. During the 1960s, the National Park System underwent an
explosive growth in the number of new areas and visitation. It became
apparent by 1964 that the National Park Service was unable to keep pace
in either volume or quality of its interpretive and educational
programs and media, such as films, exhibits, and publications. The
National Park Service was hampered by the fact that its interpretive
design professionals were stationed in various offices scattered around
the nation. In 1964, the NPS Director created a new office, the
Division of Interpretation and directed its first chief to fix the
problem. The solution was to bring together all NPS planning and design
specialists in museum and visitor center exhibits, artifact
conservation, historic furnishings, audiovisual products and services,
and publications under one roof and thus consolidate their efforts.
This idea led to the creation of the Harpers Ferry Center, which opened
its doors in March 1970.
The National Park Service leadership chose Harpers Ferry, West
Virginia as the location for the new interpretive center in order to
co-locate with the new Mather Training Center. The Mather Training
Center's primary purpose was the training of park interpreters, and NPS
saw significant value in having frequent interaction between those
National Park Service employees charged with the delivery of
interpretive programs and those employees who developed media programs
to support them.
In 1970, the National Park Service was more centrally organized
than it is now. Then HFC had near-total control over certain funding in
such a manner that parks were required to fulfill their interpretive
media needs, such as slide programs, motion pictures, audio programs,
outdoor exhibit panels, museum exhibits and publications, at HFC. In
addition, HFC was a full service facility, responsible for the
planning, design, and fabrication of all interpretive media products.
By 1976, the Harpers Ferry Center had 136 employees. Its total
budget was $12,388,000. By 1986 these numbers had increased in parallel
with the growth of the National Park System to 229 employees with an
annual budget from all funding sources of $14,500,700. This increase
occurred in spite of the decision to eliminate the exhibit fabrication
shop and accomplish this work through contracts with private sector
firms. The HFC workforce reached its maximum level of 264 in 1993.
Question. Please provide a table showing the total funding received
by the Center from each of the various types of sources (direct
appropriations, reimbursements from other parks, reimbursements from
non-NPS sources).
Answer. The information is shown below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T06AP22.001
Question. What is the total of full-time staffing level anticipated
in fiscal year 2000 for the Harpers Ferry Center?
Answer. It is anticipated that HFC will utilize 187 FTE.
Question. What part of this staff is supported by direct
appropriation versus reimbursements from individual parks for specific
work performed by the Center on behalf of the park?
Answer. Of the 187 FTE, an estimated 57 percent (107.5 FTE) is
funded from direct appropriations; and 43 percent (79.5 FTE) is funded
from project or park funding.
Question. Please provide a table showing the staffing level of the
Harpers Ferry Center for each of the past ten years divided between
those supported by direct appropriation, those supported by
reimbursements from other park units, and those supported by other
sources.
Answer. The information follows:
FISCAL YEAR FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund source 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation............. 126 136 133 133 131 126 120 98.5 98.5 106.5 107.5
Park Reimbursable................ 107 96 103 131 119 84 79 60.5 61.5 68.5 73
Non-Park Reimbursable............ 11 8.5 9 6 14 11 7 5 5 5 6.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What other preservation, interpretive, and design
activities are undertaken by the National Park Service outside those at
the Center?
Answer. Some parks, especially the larger ones such as Yellowstone
or Grand Canyon NPs are able to undertake certain levels of
preservation, interpretive and design activities on their own, or with
assistance from the HFC.
In several instances the parks' cooperating associations are able
to produce interpretive products, such as publications, maps, and
videotapes for sale in the parks. When parks undertake to produce their
own interpretive media, they are to incorporate the standards in terms
of appearance and accuracy set by HFC and they can rely on assistance
from the HFC.
Smaller parks are generally unable to produce their interpretive
media and thus have greater reliance on HFC. The Harpers Ferry Center
is not staffed to meet all needs however, and these parks must either
get on the HFC priority work list or obtain contract assistance and
advice from the center to meet their needs.
The NPS Historic Preservation Training Center handles a good deal
of preservation work, but it is carried out on structures. The Denver
Service Center also arranges for preservation work on park structures,
but not on individual exhibits or objects. The NPS Archeological
Centers at Tallahassee, Santa Fe, Lincoln, Nebraska, and Tucson handle
preservation work on archeologically recovered artifact material.
Some interpretive planning work is carried out by the various
Service's Regional Offices, but it is generally in the form of
assisting parks to carry out interpretive planning.
new river gorge national river
New River Parkway
Question. What is the status of the New River Parkway?
Answer. According to the West Virginia Division of Highways
(WVDOH), a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being
completed based on comments that have been received from the public
meetings that were held on the draft EIS in April and May of 1998. The
office is also addressing comments from State and Federal agencies.
Question. When will the final EIS be completed?
Answer. The EIS is scheduled to be completed in June 1999.
Question. What preferred alternative will most likely be included
in the final EIS?
Answer. The WVDOH believes that Alternative 2A/2D will be included
in the final EIS. This alternative provides for a bridge crossing from
West Virginia Highway 20 just upstream of Sandstone to the west side of
the river, following the existing location of West Virginia Highway 26
to the Hinton New River Bridge.
Question. Does the National Park Service agree with this preferred
alternative?
Answer. Provided the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding are
followed, the National Park Service does agree with this alternative.
Question. What funds have been appropriated to date for the New
River Parkway?
Answer. According to the West Virginia Division of Highways, $17.6
million was included in the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 as a demonstration project.
Question. What funds remain on hand for the New River Parkway?
Answer. The WVDOH states that approximately $9 million is
available.
Question. What is the total construction cost associated with the
expected preferred alternative?
Answer. The total construction cost, according to the WVDOH, is
approximately $40 million.
Question. What concerns does the National Park Service have
regarding the development and construction of the preferred
alternative?
Answer. The National Park Service listed several concerns in the
June 30, 1998, Department of the Interior comment letter on the Draft
EIS for this project. The most critical issues were excerpted and are
now contained in the Memorandum of Agreement which is to be signed by
the National Park Service, West Virginia Department of Highways,
Federal Highway Administration, and the New River Parkway Authority.
This will ensure, for example, that there are no impacts to wetlands,
that all land between the road and the river is acquired by the Highway
Department in fee or less-than-fee (easements), and that the proposed
recreation facilities are developed.
The draft EIS notes that a significant increase in traffic is
expected due to the parkway's eventual link with I-64, and that
development pressures could quickly degrade the very resource values
for which the national river was established. If these pressures are
not controlled, the outstanding visual qualities of this 9-mile
corridor could be forever lost, rendering the parkway ``just another
road,'' rather than a scenic parkway.
Thurmond
I understand that the retaining wall of the parking lot next to the
Thurmond depot is failing.
Question. What would be the likely result of the failure?
Answer. If this failure occurs, the entire parking lot could
possibly be jeopardized, and could possibly affect the foundation of
the Thurmond Depot, now used as a National Park Service visitor center
since its restoration in 1995. The distance from the retaining wall on
the riverbank to the depot is about 50 yards.
Question. What will it cost to repair the retaining wall?
Answer. The current estimate is $800,000.
Question. Are the properties along Commercial Row now stabilized?
If not, what remains to be done?
Answer. No, these properties are not stabilized. The final report
on Commercial Row stabilization was recently completed by the Denver
Service Center but has not yet been seen by the park staff. All of the
stabilization work remains to be done on this structure.
Grandview
Question. Has the final development concept plan for Grandview been
completed and released? If not, when do you anticipate that this will
occur?
Answer. The final development concept plan was released from the
Denver Service Center in late April, 1999.
Question. What are the most pressing needs at Grandview?
Answer. The most pressing needs at Grandview are: (1)
Implementation of the Turkey Spur project, which involves the
conversion of roads to trail and the construction of a parking lot at
the trailhead; and (2) infrastructure improvements, including
replacement of existing lines at Grandview as the sewage treatment
system inherited from the State park system does not meet code. The
park awaits the anticipated future extension of a municipal sewer line
from Shady Springs, and although water service is available from Shady
Springs, the 40 to 50 year-old water lines within the park fail
frequently and must be replaced.
Fayette Station Bridge
I understand that the Fayette Station Bridge has been open to
traffic for several months.
Question. What kind of use is the bridge receiving from vehicles?
Answer. According to the WVDOH, the bridge was opened to traffic in
October, 1998, and as a result has not yet operated through a primary
travel season. The Highway Department will be evaluating bridge usage
during this upcoming travel season.
Question. Can you characterize usage on a percentage basis from
individual visitors, commercial river operators, other tourist groups,
and park staff?
Answer. No. Bridge usage will be evaluated during this upcoming
travel season.
Congress appropriated $200,000 to the Park Service in fiscal year
1998 for planning interpretive exhibits along the road, including
turnouts for vehicles.
Question. What is the status of this work?
Answer. The park is working with WVDOH to develop a design plan to
upgrade scenic pullouts and install interpretive signage in this
corridor.
Question. What, if any, additional funds are needed to complete
this work?
Answer. Until the design plan is completed, this is unknown.
Additional road improvements are needed to the road leading to and
from the bridge in order for buses to make use of the bridge.
Question. Are funds available for this road improvement work?
Answer. The WVDOH states that the Transportation Act (TEA-21)
designates $1 million for improvements associated with the operation of
Fayette Station Road. To date, approximately $650,000 is still
available for use on this roadway, including improvements to
accommodate buses.
Question. What is the status of this work?
Answer. On May 6, 1999, the WVDOH will be meeting with local
elected officials, the National Park Service, representatives from the
whitewater industry and other affected parties to discuss any
additional improvements on all the roadways directly affected by and or
leading to the new bridge.
Kaymoor
Question. What remains to be done at the Kaymoor tipple site to
safeguard visitation and the rail system?
Answer. Since the laying down of the tipple in March 1999, there is
no longer any danger of the structure falling onto the CSX railroad
tracks. The NPS contractor has also fenced the site to protect visitors
from the remaining hazards. All that remains is the installation of
interpretive waysides, which will tell the Kaymoor story to visitors
who arrive on site as passengers on commercial raft trips, as private
boaters, or as trail hikers/mountain bikers.
Question. Are there other dangerous sites in New River Gorge
National River that require fencing, the posting of signs, partial or
full demolition, or other actions to safeguard visitors and park staff?
Answer. Possibly. In 1998, the National Park Service acquired the
Nuttalburg Tipple and conveyor as part of a 1021-acre tract purchased
from the Nuttall Estate. Although an official inspection has not yet
been done, initial assessment by park staff indicates that the
condition of Nuttalburg structures are even worse than those at
Kaymoor. It is quite likely that at least partial demolition, fencing
and signs will be necessary.
national conservation training center
Training
Question. What types of courses are offered at the training center?
Answer. The NCTC offers a variety of courses designed for
conservation professionals, both technical and non-technical. Program
areas include Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Conservation,
Computers, Management and Supervision and Employee Excellence. Course
topics range from ecosystem conservation to fish health, geographic
information system applications to conservation leadership. A copy of
NCTC's annual catalog of course offerings is provided for the
Committee's reference.
Question. How many different courses did the training center offer
in 1998?
Answer. The NCTC offered approximately 250 different course
sessions in fiscal year 1998.
Question. How many different courses does the training center
anticipate offering in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The NCTC expects to offer approximately 250 different
course sessions by the end of fiscal year 1999.
Question. What are the most popular courses?
Answer. Among the most popular courses that required multiple
sessions in the past year were:
--The IMPACT course that brings in FWS managers and project leaders
from across the country for a week of leadership training.
--The academy courses for new refuge, ecological FWS and fisheries
employees.
In addition, courses related to Endangered Species Act topics have
long waiting lists of FWS and non-FWS students. The NCTC ``An Approach
to Ecosystem Conservation'' course and our geographic information
system and new technology courses have also been very popular.
Question. Please provide a table showing the number of students
that attended NCTC class during 1998 (and anticipated for 1999),
breaking out Fish and Wildlife FWS students, other DOI students, and
non-DOI students as well as students for non-NCTC courses given at the
training center.
Answer. The following table shows student statistics for the NCTC
for fiscal year 1998 and estimated statistics for 1999. The increase in
attendance reflects increased awareness of NCTC and the increase in the
number of on-site dormitories (third lodge opened in March, 1999) to
house students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------
Students 1999
1998 estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCTC Training--FWS participants............... 4,300 4,500
NCTC Training--other DOI participants......... 100 150
NCTC Training--non DOI participants........... 1,110 1,200
Other events--FWS Participants................ 750 800
Other events-non FWS Participants............. 4,000 4,900
-------------------------
Totals.................................. 10,260 11,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What percentage of classroom use is for non-Fish and
Wildlife sponsored classes?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, approximately 49 percent of NCTC usage
was for non-FWS sponsored training and activities. During fiscal year
1999, the non-FWS usage is about 46 percent.
Question. Do you anticipate that percentage changing in the next
several years? If so, how and why?
Answer. The increase in on-site accommodations, (the March, 1999
opening of the third lodge), offers more opportunity for non-FWS
entities to conduct training at NCTC. Thus we expect the percentage of
these non-FWS users to in crease somewhat in the future.
Dormitories
Question. Even though the third dormitory at the National
Conservation Training Center has been opened only a few weeks, is there
already a need for a fourth dormitory at the center?
Answer. All beds in the new lodge are booked into calendar year
2000. If a fourth lodge was built, current demand indicates it would be
fully utilized. The NCTC was designed to accommodate 250 daily users,
thus another lodge would bring us closer to design capacity. However, a
fourth lodge is not included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Question. Would a fourth dormitory unduly compete with private
sector facilities in the Shepherdstown area, or is the need for rooms
beyond the capacity or interest of the local establishments in
Shepherdstown?
Answer. No. Presently 20-30 NCTC participants stay offsite each
week in nearby hotels. In addition, the NCTC turns away approximately
80 people per week due to lack of onsite lodging, since some parties
are unwilling to hold events at the NCTC without onsite lodging. A
fourth lodge would address a portion of that demand and still leave a
number of people using offsite lodging. However, the Department's Five
Year Construction Plan does not include a fourth dormitory at this
time. Our primary focus is on resolving health and safety issues at
current facilities.
canaan valley national wildlife refuge
Question. What types of public outreach activities are the Fish and
Wildlife Service conducting to ensure that the input of local residents
is taken into consideration as the FWS continues to develop the refuge?
Who is participating in these activities?
Answer. In 1994, the Preliminary Station Management Plan for Canaan
Valley NWR was completed with input from local residents. The station's
hunt plan was developed with public input and approved in November
1997. Current outreach activities consist of exchanging information,
working with the refuge friends group (Friends of the 500th),
developing personal contacts, providing public presentations, and
providing news releases to the local media.
Additionally, the Refuge Manager is a member of the following local
groups: the Tucker County Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club, and the
Gateway Project Environment/Recreation Committee. The Refuge is
scheduled to initiate a Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 2001 to
address how the refuge will be managed in accordance with the Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997. Local residents will be encouraged to
participate in theplanning process.
Question. Is more public outreach needed?
Answer. Yes. The Canaan Valley NWR plans to hire an Outdoor
Recreation Planner before the end of fiscal year 1999 for conducting an
expanded public outreach and environmental education.
Question. Please describe the status of land acquisition for the
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
Answer. Within the past 14 months, the FWS has acquired
approximately 1,550 acres with a total cost of about $5 million at
Canaan Valley NWR. There are currently seven properties under option at
a cost of $1,783,100; all properties are expected to close by the end
of fiscal year 1999. Appraisals for three other ownerships totaling
approximately 600 acres are expected in early June with an estimated
value of $2.6 million. In addition, 13 other willing sellers have been
identified and appraisals are being initiated on these 13 tracts, which
have an estimated value of $2.5 million.
ohio river islands national wildlife refuge
Question. When will the comprehensive conservation plan for Ohio
River islands be completed and available?
Answer. The draft Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive
Conservation Plan will be available for public review and comment
during August, 1999. The FWS expects to release the final document in
December, 1999.
Question. What kinds of invasive species threaten the natural
species and ecosystems of the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife
Refuge?
Answer. The underwater habitats are being invaded by zebra mussels
which have an adverse impact on native freshwater mussels. In addition,
over 40 percent of the refuge's upland habitats contain invasive plant
species including Japanese knotweed, Russian knotweed, mile-a-minute,
purple loosestrife, multiflora rose, and garlic mustard. These invasive
species are altering native plant communities, halting natural
succession to flood plain forests, and reducing the habitat value for a
variety of migratory bird species.
Question. What other kinds of threats are there to the refuge--its
species and ecosystems?
Answer. Additional threats to the refuge include: unnatural erosion
due to locks/dams on river, sand and gravel dredging, sedimentation,
non-point source pollution, oil spills, and lack of public
understanding of the Ohio River resources.
Question. What is the most pressing or dangerous threat to the
refuge?
Answer. The most pressing threats to the refuge are erosion and
sand and gravel dredging.
Question. What is the current staffing level of the Ohio River
Islands National Wildlife Refuge?
Answer. There are currently five permanent employees at the Ohio
River NWR.
Question. Is this different from the full authorized staffing
level? If so, what funds would be required to bring the staffing level
at Ohio River Islands up to its full authorized level?
Answer. The station's most recent authorized staffing chart,
approved in 1993, contains five full time employees. Since that time,
the refuge has grown in size and the issues that the refuge faces are
more complex. The FWS recognized this, and as a result, the Ohio River
Islands NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan was initiated, one of the
earliest in Region 5. When the CCP is completed, a new staffing chart
that reflects the station's needs, as identified in the CCP, will be
completed. The Refuge Operations Needs System will be updated at that
time to reflect the needs identified by the CCP, and any additional
potential positions will be prioritized through the RONS system.
Question. Does the President's budget request for fiscal year 2000
request sufficient funds to bring staffing at Ohio River Is lands up to
the full staffing level?
Answer. Yes. The President's budget request for the Ohio River
Islands NWR is $455,000, with an additional $38,000 for invasive
species control. A portion of these funds may be used to hire a
Maintenance Worker to conduct the invasive species control work.
Question. What kinds of recreational opportunities are present at
the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge?
Answer. The refuge provides a variety of wildlife dependent
activities to include fishing, hunting (archery deer, small game,
waterfowl), photography, environmental education, interpretation, and
wildlife observation. Non-consumption use visitation is by far the
highest.
Question. How do you measure visitation at a refuge that consists
of a series of dispersed islands that extend for miles in a major
river?
Answer. Visitation occurs throughout the year with highest period
of use from May through September. Staff, volunteers and seasonal help
record levels on public use data sheets incidental to their fieldwork.
Outreach efforts are also conducted on weekends. Accurate estimates of
use, considering the unique features of the refuge and current staff
levels, are very difficult to ascertain.
Question. What is the status of land acquisition activities at Ohio
River Islands?
Answer. The current balance of funds previously appropriated for
land acquisition at Ohio River Islands NWR is approximately $2.2
million. Land acquisition activities with this funding are currently
centered on seven islands and associated mainland tracts comprising
approximately 340 acres valued at approximately $655,000. These
acquisition projects are all in different stages of the acquisition
process which encompasses appraisal, negotiations, and pre-acquisition
site assessment. Acquisition efforts to expend the remaining funds will
focus on mainland embayments once planning is completed.
Question. How many islands (or portions of islands) remain to be
acquired? How many acres do these islands constitute? How many high-
priority sites have been identified for mainland acquisition? How many
acres do these sites constitute?
Answer. Nine islands remain to be acquired, totaling approximately
1,000 acres (including underwater acreage). Approved in 1995, the
Embayment/Wetland Expansion Package (5,400 acres) included 100 high-
priority mainland sites located in the states of Ohio, West Virginia,
Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. Pending completion of the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan in 1999, there are 18 sites, totaling 1,825 acres,
with an estimated cost of $3 million, identified for the first phase of
acquisition for the Embayment/Wetland Expansion Package. However,
funding for the Ohio Rivers NWR for land acquisition is not included in
the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, due to higher priorities
elsewhere. These parcels will be evaluated and considered in future
budget requests.
national fish hatcheries program
Question. Has the fisheries program received the same level of
fixed cost support as the rest of the Fish and Wildlife Service during
the past ten years in the President's budget request? If not, why not?
Answer. The term ``fixed costs'' usually refers to those expenses
that the FWS has no management control over, such as annual federal pay
and retirement adjustments and payments to other federal agencies for
rent, unemployment compensation, and workmen's' compensation. These are
presented in the budget as ``uncontrollable costs.''
Over the past ten years, all FWS programs have received the federal
pay and retirement adjustments that have been proposed by the
Administration and approved by the Congress. The personnel compensation
and benefits portion of the Fisheries and other program budgets have
been adjusted by the percentage increase proposed and enacted for
salaries of federal employees. The FWS budgets for other uncontrollable
costs, such as GSA space rent, in a centralized FWS wide administrative
support account.
The FWS's personnel compensation and benefit expenses are the
largest ``fixed costs'' components and comprise about 55 percent of its
operating budget. The annual federal pay and retirement adjustments
assure that other program operating resources do not have to be used to
absorb these uncontrollable cost increases.
Question. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
emphasizing restoration and recovery of native aquatic species in the
current and future plans for the hatchery program. What will be the
impact of this emphasis on existing and traditional hatchery
operations, such as support to Indian Tribes in stocking fish?
Answer. In order to be as effective as possible with available
funding, the Fish and Wildlife Service is focusing its National Fish
Hatchery System on the restoration and recovery of native aquatic
species and management activities that maintain aquatic resources in a
healthy condition. The FWS will work in partnership with Tribes to
redirect support in stocking fish to restoration and recovery of native
species or to identify alternative mechanisms to continue support for
fish stocking activities.
Question. What percentage of your hatchery operations are currently
being spent on native species? What percentage of your hatchery
operations are currently being spent on threatened and endangered
native species? What changes do you anticipate in these percentages
over the next five years?
Answer. Approximately 91 percent of hatchery operations funding
currently is spent on native species, including the approximately 11
percent spent on threatened and endangered species. The Fish and
Wildlife Service expects these percentages to increase over the next
five years.
Question. What, if anything, needs to be done to expand, increase,
or refocus the hatchery system to restore and recover more species and
their habitats?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service will continue the development
of its National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers, and Fish
Health Centers as integrated aquatic resource centers that facilitate
and contribute to watershed restoration partnerships. This will include
the development of a ``Standard of Excellence'' for the operation of
the National Fish Hatchery System that addresses considerations such as
maintaining genetic diversity, fish health, best science and
technology, wild stock interactions, and evaluation and monitoring.
Needs associated with this effort will be documented in the FWS's
Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS).
Question. Which if any, of the hatcheries are currently under-
utilized? Which, if any, of the hatcheries are ill-suited to
participate in future hatchery operations of the Fish and Wildlife
Service? Why are these hatcheries ill-suited?
Answer. Only the Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery in Virginia
and the Berkshire National Fish Hatchery in Massachusetts are currently
under-utilized, the result of reduced production related to shifts in
priorities. However, both of these facilities have the potential to
contribute more in the restoration of coastal and riverine species. The
FWS has not yet determined which, if any, hatcheries would be ill-
suited to participate in future hatchery operations.
Question. Do you have any plans to close (or transfer) any
hatcheries? Are you looking into the possibility, of having to close
(or transfer) additional hatcheries?
Answer. As the Fish and Wildlife Service focuses its National Fish
Hatchery System on the restoration and recovery of native species, the
Service will work in partnership with its partners and stakeholders to
identify, over time, alternative mechanisms to continue support for
other hatchery activities, such as cost reimbursement, transfer, or
redirection. Closing a hatchery would be a last resort.
Question. If hatcheries are refocused on recovery and restoration
of native species, then shouldn't they receive funding from the
Ecological Services budget? Or shouldn't that portion of the hatchery
budget devoted to restoration and recovery efforts be included in the
Ecological Service's budget activity?
Answer. No, the endangered species recovery program funding is used
for a very specific purpose: the development, implementation and
monitoring of recovery plans. All other FWS programs--and all other
Interior Department programs--implement these recovery plans. The most
effective way for the Fish and Wildlife Service to use its appropriated
funds to restore and conserve aquatic resources is through integrated
program partnerships, such as are now occurring. All program areas are
responsible for contributing wherever they can to the restoration and
recovery of native species, be it through the management actions taken
on a Refuge, the Partners habitat restoration program in Ecological
Services, or the use of the National Fish Hatchery System as a recovery
and restoration tool. The best solution is for all FWS programs to be
adequately funded to carry out their part of the partnership; the
concern is not where the money is in the FWS's budget, but the
aggregate level of funding and the effectiveness of the Program in
working in an integrated manner to meet the FWS's responsibil ities in
aquatic resource conservation.
leetown science center
Question. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations for Interior and
related agencies included $250,000 to plan and design a replacement of
the heating and air conditioning system at the National Fish Health
Research Laboratory (NFHRL) of the Leetown Science Center. What is the
status of that work?
Answer. As part of the HVAC system design work, engineers from the
Division of Engineering of the Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the
laboratory on March 25, 1999. The inspection confirmed that the HVAC
system is inefficient and beyond its useful life. The inspection also
revealed serious problems with the building's roof and ceiling
structures. The engineers advised that repairs to the roof may be a
higher priority than repairs to the HVAC. Engineering design for the
HVAC system, roof and ceiling will be complete by the end of fiscal
year 1999.
Question. How much additional funding will be required to complete
the new heating and air conditioning system for the National Fish
Health Laboratory?
Answer. Based on the inspection report, repairing the HVAC system
and installation will cost $700,000; the roof repairs will cost
$350,000; and ceiling repairs will cost $150,000.
Question. Are these funds included in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget request?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 request does not include
funds for these repairs. However, USGS has begun to address these kinds
of maintenance issues in the $1.5 million increase requested for
Maintenance and Capital Improvement within the restructured Facilities
activity. For fiscal year 2000, the bureau's highest priority deferred
maintenance projects (health and safety issues) were targeted before
the extent of this problem was discovered.
Question. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations for Interior and
related agencies included a $775,000 increase for Leetown Science
Center programs aimed at fish health studies in the Chesapeake Bay,
fish passage research, and acid mine drainage. Please describe the
importance and goals of these research efforts.
Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget included an
increase of $775,000 for the Leetown Science Center: $500,000 was
provided to address problems related to fish passage, $200,000 to
investigate fish health problems in Chesapeake Bay and $75,000 to
develop and test new technology to address problems related to acid
mine drainage. The projects are described below.
Fish passage--$500,000
This work provides data used by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Forest Service
to provide for effective fish passage in the rivers managed by them. It
will provide data for the FERC re-licensing of dams on more than 300
sites in the Mid-West and in the Northeast and to aid resource managers
in restoring threatened fish, such as Atlantic salmon, and endangered
fish, such as shortnose sturgeon. The research will design and test
structures to improve passage of anadromous and other migratory fish.
It will determine the specifics of passage requirements for migratory
fish in terms of their biological, habitat and design needs to get them
past man-made structures in rivers. The research will determine
population genetic structure as it relates to fish biodiversity as
affected by dams and mitigation of diversity problems. It will
determine the nature of fish restoration problems as evidenced by lack
of passage in rivers.
Chesapeake bay fish health--$200,000
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most valuable estuaries on the
east coast, in terms of recreational and commercial use of natural
resources. In recent years, outbreaks of Pfiesteria have produced fish
kills and may be linked to health concerns for watermen. Joint USGS/BRD
and State of Maryland analyses from fish kill and disease events
suggest fungi and bacteria may have been the primary infectious agents
that caused lesions in striped bass, white perch, bullheads and other
estuarine fish species in Chesapeake Bay in 1998.
The research seeks to determine the relationship between fish
health, fungal infections, and Pfiesteria. Preliminary results indicate
a fungal infection may be the primary cause for fish lesions in the
Chesapeake Bay making the fish more susceptible to Pfiesteria and
harmful algal blooms. The research will investigate the relationship
between fish health and microbial loading in terms of
immunosuppression, fungal response, and the development of lesions, and
the role of nonpoint source runoff from agriculture and other sources
on microbial loading in the Chesapeake Bay. It will compare the
prevalence of lesions and their occurrence in tributaries to nutrient
and sediment loading and contrast it with riparian zone condition.
Acid mine drainage--$75,000
This study supports OSM (Clean Streams Initiative), NPS (2,500
abandoned mine land (AML) sites), BLM (several hundred thousand AML
sites), USFS (20,000-50,000 AML sites), USGS (statement of mutual
intent), EPA (Mine Drainage Initiative), States (Departments of
Environmental Protection) and the mining industry (hardrock and coal).
Study objectives include laboratory scale tests to identify metal
hydrolysis reaction rates, sludge volume, density and settling
characteristics, and identification and development of the least cost
method for metal sludge separation and thickening. The research will
explore new methods of polymer addition to accelerate sludge settling
using a porous bed reactor. It will compare metal precipitate
characteristics and handling costs identified in the field using the
LSC and standard mine drainage treatment methods. Finally it will
create decision support models(software) to be used by managers to
predict best treatment practices to form, separate, and concentrate
metal precipitates from acidic mine drainage. The software will
incorporate LSC process simulation models currently under development
with models to be developed that follow precipitate formation both with
and withoutpolymer addition.
Question. What is the status of these research efforts?
Answer. Study plans have been completed for work on fish passage.
Field and laboratory studies are currently underway since fish have
begun their annual migration. Initial studies are focused on Atlantic
salmon in the Connecticut River and shad in the Susquehanna River.
Work on acid mine drainage technology has begun. The Appalachian
Fruit Research Station (USDA) in Kearneysville, West Virginia is
collaborating with the Leetown Science Center to investigate the
potential for using sludge produced by the AMD treatment process to
benefit agriculture. Studies are also underway regarding minimizing the
environmental effects of the acidic water and sludge associated with
the treatment process
Field work on fish health problems in Chesapeake Bay will begin the
first week of June. Cooperative agreements with Universities in
Virginia and Maryland to assist in the data collection are in place.
Question. Were these funds requested as part of the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request? Were these funds requested as base
increases, reflecting long-term (multi-year) research needs?
Answer. Yes. These funds were requested as part of the President's
fiscal year 1999 Budget. The initial study plans were based on multi-
year proposals ranging from three to five years with ``level'' funding
for each year.
Question. Does it make sense to halt these research efforts after a
single year? Why does the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
propose to stop these research efforts after a single year of funding?
Answer. These efforts could continue under the Integrated Science
line item--some may be specifically identified as DOI Science
priorities and others such as Chesapeake Bay efforts may be included in
the Place-based Studies component--rather than under the Biological
Research and Monitoring line item. To the extent any project/study
decreases do occur, they would reflect the fact that DOI bureaus have
identified higher priority research needs for fiscal year 2000.
kanawha-new river water-quality assessment
Question. What is the status of the Kanawha-New River National
Water-Quality Assessment study?
Answer. The Kanawha-New River National Water-Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) study is on schedule, and USGS has published four technical
reports and made six presentations at scientific meetings as of April
30, 1999. A team of nine technical staff is based in Charleston, West
Virginia. All planned environmental-quality samples were collected
during fiscal years 1996-1998, and the team is now reviewing and
archiving the resulting data and preparing interpretive reports.
Eleven reports, in addition to the four mentioned, will be
published during fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The USGS is
working on the first five reports for publication this year, and the
remaining six reports will be started within six months.
Question. What are the main components of the study?
Answer. The study focuses on surface-water quality as it is
affected by coal mining, disposal of human and animal waste, and
industrial activities; and on ground-water quality as it is affected by
agricultural activities, coal mining, and disposal of human and animal
waste. All work was completed within the context of the nationally-
consistent NAWQA sampling design.
The team investigated ground-water quality down hill from surface
coal mines that have been fully reclaimed to present reclamation
standards. This component included the Kanawha and Monongahela River
basins in West Virginia and parts of western Pennsylvania.
In conjunction with other sampling within the NAWQA program, the
Kanawha-New River NAWQA team measured changes in water quality over the
past 20 years in streams at about 180 sites in West Virginia and
Pennsylvania. USGS samples collected during 1979-1981 were compared to
the latest samples in order to evaluate the regional effects of water-
quality laws, upgrades to wastewater treatment and mining practices.
USGS' standard sampling in the Kanawha-New River study area
included eight surface-water sites in West Virginia, and three more
surface-water sites in Virginia. Ground water was sampled from one
aquifer of the Appalachian Plateau in West Virginia, and another
aquifer in the Blue Ridge in North Carolina and Virginia. Biological
sampling was done for fish and benthic insects at all the surface-water
sites; and one-time sampling for fish and insects was also done at an
additional ten sites in West Virginia.
Beyond the sampling activities that have been concluded, NAWQA will
continue to sample some surface-water sites in West Virginia. The USGS
will maintain sampling at two locations through 1999 and subsequent
years of low intensity phase sampling. The two sites for continued
monitoring are: the Kanawha River near Windfield and the Clear Fork
near Whitesville, both in West Virginia.
Question. When will the study be completed?
Answer. A summary report for the first data-collection cycle will
be completed by September 30, 2000.
Question. What results or findings have come out of the study to
date?
Answer. Fecal bacteria are rare in ground water from domestic wells
in West Virginia, if the wells are constructed according to current
design standards. Earlier studies had shown frequent fecal
contamination of domestic wells but did not distinguish between
properly and poorly constructed wells.
Several non-native fish species have been found in areas of the New
River basin where they were not previously known. These fish have been
found upstream from both Kanawha Falls, a natural barrier to fish
migration since the last Ice Age, and upstream from dams. The New River
has had a fish community that is distinct from the communities in both
Atlantic Slope and Ohio River basins. The evidence indicates that
people continue to transport non-native fish past these barriers.
Values of pH are generally lower and concentrations of sulfate,
iron, and manganese are generally higher in ground water from wells in
the southern coal province of West Virginia than in the northern coal
province. These facts are surprising because acid mine drainage is much
more common in the northern coal province than in the southern
province.
Streams in central West Virginia and western Pennsylvania are
becoming less acidic. The median pH at summer base flow in streams
increased about 0.5 unit from 1980 to 1998. Alkalinity of the streams
also increased and was reflected in decreased concentrations of iron
and manganese. These effects would be expected as active mines comply
with discharge permit limits and as the worst cases of acid drainage
from abandoned mines are controlled. Median concentrations of sulfate
increased, however, reflecting the cumulative effects of continued
mining.
Typical radon concentrations in ground water near reclaimed surface
coal mines in West Virginia and western Pennsylvania are about half the
concentrations measured in similar wells not close to mines. Median
radon concentrations in domestic wells in the Blue Ridge in North
Carolina and Virginia are six times the formerly proposed Maximum
Contaminant Level (300 picocuries per liter) permitted in public
drinking-water supplies. At the present time, there is no Maximum
Contaminant Level for radon, so whether the levels found are a health
concern cannot be determined now.
Question. What statements, if any, can these results be used to
make regarding the impact of mine reclamation a ctivities on water
quality?
Answer. Reclamation activities at active and abandoned mines are
successful in eliminating the most severe impacts on water quality and
have produced region-wide improvements. Even under current regulations,
however, the total load of dissolved solids in streams, particularly of
sulfate, appears to be increasing in proportion to the amount of land
disturbed by mining. Mine reclamation and controls on active mining
have been fairly effective in controlling acid mine drainage and metal
pollution. However, the continuing increase in the amount of area
disturbed by mining appears to be leading to increased levels of
sediment and dissolved solids in streams.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
For several years, I have secured funding for two partnership
programs, one around Lake Champlain and one along the Connecticut
River, that fund just this type of project--ones that bubble up from
the community. Although I understand you were under considerable budget
restraints, I was dismayed that funding for these two programs was cut
by more than half last year. Vermonters found it even odder since the
Connecticut had just been named an ``American Heritage River'' and Lake
Champlain was still basking in the glory of being promoted to ``Great
Lake'' status.
Question. If there is not adequate funding in the National Park
Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, what other
Department of the Interior programs would be able to make up the short
fall?
Answer. The issue of funding availability is not the only issue in
this instance. In general, the NPS does not intend that the Rivers,
Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program fund projects on a
long term basis. Rather, the intent is to work with partners on a short
term basis, assisting in the creation of a vision and stimulating non-
federal involvement. After the project is on a firm foundation, it is
intended that the resources of the RTCA be redirected to assist in
initiating other partnership projects.
Other NPS operational programs--such as national trails and wild
and scenic rivers--provide limited funding through cooperative
agreements to partners, but are usually designated for specific
collaborative projects and initiatives over a short period. Given the
fact that a heritage corridor study is underway for the Lake Champlain
corridor, authorizing funding for it as a national heritage corridor
could open the door to specific appropriations for that corridor,
similar to funds which now assist the nine heritage areas established
in 1996 under Public Law 104-333.
There have been no funds specifically authorized to support the
designated American Heritage Rivers (AHR), but the partnership council
overseeing AHR activities along the Connecticut River is examining many
potential sources of funding, Federal and otherwise. The National Park
Service is willing to continue to assist in the identification of good
projects for the Partnership Program and to provide some assistance in
its administration, but it is more appropriate to look to other
agencies and private organizations and foundations to continue its
funding.
Question. What is the status for the feasibility study for a Lake
Champlain Heritage Corridor, and does the Department have funding set
aside for new corridors that are recommended by the Department?
Answer. The study is nearing completion and will be available for
public comment in September, 1999. The Department of the Interior funds
Heritage areas authorized by Congress. Therefore, no funds are set
aside at this point.
Question. In Vermont, I have secured funding to start two pilot
projects to integrate social, economic and natural resource data using
Geographic Information System technology and build a Web-based
interactive tool that can help planners assess the impact of
development on the local watershed, fish and wildlife habitat and open
space. These pilots will also help state, federal agencies and local
agencies prioritize land conservation and wildlife habitat protection
projects. This tool will finally allow citizens and planners to
visualize the potential land use and environmental changes in their
community. The U.S. Geological Survey fiscal year 2000 request includes
$10 million to expand the National Spatial Data Infrastructure through
a Community Federal Information Partnership to enhance local
government's ability to use spatial data for land use planning. How
will the Department select communities to participate in the grant
program and how many do you expect to be selected?
Answer. The Community/Federal Information Partnership (C/FIP) is an
interagency initiative to advance the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure through partnerships with communities. C/FIP is designed
to support community-based activities similar to those that you
describe. Currently, the planned method for selecting participating
communities will be through a consolidated multi-agency Request for
Proposals (RFP) announcement to be developed by the Federal Geographic
Data Committee (FGDC) member agencies. To date, six Federal agencies
have proposed to be a part of the C/FIP program. The RFP will be issued
through the FGDC and will describe the overall objectives and
parameters of the initiative. In addition, each member agency will
describe its mission specific program components and criteria as part
of the announcement. The FGDC anticipates that a number of both large
and small projects will be funded under this announcement and that
these funds will be leveraged with matching grants. The USGS goal is to
direct approximately two-thirds of appropriated funds to competitive
grants and one-third to agency programs to make data more accessible to
communities. However, they cannot project at this time how many grants
will be issued or how many communities will be involved.
The proposed C/FIP initiative is contingent on Congress providing
fiscal year 2000 appropriations. However, planned C/FIP proposal
timelines are as follows: October to December 1999--RFP announced;
January to March 2000--Application period; and April to June 2000--
Review of proposals and announcement of awards.
Question. Has the Department worked with the State of Vermont on a
Gap Analysis project or is one under consideration?
Answer. The Department has a very productive partnership with the
State of Vermont in conducting a Gap Analysis project that is scheduled
for completion this September. The project is being implemented jointly
with the State of New Hampshire through the Vermont Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Vermont. Already,
preliminary products from the Vermont project are being used in
ecological reserve selections. This work is based on GAP land cover
maps and a sophisticated analysis of landscape features linked to
biological diversity. Cooperators that have shared in the costs of the
project include the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, the Silvio O.
Conte Refuge, The Nature Conservancy, and the Green Mountain National
Forest.
Question. A great deal of concern has been generated in Vermont by
your fiscal year 2000 USGS budget proposal to eliminate support for
gaging activities in the Lake Champlain basin. Instead, your budget
request proposes the gaging be supported by ``alternative funding
arrangements'' with Federal, State and local agencies. Has the
Department identified other funding for this program and have you
formed agreements with any other Federal agency to cover the cost of
the gaging activities? How did the Department select Lake Champlain for
this reduction? Where are the gaging stations that are identified for
an increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget?
Answer. The USGS has been involved in discussions with
representatives of the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the State of
Vermont, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding
possible alternative funding arrangements that would allow gaging
activities in the Lake to continue into fiscal year 2000 and beyond.
However, to date none of the involved organizations have been able to
offer funds that might allow these activities to continue. USGS
undertook these gaging activities as part of a water quality study
which was funded under the auspices of the Lake Champlain Special
Designation Act. The study began in 1990 and was planned to last for
five years. USGS has continued to operate the gaging stations for four
years beyond that time frame, but within the proposed budget
constraints it is impossible to continue this work in fiscal year 2000
in the absence of funding support from other agencies.
The gaging stations that will be identified for an increase in the
fiscal year 2000 budget are part of the Real-Time Hazards Initiative.
This initiative is aimed at improving USGS's ability to deliver real-
time streamflow information, to ensure that the National Weather
Service has current data for flood forecasting and warning, and to help
emergency response agencies concentrate their efforts where they are
most needed. USGS is involved in discussions with the National Weather
Service and other Federal agencies, to determine where real-time
information, provided through improved telecommunications equipment, is
most urgently needed to protect at-risk communities from the threat of
floods.
When we passed the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act in 1992,
one of the most important issues was restoration of native fish and
wildlife habitat in the watershed. The Fish and Wildlife Service made a
long term commitment to this goal by becoming one of the lead federal
partners in the Lake Champlain Basin Program. Unfortunately, due to
budget cuts to the Lake Champlain Office operations budget over the
past few years, I do not believe the Fish and Wildlife Service has been
able to meet its commitment. Considerable pressure is growing in
Vermont to speed up the time line for restoration of Lake Champlain.
Question. At what budget level could the Fish and Wildlife Service
fully meet the commitments made in the Lake Champlain Action Plan? If
that Plan was accelerated by 10 years what level of the funding would
be needed for the Lake Champlain Office?
Answer. Increased annual operational funding for the Lake Champlain
Fish and Wildlife Resources Complex (including the Lake Champlain
Office and Pittsford National Fish Hatchery) to $1,500,000 and 23 FTE's
(an increase of $500,000 and 7 FTE's above current budget amounts)
would allow the FWS to carry out the following program expectations on
Lake Champlain:
Provide Federal leadership implementing the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act in the Lake Champlain watershed.
($200,000/3 FTE)
Carry out a private lands program with increased emphasis on
restoring habitats impacted by invasive species and that is fully
integrated with all aspects of U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill
activities in the Lake Champlain watershed. ($75,000)
Make a substantial contribution to damage assessment and
restoration activities associated with contaminated habitats. ($50,000/
1 FTE)
Carry out an aggressive, focused program of habitat assessment and,
where feasible, restoration associated with current fish stocking and
assessment. ($100,000/1 FTE)
Become a fully engaged partner in Lake Champlain imperiled species
inventory and restoration efforts, particularly as they relate to the
threat from invasive species. ($50,000/1 FTE)
Implement a Geographic Information System program that includes
data layer creation and biological modeling, and that is fully
integrated with all aspects of the present mission. ($25,000/1 FTE)
If the Plan was accelerated by 10 years our best estimate is that
an additional $250,000 and 4 FTE's would be required for a total of
$1,750,000/27 FTE's. It is difficult to project a difference in
restoration accomplishments that could be realized under enhanced
funding and staffing between 10 years and a longer time frame. For
example, to fulfill the FWS's role in developing and implementing a
nonindigenous species management plan, the FWS will help implement a
public decision-making process on the long-term management of sea
lamprey, provide technical support to zebra mussel monitoring, and
identify and implement control of purple loosestrife. In these cases,
our actions and the costs associated with them will depend on
information that is not currently available.
Lake Champlain is an interstate and international water body, and
conservation of the Lake's fish and wildlife is an important FWS
function. In fiscal year 2000 the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Resources Complex will have a combined budget just under $1,000,000/16
FTE's, most of which will be used in the Lake Champlain watershed.
Approximately $800,000 of this funding is found in the FWS's Fish and
Wildlife Management Assistance and Hatchery Operations budgets and
$200,000 is in the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program budget.
The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, New England Ecological
Services Field Office, New York Ecological Services Field Office and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife FWS Law Enforcement Agent stationed in Essex
Junction, Vermont, are also part of the FWS's capability on Lake
Champlain. Along with representatives from our Regional Office in
Hadley, Massachusetts, these programs are involved in implementation of
the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act through the FWS's Lake
Champlain Ecosystem Team.
However, this level of funding is not included in the President's
Budget request and is not a priority of the Department.
Question. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been working on a new
regulation for falconry that would affect educational falcon institutes
like the one in Manchester, Vermont. When does the FWS expect to
release the draft regulation? Is the FWS still considering the creation
of a new class of permits specifically for educational facilities that
would allow students to handle falcons but not require individual
permits for each student?
Answer. The FWS plans to issue a scoping notice to seek public
comment on the continued permitting of falconry schools in the U.S. The
FWS anticipates that this notice will be published in the Federal
Register later this year. The falconry school in Vermont is one of only
two in the U.S., and both are permitted under a general education
permit. Although current FWS regulations specify that students at these
schools may practice falconry, and that each student must have a
falconry permit, the FWS will consider all comments received on
amending the falconry regulation to create a new class of falconry
permits for schools.
Question. In addition to the Champion lands, what other parcels are
available for acquisition within the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife
Refuge and what is the total acquisition cost of those parcels?
Answer. In addition to the Champion lands, which totals 26,000
acres, the following acquisition opportunities have been identified for
fiscal year 2000. These tracts total 3,298 acres, with an estimated
cost of $3,200,000. (Note. Two of these projects--Mt. Tom and Dead
Man's Swamp--which total some $1.4 million are within the Silvio O.
Conte NWR boundaries but are too far south to be considered within the
planning areas of the Administration's ``Northern Forest'' focus area).
Nulhegan Basin, Vermont (Est. $545,500).--Opportunities exist to
protect approximately 421 acres of inholdings within the special focus
area (LAPS rank 45). The FWS also estimates that willing sellers of
eight of the cabins located in the 26,000 acre acquisition proposed
will be identified.
Connecticut River mainstream, Vermont (Est. $375,000).--Within this
special focus area, there are opportunities to protect approximately
400 acres of Spruce-fir-tamarack swamp, 100 acres of Cedar swamp, and
300 acres of flood plain forest with sites with good possibilities for
restoration (LAPS rank 43).
White River, Vermont (Est. $300,000).--Opportunities exist to
protect approximately 400 acres of known and restorable sites in flood
plain communities within this special focus area, including flood plain
forest, calcareous riverside seeps, river shore sand and gravel, and
riverside grasslands (LAPS rank 39).
Connecticut River Macrosite, Vermont (Est. $20,000).--This special
focus area includes an estimated 40 acres of riverside outcrops and
grasslands which support populations of the federally endangered
Jesup's milk vetch (LAPS rank 38).
Williams River, Vermont (Est.$15,000).--Approximately 50 acres of
marsh have been identified for protection in this special focus area
(LAPS rank 37).
West River, Vermont (Est. $537,500).--There are several acquisition
opportunities within this special focus area. Approximately 100 acres
of wetlands and associated upland buffer have been identified that
support the federally endangered northeastern bulrush. Another 50 acres
of flood plain and cobble shores are suitable for restoration. An
additional 900 acres of dry oak forests, red pine forests, and pitch
pine-oak-heath rocky summit communities could also be protected (LAPS
rank 35).
Mt. Tom, Massachusetts (Est. $352,000).--The special focus area
hosts 32 species rare in the watershed, including 18 rare plants, seven
rare amphibians and reptiles, three rare invertebrates and four rare
bird species. Development pressures are real and increasing. A
coalition of local groups is working on a permanent protection
initiative. The Refuge contribution to this would be purchase of a
conservation easement on a 252 acre parcel (LAPS rank 24).
Dead Mans Swamp, Connecticut (Est. $1,055,000).--This special focus
area in Cromwell, Connecticut, consists of freshwater marsh, flood
plain forest and an accreting sand spit along the river. Many species
of wading birds and waterfowl use the marsh while the flood plain
forest provides migratory bird stopover and nesting habitat. Several
rare bird species including the sora rail, black rail, least bittern,
American bittern, piedbilled grebe, and yellow-breasted chat have been
found at this site. The accreting spit hosts over \1/3\ of the adults
of the Connecticut meta-population of Puritan tiger beetles, a
federally threatened species. The three priority parcels contain
approximately 285 acres. The FWS is already assisting one nearby
landowner with a habitat enhancement project (LAPS rank 10a).
Question. On April 9, 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service released
the draft Indiana Bat Revised Recovery Plan for comment. After the
comment period is closed, how long does the FWS expect before a final
Revised Recovery Plan is released?
Answer. The time to complete the recovery plan is largely dependent
on the number and significance of comments received, if a public
hearing is requested, and the extent of changes that the recovery team
will need to make to the plan. Since the comment period is still open,
the FWS can not accurately predict how long this process will take.
However, a reasonable estimate would be 12 to 24 months after the close
of the comment period on June 8, 1999.
Question. The Department requested a $2 million increase for the
Partners for Wildlife Program in fiscal year 2000. How will the Fish
and Wildlife Service distribute this increase if it is included? Will
the Fish and Wildlife Service give any preference for those areas that
do not have a large refuge land presence and instead rely on the
conservation of private lands for habitat restoration? What is the
current allocation of Partners for Wildlife funding?
Answer. For fiscal year 2000, the FWS has requested an additional
$2,047,000 for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to increase
the number and quality of habitat restoration projects for migratory
birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional fish, threatened and
endangered species, and other federal trust species. A portion of these
funds is targeted to three geographically-based, cross-program
initiatives: Mississippi River Basin Partnership ($370,000); the High
Plains Partnership ($400,000); and the Restoring Habitat and Passage
for Native Fish ($525,000). These funds will be distributed as follows:
--Mississippi River Basin Partnership: Allocations will be
distributed based on (1) information received from the Regions
on project opportunities in high priority ecosystems within the
Basin, and (2) the Regions' capabilities (i.e., past
accomplishments, waiting list, and partnerships) to implement
projects in a timely manner.
--High Plains Partnership: The FWS assumes that projects will be
implemented in all 10 High Plains States (MT, ND, SD, WY, NE,
KS, CO, NM, OK, and TX). The amounts allocated will be based on
(1) information received from the Regions regarding resource
(species and habitat) priorities within the High Plains and
project opportunities available to address those priorities,
and (2) the Regions' capabilities (i.e., past accomplishments,
waiting list, and partnerships) to implement projects in a
timely manner.
--Restoring Habitat and Passage for Native Fish: In planning this
fiscal year 2000 budget initiative, the FWS ranked proposed
projects on the following selection criteria: ability to result
in measurable on-the-ground results, cost-effectiveness, cross-
program coordination, prompt implementation and completion,
partnerships (i.e., financial and technical), and the
interdisciplinary approach to habitat restoration and watershed
health. The projects that were selected are: Blitzen River
(OR), Arkansas-Red Rivers Watershed (OK, KS, TX), Western Lake
Erie Wetlands (OH), Tar-Neuse-Roanoke Ecosystem (NC, SC, GA),
Lamprey river (NH), Upper Columbia River Basin (MT, WY), and
Chester Creek (AK). The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
will support the following projects: Blitzen River ($168,000);
Arkansas-Red Rivers Watershed ($84,000); Western Lake Erie
($113,000); and Upper Columbia River Basin ($160,000).
The FWS also requests an additional $1,008,000 to accommodate the
backlog of landowners waiting to participate in the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program. Of this general increase, $1 million will be
allocated to Regions based on their capabilities (i.e., past
accomplishments), commitment (i.e., waiting list and partnerships), and
need (i.e., high priority habitats with restoration potential). The
remaining $8,000 will be used in Region 1 for the removal of barriers
to fish passage in support of the President's Pacific Northwest Forest
Plan.
No specific preference is given to areas with or without a high
refuge land presence. Rather funding is allocated based on several
factors, including federal trust species needs and priorities; the
ability to provide ecologically-sound, cost-effective, and demonstrable
benefits on the ground; and partnership involvement.
A following table shows the fiscal year 1999 allocations made by
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Assistance......................................... $441,000 $264,000 $965,000 $811,000 $411,000 $812,000 $10,000
Habitat Restoration.......................................... 1,513,000 1,193,000 2,860,732 2,180,000 1,351,000 2,571,500 159,000
Private Landowner Assist..................................... 21,800 17,200 41,000 31,300 19,400 37,100 2,200
Fishery Habitat Restoration.................................. 57,600 45,500 108,800 82,800 51,300 98,100 5,900
Clean Water/Watershed........................................ 388,000 388,000 388,000 388,000 388,000 388,000 312,000
WA State Ecosystem........................................... 1,483,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Klamath River................................................ 1,225,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
WA Salmon Enhancement........................................ 1,050,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Nevada Biodiversity.......................................... 1,000,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hawaii ESA Conservation...................................... 250,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Vermont Partners............................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 150,000 ........... ...........
Alligator Snapping Turtle.................................... ........... ........... ........... 100,000 ........... ........... ...........
Missouri Chutes/Sandhills.................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 64,000 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................. 7,429,400 1,907,700 4,363,532 3,593,100 2,370,700 3,970,700 489,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested a $135,000
increase for the operations budget of the Silvio O. Conte National
Wildlife Refuge to implement wildlife and habitat surveys. Given the
public interest and sheer size of the land acquisition, there will be a
high expectation for a Fish and Wildlife Service presence and
management of the land. In addition, with the large number of
inholdings and roads throughout the area, safety will be a concern.
Will $135,000 be adequate to manage the 26,000 acres of land when the
Fish and Wildlife Service takes ownership this year?
Answer. Yes. In addition to the requested $135,000 operational
increase, the station has committed $50,000 of its base funds for
operation of the Nulhegan Basin Division of the Silvio O. Conte NFWR.
Additional funds will be available from the FWS's TEA 21 highway
program and refuge maintenance program. These funds would allow
initiation of inventory and planning programs and provide for
administration of the funds allocated for road and bridge maintenance.
With the official opening of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller
National Historical Park, visitor traffic through the Park facilities
will significantly increase, exposing the buildings, exhibits, and over
500 pieces of artwork to increase risk from fire. When the Park Service
assumed responsibility for these facilities an evaluation of the fire
and security systems recommended an immediate upgrade of the fire
detection and suppression system. Currently, the only sprinkler system
on the property is in the basement of the Billings Mansion. Although
the Committee urged the Park Service to address this problem in the
fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill, Marsh-Billings did not
receive funding for this project out of the fiscal year 1999 repair and
rehabilitation budget.
Question. Why was Marsh-Billings not selected for funding and will
they receive funding to make these repairs in the fiscal year 2000
budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Repair and
Rehabilitation program addresses the highest priority health and safety
projects identified and ranked as part of the Department's Five Year
Plan. While this project has merit, only the highest priority projects
were selected for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
Question. Many of Nevada's rural counties are limited in their
ability to fund essential services due to an overwhelming dominance of
Federal land ownership and resulting inadequate tax base. Yet, funding
for Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) is projected at the same level as
1999. Why was no increase in PILT planned?
Answer. The Administration has consistently submitted what it
considers to be good faith budget requests for the PILT program within
the constraints imposed by discretionary funding caps. That support is
reflected in a funding increase of nearly 25 percent from
implementation of the amended PILT Act in 1995 to the present budget
request. That level of increase is greater than many of the programs
for which the Department is responsible, among them remediation of
hazardous waste sites, management of cultural and historic resources on
the public lands, and various on-the-ground management improvements.
The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for PILT is $125 million, the
same as the amount agreed to by the House and Senate in passing the
Department's 1999 appropriation. In addition to PILT, other program
revenues are paid directly to States and counties for their use.
Moreover, the Administration is proposing a program to stabilize at a
predictable and high level payments to counties and States in which
harvest of timber on Federal land takes place. This proposal will
complement other cooperative arrangements involving State and local
government that are included in the Lands Legacy initiative.
Question. Will PILT be considered as part of the Land Legacy
Initiative to offset the impacts of land acquisition by the Federal
Government?
Answer. Under the fiscal year 2000 President's budget proposal
submitted to the Congress, there was no permanent funding authority
included as part of the Land Legacy Initiative for PILT. However, any
``entitlement land'' acquisitions made by the Federal government
pursuant to the Land Legacy Initiative may qualify the affected local
units for possible payments or additional payments under PILT.
Question. Last year, the Bureau of Land Management faced a
significant workload in order to review existing grazing permits for
environmental adequacy. This year, I have heard similar concerns from
constituents. Is the agency making progress in reducing the backlog?
Will the $2.5 million included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request
for the BLM result in elimination of the backlog?
Answer. The backlog in renewing grazing permits or leases is 4,120.
By the end of March 1999, the BLM has completed required reviews on
1,244 permits and leases. The rate of completion is accelerating as the
Field Office staffs are now fully engaged in this priority work; we
expect the rate of completion to continue to increase throughout fiscal
year 1999. The workload in permit renewal reviews for fiscal year 2000
is 2,241.
The proposed increase of $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2000
President's Budget, when combined with existing BLM resources, will
provide sufficient resources to compile the data necessary to complete
the environmental reviews of the balance of permits expiring in fiscal
year 1999 and those expiring in fiscal year 2000. The BLM expects to
have the backlog completed by the end of the fiscal year 2000 and be
able to keep pace with expiring permits in 2001 and beyond.
Great Basin National Park continues to suffer from inadequate
employee housing, and the temporary solution of renting room from a
local truck-stop/casino has been unsatisfactory for all involved. I
understand some funding targeted for the construction of replacement
housing at the park has been held up pending completion of a
Servicewide housing needs assessment.
Question. When will this assessment be completed and funds made
available to Great Basin National Park?
Answer. The Needs Assessment contract identified a need for housing
16 seasonal employees, supporting at least the need to replace existing
NPS trailers with housing for up to 8 seasonal employees. If the Park
were also no longer to lease additional units from the private sector
(an alternative not yet decided upon), then the need for housing would
be increased to accommodate all 16 seasonal employees as identified by
the contracted study.
However, the NPS is still completing additional Congressional
requirements prior to resuming the trailer replacement construction
program. As indicated to the House Appropriations Subcommittee, the NPS
will complete its Servicewide Housing Needs Assessment and report back
to both the House and Senate Committees before resuming any housing
construction. The report is anticipated by July of this year.
Great Basin NP is scheduled to begin planning to replace the NPS
trailers with previously appropriated housing funds, after approval
from the Appropriations Committees is obtained. Once this design is
completed, and final prioritization of all Service-wide trailer
replacement projects is determined, construction funds would then be
made available. Prior to any on-site construction, the NPS will explore
all feasible alternatives, and will select the appropriate mix of
housing for the seasonal employee needs of the park.
Question. Can I anticipate funding adequate to meet the needs of
the Park?
Answer. The current proposed project at Great Basin National Park
is for the replacement of 4 NPS trailers for 8 seasonal employees,
consistent with the findings of the contracted Housing Needs
Assessment. Dependent upon Servicewide priority and funding
availability, this project may be scheduled for funding in fiscal year
2000.
The proposed funding for trailer replacement from the housing
initiative may not meet the total housing needs of the park as it does
not take into consideration the units which the park is currently
leasing from the private sector. If the NPS were to discontinue its
current leasing practice, the potential need increases to 16
seasonalemployee bedrooms.
Question. Over 50 percent of the proposed increase for funding in
the Wild Horse and Burro program ($600,000 out of a total proposed
increase of just under $1.1 million) is targeted for burro management
in the California desert. Assuming that the increased funding request
must also cover increases in fixed costs, what sort of progress can I
expect toward meeting program goals in Nevada, which supports the
greatest population of wild horses?
Answer. BLM continues to focus on the Wild Horse and Burro (WH&B)
program in Nevada. Over 46 percent of the total animals to be removed
in fiscal year 1999 will come from Nevada. Over 32 percent
(approximately $5,000,000) of the available funds are being spent
directly and indirectly to support Nevada's WH&B program. BLM will
continue to place emphasis on the Nevada WH&B program now and in the
future.
Nevada BLM continues to make progress evaluating Herd Management
Areas (HMA) and issuing decisions establishing Appropriate Management
Levels (AML). Nevada BLM plans to establish AML through monitoring and
evaluation on all HMAs by fiscal year 2001, thereby enabling BLM to
remove excess animals from all HMAs. Another area of emphasis that BLM
initiated in fiscal year 1999 and will continue into fiscal year 2000
is the broad based field studies of the immuno-contraceptive vaccine.
BLM vaccinated 761 mares this past winter with the one shot vaccine
that prevents the mares from foaling for one year. In fiscal year 2000,
BLM will concentrate broad based field studies of the immuno-
contraceptive vaccine in Nevada by vaccinating 1,500 to 2,000 mares.
BLM anticipates that the one shot, two year vaccine will be available
for these field studies. Wide-spread application will be dependent on
available fiscal year 2000 funding.
Despite the emphasis BLM is placing in Nevada on establishing AML,
use of immuno-contraceptive vaccine, and population control through
removals the effort is inadequate at reducing the populations. In fact,
at the current recruitment rate, removal rate, and adoption rate, the
number of HMAs that are at AML will decrease as populations increase on
the range. Though faced with significant challenges in Nevada, BLM is
optimistic about the potential of immuno-contraception as a mechanism
for helping to control wild horse populations and reach Appropriate
Management Level in the long term.
Question. Appropriations language for fiscal year 1999 for the
Bureau of Land Management directed $50,000 for the protection of the
Sloan Petroglyphs in BLM's Las Vegas District. What progress has been
made by the BLM in protecting these resources?
Answer. Under contract with the Harry Reid Center at the University
of Nevada-Las Vegas, the BLM has recorded all rock art images at the
Sloan Petroglyphs site. This two-phase inventory effort resulted in the
meticulous recordation and mapping of over 1,700 rock art images, which
now constitutes the largest and most detailed petroglyph site record in
Nevada. BLM has also entered into a site stewardship agreement with the
Harry Reid Center for the monitoring by volunteers of the Sloan Canyon
area. In addition, the BLM has initiated regular weekend patrols of the
canyon by BLM Law Enforcement Rangers. The BLM's Las Vegas Field Office
is now preparing a contract for the development of a Cultural Resource
Management Plan to guide development of on-site and off-site management
prescriptions for Sloan Canyon. These plans will be compatible with the
Wilderness Study Area Interim Management Plan guidelines that currently
exist for this area. The contract will be awarded later this summer,
and work is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
mandan on-a-slant and lewis and clark
This leads to the question of how the Park Service and others are
planning to tell the story of a critical part of the success of the
Lewis and Clark voyage--the role of Native Americans.
Question. What steps are you taking to ensure participation of
Native Americans in Lewis and Clark activities, including
interpretation of the voyage from the native viewpoint?
Answer. The National Park Service has an on going dialogue with
Native American Indian Tribes regarding the Lewis and Clark National
Historic Trail and the telling of the interpretive story relating to
the trail. Specifically, the NPS is leading a Department of the
Interior initiative to conduct government to government ``listening
sessions'' with all Native American Indian Tribes associated with the
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. These meetings are intended to
provide the NPS with specific input from Native American Indian Tribes
regarding the telling of the Lewis and Clark story.
The Three Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold (Mandan, Hidatsa and
Arikara) have a museum on their reservation.
Question. What kinds of assistance would be available to ensure
that this facility is ready for Lewis and Clark activities?
Answer. The NPS entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Three
Affiliated Tribes in 1998 to begin a planning process for the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial. Through the Challenge Cost Share program, the NPS
provided the Three Affiliated Tribes with funding for basic planning.
The NPS will continue to provide assistance to the Three Affiliated
Tribes for Lewis and Clark projects through the Challenge Cost Share
program as Lewis and Clark related projects are developed and proposed.
lewis and clark national historic trail
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the National Historic
Trails program includes $1.174 million for the Lewis and Clark National
Historic Trail--an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 1999. North
Dakota received a portion of these funds. These funds would augment
existing agreements by which sites along with the Lewis and Clark route
are operated, to ensure that additional staff for coordination of
bicentennial activities, media liaison, and technical assistance to
federal, state, local, and private interests.
I can't stress strongly enough the importance of these partnership
agreements--especially their continuation and enhanced funding. Again,
these are relatively small dollar activities which provide great
leverage in obtaining state, local, and private funds.
Question. Can you provide me with a breakout of how these
additional funds would be specifically used if appropriated by
Congress?
Answer. A portion of the additional $300,000 for fiscal year 2000
will be used for partnership agreements ($140,000). Funding the
greatest number of requests possible will require that the available
funds be distributed proportionately to ensure the best and widest use
of the funds. The remainder of the additional request for fiscal year
2000 ($160,000) will be used to support two positions for planning and
technical assistance. These funds will enable us to provide technical
assistance to Federal, state, and other interests that are developing
major visitor and interpretive facilities and programs focusing on the
expedition.
Question. What activities are planned for North Dakota sites with
these added funds?
Answer. In North Dakota, the three affiliated tribes were
instrumental in the success of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In
recent meetings with American Indians in the Pacific Northwest,
Intermountain Area and Great Plains (at New Town, North Dakota), it was
found that assistance is needed in developing their existing and
proposed cultural heritage centers, museums, and interpretive programs.
In part, the requested technical assistance positions will be used to
assist American Indian endeavors in North Dakota, as elsewhere.
A request was made of the Associate Regional Director of Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships in the Midwest Region earlier
this year to increase the funding level of the North Dakota Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial to $70,000 per year from $35,000.
Question. Can you tell us the status of that request?
Answer. NPS has been able to partially meet the request. A
cooperative agreement modification with the North Dakota Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial Foundation dated February, 1999, obligates $35,000
for general support (public outreach, resource monitoring, volunteer
support); plus $22,000 for two challenge cost-share projects to develop
a living history program at Fort Mandan and develop four interpretive
displays on Lewis and Clark animals at the zoo in Bismarck.
lewis and clark bicentennial project
Three of the ten sites in the NPS Bicentennial project are in North
Dakota and are slated for budget increases in the fiscal year 2000
budget:
Fort Union Trading Post....................................... $84,000
Knife River Indian Village.................................... 97,000
Theodore Roosevelt National Park.............................. 135,000
These additional funds respond to expected and actual increases in
visitation (it's already up 45 percent at Knife River over the previous
year), increased maintenance needs (many buildings at Fort Union need
work), and the need for more staff and interpretation and planning.
Apparently, the bulk of the increase indicated for Theodore Roosevelt
National Park ($115,000 of the $135,000), however, is intended to pay
for the position of a Lewis and Clark coordinator who most likely will
not even be located in North Dakota.
Question. Is this accurate?
Answer. Yes. This position will primarily be a liaison to Federal,
State, tribal, and local partners, and needs to be located near good
air transportation access to many points along the Trail. It may also
play a key role in carrying out the NPS plans to conduct the Corps of
Discovery II for the Bicentennial.
The Corps of Discovery II is a traveling classroom/exhibit that
will travel across the country following the Lewis and Clark journals.
It will be a combination of mobile museum exhibits and live
interpretations. In addition, Internet sites, distance learning
technologies, and onsite research will be used to tell the story of the
expedition. This will all be accomplished in partnership with other
Federal and State agencies and with local communities and Native
American groups.
Question. If so, do you know at this time where this individual
will be located?
Answer. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial project will staff a
coordinator/liaison person for the entire bicentennial project, and
there will be a superintendent of the Corps of Discovery II Project.
The coordinator/liaison position will most likely be located in Omaha.
At this time, the NPS is not sure where the superintendent of the Corps
of Discovery will be located.
With the importance of the pending Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration, and the need to have the current staff located more
centrally on the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Midwest Region has split
out the Lewis and Clark Trail Office from the Ice Age Trail Office
located in Madison, Wisconsin and co-located it with our central office
in Omaha. The Omaha location is central along the Lewis and Clark Route
stretching from Washington D.C. to the Oregon/Washington Coast. It was
economically the least expensive means of providing administrative and
technical support to the office; offers good airline accessibility as
well as proximity to large population areas from Sioux City to Kansas
City.
At present we are formulating how best to address the needs of
trail management and preparing for a major interpretive effort in the
proposed Corps of Discovery II, 200 Years to the Future. The location
of the coordinator has not been determined. It is, however, anticipated
that this individual will travel extensively addressing Trail issues
from coast to coast along the entire Lewis and Clark Route.
leafy spurge at theodore roosevelt national park
At the same time, a real and urgent need exists at Teddy
Roosevelt--the need to combat the exotic, non-native and invasive plant
known as leafy spurge. The Department understands the need for funds to
combat this plant. I understand that you originally requested $285,000
for this purpose but that you ultimately lost this battle. In response
to a question for the record from last year's hearing before this
subcommittee, you indicated the unmet funding need of $275,000 for this
same purpose. Leafy spurge was introduced to the North Great Plains in
the early part of this century. It is discovered in the Theodore
Roosevelt National Park in 1968 and, by 1970, covered 32 acres. Left
unchecked, leafy spurge doubles its coverage every ten years. Today it
has spread to more than 4,000 acres--over 10 percent--of the south unit
of the park. Park employees have heroically combated this plant on an
ad hoc basis using the few funds the director and others are able to
scrape together from savings in other area. But they need a strong and
effective federal response to stop the spread of this plant, which is
devouring habitat for the bison, elk, wild horses, and other large
animals in the park.
Question. Are there not additional resources you can find to combat
this invasive and destructive plant?
Answer. The park continues to dedicate resources to this effort
within available funds. Given funding constraints, a park base
operating increase is not being requested for this effort, though the
park is taking advantage of a partnership with the Department of
Agriculture in its five year effort to fight leafy spurge within the
entire Little Missouri River watershed.
Question. Will you work with me and this subcommittee to identify
some added resources, which we could use to fight this battle?
Answer. Issues such as the invasive species problems at Theodore
Roosevelt National Parks and other parks in the system are part of the
genesis behind the Service's Natural Resource Initiative, as presented
in the fiscal year 2000 President's Request. All resource issues in the
NPS would not be solved immediately as a result of this initiative, but
rather be addressed over time as budgetary allowances and priorities
dictate. We continue to explore all possibilities. For example, in
fiscal year 1997, the U.S. Congress provided a total of $4.8 million
over five years to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service in Sydney, Montana to fight leafy spurge within the
entire Little Missouri River Watershed that covers a four state area.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park is one of many partners in the team
that is attacking leafy spurge on a coordinated, biologically-based
Integrated Pest Management Program. Some of these funds are going
directly to the park to help their efforts. It is important to attack
exotic species on an areawide effort, as the one described above. We
are extremely interested in developing more partnerships between
Departments and other agencies if this could be useful in addressing
the problem.
fish and wildlife service--easements
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has for many years actively
pursued the purchase of wetlands easements within the State of North
Dakota. During this time, there has been a continuing frustration with
the lack of flexibility that wetlands easements offered. Most recently,
there have been lawsuits filed in the state by producers who had
easements on their land. The result of these lawsuits established that
the FWS had overextended its interpretation of its easement authority.
Question. What is the USFWS currently doing to develop a more
flexible policy on wetlands easement purchases?
Answer. The FWS is complying with the court order to map all North
Dakota wetland easements upon request of the landowner, as well as any
wetland easement where there is a potential easement violation.
Question. Will you have adequate funding to meet these needs?
Answer. The FWS is using available funds to respond to the court
order. The amount available for mapping wetland easements has resulted
in an extensive backlog of landowner requests and an inability to
adequately respond to their needs. The FWS is attempting to prioritize
these requests to the greatest extent possible.
fish and wildlife service--birding guide
The Fish and Wildlife Service continues to develop its refuge
resources in ND making it one of the pre-eminent wildlife areas in the
country. North Dakota is also one of the nation's top birding states.
The fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill authorized the
Service to create a Birding Guide to North Dakota.
Question. What is status of the creation of this guide?
Answer. The FWS's Bismarck, ND office is working with your staff to
determine exactly what type of guide is most appropriate. The existing
``North Dakota Wildlife Viewing Guide'' is being reviewed for potential
updating and reprinting. The FWS has worked with the State and others
to put the guide together and make distribution throughout the state.
Question. What are the FWS's plans to use the guide to help promote
ND's refuge system?
Answer. Additional copies of the existing ``North Dakota Wildlife
Viewing Guide'' as revised will be provided to all North Dakota refuges
as well as appropriate visitor centers and contact points throughout
the State. This should provide birding information about North Dakota
refuges to the visiting public and therefore promote the Refuge System.
payments in lieu of taxes
For many years, there has been a growing concern about the PILT
funds which various local entities receive from the Federal government.
I have strongly supported increasing those payments.
Question. What is the percentage of payment in North Dakota in
relationship to the actual taxes that would have been paid on that
land?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 PILT payment to counties in North
Dakota totaled approximately $594,359. The BLM does not collect data or
make estimates on the level of property taxes that would have been
collected on these lands if they were not in Federal ownership.
Question. What is your plan for future budget requests?
Answer. The Department of the Interior fully understands that PILT
payments are an important source of income for many counties, as are
other revenue sharing programs. However, an increase for PILT was not
included in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the
Department would not support additional funding for PILT at the expense
of BLM operating funds or other Administration priorities. Increased
funding for BLM operations supports programs that provide significant
services, resources, and tangible benefits to the public. Federal
payments to counties and States supplement those benefits in supporting
the health of local economies. The Administration will continue to
submit budget requests that promote resources and services derived from
the public lands, and will likewise continue to support the PILT
program.
tribally controlled community colleges
I want to commend you and the Administration for the increase that
has been recommended for the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges. As
you are well aware, the colleges depend on funding from the BIA for
their core operations which is crucial to maintaining accreditation. I
am convinced that education is the key to improving living conditions
and providing employment opportunities on our reservations, and I have
personally witnessed how the tribal colleges have literally turned
around the lives of many of the students. I appreciate the support and
recognition of the Administration for the Tribal Colleges and I hope
the Subcommittee can meet the level you have suggested.
Mr. Secretary, you may recall that in this Subcommittee's fiscal
year 1999 report, we requested that you review the current needs of all
major post-secondary schools serving primarily American Indian students
and recommend plans for improving their facilities. We had also asked
that the review include cost estimates and a reasonable federal share
for meeting these costs for tribally controlled community colleges and
other vocational and art education institutions. Just from my own
personal experience, I know that the facilities' needs at the tribal
colleges are great, and it is extremely important that your report
include a substantive and comprehensive analysis that can be used as
the basis for developing a strategy for funding these facilities
nationwide.
Question. Can you provide the Subcommittee with a status report on
the review we requested? I urge you to submit the review as soon as
possible so that we can consider it as part of the fiscal year 2000
budget deliberations.
Answer. The Bureau's Facilities Management and Construction Center
(FMCC) and the Office of Indian Education Programs are developing a
survey instrument to obtain cost estimates for the facilities
construction needs for each of the TCCCs, the Crownpoint Vocational
Technical Institute, and the United Tribes Technical College. The
survey is expected to be sent to the institutions by the end of June,
1999, with final responses received by August. At this time, FMCC will
formalize the data and submit a report to the Committees on its
findings.
bia school construction
I am certain you would agree with me that our first priority on
school replacement should be addressing the needs of the schools that
need help the most, regardless of the financial wherewithal of the
tribe.
Question. Are you and the Department committed to working with me
and the Congress to arrive at a funding mechanism--whether it be
through bonds or otherwise--to fully meet the repair and replacement
needs of our most derelict schools?
Answer. The Department is committed to working with you and the
Committee to reach a resolve to remedy the repair and improvement needs
of the schools in Indian Country so that our Indian students do not
have to attend schools or other educational facilities with conditions
rivaling those found in Third World countries.
Question. If Congress and the Administration are ultimately unable
to develop a workable bonding initiative for BIA-funded schools--and I
am not assuming that this will be the case--is it the Administration's
intention that the $30 million included in your budget for defeasing
the principle on bonds should be used to otherwise repair and replace
BIA schools?
Answer. In the event that the Bonding Initiative was not enacted
but the $30 million was appropriated, these discretionary funds could
be utilized for high priority Bureau School Replacement construction
and FI&R projects.
Question. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request
actually recommends a decrease in the line-item for repair (Facilities
Improvement and Repair) of BIA schools from $40 million in fiscal year
1999 to $36 million in fiscal year 2000. Given the $754 million repair
backlog why did you propose a decrease in this area?
Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2000 request for education
construction funding is the highest since 1992. Quite often, replacing
a school is a more cost effective measure than FI&R. The replacement of
the Seba Dalkai and Fond du Lac schools will produce a reduction in the
maintenance backlog, because those costs are foregone by replacement.
Also, the $30 million requested in the President's Budget for the
bonding initiative would result in a significant reduction in the
maintenance backlog overall. Current budgetary limitations on
appropriations preclude a major infusion of funds due to the existing
and competing overwhelming needs and requirements on a Bureau-wide
basis. Ideally, if new construction is possible to reduce the backlog,
it will have a corresponding reduction on FI&R needs.
Question. The March 29, 1999 Federal Register request that BIA-
funded schools needing to be replaced submit an application by July 16
in order to be placed on a new priority ranking list. How many schools
does the BIA plan to place on this new priority list? Will all schools
needing replacement be placed on this list? Will you be sending to
Congress a specific plan for funding the constructio n projects placed
on this new list?
Answer. The Bureau plans on adding approximately 15 schools to the
existing list of 4 unfunded replacement schools. This will result in
the publication in the Federal Register of a fiscal year 2000 priority
list consisting of 19 schools; this plan assumes full funding for Seba
Dalkai School and Fond du Lac School as requested in the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget.
All schools needing replacement will not be placed on the priority
list that will be published in the Federal Register. The primary reason
is that the physical condition of buildings, demographic and enrollment
conditions at schools are likely to change while awaiting
appropriations for the 19 schools planned for inclusion on the list.
Because of these changing conditions, the Bureau feels schools not on
the list should be given the opportunity to re-compete based on the
conditions of the schools at the time new applications are re-solicited
by the Bureau. The Bureau plans on providing the Congress with the
prioritized list of all schools needing replacement. This list,
however, will not constitute the Bureau's official list for funding
purposes; the list published in the Federal Register will serve this
purpose.
The schools on the published priority list will be included in the
Bureau's Five-Year Deferred Maintenance Plan. All 19 schools on the
list may or may not be included in the Five-Year Plan; inclusion will
depend on anticipated out-year funding levels for education facilities
construction.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. I am pleased to see that the Department's budget includes
$36 million to acquire over 437,000 acres of inholdings in the
California Desert. Can you comment on the importance of this
acquisition, and why the funding should be appropriated this year?
Answer. The Wilderness Conservancy, utilizing private funds, will
contribute a total of $25.5 million ($20.5 million in cash and $5.0
million in donated land) to be matched by $36.0 million from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, requested by the President in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request. In total, 487,000 acres of land in the
California Desert will be transferred to the BLM and NPS for protection
and management. The urgency of this request rests in the increasing
pressures that jeopardize the integrity of the resources of this unique
region, some of which is critical habitat for threatened and endangered
species. There is concern that the proximity of certain in-holdings to
rapidly expanding rural/semi-urban areas will result in further
residential development, which is already occurring at a rapid pace in
the Desert. Further, mineral development on many of the inholdings is
on the rise, particularly where plans of operation exist and
determinations for operations are favorable to the claimant. In both
cases, road development to access private lands in support of these
operations increases the threat to the Desert's natural and biological
resources.
The Wildlands Conservancy will donate to the National Park Service
the former Catellus lands it acquired at Joshua Tree National Park. As
part of the Department's $36.0 million budget request for the
California Desert, the NPS fiscal year 2000 budget request for land
acquisition includes $7.1 million to acquire the 86,425 acres of
Catellus property located in Mojave National Preserve. BLM requests
$28.9 million in its budget.
The willingness of the Catellus Corporation to sell its inholdings
at the low rate negotiated by the Wildlands Conservancy and the
Department is based on the timely appropriation of the entire $36.0
million requested in the President's budget. Postponement or delay of
that appropriation could jeopardize the current agreementwith Catellus.
Question. The Lands Legacy Initiative proposes funding for many
worthy programs, but I have heard concerns that the Administration is
proposing funding for activities not authorized by the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Why has the Administration proposed
splitting up the LWCF amon g so many different programs?
Answer. The President's budget recognizes that several existing
authorized programs in the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture,
and Commerce serve conservation purposes similar in nature to those
currently funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
proposes to fund them out of OCS receipts deposited to the Fund.
Moreover, the Administration's view is that the expertise of these
agencies should be brought to bear to achieve the initiative's
objectives.
Accordingly, increased funding is provided for Interior,
Agriculture, and NOAA, in addition to existing programs in a variety of
other agencies. Together these programs provide a variety of tools that
could be applied to the individual resource issues.
A bill that I am sponsoring, as well as bills that Senator Landrieu
and Senator Boxer are sponsoring, would provide significant new
resources for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program.
Question. Given the broad bipartisan support for reviving the UPARR
program, why has the Administration chosen to request only $4 million
for the program?
Answer. It was envisioned that $4 million would stimulate
resurgence in the updating and refocusing of urban park and recreation
Recovery Action Programs (RAP) to identify open space and outdoor
recreational opportunities. Information derived from the RAPs, plus the
quantity and quality of the rehabilitation grant applications, may
provide better justification for potential future funding.
Question. What is the status of the Headwaters management plan?
When will the Bureau of Land Management begin the planning process, and
when will the process be completed?
Answer. Since the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest, the public
expectations and interest in the area have been high. The BLM has
redirected funding to implement interim management guidelines and to
provide for limited public access (immediate on-the-ground needs, such
as access, barriers, and parking facilities) during the summer of 1999.
BLM and the State of California will initiate a cooperative long-
term management planning process in October 1999. This cooperative
effort will include Federal, state, and local governments along with a
broad spectrum of public interest groups. The management plan will be
subject to formal review procedures, including public meetings,
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the California
Environmental Quality Act and is expected to be completed in 2001.
Question. BLM has announced that it will co-manage Headwaters with
the State of California. How will this be coordinated?
Answer. The BLM and the State of California have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding to guide the future planning and management
of the Headwaters Forest Reserve. The MOU assigns the BLM as the
designated Federal manager of the Reserve and assigns the California
Department of Fish and Game as the designated State lead for the
Reserve. Together, both agencies will manage the Headwaters Forest for
fish and wildlife habitat and other ecological values on a partnership
basis on behalf of the citizens of the United States.
Question. What is the status of the Pacific Lumber timber harvest
plans that were grandfathered into Headwaters agreement? What is your
understanding of the State's view on these THPs, and when will Pacific
Lumber be able to implement these timber harvest plans?
Answer. BLM's understanding is that the State of California's
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is working with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of California Department of Fish
and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Pacific Lumber on
this issue. The State of California's Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection is responsible for approving THPs on private lands. BLM is
not involved in this issue and therefore is unable to provide
additional information on the matter.
Question. What are your plans to overhaul the records management
system for Indian trust accounts?
Answer. The plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Babbitt have requested that
we produce all records (title reports, leases, probate orders, etc.)
related to their individual trust accounts, including those of their
predecessors dating to the original trust patents issued in the late
1800's. Judge Lamberth ruled Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin and the
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs in contempt due to our failure to
produce all trust fund documents for five named plaintiffs and their
predecessors in interest. The judge assigned a Special Master, Mr. Alan
Balaran, to oversee the discovery process and administer document
production compliance with court orders and related matters. The costs
to produce documents for the five named Plaintiffs and their
predecessors in interest based on the Government's definition of
predecessor is estimated to be $13 million. The definition of
predecessor remains before the Special Master for decision. The
Solicitor has advised that the definition advocated by the Plaintiffs
would add thousands of individuals to the definition. If Plaintiffs
prevail, the costs to produce these documents will increase by tens of
millions.
In accordance with the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform
Act of 1994, the Special Trustee is charged with trust fund reform
oversight. Mr. Thomas Thompson is currently serving as the Acting
Special Trustee while the Administration conducts a search to fill the
post permanently. In April 1997, the Special Trustee submitted his
``Strategic Plan to Implement the Reforms Required by the American
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994''. Notwithstanding the
Secretary's reservations about certain aspects of the Strategic Plan,
the Secretary and the Special Trustee agreed that selected trust system
improvements and data clean up efforts in the Strategic Plan should
proceed. The approach selected to implement the Secretary's decisions
on portions of the Special Trustee's Strategic Plan is centered on 13
major Sub Projects outlined in the Department of the Interior's High
Level Implementation Plan. This Plan outlines the comprehensive,
coordinated, inter-Bureau effort to correct the many well-documented
problems associated with the Department's management of Indian trust
funds. Implementation of this Plan will cost $136 million through
fiscal year 2000.
Presently, the Office of the Special Trustee and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs are developing and implementing two systems--the Trust
Funds Accounting System and Trust Assets Account Management System--
which will facilitate management of trust funds and trust land
transactions. Records management considerations are being incorporated
into the information system development. For example, all existing
electronic information systems will have their data and documentation
scheduled under the Federal Records Act requirements.
In addition, the Secretary's High Level Implementation Plan
contains a Records Management Sub Project to resolve Indian Affairs
long standing records management weakness in the Bureau. The scope of
the Sub Project includes Indian Affairs records policy, management,
storage, access, control and disposition and electronic records-
keeping, including imaging technology. The Sub Project was further
refined based on a recent study of the Bureau and Office of Special
Trustee's (OST) records management activities. The recommendations and
actions to be taken to implement each of the recommendations that
resulted from the study have been provided to the Subcommittee. While
OST has requested $7.4 million in fiscal year 2000 to reform Indian
Affairs records management, senior officials from the BIA, OST, and the
Department will share in the responsibility of overseeing the reform
efforts.
Question. What is BIA doing to compensate the Native Americans
whose trust accounts have been lost?
Answer. In November, 1997, the Department submitted its
recommendations for settlement of disputed Tribal trust fund accounts
to the Congress. The recommendations were based on the Tribal
Reconciliation Project, a five-year, $21 million study of Tribal
accounts undertaken by Arthur Anderson, LLP under the supervision of
the Department. The Department drafted legislation and, after a series
of consultation meetings with Tribes, submitted the proposal to the
Congress. The Administration's proposal envisioned immediate payment of
known errors, a good faith settlement offer to all Tribes with trust
accounts that did not accept the good faith settlement offer, and
finally, litigation for those circumstances where a settlement could
not be reached. It was introduced by Congressman Miller by request on
April 30, 1998 (H.R. 3782). A joint hearing of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee and the House Resources Committee was held on the
proposal on July 22, 1998. The Inter Tribal Monitoring Association
(ITMA) offered its own proposal as well. The 105th Congress ended
without the adoption of any Tribal settlement legislation. Departmental
officials have met several times this year with ITMA representatives to
discuss principles for a new consensus settlement bill. The Department
invites active involvement of the Congress in developing Tribal Trust
Funds settlement legislation.
The administration of Individual Indian Monies accounts for
individual Indians is the subject of the Cobell v. Babbitt et. al.
litigation. While Plaintiffs in this lawsuit contend that they have
claims for recovery of ``lost'' funds and/or for damages for alleged
mismanagement of trust lands (or other assets), this lawsuit does not
involve a claim for monetary relief. Lawsuits for such claims have yet
to be filed.
Question. How does the BIA propose the money from the Class Size
Reduction program be distributed?
Answer. The Bureau is working with the Department of Education
(Department) on the distribution methodology for the Class Size
Reduction program funds. The Department is currently requiring that
these funds be distributed to schools based on enrollment and level of
poverty. As BIA's 185 schools qualify for the free and reduced lunch
program and as high poverty schools the Bureau is working with the
Department to re-evaluate its distribution method.. In addition, the
Bureau funds many schools with small enrollments due to the isolation
and rural conditions where Bureau schools are located. If funds are
distributed based on enrollment, the Bureau will have some schools
receiving only $900, which is not sufficient to effect a reduction in
class size. The Bureau is recommending that the funds be distributed
equally to each school. This would result in each school receiving
approximately $20,000 which in some locations is sufficient to hire a
beginning teacher. The Bureau will continue to work with the Department
on this issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
united states park police
As Chairman of the Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe it is important that Federal law
enforcement activities receive appropriate funding and resources. As
you know, vital services to Federal, state, and local law enforcement
in the D.C. area are provided by the United States Park Police. Some of
this assistance, including the essential Park Police Aviation Unit, is
provided only by the Park Police.
Question. Do you believe that the Park Police is an important
aspect of Federal law enforcement and that its funding needs should be
met?
Answer. The NPS strongly supports the important mission of the
United States Park Police and believes it to be an important aspect of
Federal law enforcement. The Park Police are significantly represented
in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget with a proposed operating
increase of $2.661 million (excluding pay, pension, and other increased
uncontrollable cost requests). This funding will be used to address
training and staffing needs, support the Aviation Unit, and provide for
communication enhancements. Park Police funding needs are included in
the President's budget to the maximum extent possible within available
funding allowances after being considered along with other priority NPS
needs.
Question. It is my understanding that, since 1996, the Park Police
budget requests to the National Park Service have been cut
considerably. Are you aware of the extent to which Park Police funding
requests have not been approved by the Park Service?
Answer. Since fiscal year 1996, all operational funding for the
Park Police has risen by about $15 million (or 26.3 percent), from $57
million in fiscal year 1996 to a requested $72 million in fiscal year
2000. This change represents an 18.5 percent increase in constant
dollars over this period. The emphasis the Service places on adequate
funding for the Park Police is evidenced by the request in fiscal year
2000: increases in operating funds for the Park Police total almost $4
million, with the Park Police pension fund also slated for a $1.1
million boost.
The NPS, under the fiscal constraints facing all government
agencies, has had to weigh Park Police needs against all other
requirements. The Park Police funding requests are considered carefully
within current funding constraints, and as priorities dictate, as set
by the National Leadership Council of the NPS.
Regarding upgrades to the communication system, funding in the
fiscal year 2000 Construction and Major Maintenance Appropriation,
Special Programs budget activity, has been earmarked to address the
initial short-term needs for communications systems of the Park
Police--preventative system maintenance, adjustment of telephone line
interfaces, training of communications staff, analysis of the radio
system, and initial narrowband conversion issues. The requested amount
is $255,000 and is a portion of a larger $2.5 million Servicewide
request for narrowband conversion.
Question. I understand that the communications system of the Park
Police is particularly dated and antiquated. What plans are being made
to upgrade the communications system?
Answer. The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) has directed the Department of the Interior to
convert all of its current VHF frequencies to narrow band equipment,
with all equipment to be converted before 2005. A recent study
performed by the National Park Service Radio Managers and Office of
Information Resource Management staff identified the following short-
term USPP needs: improve the system's preventative maintenance; adjust
telephone line interfaces and augment and better train communications
staff; contract an engineering firm to analyze the radio system; and
provide alternatives to correct cited problems including the conversion
to narrowband operations and the availability of commercial services
and leasing options. The cost of the initial short-term needs has been
estimated at $255,000, and is part of the $2,500,000 included in the
fiscal year 2000 Construction and Major Maintenance appropriation
request.
Long-term needs include implementing the results of the engineering
study to include newer ``trunking'' technology and the increase of
technical staff to include the New York and San Francisco Field
Offices. The study further recommended installation/implementation of a
Computer Aided Dispatch system to (1) improve Park Police response
time, (2) allow for the automatic identification of callers, and (3)
improve officer location information. The cost to implement the long-
term needs is estimated at over $13 million and will be addressed
through funding proposals over a number of years.
Question. It appears that some Park Police districts and
facilities, such as D-1 and Glen Echo Horsebarn, have particularly
antiquated communications apparatus and are difficult to reach at times
except through telephone. What is being done to improve the
communications equipment for these facilities in particular?
Answer. The NPS is concerned about the need to improve the
communications equipment in Park Police districts and facilities
system-wide. District One and the Glen Echo Horsebarn are not special
cases.
A recent study performed by the National Park Service Radio
Managers and Office of Information Resource Management staff identified
the following short-term United States Park Police needs: improve the
system's preventative maintenance; adjust telephone line interfaces and
augment and better train communications staff; contract an engineering
firm to analyze the radio system; and provide alternatives to correct
cited problems including the conversion to narrowband operations and
the availability of commercial and leasing options. The cost of the
initial short-term needs has been estimated at $255,000, which is
proposed for funding in fiscal year 2000.
Reliable communications equipment is vital for all law enforcement
officers. The U. S. Park Police, along with needs at all NPS sites,
will be upgraded to comply with a National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) mandate which has directed the
Department of the Interior to convert all of its current VHF
frequencies to narrowband equipment, with all equipment to be converted
by 2005.
Long-term needs include implementing the results of the engineering
study to include newer ``trunking'' technology. It was further
recommended that a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system be implemented
to improve Park Police response time, automatic identification of
caller, and improved officer location information. The cost to
implement the long-term needs is estimated at over $13 million and will
be addressed through funding proposals over a number of years.
The United States Park Police have identified this funding need in
the National Park Service's Operation Formulation System (OFS) Program,
an official database of unfunded budgetary needs.
Question. I understand that the Park Police has a long-term
personnel shortfall and currently employs almost 150 officers less than
its authorization of about 700 officers. Do you see this shortfall as a
problem and are there any efforts being made to address this issue?
Answer. There is no authorized staffing level. The NPS believes,
however, that an on-board strength level of 625 officers is needed.
Accordingly, the National Park Service's budget request for fiscal year
2000 includes an increase of $1.861 million which, coupled with
$500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999, would establish a base amount
dedicated to funding two recruit classes annually. The $2.361 million
would be used to cover salary costs for 48 park police cadets per year
during their training, travel, lodging expenses, initial uniform,
equipment issuance, applicant physicals, background investigations, and
incidental costs incurred at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center, Brunswick Georgia. At the conclusion of training, the new
officers will fill existing funded vacancies, and allow attainment of
essential staff levels by fiscal year 2001. The funding for the recruit
classes would continue to remain available for two more recruit classes
every year, as needed.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gorton. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, April 22, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
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
Bureau of Land Management
Prepared Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate
Mining Compact Commission
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of the
Compact's member states concerning the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request
for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of
the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $50.6 million
to fund Title V grants to states for the implementation of their
regulatory programs and $169.2 million for state Title IV abandoned
mine land (AWL) program grants. Our statement will address both of
these budgeted items.
The Compact is comprised of 18 eastern and mid-continent states
that together produce some 60 percent of the Nation's coal as well as
important noncoal minerals. Participation in the Compact is gained
through the enactment of legislation by the member states authorizing
their entry into the Compact and they are represented by their
respective Governors who serve as Commissioners. The Compact's purposes
are to advance the protection and restoration of land, water and other
resources affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in
each of the party states that will achieve comparable results in
protecting, conserving and improving the usefulness of natural
resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient,
productive and economically viable mining industry.
Over the past several years, the Commission has alerted the
subcommittee to an alarming and potentially debilitating trend in Title
V grant funding. As you know, these grants support the implementation
of state regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and
effective operation of those programs. Ever since fiscal year 1995, the
appropriation for these grants has either decreased or remained
stagnant. Once again this year, the Office of Surface Mining has failed
to provide any increase for Title V grants, despite the states'
projected need for additional moneys to meet actual program expenses.
Each year, OSM requests and receives increases in its budget to
meet ``uncontrollable costs'' (such as workers' compensation,
unemployment compensation, retirement costs and pay rate increases) and
``fixed overhead costs''. In estimating its projected program operating
costs, the states face these same annual increases, in addition to
increased costs associated with the escalating cost of travel and
replacement of equipment (especially vehicles and computers). And yet,
for five federal fiscal years, we have received no increases in the
grants that are supposedly intended to support our programs.
All of this finally caught up with the states and OSM in fiscal
year 1999. Facing a flat-line appropriation once again, OSM attempted
to allocate fiscal year 1999 Title V grant moneys based on a formula
that allegedly took into account past program spending (otherwise known
as ``obligations''). Pursuant to this allocation formula, some states
saw reductions in their grant amounts in the 20-30 percent range
compared to their estimated needs and to their fiscal year 1998 amounts
As a result of those reductions, some states faced mandatory lay-offs
of state personnel and others had to deal with another year of being
unable to replace worn out vehicles used by inspectors in the field.
More specific examples of the impact of reduced grant amounts are as
follows:
--``Undoubtedly, we will have to curtail some important activities.
What these activities will be is unclear. Do we stop our
efforts to make advances in technology? Should we cut back on
successful compliance assistance and pollution prevention
efforts? Do we maintain a work force that will have fewer
vehicles or do we reduce the work force below the program
minimums in order to purchase badly needed vehicles? These
difficult decisions will be made as prudently and
compassionately as possible with the goal of maximizing our
environmental responsibilities.''
PA Department of Environmental Protection (FY 1999 grant allocation
reduced 22.25 percent below state estimate.)
--``With decreased federal support, it is apparent that an acute
problem may develop. If federal funding for the coal regulatory
program continues at the proposed federal fiscal year 1999
level, by state fiscal year 2001, the Division of Mining and
Reclamation will have exhausted its cash balance to less than a
three-month operating reserve. The only way to avoid this
crisis at the present time would be to expend state funds only
to the extent that they are matched by federal funds. At
present federal funding levels, this would mean reducing our
overall projected program expenses by approximately $700,000
annually. Such a reduction would potentially reverse all of our
progress in program development and support to date, and may
result in a reduction in staffing of up to 15 FTE. Obviously,
such a reduction would be catastrophic to our primacy
program.''
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (FY 1999 grant allocation
reduced 22.4 percent below state estimate.)
--``Salary funding reductions have been made to Bureau of Mines
personnel decreasing the estimated time that can be dedicated
to working on regulatory issues. Cuts were made to
administration and inspection personnel salaries. Personnel
will have less time to support the program and all cross
training of inspectors has been totally cut. Travel funds have
been reduced resulting in fewer opportunities to attend
necessary meetings and training sessions. Purchases of some
necessary equipment that was scheduled to be replaced during
this fiscal year will be delayed. Six computers have failed the
Y2K compatibility tests and were scheduled to be replaced or
upgraded this year.''
Maryland Department of the Environment (FY 1999 grant allocation
reduce 31.3 percent below state estimate.)
The examples of the impacts of OSM's fiscal year 1999 Title V grant
allocations go on and on. To OSM's credit, the agency has agreed to
seek a supplemental appropriation to shore up state grants and we would
urge you to approve such a request. As important, however, is the need
to reverse the debilitating trend that has resulted in the dire
circumstances now facing the states in fiscal year 1999. We therefore
urge you to increase the budgeted amount for Title V grants in fiscal
year 2000 to $55.4 million, which is what the states have projected
their actual needs to be in fiscal year 2000. To the extent that states
face anticipated shortfalls in fiscal year 1999 and assuming that a
supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1999 fails, the amount of
funding needed for fiscal year 2000 may increase by an additional $1.2
million in order to make the states whole.
It is critical that you understand the basis for the states'
estimates of program costs for fiscal year 2000. Those estimates, which
are not reflected in OSM's budget justification document but which are
attached to this statement, are based on actual projected costs and are
not inflated to anticipate a reduction by OSM to achieve budget target
levels. The states have been instructed by OSM to provide their best
estimates based on anticipated actual program costs. The states provide
OSM with two estimates, one at 18 months out which is used to prepare
the initial budget proposal and another at 3 months out just prior to
submission of the Department's final budget to OMB. These latter
numbers are as accurate, credible and realistic as possible and reflect
the true program costs and funding needs of the states.
For years now, we have tried to impress upon OSM and your
subcommittee the value and importance of these estimates and the
necessity of meeting the states' funding needs. In fiscal year 1999,
the folly of failing to do so has resulted in significant negative
impacts on state regulatory programs. It will require all of the
states' fiscal ingenuity and belt-tightening efforts, together with
some difficult trade-offs, to manage our programs and resources in such
a way that we can achieve the same level of performance that has been
expected from us in the past. We are especially concerned about the
impacts of this funding crisis on OSM's evaluation of state programs
pursuant to federal oversight. How ironic it would be for the states to
receive something less than the high marks we have consistently
received from OSM due to reduced grant funding.
It is especially frustrating for the states to be faced with this
dilemma this fiscal year when OSM has finally heard our pleas about the
need to increase Title IV (AML) grants. We obviously support this
increase and strongly endorse OSM's plan to continue these increase
over the next few years until the AML program is funded at a level
commensurate with fee receipts. The states are prepared to deliver the
expected benefits and services to our customers under the Title IV AML
program in a cost-effective and efficient manner and welcome the new
opportunities presented by increased AML funding. The inventory of
existing AML problems clearly presents the states with a challenge to
direct whatever AML grant moneys are available to the remediation of
these remaining problems. The states welcome that challenge and stand
ready to proceed expeditiously as moneys continue to be allocated from
the Trust Fund.
However, it must be kept in mind that the key to avoiding future
AMLs is an effective Title V regulatory program that assures active
mining will occur in a controlled and environmentally responsible
manner. Adequate Title V grants are the lifeblood of effective state
regulatory programs. Should states be unable or unwilling to operate
these programs due to funding constraints, the federal government will
be faced with the burden of operating regulatory programs at a
substantially increased cost. Further, without Title V programs in
place, states are unable to access Title IV funds, in spite of OSM's
proposed increases. In the final analysis, it behooves everyone--OSM,
the Congress and the states--to commit the resources necessary to
assure strong and effective state programs that will achieve the
purposes and objectives of SMCRA, thereby protecting the environment
where active mining operations occur and enhancing the environment
through remediation of past problems associated with abandoned mines.
OSM has proposed an amount of $11.6 million for technology
development and transfer, which includes improving and expanding the
services and technical systems provided to states. We wholeheartedly
endorse this commitment by OSM to strengthening and enhancing state
programs. In this regard, one of the most successful programs of
technical support for the states undertaken by OSM is the development
of the Technical Information Processing System (TIPS). TIPS assists the
states in making technical decisions associated with permit reviews;
performing cumulative hydrologic impact assessments; quantifying
potential effects of coal mining; quantifying revegetation success;
assisting in the design of AML projects; and preparing environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements. This function will be
particularly important given several pending issues such as mountaintop
removal/valley fills, blasting and subsidence. TIPS will also be
critical in the ongoing efforts by the states to develop effective
electronic permitting functions. We are hopeful that funding will be
available to replace or update the current TIPS workstations, many of
which are in dire need of attention.
We also urge the subcommittee to continue its support of OSM
funding for states to attend OSM technical training sessions. Given
state budget constrains as detailed above, travel to these valuable OSM
training sessions is impossible without federal funding. OSM's
technical training program is one of the shining stars of the federal
program and is an excellent example of how OSM can best support the
states in the implementation of their programs. This program is also a
stellar example of state/federal cooperation in achieving the goals of
SMCRA.
We are also hopeful that OSM, as part of its commitment to
technical services, will continue to support funding for the Computer-
Assisted Library Search Service, which benefits both the mineral
producing states and the public. The system provides searches to yield
complete and accurate data in minutes, thereby eliminating the need for
staff manually search through volumes of documents. As implementation
of SMCRA becomes more and more complex, the need for this service has
increased. The states, in particular, have become reliant on the
system's ability to assist us with the implementation of our programs
and to address the myriad compliance actions that attend enforcement of
our programs.
Finally, we urge continued funding for the Small Operators
Assistance Program (SOAP). This program is critical to the permitting
of remining operations by small operators, especially the costs
associated with background water quality assessments, overburden
analysis, and probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) predictions.
Without financial assistance to undertake these expensive analyses,
small operators will be unable to submit quality permit packages for
potential remining operations. This will, in turn, result in additional
burdens on state and federal AML program funds as remining operations
will be unavailable to correct problems that currently are on the AML
inventory.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on OSM's
fiscal year 2000 budget request. Should you have any questions or
require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
STATES' FISCAL YEAR 2000 TITLE V REGULATORY GRANT REQUESTS (MAY 1998)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSM revised
estimate (as
listed in OSM's
State State request budget
justification
document)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $1,029,275 $929,722
Alaska............................ 178,872 161,571
Arkansas.......................... 179,871 162,474
Colorado.......................... 1,977,084 1,785,858
Illinois.......................... 2,482,102 2,242,030
Indiana........................... 2,098,457 1,895,492
Iowa.............................. 164,352 148,456
Kansas............................ 115,481 104,312
Kentucky.......................... 13,050,259 11,788,022
Louisiana......................... 187,128 169,029
Maryland.......................... 583,986 527,502
Mississippi....................... 132,072 119,298
Missouri.......................... 459,947 415,460
Montana........................... 1,035,810 935,625
New Mexico........................ 630,159 569,209
North Dakota...................... 542,130 489,695
Ohio.............................. 2,307,000 2,083,864
Oklahoma.......................... 999,991 903,271
Pennsylvania...................... 11,365,156 10,265,904
Texas............................. 1,446,392 1,306,495
Utah.............................. 1,670,163 1,508,623
Virginia.......................... 3,245,664 2,931,739
West Virginia..................... 8,027,870 7,251,405
Wyoming........................... 1,506,671 1,360,944
-------------------------------------
Totals...................... 55,415,892 50,656,000
=====================================
Shortfall in state requested funding................. 4,759,892
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Timothy H. Quinn, Acting General Manager,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) submits the following comments for the record regarding
fiscal year (FY) 2000 funding for activities by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) with regard to its participation in the Department of
the Interior's Colorado River Salinity Control Program. The 1984
amendments to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Act),
direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive program
to minimize salt contributions to the Colorado River from federally
owned lands administered by the BLM.
Metropolitan is a wholesale water supplier responsible for meeting
the supplemental needs of the 16 million residents and the associated
economy within its service area on the coastal plain of Southern
California. The Colorado River continues to meet more than one-half of
these supplemental water needs, and Metropolitan is vitally concerned
that the quality of this irreplaceable water supply be maintained.
Metropolitan requests that Congress allocate $5.2 million of the
Management of Land and Resources appropriation, Land Resources
activity, Soil, Water, and Air Management subactivity for fiscal year
2000, for BLM's continued participation in the Colorado River salinity
control program. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
salinity control activities schedule that seeks to maintain the water
quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the interstate organization that
coordinates the Basin states' salinity control efforts, supports this
level of funding. Use of these funds would be for immediate
implementation of salinity control measures through improvements in
rangeland management.
Due to geological conditions, the land within the Colorado River
Basin is composed largely of soils heavily laden with salts. Large
portions of these lands are federally owned, and are managed by the BLM
for a variety of uses: recreation; road building and transportation;
oil, gas and mineral exploration and production; and most
significantly, grazing. As a result, man has induced and accelerated
the natural erosion processes. When such soils and rocks heavily laden
with salt are eroded, much of the resulting silt is carried along in
the Colorado River and its tributaries--sometimes for long distances.
Ultimately, the silt settles in the streambed or on the flood plain.
The salts, however, are dissolved in the water and remain in the
stream, appearing in the water supplies of downstream users. The
accumulative nature of these salts causes more severe water quality
impacts the farther downstream each succeeding use occurs.
The rangeland management programs of the BLM have demonstrated that
they can bring about some of the most cost-effective salinity control
actions available. While effective at reducing unnecessary salt
addition to this important water supply source, these actions are
environmentally oriented as they are designed to prevent erosion,
enhance wildlife habitats, and increase grazing opportunities. The BLM
has studied hundreds of watersheds in the States of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming as potential sites for implementation, and has selected several
locations where promising control measures could be implemented within
a very short timeframe. Such measures are projected to have an early
beneficial impact on the salinity of Colorado River water received by
downstream users.
Metropolitan believes it is essential that your Subcommittee
support the allocation of the recommended funding of $5.2 million for
the BLM's activities on Colorado River salinity control for fiscal year
2000. Your assistance and support to ensure continued funding of the
Colorado River Salinity Control Program now and in the future will
continue the progress already achieved by this model of
intergovernmental cooperation.
We appreciate your support and stand ready to work with you and
your Subcommittee. Please contact Brad Hiltscher, Metropolitan's
Legislative Representative in Washington, D.C. at (202) 296-3551 if we
can answer any questions or provide additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
The Governing Board of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony in support of a $5
million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management for acquisitions
in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. The Conservancy was
established by the California Legislature in 1991 to acquire and hold
in trust open space in the mountainous lands surrounding the Coachella
Valley, and to provide for the public's enjoyment and use of those
lands consistent with the protection of cultural, scientific, scenic,
and wildlife resources.
The Scenic Area is the mountain range that forms the backdrop of
the Coachella Valley cities, including Palm Springs, Cathedral City,
Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. The mountains
rise quite steeply from the desert floor to an alpine environment atop
San Jacinto Peak at 10,800 feet. The resource values in the mountains
run the gamut from scenic and wildlife to cultural and recreational.
The Scenic Area is of great importance to the Coachella Valley's
economy, and hundreds of thousands of people who come to the desert
each year for vacation enjoy our mountains, and, in so doing,
contribute to the local economy.
The Conservancy would like to inform you about two partnerships.
The first partnership is the local, state, and federal partnership that
has been working for years to protect the National Scenic Area. The
attached chart shows the magnitude of this partnership. Since 1990 the
state of California has provided over $20 million for acquisition and
the local communities nearly $10 million, including $3.9 million since
January 1st for a key acquisition in Andreas Canyon. BLM has
contributed over $11 million in LWCF money in that time period. This is
a partnership that you can be proud of having supported, and you can be
confident that your continued support will again leverage state and
local contributions. With the listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep
as an endangered species last year, we are in ever-greater need of
acquisition funding to protect the National Scenic Area, which is home
to the magnificent bighorn sheep. Land acquisition activities are
accelerating in an effort to avert conflicts over the bighorn sheep and
to enhance protection for the species.
The Conservancy and BLM are currently talking with nine key
landowners about the acquisition of their property. Together their
holdings total 13,830 acres, the total value of which is in the range
of $19 to $26 million. Five of these landowners are committed willing
sellers at an estimated cost of $3.4 million, and the BLM's remaining
fiscal year 1999 LWCF money will initiate these acquisitions.
Appraisals are currently being conducted on these properties. Of the
other four landowners, three have indicated a strong interest in
selling, contingent upon the purchase price being determined and how
quickly the acquisitions could occur. The value of their land is in
excess of $10 million. The final landowner has not yet indicated
whether or not he wants to sell. The requested $5 million appropriation
would complete the pending projects and enable BLM to initiate one or
more of the other willing seller acquisitions. The Conservancy is
optimistic that state funds will be available in the coming fiscal year
to provide a significant state contribution toward those acquisitions.
The second partnership is the southern California NCCP cooperative
effort. Representatives from NCCP efforts in five counties meet monthly
to share information and provide mutual support for each other's
efforts. Collectively, these NCCP plans comprise the core of a
bioregional conservation plan for all of southern California. This is
certainly one of, if not the most, most comprehensive and proactive
planning efforts in the nation. We also request your support for the
funding needs of our NCCP partners, namely, $10 million in acquisition
funds for the San Diego Wildlife Refuge, $2 million in acquisition
funds for Otay Mountain, and $2 million in NCCP planning funds. To meet
other needs in the area, as well as in other areas of the country, we
support $80 in Cooperative Endangered Species Act funding and full
funding for the LWCF program.
In conclusion, the Conservancy would like to update you on some of
the successful acquisition efforts in the Scenic Area. We are pleased
to report the completion of a partnership acquisition by the BLM and
the City of Palm Desert, in which each contributed $1.25 million to
acquire the C.C. Myers property. Also, as alluded to earlier, the
County of Riverside recently committed $1.9 million and the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians committed $2 million to acquire the
Andreas Cove Development Company property at the mouth of Andreas
Canyon. The Conservancy purchased 91 acres and the Friends of the
Desert Mountains have 213 acres in escrow, using Adopt an Acre program
contributions from community members and corporate sponsors.
Land and Water Conservation fund money has been well spent in the
Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area because of these
partnerships. The money is an investment in more than land. It is an
investment in a model of local, state, and federal agencies working
successfully together, and with diverse private sector groups. The
Coachella Valley has an excellent history of such cooperative efforts
in land acquisition and in preparing successful plans to deal with
endangered species issues. That cooperation is alive and well today; in
fact it is healthier than ever. An LWCF appropriation is a key
ingredient in the recipe for the success we have had and are continuing
to enjoy. The Conservancy hopes this Subcommittee will support an LWCF
appropriation as you have in the past.
______
Prepared Statement of Rollin D. Sparrowe, President, Wildlife
Management Institute
Chairman Gorton, the Wildlife Management Institute, founded in
1911, is a non-profit organization staffed by experienced resource
management professionals dedicated to improving the management of
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
funding for wildlife and range programs
We at the Institute are very concerned about the lack of funding
for the Bureau of Land Management, particularly its wildlife and range
management programs. The BLM manages the largest area of public lands
in the United States (264 million acres), and 162 million acres is
rangeland in the western States. We are concerned that the President's
requests for the Wildlife and Fisheries program ($34.688 million) and
Rangeland Management ($67.217 million) are inadequate. These two
programs have been underfunded and understaffed for so long that the
staff are taking a perverse pride in doing without. The number of BLM
wildlife biologists, for example, is lower than it was almost 20 years
ago--275. The Forest Service, which is also understaffed, has 376 FTE's
and needs 454 FTEs. Furthermore, those biologists currently working for
the BLM are frequently pulled into the office to work on grazing
permits and other paperwork, and are unavailable for on-the-ground
work.
We strongly support the President's request for $4.3 million to
conduct interdisciplinary grazing permit reviews and to complete
integration of the standards and guidelines into local land-use plans.
We hope this new funding will alleviate some of the staffing and range
managment problems we have seen in the past. We also support the
proposed minimum $3.5 million increase for control and eradication of
invasive weed species, $1.092 million increase for the wild horse and
burro management program, and $740,000 increase for riparian
management.
sage grouse, lesser prairie chicken, and black tailed prairie dog
Although we strongly support the BLM's Wildlife and Range Programs
throughout the nation, we are very concerned about the condition of
wildlife habitat in the Great Basin and Southwest, where the BLM and
other federal land management agencies are facing a major wildlife
crisis. In addition to the nearly 100 species already listed or
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, several others
are on the verge of being listed including the sage grouse, the lesser
prairie chicken, and the black-tailed prairie dog. The demise of these
species is but one signal that major habitat problems in these two
regions are not adequately addressed.
The State of Utah recently listed sage grouse as a Sensitive
Species, and the decline of the sage grouse is not limited to Utah. In
a February 1999 letter addressed to the directors of three federal land
management agencies, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies states that, ``The Association is very concerned about current
population trends of sage grouse. Nearly all populations appear to have
declined significantly over the past 20 years. Reasons for declines in
sage grouse populations are varied and complex, but most seem directly
related to habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation . . . . Without
adequate resource consideration for sage grouse and a proactive habitat
enhancement program that includes compatible sagebrush steppe
management actions and programs, it is unlikely that sage grouse
management goals and viability can be achieved. As you may know, there
are already preliminary inquiries being made by some members of the
public to list sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.''
One area of particular concern is the sage grouse population in
southwestern Wyoming where extensive development of new oil and gas
fields is planned. Thousands of new wells with attendant roads,
pipelines, and other facilities are planned in sagebrush habitat from
the Green River to Pinedale. In combination with other types of habitat
loss, this new development could result in the listing of sage grouse.
We are concerned that environmental assessments do not adequately
address habitat for sage grouse and other wildlife. In the Pinedale
area, Sublette antelope and mule deer populations have declined, and
hunting seasons have been shortened as a result. Loss of preferred
habitat may slow or prevent their recovery.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the lesser prairie
chicken should be listed but precluded under the Endangered Species
Act. This species' habitat is mostly east of BLM lands and on private
land; however, lesser prairie chickens occupy remnants of their range
in New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Again loss of habitat is
the suspected cause of this species decline. Lesser prairie chicken
habitat has been converted to agricultural land, and overgrazing and
``control'' of shinnery oak have also had adverse effects. BLM
biologists in New Mexico have been working on grazing plans to resolve
some of these problems.
The black-tailed prairie dog, once widely distributed, now occupies
less than 1 percent of its former range, and its population has
declined to about 2 percent of historic numbers. Causes of its decline
are again multiple: disease, poisoning, conversion of its habitat to
favor livestock, and unregulated shooting. Tied closely to this species
is the already listed black-footed ferret.
The listing of these three species under the Endangered Species Act
would almost certainly affect grazing, mineral development, and
recreational use of both public and private lands. To reiterate, the
nation would be far better served if the needs of these species were
met before they become listed.
wildlife and fish habitat program initiatives
The BLM's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program has
identified three internal initiatives that should improve wildlife
habitat in the Great Basin and the Southwest Desert: $16 million for a
Great Basin Shrub-steppe initiative, $16 million for the Southwest
Desert Initiative, and $6.8 million for a Riparian and Wetlands
Initiative. The Wildlife Management Institute supports these
initiatives and would like to see them fully funded with increases in
the agency's budget, rather than funded at the President's request
level. The BLM manages 40 million acres of shrub-steppe habitat in the
Great Basin and Intermountain West. Wildlife habitat in this area has
deteriorated because of many causes, including altered fire regimes,
overgrazing, and oil and gas development. Now, about one third is
dominated by annual grasses and noxious weeds. The Southwest Desert and
riparian areas are also at risk because of a variety of reasons
including altered fire regimes and overgrazing by domestic livestock,
wild horses, and burros.
The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program has identified about $26
million dollars worth of projects that will NOT be funded in the
President's budget request. Of this amount, $20 million worth of
projects are in the Great Basin, Southwest Desert, and in riparian
areas and wetlands. For example, unfunded projects for sage grouse
include prescribed burns in timber and sagebrush-grasslands, sagebrush
management, expanded monitoring of sage grouse, studies of the effects
of oil and gas development on sage grouse, controlling cheatgrass,
delineating key nesting habitats and controlling livestock in these
areas, inventorying sage grouse habitat, improving grazing management,
and improving riparian brood-rearing areas. In New Mexico, the BLM
plans to leave a Challenge Cost Share program for the lesser prairie
chicken on the table because the agency does not have enough money to
match private funds. There are other unfunded projects as well for elk,
desert bighorn sheep, Dall sheep, moose, management of wild horses and
burros, and projects to reduce conflicts between wildlife and domestic
livestock.
riparian areas
The BLM has completed an inventory of most of its riparian areas,
and about half are in need of immediate action to prevent them from
further deterioration. Riparian areas are not only important for fish,
they are important for wildlife. In the desert Southwest, for example,
stream banks are oases for wildlife and a birdwatcher's paradise. In
the Great Basin, sage grouse, elk, deer, and many other species are
dependent on riparian areas. The agency has identified $8 million in
unfunded projects for riparian and wetlands restoration.
rangelands
The BLM has inventoried about half of the 162 million acres of
rangelands that it manages, and only 36 percent is in ``late seral''
(good ) or ``potential natural community'' (excellent) status. The
remainder needs work. In the Great Basin, the agency has identified
tens of thousands of acres that need to be burned because they are
pinyon-juniper or juniper or cheatgrass dominated lands. The incursion
of pinyon pine and junipers into previous grass and shrub habitat
reduces watershed function, wildlife habitat, and livestock forage and
increases conflicts between wildlife and livestock. Improved livestock
management and habitat restoration are needed on these lands. About 62
million acres has some cheatgrass or medusahead wildrye and is at risk
of being dominated by these two invasive weeds. The agency admits that
it does not have the staff to implement a large restoration program.
seeking common ground
Seeking Common Ground was established to lessen conflicts between
livestock and wildlife by improving range habitat and increasing the
availability of water. Seeking Common Ground is an ideal example of
local people solving local problems on federal and private land in the
national interest. All projects approved for funding under Seeking
Common Ground must be cooperative projects between federal and State
agencies, ranchers, and non-governmental organizations.
An estimated $500,000 is needed for these projects, equally divided
between the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In
the past, the BLM has taken the funding for this program from other
underfunded programs. This program should be funded with add-on moneys
to avoid distortions within the agency's other wildlife and range
programs.
challenge cost share
We support the BLM's Challenge Cost Share Program; however, any
amount earmarked for Challenge Cost Share should also be a budget add-
on. The BLM has such a lean budget that earmarks for specific programs
under past budgets have caused distortion in the agency's other
programs.
Challenge Cost Share Programs can substantially increase funding of
habitat improvement programs. For example, the U.S. Forest Service has
been able to match each federal dollar with almost $2.5 of non-federal
funds. The BLM has Challenge Cost Share dollars on the table because
the agency did not have staff or matching funds.
In conclusion, we are very concerned about funding for the BLM,
particularly its wildlife and range management programs. Under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM has the responsibility
for managing habitat for all wildlife--a responsibility equal to that
of managing a vast amount of the nation's mineral estate. It appears
that the President's budget request is inadequate to meet this agency's
obligations to the nation.
Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to work with you, the Committee,
and staff to provide further documentation and to help avert a future
wildlife crisis on much of the nation's public land.
______
Prepared Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado
River Board of California
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 2000 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.
As you are aware, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the
largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Much of the lands that
are controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past
management practices have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional
processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been
deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result of this
disposition, salt is dissolved into the River System causing water
quality problems downstream.
Congress has charged federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity measures available. In keeping with the
Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the
salinity control program, the Colorado River Board is requesting that
Congress appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to
support the BLM's portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program.
The President's proposed budget has included $641 million in BLM's
budget for Management of Lands and Renewal Resources. 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 appropriate
$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 $750
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 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 assist the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) budget, as
proposed by the Administration, supports ecosystems and watershed
management. The activities needed to control salts 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 are 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 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 for
activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands
in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2000. The Forum simply
supports the President's Budget because we presume, but cannot discern,
that adequate funds will be expended on 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 recent efforts by the Bureau of Land Management. A
salinity coordinator for the basinwide program has been selected.
Salinity coordinators in each of the state offices have been
identified. There has been a meeting to help coordinate a basinwide
effort that involved the basinwide salinity coordinator and the state
representatives. The Bureau of Land Management should move to identify
salinity control goals under the Government Performances and Results
Act (GPRA) and report to Congress each year its accomplishments. The
Forum is receiving more meaningful reports from BLM representatives.
The success of the Bureau of Land Management in controlling erosion
and, hence, salt contributions to the Colorado River and its
tributaries is essential to the success of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program and the adherence to water quality standards
that have been adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Forum submits this
testimony in support of adequate funding so that the Bureau of Land
Management programs can move ahead at a pace that is needed to meet
these water quality standards.
overview
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through a minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being
delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established
a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water
users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then
newly 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 a portion
of the Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while 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 program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept, in
addition to proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts
in the Colorado River Basin.
Since the Congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. Reclamation recognizes that the damages to United States' water
users alone 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. 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 concentrations measured at Imperial, and below 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 even more
widespread in the United States.
justification
The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the
Colorado River Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed
by the Bureau of Land Management is heavily laden with salt. Past
management practices, which include the use of lands for recreation;
for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral
exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional
processes. When soil and rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt
is carried along for some distance and ultimately settles in the
streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved and remain
in the river system causing water quality problems downstream.
The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and
important responsibility with respect to controlling pick-up of salt
from public lands. The Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission
report finds this to be true. Congress charged federal agencies,
including the BLM, to proceed with measures to control the salinity of
the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-
effective options. It has been determined that BLM's rangeland
improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective
salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures
may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation and by the Department of
Agriculture. They are very environmentally acceptable, as they will
prevent erosion, increase grazing opportunities, increase dependable
stream 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 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 2000, by the Bureau of Land Management,
$5,200,000 for salinity control. We are particularly concerned that the
appropriation titled Management of Lands and Renewable Resources is
adequately funded. The Forum also requests that a specific amount,
$800,000, be marked for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program as has been the direction from the Committee in the past.
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 subactivities 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, perhaps through GPRA, by the Bureau of Land Management in
such a way that the results of their salinity control activities in
connection with the expenditures of funds can be reviewed and measured.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming
This testimony supports fiscal year 2000 funding for the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to carry out Colorado River Basin salinity
control activities. You will soon receive testimony from the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin States that is being submitted by the Forum's
Executive Director, Jack Barnett. The State of Wyoming concurs in the
fiscal year 2000 funding request and justification statements for BLM
funding set forth in the Forum's testimony.
The State of Wyoming is one of the seven member states represented
on the Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council. The Council was created by Section 204 of the 1974 Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320, and like the
Forum, is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the seven
Colorado River Basin states. Both the Council and Forum serve important
liaison roles among the seven states, the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The Council is directed by statute to advise these
federal officials on the progress of the federal/state cost-shared,
basin-wide salinity control programs, and annually recommends to the
Federal agencies what level of funding it believes is required to allow
the Program to meet its objective of assuring continuing compliance
with the basin-wide water quality standards.
The Council met most recently in October, 1998 and developed
funding recommendations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 based on the
progress the Programs are making in managing and reducing the salt
loading into the Colorado River System. Based on analyses made by the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Forum and after conferring with BLM
agency officials, the Council recommends that the BLM expend $5,200,000
in fiscal year 2000 to accomplish activities that BLM either has
underway or should initiate in order to further control the
concentrations of salinity of the Colorado River.
It is particularly important that the BLM's line-item for
Management of Lands and Renewable Resources be adequately funded. We
further request that the specific funding amount of $800,000 be marked
for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the
direction to the BLM from the Committee in past years. Section 203(b)
of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act as amended directs the
Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive program for
minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This is both important
and appropriate because the BLM is the largest manager of land in the
Colorado River Basin (53 million acres of public lands in the Colorado
River Basin above Yuma, Arizona) and because salt loading reductions on
BLM-managed rangelands can be done more economically than some of the
methods available to and projects being implemented by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture.
The Council and Forum recognize the major role that the BLM can
have in the Colorado River Basin salinity control effort if more
attention, effort and focus by the BLM is brought to bear on
controlling salt discharges from the federal lands it manages. Great
opportunity exists to decrease salt loading from BLM-managed lands to
the river system. The Secretary of the Interior is directed by the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to give preference to those
salinity control efforts which reduce salinity at the least cost per
unit of salinity reduction, e.g. in the most cost-effective manner. The
Forum and Council have aggressively urged, and will continue to
encourage, the BLM to identify, plan and develop additional projects
that will remove, or prevent the loading of, a greater tonnage of salts
from the River system.
The State of Wyoming wishes to emphasize the statement found in the
Forum's testimony that while we are not opposed to BLM's budgetary
process of focusing on ecosystem and watershed management, it remains
essential that the expenditure of funds be directed to specific sub-
activities and that the accounting for expenditures be done in such a
manner that monitoring can take place on how the funds were used, what
resources were benefitted and which natural resource concerns
addressed. Wyoming and the other member states of the Forum have been
frustrated by BLM's approach of identifying where funds are allocated
as opposed to what purposes or how they are used to accomplish specific
activities, objectives and benefits. The same difficulty exists with
regard to accounting for how allocated funds have been expended. The
BLM is simply unable at the present time to indicate how much money it
is spending or where it is being spent to achieve salinity control
benefits. For this reason, the Forum expressed in its testimony a
strong desire to have the Congress direct the BLM to implement or
modify its existing accounting practices to enable the Basin States to
understand how much money this agency is allocating, and what results
are being obtained, in carrying out its mandate for implementing a
comprehensive program to minimize salt contributions from lands it
administers. Thank you for your consideration of this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of Constance D. Holmes, Senior Vice President,
Policy National Mining Association
The National Mining Association's (NMA) \1\ 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 2000 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NMA has not received a federal grant, contract, or
subcontract in fiscal years 1999, 1998, or 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of fossil energy
An underlying reason for the strength of the United States economy
is low-cost energy and especially the availability of electricity
generated by coal, now approximately 56 percent of total. Much of the
existing utility generating capacity is now reaching the end of its
useful life and the challenge as we move into the 21st century will be
the simultaneous replacement and expansion of our generating system
with technologies that use our domestic fossil resource base while
minimizing both environmental impacts and generating costs. The
Department of Energy's past R&D activities in the area of coal research
and coal generation provide a good basis for the technologies that will
be required to maintain and expand use of coal while addressing
existing and possibly more stringent environmental standards. The
addition of a possible requirement to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide adds yet another dimension. But, while great strides have been
made, improvements in both environmental performance and efficiency
must continue. NMA supports maintaining DOE's R&D activities at least
at the levels proposed in the fiscal year 2000 Budget request. These
activities are targeted at technologies that will be required in the
near term (from now until 2010) and in the long term (post 2010).
During the near term, the results of the Clean Coal Technology
program will begin to be seen. This program has been a highly
successful industry and government partnership designed to demonstrate
a new generation of innovative coal processes. NMA is concerned about
the fiscal year 2000 request for a $246 million deferral in the Clean
Coal Technology program. This deferral could jeopardize future funding
of two projects in particular, which remain to be completed under this
program--the Clean Energy Demonstration Project (an IGCC and fuel cell
project planned for southern Illinois) and the combined steelmaking and
power generation project planned for Geneva, Utah.
Other near term projects which NMA supports (which are an outgrowth
of the Clean Coal Technology program) include the funding for low
emission boiler system and the work ongoing on pressurized fluidized
bed combustion, primarily at the Wilsonville Power System Development
plant.
Over the longer term, the continuing use of coal as a valuable
resource may depend upon the results of two major research areas
undertaken by DOE.
Vision 21.--Vision 21 is developing the power plant of the future
and is, for coal, a cornerstone of DOE's long term program. The goal is
a 60 percent efficient power plant with the flexibility to produce
power from coal along with premium fuels and chemicals while
incorporating industrial process heat generation to boost overall
thermal efficiencies to as high as 85 percent while reducing carbon
emissions by more than 62 percent. Vision 21 will take advantage of and
expand many of the technologies developed in the Clean Coal program
(for example, PFBC and IGCC). Over the last year preliminary studies
have been undertaken and now that they are complete, it is important to
move rapidly into the design and development of key modules for this
new fleet of power plants. This is a long term program and the work
that DOE is proposing for fiscal year 2000 Vision 21 effort is critical
if the technologies being developed under this program are to be
available in the post 2010 time period.
Carbon Sequestration.--Equally important for the continuing
availability of affordable electricity is development of a suite of
technologies that will capture, or sequester, carbon emissions. It is
uncertain at this point (and possibly unlikely) that carbon
sequestration would be required, but carbon sequestration technologies
will require several years to develop and research must be expanded now
to have these technologies available should they be needed. NMA
supports DOE Fossil Energy's request to increase the research dollars
available for carbon sequestration work from $6.1 million in fiscal
year 1999 to $9 million in fiscal year 2000. The three-pronged
approaches--traditional research, enhancing sinks and searching for
``breakthrough'' technologies are a solid and reasonable approach. We
would advocate however, that this program is of sufficient importance
to support funding above the $9 million requested by the
Administration.
Coal Research and Development.--The NMA requests significant
continuing funding for coal preparation and direct and indirect
liquefaction. Advanced coal preparation technologies promise to reduce
the cost of continued 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 both turbines for power and the production of liquid fuels.
These systems are not only critical as an insurance policy against the
disruption of imported oil to the U.S., but they are 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
that traditionally have not been active in fossil energy. The National
Laboratory system is an important complement to the future of the coal-
based generation through advancing R&D Programs for more efficient
combustion technologies.
office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
The Mining 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 as the research agenda needed to take the mining industry to
the 21st Century. The mining industry has completed a statement
defining the goals that the mining industry should attain by 2020 in
six areas: exploration and characterization of resources; extraction;
processing; utilization; environment and health and safety. A
technology roadmap has been completed which defines research
requirements in some detail and the first solicitation has been issued
for proposals in each of the above areas. In 1999 two-additional
roadmaps will be completed looking in more detail at requirements in
extraction and in processing. NMA solicits the subcommittee's
continuing support for the mining industry portion of this program and
requests support for the increase in funding requested by DOE for this
program. This request is for $3 million in fiscal year 2000.
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 forecasts form a basis for reasoned and
responsible policy decisions by the Congress, the DOE and other
government agencies on both the federal and state levels. EIA's
independence and objectivity are especially important as the Nation
considers the effects of new initiatives such as utility restructuring
and climate change policies on our energy system, and our dependence on
foreign sources of energy. 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. Unfortunately, over the past
several years funding levels for EIA have been level or declining. Over
the longer term this is counterproductive and will adversely affect the
level, accuracy and timeliness of the information provided to industry
and policy makers. We urge the subcommittee to support current levels
of funding as a minimum, and increase the amount available to EIA if at
all possible.
office of surface mining
The Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program receives funding from coal
operators and its purpose is to provide for the ``no-fault''
reclamation of sites disturbed before the passage of SMCRA and not
reclaimed to the Act's standards. NMA supports OSM's objective of
funding the AML program at a level commensurate to fee receipts by
2003. In fact, OSM should have been requesting funding all along at the
level of annual receipts. However, NMA encourages the Subcommittee to
insure that increased expenditures are used for ``on the ground''
reclamation, not AML administration
NMA is concerned by the lack of adequate funding for states under
the Title V grant program. NMA has long supported state primacy. The
history of SMCRA has shown that this aspect of SMCRA is working. States
have long ago manifested both the expertise and the will to manage
strong surface mining programs. OSM has recently evidenced its desire
to partner with the states. The Subcommittee should recognize this
effort by increasing state funding.
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 is the major source of employment and tax revenues
in rural communities.
Industry continues to work with the Western Governors' Association
pursuant to a memorandum of agreement to identify and work toward the
elimination of disincentives to the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines
in the West. It appears, as one reviews the BLM, USGS and Forest
Service's proposed budgets that these agencies intend to allot
significant amounts of money to the cleanup of abandoned mines in
historic mining districts. These funds are hidden, however, within
programs and initiatives such as the ``President's Clean Water
Initiative'' and various watershed initiatives. States and industry are
unable to find matching federal funds for on-the-ground cleanup in this
morass of jargon and duplicative programs.
Regarding the President's ``Lands Legacy Proposal,'' NMA agrees
with the Chairman's assessment that ``It is simply irresponsible to
take on new land responsibilities and give grants to cities, states and
private institutions when we cannot afford to adequately take care of
our primary federal responsibilities--the public lands.'' The Forest
Service's Mineral's and Geology program is a victim of similar de facto
budget reductions. The Forest Service budget justification shows
continued reductions in the Minerals and Geology budget; however, the
Washington headquarters' overhead increases and the field allocations
decrease. This headquarters' overhead is not used for the Minerals and
Geology Management program; it is allocated to the agency's national
programs referred to as National Commitments that have little or
nothing to do with the effective operation of the minerals program.
The results of these funding shortfalls in the field are extended
Environmental Impact Statement reviews (sometimes as long as 8 years),
delays in mine plan processing, and inadequate federal compliance
monitoring. These ``National Commitments,'' like the proposed ``Lands
Legacy Proposal,'' are not peculiar to the Forest Service. The same
type of actions are occurring in the BLM where the agency continues to
expend resources to promulgate revisions to its Surface Management
rules even though the Governors from affected states consider the
proposal duplicative of existing state mining and other environmental
programs and the National Academy of Sciences is currently studying the
adequacy of existing rules.
The mining industry, as well as other natural resource industries,
is faced with increasing impediments to exploration and use of federal
lands. Withdrawals of land from exploration by executive fiat coupled
with NEPA review and permitting delays, are resulting in a marked
decline in domestic exploration and development activity on BLM and
Forest Service lands. With major mining companies scaling back U.S.
exploration activities, the Nation's ability to continue to produce
domestically the 46,000 pounds minerals annually consumed per citizen
is jeopardized.
u.s. geological survey
Federal Investment in geoscience research and information continue
to pay enormous dividends and the rationale for continued support of
geoscience remains strong. The Geological Survey's role in mineral
exploration, identification of geological hazards and mapping offers
important support to the mining industry. NMA supports maintaining
these programs at current, or expanded levels. In addition, the Survey
is the only source for most of the United States' statistical data on
mining and mineral's commodities. This information provides the basis
for informed policy decisions by government and is extensively used by
other government agencies, by Members of Congress and by state and
local governments, as well as by industry, academia and nongovernmental
organizations. NMA is concerned that funding for the data and
information functions has been declining since this area of
responsibility was transferred to the Survey. Staff levels and mining
expertise have declined significantly which affects the timeliness and
accuracy of the data. NMA strongly advocates that the Survey increase
the funding allocated to data and information while continuing to make
use of expertise available from state geologists.
advisory council on historic preservation
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recently voted
to finalize their rules amending their regulations implementing Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This action was taken
despite the Council's public announcement several weeks earlier that
they were withdrawing their proposed regulations and would pursue non-
regulatory guidance on Section 106. NMA commented on the Council's
proposed rule in November 1996, stating that the Council's ``. . .
attempt to expand its limited role under Section 106 in a manner that
transcends its statutory authority pervades almost the entire rule.''
NMA recommends that the ACHP be prohibited from further implemention of
revised Section 106 rules until it has fulfilled its statutory
responsibilities and provided meaningful notice and comment to the
public.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ornithological Council
The Ornithological Council consists of ten leading scientific
ornithological societies--the American Ornithologists' Union,
Association of Field Ornithologists, Seccion Mexican Consejo
Internacional para la Preservacion de las Aves (CIPAMEX), Cooper
Ornithological Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor Research
Foundation, Society of Canadian Ornithologists, Society of Caribbean
Ornithology, Waterbird Society, and Wilson Ornithological Society--that
together have a membership of nearly 6,500 ornithologists. It is our
mission to provide scientific information about birds to legislators,
regulatory agencies, industry decision makers, conservation
organizations and others, and to promote the use of that scientific
information in the making of policies that affect birds and the science
of ornithology. A number of the ornithologists who belong to our member
societies are either USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD)
researchers or employees of the land management and natural resource
agencies served by BRD.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this written testimony to
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies.
The Ornithological Council supports the administration's requested
increases for:
--USGS DOI Science Support--$30 million from new funds
--USGS Place-based Studies--$2.4 million
--USGS BRD--$1 million for the National Biological Information
Infrastructure
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird
Management--$2.38 million for migratory bird conservation and
monitoring and $288,000 for permit regulatory reform and
management improvements
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Refuges--$5.34 million
for wildlife protection and $5.03 million for habitat
improvement
--U.S. Forest Service--$37.2 million for forest and rangeland
research
In addition, we recommend allocations above the administration's
request as follows:
--USGS BRD--$15 million/year for three years, allocated to the
Science Centers
--USGS BRD--$3.5 million for continuation of Species and Habitat
research and $2.0 million for clean water initiative research
initiated in fiscal year 1999
--USGS BRD--$1 million for the Cooperative Research Units
--USGS BRD--$4 million for the National Biological Information
Infrastructure
--USFWS--$10 million for migratory bird management
--U.S. Forest Service--$410,000 for rangeland and grassland ecology
research
Together, these increases total $119,548,000. This amount is
insignificant compared to the economic value of maintaining the
resources or the cost of recovery from mismanagement. For instance,
according to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation, expenditures related to wildlife
watching in that year totaled $29.2 billion. Hunting and fishing
generated $71.9 billion in revenue.
funding for the usgs biological resources division, fiscal year 2000
Before commenting on specific aspects of the proposed budget for
BRD, we would like to bring to the attention of the Committee the
current status of funding for the BRD Science Centers, where the
research is actually conducted.
Deteriorating capacity of the BRD Science Centers
It is becoming increasing difficult for BRD to conduct biological
research because the Science Centers do not have adequate base funding.
The BRD budget declined from a peak of $161 million in FY1994 to a low
of $139 million in fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 2000 request of
$161.9 million is, therefore, approximately $37 million below the
fiscal year 1994 level (adjusted for inflation at 3 percent per year).
This inadequate funding has resulted in a deterioration of the capacity
of the BRD Science Centers to conduct the research assigned to those
Centers. Without sufficient base funding, the Science Centers rely on
either cyclical funding or contractual funding with agencies outside
the Department of Interior (DOI). Cyclical (year-to-year) funding is
inappropriate for most biological research, which typically spans
several years. If funding is not assured in advance for the anticipated
duration of the project, the research cannot be planned. Contractual
work for agencies outside the DOI (such as the Environmental Protection
Agency or the Department of Defense) precludes the researcher from
conducting BRD research, as the research time is necessarily allocated
to projects that have funding.
Some Science Centers have essentially no base funding. Even those
with the highest levels of base funding have experienced severe
reductions that impede their research programs. At the extreme end of
the scale, the Columbia Environmental Research Center, which has a
national mission of expertise in environmental toxicology and
chemistry, and a regional mission of ecosystem science for large rivers
and other ecosystems in the Central Region of the USGS, is operating
almost entirely on cyclical and contractual funding. Nearly 98 percent
of its funding goes to fixed costs.
Funding BRD at more than the requested level
The Ornithological Council supports the fiscal year 2000 Budget
Request for BRD, and in fact encourages the Committee to consider
appropriating a total of $21.26 million more than was requested. An
increase of $15 million per year, over the next three years, should
bring BRD back to the fiscal year 1994 enacted level, adjusted for
inflation, by fiscal year 2002. All or substantially all of this money
should be directed to the base funding of the Science Centers.
We also encourage continued funding of programs that were included
in the fiscal year 1999 enacted appropriations. These include $3.5
million for Species and Habitat research and $2 million for Clean Water
Initiative research. Biological research projects typically require
several years of data collection, because biological systems vary from
year to year. Conditions in any single year are not adequate to support
conclusions about the status of a species, of habitat, or of any other
component of the system. Therefore, to plan and conduct biological
research, there must be a reasonable assurance that funding will
continue for the anticipated duration of the project. We recognize the
importance of the projects that will be supported by the requested
increases (amphibian research and monitoring, research in the Hawaiian
Archipelago and on coral reefs) but these new initiatives should be
funded in addition to the existing programs, rather than supplanting
them.
We are also concerned about the proposed decrease for employee
travel and training ($760,000). Improving the delivery of information
from BRD to its partners requires that BRD scientists travel to
professional conferences, training sessions, and scientific
presentations. BRD scientists work closely with individual resource
managers in the federal and state public land and natural resource
management agencies. There is no substitute for this personal
interaction, whether on-site or at regional meetings.
Uncontrollables
In the past, BRD has been required to offset increases in
uncontrollables with decreases in research programs. This practice is
unacceptable. We support the requested increase for $3.757 million for
uncontrollables and urge Congress to instruct USGS not to require
reductions in research programs to offset increases in uncontrollables.
New funding for the DOI Science Support and Place-based Studies
programs
The requested budget for BRD includes funds that are actually
designated for two USGS multidisciplinary programs--$3.8 million for
Place-based Studies and $9.5 million for the new DOI Science Support
program. The Ornithological Council supports these programs but
believes that they should be funded with new funds rather than by
designating funding from the four USGS divisions. This is particularly
true with regard to BRD funds, which represent only 15 percent of the
overall USGS budget request and which is the smallest of the four
divisional budget requests.
Cooperative research units
The Cooperative Research Units have proven to be extremely
effective at addressing the information needs of BRD partners. We
support funding of $13.68 million ($1 million over the requested
amount), which will allow full staffing of all existing Cooperative
Research Units for the first time. It will also provide a small
increase in base operating funds of $5,000 per unit, although this is
little compensation for 20 years of level base funding.
Community/Federal Information Partnerships
Land use planning is central to local and state agencies. These
partnerships are needed to complete the GAP (Gap Analysis Program) in
all 50 states, which will give the state and local partners the
information and tools needed for land use planning and resource
management. We support the requested increase of $3 million for this
program.
National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII)
There is an astonishing amount of biological data generated by
federal, state, and private researchers, but it must be managed and
made accessible to resource managers. BRD is providing much-needed
leadership in the delivery of information to resource managers through
the NBII. Private conservation organizations, academicians, and others
can share their information through this system. However, as noted by
the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology
(PCAST), the NBII is inadequate in its current form (Teaming with Life:
Investing in Science to Understand and Use America's Living Capital,
March 1998). PCAST concluded that with adequate support (which it
estimated at a minimum of $40 million per year for five years), NBII
could be of use to industry, education, policy makers, and management
agencies. We support the requested increase of $1 million for NBII and
recommend that the fiscal year 2000 funding for this program be
increased to $5 million.
u.s. fish and wildlife service, office of migratory bird management
(mbmo)
The Ornithological Council supports the requested $2.75 million
increase for migratory bird management. The management of waterfowl
populations (through Adaptive Resource Management) has shown that
resource management can be very effective if there is adequate
information about the status of wild bird populations. The fundamental
information needed for sound resource management is derived from
monitoring. The requested increase for MBMO will allow for only a
fraction of the needed monitoring of the populations of 836 bird
species. It will also support the development of 60 science-based bird
conservation plans and provide technical assistance to natural resource
managers on public lands.
The information needs for migratory bird management far exceed the
amount requested by the administration. We recommend that MBMO funding
be increased by an additional $10 million above the requested increase.
We also strongly support the requested increase of $288,000 for
permit management. MBMO issues 40,000 permits annually with a total
budget of $712,000. These 17 different types of permits issued by the
MBMO are prerequisites for almost all research conducted on wild birds.
Over the past few years, funding for the Permits Office has been
limited to the point that regulatory revisions have taken years to
complete and implement. Over the past several years, ornithologists
have had difficulties obtaining permits due to the inability of MBMO to
finalize regulatory and procedural improvements. MBMO has been more
than willing to seize opportunities for regulatory reform (including
two matters that are pending; one of these has been pending for nearly
four years), but MBMO has been too short of staff to conclude these
efforts.
This additional funding will allow MBMO to hire two full-time
permit evaluators and a national permits coordinator, streamline the
permitting process, revise guidelines to a plain-language format, and
complete regulatory revisions.
u.s. fish and wildlife service, division of refuges
The application of scientific informationis critical to sound
resource management. When BRD was created, all the research-graded
scientists were transferred from the DOI resource management agencies.
In many public land units, such as the National Wildlife Refuges, there
are no scientists who can apply research findings to resource
management. BRD scientists do provide technical assistance, but it is
unrealistic to expect the small number of BRD scientists to be able to
provide substantial assistance to the hundreds of federal and state
wildlife refuges, parks, and other public lands. Therefore, it is
necessary to have ``management scientists'' based on these public
lands. We support the requested increase of $5.34 million that will put
a total of 39 full-time employees, including biologists, hydrologists,
and botanists on National Wildlife Refuges for wildlife management
projects. We also support the requested increase of $5.03 million that
will add 36 full-time scientific personnel for habitat management
projects. These increases are needed to allow FWS to comply with the
directive of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 to ``ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.''
usda forest service
The Ornithological Council is generally supportive of the Forest
Service's requested increase of $37.2 million for forest and rangeland
research. Proper management of forest and rangeland resources is
dependent upon scientific information. The administration's overall
request supports a rigorous, well-balanced program to obtain that
information. We are particularly supportive of the requested increases
for research pertaining to:
--threatened, endangered, and sensitive species ($10 million)
--non-native invasive species ($5 million)
--inventory and monitoring ($4 million)
--global climate change ($6 million)
Finally, we recommend that the 12 percent decrease in the rangeland
and grassland ecology research program be reversed in fiscal year 2000
($271,000) and supplemented by an additional 6 percent ($139,000) to
account for two years of inflation, for total funding of $2.66 million.
______
Prepared Statement of Holly E. Hazard, Executive Director, Doris Day
Animal League
The Doris Day Animal League is a non-profit, member supported
national animal advocacy organization located in Washington, D.C. On
behalf of our 278,000 members and supporters, we respectfully present
to the subcommittee our concerns about the Wild Horse and Burro Program
(the Program) as managed by the Bureau of Land Management (the Bureau).
In 1971, Congress charged the Bureau with preserving America's wild
horses via passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. The Act declares
that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the
historic and pioneer spirit of the West . . . [who] shall be protected
from capture, branding, harassment or death.''
We are gravely concerned that the Bureau is failing to fulfill this
mandate, and instead is engaging in scientifically and ecologically
questionable practices, under the guise of multiple-use land
management, which heavily favor private ranching interests over the
protection of our nation's wild horses. Further, we are concerned that
the Bureau is aware of the Program's shortcomings, but is unwilling or
unable to conduct a candid review of its Program, due to threats of
legal action from private ranchers who wish to keep their livestock on
Bureau lands.
While it is true that the Bureau has reduced the number of
livestock allowed on some of its land in recent years, the overall
picture is one that gives preference to private ranching interests. The
systematic removal of horses and burros from the range over the past
several decades has depleted the nation's wild horse herds from 303 to
approximately 186, and herd areas continue to be ``zeroed out''.
Although no solid figures are forthcoming from the Bureau, the ratio of
cattle to wild horses on Bureau land is estimated at 50:1. This means
there are millions of cows and at best, thousands of horses.
There has been much debate on the ``overpopulation'' of wild horses
and burros on Bureau managed lands, particularly in Nevada, where the
Bureau estimates 21,946 horses live. Because the ``appropriate
management level'' for Nevada has been set at 13,042, the Bureau
asserts it must round up and remove approximately 8,904 ``excess''
horses. However, the ``appropriate management level'' is a
fundamentally subjective figure established in the context of a system
which is strongly influenced by ranching interests, and which is used
to justify the removal of wild horses so that a disproportionately
large number of privately owned cattle may remain on public lands. In
fact, one Bureau employee admitted that the ``appropriate management
level'' for horses could be increased in certain areas without causing
damage to the range, but the Bureau will not do so, for fear of legal
retaliation by ranchers.
While some claim that it would be economically devastating to
reduce the number of livestock on public lands so that more wild horses
could remain in the wild, it should be noted that less than 3 percent
of American beef is produced from federal rangelands. Further,
livestock grazing on federal lands contributes less than 1 percent to
annual incomes in Western states. In contrast, the highly subsidized
grazing permit system by which ranchers graze their livestock on public
lands costs American taxpayers approximately $50 million every year.
Compounding these issues is the public's lack of trust in the
Bureau and its policies. At the core of this mistrust is the absence of
good information and data with which the Bureau might reassure its
constituents that it is acting in the best interest of all involved.
Not only has the Bureau been unable to provide figures on the numbers
of cattle and wild horses on its land, but there is even a question as
to how many ``herd management areas'' are under the Bureau's
jurisdiction. Roundups of wild horses are being conducted in the
absence of current population data and environmental assessments, and
there is a lack of suitable homes to which gathered horses may be
adopted. Under current law, the availability of these homes is a
prerequisite to any roundup, yet the roundups continue as horses
languish in holding facilities with no hope of a permanent home.
In short, the Bureau is spending millions of taxpayers dollars
every year on a program which is based on entrenched ideologies and
arbitrary assumptions, not facts. Such practices do not engender the
good faith of the American people. Failure to regain the public's trust
on this issue may ultimately result in calls for the program to be
released from federal control to the states, a move which would surely
lead to the demise of the wild horse.
We understand that the Bureau is in a difficult position where it
must appease a diverse group of interested parties. However, until the
Bureau is willing to invest the time and resources in gathering good
data with which to reassure its constituents that its policies are
sound, both ranchers and wild horse advocates will continue to suspect
that the Bureau favors ``the other side'', a situation which detracts
from the good work of the Bureau. We, therefore, propose that the
following language be included in the fiscal year 2000 Department of
Interior Appropriations Act:
``Wild Horse and Burro Program--The appropriations herein shall be
used for program, herd, and habitat management, including: (1) herd
population and distribution censuses; and (2) range assessment and
management; and (3) habitat restoration and improvement; and (4)
adoption compliance monitoring. Further, roundups of excess wild horses
and burros from the range shall be based on data no more than three
years old, and also shall be subject to the potential availability of
appropriate homes to which the animals may be adopted.''
We ask this Congress to ensure that our own government is not
perpetuating a regulatory system which will ultimately lead to the
elimination of the very animals it has been charged to protect.
America's wild horses are our national heritage and treasure, and must
be treated as such. Thank you for your consideration.
______
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Prepared Statement of the American Sportsfishing Association
This American Sportfishing Association (ASA) statement addresses
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S.
Forest Service (USES). Of specific interest to ASA are the FWS programs
dealing with federal fish hatcheries, and anadromous fish restoration
including fish passage and relicensing of hydroelectric dams. We are
also concerned with the Fisheries Management programs within the BLM,
as well as the USFS's Inland and Anadromous Fisheries Habitat
Management programs.
ASA is a non-profit trade association whose nearly 500 members
include fishing tackle manufacturers, boat builders, state fish and
wildlife agencies, angler organizations, sportfishing retailers, and
the outdoor media. For over 50 years, ASA and its predecessor
organizations have promoted the conservation of fisheries resources and
environmental measures that improve the aquatic environment in order to
ensure the enjoyment of healthy fisheries by America's more than 50
million anglers.
In this time of tight Federal budgets and concern for the interests
of the American taxpayer, it is important to note that when it comes to
the management of our nation's aquatic resources, the sport fishing
industry strongly supports the principal of user pays--user benefits.
Anglers currently contribute $500 million each year in fishing license
fees to state fishery management agencies and another $250 million in
special federal excise taxes and duties on fishing goods and taxes on
boat fuel. These federal user fees flow through the Aquatic Resources
Trust Fund. Thus, anglers directly pay for much of the fishery
management in the country. In addition, according to the Bureau of the
Census surveys, over $3 billion is generated each year in federal
income taxes from the 1.2 million jobs directly associated with
sportfishing activities. These angler-generated federal Treasury
receipts are noted in the context of the fact that 800 million acres of
the United States are federal lands. This land base, with its
associated lakes, streams, rivers and estuaries, supports a large
proportion of this recreational and economic activity. Growth in this
economic sector is dependent upon proper stewardship of the habitats
and natural resources managed by federal agencies. With this
understanding, ASA applauds the modest budget increases sought in the
fiscal year 2000 budget and requests Congressional support for these
efforts. For a few items, we seek Congressional support for amounts
exceeding the Administration's request.
fiscal year 2000 u.s. fish and wildlife service budget request
Fisheries--National Fish Hatchery System.--Over many decades of
guiding Federal water development projects, Congress has dependably
authorized mitigation facilities and activities to replace lost natural
fisheries. The premise has been that federally-funded activities that
impair naturally sustaining fisheries to provide unrelated societal
benefits such as hydropower and flood protection, must be mitigated.
Congress has frequently relied, at least in part, on the use of fish
production technology. This responsibility has fallen to the FWS's
National Fish Hatchery System. Without the mitigatory hatchery
activities public recreation valued at $5 billion annually would be
seriously jeopardized. In addition, the Fish Hatchery System assists in
the restoration of imperiled fish species and in restoring
interjurisdictional fisheries, such as those in the Great Lakes. Over
the last several years, the FWS has engaged in a careful review of its
hatchery facilities and has transferred or closed those facilities not
fulfilling priority federal obligations.
Today, this system of federal facilities is in poor and declining
condition. The FWS's hatchery program has a conservative backlog of
maintenance work totalling $218 million, an 86 percent increase over
last year's already forbidding figure of $117 million. The conservative
$218 million backlog for hatcheries includes $97 million in deferred
maintenance. This backlog is not a list of ``like to do things''.
Rather, the backlog in maintenance and construction is having direct
impacts upon the quantity and quality of the fisheries resources being
produced. To characterize the extent of the problem, the FWS has $800
million in hatchery assets. An annual maintenance budget of $10.2
million, as requested in the FWS in fiscal year 2000, equals just over
one percent of assets. Industry standards run two to four percent just
to maintain facilities, not to retire maintenance backlogs. This
request represents a $0.25 million decrease from the 1999 appropriation
for hatchery maintenance.
For another perspective on the hatchery maintenance and
construction backlog, one should review private industry facility care
standards. One standard industry condition index is known as the
facilities condition index (FCI). This industry measurement is simply
derived by dividing the maintenance and construction backlog by total
asset value. In the case of the FWS hatchery system, this index equals
27 percent. In the corporate world, anything over 10 percent is
considered to be in poor condition.
It would take an additional investment of $72 million to bring the
hatcheries to an FCI of 10. In fiscal year 1999, the FWS was allotted
$7.4 million to undertake these deferred maintenance projects, reducing
the critical needs by about 9 percent. Meanwhile, maintenance
requirements over the last year nearly doubled, resulting in a
substantial net increase in maintenance backlog. In spite of this dire
situation, the FWS has requested $250,000 less for deferred maintenance
funding in fiscal year 2000. In addition, no increase was requested for
annual maintenance. We warned that an appropriation in the amount
sought last year by the FWS would result in even greater financial
backlogs in future years. Unfortunately, these predictions have become
manifest. Therefore, ASH requests Congress to provide $15 million to
begin to address the top priority construction maintenance backlog at
the National Fish Hatchery System.
In addition to the facility care request, it should be noted that
even greater production demands are being placed upon the system. This
is true for both the quantity and quality of the fish being produced.
For example, the proposed Atlantic salmon and Southwest ecosystem
restoration programs will require extensive use of cultured species.
These increasing production requirements necessitate an increase in
hatchery operations funding. The one million dollar proposed increase
is welcomed as the operating budget for the Federal Fish Hatchery
System has been essentially flat for many years. However, to take a
good step in restoring operational capacity of these facilities, ASA
requests an additional $10 million for hatchery product scoping,
evaluation, and for increased production.
Fisheries--Anadromous Fish Management.--The FWS is engaged in
important anadromous fisheries restoration and management work. For
most of these programs, the FWS has asked for the same funding as
appropriated in fiscal year 1999. We applaud the $600,000 increase for
Atlantic salmon restoration and the addition of $900,000 to support
fish passage work. In the next 15 years, the licenses for over 550
hydropower dams will expire. When these dams were built years ago, few
measures were taken to protect fish and wildlife, including in far too
many cases, inadequate or no provisions for fish passage. The
relicensing process now underway will provide a unique opportunity for
the FWS to include fishery safeguards in the new licenses. Legally-
mandated hydropower dam relicensing activities constitutes a great
burden, but also an enormous opportunity, for fisheries resources.
Considering the enormous workload now faced by the FWS with power
facility relicensing through FERC, the requested increase of $900,000
may well not be fully adequate. While the additional $1.7 million
allocated for FERC relicensing will help, to take full advantage of the
fish passage opportunities associated with relicensing, ASA would
request a minimum of $3.2 million in new funding dedicated for fish
passage work and recommends a total of $9.8 million for anadromous fish
management.
Fisheries--Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance.--Although, the
FWS is seeking to double its budget for aquatic nuisance species (ANS)
management, we fear that this is inadequate to address this growing
problem. Introductions of exotic species have had significant effects
on native fish populations. According to the Office of Technology
Assessment, exotic species have directly contributed to the listing of
44 species of fish as threatened or endangered. Not only do exotic fish
compete directly with native fish for resources, but exotic plants and
animals also degrade critical native fish habitat. We applaud FWS for
taking a leading role in ANS management. However, we foresee
increasingly larger sums of money having to be spent on future control
and remediation of new introductions and species already present. For
example, since 1980, over $120 million in Federal and state funds have
been spent on controlling exotic aquatic plants in Florida alone. We
urge a greater allocation of funds aimed at preventative measures such
as outreach programs and implementation of state and regional ANS
management plans. ASA requests an additional $5 million be directed to
carry out ANS preventative measures.
The $700,000 sought for southwest ecosystem restoration will
provide for increased riparian fish habitat through voluntary
cooperation with local stakeholders. We fully endorse this community,
incentives driven approach. Restoration acts along the Mississippi
River basin, including fish passage structures and revegetation of
river and stream banks, are also worthy of the $275,000 increase over
fiscal year 1999. These new requests totalling an increase in $3.75
million, plus the additional $5 million for ANS, and the Fish and
Wildlife Management Assistance full request of just over $16 million,
are fully supported by ASA.
fiscal year 2000 bureau of land management
Recreational fishing is a major activity on public lands managed by
BLM, resulting in approximately 400 million angler days and generating
nearly $200 million annually in economic benefits. Because the public
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide so many
opportunities to America's recreational anglers, ASA strongly supports
the President's budget request for an additional $4.3 million over
fiscal year 1999 enacted level for the Bureau in fiscal year 2000. We
have the greatest interest in the following areas:
Fisheries Management.--BLM manages 174,000 miles of fishable
streams and 2.6 million acres of fishable lakes and reservoirs. In
order to manage these fishery resources, the President requests $10.5
million in fiscal year 2000 for fisheries management, a very modest
increase of $979,000 over fiscal year 1999's enacted level. Management
activities focus on the maintenance and restoration of habitat for both
anadromous and resident species. Challenge cost share programs
constitute a major portion of this effort. Programs such as Bring Back
the Natives, provide direct angler benefits by increasing habitat for
native species and through access improvement projects. Most of the
roughly $1 million increase for fiscal year 2000 is tied to three
specific programs: (1) Tundra to Tropics, (2) FERCHydro Power
Relicensing, and (3) the Clean Water Action Plan. These efforts will
develop better water quality assessment capabilities in Alaska, offer
opportunities to provide for increased fish passage, and improve
fishery habitat. Despite the increases, funds for these three programs
are only half of what is required according to agency prepared
opportunity documents.
Threatened and Endangered Species.--The President has requested
$18.9 million in fiscal year 2000 for threatened and endangered
species, roughly the same amount as requested the previous year. With
the requested funding level, the Bureau will restore riparian habitat
which should directly impact coho salmon, Lahontan cutthroat, and
desert pupfish among others. However, according to BLM field office
funding needs, the current budget comes up short $400,000 for
anadromous fisheries and $730,000 short for recreational fisheries
management. An additional $4 million is requested by the BLM field
offices for special status aquatic species.
Livestock Permit Renewal.--The Bureau has requested an additional
$2.5 million to address the large number of grazing permits/leases that
expire in 2000. These permits must be reauthorized in the coming years
in order to fulfill BLM's NEPA requirements. Failure to fully support
this measure will mean greater numbers of permits to review in future
years and will open the Bureau to litigation, thus compounding the
already formidable task. For fishery interests, this translates into
less attention being focused on critical fisheries issues. Fishery
habitat has been adversely affected by inappropriate grazing through
increased sedimentation, vegetation loss, and riparian erosion. These
new permit renewals afford BLM the opportunity to ensure that land use
practices are in-line with environmental quality standards. ASA
strongly encourages Congressional support for this much needed increase
to the livestock permit renewal program.
Standard and Guidelines Implementation.--ASA fully supports the new
BLM standards and guidelines that promote wise stewardship of
rangelands. These locally developed standards and guidelines, which
call for improvements in watershed and riparian management, will help
to protect and restore valuable fishery habitat. As such, we would like
to see these standards and guidelines implemented as quickly as
possible. Therefore, ASA supports the $1.8 million to be spent on
standards and guidelines implementation.
BLM Fish and Wildlife Staffing.--We are very concerned that at
current staffing levels, the Bureau and its field staff will be unable
to meet the program and statutory requirements it must meet. At current
staff levels, biologists are often forced to divide their time between
on the ground, program implementation efforts and other program
requirements, which may or may not provide direct fish and wildlife
benefits. Evaluations, by BLM, of staffing needs have shown that the
Bureau is lacking in staff to accomplish program goals. A recent work
force evaluation showed that with its current level of staffing in
fisheries, BLM is staffed at only 50 percent of its 1993 identified
need level. At this staff level, the Bureau is only meeting
approximately half of its identified programmatic needs on an annual
basis.
Another indicator of the chronic work force problem sheds light on
the great need for increased staffing, particularly in the fisheries
program; there is a total of 65 fisheries biologists to manage all
aquatic resources on BLM land, at that level there is one biologist to
manage approximately 3,000 stream miles and 30,000 acres of lake. Some
states have no fishery biologists at all, which has directly led to the
deplorable state of a great number of these fisheries.
This staff deficiency will become especially pronounced in the
upcoming year as BLM must address a significant backlog of grazing
permits and reauthorize FERC hydropower dams, both of which will divert
staff away from critical fishery needs. It is imperative that BLM be
provided both the adequate staff and additional operating funds needed
to implement its base programs if it is to be effective in managing
aquatic resources on public lands which support both fish populations
and the sportfishing opportunities they offer. In order to begin to
address the critical shortfall in staffing, ASA urges that new staff
positions and associated operating funds be appropriated for BLM field
positions.
fiscal year 2000 u.s. forest service budget request
National Forest System--Inland and Anadromous Fisheries Habitat
Management.--Of the various federal landholders, the USFS is the
largest provider of public outdoor recreation. This recreation can have
a significant economic impact. It was recently estimated at nearly $110
billion annually. For recreational fishing, we estimate that 10 million
freshwater anglers fish each year on USFS lands. This activity results
in over $8.5 billion in annual economic activity and supports over
94,000 full-time jobs. ASA enthusiastically supports the President's
proposed increase of 37 percent over fast year's USFS budget.
The $31 million proposed for anadromous fisheries management and
the $26 million for inland fisheries are tied to several key
initiatives which include improving user access and recreational
facilities, protecting threatened and endangered species, and restoring
degraded habitat and water flows. These significant increases over last
year's budget will help the USFS continue to improve it's management of
the 2.3 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs as well as the
197,000 miles of perennial stream on national forest lands. We believe
that these projects supported by the funding increases are necessary to
offset the lack of significant progress made on fishery habitat in the
past five years when USFS budgets have remained fairly static.
Road Maintenance.--Finally, ASA is deeply concerned over the
rapidly declining condition of the road system on USFS lands.
Currently, there is an $8 billion backlog on road maintenance. Aquatic
resources are being seriously damaged by sedimentation that flows off
of these roads. We note, and strongly support the Service's request for
an additional $22. 6 million for road maintenance and decommissioning.
summary
We have the opportunity to create new jobs in tourism and
manufacturing sectors of the sportfishing industry. This potential can
be realized by improving management of our federal lands and, in the
process, creating more sportfishing opportunities from improvements in
our aquatic resources. Mr. Chairman, it is paramount that we continue
to invest in these programs to provide the basis for our future
economic strength, and to benefit the millions of Americans who enjoy
water-based recreational activities.
______
Letter From Roger Simmons, Consul General, Canada
Seattle, WA, April 9, 1999.
Hon. Slade Gorton,
Chairman, Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: As the Pacific Northwest begins to implement
new strategies and programs for the recovery of endangered Pacific
salmon and steelhead, Canada stands ready to help.
I am pleased to submit as public testimony to your 7 April, 1999
Field Hearing a study by Dr. Marvin Shaffer, natural resource economist
and consultant to the Government of Canada. Dr. Shaffer and his team
have analysed data for a number of Pacific salmon stocks and conclude
that reducing the ocean harvest of salmon is proportionately as
important, and in some cases more important, than in-river efforts to
improve habitat, productivity and survival.
Shaffer's work lends scientific weight to a simple point:
successful salmon recovery will require significant, sustained
reductions in harvest as well as the recovery and protection of
habitat. Without a new Canadian-U.S. agreement on harvest, hundreds of
millions of dollars spent on habitat may never produce the desired
result-more fish returning to spawn in our rivers and streams. Better
harvest management must be an integral part of any comprehensive, cost-
effective salmon recovery effort.
The Georgia Basin/Puget Sound region faces a significant challenge
as we seek to restore the wild salmon, and in every challenge there is
an opportunity. This is an opportunity for our two countries to put a
contentious issue behind us and work together toward a future of ever
greater cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Roger Simmons,
Consul General.
[News Release]
Canada-U.S. Agreement Under Pacific Salmon Treaty Key to Salmon
Recovery
Ottawa/Seattle/Washington.--Canada's Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, David Anderson, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd
Axworthy, today released a report prepared by natural resource
economist Marvin Chaffer which concludes that sustained reductions in
salmon ocean harvests are as important for salmon recovery as in-river
programs to improve salmon productivity and survival. The report also
identifies Canada-United States agreements under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty (PST) as the principal means for achieving long-term control
over salmon interceptions.
``The report makes it clear that successful salmon conservation
requires both the benefits of in-river habitat rehabilitation and
effective harvest management,'' said Mr. Anderson. ``This study
reinforces the need for Canada and the U.S. to work together to find a
cooperative approach to conservation and the better management of
salmon stocks for the future of Pacific salmon stocks from Alaska to
Northern California.''
``The report provides more evidence that a Canada-U.S. agreement on
Pacific salmon harvest arrangements is crucial to salmon conservation
all along the West Coast,'' said Minister Axworthy. ``Canada and U.S.
officials continue to work toward a long-term, coastwide agreement on
conservation and fair sharing of Pacific salmon. I look forward to
reviewing the progress with U.S. Secretary of State Albright at our
next meeting in April.''
The report, Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Efforts and the
Pacific Salmon Treaty, was commissioned by the Canadian Government last
year to provide an independent analysis of the relative importance of
harvest management and freshwater productivity for conserving salmon.
Release of the study today comes at a time of increasing concern about
conservation of Pacific salmon on the West Coast of Canada and the
United States.
Attached is an Executive Summary of the Shaffer Report. The entire
Report is available on the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade website at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca./communic/
Reports/shaffe__e.htm
The Consulate would be pleased to arrange interviews with Dr.
Shaffer.
executive summary
This study concludes that sustained reductions in ocean harvest of
endangered Pacific salmon stocks are proportionately as important, in
some cases more important for salmon recovery than costly in-river
programs to improve habitat, productivity and survival.
The Pacific Northwest is currently investing an extraordinary
amount--over $500 million U.S. per year--for salmon recovery. With more
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing pending and new program reviews,
this amount could readily double to over one billion per year, or more,
in the near future.
Salmon recovery efforts to date have concentrated almost
exclusively on in-river programs. A clear implication of this study is
that harvesting control, which is orders of magnitude less costly, is
as important and potentially effective for salmon recovery.
A large percentage of Pacific Northwest salmon are vulnerable to
fishing effort in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries. Historically,
exploitation in these fisheries has generally exceeded that in the
southern U.S. Measures to control, on a sustained long term basis,
interception of endangered Pacific Northwest salmon in these fisheries
are critically important to the success of recovery efforts. They
should be an integral part of any comprehensive, cost-effective salmon
recovery program. Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations provide the
principal means for achieving long term control of interceptions.
Note: Marvin Shaffer (Ph. D. Economics) has been a consulting
economist for the past two decades. He is also a former CEO of the
British Columbia Transportation Authority and negotiator for British
Columbia on the power benefits owed to B.C. under the Columbia River
Treaty.
______
Prepared Statement of Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American
Fish & Wildlife Society
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Committee Members: My name is Ken
Poynter, Executive Director of the Native American Fish & Wildlife
Society (Society) and an enrolled member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe of
Maine. I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Society, for the
opportunity to provide testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Interior. I will be requesting appropriations from the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Wildlife & Parks
budget (under Other Recurring Programs) for continued funding at the
organization's fiscal year 1999 level of $488,000.
The Society is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the
sound management and prudent use of tribal fish and wildlife resources.
The organization serves as a network among tribes throughout the
country, including Alaska and provides training and technical
assistance to tribes in natural resource enhancement, planning,
research and management.
The Society includes a membership of over 200 tribes, which
includes 63 Alaskan Native villages and non-profit corporations, as
well as over 1,900 individual members and numerous regional Commissions
and Native organizations who are supportive of tribal fish and wildlife
development and of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society. All
Society members share the common goal of protecting tribal sovereignty
in the management and use of fish and wildlife resources.
Due to our effective method of providing technical assistance,
periodic trainings, educational opportunities, information disbursement
and the general support provided to our members and non-members alike,
the Society has achieved a strong and diverse level of support. An
obvious measure that emphasizes the increased recognition, reliance and
support that the organization is experiencing is evident by the
unprecedented growth in memberships over the past twelve months. Tribal
memberships have increased 54 percent since April 1998, increasing from
136 member tribes to the current number of 204. Individual memberships
have increased 58 percent in the same period going from approximately
1,200 to over 1,900 at this writing. Our substantial support and pro-
active programs attest to the positive impact the organization has made
in Indian Country, including Alaska. It is important to mention, and
please note for the record, due to our large tribal membership base,
the funding received through the federal appropriations process serves,
at a minimum, 204 separate tribal governments on an annual basis.
Over the past twelve months, the Society has provided technical
services and assistance to over 200 tribes, 25 non-governmental
organizations, 20 states and 14 different federal agencies in the areas
of fish and wildlife management, education and environmental
protection. Seven regional conferences, including one in Alaska, are
held annually in conjunction with associated regional specific
technical work group meetings. In addition to the regional conferences,
the Society holds an annual national conference. The national meeting
offers a forum for attendees to address pertinent national issues,
participate in relevant work related sessions and an opportunity to
expand their individual networks. It also provides Conservation Law
Enforcement personnel in attendance the opportunity to participate in a
forty-hour in-service training.
In addition to the above listed benefits and regular Society
events, the organization sponsored numerous training sessions and
natural resource related workshops throughout the country. These
Society supported training sessions have become a mainstay of the
organization and are a good example of our effort to assist Native
resource management endeavors and address an unmet need. These funded
education sessions provide Native resource managers, as well as
others:, opportunities to learn new management skills and techniques or
refresh old ones and represent, in most cases, the only occasion
available to foster their knowledge.
These training sessions are identified and scheduled regionally by
Society members. This method of identifying and scheduling trainings
allows members to conduct sessions that they feel are most pertinent to
their needs and held at the most convenient time and location. As a
result of utilizing this form of training identification, sessions tend
to be regional specific and collectively diverse. For example, the
following list represents the natural resource management sessions
conducted in the last twelve month period: Fisheries Management
Workshop, Environmental and Water Resources Management? Native Species
Management, Federal Funding and Technical Assistance Opportunities,
Hazardous Materials First Responder Awareness Level Training,
Endangered Species Act, Diseases of Importance in Southeastern
Wildlife, Noxious Weed Control Methods, Range Management, Fisheries
Management Workshop, Lake and River Electro-fishing Techniques, Fishery
Sampling Techniques, Water Quality Assessment, Micro-invertebrate
Surveys in Fisheries, Livestock Disease Intrusion, Tribal Big Game
Commission Workshop, SO 3206 (Endangered Species Act) and the US Fish &
Wildlife Service Native American Policy, Habitat Restoration and
Enhancement, Eco-cultural Tourism, Elk Ranching and Aquatic Nuisance
Species.
Due to the fact that protection is such an important aspect of any
natural resource management plan, the Society has a large number of
Conservation Law Enforcement personnel as members and supporters.
Subsequently, this particular group has separate and profession-
specific training needs and have participated during the last twelve
month period in the following sessions: Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Authority/Non Native-Native American Jurisdictional Issues, Range/
Firearm Techniques, Eagle Protection Act? The Lacey Act and Tribal
Codes? Search and Seizure, Range/Firearm Qualification, Interviews and
Interrogations, Crime Scenes/Collection of Evidence, Road Blocks,
Covert vs. Overt Operations, Illegal Wildlife Trade, and the Endangered
Species Act and Environmental Laws. Collectively, over 2,000 people
participated and benefitted from the training sessions listed above.
In conjunction with the various Society conducted activities listed
thus far, four quarterly newsletters (with a circulation of over 1,900
each), an annual report, promotion publications, informational
management brochures and other management reports and publications were
distributed nationwide. In order to maximize the federally appropriated
funds received by the organization, some of the above listed events,
publications and benefits were subsidized by forming partnerships and/
or signing Memorandums of Understanding (MOW) with other entities.
Currently, the Society has signed a national MOU, as well as one
regional MOU agreement with the U.S. Forest Service and one regional
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the
organization anticipates entering into a national MOU with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
and a national Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
These co-sponsorships illustrate the organization's Board of
Directors continued efforts to assist Congress, when and where
possible, in reducing the federal budget. It is important for the
Subcommittee to realize that our continued growth, increased support to
members and tribes and our constant pursuit to develop partnerships and
cooperative working relationships with other entities is evidence of
our desire to identify innovative ways to stretch the funds that we are
allocated. Although the cost of doing business increases on an annual
basis and we continue to experience unprecedented tribal and individual
membership growth, we continue to maintain our resolve to not ask
Congress for additional funds and constantly pursue opportunities to do
more, year after year, at the same funding level we have received since
1994.
The Native American Fish & Wildlife Society represents a wealth of
experience and information regarding management of fish and wildlife
resources on Indian lands. Society members embody a diverse group of
lay people, fishery biologists, wildlife biologists, foresters,
conservation law enforcement of ricers, and land use managers and
planners who currently manage tribal land bases throughout the country,
including Alaska.
Members of the Society are involved in technical initiatives
sponsored by the Society, as well as development of tribal technical
fisheries, wildlife and recreation management initiatives critical to
the preservation and protection of tribal resources. In addition, the
Society continues to respond to the needs of its members in the area of
technical assistance, training and program support.
The concept of the Society is based on the necessity for an
organization to assume a leadership role to maintain the technical
proficiency of tribal fish, wildlife and natural resource programs.
Because of its organizational structure, the Society is able to
efficiently respond to specific requests from tribes for technical
assistance regarding the development, enhancement and wise use of their
natural resources.
Collectively, American Indian tribes have a land base of
approximately 94,000,000 acres, that includes thousands of miles of
streams and rivers, and 730,000 lakes and impoundments. The wise use
and management of these vast resources will only ensure that they
remain intact for many generations to come. Because our work is so
important, it is essential that we continue to receive funding so that
we can carry on our goal to empower and improve the general welfare of
Indian people through charitable, educational, and other fish and
wildlife related activities.
The Society is currently the only national Native American
organization that provides technical assistance to American Indian
tribes, federal, state and local governments as well as private
industry to develop and implement sound policies, ordinances,
regulations, and laws to protect, preserve, conserve and prudently use
and manage fish, wildlife and other natural resources. The organization
continues to develop pro-active budgets year after year to assist
tribes in their awesome responsibility to adequately manage the
substantial natural resources in their care as listed above.
The Society continues to be appreciative of the broad, on-going,
support we have and especially for the funding received for fiscal year
1999. To further illustrate both the support and the recognized
necessity for the continued existence of the Society, I feel it
necessary, for the record, to recapitulate the unprecedented and
bipartisan support we received back in fiscal year 1995. That year, the
Society was one of many federally funded entities that automatically
received over a 50 percent cut in their federal appropriation and the
only organization that had a full reinstatement of the initial
requested amount by both the House and Senate. The continued funding at
the restored $488,000.00 level each year since is further proof of the
ongoing support we have from Congress and the dollar value it places on
the beneficial services we continue to provide.
Once again, our intent is not to ask for additional funds to meet
the increased costs of providing the programs we have developed, but to
express our appreciation to the Subcommittee and our supporters for the
faith they continue to show in our ability to accomplish our stated
goals. We would also like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to continue our important work while we assist our newly created
Foundation in raising the 10 million dollar goal we have set for the
permanent endowment that will eventually enable us to be self-
sustaining and not reliant on federal funding. On behalf of the
organization, I would like to reiterate, and remind, the Society's
promise to the Subcommittee of our commitment, and diligent effort, to
work with our Foundation Board of Trustees in securing the permanent
endowment in as timely manner as possible.
Our contention at this time, and until we reach our goal of self
sufficiency, is that Congress should view the federal funds
appropriated to the Society as an investment which will be offering a
return in the future via a planned small grants program to augment
tribal natural resource management efforts. It is crucial that the
Society continue to receive our current level of funding so that our
important work with tribes, states, federal agencies and the private
sector is not disrupted or diminished while we continue to work towards
self sufficiency.
To reiterate our request to the Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Interior, the Society is requesting a Total of $488,000.00 for fiscal
year 2000.
In addition, the Society encourages legislation that allows tribes
to participate in Federal Aid Funding and including tribes in any
proposed future legislation addressing the Federal Aid program.
______
Prepared Statement of Mary Beth Beetham, Senior Associate, Defenders of
Wildlife
On behalf of our nearly 300,000 members and supporters Defenders
thanks you for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning our
fiscal year 2000 appropriations priorities. Although we come before you
to request funding, we fully understand the constraints of the
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. We continue to work aggressively--as
we have for the past two years--with the Public Lands Funding
Initiative, a broad coalition of more than 100 conservation and
recreation groups, to increase the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation so
that funding is available to protect our nation's refuges, parks,
forests, other public lands, wildlife, fish and plants.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
Endangered Species: Defenders urges full funding of the President's
fiscal year 2000 $114.9 million request for the Fish and Wildlife
Service's (FWS) four main endangered species accounts: Candidate
Conservation ($8.3 million), Listing ($7.5 million), Recovery ($56.7
million), Consultation ($37.3 million), and the ESA Landowner Incentive
Program $5 million). We also urge full funding of the $80 million
request for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, discussed under
Lands Legacy, below.
The Candidate Conservation increase is needed for status surveys on
approximately 300 species, development of an additional 50 Candidate
Conservation Agreements (CCAs) in fiscal year 2000, and necessary
monitoring of CCAs to ensure biological improvement of covered species
and reduction of threats. Although properly designed CCAs can
contribute to species conservation, Defenders opposes their improper
use to preclude scientifically-based listing determinations.
The Listing increase is needed to process the more than 200
additional candidates and proposed species expected to require the
Act's protection in fiscal year 2000. Moreover, 90 percent of listed
species still do not have critical habitat designation (even though
required by law). We continue to oppose the Administration's request
for statutory language to cap the listing program and their new request
to cap funding for critical habitat activities, which we believe is an
attempt to avoid court ordered listing decisions and critical habitat
designations.
The Consultation increase will help address the growing Section 7
consultation workload (more than 40,000 actions projected for fiscal
year 2000) and continually expanding use of Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs--more than 500 new and ongoing HCPs projected for fiscal year
2000) as well as provide some funding to ensure that both consultations
and HCPs are based on sound science and subject to monitoring for
effectiveness and compliance. While Defenders is not opposing funding
for new HCPs, we continue to believe that the current FWS HCP process
has significant problems requiring regulatory modifications. A major
study by 119 independent scientists released two months ago drew the
same conclusion reached by a 1998 Defenders report on HCPs. Led by Dr.
Peter Kareiva at the University of Washington, the group developed a
massive detailed database and found that many HCPs are seriously flawed
because critical information is missing, and because HCPs do not take a
precautionary approach for protecting species when that information is
missing. Without needed modifications, HCPs are likely to exacerbate
threats to listed species.
The Recovery request will help address the backlog of more than 300
species without recovery plans as well as recovery implementation and
monitoring for the more than 1300 listed species expected by the end of
fiscal year 2000, a 42 percent increase just since 1995. Recovery is
the goal of the Act yet recovery implementation continues to be
critically underfunded. According to FWS estimates, less than 20
percent of listed species have had even 25 percent of their recovery
objectives met.
The following are Defenders' highest priories for specific recovery
programs. To help restore the wolf to the northeast, $100,000 is needed
for preparation of NE recovery plan and economic and other necessary
feasibility studies. For the successful red wolf program in North
Carolina, $850,000 will support continued captive propagation,
monitoring, and establishment of a new recovery site. FWS needs
$796,000 to continue Mexican wolf restoration which will include
providing funding assistance to the White Mountain Apache Tribe for a
full time tribal biologist; funding for field biologists to both AZ and
NM Fish & Game Depts; increased outreach in high-use areas; and
increased law enforcement made necessary by numerous wolf killings. For
the Northern Rockies wolf recovery program, $1.1 million will allow
monitoring, public education, and cooperative agreements with the Nez
Perce tribe and states (which will receive most of the FWS allocation),
while $80,000 (NPS) will pay for management of the program in
Yellowstone National Park. At least $500,000 is necessary for recovery
efforts in WY, MT, SD and AZ for the endangered black-footed ferret,
thought to be extinct in the wild except for reintroduced populations.
Finally, $1.02 million is needed for the grizzly recovery program which
covers 30,000 square miles in four states and includes an EIS on
grizzly recovery in the North Cascades. Successful reintroduction of
threatened grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem of central ID
and W. MT could increase grizzly bear numbers and range in the lower 48
states by nearly one third. Defenders opposed language in the fiscal
year 1999 bill prohibiting reintroductions and will work to ensure that
$115,000 of the grizzly recovery budget will be will be used for
initiation of reintroductions in fiscal year 2000.
Migratory birds.--FWS is responsible for 58 game and 778 non-game
migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918. At the very least, we support the President's fiscal year 2000
budget request of $21.8 million for critical activities such as
conservation plan implementation, monitoring, and use of scientific
information in designing management strategies. Projects funded with
increases will include: monitoring population trends of nearly 500
species for which insufficient information exists; development of
regional management plans for more than 50 species of migratory
shorebirds; work with landowners in the southwest to benefit grassland
and riparian birds (e.g. southwestern willow flycatcher, Bells vireo,
and grassland sparrows); and collaborative efforts with partners to
benefit forest breeding birds in the lower Mississippi River Basin.
International Affairs.--Under General Administration, Defenders
endorses the request for International Affairs which helps support U.S.
international leadership in the conservation of wildlife and
biodiversity, particularly through implementation of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). We suggest an
additional enhancement of $400,000 (split evenly between International
Wildlife Trade/International Wildlife Conservation Laws and technical
assistance within that line item) for personnel and/or contracts to
enable FWS to assist the CITES Secretariat and Parties and those of
related agreements in developing improved systems and standards to
prevent international conflicts of interest and for improving
cooperation and efficiency in law enforcement.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and
Maintenance.--We deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's support for the
Refuge System and its leadership in providing significant fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999 O&M increases. Defenders continues to be a
proactive member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
(CARE), a diverse coalition of 18 environmental, hunting, fishing, and
recreation groups. CARE has reviewed FWS expenditures of the fiscal
year 1998 increases and has concluded that these funds were used as
intended, i.e. to reduce the overwhelming O&M backlog. Unfortunately,
due to the magnitude and duration of the O&M funding deficit, continued
increases will be needed for at least the next four years to address
the $722 million in operations needs and the $526 million maintenance
backlog. CARE has updated its Refuge restoration plan which recommends
yearly increases of $65 million from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
2003, necessary to bring the Refuge System into a state of health by
its 100th anniversary. We therefore ask an additional $37.7 million
over the President's request to meet the CARE fiscal year 2000 target
of which $36.35 million should be focused on operations increases which
have not kept pace with those for maintenance. Operations increases are
critically needed to carry out the requirements of the new National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and to implement the directives
of the first ever National Wildlife Refuge System conference, including
inventory and monitoring (which requires additional biological staff);
implementation of new compatibility regulations that depend heavily on
the best available science; and the development of Comprehensive
Conservation Plans. The recent Fish and Wildlife Service document
``Biological Needs Assessment, National Wildlife Refuge System Division
of Refuges, July 1998'' documents the severe shortage in biological
staffing. Examples of projects that will not be funded even at the
President's level include: expansion of endangered masked bobwhite
quail introduction at Buenos Aires NWR (AZ); monitoring and protection
of threatened piping plover nesting areas at Des Lacs NWR (ND); and
restoration of bottomland hardwood forests to benefit neotropical
songbirds at Patoka River NWR (IN).
u.s. forest service
Major priorities for Defenders are funding increases for two
extremely important areas that support species conservation in the FS
budget: research and habitat management for threatened, endangered, and
sensitive (TE&S) species. Sufficient funding for these programs will be
key to implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists
which emphasize the need for species research, assessment, and
monitoring.
Defenders strongly supports the important $10 million increase
requested to fund TE&S research under Forest and Rangeland Research
Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air program. Currently, this program is so
grossly underfunded that 70 percent of meager TE&S research funds are
invested in fewer than 10 species or groups of species. Of the 2500
sensitive species on FS lands, FS scientists are studying only 54; vast
information gaps exist for a whole array of sensitive species such as
forest carnivores (lynx, wolverine, marten, fisher), bats, plants,
amphibians, mussels, and crayfish. Just a few examples of critical
research projects to be supported by this funding follow. The Southern
Research Station will investigate factors responsible for successful
reproduction of freshwater mussels which are experiencing an extinction
crisis (over 70 percent of 297 native taxa imperiled). The Rocky
Mountain Research Station will develop monitoring techniques and
habitat management guidelines to maintain prey base for lynx,
wolverine, and fisher (given that lynx is likely to be listed in the
near future this information is critical to provide basis for a
recovery plan). To benefit coho, chinook, and steelhead, cutthroat,
redband and bull trout, the Pacific Northwest Station will develop
landscape level conservation options including priorities for
restoration and protection of habitat. And the Pacific Southwest
station will examine effects of introduced fish and estrogen-mimicking
compounds on the northern red legged frog and seven associated species.
Defenders also strongly urges funding of the President's requested
$5 million increase for TE&S Habitat Management under the Wildlife and
Fisheries Habitat Management line item. This investment in TE&S habitat
is cost effective. As the Committee of Scientists recently reported,
habitats on FS lands serve as important ecological anchors;
conservation and recovery efforts consequently have benefits that
extend far beyond FS lands to state and private lands. The increase
will: support a 10 percent increase in survey and monitoring efforts in
both terrestrial and aquatic habitats; support restoration of 19,000
acres of terrestrial and 36 miles of stream habitat; and fund
development of conservation strategies and agreements for an additional
31 sensitive species and implementation of recovery plans for 7
additional T&E species. A 10 percent increase in public use benefits is
expected, including increased viewing and interpretation opportunities.
Unfortunately, even at the requested level, only one-third of the
identified funding need (approx. $97 million) for TE&S habitat
management will be met. Projects that will go unfunded at the request
level include: reduction of road density in grizzly habitat on Lolo NF
(MT) to reduce disturbance and displacement of bears; removal of heavy
metal contamination from the Little Blackfoot River to benefit
cutthroat and bull trout on Helena NF (MT); and surveying followed by
habitat improvement projects such as prescribed burning to benefit
prairie fringed orchid, prairie chickens and other sensitive species on
Custer NF and Sheyenne National Grassland (ND).
u.s. geological survey biological resources division
Defenders continues to believe that BRD has never recovered from
funding reductions imposed upon it in fiscal year 1996 and subsequent
years. Even at fiscal year 1999 funding levels of $162.5 million, BRD
is still below its fiscal year 1995 base level of $166 million which,
adjusted for inflation, would now total approximately $200 million.
USGS has also made several budget restructuring proposals for fiscal
year 2000 including a new budget activity, Integrated Science, that
would fund DOI agency science priorities and place-based studies. The
move towards integrated science is the right step in addressing
ecosystem level interdisciplinary--and many other--research needs.
However, we are concerned that $13.3 million of the proposed $47.7
million for Integrated Science is coming out of the BRD base, and that
some increases for fiscal year 2000 projects are being funded out of
decreases in important research just initiated in fiscal year 1999,
e.g. a $5.5 million decrease for Species and Habitat Protection and
Clean Water and Watershed Restoration. We therefore recommend that BRD
retain in its base the $13.3 million proposed for transfer and that an
increase of $13.3 million in new money be provided to compensate for
the funding that would have come from BRD base to meet the Integrated
Science request level of $47.7 million. We are also concerned that
certain details about the Integrated Science activity, including
methods for determining priorities and allocating funding, have not
been made clear and must be made so as soon as possible; moreover, USGS
needs to commit to meeting DOI agency needs and the Director must be
held accountable for doing so.
Defenders maintains its strong support for the Gap Analysis Program
(GAP), a collaborative effort involving 48 states and more than 500
business, non-profit, state, local, and Federal agency organizations to
map our nation's biological diversity and areas currently managed for
its protection. We also continue to believe that insufficient resources
have been made available for efficient transfer of GAP data to users
and integration into on-the-ground conservation planning and therefore
strongly support the requested BRD increases of $3 million ($10 million
USGS-wide) for National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community/Federal
Information Partnerships (C/FIPS) and $1 million increase for National
Biological Information Infrastructure. In particular, the C/FIPS would
help states deliver GAP data and help people use the information in
making daily decisions about land use. We note that in order for the
data to be useful, it must be in a form conducive to informing
decisions about management and policy.
bureau of indian affairs
Defenders endorses and wishes to highlight funding for one worthy
program under BIA Resources Management, the Cheyenne River Sioux (SD)
Prairie Management Plan, part of a cooperative multi-agency effort and
the tribe's response to requirements to recover the black-footed
ferret. Phase I of the project, now completed, has improved the prairie
ecosystem and decreased overgrazing on the Cheyenne River Sioux
Reservation. The goals of Phase II, now being initiated, include:
black-footed ferret reintroduction, prairie dog ecosystem management,
range management, bison management, and public education. The tribe
needs $2.5 million in fiscal year 2000 and $2 million/yr for 4
subsequent years to implement Phase II of the Plan.
lands legacy/land and water conservation fund (multi-agency)
Defenders strongly supports full funding of the President's Lands
Legacy Initiative, a total of approx. $800 million under the
Subcommittee's jurisdiction: $413 for federal LWCF (DOI/FS), $80
million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund (FWS); $150 million
for grants to states and others for land acquisition (DOI); $50 million
for state open space planning grants (DOI); $50 million for Forest
Legacy (FS); $40 million for urban forestry (FS); $10 million for smart
growth revolving loan program (FS); and $4 million for Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery (NPS). The election last November demonstrated that
Americans readily support expanded protection of open space and habitat
and creation of more outdoor recreation opportunities, as Lands Legacy
proposes. Voters approved 72 percent of 240 state and local ballot
initiatives designed to provide funding for these purposes. We believe
Congress needs to step forward and provide federal funding to mirror
and assist these state and local efforts--redeeming the original
promise to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund which is
currently owed $12 billion in unallocated funding. Defenders is proud
to be on the board of Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR),
an organization--representing thousands of LWCF stakeholder across the
nation including urban, state, recreation, industry, and environmental
groups--dedicated to revitalizing the LWCF.
We wish to highlight several components of Lands Legacy. First, the
$413 million for federal land acquisition will move forward a number of
high priority projects in our Refuges, Forests, Parks, and BLM-managed
special areas, such as Pinhook Swamp, a corridor linkage between
Northwest Florida's Osceola National Forest and Georgia's Okeefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge. Second, the substantial increase in funding
for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund will give states badly
needed resources to move forward with candidate conservation, recovery,
and HCP efforts, for land acquisition to support both HCPs and species
recovery. But even the requested $20 million increase for HCP land
acquisition falls far short of the projected current yearly need of
approx. $140 million that would benefit hundreds of species such as
Karner blue butterfly, Florida scrub jays, Key deer, and marbled
murrelets. Third, the $150 million for land acquisition grants is a
needed step toward revitalizing the State-side of LWCF and will give
states and local entities help in preserving dwindling vestiges of
habitat and greenspace. And fourth, open space planning ($50 million)
is a critically needed tool to help states address the threat of sprawl
more cost effectively and strategically; comprehensive conservation of
habitat must be an integral component of any such open space planning
process.
Finally, we would like to offer an excellent example of a
comprehensive, forward looking effort, strongly supported by Defenders,
that could be funded under Lands Legacy. A broad cross-section of
interests in eastern Pima County (AZ), one of the fastest growing
regions in the U.S., has joined together to request funding for both
Saguaro National Park West expansion (approved by Congress in 1994
without a funding source) and Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan (SDCP). For fiscal year 2000, at least $10 million is needed to
complete the Park expansion and another $40 million to help launch
SDCP. This request includes acquisition of critical habitat for the
endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl by supplementing state and
local funds for habitat acquisition in and around remnant old-growth
ironwood forests northwest of Tucson. Up-front acquisition of this
sensitive habitat would contribute to a pro-active private-public
partnership to conserve this area of rich ecological and scientific
value and jumpstart SDCP's development and implementation.
everglades restoration (multi-agency)
As national co-chair of the Everglades Coalition, Defenders
strongly supports full funding for Florida Everglades Watershed
Restoration, a total of $151.5 million (FWS $11 million, NPS $131.5
million, USGS $8.6 million, and BIA $0.4 million). Everglades land
acquisition, research, construction and management are investments into
the future of the economy and environment of South Florida. These funds
are vital for carrying out the first phases of the most ambitious and
critical ecosystem restoration project in history. Defenders feels that
the conceptual plan for the project provides a flexible and effective
blueprint for restoration. In recent weeks, improvements have been made
which accelerate achievement of ecosystem benefits. We applaud those
changes and congratulate the federal and state partners for their
willingness to incorporate our suggestions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Interior
and Related Agencies Subcommittee on several funding items of great
importance to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its
6.7 million members and constituents. As the largest animal protection
organization in the country, we urge the Committee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
endangered species act
The HSUS supports a strong, efficient, and effective Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the full measure of the Administration's $195
million request. Adequate funding early in the protection process--
before more drastic measures are necessary for species survival--will
facilitate the fulfillment of the ESA's crucial mandate and reduce
potential conflicts. Full funding is necessary for scientific
assessments of wildlife populations, purchase of critical habitat
threatened by development, recovery planning, on-the-ground
conservation projects, and improved enforcement to curtail the illegal
trade in endangered species parts.
rhino and tiger conservation act, african elephant conservation act,
and asian elephant conservation act
The HSUS supports the Administration's request of $1 million for
each of three crucial foreign endangered species programs: The Rhino
and Tiger Conservation Act, The African Elephant Conservation Act, and
The Asian Elephant Conservation Act. The HSUS is very concerned about
previous incidents and future opportunities for funds from these
conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy hunting, trade
in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including live capture for
trade, captive breeding, and entertainment to meet the demand of the
public display industry--under the guise of conservation for these
endangered animals.
law enforcement division of the fish and wildlife service
After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology is
essential if law enforcement is to have any hope of effectively
enforcing the nation's endangered species trade laws. To that end, The
HSUS requests an additional $12.764 million above the Administration's
request of $39.95 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
Enforcement Division. Of that amount, $2.764 million is specifically
requested for the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics Laboratory for the
purchase of additional equipment and forensic science personnel.
Adequate support for law enforcement and the forensics lab is essential
to discourage the widespread trade in exotic animals and protect viable
populations of wildlife before they are pushed to the brink of
extinction.
land and water conservation fund
The HSUS strongly recommends that the Committee restore full
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including funding for
the state grants program which has not received any money since 1995.
LWCF has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million
acres of parkland and open space and the development of more than
37,000 parks and recreation projects. It was an inspired act of
Congress that created LWCF and a visionary step to make $900 million in
Outer Continental Shelf Revenues available annually for this critical
fund. Providing full funding for LWCF's federal and stateside programs
this year will make a tremendous difference in protecting habitat and
resources that are vital to animals and people.
wild horse and burro program/fertility control research
Although progress has been made, there remain serious deficiencies
in the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro program. We
believe that this is an extremely important and valuable program.
America's wild horses are a public trust greatly beloved by the
American people, and any indication that these animals are being
threatened or mistreated generates loud public outcry. The HSUS
recommends that the Administration's budget request of $19.97 million
for the Wild Horse and Burro program be fully funded. Within the
program, however, we recommend that $400,000 be shifted from the
adoption program to on-the-ground management of horses and their range,
especially wild horse monitoring, range monitoring, and habitat
restoration. Restoring the ecological health and productivity of the
public lands is a goal on which everyone can agree.
The BLM currently spends more than $1,100 for each wild horse that
is removed from public lands and processed through the Adopt-a-Horse
program. Even at that level of spending, the Bureau cannot guarantee
humane treatment and adequate care to the 7,000 or more wild horses
adopted each year. The HSUS believes that fertility control, if used as
part of a scientifically-based and equitable range management plan, can
reduce human-caused stress on wild horses, improve care for animals
entering the adoption program, and reduce the costs of wild horse and
burro management.
Funds appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 1993-1998 have
brought immunocontraception to the brink of practical application to
western wild horses. Field tests in 1992 and 1995 led to a one shot
immunocontraceptive vaccine that reduced pregnancy rates in treated
animals for one year by at least 85 percent. Five new field tests were
begun in 1997-99, with the objectives of making the vaccine easier to
use in the field, extending the length of vaccine efficacy to two
years, and testing models that predict how much contraception reduces
horse population growth. Since every foal not born potentially saves
the Bureau over $1,100 in adoption costs, the vaccine is highly
economical, even in the research phase. Delays in releasing funds over
the past four years have significantly slowed research progress.
Consequently, we request $350,000 in fiscal year 2000 to support
further research in and initial application of wild horse
immunocontraception. These funds would allow the continuation of the
five field tests and put in place the means to begin management
application. Each application reduces the number of horses that enter
the Adopt-a-Horse program, and thereby recovers much of the cost of the
research.
The HSUS also offers the following recommendations for
modifications to the Wild Horse and Burro Program that will help
alleviate the problems that currently trouble it.
(1) Stop the elimination of horse populations from established herd
areas, stop local reductions in populations that threaten the viability
of many herds, and enlarge wild horse populations where the land can
sustain them. Where they are necessary, wild horse removals should be
part of a comprehensive plan to restore range condition, and should be
matched by real removals of livestock.
(2) Assure the public a voice in wild horse management decisions.
The BLM has been using the ``full force and effect'' regulation, which
was primarily intended for emergencies, to effectively remove the
public's voice in decisions on wild horse management.
(3) Implement the recommendations of the Pierson and Culp reports,
and the recommendations emerging from the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory
Council.
(4) Use qualified volunteers where possible, and enhance the system
for screening potential adopters, performing post-adoption compliance
checks, and investigating what factors lead to successful, long-term
adoptions.
These reforms will benefit the program in general, the animals
themselves, and the public. The HSUS looks forward to continuing to
work with the BLM on this issue.
animal control initiative on native reservations
The HSUS urges the Committee to designate $750,000 of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' Law Enforcement Initiative (or some other account the
Committee deems appropriate) for a project to improve animal control
services on several Native American reservations where public health
and safety are currently jeopardized by the lack of such services. Over
the last decade, some Native American Nations have developed animal
control programs and ordinances, but their struggling programs are
severely underfunded. Other Native American Nations have no animal
control programs at all. Poor and non-existent animal control programs
pose not only serious problems for the animals on reservations, but
also immediate public health and safety threats to the human residents.
Dog bites have become a serious hazard, particularly for children.
More than 4.7 million individuals are bitten by dogs each year in the
United States, leading to injuries and transmission of rabies and other
diseases. The problem is particularly acute in Native American Nations.
A 1996 report by Navajo Nation Animal Control stated that, ``in 1990,
the Indian Health Service announced that approximately 2,000
individuals were treated for dog bites'' on that reservation. A
fatality associated with a dog attack occurred last month on the
Blackfeet reservation, and dog attacks on other reservations have led
to severe injuries and death for children and adults over the past
several years.
Recognizing this problem, The HSUS has begun providing direct
services to several Native Nations. Since 1991, HSUS has worked with
the Navajo Nation, and during 1998, HSUS worked with local animal
control agencies to deliver basic humane services, including spaying/
neutering and vaccinations, to more than a dozen reservations in
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, providing over 45 days of
clinics. In 1999, HSUS hopes to expand its program to provide some
assistance to more than 20 reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
and Utah.
However, to address the full range of public health issues
associated with free-roaming, proliferating, and unvaccinated canine
populations on Native lands, and to do so in a way that will achieve
long term results rather than just providing stopgap aid, federal
assistance is needed. The funding requested would help several Native
Nations begin to establish their own effective animal control programs.
The proposed initiative would include training (workshops for animal
control personnel about safe animal capture, handling, and
vaccinations); animal sterilization and other veterinary services;
humane education (instruction on how to deal with roaming animals,
proper animal care, and responsible pet ownership); grants to Native
Nation animal control agencies for facilities improvement or
construction; and, if appropriate, legislation (helping communities
develop effective local animal control laws). The requested funding
could be allocated as follows:
--$310,000 to provide ``mobile clinic'' services throughout the
Nations for spaying/neutering and vaccinations. This amount
would cover at least 75 days of scheduled clinics, including a
$200 per day honorarium for 3 veterinarians. This honorarium is
necessary to recruit local veterinarians who could then be
called upon for annual follow-up services.
--$270,000 to help establish animal control programs and facilities.
Less than 10 percent of western Native Nations have formalized
animal control programs, and even fewer have animal control
facilities. This funding would be used to train Native
personnel in safe animal capture and handling, humane
euthanasia, and how to run an effective shelter. It would also
be used to assist communities in developing effective animal
control laws and humane education programs for schoolchildren,
as well as to develop and print Native American directed
educational materials on bite prevention and proper animal
care. And it could help reservations begin building or
improving their animal care facilities.
--$100,000 to provide proper equipment for animal control personnel,
including gloves, nets, cat boxes, leashes, and portable cages,
and for the spay/neuter clinics, including a portable
anaesthesia machine, spay packs, surgery tables, instrument
stands, syringes, needles, pharmaceuticals, and other medical
supplies.
--$70,000 to hire two full time Native Nation coordinators, who would
work exclusively on animal care issues affecting the
reservations and ensure that the program was running smoothly.
This initiative would go a long way toward addressing serious
public health and safety problems associated with animal control on
reservations, in a way that is humane and effective on a long-term
basis. The HSUS urges the Committee to make this much-needed modest
investment.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of
fiscal year 2000. We hope the Committee will be able to accommodate
these funding requests to address some very pressing problems affecting
millions of animals in the United States. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Christine Stevens, Secretary, Society for Animal
Protective Legislation
The Society for Animal Protective Legislation requests an increase
in appropriations of $12.764 million for the Law Enforcement Division
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for fiscal year 2000. As major
criminal activity has increased year by year in the trade of wildlife
parts and products, it is urgent that the needs of Law Enforcement be
provided with the tools and the staffing without which the David and
Goliath nature of the battle will be ceded to the Goliath of organized
crime.
I would like to begin by citing the urgent need for new
technological instruments for the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory.
The Triple Quadrupolar Mass Spectrometer will enable the skilled
scientists and technicians at the laboratory to identify specific
biological and organic chemicals. Examples of its' diverse power
include: (1) determining the unique sequence of amino acids which make
up proteins found in muscle tissues for speedy identification of
wildlife species and (2) providing the scientists the ability to
19fingerprint' complex organic chemical mixtures from illegal chemical
dump sites or oil spills and pinpoint the specific source of the
materials. (Cost: $250,000 to $300,000)
A second extremely valuable piece of equipment much needed by the
Forensics Laboratory is the High Resolution Mass Spectrometer which
would allow the scientists to look at chemical isotopes from bone,
feathers, fish scales, mollusk shells, etc. This instrument will allow
the scientists to estimate time of death as well as determine the
geographic location the sample came from.
A good example of its' use for determining where a sample
originates from is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service case last year
involving a multi-million dollar Asian pearl industry which used
illegally harvested endangered shellfish from the Mississippi River.
These shells were smuggled out of the United States and sold to the
Asian pearl industry. The shells were then ground up into 19seed
nuclei' around which artificial pearls form. The High Resolution Mass
Spectrometer would have allowed scientists to pinpoint the location the
shells were illegally taken from--even down to a specific river
drainage, and strengthen the case against the criminals involved.
(Cost: $750, 000 to $1,000,000)
The Fourier (pronounced For-E-A) Transform Mass Spectrometer is
another important detective device which performs macro-molecular
analysis as well as DNA and protein sequencing. These techniques are
especially valuable in the analysis of medicinal products purporting to
contain minute amounts of Rhino horn or Tiger bone powders. Other
analytical techniques involve rapid species identification based on
protein differences found in hemoglobin in blood and myoglobin from
muscle tissue samples. (Cost: $500,000)
Additionally, the new, powerful tools of DNA analysis in matching
tissue samples from poaching cases, and in identifications of species
and species-hybrids are increasingly opening up new areas of forensic
capability and allowing the scientists to analyze blood and tissue
evidence that previously could not be processed. These expanded
capabilities have placed new demands for casework on the Laboratory. To
keep up with these demands the Lab needs the following instruments:
Two automated multi-probe work-stations which would allow the
scientists to place DNA samples through a selected sequence of
automatic analytical processes. (Cost: $50,000 each)
Two Cytoflour multi-well plate readers to instantaneously, and
accurately quantify flourescent-labeled strands of DNA. This will
provide a precise measurement of the DNA for subsequent analysis.
(Cost: $22,000 each)
An ABI 310 capillary electrophoresis DNA sequencer would greatly
expand the Lab's capability in answering both species and hybrid
identifications of wildlife. (Cost: $100,000)
Finally, communications with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Inspectors at
border ports is vital to the ongoing investigative assistance provided
by the Lab. One goal to enhance this communication is to place 50,
state-of-the-art laptop computers in the hands of Wildlife Inspectors
around the U.S. These computers will allow them to securely connect to
the Lab using smartcard technology and encryption software to access
on-going casework, investigative and research data. This technology
will greatly enhance their investigations and ultimately the service of
the Lab. (Cost: $150,000)
The nature of the casework at the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory has become more complicated and detailed as new
investigations involving threatened and endangered exotic wildlife
trade species are initiated. Some of the analytical techniques are
adaptations from human forensics which are modified and applied to
wildlife cases. Because of the diversity of evidence found in wildlife
crime, many other techniques are completely new, cutting edge forensic
technologies developed from scratch.
With this changing casework and technology, additional personnel
are needed. Two senior forensic scientists, 8 forensic specialists and
2 technicians will greatly assist the mission of the Laboratory.
(Salaries and benefits $570,000)
The instruments and personnel needs I have described will
accomplish two main goals: (1) they will allow scientists to more
rapidly analyze evidence and speed up the investigative and judicial
process and, (2) they will greatly assist the scientists in developing
new forensic techniques to answer the difficult questions--including
species identifications, cause of death, origin of sample--questions
involved with the multi-billion dollar world trade in threatened and
endangered wildlife.
It is estimated that there are approximately 3000 forensics
laboratories worldwide, all focused on solving crimes against one
species-humans. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics Laboratory stands
as one laboratory whose mission is to solve crimes against the other,
silent species of the world. Support of this Lab is vital to our
commitment to the countless generations who follow us and the hope that
they can enjoy the world's wildlife as we do now.
______
Prepared Statement of Ted James, Planning Director, Kern County
Planning Department; Steven J. Arita, Environmental Coordinator,
Western States Petroleum Association; Manual Cunha, Jr., President,
NISEI Farmers League; Les Clark, Vice President, Independent Oil
Producers Association; and Mike Chase, Endangered Species Coordinator,
Kern County Farm Bureau
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley
Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit
this statement for the record in support of our funding request for the
Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000.
First, the Coalition supports the Department of Interior's fiscal
year 2000 budget request for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund--especially funding for HCP land acquisition. The
Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate maximum funding for
land acquisition.
The Coalition's request is supported by the timely need to
implement the KCVFHCP, which is in the final stages of development and
expected to be completed within the next 8-10 months. The Coalition
requests that the Subcommittee appropriate the maximum possible amount
for this program, so that the funding pool can accommodate our request
and need. We are confident that the plan's merits and urgency support
this request.
Kern County's program is unique from other regions in the nation in
that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal
species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the
continental United States. The region is occupied by 13 wildlife
species and 14 plant species listed as threatened or endangered under
federal law. The potential for conflict with the federal ESA is great
in Kern County because of the extensive agricultural and oil and gas
production activities which occur. Since Kern County is the top oil
producing county in the nation and one of the leading agricultural
counties, potential conflicts with the ESA and their resolution through
a proactive conservation program has significant national importance.
In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by federal
and state endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, California
Department of Oil & Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department
of Fish & Game and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to
develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a
streamlined and consistent process of complying with State and Federal
endangered species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry
activities such as oil and gas, agricultural, ranching, water
conveyance and other industry activities to continue. Preparation of
the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of federal, state and
local government agencies, as well as the oil and gas industry,
agricultural, utilities and environmental groups.
Kern County's Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP) is
one of the largest and most diverse endangered species conservation
programs under development in the nation encompassing over 3,110 square
miles. The program embraces many of the conservation approaches that
have been advocated by the Department of Interior, in that it
represents a significant departure from traditional endangered species
conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to assure
conservation of species habitat. Instead, it is based on a system of
trading habitat credits in an open market. In that regard, the KCVFHCP
is considered to be a state-of-art conservation plan that will address
compliance with the ESA for multiple threatened and endangered species.
This innovative and state of the art system, for the first time,
provides landowners with real incentives and more importantly, the
ability to choose how best to manage their own private property.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of its
request, as well as Subcommittee's support of the Kern County HCP.
______
Prepared Statement of Harry Wilde, Sr., Co-Chair, Lower Yukon and
Gilbert Huntington, Co-Chair Upper Yukon, on Behalf of the Yukon River
Drainage Fisheries Association
abstract
The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) requests an
appropriation of $150,000 to operate a public information and education
campaign concerning the U.S./Canada Yukon River salmon treaty
negotiations and the operations of the Yukon River Panel. Funds would
be transferred from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the YRDFA
through a Cooperative Agreement entered into under the authority of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 USC 661-667 (e) (1970)] and
under the authority of legislation to be introduced later this spring
reauthorizing the Yukon River Salmon Act.
introduction
Since 1985 the U.S. and Canada have engaged in annual negotiations
to conclude a long-term treaty for the management of chinook and fall
chum that spawn in Canada. During the 1990s there were informal
agreements on harvest targets and spawning escapements and from
February 1995 through March 1998, a formal Interim Agreement was in
place between the two countries. During the 1990s, with the exception
of the unforeseen salmon crash of 1998, spawning escapements were
steadily being built back up to agreed-upon levels.
While management cooperation between the two countries has had some
success, there is a serious need to improve public information and
education concerning U.S./Canada Yukon salmon issues to the 15,000
rural residents living in the 42 different Yukon villages in Alaska.
All of these villages are extremely isolated, accessible only by small
plane or riverboat. There are no daily newspapers, limited and poor TV
reception and only a few scattered public radio stations.
It is these rural villagers who will be the most affected by an
eventual treaty with Canada. Salmon, including Canadian-origin chinook
and fall chum stocks, are the backbone of both their traditional
subsistence fishery and their small commercial fishery. Decisions
concerning Canadian-origin stocks have major impacts on how many salmon
each family may harvest and how much fishing income a commercial
fisherman might earn. These fishermen must not only be fully informed
about the ongoing process but must be able to communicate with and
provide feedback to the U.S. delegation negotiation team (a.k.a, the
U.S. section of the Yukon River Panel and its Advisory Committee as
well as agency personnel of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Department of State and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
Unless the residents and fishermen of the Yukon River understand
the costs and benefits of the Panel process and a future proposed
treaty with Canada, it will be very difficult for United States Panel
members and negotiators to move forward on negotiations. Without
adequate public information and participation mistrust will build
between the rank-and-file and the people who represent them.
a u.s./canada yukon river salmon information & education program
In 1998 and now in 1999, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has, at
the direction of the U.S. section of the Panel and the negotation
delegation, entered into cooperative agreements with YRDFA in the
amounts of $10,000 and $50,000, respectively, to assist the agencies in
educating the public about the ongoing negotiations with Canada. Funds
were, and are being, utilized to pay for an annual 4-day fishermen's
meeting and for informational newsletters distributed to nearly 3,000
recipients.
For fiscal year 2000 the YRDFA would use the funds to expand its
comprehensive public information & education program in consultation
with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game. Potential activities include: Quarterly newsletter and periodic
mailings distributed to:
--1,500 subsistence salmon fishing households
--950 commercial salmon fishing permit holders
--100 contacts in state and federal agencies
--42 ANCSA village corporations
--42 IRA/Traditional village councils
--12 salmon processing/smoking operations
--8 media outlets
--15-minute radio programs distributed on Alaska Public Radio Network
Fishermen's meetings in selected villages in the lower, middle
and upper Yukon
Through such a comprehensive effort the fishermen and women of the
Yukon will be fully informed and involved in working with the Yukon
River Panel and the various agencies in charting the future of the
Yukon River.
Anticipated annual expenditures of a fully-funded Information &
Education Program are as follows:
YRDFA staff support........................................... $50,000
Fishermen's Meetings (travel & per diem)...................... 60,000
Radio programs (contractual).................................. 16,000
Newsletters (production & distribution)....................... 24,000
the yukon river drainage fisheries association (yrdfa)
The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association was formed in 1990
to unite lower river and upper river commercial and subsistence
fishermen of the Yukon River and its tributaries within Alaska. As such
it represents Yup'ik Eskimo, Athabascan Indians and white homesteaders.
It is governed by a 16-member Board of Directors with seats apportioned
according to the six (6) commercial fishing management districts of the
Yukon, the coastal villages, the Koyukuk River tributary. and the Yukon
Flats A primary goal of the YRDFA is to seek consensus solutions to the
various management, conservation and allocation issues on this vast and
complex river system.
The YRDFA hosts a 4-day Annual Meeting in a different village each
year and publishes an occasional newsletter. The Association also
sponsors ad hoc village meetings concerning local and subregional
issues. It works on a regular basis with biologists of the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service
to craft management plans that help to assure sustained yield of
various stocks while meeting subsistence harvest needs and providing
for commercial harvests. YRDFA then presents these consensus plans for
formal regulatory approval by the Alaska State Board of Fisheries.
The YRDFA is the only organization that works with and unites all
the diverse fishermen on the river. It knows the best ways to
communicate with and foster the participation of these fishermen.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony.
______
National Park Service
Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
The Governing Board of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony in support of a $5
million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management for acquisitions
in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. The Conservancy was
established by the California Legislature in 1991 to acquire and hold
in trust open space in the mountainous lands surrounding the Coachella
Valley, and to provide for the public's enjoyment and use of those
lands consistent with the protection of cultural, scientific, scenic,
and wildlife resources.
The Scenic Area is the mountain range that forms the backdrop of
the Coachella Valley cities, including Palm Springs, Cathedral City,
Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. The mountains
rise quite steeply from the desert floor to an alpine environment atop
San Jacinto Peak at 10,800 feet. The resource values in the mountains
run the gamut from scenic and wildlife to cultural and recreational.
The Scenic Area is of great importance to the Coachella Valley's
economy, and hundreds of thousands of people who come to the desert
each year for vacation enjoy our mountains, and, in so doing,
contribute to the local economy.
The Conservancy would like to inform you about two partnerships.
The first partnership is the local, state, and federal partnership that
has been working for years to protect the National Scenic Area. The
attached chart shows the magnitude of this partnership. Since 1990 the
state of California has provided over $20 million for acquisition and
the local communities nearly $10 million, including $3.9 million since
January 1st for a key acquisition in Andreas Canyon. BLM has
contributed over $11 million in LWCF money in that time period. This is
a partnership that you can be proud of having supported, and you can be
confident that your continued support will again leverage state and
local contributions. With the listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep
as an endangered species last year, we are in ever-greater need of
acquisition funding to protect the National Scenic Area, which is home
to the magnificent bighorn sheep. Land acquisition activities are
accelerating in an effort to avert conflicts over the bighorn sheep and
to enhance protection for the species.
The Conservancy and BLM are currently talking with nine key
landowners about the acquisition of their property. Together their
holdings total 13,830 acres, the total value of which is in the range
of $19 to $26 million. Five of these landowners are committed willing
sellers at an estimated cost of $3.4 million, and the BLM's remaining
fiscal year 1999 LWCF money will initiate these acquisitions.
Appraisals are currently being conducted on these properties. Of the
other four landowners, three have indicated a strong interest in
selling, contingent upon the purchase price being determined and how
quickly the acquisitions could occur. The value of their land is in
excess of $10 million. The final landowner has not yet indicated
whether or not he wants to sell. The requested $5 million appropriation
would complete the pending projects and enable BLM to initiate one or
more of the other willing seller acquisitions. The Conservancy is
optimistic that state funds will be available in the coming fiscal year
to provide a significant state contribution toward those acquisitions.
The second partnership is the southern California NCCP cooperative
effort. Representatives from NCCP efforts in five counties meet monthly
to share information and provide mutual support for each other's
efforts. Collectively, these NCCP plans comprise the core of a
bioregional conservation plan for all of southern California. This is
certainly one of, if not the most, most comprehensive and proactive
planning efforts in the nation. We also request your support for the
funding needs of our NCCP partners, namely, $10 million in acquisition
funds for the San Diego Wildlife Refuge, $2 million in acquisition
funds for Otay Mountain, and $2 million in NCCP planning funds. To meet
other needs in the area, as well as in other areas of the country, we
support $80 in Cooperative Endangered Species Act funding and full
funding for the LWCF program.
In conclusion, the Conservancy would like to update you on some of
the successful acquisition efforts in the Scenic Area. We are pleased
to report the completion of a partnership acquisition by the BLM and
the City of Palm Desert, in which each contributed $1.25 million to
acquire the C.C. Myers property. Also, as alluded to earlier, the
County of Riverside recently committed $1.9 million and the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians committed $2 million to acquire the
Andreas Cove Development Company property at the mouth of Andreas
Canyon. The Conservancy purchased 91 acres and the Friends of the
Desert Mountains have 213 acres in escrow, using Adopt an Acre program
contributions from community members and corporate sponsors.
Land and Water Conservation fund money has been well spent in the
Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area because of these
partnerships. The money is an investment in more than land. It is an
investment in a model of local, state, and federal agencies working
successfully together, and with diverse private sector groups. The
Coachella Valley has an excellent history of such cooperative efforts
in land acquisition and in preparing successful plans to deal with
endangered species issues. That cooperation is alive and well today; in
fact it is healthier than ever. An LWCF appropriation is a key
ingredient in the recipe for the success we have had and are continuing
to enjoy. The Conservancy hopes this Subcommittee will support an LWCF
appropriation as you have in the past.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
The National Conference requests a withdrawal from the Historic
Preservation Fund of $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Compare FY
FY 2000 preservation's 1999 actual
FY 1999 actual administration request at with FY 2000
budget $150 million request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage grants:
Restoration grants (thru States/CLGs)....... .............. .............. $43.478 +$43.478
HBCU........................................ $8.422 $15.022 15.022 +6.600
Save Americas Treasures..................... 30.000 30.000 30.000 ..............
NHL Grants.................................. .............. 1.500 1.500 +1.500
Congressional add-ons for 8 properties...... 8.750 .............. .............. -8.750
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage grants subtotal.................. 47.172 46.522 90.000 +42.828
---------------------------------------------------------------
Core Programs at the State and local levels..... 31.394 31.394 50.000 +18.606
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices andtribal 2.596 2.596 10.000 +7.404
grants.........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................... 81.162 80.512 150.000 +68.838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the National Conference testimony is to focus on the
request for the national historic pres ervation program operation
through the State Historic Preservation Offices: $93.478 million
($43.478 million for restoration grants and $50 million for core
activities).
why now?
The strength of the United States' economy, the elimination of the
deficit, and the willingness of the Administration and the Congress, on
a bipartisan basis, to consider increasing the outlays from the
Historic Preservation and Land and Water Conservation Funds has
encouraged the National Conference to ask for what the Nation's
historic resources need. For two decades, the Historic Preservation
Fund has operated at a fraction of its potential because the off shore
oil lease revenues were used to balance the budget. Since financial
conditions have improved, the off shore oil lease revenues can and
should be di rected to their intended purpose.
the nation's heritage is more than the federal estate
The heritage of the United States exists beyond the boundaries of
the national park system and the larger federal estate. The heritage of
the United States also exists beyond museum settings and park
preserves. Comprehensive conservation of our his tory requires the
comprehensive approach embodied in the National Historic Preservation
Act.
National policy must provide for stewardship of heritage both in
the parks and in the rest of the nation. Federally owned and non-
federally owned historic places merit equal treatment and equal concern
and equitable funding.
states, not federal agencies, accomplish the national preservation
program
The framers of the national preservation program decided to
``hire'' the States to fulfill the provisions of the National Historic
Preser vation Act. This scheme has an added cost-cutting benefit as the
States contribute half the expense. When a State Historic Preservation
Officer recommends a property for nomination to the National Register,
advises a developer on a rehabilitation, or con sults with a federal
agency on a project the SHPO is conducting the national preserva tion
program, is acting for the federal government. Without the SHPOs
federal employees would bear the responsibility. The Historic
Preservation Fund allocations to State historic preservation programs
pay for the federal responsibility for the na tion's heritage, a
federal responsibility equal to the national parks.
adverse effects of limited funding: unplanned, unbalanced decisions
Except for the period under the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, the broad national preservation program has been
underfunded. This situation is not without consequences. The chart on
page one of this testimony graphically illustrates one result. Funding
for restoration projects has become targeted, categorical, and
restricted to a narrow applicant pool. This situation undermines the
goals of the national program including the need to provide opportunity
and resources to all the diverse manifestations of our heritage, with
decision making and administration shared with the federal government's
partners at the State and local level. Advocates for preserving
endangered sites are frustrated and understandably pursue other ave
nues including special grants and separate authorizations. Full funding
of the Historic Preservation Fund will provide equal access to
resources for all Americans, and for the properties important to all
Americans, reducing the need for new programs and emergency grants.
One measure of the current situation is the fact that although the
National Historic Preservation Act directs the Secretary to expend no
more than 10 percent of the Historic Preservation Fund in directed
grants, 60 percent of the fiscal year 1999 Historic Preservation Fund
was allocated and administered at the federal level.
In the State offices, the benefits of the national program are
selectively offered depending upon the resources available. With
support for the federal program declin ing in adjusted dollars for
twenty years, hard choices have to be made. Few offices, for example,
are able to provide assistance to individuals or neighborhoods that
want to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is
the heart of the national program. Those that can afford to hire a
consultant may succeed, but many worthy sites are not recognized.
Similarly, while the historic rehabilitation tax credits are a great
success story, the bulk of our heritage which is not in com mercial use
needs equal treatment through the matching grants established by the
Historic Preservation Fund.
The most expensive consequence of chronic under funding has to do
with historic sites survey and the coordination of federal activities
with impacts on his toric places. Under funding has limited
comprehensive historic site survey coverage. Therefore, federal
agencies and applicants for federal assistance deter mine, usually
through consultants, what sites their project will impact. Exacerbat
ing this situation is the old fashioned methodology for maintaining
historic site locational information. Limited Historic Preservation
Fund allocations mean no resources to digitize historic site
information, creating increased planning periods and project costs.
uses of hpf increases
Increases in Historic Preservation Fund allocations to the national
preser vation program will go for known historic resource needs. The
precise definition of these needs is found in National Park Service-
approved historic preservation plans for each State, developed with
public participation by the citizens of each State.
An existing National Park Service formula exists for the allocation
of ``core programs'' funding among the States. The Park Service allo
cates Historic Preservation Fund withdrawals over $50 million based on
a competi tive grants process among the States. Local governments,
official partners in the national preservation program, will benefit. A
minimum of 10 percent goes to certified local government as well as
half of the HPF withdrawal over $65 million. Initial expectations are
that the competitive grants would focus on restoration grants for
endangered National Register properties and digitizing inventory
information.
The core program increases will support underfunded activities such
as technical assistance in survey, National Register nominations, and
enabling more local governments to become official partners in the
program. The burdens of the existing program on the State Historic
Preservation Offices are increasing because of growing popularity of
the programs and further delegation of federal responsi bilities. For
example, the number of rehabilitation tax credit projects has been
growing by 15 percent per year. Public education is another high
priority. Importantly, Historic Preservation Fund increases will allow
for a major advance in digitizing historic site survey information
resulting in both better protection for significant properties and
expedited consultation for federal projects.
save america's treasures
Save America's Treasures grants for fiscal year 2000 should be
allocated on a competitive basis through the States which have the
capability to generate match award subgrants in an expeditious manner.
Further, the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section
101(e)(3)) is that the Historic Preservation Fund go to States, Indian
tribes and local govern ments. The Historic Preservation Fund is not
for federal agency expenses which should be funded through their
regular budgetary processes (Section 110).
historic preservation benefits
The benefits of the national historic preservation program make
Historic Preservation Fund ap propriations a sound investment. The
federal dollar invested in a historic preservation project goes a long
way. First, it is matched at a 1:2 ratio (based on historic
experience). Second, it is a one-time federal in vestment. Unlike
national parks which require on-going federal expenditures in
perpetuity, the responsibil ity for maintenance and the protection of
the federal investment rests with the owner. In each case, heri tage is
preserved. The cost to the federal government, however, is very
different.
Historic Preservation Fund dollars are further leveraged by
programs in the private sector such as the federal historic
rehabilitation tax credits, administered by the State Historic
Preservation Officers. Owners of commercial properties on the National
Register of Historic Places invested $2 billion in their buildings in
fiscal year 1998 using this program, which ensures that the work
maintains the historic character of the structure.
The data and expertise created by the national program may be
regarded as an ``infrastructure'' for heritage with many potential
uses, including the economic development opportunities of heritage area
initiatives, and cultural tourism programs, one of the fastest growing
indus tries in the world. Quality of life issues are high on the list
of factors corporations consider when relocat ing, and communities
successfully include heritage as a strategy in attracting new jobs and
reasonable growth.
Participation in the national historic preservation program, when
adequately funded, is open to everyone and is voluntary. Residents and
property owners make decisions about their community's future. The
Historic Preservation Fund gives them the option of having expert
advice on assessing historic char acter, on alternative preservation
techniques.
The national preservation program offers an alternative to exurban
sprawl by rebuilding and reinvesting in existing communities,
encouraging people to appreciate the character and benefits of living
in an historic community. Historic districts, because of the pride and
interest of residents in their community, are safer and maintain their
value.
Non-quantifiable benefits exist as well. Historic neighborhoods and
business districts are livable places where people want to be. ``New
urbanists'' in the architecture and planning professions work to re-
create the scale of historic communities. Celebration in Florida,
Kentlands in Maryland bringing substantial profits to their developer
clients.
Finally, historic preservation provides a real-time education for
all Americans in the lessons and values of our history. The Historic
Preservation Fund is the tool box that allows Americans to identify and
protect that history for now and forever.
______
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.
Before I begin to discuss our fiscal year 2000 funding request, I
want to express, on behalf of all of us at Close Up, our gratitude for
the support this Subcommittee has shown for the Foundation's efforts to
enhance and expand civic education opportunities in the Pacific
Islands. The funding provided by this Subcommittee to the Office of
Insular Affairs has made it possible for Close Up to reach thousands of
students and educators. Without the Subcommittee's support, we know we
would have had to significantly curtail the educational and training
experiences we have provided Pacific Islanders.
For the past sixteen years, the Close Up Foundation has been
involved in a variety of civic education activities in the Pacific
Islands. With support from Congress, there are now 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. In addition to having a special relationship with the United
States, the unique global positioning of the Pacific Islands makes it
critical that citizens in this region have the tools and understanding
that are necessary to support democratic institutions. Close Up's
twenty-eight years of conducting civic education programs place us in
an ideal position to assist Pacific Island entities with education and
training activities that will foster an interest in and an appreciation
of the need for informed citizen involvement in the emerging
democracies of the Pacific region.
We are aware of the budgetary pressures confronting the
Subcommittee, but we believe for a relatively small investment of
federal funds Close Up returns the investment many times over with
significant contributions to the current and future generations of
emerging Pacific democracies. Therefore, we respectfully request $1.0
million in fiscal year 2000 funding for Close Up's Pacific Islands
programs.
close up foundation's pacific islands programs
Washington high school program
Although Close Up is much more than students on the Hill, most
people associate Close Up with civic education programs for high school
students. Through hard work and considerable support from communities
across the country, we have experienced tremendous success during the
last twenty-eight years in providing quality, hands-on, civic education
experiences to a diverse group of students and educators. Our program
diversity is exemplified by the participation of Pacific Island
students and educators. Their presence helps to enhance the experience
of many of our participants most of whom begin their week with little
knowledge of people from other regions of the country (and world), only
to end the week amazed at the similarities, shared interests, and new
understandings created during their program week.
For the past several years, we have conducted three Washington High
School Program options to meet the education needs of the Pacific
Island participants. Each of the three options included a week in
Washington on Close Up's program. In response to the desires of Pacific
educators, we plan to eliminate one of the three program options--the
Pacific Basin program--and offer two program options in fiscal year
2000.
One of the fiscal year 2000 options for the Pacific participants
includes: a week in Washington on the ``core'' Close Up High School
Program; a two-day trip to Williamsburg to explore the roots of
American democracy; a visit to Philadelphia to examine the U.S.
Constitution, its origin, and its impact on Pacific constituents; and,
a visit to New York City, where students study the cultural and
political implications of America's diverse citizenry.
The other option is the ``core'' Washington High School program
expanded to eight days. This program was created to respond to an
approximate 25 percent reduction in funding in fiscal year 1997. Rather
than significantly reduce the number of students who could participate,
four Pacific Island entities decided to offer an eight-day program.
This program has been well received. This program option basically
provides an extra day and a half for Pacific Island students to work on
activities specifically devoted to the Pacific Islands and their
relationship to the U.S. government.
In preparation for Close Up's current program year, we have been
offering the three program options from previous years. We learned for
certain after the first of the year that we would be facing a 33
percent reduction from the $750,000 we received in fiscal year 1998 (to
a level of $500,000) for this part of the program. Since program
planning begins a year ahead of time we felt we must go forward with
our commitments and offer all three options in fiscal year 1999, even
if it means fewer participants in each program. Should the Foundation's
fiscal year 2000 appropriations request be funded, we plan to offer the
two program options preferred by Pacific educators and increase
measurably from the fiscal year 1999 level the number of students and
educators taking part in those programs.
Each year, the overall program experience reaffirms our commitment
to provide quality civic education programs to the Pacific Islands. The
positive voices of appreciation of our programs, heard from every
participating Island, strengthen our resolve to continue to strive to
provide these often life transforming opportunities for the students
and educators of the Pacific Islands.
Teacher training and teacher institute
In early 1998, Close Up completed an extensive nine-month civic
education/social studies needs assessment for the Pacific Islands. A
consistent theme in both the formal and informal discussions with
Pacific educators was the need for teacher training. As a result of the
needs assessment and a follow-up proposal the Foundation submitted to
the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA), the Foundation was awarded a
supplemental grant of $231,600 of which $149,600 was allocated for a
Teacher Training Institute.
The Foundation conducted a ``Training of Trainers'' Institute in
early December of 1998. The ``Training of Trainers'' (ToT) included
forty-three educators from six Pacific entities; six from American
Samoa, six (6) from CNMI, fifteen (15) from FSM, five (5) from Guam,
five (5) from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and six (6) from
the Republic of Palau. From all accounts, the ToT was a huge success.
One of the participants described the session as the best training
program he had ever attended. This ToT was the beginning of creating a
reservoir of educators who can work with others on their islands to
improve the level of instruction for Pacific Island students.
In last year's testimony, we expressed the hope that we would
receive funding enabling us to conduct a ToT. We also stated our belief
that a second and subsequent ToT would be necessary to reach an
adequate number of educators. Given the timing of the supplemental
grant award, the actual dates the 1998 ToT was conducted, and the
expected reduction in a fiscal year 1999 grant, it is not possible for
the Foundation to conduct a full ToT Institute in 1999. We continue to
be, however, firm in our belief that teacher training activities are a
vital element to building an educational system staffed by quality,
self-reliant, self-assured educators. In the Pacific Islands, Close Up
is one of the few groups trying to address this critical need. Should
we be fortunate enough to receive fiscal year 2000 federal funding, we
would therefore anticipate allocating some of the funding to teacher
training activities.
Although training activities conducted in the Washington area offer
unique resource advantages, we support the Pacific educators' belief
that island-specific training conducted ``on-site'' can also be
productive and useful. Although more limited in scope than other ``off-
site'' training, there are home field benefits to be derived from this
training approach. Specifically, it provides an arena where our ToT
graduate participants can assist in the on-site training, technical
assistance and evaluation.
Civic education materials
Returning to the needs assessment conducted by the Foundation, one
disconcerting finding was the alarming continuing need for current
civic education and other materials. Although the specific needs varied
from island to island, all of the entities had significant needs for
materials.
Part of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental grant of $52,000 we
received is dedicated to helping reduce the shortage of materials in
the Pacific Islands. Because the timing of the supplemental grant award
and the ToT Institute, the production and distribution of materials
will take place in the current fiscal year. Subsequent to discussions
with staff at the OIA, the timeline for production and dissemination of
the materials was extended to the first semester of the 1999 academic
year.
The Foundation has collaborated with Pacific educators to develop
island-specific social studies resource books. These books, known as
the Civic Achievement Award Program (CAAP) books, are designed to
connect history, government, geography, economics, culture, and current
events with responsible citizenship. Since these books are tailored
specifically to the island entities, their additional distribution will
help mitigate some of the need for civic education materials.
A second way the Foundation can help alleviate the materials needs
of the Pacific Islands is to reformulate into a comprehensive text all
of the CAAP materials for the Pacific region. Funds were provided in
the fiscal year 1998 supplemental grant for this activity. Work on this
text is currently underway and this resource book is expected to be
available for use in the fall semester of 1999. We will continue to
assess the civic education materials needs in the Pacific to determine
if supplemental island-specific publications are critically needed.
Local programs
Close Up's Washington teacher program enables Pacific teachers to
return to their islands and use their enhanced professional skills to
help all of their students--not just those who came to Washington.
Armed with new classroom skills and confidence, many of these returning
teachers have worked to develop government studies programs at the
local level. These programs create a significant multiplier effect of
learning for their students and their communities. The Foundation uses
a small amount of the funding it receives to help teachers and other
community members to develop and conduct these local programs.
Mr. Chairman, the Close Up Foundation has always considered it a
privilege to work with students and educators from the Pacific Islands.
We are proud of the programs we have conducted during the past sixteen
years, and believe we have had a significant impact on the civic well-
being of the Pacific Islands. As I stated earlier, we recognize that
much of our Pacific work would not have been possible without the
support of this Subcommittee. We believe our plans for fiscal year 2000
will continue to contribute measurably to the Pacific Islands and to
the understanding and value Pacific Islanders place on democracy and
democratic institutions. Therefore, we strongly believe that our work
continues to justify your support. We would be happy to respond to any
questions and to provide any additional programmatic or budgetary
detail. Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board; Barbara Patrick, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern
County and Member, California Air Resources Board; Manuel Cunha, Jr.,
President, NISEI Farmers League; Les Clark, Vice President, Independent
Oil Producers Agency; Catherine H. Reheis, Managing Coordinator,
Western States Petroleum Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 1999 funding request of $100,000 for the California
Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed
both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate
matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act
Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards
by December 31, 2001. If the proposed PM-2.5 standards are adopted,
they would have to be attained 2-3 years later. Attainment of these
standards requires effective and equitable distribution of pollution
controls that cannot be determined without a major study of this issue.
According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing
research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem
has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people
living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the
quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated
with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries
will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing
natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs
for a soundly researched solution.
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other
sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are
characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are
dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, and dirt loosened and
carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural land. Soil erosion
through wind and other agents also leads to aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5
air pollution problems.
Several aspects of the research are important to federal agencies
and programs within the purview of the subcommittee's jurisdiction,
including the Park Service. Based on consultation with federal agency
officials who work closely with the PM-10/PM-2.5 issue in the San
Joaquin Valley Region, the Coalition requests funding for the following
agency:
--Park Service ($100,000).--The U.S. Park Service have a substantial
stake in the PM-10/PM-2.5 issue. Park Service officials in the
California region are concerned about the sources and types of
PM-10/PM-2.5 particulate matter, including secondary emissions,
that are coming into park areas from the San Joaquin Valley.
There is a need for an assessment of the effect of PM-10/PM-2.5
emissions on different elevations of terrain. The Park Service
is concerned about the transport of Valley emissions into
outside areas under Park Service jurisdiction, especially as
these emissions have an effect on vegetation and visibility in
park areas. Park Service officials are concerned about the
possible contribution of prescribed and forest fires on the PM-
10/PM-2.5 problem, as well as the effect of PM-10/PM-2.5
particulate matter on human and other animal life, vegetation,
land management, and area lakes and streams.
The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the
need for more information on how the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as
by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities
contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of
Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current
understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5
actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better
understanding and more information--which this study would provide--
industry and government will be unable to develop an effective
attainment plain and control measures.
Our Coalition is working diligently to be a part of the effort to
solve this major problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to
support research and efforts to deal effectively with what is
essentially an unfunded federal mandate.
Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and
local governmental entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come
to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair
federal share of financial support for this important research effort.
In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study essential to
the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control
measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique
cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government,
as well as private industry, has raised more than $24 million to date
to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-10/PM-2.5 air
quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue continues, and our
hope is that private industry, federal, state and local governments
will be able to raise a final $4.6 million this year to complete the
funding for this important study.
To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding
provided through USDA's, DOD's, Interior's and EPA's budgets--a total
of $13.3 million in federal funding with $200,000 in funding from the
National Park Service for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. State and
industry funding has matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.
With the planning phase of the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air
Quality Study complete, a number of significant accomplishments have
been achieved. These interim products have not only provided guidance
for completion of the remainder of the Study and crucial information
for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced preliminary
findings which are significant to the Department of Interior's (DOI)
interests.
The Study is significant to DOI interests for a number of reasons.
The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes
in the nation. The information being collected by the PM study is
essential for development of sound and cost-effective control plans.
The potential impacts of emissions from unpaved roads under U.S. Forest
Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management
jurisdiction are also a concern, as well as emissions from prescribed
burns and wildfires. In addition, previous studies have demonstrated
that significant amounts of fine particles and their precursors from
the San Joaquin Valley can be transported form the Valley into the
Sierra Nevada Mountains, impacting sensitive forest areas and reducing
visibility in national parks. Effective control plans for the San
Joaquin Valley, based upon the results of the PM study, will help
address the potential impacts of emissions from sources under the DOI
jurisdiction and mitigate visibility and forest impacts through the
reduction of transport from the Valley.
To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to
provide an improved understanding of emission sources within the San
Joaquin Valley and Sierra Nevada Mountains, and transport both within
the Valley and into the Sierras. A preliminary field monitoring program
was conducted during the fall and winter of 1995/96. Extensive air
quality and meteorological measurements were collected. This database
is being analyzed to address a number of questions, including: (1) the
sources contributing to elevated PM-10 and PM-2.5 concentrations, (2)
the zone of influence of specific sources, and (3) wind flow patterns
and transport routes between the Valley and surrounding areas.
Preliminary results indicate that urban sites within the Valley and
rural sites located in the Sierras have equivalent concentrations of
secondary ammonium nitrate, suggesting this pollutant is regional in
nature. At urban sites contributions from local combustion sources are
then superimposed upon this regional background resulting in elevated
urban concentrations.
The results of these analyses are being used to design large scale
field monitoring programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field
programs will address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 and PM-2.5
standards. Surface and aloft monitoring of air quality, meteorology,
fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12 million.
Final plans for these field studies are being developed, and will be
carried out by numerous contractors over a broad are an encompassing
Central California, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert.
Substantial resources will also be devoted to developing improved
emissions estimates. A database of the field study results will be
completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings
available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide
information for federal planning requirements as part of the new PM-10/
PM-2.5 national ambient air quality standards.
The Department of Interior's prior funding and participation have
enabled these projects to occur. Continued support by DOI is essential
to implement a full scope of transport and emissions assessment
projects and to ensure that DOI concerns are met.
In summary, for fiscal year 2000, our Coalition is seeking $100,000
in federal funding to support the continuation of this vital study by
the Park Service in California. We respectfully request that the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies provide
these funds in the appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000, and that
report language be included directing the full amount for California.
This will represent the final year of funding requested from DOI.
The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 study will not only provide
vital information for a region identified as having particularly acute
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model for other regions
of the country that are experiencing similar problems. The results of
this study will provide improved methods and tools for air quality
monitoring, emission estimations, and effective control strategies
nationwide. Consequently, the beneficial results of this study will
contribute to national policy concerns as well.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this
request for a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100,000 to support the
California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study. DOI's past
contributions have helped ensure the success of the study. The
coalition thanks you for your support of this important program.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, FL
Mr Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, the City of Miami
Beach, Florida appreciates the opportunity to present testimony on two
important initiatives for which we are seeking Federal assistance.
north shore open space park /north beach recreational corridor project
The City of Miami Beach, Florida, seeks your support for funding to
create the North Beach Recreational Corridor Project, an
environmentally sensitive recreational greenway which will interconnect
a series of park facilities distributed throughout the City s
residential North Beach District and to tie into a regional network of
recreational trails/alternative transportation routes.
The City s North Beach District is predominately occupied with
multi-family residential developments including the majority of the
City s low and moderate income families. Like most areas in Miami
Beach, the North Beach District was developed in the 1930's and 40's as
a resort community. At that time, automobiles were of little use or
concern to Miami Beach visitors. As a result, very few parking
facilities were developed in the area. Today, the shortage of available
parking seriously impedes public access to area parks and beaches. The
lack of facilities for bicycles and other forms of alternative
transportation, which are extremely popular in Miami Beach, forces
riders, etc. into city streets, creating many hazardous situations.
The North Beach Recreational Corridor will provide a continuous
route throughout the entire North Beach District interconnecting and
improving public access to public parks, the beaches and other
recreational, cultural and educational facilities.
The main recreational destination along the corridor will be the
City s North Shore Open Space Park. The 35 acre facility is the largest
park in Miami Beach and is a highly treasured natural resource. Under
the City's plan, great emphasis will be placed on the preservation and
enhancement of the park's natural ecosystems which include the beach
shoreline, a sand dune system and a native coastal hardwood hammock.
New native vegetation plantings are proposed between the back dune and
coastal hammock areas, linking the two habitats and creating a stronger
dune community. Clear cutting of exotic nuisance plant species will
strengthen native plantings and help create a visual link from land to
sea. An expanded interpretive center is proposed to improve public
access to the highly successful Sea Turtle Hatchery program and other
nature education programs and activities. This unique combination of
natural resources and public facilities will offer the community an
``environmental classroom'' that will be highly conducive to the
exploration and understanding of the barrier island ecosystem
indigenous to Miami Beach.
In addition to the North Shore Open Space Park, the Corridor will
also connect with the Altos Del Mar Park, Band Shell Park, Ocean
Terrace Park, and the 64th Street Park facilities which offer a wide
array of recreational and cultural amenities. The Corridor will also
connect with eight beach access areas to enhance public access to the
beaches and to encourage park-beach cross utilization. Seven regional
parking facilities will also be connected to the recreation trail to
help improve recreational facility access for our residents and
visitors.
The estimated cost of the project is $7.1 million. The City has
secured $3.1 million from a Park Improvement Bond Program and an
additional $840,000 in ISTEA Enhancement Funds. An appropriation of
$3.2 million from the Department of Interior would provide the
additional funds needed to allow this valuable regional recreational
enhancement project to become a reality.
miami beach black box theater project
In recent years, Miami Beach has emerged as a force among world
cities in the performing and visual arts. More than 700 cultural
organizations are now based in Miami-Dade County, with Miami Beach as
the preeminent destination for performances and exhibitions. This
city's unique character is reflected in creative, multi-cultural
expression through the arts. Residents and millions of annual visitors
take part in the cultural arts of Miami Beach. Cultural tourism is
rapidly growing as Miami Beach's impact on the arts is being felt far
beyond the island. Influences from the Caribbean and Central and South
America are a vital part of the city's cultural life, not surprising
given its geographic location and history as an arts community. While
adding immeasurably to the quality of life in the city, the arts and
entertainment industries are recognized as a powerful economic engine,
critical to the next phase of development.
With such phenomenal growth in recent years, Miami Beach cannot now
adequately accommodate its cultural institutions. Performance
facilities are limited and in high demand. The City of Miami Beach
Cultural Arts Council is besieged with requests for expanding,
improving, and creating performance spaces. Collaborative efforts
between the private and public sectors are underway, most notably in
developing the city's new multimillion dollar cultural campus.
Vital to the cultural life of Miami Beach is a ``black box''
theater--an adaptable performance space for theater productions.
Several small theater companies are based in Miami Beach, and have
survived despite inadequate performance space and spiraling rents.
Community meetings have focused attention on the urgent need for a
community black box theater, preferably in the city's cultural
district, though other locations are being considered.
This grant request for $1 million would contribute significantly
toward creating an important cultural resource for Miami Beach. South
Florida's annual Theaters of the Sun Festival and scores of plays,
readings, and rehearsals could take place in a modern, safe,
accessible, and adaptable performance space. The city's community
theater companies, so important to the cultural fabric of Miami Beach,
would finally have the ``home'' that for too long has been elusive.
No existing space in Miami Beach meets the needs of the resident
theater companies. A black box theater is essential if independent
theater is to flourish in this city. Small, experimental theater
companies contribute to the community in ways that commercial touring
groups cannot. The City of Miami Beach has a tradition of supporting
its artists. The black box theater project is a high priority and, when
realized, will be a jewel not only for Miami Beach but for theater-
lovers everywhere.
Again, the City of Miami Beach thanks you for this opportunity to
present our appropriation requests and for your consideration of these
important initiatives.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sharpe James, Mayor, City of Newark, NJ
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
us the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
jurisdiction that is critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey.
Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the problems
of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
vitality and sense of optimism in Newark.
Vibrant revitalization is ongoing in our downtown. The successful
opening of the acclaimed New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) in
1997--which includes a new public plaza open space; an adjacent
waterfront development along the Passaic River--which is scheduled to
begin construction by the US Army Corps of Engineers later this year; a
minor league baseball stadium where the Newark Bears will begin to play
this summer; and a planned state of the art sports and entertainment
complex, all are changing the face of Newark. But the renaissance of
our City cannot just happen in the downtown business and arts center;
it must include the residents and their neighborhoods in meaningful,
substantive ways.
Newark is the largest City in New Jersey, with 275,221 residents in
1990, and ranks sixty-third in the nation in population. Newark's
twenty-four square miles of land makes it the smallest of the country's
top one hundred cities, with the fifth highest population density in
the nation. Much of our land is taken up by Newark International
Airport, higher education and medical facilities, and other
institutional uses, increasing the density of our actual ``livable''
space. The median family income, according to the 1990 Census, was only
$25,816--as opposed to $47,589 for the State--and our population is
five years younger than the State average. Twenty-nine per cent of our
population was under the age of 18, and twenty-six percent lived below
the poverty line. For people living in these conditions, the
availability of open space and recreation areas is an important and
necessary asset.
Fundamental to the goal of bringing Newark back is the
revitalization of its neighborhoods. Key to this improvement is the
revitalization of municipal parks in some of our poorest and most
densely populated areas, in full partnership with neighborhood
residents and community based organizations. Toward this end, the City
of Newark seeks the assistance of this Subcommittee in securing funding
to execute a plan to revitalize neighborhood municipal parks. Projects
have been selected in each of the City's five wards, with specific
strategies developed for each. The City of Newark will make every
effort to match dollar for dollar federal support through its operating
and capital budgets, staffing and in-kind services. Support is also
expected from the private sector, including foundations, corporations
and individuals.
With federal support, the City's Department of Neighborhood and
Recreational Services will embark on a community partnership for parks
strategy, currently being tested in the largest municipal park, Jesse
Allen Park. Signs will be posted in each park, and a local grassroots
campaign with advertising will be coordinated to invite all
neighborhoods surrounding each of the thirty-five small city parks to
collaborate and make theirs a community park according to the
established process. In each of the cases described below, a ``riends
Of'' park association is being formed of citizens who live around the
park, and anchoring community institutions, such as schools, the faith
B based community, community development groups, and local agencies.
Each association will be helped by the City to form a board, create by-
laws, and become a 501c3 non-profit organization. Each group will be
expected to get at least 10 percent of the surrounding neighborhood
residents to join the association and donate at least one dollar, and
will participate in joint orientation and training with peers from
similar groups city-wide.
The City will award additional funds for that particular park,
which the AFriends Of@ group will help to administer to execute
improvements and create programming. It is anticipated that funding
will be in the amount of $1,000 per acre of park, plus matching with
various foundation and corporate partners who have expressed strong
interest in aiding the resurgence of parks and neighborhoods.
The City administration will maintain its current efforts and
services, such as lawn mowing, trash removal and basic landscaping. In
addition, our comprehensive strategy will include support from other
municipal departments. The Engineering Department will address capital
needs. They will develop comprehensive physical plans and drawings for
each park, to be compiled in consultation with the community group.
Federal support will be utilized to match municipal capital investment
in improvements.
The Police Department has pledged to create walk-ride units of
officers who patrol in and between specific parks, and organize police
youth and adult athletic leagues to compete in the parks. They will
also train watch groups who undergo association training. The Newark
Public Information Office will coordinate the communications and media
strategy, both for initial outreach and with each association in
determining its own campaign direction and format.
The four largest parks in Newark are not City-owned, but are
operated by the County. The Essex County Department of Parks and
Recreation has agreed to work to implement a similar system in its
facilities located in Newark so that a common bond and interconnected
strategy can strengthen and multiply existing efforts. In fact, the
Weequahic Park Association, one of the City's most active community
groups, can serve as a model of what neighborhood involvement can do to
improve park facilities. In addition, a common reservation system will
be implemented between the City and County to simplify the process for
organizations wishing to reserve fields and parks for events, programs,
or ongoing leagues.
The specific parks that have been identified for participation in
the demonstration project and the unique strategies for each are
briefly described below.
Riverbank and Independence Park in the East Ward.--These parks are
in the crowded Ironbound section, where the neighborhood has very
little open space. The City is working with local groups to develop the
designated park area near the Passaic River with jogging trails, soccer
fields, and new open space.
Jesse Allen Park in the Central Ward.--This park is adjacent to one
school and near several others. It was recently the focus of several
discussions and meetings with community groups. It is in the heart of
the City's poorest area, and has been subject to repeated vandalism.
The City and the newly formed Jesse Allen Park Association are working
jointly to develop and execute a plan that includes the refurbishment
of ballfields, a revitalized playground, a new concert area, and
security measures.
Kasberger Field in the North Ward.--These playing fields and
recreation area are virtually hidden in the neighborhood in North
Newark. It has attracted the attention and interest of many little
league groups who want to help fix up the facility for ongoing use. A
security fence, lighting and better drainage have been identified as
vital needs.
Boylan Center and West End Park in the West Ward.--Boylan is the
only City recreation Center in the West Ward, and West End is the only
municipal park. Both need landscaping, furniture and signage to better
serve their local area populations.
Mildred Helms Park and St. Peters Recreation Center in the South
Ward.--Mildred Helms is a long narrow park in the heart of a dense
residential neighborhood. It adjoins an elementary school, but is
littered with crack vials, debris and broken glass, and has broken
playground equipment. Despite this condition, the area children play
there daily, as it is the only open space in the immediate area. This
is a site where neighborhood organizing will potentially enable
substantial change in the environment. St. Peters is a complex
including basketball courts, a pool and a center building on the other
side of the ward. This facility, too, is in need of community support
to overcome chronic vandalism and return it to full utilization.
The City of Newark is seeking the support of this Subcommittee for
a $5 million allocation to help to implement the City's overall
strategy for park and neighborhood revitalization. Based on community
partnerships and a sense of pride and ownership, the children of Newark
will truly have the opportunity to be a part of the Citys renaissance.
The consideration of this proposal is deeply appreciated. Newark,
New Jersey is looking forward to your support of this exciting project
and its innovative partnership.
______
Prepared Statement of James Meadows, Executive Director, Presidio Trust
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to bring the
Committee up to date on activities of the Presidio Trust as we continue
the process of transforming the magnificent Presidio of San Francisco
into a financially and environmentally self-sustaining unit of the
national park system.
As you know, Congress established the Presidio Trust as a wholly-
owned federal corporation in 1996. The mission of the Presidio Trust is
two-fold: to preserve and enhance the Presidio as an outstanding
national park in an urban area while ensuring that it becomes
financially self-sufficient by 2013. The Trust's 7-member Board of
Directors, appointed by President Clinton, was sworn in on July 9,
1997. I have served as Executive Director of the Trust since January
1998, and have, in conjunction with the Board, shaped the development
of the Trust as it assumed administrative jurisdiction and operational
control of the park's non-coastal areas, including over 500 historic
landmark buildings. The Trust completed the process of becoming a fully
functioning federal executive agency on October 1, 1998.
The Trust submitted its Financial Management Program to Congress,
in accordance with the Trust's authorizing legislation, on July 8,
1998. The Program projects a decreasing reliance on federal funding
support for the Trust over the next 13 years. The Trust also submitted
its 1998 Year-End Report to Congress at the end of December. I am
pleased to inform you that the Trust is making substantial progress
toward achieving the goals outlined in the Financial Management Program
and reiterated in the Year-End Report.
Since assuming jurisdiction over the majority of the Presidio's
land and facilities on July 1, 1998, the Presidio Trust has moved
assertively to complete the transition of administrative jurisdiction
and associated operational responsibilities from the National Park
Service. The Trust has also instituted operational reforms, including a
complete preventive maintenance program, and initiated an aggressive
leasing program.
Funds provided by this Committee in fiscal year 1999 have been
absolutely critical to our efforts to bring buildings and associated
infrastructure into leasable condition. We are particularly grateful to
this Committee for its support of $20 million in Treasury borrowing
during fiscal year 1999. These funds will enable the Trust to prepare
approximately 500 housing units for lease this year. Treasury borrowing
is also funding the rehabilitation of other historic housing units as
well as significant infrastructure and historic building improvements
on the Presidio's Main Post. These improvements are tied to leasing
activity that is currently underway and will begin to establish the
sustained revenue flow that will ultimately enable the Trust to become
financially self-sufficient. Revenue generated from leasing Presidio
buildings will comprise 97 percent of the income necessary for the
park's operation and ongoing renovation.
completing the transfer of presidio operations from the national park
service
One of the Trust's main objectives in fiscal year 1999 has been to
assume Presidio operations from the National Park Service while laying
a foundation for an enduring and productive partnership. By October 1,
1999, the Trust will have assumed management control of all
administrative functions, fire prevention, maintenance, utilities
operations and construction. The Trust also entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the United States Park Police to provide law
enforcement throughout the Presidio. To accomplish its share of
managerial responsibility, Congress provided the Trust with $14.9
million in fiscal year 1999. The National Park Service received the
remainder of the approximately $25 million in operating funds provided
for the Presidio.
In fiscal year 2000, the Trust will have assumed responsibility for
all administrative functions in the part of the Presidio that is under
its jurisdiction (Area B). Accordingly, the Administration has
requested $24.4 million for Presidio Trust operations in fiscal year
2000. As indicated in the Trust's Financial Management Program, funding
requests for successive years will decrease annually until the Trust
has achieved complete financial self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2013.
streamlining operations
The Trust believes that, to achieve its dual missions of park
preservation and financial self-sufficiency, it must take steps to
consolidate and streamline Presidio operations and reduce cost. The
Trust's Financial Management Program projects at least 20 percent in
reduced operating costs by fiscal year 2013. Already, the Trust has
found significant savings by eliminating expensive maintenance
contracts, instituting a preventive maintenance program, repairing
infrastructure and implementing energy conservation measures.
Some examples of steps the Trust has taken to reduce costs are:
--Implementation of the ``Total Maintenance System,'' a computer
application that optimizes work order processing and response,
reduces cost, tracks preventative maintenance and enhances
warehouse management.
--Repair of leaks throughout the Presidio's water delivery system,
creating savings of 80,000 gallons each day and $700,000 each
year.
--Pressure grouting of sewer lines and manholes, achieving saving of
$300,000 a year in wastewater treatment costs.
--Achievement of a 20 percent decrease in overall energy use in the
park.
--Design of a one-stop compliance and permitting process, further
implementing a process to ensure compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation
Act--the process will also be accessible through the Trust's
web site.
In addition, the Trust views its leasing program as a key to
reducing operating costs. Leasing unoccupied historic buildings will
begin to reverse the deterioration caused by several years of vacancy.
Since assuming jurisdiction from the National Park Service, the Trust
has also ensured that heat is maintain in vacant buildings to prevent
damage caused by mildew and excessive dampness.
capital improvements necessary to establish a sustained revenue stream
to support park operations
Congress provided the Trust with authority to borrow up to $50
million from the federal Treasury. The Trust is seeking appropriations
authority to borrow $20 million of that total in fiscal year 2000.
Borrowed funds will be used to continue the upgrade of key buildings,
utilities and infrastructure essential to the Trust's aggressive
leasing program. Concurrent with this rehabilitation, the Trust will be
finalizing arrangements for the replacement of the 900,000 square foot
Letterman Hospital Complex with a new privately-funded complex designed
to add value to the park, both programmatically and financially.
Leasing of historic Main Post buildings will provide another
opportunity for the Presidio to create an educational, environmental,
artistic and technological village while generating adequate income to
support the park. In recent months, the Presidio Trust negotiated
leases with the San Francisco Film Institute for two buildings in the
Presidio's historic Main Post--the former Sixth Army Headquarters and
the Presidio Theatre. The Film Institute will use the buildings for
post-production work, classes and workshops and screening of films from
around the world.
A mix of nearly 100 non-profit and for-profit organizations
responded to the Presidio Trust's 1998 Request for Qualifications for
twelve historic buildings on the Main Post. The Presidio Trust is
currently in negotiation will several preferred tenants. Treasury
borrowing authorized in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 will be
used to make building and infrastructure improvements needed to support
Main Post leasing initiatives.
New tenants will join the 31 organizations currently leasing space
on the Presidio including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Golden Gate National Parks Association, the Corporation for National
Service, Alexa Internet and the Thoreau Center for Sustainability.
The Trust also plans to enter into lease negotiations in fiscal
year 2000 with organizations proposing to deconstruct and replace, or
reuse, the other large hospital complex in the park--the Public Health
Service Hospital. The Board of Directors and staff are currently
evaluating responses to a Request for Qualifications issued for reuse
of the site. This area of the park will need infrastructure upgrades in
order to allow for productive reuse of the hospital site. Treasury
borrowing in fiscal year 2000 would also be used for this purpose.
Housing will provide over half of the projected lease revenue in
fiscal year 2013, the first year of Trust financial self-sufficiency.
However, much of the park's 1,119 housing units are in need of
renovation and repair. The Trust is using funds provided by Treasury
borrowing to bring both historic and non-historic housing units into
leasable condition. Our experience to date has been that such units are
very marketable, given the extremely tight housing rental market in San
Francisco. The Trust is currently bringing approximately 42 units of
non-historic housing into leasable condition each month. More extensive
renovation, required for many of the historic homes, will also be
completed on some units this year, and will be continued into next
year. In fiscal year 2013, the Trust projects that revenue from housing
will total nearly $21 million in 1998 dollars.
The Trust also seeks to create a balance between jobs and housing
at the Presidio by giving priority for housing to Presidio-based
employees of tenant organizations. This policy will enable the Trust to
reduce traffic congestion in the park and provides a strong incentive
for organizations to locate at the Presidio given the scarcity of
housing in the San Francisco area.
encouraging the use of private capital to improve and enhance the park
There is tremendous potential at the Presidio for using private
capital to rehabilitate and enhance park facilities. To encourage the
use of private capital in the improvement of federal facilities,
Congress provided the Trust with authority to guarantee loans used for
this purpose. The Trust proposes to use loan guarantees in fiscal year
2000 as it begins to negotiate with entities that will need to incur
debt in order to rehabilitate buildings. Because of the low risk
calculated for these guarantees (and therefore the low subsidy cost
required), the Trust is proposing that the subsidy cost of the program
be provided from within the Trust's operating appropriation. While the
Trust does not need additional funds for this program, it does require
appropriations authority to enter into the guarantees. The
Administration's request therefore includes authority to enter into
guarantees with the subsidy cost included in the Trust's operating
budget request.
This authorization would allow the Trust sufficient flexibility in
structuring lease arrangements so that it can obtain the greatest
benefit for the Presidio and the federal government.
Another source of private capital for park improvements has been
philanthropy. Work is currently underway to transform over 100 acres at
Crissy Field from a derelict jumble of asphalt and chain link fencing
to a stunning shoreline park with views of San Francisco Bay and the
Golden Gate. The $27 million project is being financed without the use
of federal funds, primarily through philanthropy. The project involves
the largest single gift of funds ever made to the national park system.
At completion in fiscal year 2000, the restored Crissy Field will
feature hiking and biking trails, a restored 20-acre wetland, an
education center where students will learn about natural and historic
features, and restoration of the original grassy Army airfield. The
project is being managed by the Golden Gate National Parks Association
in cooperation with the National Park Service and Presidio Trust.
expediting environmental remediation
Part of the challenge in reuse of the Presidio involves taking
steps to ensure that environmental remediation of the post occurs
quickly and in accordance with the Trust's leasing and reuse
priorities. Because of its tremendous potential impact on the Trust's
ability to establish streams of revenue to support operations and
rehabilitation, the Trust is moving aggressively in negotiations with
the Army and others to ensure that the cleanup is expedited. The Trust
seeks innovative solutions to the complex issues of remediation that
will result in a cleanup that is protective of human health and the
environment, complementary of the Trust's reuse priorities and cost-
effective. It is essential that sufficient funding be provided through
the Department of Defense to ensure the completion of this program.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and members of
the Committee for your support of the legislation that created the
Presidio Trust and for your continued funding support. We are committed
to providing you with a streamlined, cost-effective operation,
declining need for appropriated dollars and a successful base
conversion and a national park site that is preserved, enhanced and
interpreted for current and future generations.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, FL
The Depot Project includes the reconstruction of approximately two
(2) miles of Depot Avenue from SR 331 to US 441 and the development of
the Depot Wetlands Park. The Depot Avenue portion of the project is
intended to address current safety and capacity issues and includes the
construction of two travel lanes, turn lanes, curbs, sidewalks and
landscaped medians. Depot Avenue traverses Gainesville from west to
east, approximately \1/2\ mile south of, and parallel to, SR 26
(University Avenue). Its western terminus is at the eastern edge of the
campus of the University of Florida and its associated student housing
development, and its eastern terminus is at SR 331 in Southeast
Gainesville. It skirts the southern edge of downtown Gainesville at its
mid-point, and its intersection with SR 329 (Main Street) is considered
to be the southern ``gateway'' to Downtown.
Depot Avenue is located adjacent to the existing Depot Avenue Rail-
Trail, which is an 8' wide asphalt bike trail. It alternately connects
an existing recreational park and the proposed Depot Wetlands Park,
residential areas, commercial areas, and industrial land uses along its
length. The redesign of the road will address these varying conditions
and will also provide for the involvement of the neighborhood residents
it serves.
The enhancement of Depot Avenue will encourage increased
utilization of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel and
increase accessibility to a major public heritage and recreation
destination for the community. The City of Gainesville's RTS
Transportation Center is located on the north side of Depot Avenue
directly south of the core of Downtown Gainesville. The Transportation
Center is a multi-modal transportation hub for the Regional Transit
System, Greyhound, Amtrak and the Bicycle Commuter Facility.
The enhancement of Depot Avenue will also provide infrastructure
and improved safety while accessing from downtown and the University of
Florida area to the Porters Community, just west of SR 329 (South Main
Street) and Southeast Gainesville. The Porters Community lies within
Census Tract 2, which extends north of University Avenue, and Southeast
Gainesville lies within Census Tract 7. Census Tract 2 is approximately
37.7 percent African American and Census Tract 7 is approximately 75.6
percent African American (Census, 1990). Approximately 35.1 percent of
all families in Census Tract 2 are in poverty and approximately 31.6
percent of all families in Census Tract 7 are in poverty (Census,
1990). The socio-economic conditions of these areas include high crime
rates, sub-standard housing, and lack of services and investment. The
enhancement of Depot Avenue provides for safer access to the higher
employment areas of Gainesville, including downtown and the University
of Florida, improving physical infrastructure, including drainage
improvements, lighting and streetscaping, and providing safe bicycle
and pedestrian facilities that connect both east and west Gainesville
to Downtown.
The Depot Avenue Project will provide for beautification, and
encourage redevelopment and infill in the urban core of Gainesville and
its adjacent areas. This enhancement will provide a region-based
incentive for reducing sprawl development in the Gainesville
Metropolitan Area by providing an alternative east-west corridor to SR
26 that allows for maximum use of alternative transportation. As a
consequence, this project will increase mobility while minimizing
pollution and congestion associated with the use of single occupant
vehicles.
The Depot Wetlands Park is a proposed 22-acre Stormwater Wetlands
Restoration Park that will serve as the stormwater management facility
and developed urban recreational park that will serve many adjacent and
nearby residential neighborhoods.
As part of the stormwater management component of the project, the
facility is intended to provide water treatment for the Depot Avenue
Project as well as the Central City District portion of the watershed
that is located upstream of the facility. This project is in the
planning stages as the centerpiece of a USEPA and Florida DEP funded
Brownfields pilot project.
Once constructed the Park will serve as a hub for several existing
and planned rail trail bikeways. The Depot Project provides linkages to
the Depot Avenue Rail-Trail that links with the Waldo Road Rail-Trail,
the proposed Downtown Connector Rail-Trail that links with the
Gainesville Hawthorne Rail-Trail, and the proposed 6th Street Rail-
Trail. This trail system provides connections between the Downtown
area, the University of Florida campus, many residential neighborhoods,
and other municipalities. The trail system serves not only recreational
users but also serves as an alternative transportation facility.
The Depot Park is home to the Historic Train Depot Building that
was recently purchased by the City of Gainesville for purposes of
rehabilitation. The Old Gainesville Depot was built in 1907, and was
placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. The City of
Gainesville was founded as a rail hub linking Fernandina Beach on the
east coast of Florida to Cedar Key on the west coast in the mid-1800's
and uses a train symbol as its official seal. The Old Gainesville
Depot's under-roof, otherwise open loading docks will provide open
vistas to the adjacent Stormwater Park. The Depot building will house a
unique mix of destination-oriented cultural and commercial uses
supportive of redevelopment in the Depot Area, the Depot Park, the
rail-trail system, and the RTS Transportation Center. The historic
Depot building's unique character and location will serve to make it
both a lively destination hub for the neighborhood and a catalyst for
further redevelopment of the area south of downtown. The building is a
standing testament to and a significant visual emblem of Gainesville's
rich history. It is also an historic symbol of transportation choice
that is particularly appropriate to its envisioned new uses, the
Stormwater Park, the adjoining rail-trail and its nearby connections
that are being developed, and to the RTS Transportation Center that
will be built across the street. The restoration of this building in
conjunction with the restoration of the 22-acre Depot Park is expected
to provide a major community destination and regional ``eco-tourism''
attraction for the community.
The City's Electric Utility is in the process of designing a
repowering plan for the historic Kelly Power Plant located adjacent to
the Transportation Center, Depot Historic Structure and the Stormwater
Wetlands Restoration Park. The planning firm of Dover, Kohl and
Partners has recently completed a community-planning process held in
conjunction with the repowering project. This community-planning
process included the entire Depot Avenue area adjacent to Downtown. The
City encourages citizen participation in the community-planning process
and actively provides opportunities for participation in the planning
of public infrastructure such as the Depot Avenue Project.
The Depot Avenue Project will include property and right-of-way
acquisition, design and construction activities at a cost of
approximately $18.8 million. The Depot Wetlands Park includes property
acquisition, design, remediation and construction activities at a cost
of approximately $10.0 million.
______
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Ward, Chairman, United States Park
Police Labor Committee, Fraternal Order of Police
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
members of the United States Park Police Labor Committee, I welcome the
opportunity to present testimony concerning the fiscal year 2000 budget
request of the United States Park Police.
introduction
The United States Park Police was established in 1791. In 1882,
Congress gave the USPP powers equal to those exercised by the DC
Metropolitan Police Department. Since that time, the mission of the
USPP has expanded substantially in its scope and its importance to the
citizens of the United States generally, and the national security and
law enforcement infrastructure specifically. Today, the USPP operates
principally out of the National Capital Region as well as in the New
York and San Francisco Regions. We are charged with primary law
enforcement responsibility for all national parks properties, including
22 percent of the land area of the Nation's Capital. Within the
National Capital Region, we are primarily responsible for patrolling
such facilities and/or their adjacent areas as the National Security
Agency, NASA, CIA, Department of State Security building, Camp David,
and more.
Through Memoranda of Understanding, the USPP actively and regularly
supports more than eighty federal, state and local law enforcement and
public security agencies with specialized expertise and equipment.
Specifically, the Park Police Aviation Section supports Secret Service,
BATF, DEA, DC MPD, and others on presidential security, drug
interdiction and eradication, crime suspect apprehension, medical
evacuation, emergency river rescue, etc. The USPP has five specially
trained and equipped SWAT teams and a special environmental crime unit.
Two of the five SWAT teams are authorized for the National Capital
Region, but only one is active due to resource limitations that prevent
funding of any of the vacancies in the second. We are truly a ``full-
service'' police department, running the gamut of police duties from
routine patrolling to investigating homicides.
One could argue that the USPP has become a victim of its own
success. Too often, when competing for scarce federal funds, an agency
which is successful in its mission is deemed to be adequately funded,
regardless of the budgetary strain that may lie beneath the surface. I
believe this is the case with the USPP. We have watched our mission
continually expand, even as our funding has failed to increase at the
same rate as our mission. While we are proud of our record, we are
increasingly concerned about our ability to continue that success at
current funding levels. This situation, as I will emphasize repeatedly,
may come to have consequences for the safety of visitors to USPP-
patrolled facilities, for the security of certain other national
security related agencies, and for the morale and safety of our
officers.
To illustrate our concern, I would point out that current
international political dynamics have increased our concern regarding
the possibility of terrorist-related activities against certain high-
profile national assets within our jurisdiction. Simply put, this is
not the time for the USPP to be understaffed or under-equipped.
Another excellent case-in-point is the upcoming anniversary of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the festivities to celebrate it
this year. Obviously, a significant portion of this event will take
place on or near park service land, and as always, USPP will have a
major role in providing security. When our FY'99 budget was being
prepared, no one contemplated this unexpected drain on our resources,
yet we are tasked with finding a way to do it, and we will. However,
continual pressure to divert more and more money to ever-expanding
operations has left significant holes in other areas of our budget.
President Clinton has requested $1.39 billion for NPS operations in
fiscal year 2000, a net increase of $102 million over the fiscal year
1999 enacted level. The budget proposes a $25 million increase to
address operational needs at 90 parks and the United States Park
Police. While NPS budgets have increased over the last several years,
funding for the Park Police has failed to adequately provide for
operational readiness. This situation has created specific needs to
correct areas of concern such as basic equipment deficiencies,
recruitment and retention issues and upgrading our Information
Technology into the 21st century. We believe that two areas must be
addressed in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations, the funds to initiate
the mandated conversion of our communications equipment to a narrow
band frequency, and increasing and retaining the number of sworn
officers to meet authorized strength requirements.
Personnel shortages affecting visitor and officer safety
Our patrol responsibilities have continued to expand in areas of
primary jurisdiction as the National Park Service acquires new
property. These properties are often turned over to the Park Service
with no additional funding appropriated for patrol functions by the
United States Park Police. Recently in the National Capital Region we
have added the FDR Memorial, The Korean War Memorial, the Pennsylvania
Avenue Corridor and the Georgetown Waterfront Park. Due to heightened
security concerns, we have increased coverage of our nation's treasures
such as the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. In San Francisco
we have added the Presidio to our patrol functions, a complex of 1480
acres, and in New York's Gateway National Recreation Area additions
include the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and Fort Wadsworth. These
added patrol functions have strained the officers on the street. In the
downtown area regular plain clothes anti-crime, bicycle, horse mounted,
SWAT and motor scooter patrols have been either eliminated or severely
curtailed in order to provide basic coverage. This has a direct effect
on our ability to provide high profile patrols, which protect visitors
in our Nations Capital. The combination of these added responsibilities
with an ever-increasing attrition rate and the fact that at this moment
over 180 officers are currently eligible for retirement brings the
situation near to crisis proportions. In order to provide adequate
levels of police service, an additional 110 officers are needed to fill
presently authorized but vacant positions. Without proper dedicated
funding to fill these positions, severe consequences such as the lack
of visitor protection, decreased officer safety and morale, and a lack
of deterrence to terrorist threats in and around our National treasures
could occur. We believe that a 4-year commitment commencing with fiscal
year 2000 at an approximate cost of $2.3 million per year should
correct these deficiencies by fiscal year 2004.
Communications and equipment shortfalls
Presently, there is a Congressionally-mandated multi-agency
interoperability standard for Land Mobile Communications. The
requirements for that standard include encryption ability, and a plan
to share critical communication. The existing United States Park Police
radio system does not permit either of these two goals to be realized.
Since the United States Park Police cannot currently encrypt their
radio system, inclusion in the interoperability plan at this time would
compromise any interagency Land Mobile Radio communications sharing
plan. This has a direct effect on our ability to provide such mission
functions as protection of the President, Vice President and visiting
Heads of State and Dignitaries. With the present capabilities, the
United States Park Police are unable to meet the requirements of the
Department of the Interior multi-agency interoperability standard.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) has mandated that all Federal agencies conform to a digitally
encrypted narrow band radio system. The United States Park Police use a
wide band un-encrypted two-way radio system. This system was purchased
in the 1975 fiscal year. Although certain upgrades and repairs have
occurred, the core of the system and it's technology are severely
outdated. It is not possible to convert our present system to the
mandated narrow band encrypted type required by NTIA.
Concerns about the abilities of the radio system also have a direct
effect on Officers' morale. Patrol officers consider a properly working
communications system as one of the many tools required providing for
proper officer safety. Although we work in urban areas, our daily
patrol functions might find us in a relatively isolated area, with
other law enforcement assistance further away than what an unfamiliar
person might think possible in the urban environment. The consensus
among USPP Officers is that the present system is unreliable. The
officers base this conclusion on the high number of instances where
they encounter difficulty transmitting and receiving information
because of high and low pitched background noise, static, poor sound
quality and dead spots in coverage areas. A lack of confidence in our
telecommunications system may not only effect the officers decision-
making process in an enforcement action, but is directly related to the
safety of the officer should a situation escalate. We are requesting
$350,000 for an engineering study to assess the needs to bring the
Force communications system up to date and in compliance with the
mandated technological changes.
The United States Park Police programs base funds for the
maintenance of a separate equipment replacement program and therefore,
is not authorized to use the region's equipment replacement fund. Years
of budget reductions and cost absorptions within our base funds have
depleted our equipment replacement program. This has resulted in less
than minimal replacement of our fleet of motorized vehicles, outdated
radio equipment, substandard information technology equipment, as well
as the severe curtailment of our repair program. In order for the
United States Park Police to maintain an adequate fleet of motorized
vehicles and other related equipment, a base increase will be required
to address our most critical needs and provide future base funding to
allow for a suitable and timely replacement/repair of required
equipment. Officers' morale can be greatly effected when our uniform
and related equipment replacement program has no funds to purchase
essential equipment. For example, when the manufacturer of bullet proof
vests only guarantees it's ballistic protection level for a period of
five years, an officer wearing a vest that is ten years old can not
understand why the force has no money to purchase a replacement. The
force has requested $2.3 million to alleviate the most critical
equipment shortfall needs.
Employee retention and morale
Pay and benefit issues have had a significant impact on the
recruitment of qualified applicants including minorities and women as
well as the retention of experienced sworn officers. Inconsistent
interpretations of pay legislation by the Office of Personnel
Management, adjusted or `diet colas' resulting in colas to our
employees below the level received by other government employees,
increases in salaries and benefits among the local, state and county
police departments, and competition with other Federal agencies for
applicants have eroded our ability to hire and retain qualified
employees. The lack of funding for additional recruit classes to fill
existing vacancies has created a crisis situation for our force. Our
non-retirement attrition rate continues to rise. Since 1995, 59
officers have resigned to seek employment elsewhere--26 of those in
1998 alone. Add to this the 77 officers who retired in the same period,
and our inability to hire new officers to offset our attrition rate is
quite clear given our present funding levels. Considering the fact that
180 officers are eligible to retire today, we must have the necessary
funding to prevent our ranks from becoming dangerously low. Our
inability to successfully hire and maintain officers also directly
affects our inability to fulfill the Department of Interior's
requirements for implementing its programs to improve diversity in the
workplace. We were unable to meet the Government Performance Review
Acts diversity goals due to lack of funds for a third recruit class in
1998. In December of 1998 MCC consulting conducted a focus group study
by interviewing 71 Officers and Sergeants. The number one reason for
our high attrition rate was cited as pay and benefits issues.
Specifically, officers cited the disparity of pay in comparison to
local law enforcement agencies, the need to compress the steps required
for an officer to reach the top pay scale in their grade, the `diet
colas' mandated by OPM's interpretation of pay issues, lack of raises,
tiers of pay and low technicians pay.
Many of you will remember the fiscal year 1998 Treasury, Postal and
General Government Appropriation legislation which provided
simplification for the pay scales of Secret Service Uniformed Division.
This correction removed a great deal of uncertainty and inequity from
that agency's pay structure, and I believe that Congress was wise to
take that step. We would ask you to consider providing similar relief
to our officers, who now suffer from many of the same problems that the
1998 Treasury Postal bill sought to cure. Such a good-faith effort,
which could be accomplished for a relatively small amount of money,
would pay rich dividends in terms of improving officer morale.
However, if the USPP is to continue to attract and retain the
caliber of officers that our mission demands, we will need our salaries
to become competitive with those provided by other police forces in
nearby areas. Inasmuch as budgetary realities have forced the USPP to
do more and more with fewer and fewer resources, the ability to attract
and retain quality personnel is a critical issue. We believe our agency
is at a deficit in terms of equipment and technology; what prevents
this problem from becoming a crisis is the quality of the officers out
there on the job. Without quality personnel, no amount of technology,
equipment or other investment will succeed at an increasingly difficult
mission.
Mr. Chairman, those of us who serve in the U.S. Park Police are
proud do so; we believe we fulfill a critical mission in protecting
some of our country's most valuable assets. We are proud of the job we
do, and we believe that this nation and its taxpayers deserve the best
we can give them. As we watch our force's readiness erode, the simplest
solution for most of us would be to find comparable employment with
another police force; it is certainly available. But many of us have
invested a lot in the Park Police and we believe in the importance of
its mission. For that reason, I urge you to consider our requests and
help us keep the USPP as a strong and ready protective force.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Jean Hocker, President, the Land Trust Alliance
The Land Trust Alliance (LTA) is the national organization serving
the country's more than 1,200 land trusts--primarily local and regional
conservation nonprofits that work with private landowners to protect
natural areas and other green space through voluntary methods. We are
pleased to submit this testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations,
focusing on four federal programs land trusts have used to protect
places that are important both to their communities and to the nation
as a whole.
We urge the committee to provide increases over last year's funding
for the Forest Legacy Program of the USDA Forest Service, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF), the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, and the state grants program of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF).
Each of these programs provides funds requiring a non-federal
match, so that they leverage federal dollars with state, local, and
private money. Each builds and rewards partnerships between federal,
state and local governments, and between government agencies and the
private sector. In a very real sense, these programs are investments.
They are very good investments. They purchase assets of growing value,
attract the participation of new partners, and leverage every dollar
you put in with one or two or three from other sources.
In November 1998 voters passed 124 local and state referenda to
provide new funding for land conservation. 84 percent of all such
measures on the ballot passed. Many of these were explicit tax
increases, demonstrating voters' willingness to raise their own taxes
to invest in protecting land resources in their communities. This
subcommittee has done great work in supporting federal help for such
efforts. We hope that your colleagues will provide you with the
resources you will need to meet the public demand for conservation of
open space in this era of American prosperity.
recommendation: increase the forest legacy program to $50 million in
fiscal year 2000
The Forest Legacy Program supports the purchase of interests
(primarily permanent conservation easements) in environmentally
important timberland to protect it from conversion to non-forest uses--
usually meaning development. Forest Legacy conserves timberland for
traditional uses, including forestry and provides willing landowners
with an alternative to selling environmentally and economically
important timberland for development. For federal outlays of $21
million, the program has acquired permanent conservation easements
valued at $34 million. The cost of purchasing those lands outright
would have been at least $60 million, and probably considerably higher.
Demand for this program is growing. Last year, Utah, Indiana and
Delaware came into the program. This year, Tennessee will qualify.
North Carolina and Virginia are in the process of applying. Montana and
South Carolina have expressed interest as well. Increasing the Forest
Legacy Program to $50 million annually will provide the resources it
needs to function effectively on a national scale.
For most federal programs, such an increase would require years of
ramp-up. But because state government agencies take much of the
responsibility for implementing this program, and because the states
have already identified $90 million of projects, Forest Legacy is fully
capable of using $50 million in fiscal year 2000.
In Vermont, a $342,000 Forest Legacy grant resulted in a
conservation easement on 2,281 acres of timberland owned by Wagner
Woodlands-Atlas Timber. The donation of a $200,000 conservation
easement to The Vermont Land Trust provided the matching non-federal
component of the project. The landowner will continue to manage these
lands for timber production, and the public will be assured of
permanent access for 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 still insuring public use.'' Through
innovative projects such as this, Forest Legacy is proving its value as
the only federal program designed to help conserve the nation's private
forestland base.
recommendation: provide $20 million for the north american wetlands
conservation fund
Congress created the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund to
conserve wetlands critical for the survival of waterfowl and other
migratory birds. The program works cooperatively with nonprofit
organizations and state fish and wildlife agencies in the US, Canada
and Mexico by providing matching grants for the protection, restoration
or enhancement of wetlands. This is a competitive grants program in
which the merits of projects are recommended by the North American
Wetlands Conservation Council and approved by the Migratory Bird
Commission.
As a recently-appointed member of the Council, I have been
profoundly impressed by the amount of work its NGO members invest in
this program, and by the program's effectiveness in soliciting cost-
effective, biologically targeted proposals.
From fiscal year 1991 through June 1998, 593 projects in Canada,
Mexico, and the US, involving over 960 partners, have been approved.
The Fund has contributed $249 million; project sponsors and their
partners have contributed $517 million. Approximately 4.4 million acres
of wetlands and associated uplands have been acquired, restored, or
enhanced in the US and Canada, and conservation in 24 million acres of
Mexico's biosphere reserves has been improved through conservation
education and management projects.
In Washington State, the Columbia Land Trust received a $50,000
grant to complete a $240,000 acquisition of a 50-acre wetland at the
western entrance to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. Working in
partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, Columbia Land
Trust will restore the wetland. The site is an important stopover for
migratory birds using the Pacific flyway and the Columbia River
corridor.
The $20 million we have requested for the fund is more than the
Administration requested--but this amount is needed to assure that the
program would have as much funding in fiscal year 2000 as in fiscal
year 1999, when it benefited from non-appropriated funds deriving from
a penalty levied on a private party in an oil spill case.
recommendation: provide the national fish and wildlife foundation with
$8 million from the fish and wildlife service; $3 million from the
forest service; and $2 million from the bureau of land management
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is another source of
matching grants that effectively leverage federal dollars for
conservation and help recruit the involvement of the private sector in
meeting federal wildlife management goals. By seeking private donations
and matching contributions, the Foundation has been able to generate
more than $3 of investment in conservation projects for every $1 you
have appropriated for their challenge grant programs. LTA has been a
grateful recipient of challenge grants, for our work in building
effective land trusts fully capable of protecting habitat and other
critical open space.
In Maine, the Coastal Mountains Land Trust received a $25,000
challenge grant from the Foundation. It matched this with $75,000 of
nonfederal funds to acquire 225 acres along the Ducktrap River to
protect prime spawning and nursery habitat for the most genetically
pure strain of wild Atlantic Salmon in the US. The Foundation presses
applicants to bring a higher match to the table, and to focus their
projects for maximum benefit to fish and wildlife. Projects such as
these are the result.
recommendation: increase the appropriation from the land and water
conservation fund and allocate $150 million for the state grants
program
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 supports the Administration's fiscal year
2000 LWCF budget request, and we are particularly supportive of the
state grants component of that request.
State LWCF grants leverage federal dollars and reflect community
priorities in land conservation and recreational facility enhancement.
This program provides the clearest opportunity for this subcommittee to
create partnerships with the state and local government initiatives for
land protection we referred to earlier.
The Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests worked closely
with their state government to acquire key additions to state parks and
state forests when they came up for sale. In 1979, they acquired a 146
acre inholding in Mt. Cardigan State Forest. In 1980, they acquired 89
acres adjacent to Monadnock State Park. In 1987, they acquired 490
acres surrounding Lovewell Mountain for Pillsbury State Park. In each
case, state grants from the LWCF were a key component of the
acquisition of these lands for the public.
The state grants program, historically very successful in promoting
community and nonprofit involvement in conservation activities,
deserves your support.
conclusion
On behalf of the nation's more than 1,200 land trusts, thank you
for considering the views of the Land Trust Alliance as you make your
funding decisions for the coming fiscal year. It could make a
difference on the land for generations to come.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert Perschel, Chairman, Northern Forest
Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Perschel,
Chair of the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of more than 40
state, regional and national organizations dedicated to the protection
and stewardship of the 26 million acres of forests that span northern
New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Together we represent the
interests of more than one million people. Thank you for your continued
interest in the issues facing the Northern Forest region and for this
opportunity to speak to you today regarding fiscal year 2000
appropriations.
The Northern Forest is the largest remaining continuous wild forest
East of the Mississippi. Its 26 million acres blanket Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont and New York and hold the headwaters of all of the
Northeast's greatest rivers and the mountains, lakes and forests that
define the northeastern region of the country. It provides economic and
environmental benefits that go well beyond state lines.
This vast forest is facing a time of extraordinary transition: over
the past few months more than four million acres of mountains, rivers,
lakes, ponds and woodlands have changed hands including more than 15
percent of the entire state of Maine and vast tracts in Vermont and the
Adirondacks. Land sales of this scale speak to deep forces for economic
and social change that will have a defining impact on the future of the
region. Unless we act now to conserve the vast unfragmented forests
that underpin our economy and way of life, the region and country will
lose an irreplaceable resource of national significance--the last and
largest wild forest in the East.
Unfortunately, the states lack sufficient public funding to take
immediate action to secure the future of their economies, communities
and environment. Other than New York, the Northern Forest States do not
have large enough populations or economies to generate land protection
funding on the level needed to secure this vast resource of national
importance.
People and policy makers across the Northern Forest and surrounding
states have spoken clearly to the urgent need to take action to protect
the vast forests. Echoing this call the Clinton Administration has
recognized the Northern Forest as one of the nation's top conservation
priorities in the President's Land Legacy Initiative and fiscal year
2000 budget. These actions reflect the fact that the Northern Forest is
a mainstay of the economy, ecology and culture of the Northeast; is a
vast region at risk; and is of great importance to the 70 million
people that live within a day's drive of the region.
The Northern Forest Alliance again requests that this committee
lead Congress in supporting two critical national programs: the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program. This
position is consistent with the recommendations of the Northern Forest
Lands Council, which called for full funding of LWCF and $25 million
per year for the Forest Legacy Program for the Northern Forest states.
It also resonates on a national level, where, in last fall's elections,
Americans across the country expressed deep concern for the environment
and the need to curb urban sprawl and protect dwindling open space.
A fully funded and revitalized Land and Water Conservation Fund
would serve the people and communities of the Northern Forest and the
country well. This well tested, but often-neglected program has an
impressive legacy and has been responsible for the acquisition of
nearly seven million acres of open space and the development of more
than 37,000 parks and recreation projects. Though the fund receives
$900 million from federal offshore oil and gas receipts each year,
Congress has diverted the majority of these funds in recent years and
completely eliminated funding for the critical state and local programs
most useful in the Northern Forest region.
Funding the federal Forest Legacy Program is also of critical
importance to the Northern Forest states and the nation as a whole.
Productive, privately owned forestlands are expected to provide a
growing percentage of the nation's timber needs. At the same time,
however, the USDA has found that the country is losing over 550,000
acres of productive forestland each year to fragmentation and
development. If adequately funded, the Forest Legacy Program could play
a vital role in ensuring that our nation's private forestlands continue
to support rural forest-based economies and a healthy environment.
We need your leadership to ensure that Congress passes a
comprehensive initiative that revitalizes the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and related programs that fully serves the country's
long-term interests. To enable the Land & Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) to live up to its original intent and promise, Congress should,
at a minimum, guarantee to:
--Full and permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
at least $900 million annually.
--An equitable allocation of LWCF funding for LWCF's federal and
state components including.
--A competitive state-grants process for projects and lands of clear
national significance allocated outside of the population-based
formula. This provision is essential to land protection in the
Northern Forest where we have large holdings of clear national
significance in states with small populations.
--Funding the Forest Legacy Program at a national level with $25
million per year for the Northern Forest region and at least
$50 million nationally.
--A revived Urban Parks Recovery Program and Historic Preservation
Fund funded at $150 million on a permanent annual basis.
--Funding for Wildlife Conservation at $350 million in permanent
annual grants to states for habitat conservation and species
protection.
To meet urgent needs to protect the prime recreation and
conservation lands described below, we respectfully request a fiscal
year 2000 appropriation for the Northern Forest region of:
--LWCF State Grants: $26.2-$51.2 million
--LWCF Federal Program: $9.5-$10.3 million
--Forest Legacy Program: $41.8-$67.8 million
In the 20-state, Northeastern Region:
--Rural Development through Forestry: $5 million
--Stewardship Incentive Program: $3.5 million
Without these appropriations, unwanted development and forest
fragmentation will compromise public values, reduce timber production
and related jobs, fragment wildlife habitat, cut off public access and
degrade water quality in a region of immense national importance.
Fiscal Year 2000 Northern Forest Appropriations Priorities
lwcf state grants program
National Lead Lands, New York: 11,200 acres--$ undetermined
This 17-mile-square area contains 5 other smaller undeveloped lakes
and ponds. Its public acquisition would be an important addition to the
High Peaks Wilderness Area, consolidating current public holdings and
buffering the remote southern High Peaks.
Green River Reservoir, Vermont: 12,000 acres--$650,000
The Green River Reservoir is unique for its size, its extensive,
undeveloped shoreline, and the role of surrounding lands as working
forest and recreation area.
Long Trail, Vermont: 745 acres--$184,000
Six important parcels must be purchased to secure Vermont's Long
Trail, the nation's oldest long distance hiking trail. Private sale of
these parcels could threaten public access to the trail, and jeopardize
one of Vermont's premiere recreation tourism attractions.
Various, Maine: up to 1 million acres--$25-$50 million
LWCF State Grants must augment state money to make it possible to
permanently protect some of the critical undeveloped shoreline on
Maine's best loved lakes and rivers, Specific acquisition details are
not yet available, but funding from both LWCF State Grants and Forest
Legacy is essential to complete important conservation projects under
negotiation.
Moose River, Maine: 4,531 acres--$400,000
An easement would close a large gap in river protection along the
Moose River ``Bow Trip'' a popular family canoeing route, and would
protect Number 5 Bog and an adjacent jack pine stand, recognized as a
National Natural Landmark.
lwcf federal program
Lake Umbagog, New Hampshire/Maine: shoreline +55--$3 million
Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge provides critical wildlife
habitat, scenic beauty, and recreational opportunities. Sixty percent
of the lake's shoreline has been protected.
Pondicherry, New Hampshire: 600-800 acres--$50,000-$250,000
The Pondicherry property is packed with important bird and wildlife
habitat, outstanding recreational opportunities, educational sites, and
sweeping vistas sought by artists, residents and visitors.
Champion Lands, Vermont: 26,000 acres--$6.5-$7 million
The Nulhegan Basin, and island of northern habitat left behind by
retreating glaciers, lies within the northern portion of the watershed
and has been identified as high priority area for protection.
forest legacy program
E. Branch Fish Creek, New York: 30,000-40,000 acres--$5.6 million
The Fish Creek watershed in the heart of New York's Tug Hill
provides drinking water, wildlife habitat, free flowing scenic rivers,
and forests of valuable timber.
Domtar Lands, New York: 105,000 acres--$6 million
An easement on the Domtar lands would protect from development and
fragmentation an extensive forest and aquatic landscape. Funding from
the Forest Legacy Program can ensure that a large, high-quality timber
producing forest continues to contribute to the region's forest
economy.
Green River Reservoir, Vermont: 5,760 acres--$800,000
The Green River Reservoir is unique for its size, its extensive,
undeveloped shoreline, and the role of surrounding lands as working
forest and recreation area.
Various, Maine: up to 1 million acres--$25-$50 million
Federal funding is critical to help protect special places like:
Moosehead Lake/Roach River Watershed and the Allagash Wilderness
Waterway.
Nicatous Lake, Maine: 21,000 acres--$3-4 million
Nicatous Lake, listed as one of Maine's Finest Lakes, has
outstanding wildlife, scenic, and shoreline resources, significant
fisheries, and cultural features
E. Br. Mattawamkeag River, Maine: 11,281 acres--$840,000
The East Branch project encompasses important water resources,
productive timberland, and 15.2 miles of undeveloped shoreline that
protects the area's water supply.
Mattawamkeag Lake, Maine: 4,195 acres--$490,000
Mattawamkeag Lake scores high for public recreation assets, scenic
values, and fish and wildlife habitat, and includes 12.7 miles of
shoreline. The Maine Interconnecting Trail System crosses the parcel,
which is adjacent to state land.
Champion Lands, New Hampshire: 18,000 acres--$ undetermined
An as yet unknown amount of federal funding from LWCF State Grants
and/or the Forest Legacy Program may be needed to help complete
acquisition or easements on the New Hampshire acreage.
Mr. Chairman, protection of these outstanding places represents a
tremendous opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and
public value. It would also represent the continued commitment of
Congress to work with the people of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and
New York to protect the irreplaceable resources of the Northern Forest
for future generations of Americans. Thank you for considering this
request.
______
United States Geological Survey
Prepared Statement of the University of New Mexico
center composition and details
The renovated building will house the faculty, staff, students and
research facilities of the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research
Program (LTER). This program, funded by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) for the last decade, performs research on a wide variety of
topics relating to environmental aspects of the Southwest. The LTER
research group also conducts numerous collaborative research programs
with the National Park Service (NPS), the US Geological Service (USGS),
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the US National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), the US Air Force (USAF), the USDA
Forest Service (USFS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NSF intends to
continue to fund this LTER program for many decades as well as increase
the research and education capabilities at each LTER site. The
collaborative model that will be realized by the programs brought
together in the renovated building is a model that NSF will support and
use to exemplify how interdisciplinary research should be accomplished
at other universities. This model also will obtain increased support
from NASA efforts to use LTER sites to validate satellite imagery
because of abilities of LTER programs to develop the comprehensive
understanding of complex environmental systems needed for NASA
objectives.
The primary mission of the Sevilleta LTER is to integrate research
on biological responses to climate dynamics. To accomplish this, the
LTER scientists collaborate with the researchers from the government
agencies listed above to address problems ranging from drought effects
to human disease epidemics. For example, LTER collaborative programs
have: Worked with USGS scientists to identify 60-yr drought cycles in
the Southwest allowing predictive capabilities for the next major
drought (2005-2015); Identified environmental changes and species
responses to the El Nin/La Nin cycles that also provides greater
predictive power for planning future management strategies for dealing
with wet/dry periods; Examined the effects of wildfires on ecosystems,
and provided USFWS and USFS managers with detailed data for fire policy
development and management; Evaluated biodiversity in five NPS National
Monuments (Bandelier, El Malpais, Petroglyphs, Pecos and Capulin
Volcano) and in two Air Force bases (Kirtland AFB and the Melrose
Range, Cannon AFB); Identified environmental factors associated with
disease outbreaks in the Southwest, most notably, Hantavirus and
Bubonic Plague. This research has led to better Public Health warning
systems and prevention policies, and has spawned long-term research col
laborations with CDC and NIH.
All of the research/management efforts described above rely on
close cooperation with primarily DOI agencies, and integrate those
relationships with other government agencies at Federal, State and
local levels. Private groups (e.g., private ranchers collaborating with
the Sevilleta LTER Program) are also included in the research and
management programs. In addition, a ``Schoolyard LTER Program'' has
been established that connects schools in Albuquerque to the LTER
databases and organizes environment research and education in areas
along the Rio Grande corridor, emphasizing wise water resource use and
careful management planning for human development.
All of these programs will be based in the renovated building. The
close proximity of the LTER personnel to those of the USGS and
educational coordinators will promote even greater collaborations
through daily contact and interactions. The availability of the
specimen-based collections of the Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB),
the high-tech research computer laboratories, and the Geographic
Information System laboratory, will allow the collaborative
relationships to continue to grow and flourish. Such multidisciplinary
groups will be needed to solve large-scale problems related to climate
change, human land use and development, biodiversity, emerging
diseases, and natural resource management. This multidisciplinary
approach coupled with access through the computers of the LTER Network
Office to SuperComputer facilities, other US field stations and
laboratories, and International LTER Networks will allow a global
recognition and demonstration for Sevilleta research results.
The Long-term Ecological Research Network plays a key role in
improving our understanding of the function and maintenance of the
nation's ecosystems. Coordination and support for activities of the
LTER Network is one of the responsibilities of the LTER Network Office,
located at the UNM under a cooperative agreement with the NSF. At
present, the LTER Network Office is located in temporary quarters on
the south campus of UNM. The distance separating the office from main
campus is an obstacle to close collaboration between LTER staff and the
various academic departments. Through the proposed renovation, the
network office will have access to high speed computer links and
superior computing power and the other occupants will have direct
access to the expertise in bioinformatics, remote sensing, geographic
information systems, computer networking, and desktop publishing that
exists in the network office.
The proposed Center for Integrated Environmental Research will
provide opportunities to develop innovative partnerships among the
occupants of the facility and a broader research and management
community. The network office occupies the nexus of a communications
network that involves the 21 LTER sites, 16 other countries belonging
to the International LTER network, sites in the Global Terrestrial
Observing System (GTOS), and over 200 field facilities of the
Organization for Biological Field Stations. High-speed connections to
the nation's computing backbone are essential for the LTER Network
Office to fulfill its central role in the coordination of these
research networks as well as to provide access to the computational
power of our supercomputer centers. The promise of such advanced
connectivity was one of the reasons that the NSF opted to locate the
network office at the UNM. The proposed renovation will allow the
Network Office to provide cutting-edge computer and information
resources to our collaborating networks.
By the combination and juxtaposition of the outstanding research
programs projected to occupy the new facility, we see a unique
opportunity in bring together leading edge capabilities in computing,
communications, and informatics to benefit and drive advances in
environmental science. Complex issues confronting scientists and policy
makers require interdisciplinary collaboration and synthesis at much
larger spatial and temporal scales than are typical in traditional
studies. In this complex research environment, there is a tremendous
need by today's scientists for training and trained individuals in
informatics, data management, and computational biology. More
importantly actual training in multidisciplinary research has been
almost totally lacking. Synthetic, data intensive projects will be even
more common in the future. The synergy provided by creation of this
center will provide a model for the nation in these areas.
The research and teaching collections of the Museum of Southwestern
Biology (MSB) are among the most extensive in the world and constitute
an invaluable resource for addressing some of the most serious problems
facing society today. These span a wide range of disciplines from
global change to public health and make it possible for UNM biologists
to conduct research and educate students in areas of critical
importance to the nation and the rest of the world. The research
materials and the specimen-based databases of the MSB are integrally
related to the Sevilleta LTER Program, the national LTER network and
the ecologically based data that they maintain. The MSB is a National
Biodiversity Research Resource Center based on the ranking of its
collections, service to the scientific community, size, and quality of
research and collections management staff. The MSB contains collections
of national and international significance in all vertebrate classes,
invertebrates, plants and genetic materials.
The vast potential of these resources cannot be overestimated. All
collectively represent an enormous bank of genetic diversity and hold
the promise of playing an increasingly critical role in education and
research in biodiversity, genetics, human health, global change, and
many other areas of comparative biology. In addition, few facilities
have the potential of crossing so many disciplinary lines of research.
For example, MSB researchers are currently using historical samples
from the collections to investigate questions concerning the ecology
and evolution of emerging diseases such as Hantavirus and Bubonic
plague. Studies are underway to understand the extent to which these
pathogens have co-evolved with their mammalian hosts, how they function
as a member of the natural ecosystem, where they occur, and what is the
extent of their diversity in nature. Thus, this single research effort
involves ecologists, systematists, medical researchers, geneticists,
data managers, public health workers, and molecular biologists.
The MSB has a wide array of current research activities underway
that will be enhanced by these new facilities. Much of the ecological
and bioinformatics work of UNM's Center for the Study of Emerging
Viruses will be housed in this facility as part of the MSB. This
research is aimed at understanding the ecology, epidemiology, and
treatments for newly discovered viruses that pose significant health
threats to humans. Examples include hantaviruses and arenaviruses,
which are transmitted by rodents and cause life-threatening diseases to
people world-wide. Much of the research in New Mexico dealing with
emerging viruses is funded through this center.
The MSB is also a partner with the University of Kansas and the San
Diego Supercomputer Center in a major Knowledge and Distributed
Intelligence project funded by the NSF to link databases from existing
research programs in environmental sciences including the LTER Program
with the museum biodiversity databases from around the world. The
program has four main thrust areas:
(1) Enabling technology for (a) access to and integration of
heterogeneous biocollections, taxonomic and environmental data; (b)
visualizing species distributions, terrain and climate data for
computational geospatial analysis; (c) predictive modeling of
biodiversity phenomena; (d) utilizing the high bandwidth research
network for multispecies distribution models while gathering on-the-fly
data from distributed biocollection databases;
(2) Enabling research on complex problems in biodiversity and
environmental emerging threats that are currently intractable, thereby
creating a modeling community of systematists, ecologists, and
computational scientists;
(3) Enabling education of the next generation of biodiversity
informatics scientists, bringing the results of knowledge networking to
K-12 students and the public; and,
(4) Enabling collaborative technologies by understanding the
synergistic behavior among investigators, organizations and communities
across Internet-mediated networks and new levels of information flow.
The U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS,
BRD) maintains a field station of the Midcontinent Ecological Science
Center on the campus of the University of New Mexico. This field
station supports the mission of the BRD in working with others to
provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support
sound management and conservation of the nation's biological resources.
The field station primarily emphasizes arid lands issues and has been
located in the Biology Department since 1974 and has been an integral
part of the Biology Department's programs in biodiversity, systematics,
and arid lands ecology since that time. Current projects include a
variety of management-related research on Department of Interior lands
in the Southwest as well as projects aimed at providing new information
on biodiversity and the health of Ecosystems including studies on
global climate change.
At present, the vertebrate collections, that are a responsibility
of this unit, are housed in substandard space with little or no room
for either research or expansion. (300 sq. ft.), and three other
employees relegated to table space around the periphery of museum
collections. There is insufficient light, computer hookups, file space,
storage space, and privacy for the accomplishment of planned tasks.
Completion of the Center for Integrated Environmental Research would
provide greatly enhanced space for collections and personnel and
provide a greatly improved atmosphere for research within the
Biological Resources Division, with other USGS divisions, and with
other planned co-occupants of the Center.
Additional information at:
http://biology.usgs.gov/or at www.mesc.usgs.gov/arid__lands.html.
http://biology.unm.edu/herb/msb.htm
http://sevilleta.unm.edu
http://lternet.edu
UNM Contact: Terry Yates, Chair, Department of Biology (505) 277-
2496 tyates@sevilleta.unm.edu
______
Prepared Statement of Peter H. Evans, Director, Colorado Water
Conservation Board
summary of testimony
The Colorado Water Conservation Board supports the activities of
the United States Geological Survey's Water Resource Investigations
program in Colorado and throughout the western United States. We
respectfully request that Congress appropriate funds to this program
greater than those identified in the President's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2000. Only funding significantly above the proposed amounts
will permit the Survey's Water Resources Investigation programs to
continue the important work of collecting basic hydrologic water
quantity and quality data and performing the high quality analytic work
necessary to manage Colorado's scarce water resources.
introduction
This statement is submitted by Peter H. Evans, Director of the
Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Board is the state agency
charged with promoting the development and protection of Colorado's
water resources, planning and preparation for the prevention of floods,
and the protection of instream flows. Given these responsibilities, the
Board is especially interested in high quality, continuous, and
reliable data on streamflows and expert analysis of water resource
issues. The United States Geological Survey has been an invaluable
partner in the Board's work since its creation in 1937.
Colorado sits atop the Continental Divide and contains the
headwaters of most of the principal river systems of the southwestern
United States and the High Plains. We must share water resources which
originate in Colorado with all of our neighboring states and the
Republic of Mexico. The administration of interstate and international
water allocation is highly dependent on accurate, unbiased, uniform
hydrologic data. The United States Geological Survey has served the
western states and the nation well over the last 100 years in providing
this essential information. The continuity and quality of the data
collected is truly an invaluable national asset, and should be
recognized and maintained as such.
water resources investigations appropriation
The overall redirection of priorities apparent in the
Administration's budget proposal for the United States Geological
Survey in fiscal year 2000 will cause serious problems for many years
into our future. While some of the changes are most likely due to
budget restructuring, such as the separation of overhead and
administrative costs from program costs, there also appear to be
significant real reductions in the traditional water data collection
and analysis programs on which Colorado relies. We support
restructuring of the Survey's budget to better document and separate
overhead from program costs, but only to the extent such restructuring
is truly program neutral. We urge the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee to carefully scrutinize the proposed budget to ensure that
there are no program cuts masked by the restructured accounting. Beyond
the restructuring, we observe a shift away from traditional Survey
functions such as water resource programs in favor of biological and
ecosystem programs. While the study of amphibians, coral reefs, and
other habitats is important, it is not within the traditional role and
expertise of the Geological Survey and a large expansion into these new
areas should not be accomplished at the expense of the more established
aspects of the Survey's mission.
Most specifically, we are concerned about proposed reductions in
funding for the Survey's Federal--State Cooperative Program which is
critical to maintaining the Federal--non-Federal partnership in the
nation's water resources program. In Colorado, we rely on the local
USGS districts to help identify and develop solutions to local water
resource problems and data needs through the cost shared Cooperative
program. The strength of the Federal--State Cooperative and stream
gaging programs has always been their relevance to both local and
basinwide needs. In a program where we fund fifty percent of the
project costs, we make sure the money is spent solving real problems.
We work with the local District personnel to jointly identify water
resource problems then tailor the projects and stream gaging networks
accordingly. Many times a problem perceived to be only local in nature
proves to be also significant nationally. The Cooperative program has
been instrumental in identifying these problems. The recent Survey
report, ``A New Evaluation of the USGS Streamgaging Network,'' (USGS
Report to Congress, dated November 30, 1998) cites the critical needs
of the existing streamgaging network, and for additional water data and
information gages for flood forecasting and warning, water quality and
regional characterization of changes in flow. Reductions in the
Cooperative program is contrary to recommendations in that report since
reducing the amount of federal support will have a negative effect on
the partnerships necessary to better understand the nation's rivers and
streams.
The Administration's proposed reductions in certain USGS Water Data
Collection and Management activities will cause similar long-term
problems. In particular, the infrastructure resources research program
is helping to identify and evaluate alluvial groundwater resources in
the South Platte Basin, and the watershed modeling studies which can be
of both general and specific help as Colorado places increased emphasis
on such models. Both of these important activities appear slated for
budget cuts apparently designed to support newer Survey interests.
There are many critical efforts underway in Colorado and throughout
the basins we share with neighboring states that demonstrate the
important role that the Water Resources Investigations programs play in
managing the scarce water resources of the arid West.
--Cost shared studies funded through the Federal/State Cooperative
Water Program underway or recently completed are addressing
issues raised in the litigation between Colorado and Kansas
over the use of the Arkansas River. The scientific analysis of
well pumping measurement methods conducted by the Survey should
provide a basis for improved cooperation between the states and
more efficient administration of the limited water supply in
the Arkansas Basin. Water users in Colorado will also benefit
from efforts to understand and quantify transit losses on the
Purgatoire River and investigations of recent high water table
conditions between Pueblo and the Colorado-Kansas stateline.
--Increasing competition for water supplies in Colorado has led to a
demand for sophisticated water resource management models or
decision support systems. New modeling tools being developed by
Colorado for the San Luis Valley, the Colorado River Basin, and
the Platte River Basin rely heavily on extensive databases of
water information which would not have been possible without
the existing USGS records of historical streamflows and
groundwater measurements. Many of the stations at which the
Survey collected this data are funded through the Federal/State
Cooperative Water and/or the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis
programs. In addition to historical and ongoing data collection
the Survey is also participating in development of key model
components in areas where their expertise is particularly
valuable.
--The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is a coordinated,
basinwide approach to the reduction of salinity in the Colorado
River. To formulate a cost-effect salinity control program, it
is essential that both the quantity and quality of the Colorado
River be accurately understood. Sophisticated computer analysis
will allow us to project into the future and determine the
amount of salinity control that is needed, but only if we have
accurate, continuous data to start with. The federal agencies,
the seven basin states, and water users implementing salinity
control measures need timely, reliable data and analysis to
plan for the most cost-effective program possible. The
Geological Survey has proven its ability to provide the
necessary information and is a respected partner in the overall
control strategy.
conclusion
We support and urge appropriations for the United States Geological
Survey, Water Resource Investigations programs sufficient to maintain
historical levels of basic hydrologic data collection and analysis.
These programs serve an essential interstate function which the Survey
has performed with a high degree of integrity and professionalism.
These basic services should not be sacrificed in a effort to branch off
into new areas. The western states and the nation will not be well
served by a fragmented and decentralized data collection program.
Unwarranted reductions in these longstanding basic data collection and
analysis programs would be shortsighted and contrary to the national
interest. We urge you to restore, increase and rebalance the level of
funding provided for the USGS data collection activities. These funds
are of critical importance to agencies such as ours across the country.
Thank you for your consideration of this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for both the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service includes an increase of $1.5 million for the
Mississippi River Basin Partnership, a new multi-program initiative
designed to address the growing need for habitat restoration and
associated activities in the large mid-continent area that drains the
Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers. The UMRBA strongly supports
this new initiative, which will augment the Service's base programs
that have been struggling to meet the most basic needs in the region.
Ecological Services.--The fiscal year 2000 budget request for
Ecological Services totals $198,750,000 nationally. Funding from this
account supports the field offices in Rock Island, Illinois; the Twin
Cities, Minnesota; and Marion, Illinois, that do most of the ecological
services work on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and tributaries. In
fiscal year 1999, approximately $340,000 in base funding was used to
support the important UMR work of these offices. In fiscal year 2000,
Ecological Services is scheduled to also receive $750,000 of the $1.5
million funding proposed for the Mississippi River Basin Partnership.
The funds will support critical work throughout the entire basin,
including restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands and degraded in-
stream habitat, early consultation on water resource development
projects, and work with partners to address nonpoint and point source
pollution impacts on habitats and wetlands.
The UMRBA supports both the base funding for Ecological Services
offices on the UMR, as well as the additional funds that are to be made
available through the Mississippi River Basin Partnership. In addition,
the UMRBA urges Congress to provide support for the following specific
UMR efforts through earmarked increased appropriations of:
--$1 million to support the Habitat Needs Assessment in cooperation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
--$500,000 to support water quality related studies;
--$2 million over 5 years for habitat restoration in UMR watersheds,
in coordination with the Clean Water Action Plan; and
--$1 million for relocating the endangered Higgin's eye pearly mussel
that is threatened with extinction due to the spread of the
invasive zebra mussel.
Refuges and Wildlife.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administers 249,000 acres of land and water on the Mississippi River
from the most northerly unit near Wabasha, Minnesota to the most
southerly unit near Grafton, Illinois. This stretch of the river
includes the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge,
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Mark Twain NWR, and
Clarence Cannon NWR. The existence of this extensive national refuge
system is, in part, the reason that in 1986 Congress designated the
Upper Mississippi River System as a ``nationally significant commercial
navigation system and a nationally significant ecosystem.''
The UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
of $265.3 million for Refuge Operations and Maintenance, which reflects
an increase of $27 million over the fiscal year 1999 funding level.
From this amount, the refuges on the Upper Mississippi River are
expected to receive a minimum of $5.621 million. This total includes
base funding of approximately $3.1 million, plus additional funds for
base and backlog maintenance, visitor facilities, invasive species
control, and equipment replacement. Also included is a $1 million add
for the UMR Refuges. UMRBA recommends that this add be allocated
through the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). Funding through RONS
will allow the enhanced level of spending to be used for increased
survey and census work, moist soil management, wetland restoration,
operation and maintenance of Environmental Management Program projects,
visitor services, environmental education, and an enhanced refuge base
of eight new positions.
In addition, the UMRBA believes that funding for land acquisition
for river refuges should be accelerated. None of the acquisitions
scheduled in fiscal year 2000 through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund are associated with refuges on the Upper Mississippi River. The
Mark Twain NWR acquisition needs (80,000 acres) are currently ranked
#24 out of 140 projects ranked by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge acquisition needs
(35,000 acres) are ranked #82.
Also, the UMRBA supports funding of $2 million from the Service's
Construction account for an Upper Mississippi River Interpretive Center
as part of the Mississippi River Museum in Dubuque, Iowa. Over $8
million in private funds has already been secured for this facility,
which will offer educational and interpretive services for the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
Fisheries.--Most of the Service's fish management on the Upper
Mississippi River is conducted out of the La Crosse (WI), Columbia
(MO), and Carterville (IL) Fishery Resource Offices. Fish stocking is
done from the Genoa National Fish Hatchery in Genoa, Wisconsin and fish
health concerns are addressed by the Fish Health Center in Onalaska,
Wisconsin.
The UMRBA supports the important work done by these offices and
thus supports the funding increases which are proposed for the
Fisheries Account in fiscal year 2000. Of the $79.8 million total
proposed for Fisheries, approximately $600,000 in base funding is
anticipated to be provided for the fisheries work on the Upper
Mississippi River. In additional UMRBA strongly supports the funding
which will be allocated to Fisheries from the $1.5 million total for
the Mississippi River Basin Partnership. In particular, $275,000 is
scheduled for work with partner agencies on fish passage; habitat
restoration; and assessments of paddlefish, lake sturgeon, and
freshwater mussels.
u.s. geological survey
While the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) reflects an overall net increase of $40 million over
fiscal year 1999 funding levels, it is difficult to accurately assess
the impacts of this change due to the fact that the USGS budget has
been reorganized. Some of the restructuring, such as separating
overhead costs from program costs is a welcome change. However, the
UMRBA is concerned that the overall effect of this restructuring
appears to be a shift to more centralized Department of Interior budget
categories such as ``science support,'' at the expense of local
district data collection efforts and federal-state cooperative
activities. In addition, there are several specific research and
monitoring programs in the Water Resources Division (WRD) and
Biological Resources Division (BRD) that are of particular concern to
the UMRBA.
Biological Research.--The Biological Research and Monitoring budget
of BRD is targeted for a reduction of $3.5 million in the Species and
Habitat Protection account. Among the research projects slated for
elimination is the grassland habitat research which was being done, in
part, by the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC). The
UMESC research initiated in fiscal year 1999 ($150,000) was evaluating
the link between changes in wet meadow habitats and the dramatic
decline of song bird populations. This research was focused on national
refuge lands throughout the region and is thus of interest to UMR
biologists. The UMRBA recommends that funding for this research be
restored.
Similarly, BRD funding for the Clean Water Initiative is proposed
to be cut by $2 million, $350,000 of which was to have supported on-
going research by UMESC concerning biological impacts of nutrients. In
particular, studies were underway to assess how the pooled portions of
the UMR function to mitigate delivery of nitrogen and phosphorous to
the Gulf of Mexico. This research is of interest, not only because of
its relevance to Gulf hypoxia, but also because of increasing concern
about the more local impacts of excessive nitrogen. In particular,
there is growing evidence that nitrogen is affecting the quality of
backwater fisheries habitat on the Upper Mississippi River. UMESC had
begun to evaluate the beneficial impacts that the Corps of Engineers'
experimental water level drawdowns may have on nitrogen concentrations.
This research is critical to making wise management choices on the
river and UMRBA thus recommends that funding for this work be
reinstated in BRD's budget.
The UMRBA supports the proposed $4 million increase in the BRD
budget for amphibian research and monitoring. Because amphibians are
considered good indicators of overall ecosystem health, it is important
to understand the scope and severity of their decline and factors
causing their deformity. A portion of this national amphibian research
initiative will likely be conducted by UMESC. While we understand that
the amphibian monitoring and research will be focused on federal lands,
we expect the results to also be useful to the states, as they fulfill
their natural resource management responsibilities.
Water Resources Investigations.--The WRD budget for its National
Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) is of great interest to the
UMRBA. Of the 51 study units currently underway nationwide, 4 are
within the UMR basin: the Upper Mississippi, Eastern Iowa, Lower
Illinois, and Upper Illinois River Basins. NAWQA study unit activities
are guided by liaison committees composed of federal, state, and local
water management agencies, as well as universities and citizen groups.
Thus the study results are of use for a broad variety of management
decisions. For example, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
uses NAWQA surface water data for monitoring compliance with Missouri's
water quality standards. UMRBA urges Congress to make adequate funds
available to complete work in the ongoing NAWQA study units and plan
for reactivating efforts in the first set of study units begun in 1991,
two of which are the Ozark Plateaus unit in Missouri and the Red River
of the North study unit in Minnesota. The periodic reactivation of
study units is a vital part of the NAWQA methodology.
Also of interest to the UMRBA is funding in the Toxic Substances
Hydrology account. Among other things, this budget category supports
ongoing research on the occurrence, distribution, movement, and fate of
agricultural chemicals in surface and groundwater systems of the
Midwest corn and soybean producing areas. Within the budget account for
Hydrologic Research and Development there are two interdisciplinary
studies of particular interest for which UMRBA also supports funding.
The first is a study of nitrogen transformation and transport in the
Mississippi River Basin. While scientists believe that hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico is related to nitrogen from the Mississippi River, it is
unclear to what extent various sources of nitrogen contribute to the
problem. The second study of interest focuses on carbon, nutrient, and
sediment storage in lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands in the Mississippi
River basin.
The Hydrologic Networks and Analysis budget category includes a
proposed increase of $400,000 for ongoing USGS study efforts related to
the Gulf hypoxia/Mississippi River issue. UMRBA supports this funding,
which will be used in fiscal year 2000 to provide better spatial
definition of nutrient production and to improve the scientific methods
for identifying nutrient sources and associated land uses. Also, as
part of the USGS Atmospheric Deposition Program, scientists are
attempting to estimate the relative significance of atmospheric
nitrogen inputs in the Mississippi River drainage area. All of these
various studies related to questions surrounding the relationship
between Gulf hypoxia and nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin are
of great interest to the UMRBA states. The effectiveness of alternative
management actions will depend, in large part, upon whether we have
accurately evaluated the cause/effect relationships and appropriately
targeted the source of the problem. The states are deeply concerned
about both the scientific and policy questions associated with the
hypoxia/Mississippi River nutrients problem. The UMRBA has recently
requested an extension of the review period for the scientific
assessments which USGS and other federal agencies prepared under the
auspices of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR).
We expect that both those studies and all future assessments done by
USGS will be better coordinated with state scientists and policy
makers.
The UMRBA is also deeply concerned about the proposed cuts in the
USGS Federal-State Cooperative program. While some of the proposed 17
percent reduction in fiscal year 2000 can be attributed to the budget
restructuring, there are $2.5 million in real program reductions. In
the Federal-State Cooperative program, USGS provides funding for
stream-gaging and interpretative studies which is matched by nonfederal
cooperators. In 1998, $5.56 million was provided by USGS for Coop
program activities in the five UMRBA states. However, local cooperators
provided in excess of the required match, contributing $7.7 million.
Clearly, this is a popular and useful program in our region. In
addition, it is ironic that a recent USGS report to Congress on the
stream gaging network cites the critical need for additional gages for
flood forecasting and warning, water quality, and regional
characterization of flow changes. Despite this recognized need, the
USGS budget proposal for fiscal year 2000 recommends reducing federal
support for monitoring the nation's rivers and streams. We urge
Congress to restore and increase the level of funding for the Federal-
State Cooperative program.
______
Prepared Statement of John E. Ebel, Ph.D., Director, the Weston
Observatory of Boston College
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am the Director of
Weston Observatory, a seismological and geological observatory that is
part of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Boston College, and
I am also a Professor of Geophysics at Boston College. I am pleased to
have this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the great
importance of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
for earthquake hazard mitigation both in the northeastern United States
as well as throughout the country as a whole. Weston Observatory has,
as one of its missions, the goals of studying the earthquake activity
in New England and vicinity and of using the results of that research
to encourage earthquake hazard reduction activity throughout the
region. Past NEHRP funding to Weston Observatory has provided the means
by which my staff and I have been able to carry out this vital work,
and future funding is essential if our ambitious plans for new
earthquake mitigation activities are to be achieved.
In this testimony, I will present three reasons why NEHRP funding
should continue to be fully funded, and in fact should be substantially
increased if possible. First, I will describe how past and current
NEHRP funding has led to a major improvement in our understanding of
the earthquake hazard and risk in the northeastern U.S. Second, I will
explain how NEHRP has in the past, and continues today, to stimulate
the public in the northeastern U.S. to take earthquake mitigation
measures. Finally, I will explain some new Weston Observatory plans to
develop systems for providing vital earthquake information and
assessments in better and faster ways. Continued NEHRP funding is vital
to the work not only of Weston Observatory but also of university and
government research groups working throughout the country on seismic
hazard and earthquake loss mitigation.
(1) Long-term, dedicated, instrumental earthquake monitoring in the
northeastern United States during the past two decades has led to a
significantly better understanding of the earthquake hazard and risk in
this heavily populated region of our country. Furthermore, continued
earthquake monitoring in the years ahead will add substantially to our
understanding of the earthquake threat in this region.
I believe that the rapidly growing body of scientific and
engineering studies and reports produced during the past two decades on
earthquake hazard, earthquake risk and earthquake engineering in the
northeastern U.S. attests convincingly to this statement. However, let
me here give a few specific examples of the kinds of information about
earthquake hazard (particularly about past earthquakes) that modern
instrumental monitoring gives us.
Instrumental earthquake monitoring has revealed that the area in
New England that has experienced the largest number of small
earthquakes since 1975 is located in central New Hampshire, roughly
from Lake Winnepesaukee south about 25 miles to near Concord. The
earthquakes trend roughly in a north-south direction, parallel to the
Merrimack River in that area. We know from historic records that the
pilgrims of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut experienced a
very strong and frightening earthquake in 1638. The most likely
epicenter for this event in 1638 is somewhere in central New England.
The modern earthquake band in central New Hampshire could be very late,
``left over'' aftershocks of the strong 1638 earthquake. The length of
this zone of current seismic activity is consistent with an earthquake
of magnitude 6.5 to 7.0 in 1638, roughly the strength of the
earthquakes that hit the San Francisco Bay area in 1989 and Northridge,
California in the Los Angeles area in 1994. If such an earthquake were
to occur today, it would be capable of causing damage to cities and
towns in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine. Further
seismological and geological studies are needed to find the direct
geological evidence to confirm this theory for the location and size of
the 1638 earthquake. Even without this confirmation, there is certainly
strong circumstantial evidence for the occurrence of an earthquake of
major magnitude in New Hampshire in 1638.
In another example, on January 10 and 14, 1999 several small
earthquakes (magnitudes between 2 and 3) took place. These shocks were
centered near the town of Amesbury in northeastern Massachusetts, just
a couple miles south of the New Hampshire border. The earthquakes were
felt by local residents in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and
they caused considerable concern among the population there. There was
a strong earthquake (felt throughout all of New England) that was
centered in this area in 1727; it is known as the Newburyport
earthquake because that is the town that experienced the greatest
damage during that 1727 event. From a scientific point of view, the
1999 earthquakes are of extreme interest because the felt effects of
these earthquakes were very similar to those of the aftershocks of the
1727 earthquake. The modern residents reported that the 1999
earthquakes were accompanied by very loud ``booms'' and were generally
fairly noisy. This same type of description also was recorded in
contemporary accounts for many of the aftershocks experienced shortly
after the 1727 earthquake. The area over which the 1999 events were
felt is very similar to the felt areas for the 1727 aftershocks.
Finally, Amesbury is only about 5 miles from Newburyport. This evidence
all suggests that the 1999 earthquakes are in the same place where the
1727 earthquake was centered, strongly indicating the epicenter of that
historic earthquake. With the modern, precise epicenter, we now have a
locality where further seismic monitoring and geologic investigations
should help us find the fault that was active in 1727, which has not
yet been discovered.
Finally, during the past two years, there have been several small
earthquakes that have been detected from offshore of Cape Ann,
Massachusetts. These are of great importance because they may be
indicating the epicentral area of the 1755 earthquake. The 1755 event
was a major earthquake that was felt from Nova Scotia to Maryland, and
it caused damage in Boston, Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Portland,
Maine. The epicenter of the 1755 earthquake, and therefore the fault on
which it took place, is unknown, since the historic descriptions of
that earthquake only suggest that the epicenter was probably somewhere
offshore of Cape Ann. Thus, the continued detection of offshore
earthquakes is vital if we are to identify the active fault on which
this important historic earthquake took place, a fault that continues
to pose a major seismic hazard to Boston today.
(2) Long-term instrumental earthquake monitoring stimulates the
public to engage in earthquake mitigation activities.
I have been affiliated with Weston Observatory and Boston College
for over 18 years, and there is no doubt in my mind that public
awareness of the earthquake threat in the northeastern U.S. has
increased substantially during those 18 years. I am also convinced that
the federally-supported regional earthquake monitoring has directly led
to this increased public awareness. I say this for several reasons.
First, reporters, governmental officials, and members of the general
public now generally are aware that we have earthquakes in New England
and adjacent areas. In interviews, I am no longer asked questions like,
``We really don't have earthquakes here, do we?'' Rather now, a more
typical question is, ``I know we have little earthquakes, but do they
mean that we could have a big one?'' Most persons recognize and
correctly identify earthquake shaking when they feel it. Many are eager
to provide Weston Observatory with information about what they felt in
the hopes that the information will help our research. In 1981, people
seemed much more skeptical that the northeastern U.S. was prone to
damaging earthquakes. Today, there is little skepticism about the fact
that earthquakes do take place in the region. I attribute much of this
increased awareness to the steady, high-quality earthquake monitoring
that has been carried out in this region since 1975. Several
earthquakes are felt each year somewhere in New England, and press
coverage and public interest are always high when earthquakes are felt.
Regular access to reporters of earthquake monitoring facilities like
Weston Observatory and of the local scientists studying the earthquake
activity reinforces in the public mind that the earthquake activity is
a hazard that needs to be taken seriously. Public reports of scientific
research results on the earthquakes in the region also get widely
reported and attract significant attention. It is the presence of
continuous earthquake monitoring and the regular flow of information
from that monitoring that has caused many to undertake earthquake
hazard mitigation activities.
Increased awareness of the earthquake hazard through seismic
monitoring has certainly helped to encourage state and local officials
to adopt seismic resistance in their building codes. New buildings,
highway bridges, landfills, and waste treatment plants are now being
designed and built in this region with some level of seismic
resistance. The willingness of engineers to design to earthquake
standards and of building inspectors and code officials to enforce
those standards is due to the increased awareness of the earthquake
threat in the region. This activity will undoubtedly lead to decreased
losses in future earthquakes.
The federally-supported earthquake monitoring and studies based on
that earthquake monitoring have led to better earthquake planning at
the state level in New England. As an example, a few years ago some
colleagues and I at Weston Observatory wrote a report on the seismic
hazard of the state of Vermont. That report was based largely on
results gathered from the modern earthquake monitoring. There is now an
ongoing project in Vermont to create a detailed map of the soils of
Chittenden County, the most populous county in the state, using
information gathered by the USGS and by the office of the Vermont state
geologist. That map will be incorporated into the computer program
HAZUS (from FEMA) by local planners to assess which parts of this most
populous county in Vermont would experience the strongest shaking in
future earthquakes. This information will then be used by state and
local government officials in their earthquake hazard loss mitigation
planning. To me, this project demonstrates how well earthquake
monitoring by Weston Observatory dovetails with related efforts by FEMA
and the USGS, with the end result being a New England state initiating
its own study to mitigate the effects of strong earthquakes.
(3) Increased funding for earthquake monitoring and for earthquake
research is needed to improve the speed, quality, and usefulness of
earthquake information to government officials and to the public.
Increased federal funding over current levels is required if Weston
Observatory is to successfully create information systems for the rapid
dissemination of earthquake epicenters, magnitudes, felt areas, damage
areas, and ground motions immediately following the occurrences of felt
and damaging earthquakes.
Weston Observatory is extremely supportive of current USGS
initiatives to create near real-time earthquake information systems
and, where practical, real-time earthquake warning systems. The USGS
report ``A Plan for Implementing a Real-time Seismic Hazard Warning
System'' calls for the development of a rapid notification system,
where information on the epicenter, magnitude, felt and damage areas
are issued within a few seconds to a few minutes after a strong
earthquake occurs. The USGS draft report ``An Assessment of Seismic
Monitoring in the United States: Requirement for an Advanced National
Seismic System'' notes that such a warning system can only be developed
if there is a significant infusion of new federal funds to upgrade and
operate new seismic stations throughout the U.S. The goals of a near
real-time earthquake information system for the New England region is
achievable with the proper investment of funding, and Weston
Observatory is already developing plans for such a system. The
potential of such a system to assist emergency service agencies to cope
with the effects of a large earthquake is enormous once such a system
is in place. However, the development of such a system requires an
investment in new technology as well as in research to develop and test
the system.
At the present time, when a felt or damaging earthquake takes place
anywhere in New England, inquiries are sent from police, fire, or local
emergency managers to their state emergency management agency. That
agency contacts the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA)
which in turn telephones Weston Observatory for verification of an
earthquake and information about the event. Once Weston Observatory has
a location and magnitude, that information is telephoned to MEMA, who
relays it to the emergency management agencies in the other New England
states. At Weston Observatory, all of the earthquake data from the
regional seismic stations is gathered via internet or telephone and
then read by a seismologist, who then locates the earthquake and
computes its magnitude.
Weston Observatory is currently developing plans for an automated
system where the earthquake data from the seismic stations are
automatically transmitted to Weston Observatory (via the Internet) and
an initial estimate of the epicenter and magnitude is computed in a
near real-time system without human intervention. Our goal is to
develop a system that is sufficiently reliable that earthquake
information such as an automatically-determined epicenter and magnitude
would be sent in near real-time directly to MEMA and to the other New
England state emergency management agencies through the Internet or
through a beeper service. Weston Observatory is further interested in
developing a system whereby maps with initial estimates of the felt and
possible damage areas of earthquakes are automatically generated from
the earthquake epicenter and magnitude, and these maps can also be
automatically sent to MEMA and other agencies shortly after an event
occurs. Because earthquakes in the northeastern U.S. are felt and have
the potential to cause damage over very large areas (including many
different states in a single earthquake), such an automated system
would be of great value in helping emergency managers decide where
emergency services are most immediately and critically needed following
an earthquake. Systems similar to this are already operational in
California, where a much greater number of seismic stations and a
higher level of dedicated funding have enabled such systems to be
developed.
I believe that the automated earthquake information system
described here can be developed for New England over a time period of a
few years with the proper investment in new and improved earthquake
monitoring stations and in the necessary research to complete the
development and testing of the system. While some experience and
software from such systems already implemented in other parts of the
U.S. can be adapted for our system in New England, the particular
geographic locations of our earthquakes, of our seismic stations, and
of the way the seismic waves transmit through the geology of the region
require that parts of a New England system must be created from
scratch. We already have the plans and rudimentary tests of some
components of such a system, but much more work is needed to make an
automated earthquake information system, monitored by Weston
Observatory, a practical reality in the New England area.
As a participant in a USGS workshop that helped prepare the draft
report ``An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States:
Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System'', I strongly urge
that the recommendations of this report be implemented through
increased federal funding for earthquake monitoring throughout the
country. Improved near real-time earthquake information systems will
undoubtedly stimulate much new earthquake loss mitigation activity in
those areas of the country in which they are implemented. The rapid
speed of modern communications along with the experience gained in
operating near real-time earthquake information systems will make it
possible for new earthquake warning systems to be developed. The goal
of all of these efforts is to develop the capabilities to minimize
earthquake disasters in the same way that hurricane, flood and storm
warnings save lives and losses when those other kinds of natural
disasters strike. Our country will benefit enormously from the
implementation of a new Advanced National Seismic System.
______
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, President, National Congress of
American Indians
introduction
Good morning Chairman Regula, Vice-Chairman Dicks and distinguished
members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior. Thank you for
the opportunity to present testimony regarding the President's Budget
Request for fiscal year 2000 Indian programs and services. My name is
W. Ron Allen. I am President of the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) and Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in
Washington State.
the president's fiscal year 2000 budget request
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget calls for $1.9 billion to
be allocated to the BIA, an increase of $155.6 million over the fiscal
year 1999 enacted level. The budget contains a request of $1.7 billion
for the Operation of Indian Programs (OIP), a modest increase of $110
million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Another component was
the request of $716 million for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a
$17 million increase over fiscal year 1999. However, as important as
these increases are to tribes, and despite the apparent commitment to
tribal self-sufficiency, self-determination and self-governance shown
by the Administration in its budget request, this increase still falls
short of providing adequate funding for critically needed tribal
programs.
Although the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000
includes a $17 million increase in TPA over fiscal year 1999, this
increase is inadequate to meet the vital needs of tribal governments.
TPA budget activity includes the majority of funds used to support on-
going services at the local tribal level, including such programs as:
housing, law enforcement, child welfare, education, natural resources
management and other tribal government services. TPA gives tribes the
flexibility to prioritize funds among these programs according to their
unique needs and circumstances.
Over the past two decades, very little funding has been added to
TPA to allow exercise of self-determination and self-governance.
Further, in fiscal year 1995, TPA was drastically cut and critical
tribal programs and services were severely impacted. Since then, tribal
governments have increasingly fallen behind in their ability to provide
services in their communities. These budget reductions clearly are
contrary to and undermine the successes tribal governments have
achieved.
Funding levels to TPA have yet to be restored to the fiscal year
1995 level. The small increases to TPA over the past few years have not
been adequate to keep pace with inflation. The failure of the
Administration to include a significant increase in overall TPA for
fiscal year 2000 continues to hinder tribal governments' ability to
provide for the essential needs of their communities.
Mr. Chairman, at the very least, the President's requested TPA
increase must be supported by Congress. The enormous tribal program
responsibilities associated with this budgetary category include the
direct tribal operation of programs. Although the President's requested
funding level for this budgetary category will help tribes address
these needs, Congress is urged to increase the TPA budget category well
beyond its current enacted level.
Also of concern within the BIA is the issue of contract support
costs. The moratorium imposed by Congress in fiscal year 1999 on any
new or expanded contracts, compacts or grants under Pub. L. 93-638
hampered many tribes' ability to continue their move towards self-
determination. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for
contract support costs includes a very modest increase of $6.4 million
to address the Bureau's continuing contract support cost shortfall,
plus $5 million for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to address the
contract support cost needs of tribes taking on new BIA programs. These
sums are woefully inadequate to make any meaningful inroad into a
shortfall that continues to penalize tribes which elect to operate BIA
programs under the Self-Determination Policy. They are also
insufficient to cover the contract support costs associated with the
new fiscal year 1999 tribal law enforcement initiatives to be
transferred to Tribes in fiscal year 2000.
Per NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-036, Congress and the Administration
are respectfully urged to reconsider these sums in fiscal year 2000 to
finally close the gap in contract support cost funding. Although
Congress is encouraged to support the President's increase, at a
minimum, it is still just a small step in moving tribes back into the
position of operating, on their own, the important programs which serve
their communities.
Another major area of concern is BIA construction funding. The $174
million request called for in the President's budget must be supported
by Congress. As we reported to Congress last year, our schools, health
facilities, courts, police and fire departments all have facilities
that are in desperate need of repair and/or replacement. Included in
this request is an increase of $30 million for school construction.
This will allow tribal communities the ability to address the vital
needs of their children and improve the environments in which they
learn. NCAI also supports the President's budget request for continued
new funding for Public Safety and Justice construction.
Further, many tribal communities are still awaiting much needed new
construction project funding to rehabilitate or replace a variety of
facilities, including high cost projects such as dams, power plants and
other infrastructure renovations. The President's budget requests $22
million for the repair of high hazard dams on Indian lands. As reported
by the BIA, these dams pose significant threat of loss of life, and at
minimum, significant economic damage, both on and off Indian
reservations. The Federal government is responsible for the maintenance
of these structures and is ultimately liable for any damage which may
occur as a result of their hazardous condition.
Each year, BIA facilities face increased safety hazards which must
be addressed through proper maintenance and re-engineering projects
that all require adequate levels of funding. The President's request of
$174 million for BIA construction projects is a laudable first step.
As reported to Congress last year, the management of Indian trust
lands is in dire need of reform. The BIA manages over 55 million acres
of land, 170,000 individual tracts of land, 100,000 active leases,
350,000 land owners, and 2 million owner interests. According to the
BIA, the allocation of new resources is designed to ``close the books
on Indian trust management problems as we enter the next century by
completing the replacement of core trust management systems, including
the complete cleanup of all trust records in the Trust Asset and
Accounting Management System (TAAMS).'' NCAI supports the fiscal year
2000 budget request of $100 million for the Office of Special Trustee,
which will provide $65.3 million for continued implementation of the
Trust Management Improvement Project.
The Administration and Congress' attempts to empower tribal
governments to assume more management responsibilities over tribal
program and service operations, create tribal jobs and develop
sustainable economies that lead Indian Country into greater self-
sufficiency are very commendable goals, and ones that are clearly
shared by tribal governments. However, without adequate federal
appropriations these objectives will not be achieved. Increased funding
for programs and services under the BIA budget must be provided to
ensure that the basic needs of this nation's first citizens are
adequately met and our collective goals for a stronger economic base in
Indian Country are fully realized.
Economic Development
Under the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended, guaranteed
loans, direct loans, and grants were established for economic
development in Indian Country. Unfortunately, since 1996 the grant
programs and the direct loan programs have not been funded. As a
result, the only program remaining under this Act is the guaranteed
loan program.
Economic development conditions on reservations are dire. With
welfare reform in full force, sustainable economic development is even
more essential. Tribes need to develop economic development plans to
reduce the severe impacts on tribal members and tribal governments.
However, raising capital to start businesses on reservations is very
difficult. Under the Indian Financing Act (IFA), grant money was used
for technical assistance, but more importantly grant money was used as
leverage for other federal programs. For example, the Department of
Agriculture has a loan program that guarantees from 70 percent to 90
percent of the loan. Even though a majority of the loan is guaranteed,
many Indian individuals and tribes still have difficulty raising the 10
to 30 percent equity needed to secure the loans. If the IFA grant
program was still in existence, it could be combined with other federal
loan programs allowing greater participation by individual Indians and
tribes. Therefore, through NCAI Resolution #GB-98-004, NCAI requests at
least $20 million be appropriated to reestablish the IFA grant program.
Through NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-080, NCAI also requests that
Congress appropriate $10 million specifically for funding the BIA
Office of Economic Development for the purpose of providing training
and technical assistance for the development and expansion of
reservation business.
Indian Education
NCAI commends the Administration for its continual investment in
Indian education. President Clinton has proposed a total investment of
$503.6 million for BIA school operations, an increase of $27.5 million
over fiscal year 1999. This increase in school operations allows the
BIA to educate approximately 12 percent of the American Indian K-12
population and will cover additional costs for teachers,
transportation, and operations resulting from the growing student
population in Indian Country. Of the $1.4 billion request for the
hiring of 100,000 new teachers, the President proposes to spend $6
million to recruit, hire and train BIA teachers in order to reduce
class size in the early grades. The fiscal year 2000 school operations
budget supports the President's Executive Order 13096 on American
Indian and Alaska Native Education which commits to improving the
academic performance and reducing the dropout rate of Indian students.
The recent Indian Education Executive Order also cites the need for
creating strong and safe environments for Indian students. To help meet
this goal, and in accordance with the President's call for
modernization of our schools, the Administration has requested $108.4
million for BIA education construction, a significant increase of $48
million over fiscal year 1999. This increase will assist in the
replacement and repair of some of the 185 BlA-funded schools on
reservations where 53,000 Indian students are currently learning in
facilities that present serious health and safety threats. According to
the Inspector General's office, Indian schools were in significantly
worse shape than even inner city schools. Included in this increase is
a new $30 million Indian School Construction Bonding Initiative which
will provide critically needed funds for addressing the growing backlog
of health and safety deficiencies, which currently exceeds $800
million, at BlA-funded elementary and secondary schools. Although NCAI
urges Congressional support for S. 7, the Public Schools Excellence
Act, as it would allow tribes to utilize the funding to issue qualified
school construction bonds or other taxable bonds to replace or repair
BlA-funded schools, this measure and other various school bonding
proposals continue to lack bipartisan support. Therefore, NCAI
recommends that the federal government, which is responsible for the
education of American Indian and Alaska Native students attending BlA-
funded schools, authorize and appropriate sufficient funds to complete
all Indian education construction requests.
The remaining $78 million in school construction funds will assist
in replacing older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools, including the
replacement construction of Fond du Lac Ojibway School in Minnesota and
Seba Dalkai School in Arizona. NCAI fully endorses the notable funding
increase request for school construction; however, with two-thirds of
the education facilities over 30 years old, and more than one-quarter
over 50 years old, the backlog continues to grow. Therefore, by NCAI
Resolution #MRB-98-084, NCAI calls upon the Congress to support a 5-
year construction plan of the Department of Interior to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog of need by increasing education facilities
construction, repair, and maintenance budgets for fiscal year 2000 to
fiscal year 2004 and to fully fund BIA-funded school construction
within the next five years.
The following are NCAI's fiscal year 2000 budget recommendations
for the following BIA Indian education programs.
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA): 1. Adult Education. This program
continues to be one of the most underfunded Indian education areas by
the federal government. For fiscal year 2000, the Administration
proposes $2.6 million for Adult Education; however, the need is $5
million to adequately fund tribally-based adult education programs. The
BIA estimates that approximately 20,000 Indian adults who did not
finish high school participate in the program in order to obtain their
General Educational Development (GED) degree.
2. Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program. The fiscal year 2000 request is
$18 million, the same as fiscal year 1999. The funding need for this
program should not be less than $25 million in order to provide
supplemental educational services for 272,000 American Indian students
in 23 states.
3. Scholarships. The fiscal year 2000 request of $29 million for
undergraduate scholarships for American Indians has increased only $2
million since 1996 and does not allow for the increase in the number of
Indian students wishing to enter college or the increase in tuition
costs which are out pacing inflation. The needs of Indian students
pursuing post-secondary 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.
Generally, the needs of American Indians tribal higher education
programs have not been funded at stable and/or adequate levels, and
inadequacy of funding is becoming more problematic under the TPA
system. Therefore, per NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-075, NCAI calls for the
increase in TPA allocation nationally for higher education.
Other Programs: 1. Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
Formula. The President's fiscal year 2000 request is $312 million for
this program, which provides formula-based funding for 185 BIA-
operated, grant, and contract elementary and secondary schools. The
requested amount would provide $3,199 per Weighted Student Unit (WSU)
compared to $3,125 per WSU in school years 1997-98. NCAI supports a
funding level of $3,500 per WSU and request an funding increase to meet
this level.
2. Student Transportation. The fiscal year 2000 request for student
transportation is $38.8 million, a $4 million increase over fiscal year
1999. In fiscal years 1997-98 the BIA-funded transportation cost was
$1.98 per mile with 15,197 miles (School Year 1996-1997) 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 $.96 below the national per mile average.
3. Tribal Departments of Education. The fiscal year 2000 budget
request, as in years past, does not include funding to assist tribes in
planning and developing their own centralized tribal administrative
entities as authorized by Pub. L.103-382, the Improving America's
Schools Act. Per NCAI Resolution #MRB-98-003, NCAI recommends at least
$3 million for tribal departments of education to accomplish the
original intent of the 1994 Act. This would be appropriate given the
recent trend to convert more and more schools from BIA to tribal
control.
4. Tribal Colleges/Post Secondary Schools. The President's fiscal
year 2000 request for Tribally-Controlled Community Colleges is $38.4
million, a $3 million increase over 1999. NCAI supports $40 million
which would provide for an additional $7 million for TCCC Operating
Grants.
5. Post Secondary Schools. The fiscal year 2000 request is $14.3
million and is an increase over fiscal year 1999 of $2.5 million. The
request includes funding for Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
(SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University. No longer in the post
secondary schools category is the United Tribes Technical College
(UTTC). NCAI requests that the amount for Haskell be increased to $10
million since it is the only national institution dedicated solely to
the post secondary needs of Indian students.
Public Safety and Justice
Of critical importance in the fiscal year 2000 BIA budget request
is public safety on reservations. As this Committee is well aware,
tribal governments are in desperate need of resources to combat crime
within their communities. Last year, Congress provided $20 million to
the BIA to begin addressing the law enforcement needs of Indian
Country. This year, the Administration is requesting another $20
million increase for the continuation of this ``multi-year''
Presidential Initiative. Along with the increase in BIA funding for
Indian Country law enforcement comes a requested $124 million in the
Department of Justice for law enforcement on reservations. NCAI also
supports the President's proposed increase of $2.6 million for tribal
courts. Adequate funding for tribal courts is critical to ensuring the
quality of Indian Country law enforcement efforts through a
strengthened tribal judicial system.
Trust Funds Management
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $100
million for the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
(OSTAI), a significant increase of $60.5 million over the current
enacted level. Over $88 million of this proposal targets OSTAI program
operations, with $65.3 million of that figure directed at further
implementing the Trust Management Improvement Project. According to the
BIA, this project includes a complete overhaul of the Trust Asset and
Accounting Management System (TAAMS) currently used to manage trust
asset accounts.
Other proposals include a $10 million continuance fund for the
Indian Land Consolidation project and a reclassification of over $2
billion in tribal trust funds to the ``non-budgetary'' status, similar
that of Individual Indian Monies (JIM) accounts. This reclassification
serves to specifically acknowledge tribal ownership over these trust
fund accounts, while affecting no change to the Secretary's obligations
to service them.
We recommend the President's budget increase to help the OSTAI
improve the Secretary's management of these accounts and to meet his
goal of correcting a 70-year-old Indian trust fund mismanagement
problem. However, the recent turn of events surrounding the Special
Trustee's resigning under protest over the Secretary's decision to
rearrange administrative authority over trust funds management is of
major concern to tribes. The Secretary's actions seem to usurp
Congress' intent to provide the Special Trustee with more independent
authority over trust fund management activities. Proper management of
Indian Trust Funds continues to elude the federal government, even
though Congress and the Administration have attempted to correct this
dysfunction.
Total reform of the current trust fund management system may be the
only formidable solution at this point. However, legislation introduced
in the 105th Congress as H.R. 2732, the Tribal Trust Fund Settlement
Act of 1998, failed to propose adequate solutions to the mismanagement
of outstanding trust accounts. This prompted the NCAI General Assembly
to adopt NCAI Resolution #GRB-98-054, which opposes H.R. 2732 and urges
Congress and the Administration to meet further with tribes to
formulate legislation that will fairly and fully compensate tribes for
the damages they have suffered due to the federal government's
mismanagement practices over outstanding trust fund accounts.
NCAI strongly encourages the Congress and the Trustee to work more
collectively with tribes to find an end to these mismanagement
practices and begin reconciling outstanding accounts. The longer we
wait, the more assured it is that the overwhelming amount of mismanaged
and unidentified trust fund accounts will never be reconciled.
Therefore, it is in the best interest of all parties that the
reconciliation of IIM and trust land asset accounts are resolved
immediately. NCAI urges Congress and the Administration to stay
committed, as tribes are, to achieving these goals:
Indian reservation roads
Funding for the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) program, which funds
the construction and maintenance of public roads that provide access to
and within Indian reservations, Indian trust lands, restricted Indian
land and Alaska Native villages, is of critical importance to Indian
Country. On average, only $500 per mile and in some cases as little as
$80 per mile is available for Indian roads maintenance. In comparison,
an average of $2,200 is spent on maintaining other federal roads, and
an average of between $2,500 and $4,00 per mile is spent by states. The
BIA has only been appropriated $25 million a year for maintenance of
all reservation roads in the United States. As a result of insufficient
funding, many roads in Indian communities are not sufficiently
maintained and have to be shut down during the winter or become
impassable other times throughout the year. The deteriorating road
systems negatively affect the health and economic viability of all
tribal communities.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress should fund the IRR program at an
absolute minimum of $300 million annually, as has been recommended by
both the tribes and the BIA. This would begin the process of addressing
the backlog of road construction projects. NCAI also urges Congress to
provide $15 to $20 million annually for Indian reservation bridge
construction and repair programs. These funds should come from the
national bridge repair program and not from the IRR allocation.
Finally, as a matter of policy, tribes should be provided direct access
to the various federal discretionary programs, such as scenic by-way
funding, highway safety, mass transit, and other programs.
Agriculture
In 1986, the BIA and the Department of Interior were directed to
submit to the Congress a report on the effectiveness of Federal and
tribal agriculture and range programs on the national level. This
report was developed through direct consultation with tribes and was
submitted to Congress in September of 1986. The ``Indian Agriculture
Working Group'' was established by the BIA consisting of tribal
representatives with experience in agriculture and ranching. After a
review of all the national agriculture polices was conducted and
hearings were concluded, thirty-two recommendations were submitted to
the BIA. Subsequently, nearly all of these recommendations were
included in H.R. 1425, the American Indian Agricultural Resource
Management Act (AIARMA), which was enacted into law as Pub. L. 103-177.
The purpose of AIARMA is to require the Secretary of the Interior
to provide for improved management of Indian agricultural lands by
working with Indian tribes to carry out numerous programs. AIARMA
required that an independent assessment of Indian agriculture land
management practices be conducted as well as final regulations be
enacted within 18 months of the law being passed; to-date, neither have
been completed. Other articles include: a preference to Indian
operations for issuance and renewal of agricultural leases, the
establishment of an Indian and Alaska Native agricultural education
assistance program, and the development of a ten-year agriculture
resource management plan for each tribe's land.
The primary purpose of Pub. L. 103-177 was to establish a policy
for the BIA for management of Indian trust lands. As a basis for that
policy, a need assessment to determine necessary budgeting and staffing
targets was required. To this date, no assessment has been completed.
Until this is done, Congress and the Departments will not have a clear
direction in their responses to the Indian demand of rectifying this
problem.
In 1994, the appropriated budget for this Act was $1 million
dollars, ultimately increasing to $16 million by 1998. To this date, no
funds have been appropriated for this act. The need for agricultural
assistance in Indian Country is immense and a land management plan is
imperative. Therefore, NCAI urges Congress to provide the funds to
fully support Pub. L. 103-177.
In 1996, another essential act was passed. The Food Agriculture
Improvement Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-127), set forward an opportunity
for an Indian borrower who is facing foreclosure, to transfer the loan
to either the BIA or the borrower's respective tribe. Such transfers
are not available under the present BIA policy. At this time,
approximately 60,000 acres of Indian trust lands are in danger of being
moved out of trust status through foreclosure. To prevent this, the
regulations under Pub. L. 104-127 must be promulgated immediately. NCAI
therefore requests that the appropriate actions be taken.
BIA General Assistance Program
The 1996 Interior Appropriations Bill included language which
capped BIA General Assistance (GA) program expenditures. Such
inadequate and limited appropriations have forced BIA and tribal social
service programs to cut caseloads, leaving many potential recipients
unserved. The enactment of recent welfare reform legislation (Pub. L.
104-193) places increasing strain on this program. As tribal members
exhaust benefit time limits in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) programs, many urban families will return home to their
reservation and their family support network. They will also apply for
GA, as they are no longer eligible to receive TANF. Without increased
funding, GA cannot serve currently eligible tribal members in desperate
need of support, let alone accommodate newly eligible recipients.
For the last several years, the BIA has been in the process of
revising 25 CFR Part 20, ``Financial Assistance and Social Service
Program,'' which regulates, among other programs, the General
Assistance program. In June 1998, the BIA made available a working
draft of the regulations and met with tribes in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
for a day and a half to introduce the draft to tribes and to hear
initial comments. In this forum, tribal leaders and social service
directors voiced concerns about the dramatic impact the proposed
revisions would have on tribal communities. Participants strongly
objected to the lack of tribal input into the draft, the late release
of the draft, and the lack of advanced notice for the introductory
meeting. By far, the most substantial compliant was the lack of tribal
consultation for regulations which propose to dramatically reduce the
safety net program, General Assistance, which serves Indian people.
To date, no consultation plans have been released. Tribal
communities are greatly concerned that the lack of adequate
consultation on the part of the BIA will lead to a lack of
understanding of tribal needs. Tribes anticipate that the
administration will propose draft regulations that reduce the ability
of tribal communities to sustain tribal members who are in need. For
example, draft proposals that would make the General Assistance program
unavailable to persons who have been sanctioned or terminated from an
applicable TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program for
any reason, including an inability to find employment, are strongly
objected by tribes.
Tribal communities already manage scarce resources and stretch
those as far as possible. Further reductions in program funding and
proposed program restrictions in a recently released draft of the
revised 25 CFR Part 20 serve to undermine the Congress' intent of the
General Assistance program and seriously threaten the quality of life
in tribal communities. NCAI Resolution #GRB-98-003, calls upon the BIA
to increase consultation and negotiations with tribal leaders over any
proposed changes to 25 CFR Part 20, prior to any proposed social
service regulations being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget for clearance on publication in the Federal Register as a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to
American Indians and Alaska Native people and to uphold the trust
responsibility as well as preserve the Government-to-Government
relationship, which includes the fulfillment of health, education and
welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States. This
responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because of any
Congressional agenda or party platform. Tribes throughout the nation
relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and
property in exchange for this trust responsibility. The President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request acknowledges the fiduciary duty owed to
tribes. We ask that the Congress to maintain the federal trust
responsibility to Indian Country and continue to aid tribes on our
journey toward self-sufficiency. This concludes my statement. Thank you
for allowing me to present for the record, on behalf of our member
tribes, the National Congress of American Indians' initial comments
regarding the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have at this time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hilton G. Queton, Executive Director, American
Indian Graduate Center, Albuquerque, NM
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The American Indian
Graduate Center (AIGC) of Albuquerque, NM is pleased to submit
testimony in support of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA)--Special
Higher Education Scholarship Program (SHEP). AIGC, since 1969, has been
the only national scholarship program dedicated to serving American
Indians and Alaskan Natives in graduate study. AIGC, as current
contractor for the SHEP program, is respectfully requesting $3.5
million for the BIA's graduate scholarship program in the fiscal year
2000 Budget. This amount would allow AIGC to provide financial
assistance to 600 students in the 1999-2000 academic year.
background
AIGC is a national, non-profit Indian organization established in
1969 to assist American Indian and Alaskan Native students needing
financial aid for graduate school. Nearly 90 percent of all SHEP funds
goes directly to program services, and 10 percent or less is for
administrative costs. The American Indian Graduate Center also raises
funds from private sources for fellowships.
There have been over 8,000 students served by this program in 30
years. For the 1996-97 academic year, AIGC awarded 276 students with
$1.3 million. In fiscal year 1996 Congress reduced our funding by 50
percent, from $2.6 million to $1.3 million. The fiscal years 1998-1999
funding remained at $1.3 million. Due to the devastating cut in
funding, AIGC was unable to assist any new applicants for the fiscal
year 1997. AIGC could only fund continuing students that year. There
were over 1410 requests for applications from new students for the
1998-99 academic year, AIGC was able to fund 245 of the requests. Many
of these students not funded by AIGC were unable to continue their
graduate education and will probably never be able to continue. The
increasing numbers of students will substantially reduce the amount
each student receives. This, coupled with the increased cost of
education will have a significant impact on the student's ability to
remain in school. As the Indian undergraduate student population
increases, this program will not be able to assist them in advancing
their skills without increased funding. Former recipients of this
program, such as Lorraine Edmo, Executive Director of NIEA and former
Assistant Secretary, Ada Deer, are successful leaders in the Indian
community that have benefited from this program.
The American Indian Graduate Center, Inc is governed by an eight
member all Indian board of directors that are from all areas of the
country, who attend meetings on a volunteer basis and contribute to the
organization as well. A listing of the current board members is
attached.
The report in ``Indian Nations at Risk: An Educational Strategy for
Action,'' issued by the Department of Education in October of 1991
stated: ``An increase in funding to train Native educators for
elementary, secondary, and university teaching and other Professions in
science. mathematics. law. engineering, and medicine. business. the
social sciences. and related fields is a national Priority,'' is needed
for the tribal communities throughout the country. These will be
trained, Indian professionals who are not only critical to the well-
being of American Indian communities, but to the country as a whole. We
all know that Education is the key ingredient to self-sufficiency.
current funding and student statistics
For the current 1999 fiscal year the contract amount is $1,187,000.
The following is a breakdown of the number of BIA students and their
fields of study from the 1997-98 academic year and preliminary figures
for the 1998-99 academic year.
1997-98 ACADEMIC YEAR--FINAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Field of study students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business................................................... 26
Education.................................................. 41
Engineering................................................ 6
Health..................................................... 111
Law........................................................ 90
Natural Res................................................ 4
Other...................................................... 42
Number of Males............................................ 131
Number of Females.......................................... 190
Total Tribes Represented................................... 97
Total Colleges Represented................................. 148
Masters Candidates......................................... 123
Doctorate Candidates....................................... 194
Dual Degree Programs....................................... 4
------------
Total................................................ 321
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998-99 ACADEMIC YEAR--PRELIMINARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Field of study students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business................................................... 25
Education.................................................. 20
Engineering................................................ 4
Health..................................................... 72
Law........................................................ 71
Natural Res................................................ 2
Other...................................................... 51
Number of Males............................................ 98
Number of Females.......................................... 147
Total Tribes Represented................................... 96
Total Colleges Represented................................. 129
Masters Candidates......................................... 110
Doctorate Candidates....................................... 130
Dual Degree Programs....................................... 5
------------
Total................................................ 245
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants to AIGC must apply for campus-based aid through the
federal financial aid process. AIGC limits assistance to only a portion
of a student's unmet need. The unmet need last academic year was $3.9
million compared to this year's unmet need of $6.7 million. The average
award this 1998-99 academic year was only $3,980, which represents a
small percentage of their costs. Over the last three years there has
been a reduction in our maximum award from $8,000 to $4,000 because of
the increasing number of eligible applicants and escalating college
costs.
We have administered the SHEP at a cost-effective level for the
past ten years. The low overhead costs are due to a well-trained staff
and the use of modern computer technology. This has enhanced our
ability to service our students. We have perfected our methods of
delivering services, office procedures and internal systems. We are
confident we can continue to successfully administer the Special Higher
Education Grant Program in a highly efficient manner.
summary request
The American Indian Graduate Center asks that the Senate fund the
Special Higher Education Grant program in the BIA budget for $3.5
million in fiscal year 2000. This funding level would bring the program
to a level of funding comparable to fiscal year 1995. It would allow an
additional 300-graduate scholarship awards to be made and also allow us
to raise the average fellowship to $5,000 each. AIGC is the only
national non-profit scholarship entity, which funds American Indians
and Alaska Natives in all fields of study. There is no other
organization that Indian people can turn to for funding for graduate
school, other than the health fellowships provided by the Indian Health
Service. INS only funds those graduate students in health fields.
We appreciate this committee's past support and we want you to know
that your efforts will help to ensure a pool of skilled professionals
who can return to their communities and work on improving the economic
conditions on Indian reservations and urban Indian communities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe
located in south central South Dakota. The Rosebud Sioux Reservation
was established in 1887 as the homelands of the Sicangu Lakota band of
the Great Sioux Nation. The reservation is home to over 31, 680 tribal
members residing both on and off the reservation.
For many years the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has considered the education
of tribal members to be a major priority. As a result of establishing
education as a high priority Rosebud Sioux Tribal members have the
highest education level of any Indian tribe in the United States.
(U.S.Census Bureau, 1990) This could not have been accomplished, nor
can it be maintained without the support of federal dollars.
Ninety percent of Rosebud tribal children attend public schools
located in five public school districts located on the reservation and
in the former reservation areas which have significant tribal
populations. Over three thousand tribal children are enrolled in these
public schools. All of these schools rely on Impact Aid to provide
basic education services to tribal children. Title IX (Indian Education
Act) funds, Title I funds and Johnson-O'Malley funds provide
significant services to Rosebud tribal children.
An additional six hundred tribal students attend one tribal school
established under the authority granted by Public Law 100-297. St.
Francis Indian School relies totally on federal dollars from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs/Office of Indian Education Programs for their basic
funding.
Drop-out rates and student achievement are two concerns that the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe continues to struggle with. One third of all tribal
children attending school will drop-out before they reach the tenth
grade. One half of the ninth graders will fail one or more classes
during their first year of high school. Only one third of the Seniors
graduating each year are achieving at grade level. Tribal children
cannot read at grade level. Adult literacy is a primary problem. Only
sixty percent of tribal parents will ever attend Parent-Teacher
Conferences.
Schools serving tribal children encounter many problems that are
the result of extreme poverty. Violence, alcohol/substance abuse, and
lack of basic needs are the results of poverty. Tribal children often
do not have their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing met, thus
are less likely to be able to learn. Health problems are prevalent
because of poor living conditions, and inadequate health care compounds
the problems. Attendance becomes a problem for many children. Parents
spend a great deal of time trying to access resources to take care of
their families' basic needs, thus do not have the time or energy left
to be involved in their child's education. Economic conditions have a
devastating effect on the lives of tribal children.
title vii, impact aid program
Todd County School District is the primary provider of education
for 2,150 tribal children. Todd County School District operates eight
elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. Funding for
the Todd County School District comes in the form of state aid, local
taxes and federal sources. Todd County School District relies heavily
on Impact Aid funds from the Department of Education because over one
million acres of land in Todd County are non-taxable Indian and federal
lands. It is estimated that Todd County School District could only
operate for three months without Impact Aid dollars and other federal
sources derived from providing education services to tribal children.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe urges Congress to support the President's
2000 Budget Request for $684 million for Impact Aid. We also urge
Congress to maintain the 1.25 weighted student unit that is in the
current formula for federally impacted Indian schools.
Johnson-O'Malley Programs and Title IX Programs are important
programs that assist students in succeeding in school. The supplemental
funds are used to connect schools to tribal families, to provide
tutoring for tribal children in need of additional help, and to provide
culturally relevant education services that alleviate the alienation
that tribal children encounter in schools. Without the services that
these programs provide to tribal children far more students would drop-
out of school or fail in their studies. Tribal families would have
little involvement in or connection to their children's education.
These two programs could be considered equalizers that permit tribal
children to ``belong'' in their schools and allow tribal parents to
design programs that they feel their children need to stay in school
and to succeed in their studies.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports the President's fiscal year 2000
Budget Request for the Office of Indian Education at $77 million.
Formula grants to LEA's are important to children attending public
schools, but we were pleased to see that funding was also requested for
Special Programs for Indian Children and National Activities. The
Rosebud Sioux Tribe would like to see funding restored to $83 million
with funds for all authorized Indian Education Act programs, including
Adult Education, American Indian Fellowships with full funding to
NACIE, as well as the Tribally Controlled Colleges Executive Order.
Six hundred tribal children attend the one tribal school located on
the Rosebud Reservation. St. Francis Indian School is funded under the
authority granted by Public Law 100-297. St. Francis Indian School
operates totally on federal dollars. St. Francis Indian School is a K-
12 school. Although St. Francis Indian School has a new facility, when
the students moved into the new facility it was already too small, thus
overcrowding is a problem for the school. They have tried to solve the
problem with portable classrooms, however this cannot be a permanent
solution. The service area of the tribal school is the entire
reservation and the former reservation area, because of this service
area, St. Francis Indian School buses travel in excess of 2,000 miles
per day transporting students to school. Transportation costs for St.
Francis Indian School are enormous. It is difficult to maintain safe
buses because of the number of miles traveled each day, thus the
Student Transportation funds provided by the BIA/OIEP are extremely
important to St. Francis Indian School. Individual Student Equalization
Program (ISEP) provides the base funding for St. Francis Indian School.
The current formula is $1,200 less than the average student cost rate
in the state of South Dakota, yet the school is attempting to provide
quality education services, high standards and excellent, well-trained
teachers. If tribal children attending tribal and BIA schools are to
have equal opportunities for high quality education, then the federal
government must live up to its treaty obligations and provide equitable
funding that will allow tribal and BIA schools to perform with high
standards.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports increases in the fiscal year 2000
Presidential Budget for BIA/OIEP programs, especially the ISEP formula
funds and the school construction funds requested by the President.
The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) provides funds for education
in the form of scholarships, adult education, adult vocational training
and supplemental funds to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges.
Scholarships for tribal students are extremely important to the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe. If we are to have a trained workforce capable of
competing in the 21 Century, we need tribal members with college
degrees. In fiscal year 1999 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe was unable to fund
over 100 tribal members who applied for scholarships because of the
lack of sufficient funding for scholarships. Scholarships are an
important source of funding for tribal students because most tribal
families do not have financial resources or credit histories which
support student loans. Very few tribal students are able to obtain the
benefits of the U.S. Department of Education's loan programs. The
current unmet need for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $400,000.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe asks that Congress provide $30 million for
Scholarship funds in the Tribal Priority Allocation.
Although the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has a high educational level, the
Tribe relies heavily on Adult Education programs to provide GED
diplomas to those tribal members who have dropped out of school before
receiving a high school diploma. Welfare Reform has compounded the
number of people needing a GED. The fiscal year 2000 Budget request for
the TPA has a slight decrease for Adult Education, however, with the
elimination of Adult Education funding in the Indian Education Act
funding, the amount requested in the BIA/TPA is insufficient to meet
the needs of Rosebud Sioux Tribal members. The current unmet need for
the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $150,000.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress $5 million in the
fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget for Adult Education
programs.
The Johnson-O'Malley Program is extremely important to tribal
children. The JOM Program assists tribal students with supplementary
programs, designed by parents, to prevent drop-outs, increase academic
performance, provide home-school coordination, and work with substance
abuse problems. These are problems that are partially the
responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, yet the BIA fails to
provide sufficient funding for the program year after year. The current
unmet need for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $177,000.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress provide $24 million
for the Johnson-O'Malley Program in fiscal year 2000.
The Adult Vocational Training Program is a highly necessary program
for tribal students wanting to attend a vocational training school,
however this program has always been gravely underfunded. Welfare
Reform has created an increased need for this program. It will now be
necessary for tribes to assist former welfare clients in becoming
employable within a very short time span. Vocational programs provide a
means of quickly helping people gain skills to become employable. The
current unmet need for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $312,000.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress provide $14 million
for Adult Vocational Training in the Tribal Priority Allocation of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Tribal nations have long desired to improve education for their
children. Recently, many tribes have developed Tribal Education Codes
in order to regulate education within their tribal nations. In order to
administer and implement Tribal Education Codes tribes have developed
Tribal Education Departments to provide functions similar to State
Departments of Education. Although both the Bureau of Indian Affairs/
Office of Indian Education Programs and the U.S. Department of
Education are authorized to provide funding to Tribal Education
Departments, neither agency has done so. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has a
dire need for funding for their Tribal Education Department. Since
1991, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has requested funding from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs at a level of $225,000. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is
hereby requesting that Congress provide funding for Tribal Education
Departments in both the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget and in the U.S.
Department of Education budget. The current unmet need for the Tribal
Education Department of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is $225,000.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe requests that Congress provide $4 milllion
in funding for Tribal Education Departments within the Bureau of Indian
Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation.
Tribal College funding has always been a primary concern for the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Sinte Gleska University, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's
tribal college, has had a tremendous impact on education on the Rosebud
Sioux Reservation. In order to continue the development and delivery of
services from the University, it is necessary for them to have
sufficient funds to operate.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is requesting that funding for Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges (Schnyder Act) funding in the Tribal
Priority Allocation be increased. The current unmet need for Sinte
Gleska College is $3 million. We also urge Congress to increase the
Tribal College basic funding within the Bureau of Indian Affairs /
Office of Indian Education Programs budget.
The President has requested $48 million for school construction
bonds for tribal schools. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports this budget
request, and humbly requests that Congress provide the funding
requested.
The President has also requested funds for a class size reduction
initiative and has requested funds to train and put 1,000 new teachers
in tribal and BIA schools. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe supports this
initiative, however, without additional school construction there will
be no classrooms in which to place the new teachers.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is requesting that Congress provide funding
to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to construct a new tribal school, which will
serve 400 students in grades K-12. This facility is needed to
accommodate the projected growth in student populations over the next 5
years and to attempt to provide appropriate high quality tribal
education to tribal students. Current schools will not have the space
to accommodate the growth in the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's population, nor
have they been successful in educating tribal children.
______
Prepared Statement of Earl Havatone, Chairman, Hualapai Tribal Council
of Arizona
The Honorable Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Sub-Committee and all
distinguished Senate members, on behalf of the Hualapai Tribe, we
appreciate the opportunity to request additional funding from the
Department of Interior budget for our tribal projects which total
$11,075,069. We are pleased to report that Hualapai, with your past
support, has nearly completed an aggressive integrated Tribal
management initiative, which has resulted in progressive management of
our social services, and the environment, including the protection of
cultural resources, and the sustainable development of our unique
natural resources.
However, funding priorities set by the Department of Interior are
not always responsive to the unique circumstances of the Hualapai
Tribe. We are requesting Congress for additional funding which will
assist the Hualapai in achieving a higher degree of economic
independence and well-being. We simply ask bipartisan support to
prepare the Tribe for the 21st Century and true self-determination. In
light of the recently reported projections of an $8 billion dollar
federal surplus, there is now a means to satisfy some of the critical
needs that the Tribe has testified about in the past ten years. The
following programs need your attention and additional support:
BIA. Housing Improvement Program, $250,000.--This program requires
additional funding to repair and renovate existing homes that were
built in the 1970's or later.
BIA-Indian Child Welfare Act Program, $150,000.--Additional funding
is needed in this program to employ one (1) legal advocate and
logistical support to protect our children.
BIA-Johnson O'Malley, $150,000.--This program supports educational
services, incentive programs, educational community projects and youth
programs currently enrolled in four (4) off-reservation school
districts.
Headstart $500,000.--This program provides early childhood
instructional education, medical screening and health maintenance for
our most valuable resource our children.
Elderly Program (Title III & XX & Title VI) $115,069.--This program
provides hostel services, cultural activities and congregate food
services for our elderly.
Comprehensive Health Program $450,000.--This program needs
additional funding for three (3) contract programs: Alcohol Program,
Community Health Nurse Program and Mental Health Program. We need
funding to combat the high rate of alcoholism and drug abuse among our
youth. In addition, we have a high rate of diabetes including an
increasing amount of dialysis patients, which necessitates the
increased funding needs for diabetes prevention education.
Ambulatory Care Clinic $2,500,000.--The Hualapai Tribe needs
funding to construct an ambulatory health care facility, including
equipment, staff and logistic support. The current CDBG/HUD funds are
not adequate to address the needs of our Tribe.
IHS Emergency Medical Services $400,000.--Additional funding is
needed for 24 hour, seven days a week medical services for our
community.
Women's Infant & Children (WIC) $25,000.--We need additional
funding to provide for infant nutritional program and other medical
aid.
Family Violence $80,000.--We need funding to provide protective
services for abused women and children that are placed in shelters and
safe houses.
BIA-Roads Maintenance and Repair $500,000.--The Tribe is
responsible for approximately 300 miles of reservation roads. We need
$200,000 for operation and maintenance, and $300,000 to replace
equipment that is antiquated beyond repair.
BIA-Structure Fire Program $90,000.--This program has been
retroceded to BIA operations due to inadequate funding, and is in need
of additional funding.
Selected BIA-Consolidated Tribal Government Programs (CTGP) (not
including Natural Resources discussed below) $1,000,000.--Funding is
needed for existing CTGP programs of Higher Education, Tribal Work
Experience, Tribal Court, Adult Vocational Training, Tribal Operations,
Summer Youth Programs.
Natural Resources Department $850,000.--Our Natural Resources
Department is in dire need of a facility in order to integrate all of
the its management, administration and services. The departmental
offices of Agriculture, Cultural Resources, Forestry, Environmental
Services, Water Resources, Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and
Environmental Protection are now located in substandard buildings that
are or will be condemned. The Tribe is requesting $600,000 to build an
``Earthship Complex Facility'' that will house all departmental offices
in a central location in order to provide better service to tribal
members, Federal, State and local governments. With funding support
from the EPA, the Tribe has completed the first ``earthship'' of this
complex, constructed with tribal natural resources (timber and
flagstone) as well as recycled tires and cans encased in earth with
passive solar applications, solar panels. A small investment of
$600,000 will provide an environmentally sound demonstration project
that can be used as a model for other tribes and the general public to
follow nationwide.
We submitted to the Phoenix BIA Area Office a funding request for
our Natural Resources General 638 Contract, which includes $900,000 for
start up costs. However, we only received $15,000 from the BIA, and per
the recommendation of Phoenix Area Of lice, we have resubmitted our
request. For tribal management of nearly 1,000,000 acres of the
reservation lands, the Tribe needs a congressional earmark of $250,000
for our Natural Resources program, which is the funding equivalent of
$0.25/acre. The BIA funded the contract for $6,000 in fiscal year 1997
and $10,000 in fiscal year 1998 & fiscal year 1999. This funding
averages about $0.008/acre which is a ridiculously low average compared
to the average of $1.50/acre that Federal agencies receive for their
land management.
We need the $250,000 to staff and administer the Tribe's on-going
coordination and cooperation efforts relating to land management with
more than 25 Federal, State and local and private entities. Without a
specific earmark for Natural Resources, the Tribe will be forced to
rely on limited program dollars to fund this function.
BIA-Water Resources $675,000.--In late 1991, the Hualapai Tribal
Council initiated a program to quantify and manage our scarce water
resources through a 638 contract. Survival in the desert Southwest is
entirely dependent upon reliable water resources and sound water
management. Yet, the 638 funding criteria for fiscal years 2000-2001
does not adequately address this pressing need. In fact, we have not
received an allocation for fiscal year 1999, and we fear that our water
resources program may soon be without funding to carry out the needed
work.
We request $675,000 this coming year to continue our water
assessment and to begin to litigate/negotiate our water rights on the
Colorado River and in the Gila River adjudication.
Wildlife Fisheries and Parks Department $1,215,000.--The projected
fiscal year 2001 budget of the Hualapai Wildlife Fisheries and Parks
Department is $1,215,000 and is not likely to be funded within the
BIA's fiscal year 2001 allocations. The Tribe is responsible for the
management and protection of one million acres within the Grand Canyon.
The amount we are requesting will be used to complement the management
goals of the Grand Canyon National Park, including expanding and
enhancing recreation opportunities and visitor services. Funds are
needed to supplement existing available resources for the Hualapai
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Department, and will be used accordingly:
Amount
Native Fish Rearing Facility Construction..................... $490,000
Biological Survey and Training Education...................... 75,000
Peach Springs Canyon Recreation Facilities.................... 250,000
Base Program/Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks...................... 400,000
Forestry $675,000.--Ninety percent of the funding for our 638
Contract Forestry Program has come from unbended forest development
congressional add-on monies. This source of funding was appropriate
when our main emphasis was in forest development, but we have shifted
the direction of our forestry program since the completion of our
Forest Management Plan.
The Hualapai Tribal Forest Management Plan (1987-1996) includes an
annual budget of $675,000 for all forestry activities, including:
$375,000 for timber sale preparation and administration, $125,000 for
management plans and inventories, and $175,000 for forest development.
We respectfully ask that Congress fulfill the intent of the 1990
Indian Forest Management Act (PL 101-630) by funding the activities
outlined in our BIA-approved Forest Management Plan. Accordingly, we
request an annual appropriation of $675,000 earmarked through the
Tribal Priority System for the Hualapai timber sale and management plan
programs administered through our Forestry Program.
Agriculture $500,000.--We plan in the next 3 years to begin
repairing our reservation boundary fence, which is approximately 228
miles long. We need $100,000 to fund the beginning phase of this
project as well as continual funding to complete the project. We also
propose to rebuild the Tribal Stockyard, which was originally built in
the 1950's and which requires $150,000 for restoration purposes. We
need a congressional earmark of $500,000 for support of the Hualapai
Agriculture Program.
Cultural Resources $250,000.--Pursuant to the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.), the Hualapai Tribe has been receiving and responding to 110
different repatriation inquiries from museums across the country that
have items that may belong to the Tribe. To preserve and protect our
cultural resources that we repatriate under Federal law, we need funds
to construct a temperature-controlled facility to house these
materials. The funding will also be used for support staff and office
space for our growing Cultural Resources Department.
BIA Environment Trust Resources $750,000.--We need funds to
reconstruct a waterline soldered with lead and to provide a long-term
base for the environmental programs. This waterline is the only
secondary backup domestic source of drinking water for the town of
Peach Springs and its reconstruction is estimated to cost $350,000. The
Environmental Services & Environmental Protection Programs are new
tribal programs that we created to address the staggering backlog of
NEPA compliance documents required for all federally funded programs.
We need an additional $400,000 to provide base funding for the Tribe's
top ten environmental priorities. The Tribe has nearly completed a
Tribal Environmental Review Code (with 13 subtitles) through an ANA
Grant. The Tribe has also identified and assessed the entire
reservation wetlands and watersheds through an EPA Grant. And, we have
begun a non-point pollution control program through EPA and ADEQ. The
primary concern that we have with these sources of funds is that they
are competitive grant projects. Without a continuing base funding from
the BIA Trust Resource Account funds, our environmental programs will
cease to exist and we will be unable to protect the environment for
future generations to come. Therefore, we respectfully request that
funding be set aside for the Hualapai Tribe Environmental Protection
Program in BIA Trust Resources in the amount of $750,000.
The Hualapai Tribe is very proud of the extraordinary progress it
has made in less than a decade with what amounts to a relatively modest
Federal trust investment. We are confident and dedicated to the goal
that a small tribe, surrounded as we are by bountiful natural
resources, can achieve a goal of self-determination. We believe that we
will achieve our goal with your assistance, and we appreciate the your
consideration of our written testimony. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Vincent Randall, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on the
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Yavapai Apache Nation supports the President's Budget for
fiscal year 2000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for the Indian
Health Service.
Our tribe particularly supports the continued and increased funding
of the initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country. The need for
improved law enforcement services in Indian Country has been widely
documented showing that Indian citizens living on the reservations do
not receive even the minimum level of law enforcement services taken
for granted in non-Indian communities. For example, with an estimated
population of 1,430,000 in Indian Country, the police officer to
citizen ration (2.9 officers per 1,000 citizens) would require at least
4,290 police officers, an increase of 50 percent over the current
number of 2,000 sworn officers in Indian Country. There is a need for a
large infusion of financial resources to make public safety in Indian
Country comparable to the rest of America. The budget increase in
fiscal year 2000 is the second year of the four-year initiative.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Law Enforcement Initiative was
formulated in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
ensure maximum usage of the Federal dollar. Working together, the BIA
and DOJ's respective budget requests complement each other to ensure
that efforts are not duplicated and funding can be provided to tribes
on a more expansive basis. It is essential that the next step of the
improvements to law enforcement be funded in the fiscal year 2000
appropriations act.
We also want to bring to your attention the critical need for Road
Construction and Road Maintenance funding for Indian lands. Tribes can
not be successful in economic development without adequate
transportation systems. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs has received
a slight increase nationally in road construction funds from the
Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 Century (TEA-21), the funding
for tribes under the jurisdiction of the BIA Phoenix Area Office has
decreased by more than 50 percent from the funding provided under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The funding
for the BIA Phoenix Area was reduced from $26 million per year to $16
million per year. The Yavapai Apache Nation has immediate needs for
street improvements and new street construction.
BIA Road Maintenance funds are also critically inadequate to
provide even the most basic maintenance of the roads and streets in
Indian Country. Highway standards are not being met on the large
majority of reservation roads. Tribes do not receive any of the Highway
Users Roads Funds (HURF) collected through taxes collected by States
and Counties on the sale of motor fuels even though the tribes and
tribal members pay such taxes. The Yavapai Apache Nation's streets
continue to deteriorate from lack of maintenance. A review of the
funding process for BIA Roads Maintenance program might be of benefit.
We do appreciate your listening to our concerns and your efforts to
improve standards of living in Indian Country.
_____
Prepared Statement of Thomas Siyuja, Chairman, Havasupai Tribal Council
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on the
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Havasupai Tribe supports the President's Budget for fiscal year
2000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for the Indian Health
Service.
Our tribe particularly supports the continued and increased funding
of the initiative for Law Enforcement in Indian Country. Fiscal year
2000 is the second year of the four-year implementation period. The
need for improved law enforcement services in Indian Country has been
widely documented showing that Indian citizens living on the
reservations do not receive even the minimum level of law enforcement
services taken for granted in non-Indian communities. Our tribe will
certainly benefit from improvement in law enforcement services.
Our Tribe is working hard to improve our academic standards at the
Havasupai School. However, we can not do so unless we can attract and
retain qualified teachers and school administrators. We do not have
adequate housing available for teachers which is the primary cause
ofturnover exceeding 100 percent per school year. We are a remote
location and all tribal housing is occupied, usually with extended
families, in overcrowded conditions. We propose to demolish two
antiquated and condemned buildings and replace them with two 4-plex
apartment type units. These two units will meet all of our housing
needs for the non-local school staff.
We request a one-time appropriation in the BIA Office of Indian
Education Programs in the amount of $1,200,000 to demolish two existing
buildings and replace them with two 4-plex apartment buildings. The
schematics, drawings, and cost estimates have been developed and
provided to the BIA.
We also want to bring to your attention the critical need for Road
Construction and Road Maintenance funding for Indian lands. Tribes can
not be successful in economic development without adequate
transportation systems. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs has received
a slight increase nationally in road construction funds from the
Transportation Efficiency for the 21 Century (TEA-21), the funding for
the tribes under the jurisdiction of the BIA Phoenix Area Office has
decreased by more than 50 percent from the funding provided under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The funding
for the BIA Phoenix Area was reduced from $26 million per year to $16
million per year.
BIA Road Maintenance funds are inadequate to provide even the most
basic maintenance of the roads and streets in Indian Country. Highway
standards are not being met on the large majority of reservation roads.
Tribes do not receive any of the Highway Users Roads Funds (HURF)
collected through taxes collected by States and Counties on the sale of
motor fuels even though the tribes and tribal members pay such taxes in
most States. The Havasupai Tribe requests the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee review the need for Roads Maintenance funding and the
resultant deterioration of most reservation roads and streets.
We do appreciate your listening to our concerns and your efforts to
improve standards of living in Indian Country.
______
Prepared Statement of James M. Tutt, President, Crownpoint Institute of
Technology, Crownpoint, NM
This testimony addresses appropriations to the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Activity: Special Programs and
Pooled Overhead, Subactivity: Community Development. This testimony
also addresses the separate category of BIA Contract Support, which we
understand automatically accompanies community development
appropriations.
On behalf of the students and the community served by the
Crownpoint Institute of Technology in Crownpoint (CIT), New Mexico, I
thank you, Chairman Gorton, and the Members of this Subcommittee who so
kindly provide the opportunity for outside witnesses to present written
testimony and recommendations.
The focus of CIT's testimony is the national education funding
policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs carried out under appropriations
made by the Interior Subcommittee. First, I want to express our
appreciation to this Subcommittee for enabling the operation of
tribally controlled vocational education, as well as other tribal
educational institutions. However, we believe that this Subcommittee
may not be aware of the absence of a fair policy in the distribution of
the funds that Congress appropriates for this purpose.
Currently, the Congress through the Interior Subcommittees
appropriates more than $2 Million for the operation of postsecondary
tribal vocational education institutions. For fiscal year 2000, the
Administration budget request is $2.3 Million for Adult Vocational
Training to tribally controlled vocational institutions. There are only
two such institutions in the nation, and that total number has remained
unchanged for two decades. It is also our understanding that an
automatic indirect cost, or contract support, accompanies this
appropriation. This indirect cost equates to approximately 23 percent
of the base appropriation. Although it originates from a separate
category of the BIA budget, it automatically adds funds to the direct
appropriation and augments those limited finds.
CIT recognizes the generosity of the Congress in its appropriations
to tribally controlled vocational education but wishes to bring to the
subcommittee's attention the urgent fact that the entire appropriation
for postsecondary, vocational training is earmarked to one institution,
the United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, North Dakota. The
Crownpoint institute of Technology (CIT) in Crownpoint New Mexico is
one of the only two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
institutions in our nation. CIT and UTTC are analogous as tribally
chartered postsecondary vocational education institutions and identical
in eligibility under the law that funds only one of the two
institutions. While we recognize that Congressional appropriations must
have limits, it is discriminatory and violates Congress' own education
policies to totally exclude one tribal institution, and arbitrarily
earmark the entire appropriation to another institution that is serving
the exact same function for Indian students, just from another tribe in
a different State.
The Crownpoint Institute of Technology is equally eligible under
the law that authorizes the appropriation of these funds to the United
Tribes Technical College in North Dakota. The authorizing law cited is
the Adult Indian Vocational Training Act (Public Law 84-959). There is
nothing in this brief 1956 law that would preclude CIT from also
benefiting, or for that matter, that would justify favoritism to only
one eligible institution. The Indian Adult Vocational Training Act
authorizes ``the sum of $3,500,000 for each fiscal year, and not to
exceed $500,000 of such sum shall be available for administrative
purposes.'' This authorization would seem sufficient to generously
contribute training funds to two eligible institutions.
This ``Indian Adult Vocational Training Act'' is clearly intended
to fund the costs associated with ``. . . institutional training in any
recognized vocation or trade'' to help ``adult Indians who reside on or
near Indian reservations obtain reasonable and satisfactory
employment.'' CIT's mission is identical to that set forth in this law.
CIT has outstanding success statistics. CIT is the only vocational
institution on the Navajo Nation. It primarily serves the Navajo
population, but is open to and welcomes non-native students as well. In
past years, CIT has retrained displaced uranium workers from nearby
towns as just one example of its service to the non-native communities.
Currently, CIT enrolls 437 students. Of the student body, 51 percent
are men and 49 percent are women. The average student age is 26,
although the range has been from age 18 to 64. CIT also offers a small
day care center for these single parent students, but because of budget
constraints cannot fully meet the need for day care services.
CIT is fully accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools; the same accrediting agency utilized by dominant society
educational institutions. CIT offers rigorous educational training
programs developed to respond to high-demand employment opportunities.
CIT's programs culminate in one-year certificates or two-year Associate
degrees. There is only one primary difference between CIT and dominant
society vocational educational institutions, and this difference is
that CIT is geographically accessible to reservation residents and
offers a culturally sensitive learning environment that includes such
features as instructors bilingual in English and Navajo is the everyday
spoken language of this region.
The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is also a tribally
chartered postsecondary institution. Founded in 1979 as the Navajo
Skill Center, the institution changed its name in 1986 to more
accurately reflect its evolution from a jobs training center into a
full-fledged vocational technical college, during which period CIT
earned fill accreditation from North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools. CIT offers thirteen certificate vocational and technical
programs, as well as two-year programs culminating in Associate
Degrees. These programs are. Administrative Assistant, Accounting ,
Building Maintenance, Carpentry, Computer Technology, Culinary Arts,
Electrical Trades, Environmental Technology, Heavy equipment Mechanics,
Legal Advocate, Natural Resources, Nursing Assistant and Veterinary
Assistant.
The Crownpoint Institute of Technology is equally eligible under
the law that authorizes the appropriation of these funds to the United
Tribes Technical College in North Dakota. The authorizing law cited is
the Adult Indian Vocational Training Act (Public Law 84-959). There is
nothing in this brief 1956 law that would preclude CIT from also
benefiting, or for that matter, that would justify favoritism to only
one eligible institution. The Indian Adult Vocational Training Act
authorizes ``the sum of $3,500,000 for each fiscal year, and not to
exceed $500,000 of such sum shall be available for administrative
purposes.'' This authorization would seem sufficient to generously
contribute training funds to two eligible institutions.
This ``Indian Adult Vocational Training Act'' is clearly intended
to fund the costs associated with ``. . . institutional training in any
recognized vocation or trade'' to help ``adult Indians who reside on or
near Indian reservations obtain reasonable and satisfactory
employment.'' CIT's mission is identical to that set forth in this law.
CIT has outstanding success statistics. CIT is the only vocational
institution on the Navajo Nation. It primarily serves the Navajo
population, but is open to and welcomes non-native students as well. In
past years, CIT has retrained displaced uranium workers from nearby
towns as just one example of its service to the non-native communities.
Currently, CIT enrolls 437 students. Of the student body, 51 percent
are men and 49 percent are women. The average student age is 26,
although the range has been from age 18 to 64. CIT also offers a small
day care center for these single parent students, but because of budget
constraints cannot fully meet the need for day care services.
CIT is fully accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools; the same accrediting agency utilized by dominant society
educational institutions. CIT offers rigorous educational training
programs developed to respond to high-demand employment opportunities.
CIT's programs culminate in one-year certificates or two-year Associate
degrees. There is only one primary difference between CIT and dominant
society vocational educational institutions, and this difference is
that CIT is geographically accessible to reservation residents and
offers a culturally sensitive learning environment that includes such
features as instructors bilingual in English and Navajo is the everyday
spoken language of this region.
The Crownpoint Institute of Technology is also a tribally chartered
postsecondary institution. Founded in 1979 as the Navajo Skill Center,
the institution changed its name in 1986 to more accurately reflect its
evolution from a jobs training center into a full-fledged vocational
technical college, during which period CIT earned full accreditation
from North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. CIT offers
thirteen certificate vocational and technical programs, as well as two-
year programs culminating in Associate Degrees. These programs are.
Administrative Assistant, Accounting, Building Maintenance, Carpentry,
Computer Technology, Culinary Arts, Electrical Trades, Environmental
Technology, Heavy equipment Mechanics, Legal Advocate, Natural
Resources, Nursing Assistant and Veterinary Assistant.
CIT programs are overseen by Boards of Advisors who are industry
officials and community leaders involved with the economic sector and
in particular with private industry. This consistent involvement of the
economic sector partially explains the fact that CIT boasts a job
placement average of 87 percent, an average that has been consistently
near and sometimes above this rate for eight consecutive years.
A further statistic that CIT is proud to report is that as an
additional result of our structure that involves Advisors from the
economic sector, over 61 percent of our known graduates are employed in
private industry. (Because of budget realities, CIT does not have the
resources to track 100 percent of its graduates over twenty years. Our
research evidences that in general, nearly all CIT alumni who have
relocated distantly have done so for employment reasons). CIT
instructional programs are very much in touch with where the jobs are,
and CIT continues to tailor its program offerings to economic demand.
Partially as a result of the successful job placement reputation that
CIT has earned over the years, CIT's student retention averages 95
percent which is also far above the national average for even dominant
society's best vocational institutions.
Because of funding constraints, the institution cannot accept all
applicants and must turn away an average of 200 students each year. The
primary reason is the shortage of adequate housing. Although the town
of Crownpoint is one of the reservation's activity centers, it is still
extremely small and excess housing is virtually non-existent. CIT is a
campus-based institution, with one dormitory that houses all students.
This situation creates a particular hardship for married and single-
parent applicants, who because of family responsibilities are sometimes
those most urgently in need of job training. Nearly one third of CIT
students are single, head-of-household with an average of three
dependents.
CIT's average applicant has had no education or training beyond
high school, and therefore has no salable job skills. Over one third of
CIT students have not completed high school, and as part of its
instruction, CIT offers GED and remedial education on an as-needed
basis in order to equip these students with the learning skills to
successfully make the transition to CIT's postsecondary programs. Over
50 percent of the individuals who enroll in CIT's remedial and high
school equivalency courses complete the course and earn their GED
diplomas. CIT offers rigorous vocational technical programs of
excellence in a culturally responsive academic environment. Nearly all
CIT students speak English as a second language as Navajo is the
everyday spoken language of most of the reservation. Nearly all CIT
students come to the institution from an environment where no
employment prospects exist for them. Their backgrounds have largely
been absent any opportunities to learn specialized job skills that can
empower them to achieve meaningful employment opportunities. Without
the educational and training opportunities offered by CIT, most of
these individuals and their dependents would have no alternatives but
to begin or remain on welfare subsistence. At least 20 percent of CIT
students seek their livelihoods through maintaining livestock and
remaining on their traditional lands. CIT is able to assist these
individuals in achieving an improved quality of life for themselves and
their families through its Veterinary Assistant and Environmental
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce Wynne, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
Spokane Tribe of Indians, I am pleased to submit this testimony on the
proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the BIA and IHS.
The Tribe is located in Eastern Washington, has 2,267 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.
bureau of indian affairs
General.--The Spokane Tribe supports the overall increase of $155.6
million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges.--We support the President's
proposed increase of $7.1 million for funding for the Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges. This money will be used to increase
operating grants for the 26 Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, for
a proposed fiscal year 2000 level of $38.4 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 tribal colleges program in
the near future.
We are hopeful that this Subcommittee, despite the funding
limitations for all domestic discretionary programs in fiscal year
2000, will be able to give priority consideration to funding for tribal
colleges, as was urged in the recent ``sense of the Senate'' provision
as Section 312 of the Senate fiscal year 2000 budget resolution. S.
Con. Res. 20 appropriately notes that although funding for tribal
colleges received an increase in fiscal year 1999, tribal colleges
faced an actual per-student decrease in funding over fiscal year 1998,
and per student funding for tribal colleges is only about 63 percent of
the amount given to mainstream community colleges.
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA).--The Spokane Tribe supports the
proposed net increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted levels of $17
million in TPA funding for fiscal year 2000. This would bring total TPA
funding in fiscal year 2000 to $716 million. 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. We
especially support the proposed $6.1 million increase for contract
support for on-going contracts. Our tribal contracts support costs are
now funded at only 80 percent. We also support the proposed $2.1
million for the Tribal Work Experience Programs.
Decreases in prior years in TPA funding have left tribes actually
losing in terms of adjustments for inflation. Mr. Chairman, we use
these TPA 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.
We ask the Subcommittee to support the President's proposed
increases 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 proposal would be of great benefit
to all tribes nationwide.
Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT).--The proposed budget would
increase the UCUT program by only $10,000. An increase of at least
$350,000 is critically needed for this important program.
The UCUT program serves the vital interests of the five tribal
entities in the geographic region above the Grand Coulee Dam (the
Confederated Colville Tribe, and the Coeur d'Alene, Kalispel, Kootenai
and Spokane Tribes). Operations of hydroelectric facilities, as well as
contamination from mining, industrial and sewage facilities,
agriculture and other development, continue to have devastating impacts
on the UCUT Tribes' cultural, fish and wildlife and water resources.
UCUT appropriations are used to implement, monitor and evaluate natural
and cultural resource plans, and to coordinate management activities
with state, federal and other tribal governments.
In fiscal year 1999, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation formally joined UCUT, adding the interests of 8,000 more
tribal members and 1.4 million additional acres of Reservation lands to
the realm of UCUT concerns. Combined, the five UCUT tribal entities
represent 16,221 tribal members and 1,905,879 acres of land resources.
The Tribal Councils of UCUT have reinforced UCUT's mission to address
not only fish and wildlife, but also cultural matters, water resources,
and economic development issues common to all the UCUT members Tribes.
The UCUT Tribes participate actively in regional intergovernmental
forums related to UCUT mission topics, and need funding sufficient to
continue and expand the UCUT mission.
The President's budget request of $310,000 does not include even an
inflationary increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Further,
the fiscal year 1999 UCUT appropriation was actually less than the
previous year's funding. A significant increase is needed now to insure
that the Tribes can maintain their fish and wildlife activities, as
well as to cover the expanded mission of issues crucial to protection
of cultural and water resources as required by numerous federal laws.
Assessed funding needs for this program are just over $650,000. This
includes base funding of $100,000 for each Tribe and a modest budget of
$150,000 to cover the costs for a central office to coordinate, provide
policy analysis, and serve as a liaison for the member tribes.
Law Enforcement Programs.--The Spokane Tribe strongly supports the
proposed increase of $20 million for BIA law enforcement programs. This
is the second year of the Department of the Interior's joint program
with the Department of Justice on the Law Enforcement Initiative in
Indian County. The increase will be used for personnel, equipment and
detention services, all badly needed at Spokane.
While we know that funding for the Justice Department programs for
Indian law enforcement programs is not in the Subcommittee's
jurisdiction, we do want to express our support for the President's
proposed increases in those programs as well, which will provide
additional resources for investigation and prosecution of crime in
Indian Country, programs to address alcohol and substance abuse
programs in Indian Country, the improvement of tribal courts,
construction of correctional facilities, and police education and
training in Indian Country.
indian health service
The Spokane Tribe supports the proposed increase for fiscal year
2000 totaling $170 million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for
the Indian Health Service. Virtually every program operated by the IHS
is seriously underfunded and has been for years. We urge the Congress
to begin to provide the funding needed to address the critical health
needs of Indian people by supporting the Administration's fiscal year
2000 request.
The Spokane Tribe of Indians is also concerned about the
regulations that limit a tribe's ability to contract Indian health
programs in urban areas. Tribes such as ours that are located near a
major urban area have tribal members residing in the urban areas who
are unable to receive services from IHS because there is no urban
Indian health care provider. The Spokane metropolitan area has been
without formal care and service for the past several years. The Spokane
Tribe would like to have the ability to contract this service from IHS,
through a special waiver, if necessary.
Finally, we wish to call to this Subcommittee's attention the need
for funding to state and local governments for health care services to
pass through and be provided directly to the tribes that will provide
the services to people in our communities.
The Spokane Tribe also supports the testimony of the Northwest
Portland Area Indian Health Board in its entirety. Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert Clark, Executive Director, Bristol Bay
Area Health Corp.
The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) submits this
statement on the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2000 Indian
Health Service budget. In summary, our recommendations are:
--Fund mandatory costs increases for inflation, pay and population
growth, for which the Administration has requested $34.7
million for inflation and pay raises and IHS estimates the need
at $93 million (not including increases for population growth);
--Fully fund contract support costs, which IHS estimates there is
over a $100 million shortfall;
--Increase funding for the Community Health Aide Program for Alaska
by $20 million;
--Increase the leasing authority for Village Built Clinics by lifting
the cap of 170 allowable leases;
--Provide $10 million to fund Patient Travel for Alaska programs; and
--Funding for patient transport vehicles and vehicle storage
buildings.
background
The BBAHC is a private, non-profit corporation organized in June
1973 by the Alaska Native villages of the region. BBAHC serves more
than 8,000 year-round residents and 34 villages within the Bristol Bay,
Calista and Koniaq regions--three of Alaska's twelve regions as divided
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The region is
46,573 square miles, an area nearly the size of the state of New York
and larger than nineteen of the ``Lower 48'' states. BBAHC's health
care services include hospital services, family medicine, and other
preventative and community health care.
In 1980, BBAHC became the first Native organization in the United
States to assume full management of an Indian Health Service operation
and health services program under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act. The BBAHC-administered Kanakanak Hospital is
accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations. BBAHC became a member of the Alaska Tribal Health
Compact in 1994, and since that time has administered health programs
under Title III of the Self-Determination Act.
mandatory cost increases
As you are no doubt aware, inadequate funding for mandatory cost
increases over the past several years has forced tribal and IHS health
programs to redirect funding from other urgently needed health care
services, thereby restricting the extent of services we would otherwise
be able to provide. In Alaska, we feel the impact of inadequate
mandatory cost increases acutely as a result of our higher costs of
living. For example, the cost of living in Dillingham is 20 percent
higher than the average cost of living in the lower 48 states, with the
cost of living in the villages averaging 5 percent higher than
Dillingham.
The proposed fiscal year 2000 IHS budget would provide tribal and
IHS programs $34.5 million for pay costs and inflation.\1\ However,
this amount does not include population growth. So a more reasonable
figure for built-in costs is $146 million. We also note that the IHS
figures for shortfall for mandatory pay raises is calculated for
federal employees only--it does not include funding for persons hired
directly by BBAHC or other tribal health care providers. We at BBAHC
estimate that under the fiscal year 2000 request, we will be forced to
absorb $1.25 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the IHS budget justification document, their
estimated shortfall of $92.9 million is the combined need for pay costs
and inflation. IHS based the figure on 2.1 percent non-medical and 3.8
percent medical inflation rates and a 4.4 percent pay raise. No funding
was requested for population growth, which is estimated at 2 percent
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Congress does not provide additional funds for mandatory cost
increases in fiscal year 2000, BBAHC and other tribal health care
organizations will have to make some hard choices. An example of a kind
of health service reduction we may have to make is in the purchase of
specialized health services, such as OB-GYNs and other health care
specialists who are not on the permanent staff of the hospital in
Dillingham. We purchase the specialized services of these medical
personnel to come to our hospital for special need patients.
contract support costs
We are encouraged that the Administration's proposal for IHS
contract support costs provides an increase of $35 million. However,
BBAHC strongly urges Congress to consider the recommendation of the
Alaska Native Health Board which seeks full funding of the estimated
contract support shortfall of over $100 million. This amount takes into
account those tribes currently receiving contract support as well as
those on the waiting list (or queue). Without additional funds, tribes
will continue to be denied their right to assume local control over
federal Indian programs, such as health care, or be financially
penalized for electing to exercise that right.
BBAHC also concurs with the Alaska Native Health Board in calling
on Congress to refrain from imposing systemic changes to the contract
support process before several ongoing efforts have been completed.
These efforts--a General Accounting Office report on IHS and BIA
contract support that is due in June 1999, a federal-tribal workgroup
effort on contract support led by the National Congress of American
Indians, and an IHS workgroup on contract support--may provide Congress
a fresh approach to establishing a fair and equitable process for the
distribution of contract support.
The BBAHC also opposes any legislative provision which would
restrict a tribe's ability to contract, such as the moratorium on new
and expanded contracts enacted in fiscal year 1999, or any other
similar legislative mandate. Finally, we request that Congress require
the IHS to report the need for contract support in an accurate and
timely manner.
community health aide program increase
BBAHC is working with the Alaska Native Health Board and others to
update the report on the Community Health Aide program, CHA/P in
Crisis. The report findings on problems faced by the CHA/P include
below-standard salaries, high attrition rates, and lack of support and
training. The program has been a model system for delivery of low cost
primary care to patients residing in the rural areas of Alaska. The
trained CHA/P personnel act as primary care physicians and emergency
care staff, primarily in the remote areas of Alaska--several hundred
miles away from any physician-based facility. Although the program
received some increase in funding several years ago, it is again on the
verge of crisis unless funds are provided to meet the increased costs.
As you are no doubt aware, the alternative to this system of care would
be very costly, both in terms of dollars and in patient care.
BBAHC concurs with ANHB and others in making the following
recommendations to Congress: raise CHA/P salaries to a standard of $20
per hour, increase funding for training centers and for support costs
in the village clinics. We too urge full support of the CHA/P program
by to including at least $20 million in the fiscal year 2000 Indian
Health Services Budget for these essential services.
village-built clinic leasing program
Through the leasing authority of the Alaska Area Native Health
Service (AANHS) under the Village-Built Clinic leasing program, BBAHC
has two outstanding requests for clinic leases, one for a clinic at
Portage Creek and the other for a clinic at South Shore Aleknagik.
According to the AANHS it has, as of 1997, reached the 170 lease limit
it is authorized to fund.
Additional funds are needed for making upgrades, modifications and
additions to existing village-built clinics and where appropriate,
replace existing clinics. For example, modifications to provide more
square footage is essential. Currently, due to space limitations in the
village clinics, during periods when visiting doctors are using the
clinics to attend to patients, clinic staff have at times needed to
perform on-going clinic services from their homes. These much-needed
improvements, which could be funded through a new program similar to
the Maintenance and Improvement Program, are above and beyond the realm
of the current leasing program.
We strongly urge that the AANHS Village-Built Clinic leasing
program be increased from 170 to at least 180, and that a commensurate
increase in funding be appropriated for the additional leases. These
clinics are vital to enabling the Community Health Aide Practitioners,
doctors, dentists and others to provide health services to village
residents.
patient travel
The BBAHC, as well as other Alaska Native health care providers, is
faced with a critical and expensive component of health care in
Alaska--patient access to health care. Although the Community Health
Aid Program and physician assistants provide basic health care at the
village level, those who need a doctor's care and other procedures must
travel by air to those services. Additionally, there are related costs
such as lodging and meals. Consequently, up to 40 percent of rural
Alaska Natives needing diagnostic services or treatment deferred having
it done because of costs for airfare, cab fare, and lodging. (Access to
Care: Crisis for Alaska Native, 1991.) Even with the new Alaska Native
Medical Center in Anchorage providing limited accommodations for family
members accompanying a patient, it is not enough to house all those in
need.
Therefore, we urge that Congress provide for the Alaska health care
programs an increase of $10 million for patient travel. This is the
need in excess of that covered by various third party coverage which is
also tapped where/when appropriate.
patient transport vehicles
Federal Aviation Administration regulations now require that
landing strips be located further from villages than in the past.
Previously, airplanes landing strips that were located on the edge of
villages or in villages were in danger of hitting power lines. With the
safety regulations in place, the distance of airstrips from village
clinics is 7 miles in our area. This has resulted in our no longer
being able to simply transport a patient from an airplane to the clinic
by hand carrying, sled or a small vehicle. We are also concerned that
lack of proper transport vehicles will became an issue for JCAHO
accreditation.
For these reasons, we need vehicles in which to transport patients
to and from airstrips, airports, village clinics. We also need heated
buildings in which to store the vehicles. Our estimate for the cost of
16 patient transport vehicles, including shipping costs and heated
buildings in which to store them is $1.4 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns on the health
needs of people in the Bristol Bay Area in Alaska and of Native people
throughout the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Ronald J. Wopsock, Chairman, Tribal Business
Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
introduction
My name is Ronald J. Wopsock. I am Chairman of the Tribal Business
Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
in Utah. I am providing this written testimony in support of the
Department of the Interior's proposed appropriation for the Ute Tribe's
water settlement. The proposed appropriation of $27.5 million is a
portion of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' ``Indian Land and Water Claim
Settlements'' appropriation and is in partial fulfillment of the
obligations and promises made by the United States to the Ute Tribe in
1965 and reconfirmed by Congress in 1992. Those obligations and
promises are set forth in the Ute Indian Rights Settlement, Title V of
the Central Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575, 106 Stat.
4600, 4650 (Oct. 30, 1992). The purpose of the Settlement is, in part,
to settle long-outstanding claims held by the Tribe relating to the
failure to construct features of the Central Utah Project (``CUP'')
contemplated in the September 20, 1965 Agreement between the Tribe, the
United States and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
(``CUWCD''). The proposed fiscal year 2000 appropriation is to
partially fund the Tribal Development Fund authorized in section 506 of
the Settlement.
The Ute Indian Tribe is pleased with the opportunity to present its
views to this distinguished Subcommittee. The Tribe looks forward to
working with the members to assure passage of the proposed
appropriation, which will provide a critical step in completing the
funding of the Tribe's Water Settlement; funding that is vital to the
economic development of the Tribe and its members.
the ute indian tribe
The Ute Indian Tribe is made-up of three bands, the Uintah,
Whiteriver and Uncompahgre. The Reservation is made up of two separate
reservations: the Uintah Valley Reserve established in 1861; and the
Uncompahgre Reserve established in 1882. Together they encompass nearly
4.5 million acres of Indian trust, fee and federal land. Approximately
1,000,000 acres of Reservation land is held in trust for the Tribe.
Approximately 3,300 tribal members live on the Reservation. They
suffer from the highest unemployment rate in the entire Uintah Basin.
While the Reservation is blessed with oil and gas resources, employment
opportunities are limited. Other ``modern'' employment opportunities
are proscribed by the lack of additional economic development. The
Tribe and a few tribal members do engage in agricultural enterprises
which provide only limited economic returns. Fish and wildlife
resources are extremely important to the Tribe and could, if properly
developed and managed, offer greater economic opportunities.
As I previously noted, in 1965 the Tribe, United States and CUWCD
entered into what is commonly referred to as the Deferral Agreement. In
that Agreement, the Tribe deferred the development of over 15,000 acres
of tribal land, thereby making available up to 60,000 acre-feet of
water annually to assure a sufficient water supply for the Bonneville
Unit of the CUP. That Unit is the principal component of Utah's water
supply future. It is one of the most complex and expensive
transmountain diversion projects ever built by the Bureau of
Reclamation. The project diverts water, including the 60,000 acre-feet
made available by the Tribe, from the streams in the Uinta Basin and
transports the water westward across the Wasatch Mountains to Salt Lake
and Utah counties. In exchange for its substantial and essential
contribution, the Tribe was to receive a substitute water supply from
storage in two large dams proposed as the final units of the CUP. The
dams were never built and the replacement water never delivered. If the
Settlement is fully funded no later that January 1, 2005, the 60,000
acre-feet of tribal water will continue to be transported annually
across the Wasatch Mountains. If not, the Tribe can demand the return
of the water.
the ute indian rights settlement
The Ute Indian Rights Settlement was passed by Congress and signed
by the President in October, 1992. The facts surrounding this
Settlement make it distinct from other Indian water settlements. The
United States had a contractual obligation to the Tribe which it failed
to fulfill. The Settlement represents substitute consideration for the
dams promised in 1965, not enticement to enter a settlement of the
Tribe's water right claims. Below is a brief summary of the status of
the appropriations previously made by Congress as authorized in the
Settlement, and the work the Tribe has undertaken with those funds.
Section 504--Farm Assistance Programs.--Congress has fully funded
the Tribe's farming programs, found in section 504 of the Settlement.
The Tribe has utilized those funds to: (a) complete a tribal feedlot,
which is now in operation and employs 4 full-time and 5 part-time
tribal members; (b) provide assistance to over 100 small farm and ranch
operations owned and operated by tribal members; (c) improve the water
delivery system in the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project by piping open
ditches and installing sprinklers; and, (d) establish a tribal farming
co-op which provides equipment and on-farm labor to small tribal
farmer. Overall, the Tribe's agricultural operation employs 13 full-
time tribal members.
Section 505--Stream Habitat, Environmental and Recreational
Improvements.--Section 505, which provides funds for various stream and
habitat improvement projects, has been partially funded. The Tribe has
used a portion of these funds to establish an Aquatics Department that
has actively undertaken stream and fishery habitat improvements and has
developed extensive in-house data collection and technical review
capabilities. The Tribe also has implemented several big game programs
designed to enhance and properly manage the Tribe's wildlife resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Department, including the Aquatics Department,
employs approximately 35 full or part-time tribal members in activities
directly related to programs funded under section 505. The remaining
amounts approved under Section 505 are not included in the fiscal year
2000 appropriation.
Section 506--Economic Development Programs.--Appropriations for the
``Tribal Development Fund'', the largest and most important program in
the Settlement, began in fiscal year 1997 and continued in fiscal year
1998 and 1999 at an appropriation level of $25.0 million. The entire
amount of the proposed fiscal year 2000 appropriation (less penalties)
is for the Tribal Development Fund under Section 506. The purpose of
the Fund and economic projects undertaken by the Tribe are described
more fully below.
the tribal development fund
Section 506 of the Settlement establishes a Tribal Development Fund
``to be appropriated [in] a total amount of $125,000, 000 to be paid in
#T3three annual and equal installments. . . .'' (Due to inflation
factors statutorily applied to the 1992 authorization, the authorized
amount has increased over the past seven years to approximately $145
million.) In fiscal years 1997-1999, Congress made $25.0 million
appropriations for the Tribal Development Fund. However, these
appropriations did not meet the statutory requirement of equal one-
third installments. Instead, Congress decided to reduce the
appropriations and ``adjust'' future appropriations in accordance with
section 506 (b). That subsection provides that an adjustment will be
made by the Secretary which represents the interest income ``that would
have been earned on any unpaid amounts'' if Congress failed to fully
fund the Development Fund in three annual and equal installments. As a
result, the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 appropriations included $4.7
million in penalties. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation includes an
approximate $5.08 million penalty.
The Settlement limits the Tribe to spending only the interest
derived from the Development Fund on it economic projects. The Tribe
also is required, under section 506, to prepare a Tribal Development
Plan setting forth its economic development projects. That Plan must be
approved by two independent financial consultants approved by the
Secretary.
Following receipt of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, the Tribe
retained its financial consultants and began a broad review and
analysis of potential on-Reservation economic development programs. As
a result of that process, the Tribe has completed the construction of a
much needed full service grocery store, centrally located on the
Reservation, and a mini-mart and truck stop. Both are now in successful
operation and employ approximately 47 tribal members.
The Tribe cannot fully evaluate, develop or implement a
comprehensive plan to both create and foster additional economically
viable enterprises on the Reservation or invest in outside economic
ventures until the Development Fund is fully funded. It is vital,
therefore, that funding be completed as quickly as possible to allow
the Tribe to determine with some accuracy the amount of interest that
will be available for economic development on an annual basis. The
Tribe can only develop a comprehensive, well-planned economic
development program when it knows the amount available to the program
for economic investment on a year-to-year basis.
the proposed fiscal year 2000 appropriation
Congress clearly recognized and understood in 1992, that the
Development Fund should be fully funded as quickly as possibly to
foster economic development on the Reservation. The Fund is a critical
component of the Tribe's efforts to secure economic self-sufficiency in
the future. That process cannot be fully implemented until funding is
complete. The proposed appropriation of $27.5 million represents a
small increase over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation, which was $25
million.
There are several fiscally related reasons for supporting the full
$27.5 million appropriation recommended in the budget. First, funding
at that level will assure that the January 1, 2005 deadline is met;
funding at reduced levels, $25 million for example, risk that this
deadline will not be met. Second, the overall budget for Indian Land
and Water Claim Settlements continues to be reduced, this year by
approximately $480,000.00, even with the small increase in the Tribe's
Settlement appropriation. This is because several other settlements
were completed in fiscal year 1999. Thus, there is a good opportunity
to provide funding for the Ute Settlement, bring it closer to
completion, while providing an overall budget reduction for the Indian
Land and Water Claim Settlement.
Finally, the United States is required to pay a penalty for its
failure to fully fund the Tribe's Development Fund in three equal
annual installments. It makes good long-term (and short term) sense to
make the full $27.5 million appropriation because failing to do so
costs the United States additional money. The fiscal year 1997, 1998
and 1999 funding levels were less than required under the Settlement.
As a result, the fiscal year 1998 appropriation included a $1.5 million
penalty and the fiscal year 1999 appropriation include a $3.2 million
penalty. It is estimated that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will
include a $5.08 million penalty. The more the fiscal year 2000
appropriation is reduced, the greater the penalty in subsequent years.
It is important to recognize in reviewing this proposed
appropriation that $27.5 million falls well short of what was clearly
anticipated and promised by Congress in 1992. It does not amount to a
full one-third of the overall authorization and it does not replace the
shortfalls from previous years. At the proposed rate, the Tribe's
Settlement will not be fully funded until fiscal year 2003. Until then,
the Tribe can initiate only limited economic development programs that
will fall well short of the economic development envisioned by Congress
and essential to the Tribe and its members.
conclusion
On behalf of the Tribal Business Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe,
I would like to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present the Tribe's statement in support of the proposed
$27.5 million water settlement. The Tribe and the United States have
worked together for many years to realize the economic benefits
promised when the Tribe provided water to assure the completion of one
of the West's grandest water development projects--the Central Utah
Project. We are now close to completing what has been a long process.
The proposed appropriation of $27.5 million is a critical step in
bringing this matter to a close and fulfilling the obligations
undertaken by the United States in 1965 and reaffirmed by Congress in
1992.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Tucker, Vice Chairman, Sycuan Band of
Mission Indians
Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I am Daniel Tucker,
Vice Chairman of the Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, located in
southern California. I thank this Committee for selecting me to present
oral testimony on the fiscal year 2000 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Indian Health Service.
The Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, a Federally recognized Tribe,
was created by Executive Order in 1875, and allotted a one square mile
reservation. We were organized under Articles of Association approved
by the Secretary of the Interior on August 18, 1972. The Sycuan Band
consists of 104 Tribal members, approximately fifty percent are under
the age of 18. For the last 125 years we have occupied the same one
square mile plot of land.
We have utilized the minimal amount of land available to us to
develop gaming enterprises. As a so-called gaming tribe, we have made
advances in our social, economic and health care initiatives for our
people. However, it has come at great expense as we are continually
thwarted in our efforts to achieve economic self-sufficiency due to the
vacillating federal policies, state political interests and corporate
profiteers who wish to eliminate our pre-Constitutional status as
sovereign nations.
publication of interior's gaming procedures for tribal governments
In November 1998, the citizens of the State of California passed
State Proposition #5 (approving a model Compact) by a margin of 63
percent to 37 percent which protected the rights of Indian tribes to
pursue gaming ventures. We hope this action by the people sent a clear
message to this Congress and the Administration that the American
people support our rights as legitimate governments, and that Federal
policy and subsequent appropriations should be reflective of the
peoples mandate for fairness to Indian people in California and
elsewhere.
The moratorium which prohibited the publication of the Department
of the Interior's Gaming Procedures for Tribal Governments expired on
March 31, 1999. Unfortunately, individuals continue to threaten our
financial resources as evidenced by the Senate version of the fiscal
year 1999 Supplemental Appropriations bill (S. 544) that contains a
rider which would undercut the Secretary's ability to go forward with
the Class III gaming procedures. We are pleased that the U.S. House of
Representatives' companion measure (H.R. 1141) does not contain such a
provision.
We request that as the Committee with jurisdiction over Indian
appropriations matters, you will not consider any such appropriations
rider in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations measure.
bureau of indian affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)
Workgroup has been meeting steadily throughout this past year to
develop recommendations to the Congress for the TPA budget process.
Tribes have developed meaningful solutions and we hope this Committee
will give fair consideration to their viewpoints when their final
report is submitted.
Redistribution of TPA funding
The Congress included a provision in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill which allowed for ``prosperous'' tribes to return
their TPA shares to the BIA for redistribution to other tribes. The
Sycuan Band of Mission Indians strongly believes that tribes who elect
this option should be allowed to determine where its respective shares
are redistributed.
Redistribution of TPA authorized on an annual basis only
Furthermore, any such tribe that agrees to have its shares
redistributed should consent to the redistribution on an annual basis
only. Thus, the tribe is able to protect its right to access TPA
funding in future years should its economy suffer, especially in light
of the aggressive outside efforts to corrupt tribal gaming enterprises.
TPA redistribution to be treated as non-recurring funds
In the event TPA shares are redistributed to another tribe, those
funds should be identified as non-recurring, and therefore, not
eligible to be included in another tribes base funding.
indian health service
More than 20 years ago, we established a medical clinic on our
reservation. Sycuan has a 638 Contract with IHS to provide health care
to any American Indian in need of medical attention. However, in order
to maintain a quality of service to our patients, it has become
necessary for the Tribe to subsidize our operating budget for the
facility. The basic service area consists of East San Diego County,
however, patients throughout the greater San Diego area are treated.
The total number of patients served annually is in excess of 3,000
individuals. This includes the eighteen area Tribes, as well as a
number of non-Indians. Although we have been able to subsidize our
clinic's budget so far, cuts in IHS funding are always a concern.
We are pleased that the Administration has submitted a budget to
Congress that increases funding by $170 million. Although this is far
short of the IHS/Tribal/Urban Budget Formulation Committee's $8 billion
dollar estimated need, and is also far less than the $500 million
increase requested by the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services, we hope the Committee will take action to ensure an
increase in funds for Tribal managed health facilities, programs,
services and activities.
Contract support costs
The Administration and the Congress have both recognized the need
to increase contract support costs funding as well. However, the amount
requested by the Administration does not meet the costs needed to bring
tribes up to the level of funding needed to adequately sustain health
care operations. Direct and Indirect funding should be increased to
bring tribes up to par with other Federal health care programs,
equitable to the per capita costs for patient care other citizens
enjoy.
Funding to support the elevation of the IHS director
We also ask this Committee to include funding necessary to support
the elevation of the Director of the Indian Health Service to the
position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Health. The salary for this
position must be commensurate with the pay received by other Assistant
Secretaries within the Department.
bureau of indian affairs and indian health service
Moratorium on new and expanded programs
For fiscal year 1999, Congress passed a moratorium on new and
expanded contracts, compacts, grants and cooperative agreements. This
action was contrary to long-standing Federal Indian policy. The Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law
93-638, authorizes tribes to exercise their right to contract or
compact and to receive full funding for the programs contracted or
compacted by an Indian tribe, including necessary contract support
costs. In fiscal year 1999 Congress reversed its policy which can only
been viewed as bad faith to the Indian people. We implore the Committee
to object to any such provision that may be proposed for fiscal year
2000.
In conclusion, I urge this Committee to give priority consideration
in budget allocations to the strengthening of Tribal governments, the
delivery of services directly to Indian people, and the development of
Tribal infrastructures and economies.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Jason L. Joseph, Chairman, Sauk-Suiattle Indian
Tribe
My name is Jason L. Joseph, Chairman of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian
Tribe of Washington State, presenting our written testimony by
summarizing our tribal requests and concerns. It is an honor to present
to you the needs and concerns of the Sauk-Suiattle people. The requests
for increases are to be added to the base budgets in the fiscal year
2000 on the following priority.
tribal level appropriations priorities
(1) +$190,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Government Operations in
the BIA TPA Tribal Government Account for a planner/grants writer, a
business development/management assistant, office equipment. This is in
addition to the $160,000 minimum received in FY-98 by the Tribe per
appropriations language for every tribe. Request 100 percent Indirect
Costs;
(2) +$250,000 for Law Enforcement & return it to TPA: to secure
office space, hire and purchase equipment for two officers, a
Probation/Truant Officer, detention facilities with necessary equipment
to allow short term holding facilities, in the BIA TPA, Public Safety
and Justice, Law Enforcement Tribal Agency Account.
(3) +$200,000 for Tribal Budget Base to support Tribal Court;
Prosecutor, Public Defender, Court Clerk and for Court Operations. to
be added to BIA TPA, Public Safety and Justice, Tribal Courts Budget
Base;
(4) +$375,000 to develop economic enterprises, added to BIA Tribal
Government Account;
(5) +$200,000 for Cultural Resource funding with continual funding
as there was not a formal anthropological study done which is specific
to Sauk-Suiattle. Also, for Land Acquisition Study to determine a land
base for the Tribal Members to return to their Ancestral Home, to
identify economic development initiatives that could generate Tribal
revenue for jobs and to decrease federal dependency. To be added to the
BIA Office of Trust Responsibility Account;
(6) +$30,000 Increase Higher Education scholarships in the BIA
Education Scholarship Account;
(7) +$75,000 to Tribal Base for Indian Child Welfare for
administrative staff and additional counselors to work with children
and dysfunctional families, in the BIA TPA for Human Services, ICWA
Account;
(8) Place current new 13 acres land adjacent to the Tribe's
Administrative Office into Trust land status, which will not to be used
for gaming. Also, the Caskey Lake 50.8 acres land, 3 miles from the
reservation to be transferred into trust land status;
(9) Request title for the Tenas Creek and Suiattle Cemetery lands,
plus two additional 15 acres surrounding the two cemetery parcels. This
is necessary to clear up the ownership, multiple jurisdiction and joint
responsibilities that now exists. These are sacred sites that need
protection. It will clear up the US Forest Service, BIA, or Sauk-
Suiattle ownership.
(10) +$350,000 replace 360,000 gallon cement domestic Water Storage
Tank for health & safety.
regional appropriations priorities
Support affiliated tribes of northwest indians
1. For Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board fiscal year 2000
request on appropriations
2. Contract support increase funding of $100 million by NWPAIHB
3. Oppose pro-rata distribution of fiscal year 1999 contract
support funds, oppose $5 mil. cut in CHR
4. For Sovereign Immunity, against taxation, for Land-Into-Trust
Support northwest indian fisheries commission
1. Contract Support Costs (Indirect Cost) Funding at 100 percent
2. BIA Forest Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest
Plan $3.0 Million and from this amount, ``Jobs in the Woods''
initiative of $400,000
3. Washington Tribal Shellfish Management, Enhancement, and
Enforcement Funding to Implement Tribal Treaty Rights through the
Establishment of Base Shellfish Operations $1.95 Million.
4. Salmon restoration funding
5. Timber, Fish and Wildlife Module $4 million
National appropriations priorities
1. Support the Administration's Request of $1.9 billion for BIA and
$2.8 billion for IHS
2. Full Funding of Contract Support Costs for BIA & Indian Health
Service. Remove the fiscal year 1999 `638 contracting moratorium.
Oppose proposed $5 mil. cuts in CHR program
3. BIA Tribal Priority Allocations request of $716 million, plus
the small and Needy Tribes Appropriation minimum.
4. Elevate IHS Director to Asst. Sec.; Increase IHS funding for
HIV/AIDS, Diabetes--inflation, increase of medical costs, related
medicines, breast & cervical cancer
5. Law Enforcement funding at $20 Million
6. Increase tribal court funding to $58.4 Million as authorized
under the Indian Tribal Justice Act, PL 103-176. Reauthorize Act as
resources are needed. (Pres. $2.6 mil)
background, small & needy tribe
The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe has 235 members and is signatory to
the Treaty of Point Elliott in 1855. A land survey was conducted to
establish a reservation base for our Tribe but, never finalized due to
the untimely death of the surveyor. We were a land less tribe prior to
1980 when we purchased 23 acres of land for our reservation near our
original homelands in the foot hills of the Cascade Mountains. As a
small tribe, our needs are magnified, as the basic tribal government
support resources just aren't available. All the operations are under
grants and contracts, as there are no tribal funds, meaning shortfalls
and reductions cannot be covered by the Tribe.
priority requests-narrative
Increase in Core Tribal Government Staff.--The Tribe has had a
great turnover in its core management positions (General Manager and
Accountant) due in large part to unstable and inadequate funding plus
the Tribe's remote location. This has kept the Tribe from progressing.
The Tribe requests a $190,000 appropriation increase above the $160,000
minimum appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to the BIA Tribal Priority
Allocations, Tribal Government, Other Aid to Tribal Government Budget
Base for a planner/grants writer, a business development and management
assistant and office equipment. To include 100 percent contract support
costs.
Increase in BIA Law Enforcement.--The Tribe has only one police
officer, jail facilities are hours away. The Tribe needs a second
officer and a truant/probation officer to provide services to the
community. The Tribe requests a $250,000 increase, to be added to the
BIA Tribal Priority Allocation, Public Safety and Justice, Law
Enforcement Tribal/Agency Budget Base, so that the Tribe can hire and
equip. two officers, a radio system, a probation/truant officer, office
space, detention facilities with necessary equipment to act as a short
term holding facility. The Tribe requests the law enforcement funds be
returned to the TPA from the special account within BIA.
Increase BIA Tribal Courts.--The Tribe requests that $200,000 be
appropriated for Tribal Court, added to BIA Tribal Priority
Allocations, Public Safety and Justice, Tribal Courts Budget Base, for
Tribal Court operations and staffing (\1/2\ time judge, court clerk,
prosecutor, defender).
Increase Economic Development Enterprise.--The Sauk-Suiattle Indian
Tribe is focused on developing economic self-sufficiency. However, the
current trend of cuts far outweighs the actual portion of federal
monies utilized by the tribes, and heavily impacts Congressional
recognition of the need to meet Treaty and trust responsibilities.
The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe has initiated a planning process to
develop economic enterprise that will provide long term financial
stability, employment for Tribal members, reinforce the need for
education for Tribal members, and allow the Tribe to assume true Self-
Determination and financial independence. Since these efforts require
dedicated time to expedite results, the Tribe requires stable
``economic incubation'' funding for a period of 3 years in order to:
(1) hire a business manager/planner to focus on the effort,
(2) develop a complete business plan,
(3) initiate a viable financial enterprise(s), and
(4) develop sufficient capital to ``stand alone''.
(5) developing business codes
The tribe has calculated a three (3) year cost of $375,000 for this
project to reach a return on the investment, including the necessary
``seed'' capital to begin the actual enterprise and meet all
anticipated ``incubation'' costs. The U.S. Government benefits as a
result of a decreased financial need of the Tribe, as well as the
benefits of employed Tribal members not requiring the current level of
governmental assistance.
Also, Tribal Economic Enterprises will employee those members of
the larger Community outside the Reservation currently unemployed as a
result of the economic downturn in forest product work. The local
community was designated a depressed timber community.
Cultural Resource Funding & Special Appropriation for Land
Acquisition Study.--The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 235 members, 20 houses,
one services building and no vacant suitable land for the creation of a
Tribal economy. The Tribe currently has an unemployment rate of over 65
percent and over 80 percent of employment age tribal members make less
than $7,000 a year. With a land base the Tribe could provide
employment, generate Tribal revenue, decrease dependence on federal
funds and enable Tribal members to return to their ancestral home. The
Tribe requests a special appropriation of $200,000 to the BIA for the
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe to perform a land acquisition feasibility study on
identified sites, including the possibility of a land trade between the
U.S. Forest Service, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources
to decrease land acquisition costs. There are also several thousand
acres of unresolved Tribal allotments which should be factored into
study. These lands (5,000 + acres) were allotted to Tribal members and
then taken without compensation in 1897 when the Mt. Baker--Snoqualmie
National Forest was created.
Increase Higher Education Scholarships.--The Tribes current 638
contract with BIA only provides funds for 20 percent of the Tribal
members seeking higher education. The Tribe requests that BIA Portland
Area Office scholarship funding be increased by $30,000 to provide
educational opportunities to Sauk-Suiattle Tribal members to attain
their higher education. Our base budget includes less than $4,000 in
funds, even with more than half of the population of college age.
Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.--Half the Tribe's population
is 18 or younger and 75 percent of the children on the Reservation have
received KEYBOARD A services. Because of the Reservation's small
population base and remote location, which requires high travel time,
the Tribe does not receive comparable operating funds such as other
Tribes. Sauk-Suiattle requests that a $75,000 appropriation be added to
the Tribe's base budget through the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations,
Human Services, Indian Child Welfare Act account to (1) provide for
added counseling services, and (2) management to work with children and
dysfunctional families.
Land into Trust.--There are two parcels of land that the Tribe
wishes to be put in trust status. The first, the new 13 acres adjacent
to the current reservation. Second, 50.8 acre Caskey Lake, lake and
swamp approximately 3 miles from the reservation. The Tribe has No
intention, nor is it feasible due to location to use these parcels for
Gaming. It may be utilized for other enterprise to create jobs that
will benefit the Tribe and the local non-Indian community. The Tribe
submitted requests in July 1998 to have the Secretary, DOI transfer the
lands from fee to trust status.
Tribal Cemetery Plots.--Sauk-Suiattle Tribe requests title to the
``Suiattle Cemetery'' and the ``Tenas Creek Cemetery'' lands, plus
additional 15 acres of surrounding lands for each cemetery, to clear up
the question of ownership, multiple jurisdictions and joint
responsibilities. The ownership, trust or protective authorities and
general administrative responsibilities are not clear, whether it is
the US Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Sauk-Suiattle
Indian Tribe or US Navy. The properties are actually owned by the US
Forest Service, the BIA has trust responsibility and the Tribe works
jointly with these two entities to manage and upkeep the sites. The US
Navy without notifying the appropriate authorities just assumed the
area was available for their training maneuvers, which caused extensive
damage to the graves of our people. These are sacred sites and need
protection. Prior allotments of tribal members in area was 5,000+
acres.
Water Storage Tank.-- the current 360,000 gallon domestic drinking
water Cement Tank leaks. The tank was lined, but still leaks. Acidity
in the water is the cause of the leaking of the high rates of lead and
copper into the drinking system. The tank is 15 years old, is 60 feet
high and 20 feet across. The pipes also need replacing.
We urge that Congress remember our small tribal governments, our
management problems and needs, and support them in with sufficient
appropriations. We urge funding for tribes, their programs and their
developments be given the highest priority. Thank You.
______
Prepared Statement of David Lopeman, 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 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
Indian Health Service (IHS). 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
1. Support for $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management
Regional
1. 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
2. Support for $1.247 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
Species initiative
3. Support for $3.0 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
4. Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
Management initiative
5. Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new state and
private forest practices, rules and regulations pertaining to ESA
obligations
6. Support the development of a displaced fishers ``Jobs-in-the-
Woods'' program and a gear and vessel subsidized payment account
Self-governance and other national issues
1. $12.1 million increase for Diabetes Programs
2. $12.1 million increase for Substance Abuse/Alcoholism Programs
3. $7.2 million increase for Health Promotion/Disease Prevention
efforts
4. $3.6 million increase for Emergency medical Services
5. $2.3 million increase for Tribal Environmental Health Programs
6. $15 million increase for Cancer screening and treatment,
principally for breast and cervical cancer
7. $19.5 million increase for Dental programs
8. $7.1 million increase for Mental Health programs
9. Replace the proposed $5 million cut in the Community Health
Representatives program
10. Support the Administration's request for a $170 million
increase for the IHS budget
11. Support the replacement of funding for the Indian Health
Service's recruitment and retention program and the physician's pay
program
12. Address the funding and service disparities in Indian Health
Programs by providing level of need funding for Indian Health Programs
13. Support the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations request of $716
million as well as the Small and Needy Tribes Appropriation minimum
14. Increase Tribal Court funding to $58.4 million
15. Support the full funding of Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
the distribution methodology for CSC funds recommended by the National
Congress of American Indians
16. Remove the fiscal year 1999 appropriation moratorium on PL 93-
638 contracting and compacting
narrative summary of requests
Tribal specific
Support $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management. The
Squaxin Island Tribe was a plaintiff in the 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
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 $1.0 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 $3.0 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, ``Jobs 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, the Clean Water Act, Natural Resource Conservation
Service's obligation for salmon recovery, and the Forest Service
obligations under the Northwest Forest Plan.
Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new state and
private forest practices rules and regulations pertaining to ESA
obligations. This amount is needed to allow tribes to effectively
participate in monitoring and adaptive management processes that are
integral to the TFW process.
Support the development of a displaced fishers ``Jobs-in-the-
Woods'' program and a gear and vessel subsidized payment account. Such
a program would provide meaningful work and a liveable wage for tribal
members who are adversely impacted due to low fish populations. Such a
program coupled with a program which provides support to fishers for
gear and vessel payments during low fish harvests will prevent
disastrous foreclosures and economic conditions for tribal fishers and
related businesses.
Self-governance and other national issues
We support providing the requested increases for the Indian Health
Service programs as this will begin to close the vast disparity between
Indian health care and promotion programs and those of the rest of the
American population. As a group, Indian people have the lowest life
expectancy of any other group in this country. The trust relationship
and the government-to-government relationship which exists between the
Federal Government and Tribal Governments dictates that Native
Americans and Alaska Natives be provided health care programs which are
commensurate with the highest quality health care available in this
country.
We support providing the requested increases for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs programs as this will provide tribes with the funds to
improve and expand their governmental and administrative
infrastructures so as to be fully responsive to the unique and diverse
cultural, political, economic, social and health and welfare needs of
their constituents.
We support the provision of full funding of Contract Support Costs
(CSC) for the BIA and the IHS. CSC is an important part of the federal
resources transferred to Tribes under Self-Determination and Self-
Governance which support vital managerial and administration functions
essential to any government or business. Further, we support the
distribution methodology recommended by the National Congress of
American Indians as this appears to be the most equitable way to manage
the gross under funding of CSC.
We support the lifting of the moratorium on contracting and
compacting as this is a serious affront to tribal sovereignty and a
serious breach of the government-to-government relationship which
exists between the federal government and tribal governments as
established through treaties, legislation, case law, and executive
orders.
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.
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.
In addition, there are three legislative measures which will
warrant your support during this session of Congress. Each of these
bills, if passed, will improve the quality and delivery of health
services to Indian People. Should these items come before you, possibly
in your capacity on another Committee of Congress, please support these
measures. And, should you have questions, we would welcome the
opportunity to address your inquiries. They are:
--Support H.R. 1167, a bill to make Self-Governance a permanent
tribal option in the IHS
--Support H.R. 403, a bill to elevate the IHS Director to the level
of Assistant Secretary, with commensurate pay increase, and
keeping the Office of Tribal Self-Governance as a part of, and
co-located within that elevated office
--Support the re-authorization of Public Law 94-437, The Indian
Health Care Improvement Act, with provisions to address the
funding needs and authorities of contracting and compacting
Tribes
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 Tim Ballew, Chairman, Lummi Nation
The Lummi Nation is located in the Pacific Northwest of Washington
State, serving a population of over 4,000 members. The Lummi Nation is
a fishing community. We have depended on the resources from the oceans
and the rivers for generations. We are one of the first Tribes to enter
into Self-Governance. We are proud to say that we are in the tenth year
of implementation. The following document presents the Lummi Nation's
funding priorities, as well as regional and national concerns and
recommendations for your consideration. Further, the Lummi Nation
strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative rider which
undermines Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
governmental responsibilities based on the long standing government to
government relationship.
tribal-specific appropriation requests
+$1,300,000 to Support Water Negotiations--$300,000 for attorney
fees, $400,000 for on reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for
Nooksack River Basin technical studies (Tribal Government Services and
Water Resources Accounts)
+$750,000 for Water and Sewer Infrastructure Planning--Provide the
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with funds to support
the planning for upgrading our water and sewer system (IHS Division of
Facilities & Environmental Engineering (DFEE)
+$700,000 Increase to Lummi Nation Hatchery--Bureau's Hatchery
Operation Program Maintenance and Repair Program
$1,300,000.--Support water negotiations summary
The Nation signed an Agreement in Principle with the Federal
Government and the State of Washington on January 27, 1998. This
agreement is a stepping stone toward a final settlement of the on-
reservation water rights conflicts, which were and still are,
attributable to the non-Indians disregard for treaty-reserved water and
fishing rights in the Nooksack River Watershed. Many difficult issues
remain to be resolved which will require significant technical studies
and legal consultation before a final agreement can be signed. To
complete this work the Lummi Nation is requesting $1.3 million during
fiscal year 2000: $300,000 to defray legal consultation costs, $400,000
for on-reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for technical
studies in the Nooksack River Basin. Recommendation: Support the
increase in the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, Attorney fees and
technical studies.
$750,000.--Support water and sewer infrastructure planning summary
The Lummi Water and Sewer System services Indian and non-Indian
residents with a Board of Indian and non-Indian residents elected by
both the Tribal and non-Tribal community. The System was built in 1983
and is 16 years old. Currently, the facility is at over 85 percent
capacity. The Lummi Nation is not in the position to undertake this
level of planning without assistance from the Indian Health Service.
Both short and long term planning needs to begin immediately. The
Nation requests that funds be identified in the IHS/DFEE Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program to support the planning of a water
delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure for the existing
and projected population of the Lummi Indian Reservation .
Recommendation: Direct IHS/OEHE to fund Lummi Nation Need for Water and
Sewer System Planning Request.
$700,000.--Increase to lummi nation hatchery
The Lummi Nation hatchery is a fully operational hatchery that is
30 years old this year. The hatchery provides employment and income
opportunities for many families. The hatchery supplies oyster and clam
seeds to most of the Northwest Washington Tribes and private growers.
With the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the shellfish ruling,
there will be an increased need both by treaty and non-treaty growers
for oyster seed and clam seed enhancement projects. These dollars will
benefit both the Tribal governments and Washington State.
Recommendation: Request that $350,000 be added to the BIA Hatchery
Operational Program for the Lummi Nation.
regional requests
The Lummi Nation is an active member of the NWIFC and we support
the following requests. We further emphasize the Committees
understanding of the impact of the Endangered Species Act to a tribal
fishing community. Adequate base funding must be provided for tribal
participation in ESA activities and the DOI Secretarial Order must be
fully implemented. Further, emphasis and consideration efforts are
needed to assist the families whose livelihoods have been devastatingly
affected. Today, Tribal members are losing their boats which was their
only source of income.
--Support for the $3.0 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest
Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs
in the Woods'' Initiative.--The WSRI is essential to developing
a habitat inventory base from which restoration efforts can
begin. The remaining $2.6 million from this initiative will
allow tribes throughout the Pacific Northwest to continue to
conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration in
watersheds within their Usual and Accustomed Areas.
--Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new
state and private forest practices rules and regulations
pertaining to ESA obligations.--This is required for tribes to
actively participate in state forest practice rules and
regulations that have an effect on listed salmon populations.
Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are deeply
involved in this management forum. Tribes have a high level of
skills and technical capabilities that would greatly facilitate
a successful outcome. Tribes will need additional funding to
participate in monitoring and adaptive management processes
that are a cornerstone to the TFW process.
--Support for the development of displaced fishers ``Jobs in the
Woods'' program and a gear/vessel subsidized payment account.--
This program is needed to assist displaced tribal fishers. This
could provide meaningful jobs and income to tribal members, as
they are restricted from harvest opportunities due to low fish
abundance. A program that provides support to tribal fishers
for gear and vessel payments in absence of revenues from
harvest is essential in order to preclude catastrophic bank
foreclosures.
--Support for the $1.95 million Western Washington tribal shellfish
management, enhancement, and enforcement funding request to
implement tribal treaty rights through the establishment of
base shellfish operations.--The Tribes request an additional
$1,950,000 for tribal fishery management contracts to be added
as part of permanent base. As tribal shellfish programs develop
and expand, other issues affecting the shellfish resource have
been identified. For instance, very little data and technical
information exists for many of the fisheries now being jointly
managed by state and tribal managers. This lack of information
can impact the fisheries and resources as a whole.
Although tribes are addressing the basic management
responsibilities in their shellfish fisheries, it is clear that more
needs to be done to adequately address resource concerns for the
benefit of all fishers, Indian and non-Indian alike.
--Contract Support Costs.--the IHS fiscal year 2000 shortfall in
contract support costs totals $109.8 million. Congress should
appropriate adequate contract support cost funds to eliminate
this shortfall.
--Contract Health Services.--Contract Care has lost $245 million in
unfunded inflationary cost increases and increased costs due to
population growth since fiscal year 1992. We support the
request of the NWIHB to address and correct this diparity in
Indian Country compared to contracted health service providers
for non-Indians.
--Restore CHR funding and grant inflation and pay cost increases. The
Indian Health Service should not cut $5 million from this
widely supported program. $5 million plus $1.7 million for a
total of $6.7 million should be restored to this line item to
maintain current services.
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.
national requests
IHS
--Support the Administration's request for a $170 million increase
for the IHS budget
--Address the funding and service disparities in Indian Health
Programs by providing level of need funding for Indian Health
Programs
--Support the Full funding of Contract Support Costs
--$12.1 million increase for Diabetes Programs
--$12.1 million increase for Substance Abuse/Alcoholism Programs
--$7.2 million increase for Health Promotion/Disease Prevention
efforts
--$3.6 million increase for Emergency Medical Services
--$2.3 million increase for Tribal Environmental Health Programs
--$15 million increase for cancer screening and treatment,
principally for breast and cervical cancer
--$19.5 million increase for Dental Programs
--$7.1 million increase for Mental Health Programs
--Support the replacement of funding for the Indian Health Service's
Recruitment and Retention Program and the Physician's Pay
Program
--Support The National Congress of American Indians recommendation
regarding the distribution methodology for Contract Support
Cost funds
BIA
--Support the request for $108.4 million for education construction
--Support the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations request of $716 million
as well as the Small and Needy Tribes Appropriation minimum
--Remove the fiscal year 1999 moratorium on PL 93-638 contracting and
compacting
We continue to support the requests and recommendations of the
National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Health
Board, and other National Indian requests before this Subcommittee in
the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations.
In addition, there are three legislative measures which will
warrant your support during this session of Congress. Each of these
bills, if passed, will improve the quality and delivery of health
services to Indian People. Should these items come before you, possibly
in your capacity on another Committee in Congress, please support these
measures. And, should you have questions, we would welcome the
opportunity to address your inquiries. They are:
--Support H.R. 1167, a bill to make Self-Governance a permanent
tribal option in the IHS
--Support H.R. 403, a bill to elevate the IHS Director to the level
of Assistant Secretary, with commensurate pay increase, and
keeping the Office of Tribal Self-Governance as a part of, and
co-located within that elevated office
--Support the re-authorization of Public Law 94-437, The Indian
Health Care Improvement Act, with provisions to address the
funding needs and authorities of contracting and compacting
Tribes
I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 2000 requests
and recommendation of appropriations for the BIA/IHS, on behalf of the
Lummi Nation. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission
On behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission member
tribes, I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present
testimony on our fiscal year 2000 fisheries and habitat management
needs that fall within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
summary of fiscal year 2000 appropriations request
In general, the NWIFC supports the Administrations appropriation
request that is presently before the Subcommittee. Specifically, the
NWIFC requests funding and direction which will achieve the following
for fiscal year 2000:
--Provision of Contract Support Funding at 100 percent levels
necessary for existing and emerging programs;
--Support for the $1.247 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Resources
Management, Endangered Species Initiative line item;
--Support for the $3.0 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest
Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs
in the Woods'' Initiative line item and from this amount a
designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration
Initiative;
--Support additional funding of $4.0 million for the Timber-Fish-
Wildlife Agreement to implement tribal obligations under new
state and private forest practices rules and regulations
pertaining to ESA obligations;
--Support the development of a displaced fishers ``Jobs-in-the-
Woods'' program and a gear/vessel subsidized payment account;
and,
--Support for the $1.95 million western Washington tribal shellfish
management, enhancement, and enforcement funding request to
implement tribal treaty rights through the establishment of
base shellfish operations
introduction
Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. v. Washington case was decided by
the federal court system. This decision, respecting the treaty rights
of our member tribes, propelled major changes in fisheries management
in the Pacific Northwest. These changes have not only fundamentally
altered the legal, political, social and economic institutions of the
State of Washington, but have also fostered a nationwide quest for
tribal self-determination and self-governance led in part by the
Northwest tribal leadership. These parameters affect both the way
tribes perform fisheries management, as well as how we approach the
federal system during the budget/appropriations and legislative
processes.
tribal and nwifc programs
We are at a turning point in natural resource management in the
Pacific Northwest.
We have made great strides in institutionalizing tribal management
consistent with tribal values, treaty rights and federal court
decisions. We have developed great professional capabilities and policy
respect as we proceed through the various processes. We are efficient
and effective, but we are still far short of where we would like to be
in our capabilities. And, while we have efficiently organized our tasks
and assigned responsibilities between our tribal community to extend
our collective efforts, the management obligations are many. New and
highly difficult complexities abound, many precipitated by the demands
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). We
are challenged now with three separate ESA listings of threatened
salmon populations and over 666 water bodies listed under Section 303
(d) of the CWA. To meet this challenge, we will need all of our
existing funding and additional new resources.
Over the past decade, tribes have been able to secure new monies
for additional responsibilities. However, over the same time, tribes
have seen other monies they once received for other duties diminish,
either through inflation or through the elimination of program and
support funding. And in this process, Indian natural resource
management capacity has been unfairly affected. With a small base, any
cuts to tribal resource programs have profound impacts to tribal
management. Therefore, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to guard
against any diminishment of the tribal program funding base, and do all
it can to strengthen and enhance the Bureau's Trust, Tribal Priority
Allocation and Self-Governance Program funding. We also ask that the
Subcommittee will ensure that the Western Washington-Boldt
Implementation and the Pacific Salmon Treaty base budgets will be fully
funded for this coming year.
contract support funding is essential to tribal programs
We continue to have concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
failed to fully request Contract Support Funds for tribal programs. We
are also concerned that Congress has not fully appropriated their
necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the funding pool for indirect
cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs.
Such a failure has led tribal programs to reduce direct funding for
indirect, mandated purposes. The net effect has been a loss of program
purchasing power and program staff capability. For the NWIFC in fiscal
year 1999, we have planned for a $250,000 contract support shortfall.
What this means is that we are not spending that amount for direct
services from our Fisheries Management or Pacific Salmon Treaty
Contracts, but rather are allocating that to cover necessary
administrative costs not provided due to the indirect shortfalls. We
have been, and will be forced to continue to reduce our programs to
cover these costs as mandated by law. Such a burden cannot be borne by
tribal programs again this year or into the future without onerous
results. In addition, the actual level of contract support is not
determined until late in the fiscal year making cash flow management
extremely difficult.
wildstock restoration initiative/watershed restoration/northwest forest
plan/endangered species act implementation
In late February, a number of species of Pacific Salmon were
``listed'' by the National Marine Fisheries Service as ``threatened''
under the terms of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This ESA listing
process will likely trigger a cascading chain of events, culminating in
significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices for the
region and its inhabitants.
Tribes will be affected by this federal process. As fisherman, the
listing raises serious questions about the status of the stock and pose
a threat to the individuals opportunity to continue to harvest this
salmon, a treaty-secured resource. As governments, the ESA process
places inordinate demands upon the tribes as co-managers of the
resource. Biological Reviews, Listing Decisions, Conferencing,
Assessments, Opinions, Consultation, and Recovery Planning are just a
few of the series of loops tribes will now be forced to participate in
just to ensure their treaty protected fisheries. The tribes harvest
opportunity and management certainty will be placed in severe jeopardy
by these actions without additional funds to manage through the risks
imposed by this federal mandate.
It is partly for these reasons that the tribes have worked very
hard over the years to bring about positive and effective change in
resource management. Unfortunately, the process has overtaken tribal
efforts, and new obligations are upon us. That is why we are asking for
additional funding beyond our base program.
We would like to support the new initiative developed by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs which would enhance the Bureau and tribes' abilities
to respond to the ESA process. This amount is for $1.247 million, and
is an effort to meet the ESA process obligations by enhancing tribal
and bureau capacity building.
We are also requesting that the Subcommittee continue to provide
$400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the $3.0
million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland
Management and the Northwest Forest Plan ``Jobs in the Woods''
Initiative line item. The WSRI is essential to developing a habitat
inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. The remaining
$2.6 million from this initiative will allow tribes throughout the
Pacific Northwest to continue to conduct watershed analysis and
watershed restoration in watersheds within their Usual and Accustomed
Areas. This approach is identical to last year's request, which the
Subcommittee supported.
timber-fish-wildlife agreement expansion
Finally, we are supporting additional funding to tribes for
expansion of the Timber-Fish-Wildlife program that cooperatively and
collaboratively allows tribes to actively participate in state forest
practice rules and regulations that have an affect on listed salmon
populations. Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are
deeply involved in this management forum. Tribes bring to the table a
very high level of skills and technical capabilities that if
appropriately funded, would greatly facilitate a successful outcome.
Tribes will require additional funding to participate in monitoring and
adaptive management processes that are a cornerstone to the TFW
process. That is why we are seeking an additional $4.0 million for
expansion of this program to implement new forest practice rules and
programs within the State of Washington. On a related note, tribes are
also watching closely the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee on
Appropriations treatment of the Department of Commerce Coastal Salmon
Restoration Initiative of $100 million. Without these monies as well,
the tribes ability to work through the TFW process will be severely
constrained.
There is also a strong need for a program to assist displaced
tribal fishers. A ``Jobs-in-the-Woods'' like program that employs
tribal fishers will provide meaningful jobs and income to tribal
members as they are restricted from harvest opportunities due to low
fish abundance. A program that provides support to tribal fishers for
gear and vessel payments in the absence of revenues from harvest is
essential in order to preclude catastrophic bank foreclosures. Such a
program should be a combination of grant and/or loan packages that
reflects the economic status of tribal fishers.
shellfish management initiative
For centuries, members of Puget Sound and Coastal Treaty Tribes
have harvested shellfish for their commercial, ceremonial and
subsistence needs. Hard shell clams and oysters were collected from
shoreline areas. Other shellfish species, such as crab and shrimp, were
also gathered for subsistence and commercial uses. Shellfish harvesting
was as important to tribal traditional life and commerce, as was
fishing for salmon and steelhead.
Tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850's,
that included guaranteed tribal rights to gather shellfish. However,
over the course of the past century and a half, conflicts have arisen,
and the tribal right to harvest these resources was diminished. As a
result, tribes were forced to seek a reaffirmation of their rights
through the federal courts system. Now after five years in the courts,
the tribal rights to harvest have been clarified, when the Supreme
Court just this month denied cert. and let stand the decision of the
9th Circuit Court. Tribes have steadily moved forward during this time
in implementing their treaty rights to harvest their share of the
resource. Several dozen regional shellfish management plans have been
successfully negotiated with tribal and state agencies, and tribes have
redirected efforts to conduct the minimum management needed for their
fisheries. Agreements and processes to access private tidelands have
also been proceeding peacefully. The chaos predicted by some non-Indian
groups concerning tribal access to private tidelands has not
materialized. Tribes have fully cooperated with landowners when
attempting to access privately owned tidelands under the rules set by
the Court.
As tribal shellfish programs develop and expand, other issues
affecting the shellfish resource have been identified. For instance,
very little data and technical information exists for many of the
fisheries which are now being jointly managed by state and tribal
managers. This is particularly true for many free swimming and deep-
water species. This lack of information can not only impact fisheries
and the resource as a whole, but makes it difficult to assess the
treaty/non-treaty sharing arrangements. Additionally, intertidal
assessment methodologies differ between state and tribal programs, and
can lead to conflicts in management planning.
During the course of the court case, tribal and state attorneys
were able to negotiate a consent decree regarding shellfish sanitation.
This agreement establishes the interaction of the state department of
health and the tribes in developing and implementing shellfish
sanitation programs designed to protect the public health. The
implementation of the decree has revealed to both the state and the
tribes that the presence of biotoxins in shellfish is dangerously
unacceptable, and threatens the viability of both the state and tribal
fisheries. Additional research and monitoring of this biotoxin is
necessary to prevent illness and death that may result from consuming
toxic shellfish.
The significant value of deep-water shellfish fisheries has
increased illegal harvesting. Enforcement of these fisheries, at both
the state and tribal levels, are not adequate to fully enforce these
fisheries. Tribes and state enforcement agencies are addressing
problems by coordinating patrols, but additional monitoring of harvest
is needed to effectively manage these fisheries.
Though tribes are addressing the basic management responsibilities
in their shellfish fisheries, it is clear that more needs to be done to
adequately address resource concerns for the benefit of all fisheries,
Indian and non-Indian alike.
Additional funding to tribal programs is needed to address the
aforementioned issues. Western Washington tribes request the
Subcommittee to add an additional $1,950,000 to tribal fishery
management contracts as part of the permanent base. This would provide
approximately $97,500 per tribe, and allow a very modest amount for
coordination activities. This request is supported by a wide range of
individuals, organizations, and governments and is necessary to
effectively manage the shellfish resource.
conclusion
We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support for the tribes
and the NWIFC as we implement our co-management responsibilities. It
takes funding resources to make our management system work, but the
returns to our efforts are many. Tribal communities depend on fisheries
for their cultural, social and economic livelihood. Because of our
tribal management capabilities, in large part supported by this
Subcommittee, we do feel that we are making some progress in protecting
our resources. However, the challenges are great, and we must continue
our effort with renewed vigor. We thank you for your attention to our
needs. We leave you with supporting documentation for our requests. We
are available to meet with you and your staff at your leisure.
______
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 2000 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. Further, the Tribe strongly opposes
any moratorium on self-determination contracting and self-governance
compacting. Any such moratorium is a direct assault of tribal
sovereignty by eliminating the rights of tribal governments to contract
or compact for programs and services for their respective communities.
tribal-specific appropriation priorities
1. $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;
2. $260,000 one-time funding for development of a community on-site
sewage disposal system;
3. $600,000 one-time funding for the purchase of land adjacent to
our existing reservation and;
4. $30,000 increase in BIA Tribal base funding for unfunded
Operations & Maintenance programs.
regional requests and recommendations
1. Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
self-governance and other national considerations
1. Restore and expand $1,000,000 increase to the DOI Office of
Self-Governance for planning and negotiation grants;
2. Provide increase for BIA and IHS to fully fund Contract Support
Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
3. Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
4. Provide $146,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services; and,
5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians.
tribal-specific appropriation priorities
Increase In IHS services for Jamestown S'Klallam self-governance base--
+$45,000
We are now in our sixth year of implementation of Self-Governance
with the Indian Health Service (IHS). 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.
When the IHS Contract Health Services (CHS) budget was first
compacted under Self-Governance in fiscal year 1996, the Jamestown
S'Klallam Tribe was able to stretch the funding into a guaranteed
benefit package for Tribal members. This was accomplished through
aggressively coordinating existing state, federal and private health
coverage. This Managed Care Program, which has achieved great success
in improving access at a lower cost, was created in a post-health
reform environment which, unfortunately, no longer exists. Since state
and national health reform plans evaporated in 1997, the cost of
purchasing and providing health care services has again begun to
escalate more rapidly (after a temporary slowing of medical inflation).
Tribal programs will not be able to sustain CHS programs in this
environment unless IHS funding keeps pace with medical inflation.
A 4-year analysis of our Tribal CHS funds vs. medical costs reveals
a growing and worrisome discrepancy between the cost of services and
CHS budget allocation. Program costs increased at an annual average of
27.0 percent over the three fiscal years, while CHS increased at an
annual average of only 1.3 percent.
Our Tribal program simply cannot afford to continue to absorb these
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 (as
well as related contract support costs) needed to maintain our current
Tribal health program.
Development of a community on-site sewage disposal system--+$260,000
As documented by IHS, the Tribe's existing wastewater facilities
are severely impaired. Our location adjacent to Sequim Bay, our limited
land base and the limited capacity of that land, have all combined to
create a situation where our systems are failing where they are and we
have to move them to a more suitable site. When one of our septic drain
fields failed, we were required to shut down our Tribal Community
Center facility it served. Yet, when we applied for money to fix it, we
were told that because it was not being used, it was not a public
health threat and therefore did not qualify for emergency funding.
These facilities serve our Children, our Elders and even the non-Tribal
community. To apply for funding from IHS, we would be put on a national
waiting list; the earliest possible money-in-hand to fix the septic
system would be in the year 2000. To qualify for Rural Utilities
funding through USDA, we would have to serve non-Indian residences off
reservation land. We do not qualify for other funding sources because
our small reservation does not have residences. We are required to have
a functioning sewage disposal system to serve our Tribal facilities,
but do not have access to the $260,000 necessary to ensure that
requirement.
Last year, before our septic system failed, we were awarded
$277,733 from HUD to construct a community well to serve our Tribal
facilities. Even so, this was $57,000 less than we needed-HUD simply
ran out of funds. We cannot count on additional funding from HUD to fix
our septic system, and we cannot continue to operate with a
substandard, poorly functioning system. Therefore, we request the
Subcommittee to fund $260,000 so that we can relocate our wastewater
disposal system away from the sensitive resources of Sequim Bay and
provide our facilities with a consolidated, fully functioning sewage
system.
Establishment of tribal land base--+$600,000
For the past 8 years, the Tribe has requested the Subcommittee's
assistance in securing additional land to add to our existing
reservation. This request remains unfunded 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. 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.
Increase in BIA tribal base funding for operations & maintenance--
+$30,000
Federal programs with jurisdiction over water and wastewater
facilities and/or funding (EPA, IHS, HUD) require that a formal
operations and maintenance program be adopted and implemented. These
facilities require a certified operator employed by the tribe, ongoing
monitoring and maintenance, and equipment reserves at an estimated
annual cost of $30,000. O & M programs are not funded by the agencies
requiring them, nor are they eligible for funding under any program;
thus, they are an unfunded mandate. If we are to meet the requirements
for successful operation of our facilities, we must request an
additional $30,000 annually.
regional requests and recommendations
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission.
Self-Governance And Other National Considerations
--Restore and Expand $1,000,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-
Governance for planning and negotiation grants.--Funding for
Self-Governance negotiation and planning grants was deleted
from the DOI Self-Governance office last year. However, Tribal
participation in the Self-Governance initiative continues to
increase. In fiscal year 1999, a total of $209 million in
funding has been obligated and transferred from the BIA to 209
Tribal governments under Self-Governance. The proposed
restoration of funding includes award of ten (10) $50,000
planning grants and ten ($50,000) negotiation grants.
--Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address
documented need.--CSC funds are required for Tribes to
successfully manage their own programs. While the
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes a
modest increase for CSC, it is woefully inadequate to make any
meaningful inroad into a shortfall that continues to penalize
Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the
self-determination policy. Additional CSC appropriations are
needed to implement the self-determination and self-governance
policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are
funded within the federal government.
--Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.--Although
the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000
includes a $17.0 million increase over fiscal year 1999, 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 $146,000,000 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 8 years. In an analysis conducted by
the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the
compounding effect of multi-year funding shortfalls from (FY
1993-FY 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 Kerry L. Sublette, Sarkeys Professor of
Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa, Director, Integrated
Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC)
It is proposed that $750,000 be appropriated from the Bureau of
Land Management (Energy and Minerals), or other account that the
Committee may deem appropriate, to fund a program to train Native
American tribal authorities (1) to remediate environmental damage
resulting from past spills of crude oil and produced water brine and
(2) to train other tribal personnel in the same skills.
``train the trainer''--expanding environmental know-how among native
americans
Historically much of the oil and gas produced in Oklahoma has come
from Indian land. In the culture surrounding the early days of oil and
gas production there were few environmental regulations or concerns.
This past lack of proper environmental practice resulted in damage that
is still visible and problematic today. The most persistent problem is
the contamination of soil and groundwater from past spills and
discharge of produced water brine. Historic brine spills are seen today
as scars on the land, devoid of vegetation, and highly eroded. Because
of the age of these spills most of the companies responsible are no
longer in business. 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. These brine-impacted sites contain salt
and runoff and drainage from these sites jeopardizes public and private
sources of drinking water. The sole solution to this continuous source
of salt pollution is remediation. Many Oklahoma tribes occupy lands
scarred by past brine spills. The salt in these scars threatens tribal
recreational and drinking water sources.
Today when oil or brine is spilled on Indian land, many times no
one is held responsible for the cleanup. When a responsible party can
be identified there is frequently bureaucratic confusion about the
proper course of action. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the state
regulatory agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Environmental Protection Agency all have regulatory and enforcement
responsibilities, but it is unclear where one agency's responsibility
ends and the other begins. The result is contaminated tribal land with
no clear path to remediation and restoration.
In response to these problems tribal organizations, such as the
Inter-Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC) in Oklahoma, have been formed
to inform and assist member tribes in dealing with environmental damage
produced by past and current spills of produced fluids (oil and brine)
on tribal lands. These organizations are terribly underfunded and in
critical need of training in remediation, well plugging, and well
inspections.
Through its technology transfer program for the domestic petroleum
industry, the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC) can
provide some of this training. However, what tribal organizations
really need is the self-sufficiency that will come from having their
own environmental specialists and trainers. IPEC proposes to provide
these organizations with an in-depth training program in environmental
know-how related to these oil and gas related problems resulting in the
education of Native American environmental specialists. Further IPEC
proposes to give these specialists the skills and resources to allow
them to train others in methods of remediation of oil and brine spills
and pollution prevention.
The remediation of crude oil spills and brine scars does not
require expensive instrumentation or highly specialized equipment. The
major equipment required is simply earth-moving equipment. Most tribes
have equipment of this type currently used for road work and other
municipal projects. Therefore, remediation of oil and brine spills is
not economically beyond the reach of the tribes. By ``training the
trainer'' IPEC extends its reach beyond the classroom into the tribes
building self-sufficiency within the tribes to solve environmental
problems on tribal lands and protect precious natural resources. Teach
a student and you have reached one student, train a teacher and your
reach is boundless.
Specifically the requested appropriation will be used to provide
intensive classroom and field training to tribal authorities using oil
and brine-impacted sites on tribal lands as field laboratories. Tribal
personnel will obtain valuable hands-on experience in site assessment
and characterization, spill control, and remediation using both
established technology and new innovations that offer greater cost
effectiveness and environmental protection. As a deliverable from this
project IPEC will develop a curriculum, field training manuals, and
audio-visual aids that can be used by trained tribal personnel to
provide training to others. Of course a student does not become a
teacher by simply acquiring information. Therefore, the program will
also incorporate training to develop teaching skills. IPEC will also
incorporate dialog between tribal personnel and regulatory agencies and
oil and gas producers as an integral part of the program to promote the
development of a mutually beneficial relationship between the tribes
and the industry.
IPEC will draw on faculty from member institutions as well as its
partner organization the Waste-management Education & Research
Consortium (WERC) to provide instructors for the proposed training
program. Undergraduate and graduate students in science and engineering
from these same institutions will participate in the program as
mentors, teaching assistants, and participants in field projects. It is
often said that the best way to learn is to teach. Therefore, an added
benefit to the proposed project is the additional field training that
IPEC and WERC institution students will obtain from their
participation.
about ipec
The Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC) is an
environmental consortium of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
University, the University of Tulsa, and the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville. Funded as an EPA Research Center, the mission of IPEC is
to increase the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry
through a reduction in the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental
regulations. This mission is accomplished through a vigorous research
program for the development of cost-effective technologies to address
environmental problems having the greatest economic impact on the
domestic industry and ``how to'' focused technology transfer to the
industry. IPEC is advised by an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB)
composed of environmental professionals, state regulators, and
independent operators who review all research proposals for relevancy
to IPEC's mission. This Board is dominated by the upstream independent
sector of the industry. IPEC is also advised by a Science Advisory
Committee (SAC), composed of leading environmental experts from
academia and government laboratories, that reviews all research
proposals for scientific quality. IPEC also sponsors the annual
International Petroleum Environmental Conference as its principal
technology transfer flagship.
about werc
The Waste-management Education & Research Consortium (WERC) was
established in 1990 by the Department of Energy to expand the nation's
capability to address waste management issues through education,
technology development, and technology transfer. WERC member
institutions are New Mexico State University, the University of New
Mexico, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Dine
Community College, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National
Laboratories. Environmental education serves as the cornerstone of
WERC. All WERC member institutions provide services to support
undergraduate and graduate degree programs, environmental
certifications, workshops, and conferences. WERC also operates four
specialty environmental laboratories providing services to WERC
institutions and the community; these are the Soil-Water Testing
Facility, the Environmental Radioactive Monitoring Laboratory, the
Hobbs Oil Water Experimental Facility and the Navajo Drylands
Environmental Laboratory.
______
Prepared Statement of Karen Dixon Blazer on Behalf of Association of
Navajo Community Controlled School Boards, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Karen
Dixon Blazer. I appear on behalf of the Association of Navajo Community
Controlled School Boards (ANCCSB), whose members operate BIA-funded
schools on the Navajo Reservation under contracts or grants from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. My testimony focuses on the need to
adequately fund BIA school operations and facilities in order to
improve the educational opportunities for Indian children.
ANCCSB has placed highest priority on the need to eliminate the
backlog in the construction and repair of BIA schools and to provide
full funding for administrative cost grants.
school construction and repair
ANCCSB supports the priority ranking of new school construction
projects. The BIA budget request, however, does not fully honor the
priority list. The Bureau properly asks for funding for a new Seba
Dalkai School, which is 9th on the priority list. But then it skips
over the 12th school--Shiprock Alternative--which would be next in line
for funding (as the 10th and 11th schools have already been funded),
and requests an appropriation for Fond du Lac, the 14th ranked school.
The BIA budget justification admits that Shiprock will finish the
design stage in September of this year; thus Shiprock will be ready to
begin construction in October. We ask the Subcommittee to correct this
error by providing construction funding for Shiprock in fiscal year 2
000.
ANCCSB continues to be seriously concerned about the tremendous
backlog in replacement school and dorm funding. A December, 1997
General Accounting Office report regarding Indian school conditions
found that our school facilities are in poorer physical condition than
other schools nationally. They found that 62 percent of BIA schools
have at least one building in need of extensive repair or replacement,
compared to only 33 percent nationally and to 38 percent of inner-city
schools. In the GAO study, the BIA reported that the cost of the total
inventory or repair needed for BIA education facilities was $754
million. The size of this backlog increases daily, as construction
costs continue to rise.
Yet the BIA's budget seeks funding for only two new schools, and
even more disturbing, actually seeks a reduction of $4 million for
education facility improvement and repair. We find this unconscionable.
The BIA's $30 million proposal for issuance of ``bonds'' will not
cure the backlog. For that proposal even to be implemented, Congress
must first enact the Administration's massive national school
modernization initiative, a small part of which would provide $200
million in tax credits for tribal schools if tribes are able to issue
bonds for school construction. Since the proposed BIA bill language
says the bonds would not be guaranteed by the Federal Government, the
ability of most tribes to even issue a bond is highly doubtful.
ANCCSB supports Senator Pete Domenici's position that the best way
to alleviate the Indian school construction and repair backlog is to
fully appropriate the needed funding over a 5-year period. We ask you
to make this commitment now. As ANCCSB has previously testified, there
is compelling evidence which shows a strong link between student
achievement and the learning environment. But many Indian children are
forced to attend school in buildings which are dilapidated and unsafe.
administrative cost grants
Administrative Cost Grants enable tribes to exercise their self-
determination rights guaranteed by acts of Congress. We need the
Committee's careful attention to the BIA's budget justification
regarding these Grants because to us it makes no sense. Note the
following:
--In the current School Year (SY98-99), 116 schools are operated by
tribes and receive AC Grants. BIA reports that it supplied only
89.54 percent of the amount required by law for these AC Grants
using the $42,160,000 supplied in fiscal year 1998. (This
program is ``forward funded''.)
--In fiscal year 1999, Congress did not increase the budget for AC
Grants; it remained at $42,160,000. These are the funds that
will supply AC Grants in SY99-2000. BIA's budget says 129
schools will be operated by tribes in SY99-2000 and then
estimates that it will be able to supply 94 percent of the
amount required by law. This makes no sense. How can the
percentage of need met increase when there will be 13 more
eligible schools but no additional funding to cover their AC
Grant needs?
--In the fiscal year 2000 request, BIA reports that 10 more schools
will convert to tribal operation in the Navajo Nation alone in
SY200-2001 (the school year covered by the fiscal year 2000
budget)--which brings the total to 139 schools. BIA asks for
$5.5 million to cover the AC Grant needs for these 10 schools.
But it does not tell you how much of the system-wide AC Grant
need it will be able to cover with this additional funding. If
it were enough to supply 100 percent of the statutory formula,
BIA would have said so. The only conclusion we can draw is that
we will get far less that what the law requires. Obviously,
when more schools are eligible for AC Grants, each will suffer
a reduction from the full amount needed.
Please ask BIA how much will be needed to cover 100 percent of the
AC Grant needs of the 139 schools that will be tribally-operated in
SY2000-2001 and appropriate the full amount needed.
ANCCSB also urges the Committee to delete the BIA's bill language
which places a cap on the amount of funds that can be used for AC
Grants. This language is designed to overcome a decision from the
Interior Board of Contract Appeals that Congress meant what it said
when it directed that schools receive 100 percent of their AC Grant
formula amount. This BIA language breaks faith with the schools that
the Interior Department should be fully supporting.
facilities operation & maintenance
We are puzzled why BIA wants to split the ``facilities operation
and maintenance'' budget into two separate accounts--``operations'' and
``maintenance''. The Bureau's justification merely says it wants to
``prevent co-mingling'' of funds and to ``increase accountability for
maintenance expenditures.'' The agency does not explain, however, what
the problems are with the current system, nor how this proposed change
in budget organization will ``cure'' any perceived problem.
If the Bureau wants to achieve some specific accounting objectives
with regard to the Bureau-operated schools, it has the authority now to
do so. But the separation of this budget category into two parts will
not give BIA control over whether funds provided to contract and grant
schools are spent for ``operation'' or ``maintenance''. The directives
applicable to use of funds by contract and grant schools are set out in
the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act, not by how the BIA decides to organize its budget request.
Frankly, it does not make sense for BIA to dictate from its Central
Office how the whole system should use its operation and maintenance
funds. Local school boards must have the ability to decide how best to
allocate scare resources to respond to the conditions and circumstances
of their own buildings.
The more important issue, however, is that the combined request for
``operation'' and ``maintenance'' remains woefully inadequate to meet
facilities needs. Last year, a draft of the BIA budget contained a
brutally frank acknowledgment that the budget request was so low that
``all BIA funded schools will experience lower operating budgets and
continued deterioration of physical plant conditions, and will
perpetuate unsafe conditions for students and school staff.'' (The four
paragraph analysis of the facilities O+M budget was deleted from the
justification before it went to Congress, so you did not get to see
it.) The fiscal year 2000 budget request is only slightly more than
last year's.
At best, the combined $79 million requested for facilities is 33
percent below the needed amount, according to the BIA's FACCOM formula.
We ask the Committee to appropriate $118 million to fully fund
education facilities needs.
student transportation
ANCCSB commends the Bureau for continuing its efforts to bring
funding for student transportation into line with the national average
expenditures in public schools--but we're not there yet. BIA estimates
that the fiscal year 2000 budget request will enable it to provide
$2.19/mile in SY2000-01. By comparison, the national average was $2.92/
mile six years ago (SY93-94). It is no wonder that schools must
continue to divert ISEP formula funds to cover transportation costs.
We ask that the transportation budget be increased by $6.2 million
to at least bring the rate per mile to the six-year-old national
average of $2.92.
indian school equalization program
In 1991, a BIA Task Force recommended that the weighted student
unit (WSU) be funded at $3,499. For the school year beginning nine
years later (SY2000-01), the BIA's budget request is still more than
$200/WSU short of that target.
It is our goal to provide a high quality education for Navajo
children to provide the tools they need to compete in today's world and
become tomorrow's leaders. Our schools do a praiseworthy job with the
resources they have, but we constantly look forward to the day when we
can provide our children with educational opportunities that are more
comparable to those enjoyed by other children in this country. For
this, we must look for ISEP formula funding increases.
We question the Bureau's budget priorities. For example, BIA seeks
$7.3 million to fund 90 FTEs for ``agency/area technical support''.
This works out to an average of $81,700 per person. Similarly, the $4.4
million for ``education program management'' (part of BIA General
Administration) will support 49 FTEs--an average of $89,100. By
contrast, many of our schools can barely pay veteran teachers with
masters' degrees a $30,000 per year salary. Is a Central Office
bureaucrat really worth three times more than a classroom teacher?
Please provide at least a $10 million increase for ISEF for SY
2000-01.
tribal departments of education
Every state in the Union has a state department of education
supported with public funds provided by its state legislature. Congress
is the ``state legislature'' for the BIA system schools. But if any
tribe wants to have a tribal department of education, it has to pay for
this out of tribal resources, as Congress provides no recurring funding
for this vital operation. The Navajo Nation has funded its own
department of education since its inception in the late 1950s because
our tribal leaders place a high priority on education of our young
people.
We strongly support the National Indian Education Association's
recommendation that Congress supply recurring funding to support
operation and development of tribal departments of education. If you
must look to other budget accounts to find funds for this effort, we
suggest you start by moving moneys from the ``agency/area technical
support'' and ``education program management'' budgets mentioned above.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your
consideration of these requests and for your interest in the welfare of
Indian children in the BIA school system.
______
Prepared Statement of Phillip Belone, Executive Director, Ramah Navajo
School Board, Inc., Pine Hill, NM
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Phillip
Belone. I am the Executive Director of the Ramah Navajo School Board,
which is responsible for providing educational services to children on
the Ramah Navajo Reservation in New Mexico. My statement describes the
critical need for an additional permanent facility to address severe
overcrowding at the Pine Hill School on the Ramah Navajo Reservation.
facilities background
Historically, the Ramah Navajo community relied on the county
public school system and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet our
educational needs. Then, in 1968, the Gallup-McKinley County School
District closed its public high school in Ramah. Because our community
is so isolated, this action left most parents with no choice but to
send their children to boarding schools far from home.
Concerned that their children were being forced to leave their
homes to attend school, our local tribal government officially
established a school board in 1970. At that time, there was no formal
Indian self-determination policy in place. Nevertheless, the Ramah
Navajo community leaders took it upon themselves to meet and explore
ways to develop a community school. They made trips to Washington to
lobby for a school--at a time when such an activity was largely unheard
of. Through their persistence and the just nature of their cause, they
succeeded in getting Congress to listen to, and eventually support,
them. Ever since then, Ramah Navajo has been a leader in Indian self-
determination and has served as a model for other tribal governments.
In fact, it was these grassroots efforts at Ramah Navajo that formed
the basis for the enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975.
The founding Board members successfully lobbied Congress for funds
to start their own school system in 1970. This funding allowed the
Board to renovate the defunct Ramah High School and to begin providing
educational services to the community.
In 1972, the Board again received school construction funding so
that the Ramah Navajo Chapter could build a more centrally-located
facility in Pine Hill. Phase I construction, which took place during
the 1975-1976 school year, resulted in three buildings (high school,
elementary school, and gymnasium) that were designed to meet the
educational needs of 284 students. That first year, we had no running
water on campus, and electricity was generated by locomotive diesel
engines.
Phase II construction, which was completed in 1979, helped to build
a kindergarten facility, a library, and our transportation
infrastructure. However, only two classrooms were added during this
phase, which was not enough to address the fact that enrollment was
exceeding building capacity.
Due to our ever-increasing enrollment, in 1990, we constructed
multi-purpose and middle school additions, for a total of eight
classrooms. The additional space allowed us to meet health and safety
standards and to alleviate overcrowding. Unfortunately, this situation
did not last long.
student enrollment trends
Since school year 1992-1993, our Pine Hill student population has
climbed from 371 to 575 students. Our soaring enrollment figures, as
illustrated in the graph below, has led to severe overcrowding. We are
using every available space for classes, including converted office
space, a teachers' lounge, and our student library, which means that
elementary school students are not able to use it.
health and safety issues
Over the last decade, our increased student enrollment has created
several health and safety issues. Our current square footage per
student has caused an increase in communicable diseases, transmittable
viruses, and bug infestation, among other things.
Safety concerns, such as a lack of proper fire evacuation routes,
is also a growing problem.
As you are aware, student achievement is directly related to a
student's learning environment. In our situation, overcrowding is
affecting the ability of our school to provide high-quality educational
services to our children. Therefore, we request that you support our
request to construct a new permanent facility for the students at the
Pine Hill School.
funding request
Based on current space and safety requirements, we immediately need
six additional classrooms. We are seeking $1,237,160 to construct an
8,643-square foot facility that would provide six 871-square foot
classrooms and teachers' workrooms. The building would be a steel
structure with a brick veneer in order to provide fire resistance while
blending with our existing structures. Each classroom would be wired
for computer technology and would contain ample storage space for both
teachers and students. The cost estimate for the project follows:
Architect/Engineering......................................... $75,000
Waste Treatment/Site Utilities................................ 125,000
Construction ($120/square foot)............................... 1,037,160
Should we receive funding for this project, we anticipate that we
could complete construction within 18 months. We have included with our
testimony a proposed floor plan for the building.
Children who attend class in the library or in the tiny room that
was once a teachers' lounge are not receiving a satisfactory education.
Student motivation suffers, student achievement suffers, and student
self-esteem suffers. The children of our community have the right to an
education that is equal to that received by other children in this
country.
In the past, we have successfully worked with Congress to meet our
educational facility needs. We urge the Subcommittee to provide us with
our funding request so that this fruitful relationship will continue.
Thank you for your consideration of our request, and we would be happy
to provide the Subcommittee with any additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of Burton Apache, President, Alamo-Navajo School
Board
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Burton
Apache. I am president of the Alamo-Navajo School Board. I am here to
testify about the BIA school operations and IHS budgets for fiscal year
2000.
Despite its name, the Alamo-Navajo School Board does much, much
more than run a school. Our 10-square mile reservation is isolated in
south-central New Mexico, far away from what we call ``big Navajo.''
Because of our remote location, the School Board is authorized by the
Navajo Nation Council and the Alamo Chapter--which is a political
subdivision of the Navajo Nation--to administer the education, health
care, road maintenance, and community programs that serve the nearly
2,000 members of our community.
school operations
Facilities operations and maintenance
The 185 BIA-funded schools rely on the Facilities O&M account to
maintain a enormous inventory of federally-owned buildings that runs
the gamut from schools, dorms, administrative offices, staff housing,
and gyms to bus garages and repair ships, storage units, fire stations,
and utility systems.
Funding for facilities operations and maintenance has grown
increasingly inadequate over the years. In fiscal year 1992, we
received 95.78 percent of need. Last year, an internal draft of the
fiscal year 1999 BIA budget justification admitted that a $77 million
appropriation would not meet more than 68 percent of need and would, at
best, enable a major portion of schools to operate ``at a bare minimum
of need.'' Even more alarming is the fact that the final fiscal year
1999 O&M funding level was even less than that, at $75.2 million.
For fiscal year 2000, the BIA has requested only $79.1 million for
facilities O&M, $51.83 million for operations and $27.28 million for
maintenance. This will only supply about 67 percent of the level that
we need to properly operate and maintain our facilities, especially
given the fact that another 793,711 square feet will be added to the
facilities inventory in fiscal year 2000.
By the time that system-wide ``off the top'' expenses are deducted,
we only receive about 30 to 40 percent of the funds needed to cover our
costs. Since we cannot run a school without paying our utilities, we
are forced to drastically reduce or eliminate minor repairs, routine
preventative maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, and facility systems
upkeep.
As any homeowner knows, failing to maintain a structure decreases
its value, comfort and livability, and leads to earlier and more
expensive repairs or replacement. The same goes for schools, as the
General Accounting Office confirmed in 1998 when it reported that BIA
schools are in worse physical condition and have more unsatisfactory
environmental conditions compared to other schools in the country.
So, where do we turn when we absolutely need to make repairs? We,
like most schools, take funds from our basic instruction account to
make up the essential part of our facilities shortfall. I would guess
that Congress intends that these dollars be used to educate Indian
children and to provide their dorm services, but we just cannot do that
until our basic operations and maintenance are fully funded.
Therefore, we ask that you increase facilities operations and
maintenance funding to $118 million.
Administrative cost grants
With Administrative Cost Grants, tribes or tribal organizations
that operate schools are provided funds for related administrative
overhead services and operations which are necessary to meet the
requirements of law and prudent management. When 100 percent of these
costs are not funded, we are again forced to use funds that are
intended to provide classroom instruction for students.
In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
$42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, they can
be at this level if there are 13 more schools but no additional
funding.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
The budget also keeps the current appropriations rider that caps
the amount of BIA funds that can be used for AC grants to the amount
appropriated. This language is intended to overturn a 1997 decision by
the Interior Board of Contract Appeals that said that the BIA violated
the law by failing to pay the Alamo Navajo School Board and the
Miccosukee Tribal School the full amount of AC grant that was required
by federal law. We initiated this suit because the BIA underpaid our AC
grant by more than $386,000 over a four-year period.
We ask that you delete the proposal to extend the current cap for
another year and instead fully fund AC grants at 100 percent of need,
as required under the authorizing statute.
fire protection
Several years ago, there were numerous news reports on the lack of
fire protection at BIA-funded schools on the Navajo Reservation.
Immediately after, the BIA authorized schools to use facilities O&M
funds for fire services. We have received some minor equipment, like
fire suits, and some volunteer training, as a result. But we still have
not seen any additional funding for services or any truly significant
improvements in fire protection.
As a result, we still have only one fire truck. As we reported a
few years ago, this vehicle is more than a quarter of a century old,
and it carries only 500 gallons of water. This is the only fire truck
on our reservation, which is the size of the District of Columbia, and
we are expected to use it to protect $25 million in federal facilities
and 1,800 homes.
In its construction budget, the BIA requests funding to purchase
new fire trucks for five specific locations. We were hoping that Alamo
Navajo would make the list, but we did not. Our need for a new fire
truck is critical. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to add us to the
list of locations that would receive a new truck.
BIA estimates that $200,000 will be needed for each of the
locations identified in the budget. Frankly, if Alamo Navajo does the
purchasing itself, we probably could obtain what we need for
approximately $150,000.
health issues
Contract support shortfall
We urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for IHS contract
support costs.
A cornerstone of federal policy under the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act has been that Indian tribes not be
penalized for electing to exercise their right to assume local control
over federal Indian programs. In fact, the law requires that that
tribes and tribal organizations receive an amount of funding equal to
what the federal agency would have expended in its direct operation of
a program, plus the amount necessary to cover certain administrative
and overhead costs, also known as contract support costs.
The estimated current contract support shortfall is $93 million for
tribes that receive contract support and those who are on the waiting
list. This figure may change as final negotiations take place and when
the moratorium on IHS contracting is lifted.
As the Subcommittee knows, a General Accounting Office report on
IHS and BIA contract support is due in June, and an NCAI-led work group
on contract support and a similar IHS work group are currently
finishing their respective examinations of contract support policy
issues.
We urge the Subcommittee not to change the contract support system
prior to completion of these reports and to fully fund contract support
at 100 percent of need.
Community health representatives/public health nurses
The IHS budget proposes to reduce the Community Health
Representatives (CHR) program by $5 million. We urge the Subcommittee
to reject this ill-conceived idea and to keep funding at the fiscal
year 1999 level.
We understand that the Administration has explained that the
proposed cut is a result of budget constraints and a decision to
increase funding for public health nurses at the expense of the CHR
program. Stated quite simply, at Alamo Navajo, we need both CHR and
public health nurse services.
We have had a public health vacancy at the Alamo Navajo Health
Center for eight months. This position is critical to our service
delivery system, because the public health nurse is the focal point for
the clinic's medical providers to refer patients for specialty
appointments, home visits, continuum of care issues, and compliance
with prescribed therapy. Unfortunately, public health nurses are hard
to come by, especially in a remote area like ours.
We also need our CHRs as part of our service delivery system. CHRs
are local residents who bridge the gap between the clinic and the
community. Because we often have to hire ``outsiders'' as public health
nurses, CHRS become cultural liaisons and case managers that provide
access to community homes, translation services, appointment delivery
and coordination, transportation, and general patient follow-up.
Currently, we have four CHRs and a budget of $69,436. The proposed
$5 million cut to the CHR program would reduce the Alamo Navajo CHR
budget by $10,549. We would not be able to meet salaries and benefits
for our CHRs, and the meager support costs we have (about $9,000) would
be eliminated. In order to keep about $10,000 in support funds, which
basically cover training and vehicle costs, we would have to eliminate
one of our four positions. Frankly, we doubt whether the proposed
public health nursing increase would offset the loss to Alamo-Navajo.
In fact, we expect that our ability to support the existing public
health nurse position and community health services with our CHR staff
would be cut by 25 percent.
conclusion
As always, we appreciate having this opportunity to tell the
Subcommittee about the needs and concerns of the Alamo-Navajo
community. We look forward to working with you.
______
Prepared Statement of Scott Hunsinger, Director, Non-Academic Programs,
Shiprock Alternative Schools, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Scott
Hunsinger. I am the Director of Non-Academic Programs for Shiprock
Alternative Schools, Inc., located within the Navajo Nation, in
Shiprock, New Mexico. We are seeking the Subcommittee's support in
righting a wrong that has been perpetrated in the BIA's education
construction budget request for fiscal year 2000.
The fiscal year 2000 BIA budget does not request funding for our
school. This glaring omission means that the BIA has failed to honor
its own new school construction priority list in making school
construction funding decisions. Shiprock had every reason to expect
that we, as number 12 on the priority list, would be next in line to
receive a construction funding request. Much to our dismay, this did
not occur.
the priority list
In December 1991, the BIA solicited new school construction
applications from schools in its system so that it could add additional
schools to the bottom of its existing priority list. At that time, the
priority list consisted of 11 schools.
Shiprock filed its application for the construction of a new K-12
facility in January 1992, within the application deadline. A year
later, the BIA published in the Federal Register a consolidated
priority list consisting of the original 11 schools, plus five new ones
ranked in order from 12 through 16. Shiprock was ranked number 12.
Significantly, the BIA's announcement indicated that, although it
planned to change the process for new school construction applications,
schools on the consolidated priority list would ``be retained, in
order, on the list.''
For the past 10 years, the BIA has requested and Congress has
funded the construction of schools on the priority list as they
finished their pre-construction planning and design phases. When the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill was enacted, 10 of the first 11
schools had been funded for construction.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request seeks construction funding for
two schools. Quite appropriately, one of them is the Seba Delkai
School, which is the only school of the 11 on the original priority
list that has not been funded for construction.
As number 12 on the priority list, Shiprock should have been the
next in line to receive a funding request. Instead, the fiscal year
2000 budget request passes us over and instead recommends funding for
school number 14--the Fond du Lac Ojibway School.
Both the Shiprock and Fond du Lac projects are in the design phase
which immediately precedes construction. Shiprock is scheduled to
complete design by September 1999, a fact that the BIA acknowledges in
its budget justification. Therefore, we will be ready to start
construction in October, when fiscal year 2000 begins, if Congress
provides us with construction funds.
The entire concept of the priority list is that schools will be
funded for construction in the order of their ranking, so long as they
are at the proper stage of design development. Shiprock is right on
target with our design schedule. Yet we have been inexplicably passed
over in favor of a lower-ranked school.
It seems that we were not funded primarily because our project is
larger and, therefore, more expensive than the Fond du Lac project. Our
construction costs are an estimated $25 million, to serve 450 students,
compared to $14.3 million, to serve 280 students. Frankly, the fact
that our project costs more should not cause BIA to ignore its very own
priority rankings, especially since we can begin building this year.
This kind of action breaks faith with us and damages the integrity of
the entire priority ranking system.
the solution
Shiprock is entitled to have its position on the priority list
honored through the appropriation of construction funding in fiscal
year 2000. This could be achieved in a number of ways.
First, the BIA could amend its budget request and Congress could
agree to provide the needed funds.
Second, Congress could unilaterally appropriate additional
resources for new school construction and direct that the funds be used
for Shiprock.
the shiprock story
Shiprock Alternative Schools, Inc. currently operates an
alternative high school with 188 students, an elementary program with
215 students, a residential facility for 94 students, and a special
education program for approximately 20 students with severe multi-
handicapping conditions. Despite the fact that we have been operating
out of converted dormitory buildings since the school's inception in
1976, these programs have achieved great success.
The alternative high school was established in order to serve the
at-risk youth who were experiencing social and academic problems in a
conventional academic setting. Throughout the school's history, we have
been the school of last resort for high school students who have
dropped out, who have child care needs, or who have had disciplinary
problems. For these individuals, our school provides a second chance
for them to complete their high school education. We are very proud of
the graduation rates achieved by these students, which has averaged 30
students each year over the past three years.
Our elementary program is based on the principles of early
intervention and prevention, focusing on the academic and social needs
of individual students through a blend of conventional and traditional
Navajo educational approaches. Class sizes are kept to a minimum to
encourage maximum student-teacher interaction and individual attention.
The elementary program has been so successful that we simply cannot
accommodate all of the students who wish to participate and must keep a
waiting list each year. This has all been accomplished through strong
instructional leadership, as well as active parent participation and
teacher dedication.
shiprock facilities
Our buildings are 50-year old dormitories converted for educational
use through the removal of an abundance of interior walls to create
classroom space. The resulting space used for the educational programs
is a known fire and safety hazard, summarized in a 1988 facility code
compliance survey and a BIA inspection validation report that stated
that the buildings were originally designed as dormitories and are not
safe or suitable for use as educational occupancies. The age of these
facilities has also created a situation whereby constant maintenance
and repair is required in order to keep the buildings operational.
Over 10 years ago, BIA inspectors advised that our facilities could
not be effectively or cost-efficiently remodeled or repaired to meet
code requirements and, therefore, should be replaced. This was formally
acknowledged by the BIA in 1993 when our school was ranked number 12 on
the new school construction priority list.
conclusion
On behalf of Shiprock Alternative Schools, I thank you for your
past support of Indian education. I hope that the Subcommittee will
work with us to correct the completely unfair situation that I have
talked about today. I would be happy to provide the Subcommittee with
any additional information or answer any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Preston McCabe, President, Pinon Chapter, the
Navajo Nation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Preston
McCabe. I am president of the Pinon Chapter of the Navajo Nation and
president of the Pinon Community School Board. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify again this year about the need to provide the
full amount requested for IHS facilities construction and to adequately
fund BIA education programs.
health clinic
We urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the Administration's $42.53
million budget request for health care facilities construction. By
doing so, you will help to make our dream of building our desperately-
needed health center--which is number three on the clinic construction
priority list--one step closer to reality.
Our community, which is comprised of Pinon and seven other Chapters
of the Navajo Nation, has been without an adequate health care
facilities for decades. For 18 years, there were virtually no
infrastructure improvements in our area because of the issues
surrounding the Navajo-Hopi boundary dispute. Once the boundary issues
were worked out in 1979, funding shortfalls prevented us from providing
adequate health care services to our people.
The 11,000 members of the Pinon community currently use what is
known as a ``health station.'' It was built in 1959 and operates only
three days per week, providing minimal nursing support, pharmacy, lab,
and dental services. The nearest doctor is at least 50 miles away.
The IHS and this Subcommittee have for several years recognized the
need for a full-fledged clinic in Pinon. In 1992, the IHS approved a
project justification document for it. After the design work was halted
in September 1997 because of insufficient funding, we finally have been
able to resume the project using the $1.037 million appropriated for
the clinic last year.
This funding will be sufficient to complete design work and put to
us on line to receive phase one construction funding in fiscal year
2001. Therefore, we ask that you fully fund the fiscal year 2000
request for health care facilities construction so that we can continue
to move toward accessing the basic medical services that are so long
overdue.
school operations
The Administration should be congratulated for proposing increases
to the School Operations account, especially for the Indian Student
Equalization Program and for Student Transportation. However, we would
like to raise our concerns about the Facilities Operations and
Maintenance budget, as well as several other issues affecting Pinon and
other BIA-funded schools.
Facilities operations and maintenance
For the first time, the BIA school facilities Operations and
Maintenance account is separated into two line items. We are extremely
troubled by the combined funding levels for these two accounts.
The ``operations'' line item request is $51.83 million and the
``maintenance'' request is $27.29 million, for a total of $79.1
million. This amount is approximately $4 million more than the current
funding level, and it simply is not enough to keep up with new
inventory and to maintain existing buildings.
The BIA expects that 793,711 square feet of new education
facilities space will be added to its inventory in fiscal year 2000.
The BIA estimates that the average cost of operations and maintenance
funding is $4.25 per square foot. This means that, to fund the new
square footage, an additional $3,373,271.75 would be needed just to
keep pace. This leaves about $500,000 that could reasonably be
considered an increase in terms of dollars that could be used to
improve the current operations and maintenance for existing facilities.
The BIA budget justification for fiscal year 2000 states that ``the
General Accounting Office conducted a review of the Bureau's facilities
management program in the first quarter of fiscal year 1998. Their
findings support the need for increased funding for facilities
operation and maintenance as essential to reducing the deterioration
rate of facilities and avoiding higher costs in the future.''
I could not agree more. It does not make good economic sense for
the federal government to build new schools and dormitories, such as
the $16 million dorm construction project we recently completed, and
then fail to provide enough funding to keep them in good condition. We
request that you provide at least $100 million for facilities
operations and maintenance so that the federal government's investment
in our children can be enjoyed by future generations.
Administrative cost grants
In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
$42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, though,
if there are 13 more schools but no additional funding.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
We also strongly object to the BIA's proposal to continue the
current appropriations language which places a ``cap'' on the amount of
BIA funds that can be spent on AC Grants to the amount appropriated for
the year. This language subverts the Interior Department's legal
obligation to pay AC Grants to contract and grant schools at 100
percent of the amount determined by the statutory formula.
We ask that you reject this language and instead provide the
resources needed to fully fund the federal government's obligation to
pay 100 percent of Administrative Cost grants to schools.
Classroom expansion
The BIA has requested $36.01 million for Facilities Improvement and
Repair, which is a $4 million decrease from the current funding level.
This cut is completely unjustified, given that the BIA itself estimates
that the backlog of repair and improvement needs is approximately $734
million.
At Pinon, we are in desperate need for additional classroom space
and therefore request that we receive funding for three portable
classrooms.
We currently have 84 students enrolled in our kindergarten program,
and we anticipate that this number will jump to 100 next year. However,
our current classroom space in our four rooms is sufficient for only 90
students, according to BIA regulations.
In addition, our Navajo Culture and Language program is currently
being conducted in an empty bedroom in our dorms because we have no
classroom space.
Program expansion
We urge the Subcommittee to lift the current moratorium on program
expansion for BIA-funded schools.
Many of our dormitory residents are bussed to a state-funded public
school. Often, the public school is unable to meet their unique
education needs, putting them on a path toward failure. We would like
to offer these at-risk students an Alternative Education program that
is tailored to meet their special needs. However, we cannot do so as
long as the current ban on new program starts is in existence.
Education technology
Finally, I wanted to bring to the Subcommittee's attention a matter
that has frustrated our efforts to make our students ready to meet the
technological challenges of the new millennium.
The fact of the matter is that the BIA is far behind in providing
cabling, internet access, hardware, and software upgrades to schools.
For example, over a year and a half ago, the BIA arranged to have local
area network (LAN) cabling installed so that we can make the internet
available to our elementary and high school students. Despite repeated
requests to the individual who is supposed to do the work and supply
the cable, the installation has not been done.
We do not want to wait indefinitely to provide our students with
internet access. Therefore, we request that you include report language
instructing the BIA to finish the job immediately by directly providing
schools with the funding that has already been appropriated for this
critical purpose.
Student transportation
We are pleased that the BIA has requested a $3.74 million program
increase for student transportation, which will provide a total funding
level of $38.84 million. This proposed increase will allow a payment
rate of $2.29 per mile. While this rate is 19 cents more than the
current rate, it is still far below the national average.
The national average for school transportation was $2.92 per mile
three years ago--so we are still running below public school
transportation funding, despite the fact that the roads our buses
travel on are usually in much worse shape. That just does not make
sense. I ask that you increase the BIA budget request for student
transportation to a level that can provide at least the national
average of $2.92 per mile that public schools receive.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your past
support of Indian education programs and of the Pinon Community School.
We hope that this testimony will receive the same thoughtful
consideration that you have given us in prior years and we would be
pleased to provide you with any additional information about our
priorities and concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of George Cukro, Executive Director, Black Mesa
Community School
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is George Cukro.
I am the executive director of the Black Mesa Community School, a
kindergarten through grade eight Grant school located in an extremely
rural area on the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona.
The Black Mesa Community School opened in 1976 in used trailers
that had been converted into small classrooms. Later, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs constructed a small building with four classrooms, a
library/conference room, an all-purpose room with a kitchen, a small
office, and two student bathrooms. This facility was designed for 80
students--but our average student population since 1991 has been 100
students.
In recognition of the fact that the condition of our facilities has
limited our ability to provide students with a full range of
educational opportunities, the fiscal year 2000 BIA budget request
includes funding for six additional modular classrooms for our school.
These portable units will be used as follows:
--Two additional classrooms to reduce the student/teacher ratio in
classes that are currently combined across grades because of
overcrowding
--One classroom for gifted and talented students
--Two pre-vocational training rooms for our middle school students
--One computer classroom for technological training
Unfortunately, our employee housing inventory simply is
insufficient to meet the needs of the eight new employees that we
expect to hire in the coming year. Currently, our school currently
employs 26 staff members. Of these people, eight reside in employee
housing because of our geographic remoteness and lack of adequate off-
site housing. Our inventory consists of eight trailer units, ranging
from 12 to 30 years old. As you can see, there is a need to construct
additional housing units and modernize our oldest units, so that we can
house the employees that we will require to fully staff our new
classrooms.
To meet this need, the Black Mesa Community School requests that
the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill authorize a transfer
of $400,000 in BIA school operations funds provided to us in prior
years to help us finance critical employee housing needs.
You may recall that you included this type of appropriations
transfer authority to the Cibecue Community School in the fiscal year
1998 Interior appropriations act. Much like the Cibecue Community
School, the Black Mesa Community School has been able to save
approximately $1.3 million over the past eight years through careful
financial planning and management. We are now seeking to use a portion
of these funds ($300,000 in reserve Indian Student Equalization Program
allocations and $100,000 in surplus Operations and Maintenance funds)
to meet anticipated employee housing needs.
We are not asking for any additional funding or that the
Subcommittee set any kind of precedent so that we can address this
situation. Instead, we are asking that you provide us with the same
assistance that you provided to the Cibecue Community School in its
attempt to meet its critical facility needs.
school bus garage
The BIA has requested $36.01 million for Facilities Improvement and
Repair, which is a $4 million decrease from the current funding level.
This cut is ludicrous, given that the BIA itself estimates that the
backlog of repair and improvement needs is $734 million.
For example, at Black Mesa we are in desperate need of a metal
garage for our school buses. There is simply nowhere to repair or store
our buses. For minor servicing, we must travel 25 miles each way on an
unpaved road filled with 12-inch ruts, mud, snow and ice. For major
repairs, the trip is 150 miles.
If we had a metal garage, we could save substantial wear and tear
on our already fatigued buses by storing them indoors and servicing
them on-site.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your past
support of the Black Mesa Community School's need for additional
classroom space. We hope that this testimony will receive the same
thoughtful consideration that you have given us in prior years and we
would be pleased to provide you with additional information about our
priorities.
______
Prepared Statement of Wallace Tsosie, Board Member, Greasewood Springs
Community School, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Wallace
Tsosie. I am a board member of the Greasewood Springs Community School,
Inc., located on the Navajo reservation. My testimony today focuses on
the need to provide additional funding for BIA-funded school
operations.
The Greasewood Springs Community School serves the educational
needs of 349 students in grades kindergarten through grade eight. Since
July 1, 1996, our school has been operated by a local Board of
Directors through a Grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to
the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, Public Law 100-297.
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the
Administration for its proposed increases to the Indian Student
Equalization Program, Student Transportation, and Administrative Cost
Grants. However, there remains much more that must be done if the
children who attend BIA-funded schools are to be on a level playing
field with public school students throughout America.
facilities operations and maintenance
The Facilities Operations and Maintenance account is separated into
two line items in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, a decision that
the BIA says was based on a February 1998 Interior Department report on
facilities maintenance issues.
The ``operations'' line item request is $51.83 million, while the
``maintenance'' request is $27.28 million, for a combined total of
$79.1 million. This is but a small increase over the fiscal year 1999
funding level of $75.2 million--which, in turn, was nearly $2 million
less than the BIA had asked for. Even that original request was far
below the amount needed to properly operate and maintain facilities.
Last year, an internal draft of the fiscal year 1999 BIA budget
justification admitted that a $77 million appropriation would not meet
more than 68 percent of need, and would, at best, enable a major
portion of schools to operate ``at a bare minimum service level.'' This
part of the budget justification was deleted from the final version.
The fiscal year 1999 narrative also stated that the average cost of
O&M funding is $5.00 per square foot--but this year's justification
says that the average cost is only $4.25 per square foot. I just do not
understand how O&M costs could have declined by 15, or any other,
percent!
In fiscal year 1998, Congress approved $3.14 million for the
construction of a new gymnasium at the Greasewood School. This funding
fulfilled a promise made by the BIA more than a decade ago, and will
allow us to finally fix our serious overcrowding and safety problems.
Unfortunately, without adequate O&M funding, the gym's useful life will
be significantly reduced--which means a lower return on the investment
of tax dollars you put into it.
administrative cost grants
AC Grants provide funds to tribes or tribal organizations operating
schools in lieu of contract support. They are designed to enable tribes
and tribal organizations to operate contract or grant schools without
reducing direct program services to students. Tribes are provided funds
for related administrative overhead services and operations which are
necessary to meet the requirements of law and prudent management. When
100 percent of our costs are not funded, we are forced to use
critically-needed dollars which should be used to provide classroom
instruction to students.
In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
$42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, though,
if there are 13 more schools but no additional funding.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
Furthermore, the budget retains the current appropriations language
which places a ``cap'' on the amount of BIA funds that can be spent on
AC Grants to the amount appropriated. This language is designed to
overturn the Interior Department's legal obligation to pay AC Grants to
contract and grant schools at 100 percent of the amount determined
through a statutory formula. We strongly urge that the Subcommittee
reject this language.
student transportation
We are encouraged that the BIA has requested a $3.74 million
program increase for student transportation, for a total funding level
of $38.84 million. The budget narrative states that school bus mileage
will increase by approximately 600,000 miles in SY 2000-2001 and that
the proposed increase will allow a payment rate of $2.29 per mile,
which is 19 cents more than the current rate. However, the projected
payment rate is still far below the national average of $2.92 reported
for public schools for school year 1993-1994.
Our reservation has primitive road conditions, with our buses
covering 253 unpaved and 289 paved miles every day. We are in dire need
of four-wheel-drive buses which would allow us to get students to
school and back home safely. Our transportation budget is hit
especially hard during the winter months, when bad road conditions mean
that our buses break down on a regular basis.
We also need a garage or repair facility to deal with these
breakdowns. For example, every single tire repair must be taken to
Holbrook, which more than 50 miles away. This is time-consuming and
quite expensive. In addition, we would like to install a diesel fuel
pump at the school because the Greasewood Trading Post, the closest
fuel outlet, is so costly.
Finally, additional transportation funding would allow us to
increase the number of bus drivers we employ. Right now, we are always
short of adequate bus drivers, which leads to transportation problems
for students.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
considering these requests and for your attention to the welfare of
Indian children at the Greasewood Community School.
______
Prepared Statement of Martha Garcia, President, Ramah Navajo Chapter
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Martha
Garcia. I am President of the Ramah Navajo Chapter, a community located
in the west central mountains of New Mexico. My testimony today focuses
on providing the resources to fund the acquisition of the Bond Ranch by
the Ramah Navajo Chapter, as well as our support for increased law
enforcement, Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), and contract support
funding.
The Ramah Navajo Chapter is a certified chapter of the Navajo
Nation government with over 3,000 members. Our community has a land
base of 154,553 acres, which is comprised of a ``checkerboard'' of
trust land, individual allotted land, and fee land purchases by or for
the Chapter. As a governmental entity of the Navajo Nation, the Chapter
has been authorized since 1986 by the Navajo Nation to contract Bureau
of Indian Affairs programs pursuant to Public Law 93-638. The Chapter
currently operates programs and services previously administered by the
BIA under a Model Contract through our Consolidated Tribal Government
Programs. In addition, the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., a non-
profit organization in our community, operates five TPA--and
educational--programs under a Model Contract.
Our mission is to nurture the well-being and growth of our
community and its people by promoting the development of comprehensive
community services, programs and opportunities; by encouraging the
development self-sufficiency through self-determination; and, by
maintaining respect of our traditional values of cultural heritage and
family.
the bond ranch acquisition economic development project
The Ramah Navajo Chapter requests $1.7 million to purchase the Bond
Ranch and to establish a tribal ranch on that land. The Bond Ranch is
located in the Ramah Navajo Community and is surrounded and adjacent to
tribal trust land and Individual Indian Allotments.
Records indicate that the Ramah Navajos settled and continuously
occupied the land on which the Bond Ranch is located since the 1500s.
In 1863, the United States waged an intensive war against the
Navajo people. During this period, a number of Ramah Navajo families
were exiled to Fort Sumner, New Mexico. In 1868, however, a treaty
between the United States and the Navajos allowed the people to return
home. The Ramah Navajo families returned to their homes in Ramah.
In the late 1800s, Mormon missionaries established a settlement in
Ramah. They eventually pushed the Ramah Navajos out of productive
farming areas and into land covered with volcanic rock. As more non-
Indian settlers moved into the area, more lands were taken from the
Ramah Navajo people.
Beginning in 1920, some Ramah Navajos were allotted land, which
created a small land base for our people.
In the 1940s, the New Mexico and Arizona Land Company began selling
large quantities of land and, in order to preserve the use of these
lands for the Ramah Navajos, the Picuris and Pojoaque pueblos purchased
55,000 acres. In 1951, the Navajo Nation purchased this land from the
pueblos for the continued use by the Ramah Navajos.
In the late 1930s, the Bond family acquired a ranch on these lands,
which was used for a sheep and cattle ranch and a bean farm. While the
sheep ranch and bean farm ceased operations in 1950, the cattle ranch
continues to operate today on 12,320 acres--or 19.25 sections of open
grazing land--which is comprised of both deeded and state-leased lands.
In June 1997, the Bond family publicly offered the ranch for sale at a
price of $150 per acre for the deeded land, for a total purchase price
of $1.464 million.
The Ramah Navajo Chapter would benefit greatly by purchasing the
Bond Ranch. The Chapter intends to use it for such economic development
projects as a cattle and sheep ranch and a hydroponic greenhouse.
Purchasing the Ranch also would allow us to consolidate some of the
currently ``checkerboarded'' land in our community. We have actively
explored grant opportunities from federal agencies to purchase the
Ranch but so far have come up with nothing. Therefore, we request that
direct funding for the Ranch be provided in the fiscal year 2000
Interior Appropriations bill.
additional law enforcement funding is badly needed
A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report on crime in Indian
Country presented a disturbing picture of violence on our reservations.
BJS reported that the rate of violent victimization is more than double
the national average. American Indians between the ages of 18 and 24
experience the highest per capita rate of violence of any racial group
considered by age--about one violent crime for every four people in
this age group.
At the Ramah Navajo Chapter, we have not been immune from crime and
violence. We have alcohol-related crimes. We have murder. We have
assaults.
One reason for our rising crime rate is a lack of a police
presence. We have nine law enforcement vehicles in our inventory, and
all of them have over 100,000 miles on them. The rough terrain of our
community means that our vehicles experience faster than average
deterioration and higher than normal maintenance costs. We have funding
to replace four of them this year, but we need additional funding to
replace the other five.
In addition, we only have nine law enforcement officers available
to patrol a 150,000-acre area. Clearly, we must increase our police
force if our people are to feel safe and secure.
The budget request would provide a total of $137.8 million for the
President's Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, including
a $20 million program increase to fund the Bureau's portion of this
joint effort with the Department of Justice.
We strongly urge the Subcommittee to fully fund this request. While
the Ramah Navajo Chapter supports the Justice Department Indian Country
Law Enforcement Initiative, we are concerned that the DOJ funding is
provided primarily through discretionary grants. We must ensure that
law enforcement funding gets to all tribes that are in need, not just
those with good grant writers.
According to the BIA's budget justification, the additional law
enforcement funds will continue to focus on core law enforcement
issues, including hiring additional Bureau and tribal law enforcement
personnel, ensuring that new employed personnel are trained and
certified, connecting additional law enforcement programs to the INLINE
system for statistical reporting, and vehicle replacement for those
vehicles with mileage of 100,000 miles more.
We ask you to ensure that the hiring of law enforcement officers
and providing police vehicles are made the top priorities in the
expenditure of these additional dollars.
tribal priority allocations funding
In keeping with our goal of gaining self-sufficiency through self-
determination, the Chapter in 1986 began contracting under Public Law
93-638 programs previously run by the BIA. Through TPA funding, we are
able to tailor our budget and to prioritize our programs to address the
unique circumstances of our community, which suffers from an extremely
high poverty level.
Today, our unemployment rate is over 70 percent. Over 60 percent of
our community members live in substandard homes, which often lack
electricity, water, and wastewater facilities. Over 65 percent of our
BIA-maintained roads are in poor conditions.
Furthermore, due to welfare reform, we are being forced to provide
additional financial assistance to those Chapter members who are simply
unable to find work in our community, which simply does not have an
economic base.
As you can imagine, current TPA funding levels have not been enough
to meet our housing, social services, community development, and
scholarship needs.
The budget request includes a $17 million increase in TPA spending,
but this is simply not enough to meet our governmental needs. In fiscal
year 1995, TPA funding was cut drastically and, since then, tribal
governments have increasingly fallen behind in their ability to provide
services in their communities.
TPA funding still has not been restored to the fiscal year 1995
level and has not even kept up with inflation. We urge the Subcommittee
to restore TPA funding to the fiscal year 1995 level, adjusted for
inflation, so that we can meet our governmental responsibilities at the
local level.
contract support shortfalls
Every year, the BIA's budget request for contract support costs has
been significantly less than the amount needed by tribal governments to
effectively administer programs under the authority of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
For fiscal year 2000, the proposed contract support budget is
$121.34 million, or $6.1 million over the fiscal year 1999 level. The
Administration acknowledges that, even with such an increase, the
amount ``will only maintain approximately the existing percentage level
of support for contracting Tribes.'' The BIA estimates that the fiscal
year 2000 shortfall will exceed $23.2 million, or 16 percent.
The Ramah Navajo Chapter lacks other tribal resources and is
totally dependent on federal funds to operate its programs. In November
1998, the Chapter ran out of money due to contract support shortfalls
that arose because the BIA had failed to pay 100 percent of negotiated
indirect costs for several years.
So that we could alleviate our immediate cash flow crisis, we had
no choice but to negotiate with the BIA to receive our fiscal year 1999
Tribal Priority Allocations funds earlier than planned. However, this
band-aid approach does not address the fundamental problem of the
federal government's failure to meet its obligation under the law to
fully fund contract support.
Another problem is the timing of contract support distributions. At
the Albuquerque Area Office, the BIA distributes final contract support
funding on or near the last day of the fiscal year (September 30). This
restricts tribes from managing their contract support funds in a
prudent manner. The Ramah Navajo Chapter operates on a calendar year
and receives no funding for the fourth quarter. For the last two years,
our funding levels were capped at between 75 and 80 percent. Receiving
word on or near the last day of our third quarter that we are not going
to receive any additional contract support dollars for the year makes
it extremely difficult to manage our cash flow responsibly.
For these reasons, the Ramah Navajo Chapter urges the Subcommittee
to consider the following positions with respect to contract support
funding:
1. The federal government must consider the fact that, as long as
Tribes exercise their rights to operate programs under the authority of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, there will
be a need to fully fund contract support.
2. The federal government must comply with existing court decisions
and fund the contract support costs of other federal agency programs
associated with Public Law 93-638 and the BIA must increase contract
support funds for those federal agencies that do not pay contract
support at the approved and negotiated indirect cost rate.
3. The BIA should distribute contract support funds when Tribal
Priority Allocation funds are allocated and distributed so that
contractors will know their funding levels and be able to manage their
funding more prudently.
4. The Interior Department should increase its staff at the Office
of the Inspector General in order to more quickly process indirect cost
proposals and negotiate indirect cost agreements.
conclusion
On behalf of the Ramah Navajo Chapter, I would like to thank the
Subcommittee for its consideration of our requests and for its
willingness to support programs which benefit our Chapter and Indian
country as a whole.
______
Prepared Statement of Young Jeff Tom, President, Mariano Lake Community
School, Inc. of the Navajo Nation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Young Jeff
Tom. I am president of the Mariano Lake Community School Board, which
operates a kindergarten through grade six Bureau of Indian Affairs-
funded Grant school located in the mountains of western New Mexico. My
testimony focuses on the urgency in meeting the education construction
and administrative cost needs of BIA-funded schools in fiscal year
2000.
Our school was built in 1952 and was one of the first schools
established in the Eastern Navajo Agency. A total of 264 students from
the communities of Mariano Lake and Pinedale attend our school, which
is located in the Great Continental Divide Mountain Range,
approximately 30 miles from Gallup and 25 miles from Crownpoint, New
Mexico.
Of our total enrollment, 63 children in grades one through three
live in our dormitory. Every Friday afternoon, these children are
bussed home, where they are picked up again on Monday morning. Our day
school students are those who have access to county and paved roads.
They are picked up and brought to school by 8:00 each morning, at which
time they are provided with breakfast. They are bussed home at 2:30 in
the afternoon.
facilities issues
Mariano Lake Community School has the following facilities
inventory:
--Dormitory--Good condition; renovated in 1991
--Main building housing administrative offices, food services, six
classrooms--Good condition; renovated in 1991
--Facility maintenance building--Good condition; renovated in 1991
--Portable kindergarten classroom--Temporary classroom housing 40
students; located outside main building
--Four portable classrooms housing grades four through six--No
bathroom facilities for sixth grade
--Transportation services trailer--Poor condition
--Employee housing--Two duplex apartments for teachers and one house
for principal; all built in 1954 and in poor condition
--Computer laboratory/staff offices--Poor condition; built in 1954
--School library--Too small to hold books, materials, audio-visual
equipment
We have been trying for more than ten years to have a gymnasium
built for our students. This was expected to be done as Phase II of the
Mariano Lake construction plans, which commenced in the 1980's. To
date, however, the BIA has not honored its commitment to completed our
gym project. Without a gymnasium or even a multi-purpose facility, our
students have to use the school's dining room for physical education
class. Since these classes are held while food is being prepared, the
amount of dirt and dust that they generate has become a health and
safety concern.
Our top facilities priorities are to construct a gymnasium and to
replace our portable classrooms with a permanent building. However,
unless Congress increases the BIA's education construction budget
request, we will be waiting a long time for these goals to be realized.
As the Subcommittee knows, the BIA has requested only $36.01
million for Facilities Improvement and Repair, which is a $4 million
cut from the current funding level. Given that the BIA itself estimates
that the backlog of repair and improvement needs is $734 million, I
cannot imagine why more funding was not requested. The Subcommittee
should immediately correct this situation and increase FI&R funding to
a level that will make a serious dent in the backlog.
The BIA has asked for $30 million for a ``school bond'' initiative
that is tied to the President's multi-billion dollar initiative for
school construction nationwide through the use of tax credits. A 1.5
percent share of this initiative would be reserved for tax credits for
tribal school construction, but this would require participating tribes
to issue bonds, sell them in the bond market, and apply to the
Secretary of the Interior for money from the $30 million fund to pay
back principal.
Frankly, we believe that few tribes with school construction needs
would be able to issue or market these bonds, especially since they
would not be guaranteed by the United States. Thus, this is not a good
solution to the pressing need for new facilities in Indian country.
We believe the wiser course is to use this $30 million to help
reduce the known backlog of school construction and improvement items
already registered with the Bureau, such as our gymnasium project. We
urge the Subcommittee to keep this $30 million in the construction
account and use it for actual construction projects instead of the bond
initiative.
administrative cost grants
In July 1998, our board made the decision to convert our school to
grant status so that we could exercise more local control over
education, a philosophy that seems right in line with the Congressional
Majority's education policy.
Frankly, the fact that Administrative Cost Grants are not fully
funded makes it extremely difficult for us to exercise our right to
operate educational programs at the local level. Under federal law, AC
Grants are supposed to provide tribes and tribal organizations with the
resources they need to cover the administrative overhead and
operational expenses that are part and parcel of running a BIA-funded
school.
In the current school year, 116 schools are operated by tribes and,
as such, receive AC Grant funding to help them cover their
administrative costs. BIA reports that it supplied only 89.54 percent
of the amount required by federal law for these AC Grants, using the
$42.16 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
In fiscal year 1999, AC Grant funding was frozen at $42.16 million,
despite the fact that another 13 schools will be operated by tribes in
SY 1999-2000. BIA's budget says that it expects to supply 94 percent of
the AC Grant amount required by law. I do not understand how, though,
if there are 13 more schools but no additional funding.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, BIA reports that ten more
schools will convert to tribal operation in Navajo Nation alone in
school year 2000-2001. BIA has requested $5.5 million to cover the AC
Grant needs for these schools. However, I am concerned that existing
grant schools will still receive far less than what the law requires.
The only way to make sure that tribal governments have the real
ability to exercise their right to operate their own education programs
under Public Law 100-297--and to provide high-quality educational
services--is to fully fund AC Grants at 100 percent of the statutory
formula.
conclusion
I appreciate having the opportunity to share the views of the
Mariano Lake Community School with the Subcommittee and look forward to
working with you to meet the educational needs of Indian children
across the country.
_____
Prepared Statement of Jacob Lonetree, President, Ho-Chunk Nation
Good afternoon Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is
Jacob LoneTree; I am President of the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin. I
would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify before
you today.
The Ho-Chunk Nation, with 5,956 members, has a very limited trust
land base spread through seventeen counties in the State of Wisconsin.
Although the Nation has provided increased economic opportunities for
its members in recent years, we still have a long way to go in this
regard. Moreover, the long-term effects of generations of poverty among
our people are still very much with us today. This is particularly so
with respect to health care. Our people suffer from alarming rates of
diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, and cancer. Perhaps the most
devastating is diabetes. Currently 29.1 percent of Ho-Chunk tribal
members have been diagnosed with diabetes. This statistic is even
higher for members over 40. In this age group, 39 percent of our
members are diabetic. Even more alarming, we recently learned that 40
percent of our 2-4 years old are classified as obese. Obesity is, of
course, the leading risk factor in diabetes. Improving the health
status of our members is a top priority for the Nation. In support of
that goal, I have issued a Presidential Proclamation designating 1999
to be the Ho-Chunk Nation Year of Fitness.
The Nation is a member of the Tribal Nations Joint-Venture
Coalition for Health Facilities. The Coalition is urging Congress to
appropriate $15 million in funding for the Tribal-IHS Joint Venture
Program authorized under Section 818 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act. This Program is intended to provide funding for
equipment and staff to operate a health care facility constructed by an
Indian tribe in exchange for a no-cost, long-term lease in favor of the
Indian Health Service. The Program was used successfully in the past
for facilities in Oklahoma and Oregon, but has not been funded since
fiscal year 1993. If funded properly, this Program could save the
federal government millions of dollars in construction costs, provide
Indian people and tribes with resources to address extremely important
health care needs, and stimulate economic development in historically
deprived areas of Indian country.
The Nation, in hopes of funding for the Section 818 Program, has
already shouldered the significant financial burden of building a
vitally needed health facility for Nation members in Baraboo,
Wisconsin. The Nation has expended over $14.5 million to construct the
Ho-Chunk Nation House of Wellness or ``Wanaisguni Hocira.'' We are
delighted to report that we completed Phase I of the facility and
opened for business in December of 1998. We are now in the process of
completing Phase II of the facility. Phase II will consist of a
facility for community activities to improve the health and well being
of our members. We believe that in order for our communities to be
healthy, we have to provide our members with opportunities to engage in
healthy activities. Phase II of the facility will provide these
opportunities.
The House of Wellness is the only tribally or IHS operated health
facility within 80 miles. In undertaking to build this facility, the
Nation is filling a void that has never been met in this area. Before
this facility was constructed many tribal members were forced to seek
medical attention at the Ho-Chunk Health Care Center near Black River
Falls which the Nation also built. This is a round trip distance travel
of 160 miles. Critical optical and dental services, which were provided
to members as part of contract health services, were provided on a
limited basis based on a medical priority. We simply have not been able
to meet the demand for these services. Significantly, tribal members
were not receiving important preventive medical services, such as pap
smears, breast cancer screening and diabetes screening.
Phase I of the House of Wellness provides a broad range of out-
patient services, including health, laboratory, pharmacy, x-ray,
dental, substance abuse, mental health, nutrition, health education,
and community health nursing. We currently have a staff of thirty,
including two doctors, two nurses, two nurse practitioners, one x-ray
technician, and one dentist. The facility is planned to accommodate
2,500-3,000 patients annually. The Nation seeks $3 million of the
requested Joint-Venture funding for staffing and operation costs of
this facility.
We understand that the Indian Health Service in its budget request
to the Office of Management and Budget requested $15 million for the
Tribal-IHS Joint Venture Program. Unfortunately, the Office of
Management and Budget did not maintain this funding when it passed the
INS budget back to the Agency despite specific direction by the House
Appropriations Committee last year requesting that this Program be
reinstituted. The Joint Venture Program is an economical and innovative
way to meet the overwhelming health care needs of Indian people.
We urge the Committee to demonstrate that federal policy supports
this tribal initiative, by including $15 million for the Tribal-IHS
Joint Venture Program, and including $3 million for the Ho-Chunk Nation
Wanaisguni Hocira in Sauk County, Wisconsin.
______
Prepared Statement of Chairman William F. Yallup, Sr., Yakama Indian
Nation
appropriation policy concerns
Fully Fund Agency BIA and INS Programs at Authorized Levels: the
local BIA agency is unable to perform its most basic trust
responsibilities at the current level of depressed funding. We ask the
committee to fully fund these programs at their authorized FTE levels.
We are specifically concerned about the following programs, which we
request be funded at the Agency level at the amounts indicated:
BIA Natural Resources Program: Request an additional $921,000. This
program includes the functions of Real Estate Services, Land Services
(including Environmental and Treaty Rights Protection), and Wapato
Irrigation Project Billing. Trust responsibilities include: (a) leasing
and distribution of income (>1300 active leases), (b) acquisition and
disposal of real property, including fee to trust conversions, probates
and wills, (c) farm /conservation planning for more than 2800
allotments on more than 100,000 acres with crop market value in excess
of $70 million, (d) multiple resource management on approximately 1.1
million acres of range and forested land including six major watersheds
affected by the ESA listing of steelhead and salmon, (e) natural and
cultural resource protection and enhancement, (f) environmental and
Treaty rights protection for the reservation and the ceded area, and
(g) billing (>8400 accounts) and collections ($6,000,000 annually) for
the 175,000 acre Wapato Irrigation Project.
BIA Road Maintenance and Transportation Planning Program: Request
$1,750,000. This program has the responsibility for all road
maintenance and transportation planning on the 925 miles of primary
road and 2,325 miles of secondary road located on the reservation. This
chronically underfunded program's function is key to the governmental
infrastructure and its ability to both provide services to the
constituency and move goods to market.
BIA Forestry Program: request an additional $940,000. This program
is the heart of the tribe's economic base, administering forest harvest
on 675,000 acres of commercial timberland. The program includes forest
planning and inventory (including pre-sale planning, forest inventory,
and a GIS and Silvicultural Lab), and forest management (including sale
administration, contract preparation and compliance, and collection and
distribution of proceeds). The program has been historically
underfunded to the point of being unable even to fulfill its authorized
level of FTE's.
BIA Higher Education Scholarships: request an additional $150,000.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Scholarship program has not and is not
being adequately funded. Although the scholarship need is rising, the
Administration's funding request is declining. The increased
scholarship need reflects the rising cost of a college education and
the larger number of Indian students accepted into college. A key to
economic development and self-sufficiency is a college education.
Inadequate scholarship funding thwarts the successful efforts of Indian
tribes to better prepare our youth for college and it sends the wrong
message to students.
INS Contract Health Services: request an additional $947,000. The
primary requirement for Contract Health Services to provide assistance
is the availability of funding. Contract Health Services currently
receives $3,213,264 for patient care each fiscal year with no
adjustment for increases in population and inflation. Increasing
numbers of eligible patients continue to require medical and dental
services. Health care costs are constantly increasing and alternate
sources of payment are decreasing. The present budget is expended at an
average rate of $80,000 per week, which only covers 75 percent of the
year, and will prevent the delivery of needed assistance to eligible
patients for the last 3 months of fiscal year 2000.
Direction to Interior and Related Agencies: We ask that you direct
the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish &
Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative agreements or Public Law 93-
638 contracts with the Yakama Nation as provided under Public Law 103-
413 to fund coordination, participation, and project implementation
under the many ESA recovery plans. Each of the federal agencies has had
several years to implement authorized programs to provide for healthy
and sustainable fisheries. As an effective alternative, the Yakama
Nation urges you to direct these agencies to fund the Tribe's
restoration program to reach that goal.
Self-determination Contract Support: Request $750,000. This year,
indirect costs are expected to be funded at less than 90 percent. The
shortfall is a guaranteed out-of-pocket cost to the Yakama Nation of
$750,000 in fiscal year 2000, which we will incur performing functions
for and on behalf of the Federal government. We urge the Committee to
fully fund the contract support budget for both the BIA and the IHS so
that these federal contract obligations may be fulfilled.
Leavitt Act Collections: The Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP or
Project) is one of the largest Indian irrigation projects operated by
BIA. It is located entirely within the exterior boundaries of the
Yakama Indian Reservation in Yakima County, Washington. The Project
diverts approximately 600,000 acre-feet of water annually from the
Yakima River, and irrigates approximately 142,000 acres of arable land
within the Yakama Indian Reservation. Approximately 55 percent of the
arable land (78,000 acres) is held in trust for individual Indians and
the Yakama Indian Nation by the United States. Most of the Indian
owners lease their lands to non-Indians. The remaining 64,000 acres
(approximately 45 percent) are owned by non-Indians. In 1993,102,000
acres were farmed by non-Indians, 13,000 acres by Indians, and 27,000
acres were idle.
Since 1993, the idle lands within the WIP have increased, placing
the burden of meeting Project maintenance and operations expenses upon
``productive'' lands. The WIP has been arbitrarily designated by BIA as
one of the few ``self-sufficient'' Indian irrigation projects, wherein
O&M costs are assessed directly against the landowner, without the
assistance of federal appropriations. In addition to the problem of
``idle'' lands being assessed, many properties within the Project are
classified as ``productive'' despite having marginal agricultural
value, and are not easily leased by the BIA. The O&M assessment upon
both such unproductive properties has accumulated over the years to the
detriment of the Indian owners, who have no means to pay. The
threatened debt collection by BIA jeopardizes the health, safety and
welfare of the Yakama people.
The Yakama Indian Nation requests that actions be taken to defer
further collection proceedings under the Leavitt Act, and to exempt
Indian landowners within WIP from O&M assessments, past and future. We
further request that annual appropriations be designated to offset WIP
O&M costs that would be assessed against Indian properties. Annual
appropriations would relieve the now unreasonable burden placed upon
Indian property owners, and would permit necessary repairs in order to
assure the reliable and safe delivery of services.
Agricultural Enterprise Program: Request $1,125,000. This new
economic development program is designed to capitalize on the value-
added approach to resource utilization outlined in the YIN strategic
plan. Instead of leasing out valuable farmland to other producers, the
YIN is now actively involved in growing, harvesting, marketing, and
distributing agricultural products on approximately 1,200 acres of
tribal land. This effort has been completely financed by the YIN. This
request will be used to consolidate the land base with several key
acquisitions, prepare the fields, and develop a diversified crop
management plan to enhance the program's production, distribution, and
marketing goals.
specific funding items
1. Support of Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) Conservation Plan
implementation under Title XII of Public Law 103-434, Yakima River
Basin Water Enhancement Project: Request $3,000,000, non-reimbursable.
Implementation of the WIP Conservation Plan and the Toppenish Creek
Corridor Plan will provide for precise control, measurement and
conservation of irrigation water distribution on the Wapato Irrigation
Project and the restoration of critical habitats. These funds are
needed under the tenets of the act for the installation of turnout
measurement structures, piping of small lateral canals, and improvement
of water measurement and management programs.
2. Repair of the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) facilities:
Request $5,000,000, non-reimbursable. WIP is the largest irrigation
district in the Yakima Basin and is the largest operated by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA). The importance of WIP to the local, regional,
and national economy cannot be overstated, and it is jeopardized by the
need for repairs. Capital improvements of WIP facilities required for
basic project delivery services include: safety improvements, drop
structures, power generation facilities, bifurcation structures, and
pumps. Attention to this matter is urgent.
3. Forest Development Program: Request $1,250,000. In order to
continue sound forest management practices while protecting the welfare
of our People, we ask continued funding at the previous year's level of
$600,000 plus an additional $650,000. We have severe spruce budworm
infestation in 300,000 acres and need to thin an additional 200,000
acres. This backlog threatens the funding of our entire Tribal
Governmental structure. This need has been acknowledged by the BIA
Central Forest Office and the GAO recently issued a report documenting
the insufficiency of the current level of funding (GAO/ACED-91 -53,
March 1991) for forest development.
4. Water Resources Management: Request $450,000. The Yakama Nation
Water Resources Management Program was initiated to ensure Tribal
technical involvement in all water resource management projects
addressing ground and surface waters. The current water crises facing
the Yakima Basin makes this an ongoing need. These funds will insure
that the United States Government fulfills its trust responsibility to
the Yakama Nation.
5. Fish and Wildlife Resource Management: Request $1,496,000. We
ask for continued funding of the fish and wildlife program at last
year's level of $546,000 plus an additional $950,000. $400,000 of new
money will address ongoing technical and managerial processes at the
reservation, county, state, and regional levels relative to ESA
listings, salmonid enhancement, watershed restoration and management,
and co-management of big game resources. $150,000 of new money will
expand the Northern Spotted Owl inventory and monitoring project, the
workload of which has increased by 75 percent in the last three years
due to the spruce budworm epidemic. $400,000 of new money will fund
YIN's involvement in the FERC relicensing process for 28 non-federal
dams in YIN's Ceded Area in the next 10 years.
6. Educational Needs: Request $602,000. This request supports the
Johnson O'Malley/Title IX Supplemental Education program (JOM). JOM is
an integral part of tribal member secondary education, which allows
increased parental participation and family involvement in the
education processes supported by YIN's JOM programs. YIN will operate
22 reservation, rural, and urban JOM programs in support of 3,010
students during the fiscal year 2000 cycle. Money spent in education
for the tribe now will ultimately save money in social services later.
Over the years many Indian students have benefited academically,
culturally and socially from JOM programs. We request that the funding
and student count caps, which were frozen through the Tribal Priority
Allocation Process (TPA) at $152/student in 1995, be removed. Actual
costs incurred are $200/student to adequately serve our 22 JOM
programs, yet, due to the increased numbers of students enrolling in
these programs since 1995 (an average of 18 percent per year), our
effective spending level has been reduced to $96/student under the
caps. Increased funding must be allocated to reflect true need based on
the number of actual students.
7. Law and Justice/Public Safety Operations: Request $850,300. The
Yakama Nation provides routine and emergency law enforcement services
to a service population of approximately 9,005 Tribal members, and
ancillary services to 35,000 nonmembers. These tribal services include
enforcement of criminal and civil codes, fish & game law enforcement,
natural resource protection, animal control, probation, and
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases in the Tribal Court.
YIN provides these services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on
approximately 1.4 million acres. The Yakama Nation Tribal Courts have
an ongoing need for access to legal periodicals and case histories.
This request covers $425,300 in additional funds to meet our basic
operational needs, $200,000 in additional funds to set up the Court law
library, and $225,000 in additional funds for 4 new line officers.
8. Law and Justice Facility: Request $26,000,000. The Yakama Nation
operates a police department, jail, and Tribal Court system. These key
elements of our Tribal governmental infrastructure have never been
adequately funded, and the current jail facility, constructed 35 years
ago as a temporary structure, is in a near condemnation state. Tribal
sovereignty requires that we be able to function at the level of other
non-tribal government entities and this will not be possible without
this facility. The Tribe has renovated the existing structures out of
its own funds but an adequate building will cost $26,000,000 and is
beyond our capabilities. With the current emphasis on law and order it
is important that Indian Tribes be included in nationwide
infrastructure rebuilding programs.
9. Noxious Weed Control: Request $150,000. The diverse economy
supported by the Yakama Indian Reservation is extremely vulnerable to
the epidemic proliferation of noxious weeds currently occurring in the
western United States. Over 200,000 acres of irrigated farmland and an
adjacent 600,000 acres of grazing land are potentially jeopardized. The
severity of the situation was recognized by President Clinton in his
February, 1999 Executive Order in which he recommended additional
funding to combat the spread of noxious weeds. This request will be
used to enhance the on-going tribal program dealing with this problem
on reservation lands.
10. Spruce Budworm Epidemic Emergency Package. Request $8,225,000.
The YIN administrative forest is currently experiencing a Spruce
budworm infestation of epidemic magnitude and a related buildup of
Douglas fir bark beetles. This forest health problem presently impacts
approximately 300,000 acres, or roughly \1/2\ of the Yakama Reservation
forest, presenting the possibility of a landscape level wildfire at
worst and extreme loss of income from unsalvaged timber at best. The
YIN situation is currently the worst Spruce budworm epidemic in the
western United States. Because this situation threatens not only the
economic well being of the YIN, but the entire forest products industry
of central Washington as well, the YIN Tribal Council declared a state
of emergency in September, 1999. This request is concentrated in three
areas; (1) repair of the primary transportation road required to remove
the salvaged timber, (2) planning, conditioning, and implementing
alternative timber sales, consistent with all ESA, NEPA, and tribal
guidelines, in those areas impacted by the infestation, and (3)
aggressive pre-commercial thinning in conjunction with overstory
removal to disrupt the budworm's life cycle.
If this emergency package is fully funded, it eliminates the need
for the above requests for $150,000 for Spotted Owl inventory under 5.
Fish and Wildlife Resource Management, and the new $650,000 under 3.
Forest Development.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation
On behalf of the Colville Business Council for the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify before the House Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies on fiscal year 2000 Appropriations.
bureau of indian affairs
Inchelium public ferry
The Tribes strongly support the Administration's request of
$456,000 for the ferry boat which transports people across Lake
Roosevelt and request an add-on of $195,000 for this important program.
We further ask the Committee to prohibit the BIA from allocating
funding needed for the ferry boat to other tribes in the Portland area.
This funding is for a unique purpose and any attempt to reallocate this
money according to a tribal shares distribution plan or otherwise would
be detrimental to the people of the Colville Tribes.
The ferry serves an isolated community of the Reservation and
provides the only reasonable means of transportation to and from the
community. In fiscal year 1998, over 200,000 individuals used the
ferry. Lack of funding for the ferry would severely impact the social,
economic and educational well-being of the Inchelium community. Many of
our enterprises, professional staff, teachers, and other community
members utilize this ferry to provide needed services to our people.
School construction.
Paschal Sherman Indian School
Paschal Sherman Indian School, located on the Colville Indian
Reservation near Omak, Washington is over 100 years old and is in
desperate need of replacement. This school is critical to providing
educational opportunities for Indian children throughout the northwest
region. Many of these children have encountered severe economic and
social conditions and Paschal Sherman has provided them with the
opportunity to learn. Over 175 students participate in a well-balanced
curriculum emphasizing the culture and traditions of the Colville
peoples. In 1985, Paschal Indian school ranked 3rd on the BIA school
replacement list. However, because the school board accepted the use of
modular buildings, the school was taken off the BIA priority list. The
life of those modular buildings has now expired and they pose
significant safety hazards to our children.
For over fifteen years, Paschal Sherman has been housed in a
multitude of temporary facilities. Administrative offices, classrooms,
gymnasiums and dormitories are all in poor structural condition. Some
buildings have been condemned. The continued safety and operation of
the school for the well-being of the children is a major concern to the
Colville Business Council. Additional funds are required for the
construction of new facilities and to address the backlog of repair
work for the existing facility.
Paschal Sherman represents just one of the many schools that make
up the $1 billion backlog in education facilities construction. This
massive problem must be addressed by a commitment from both Congress
and the Administration, to address this problem in five years. Thus,
the Colville Tribes strongly support the Budget Committee's
recommendation that BIA school construction be funded at $308 million.
This is the only way that $1 billion the severe backlog in education
facilities needs will be addressed.
President's Bonding Proposal
While the Colville Tribes support the Administration's efforts to
develop innovative solutions to the $1 billion backlog that now exists
in BIA education facilities construction, the President's bonding
proposal is not likely to work to address the overwhelming needs in
Indian country. As we understand the President's proposal, if it were
enacted it would authorize $11 billion in school construction bonding
authority, financed through tax credits to investors. Of this amount,
$200 million in bonding authority would be provided to the BIA for BIA
and tribal schools. And for those schools on the BIA priority list, the
Budget proposes $30 million to pay the principal of an estimated $75
million in bonds.
However, for those schools that are not now on the BIA priority
list, the obligation to repay the bonds would rest with the Tribal
governments. The reality is, that most tribes including the Colville
Tribes do not have the resources to issue and repay public bonds. If we
had the resources to undertake this type of financing we would have
sought out private financing on our own.
In essence, the federal government is asking Indian parents and the
Indian children to pay for the cost of building and repairing these
federal schools. The federal government assumed the responsibility to
educate Indian children. Simply because many tribes have stepped in
under the Self-Determination Act to operate most of these schools--and
in fact have had better results in terms of higher test scores than
when the BIA operated these schools--does not make these schools any
less of a federal responsibility. The BIA/Tribal school system is one
of two school systems that are solely a federal responsibility. The
other is the Department of Defense school system. It is unlikely that
the federal government would ask the Department of Defense families to
pay for the cost of building and repairing their schools. The federal
government should not ask Indian parents to assume this burden.
Thus, while we appreciate the President's effort to resolve this
staggering problem, the Colville Tribes do not support the bonding
proposal. We urge the Committee to again direct the BIA to develop a
proposal that will address the existing backlog in five years.
Law Enforcement. The Colville Tribes have experienced dramatic
increases in crime on the reservation. In fiscal year 1998, the Tribal
Police ``calls for service'' totaled 8090. This is an average of 22
calls per day. Insufficient resources make it difficult to staff
officers in each of the four main districts. Accordingly, response
times may exceed several hours due to the remoteness and poor road
conditions between communities.
Nationally, Indian people face substantially higher rates of
exposure to criminal activity than any other population group. The
steady increase in gang activities on the Colville Reservation is of
particular concern to the Colville Tribes. Tribal Police Services are
severely challenged by the need for additional funding to handle these
increases and for additional safety and equipment purposes. Moreover,
the increase in crime rate impacts associated law and order services
including courts, jail and juvenile detention facilities, prosecutors,
public defenders, probation and parole. In light of this great need,
the Colville Tribes strongly support the requested increases for both
the BIA and DOJ for the second year of the Administration's Law
Enforcement Initiative in Indian Country.
Detention Facility Construction. The Tribal jail was condemned
several years ago. The Tribal jail is now third on the list of
replacement facilities. We are in desperate need for the funding to
complete the design phase of this project. In 1994, we completed 20
percent of the design phase. However, no money has been dedicated to
this purpose since then.
Because our jail was condemned, we are forced to contract with
local jurisdictions for the incarceration of our prisoners. The cost of
contracting for this service is over $40 a day for each prisoner. This
is more than the cost of a night's stay in some local hotels.
Nevertheless, in order to maintain peace and protect the people of the
Reservation from convicted criminals, we must bear this cost. It is
clear that replacing the facility is a far more cost effective way to
incarcerate the convicted criminals. We urge the Committee to include
the funding to complete the design phase of this facility.
Towards this goal, the Tribes support the $34 million requested in
the Department of Justice budget for detention facilities. In addition,
we ask that the Committee direct the Department of Justice to spend
this funding according to the existing BIA law enforcement facility
priority list. It is the duplicative for the DOJ to establish a new
priority list for these facilities, when one already exists.
indian health service
Community Health Representatives. We strongly oppose the
Administration's proposed $5 million cut in the CHR program. The CHR
program provides a vitally important link between the people in our
communities and the medical facilities and providers that serve them.
The CHRs at Colville provide a wide range of key services, including
monitoring patients, administering the WIC program, and providing
patient education. The CHRs are often the first to respond to medical
emergencies. Beyond this, CHRs are trusted community members who are
able to bring many tribal members, particularly the elderly, into
contact with health care providers--in situations where those tribal
members would in many cases otherwise not receive needed medical care.
Those who seek to cut funding for the CHR program must be unaware of
the fundamental role the CHRs play in helping our people access the
medical care they need. We urge the Committee to provide a $10 million
increase nationwide to the CHR program.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse. The Tribes are very concerned
that the Administration has not requested any increases in mental
health funding. The overall health and welfare of our tribal membership
is undermined by extremely high rates of alcohol and substance abuse.
The demands placed upon the Children and Families Services, Youth
Residential Shelters, Mental Health and Alcohol/Substance Abuse
programs have increased as a result of the decline in the overall
health of the Tribal members. Again, the major emphasis must be placed
on the root problem--alcohol and substance abuse in the community. This
is a major contributing factor in the increased need for many kinds of
counseling services. For example, the Tribes have very high statistics
relating to intensive child abuse risk and preventable death rates for
children. Much of this, along with other problems we face, is directly
related to alcohol or drug abuse in the homes. The Tribes strongly
support increased funding for substance abuse programs and mental
health programs.
Contract Health. The Tribes strongly support the Administration's
$24 million increase for contract health care. At Colville alone, we
have an active user population within the Colville Service Unit, which
includes Chelan, Douglas, Ferry, Grant, Lincoln, Okanogan, and Stevens
counties of 6,732.
Contract health care has a long history of being massively under
funded. This year's budget will still only provide for only 60 percent
of the total contract health needs throughout Indian country. Last
year, the IHS recorded over 14,500 payment denials for services that
were not within operating medical priorities. This translates into
serious deficiencies at the Colville Indian Reservation and means that
only ``emergency'' treatment can be received throughout most of the
fiscal year.
The insufficient funding for contract care health funding leads to
a lack of doctors, limited treatments and lack of early intervention
and diagnosis. While in the long run it is much more costly to provide
medical service for ``after the fact'' illnesses than to provide
preventative types of health care services, we are not in a position to
address the long term health needs of our people in this way. Funding
is available only for emergencies. Moreover, the problems associated
with the lack of contract health care funding will only escalate in the
upcoming years as more geriatric services are required for elderly
Tribal members returning home to the Colville Reservation to retire.
Health Facilities. There are three IHS facilities on the Colville
Reservation. The most recent of these was built over twenty years ago
and the oldest was built in 1934. These clinics provide care to over
27,000 patients annually. However, while the personnel at the clinics
do an outstanding job at all of these facilities the Colville Tribes
encourage the Committee to increase facilities maintenance and
construction funding. The clinic in Omak is housed in a 1,698 square
foot double-wide mobile home, which was converted into the clinic in
1974. This clinic sees over 2000 patients a year. It is critical that
this facility be replaced with another facility in order to provide the
best level of care possible to the Tribal members of the Colville
Reservation.
Contract Support. Contract support dollars provide the Tribes with
the administrative support for all of the contract functions assumed
from the IHS. These dollars enable the Tribes to provide the mandatory
financial, purchasing, personnel and other administrative support
systems required by law. Over the past several years, the Tribes have
received substantially less than the rates negotiated with the Office
of the Inspector General. The reason for this shortfall is the
substantial under funding of this function in the IHS budgets. For this
reason, the Colville Tribes support the $35 proposed increases in
funding for contract support within IHS.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald Moore, Sr., Chairman, Bad River Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Donald Moore, Sr.,
Chairman of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, of
Wisconsin. I appreciate this opportunity to provide the Committee with
the Band's testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations.
indian health service
Community Health Representatives. We strongly oppose the
Administration's proposed $5 million cut in the CHR program. The CHR
program provides a vitally important link between the people in our
communities and the medical facilities and providers that serve them.
The CHRs at Bad River provide a wide range of key services, including
monitoring patients, administering the WIC program, and providing
patient education. The CHRs are often the first to respond to medical
emergencies. Beyond this, CHRs are trusted community members who are
able to bring many tribal members, particularly the elderly, into
contact with health care providers--in situations where those tribal
members would in many cases otherwise not receive needed medical care.
Those who seek to cut funding for the CHR program must be unaware of
the fundamental role the CHRs play in helping our people access the
medical care they need. We urge the Committee to provide a $10 million
increase nationwide to the CHR program.
Contract health services. The need for health care services has
risen dramatically at Bad River--with our user population increasing
from about 1100 in 1991 to about 3,739 today. But funding has failed to
keep pace. With contract care funding of $740,000, this means we have a
per patient allocation of $198 for contract care services--a good
indication of just how meager these funds are. As a result of funding
limitations, contract care must be limited to emergency care only. This
creates great hardship among our people--who must suffer with illness
and pain until it becomes life-threatening. This is no way to treat our
people. The Budget calls for a $24 million increase in contract health
care. We support the increase, and urge the Committee to do all it can
to fully fund contract health care.
Diabetes. At Bad River, diabetes continues to be a major problem.
We appreciate that Congress has targeted resources to this diabetes
programs in Indian country. Starting last year, we received a small
grant to address diabetes issues at Bad River. With this grant, we have
been focusing on our children and youth--providing a wide range of
education, nutrition and fitness programs to help our next generation
understand what can be done to deter or prevent the problems of
diabetes. To be successful, these programs must be continued over time.
We urge the Committee to continue to do all it can to continue to fund
tribal programs to combat diabetes.
D. Dental services. Our dental program is able to pay only for
emergency dental work for adults. With a current budget of $104,400 our
dental program has a long list of persons waiting for dental services,
for which no funds are available. Often, the inability to obtain needed
dental work for elders makes it difficult for them to eat--which in
turn leads to further medical problems. We need an additional $200,000
to provide services to those now waiting for needed dental care.
Funding for Tribally-Constructed Health Clinic. In 1995, the Band
took the initiative, using Tribal and grant funds, to build a new
$500,000 health clinic on our Reservation. This replaced a tiny clinic
that was located in a community building. While the new facility has
enabled us to provide additional needed services, including pharmacy,
the IHS has not provided us with the staffing and equipment costs
needed to utilize our facility in full. We urge Congress to provide
funds, as authorized under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, for
IHS to provide needed staff and equipment in tribally constructed
health care facilities, including for Bad River.
law enforcement
Crime in Indian country--including at Bad River--is a serious and
growing problem. The Administration's Law Enforcement Initiative calls
for a $20 million increase over last year for BIA/tribal law
enforcement across Indian country. It also includes $124 million to
enhance Department of Justice law enforcement efforts, including
additional funds to support tribal courts, and to provide grants to
tribes for additional police personnel (COPS grants). All of this is
very much needed, and we urge the Committee to give priority to funding
for law enforcement in Indian country.
At the same time, we are concerned that the Administration's
initiative may not address our situation at all, since we have not been
included in prior funding of law enforcement officials. In fact, the
Bad River Band has no Tribal police force at all on our Reservation.
The Tribe currently has only one available source of law enforcement
personnel. Under an agreement with Ashland County, the Tribe
contributes $57,000 per year for law enforcement services. In return,
the County assigns a single county sheriff, who is supposed to provide
law enforcement, but only on a part time basis. That sheriff does not
even live on the Reservation, and he is only present on the Reservation
during certain limited hours. On most days, after 3 P.M., during the
very hours when most crimes are committed, there is no police personnel
at all on the Reservation.
During 1997 (the most recent year for which statistics are
available), the sheriff responded to 439 calls on the Reservation. We
need Tribal police on the Reservation--both to provide a visible
presence as a deterrent and to respond to crimes that do occur. But
general increases in law enforcement funding do not help us if none of
the money is directed to our needs. To establish a minimum primary law
enforcement presence the Tribe requests an earmark of $125,000 to hire,
train and equip two tribal police officers.
education
Mashkisibi School. At Bad River, we have taken the initiative to
address the needs of those children who have had difficulties in the
public school setting--by establishing the Mashkisibi School, an
alternative school for grades 9-12. The School, established in 1995,
serves 20 to 30 students each year. These are students who would drop
out if public school was their only option. The Mashkisibi School seeks
to engage these students by integrating Ojibwa language and culture
into all aspects of the curriculum, and by focusing on the practical
impact of all areas of learning. The School has demonstrated
considerable success, keeping these children in school, and helping
them thrive. In its short time in existence, the School has had 22
graduates, of whom 5 are now in college, 2 in the armed services and 9
are otherwise employed. These are individuals who, without the
availability of the Mashkisibi School, almost certainly would never
have completed high school.
While we have been able to begin the School on a shoestring, to be
able to survive, we will need federal support. To operate the school--
providing salary to our fine staff--we need $135,000 for fiscal year
2000. And, to have a proper facility for our School, we need $350,000.
We recognize that there is currently a moratorium on new BIA funded
schools. But, in this case, where the Band has stepped in to educate a
segment of the student population that was not otherwise receiving the
services needed to keep them in school, an exception should be made. We
urge your support for the Mashkisibi School.
Other Tribal Education programs. The Band runs a Higher Education
Grant Program--to provide scholarships to needy tribal members to
attend college. While this is vital to the future of the Tribe, with
current funding, we have been able to meet the need of only 72 percent
of our students. The President's budget calls for a reduction of over
$919,000 in the Higher Education Grant Program, compared with last
year's level. This reduction, which we oppose, would further limit the
number of tribal members who will be able to advance their education
and return to the Reservation with skills to enhance the quality of
life in our communities.
The Band also runs an Adult Vocational Training Program, which
provides grant funds for vocational training, and a Direct Employment
Assistance Program, which provides assistance to tribal members to meet
basic needs as they begin employment. Increases of at least 25 percent
are needed in both of these worthy programs. The Johnson-O'Malley
program is a key to the success of many of our students in the public
school system. This program provides needed counseling and support
services--and study skills training--to about 490 students. This year,
the President is proposing to cut JOM again--this time by $611,000. We
urge Congress to reject such a cut, and restore full funding for the
JOM program.
natural resources management
Our natural resources are key to our cultural and economic survival
as a people. Wild rice, deer and walleye are central to our lives, and
subsistence use of these resources is widespread and increasing. Proper
management and enforcement efforts are more critical than ever to
preserve the integrity of our Treaty rights and resources for members
of the Band. We face population growth on the Reservation and in
surrounding communities, increased environmental threats and ever-
increasing equipment, supply and personnel costs. Despite these
pressures, we have had no increase in our Tribal Management and
Development Program (formerly called Fish and Game) for several years.
To keep pace, and to provide the kind of enforcement and management
that are necessary to protect our resources for future generations, we
request an additional $300,000 for fiscal year 2000. We also support
full funding for the Circle of Flight program and BIA Fish Hatchery
Maintenance.
land consolidation
We are very pleased that Bad River was selected to participate in
the Land Consolidation Pilot Project established under last year's
Omnibus Appropriations Act. At the same time, we recommend that the
bill language on the pilot project be amended to provide that the
participating tribes have the right to determine how best to use the
funds to address the problems of fractionation.
At Bad River, the United States allotted about 97 percent of our
Reservation lands. The legacy of allotment is a Reservation that is
badly checkerboarded, in a manner that creates a jurisdictional
nightmare. To give you a sense of the problem, there are more than
30,000 interests in trust lands on our Reservation of less than 2
percent. Effective management and use of lands that are so badly
fractionated is essentially impossible. Fractionated land ownership
significantly impedes economic development of our Reservation land
base.
We supported enactment of a pilot program to assist tribes in
purchasing fractionated interests in trust lands. And, we were
delighted to have been selected to participate. But, we have been
disappointed in the way the BIA has determined it will proceed. The BIA
has set up the pilot project in a manner that unduly limits the role of
the tribes. We had expected the pilot project to provide needed funds
directly to the participating tribes, to allow the tribes to determine
and implement their own policies and priorities for addressing
fractionation. For example, we expected we would be able to identify
critical parcels that the Band would purchase from willing individual
Indian sellers. But, rather than allowing the tribes to devise their
own approaches, the BIA is controlling the process.
According to the BIA, all that Bad River will receive under the
pilot program is $8,000. That money is to be used by the Band to assist
the BIA in notifying potential sellers of the program, and other
administrative tasks. The BIA itself is retaining $250,000 for
administrative costs. And, the BIA has mandated that only parcels of
less than 2 percent interests may be purchased. The Band has no role at
all in selecting which particular parcels or interests should be
purchased to advance tribal conservation or economic development goals.
If a critical parcel from the Band's perspective is a 3 percent
interest, no purchase of that interest is possible, according to the
BIA.
We believe that the Land Consolidation Pilot Project can provide a
real opportunity to begin to address the fractionation problem. But for
the project to succeed, tribes must not be excluded from determining
how best to address the problem locally. To assure a proper role for
the tribes, we urge the Committee to amend the bill language to provide
that tribes may contract for the pilot project under Public Law 93-638.
Consistent with the policy of Self-Determination, we feel strongly that
the tribes, not the BIA, are best situated to make decisions on how to
use Pilot Project funds to purchase fractionated interests and to help
restore the Reservation land base.
______
Prepared Statement of Tom Maulson, Chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Tom Maulson,
and I am the Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am here to testify on behalf
of the Tribal membership, to discuss their issues, concerns and needs.
As a Chairman of a Sovereign Nation, it is my responsibility to
emphasize that the United States is obligated by Treaties and Executive
Orders to provide critically needed social, education, health and
governmental services to all federally recognized Indian Nations in
exchange for all the land and peace our forefathers provided. It is
this special relationship between the Indian Nations and the United
States that provides the proper understanding of my appearance here
today, and our work with this Committee, the Congress and the
Administration on fiscal year 2000 appropriations. With this in mind,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to some specific health care,
education, law enforcement and natural resource issues arising out of
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
health care
Community Health Representatives. The CHR program provides a
critical link between our people and their health care providers. Our
CHR staff is trained and knowledgeable with regard to key medical needs
of our people. They perform important functions including outreach
patient education, administration of medication, and changing
dressings. Our CHRs also provide services to new mothers dealing with
post partum issues, child immunizations and other matters. In this, we
have seen great success--as our child immunization rate at Lac du
Flambeau is now 91-94 percent.
In addition, our CHRs have earned the respect and trust of the
members of our community. While many of our people, especially the
elderly, are often reluctant to address medical problems, our CHRs are
very effective in seeing that our people access proper health care.
Without CHRs many of our people simply would not seek or obtain needed
medical care. We strongly urge the Committee to reject the
Administration's proposed $5 million reduction, and to restore full
funding to the CHR program.
Physician pay. Another key health issue is physician pay. At Lac du
Flambeau, we have seen the difference retaining quality doctors can
make. In the last year, for example, we have succeeded in hiring a
woman physician, with family practice and OB experience. This
physician, who is from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, is also a
graduate from the INMED program at the University of North Dakota. This
physician's manner and expertise have restored the faith of many of our
people in the medical care we provide at our clinic.
While the system has worked in providing us with this fine
physician, we are concerned that we may be unable to retain her over
time, unless we can provide her with adequate pay. Among other things,
our physician, like most young doctors, has substantial loans from
medical school which she must repay. Unless we can help her and others
address their loan repayment costs, we run the risk of losing the best
available doctors to the private sector. For this reason, we are
extremely concerned that the President's budget calls for $5.9 million
less than would be required merely to pay mandatory increases under the
Pay Act. We urge the Committee to redress this and provide full funding
for physician pay. This will protect the government's investment in
Indian doctors, and will help tribes like Lac du Flambeau recruit and
retain the quality doctors our people need and deserve.
indian education
I am encouraged by the fact that education is a primary focus of
the President's budget. Educating the Band's future leaders, educators,
health care providers, natural resource specialists, and administrators
is one of the top priorities of ours as well. At the Lac du Flambeau
Public School, our student population is 95 percent Native American,
yet less than 2 percent of the teaching staff is Native American. The
effort to recruit Indian teachers, the Band feels, is a priority. The
President requests $10 million, to recruit and train 1,000 new Indian
teachers, to serve in public school districts with high concentrations
of Indian children. We recommend that the recruitment and training
program be flexible enough to allow applicants to be trained by the
local educational agencies and serve as interns in the schools they
will be teaching. In addition, we urge the President and Congress to
make this an ongoing educational initiative--one year is simply not
enough to make up the deficits we face.
The Band believes that the more time our children are in school the
better chance they will be successful. The budget proposes $600 million
to enhance after school and summer school programs across the country.
The Band requests that $100 million of this amount be set aside for
Indian Country.
tribal law enforcement
In 1998, the Tribal Police Department logged 25,000 man hours
answering 4,515 complaints. Our 11 member Police Department consists of
10 full time officers and 1 administrator responding to calls ranging
from domestic violence to juvenile cases including runaways, burglary,
fraud, battery and vandalism. The officers have issued 650 citations
for underage drinking, truancy, curfew and traffic violations, to name
a few. The work load for the Tribal Police Department has also
increased dramatically, since a Tribal/State/County Agreement has been
enacted making it imperative to enforce all laws, codes and ordinances
24 hour per day. The Tribal Police not only respond to tribal
complaints but also provide services to the non-Indian community. Our
Police Department also aids surrounding community police departments
(Oneida and Iron County Sheriffs and Woodruff, Minocqua and Eagle River
Police Departments).
Currently, our budget for Law Enforcement is $220,300, but the
Band's need is $550,000. To address this shortfall, the Band requests
an increase of $329,700. We urge you to support the President's
proposed budget which seeks a $20 million increase for BIA/Tribal law
enforcement programs and $124 million within the Department of Justice
budget for targeted law enforcement programs such construction of jails
and retention centers and the COPS Grants Program.
natural resources
In past testimony, I have emphasized that the natural resources of
the Lac du Flambeau Band are our most valuable and significant asset--
apart from our children and elders. Our natural resources provide the
people with cultural, spiritual, subsistence, social and economic
opportunities. Our Reservation is located in the heart of Wisconsin's
tourism and sportfishing region. Tourism and related industries provide
a livelihood for Indians and non-Indians alike. The land, the water,
the air and all the animals and plants that live along with us on this
land, help make us what we are as a people. We need adequate funding to
fulfill our responsibilities to keep these resources clean and
available for the generations to come.
Wildlife and Parks. The Band has a very comprehensive Natural
Resources Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in
natural resource and land management. Our activities include raising
fish for stocking, conservation law enforcement, collecting data on
water and air quality, developing well head protection plans,
conducting wildlife surveys, administering timber stand improvement
projects and more on the 92,000 acre reservation. We urge this
Committee to increase the Wildlife and Parks budget by $10 million
nationwide and set aside $200,000 for Lac du Flambeau ($100,000 for
Tribal Fish Hatchery Operations and $100,000 for Tribal Management and
Development). The Wildlife and Parks budget has not increased since
1990 and an increase will help maintain our current staff and critical
natural resource programs.
Circle of Flight. The Circle of Flight Program (also known as the
Wetlands and Waterfowl Management Program) is dedicated to preserving
and rehabilitating our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl populations.
Wetlands are important in providing flood control, clean water and
recreation. Waterfowl are an important source of food for tribal
members and also support hunting opportunities for many up and down the
Mississippi Flyway. Twenty reservations, the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, 1854 Authority and Fond du Lac Ceded
Territory, with reservation and ceded territory land base of more than
61 million acres, have identified $975,000 in funding needs for fiscal
year 2000. We urge the Committee to continue to support this initiative
and increase the President's budget by $398,000 for this very worthy
program.
Forestry. Within our reservation we have 45,000 acres of forested
land that supports hunting and gathering opportunities for tribal
members, as well as logging. Proper management of the forest is
essential to sustain our subsistence lifestyle and to provide economic
growth for the Band. The Forestry Program, consisting of 2 foresters
and 2 technicians, conducts broad management activities including tree
planting, prescribed burning, timber road design and maintenance,
timber sale administration and integration with wildlife management. We
strongly request that an additional $70,000 be earmarked for the Lac du
Flambeau Forestry Program tosupport a program that has not received any
new funding since fiscal year 1991.
Tribal Historic Preservation. In 1996 the Band assumed Tribal
Historic Preservation Office status (THPO) through the National
Historic Preservation Act. We are one of 17 Tribes in the Nation to
assume the duties of the State Historic Preservation Office for all
lands within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. The
President's budget includes a $2,595,000 for THPO'S. We urge the
Committee to increase the budget to $10 million to address the needs of
the tribes already in the program, and for additional tribes that are
assuming Historic Preservation Office status. Also, the Committee
should be made aware that there is a disparity in funding between State
Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices (THPO). For example the smallest SHPO receives $250,000 while
the tribe with the largest land base, the Navajo Nation (with a land
base larger than West Virginia's), only receives $89,000. The Band
supports the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers' request of $275,000 base funding for each THPO. Since the
tribes by law have the same responsibilities as states in this regard,
funding for tribes should be sufficient to enable tribes to meet those
responsibilities.
Land Consolidation. The Band supports the President's request for
$10 million for the Land Consolidation Project but would respectfully
request that the tribes be authorized to administer the project through
a Public Law 93-638 contract. The tribes, not the BIA, should determine
how best to address the problems of fractionation of trust lands. The
Band currently is participating in the Pilot Project. To fully
implement this project, an increase of $60,000 to support the Land
Management Department is requested.
great lakes indian fish and wildlife commission
The Band supports the President's request of $3.56 million for the
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, as well as the
Commission's additional request of $206,000 for radio replacement and
to implement the U. S. Forest Service Memorandum of Understanding. The
requested funds are essential for implementing the Band's off
reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights in the ceded
territories.
contract support costs
Contract support is the final issue I would like to discuss. The
President's TPA budget includes $121,338,000 for Contact Support which
is an increase of $6,109,000 over last year's level. But even the BIA
admits that this will only meet up to 84 percent of the total contract
support needs in Indian Country. For the Self-Determination policy to
work as Congress has envisioned and mandated, full contract support
costs must be provided to tribes in connection with programs they
administer. The Band urges Congress to fully fund contract support.
Thank you. Miigwetch.
______
Prepared Statement of Spike Bighorn, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
tribal priority allocations
The Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give tribes
an additional measure of flexibility in determining how to use
available funds to best meet local needs. The Administration has
requested an increase of $36.3 million for programs under TPA. While we
support this request it would still fall far short of allowing the Fort
Peck Tribes to meet the needs of our people in key areas including,
education, agriculture and tribal courts. We urge the Committee to do
all it can to increase TPA above the level requested by the President.
Education ($983,000)
We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian
people. The President's budget requests $28.6 million for scholarships
for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools, a
decrease of $919,000 from last year. Obtaining a degree in higher
education--particularly for those individuals from families that have
not previously sent anyone to college--takes courage and often
considerable personal sacrifice. We believe it is our responsibility to
support the efforts of our people to attend college. The Tribes provide
scholarship funds available through the BIA program. However, the
current levels of funding are already far too inadequate. For example,
this year the Tribes have identified 230 students who are eligible for
scholarship benefits for higher education but who cannot be served
because of lack of funding. The BIA itself reports that the level of
unmet requests for scholarships nationwide has increased steadily over
the last three years and currently stands at an estimated $26.6
million. The decrease in funding will eliminate the opportunity of
higher education for many tribal members. This is tragic, as it
diminishes the number of educated Tribal members who would return to
our communities to work with our youth, our elders and otherwise
enhance the well-being of the Tribes. Furthermore, education is key in
moving people off of welfare and into the workforce.
We are also disappointed that the BIA budget request of $18.08
million for the Johnson O'Malley program is $600,000 less than the
fiscal year 1999 amount as it reduces even more the already meager
resources provided to support culturally relevant education for Indian
students attending public schools. We estimate that the Johnson
O'Malley Program is currently underfunded by an $974,000 at Fort Peck.
The Tribes request $983,000 to meet the funding needs of the
Tribes' Education Department. This request is consistent with past
funding levels, but we emphasize that, with a total estimated need of
$2,467,900, this amount is adequate to meet only about 25 percent of
total education needs for tribal members on the Reservation. For
example, the Tribes have identified 100 students eligible for the
Tribes' adult vocational scholarships and 75 individuals eligible for
the Tribes' employment assistance program who are not served due to a
lack of funding.
Water resources ($20,000)
The Fort Peck Water Resources Department is charged with managing,
conserving, developing, and protecting the water rights of the Fort
Peck Tribes. To accomplish this mandate, the Tribes are conducting a
feasibility study for the North Sprole Irrigation Project. This project
will allow the Tribes to make beneficial use of their water rights and
their land by building the necessary infrastructure to pump water from
the Missouri River and irrigate 15,000 acres of farmland. Because this
project would assist the Tribes in utilizing their natural resources
and would provide employment to tribal members during all phases of its
development, it is an important component of our overall plan for
economic development. The Tribes request an additional $20,000 to fund
the core functions of our Water Resources Department.
Agriculture ($1.291 million)
The President's budget requests $19.347 million for BIA agriculture
programs, an increase of $619,000 over last year. The Tribes support
additional resources for agricultural needs, of which Fort Peck has
many. The Fort Peck Tribes' Natural Resources Program recently took
over management of the Fort Peck Agency's agriculture program under a
self-determination contract. The Natural Resources program is
responsible for natural resource management planning on approximately
4,500 leases and for the administration of 92 range units, encompassing
362,132 acres. Currently, the Tribes receive only $184,314 to
administer the program which pays only existing staff and vehicle
support and maintenance--but provides no funds for essential range
improvements or other key needs. Long-term underfunding of the
agriculture program has created substantial need at Fort Peck for
improvements.
The Natural Resources Program requires $1,140,000 for range
improvements. Currently, the 92 range units are underutilized due to
the lack of water developments and cross fencing. These funds are
needed to build 200 miles of cross fences, drill 80 water wells, repair
20 stock dams, and to develop 40 springs. Also, during the summer of
1998, the area on the Reservation north of Brockton, Montana was hit
with a flash flood, which breached the Colgan dam located on the Poplar
River. Natural Resource Conservation Service engineers have conducted a
site visit and put the preliminary cost estimate to repair the dam at
$35,000. Finally, the Tribes sorely need a new range inventory.
Currently we must rely on stocking rate data that is outdated and
obsolete as it was generated in the last range inventory conducted in
the 1970's. We estimate that it will cost approximately $116,000 per
year for three years for the new range inventory. This amount includes
funding for four additional FTE.
Tribal courts
The Fort Peck Tribes support the BIA's request for approximately
$11.4 million for tribal courts and the DOJ's $5 million requested
increase for the Indian Tribal Court Program within DOJ. Historically,
tribal courts have been under funded and overworked. Despite the
commitments of the BIA and DOJ to fund tribal courts, these amounts
will only begin to address the historical deficiencies in funding.
Critics of the tribal court system fail to understand that without
adequate funding, tribal courts can not operate at their full
potential. The Fort Peck Tribes urge this Committee to support even
higher funding for tribal courts, to make up for the many years when
the needs of these important tribal institutions were not met.
law enforcement and detention facility operations and management
The President's budget requests a $20 million increase over last
year for BIA/tribal law enforcement for the second year of the
President's Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. The President's
budget also requests $124 million increase for the DOJ targeted law
enforcement program. The Tribes strongly support the President's effort
to enhance law enforcement in Indian country.
Tribes' police department ($1.4 million)
At Fort Peck alone, we have an estimated $1,400,908 million need in
our Police Department though funding levels fall far below that amount.
Our Reservation covers 6,000 square miles. We have a population of
13,000 living on the Reservation. We currently have 15 officers on the
force. We require about 44 officers to meet the President's goal of 2.9
officers per 1000 persons and to provide adequate staffing in each of
the Reservation law enforcement districts. Although our officers are
well trained and dedicated, there are simply not enough of them to meet
the day-to-day law enforcement needs of our community. Eleven
dispatchers serve the Police Department, but we require at least 6
additional persons to adequately serve the Reservation. We also require
funding for a statistician. Documenting the number of accidents,
highway deaths, arrests, and other statistics is essential to improving
the quality and responsiveness of the Police Department. This job is
currently performed by the police captain, a person who already has
enormous responsibilities. Also, the Tribes have been recently required
to meet additional requirements for conducting background checks of and
providing training to law enforcement personnel. As a result, the
Police Department requires an additional staff person to administer
these new requirements.
In addition, our Police Department is in desperate need of
equipment. It currently has only 8 police cars. We would like to have
at least 11 more cars--one per officer. Because our officers must cover
a large geographic area, the police cars endure an enormous amount of
wear and tear. This fact, coupled with the small number of cars,
results in a dangerous situation where we lack adequate and reliable
transportation for our officers. Our Department also needs additional
equipment such as car radios, bulletproof vests, roll bars and
protective shields.
Last year Congress appropriated $20 million in new funds for the
law enforcement budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. While
approximately 56 percent of the law enforcement programs are operated
by tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts and self-governance
compacts, the Bureau allocated approximately 61 percent of these funds
(excluding the $1.84 million allocated for training of officers of BIA
and tribal programs) to BIA central office and BIA-run programs and
only about 38 percent to the tribal programs. Fort Peck received none
of these additional funds for law enforcement or corrections. The
Tribes request the Committee to direct BIA to distribute all increases
fairly among BIA and tribally-operated programs.
Detention facility operations and management ($1.431 million)
The BIA has indicated that it will allocate $4 million of the $20
million additional law enforcement funds for corrections officers. We
urge the Committee to direct the BIA to allocate a portion of those
funds to meet the Tribes' need of $1,431,757 for staffing and equipment
at the Tribes' two detention facilities.
Last year through the DOJ, the Tribes received a grant to do the
necessary upgrades and repairs to the Tribes' youth detention facility.
While the facility will now be brought into compliance with applicable
codes, there is still a significant need in staffing and operation and
maintenance for this facility. We also need additional staffing at the
adult facility. Adequate staffing is critical to the success of the
Tribes' correction system. Being understaffed grossly limits the
ability to ensure compliance with mandated detention standards, the
security of the facility, and the safety of the inmates, staff, and
visitors. It also results in increased employee workloads which in turn
causes high turnover, low staff morale, and poor facility maintenance.
Without adequate staffing we are unable to provide inmate programs
which contributes to an abnormally high recidivism rate. Moreover,
understaffing can increase the risk of litigation arising out of living
conditions in the facility.
indian health service
The President's budget requests a total of $2.8 billion for overall
IHS services and construction. This is a $170 million increase over the
fiscal year 1999 level, which makes a significant improvement over the
President's request last year. The health indicators in Indian
communities consistently demonstrate higher infant mortality, teenage
suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease rates among
Indian people when compared with other minorities and the general
American population. Unfortunately, current levels of IHS funding to
Indian communities fail to meet health cost inflation rates from year
to year. Yet, money directed to health care, especially preventative
care, such as routine checkups and health education, clearly improves
the quality of life and helps avoid more expensive health care costs in
the future. The increase in the President's budget is a modest step
toward improving long-term health care in Indian country but falls far
short of adequately addressing the substantial unmet health needs of
Indians.
tribal colleges
We support the Administration's request of $31.311 million for
tribal colleges which is a $7 million increase over last year. This
request is consistent with the President's Executive Order on Tribal
Colleges, which supported enhancing federal support to tribal colleges
and universities nationwide. The twenty-six tribal colleges are
important institutions to remote tribal communities. On our
Reservation, we operate the Fort Peck Tribal College, a fully
accredited institution, offering Associate Degrees in arts, science and
applied sciences. We also offer a vocational certificate for our
students. We have a current enrollment of 356 students. In 1998,
thirty-one of our students graduated.
______
Prepared Statement of Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the Fond du Lac Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa would like to thank you for this opportunity to
present our testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the
Department of Interior and Related Agencies.
The Fond du Lac Band occupies a Reservation in north-eastern
Minnesota. The Fond du Lac Reservation was established by Treaty with
the United States on September 30, 1854 and encompasses approximately
110,000 acres of land that the Band occupied from time immemorial.
There are currently about 3,350 members of the Fond du Lac Band, of
this \2/3\ live on the Reservation.
fond du lac ojibway school--$14.316 million for new school construction
The Band strongly supports the Administration's request of $14.316
million for construction of the Fond du Lac Ojibway School. Funding for
construction of this facility is desperately needed. We are ready to
begin construction as soon as the funds are appropriated.
The existing Ojibway School is a grant school under the Tribally
Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-297, Title V, Part B;
the ``Tribally Controlled Schools Act''). The School serves
approximately 382 children in grades K-12. The existing buildings are
very old and decrepit. We have had to use four temporary portable
buildings to house the Middle School (Grades 6-8) and a library. These
buildings are in violation both of applicable building codes and BIA
space guidelines. The 1992 BIA Construction Validation Report stated
that, ``The building poses a clear and immediate danger to its
occupants. To not replace the facility could be construed as negligence
in the event a fire occurred. Any attempt to continue to use this
facility on other than a short-term interim basis, is imprudent.''
We have equally serious problems with the buildings for the primary
school. As a result of continual spring flooding of the main building's
basement, a septic tank system's back-up that flooded the pre-
kindergarten classroom's restroom, and leaking roofs, the primary
school buildings are contaminated with high levels of fungal growth.
This growth has caused significant health problems for our students and
our teachers. The overall condition of the school is so poor that the
school was placed on an Accredited Warned Status by the North Central
Association of Schools in April, 1995.
Notwithstanding these facility handicaps, the school has been able
to provide high quality education to the students it is able to admit.
The Fond du Lac Community, School Board, Reservation Business
Committee, Education Administration and Staff have continually sought
to improve Indian Education since the inception of the Ojibway School.
The involvement of the community has been instrumental to the existence
of the school. With the help of tribal, state and federal programs, the
Ojibway School has evolved into a leader in tribal education.
Nevertheless, children cannot strive to be the best if they are in
an environment that threatens their health. Fond du Lac children have
the right to go to school in a place where they can learn and grow to
become whatever their hearts desire them to be. However, right now they
are going to a school where their health is threatened and their safety
is at risk.
The Administration has requested the dollars to complete the
construction of this school by June 2000. There is no reason why Fond
du Lac school children should continue to be at risk. We urge this
Committee to support the Administration's request and include the $14.3
million necessary to complete the construction of the Fond du Lac
Ojibway School in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations bill.
Additional Education Program Needs.--The Band strongly supports the
Administration's request for Indian Education programs including:
$319.890 million on for the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP);
$38.8 million for Student Transportation; and the $79 million for
Facilities Operation and Maintenance. This funding is necessary to
ensure that the 185 BIA and tribal schools throughout the country will
be able to meet the performance goals set out by the President's Call
for Action for American Education in the 21st Century. The fate of
Indian people in the 21st Century rests with the education and success
our children. Thus, it is critical that this Congress support the
requested funding for school operations.
law enforcement--$350,000 for law enforcement officers and $100,000 for
equipment
In 1997 the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in which it
held that certain traffic regulations including speeding, driving
without a license, and driving without insurance are ``civil-
regulatory'' in nature and under Public Law 280 unenforceable by state
police officers on the Reservation. The ruling, known as the Stone
decision, left a jurisdictional void with regard to law enforcement on
roads within Indian Reservations within the State. The Fond du Lac Band
has undertaken to fill this void by establishing our own Tribal police
force. In addition, last year the Fond du Lac Band worked with the
local law enforcement agencies and entered into a cross-deputization
agreement to ensure the maximum amount of law enforcement services for
the Fond du Lac Reservation and its citizens. However, because we have
limited financial resources, we have significant unmet needs in this
area. At Fond du Lac, we need $350,000 for police officers and staff
and $100,000 for equipment to adequately ensure the safety of the
Reservation population.
We strongly support the Administration's $144 million request of
additional funding for the Indian County law enforcement Initiative.
However, we are concerned that the BIA does not intend to provide
tribes located in Public Law 280 States with any of the additional $20
million earmarked within the BIA law enforcement program. In light of
the Stone decision, we ask this Committee to direct the BIA to change
its policy as to tribal police departments located in Public Law 280
states.
In addition to the requested funding for more police officers in
Indian country, we support the Administration's request to support the
other components of our justice system, in particular the tribal
courts. We support the $13.6 million request in the BIA's budget for
tribal courts and the $5 million in the Department of Justice's budget
to continue funding for the DOJ's Tribal Courts Initiative.
natural resource protection programs
Off-reservation resource protection needs--$200,000
Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854, the
Fond du Lac Band reserved rights to hunt, fish and gather rights on the
lands that the Band ceded to the United States. The Band's rights under
these treaties have been recognized and upheld by the federal courts--
most recently the United States Supreme Court. On March 24, 1999, the
Supreme Court issued a decision expressly reaffirming the Chippewas'
hunting and fishing rights in the 1837 Ceded Territory.
Under well-established law, in exercising these off-reservation
treaty rights, the Band must also take steps to ensure proper use and
management of the natural resources. As to the 1837 Ceded Territory,
this means the Fond du Lac Band is responsible for Fond du Lac Band
members' hunting, fishing and gathering activities over approximately
3,000,000 acres of land. The Band has adopted a code and resource
management plans to protect the exercise of treaty reserved rights and
the resources, and these plans have been approved by the federal court.
The Band, however, needs to ensure that it can sufficiently staff this
work--which requires the assistance of game wardens, fish and wildlife
biologists, technicians, and related equipment. To do this, we are
seeking an additional $200,000 to be added to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs base budget and earmarked for Fond du Lac and the 1837 Ceded
Territory.
On-reservation needs--$135,000
It is essential that the Band properly manage its resources in
order to meet the demand of an increasing population. Established by
the Treaty of 1854 with the United States, the home of the Band is
110,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota. The waters, wildlife, wild
rice, and forest resources of our Reservation are vitally important to
the members of the Band, as these resources provide the foundation of
our culture, subsistence, employment, and recreation. The Fond du Lac
Reservation includes some 3,200 acres of lakes, 1,900 acres of wild
rice lakes and associated wetlands, 66 miles of cool water streams, and
17,500 acres of forest. The increasing resident population is placing
all resources under great stress.
The loss of wild rice lakes and wildlife habitat, and the decline
of forest biodiversity are of great concern to the Band. Therefore, we
are seeking an additional $135,000 for our natural resources and
forestry program to enable us to address the challenges we face in this
critical area. The main area of concern is the Aquatic Resource
Protection and Restoration. It is imperative that we continue to
protect these resources for the future generations on Fond du Lac by
the implementation of anti-degradation monitoring program with emphasis
on mitigation of contaminants.
conclusion
The needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country remain
massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA funding request is
critical to maintain current program levels. Your consideration for our
additional funding requests will enable us to improve the delivery of
services to Band members and help ensure that all citizens within the
8.5 million acres in central and northeastern Minnesota enjoy adequate
protection of all resources. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Larry Ivanoff, Chairman, Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, based in Anchorage, is
the newest tribal health organization in Alaska, and the largest tribal
health organization in the United States of America.
We are a statewide non-profit consortium of Alaska Native tribes
and tribal health organizations, operating as a co-signer to the Alaska
Tribal Health Compact, and responsible for management of the statewide
health service programs formerly provided by the Alaska Area Native
Health Service. Our responsibilities include management of area-wide
tribal support services, area-wide environmental health and engineering
functions, and the Alaska Native Medical Center. Our fiscal year 1999
anticipated revenue from the Indian Health Service is approximately
$100 million, and from all sources is approximately $150 million. Our
service area includes approximately 105,000 Alaska Natives and American
Indians.
From our perspective, it is essential that the United States
Congress apply a small portion of the government's budget surplus to
address the long-standing deficiencies in the operating and capital
budget of the Indian Health Service, beginning in fiscal year 2000. We
join our sister organization, the Alaska Native Health Board, in
requesting that the I.H.S. recurring budget be increased by 20 percent
in the coming fiscal year.
We note that the Department of Health and Human Service's fiscal
year 2000 request to the Office of Management and Budget would have
provided a 17 percent increase for the agency. While the
Administration's formal request to Congress reflects only a 7.6 percent
increase for fiscal year 2000, we acknowledge that this is the most
significant increase proposed in many years. These requests are well-
justified and warrant serious Congressional consideration.
Nationally, it is well-recognized and documented that the Indian
Health Service budget only addresses between 50-60 percent of the
health service needs of the I.H.S. beneficiaries, and that Alaska
Natives and American Indians who live outside of I.H.S. service areas
are served at a significantly lower level. The overall Indian Health
Service budget levels must address considerations for built-in costs
such as federal/tribal employee pay increases, inflation in medical
services, increased costs of medical technology, and population
increases. Failure to provide for these costs means that the real
appropriations levels for Indian Health Service and tribal health
programs are gradually reduced from already inadequate levels.
There are several specific health conditions and program areas
which warrant special consideration and attention in the fiscal year
2000 appropriations process:
Sanitation Facilities Construction.--While funding from all federal
and state sources has increased overall for water and sanitation
projects needed in Alaska Native villages, it is essential to maintain
or increase the Indian Health Service contribution in this area over
the next ten years. More than 100 rural communities have inadequate
sanitation services.
Health Facilities.--Even though Alaska's high-profile projects have
been addressed (Alaska Native Medical Center and Maniilaq Medical
Center) in recent years, there remain several rural Alaskan hospitals
and health centers that require replacement on an urgent or high prior
ity basis. These include the St. Paul Health Center, the Metlakatla
Health Center, and the Barrow Hospital. Continued Congressional support
for projects on the I.H.S. facilities priority list is essential.
Patient Travel.--Tribal health providers in Alaska continue to face
significant shortfalls in their ability to provide financial assistance
to allow Alaska Natives who live in remote isolated communities to
obtain access to basic primary and specialty medical services. We
endorse the Alaska Native Health Board's proposal for an earmarked
increase of $10 million for Alaska Native patient travel support.
Behavioral health services.--Over half of the 180 Alaska Native
villages do not have community-based mental health or substance abuse
treatment services. In most communities services are available only
from itinerant professionals on an infrequent basis or through
referrals to urban-based programs. There is growing concern for
prevention and treatment services for inhalant abusers in rural Alaska.
Maternal/child and elderly services.--Our epidemiologists are
advising that, due to demographic changes, our requirements for
maternal/pediatric services are likely to increase between 25-30
percent in the next five years, outstripping the current capacity of
our hospitals and primary health care centers. Similarly, demands for
medical services for Alaska Native elderly will also increase between
25-30 percent over the next five years.
Cancer prevention and treatment.--Unfortunately, both behavioral
and environmental factors are resulting in significant increases in
cancer rates among Alaska Natives statewide. It is essential that
prevention, screening, and treatment services all be enhanced by tribal
health providers in Alaska.
Telehealth services.--Initial funding was approved by Congress in
the fiscal year 1999 I.H.S. budget for the first year actiities of the
Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network, a four-year $28 million
project designed to interconnect all Alaska Native health care
locations, Veterans Administration health sites, military health sites,
and State public health nursing sites with telemedicine capabilities.
Continuing support of Congress for the second and subsequent years for
this project is essential.
Community Health Representative services--We are concerned that the
Administration has proposed a reduction of $5 million in the CHR
services appropriation. Over 100 CHR's in Alaska provide critical
direct patient services and support for primary care operations. We
urge the Committee to maintain current levels of appropriations for
this program.
In addition to these health services concerns, the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium shares with most other tribal health providers
a serious concern that Congress this year address the issue of
providing adequate tribal contract support cost funding.
The Consortium has assumed responsibility for managing a $100
million Indian Health Service program, and has determined a contract
support requirement of approximately $15 million, of which $3 million
is for start-up costs. As of this date we are managing this agreement
with no contract support; our current negotiations with the Indian
Health Service for award of our fiscal year 1999 allocation will at
best only meet 70 percent of our full contract support requirement.
These funds are essential to support our administrative infrastructure,
including such vital functions as board operations, legal services,
audit services, strategic planning activities, employee benefits,
information systems, financial management systems, etc.
We understand that the total national contract support cost
shortfall is approximately $103 million. We encourage your attention to
upcoming reports from the General Accounting Office, an I.H.S.
workgroup, and an workgroup organized by the National Congress of
American Indians; these reports will provide the full scenario
concerning tribal contract support requirements and, hopefully,
solutions to this serious matter.
Finally we would like to take this opportunity to address several
related matters relevant to the long-term viability of the Indian
Health Service and tribal health programs nationally.
First, Congress must soon attend to the reauthorization of Public
Law 94-437, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which expires in
September, 2000. This act provides essential authorities for most of
our health initiatives. Alaska Native tribes and tribal health
organizations are prepared to offer our resources in support of a
comprehensive review and refinement of the act.
Second, we urge your support for passage of HR 1167, Title V of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which will
provide permanent authorization for Tribal Self-Governance. More than
95 percent of Alaska Native tribes have been successful in implementing
this initiative, and need Congress' assurance that this it will be
supported on a long-term basis.
Third, we urge action to extend the authorities provided through
the Medicaid/Medicare Direct Reimbursement Demonstration project on a
permanent basis to all tribal health providers nationally. The two
tribal health organizations in Alaska who have participated in this
project have found it to be beneficial in improving their financial
operations.
Finally, we urge action on legislation which will elevate the
position of the Director of the Indian Health Service to the level of
Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Such action will be consistent with the status of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs within the Department of Interior, and will ensure that the
Indian Health Service has sufficient visibility and authority within
the DHHS structure to achieve its mission.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium, I want to express my thanks to the members of the
committee for the opportunity to present these concerns and
recommendations, and for your commitment to supporting us in our vision
to seek the highest possible health status for our people.
______
Prepared Statement of Jaime Pinkham, President, Intertribal Timber
Council
summary
Mr. Chairman, I am Jaime Pinkham, President of the Intertribal
Timber Council. I submit this testimony with the following requests
regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal year 2000 Forestry
program:
(1) Add $1,950,000 to strengthen B.I.A. forest and woodland
management planning capability.
(2) Re-establish separate Forestry Program Elements in Non-
Recurring Programs Resources Management.
(3) Add $3 million for a new integrated resources management
program line item.
(4) Add $2 million to T.P.A. forestry activities for acreage
increases, and
(5) Note that $750,000 will be needed in each of fiscal years 2001
and 2002 for the statutorily required Indian forest land assessment.
intertribal timber council background
The Intertribal Timber Council (I.T.C.) is a twenty three year old
organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.5
million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.4 million
woodland acres that are under B.I.A. trust management. These lands are
vitally important to their tribes. They provide habitat, cultural and
spiritual sites, recreation and subsistence uses, and through
commercial forestry, income for the tribes and jobs for their members.
In Alaska, the forests of Native corporations and thousands of
individual allotments are equally important to their owners. To all our
membership, our forests and woodlands are essential to our physical,
cultural, and economic well-being, and assuring their proper management
is our foremost concern.
a crisis in forest management planning
Mr. Chairman, today only 50 percent of the 5.6 million acres of
tribal commercial timberlands in B.I.A. trust have current B.I.A.
approved management plans. Yet B.I.A. approved management plans are
required in statute and regulation for the harvest of Indian trust
timber. A November 13, 1998 opinion from the Interior Solicitor's
Office holds that ``Indian trust timber may not be harvested until an
approved forest management plan has been established.'' This lack of
approved plans threatens to withhold up to 340 million board feet of
Indian trust timber from the market, potentially depriving tribes of
millions of dollars of vitally needed revenue and hundreds of timber
harvest related jobs. This situation is directly attributable to the
B.I.A.'s lack of forest management planning capacity, a situation that
is growing worse. While last year only 40 percent of the total 17
million forest acres held in B.I.A. trust was covered by approved
management plans, for this year it has fallen to just 35 percent.
This decline has been caused by (1) substantially reduced Forestry
T.P.A. funding, (2) a 7.5 percent increase in forest acres under trust
management since 1992, (3) greatly increased complexity in management
planning requirements, (4) no increase in Forest Management Inventory
and Planning funds since fiscal year 1991, (5) inflationary erosion of
purchasing power, and (6) since 1995, the reduction by roughly half of
the B.I.A. Central and Area Office Forestry personnel who provide the
planning expertise for the great majority of smaller forested
reservations.
To assure that the most basic rudiments of forest planning can be
provided tribal forestlands, we request that $1,950,000 be added as
follows to increase B.I.A.'s forest management capability: (A) add
$300,000 to the Area Office Forestry budget for four additional
professional foresters, add $150,000 to the Central Office Forestry
budget for two additional professional foresters, (B) add $1 million to
Forest Management Inventory and Planning, and (C) add $500,000 to
Woodlands Management.
We further request that $3 million be added for integrated resource
management planning, and that $2 million be added directly to forestry
activities in T.P.A. for management on increased forest trust acres.
Each of these requests are discussed in further detail below, as is
notification that $750,000 will be needed in each of fiscal years 2001
and 2002 for the second independent assessment of Indian forests.
add $300,000 to area forestry and $150,000 to central office forestry
for additional professional forester capability
Between fiscal year 1995 and today, B.I.A. Area Office Forestry
personnel have been reduced from about 25 to about 15. In the same
time, Central Office Forestry personnel have been reduced from about 19
to about 10. Although reduced by roughly half from fiscal year 1995
levels, these personnel are called upon to try to provide the
professional and scientific expertise required for the successful trust
planning and management of 17 million trust forest acres, most of which
is on ninety eight reservations with economically viable forests
throughout the United States. They are trying to do this at a time when
forestlands are being recognized as never before for their biological
significance and are also being intensely scrutinized and challenged on
many aspects of their management, particularly on commercial
utilization. Yet, with or without current plans, many tribes have
little choice but to rely on the commercial use of their forest for at
least some portion of essential tribal revenues.
Of the 98 reservations with economically viable timberlands, many
with smaller forests have no resident professional forestry personnel.
And the great majority of the 98 reservations do not have personnel
with the specialized expertise necessary for the development of a
forest management plan. So those tasks, by necessity, fall upon the 15
Area Forestry personnel spread throughout the B.I.A.'s twelve Area
Offices (with several Area Offices harboring only a single forester),
and upon the five foresters in the Central Office's Branch of Forest
Resources Planning. It is, quite simply, well beyond any realistic
expectation that such limited manpower can develop, review, and oversee
implementation of management plans required by law for the 98
reservations. In fact, the Branch of Forest Resources Planning has been
forced by staff reductions to eliminate its general forest planning
capability, and today principally provides only inventory analysis.
Today's request for six additional personnel is an exceptionally
modest plea to begin the restoration of the B.I.A. forest planning
capability, because tribal forests, without plans, are open targets for
mismanagement or legal challenge, either of which would diminish or
interrupt what for many tribes is a critical source of essential
operating revenue.
add $1 million to forest management inventory and planning
The Forest Management Inventory and Planning (FMI&P) budget covers
the special one time projects needed in the renewal of forest
management plans, such as remote sensing, mapping, inventory,
management and implementation planning, and environmental assessments.
Funds for these planning activities are not provided in a reservation's
regular, on-going forestry budget, and the FMI&P funds meet those needs
by rotating throughout reservations as their forest management plans
need renewal. These funds are particularly needed for those smaller
tribal forests where there are few or no forestry personnel. But since
fiscal year 1991, when the program was increased to $1.5 million, these
funds have basically remained flat (est. fiscal year 2000: $1.593
million), failing to keep pace with inflation, the expanded land base,
or planning's increasingly complex requirements.
One particular example where additional FMI&P funding is needed is
N.E.P.A. compliance. As of the end of fiscal year 1998, approximately
57 percent of Category 1 forests (commercial forests of more than
10,000 acres or a one million board foot A.A.C.) were without current
environmental assessments, exposing those tribes to potentially dire
consequences because B.I.A. is unable to comply with N.E.P.A.
requirements. One of the larger tribal forests, that of the Navajo
Nation, has been shut down for several years because of challenges to
planning and N.E.P.A. assessments. For the smaller Category 2 forests
(commercial forests of less than 10,000 acres and less than a one
million board foot A.A.C.), only one third have environmental
assessments.
To begin to correct these deficiencies, the I.T.C. requests an
FMI&P increase of $1 million for fiscal year 2000. B.I.A. estimates
that FMI&P needs a $6.1 million annual increase.
add $500,000 for woodlands management
We also request once again an increase of $500,000 for B.I.A.
Woodlands Management, a doubling of the Administration's requested
level. Mr. Chairman, in 1988, the B.I.A. Division of Forestry was
formally assigned responsibility over the 9.4 million acres of tribal
woodlands, including 4.4 million acres with commercial capability. At
that time, B.I.A. data indicated $3 million was needed to properly
initiate trust management of woodlands. $500,000 was provided, and has
essentially stayed at that level ever since. Today, those funds cover
the costs of woodlands managers at three Area Offices in the Southwest
and fund a very limited number of on-the-ground projects. Only twenty
seven percent of these woodlands have formal management plans, and only
47 percent have rudimentary inventories. With little or no firm data,
the three Area Woodlands Managers are relying on rough estimates and
guesswork in trying to cover the millions of acres within their
responsibility. Yet woodlands are intensively used across a wide range
of activities, particularly for subsistence and small economic
undertakings. An additional $500,000 would allow a greater degree of
inventory and planning, a few additional personnel for increased
oversight, and the implementation of an increased percentage of the
annual backlog of submitted projects.
re-establish separate forestry program elements in non-recurring
programs resources management
Mr. Chairman, we also request that the three separate Forestry
Program Elements in Non-Recurring Programs Resources Management be re-
established. Those elements, Forest Development, Forest Management
Inventory and Planning, and Woodlands Management, have been in place
for years describing very necessary specific programs. In its fiscal
year 1999 budget request, B.I.A. lumped then together into a single sum
simply entitled ``Forestry''. We protested, noting that lumping such
funds together greatly reduces the Bureau's accountability for those
programs, and that allowing their expenditures to be shifted around at
the Bureau's discretion effectively eliminates those programs as
accountable, discreet activities. Further, the co-mingling of those
funds presents confusion and difficulty in any 638 contracting or
compacting that tribes might seek for those activities. When we
objected to the Bureau, they noted that the combining of those funds
was just to make the budget simpler. They acknowledged our concerns and
said the separate Program Elements would be re-established for fiscal
year 2000. Yet, in the fiscal year 2000 B.I.A. request, they remain
combined. Accordingly, we ask that the Committee re-establish them.
add $3 million for funds for a new i.r.m.p. line item
Mr. Chairman, integrated resource management plans are considered
essential in the current management of natural resources, and
particularly in complex forest ecosystems. Everywhere you look, whether
it is the forest industry, state forestry, or federal forestry on
B.L.M. and U.S. Forest Service lands, you see an intense focus on
comprehensive ecosystem management. Everywhere, that is, except the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Despite a special trust obligation for tribal
resources, the B.I.A. has only one person responsible for integrated
resource management plans. Otherwise, it has no program and no funds
for this standard modern management tool. Yet, among all Federal
agencies, I.R.M.P.s are most appropriate, and needed, for tribal trust
lands. The Indian people live on and from their land. And our
population is rapidly expanding, placing our lands under increasing
pressure. As noted in the 1994 Indian Forest Management Assessment Team
(I.F.M.A.T.) report, tribes are progressive, dedicated stewards of our
land, but the severely limited planning resources available to us are
precluding options and flexibility. Moreover, with increased national
attention to landscape-wide comprehensive management, the absence of
tribal I.R.M.P.s will cause management blank spots in the broader
fabric of surrounding land. B.I.A. has estimated an annual need of $15
million over ten years for I.R.M.P.s for all tribes. And on Indian
forestlands alone, the I.F.M.A.T. report noted that $94 million is
needed annually to bring B.I.A. other-than-direct timber production
management activities up to parity with the U.S. Forest Service. Yet,
B.I.A. has next to nothing. Accordingly, we request the establishment
of a new I.R.M.P. line item in Non-Recurring Programs, Resources
Management, and that it be funded at $3 million to begin to address
these shortcomings.
add $2 million to t.p.a. for forestry activities for acreage increases
Since fiscal year 1992, Indian forestland under trust management
has increased from 15.9 million acres to 17 million acres today, a 7.5
percent increase. Total Forestry funding in T.P.A., including Self-
Governance transfers, has actually declined from $26.8 million in
fiscal year 1992 to $26.7 million requested for fiscal year 2000,
without factoring in any loss for inflation. To reflect the costs of
these increased acres at the Agency level where the actual day-to-day
management activities take place, the I.T.C. requests that the fiscal
year 2000 budget for forest activities in Tribal Priority Allocations
(estimated at $26,665,000 including Self-Governance) be increased by
7.5 percent, or $1,999,875, with direction that the increase be
distributed according to acreage increases. This request at least
allows the current level of regular forestry funding to accommodate
increased acres.
note that $750,000 will be needed in each of fys 2001 and 2002 for the
statutorily required indian forest land assessment
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we wish to alert you that the B.I.A.'s
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 budgets will each have to provide $750,000
for the second independent assessment of Indian forest lands, which we
roughly estimate will cost $1.5 million over the two years. The
National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law 101-630)
requires that the Interior Department provide for the assessment every
ten years, starting with its November 28, 1990 enactment. After a one
year lag for planning, the first assessment was commenced in fiscal
year 1992 and the report was issued in November, 1993. Pursuant to the
Act, the Secretary is to provide for the second assessment on the Act's
tenth anniversary on November of 2000, which will be fiscal year 2001.
While no action is necessary at this time, the assessment is
exceptionally important in providing a comprehensive independent review
of the status and management of Indian forestlands across time. It is,
we believe, so important to the Indian trust beneficiaries that we want
to bring it to your attention now, so that you will be aware of it.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Dee Ketchum, Chief, Tribal Council of the
Delaware Tribe of Indians, Bartlesville, OK
introduction
The Delaware Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribal
government located in eastern Oklahoma, appreciates this opportunity to
provide written testimony on fiscal year 2000 funding for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The Delaware
Tribe provides this testimony to make three basic points.
First, we want to thank the Congress for fully funding the ``new
tribes'' account in fiscal year 1999. This had a direct and positive
impact on our Tribe which received a share of this funding as a result
of the BIA's 1996 reaffirmation of our Tribe's federally-recognized
status. We've accomplished many things with our first two years of
funding; we ask that you fund the full amount requested for the fiscal
year 2000 ``new tribes'' account for our third of three years of
funding.
Second, we wish to thank the Congress for adopting language in the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations act which removed a potential for
confusion created by an fiscal year 1992 appropriations proviso that
could have been interpreted to undermine our Tribe's authority to fully
and efficiently administer federally-funded programs. As to the related
Committee report language, the Delaware Tribe wishes to inform you of
the efforts we have made in the past year to comply with the
Committee's directives regarding the need to cooperatively develop,
with two other Indian Tribes and the BIA, arrangements by which Federal
funds are administered so as to avoid duplication of funding and
services.
And finally, the Delaware Tribe wants this Committee to understand
how unyielding and counterproductive is the fiscal year 1999 moratorium
the Congress placed on new contracts under Public Law 93-638, as
amended, especially for a Tribe like Delaware which is poised to
rebuild and regain the tribal infrastructure it once had.
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.
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).
Nevertheless, in 1979, an acting BIA Deputy Commissioner issued a
letter on behalf of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma purporting to end
the Delaware Tribe of Indians' direct relationship with the United
States. For the next 16 years, the BIA refused to resolve the confusion
that its 1979 letter caused. That uncertainty ended in 1996 when, after
careful legal review by its Office of the Solicitor, the Interior
Department expressly reaffirmed the Delaware Tribe of Indians,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, as a federally-recognized Indian tribe. And the
authority of the Delaware Tribe to administer some federally-funded
programs was fully resolved by the Congress in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations act.
``new tribes'' funding
We ask that you fully fund the Administration's request for ``new
tribes'' funding in fiscal year 2000. While we are not a ``new'' tribe,
our status has only recently been reaffirmed and we thus qualify for a
third year of funding under this account. We have used our ``new
tribes'' funding of approximately $160,000 per year to revise our
existing tribal constitution, establish core governmental and
programmatic control systems, and administer service programs for the
benefit of our members. With these and other grants program funding,
the Delaware Tribe has successfully established a Tribal Economic
Development office, Tribal Grants and Contracts office, and the
Delaware Child Care Development Project. The Tribe has been working
closely with the city of Bartlesville and local industry to foster
economic development activities that will boost our area's lagging
economy.
report of the delaware tribe's efforts to facilitate its provision of
direct services
We are particularly grateful for the Congressional confirmation of
the Delaware Tribe's authority to deal directly with the BIA to provide
services to our tribal members under the Indian Self-Determination Act,
Public Law 93-638, as amended. The accompanying report language
directed that the BIA work with our Tribe as well as with the United
Band of Keetoowah Indians and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to
develop a plan to prevent an increase in the demand for additional
funding, to avoid duplication of services, and to not lose cost
efficiencies related to economies of scale as separate service delivery
mechanisms are established among our three Tribes. In addition, the
report asked the BIA to report by April 1, 1999 on a plan that will
coordinate the identification of geographical areas in the areas
occupied by our three Tribes which are eligible for trust land
applications. We have not seen the BIA's report. However, we would
like, first, to comment on the concerns of the Committee expressed
above and, second, to provide the Committee with our own direct report
on the activities we have taken as a Tribe in response to the
Committee's directive.
No Demand for Additional Funding if Delaware Provides Direct
Services to its Members.--Because of several unique factors, we believe
the process of establishing a separate service delivery system will
not, in and of itself, create demand for additional funding. First, the
Delaware Tribe proposes only to provide traditional federal Indian
services to our own members. Currently, the Cherokee Nation has
contracted with the BIA to provide certain federal services to all
66,000 Indians, regardless of tribal affiliation, residing within a 14-
county service area in Northeastern Oklahoma. Twenty years ago the
Delaware Tribe established a five-county service area for its members,
which lies within the 14-county area. We propose only to continue to
provide services for our 2,450 members who reside in our five-county
area. Our members comprise, at most, only 3.7 percent of the population
served by Cherokee with BIA funds. At the point that Delaware chooses
to exercise its right to contract with BIA to provide certain services
to its own membership within that five-county area, the BIA would need
only shift to Delaware a maximum of 3.7 percent of the funding now
provided to the Cherokee Nation, whose funding agreement would be
reduced by a corresponding amount. There would be no double funding nor
any demand for additional funding. Even contract support costs would be
roughly the same because the Cherokee Nation's demand would necessarily
be reduced as corresponding contract support funding is provided to
Delaware.
No Duplication of Services If Delaware Provides Direct Services to
Its Members.--Our Tribal service area has remained the same since the
early 1970's. Since that time, the Tribe has successfully administered
its own Housing Authority with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development funds, its own job training program (JTPA) with U.S.
Department of Labor funds and several other federally-funded programs
within its service area without any measurable negative impact upon, or
overlap with, the benefits provided to other Indians in the same area
by the Cherokee Nation. There is no evidence of any duplication of
services as a result of our operation of these programs alongside
similar programs operated by the Cherokee Nation. At the same time,
however, we acknowledge the problem presented by the fact that the
Cherokee Nation does not prohibit dual-enrollment of an Indian
otherwise eligible for membership in both the Cherokee Nation and
another Tribe such as ours. We thus understand the concern raised by
the Committee and are working with the BIA to develop an administrative
mechanism to ensure that no duplication of services occurs.
No Cost Inefficiencies If Delaware Provides Direct Services to Its
Members.--The Delaware Tribe has always recognized that health care is
best delivered in a consolidated fashion. Because of basic economies of
scale, we have no intention of pursuing a separate contract for IHS
hospital funding. Our Delaware health needs are already severely
underfunded and we are committed to maximizing every possible benefit
from the limited health funding provided to Indians in our service
area. At the same time, and based on the same principles, the Delaware
Tribe has a continuing concern with the way the Cherokee Nation has
been administering many of these programs. We believe that the Cherokee
Nation operation is actually too large, with its huge size encouraging
inefficiency rather than efficiency and permitting open discrimination
in the provision of services. In recent years, we have heard public and
private stories about nothing but waste, misappropriation, and poor
judgment being exercised by the Cherokee Nation program managers and
its government. The Cherokee Nation headquarters is located some two
and a half hours from the Delaware Tribe's headquarters in
Bartlesville, which fact greatly limits many Delawares ability to
obtain services from the Cherokee Nation programs.
Report of BIA and Inter-Tribal Planning.--Our Tribe has attempted
to diligently work with the two other Tribes and the BIA as requested
by the Committee in order to develop a plan responsive to the concerns
of the Committee. More than one year ago, the Delaware Tribal Council
traveled to the Cherokee Nation to meet with Cherokee representatives.
At that time, the Delaware Tribe submitted a proposal to the Cherokee
to settle the issues of funding administration and territorial
jurisdiction. Within that proposal, the Delaware requested that the
Cherokee agree that the Delaware be able to provide services to
Delaware tribal members not otherwise enrolled with the Cherokee Nation
who reside within the traditional five-county area. Further, the
Delaware requested that the Cherokee agree that the Delaware should be
able to exercise territorial jurisdiction over lands owned by the
Delaware Tribe and its members, not otherwise enrolled with the
Cherokee Nation, in a limited three-county area of Washington, Nowata,
and Rogers. Within the three county area, it would be presumed that the
Delaware Tribe and its members would also be eligible to take land into
trust. The Delaware proposal clarified that at no time would the
Delaware be providing services to Cherokee tribal members or other non-
Delawares, and that the Delaware Tribe would never exercise
jurisdiction over lands owned by the Cherokee Nation or any Cherokee
tribal members or other non-Delaware Indians.
In response, the Cherokee Tribal Council requested that the
Delaware Tribe prepare a report on the federal programs that the
Delaware intended to contract within the proposed service areas and the
number of people to be served. The Cherokee also requested that the
Delaware prepare a report of the lands owned by the Delaware Tribe and
Delaware tribal members in the three-county area. We prepared and
delivered these reports by July, 1998, with copies to the BIA Muskogee
Area Office and to the Interior Department's Self-Governance Office. To
date, the Cherokee Nation has failed to respond, comment upon, or even
acknowledge receipt of these reports we prepared at their request.
Further negotiations have not been possible given the internal strife
that has overwhelmed the Cherokee Nation. We hope the Cherokee
elections next month will lead to a new willingness and ability on the
part of the Cherokee leadership to renew negotiations with the Delaware
Tribe.
Nevertheless, the Delaware Tribe has continued to respond to the
Committee's directive by meeting with BIA Muskogee Area Office
officials to develop proposals to provide services and identify a
jurisdictional area for the Delaware Tribe. Most recently, the Delaware
Tribe has adopted the Bureau's suggested process of affirmative
19selection' by Delaware tribal members to receive services from the
Delaware Tribe as opposed to the Cherokee Nation. The Delaware Tribe
intends to utilize this 19selection' process in contracting a limited
number of education programs for fiscal year 2000 until such time as
the Tribe can implement a constitutional prohibition on dual
enrollment. The Delaware Tribe is not aware of any objections that the
Keetoowah might have with the Delaware proposals, consistent with the
longstanding good-will that has existed between the Keetoowah Band and
the Delaware Tribe. To our knowledge, the Keetoowah Band has never
expressed any interest in providing federal services to Delaware
members nor in exercising jurisdiction over Delaware members or our
lands.
temporary moratorium on self-determination contracting
The Delaware Tribe has in recent years been making great progress,
against equally great odds, to regain the operational status it
possessed less than a generation ago. The primary purpose of the ``new
tribes'' funds the Delaware Tribe has received is to develop procedures
for the Tribe to be able to enter into contracts under the Indian Self
Determination Act, Public Law 93-638, as amended. The temporary
moratorium placed by Congress on new fiscal year 1999 contracts raises
the specter of unintended, drastic consequences for a Tribe like
Delaware which is poised to rebuild and regain the tribal
infrastructure it once had. While the Delaware Tribe can certainly
appreciate the concerns of the Committee that rising contract support
costs pose a significant challenge, we believe a blanket moratorium
generates more harm than good. We urge the Committee to not place a
similar moratorium on new fiscal year 2000 contracts but instead focus
its efforts on the development of a more precise and uniform way to
project and manage contract support costs. The Delaware Tribe has
worked hard to prepare ourselves to again directly serve our own
people. A substantial investment has been made in our Tribe, by our
members, by our leaders, by the BIA, and by the Congress. Extending the
moratorium to fiscal year 2000 would waste these efforts. It would
substantially set back the plans we have to dramatically improve
services to our members within available appropriations. It would
further legitimize and retrench the present service delivery system
that is so cost inefficient and wasteful. The Delaware Tribe deserves
better, and the opportunity to demonstrate its ability to do better for
itself. Continuing the moratorium into fiscal year 2000 would force a
halt to the progress achieved to date by the Tribe and frustrate its
ability to pursue progress in future years. We urge the Committee to
undertake a more narrowly targeted approach in its continuing efforts
to manage contract support costs in fiscal year 2000.
conclusion
The Delaware Tribe is proud of our government-to-government
relationship with the United States. We will jealously guard this
relationship, as it is absolutely vital to our continuing existence.
The Delaware Tribe is striving to run our tribal government and deliver
tribal services in the most efficient manner possible. We offer this
testimony in that spirit. Thank you for this opportunity.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kenneth E. Quickel, Jr., President, Joslin
Diabetes Center
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony
for the hearing record. As President and CEO of Joslin Diabetes Center,
I would like to present the Committee with some facts about Joslin,
diabetes in the US, and the status of Joslin's progress toward
compliance with the directive in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations
Act regarding ``cooperative efforts'' with the Indian Health Service.
The purpose of this statement is to request $1 million for
implementation of the cooperative effort between Joslin Diabetes Center
and the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2000.
joslin diabetes center
Joslin Diabetes Center is located in Boston, Massachusetts, and is
the oldest and largest diabetes clinic and research facility in the
world. Details on Joslin's accomplishments are attached in the fact
sheet ``Joslin Diabetes Center''.
diabetes
Diabetes and the complications from diabetes are wrecking havoc on
Americans, particularly the Native American population and other
minorities, and now comprise one of the most expensive and damaging of
the diseases that plague mankind. The far reaching aspects of this
disease are discussed in the attachment ``Diabetes''.
fiscal year 1999 ihs directive
The Statement of the Managers Accompanying the conference Agreement
for fiscal year 1999 contained the following:
``2. Of the funds available to the IHS for diabetes programs, the
Service should fund cooperative efforts with the Joslin Diabetes Clinic
in Boston to non-invasively screen for undiagnosed diabetes and
diabetic retinopathy in Indian communities. The Committees understand
that such a program would be similar to programs the Joslin Clinic is
conducting with the Department of Defense and the Veterans
Administration and that the managers of existing diabetes programs
within IHS have expressed an interest in working with Joslin.''
To date, we have met with IHS officials several times. IHS
representatives have traveled to Boston to tour our facility and meet
with our physicians and research scientists. One of the visitors
volunteered to undergo the non-invasive eye screening for diabetes, the
heart of the Joslin Vision Network (JVN). Our report was that he had
``young eyes''.
All of the contacts we have had have resulted in positive outcomes
and have advanced us toward the point of compliance with the fiscal
year 1999 directive of a cooperative effort. The Committee staff has
assisted both IHS and Joslin in working toward the selection of a
location and deployment of equipment and personnel to the site in the
near term. Funds for the project have not yet been obligated, but we
understand that there are efforts underway to identify funding sources
in the current fiscal year.
We are confident that we will be able to commence a joint project
during the current fiscal year. The exchange of information concerning
Joslin's specific medical protocol and how the JVN could best be
utilized within the Indian Health Service system has been a necessary
first step. Decisions and related factors on the selection of the most
appropriate site for the initial deployment are now underway. When we
have developed the jointly approved plan, we will brief the Committee
on our proposal to comply with the Committee's directive for fiscal
year 1999 cooperative effort between the Joslin Diabetes Center and the
Indian Health Service.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, continuation of this cooperative effort for a full
year will cost $1 million for the expenses of both the Indian Health
Service and the Joslin Diabetes Center. We respectfully request that
you carefully consider the potential program benefits from this modest
investment for fiscal year 2000 funding.
Thank you again for this opportunity to submit this statement for
the hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. George E. Bennett, Chairman, Grand Traverse
Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians is
presenting this testimony to help guide the Committee in its
consideration of the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. As a Self-Governance
Tribe, our ability to continue to successfully administer federal
programs is largely impacted by the budgetary process and our ability
to inform Congress, in a government-to-government setting, of our
views. While we cannot testify in person before this Committee, we send
this written testimony to provide you with our views on the fiscal year
2000 budget request for Tribal programs.
We are a sovereign Indian Nation located in the Northwest corner of
what is now the State of Michigan. Our people have resided in this
place for many centuries and, as is our tradition, we send you
greetings from our people. We provide this testimony with good thoughts
and prayers that the Creator will bless the work of this Committee and
that your actions will benefit the people of this country. We pray that
you will hear the needs of Indian people and find answers to the needs
as stated in this testimony.
the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request
The United States of America has been built on lands that were
secured by Treaties from the Native people of this land. Those
Treaties, the United States Constitution, over 5000 laws, Presidential
executive directives, and many Supreme Court decisions evidence a
unique relationship between Indian Tribes and the United States
Government. No other group of people in this country has this unique
relationship. This relationship provides for a Trust Responsibility
owed by the United States to Indian Tribes. Each year the
Administration requests funding for programming that is geared towards
meeting the trust responsibility the United States owes to Indian
Tribes and to Individual Indians.
The Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget provides for an
increase in both the Indian Health Service budget and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs budget. With respect to the requested $170.1 million
increase in the Indian Health Service budget $144.6 million is for
items such as personnel and pay-related cost increases, staffing at new
facilities, initiatives for women's health and alcohol and substance
abuse prevention and treatment, contract support funding and the Indian
Health Care Improvement Fund. The remaining $25.5 million increase is
for Indian Health Facilities. The Tribe generally supports all of the
increases the Administration has requested for fiscal year 2000 for
both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service and
asks that this Committee view them favorably.
remaining unmet health care needs in indian country
The increases the Administration seeks for the Indian Health
Service, while positive, simply are not sufficient to meet the needs on
Indian Reservations across this country. To look at why these increases
are insufficient, we only need to look at the last 20 years of Indian
funding.
In 1983, annual funding to Indian Nations was cut from $3.5 billion
to $2.0 billion in the federal budget. Tribes were devastated and have
never recovered from that severe cut. In 1988, the Senate Select
Committee on Indian Affairs directed that a study be conducted of the
federal budget. This study was intended to show that Indian Tribes were
receiving a fair share of the United States budget. Instead, to the
Committee's surprise, the report showed that there was $3,000 for every
non-Indian in this country in the federal budget and $2,300 for every
Indian. (See: report of Congressional Reporting Service, Library of
Congress, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Budget views and
costs fiscal year 1989, March 1988.) Years later, this gap in funding
still exists.
This past month, we lost three of our members on our reservation.
One was 41 years old, one was 47 years old and one was 55 years old.
These are ages of death for third world countries, not the United
States of America. All three of these people were taken much too early.
It is time that this country provides health services to Native
Americans at the same level as non-Indians. Federal statistics paint a
thorough picture on the need for equitable funding. The most dramatic
case involves the neglected health of Indian people. The infant
mortality rate for Indian people is 15 per 1,000 lives--nearly double
the average of the rest of the U.S. population. The alcoholism death
rate for Indian people is 38.4 per 100,000 population--six times the
rate for other races in this country. The diabetic mortality rate for
Indian people is 31.7 per 100,000 compared to 11.9 for all other races.
It is no coincidence that these trends have taken place as fewer
medical professionals are available in comparison to a decade ago as
the budget for Indian Health continues to be reduced in real dollars.
In 1982, for example, there were 99.7 doctors for every 100,000
Indians. By 1994, the rate of doctors dropped to 89.7. Similar
reductions were seen in the number of nurses in Indian country.
Meanwhile, during the same period, per capita annual expenditures
through Indian Health Service was $1,153, which was nearly two-thirds
lower than the rate of $3,111 for all other races in this country.
This funding gap contributes to an already existing backlog of
unmet health care needs for Indians. For example, the funding our Tribe
receives from the Indian Health Service is only enough to meet 20
percent of our health care needs. We attempt to cover the 80 percent
shortfall by using Tribal revenues which would otherwise go to other
pressing governmental needs, such as Housing, Water System, Sewage
Treatment Plant, and Law Enforcement . Unfortunately, we simply cannot
meet all of the health care needs of our membership.
The fiscal year 2000 Budget request provides an increase of
$170,100,000, which will allow the Indian Health Services budget to
keep up with the services offered in the fiscal year 1999 Budget. This
is not enough to make any gains into this under-funded program that is
so important to the health of Indian people. The National Indian Health
Board, after several years of work, developed a real dollar-assessment
of the need for health services in Indian Country. The National Indian
Health Board determined that an 8 billion-dollar budget is needed to
meet the health needs of Indian people.
The budget proposed for fiscal year 2000 is $2,412,387,000 which is
far short of the need. While we realize the current budgetary climate
makes it difficult to fund the actual need, we believe that a bold
attempt to come closer to the needs budget can be accomplished by
Congress. With only 25 per cent of the need for health service met
through the budget, it makes Indian people the least funded for health
services in this country.
At a meeting of the National Congress of American Indians this
winter we asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services about this
issue. She told us that only Congress can dictate a change in this
budget and she feels that Congress will not increase the Indian Health
Service budget to meet these needs. We believe that answer is
unacceptable to our children, to our elders, and to our membership who
suffer from the lack of health services due to the shortage of funds in
the Indian Health Service budget.
closing
We respectfully ask that this Committee recommend a one billion-
dollar increase to the Indian Health Service budget for fiscal year
2000. Additional funding is needed to provide for the unmet needs in
Dental Health for both our children and our adults. Dentists who work
on our children have told us that the long neglected dental care has
created other health problems for our adults and they can see this
continuing with our children. A full time dentist at the Tribe would
allow for the wrap around health care needed by our membership. Funding
is also needed for specific health programs such as diabetes and
alcoholism, which create additional health problems when untreated.
Prescription drug costs have continued to rise much faster than
budgets. Physician and Hospital services are dramatically under-funded
and being forced to managed care, with limited funding, means that the
Tribe is often in the position of limiting health service dollars to
emergency needs only. Additional funding is needed in each of these
categories and the one billion-dollar increase would assist Tribes with
these needs. While this increase would only meet a little over fifty
per cent of the need for health services in Indian Country, it would
provide sufficient funds to allow for progress to be made in the health
care of Indian people. We leave you with good thoughts, and prayers for
the work that you do for Indian people and all the people of this land.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to address these needs.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Rainwater-Sande, President,
Ketchikan Indian Corporation
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal
year 2000 budget request for both the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
and for the Indian Health Service (IHS). Ketchikan Indian Corporation
(KIC) is a federally-recognized tribal government created under the
Indian Reorganization Act (I.R.A.). The KIC constitution was approved
by the Secretary of the Interior in 1940. We currently have 4,162
members, and our enrollment has been growing each month.
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 BIA. In 1993, KIC was one of several tribes in Alaska that
first participated in the BIA Tribal Self Governance demonstration
program. Since then, we have managed our BIA-funded programs with
increased flexibility and an equal measure of increased accountability.
In 1997, we achieved our goal of securing a Self Governance Compact
with the IHS. We are now constructing a 35,000 square foot, five story
health clinic totally financed through the operations of Ketchikan
Indian Corporation. KIC has been able to maximize the beneficial impact
of this federal funding at the local and community level through self-
governance.
Through self-governance, we have shifted the focus of our welfare-
assistance programs more towards Tribal employment and training. It was
determined that wholesale distribution of General Assistance grants to
Tribal members was a poor solution to a continuing problem. This was
resolved by the KIC Tribal Council in 1993; years before the same idea
was initiated by the Federal Government. There was and still is a need
to develop academic and employment skills with the ultimate goal of
permanent, full-time employment.
In 1997, KIC established a Housing Authority by acting as a HUD
Indian Housing Block Grant recipient. This Native American Housing
Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) grant totals nearly one
million dollars annually.
Tribal self-governance has strengthened our administrative and
management control systems, allowing the Tribe to invest back into our
programs. This increased tribal economic activity is also a direct
benefit to all of the area communities that have been hit hard by the
closing of so many of the timber industry facilities and the down-turn
in regional commercial fishing.
KIC's various enterprises continue to grow and provide employment
opportunities for Tribal members and revenue for Tribal governmental
programs. Even though we continue down the evolutionary road of self-
determination, we must all recognize the tremendous magnitude of unmet
need that still exists. These hardships must be bridged with federal
funding while still working toward increased self-sufficiency.
fy-2000 indian health service compact funding
KIC agrees with the Alaska Native Health Board that there is a need
for additional patient travel funding in Alaska. Our position is that
another ten million dollars for this use should be designated for the
Alaska State Compacts. The burden of travel expense is much higher in
the expansive and rugged geographical terrain of Alaska. Ketchikan is
located in the rural Southeast portion of the State where the only
access to IHS hospital facilities and specialty services is by air
travel. This has become a tremendous burden on our IHS Compact dollars.
In 1998, there was an expenditure of $110,610 for 197 patients. So far
in 1999, the total is $64,000 for 146 patients. This expense takes away
other services or programs that could be offered by the Tribe from
Compact dollars. This travel expense could filter down to the patient
if these dollars were expended early; in fact, causing patients to
delay a needed medical trip for lack of money could have tragic
consequences.
We urge you to keep these concerns in mind during budget
deliberations. We appeal that Congress will continue working toward
bridging the health care discrepancy between the general population and
that of Native peoples.
We ask this Subcommittee to support the legislative efforts in
Congress to fund all contract support at 100 percent, and that this is
fulfilled in a timely manner. Eliminating the statutory cap on the
amount of IHS contract support funding is crucial for this complete
funding.
We ask that you do not extend Section 328 the moratorium on new or
expanded Self Governance Compacts and Contracts within the Interior
Department and IHS.
We request that you eliminate the three-year moratorium on new IHS
contracts with Alaska Natives Villages or Village Corporations within
the area served by an Alaska Native Regional Health Entity. KIC rejects
the concept of using any type of moratorium as a tool to manage-self
determination or self-governance compacting.
We ask that you not extend Section 314 of the FY-1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, which attempts to limit liability of the IHS and
BIA for past failures to fulfill their contract support obligations to
tribal contractors.
We also ask that you support legislation making self governance
permanent for IHS under a new Title V of the Indian Self Determination
and Education Assistance Act. This Act has been a cornerstone of
federal policy for Indian tribes to exercise their rights to assume
local control over federal Indian programs. This Act has permitted
tribes to exercise greater cost efficiencies and maximizes the benefit
of each appropriated dollar.
The self-determination and self-sufficiency fostered by Public Law
93-638 is the key to our survival as an Indian tribe. Inflationary and
mandatory pay costs have had a devastating effect on our program
budgets; these include commissioned officer salaries as well as direct
hires.
Population growth is a large part of the equation. The methodology
used to determine our Compact budget is based on the 1990 census, which
gave our number to be 1,566. Our current membership is now 4,162. At
the present time we have over 6,000 active patient medical charts. We
have seen a patient load increase of sixty five percent from fiscal
year 1998 to fiscal year 1999 year to date. Although we have been able
to remain stable and absorb these increases through good management and
scheduling, our Health Clinic personnel are beginning to reach their
limits. The methodology of funding these costs has proven to be
completely inadequate; it has created shortfalls that have been
absorbed by the Tribe or by other IHS programs. Of the 127 million
dollar shortfall identified by the IHS for FY-99, only 60 million
dollars were appropriated. Congress must identify a more logical
response and methodology of keeping up with this inflationary
shortfall.
An increase in funds is needed beginning in fiscal year 2000 to
alleviate this detrimental erosion of the Indian health care system. We
cannot maintain the same level of services next year with the same
amount of service dollars we received in fiscal year 1999.
bia contract support funds.
We share the concerns of other tribes that the inability of the
Bureau to fund 100 percent of identified contract support costs serves
as a disincentive to increased contracting or compacting of federal
programs. In the last five years, approximately 80 percent of the
tribal indirect costs have been funded. This shortfall greatly reduces
the ability of the Tribe to administer its Compact, management and
administrative costs. Inadequate funding clearly weakens and negatively
impacts the delivery of all program services.
The Tribe fully supports the Tenth Circuit Court Ramah decision
that it is wrong for the BIA to dilute its indirect cost burden by
including in the indirect cost base federal programs that do not
contribute fully to the indirect cost pool. KIC urges that the system
of BIA shortfall management be modified to reflect some of the
strengths of the IHS system, including that aspect which protects
tribes from reductions over the prior year's base, and thus promotes
stability within the tribe. Congress and all agencies should continue
the past effort to fully fund contract support costs through the ISD
Fund. The BIA should recognize direct contract support costs associated
with particular programs under tribal operation. Section 106(k) rules
of the Indian Self-Determination Act should be clarified by Congress to
reflect that all the indirect cost pool is included in the application
of this rule. Currently OIG is questioning the appropriateness of
applying this rule to indirect cost expenditures. This is because
currently this section only applies to funds paid under the ISDA. The
indirect cost pool is compromised of other funds as well.
A Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) Workgroup has been formed in
response to section 129 of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations. This
section directed BIA to present a report to the appropriations
committee, by April 1, 1999. The report would include distribution of
funds and recommendations on how TPA funds should be allocated in the
future. There have been many options and dialogue concerning tribal
revenues, relative needs, regional consortia, and whether or not TPA
funds should be transferred from prosperous tribes to more needy
tribes. This has been just some of the dialogue so far.
It is the position of Ketchikan Indian Corporation that the
allocation method remain the same. Spread the general increases
proportionately to all tribes. Let the contractors or compactors
administer their TPA as they chose; do not use a need-based formula.
Prosperous tribes can be encouraged to return their TPA and incentives
can be given to do so.
conclusion
The BIA and IHS funding for tribal programs falls far short of
tribal needs. The growth of funding for Indian programs has not kept
pace with the overall growth in federal spending, or even with
increased costs faced by tribes and agencies due to inflation. We, as
do other tribes, use our own resources to supplement our TPA funding to
address the shortfall. KIC believes self-governance has worked in a
positive, proactive, synergetic direction.
Our tribal members are excited about this new chapter in our
tribe's history, the growth of tribal enterprises that provide
employment opportunities for tribal members and revenue for tribal
governmental programs.
We thank you for this privilege to provide written 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 Hon. Boris R. Merculief, President, St. George
Island Traditional Council, St. George Island, AK
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of my people I
thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony today on
Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs issues.
My name is Boris Merculief and I am the elected President of the
St. George Traditional Council. The St. George Traditional Council is
the only federally-recognized tribal government entity on St. George
Island and, pursuant to democratic elections, represents all of St.
George's resident Aleuts.
We are a small Aleut community located on a remote Pribilof island
that has been our homeland for generations. We have about 150 year-
round residents on our 44 square mile Island. Our homeland is located
approximately 800 miles south and west of Anchorage in the middle of
the Bering Sea.
Through the years, severe weather and a sparse natural environment
have made our life on St. George island quite harsh. But in recent
decades the realities endured by the Aleut families on St. George have
been made even harsher by the actions of the United States government.
I speak of the sudden and complete shutdown in 1973, by Federal law, of
our harvesting of fur seals on St. George, a trade that for more than a
century had been the main livelihood and cultural centerpiece of our
Aleut community of St. George. Suddenly, in the name of wildlife
protection, fur seals became untouchable and our Aleut community
unwelcome on our Island. We Aleuts were declared expendable. The
implicitly stated policy of the United States was to remove us from our
homeland, our Island. We have refused to leave.
For decades before, my forebears and other St. George Aleuts had
survived on a modest and sustainable local economy based on sealing. We
jealously protected our fur seal population. We depended on a well-
managed, healthy and populous fur seal population for our own
livelihood. We cared for the fur seals. We were committed to the best
of management and conservation. But somehow this was not enough, and
outsiders who never understood our Aleut way of life, our culture, our
values, and our history determined from afar that a complete ban an all
harvesting of fur seals was necessary for the survival of the seal
population. That verdict doomed the human families who have for decades
shared St. George with the fur seals and other wildlife. We now have no
local economy to speak of. We are increasingly a welfare economy
dependent on cash assistance from outside our Island.
We believe there was no sound, rational basis for placing a
complete ban on our fur seal trade over two decades ago. With proper
management, the herd was not at risk. Regardless, today the only danger
confronting the seals is produced by the ban. Meanwhile, the male fur
seal population has swelled so much that they are killing each other in
territorial and hormonal spats rivaled only perhaps by the Serbs and
the Kosovars. We Aleuts, who have been pauperized by an uninformed and
callous Federal policy from afar, are now consigned to sit in
dependency and watch our once valuable and healthy resource go to waste
all around us while we teeter on the edge of survival.
I recite this background for two purposes. One, this is history
that has been made in my and your lifetimes. These wrongs must be
redressed in our lifetimes. Second, it places our appropriations
request in its real and practical context.
I lead the Traditional Council which is the Indian Tribe on our
Island. When the 1966 and 1983 Acts which affect our Island were
passed, the Traditional Council was the original and only governmental
entity on St. George Island. Since then, the City of St. George has
been organized to represent both Aleuts and non-Natives who have
recently moved to the Island and Tanaq, the Village Corporation, was
organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to represent
St. George Aleut shareholders born before 1971 regardless of where they
live.
Over the past several years, the Traditional Council has engaged in
a discussion with other Pribilof Island entities and with our Alaska
congressional delegation on how best to gain a fair resolution of our
claims against the United States for the harm it has caused our people
and our Island by taking away our entire means of livelihood. To this
day, Federal agencies micro-manage much of our Island for purposes
having nothing to do with our people who have inhabited the Island for
more than a century.
Some of our claims could be resolved through the annual
appropriations process, and we ask that you give special consideration
to them for the following reasons.
request no. 1: transfer ownership of the ``cottage c'' facility for use
with our ihs health clinic
The St. George Traditional Council manages a tribally-operated
health Clinic funded by the Indian Health Service (IHS). Ours is the
only health facility and provider on St. George Island. Due to our
remote Island location, and often extreme weather conditions that
regularly preclude travel off of our Island, all residents and visitors
depend on our Clinic for vital health services. Our health clinic
serves everyone, regardless of whether they are Aleuts or other Alaska
Natives.
Our health clinic facility is dangerously dilapidated and IHS's
many promises of a replacement clinic have not been kept. At present we
have two health professionals stationed permanently on our Island.
Periodically, IHS physicians and other medical professionals travel to
our Island to provide specialty services at our clinic. These
professionals must be housed while they are on our Island. The travel
costs plus the high per diem charges we must pay for overnight
accommodations at the only hotel on our Island have sharply limited the
medical services we can obtain. The lone, 10-room hotel on St. George
charges $130 per night, sorely taxing our scarce operating budget.
Meanwhile, across the street from our clinic is a mostly unused and
empty National Oceanic and Aeronautic Administration (NOAA) facility.
Known as ``Cottage C'', this facility is not a cottage but a 4,800
square foot building that has three floors containing seven bedrooms
and three baths. In previous years it served as the Island's hospital.
It is now only used by National Marine and Fisheries Services (NMFS)
about 10 percent of the year, typically by supervisory personnel when
they visit our island. In light of this minimal use, the cost to NOAA
in maintaining this facility cannot be justified.
When the Federal government pulled out of St. George Island in
1983, various Federal agencies transferred to the City of St. George
and Tanaq facilities and staff quarters. However, as the entity
responsible for all medical care on St. George Island, the St. George
Traditional Council has no quarters to house the visiting medical
personnel.
IHS has notified us that we are slated to receive new primary care
recurring funds as part of the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC)
Rural Anchorage Service Unit. These funds will be used to increase
family physician, dental, optometry and audiology visits to our Island
in an effort to reduce our backlog of basic health needs. However, a
substantial amount of these funds will have to be diverted to lodging
costs unless we are transferred the ownership of ``Cottage C''. We want
to maximize the funds available for those medical visits. Not only
would a transfer of Cottage C to the St. George Traditional Council
reduce the amount of funding NOAA currently expends for its
maintenance, but it would increase the amount of IHS funding which can
be used towards these basic specialty health services.
In addition to serving as temporary staff housing, ``Cottage C''
could also serve as temporary or overflow space for our existing clinic
in-patient load. Our present clinic only has two beds. A couple years
ago, when there were 8 to 10 fishermen injured in an accident, we were
forced to lay them in the hallways. Fortunately, our local people
contributed bedding and other bedside care until we could get a medical
evacuation plane into our landing strip. Daily air service is no longer
provided to our Island and inclement weather routinely makes landing or
takeoff of charter medical evacuation aircraft impossible.
We ask this Subcommittee to set in motion the immediate transfer of
``Cottage C'' to the St. George Traditional Council for its use for
public health purposes. On at least three separate occasions, we have
requested of NOAA and NMFS that they transfer this property to us, but
have been refused. We need the help of the Subcommittee to get this
facility transferred to us immediately.
request no. 2--special add-on or earmark to repair our ihs clinic.
Our existing IHS Clinic is facing major structural deficiencies
that require immediate attention. Much of the plumbing system has been
destroyed, the central heating system is inoperable, and the clinic
rests on a bad foundation that is causing structural damage. We are
faced with an emergency need for funds to rebuild our clinic. We may
well have to abandon our clinic in the very near future.
Our clinic building was transferred to the Traditional Council in
1986 along with a grant of $90,000 from NOAA to fix it up. NOAA
proposed the transfer of the clinic on a take it or leave it basis. The
Council received an additional $150,000 from a special Federal fund and
contributed another $200,000 of its own funds to help bring the clinic
into useable condition. Since then, severe weather conditions and a
poor design have caused the clinic's foundation to settle. The settling
has crushed the sewage piping under the building's foundation,
preventing some toilets from draining or flushing. The hot water pipes
feeding the central heating system for the clinic have now rusted away,
leaving us with no central heat for the past two years. Instead, we now
must use space heaters. There is growing concern that leaking sewage is
tainting our limited supply of fresh water. None of the electrical
wiring throughout the clinic is grounded. Wiring itself is far from
adequate for modern-day health equipment, and there is significant
asbestos contamination. These conditions would not be tolerated
anywhere else in America! Yet the IHS continues to defer, delay and
ignore our clinic repair or replacement requests.
An inspection completed on September 20, 1996, by an Environmental
Health Specialist from the Public Health Service (PHS) listed
recommendations (Attachment A) of which the most significant was the
need to build a replacement clinic. The cost estimate for this
construction was $980,000, based on an engineering report at that time.
However, on March 19, 1999, we had an engineering firm evaluate our
clinic and update the estimate (Attachment B). The 1999 report of the
independent engineering firm concerns us greatly. We may be without any
clinic facility in the very near future.
According to Section 204 of the Fur Seal Amendments Act of 1983 16
U.S.C. 1151, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is obligated to
provide medical and dental care. The Secretary has delegated that
responsibility to the Indian Health Service but has not allocated the
necessary funds to IHS to even minimally carry out the Secretary's
special statutory obligation. Indeed, the statute requires the
Secretary to maintain existing and construct new health facilities on
St. George Island.
Accordingly, we ask this Subcommittee to add-on or earmark
sufficient funds to repair or replace our health clinic facility on an
emergency basis given the serious deterioration and public health
hazard that our clinic has become.
request no. 3--repair of residential housing
Housing is critically scarce on our Island, as a result of the
growing demand and the Federal agencies' destruction of inhabitable
dwellings of residents who chose to leave the Island in the 1970s.
We recently conducted a community housing survey. Since 1978, only
nine (9) BIA-funded and eight (8) HUD-funded houses have been built. No
new residential housing has been constructed on St. George Island since
1985, except for two houses built by the school district. The last time
that any housing was repaired with Federal assistance was in 1976.
Residential housing in our community has not received proper
maintenance work for twenty years (Attachment C). Asbestos and lead-
based paint are widespread. Most of us inherited these homes from the
days when our families were Federal employees who were compensated in
part by Federal housing. When the United States ended our status as
Federal employees, closed down our fur seal harvest, and pulled out of
our Island, we were left with deteriorated houses that suffered from
years of Federal neglect and lack of maintenance.
One Federal official, in defending the Federal withdrawal in 1976,
wrote that home maintenance functions ``would be better handled by some
individuals or the Corporations who may wish to set up home
construction and building--supply businesses such as are available in
most other communities'' (Attachment C). Most other communities have an
economy. We do not. Without a functioning economy, our people have no
money to repair their dilapidated homes.
When these Federal homes were transferred to our residents, the
United States deeded over seriously flawed facilities under conditions
that accelerated their wear and tear. The effects of salt water
infiltration provide a good example of the nature of our home
maintenance problems. Throughout the 1980s, salt water infiltrated our
fresh water supply. Finally, in about 1990 we got a new fresh water
system that kept the salt water at bay. However, during the preceding
ten years, the salt water had seriously damaged our residential
plumbing pipes and our residential furnaces. We have fresh water again.
But we are left with an inoperable infrastructure. Once again, it seems
the Federal agencies dumped problems on the local people and ran. This
problem has now become acute for our families.
We feel the uncertainty of our economic future may not be able to
provide adequate compensation to the residents to fix the problems
inherited when the property was transferred from the Federal
government. If the deferred maintenance is taken care of, this will
remove one more stumbling block in our path to the development of a
self-sustaining economy on our Island. Consequently, we have prepared a
detailed list of houses with estimated repair costs (Attachment D) and
propose these housing funds be administered by the Council. This
approach would allow the Council to address life endangering situations
as well as maintain management and control necessary to get the jobs
done.
Accordingly, we request that this Subcommittee add-on or earmark
sufficient funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be transferred to
the Traditional Council through our tribal Self-Governance agreement,
under the auspices of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association in
accordance with Title IV, Public Law 93-638, as amended, for the
purpose of meeting these emergency housing repair needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
introduction
On behalf of the 32 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 College or University
Assistance Act.'' This program, also known as the ``Tribal College
Act,'' is administered by the United States Department of Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs. Although
AIHEC is seeking 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 $7.1 million increase for Titles I and II in fiscal year
2000 (FY00). Specifically, we request an increase of $10 million over
fiscal year 1999 funding for Titles I and II, which provide core
operational funding for 26 colleges. 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 total
amount requested under this Act is $46,234,000.
AIHEC was founded in 1972 by six of the first tribally-controlled
community colleges. Today, AIHEC is a cooperatively sponsored effort on
the part of 32 member institutions throughout the United States and
Canada, all of which are fully accredited (with the exception of three
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.
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 over 25,000 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
developments in American Indian education history, promoting
achievement among students who would otherwise never know educational
success.
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 Tribally-Controlled College or University Assistance Act of
1978 provides funding for the operating 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,
approximately 18 percent of Tribal College students are non-Indians
from the surrounding rural communities, with little or no funding for
these students coming from the state or Federal government. Federal
appropriations have never reached 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 1998, this
level was raised to $6,000 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 1999 increase of $1.4
million, the colleges suffered a decrease of $53 per Indian student and
are still funded at less than half of the level authorized, or $2,964
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 22,000 students every year.
Additionally, funding for Tribal Colleges, insufficient from the
outset, has not even kept pace with inflation--in fiscal year 1999, the
Title I Tribal Colleges received only $133 more per Indian student than
they received in 1981. This represents an increase of only four-percent
over an 18-year period. When inflation is factored in, the payment's
value actually decreased by $1,261 (from $2,831 to $1,570) since 1981.
Tribal Colleges, in many ways, are victims of their own successes--
the dramatic enrollment increases recorded by the colleges, coupled
with a growing number of Tribally-Controlled Colleges, have forced
Title I colleges to slice an inadequate pie into incredibly small
pieces. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, in two
separate studies praised the Tribal Colleges, for providing access to
students, strengthening communities and rebuilding cultures. The first
recommendation of the most recent report, requested full funding for
the Tribally-Controlled College or University Assistance Act. Pointing
to the significant enrollment gains posted by the colleges--Title I
Tribal Colleges reported a 270 percent increase from 1981 to 1998--the
report called on the Administration and Congress to fund the colleges
at fully authorized levels.
Our request for an $8.3 million increase for Title I would amount
to only $3,827 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 $6,000 and just a modest increase over the current
Indian student allocation of $2,964.
Tribal Colleges have survived on a patchwork of smaller,
competitive, short-term grants that supplement the insufficient Titles
I and II operational funding. This is not a stable way of funding
Tribal Colleges, but these institutions have little choice. Several
colleges have faced serious struggles because of this funding
instability, and accrediting agencies are warning the colleges about
the hazards of relying too heavily on ``soft money.'' Unlike most state
institutions, the Tribal Colleges are young, as most were founded
within the past 25 years. 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.
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 distributions, 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 served by Tribal Colleges are
located in extremely remote and economically disadvantaged areas.
Therefore, gaming has not been a significant or stable 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, actualized by numerous treaties, Supreme Court decisions,
and prior Congressional action. Tribal Colleges serve communities in
the most rural 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 justification 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 target highest
priority areas of need for increased funding for Tribal Colleges.
Justifications
1. 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 among the poorest in the 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 reach 86 percent, and over 90 percent of Tribal
College students qualify for need-based federal financial aid.
2. 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, applying 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 Agency reservation community.
3. 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 a 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.
4. 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 several other Tribal Colleges have been granted a ten-year
accreditation term--the longest term allowed for any higher education
institution.
5. Tribal Colleges serve as highly effective bridges to mainstream
four-year postsecondary institutions. A recent survey of Tribal
Colleges indicated that an average of 40 percent of graduating students
transfer to four-year institutions, compared with a national average of
22 percent. A case study compared students who transferred from Salish
Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana, with American Indian students and
found the Tribal College students were better prepared for the
challenges of mainstream four-year institutions and were more likely to
complete Bachelor's degree programs.
6. 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.
7. 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 address the needs
of their increasing student bodies. If each college received full or at
least the increased core operational funding in FY00, Tribal Colleges
could focus on some of their high priority areas of need, such as (1)
maintaining accreditation by stabilizing their core operational budgets
and beginning to build upon existing programs (now, due to low funding
levels, the colleges must piecemeal their core budgets together) (2)
improving instructional capabilities and enhancing student support
services; (3) expanding library services and collections, and
establishing a tribal archive; (4) facilities maintenance and
improvement, 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.
building on the president's budget request for fiscal year 2000
The President's Budget Request reflects a $7.1 million increase for
the operational grants funded under Titles I and II of this Act.
Although we are very appreciative for this increase request and
acknowledge that it will be helpful to the 26 institutions funded under
this Act, it reflects only a beginning to what must be a sustained
commitment. The gross funding disparities described above have caused
considerable hardship on the colleges. Only when full funding is
appropriated will equal educational opportunities begin to exist for
American Indian peoples, giving the Tribal Colleges the opportunity to
ensure that the quality of their educational services, which they have
struggled so hard to achieve, are not compromised.
conclusion
In light of the justifications presented in this statement and the
even further enrollment increases that will result from welfare reform,
we strongly urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal
Colleges. Fulfillment of AIHEC's FY00 request will strengthen the
mission of these colleges and the enormous, positive impact they have
on their respective communities. This funding will help ensure that our
colleges 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 statement, Tribal Colleges have been
extremely responsible with the Federal support they have received over
the last 18 years. 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 funding
requests. We respectfully ask the Members of this Subcommittee for
their continued support and consideration of our fiscal year 2000
appropriations request.
______
Prepared Statement of Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman, Tribal Council,
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I am Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Tribal Council
of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
Our phone number is 541-553-1161. My testimony, which I submit today
for the Subcommittee's hearing record, addresses the proposed fiscal
year 2000 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health
Service, and the National Park Service with the following requests and
comments:
(1) We request that the $20 million increase for B.I.A. law
enforcement be doubled, that those funds be available to tribally
operated law enforcement programs, and that $500,000 be specifically
designated for Warm Springs.
(2) We request the designation of $3.5 million in B.I.A.
Construction as a federal match in building a new elementary education
facility at Warm Springs.
(3) We support the $250,000 B.I.A. request for Columbia River
fishing access site management, and ask that those funds be
contractible for law enforcement.
(4) With regard to the Indian Health Service Budget, we request:
That I.H.S. ``Special Pay'' be dedicated to providing full pay to
federal employees and installations;
That $5 million be restored to the Community Health Representatives
program;
That Contract Health Services funding be increased beyond the
requested 3.5 percent;
That $13 million be added to the requested amount for the
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund; and
That the overall I.H.S. budget be increased to reflect population
growth and medical inflation increases.
(5) We support the $200 million in the National Park Service budget
request for the Land Legacy Initiative.
The items below are listed according to priority. We wish to
emphasize that the top two priorities for the Confederated Tribes of
Warm Springs remain the first two items, both of which are very basic
for any community: law enforcement and education.
(1) We strongly urge that the requested $20 million increase for
B.I.A. law enforcement funding be at least doubled, ask Congress to
assure B.I.A. law enforcement funds can be used for all tribally
operated law enforcement programs, and request that at least $500,000
be designated specifically to provide law enforcement services at Warm
Springs.
The Warm Springs Reservation is exempt from Public Law 280 state
criminal jurisdiction, so law enforcement on our Reservation rests with
the Federal and Tribal governments. B.I.A. provided law enforcement on
our Reservation up to the 1950s, but starting in the termination era,
withdrew its support. Since that time, except for some support for our
corrections facility and investigations branch, our Tribe has covered
the full cost of public safety on our Reservation. Recently, declining
tribal revenues and population increases have severely strained our
capability to bear this burden. Now, at any one time, we can only
afford two patrol officers to cover the entire 1,000 square mile
Reservation, which, while mostly rural or even remote, is bisected by
one busy highway and adjacent to another busy highway--this one a major
drug route--to the east. Consequently, we share the high crime rates
that are all too common in Indian Country. In response to this national
crisis, B.I.A. initiated a law enforcement improvement effort in fiscal
year 1999, and while we were able to access some of those funds to take
part in a Central Oregon law enforcement and drug interdiction effort,
B.I.A. restricted the use of fiscal year 1999 funds for additional
patrol officers to only those law enforcement programs operated
directly by the Bureau itself. Tribal programs, such as ours, could not
get what we needed most: additional patrol and corrections officers.
Now, for fiscal year 2000, B.I.A. is requesting another $20 million law
enforcement increase, which still falls far, far short of the pressing
law enforcement needs in Indian Country, so we ask that the requested
increase be at least doubled. And to make sure that those funds can be
put to their most effective use, we ask that Congress assure they be
available to tribal law enforcement programs for patrol and corrections
officers. We further ask that at least $500,000 be dedicated for patrol
officers, equipment, and support personnel at Warm Springs, so that the
B.I.A. can fulfill the trust responsibility it has avoided for more
than forty year on our Reservation by meaningfully contributing to our
law enforcement.
(2) We request the designation of $3.5 million in B.I.A.
Construction as a federal match in building a new elementary (k-6)
education facility at Warm Springs.
In 1960, when the B.I.A. ceased directly providing education to
Warm Springs children, it turned over its facility, a former boarding
school, to the local school district. Today, that facility is still the
principal school on our Reservation, despite its age and severe under
sizing. Today, even with many Warm Springs Elementary School students
in modular units, our growing school population requires that children
in 6th grade and above be bussed to the town of Madras, which can take
an hour and a half one way. Clearly, a new school is needed at Warm
Springs, but the local school district can only afford half the $7
million cost. Accordingly, we request that the balance of construction
funding be provided in the B.I.A. Construction budget. B.I.A. has
informed us there is no legal impediment to their funding construction
of a school at Warm Springs, and with a local match and local coverage
of operational expenses, it is a good example of fiscal cooperation.
(3) We support the $250,000 B.I.A. request for Columbia River
fishing access site management in the ``Other Recurring Programs,
Resources Management'' budget, and request the funds be contractible
for law enforcement.
After U.S. construction of Bonneville Dam in the 1930s inundated
traditional tribal treaty fishing sites on the Columbia River, the U.S.
repeatedly pledged to create 400 acres of new sites ``in lieu'' of
those submerged. However, only five sites totaling about 40 acres were
provided, and they became very crowded and run down. Finally, in 1988,
Public Law 100-581, Title IV, authorized the Corps of Engineers'
renovation of existing sites and development of twenty six new sites,
totaling not more than 400 acres. Upon each site's completion, the
Corps turns it over to B.I.A. to be managed in trust. The turn-over
procedures were memorialized in a June, 1995 memorandum of
understanding between the Corps and B.I.A., including Corps agreement
to provide a lump sum for each site's initial operation and
maintenance. For its part of the M.O.U., the B.I.A. pledged to provide
$250,000 for administration of the sites, including law enforcement.
Several of the new sites have now been turned over to B.I.A. and are
already being intensively used by tribal fishermen. We ask that the
B.I.A. O&M funds be provided, that they include use for law
enforcement, which is critically needed at these crowded sites quite
distant from the reservations, and that the funds be subject to Self-
Determination Act contracting, so that the funds may be more
effectively and efficiently used by the tribes themselves.
(4) Indian Health Service Budget:
We ask that Congress direct that any ``Special Pay'' funds
appropriated to the Indian Health Service be dedicated to providing
full pay to federal employees and installations.
``Special Pay'' is an element of the Indian Health Service budget
intended to fully address pay and benefits for I.H.S. Physicians and
Dentists working at I.H.S. operated locations, such as the Wellness
Center at Warm Springs. There has, however, been discussion about
redistributing this pay among all I.H.S. funded health activities,
including programs that, through contract or compact, are not directly
operated by the I.H.S.. This would diminish the availability of those
funds to cover the employment obligations owed I.H.S. Federal
employees, diverting the funds from their intended purpose, either
depriving Service employees of the pay and benefits they are owed or
forcing the reduction of staff (and services) at IHS operated
facilities such as ours.
The Community Heath Representative (CHR) Program should have its $5
million restored.
This program serves as a vital link between our elders and the
Indian Health Clinics and Hospitals. CHR's are mostly Tribal employees
who are trained in health prevention and health screening techniques.
Sometimes our elders are resistant to seeking health care when it is
most needed, and CHRs have the ability to communicate with them and to
encourage and assist them in obtaining the necessary help.
Contract Health Services (CHS) funds need a substantially larger
increase than the purposed 3.8 percent in the President's Budget. The
CHS funds represent 15-20 percent of the total Health Services account
in the IHS budget. This program has been under-funded since 1992, and
medical inflation has further diminished the CHS purchasing power since
then. A 3.8 percent increase won't even meet current medical cost
increases, let alone begin to address the backlog of unaddressed need
for this large and vital part of the I.H.S. budget.
Add $13 million to the Administration's request for the
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund. Within Contract Health Services is
a $12 million subactivity for the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund
(CHEF). The fund is a lifesaver for Indian health programs. Its purpose
is to fund catastrophic health care cases with large expense (over
$19,000). The Catastrophic Health Emergency fund is an important source
of funds for programs that experience high cost cases. These cases
place a tremendous financial and ethical burden on a Service Unit or a
tribe if the case occurs near the end of the year after the Fund has
been exhausted. A high cost case at a small Indian health program can
wipe out resources for other routine health care needs. The $12 million
proposed for fiscal year 2000 is less than was appropriated in fiscal
year 1992 (even without factoring for inflation). In fiscal year 1998,
501 cases seeking a total of $9,850,000 in CHEF assistance went unpaid.
The actual need is certainly greater than $9 million because the fund
is depleted well before the end of the Fiscal year. Every year, tribes
know that, in the last quarter of the year, claims are not likely to be
approved, and many programs simply do not submit claims. $13 million
should be added to the CHEF fund.
Increase the IHS budget to reflect population growth and medical
inflation increases.
Overall the Indian Health Service has been underfunded in two major
areas: 1. population growth and 2. medical inflation costs. The
population of Native American and Alaskan Natives has increased without
a corresponding increase of IHS Health care dollars. And medical
inflation has increased at 6-10 percent per year without any IHS budget
increase, seriously eroding the purchasing power of our health care
dollars.
(5) We support the $200 million added to the National Park Service
budget for state and tribal participation in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund as part of the Interior Department's Land Legacy
Initiative.
The issue of declining salmon habitat points out the increasing
importance of the ability of states, local, and (subject to
authorization) tribal governments to secure open land for conservation
purposes, and these funds will be of great help by reinvigorating the
so-called ``stateside'' of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Norton Sound Health Corporation
NSHC Priority Budget Items. The Norton Sound Health Corporation
(NSHC) submits this statement on the fiscal year 2000 Indian Health
Services budget and makes the following requests:
(1) Provide appropriations to fully fund mandatory cost increases
and increase level of need funded for Alaska Natives/American Indians;
(2) Community Health Aide Program increase for Alaska of $20
million;
(3) Patient travel increase for Alaska of $10 million;
(4) Facilitate alternative financing for Norton Sound hospital and
other facilities construction projects.
(5) Fully fund contract support costs;
(6) Support $4 million budget request for Alaska Telemedicine
project;
(1) Fully Fund Mandatory Cost Increases and Increase Level of Need
Funding.--The NSHC requests the Subcommittee to recommend funding for
all mandatory cost increases incurred by the IHS and tribal health care
providers, including medical and non-medical inflation, mandatory pay
increases, and population growth. Although the Administration's fiscal
year 2000 budget request includes $34.5 million for built-in costs,
this amount would only partially fund pay raises and inflation. But
this amount is far less than the $93 million IHS conservatively
estimates is needed to fund inflation and built-in costs for just
fiscal year 2000. And the IHS estimate of $93 million does not include
increased costs for population growth.
The chronic underfunding of built-in costs since fiscal year 1996
for tribal and IHS health programs has required us to absorb an ever-
increasing amount of mandatory cost increases has limited the amount
available for direct health care services for our people. In fiscal
year 1997 and in the subsequent fiscal year 1998, Norton Sound Health
Corporation experienced audited losses of $1.9 million and $1.8
million, respectively. We are projecting another loss of approximately
$600,000 in this current fiscal year 1999 if something is not done to
increase our available funding for operations. These losses relate
primarily to the inflationary costs we have had to absorb for salary
increases to remain competitive in our recruitment of health care
workers, the above normal costs relating to patient travel and medivac
transports, and the decrease in alternate sources of payors (revenues)
for Native Indian Health Services beneficiaries. We are seeing an
increasing decline in the private insurance and medicaid coverage for
Native eligibles which results in a transfer of costs from these
alternate payors to the Indian Health Services compact. Our
Administration and the Board of Directors have done all that we can to
reduce expenses including: cutting back on Board meetings, eliminating
administrative support staff, seeking lower cost facility lease
alternatives, taking our phone system in-house, enacting a reduction in
force (RIF) of certain programs, eliminating our substance abuse
program, eliminating our Self Governance Office, eliminating our grant
writer office, eliminating our health education program, cutting out
training and reducing travel for staff, delaying pay increases, cutting
back on employee benefits and streamlining certain departments in order
to reduce administrative supervisory costs. All this has been done with
much pain and has resulted in a truly ``barebones'' operation. If we do
not see some relief soon, we will have no choice but to begin to cut
out our primary care services including patient travel, village clinic
care, the number of physicians and other practitioners as well as other
extreme measures.
We are hoping that the momentum of support we have seen over this
past year from the President's office and Congress for Native Health
programs will prevent this from happening. We support the National
Congress of American Indians' efforts to bring the level of funding for
the Indian Health Services to a par with health care expenditures for
typical United States citizens. We also support the Indian Health
Services attempt to quantify this disparity, through the report by the
Level of Need Workgroup, in response to Congressional inquiries into
this grave matter. The Level of Need Workgroup's preliminary report
(final report due out in May 1999) states that the net risk adjusted
annual costs of a typical Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits plan for
Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries is greater than $3,000 per person.
This compares with the personal services funding received of only
$1,350 per Native user. We request that the Congress look closely at
this report in considering the fiscal year 2000 budget and consider a
phase-in funding approach over the next three to five years to bring
parity in health care for the underserved first citizens of our great
country.
We are equally concerned that any proposed efforts to institute
across the board budget cuts for federal agencies exclude the Indian
Health Services in light of the demonstrated unmet health care needs in
Indian country. We urgently request that the Congress consider the
Indian Health Services separately when contemplating any such action in
the ensuing months of budget deliberations.
(2) Community Health Aide Program increase of $20 million.--Norton
Sound Health Corporation is currently working with the Alaska Native
Health Board to update the report on the Community Health Aide program,
CHA/P in Crisis. This report identifies problems including below-
standard salaries, high attrition rates, and lack of support and
training. The Alaska Health Aide program is a model system of
delivering low cost primary care to patients residing in Rural Alaska.
This program saw some relief in funding several years ago; however, it
is now on the brink of another crisis if increased costs are not met.
We ask that Congress consider raising CHA/P salaries to a standard of
$20/hour, to increase funding for training centers and for support
costs in the village clinics. These trained quasi-professionals act as
primary care physicians and emergency care staff in mostly remote areas
of Alaska, several hundred miles away from any physician-based
facility. The alternative to this system of care would be very costly,
in terms of dollars and in patient care. We urge full support of this
program with phased-in funding to include at least $20 million in the
fiscal year 2000 Indian Health Services Budget.
(3) Patient Travel increase of $10 million.--We ask for an increase
of $10 million for patient travel for Alaska. Physical access to care
is a critical and expensive component of health care in Alaska. While
the community Health Aid Program and physicians assistants provide
basic health care at the village level, many services and procedures
are not feasible in village clinics. The majority of rural Alaska
Natives who need a doctor's care must travel by air to receive these
services; the current average cost for travel between the village and
Nome is $250 round trip and between Nome and Anchorage is $650 round
trip. Medivac costs for critical care patients average $2,500 between
Nome and the villages and $6,300 between Nome and Anchorage, not
including medical escort costs, supplies costs and any airline standby
charges. In addition, there are other related costs, i.e., hotel, food
and ground transportation. The 1991 report, Access to Care: Crisis for
Alaska Natives found that 40 percent of patients who need treatment or
diagnostic services deferred it due to the costs for air fare and
lodging. Of note is that the new Alaska Native Medical Center has some
accommodations for family members accompanying patients to their
facility in Anchorage, but it by no means can house all those who need
it. Nome has no patient quarters available for village patients or
escorts seeking care at our regional hospital.
(4) Facility Construction Costs for the Norton Sound Regional
Hospital.--As we testified last year, one of NSHC's greatest needs is
the replacement or renovation of the severely overcrowded Norton Sound
Regional Hospital. Originally constructed in 1948 and since expanded,
the hospital is filled with code violations and safety deficiencies
which include unsafe wiring and plumbing, inadequate ventilation, and
structural problems due to foundation movement. Although we have
completed an application for a new hospital, it appears that IHS
construction funding will not be forthcoming for a very long time,
given the backlog for funding the Indian Health Services Facilities
Construction projects. The NSHC has continued to explore alternative
funding through borrowing the necessary funds from private sector
sources. In order to do this, however, we must be assured of stable IHS
funding for lease of the space to deliver health services.
The Indian Self-Determination Act, as amended, and the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (Sec. 804) was intended to provide for this
situation by requiring IHS, at the request of a tribe, to lease
tribally-owned facilities that are used for the delivery of health care
services. We have been prohibited from obtaining financing in this way,
however, by an Office of Management and Budget policy which requires
the entire costs of a long-term lease to be scored in the first year.
This policy makes it cost prohibitive for IHS to lease space.
We were disappointed that in spite of the fiscal year 1999 House
Appropriations Report request to IHS that its fiscal year 2000 budget
address alternative construction options, such as reinstituting a joint
venture facilities construction program, cost-sharing arrangements and
the enhanced use of third-party collections for improving aging
facilities, it failed to do so. We understand that IHS had proposed $15
million for join venture projects, but that it did not make it into the
final Administration request. We must continue to work together to find
a sensible way to achieve the goal of providing health care in a safe
and adequate environment.
Norton Sound Health Corporation strongly urges Congress to provide
authorization for establishment of a loan program to fund renovation
and expansion of existing facilities and construction of new facilities
owned and/or operated by Tribes. The program could include direct loans
and loan guarantees over a multi-year period. Management of the program
could lie outside of the Indian Health Services if necessary.
(5) Funding for Contract Support Costs Shortfalls.--While the NSHC
appreciates the Administration's request for an additional $35 million
in contract support costs, it is still considerably less than the
amount needed. The IHS estimates the current shortfall in contract
support is $93 million, although that amount may be reduced pending
final negotiations and lifting of the moratorium on new and extended
contracts. Thus, the NSHC fully supports the Alaska Native Health Board
recommendation of full funding for the IHS contract support costs, in
furtherance of the well-established federal policy to encourage tribal
self-governance. Additionally, we urge that Congress allow the
completion of the National Congress of American Indians-led national
review of contract support policy and refinement of distribution
methodologies before instituting any changes to the current system.
We request the Subcommittee to work with the Department of Health
and Human Services to assure that sufficient funds for contract support
costs are included in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
(6) Alaska Telemedicine Project.--The NSHC urges that Congress fund
the Administration's budget request of $4 million (the same amount as
appropriated in fiscal year 1999) for the Alaska Federal Health Care
Access Network (AFCAN). The AFCAN is a multi-year telemedicine and
telehealth technology project which will connect over 200 federally
funded health care facilities (including tribal clinics, tribal
regional hospitals and clinics) to facilitate the sharing of clinical
and patient information.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations and for
your attention to matters affecting the health of Alaska Natives and
Native people throughout the nation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) is the provider of
health care services to more than 6,000 Native and 2,100 non-Native
residents of the Bering Straits Region in northwest Alaska. NSHC,
headquartered in Nome, is the only source of health care, excluding one
private dental practice, in a region, which encompasses more than
25,000 square miles. NSHC serves and is controlled by 20 Native
villages within the Bering Strait Region. We provide a wide array of
health care services, from preventive services to the operation of an
intermediate care nursing facility and the Norton Sound Regional
Hospital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Kenahan, Tribal Police Chief,
Narragansett Indian Tribe
On behalf of the Narragansett Indian Tribe, I am pleased to present
the Tribe's statement concerning the fiscal year 2000 budget of the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. On December 30th,
1998, history was made in my home State of Rhode Island when the
Narragansett Tribe selected me as the Tribe's first appointed Police
Chief. In addition to that honor, I was also pleased that my swearing-
in ceremony was attended not only by tribal members but by local
dignitaries such as former U.S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse and current
U.S. Attorney Meg Curran. Their attendance spoke well of the
government-to-government relationship that all tribes seek to
strengthen with the United States. It is my hope, and the hope of this
proud Tribe, that working together, we may forge a strong and
meaningful relationship with our State and Federal counterparts in the
law enforcement field.
The Narragansett Tribe urges Congress to increase the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request of $138 million for BIA law
enforcement. This is $42 million over the fiscal year 1999 level. Of
this increase, however, $20 million would be a program increase, with
the remaining balance for built-in costs. We believe that the program
increase should be double that.
I would not be here before you today if it were not for the
existence of a COPS FAST Grant through the Department of Justice which
augments the Tribe's Public Law 93-638 funding. I am a Korean War
veteran and retired Rhode Island State Police Sergeant with nearly 40
years experience in law enforcement; 21 years as a uniformed officer,
detective and police liason with the State Attorney General's office
and 18 years in the security business, rising to become Vice President
of Pinkerton's Security.
As head of the newly formed Narragansett Tribe Police Department I
wish to apprise you of the current working conditions. I ask for your
assistance to provide additional funds to the BIA budget to make the
Narragansett Tribe's, as well as other tribal law enforcement programs,
more effective and self-reliant. As a law enforcement professional, I
truly believe that funds spent in law enforcement are funds well spent.
An effective law enforcement program can save lives and make a
difference in the community. It is an essential component of any
community's infrastructure. Without adequate law enforcement services
and a judicial system, Indian tribes cannot hope to attract economic
development to their reservations to improve the living conditions of
their members and break the cycle of dependence on Federal
appropriations.
The Tribe is appreciative of the Administration's program increase
of $20 million dollars over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for Law
Enforcement and $2.5 million increase in Tribal Courts to carry out the
Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country, a joint
effort by the BIA and Justice to combat rising crime rates in Indian
Country and improve public safety. Although these increases are
significant, I associate myself with the remarks of Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover, who stated that ``Indian Country
needs in every program are massive'' as well as the remarks of Thomas
Leclaire of the Office of Tribal Justice who stated that Tribal and BIA
law enforcement agencies have insufficient staff and lack the
facilities and basic communications and intelligence gathering
technology required to address the law enforcement needs which exist in
Indian country today. Our program is typical. Our fiscal year 2000
proposed BIA funding for law enforcement is $69,000. Our need is more
than seven times that at roughly $500,000.
Using the Narragansett Tribe's Law Enforcement program as an
example, I would like to illustrate just how critical increases in
Federal appropriations for Law Enforcement in Indian Country are. As a
former State Police Sergeant, the conditions which I and the other
Narragansett Tribal police officer operate under are hazardous,
inefficient and simply unacceptable.
1. Three Additional Officers are Required to Meet Minimal Law
Enforcement Needs ($250,000).--At the present time, the Narragansett
Police Department consists of one patrol officer (Derrick Johnson) and
myself. We have one patrol vehicle that my patrolman and I must share
which is not adequately equipped to perform regular duties. The
reservation consists of approximately 2000 acres, some parcels of which
are not contiguous. We must patrol the Narragansett Church, Longhouse,
Four Winds Community Center, Administration Building, out-patient
health center, housing site and an additional 1500 acres of fee
property. We patrol for trespassers, abandoned vehicles, illegal
hunting and fishing and must respond to any emergencies. A full patrol
takes two and one half to three hours.
Although we are on-call 24 hours a day, evening and weekend patrols
are limited and are performed on an ad hoc basis. At a minimum, we
require an additional three officers, with BIA Police Academy training
and other law enforcement training, to provide the Tribe's 2000 members
with adequate law enforcement services. We have had preliminary
discussions with the Tribe's health department on the subject of
developing a family violence program, but that too requires that we
have adequate law enforcement staff.
In a matter of weeks, the Tribe's reservation will host summer
campers and an annual Pow Wow which attracts thousands of spectators.
We have two ponds on our reservation--Deep Pond and School House Pond--
and at present we do not have adequate safety ropes and buoys in the
event an emergency situation arises. Our existing police force cannot
handle the number of people we anticipate will come onto the Tribe's
reservation and our resources are already stretched to their limit.
2. Office Space and Equipment are Inadequate ($250,000).--The
Tribe's Law Enforcement program occupies a 10' x 10' cubicle in the
Tribe's Administration Building. Patrolman Johnson and I must excuse
ourselves to a private office if we receive a confidential call. Any
complainant is in full view of the entire office. Privacy and
confidentiality are important in law enforcement and the lack of both
inhibits our ability to effectively serve the tribal community. In
addition to the Tribe's reservation, we also patrol another 1500 acres
of fee property owned by the Tribe. We do not have a secure radio
frequency to communicate with and without better equipment, I cannot
maintain constant radio contact with Officer Johnson throughout his
patrols. This is not safe and I view this situation as unacceptable. We
have applied for an FCC license to utilize our own frequency and hope
to secure the license in the near future. I hope that the Narragansett
Tribe can access fiscal year 2000 funds for upgrading our radio
equipment.
We would also like to acquire a law enforcement office trailer
which could be housed on the reservation behind the Tribe's
Administration Building. When properly equipped, including support
staff, this facility would allow us to better perform our job. In
addition, we need an additional patrol vehicle and part time dispatcher
so that both Officer Johnson and I can respond to calls. We recognize
that improvements in our program must be incremental, based on our
limited budget, but to be credible to the community we serve, we must
demonstrate improvement in our law enforcement program each day.
3. Negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with State
Officials.--We have made considerable progress in negotiating a joint
memorandum of understanding with State of Rhode Island and local
officials concerning areas of mutual concern. I am confident that we
will resolve remaining differences in the near future. One issue which
we must resolve with the State is on the issue of tribal access to
State criminal background check information (BCI), using the RILETS
system. Access to this data may prove lifesaving. It is critical that
an MOU be in place soon. My life, the life of Officer Johnson, and the
lives of the Tribal community we serve may be at risk without it. Only
through joint cooperation will the Narragansett Tribe and its non-
Indian neighbors break down barriers of mistrust. Despite our great
need, I am committed to making the Tribe's law enforcement program the
best it can be.
In addition to providing a breakdown of our law enforcement funding
needs, I am including Uniform Crime Statistics for 1997 for the State
of Rhode Island of arrests of Native American Indian or Alaska Natives
as well as the Department of Justice's Standard Compliance Process for
a safe and effective police department which lists the essential
components required for a start up law enforcement program.
In closing, I hope you will assist the Narragansett Indian Tribe
through increased appropriations. All successful undertakings have the
same ingredients--determination by those involved and the resources to
get the job finished. We have the determination. Give us the resources
and we will finish the job of making Narragansett Law Enforcement an
example of a well run law enforcement program.
______
Prepared Statement of Clarence Alexander, Chairman, Council of
Athabascan Tribal Governments
The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG),\1\ a tribal
consortium of ten Athabascan Indian Villages in the Yukon Flats,
Alaska, makes the following recommendations on the fiscal year 2000
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments is a Tribal
Organization (consortium) of ten Athabascan Indian villages in the
Yukon Flats, Alaska. The CATG was formed in 1985 during a gathering of
the Chiefs. Each federally recognized tribe elects its chief according
to tribal constitution. The Chiefs make up the membership of the CATG.
The CATG is recognized as a non-profit Tribal Organization for the
purposes of administering federal, state, and private foundation grants
and contracts as authorized by the Chiefs. The CATG administrative
office is located within the Yukon Flats region of the village of Fort
Yukon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Repeal of the 3-year moratorium contained in the fiscal year 1999
Interior Appropriation Act which prohibits Alaska Villages from
entering into new contracts with the Indian Health Service. We
oppose any institution of limitations on tribal contracting
under the Indian Self-Determination Act.
--Allocation of $200,000 in the Fish and Wildlife Service budget for
the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments to work with
USF&WS in assuming some of the services and functions on the
Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge.
--Allocation of $200,000 within the Fish and Wildlife Service budget
for the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments to work with
USF&WS on the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Yukon
Flats National Wildlife Refuge.
--Full funding for IHS and BIA contract support.
In order to appreciate our budget recommendations--which focus on
utilization of our own people's knowledge and talents--we provide a
brief description of our physical environment and our efforts to make
better lives for ourselves through assumption of activities previously
done only by outsiders.
The Gwich'in Athabascan Indian population, of Alaska, occupies
about 55,000 square miles in the Northern Interior of Alaska on the
Yukon River drainage--this is 11,000 square miles larger than the state
of Pennsylvania. The villages are scattered over the vast valley called
the Yukon Flats--half of them above the Arctic Circle. Villages at the
Western end of the valley begin the down river transition to the
Koyukon Athabascan culture. The population in the Yukon Flats, is about
1,460. All the villages in the valley are isolated--only winter trails
and rivers connect them. The closest urban center, Fairbanks, is about
an hour's flight from most villages. Commuter airlines provide the only
transportation and mail service to Fairbanks. And, although people
travel between villages by river in the summer, snow machine and dog
sleds in the winter, they travel, most often, by air. Communication
between communities is by telephone, facsimile, mail and a 5,000 watt
public radio station, Gwandak Public Broadcasting, located in the
largest community--Fort Yukon.
The Benefits of Indian Self-Determination Contracting Extend Beyond
BIA and IHS Programs.--Since 1985, more than one hundred jobs have been
brought back to the Yukon Flats through the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638 contracting process.
Many of these jobs were previously held in Fairbanks. Many more
resulted from our efforts to leverage 638 funds to develop additional
programs and projects. These jobs represent permanent full time
employment through the tribes and the tribal consortium we started
together.
Approximately $6 million per year is being brought into the Yukon
Flats because of Public Law 93-638. Add to this the impact of leveraged
EPA grants, locally contracted water and sewer grants, and locally
contracted airport improvement grants, and other programs and you will
find another one to two million dollars. Finally, the capacity of
tribes to run 638 contracts and maintain clean audits has prepared them
to take on responsibility for housing under the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act--something they would not have
had the confidence to do ten years ago or even five years ago. The
effect of the stability provided by the 638 process snowballs once the
tribe is comfortable with the responsibility. We invite you to tour our
offices and the tribal offices in each village to see this yourself.
Because of the build up of contracting in the Flats and the
stability of our administration, the Council has been able to take on a
$700,000 telecommunications project due to go on line by May, 1999. We
formed a partnership with the University of Alaska and AT&T to make
this happen. The project will enable us to save money on telephone and
fax, provide an intra-net for telemedicine, internet access and dial-up
access in all of our villages. We couldn't have done this without being
Self-Determination Act contractors first and having the stability and
experience created through that process.
The experience of tribal contracting also results in tribal
emphasis on development and employment of local human resources.
Children are observed as potential candidates for higher education and
future employment with the tribe. Youth are encouraged to return home
with the skills that they learn ``outside'' to build their homes and
their lives within the community. In the 1980's, people said our
villages were dying. Today the population is growing and there is a
returning sense of purpose and hope.
We learned from other villages who led the way to contracting in
Alaska. Many other communities have followed our example. Many more now
want to follow this path. With all these accomplishments would it have
been better to be paying our six to ten million dollars for welfare
instead? How many more suicides would we have had? How many more people
suffering from substance abuse? We would rather see our people in
meaningful employment with a future and hope for their children. We
have learned how to accomplish this. We seek opportunities to continue
the process.
Alaska-Specific Health Moratorium.--The fiscal year 1999 Interior
Appropriations Act contains a provision which prohibits Alaska villages
who are served by a regional health program from entering into new or
expanded contracts with the IHS for 3 years (through September 30,
2002). This is an incredibly counterproductive and discriminatory
policy, and we urge you to repeal it.
By statute, tribes in Alaska enjoy the same rights as in the rest
of the Nation. But the foundations of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act, inherent tribal rights and authority, and
informed local decision making are being undermined in Alaska by a
moratorium that denies tribes in Alaska the same rights as other tribes
throughout the nation. It dictates to tribes in Alaska who will provide
health care to their tribal members. Only in Alaska, have we been told
to adhere to ``economies of scale'' and that we must accomplish this
through regional entities. This should not be a congressional decision.
We realize that the primary purpose of IHS and other health care
programs is the provision of quality health care. However, health care
also is a very large ``industry'' in this nation and it does provide
billions of dollars for millions of jobs. In reviewing the Alaska
situation, we believe that even if every single tribe were to contract
for locally provided services over the next ten to fifteen years, the
effect would be to slowly increase the contract support costs a maximum
of 15 to 20 million dollars per year. Yes, there is a cost for
increasing local tribal control over locally provided services through
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act health
contracting--but it has also been demonstrated by the Indian Health
Service and tribes that there is a direct relationship between tribal
contracting and an increase in the quality of health services provided.
Because of our contracting, our regional health clinic is fully
staffed for the first time in many years. We no longer depend on
outside agencies to provide temporary Health Aides in our villages.
Instead, we have more consistent service because we use our own trained
workers. We encourage and assist our workers to take distance learning
classes while on the job and to pursue careers as physician assistants,
dentists, and doctors. We train people on the job and, if they have to
leave their community, they have skills to work wherever they go.
Our tribes have also demonstrated improvement in BIA services
because of local the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act contracting, and that experience enables the tribes to assume
responsibility for other programs as well. Out of 43 tribes in the
Interior of Alaska, only seven tribes in the Yukon Flats and two others
have fully taken over Public Law 93-638 BIA contracts to provide
services. These tribes have painstakingly built their administrative
capacity, and are seeking to assume responsibility for programs as they
feel prepared to do it. For instance, CATG administers some health
programs on a regional basis, while other health services--particularly
those in the preventive and substance abuse areas--are likely
candidates for village-level contracting. It is unjust to deny them the
same opportunities open to tribes across the nation to contract for a
portion of their health services as well. We ask that there be no more
Alaska specific riders on appropriations or other bills that limit
tribal authority. We ask that there be no legislative riders that set
precedents which limit tribal opportunity while posing as solutions. We
ask that the Alaska-specific moratorium on IHS contracting be lifted.
Tribal Administration of Activities in the Yukon Flats National
Wildlife Refuge.--The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments has been
steadily building capacity in the area of Natural Resources Management.
Each of the tribal governments in the Yukon Flats has a Natural
Resources Office and there is also a regional department at CATG. The
CATG has proposed taking on responsibility for some of the programs,
functions, services and activities on the Yukon Flats National Wildlife
Refuge. These lands constitute a large part of the homelands of the
Gwich'in and Koyukon people who have lived as part of this land for
thousands of years. Tribal eligibility to take on this responsibility
exists in law and the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge has been
listed as one of the non-BIA programs within the Department of Interior
eligible for tribal management. We refer you to the October 21, 1997
Federal Register notice in which was published the Interior Secretary's
Non-BIA Programs Available for fiscal year 1999 Self-Governance
Agreements--specifically listed is Alaska National Widlife Refuges
(statewide). The notice also lists eight programs with potentially
contractible elements. Within this list, numerous opportunities exist
for our area. Our biologist has identified the following as areas in
which CATG could contract: habitat management, wildlife survey/studies,
visitor services/visitor center operations, acquisition/appraisals,
comprehensive conservation planning, wetland restoration projects,
building site restoration, fire management, subsistence management,
contaminants monitoring, cultural resources planning, archaeological
surveys, cooperative fisheries management and restoration agreements,
fish collection and tagging.
Following a recent meeting between CATG and the Regional Fish and
Wildlife Service Office, USF&WS has agreed to provide us a listing by
the end of April of activities it is now carrying out which it believes
could be contracted by CATG. This is an encouraging development.
And we are also encouraged by legislation, S. 748, introduced on
March 25, 1999 by Senator Murkowskiwhich is designed to increase the
hiring and contracting with Alaska Natives by federal agencies in
Alaska. Senator Murkowski states in his introductory remarks:
``Legislation already exists for contracting with and hiring
Alaska Natives. Sections 1307 and 1308 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act are clear on these
matters. The problem is that the law have been largely ignored.
. . . Mr. President, the National Park Service, The Bureau of
Land Management, the Fish and Widlife Service, and other
agencies within the Interior Department have an opportunity to
hire and contract with local Alaska Natives who were born and
live near and in our parks,hazards, they know about living and
working in arctic conditions. Given the evels of unemployment
in the area, it makes absolutely no sense not to hire these
individuals.''
While the tribes in the Yukon Flats have been able to attain
employment of about 20 percent of the workforce, the YFNWR poses an
economic opportunity which could bring this to 40 percent within a few
short years. We ask that Congressional support be given to this project
and that funding be allocated in the amount of $200,000 to enable CATG
to work in partnership with USF&WS and demonstrate our capacity to do
the work. The budget includes technical staffing, office support and
travel to develop and design implementation methodologies for contracts
programs, functions, activities and services.
Yukon Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan.--We are deeply
concerned that the USF&WS has delayed revision of the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge until
July 2006. This is approximately 14 years after the original plan was
put in place. The Service has indicated that this is due to the small
planning staff and that because there are 16 national Wildlife Refuges
in Alaska, the planning process has been prioritized. The CATG has the
capacity to carry out many aspects of Comprehensive Conservation Plan
planning process and would like to contract with USF&WS to do this
work. The CATG requests an allocation of $200,000 to undertake this
task in collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding would
be used for technical staffing, office support and travel for planning
staff to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service in designing and
implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of Stan Rice, Jr., President, Board of Directors,
Prescott Indian Tribe
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe appreciates the opportunity to
address the issue of fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill for the
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
Tribe has reviewed President Clinton's Budget for fiscal year (FY) 2000
for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
fully supports the requests made in the President's budget regarding
these two departments.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe particularly supports the
continued, and increased, funding of the initiative on Law Enforcement
in Indian Country. Fiscal year 2000 is the second year of the four-year
implementation period. The need for improved law enforcement services
in Indian Country has been widely documented demonstrating that Indian
citizens residing on Reservations do not receive the minimum level of
law enforcement services taken for granted in non-Indian communities.
For example, with an estimated Indian Country population of 1,430,000,
the police officer to citizen ratio (2.9 officers per 1000 citizens)
would mandate at least 4,290 police officers, an increase of 50 percent
over the number of 2000 sworn police officers in Indian Country.
An example that reflects the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe involves
the creation of our new Tribal Police Department. Recently, the Tribe
developed its own Tribal Police Department, with the assistance of a
Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services grant. We
are sure that you are aware of the high cost of establishing a police
department. While we gladly received grant funds for the police
officers' salaries, the Tribe was financially responsible for the
purchasing of all equipment associated with the new police department.
It proved to be very expensive and we are still acquiring equipment for
our Tribal Police Department. Continued, and additional, funding for
Law Enforcement in Indian Country will guarantee the Tribe the
opportunity to receive funding or pursue grant funds to continue the
development of the Tribal Police Department.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Law Enforcement Initiative was
formulated in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
ensure maximum usage of the Federal dollar. Working together, the BIA
and DOJ's respective budget requests complement each other, to ensure
that efforts are not duplicated and funding can be provided to Tribes
on a more expansive basis. It is essential that the next step of the
improvements to law enforcement be funded in the fiscal year 2000
Appropriations Act.
We would also like to bring to your attention the critical need for
Road Construction and Road Maintenance funding for Indian lands. Tribes
cannot be successful in pursuing or developing economic development
without adequate transportation systems. While the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has received a slight increase nationally in road construction
funds from the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), the funding for the tribes under the jurisdiction of the BIA
Phoenix Area Office has decreased by more than 50 percent from the
funding provided under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA). The funding for the BIA Phoenix Area was reduced from $26
million per year to $16 million per year. This cut drastically
curtailed the number of projects that could be developed by Native
Americans in the BIA Phoenix Area Office.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe has one street, Slaughterhouse
Canyon Street, to construct over the next five (5) years at a cost of
four (4) to five (5) million dollars. The BIA has advised us that our
fair share of the TEA-21 funds for the next five years totals only
$143,000. Obviously, at this rate, it will take the Tribe forty (40)
years before we can build this single street. This is totally
inadequate and does not meet the actual needs of our Tribe.
The Tribe requests a one-time appropriation of $1.2 million to
construct the Slaughterhouse Canyon Street. This street will provide an
alternative route around the most dangerous intersection in Prescott
and will be utilized by Tribal members and Prescott city members. It
will also serve as access to our planned Tribal museum and various
administrative and commercial development on our Reservation. This road
is instrumental to the economic stability of the Tribe and its Tribal
members.
BIA Road Maintenance funds are also critically inadequate to
provide even the most basic maintenance of the roads and streets in
Indian Country. Highway standards are not being met on the large
majority of Reservation lands. Tribes do not receive any of the Highway
Users Roads Funds (HURF) collected through taxes collected by states
and counties on the sale of motor fuels, even though the Tribes and
Tribal members pay such taxes in most states. The Yavapai-Prescott
Tribe receives only $10,000 per year from the BIA for maintenance and
upkeep of all the streets and roads on our Reservation. As a result,
they continue to deteriorate which makes the road construction
investments short-lived, not to mention the dangerous driving
conditions that develop because of the deteriorated condition.
If you require additional information, please contact me at 520-
445-8790, ext. 33. The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe appreciates your
listening to our concerns and problems, and also, appreciate your
efforts to improve the standards of living in Indian Country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
The Nez Perce Tribe is requesting the following funding amounts for
fiscal year 2000 which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
--$150,000 through the BIA for the Nez Perce Tribe to conduct a
feasibility study and economic impact analysis to build a
Cultural Center in conjunction with the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial;
--$737,050 under the BIA's water rights negotiation and litigation
program within Indian Rights Protection for negotiation and
litigation of the Snake River Basin Adjudication;
--$450,000 for our Gray Wolf Recovery Program through the Fish and
Wildlife Service;
--$385,000 through the BIA's Indian Child Welfare Grant Program,
Welfare Assistance Program and 638 Contract Administration
Costs for Tribal Social Services Programs;
--$200,000 through the BIA for Tribal involvement in the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's re-licensing of Idaho Power's
Hells Canyon Complex; and
--$1.2 million for equipment and $3.3 million for staffing through
IHS under a joint venture arrangement
In addition to the Nez Perce Tribe's specific requests, the Tribe
supports the following increases set out in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget requests for tribal programs in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Indian Health Service and other agencies of the Department of
the Interior:
--support for the $20 million increase requested for BIA law
enforcement;
--support for the $5 million increase for fiscal year 2000 to expand
the Indian Land Consolidation Pilot Project through the Office
of Special Trustee;
--support for the increase of $17 million for the Tribal Priority
Allocation account in the BIA over the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level;
--support for the fiscal year 2000 increase of $170 million for IHS,
which does address pay-related cost increases, population
growth, and staffing at new facilities;
--support for $500,000, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, for
consultation with tribes as part of the Secretarial Order
related to tribal treaty rights and the ESA; and
--support for the $250,000 requested for Columbia River fishing
access sites built by the Army Corps of Engineers.
lewis and clark bicentennial observance--bia, $150,000
With the upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial, the Nez Perce wish
to tell their own story of the Corps of Discovery led by Lewis and
Clark. The Nez Perce saved the Lewis and Clark expedition from
starvation, as well as giving them food and supplies for their journey.
Despite the contributions of the Nez Perce, only individual states have
been funded to prepare for the upcoming Bicentennial. The Tribe would
like to be included in the observance to help people recognize our
efforts to the Lewis and Clark expedition and our contributions to the
Pacific Northwest.
The Nez Perce Tribe, working with the State of Idaho, through the
Governor's Committee on the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial, have agreed
to jointly support the development of a Nez Perce Cultural Interpretive
Center to be located on the Nez Perce Indian reservation. The State has
ranked this project number two as part of their overall strategic plan
for the Lewis and Clark Observance. We have already spent a significant
amount of our own funds on a preliminary study that dealt with the
development of the architectural design and potential site locations.
Based on this study, the Tribe has designated Tribal land for the
Cultural Center. The Cultural Center will include an exhibit specific
to the Corps of Discovery and their interaction with the Nez Perce
people.
The Nez Perce Tribe is requesting $150,000 for fiscal year 2000,
through the BIA, to go towards the second phase which will provide a
more detailed economic analysis for the Cultural Center, as well as
provide support staff in developing a comprehensive strategy for the
Lewis and Clark Observance with other local, state and federal
agencies.
snake river basin adjudication negotiations funding--bia, $737,050
The Nez Perce Tribe has been involved in the Snake River Basin
Adjudication (SRBA), the largest water rights adjudication in the
country, since that proceeding was statutorily mandated by the Idaho
Legislature in 1987. The SRBA is a general stream adjudication in which
all the water rights in the Snake River basin (approximately 185,000
claims) will be determined. The Snake River basin encompasses
approximately two-thirds of the geographic area of the State of Idaho,
and much of the basin lies within the aboriginal territory of the Nez
Perce Tribe. We are represented in this proceeding by our in-house
counsel and the Native American Rights Fund in Boulder, Colorado.
In December of 1998, the SRBA Court ordered the parties to the Nez
Perce claims into mediation. For fiscal year 2000, the Nez Perce Tribe
is asking that $737,050 be made available in the BIA's Indian Rights
Protection account for Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation to
enable the Tribe to continue its participation in the SRBA. These funds
will cover the cost of vital, on-going work by fisheries, economic,
historical, and engineering experts, as well as necessary attorney
costs and overhead expenses.
wolf recovery program--fws, $450,000
The Nez Perce Tribe is in its fourth year of participation in the
Wolf Recovery Program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Through a contract with the FWS, the Tribe produced and is implementing
a Service-approved recovery plan for the Gray Wolf in Central Idaho,
which requires documentation of ten breeding pairs for three
consecutive years. The 35 wolves released in 1995-1996 have grown into
a population of 12 packs containing a minimum of 115 animals and ten of
those packs produced a total of 51 pups in 1998.
The Nez Perce Tribe appreciates the support that Congress gave the
program by mandating a funding increase for fiscal year 1998, which put
the program up to $300,000. However, due to the large population
increase, the program remains underfunded. The wolf population consists
mainly of young animals which have started to disperse, and have even
shown up 230 miles away in Oregon. The dispersing animals can be
expected to seek unoccupied territory to settle in, and will now begin
to affect people and communities, that were previously not impacted by
the wolf recovery effort. The funding shortfall threatens the Tribe's
ability to adequately monitor movements of the wolves scattered
throughout 15 million acres and beyond, investigate depredations, trap
and collar animals, document reproduction, purchase additional collars
and radios, gather data on food habits, and answer questions about the
impact of wolves on ungulates and cattle.
The ranchers and citizens of Idaho, and surrounding states, have
every right to expect the Tribe and the FWS to monitor these wolves, as
well as provide services and support. For the reasons set out above,
the Nez Perce Tribe is requesting an increase of $150,000 for a total
of $450,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the Tribe's Wolf Recovery Program,
through the FWS.
tribal social services program--bia, $385,000
The Nez Perce Tribe has contracted from the BIA, through a 638
contract, to run the Social Services Program, which administers many
different tribal assistance programs. Since that time, services to
individuals on the reservation have increased threefold, while the
funding levels for contract support costs have decreased each year. The
Tribe's established share for contract Administration costs for fiscal
year 2000 is $132,000, $2,500 less than last year. Since the funding
levels are not keeping up with the increasing numbers of children and
people needing assistance, this seriously jeopardizes the Tribe's
Social Services Department from updating equipment, hiring more staff
and adequately meeting the needs of their members and the assistance
programs they operate.
Indian Child Welfare and BIA Welfare Assistance are just two Social
Service's programs the Tribe operates. The Indian Child Welfare Program
tries to prevent the break up of Indian families, as well handle child
abuse and neglect cases, court interventions and foster care placement.
Due to the Tribe's share for the Indian Child Welfare Program being
$52,495 for fiscal year 2000, there is only one child welfare worker to
provide services to the 75 families and children in crisis that
currently receive services under this program. The BIA Welfare
Assistance Program the Tribe runs services 430 cases under this
program, yet it will only receive $124,000 for fiscal year 2000, $2,500
less than fiscal year 1999. For these reasons, the Tribe is requesting
an increase of $28,000, for 638 contract Administration costs, an
increase of $22,505 for Indian Child Welfare, and an increase of
$26,000 for Welfare Assistance, for a total funding level of $385,000
for fiscal year 2000, through the BIA.
ferc dam relicensing--bia, $200,000
The Hells Canyon Complex is a series of three dams (Hells Canyon,
Oxbow, and Brownlee) owned by Idaho Power Corporation on the Snake
River along the Oregon-Idaho border. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) is empowered to license all non-federal dams,
including the Hells Canyon Complex. These licenses last 50 years and
are subject to terms imposed by FERC, including the development of
protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures to address all aspects
of dam impacts, including effects on cultural sites, wildlife, and
fisheries. Rather than pursuing a traditional relicensing process which
involves considerable litigation, Idaho Power has elected to create a
collaborative process to involve many stakeholders throughout all
phases of the relicensing process.
Hell's Canyon has significant historic, cultural, and natural
resources important to the Nez Perce Tribe, and so the Tribe has been a
participant in the relicensing process since it ensued in 1996. Other
than travel reimbursement funds from Idaho Power, there has been no
direct funding available to the Tribe to participate in the FERC
process. Funding provided to the Tribe would ensure continued
participation in the relicensing, and would allow Tribal technical
representatives to work with resource groups that design studies
focused on dam impacts and assist Idaho Power in the development of
protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. For these reasons,
the Tribe is requesting $200,000 for fiscal year 2000, through the BIA,
to participate in the FERC relicensing of the Hells Canyon Complex.
joint venture funding--ihs, $4.5 million
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 has 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 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, as both clinics have been designated in need
of replacement. Both clinics are too small and are experiencing severe
maintenance problems. The Tribe will provide the land and construction
costs. The Nez Perce Tribe seeks funding from IHS for 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 for
both of the facilities is $1.2 million and the annual recurring amount
is $3.3 million.
items of general support
BIA law enforcement
Due to this Subcommittee's funding increase in fiscal year 1999 for
BIA Law Enforcement, the Nez Perce Tribe was able to increase its
patrol officers from 6 to 12. Despite this increase, we are still short
of the minimum 17 patrol officers it would take to perform patrol
duties around the clock. Also, we still do not have the manpower to
staff a Communications-Dispatch center that would require a staff of 7,
or an Adult and Juvenile Detention Center, which would require a staff
of 13. Since the Nez Perce Tribal Police Department provides normal and
emergency services to both Indians and non-Indians citizens within the
Reservation, the Administration's request for a $20 million increase
for BIA Law Enforcement is badly needed. For these reasons, we strongly
urge additional funds be provided to tribes, through the BIA, for law
enforcement, to be used for personnel, equipment and basic detention
services within the BIA's Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account.
Indian land consolidation program
We support the $5 million increase, for a total of $10 million for
fiscal year 2000, the Administration has requested through the Office
of Special Trustee, for expansion of the BIA's Indian Land
Consolidation Program. Currently, only three tribes are involved in the
pilot program this year which was set up to help tribes consolidate
fractionated interests in Indian trust lands. With an increase of $5
million in fiscal year 2000, this will allow for more tribes to
participate in this program to address the ever-increasing problem of
trust land fractionation.
IHS cost increases
We support the $174 million increase for fiscal year 2000 the
Administration has requested for Indian Health Service over the fiscal
year 1999 enacted level. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 request
recognizes the yearly rising costs associated with Indian health
facilities by targeting $34 million for population growth and pay-
related cost increases, and an additional $8.6 million for staffing at
new facilities. Pay-related costs and population growth increase each
year and yet, usually get overlooked in the funding process. Also, as
tribal populations grow, the need for new facilities and people to
staff those facilities increase as well.
Tribal priority allocations (TPA)
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 2000
budget proposes an increase of $17 million over the fiscal year 1999
enacted level. While much of this proposed increase is for specific
programs, rather than a general increase to base funding of all tribes,
we support additional funds for TPA in fiscal year 2000.
In-lieu sites
We also support the $250,000 requested by the BIA to implement the
terms of the 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between the BIA and 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
The Nez Perce Tribe supports the $500,000, through the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Administration has requested for consultation
with tribes as part of the Secretarial Order addressing the
relationship of tribal treaty rights and the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you for your consideration of the Nez Perce Tribe's
appropriation requests for fiscal year 2000.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) located in
Portland, Oregon submits the following recommendations regarding the
fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services
Budgets and those agencies data-gathering efforts as they relate to
child welfare and childrens mental health services. Our comments will
focus on the following budget items and requests:
1. Increase by $3.0 million ($15.9 million) the BIA fiscal year
2000 Budget Request relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act under the
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget category.
2. Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
Title II off-reservation grant programs ($2.0 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 2000.
3. Require the BIA and IHS to provide more detailed information all
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 the
conclusion section of testimony.)
organizational 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 fare
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. NICWA does not receive any BIA or IHS funds. We have a
strict policy that prohibits us from applying for or receiving any
funds that would otherwise benefit tribal programs. 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 of the Indian Child Welfare
Committees of both organizations. This will be our seventh year in
providing both oral and written testimony to the 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. This often involves transferring funding from one financially
strapped service 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
request. 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 receive child
welfare services, what kind of services are provided, what the outcomes
were from services provided and how need for child welfare services
compares to the level of services being funded. One improvement made by
the BIA is the inclusion of data in their justification regarding child
abuse and neglect referrals from 1992-1996 and the impact of continued
high rates of poverty and unemployment in Indian Country upon referrals
for child abuse and neglect--increasing referrals (see page BIA-55).
The caseload data on page BIA-56 is a potentially helpful addition, but
the numbers only reflect the need that was met through the provision of
services. The numbers provide no comparison to the actual or unmet need
for these types of services. This explains why the caseload numbers for
Child Welfare Assistance have remained the same for several years. The
number by itself is virtually meaningless, unless you can compare it to
the actual number of placements needed, not just those funded. The
implication here is that the BIA is meeting all of the need, which
could not be further from the truth, especially when you consider the
information on page BIA-55.
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 & 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 $5.0
million projected for fiscal year 2000). Tribes, unlike states, have no
authority to access the full array of federal funds that are needed to
provide comprehensive child welfare services.
This situation, combined with dwindling state resources, lack of
state expertise in serving Indian families and states' reluctance to
enter into agreements for the provision of 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. It is worth noting that the BIA has developed a mistaken and
sometimes cynical sense of what opportunities are available for tribes
who are trying to piece together child welfare services. At a BIA
meeting in early February, where the needs of tribes were being
reviewed, it was suggested that the BIA also include in their analysis
those programs that could benefit Indian children, but excluded tribes
from eligibility. The response from Deborah Maddox, BIA Director of
Tribal Services, was that tribes could form agreements with states to
access these federal programs, but that many tribes did not want to.
This is an absurd statement. Tribes across the country are interested
in or actively pursuing these types of services agreements, but are
often met with reluctance by state governments. For several years now,
NICWA and other tribal advocates have attempted to get the BIA to work
more closely with the Administration for Children and Families in an
effort to get greater access to federal child welfare and stimulate
tribal/state agreements, but the BIA continues to act as if there is
nothing to be done. We think that more can and should be done by the
BIA in this area.
tribal child welfare programs
Our first observation is that the program description contained in
the BIA budget justification for Indian Child Welfare Act services is
misleading (see page BIA-53) in that it makes the program sound much
more substantial than it really is. In reality, the funding from this
program only allows the vast majority of tribes enough money to fund a
social work position or two and the basics needed to keep an of rice
running (utilities, phone, fax, office supplies). More comprehensive
services that provide clothing and shelter are rarely provided with
these funds. The primary purpose of the tribal grant program is to help
tribes respond to child abuse and neglect referrals, strengthen
families where child abuse or neglect is present and address the
permanency needs of children who have been removed from their homes. We
all wish the program were more extensive, but $13 million doesn't go
very far for 558 tribes.
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 in
previous years and greater access to 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. 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 through 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 $2.0 million. This has enabled the BIA to minimally fund about 40
programs a year which serve 65 percent of the Indian population that
live primarily in urban settings. These programs have also tried to
access private foundation funding and state contracts to supplement
their 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 committee 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 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) IHS system of mental health
service delivery is primarily geared to adults (see statistics on page
4 and 15-17 of the report and IHS-45), (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-45). Our best sense, based on findings in our
report, is that children receive 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 health
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 ACE 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 requests that the
subcommittee recommend the requests we have made in our testimony. They
are as follows:
--Increase by $3.0 million ($15.9 million) the BIA fiscal year 2000
Budget Request relating to Indian Child Welfare Act by under
the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget category.
--Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
II Off-Reservation grant programs ($2.0 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
2000.
--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 Kenneth C. Hansen, Chairman, Samish Indian Tribe
of Washington State
On behalf of the members of the Samish Indian Nation I would like
to first thank the committee for the opportunity to submit written
testimony. This request is directed at two programs under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Samish Indian Nation requests the Congress to legislatively re-
establish all of the Samish Treaty Rights, which will be at no cost to
the government. Secondly, the Samish Indian Nation hereby requests that
money be appropriated for the purchase and establishment of a land base
sufficient for the wants and needs of the Samish people, with
authorization to take such land into trust status as a reservation. The
cost of this land acquisition could vary but would not exceed ten
million dollars. As chairman of the Samish Indian Nation I am
submitting this testimony to you without the assistance of any
Washington DC based legal or lobbying firm. The fact that we have no
resources to pay for those professional services does not negate the
seriousness of our requests. We are concerned that we have no one to
knock on your doors and focus attention to our needs. It is my sincere
hope that you, as members of Congress, will elevate our request and
give it the attention that it so rightly deserves.
Samish is in the worst of all possible worlds. We won a decision in
the courts on re-recognition. With recognition should come our original
treaty rights, and the reservation promised in that treaty. However, we
have been unsuccessful in getting the legal assistance to pursue re-
instatement of treaty rights. We have no land, no treaty rights.
Housing and Urban Development funding is based on past housing, which
we do not have. The Public Law 93-638 contracting moratorium was
passed, just as Samish was beginning the contracting process, which has
put the Tribe another year behind other tribes in program and economic
development. When you are already 30 years behind, additional delays
are unconscionable.
Let me tell you the story of the small administrative error that
created 30 years of untold hardship and grief for members of the Samish
Indian Nation. The error was the inadvertent omission of the Samish
Indian Tribe from the list of Federally recognized tribes prepared by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1969, in spite of the fact that Samish
was on the draft list first prepared in 1966. No one was able to
explain, legally or otherwise, how or why it happened. It took 26 years
of struggle to expose the truth.
treaty rights
The home territory of the Samish Indian Nation, since the beginning
of time, is an area approximately 70 miles north/northwest of the city
of Seattle in an area that is now referred to as the San Juan Islands.
We are members of the Coast Salish Language group, as are the
neighboring tribes. Further, like our neighboring tribes, we were party
to the Treaty of Point Elliott which was negotiated in 1855 and
ratified by the Senate in 1859 (12 Stat. 927). In 1931 the U.S. Court
of Claims held in the Duwamish et al Indians v. U.S. that the Samish
were a party to the Treaty of Point Elliott, as did the Indian Claims
Commission in Docket 261 that the Samish Tribe were the successors in
interest to the treaty signing Samish.
These two judicial entities had no apparent legal difficulty in
recognizing Samish's lawful claim to exercise its Treaty rights.
Although the tribe was never given their reservation land base, it was
promised under the treaty of Point Elliott, we were none the less
afforded the opportunity to exercise our treaty rights on the same
basis as neighboring tribes. Many of our members held BIA issued ``Blue
Cards'', which allowed them to exercise their hunting and fishing
rights without a license from the State of Washington.
As Department of the Interior administrative law judge David
Torbett held in 1994, and later reaffirmed by federal district court
Judge Thomas Zilly in 1995, that the Samish have always been a
federally recognized tribe and appeared on the list of federally
recognized tribes prepared by the BIA in 1966. As Bureau employees
later testified, they had no idea how the Samish ``fell off'' the list
of recognized tribes when it was published in 1969.
In 1974 we intervened in U.S. v. Washington, the Boldt fishing
rights case. This was litigation aimed at determining who should be
able to exercise treaty rights. The federal government opposed our
intervention because they said we were not a recognized tribe. This
determination was not made based on published standards, federal
witnesses later testified that it was a seat-of-the-pants decision made
on a personal level. In 1979, by the then aging and ill Judge Boldt
signed proposed findings of fact submitted by the Justice Department,
without any changes or alterations, and held that the Samish as a non-
recognized tribe were not eligible to exercise their treaty rights. In
1981 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned
Judge Boldt's decision, but then substituted their own six-point
criteria to determine if a tribe was eligible to exercise its treaty
rights. The factual record on appeal was not fully developed to address
these new criteria. Rather than remand the case to the lower federal
court to develop new evidence, the Ninth Circuit applied the new
criteria to the old evidence and held that Samish was not eligible to
exercise our treaty rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari only when the U.S.
Solicitor General, Rex Lee, promised that if the Samish Tribe were
successful in obtaining political recognition then the United States
would have to take a new look at the case. The time for that new look
is now. By satisfying the standards for recognition the Samish Indian
Nation has necessarily satisfied the criteria for exercise of treaty
rights.
We are requesting that the Congress either include language in the
Interior Appropriation legislation to either:
1. Restore our full treaty status and all treaty rights under the
Treaty of Point Elliott. This is our preference. This option would save
the cost of endless years of litigation and appeals.
2. Request the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Justice
to immediately file in federal district court to reopen the Samish
portion of the proceedings of U.S. v. Washington.
land acquisition
This is a very simple issue, with a very simple solution. Samish
was promised a reservation under the Treaty of Point Elliott, and no
such reservation was ever created. Without a land base our people have
been forced to relocate further and further away from the heartland of
Samish territory. We are seeking from Congress fiscal year 2000
appropriations language that includes up to ten million dollars for the
acquisition of lands for residential, cultural and, economic
development purposes within the land acquisition boundaries as set
forth by resolution number 99-01-07, passed by the Samish Indian Nation
Tribal Council on January 18, 1999. And we further request that the
Secretary of the Interior be authorized to take such land immediately
into trust as a reservation for the Tribe.
We request that the Congress direct the Department of the Interior
to immediately commence working with the Samish Indian Nation to create
a homeland sufficient for the social, educational, cultural and
economic needs of the Samish people. This can be accomplished through
land purchases, land trades with state, other federal and private
individuals.
The Samish Indian Nation is dedicated to learning from the mistakes
that other tribes have historically made in creating their tribal
communities. This is a once in a millennium opportunity for this tribe,
to do it right from the very beginning; to create an attractive
community that will seek to bring back members of the Samish Indian
Nation from all walks of life, from all educational backgrounds, and
from all income levels. The Tribe is committed to creating a healthy
community from the very beginning. With a land base that will allow the
creation of a healthy and balanced community the Tribe can prevent the
replication of avoidable mistakes.
conclusion
The two requests that we have made in this testimony are simple,
clear, and concise. The Samish Indian Nation is morally, legally, and
equitably entitled to these requests. They are not complicated. They
represent the initial two priorities that the Samish Indian Nation has
to regain our full tribal status. We did not create this situation that
we find ourselves in, but we have always responded to it with great
dignity and truth. Unfortunately most of the time we were never given
the same courtesy by the staff of the Department of the Interior or the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The federal government's conduct even
resulted in their Solicitor, Mr. Scott Keep, being held in contempt by
Judge Thomas Zilly. We are simply asking congress to step up to the
plate and work with us while we attempt to heal our people and our
Tribe from what was simply an administrative error. Thank you for your
attention to these requests and if you have any questions or require
additional information please contact me through the tribal offices at
360-293-6404.
______
Prepared Statement of Victor R. Preston, Chairman, Susanville Indian
Rancheria
We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns concerning
the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget Request for the Indian Health
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Susanville Indian
Rancheria (SIR) provides health care to more than 2,000 Native American
beneficiaries located in Lassen County in Northern California. Since
1986, when the SIR first began contracting with the Indian Health
Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), we have
continuously improved the quality, quantity, and scope of health care
services and other services to eligible Native Americans located in our
service area. The increasing levels of all services that we have been
able to provide are directly related to the amount of resources which
Congress makes available both to the IHS and the BIA.
The SIR's aim is self-sufficiency and independence while promoting
cooperation and collaboration with other Tribes, organizations, local,
state, and Federal sectors of the larger society. Moreover, there is
the expressed determination to preserve what is possible of a precious
heritage and cultural identity. The SIR has contracted for over
thirteen years under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, P. L. 93-638 with both the IHS and the BIA.
Two historic events between the U. S. Army and the SIR were
commemorated during a ceremony on July 30, 1997. The first event was
the transfer of Army property to the SIR which occurred as a result of
the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC). The second event
was the four-way partnership created between the Madigan Army Medical
Center, the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California, the SIR, and the
local government. This partnership allows the SIR to provide health
care services not only to the SIR population but to active and retired
military personnel and the local population who reside in this remote
area of Lassen County. This was the first such agreement in the Nation
and the SIR was the first tribe ever to have Army property transferred
under the BRAC process.
A major achievement of the transfer of some of the facilities at
the Sierra Army Depot to the SIR was the establishment of a Youth
Regional Treatment Center (YRTC). Since the original enactment of the
Indian Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986, the
California Plan was developed by the Tribes who have been waiting and
working toward the establishment of such facilities. With the transfer
of the facilities from the Department of the Army, we are on the verge
of finally realizing these efforts for the Indian population of
California. Since fiscal year 1993, Congress has appropriated $17.4
million for the construction of YRTCs in other areas and the SIRs
acquisition of the facilities does not require construction funds. When
finally developed and staffed, the YRTC will house and treat 30-50
Native American youths between the ages of 12--18 during their
respective cycles of at least 120 days. These youth will be referred
from other participating tribes in California through a state-wide
clinical referral team. To accomplish this effort, the SIR received
over 50 Tribal resolutions and letters of support from throughout
California. The YRTC will be the only family-oriented residential
facility in California and possibly the IHS. This will provide for on-
site direct involvement of the family in the treatment process. By all
accounts, family-oriented residential treatment is the most effective
approach in the treatment of substance abuse.
While we are aware of and understand the President's concerns
relating to the new initiatives he is proposing for the Native
Americans, we find it hard to comprehend the reduction of current
health services to our people to fund these initiatives. By not
providing for the mandatory costs increases (inflation), the current
level of inadequate services will result in cuts to direct services.
The Indian Health Service is the primary source of health care to our
people whether directly or by contracting with Tribal Organizations. As
a Tribal Contractor in a rural and somewhat isolated part of the
country, we are constantly straining to meet the needs of our people
against the ever-shrinking resources available. It is important and
necessary to at least maintain the current level of services that is
provided to Native Americans, plus inflation.
This is especially true in the state of California. The recently
completed Health Report from the Congressionally mandated California
Indian Policy Commission finds a global funding shortfall of $56
million for health services in California. Another study funded by the
Administration for Native Americans finds that California has the
lowest adjusted per capita expenditure within the entire IHS. In
addition, an IHS conducted Health Services Inventory conducted in 1993
reported that California had a ``Mean Level of Needs (services) being
met'' of 31 percent compared to the IHS average of 58 percent.
With this, other studies, and reports in mind, we believe that
there is a greater need to maintain current services and combat the
effects of alcoholism, mental health, unemployment, diabetes, drug
abuse, suicide, and violence that are epidemic among Native Americans.
New initiatives are needed but not at the expense of existing programs.
As Congress begins the appropriations process for fiscal year 2000,
the SIR aggressively seeks support from the Subcommittee in reversing
the decline in funding for the Native American programs that we have
experienced since fiscal year 1996. In general, we believe that the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget has taken a positive step in that
direction in some areas. We are concerned, however, that even the
Administration's request for certain essential tribal programs and
services provided through the BIA and the IHS remain seriously
inadequate. Accordingly, tribal budgets are insufficient to meet the
most basic needs of tribal populations.
With this in mind, we would propose that the Subcommittee take the
following actions regarding the IHS and BIA fiscal year 2000 Budget
Requests as outlined in priority order on the attached pages.
susanville indian rancheria--indian health service
1. We propose an increase of $52.2 million for mandatory cost
increases (inflation).--The subcommittee needs to provide the
inflationary cost increase required to maintain the fiscal year 1999
level of services. Currently, the Indian Health Service per capita
health care expenditure is approximately one third that of the U. S.
civilian resident. To further erode this by not providing for inflation
does not reflect the Federal government's responsibility to promote the
health of the American Indian and Alaska Native people, communities,
and culture by providing quality curative and preventive medical care.
In some cases, the IHS is the only source of care available in remote
locales. The Tribes as well as the IHS have continually lagged behind
the health care inflation rates for a number of years and have seen the
level of services decrease because of this fact. Because of the
remoteness of Indian clinics the cost of services becomes an increasing
burden on Tribal leadership as resources are being taxed to the limit.
The rate of inflation is exceeding the resources available to IHS and
Tribal contractors and, therefore, services have to be reduced.
If, as the President has stated in the past, IHS is the only source
of medical care available on remote reservation lands, does he expect
the continuation of the same level of services as the previous year
while planning to propose new program initiatives? By not providing for
mandatory cost increases it will continue to erode the available
resources available for the delivery of health services. The effect is
twofold in that qualified medical personnel will not continue to work
nor can be hired for salaries that are below those of their
counterparts in the private sector and, in order to pay for the raises,
resources used for health care are diverted from providing services and
a reduction of the level of services being provided is the end result.
Tribal contractors benefit from this increase because IHS provides
some of the resources to them and that enables them to provide pay
raises and to better hire qualified medical personnel. Remote
locations, the lack of proper medical equipment, and the lack of
personnel are problems faced daily by Native American health care
providers. To continue this trend is to further erode the health status
of these people.
We, therefore, request that the subcommittee provide the resources
required for the mandatory cost increase--$52.2 million.
2. We propose the restoration of the $5 million reduction in
community health representatives (CHR).--The CHR program is a vital
link to the delivery of health services for the Susanville Indian
Rancheria. We are located in a isolated, rural community with a lack of
adequate roads and health care services. The CHR program provides us
the opportunity to reach out to our Tribal members on a one-on-one
basis and provide not only transportation services but nutrition, food
delivery, well-baby care, etc.. We understand that some Tribal
Officials believe that this program may not be vital to them and, if
reductions are required this is the program to be reduced. These
officials are not located in locations such as the SIR and other
organizations and have determined it is not a priority. But it is a
priority for Tribal organizations such as ours.
We, therefore, request that the $5 million reduction be restored
for the Community Health Representatives program.
3. We propose an increase of $21 million for the youth regional
treatment centers (YRTC).--One of the major causes of health care
problems among the Native American population is alcoholism and
substance abuse especially among the youths of the reservations. To
combat this issue, the IHS and Tribes have been hard at work
establishing Youth Regional Treatment Centers (YRTC). When first
conceived, as a result of the Indian Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act in 1986, the projected cost for operating these
facilities was $22 million per year. The IHS base program contains
approximately $11 million. All Tribes and the IHS involved in these
facilities realize that, to fully function, there needs to be
appropriated an additional $21 million due to the various levels of
services being provided at each facility. If these facilities are to
make a difference and provide the Native American youth of today with
the ability to live to be an adult, such an increase would ensure a
long and productive life.
We, therefore, request a program increase of $21 million for
operational costs be provide for the Youth Regional Treatment Centers.
4. We support the proposed increase of $35 million for contract
support costs.--Total funding requirements for Contract Support Costs
for fiscal year 2000 is $309 million of which there is available $203.7
million. This leaves a shortfall of $105 million. The Self-
Determination process is being delayed due the constraints on the funds
available.
In fiscal year 1997, concern was expressed that the IHS depiction
of the shortfall would be misunderstood as resulting from unwarranted
indirect cost escalation. It does appear that the Appropriations
Committee has also misunderstood this issue. The Committee struck the
request for shortfall, and concerned with the rapid increase in
contract support costs, directed the IHS to work with Tribes, the BIA,
the IHS, and the Office of the Inspector General (IG) of the Department
of the Interior to see what could be done to contain costs. The IG
issued a preliminary report that found the increases were not due to
unwarranted indirect cost escalation, but were mainly due to increased
compacting and contracting activity among the Tribes. It is essential
that tribes waiting to compact or contract be given some hope of
receiving the funding needed to make Self-Determination hopes a
reality. There is also a possibility that recent court decisions and
continuing unmet needs might result in the retrocession of compacts and
contracts back to the IHS which would create an even bigger problem for
the Committee in the future.
We, therefore, request that an increase of $35 million be provided
for the Indian Self-Determination Fund.
The President's budget provides for an increase of $155.6 million
over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. While we support the increases
proposed we would like to note that they do not restore certain
programs such as the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA). The small
increases to TPA over the last several years have failed to keep up
with inflation.
The major concern we have is that the California Tribes be treated
on an equitable basis when distribution of funds and these increases,
if appropriated, are made by the BIA.
We, therefore, request that the proposed budget for the BIA be
appropriated as presented. We also request that special set-aside funds
for individual Tribes be carefully scrutinized and funded only in cases
of dire emergencies.
______
Prepared Statement of David M. Gipp, President; and Charles Murphy,
Board President and Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
united tribes technical college: making a difference
For thirty years United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has been
providing postsecondary vocational education, job training and family
services to Indian students from the Great Plains and throughout the
nation. An inter-tribally controlled educational institution,\1\ UTTC
was assisting Indian people in moving from public assistance to
economic self-sufficiency long before the 1996 welfare reform act. Our
job placement rate in 1997 was 96 percent. The request of the Board of
the United Tribes Technical College Board for the fiscal year 2000
Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The college is owned and operated by five federally-recognized
tribes situated wholly or in part in North Dakota. These Tribes are the
Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort
Berthold Reservation, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. Control
of the institution is vested in a ten-member board of directors
comprised of elected Tribal Chairpersons and Tribal council members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$2,538,000 in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $157,000 over the
Administration's request. It is also the same as the fiscal
year 1998 Senate mark.
--Increased BIA funding for contract support costs. We annually
absorb approximately $100,000 in contract support costs.
-- Additionally, we ask Congress to encourage the BIA to place more
emphasis on job training and vocational/technical education.
The Adult Vocational Training program, funded at $9.9 million
in fiscal year 1999, is but a shadow of its former self. There
is no BIA leadership or advocacy for job training or
vocational/technical education at the central or area levels.
United Tribes Technical College, whose budget is located in the
``Special Programs and Pooled Overhead/Community Development''
portion of the BIA budget suffers from at best a lack of
interest from persons who work with that portion of the
budget.who primarily work on BIA-administered accounts. Other
tribally-based colleges are in the ``Other Recurring/
Education'' portion of the budget.
United Tribes Technical College.--A Unique Inter-Tribal Educational
Organization. United Tribes Technical College is the only inter-
tribally controlled, campus-based, postsecondary vocational institution
for Indian people. We are chartered by the five tribes in North Dakota
and operate under an Indian Self-Determination contract with the BIA.
We currently enroll 310 students from 36 tribes and 17 states. In
addition, we serve 115 children in our pre-school programs and 128
children in our elementary school, bringing the population for whom we
provide direct services to 593. In some years our students come from as
many as 45 tribes.
Occasionally people assume that UTTC is funded under the
authorization for the other tribally controlled postsecondary
institutions--the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Act (TCC). We
do not receive funding through the TCC Act, an Act which authorizes
funding for only one tribal college per tribe. In North Dakota, each
tribe has chartered a tribal college under the authority of the TCC
Act. Additionally, the tribes in North Dakota jointly administer United
Tribes Technical College which, in turn, serves Indian students from
all over the nation.
UTTC was incorporated in 1968, long before most of today's tribal
colleges were established. However, we have much in common with the
other tribally-controlled colleges and are an active part of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). What distinguishes
us from the other tribally-controlled colleges is that we are chartered
and controlled jointly by multiple numbers of tribes and that our
primary focus is postsecondary vocational education. Additionally, our
campus-based family housing is unique.
Educating Students and Placing Them in Jobs.--We are proud of the
education, skills and services provided by UTTC for our students and
their families over the past thirty years. And we are proud that this
education is taking placing in a tribal setting, where our students and
their families can maintain and strengthen their tribal heritage. We
have had a job placement rate exceeding 80 percent sustained over the
last 10 years, and in 1997 had a job placement rate of 96 percent. This
success is all the more gratifying in light of the background of our
students, most of whom come from tribal areas where poverty and
unemployment are the norm. A large proportion of our students are from
the fourteen tribes in the Dakotas, where unemployment among Indian
people is chronic. BIA Labor Force data reports the percentage of
potential Indian labor force on and near reservations in the Aberdeen
Area (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska) who are jobless is 71
percent. Of those persons who are employed salaries are so low that 33
percent are living below the poverty guidelines. (Source: Interior
Department 1997 Labor Market Information On the Indian Labor Force.)
UTTC Course Offerings and Coordination with Other Educational
Institutions.--UTTC offers 8 Certificate and 13 Associate of Applied
Science degree programs.\2\ Entrepreneurship and new technology skills
are being integrated into appropriate curricula. Recently we expanded
our business program. And our newest program is a two-year degree
program in injury prevention which was established in September of
1998. We are the first tribal college to have this course of study. The
course trains students for injury prevention specialist jobs, and to
try to change the culture of injury in Indian country. The program
offers classes including Introduction to Injury Prevention, Prevention
of Traffic-Related Injuries, and Prevention of Injuries Due to
Violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ One-year certificates are: Office Technology; Automotive
Service Technician; Construction Trades Technology with options in
Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, and Welding; Early Childhood
Education; Criminal Justice; Hospitality Management: Food & Beverage
Specialization; Medical Secretary.; and Welding Technician.
Two-year Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.) degrees are offered:
Arts/Marketing; Automotive Service Technology; Construction Trades
Technology with options in Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing and Welding;
Criminal Justice; Early Childhood Education; Health Information
Technology; Hospitality Management: Food & Beverage Specialization;
Office Technology with emphasis in computer applications or accounting;
Practical Nursing; Small Business Management; Welding Technology;
Dietetic Technician, and Injury Prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The death rate among Indian injuries is 2.8 times that of the total
U.S. population (Source: Indian Health Service fiscal year 1999 Budget
Justification book). Reducing the incidence of injuries in Indian
country is an area of focus for both the IHS and the Surgeon General.
We received assistance through the IHS to establish our Injury
Prevention Curricula.
All programs are accredited through the North Central Association
of Colleges and Schools at both the certificate and two-year degree
granting levels. During the last re-accreditation process (1996), the
NCACS authorized UTTC to begin developing curricula for four-year
degrees.
UTTC has transfer and articulation agreements with other colleges
so our graduates can transfer to four-year schools from areas including
Licensed Practical Nursing, Criminal Justice, Business and
Entrepreneurship and Health Instruction. We have been a member of the
Interactive Video Network of North Dakota's colleges, universities and
tribal colleges since 1994. This is expanding the educational
opportunities for our students.
Job Training and Economic Development.--UTTC is a designated Indian
Minority Business Center serving Montana, South Dakota and North
Dakota. We also administer a Job Training Partnership Act program and
an internship program with private employers. And, thanks to a grant
from the Kellogg Foundation, we are assisting tribes and tribal members
in the Aberdeen Area with rebuilding buffalo herds.
Coordination with State Welfare-to-Work Efforts.--UTTC is working
in cooperation with the state of North Dakota on welfare reform. We are
serving state-referred Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF)
recipients who are able to participate in our Cooperative Education
internship program with private employers. By attending UTTC, these
TANF recipients can meet their work, training and volunteer
requirements. And we are providing child care for 60 children of state-
referred TANF recipients.
We take exception to the 12-month statutory limit on the length of
time a TANF recipient can be enrolled in a vocational education course
and still be eligible for TANF. This limits TANF recipients to taking
one-year certificate courses at UTTC. Our experience shows that the
students who graduate from a two-year, rather than a one-year, course
have significantly higher earning power. Many of our students come to
UTTC planning to take a one-year course, and then, finding themselves
in a supportive environment and seeing the economic benefit of the
longer course, decide to work for the two-year degree.
Serving Families Contributes to Education and Job Placement.--We
believe that a primary reason for UTTC student success is that we serve
the students' social, academic and cultural needs. Many of our students
are the first generation in their family to attend college and for many
it is their first experience in living away from home. Many students
are on public assistance and many have families of their own. Some of
our services are:
--Early childhood services for 155 children, ages birth to five years
and an additional 41 elementary children for extended care.
--The Theodore Jamerson Elementary School (grades K-8) serving 128
Indian students;
--A health clinic whose services includes immunization, health
education, eye and dental exams, and referrals to other health
care providers;
--Family housing and dormitories for solo parents and for students
without children;
--A local transportation system for students for school activities
and necessary appointment e.g., (doctor appointments) outside
the campus. Most UTTC students do not have cars.
UTTC Seeks Non-BIA Funds.--UTTC is aggressive in seeking non-BIA
funding for special needs. For example ,we combined Department of
Agriculture, Economic Development Administration and state Community
Development Block Grant funds and replaced our aging water, sewer and
gas systems in 1997.
Our elementary school received a competitive Department of
Education grant for computer technology, and was one five BIA-system
schools to receive this funding. We also received a Kellogg Foundation
grant to develop buffalo management skills for the tribes and their
members throughout the Aberdeen Area, as they attempt to rebuild herds
of buffalo decimated more than 100 years ago.
The above mentioned grants are highly competitive, restrictive,
one-time grants, and they cannot provide for day-to-day operations. We
cannot survive without the basic operating funds which come through the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
UTTC Funding History and Current Needs.--BIA funding has not come
close to meeting our cost-of-living and other needs. From fiscal year
1990 through fiscal year 1999, BIA funding for UTTC increased on the
average 3.9 percent annually (from $1,708,000 in fiscal year 1990 to
$2,310,000 in fiscal year 1999).
The operating and purchasing strength of our budget has diminished
by some 20 percent since 1990. Utility costs are especially difficult.
Electricity expenses have risen about 20 percent per unit and the per
unit gas costs have increases approximately 113 percent during this
decade. We have been able to partially offset utility rate increases by
implementing stringent conservation measures such as improved
weatherization and reductions in building temperatures. However, energy
consumption cannot be further reduced because of our location and the
harsh winters in the northern plains.
While we are not proposing a large increase in BIA funding for
UTTC, below are some of our financial needs of which we want you to be
aware:
--Housing.--We need new and rehabilitated campus housing so that we
can increase student enrollment. We have an ongoing waiting
list for enrollment, which currently stands at 200. The primary
reason for not admitting a potential student is lack of
housing.
--Salaries.--We were able to provide a cost-of-living increase for
our employees last year However, our faculty still receive
salaries that are lower than in any state college system. North
Dakota salaries for higher education faculty are the lowest in
the nation--but the average faculty salaries at UTTC are even
lower than those in the North Dakota state system.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS)
Report of the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Department of Education
Office of Education Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Maintenance and Repair of Historic Buildings.--Lack of available
resources has also meant a limitation on the repair and
maintenance of physical facilities, many of which are of
historic significance. The College occupies the old Fort
Lincoln Army Post, and many people visit our campus to see
these buildings. Other than the more recently constructed
skills center and the community center, UTTC's core facilities
are 90 years old. Estimates for new facilities total over $12
million, according to a 1993 U.S. Department of Education
report to Congress. Continuing a course of nonrepair will
ultimately prove more costly as the repairs will be greater.
Fire and safety reports document our repair needs.
--Emergency Repair.--Emergency repair on both single and family
student housing, instructional facilities and support
facilities exceeds $100,000. This amount will obviously not
cover major renovations or new facilities. Funding is also
needed for maintenance and repair related to damaged caused by
inclement weather including blizzards and extremely low
temperatures.
Neither UTTC nor other tribal colleges receive funding through the
BIA for maintenance and repair nor for construction. We believe that
this situation should be corrected. A good starting point would be to
make some maintenance and repair funding available to the tribal
colleges.
--Contract Support Costs.--The fixed and related costs approved under
our annual Indirect Cost proposal to the U.S. Inspector General
have decreased in recovery by over $100,000 annually, with
another expected loss of $110,000 for fiscal year 1998 and at
least that much in fiscal year 1999. We are in dire need of
adequate recovery for this year, as well as prior years. In
fact, we have an unrecovered contract support cost of
$1,089,000 over the past ten years. UTTC's absorption of these
built-in costs has damaged our capability to provide program
services to our students and faculty.
--Technology.--We need funding for updating our computers and
hardware to maintain and our capabilities for distance learning
programs for our campus-based students and students at other
locations. We have been working with the Denver Indian Center
to provide UTTC classes, via distance learning. to the Indian
population in the Denver area. Thus far we have three classes
on-line and are expecting to begin operations soon.
--Course Offerings/Student Services.--We would like to change some of
our courses to better meet new market demands. For example, we
want to expand the allied health professions. We also need to
expand our diagnostic capabilities in tribal-specific areas and
also in the areas of literacy and math-science background. This
would allow us to improve student remediation services.
Finally, we want to make improvements in our student follow up,
career development, and job market research efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. We need your
assistance to ensure that the unique educational opportunities offered
by United Tribes Technical College will be available for what we hope
will be an increasing number of Indian and Alaska Native students and
their families next year and in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Guenthardt, Tribal Ogema (Chief
Executive), 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 2000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Tribe is requesting
that the Committee either provide an add-on of $355,500 to the fiscal
year 1999 Tribal Priorities Allocation (TPA) enacted level, or that the
Committee direct the BIA to make this money available to the Tribe out
of regular TPA funding. The Tribe is also requesting Committee support
for the request of the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Management Authority for
additional funding for Little River for negotiations and implementation
of the U.S. v. Michigan treaty fishing settlement.
The Little River Ottawa is a relatively small Tribe which was
restored and reaffirmed to Federal recognition by Congress in 1994.
Because the Tribe's restoration Act was passed in September of 1994,
the Tribe did not receive funding in fiscal year 1995. The Tribe first
received BIA ``New Tribes'' funding in fiscal year 1996. Unfortunately,
the Tribal enrollment figure used to submit appropriations requests was
the number of BIA-approved enrollment files (650), rather than the
Tribe's projected enrollment of 2,000. The Tribe's fiscal year 1996 New
Tribes funding was $330,000. In comparison, other newly restored/
reaffirmed Tribes with comparable enrollments received in excess of $1
Million Dollars in New Tribes funding. Little River's New Tribes
funding level was increased from $330,000 to $671,000 in fiscal year
1997; however, even this increased level was half of that received by
similarly situated Tribes.
This funding inequity hindered the Tribe's ability to fulfill the
purposes of the ``new tribes'' program. Nevertheless, in the few years
since Congress restored the Little River Ottawa to federal recognition,
Tribal leaders have made the best use of the limited resources
available to fulfill their governmental responsibilities and to use the
tools of self-determination. In July 1998, the Tribe's membership
approved a new Constitution, which establishes three (3) separate
branches of Tribal government: Legislative (Tribal Council), Executive
(Tribal Ogema), and an independent Tribal Judiciary. The Tribe has
utilized, or is utilizing, monies received under the Michigan Indian
Land Claims Settlement Act (Pub. L. 105-143) to purchase nearly 2,000
acres of former Reservation land for community and economic
development. The acquisition of these properties has dramatically
increased the Tribal government's regulatory and law enforcement
responsibilities. Many Tribal families are returning the Reservation in
anticipation of new jobs and housing. Importantly, the Tribe's
Constitution assures Tribal members and non-members alike, access to
the Tribal Courts to vindicate rights secured under the Tribe's
Constitution and enforcement of Tribal laws. As Committee members are
well aware, providing and maintaining a competent Tribal forum for
members and non-members does not come cheap.
As noted previously, the Bureau did take some steps to correct the
Tribe's funding inequities in fiscal year 1997, when the Tribe's New
Tribes funding level was adjusted from $330,000 to $671,000. In fiscal
year 1998, Minneapolis Area Office received approximately $1.9 Million
Dollars in additional TPA monies to be re-allocated in the Area.
Unfortunately, those increased funds were allocated based upon each
Tribes' current funding and Little River's share only amounted to
$48,696. The addition of these funds, however, did bring the Tribe's
total appropriation for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to $724,166.
The Tribe is doing its part to develop a responsible, competent
Tribal government. Long-term maintenance and support for these
essential governmental responsibilities requires adequate Tribal
Priorities Allocation funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A number of these important programs--most notably Tribal Courts,
Law Enforcement, Tribal Council and Social Services--are dramatically
underfunded. The Tribe's unmet needs in these very critical areas can
be met with surprisingly little funding--approximately $400,000. This
increase will permit the Tribe to maintain its existing programs at the
minimum levels established in previous fiscal years and provide the
Tribe with a base budget to develop and maintain a independent,
competent Tribal Judiciary and related law enforcement on the Tribe's
Reservation.
This is the second year the Tribe has asked the Congress for
assistance in correcting the mis-calculation of the Tribe's TPA
distribution. We ask for this Subcommittee's assistance in making sure
the BIA corrects this problem in fiscal year 2000. Specifically, the
Tribe is requesting that the Committee either provide an add-on of
$355,500 to the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, or that the Committee
direct the BIA to make this money available to the Tribe out of regular
TPA funding.
With the federal dollars it have received, the Tribe has now hired
a core staff and has developed several programs to address the service
needs of tribal members. The Tribe has established its Court, its
governmental offices, a health clinic, 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 in
fiscal year 2000, the Tribe will have to cut back or eliminate many
programs.
The Tribe also has Court-ordered responsibilities for management,
regulation and enforcement activities related to Treaty-reserved
fisheries on the Great Lakes. The Congress has recognized its unique
obligation to fund Tribes sufficiently to protect Treaty resources.
Since the early 1980's Congress has appropriated recurring funds
through a separate line-item for the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery
Management Authority to permit its member Tribes to carry out their
responsibilities for Great Lakes treaty fishery conservation and
management, as well as meeting their obligations under a Consent Order
entered in the treaty rights litigation U.S. v. Michigan. The terms of
the settlement embodied in the Consent Order and the current efforts to
negotiate a successor a agreement are a testament to the Tribe's
willingness to work with the State and its user groups to reach
accommodations on these controversial matters.
In 1998, Little River became a member of the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty
Fishery Management Authority and a party to U.S. v. Michigan. The Tribe
intends to be a full partner in the management and protection of the
Great Lakes fishery resources and is assuming its Court Ordered
responsibilities under the Consent Order. To date, however, Congress
has not provided the Treaty Management Authority with the financial
resources necessary to provide Little River with the funds it needs to
carry out its regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. The
Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority will be requesting
additional funding to allow the Little River Ottawa to assume these
responsibilities. As is the case with the other 1836 Treaty tribes who
are party to U.S. v. Michigan, these funds are appropriated through a
separate recurring line-item in addition to each of the member Tribes'
TPA allocations. With the expiration of the current Consent Order in
the Year 2000, actual appropriation of these funds for Little River in
the Year 2000 is essential to protection of Little River's treaty
resources.
Mr. Chairman, 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 are willing to assume and carry out our responsibilities
as a government; however, those responsibilities require a minimum
level of funding. What we currently have is simply not enough. If we
can be provided and assured the minimum level we ask for, we are
willing to use those resources to do the rest, and the best, for our
people.
We thank you for any help you can offer to ensure that our funding
needs in fiscal year 2000 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 William Old Chief, Chairman, Blackfeet Tribe,
Blackfeet Indian Reservation
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Committee Members: My name is
William Old Chief, Chairman of the Blackfeet Tribe, government of the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Montana. I would like to respectfully
thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony to the
Senate Committee on Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. I am
requesting appropriation funding for the Blackfeet Tribe, funding
administration shall be directed through the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Wildlife and Parks. Listed by
priority, they are: $4,700,000.00 to construct a Trout Fish Hatchery
facility; $275,000.00 annual 638 Self-Determination contract for
hatchery operations; $100,000.00addendum to the existing Blackfeet Fish
and Wildlife Public Law 93-638 Self-Determination Contract which is
currently funded at $100,000 annually, the addendum will bring the
total to $200,000annually; $50,000.00 addendum to the existing
Blackfeet Threatened and Endangered Species Program Public Law 93-638
Self-Determination contract, which is currently funded at $120,000
annually, the addendum will bring the total to $170,000 annually.
The Blackfeet Indian Reservation (BIR) is located in central
Montana and shares borders with Glacier National Park to the West and
Canada to the North. The BIR land base encompasses 1.5 million acres of
forest, range and farm lands. The Blackfeet Tribe consists of
approximately 15,000 members, of which 8,500 members reside on the
reservation. Non-Tribal residents of the reservation number
approximately 2,500 individuals.
The BIR recreational fisheries habitat and resource is extensive
and provides an integral role within the structure of the natural
resource. The assemblage of BIR aquatic wetlands consist of 19,668
acres of glaciated pothole basins that range in size of less than an
acre to lakes of more than 2,000 acres. Approximately 35 lakes still in
a Pre-Columbus state provide 13 square miles of blue ribbon trout fish
habitat.
The Blackfeet Tribe has clearly identified the need for a Trout
Fish Hatchery on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and has initiated
inter-agency cooperative measures for the preparatory planning and
development of a facility. The proposed hatchery would exclusively
support lake systems in Indian Country, and would serve to attain
maximum biologic potential for growth, angler success, and production.
The hatchery requirement stems from an effort to secure the integrity
of the Tribal Fisheries resource and provide for its' future growth
potential. The establishment of a resident hatchery will offer the
Tribe a multiple of opportune economic advancements and make possible
the desire to obtain a positive level of self-reliance and effective
self-governance. The hatchery will foster associative social and
economic interests and productively address the commercial expansion of
Tribal and Non-Tribal based affiliate private businesses. The Tribe
envisions a sustained recreational fisheries supported internally by
existing Tribal conservation management trust efforts.
The Blackfeet Tribal lake fisheries have historically produced
trophy trout in impressive numbers and have been said to be the fly
fishermens' best kept secret in the Northwest. Because of this
recognition, the revenue generated through sales of Tribal fishing
permits is substantial and provides an important source of income for
the Tribe and supports many local and state private enterprises. Tribal
fishing permits are sold on and off the BIR, which effectively promotes
business to many local and surrounding Montana rural communities.
Revenue from permit sales goes to provide conservation law enforcement
and management for the Tribes' fisheries. Peak sales of permits earned
the Tribe $201,000 in revenue for fiscal year 1996. Although it is not
a significant amount on a national scale, in an arena of a stressed
agriculture economy this relief is notably substantial. Once in
operation Hatchery production would enable the Tribe to maximize
fishery growth potential and increase service supply to stimulate
expansion of recreational fishery commerce.
Trout stocking for the Tribal lakes has been conducted annually by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, and for many years the Tribe has
enjoyed benefits derived from this trust responsibility. The Tribe
deems the stocking program to be successful in many categories, but has
grown strongly concerned by recent yearly disruptions that have placed
the Tribal fishery in jeopardy. The Tribe received a maximum
supplementation of 800,000 trout in fiscal year 90', since that time
the Tribe has seen a disturbing decline in lake fish stocking rates.
fiscal year 1998' stocking rates for Tribal lakes were approximately
300,000 trout. The impact to the Tribe has been a serious deficiency in
angler success and a 35 percent reduction in fishing permit revenues.
The Tribe receives the bulk of fish for the lakes from Creston Hatchery
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Tribe expects additional disruption
to the lake stocking rates when Creston interrupts production to meet
quality standards to the dam structure that supports the Hatchery. Also
the USFWS has adopted a new policy of raising only native endemic
species in federal hatcheries, the effect of this transition will
disrupt production and stocking rates as well. The Tribe appreciates
the requirements of the comprehensive public trust responsibility and
empathizes with the ensuing reduction in services due to budget
concerns, yet the serious plight of the Tribes' natural resource
interests lends further justification to acquire a Tribal Hatchery. The
advent of these developments expedites existing Tribal desires to
realize self-reliance in this area of Trust responsibility and secure
Tribal interests.
The Blackfeet Tribe has worked cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to thoroughly examine
preliminary hatchery considerations. Interior agency technical
assistance has enabled the Tribe to ensure the best management
practices and address collective natural resource parameters to assure
environmental and biologic quality control. The Tribe is confident in
the planning direction arrived by the collaborate process and is
affirmed that procurement for quality production will be attained.
The hatchery facility design will address current fish culture
practices to ensure quality biologic production and maintain species
integrity. To accomplish this goal all fish production will be
accommodated indoors. Water supplies will be treated in two manners.
The fish egg hatching facility will utilize filter systems that will
range down in size to one-half micron mesh followed by ozone injection,
and finally ultra violet exposure. The larger building that will house
older developed fish, will filter the water for larger colloidal
suspended sediment and be exposed to ultra violet light. These methods
will suppress bacterial and viral introduction with a high degree of
certainty. The egg hatching facility water amount requirement is less
but demands intensive treatment because of the high disease
susceptibility of younger fish. An enclosed hatchery building will
provide water quality by diminishing the formation of solar radiated
algae and bacteria. The use of smooth fiberglass tanks in a darkened
surrounding will reduce injury complicated by the stressful environment
of an enclosure. Indoor rearing of the fish imparts a preservation of
survival escape behavior needed once the fish is released in their
natural habitat, this decreases mortality rates and increases mature
populations in the wild. The Hatchery will have a 50 year operational
capacity and will have the future potential to provide Fish to the
other Federally recognized Tribes residing in Montana.
The Tribe shall utilize a three phase production approach for the
hatchery. Phase one shall include the engineering and design details to
conform to facility production fish requirements. Phase two shall be
further defined on the basis of phase one to construct the Hatchery.
Phase three shall involve operational OMB performance to achieve
progressional development. The Tribe has explored and examined plans
for a host of contingencies pertinent to the hatchery for five years.
The parameters and requirements for phase one have been logistically
defined. Phase one will require a expert consulting design to refine
and document a final product that will allow the Tribe to shift to
phase two and phase three.
The Great Plains Tribes have consistently been regarded in terms of
their relationship with the buffalo. Primarily this is true for the
Blackfeet Tribe, yet culturally the Blackfeet honored all animal
species with equal repect and reverence. In particular, although not a
diet staple the fish plays a very significant historical and
contemporary spiritual role for the Blackfeet. Consumption of fish is
performed first to honor particular spirits before the commencement of
all Blackfeet spiritual ceremonies. In addition, the advent of western
society has placed subsistence burdens on the people of the Blackfeet
Tribe since the late 1880's. To offset their adversity the Tribe has
incorporated fish more frequently into daily diets, and like the horse,
fish have evolved to portray a active culturally important role to the
society structure. In short, the Blackfeet Tribe has a substantial
invested interest in the procurement of the best stewardship for the
Tribal natural resources fisheries.
The Blackfeet Tribe receives an annual Public Law 93-638 contract
to conduct fish and wildlife conservation management for purposes that
include law enforcement, management operations, project work, and
administrative support. The intent of this contract continues to be
fulfilled by theBlackfeet Fish and Wildlife Department (BFWD). The
Tribe enjoys increased fish and wildlife resources and distinguishes an
expansion in responsibility, concurrently as the BFWD has matured, the
need for additional funding to support operational performance and
function is essential to meet management requirements. The Tribe takes
great pride in the success that past funding has allowed. Part of that
success is made possible and is demonstrated by the Tribes' well
established fish and wildlife conservation code. To meet future
resource responsibilities with competence and credibility the Tribe
must attend to enlarge it's capabilities. Funding to meet these natural
resource requirements would empower the Tribe to self-sufficiently
administer new incursions of responsibility.
The BIR provides extensive habitat for a wide variety of fish and
wildlife species. Many species are listed within the Endangered Species
Act or are candidate concerned species. The BFWD must provide the
protection aspect of management for these ESA species. Big and small
game species including non-game species proliferate on the BIR. Fish
and wildlife fauna include: Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Grey Wolves,
Elk, Moose, Whitetail and Mule Deer, Mountain Goat, Mountain Lion, Big
Horn Sheep, Antelope, Bald and Golden eagles, Osprey, Piping plovers,
Ferruginous Hawk, Northern Goshhawk, Harlequin Ducks, Trumpeter Swans,
Whooping Crane, Lynx, Swift Fox, Red Fox, Bull Trout, Westslope
Cutthroat Trout, Beavers, Otters, all members of the weasel
family(wolverines), and coyotes. The BIR's pothole system plays a very
important role for waterfowl and migratory birds( Trumpeter swans ).
The BFWD responsibility is for the management of all species within the
BIR's 1.5 million acres of habitat, additional funding would work
directly to adequately secure that interest.
The Blackfeet Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) program is
one of several programs within the BFWD. Initially the duty of the TES
program was to conduct research on grizzly bears and grey wolves on the
BIR. TES responsibilities have expanded out of necessity to encompass
more management efforts as well as other species that are listed as
threatened or endangered. The current mission of the TES program is to
gather information on the habits and distribution of grizzly bears,
wolves, and other federally threatened and endangered wildlife species
or species of special concern that occur on the BIR, to assist in their
management, and to develop plans for future management of those
species. The goals of the program include the following: (1) to provide
information to resource managers that will enable them to avoid or
lessen negative impacts to threatened or endangered species as they
conduct their respective management activities, (2) to provide
training, education, and employment opportunities to Tribal members in
the field of wildlife biology, and (3) to assist BIR residents in the
management of nuisance or depredating grizzly bears, wolves, or other
predators.
The TES program works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and other federal, state, and Tribal agencies in cooperative
interagency efforts to manage all threatened and endangered species.
Some of the accomplishments to date include a habitat enhancement
project for the threatened piping plover, a Tribal Bear management
plan, near completion of a grizzly bear cumulative effects analysis
model that will help managers throughout the ecosystem determine and
mitigate effects on grizzlies of planned activities, a livestock
carcass redistribution program that reduces conflicts between bears and
ranchers, implementation of food storage guidelines for rural residents
and campers to reduce bear conflicts, and garbage management
guidelines, including acquisition of nonfederal funding for bear proof
garbage dumpsters on much of the BIR. We work in close cooperation with
a private conservation organization that reimburses ranchers for
livestock that are killed by wolves or grizzly bears. The quality of
our TES program is equitable to similar state or federal programs.
TES current level of funding is not adequate to meet federal
mandates or maintain quality service. Much of our equipment is over 10
years old and needs replacement. Costs for operations have increased
while our budget has remained the same. Grizzly Bear and wolf
populations are increasing on the BIR and require more management
effort. More wildlife species are being listed as threatened or
endangered, requiring our attention. The TES mission dictates an
additional human resources, and support equipment to meet our
increasing demands to facilitate Tribal Self-Determination.
The Blackfeet Tribe wishes to emphasize an imbalance in the federal
funding distribution of fish and wildlife initiatives in Indian
Country. The Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes region receive 85
percent of funds while Tribes in the remainder of the country rely on
the remaining 15 percent. The Great Plains region includes 80 percent
of Indian Country trust land mass. The Blackfeet Tribe does not dispute
nor wish to disrupt present funding allocations elsewhere, we only wish
to express a desire to obtain a measure of equity in funding accruement
to adequately address unmet natural resource needs.
The Blackfeet Tribe appreciates previous support as it has assisted
the BFWD to meet challenges and see to the best interest of the fish
and wildlife resource. The sustained commitment demonstrated by the
House and Senate strongly confirms a sincere pledge to promote
Blackfeet self-sufficient efforts and fosters realization of tangible
measures towards Self-Determination.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
abstract
The Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (BSFA) requests the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to
continue to direct base funding of $805,000 plus an additional $700,000
to BSFA to conduct salmon research and restoration projects in the
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (A-Y-K) region of Alaska. As in previous fiscal
years, base level funding of $805,000 is already available and
identified for this research effort within the BIA's Wildlife & Parks,
Tribal Management and Development program. Additional funding is
requested to respond to the 1998 Federal fisheries disaster in western
Alaska. BSFA will continue to work with appropriate regional Native
non-profit organizations and village councils in the design and
implementation of these projects.
bsfa's arctic-yukon-kuskokwim salmon investigations program: monitoring
and restoring the salmon resource
In response to drastic declines in salmon returns, in fiscal year
1994 the Congress authorized a Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriation
of $800,000 to BSFA to conduct salmon monitoring, research, restoration
and enhancement projects in western Alaska. Since that time from fiscal
year 1995 through fiscal year 1999 the BIA has maintained a base level
funding of approximately $800,000 to $805,00 in its budget to support
what is known as the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Salmon Investigations
program. This base level funding has been placed in the Wildlife &
Parks, Tribal Management & Development section of the budget. With the
exception of fiscal year 1995 funding, each year the Congress has
directed that the full $800,000-$805,000 be directed to the Bering Sea
Fishermen's Association (BSFA) so that one single entity is responsible
for administering the overall A-Y-K salmon research effort. Each year
BSFA has consulted with agencies such as the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G) and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS)
as well as various regional Native non-profit organizations and village
councils to create cooperative research projects. BSFA then
subcontracts with these Native regional organizations and village
councils for recruitment and supervision of a crew leader and local
villagers and field equipment and supplies. In many cases, the ADF&G or
USF&WS also provides in-kind support of personnel or equipment.
The goals of these projects are to:
--fill a gap in the scientific database not covered by existing
agencies;
--assure sustained yield management of salmon stocks;
--develop tribal capabilities in salmon management and research, and;
--provide information to assist management in providing for
subsistence salmon needs of rural Alaskan villages.
Using this Congressional appropriation BSFA has funded all or a
significant portion of the cost of the following projects:
Arctic (Kotzebue Sound & Norton Sound)
Sikasuilaq Springs chum salmon hatchery: annual operational costs
(fiscal year 1994)
Kobuk River chum salmon abundance test fishery (fiscal year 1994)
Regional salmon spawning surveys (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
1999)
Salmon catch (age-sex-length) sampling (fiscal year 1996-fiscal
year 1999)
Sockeye salmon habitat analysis & lake fertilization (fiscal year
1994)
Chum salmon habitat analysis & micro-hatchery construction (fiscal
year 1994)
Snake River salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
1999)
Eldorado River, Pilgrim River & North River salmon counting towers
(fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 1999)
Regional subsistence harvest surveys (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
1999)
Public forums: project planning (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year 1999)
Yukon River
Chum salmon micro-hatchery development (fiscal year 1994 & fiscal
year 1995)
Toklat fall chum salmon productivity analysis (fiscal year 1994-
fiscal year 1999)
Pilot Station main river salmon counting sonar operations (fiscal
year 1994)
Anvik River terminal harvest test seine fishery (fiscal year 1994)
Kaltag Creek salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
1999)
Nulato River salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994-fiscal year
1999)
Tanana Village salmon abundance test fishwheels (fiscal year 1994-
fiscal year 1999)
Mountain Village fall chum salmon abundance test fishery (fiscal
year 1995-fiscal year 1999)
Andreafski River coho salmon counting weir (fiscal year 1995-fiscal
year 1999)
Galena village fall chum salmon abundance test fishwheel (fiscal
year 1995)
Tanana River fall chum tag & recapture population estimate (fiscal
year 1995-fiscal year 1999)
Clear Creek salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
1999)
Pilot Station sonar local Native technician (fiscal year 1996-
fiscal year 1999)
Nenana River salmon spawning surveys (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
1999)
Lower Yukon (Emmonak) local Native fishery technician (fiscal year
1997-fiscal year 1999)
Public forums: subsistence management plans & project planning
(fiscal year 1994-fiscal year 1999)
Kuskokwim River
Eek Island salmon abundance gillnet test fishery (fiscal year 1994)
Aniak River coho salmon counting sonar (fiscal year 1994)
Nunivak Island salmon abundance study (fiscal year 1994 & fiscal
year 1995)
Chum salmon migration timing and spawning distribution study
(fiscal year 1995)
Kanektok, Takotna and Kwethluk salmon counting towers (fiscal year
1996-fiscal year 1999)
George River salmon counting weir (fiscal year 1996-fiscal year
1999)
Aniak River sonar local Native technician (fiscal year 1996-fiscal
year 1999)
Tatlawiksuk River salmon counting weir (fiscal year 1999)
Public forums: inseason management and project planning (fiscal
year 1996-fiscal year 1999)
Bristol Bay
Wood River coho salmon counting tower (fiscal year 1994)
For all of these projects BSFA has worked directly with and
subcontracted with regional Native non-profit associations such as:
--Kawerak, Inc. (Norton Sound)
--Tanana Chiefs Conference (Yukon River)
--Association of Village Council Presidents (Kuskokwim & Yukon
Rivers)
--Kuskokwim Native Association (Kuskokwim River) and also with the
individual traditional/IRA councils of the villages of Emmonak,
Mountain Village, St. Mary's, Andreafski, Kaltag, Nulato,
Galena, Tanana, Kwinhagak and Takotna and as well as individual
fishermen.
Through using the BIA appropriation as matching funds, BSFA has
also leveraged several thousands dollars of project support from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and the Bureau of Land Management. Finally, these BSFA-administered
projects were implemented with a low indirect rate of less than 15
percent.
fiscal year 2000 appropriation designation & research plans
Although the program has helped to rebuild some of the individual
salmon returns, most AYK salmon streams require continued monitoring
and restoration efforts. Maintaining this appropriation is critical to
ensuring effective salmon management so that sustained yield is
maintained, tribal capabilities are developed and rural subsistence
salmon harvest needs are met.
As the committee may know the 1998 season saw widespread salmon run
failures throughout western Alaska. Not only were chum salmon returns
weak in the 1993 crash but chinook returns were unexpectedly poor and
coho and sockeye returns were also below average. This unforeseen crash
points out the need for research into freshwater and ocean survival of
salmon in addition to the standard baseline studies of adult spawning
escapement studies. Studies aimed at estimating total population are
also warranted.
Therefore BSFA requests a continued subcommittee designation to
Bering Sea Fishermen's Association of the $805,000 budgeted for Arctic-
Yukon-Kuskokwim Salmon Investigations within the BIA's fiscal year 1999
Wildlife & Parks, Tribal Management & Development budget section. We
also urge the subcommittee to designate an additional $700,000 to BSFA
to respond to the multispecies salmon run failure of 1998.
If the additional $700,000 is secured BSFA would likely undertake
some of the following studies to aid in the management and rebuilding
of western Alaska salmon stocks. These studies would include sockeye
salmon lake fertilization and expanded chum salmon incubation projects
in Norton Sound; a chinook salmon population estimate and freshwater
survival studies in the Yukon River; and expanded sockeye and coho
escapement monitoring and a chinook population estimate in the
Kuskokwim River.
BSFA will continue to work with and contract with local and
regional Alaska Native organizations and other appropriate entities as
well as with individual fishermen. BSFA is the only group that
represents and works with all fishermen (commercial and subsistence)
and villagers throughout the entire Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region. BSFA
Board and staff are intimately familiar with salmon research needs in
the A-Y-K region. Having BSFA as the single responsible program
management entity will assure both the development of tribal
capabilities and the fulfillment of the intent of Congress to rebuild
salmon returns in an efficient manner.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony
concerning appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the Tribe's fiscal year 2000 request for $1,199,500 from
programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Tribe asks:
--that Congress provide $1,000,000 from the Critical Ecosystem
Studies Initiative (CESI) account in the National Park Service
budget for the Seminole Tribe for activities related to the
Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative on the Big Cypress
Reservation;
--that Congress provide $199,500 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs
for water quality studies, as a part of the Tribe's Everglades
restoration efforts.
In addition to this specific request for the Tribe's programs, we
request that Congress fund the CESI account at the same level it has
been funded in the last two fiscal years, $12 million. The
Administration cut the CESI account by one-third, despite the important
research that it funds; such research helps support critical Everglades
ecosystem restoration. The Tribe requests that Congress the restore the
$4 million cut to the CESI account.
The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is a comprehensive
water conservation system designed to improve the water quality and
natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress Basin. This project will
contribute to the overall success of both the federal and the state
governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and restore the delicate
ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In recognition of this
contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration Initiative has been
endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and has
been found to be consistent with the recommendations of the Governor's
Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.
The Seminole Tribe has been working with the US Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) to identify programs that could fund the Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative. At this time, the western portion of the Big
Cypress Reservation, along with a canal that transverses the
Reservation, has been identified as a Critical Project under the
authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996).
The NRCS has identified a number of Farm Bill programs suitable for
funding the design, planning, and construction of the project on the
eastern portion of the Reservation. The funds provided by the DOI have
made it possible for the Tribe to do the research necessary to allow
the COE and NRCS to complete final project designs. In addition, the
Tribe continues to spend Tribal funds to advance the research and
design and is prepared to provide the required cost share payments as
required by the different federal programs.
the seminole tribe of florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow
and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread
of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread
of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass
necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the
wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Everglades Restoration project was designed to allow
the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
survival is at stake.
In addition to addressing the ecosystem concerns related to the Big
Cypress Reservation, the Tribe has been actively involved in the
development of the ecosystem-wide restoration plan. The Tribe, as an
active member of both the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and
Working Group, has worked cooperatively with our neighbors to design a
sustainable future for all of South Florida.
seminole tribe everglades restoration initiative
The DOI, through the BIA, has provided the Tribe with $199,500 in
each of the fiscal years 1994 through 1999. In addition, through the
NPS, Interior provided the Tribe with $390,000 in fiscal year 1997 and
$920,000 in fiscal year 1998. A $1 million appropriation was provided
to both the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes in the fiscal year 1999
appropriation cycle; the Tribe is working with the Task Force and
Everglades National Park to decide how to split the funding. The Tribe
is using these funds to monitor and analyze the quality and quantity of
water coming onto and leaving the Reservation and to conduct scientific
studies to determine nutrient impacts. For example, the Tribe plans to
study the assimilative capacity of the C&SF canals for nutrients,
phosphorus in particular. The results of such monitoring and studies
will be available to others studying Everglades degradation and
developing plans to arrest the harm.
The Tribe has also developed a conceptual plan that will enable us
to meet new water quality standards essential to the cleanup of our
part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the storage and
conveyance of our water rights. The appropriated funds have also been
used to design the Tribe's best management practices program, with the
assistance of the NRCS. We continue to use available funds to further
the design and planning work necessary to implement our Everglades
Restoration Initiative.
The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is designed to
mitigate the degradation the Everglades has suffered through decades of
flood control projects and urban and agricultural use and ultimately to
restore the nation's largest wetlands to a healthy state. Our
Everglades Restoration Initiative will enable the Tribe:
--to collect and monitor data to establish a baseline and to evaluate
performance of the overall system design;
--to design and construct surface water management systems to remove
phosphorus, convey and store irrigation water, improve flood
control, and rehydrate the Big Cypress National Preserve;
--to commit to the long-term operation and maintenance of new water
management systems; and
--to design and implement comprehensive best management practices for
the Big Cypress Reservation.
This project will enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target
for low phosphorus concentrations that is being used for design
purposes by state and federal authorities. It will also provide an
important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the
western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is
vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of lands within the
Preserve.
As discussed in the introduction, the Tribe will continue to work
with the COE and the NRCS to satisfy the requirements of these
agencies' respective programs. Once again, the funding requested in
this testimony is crucial because such funds will allow the Tribe to
continue to develop the data and design information that is required
for the design, planning, and construction of the Everglades
Restoration Initiative. In addition, the results of studies the Tribe
helps pay for with both the CESI funds from NPS and the BIA funds will
be applicable to other entities supporting Everglades restoration.
conclusion
Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
restoring the Everglades for future generations. By granting this
appropriation request, the federal government will be taking a
substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water
that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate
Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big
Cypress Reservation, which is federal land held in trust for the Tribe,
will send a clear message that the federal government is committed to
Everglades restoration.
The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
Tribe, including the dedication of over 9,000 acres of land for water
management improvements. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with
its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a
substantially higher level of federal financial assistance will be
needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal
government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
Prepared Statement of Jimmie C. Begay, Executive Director, Rock Point
Community School, the Navajo Nation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We, the representatives
of Rock Point Community School wish to express our appreciation for
this opportunity to share our concerns in connection with the education
of our children and the education of the Native American students
generally.
Whereas the entire Nation is striving to achieve highest output of
our education at secondary level in the world, we at Rock Point and
American Indian students generally are far behind the national norm. We
are unable to meet the average national standard to be achieved by the
year 2000. We can neither hire nor retain properly trained and
qualified teachers for want of adequate funds. Unlike most of urban and
semi-urban schools in the USA, isolation in our case, and in the case
of most of the schools on the Navajo Reservation is a major factor.
Some incentives are required to hire and retain qualified teachers.
Thus, we need some more funds to retain trained teachers, because the
available funds to us are considerably less than the average national
expenditure per student.
Our main concerns are about funding for ISEP, Transportation,
Administrative Costs, Operation and Maintenance and House for the
School Staff members.
indian school equalization program (isep)
This appropriation provides for the direct classroom instruction.
Funds provided per Weighted Student Unit (WSU) in SY 1998-1999 was
$3,199. Estimated WSU dollar value in the School Year 1999-2000 is
$3,238. If the appropriation provides according to the President's
request, it will be estimated $3,285 for SY 2000-01. In 1991, an ISEP
Task Force had determined that $3,499 is the minimum need per WSU. In
the SY 2000-01, 9 years after the recommendation, it is still far short
of the need at that time. Cost of classroom instruction including
annual step increase and increased cost of more trained and qualified
teachers is increasing at 6.23 percent per year. To meet the national
goal of year 2000 is not possible with the amount available. If the
$3,499/WSU recommended in 1991 is to be achieved in the SY 2000-2001,
at least $336,606,000 needs to be appropriated in the fiscal year 2000
budget.
Here at Rock Point Community School, we are not left with enough
finances to purchase updated classroom supplies, text or library books
or purchase of innovative instructional materials including computers
and relevant software.
Since the economy of the nation is upwards with savings in the
national budget, the investment in education, more particularly of the
Native American students will be the most important investment. This is
also important if Congress wants the Native American students to be at
par with other students in the development of national manpower to meet
the challenges of the 21st century.
We, therefore ask that the appropriation for ISEP be not less than
$336,606,000.
transportation of the students
In all these past years, a considerable portion of ISEP funds which
is for classroom instruction has been used to pay for the
transportation of students, further aggravating the minimum needs of
the classrooms. The national average expenditure for a mile of
transportation in the School Year 1993-1994 was $2.92, but we received
only $2.10 per mile in the current School Year. If we really do not
touch dollars from classroom instruction for the transportation of
students, appropriation should not be less than $48,330,000 to yield at
national rate of six school years ago. Even then we will have to use
some classroom instruction funds to make up for the rising cost of
mileage and rental from GSA. President's budget request at $38.8
million which will yield $2.35 per mile is still far below the need 6
years ago.
This does not include the cost of transportation for extra-
curricular activities, which is part of the total educational growth of
the students. This cost eats away another substantial portion of our
transportation budget, further eroding the dollars meant for classroom
instruction.
We ask that appropriation for this be not less than $48 million.
This will be the most appropriate way of meeting the transportation
costs, although we will still have to use some ISEP funds for
transportation, but at lesser rate.
administrative cost grants
One of the most pressing concerns is funding for the Administrative
Cost Grants.
In the SY 1999, there were 117 schools under grant or contract and
only 68 operated by BIA. In the School Year 2000-01 there will be only
56 schools operated by BIA, the rest 129 to be operated by Native
American Communities. Out of this, at least 10 schools are projected to
be grant schools only on Navajo Reservation. The administrative and
technical support functions previously provided by BIA at Agency or
Area level are now mostly the responsibility of the Contract and Grant
schools. This is besides the usual contractual and administrative
function for which this fund is allocated. But the Administrative Cost
appropriation has remained almost the same for several years at $42.2
million in spite of the increase of the number of grant and contract
schools. The responsibility of managing the Bureau funded schools will
fall 100 percent on the Native American communities by converting BIA
operated schools to grant or contract schools in the years to follow.
Except for one year, the need generated by the Admin Cost formula
established in PL 100-297 has never been met at 100 percent.
If Congress is seriously supportive of self-determination for
education, appropriation at $47,610,000 for the School Year 2000-2001
as asked by the Administration's budget will not be adequate. It must
be at least $50 million to get closer to the needed amount for every
school.
housing for school employees
It is worth noting that there are only 52 units of housing at Rock
Pont against an average of 130 employees. These units were built in the
1960's and 1970's and constantly need repair and large amounts of
maintenance. We do not have any other housing available in the
community for renting nor there is any project for building houses for
the community by the Tribal Housing Authority. The Community itself
stands in need of housing for the growing population.
Yet the President's budget has been reduced from last year's $3
million appropriation to $2.5 million. We feel that Rock Point
Community School's housing problem should be addressed as soon as
possible in order to retain and recruit trained and qualified teachers.
Housing may appear to be non classroom function. But it has direct
impact on classroom instruction. If qualified teachers are not
available for want of housing or are not retained because of poor
living conditions, how can we improve the quality of instruction?
At least an estimated $4 million will be needed to replace old and
dilapidated housing units at Rock Point Community School alone. We ask
you to increase the education housing budget.
operation and maintenance of facilities
There are two points we wish to submit to you. The BIA's budget
request has separated the funding for ``operation'' and ``maintenance''
of facilities with the explanation that they want to avoid the ``co-
mingling of funds''. By this, BIA seems to be trying to dictate how
much of its allowance a local school can spend for each. This is
unnecessary and unwise. Circumstances differ widely at school
locations. The local school board must have the flexibility to spend
its facilities funds on operation and maintenance as its local needs
require. We ask you to reject BIA's proposal to separate these two
items.
The more important issue is that the combined amount for facilities
operation and maintenance remains at only about \2/3\ of the amount
needed to properly operate and prudently maintain our facilities. As
the Bureau itself acknowledges, our federally-owned facilities are
deteriorating at a fast pace when there is not enough funding to fully
maintain them. The United States has invested millions of dollars in
building school facilities--such as the new Rock Point High School. It
is in your interests as well as our to protect the federal government's
investment and assure that the buildings are maintained so they can be
enjoyed for their full useful life.
We ask the Subcommittee to fund a combined ``facilities operation
and maintenance'' budget at $118 million.
Thank you for consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim E. Gilmartin, Mayor, Metlakatla Indian
Community
The Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Islands Reserve in
southeast Alaska provides this statement on the fiscal year 2000 budget
requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service.
The industries which have in the past provided an economic base for
the Metlakatla Indian Community--fishing and timber--are all but
defunct. Our extremely depressed economy, combined with issues
associated with our remote island location, lead us to bring to your
attention our need for a health clinic and more law enforcement
resources which meet our unique circumstances. Our Reserve is the only
Indian reservation in the country with a maritime boundary. Thus,
Metlakatla's law enforcement responsibilities include jurisdiction over
not only the 1,500 to 2,000 residents and approximately 90,000 acres of
uplands, but almost 50,000 acres of ocean waters as well.
We respectfully request the Subcommittee to recommend:
--IHS funding for design ($1.3 million) and construction of a health
center
--Increased BIA funding for Law Enforcement, with special attention
paid to our unique law enforcement responsibilities
--General increase in BIA funding for Tribal Priority Allocations
ihs fiscal year 2000 budget
Annette Island Service Unit Health Center. We have a health care
emergency in the Metlakatla Indian Community. Our only health care
clinic--the Annette Islands Service Unit Health Center--is literally
falling apart, posing real safety risks for our clients and employees.
The state of our buildings is the sole reason we cannot meet the
standards of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care
Organizations. It has become a full-time job just to keep the health
center buildings patched together enough to remain open. But we must
keep the Metlakatla health center open since it is the sole source of
health care on the Annette Islands Reserve.
We desperately need $1.3 million for design of a replacement clinic
and quarters and additional funding for construction. The total
estimated cost for a clinic and quarters is $16 million.
Modular Health Center.--Our health center consists of four modular
buildings, which are set on pilings and are connected by open, elevated
wooden walkways. They house a medical clinic (the oldest and largest of
the buildings, and the one in the worst condition), a family services
center, a dental clinic, and administrative offices. Over time the
buildings have settled unevenly, posing an unsafe environment for
people seeking health services (18,000+ visits per year).
``Not Suitable for Renovation''.--The Indian Health Service has
classified our health center as not suitable for renovation due to
structural limitations. Yet we continually scramble for funding to make
emergency repairs which will allow us to continue to provide health
services. Cost estimates for repairs necessary to achieve compliance
with current fire, mechanical, electrical and life safety codes, as
well as the Uniform Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities
Act guidelines is over $1 million. Our Maintenance and Improvement
funds are not adequate to meet these needs. Further, the buildings will
never be able to be fixed for anything approaching long-term usage.
Falling Walls and Other Repairs.--Indicative of the worsening
structural condition of the clinic is that when the temperature drops
below freezing and then warms up, the clinic walls drop and separate.
Recently, the southeast wall of the Medical Records room dropped and
separated 1\1/2\ inches, causing the floor to buckle in the Family
Services building. All staff and equipment had to be displaced from the
Family Services building for safety reasons. The x-ray room on the
north end of the building was similarly affected this year when that
wall dropped and separated. In that instance, we obtained a $13,000
grant to lift the pilings and move the wall back in place. This is not
a permanent fix, and, in fact, settling and cracking of the walls
continue to this day.
Other recent repairs include: replacement of domestic hot and cold
water piping in the Medical and the Dental Clinics and a portion of the
Family Service Building; insulation of the new piping; installation of
a circulating pump to try to prevent pipes from freezing; repair of the
waste piping in the crawl spaces; and replacement of the rotting
emergency room and patient room floors.
Sick Building Syndrome/ADA Noncompliance.--The IHS October 1996
Deep Look Survey of our health center noted that some rooms have no
heat and that ``no ventilation is provided to the facilities, resulting
in very poor indoor air quality and sick building syndrome, especially
in the clinic. The buildings get hot in the summer due to no air
conditioning being provided. The problem is especially severe in the
clinic where temperatures have reached over 38 degrees centigrade and
the building occupants have passed out because of the heat.''
Among the findings of the Deep Look Survey are: corridor widths,
number of exits and toilet facilities are not in compliance with the
ADA guidelines; waste piping systems are sloped in the wrong direction
and sag in all buildings except the dental clinic; electrical systems
in the clinic and administration buildings are not grounded; asbestos
in the ceilings; and roofing and gutter systems need to be replaced.
The most recent Deep Look survey, however, was done prior to the
phenomena of the clinic walls dropping and separating.
IHS Priority List.--The Annette Islands Service Unit Health Center
is on the IHS construction priority list. The Administration requested
$3.7 million in fiscal year 2000 for design of the Red Mesa and Pawnee
clinics. Next on the list after them is St. Paul, Alaska and
Metlakatla. St. Paul, whose service population includes a large non-
Indian tourist and fishing population, may be able to obtain design
money from another federal agency. We ask Congress to provide enough
funds in the fiscal year 2000 IHS budget to allow the Metlakatla Indian
Community to design and begin construction of its desperately needed
health center.
bia fiscal year 2000 budget
Law Enforcement. The inherent difficulties associated with Indian
reservation law enforcement, such as inadequate funding, poor equipment
and facilities, and difficult working conditions, are compounded by the
stark isolation of the Reserve. The Reserve is reachable only by boat
or, weather permitting, by small float planes. It's small police force
and limited court system are taxed heavily by the needs of the resident
Indian population. Additionally, under federal law, except for
fisheries enforcement, non-Indian residents and visitors are not
subject to tribal criminal authority. The Islands have no resident
state or federal law enforcement personnel or court system. Therefore,
absent a crime taken seriously by state authorities, non-Indian
criminal conduct is virtually free from jeopardy.
Staffing.--Finding and keeping adequate manpower to properly staff
Metlakatla's police force is a continual problem. The Community simply
cannot meet the salary expectations of trained law enforcement
personnel. Isolation, inadequate housing and high living costs add to
this difficulty.
Metlakatla's off-shore law enforcement responsibility is
particularly under-manned and under-funded. Our maritime boundary
extends 3,000 feet off-shore over the entire circumference of the
islands, approximately 60 miles. The Community has never been able to
fund more than a single, low-speed vessel and one officer to patrol the
entire area. This level of enforcement is simply inadequate to meet the
need. The principal beneficiaries of the absence of enforcement are the
non-resident charter fleet who profit from Metlakatla's resources but
pay no heed to its laws. Metlakatla needs more personnel and better
vessels to do its job properly.
In spite of the recent heightened interest in law enforcement
problems on Indian reservations, many of Metlakatla's unmet or
underfunded law enforcement needs continue to remain unaddressed due to
the allocation priorities established by the Bureau. For instance,
funding for our patrol boats should be considered on par with funding
for squad cars, but it is not. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
support the Administration's requested increase of $20 million for the
BIA Law Enforcement program and also ask that the BIA allocation
priorities give fair treatment to the unique needs of the Metlakatla
Indian Community.
Tribal Priority Allocation. The Community was deeply disappointed
that the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request did not
include a general increase for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)
funding. Instead, the Administration proposed targeted increases of $17
million, of which less than $6 million is for programs or services for
the benefit tribal members. The Community continues to experience major
levels of unmet need in the areas of Education-Scholarships, Other
Rights Protection (which we utilize for fisheries and boundary
enforcement activities), Resources Management, and Aid to Tribal
Government--categories which are not covered by the Administration's
targeted increases.
We urge that Congress provide a general increase in TPA funding to
begin to address the disparity in funding of tribal programs as
compared to funding provided to other governmental entities to provide
similar governmental services.
Contract Support. The Community supports the $6.45 million increase
requested by the Administration. However, the Bureau estimates that the
current on-going shortfall is about $24 million. We respectfully
request that Congress fund at least the amount identified in the budget
request, and defer action on policy and distribution methodologies
until the National Congress of American Indians national workgroup on
contract support completes its work on this matter.
On behalf of the Metlakatla Indian Community, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee regarding the
Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs budgets for fiscal
year 2000. Metlakatla Testimony
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe \1\ comes before the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee to tell you about the miscarriages, still
births, and infant mortality that has dominated our lives since 1988
and to ask for your assistance and guidance. Between 1988 and 1992 we
had an infant mortality rate of 53 percent. Last year, 89 percent of
pregnancies on our reservation ended in adverse outcomes, and we are
concerned that this scourge may be spreading beyond our tribal
boundaries and is becoming a regional problem. We ask that the fiscal
year 2000 Indian Health Service budget provide:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Shoalwater Indian Reservation (as set aside by Executive
Order on September 1866), is located in the coastal Pacific County in
the state of Washington. This small, remote Reservation consisting of
approximately 1,034 acres, including tidelands, is situated on Willapa
Bay at North Cove. According to the 1997 Indian Labor Force Report, 30
percent of the Shoalwater Bay labor force was unemployed. And of those
who were employed, 19 percent were living below the poverty line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$1,037,000 for the Shoalwater Bay Tribe for a range of preventive,
monitoring, testing and social intervention measures regarding
miscarriage and infant mortality. We attach a one-page summary
of items which comprise this appropriations request.
Investigations into Shoalwater Bay Miscarriages and Infant
Mortality.--There have been a number of investigations and
recommendations from an array of agencies regarding the incidences of
miscarriage, stillbirth, and infant mortality at Shoalwater. Below is a
summary of these activities:
--Joint Tribal/IHS/Washington Report (1994).--Investigations
conducted by the Tribe, Indian Health Service, and Washington
State Department of Health focused on three areas of concern in
response to emergency: (1) lack of adequate health care; (2)
the need to establish a Health Concerns Advisory Committee: and
(3) possible exposure of community members to environmental
toxins. As a result of the investigation, a report, The
Pregnancy and Infant Mortality Emergency of the Shoalwater Bay
Reservation, Washington State: A Joint Report of Findings
issued by the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council, Indian Health
Service, and Washington State Department of Health--October 27,
1994 (SBIT/WA ST Joint Report), was released. This report
outlined recommendations to improve the quality and
availability of health care while also conducting a
comprehensive and definitive environmental health risk
assessment.
In order to address the concerns over lack of access to adequate
health care, the Tribe sought help at the local level, regional level,
and finally the national level in Washington D.C. This resulted in a
fiscal year 1995 Congressional appropriation of $250,000 to be used to
establish a clinic on the tribal reservation and to provide mental
health care services. These funds along with additional funding secured
over a three-year period made it possible for the Tribe to assume local
control of its health care needs. The Tribal Clinic and Health
Department has continued to grow and now serves over 700 local Native
Americans and employs 10 staff, including a full time physician,
dentist, nurse, mental health professional and substance abuse
counselor.
The second area of concern identified by the report was the need
for the Tribe to enlist outside expertise. Consequently, in 1994, the
Shoalwater Bay Health Concerns Advisory Committee (SBHCAC) was formed.
The task force consists of representatives from the Center for Disease
Control (CDC), Indian Health Service (IHS), the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the American Medical Association (AMA), Washington
Department of Health (WDOH), the University of Washington (UW), and
independent epidemiologists. SBHCAC is still active and continues to be
a guiding force in health-related actions taken by the Shoalwater Bay
Tribe.
--EPA Limited Assessment (1994-1995).--It had been suggested in the
SBIT/WA ST Joint Report that environmental pathways may have
been responsible for the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe's
reproductive health crisis. Consequently, Congress charged the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the responsibility
of performing a definitive environmental assessment of the
Reservation. However, because of budgetary constraints, EPA was
only able to do a very limited ``snap shot'' study which
resulted in the following list of strong recommendations
outlined by in Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe--A Limited
Assessment: 1994-1995:
--Screen ground water possibly contaminated by runoff from cranberry
bogs for pesticides and other organic compounds.
--Monitor air quality during aerial pesticide application events.
--Perform further studies of the long-term ecological impact of the
extremely toxic pesticide, carbaryl, routinely applied on
tidelands adjacent to the Reservation.
--Work with shellfish farmers to develop less draconian methods of
controlling mud shrimp populations.
--Monitor adjacent abandoned military site to better understand the
source, fate and impact of unusual bromo-and iodo-compounds
found at the site.
--Augment and strengthen database for organomercury compounds (found
in pesticides) in local sediment samples.
--Examine affect of carbaryl and glyphosate pesticides on the Willapa
ecosystem. Collect sediment samples immediately after spraying.
--Perform an extensive study of the entire cranberry drainage area to
determine the extent of sediment contamination and destination
of contaminated sediment.
--Perform in-stream monitoring, especially via aquatic bioassays to
determine cumulative effects of the use of different pesticides
and herbicides in cranberry growing area.
--Because Tribal members consume relatively large amounts of fish and
shellfish, selective tissue analysis of some sustenance
organisms should be performed.
Unfortunately, no funding was allotted to the Tribe to implement
programs necessary to follow through on all these recommendations. The
Shoalwater Bay Reservation is fairly isolated with the nearest
laboratory facility 150 miles from the Reservation. Limited funding and
isolation coupled with prohibitive costs of commercial lab testing have
made it impossible to adequately address all the recommendations made
by EPA. The most important issue relating to addressing environmental
pollution on the Reservation is the further development of the Tribal
Environmental Testing Laboratory. This will enable the Tribe to build
the capacity to more closely follow EPA's recommendations by making it
possible and affordable to put a comprehensive year-round monitoring
plan in place.(Estimated funding requirements needed to initiate this
project are outlined in the attached budget.)
Presently, the Tribe has been able to establish only a few very
limited environmental monitoring projects on the Reservation with
assistance from newly formed relationships with agencies such as EPA
and Administration for Native Americans (ANA). These projects include
water quality monitoring of the cranberry drainage ditches known to be
contaminated with pesticides, monitoring water quality and sediments
from an abandoned military site suspected of having toxic materials
buried there, and the monitoring of Tribal tidelands for the presence
of pesticides and fecal coliform bacteria.
--Centers for Disease Control (1998-1999).--Despite all these
efforts, the reproductive health crisis continues to plague the
Shoalwater Bay community. Members were devastated to learn that
health statistics collected from the Tribal Health Program
showed that, as of September 1998, 80 percent of the
pregnancies ending for the year-to-date had resulted in adverse
outcomes. By the end of the year, four more pregnancies were
lost to miscarriages, raising the incidence of adverse outcomes
for pregnancies ending in 1998, to nearly 89 percent.
In November 1998 the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council appointed a
committee to investigate the situation on the Reservation, gather
information on adverse pregnancy outcomes, and then to prepare a
report. In December, the committee conferred with Pacific County Health
Department and the SBHCAC. After a comprehensive analysis of clinical
data was performed, the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council and Pacific
County Board of Commissioners jointly submitted a request for
assistance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
After reviewing the clinical data, CDC responded immediately by
sending a team of epidemiologists to the Shoalwater Bay Indian
Reservation to perform a study of alarmingly high occurrences of
adverse pregnancy outcomes. The final report from CDC is not yet
finished, but will be made available upon completion in mid-April.
Based upon discussions with SBHCAC, CDC, and Pacific County Health
Department, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe determined that the
following steps would best address the Tribe's reproductive health
issues:
--Implement high-risk pregnancy protocols in hopes of decreasing risk
of adverse pregnancy outcomes by allowing early identification
of pregnancy related problems. Initially this would have to be
done at a distance with UW and Tacoma General. The Tribe and
the County Health Department are working together to establish
the protocols in hopes of emulating the UW program in a
regional fashion.
--Hire a community health nurse to provide in-home support, education
and ongoing monitoring of pregnant mothers and their families.
This person would also need to have an extensive grief
counseling background and be able to assist in identification
and coordination of community resources while providing general
health education and wellness promotion to all the community
members.
--Implement a monitoring and data tracking system to track all Native
Americans and all Shoalwater Bay Tribal members as related to
pregnancies, chronic health conditions, and overall wellness.
Establish a data base of health information to serve as an
early warning system for negative health indicators that would
be coordinated with the Grays Harbor and Pacific County
monitoring systems to allow examination of data on a regional
basis for possible trends in local populations.
--Implement psycho-social intervention including grief counseling and
obtain a contract for psychiatric consultations to assist
Tribal Clinic providers in care delivery.
--Work with a local pathology lab to store frozen samples from
miscarriages to allow genetic testing and screening for
possible toxins. This would involve coordination with the
environmental testing of water, air and soil to identify
possible agents of contamination to test for in the tissue.
--Support development of Tribal Environmental Testing Laboratory
(initiated in 1998), that will allow for routine testing of
water quality and sediments.
This list is by no means definitive, and although health costs
change rapidly, the Tribe has outlined its estimated funding needs in
the attached budget.
discussion
It is the hope of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe that the
strategies outlined above will provide the capacity to gain the
information necessary to better understand the nature of the
reproductive health crisis. By developing the means to monitor
pregnancies and to perform tissue analyses, in the event that more
losses do occur, a determination can be made as to the presence or
absence of toxic compounds. Further, by developing the capacity of the
Tribe to monitor its environment, those compounds isolated in tissue
samples can be compared with the myriad of environmental pollutants
routinely found in high concentrations on Shoalwater Bay Tribal land
and in Tribal water.
The Tribe realizes that it must continue to work closely with
Pacific County Health Department to determine whether or not the
problem is confined to the Reservation or if it is a regional problem.
Furthermore, the Tribe recognizes that they must work closely with
Federal, State, and local governments to find the resources necessary
to develop a sound health care system. Moreover, the Tribe must acquire
the necessary resources to ensure the success of the newly developed
Tribal Environmental-testing laboratory (initiated in 1998). Finally,
the Tribe realizes that it must follow-up on the recommendations made
in the EPA report mentioned previously.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian People realize that it will be difficult,
if not impossible, to readily determine the cause for the loss of
nearly an entire generation of Shoalwater babies. But what those
outside the Tribe do not realize is that the survival of an entire
nation--the sum total of its traditions and culture--is in danger of
being lost forever. And although this tragedy, at times seems
impossible to overcome, the Shoalwater People are determined. And
consistent with the spirit exemplified by the Shoalwater Bay Indian
Tribe, they will continue to fight for their survival in the same way
their ancestors fought. But they need help.
shoalwater bay indian tribe
Budget addendum to testimony before the Interior appropriations
subcommittee
1. Implement High Risk Pregnancy Protocols for all expectant
mothers in the community. This would involve transportation to and from
appointments in Tacoma or Seattle to visit OB-GYNs specializing in High
Risk Pregnancies and deliveries. Since this cost is directly related to
the number of pregnancies in the community each year, it is very
difficult to estimate. Using $20,000 per pregnancy with possibly 10
pregnancies per year plus $30,000 for a transportation program. The
tribe will work closely with local providers to develop these protocols
so that the mothers will be able to remain in the community and follow
these protocols.--$230,000 estimated annually
2. Tissue testing for genetic abnormalities and environmental
toxins. We are still working with the SBHCAC to establish the protocols
for this program. A relationship with the local pathology lab is being
developed along with the list of toxins to begin testing for in the
tissue samples.--$60,000 estimated annually
3. Hire a full-time Community Health Nurse to provide in home
health care and education to expectant mothers and their families while
also addressing grief counseling needs when necessary. This could be a
position funded cooperatively through the County Health Dept.--$60,000
annually (includes salary, benefits)
4. Implement a monitoring system of all Native Americans and non-
tribal community members in the service area through full utilization
of the Patient Care Component module within the I.H.S. RPMS computer
software system. This combined with an annual survey of all Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribal members would allow complete data collection of all
health care information of community members. This information should
allow us to identify health care trends within our community earlier so
that an intervention can be coordinated.--$75,000 annual salary,
benefits, and supplies
5. Create and implement psycho-social intervention to include grief
counseling and the purchase of psychiatric consultations with Tribal
Clinic staff to assist them in mental health services referrals and
care.--$52,000 estimated annually
6. Support development of Tribal Environmental Testing Laboratory,
which will enable the Tribe to perform routine monitoring over a three-
year period. This will establish the baseline for the clinical testing
of tissue samples for the presence of environmental toxins. This
includes testing of water quality and sediments for unacceptable levels
of pesticides, herbicides and fecal bacteria.--$560,000 one time
emergency add-on
Total request: $1,037,000 one-time emergency add-on and a recurring
add-on of $477,000
Please note that the costs for number 1 and 2 are directly linked
to the number of pregnancies that occur in a year. This money could be
set aside at Portland Area Indian Health Services and drawn down as
each pregnancy occurs. With the current funding level, the Tribe cannot
provide these services and ensure there will be enough funding to
provide services through the entire fiscal year for the remaining
service population.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gerald J. Jones, Tribal Chairman, Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
As Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe from Washington
State, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for tribal programs in the
BIA and IHS. This statement is presented on behalf of my fellow elected
Tribal Council members and on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam
people.
My testimony addresses four particular program areas for which the
Tribe urges Congress to support funding increases in fiscal year 2000:
--Shellfish and Endangered Species Funds. Request $420,000 for
implementation of the U.S. v. Washington shellfish decision and
for salmon recovery efforts necessitated by Endangered Species
Act listing of salmon runs in our treaty area.
--Law Enforcement. Support proposed increases through BIA and DOJ for
additional tribal police personnel and tribal jail facilities.
--Contract Support. Fully fund the BIA and IHS pools for funding
tribal contract support needs, as required by law.
--Tribal Courts. Support proposed increases through BIA and DOJ, and
appropriate additional funds as authorized under the Indian
Tribal Justice Act of 1993.
Before I address these four specific areas, however, I would like
to say that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is very pleased with the
number of significant proposed increases contained in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request, including funding increases to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, Indian Health Service, Department of Justice, and Office of
Indian Education. While we are mindful that, overall, Congress has less
money to appropriate among all federal programs in fiscal year 2000
than in fiscal year 1999, we strongly urge this Subcommittee to put as
many additional resources into tribal programs as possible.
justification of port gamble s'klallam priorities: tribal level
Shellfish and endangered species
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, there are a number of
proposed increases for the protection of endangered species and for
salmon recovery efforts in the Department of the Interior and other
federal agencies. The Tribe supports these increases. We also support
the proposed $500,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the
Secretarial Order regarding the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) on tribal lands, resources and rights.
The Tribe supports the small proposed increase of $136,000 in
fiscal year 2000 for Western Washington Fisheries Management, for a
funding level of almost $5 million. In addition, we request that
$420,000 be added for the Tribe to implement the recent U.S. v.
Washington shellfish decision and the salmon recovery efforts
necessitated by ESA listing of salmon runs.
The Tribe's natural resources program has only been funded to meet
the minimum court ordered requirements to allow the tribal harvest of
#T3salmon. This stems from a 1974 federal court decision which affirmed
the Tribe's treaty right to harvest and manage salmon. The Tribe has
developed and now operates a fisheries management program that meets
the requirements of court decisions, implements joint Tribal, State and
Federal management plans and agreements, and maintains consistency with
tribal values.
In 1997, 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, requires 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 we meet the court's requirements, and we cannot
meet the requirements without additional funding. 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
listed recently as ``threatened'' under the ESA. The ESA listing has
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.
To continue the Tribe's salmon management program and the
additional requirements of both the shellfish decision and the ESA
recovery planning efforts, the Tribe needs an additional $420,000 to
employee a shellfish biologist, salmon biologist with a background in
ESA issues, three technicians and the necessary support services and
equipment, in addition to the Tribe's contribution of the proceeds from
our harvest tax.
Law enforcement
Within the BIA's Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account is a
proposed increase of $20 million for BIA Law Enforcement, for the
second year of the joint Department of the Interior-Department of
Justice Law Enforcement Initiative in Indian Country. The proposed
increase will be for personnel, equipment and detention services. With
an additional $3.3 million for uncontrollable costs for the BIA Law
Enforcement Initiative and the transfer of law enforcement funding from
Tribal Priority Allocations, the proposed fiscal year 2000 total for
the BIA Law Enforcement Initiative is $141.3 million. We strongly
support these requested additional resources for personnel and law
enforcement services in Indian country.
Although we know that the Department of Justice does not receive
appropriations under this Subcommittee, we are aware that the fiscal
year 2000 budget request proposes a total of $124.2 million through the
Office of Justice Programs and other bureaus of the Justice Department
as part of the joint DOJ-DOI initiative to improve law enforcement in
Indian country. We hope that Congress will agree to provide the
requested increases in fiscal year 2000 for additional attorneys to
investigate and prosecute crime in Indian country; alcohol and
substance abuse programs in Indian country; development and enhancement
of tribal judicial systems; construction, renovation and repair of
adult and juvenile correctional facilities and jails in Indian country;
and education and training to police in Indian country. We strongly
support these requested additional resources.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam community has been confronted with a
number of serious, new crime issues over the past couple of years,
including illegal drugs and gang violence. Although our efforts to
combat these problems have been undertaken in cooperation with local
and federal law enforcement agencies, the Tribe continues to have a
chronic shortage in police protection because there is not enough
funding to provide salaries and equipment. To meet our goal of 24-hour
police coverage on the reservation, we need a minimum total of six
officers. Our level of need is $160,000 to fund additional officers,
their equipment and training.
In addition, the Tribe would like to begin the process of planning
a tribal jail. Currently, we contract with neighboring counties for
jail facilities. The nearest juvenile detention facility, more than an
hour's 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. The Tribe
needs $80,000 to plan a jail facility which could provide jail services
to six area tribes, increase employment and generate revenue by renting
jail space to local jurisdictions.
Contract support
We request that Congress fully fund the BIA and IHS pools for
funding tribal contract support needs. Full funding is imperative for
tribal contractors to meet the incidental needs and expenses associated
with the programs they have assumed on behalf of the federal
government.
As the court determined in #T3Ramah Navajo v. Lujan, tribal
contractors are entitled to receive the full amount of funds necessary
to meet the costs of supporting the federal programs they have assumed
under contracts and compacts. Despite this decision, the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 requests for contract support funding
remain short of meeting the full needs of tribal contractors.
As a Self-Governance Tribe, we have assumed the responsibility for
delivering governmental services directly to the local community. Self-
Governance has been a dramatic success on our reservation. The Tribe's
management of tribal programs has resulted in more cost effective and
efficient delivery of services to the local community. Because of the
contract support shortfall over the past six years, however, the gains
we make in program delivery have been significantly diminished.
If the shortfall continues through the upcoming fiscal year, our
tribe will again be faced with making very difficult choices. Funds
otherwise identified for a particular program must be used to cover the
contract support shortfall. What makes the decisions all the more
difficult is that cuts will be made to already underfunded programs,
including daycare, education and senior citizen housing. As in years
past, our food bank and emergency shelter programs face elimination
again. The losers are the people to be served.
Tribal courts
In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, additional resources are
requested for tribal courts. We urge this Subcommittee to support the
requested increase of $2.6 million within the BIA's Tribal Priority
Allocations account for Tribal Courts. We also wish to express our
support for the $5 million requested in fiscal year 2000 through the
Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice to provide
financial and technical assistance for the development and enhancement
of tribal judicial systems.
However, we also wish to call to this Subcommittee's attention our
dismay that tribal judicial systems are so inadequately funded.
Although some funds have been appropriated pursuant to the Indian
Tribal Justice Act of 1993, those appropriations have been nowhere near
the level of funds authorized under the Act. We urge this Congress to
provide additional resources.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is proud of our tribal court, which
is part of the Northwest Intertribal Court System. 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. The court hears
cases in twenty subject matter areas, including criminal, civil,
traffic, child welfare, juvenile, domestic violence, hunting, fishing,
housing, and adult protection. Our tribal court staff is made up of a
judge, prosecutor, court administrator, court clerk, court compliance
officer and support staff. This work requires having personnel
available on nights and on weekends as well as the during the work
week. The court facilities require space and equipment for the
confidential work of the court which cannot 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.
There are those in Congress and elsewhere who believe that
individual civil rights are compromised in tribal justice systems.
While our court provides high quality justice and we see no evidence of
violations of individuals' civil rights 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. Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony
on fiscal year 2000 funding for tribal programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
The National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the oldest
national non-profit 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 2000 budget as it affects
Indian education. NIEA has an elected board of 12 members who represent
various Indian education programs and tribal constituencies from
throughout the nation. The following is NIEA's funding recommendations
for the BIA.
department of interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Within BIA's overall departmental framework are five categorical
areas that contain education-related programs serving federally-
recognized Indian tribes. The programs serve Indian students in K-12,
postsecondary, and adult education programs either through direct
funding from the BIA or indirectly through allocations to tribes. These
programs include: Tribal Priority Allocations; School Operations;
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges; Special Programs and Pooled
Overhead; and Education Construction. A separate line item for the
Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) funds postsecondary programs
for Indian students in the arts. In the following paragraphs, we
discuss specific BIA education programs and provide recommended levels
of funding. A separate one page table is provided which shows our
numbers compared to previous years as well as the Administration's
request.
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)--$51,106,000
Scholarships.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $28.6 million and is
$919,000 less than fiscal year 1999. Since fiscal year 1994,
allocations for tribal college scholarships have fallen from $31
million to less than $29 million in the 2000 request. NIEA recommends
$39 million for this scholarship program. Funding for Indian
scholarships is one of the greatest need areas in Indian education and
has declined significantly since fiscal year 1995. This trend needs to
be reversed. The 1990 Census identified the majority of the Indian
population as being under the age of 25 compared with 17 percent
nationally. The BIA estimates that 9,800 students will be awarded
scholarships through this program in fiscal year 1999 with an average
award of $3,000. The reduced funding level means that more than 300
students will be denied funding next year.
Adult Education.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $2.6 million and
is a reduction of $28,000 from fiscal year 1999. NIEA strongly
recommends the program be funded at $4 million in fiscal year 2000.
Next to Indian scholarships, adult education programs continue to be
one of the most critically-needed areas in Indian communities. Adult
education programs have a twofold purpose in allowing Indians adults
who did not finish high school to obtain their General Educational
Development (GED) degree and/or increase their life-coping skills.
There is no other on-reservation source of funds for GED completion.
Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program.--The fiscal year 2000 request is
$17.5 million and is a reduction of $611,000 over 1999. NIEA recommends
that the JOM program be funded at $24 million. Since fiscal year 1995,
the funding for JOM has decreased by nearly $7 million. The JOM program
provides supplemental educational services for 272,000 American Indian
students in 23 states. NIEA continues to support a per pupil
expenditure of $200, a number also supported by the National Johnson
O'Malley Association.
Other Programs, School Operations--$503,568,000
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for School Operations is $27.4
million over 1999. The $503.5 million investment in students attending
BIA schools provides for a variety of basic educational services from
early childhood to transportation and administrative costs associated
with educating primarily reservation-based schools. The BIA educates
about 10 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native K-12
population in the U.S. Below are the various education components
within this category.
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula.--The President's
fiscal year 2000 request is $319.9 million compared with the fiscal
year 1999 actual of $306.2 million for this program. The increase of
$13.7 million provides formula-based funding for 185 federally-operated
and contracted schools serving 51,378 students. There are several types
of schools funded with ISEP funds including BIA-operated, grant, and
contract elementary and secondary schools. The fiscal year 2000 request
reflects a 10 percent reduction in the student count from the prior
year. While there was a decrease in student enrollment in school year
1998-1999, the BIA expects an increase of 2.5 percent for school year
1999-2000. The Weighted Student Unit (WSU) amount for school year 1998-
1999 is $3,199. The estimate for 1999 is $3,238 and $3,285 in 2000.
NIEA continues to support a funding level of $3,500 per WSU--a number
we have proposed since fiscal year 1993. The proposed $3,285 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 1996-1997. In addition, enrollment
for BIA schools has consistently grown from 39,911 in 1987 to 51,378 in
1999. T3NIEA recommends $329 million for ISEP and $708,000 for ISEP
Program Adjustments.
Family and Child Education (FACE) Program.--The fiscal year 2000
request is $5.5 million and is $83,000 more than 1999. The FACE program
was first funded in 1992 and was designed to begin educating children
at an earlier age through parental involvement at home and to
coordinate FACE components. We request that the FACE program be funded
at the fiscal year 1994 level of $7.5 million. Currently there are 22
FACE sites, however the BIA could use a FACE program at each of its
elementary schools if the program were sufficiently funded.
Student Transportation.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $38.8
million and is an increase of $4 million over 1999. In SY 1998-1999 the
BIA-funded transportation cost is $2.10 per mile with over 14 million
miles estimated to be driven. The latest national cost per mile was not
available, however, in 1994, the national average was $2.92 per mile
for public schools. Therefore, the BIA-funded schools, which are
located primarily in rural, isolated areas, are at least $.82 below the
national per mile average. For students in boarding schools,
transportation funding is provided at the beginning and end of the
school year and for one round trip home at mid-year. For students in
day schools, daily transportation must be provided. NIEA recommends $41
million for student transportation.
Institutional Disabled.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $3.7
million and is $7,000 less than 1999. Appropriations in fiscal year
1999 provided for services to approximately 166 Indian children ages 5-
21 in 47 different institutions. These students require 24-hour
institutionalized care. NIEA recommends $4 million.
Facilities Operations and Maintenance.--The fiscal year 2000
request is $79.1 million and is $3.8 million less than 1999. The
request will provide for $51.8 million for operations and $27.3 million
for maintenance costs for all Bureau-funded schools. In fiscal year
1999, the Bureau will provide essential services for educational
facilities consisting of 2,337 buildings containing approximately 17.6
million square feet. NIEA recommends $90 million.
Administrative Cost Grants.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $47.7
million and is $5.5 million over 1999. For school year 1999-2000, the
BIA will have 129 contract/grant schools and 56 Bureau-operated
schools. Administrative cost grants enable tribes and tribal
organizations to operate contract or grant schools without reducing
direct program services to Indian students. The Navajo Nation has
approved the conversion of 10 additional schools during school year
2000-2001, therefore more funds are needed to cover these conversion
costs. NIEA recommends $50 million.
Area Agency Technical Support.--The fiscal year 2000 request is
$7.4 million and is $240,000 over 1999. This funding provides technical
support and program supervision through 24 education line officers for
185 Bureau-funded elementary and secondary programs, and the
scholarship and adult education programs. NIEA recommends $8 million.
Tribal Departments of Education (TED).--Although no funding is
provided in the President's budget, NIEA recommends at least $3 million
for tribal departments of education. We believe that sufficient funding
should be provided to assist tribes in planning and developing their
own centralized tribal administrative entities to accomplish their
goals in accordance with school reform and accreditation needs. This
would be appropriate given the recent trend to convert more schools
from BIA to Tribal control. Funding for tribal education departments
has been endorsed by NIEA's membership as well as by the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges--$38,411,000
Tribal Colleges/Post Secondary Schools.--The fiscal year 2000
request is $37.3 million and is $7.1 million over the 1999 amount.
Included in the request is $114,000 for technical assistance and
$977,000 for Endowment Grants. NIEA supports the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium funding recommendation of an additional $10
million for tribal colleges.
Special Programs and Pooled Overhead--$15,670,000
Postsecondary Schools.--The fiscal year 2000 request is $14.3
million and is $1.4 million over fiscal year 1999. NIEA recommends $16
million for the postsecondary schools program. The two postsecondary
schools funded under this section include Haskell Indian Nations
University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI).
Haskell will receive $8.6 million and SIPI will receive $5.7 million if
the request is approved. NIEA recommends $10 million for Haskell and
$6.5 million for SIPI since both schools have experienced large
increases in enrollments. Both schools provide a variety of educational
opportunities for Indian and Alaska Native students at the community
college and university level to prepare them to enter four-year
colleges and universities or to find employment. From 1997 to 1998,
enrollment at both schools increased by 350. The fiscal year 2000
projection shows a major increase of nearly 500 Indian students.
Special Higher Education Scholarships.--The fiscal year 2000
request is $1.3 million, level with 1999. This amount has remained the
same since 1996 and is totally unacceptable to NIEA. NIEA recommends $5
million. Since fiscal year 1995 funding for BIA graduate scholarships
have been cut in half. The reduction occurred at the same time the
Department of Education, Office of Indian Education lost funding for
its $2.6 million fellowship program for Indian students which served an
average of 150 students. The BIA 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
for at least the last 20 years. For school year 1997-1998, the actual
unmet need was $5.7 million. During the 1996-1997 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, specifically for American Indian students, currently exists.
Education Construction--$108,377,000
Replacement School Construction.--The fiscal year 2000 request is
$69.9 million and is $52.4 million over 1999. As part of the fiscal
year 2000 request is $30 million as recommended by the President's
School Bonding proposal. NIEA supports the completion of all
construction for all schools on the priority ranking list. The fiscal
year 2000 funds are designated for the Seba Dalkai School in Arizona
and the Fond du Lac School in Wisconsin. The priority ranking list
contains 16 schools. To date, seven schools have been completed and are
now occupied. Ten of the sixteen schools have been funded though the
construction phase. The Bureau estimates that approximately $111
million would be needed to complete the remaining six schools on the
replacement school construction list.
New School Construction Priority List.--NIEA has become aware of a
situation involving Shiprock Alternative School which is apparently not
on the list to be funded in fiscal year 2000, even though it should be
next in the priority ranking list. The priority ranking list determines
the order that new schools are to be built and should provide the
baseline for annual appropriation requests. Shiprock was assigned
position number 12 out of 16 on the priority list. The schools
designated to be funded in fiscal year 2000 are Seba Dalkai (# 9 on the
list) and Fond du Lac Ojibway School (#13 on the list). If this is
indeed the case, we request that additional funds be made available for
Shiprock Alternative. Schools assigned #10 (Sac and Fox Settlement
School in Iowa) and #11 (Pyramid Lake High School in Nevada) are
scheduled to begin construction in 1999. Bypassing a school on the
priority list for budgetary reasons sets a negative precedent as the
BIA works to establish new guidelines for a future priority list. These
guidelines are due out this fiscal year.
Education Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--The fiscal
year 2000 request for Education Facilities Improvement and Repair is
$36 million and is $4 million less than 1999. The FI&R program is
focused towards eliminating critical health and safety hazards in
Bureau education facilities. The estimated backlog of education repair
needs, excluding quarters as of January, 1999, totals approximately
$743 million. NIEA urges the Committee to consider additional, or
supplemental funding, in order to clear up this situation. NIEA
recommends $46.2 million.
Indian School Construction Bonding.--The fiscal year 2000 request
is $30 million and is included under the Bureau's Replacement School
and is being proposed in the President's School Construction
Modernization Initiative. The bonding initiative is designed to provide
needy districts and Tribes with the authority to issue bonds to lenders
who could claim a tax credit for the life of a bond in lieu of
interest. It is estimated that the bonding authority could generate an
estimated $75 million in construction authority. Past bonding
initiatives have failed for various reasons and direct funding may be a
better alternative for tribes and bureau schools since they are a
federal responsibility equal to the better-funded Department of Defense
schools. We feel that the proposal has some merit; however, an outright
appropriation to fund the $740 million backlog is preferred.
Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA).
The fiscal year 2000 request is $4.25 million and is level funded
with fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. NIEA supports the fiscal
year 2000 request for IAIA plus an additional $2 million for
construction needs. 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. The request would support the core
operations of the institute by providing funding for instruction,
student support services, administration costs, and for operations of
the IAIA museum. NIEA supports an appropriation of $6.25 million for
IAIA.
IAIA has been compared to other institutions in terms of cost per
students. IAIA does not have its own facilities and leases space from a
separate college and from a tribally-contracted school. The cost for
housing the IAIA on the campus represents 18 percent of the total
institutional budget. IAIA also operates a museum which houses the
National Collection of Contemporary American Indian and Alaska Native
Art, a collection of 7,000 pieces. There are no funds requested in the
fiscal year 2000 budget for construction costs at IAIA. NIEA asks the
committee to support an additional $2 million for IAIA's construction
needs for a new campus. In the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill,
the IAIA was required to raise $500,000 in order to bring the
appropriation of $3.75 million to $4.25 million. By mid-February 1999,
IAIA had raised 80 percent ($395,000) of the $500,000 as requested by
Congress. IAIA has made exceptional progress in obtaining private
sector support and in 1990, a private donor in Sante Fe, New Mexico
donated 140 acres of land that will be used for a future campus.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FUNDING--FISCAL YEARS 1996-2000 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
[Educaton Programs Only]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 1, 1999
President's President's NIEA 1999 1999 Final 2000 NIEA 2000
1996 1997 request Actual 1998 request recommended appropriations President's Recommended
1998 1999 request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs
tribal priority allocation:
Scholarships............ $26,285,000 $26,481,000 $29,524,000 $29,495,000 $29,036,000 $29,036,000 $29,509,000 $28,590,000 $39,000,000
Adult Education......... 2,374,000 2,486,000 2,287,000 2,663,000 2,699,000 4,000,000 2,633,000 2,605,000 4,000,000
TCCCs Supplement........ 951,000 986,000 951,000 1,024,000 1,047,000 1,047,000 1,047,000 1,081,000 1,081,000
JOM..................... 19,634,000 18,177,000 17,216,000 18,534,000 18,080,000 24,000,000 18,080,000 17,469,000 24,000,000
Other--Eduction Design.. 1,261,000 1,301,000 955,000 1,504,000 1,406,000 1,406,000 1,406,000 1,361,000 1,361,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPA Subtotal.......... 50,505,000 49,431,000 50,933,000 53,220,000 52,268,000 59,489,000 52,675,000 51,106,000 69,442,000
===========================================================================================================================
Other programs--school
operations:
ISEP (Formula).......... 262,833,000 285,739,000 296,272,000 293,703,000 308,518,000 329,000,000 306,230,000 319,890,000 329,000,000
ISEP (Program 150,000 150,000 154,000 154,000 708,000 708,000 656,000 663,000 708,000
adjustment)............
Early Childhood......... 5,471,000 5,471,000 5,471,000 5,471,000 5,513,000 6,500,000 5,503,000 5,586,000 7,500,000
Student Transportation.. 25,697,000 31,604,000 34,302,000 32,802,000 36,464,000 36,500,000 34,758,000 38,835,000 41,000,000
Institutional Disabled.. 3,432,000 3,732,000 3,737,000 3,737,000 3,741,000 3,741,000 3,740,000 3,747,000 4,000,000
Facilities O&M.......... 67,846,000 73,696,000 74,628,000 74,628,000 77,409,000 77,409,000 75,222,000 79,100,000 90,000,000
[Facilities Operation ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. [51,825,000] ...........
Detail] ...............
[Facilities Maintenance ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. [27,275,000] ...........
Detail] ...............
Administrative Cost 36,560,000 42,160,000 44,710,000 42,160,000 46,690,000 48,290,000 42,160,000 47,690,000 50,000,000
Grants.................
Area/Agency T.S......... 6,897,000 6,966,000 7,032,000 7,032,000 7,142,000 7,142,000 7,117,000 7,357,000 8,000,000
Tribal Departments of ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,000,000 .............. ............... 3,000,000
Education..............
Substance Abuse/Alcohol ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. 400,000 400,000
Education..............
School Statistics--ADP.. ........... 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000
Emergency Operations.... 500,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other program subtotal 409,386,000 450,218,000 467,006,000 460,387,000 486,885,000 512,990,000 476,086,000 503,968,000 534,308,000
===========================================================================================================================
Tribally controlled
community colleges:
Operating Grants........ 26,320,000 26,320,000 29,320,000 28,820,000 34,320,000 36,320,000 30,220,000 37,320,000 40,220,000
Technical Assistance.... 114,000 114,000 114,000 114,000 114,000 114,000 114,000 114,000 114,000
Endowment Grants........ 977,000 977,000 977,000 977,000 977,000 977,000 977,000 977,000 977,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCCC Subtotal......... 27,411,000 27,411,000 30,411,000 29,911,000 35,411,000 37,411,000 31,311,000 38,411,000 41,311,000
===========================================================================================================================
Special programs/pooled
overhead--education:
Postsecondary Schools... 11,732,000 12,383,000 12,682,000 12,682,000 12,921,000 16,200,000 12,921,000 14,333,000 16,000,000
Special Higher Education 1,337,000 1,337,000 1,337,000 1,337,000 1,337,000 5,700,000 1,337,000 1,337,000 5,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Subtotal.... 13,069,000 13,720,000 14,019,000 14,019,000 14,258,000 21,900,000 14,258,000 15,670,000 21,000,000
===========================================================================================================================
Education Construction:
Replacement School 18,500,000 4,000,000 14,000,000 19,200,000 37,400,000 116,788,000 17,400,000 39,859,000 39,859,000
Construction...........
Indian School ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. 30,000,000 30,000,000
Construction Bonding ..
Employee Housing........ 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,507,000 3,000,000
Facilities I&R.......... 23,039,000 24,139,000 32,179,000 32,179,000 46,212,000 46,212,000 40,000,000 36,011,000 46,212,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Construction 44,539,000 31,139,000 49,179,000 54,379,000 86,612,000 166,000,000 60,400,000 108,377,000 119,071,000
Subtotal.............
===========================================================================================================================
Institute of American Indian 5,500,000 5,500,000 ........... 4,250,000 3,188,000 4,250,000 4,250,000 4,250,000 6,250,000
Art........................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA Grand Total....... 550,410,000 577,419,000 611,548,000 616,166,000 678,622,000 802,040,000 638,980,000 721,782,000 791,382,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department Offices
Insular Affairs
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ismael John, Senator, Nitijela of the
Marshall Islands; and Hon. Neptali Peter, Mayor, Enewetak Atoll on
behalf 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.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset we wish to thank you, this
Subcommittee, and the Congress for the $410,000 appropriation for
equipment and manpower which was in addition to the $1.191 million
program funding requested by the administration for fiscal year 1999.
We have been informed that this Subcommittee desires a report on how
the $410,000 was spent. The $410,000 was used (1) to purchase two
backhoes and two flat bed trucks, (2) to fund the repair of a vessel
essential for the shipment to Enewetak of food, material and equipment
and , (3) is being used to fund additional manpower. It must be noted
that there was an unexpected delay in availability of funding for these
and other portions of the program. We understand that this delay was
due to the belated enactment of the Interior Appropriations Bill. As a
result of the delay, funding for the purchase of equipment and for
additional manpower was not available to us until approximately mid-
December 1998. We purchased two Caterpillar backhoes from a dealer in
Honolulu at the best price possible as soon as funding for such
purchase was available to us. The Backhoes were shipped to Majuro,
Marshall Islands in January 1999. All the equipment finally reached
Enewetak in early March, 1999 and is now fully operational. Additional
manpower has recently been employed to permit us to more quickly effect
the rehabilitation of the soil, the continued planting of plants, and
maintenance of same. A portion of the $410,000 was used to repair a
vessel essential for food, material and equipment from Majuro to
Enewetak. The repair of the vessel was critical to Enewetak for several
reasons. First, the Enewetak motor sailer, the Wetak II, sank in May,
1998. Second, the Marshall Islands national government drastically
curtailed its shipping service to Enewetak. Consequently, we required a
substitute vessel to provide for the shipment of food, material and
equipment to Enewetak. We were fortunate to find a 104 foot twin screw
vessel for sale by the University of Hawaii. We negotiated a good price
for the vessel but it required repairs. The cost of the vessel was
$100,000, and the repairs amounted to $250,000, for a total of
$350,000. This is a good price for a vessel of this type. The vessel is
now in outstanding condition, with much greater cargo and passenger
capacity than the vessel it replaced. We financed a portion of the
total cost of the vessel with insurance proceeds from the loss of the
Wetak II. The insurance proceeds amounted to $180,000 leaving a balance
of $170,000 for the vessel's repair. We requested that $170,000 of the
$410,000 be made available for such repair costs. We explained the
necessity of a vessel for our community and this program to the
Department of Interior. We pointed out that the vessel is the lifeline
which permits us to live on Enewetak. The Department of Interior
acceded to our request and the vessel's repair has been completed this
very week. The vessel will be in Majuro late this month in time for a
necessary food and material shipment to Enewetak.
Although we are very grateful for the $410,000 in addition to the
$1.191 million for the core components of the program, we must point
out that this type of additional funding is the type of funding
required on an annual basis to permit the program to keep pace with
inflation. For example, this program has essentially been level funded
since 1986 at approximately $1.1 million. The purchasing power of the
$1.1 million has been reduced to less than $700,000. Consequently, the
program has taken a 35 percent cut in funding. A funding level of
approximately $1.6 million would provide the same purchasing power as
existed with respect to the $1.1 million provided in 1986.
Another important issue to bear in mind is that our atoll continues
to suffer the lingering ill effects of the 43 nuclear bombs exploded at
Enewetak. All the land of Enewetak requires rehabilitation to support
food bearing plants. Fifty percent of the land requires further
radiological remediation. Enjebi needs to be resettled. In addition to
such remediation, rehabilitation and resettlement, we need to be
provided just and adequate compensation for the use of Enewetak by the
United States. We have previously discussed these issues with members
of this Subcommittee. In such discussions, we informed this
Subcommittee that we were in the process of having scientists,
engineers, agriculturalists, and appraisers determine the remediation,
rehabilitation, resettlement, loss of use, and hardship costs. We
expect all these items to be quantified this month and the experts'
reports and testimonies to be presented to the Marshall Islands Nuclear
Claims Tribunal. We will also present to you the findings of our
experts. We believe that this Subcommittee shares our desire to provide
adequate funding to finally resolve these outstanding issues and permit
us to live our lives on Enewetak as God intended. Until such funding is
provided, we request that funding for the present program continue. As
we have stated many times, without the food, transportation, fuel,
agricultural rehabilitation and maintenance that is funded by this
program, we would not be able to live on Enewetak.
We would now like to describe the program and its components, and
the efforts we have made to make this program as effective as possible.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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 vessel; elimination of import tax
on food; and reduction of other program expenses.
3. 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.
4. Vessel.--The Wetak II , a fifty foot motor sailer, was used to
primarily transport our imported food purchases and agriculture
material from the region to Enewetak. Food and agriculture material was
transported from Majuro, a distance of 600 miles from Enewetak.
Unfortunately, the Wetak II sank in May, 1998. As described above, we
have purchased, repaired, and refitted a replacement vessel. This
vessel will provide us with much greater cargo and passenger capacity.
The vessel is now in excellent condition and will provide the necessary
lifeline for goods and materials for our community.
5. 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.
conclusion
In closing, we thank the Congress for its past funding of the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program and request that it provide
funding for fiscal year 2000 in the amount of $1.6 million to offset
the effects that inflation has had on the program these past 13 years.
In addition, we look forward to discussing with the Congress the
funding required to finally complete the remediation, rehabilitation,
resettlement of Enewetak and to provide us the just and full
compensation to which we are entitled for the damages we sustained as a
result of the United States Nuclear Testing Program.
______
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Prepared Statement of Steve Holmer, Campaign Coordinator, American
Lands Alliance
forest appropriations initiative (fy 2000) a budget to protect and
restore the national forests
Current Forest Service budget priorities are harming both the
environment and the economy by emphasizing logging at the expense of
activities that are needed to restore the environment and that provide
greater economic returns. Clean water, fish and wildlife, and tourism
on the National Forests all provide more jobs and economic value than
logging. Yet, over one-third of the agency's budget is spent on
logging, and only 11 percent of the budget is spent on recreation, fish
and wildlife and watershed improvements combined.
The Forest Appropriations Initiative proposes to redirect 10
percent of the Forest Service budget away from environmentally harmful
activities to fund restoration and land acquisition programs that have
a higher overall benefit to society. Here is a brief summary of the
Initiative:
logging and timber sale subsidies
Congress should prohibit logging in old growth, roadless areas, and
steep or unstable slopes. We support reducing the commercial timber
sale subsidy by eliminating fiends in the timber sales management line-
item. The National Forest timber program is causing unacceptable
environmental and economic harm. Old-growth, roadless areas, and
critical riparian habitat for endangered salmon stocks are all still
being clearcut on the National Forests. The timber program costs
taxpayers anywhere from $300 million to $1.2 billion dollars each year
depending on what economic analysis is used and none of these estimates
include the cost of fixture restoration or road maintenance.
Eliminating the Timber Sales Management line-item (which fiends less
than \1/5\ of the total timber program) would save an estimated $196
million.
roads and road construction
We oppose all Finding for new roads. We oppose all Finding for road
reconstruction until the agency completes long-term roads policy. We
support $50 million for more road maintenance and obliteration. Limited
road construction would be permitted to allow decommissioning of other
roads and road reconstruction would be allowed to prevent imminent
environmental harm.
According to the Forest Service, only 18 percent of the road system
is currently being maintained each year and tens of thousands of miles
of road need to be decommissioned. The estimated cost for maintaining
the National Forest road system is $568 million each year. Eliminating
new construction and reconstruction would save an estimated $90
million.
off-budget funds & county payments
Congress should eliminate all off-budget funds to end the current
incentive to log and to help restore agency accountability. County
payments should also be decoupled to end the incentive for counties and
schools to support excessive logging levels.
recreation
We support a moratorium on new construction projects until the
existing infrastructure maintenance backlog has been addressed.
Proposes to eliminate the recreation fee-demonstration project. The
Sierra Club, American Lands and over 75 other environmental groups
oppose the imposition of recreation access and user fees on public
lands for several reasons: opposition to payment of fees for use of
public lands for which the public already pays taxes; the recreation
fee demonstration program is the leading edge of the recreation
industry's attempts to transform public land recreation into commercial
enterprises; and the program creates an inappropriate incentive to
build new facilities to generate more receipts for the agency.
fire ecology and forest health
We propose to reallocate funds within the wildfire management
program to increase funding for research, planning and manual
treatments. We strongly oppose restoration and fuels reduction projects
as part of a commercial timber sale. We oppose earmarked funding for
the Quincy Library Group plan. We propose numerous prescriptions on how
to improve and restore accountability to the fire suppression program.
stewardship and restoration
We oppose the stewardship contracting language is this year's
spending bill and the idea of trading National Forest trees for
services. Congress should reject restoration projects as part of a
commercial timber sale. We support non-commercial stewardship pilot
projects using appropriated funds.
funding increases for restoration
More funds are urgently needed to acquire threatened habitats, to
maintain and decommission roads, and to provide the needed economic
transition assistance for rural communities. The Appropriations
Initiative calls for $398 million in additional spending.
invasive species
We support a $25 million increase above last year's level. We
propose numerous prescriptions to improve the program.
law enforcement
We propose $3 million for a Timber Theft Cadre to investigate
timber theft.
monitoring and inventory
We propose a $30 million increase for monitoring along with a
requirement that no project may be undertaken without adequate Finds
for monitoring. We also support the Forest Service completing their
inventory of eastern old growth.
fish and wildlife programs
We endorse a $105 million increase for habitat protection and
research.
watershed improvements
We support a $20 million increase but opposes spending watershed
improvements funds for timber sale management.
state and private forestry
The Initiative proposes a $55 million increase for the Forest
Legacy, Urban Forestry and Economic Assistance programs that help
transition communities away from timber dependency.
land acquisition
We support a $100 million increase for land acquisition.
a budget to protect and restore the national forests
We are proposing to cut $286 million from the road construction/
reconstruction and timber sales management line-items and we are
proposing $398 million in increased spending for restoration and land.
acquisition programs. This represents a shin of approximately 10
percent of the agency's over-all budget that will benefit both the
environmental and the economy.
PROPOSED CUTS IN THE FOREST SERVICE FY 2000 BUDGET
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
FY 2000 Omnibus bill decrease from
Line item request FY 1999 FY 2000
request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Sales Management......................................... $196,800 $226,900 $196,800
Road Construction & Reconstruction.............................. 96,400 98,000 90 000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. .............. 286,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED INCREASES TO FOREST SERVICE FY 2000 BUDGET
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
FY 2000 Omnibus bill increase from
Line item request FY 1999 FY 2000
request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement................................................. $66,000 $66,000 $3,000
Wildlife Habitat Management..................................... 37,000 32,000 20,000
Inland Fish Habitat Management.................................. 26,000 19,000 40,000
Anadromous Fish Habitat Management.............................. 29,000 22,700 20,000
TES Species--Research........................................... 53,100 42,200 10,000
TES Species--Habitat Management................................. 31,500 26,500 15,000
Road Maintenance & Decommissioning.............................. 122,000 99,800 50,000
Grazing Management.............................................. 28,500 28,500 10,000
Monitoring & Inventory.......................................... 88,000 80,000 30,000
Rangeland Vegmation Management.................................. 36,500 28,500 9,000
Research: Insects, Diseases & Exotic Species.................... 25,000 19,600 11,000
Forest Health Management (Invasives)............................ 40,300 37,300 5,000
Urban Forestry.................................................. 39,500 30,500 10,000
Forest Legacy................................................... 50,000 7,000 30,000
Economic Action Programs........................................ 16,300 17,300 5,000
PNW Assistance.................................................. 7,000 9,000 10,000
Land Acquisition................................................ 119,200 119,100 100,000
Watershed Improvements.......................................... 40,100 30,100 20,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. .............. 398,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Craig Axfod, Program Director, Utah Environmental
Congress
The Following represents the written testimony of the Utah
Environmental Congress (UEC) regarding appropriations for the Forest
Service in the coming fiscal year. We appreciate your committee's
willingness to accept written testimony at its April 13 hearing on this
matter.
The Forest Service is charged with mortaring 192 million acres of
U.S. forest. These forests range from tropical rainforests in Puerto
Rico to the more arid forests of the southwest. The UEC recognizes it
is open a difficult challenge to manage such diverse habitats
stretching from one end of the continent to the other. The UEC also
believes having these forests under federal management is an
opportunity.
Traditionally America's national forests have been managed largely
with the extractive industries in mind, particularly the timber
industry. Billions of dollars have been spent and lost managing a
timber program that amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare.
Timber has been sold at below cost, and the taxpayer has picked up the
tab for roads built solely for the purpose of taking timber out of the
forest. In the long run the taxpayer also must pay for the maintenance
or obliteration of these roads as well.
Excessive logging and road construction has also fragmented or
destroyed critical habitat for a variety of species. The Forest
Service's 1995 report, criticized by the GAO in a later audit, stated
that there were approximately 378,000 miles of roads crisscrossing
America's national forests. Most, if not all of these roads, are
contributing to the sediment-a/ion of many of the more than 200,000
miles of fishable streams managed by the Forest Service. These roads
have also been identified as a major contributing factor for massive
landslides in the Pacific Northwest.
The result of habitat loss and erosion caused by logging and the
associated road construction is a loss of diversity that leads to the
listing of species that otherwise might have thrived in a healthy
forest. In addition, sedimentation hurts native fish populations and
the fishing industry as streams become too warm or to muddy to smart
native fish, and as sediment becomes deposited in the bottom of popular
lakes. Mudslides often can cause damage to maintained state and local
roads and bridges, as well as private property. The costs of these
problems are not factored into the profit and loss statements provided
to you by the Forest Service or the GAO, and they are tremendous;
I stated earlier that the UEC believes having 192 million acres of
forest under federal management is an opportunity. In spite of the past
mismanagement described above, we do believe this to be so. It is an
opportunity for our government to preserve for future generations the
natural beauty and diversity on forests have to offer. These forests
are the headwaters for our municipal and agricultural water supplies.
They are the places where our families go to camp, hold reunion, or
just spend a day hiking together. They are living laboratories where
students of all ages can go to learn more about the natural world, and
they are places with unique inherent qualities that should be protected
just because they are.
These Publicly owned forests are more valuable spiritually,
aesthetically, biologically, and financially in their natural state,
then they are as resources for extractive industries to exploit. While
most of these benefits affect our quality of life in intangible ways,
the financial benefit of managing forests for something other than
timber, grazing, or mining is very clear. The Forest Service itself
admits ``Outdoor recreation provides the largest contribution to
national economic activity of any national forest program.'' (Report of
the Forest Service, fiscal year 1997). Revenues to the treasury alone
generated by recreation came to $45.2 million in fiscal year 1997. That
is excluding income tax revenue generated by people employed by the
recreation industry, an industry that directly benefits from the
preservation of pristine forests and other wildlands. It has been
estimated by the Forest Service that by the year 2000 recreation,
hunting, and fishing in our national forests will contribute 38 times
more income and create 31 times more jobs than logging within our
national forests will.
In light of the facts discussed above, the UEC calls on Congress to
eliminate the government's timber sale program. This would save
taxpayers more than $300 million a year. The funding could be
redirected into retraining programs for workers in the timber industry,
endangered species monitoring and protection, watershed protection, and
road maintenance or obliteration programs. All funding for additional
road construction should cease. The Forest Service has a multi-billion
dollar backlog of roads in desperate need of maintenance. In recent
testimony the Forest Service admitted only 18 percent of existing roads
are being maintained to Forest Service standards. Why continue funding
more road construction when there are not enough resources to maintain
existing roads?
The UEC has been told repeatedly that money is unavailable for
adequate monitoring and law enforcement on the national forests. Money
must be redirected into these aspects of the forest management program.
The Forest Service is required under the National Forest Management Act
to monitor the impacts of actions they carry out or approve. By
redirecting some timber program and road construction funds into
monitoring, there would be no excuse for not doing the monitoring
required by law. Both the forests and the public would benefit by
having solid scientific information available before management
decisions are made. This weld have the added benefit of reducing
administrative appeals and litigation.
By funneling additional money into law enforcement programs costly
impacts caused by illegal off-road vehicle use could be significantly
reduced. In my state of Utah alone there are more than 11,000 miles of
road within our six national forests. Public access to the backcountry
is simply not an issue when so many miles of road are available.
Illegal off road vehicle use contributes to erosion, destroys plant
life, fragments wildlife habitat, and damages riparian areas. All of
this damage ultimately must be paid for by the taxpayer who must bear
the burden resulting watershed improvement projects and endangered
plant recovery plans.
I hope the committee will take the above mentioned concerns into
consideration during its deliberations on the Forest Service's budget
for fiscal year 2000. I ask that these comments be included in the
official record.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Goergen, Jr., Director, Forest Policy,
Society of American Foresters
Mr. Chairman, I am Michael Goergen, the Director of Forest Policy
for the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The more than 18,000
members of the Society constitute the scientific and educational
association representing the profession of forestry in the United
States. SAF's primary objective is to advance the science, technology,
education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of
society. We are ethically bound to advocate and practice land
management consistent with ecologically sound principles. I am
especially pleased to be here today to comment on the fiscal year 2000
budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. I wish to
thank the subcommittee for its continued support of professional
forestry, and its continued support of our priorities. I thank the
Chair for the opportunity to testify on these important issues.
The public policy activities of SAF are grounded in scientific
knowledge and professional judgment. From this perspective we review
proposed budgets for forestry and related natural resource programs to
determine their adequacy to meet stated objectives and public needs.
the usda forest service
Forest inventory and analysis
The current Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides
accurate, comparable data across all forestlands in the United States.
Local governments, journalists, environmental groups and private
citizens, in addition to forestry professionals in every employer
category, need and use this information. Understanding the condition of
the nation's forests is critical for appropriate planning and
sustainable management. We believe the subcommittee has recognized the
importance of this program in the past, and will continue to do so in
the future. The new draft strategic plan, created in response to
Section 253(c) of that act and recommendations of the Second Blue
Ribbon Panel, exemplifies the program's commitment to adapt for the
changing needs of the forestry profession and the larger public
interested in the forests of this nation. The draft plan we viewed
integrates the Forest Inventory and Analysis program with the Forest
Health Monitoring program. It reduces the current inventory cycle and
explores ways to make the program more efficient. We look forward to
the distribution of this plan in its final form.
In reviewing the Administration's fiscal year 2000 proposed FIA
budget, we are concerned that the 1998 legislative mandate for an
annualized inventory program with timely reporting will not become
reality. Especially when the Administration states in its fiscal year
2000 Budget Justification that ``the inventory cycle will remain at an
average level of 11 years.'' The proposed FIA budget of $25.8 million
is 11 percent of the Forest Service's Research Budget and 0.9 percent
of the agency's total proposed budget. To comply with the 1998 Farm
Bill Research Title for FIA and to implement prioritized elements of
the strategic plan, Congress must increase the FIA funding level and
the Administration must place greater priority on the FIA program. To
insure that the FIA Program obtains funding commensurate with its
responsibility to conduct an inventory of our nation's forests, we
recommend a separate line item in the Forest Service's budget for FIA.
Although SAF has not seen the final dollar amount requested by the
FIA program to implement the goals of this draft strategic plan, we
realize that moving toward the new annualized inventories and
increasing the range of data collected will create new expenses for
this important program. In order to support these endeavors, we
encourage the subcommittee to continue to support increased funding for
this program. In addition to funding for the overall program we would
like to see a separate line item in the National Forest System (NFS)
budget to enable the collection of FIA data on the NFS. While Congress
has given the NFS funds to implement the FIA program on its lands
before, the Forest Service has not always been able to collect this
data. The NFS has many priority issues to deal with. We are all aware
of their need to address backlog after backlog, and the accountability
issues from which the agency suffers are no stranger to this committee.
FIA is a priority as well, and data from the NFS must be collected. We
hope that by establishing a separate line item, and including
appropriate report language, Congress will give the agency the
opportunity to adequately fund its share of the FIA program, and
address the priority ecological issues it must to ensure these forests
for the next generation.
Addressing the ecological infrastructure backlog
Much has been said about the backlog issues associated with the
national forests. Whether it is forest health, deteriorating forest
roads, endangered species, salmon habitat, recreation facilities,
hazardous fuels, or any number of other issues, it is clear that the
national forests desperately need attention. The Forest Service must
address its ecological infrastructure backlog. Ecological
infrastructures are those mechanisms that allow forest and other
natural systems to function properly. Any one component of a system
that is not functioning properly has the potential to impact other
parts of the system. This is not always the case, but clearly there are
examples in the national forests. Humans manipulate these processes
sometimes acting as an equalizer, sometimes doing more damage. The key
is allowing professional natural resource managers to put the
infrastructure back in place.
The Agency is attempting to deal with all these ecological
infrastructure needs. They have mapped areas of forest health risk
across the nation. They are addressing a very serious problem with the
National Forest System road network. They are addressing wildland/urban
interface issues. The most frustrating thing about all of these efforts
is the estimated costs associated with addressing them. The Forest
Service believes it will cost $8.6 billion to address the road backlog
it faces. The Congressional Research Service believes it will cost $3.9
billion to completely address the hazardous fuels buildup on the
National Forest System. These figures do not include other ecological
infrastructure issues that plague the National Forest System, such as
the costs associated with restoring salmon habitat, enhancement of
endangered species habitat, or a host of other problems. While these
figures are astronomical and beyond what Congress can realistically
fund, the Forest Service will receive money to address some of these
problems and one problem should not be favored over the other by the
Congress or the Administration. Forest Service managers know where the
most critical problems are, they know how to address them, and they
have the wherewithal to get the job done. The Forest Service should
continue to develop plans and tools like the forest health risk maps,
which Congress can study and consider. We believe this helps Congress,
in their oversight role, fund backlogged work with confidence that the
work will be completed. The Forest Service needs a reliable multi-year
source of funding to address these issues, and the ability to set the
priorities at the local level. The Agency also needs adequate and
appropriate staff to carry out these activities.
With that said, we feel the need to address the fiscal
accountability challenges the Forest Service faces. This subcommittee
is well aware of these challenges, as is the Forest Service. The SAF
believes Congress, the Forest Service, and the Administration have
tried to address these issues openly and with a commitment to solve the
problem. There is frustration from everyone, including the SAF, that
progress has not been faster. Many believe that the Forest Service
should not be rewarded with increased appropriations when their
perceived performance on this matter is less than satisfactory. While
we understand that philosophy, our primary concern is for the health of
the land. We hope that Congress, the Forest Service, and the
Administration can find mechanisms that increase accountability and
increase the health of the land.
Keeping a managed forest landscape
It is important that the Forest Service and the federal government
not waiver on their commitment to state and local forestry agencies and
the 10 million private nonindustrial forestland owners of this nation.
The Forest Service has a unique partnership with the state forestry
organizations, a partnership which has the opportunity to improve the
health of our nation's forests through technical assistance, inventory
and monitoring, and protection from fires, insects, and disease on the
490 million acres of non-federal forests. Due to limited funding, the
State and Private Forestry programs have yet to fully meet their
potential, however SAF supports these programs and hopes Congress will
as well.
We are concerned about the status of private forestland in this
nation. State, county, private, and industrial lands are increasingly
producing forest-related goods and services. The most dramatic change
on these lands is the shift in production of timber. Approximately 94
percent of all timber produced in the US is produced on non-federal
lands. The volume of timber from national forests has decreased
dramatically, from 12.7 billion board feet (bbf) to 3.4 bbf, over the
past 12 years. Such reductions shift the burden of producing wood fiber
to state and private lands in order to meet the nation's increasing
demand for forest products. The federal government has some
responsibility to protect and enhance the sustainable flow of forest
products from state and private lands precisely because of the
substantial decrease in production on Forest Service lands.
We are seeing examples of increasing urban sprawl, forest
fragmentation, and large managed private forests sold as smaller
parcels to individual owners. As a nation we have decided that forests,
both public and private, are important for economic, environmental,
human health, and spiritual reasons. We express the importance and
value of our forest resources through a variety of mechanisms,
including legislation. Many federal statutes, including the Endangered
Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and others, have a
regulatory impact on the management of private lands. Other statutes,
the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the 1990 Farm Bill
Forestry Title, for example, take a cooperative, incentive based
approach to nonfederal forests. These acts recognize the need for
state, federal, and local cooperation to achieve resource benefits
across the landscape, and they use a nonregulatory, incentivebased
approach to achieve them. This cooperative approach is vital on issues
that cross ownership boundaries, such as watersheds, forest insects and
disease, and particularly wildfire.
Adequate funding is essential if the program is to reach
nonindustrial private landowners, only about 10 percent of whom have
written management plans for their land. Even worse, the majority of
timber sales on private lands go forward without the benefit of
professional forestry advice. While this may seem like merely a problem
of poor business practices, we in the forestry profession view it as a
serious threat to the long-term sustainability of the nation's forest
resources. Private land has public value. That is why we actively
support programs that increase the amount of forestry advice available
to nonindustrial private forest landowners. In addition to private
sector consulting and industry efforts, extension programs, and other
mechanisms, we believe the State and Private forestry programs can help
both public and private sector foresters meet these challenges.
We also strongly support funding for the Cooperative Fire
Protection Programs. Wildfire does not respect political boundaries and
the State Fire Assistance program allows for federal and state agencies
to have a coordinated wildfire response. The program also helps state
agencies comply with national safety and training standards which
allows state crews to be deployed on federal fires and other disaster
situations. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program is another strong
cost share program that helps rural firefighters secure the latest
training and equipment. Rural communities fight forest fires, and do
not often have the resources to do so. This is particularly true as we
see further development of wildland/urban interface fire issues.
Cooperative Fire Protection Programs are critical to both forest health
and the safety of our communities. We ask the subcommittee to consider
strong funding levels for these programs.
Other research programs
There has been a general clamor for increased funding for forestry
research since the publication of the 1990 RPA program report, which
identified improving scientific knowledge about natural resources as a
high priority. The National Research Council's (NRC) 1990 report,
Forestry Research: A Mandate for Change, found the knowledge required
for sound forest management policies inadequate. The 1997 NRC report
entitled Forested Landscapes in Perspective, which focused on the needs
of nonindustrial private landowners, continued to report that
information needs were not being met. SAF is concerned about the
relatively stagnant research budget of the last few years, but was
encouraged by recent modest increases, and we thank the committee for
that support. These appropriations, however, represent a significant
decline in constant dollars and have lead to the unavoidable loss of
not only administrators but scientists with significant expertise in
highly specialized areas.
Natural resource management issues are more complex today than they
ever have been in the past. To find solutions we need interdisciplinary
research in the biological, physical, and social sciences. The Agency
has done a good job, and could do more, to reduce overhead and put more
research dollars to work in direct research projects. But if we
continue to lose scientists and research dollars, we believe complex
issues are unlikely to be resolved, and the future of the Forest
Service research program will be in jeopardy. With recognition of this
disturbing trend, we encourage the committee to increase the
appropriation for Forest Service Research over fiscal year 1999 levels.
the bureau of land management
The fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agency Appropriation Act
(Public Law 10583) included language that expanded the use of the
Bureau of Land Management's Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund
(FEHRF). This was a welcome change and we thank the Committee for
developing this change in authority. This legislation allows for
broader forest ecosystem health and recovery activities as well as
monitoring. The expanded authority for the FEHRF, combined with
increased funding for prescribed burning, will provide BLM managers
with the tools to improve forest and wildlife habitat on BLM lands.
In spite of the funding available under the FEHRF to implement
ecosystem health projects, the BLM lacks the ontheground personnel,
within the Public Domain, necessary to plan and implement these
important activities. Since 1981, the BLM Forestry Management program
has experienced an inflation-adjusted 65 percent budget decrease,
whereas the entire Management of Lands and Resources budget has
experienced only a 10 percent decrease over the same time period. We
believe the BLM needs to increase its forest management expertise in
order to take full advantage of the FEHRF and effectively shift to a
focus on forest restoration. Therefore we support an increase in
funding for additional forestry personnel to plan and administer forest
health improvement activities under the BLM Forestry Management
program.
stewardship contracting pilot projects
I would also like to thank this committee for its role in
developing language in last year's appropriations bill that allowed the
Forest Service to develop stewardship contracting pilot projects.
Innovation is important in natural resources management. These pilot
projects will give us an opportunity to learn how to accomplish forest
management objectives in concert with community objectives, hopefully
at a reasonable cost. This committee continues to show leadership in
forest management and we hope SAF can continue to be a partner in that
leadership.
closing
In conclusion, we strongly support the BLM Forestry Management
program and the Forest Service research, forest inventory and analysis,
state and private, international, and road appropriations we've
highlighted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to share our
views with you and the subcommittee today.
______
Prepared Statement of Faith T. Campbell, Ph.D., Washington
Representative, on behalf of Frontera Audubon Society
Frontera Audubon Society requests a total of $5 million from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 1999 for
purchase of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Lower
Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge protects
incomparable biological values. The Lower Rio Grande Valley--an area as
big as Delaware--is home to the greatest biodiversity for any similar-
sized area of the country. The 465 bird species that reside in or
migrate through the Valley constitute half of all bird species found in
the United States. Sixty of the bird species live in no other part of
the country. More than 200 species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians,
and fish also live in the Valley, as do 300 species of butterflies, and
1,200 species of plants.
Because less than 5 percent of the valley now is in natural
vegetation, this biological treasurehouse is in danger. Twenty-one
species are federally listed as endangered or threatened; an additional
35 are considered to be imperilled in Texas. More than 100 of the bird
species are listed by the Texas Partners in Flight program as ``species
of special interest''.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is the key to ensuring survival of
the region's biodiversity--and the economic and other benefits people
enjoy as a result.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR protects vitally important habitat
remnants in 11 distinct biotic communities. Furthermore, the specific
segments included in the Refuge are chosen to provide a corridor for
the wildlife to use in moving among habitat remnants.
When complete, the 132,500 Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR will
constitute more than half of a planned 250,000 acre wildlife protection
network that will include lands managed by state, county, and private
conservation organizations as well as the Laguna Atascosa NWR. The
planned complex will protect a modest 8 percent of the area of the four
counties involved: Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is so important to protecting the
Nation's biological diversity that it always ranks among the top 10 on
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's land acquisition priority list.
This year, it ranks third.
Despite the Refuge's importance, land acquisition has lagged in
recent years due to low funding levels; only a few thousand acres could
be purchased each year. Thus, as the Refuge approached its 20th
anniversary since its creation, about one-third of the authorized lands
and waters had not yet been purchased.
As a result of the special land-acquisition appropriation (Title V
of the fiscal year 1999 Land and Water Conservation Fund), heartening
progress is being made this year. The Refuge has a total of $7.4
million on hand for land acquisition--a mere $2 million through the
regular appropriations process and $5.4 million through the special
Title V. These funds should allow acquisition of something over 6,000
acres (the need to buy increaasingly expensive water rights has
somewhat reduced the amount of land that can be acquired with the
available funds).
Furthermore, the Refuge utilized duck stamp funds to purchase
12,000 acres north of the Brownsville ship channel. This last parcel
will probably be transferred to the nearby Laguna Atascosa NWR.
If we exclude the parcel to be transferred, by the end of fiscal
year 1999, the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR should have acquired about
84,000 acres.
It is important that the Congress maintain the momentum from fiscal
year 1999. Many of the two dozen landowners who have expressed interest
in selling high-priority tracts to the Refuge have waited years for
responses to their offers.
Completing the Refuge is an urgent task. The lower Rio Grande
valley is experiencing rapid economic growth stimulated by the North
American Free Trade Agreement and winter ``snowbird'' tourism. Last
year, it was reported that two out of ten metropolitan areas that are
undergoing the most rapid growth in the entire nation are found in the
lower Rio Grande valley--McAllen-Edinburg-Mission and Brownsville-
Harlingen-San Benito. This growth has two impacts. First, while
agricultural land can be restored as wildlife habitat after purchase,
land converted to housing, warehouses, or similar uses is no longer of
potential value to the Refuge. Second, the rapid growth is raising the
demand for water; the cost of water rights have doubled in just three
years. The result is increased overall costs of land acquisition for
the Refuge.
At the same time, many farmers are leaving the occupation--and some
of them wish to see their lands included in the Refuge. Allowing the
Refuge to move rapidly on these offers will serve both biological
conservation and the human needs of the Valley.
Expansion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR will benefit the
region's economy as well as its biological diversity.
Tourism is the third largest industry in Texas. This $25.4 billion
business provides 446,000 jobs, $1 billion in state taxes, and $739
million in local taxes. Nature tourism is the fastest-growing segment
of the industry, and Texas is a prime beneficiary of this trend because
the state is the number one birding destination in the United States.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley is one of three ``birding hotspots'' in
Texas. Nearly 100,000 birders visit the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR
each year. They spend $34.5 million and add $14.4 million to the local
economy of McAllen. Harlingen's 1996 Rio Grande Valley Birding Festival
generated $1.6 million in economic impact. At present, birders
concentrate at the Santa Ana NWR--an older part of the Refuge located
near Mission and Hidalgo. As other portions of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley NWR are developed, more birders will be attracted to the
additional opportunities, greater diversity of habitats, and less
crowded conditions. The economic benefits will also be distributed more
widely among towns in the Valley.
Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is supported by the
Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Texas Nature Conservancy, a
chapter of the American Butterfly Association, Lower Laguna Madre
Foundation, Native Plant Project, numerous botanical organizations and
garden clubs, and Frontera Audubon Society. The Valley Chamber of
Commerce and Chambers of Commerce of Brownsville, Harlingen, and
McAllen recognize the importance of nature tourism, especially birders,
to the Valley's economy and sponsor birding, butterfly, and other
festivals. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has purchased 5,500
acres as part of the larger network of reserves. TPWD also supports
birding competitions, such as the Texas Coastal Birding Classic and the
Texas Coastal Birding Trail.
______
Prepare Statement of Justin R. Ward, Senior Policy Specialist, the
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) urges Congress to
approve $50 million in fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the Forest
Legacy Program.\1\ Consistent with our deep commitment to land and
natural resource conservation, NRDC strongly supports the
Administration's proposal for a full and permanently funded Lands
Legacy Initiative, which includes the Forest Legacy Program. We have
endorsed the ``Resources 2000 Act'' introduced by Senator Boxer and
Rep. Miller (S. 446, H.R. 798), which would provide permanent annual
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Forest Legacy and
other land protection programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NRDC is a non-profit environmental membership organization with
400,000 members and contributors nationwide. Since 1970, NRDC's
scientists, lawyers and staff have been working to protect the world's
natural resources and improve the quality of the human environment.
NRDC has offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los
Angeles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of intact forest landscapes poses a serious threat to
biological diversity and the environment. U.S. Department of
Agriculture statistics reveal that more than half a million acres of
private timberland are converted to development each year. Among other
impacts, the resulting forest fragmentation degrades critical habitat
for many resident and migratory birds and other species.\2\ Permanent
conversion of forest lands also sacrifices an important resource for
carbon sequestration to combat global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Research Council, Forested Landscapes in Perspective:
Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's
Nonfederal Forests, pp. 59-60 (National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation easements represent a cost-effective tool for keeping
private land in forest cover. In a growing number of cases in different
regions of the country, the easement tool has been successfully applied
on working forests, where easement terms are structured to permit
commercial timber harvesting with conservation safeguards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ K. Slee, ``Evolving Easements on Working Forestlands,'' Vol. 17
Exchange: The Journal of the Land Trust Alliance, pp. 5-8 (Spring
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created under the 1990 farm bill, the Forest Legacy Program has
provided crucial financing for voluntary conservation easement
transactions. The program now operates mainly under a system of federal
grants to states for purchase of conservation easements on private
forest lands. Federal funds cover 75 percent of the grants, with 25
percent in matching support provided by states or other non-federal
sources. Easements created under Forest Legacy Program grants allow
private landowners to harvest timber on their property consistent with
environmental stewardship principles and practices. Since the program's
inception, more than 69,000 acres of working timberland have been
enrolled as Forest Legacy lands.
Low and unpredictable funding levels have prevented the Forest
Legacy Program from achieving its potential. This year's $7 million
annual program budget falls well short of the amount needed to fund the
current docket of worthy grant applications. Low funding is a deterrent
to adding to the list of 17 states currently active in the program.
The Forest Legacy Program employs geographic priority-setting to
assure that significant conservation benefits result from the public
investment. Participating states identify and map ``Forest Legacy
Areas'' on the basis of their important forest resource values
threatened by permanent conversion, and the likely effectiveness of the
Forest Legacy Program in protecting those values. Moreover, approved
multi-resource management plans are required of all participating
landowners. This requirement helps to guarantee good stewardship of
forest soil and water quality, recreation, timber, scenery, fish and
wildlife.
Land managed for timber production under the Forest Legacy Program
could be well-positioned to help meet growing demand for wood
originating from certified, well-managed forests. For example, the
Certified Forest Products Council (CFPC) was launched in 1997 as a non-
profit, voluntary business initiative dedicated to increasing the
market for independently certified forest products in North America.
The CFPC has a growing and diverse membership of corporate partners
that includes large and small companies across the forest products
value chain. For example, Nike Inc., Habitat for Humanity, The Home
Depot, Colonial Craft, Berkeley Mills and Furniture Co., and the
architectural firm of William McDonough & Partners are all CFPC
members.
In summary, the Forest Legacy Program represents an innovative and
sensible vehicle for conservation partnerships linking the federal
government, the states, and the private sector. Funding the program at
the proposed $50 million level would help secure lasting protection for
America's productive forest lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Environmental Law Center
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) welcomes the
opportunity to submit this statement to the Senate Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee on the issue of fiscal year 2000
appropriations and thanks the Subcommittee for its careful
consideration of the topics covered.
SELC is a non-profit public interest advocacy group providing
comprehensive free legal services on environmental issues in the
Southeast. SELC also studies environmental problems, monitors state and
federal regulatory programs, and engages in public education
activities. SELC is active in a six-state region that encompasses the
Southern Appalachian Mountains, including Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, with offices in
Atlanta, Chapel Hill, and Charlottesville.
Among other areas, SELC has expertise in management of the Southern
Appalachian National Forests which is particularly relevant to the
appropriations being considered by this Subcommittee. The Southern
Appalachian states contain a special forest ecosystem with significance
for the North American continent as one of the most ecologically
diverse regions in the world. The 1996 Southern Appalachian Assessment
(SAA) identifies no fewer than nine forest classes prevalent in the
region and states that more species of trees are native to the Southern
Appalachians than to any other northern temperate region of the globe.
The region is also home to some of the most outstanding outdoor
recreation opportunities in the nation and, since it is within a day's
drive of one-half of the U.S. population, it draws numerous visitors
from many other parts of the country. The SAA also identifies 190 rare,
threatened, and endangered aquatic species within the Southern
Appalachians.
Decisions made within the context of the Forest Service budget are
crucial to the effective protection of these unique resources. Budget
items meriting specific scrutiny and action from this Subcommittee
include commodity timber sales, road construction, off-budget trust
funds, and county payments.
First, the budget for commodity timber sales should be limited so
as to end below cost timber sales and to prevent environmental damage.
The Forest Service's timber program as currently practiced results in
serious degradation of the unique resources of the Southern Appalachian
region and is financially irresponsible. National Forest logging has
damaged wildlife habitat and increased soil erosion and sedimentation
in high quality streams. Below cost timber sales are particularly
likely to occur in areas with steep slopes and higher elevations, which
are conditions prevalent throughout the Southern Appalachians. At the
same time, the program loses money. According to a 1998 General
Accounting Office report, over the three years from 1995 to 1997, the
costs of the Forest Service's logging program exceeded returns to the
Treasury by $1.05 billion.
The second area of concern, related to commodity timber sales, is
the road construction budget. Funding for road construction in roadless
areas should be eliminated, and overall funding for road construction
should be reduced while the Forest Service develops its long-term
transportation policy. Road construction is one of the most
environmentally damaging activities practiced by the Forest Service
because it contributes to water pollution and the destruction of
wildlife habitat. Moreover, road construction continues to be linked to
timber sales with ninety-five percent of new road construction on
National Forests in recent years being completed for logging
activities. All of this construction activity occurs in an obviously
unsustainable fashion. In his State of the Forest speech for 1999,
Forest Service Chief Dombeck identified a road maintenance backlog of
$8.5 billion. This year's Forest Service budget should increase funding
for legitimate maintenance and repair needs, which include
environmentally necessary road re-construction and road obliteration.
SELC's third area of concern focuses on the Forest Service's off-
budget trust funds. These funds are the Salvage Sale Fund, the Knutson-
Vandenberg (K-V) Fund, the Brush Disposal Fund, and the Roads and
Trails Fund. These funds should be reformed by requiring that they be
used for their original stewardship purposes, such as reforestation,
and by removing any incentive for timber harvesting as a means of
increasing agency revenue. An additional problem with these funds is
their use by the Forest Service to escape Congressional oversight.
Under current practice, the Forest Service captures significant amounts
of money in these funds in the form of charges for indirect and
overhead expenses. The result is that the Forest Service retains money
that should properly be returned to the U.S. Treasury. This practice
should be ended in order to return Forest Service activities to
Congressional control.
Finally, SELC recommends that this year's appropriations language
should de-link payments to counties from National Forest timber
harvesting revenues while ensuring that counties containing National
Forest lands are adequately compensated for lost property tax revenue
through a fully funded Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) or comparable
program. Many current and former county commissioners are now
recognizing that this program forces county governments in the
direction of non-sustainable positions on ecologically critical issues
and creates significant funding uncertainty for rural schools, roads,
and other infrastructure. Again, in his State of the Forest speech,
Chief Dombeck advocated de-linking these payments and replacing them
with a stable funding source that would hold counties harmless from
fluctuations in the timber market.
SELC stands ready to assist this Subcommittee by submitting, upon
request, additional information on any of these Forest Service budget
issues and, particularly, by providing information on the unique and
important Southern Appalachian forest environment. We appreciate the
Subcommittee's attention to these matters.
______
Prepared Statement of Myrna Johnson, Director, ORCA
ORCA is the trade association for the $8 billion human-powered
outdoor recreation industry. Our members are manufacturers, retailers,
and suppliers of backpacking, hiking, kayaking, canoeing, backcountry
skiing and climbing equipment, as well as service providers for these
activities. We urge the Committee to increase funding for recreation
management and trails at the National Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, and to fully fund the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, we urge the Committee not to
extend the recreation user fee program beyond its scheduled fiscal year
2001 end, and to urge you and the agencies to evaluate the
demonstration programs with serious criteria before requesting or
implementing a permanent program.
forest service
We are deeply concerned about the Administration's proposed USDA
Forest Service recreation budget for fiscal year 2000. As we enter the
new millennium and a new era for the Forest Service, we believe it is
incumbent on Congress to invest in recreation, the future of our
national forests.
The Forest Service itself estimates that in the year 2000,
recreation will create 74.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product
generated from Forest Service land, yet recreation accounts for only 8
percent of the Forest Service proposed budget for fiscal year 2000. We
urge the Committee to increase that percentage to at least 15 percent
in fiscal year 2000, as a first step in providing adequate funds for a
very important player in the forest economy.
The current investment does not match the role recreation plays,
nor does it meet the needs of the growing number of recreationists
using Forest Service land. The Forest Service indicates that
recreational visits to national forests in 1993 totaled 859 million
visits in 1996; they project that number to be 930 million visitors in
1998.
Yet the numbers of personnel providing recreation services and the
resources available to manage for recreation is stagnant or declining.
The numbers of recreation management personnel has decreased from 2309
in fiscal year 1998 to 1934 in fiscal year 1999. The number is
projected to hold steady for fiscal year 2000, but those FTEs will have
less resources with which to do their job. Once again, we need to point
out that this is not how we believe a growth area should be treated,
particularly one that is heavily service-oriented. We know that in many
regions, the recreation management staff is so small that there is
little to no staff to write permits, and volunteers are relied on more
and more to be in contact with the public when a professional touch is
needed.
national park service
Only a fraction of the National Scenic Trails under Park Service
care are in place and the agency's successful Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance program meets less than 50 percent of the
demand for its services. These trails are the crown jewels of America's
trail system, and need additional support.
bureau of land management
BLM has seen significant increases in recreation while staff
resources have decreased. This should be rectified.
land and water conservation fund
We believe that providing funding for parks and open space at the
federal and state levels via LWCF is the single best way to preserve
America's great places and natural heritage, provide quality recreation
opportunities for all Americans, invest in our children's health and
quality of life, and implement solutions for urban sprawl--a natural
resource concern that has the potential to dramatically change
America's landscape. We urge this committee to fully fund the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, both the federal and state sides of the
program.
Here are our specific requests for the fiscal year 2000
appropriations bill:
Forest Service Recreation management. $225 million for fiscal year
2000. $170.3 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1998, but only
$145 million was available for fiscal year 1999. The request for fiscal
year 2000 is functionally $4 million less than 1999 because of
uncontrollable costs, and $25 million less than 1998. This is not a way
to treat a program that fits into the highest priorities for the
agency.
FS Trail maintenance. $35 million for fiscal year 2000. The
Administration has requested $20.4 million; the fiscal year 1999
appropriation was $18.4 million. The Forest Service has documented a
backlog of $257 million in trail maintenance projects.
FS Trails Construction/Re-construction: $30 million for fiscal year
2000. $29.5 million was available in fiscal year 1999; the
Administration has requested only 13.05 million.
FS Wilderness Management: $50 million for fiscal year 2000. $29.5
million is available for fiscal year 1999. The Administration has
requested $36.5 million.
FS Heritage Resources: $25 million for fiscal year 2000. $13.05 is
available for fiscal year 1999. The Administration has requested level
funding from last year.
NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance. $12 million. $7
million was available in fiscal year 1999.
NPS National Trails System. $7 million, up from $3.5 million in
fiscal year 1999.
BLM Recreation Management. Increase recreation management by $10.2
million over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
BLM Recreation Maintenance. Increase recreation management by $6.7
million over fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Land and Water Conservation Fund. $900 million for fiscal year
2000, including a fair share for the stateside program.
recreation fee demonstration program
In addition, we believe last year's appropriations conference
committee report and this year's forest service budget document come
dangerously close to a breach of the promise made to the American
people when the recreation fee demonstration program was created: that
user fees would supplement, not supplant, current funding. We wish to
let the Committee know that the initial support for the fee program
within the ORCA membership is declining. One reason for declining
support is that it appears that fees are not adding recreation funds to
the mix, but rather making up for decreases in general funding or
paying for little more than enforcement of the new fees.
In fact, the FS budget document indicates that the appropriation
levels they have requested are not enough ``to operate facilities and
trails to meet full quality standards.'' One of their suggestions for
meeting the shortfall is ``aggressive implementation of the Recreation
Fee demonstration pilot.'' This ``aggressive implementation'' is
disturbing to recreationists who do not want to be nickeled and dimed
to death or charged multiple fees for access to particular recreational
activities.
We urge the committee to use the currently established
demonstration program to fully evaluate the program for user support
and for creating guidelines for successful and unsuccessful programs.
We do not support additional extensions of the demonstration program,
and seek a better accounting of what programs have and have not worked
before moving ahead with a permanent program. The mere fact that the
program raises money is not a good enough reason for continuing the
program indefinitely.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material for the
record. If you have questions, do not hesitate to call.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Evetts, President, National Association
of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
I am the current President of the National Association of Abandoned
Mine Land Programs which represents twenty-three States and three
Tribes that administer approved abandoned mine land reclamation
programs. The Association was organized for the purpose of enhancing
communication, coordination, and consistency between the States, Tribes
and the Office of Surface Mining on issues related to Title IV of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, Public Law
95-87). I am pleased to represent the Association by providing comments
to you regarding the proposed budget for the Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) for the fiscal year 2000.
The Abandoned Mine Land Program has successfully administered and
aggressively pursued the abatement of mine hazards and the active
reclamation of lands adversely affected by past mining activities
across the United States. Many of these abandoned mine lands exhibit
scars and environmental degradation which occurred more than 150 years
ago. These scars and hazards were left unremediated to heal and abate
themselves which they have not done.
Congress acted in a responsible effort to remedy these abandoned
mine land problems in 1977 when it enacted the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act. The Act established a program through which
abandoned mine hazards and reclamation could be addressed without
placing an increased financial burden on the citizens or negatively
impacting the nation's debt. The plan would be funded by a tax on
active coal production; the problems created by past mining activities
would be directly or indirectly remediated by the same industry that
created them.
As background, coal producers across the nation have contributed in
excess of $5.1 billion dollars in taxes and interest to the Abandoned
Mine Land Trust Fund since fiscal year 1977. Under the Act, this amount
less a stipulated amount to the United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefit Fund, should have been made available for AML reclamation.
Unfortunately, annual appropriations have been considerably less than
the states anticipated which is also inconsistent with the intent of
the Act. This historical practice of under funding the AML program
activities has resulted in an unappropriated AML Trust Fund balance
which will exceed 1.5 billion dollars by the end of this year. This
unappropriated balance is growing at the rate of more than 100 million
dollars a year. It seems unconscionable to allow the accumulation of
these dedicated funds to continue while serious health and safety
hazards still exist and remain unabated.
The Membership of the Association and I would like to express the
following concerns regarding the President's proposed fiscal year 2000
Budget:
aml program funding
The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget is a commendable step in the
right direction and we support the Administration's effort to increase
AML funding. However, the proposed budget still perpetuates the
practice of inadequate AML funding. The proposal would only appropriate
approximately 55 percent of the fiscal year 2000 projected income to
the Trust Fund, allowing the rapid and continued accumulation of
unappropriated balances.
The 26 member States and Tribes who administer Abandoned Mine Land
Programs have an established record of accomplishments spanning the
past 18 years. One of the primary contributing factors to the overall
program success has been the ability of the individual states and
tribes to establish program needs, prioritize projects and administer
programs tailored to the needs of their respective states and tribes.
The proposed increase of $25 million to reclaim abandoned mine
sites that pose significant threats to human safety will, in fact,
require a reprioritization of state projects in order to establish
funding eligibility. This manipulation of funding is or could be
detrimental to the objectives of the individual States and/or Tribes
and places OSM in a ``controlling'' rather than an ``oversight'' role
in the AML Program. This does not seem to coincide with the ``less
government'' initiative advocated over the past few years. The proposed
$25 million increase is directed to two types of projects which are
almost one in the same: $22 million in support of the President's Clean
Water Action Plan; and $3 million increase in funding for the
Appalachian The Honorable Ralph Regula The Honorable Norman Dicks April
9, 1999 Page Three
Clean Streams Initiative ($2 million to eligible AML State/Tribal
grants and $1 million in cooperative agreements for not-for-profit
groups). Both of these programs are in support of the Clean Water
Action Plan. This type of stipulated funding increase will not allow
all of the program States/Tribes to compete for this funding on an
equal basis. Not all states are faced with the same stream and water
shed problems but all have priority 1 and 2 problems to remediate.
The proposed increase in AML funding is part of the Administrations
effort to fund the AML program at a level commensurate to fee receipts
collected. This effort, though commendable, does not address the fact
that the funding (fee collection) under the Act will end in 2004 unless
extended. It would appear more logical that we should advocate an
immediate and recurring appropriation which would be commensurate to
the projected fee collection each year. This still would not address
the current unappropriated AML Trust Fund balance of more than $1.4
billion.
The Surface Control and Reclamation Act was amended in 1990 to
assure minimum program states a recurring funding level of $2 million.
Stability in funding is an absolute necessity, especially when trying
to establish long-term planning at the minimum funding level. Beginning
in fiscal year 1995, appropriations fell 25 percent below the
previously established $2 million funding level and have continued to
be at $1.5 million through fiscal year 1999. We appreciate and are in
support of the President's effort to restore the minimum state program
funding to the $2 million level.
The AML Trust Fund balance currently exceeds $1.4 billion. The
Association is supportive of a recurring funding appropriation which
would either substantially reduce or preferably bring the trust fund
balance to zero by the end of the current fee collection, which is set
to expire in 2004. This would allow for the States and Tribes to plan
ahead to maximize their reclamation efforts prior to the end of the
Program.
summary
It is the belief of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs, as well as the public, that the AML program was created for
the express purpose of addressing the serious health and safety
problems which exist throughout the nation's coal fields. The
reclamation of these sites should be performed in an expedient and
effective manner. The AML program States and Tribes have demonstrated
that they have effective programs in place and are capable of
accomplishing these requirements, providing that adequate funding is
available. Implementation of the coal production tax has provided
obvious in-place funding. The Honorable Ralph Regula The Honorable
Norman Dicks April 9, 1999 Page Four
To further these goals, the Association respectfully requests that
the subcommittee consider the following recommendations:
1. Recommend that fiscal year 2000 appropriations for AML program
activities equal or exceed the amount of anticipated fee collections to
the AML Trust Fund in fiscal year 2000.
2. Recommend increased funding level to adequately fund the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative without impacting the State
Reclamation Grant funding.
3. Insure that the minimum program states receive no less than the
$2 million level of funding as provided for in SMCRA.
4. Institute a long-term management plan for the AML Trust Fund
which would reduce it to a zero balance on or before the expiration of
the fee collection period.
The Association is appreciative of this opportunity to present its
comments and recommendations on the OSM proposed fiscal year 2000
budget. I would be glad to address any request for clarification or
additional information that the Subcommittee or Committee may desire.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of Dr. Gerald P. Huffman, Director, Consortium for
Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
cooperative research c1 chemistry
C1 chemistry is the conversion of carbon-containing materials that
contain one carbon atom per molecule into valuable transportation fuels
and chemical products. In 1999, with the support of the U.S. Department
of Energy, the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science (CFFLS),
a research consortium with participants from the universities of
Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, Pittsburgh and Auburn, initiated a new
basic research program on C1 chemistry. The CFFLS is requesting $1.6
million from the Department of Energy to continue this program in
fiscal year 2000. This represents a modest increase over the $1.4
million of funding provided for this program by DOE in fiscal year
1999. The CFFLS research program on C1 chemistry is a cooperative
program jointly sponsored by the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Resources (EE) Office of Transportation Technology (OTT) and the DOE
Fossil Energy (FE) Advanced Research and Environmental Technology
(AR&ET) division. We are requesting $1.2 million from DOE EE OTT and
$0.4 million from DOE FE AR&ET. The five Consortium universities will
provide $0.25 of cost sharing for every $1.00 of federal funding, or
$400,000, to support this research program in fiscal year 2000.
The feedstocks for C1 chemistry include natural gas, carbon
dioxide, methanol, and synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen). Synthesis gas, or syngas, is produced principally by
reforming of natural gas, which is primarily methane, with steam. It
can also be produced by gasification of coal, biomass, or organic
wastes. Syngas is the source of nearly all of the hydrogen and methanol
produced. It is also the primary source of many chemicals and can be a
source of very clean transportation fuels. Because of new environmental
standards now being promulgated, C1 chemistry is likely to become a
major source of transportation fuel in the U.S. early in the next
century.
In cooperation with DOE, the Consortium has identified several
research topics that will be emphasized in this program to help meet
our national energy needs and environmental goals. The following areas
have been identified as the most critical:
1. Conversion of methanol and syngas into clean, oxygenated,
transportation fuels.
2. Conversion of natural gas into syngas.
3. Conversion of syngas, natural gas and methanol into hydrogen.
A brief summary of the CFFLS program for each of these research
topics is given below.
Transportation fuel.--A principal goal of the DOE in the
transportation sector is to develop new sources of ultra clean diesel
fuel for use in light trucks and sports utility vehicles, the use of
which has increased dramatically in this country over the past several
years. The Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process is one option for the
production of such diesel fuel. However, F-T plants are very large and
expensive and there are conflicting views regarding the best technology
for a F-T plant. Most F-T development is likely to occur abroad,
converting cheap foreign natural gas into diesel fuel and importing it
to the U.S. In contrast, the technology to convert syngas into methanol
is a comparatively simple and relatively inexpensive technology.
Currently, there are only two commercial F-T plants in the world.
However, there are many operating methanol plants through out the world
and in the U.S. Our research will therefore focus on reacting methanol
and syngas to produce novel, oxygenated, diesel fuels that are superior
to any now being produced. These diesel fuels have the potential to
significantly increase mileage rates attained by trucks and sports
utility vehicles, while markedly reducing emissions of fine particulate
matter and sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Reduction of airborne
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)
is a major goal of both the DOE and the EPA.
Conversion of natural gas into syngas.--There is an abundance of
remote natural gas, much of which is currently being wasted. The
Alaskan oil fields represent a remote natural gas source in the U.S.
that is not currently being utilized. Therefore, it is important to
develop more effective technology to convert natural gas into syngas.
This step is the costliest part of C1 chemistry. Most syngas is
currently made by reforming natural gas (methane) by reaction with
steam. However, there are several advantages to using carbon dioxide to
reform natural gas to syngas.
--Many natural gas sources in nature contain a significant percentage
(20-50 percent) of carbon dioxide in addition to methane.
-- The resulting syngas has a more favorable hydrogen to carbon ratio
for the production of transportation fuels.
--The reaction of carbon dioxide with natural gas to produce syngas
has the advantage of using significant amounts of carbon
dioxide in a productive manner.
The CFFLS research will focus on the development of novel catalysts
for reforming of natural gas with carbon dioxide that will have higher
activities and longer active lifetimes.
Hydrogen.--Research will focus on development of new nanoscale
catalysts and processes to improve the conversion of syngas, methanol
and natural gas into hydrogen free of carbon monoxide contamination.
The high purity hydrogen produced from such conversion processes can be
used in advanced, pollution free, power sources known as fuel cells, as
well as for traditional uses (ammonia, refining, etc.). A long term
goal of DOE is the development of high efficiency, pollution free
vehicles powered by fuel cells. Because of our existing infrastructure,
there are advantages to continuing to use liquid fuel in vehicles. One
possible scenario is vehicles that use methanol as the primary fuel,
with on board reforming devices to convert the methanol to the hydrogen
required by fuel cells. Therefore, our program will investigate
technology for producing hydrogen from methanol.
economic and environmental benefits
Although it will require a long-term research effort, the practical
benefits of the technology that could ultimately be developed from this
research are substantial. Several potential economic and environmental
benefits that could result from C1 chemistry research are briefly
summarized below.
--Utilization of remote natural gas (e.g., from the Alaskan oil
fields).
--Domestic production of clean, high efficiency, diesel and other
transportation fuel.
--Reduction of the U.S. trade deficit.
--Reduction of emissions of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5).
--Reductions of emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.
--Productive use of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
summary and budget request
The Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science, a research
consortium with participants from the universities of Kentucky, West
Virginia, Utah, Pittsburgh and Auburn, has initiated a coordinated
basic research program on C1 chemistry. The goal of the program is to
develop technology to convert simple carbon feedstocks (natural gas,
carbon dioxide, methanol and syngas) into valuable products, such as
ultra clean, high efficiency transportation fuel, hydrogen, and
chemicals. The Consortium is requesting $1.6 million from the
Department of Energy to support this program in fiscal year 2000, a
modest increase over the level of support provided in fiscal year 1999.
The five Consortium universities will provide $0.25 of cost sharing for
every $1.00 of federal funding, or $400,000 per year.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard Bajura, Director; and George Fumich,
program advisor, National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West
Virginia University
Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee: This statement was
prepared by Richard Bajura, Director of the National Research Center
for Coal and Energy, and George Fumich, a Program Advisor for the
Center. We appreciate your consideration of our statement regarding
programs in Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation on the topic of
alternative transportation fuels and chemicals.
need for alternative transportation fuels and chemicals
The expanding U.S. dependence on imported petroleum is detrimental
to our energy security and to our balance of payments in foreign trade.
Oil imports are projected to increase to a level of 60 percent of our
total consumption by 2010. Approximately 98 percent of the fuels that
power our nation's transportation sector are derived from petroleum-
based fuels.
Emissions of carbon dioxide from the transportation sector are
expected to increase by 50 percent over the next fifty years. Since
1973, the year of the Oil Embargo, essentially all of the increase in
U.S. highway fuel consumption has been due to trucks. Petroleum-based
fuels are a major source of particulate emissions in heavy duty
engines. In California, for example, heavy duty diesel trucks are only
2 percent of the vehicles on the road, but account for 30 percent of
the smog emissions and 70 percent of the particulate emissions.
Research accomplished thus far indicates that by using indirect
liquefaction technologies, alternative transportation fuels can be
produced which are higher in energy content and environmentally
superior to petroleum based fuels. The research area called C-1
Chemistry offers much promise for the development of new fuels, fuel
additives, and value added chemicals. C-1 Chemistry is based on using
feedstocks which initially have only one carbon atom per molecule, such
as methane [CH4], carbon monoxide [CO] and methanol [CH30H].
programs of the office of transportation technologies
Syngas produced from coal or natural gas, coupled with advanced
research in C-1 Chemistry, can be the base from which the U.S. can
build commercially viable co-production industries for producing
alternative transportation fuels and value-added chemicals. In fiscal
year 1999, your Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies supported the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
to initiate research in C-1 Chemistry under the Office of
Transportation Technologies. This program is a cooperative effort
between our Consortium, which has five member schools, the Office of
Transportation Technologies, and the Office of Fossil Energy.
We request your continued support for this program through an
additional appropriation of $1.2 million in the fiscal year 2000 budget
of the Office of Transportation Technologies. This research is
particularly relevant to programs in heavy vehicle technologies in view
of the contribution of such vehicles to the overall level of emissions
from the transportation sector.
programs in the office of fossil energy
We believe it is in our national interest to develop advanced
programs which will permit the cost-effective conversion of coal to
cleaner liquid fuels, value added chemicals, and more advanced fuels
such as hydrogen. Continued investments are required to reduce the cost
of fuels and chemicals production and to encourage the industrial
acceptance and early commercialization of viable co-production
technologies in support of Vision 21 programs.
In this regard, we are recommending additional funding of $2
million for Fossil Energy programs in the area of Indirect Liquefaction
research to a level of $9,659,000 for fiscal year 2000. We recommend
that these funds initially be used to support research in C-1
Chemistry, catalysis, and process development. Out year funding
increases are recommended for reactor modeling, scale-up studies and
fuels testing, followed later by performance studies in pilot plants
and demonstration plants. This kind of research program is required to
reduce the risk of commercializing indirect liquefaction plants,
thereby encouraging investments by the private sector. This program can
yield payback benefits through increased employment and reduced balance
of payments deficits through the use of our vast coal reserves.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the
Subcommittee. We would be pleased to provide additional information
regarding these programs as needed.
______
Prepared Statement of Ronald J. Pugmire, Ph.D., Associate Vice
President for Research, Professor of Chemical and Fuels Engineering,
University of Utah
In your considerations for the fiscal year 2000 budget, I recommend
support for the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
(CFFLS), a five-university research consortium with approximately 100
participants from: the University of Kentucky, West Virginia
University, the University of Utah, the University of Pittsburgh, and
Auburn University. Over the past two years, the consortium has
developed very promising technology for C1 chemistry.
C1 chemistry is the conversion of feedstocks such as natural gas,
carbon dioxide, and synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen) into hydrocarbon products. Synthesis gas, or syngas, is
produced principally by reaction of natural gas with steam. It can also
be produced by gasification of coal, biomass, or organic wastes.
Because of new environmental standards now being promulgated, C1
chemistry is likely to become a major source of transportation fuel in
the U.S. early in the next century. Although there is a DOE program on
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, a form of C1 chemistry, there is currently
no coherent national research program on the more innovative aspects of
this important technology. To fill this void, the Consortium for Fossil
Fuel Liquefaction Science, a research consortium with participants from
the universities of Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, Pittsburgh and
Auburn, has initiated a basic research program on C1 chemistry. The
Consortium has made a thorough study of C1 chemistry to determine which
research topics should be emphasized to meet our national energy needs
and environmental goals. The following areas have been identified:
1. Conversion of natural gas into syugas. Novel plasma reactors and
reaction of natural gas with carbon dioxide will be investigated.
2. Conversion of syngas into clean diesel and other transportation
fuels. We will investigate reaction of syngas with methanol to produce
oxygenated diesel fuel that should be cheaper and better than Fischer-
Tropsch diesel fuel.
3. Conversion of syngas into hydrogen. Catalytic processes will be
developed to produce hydrogen that is free of carbon monoxide and can
be used in fuel cells.
4. Conversion of syngas into value-added chemicals. Direct
synthesis of a number of value-added chemicals from syngas could
markedly improve economics.
economic and environmental benefits
--Utilization of 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year with
a value of approximately $4 billion.
--Production of 3 trillion cubic feet of hydrogen per year with a
value of approximately $7 billion.
--Production of 1.5 billion barrels of diesel fuel per year with a
value of $60 billion.
--Reduction of the trade deficit due to oil imports by up to $30
billion per year.
--Reduction of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, by
up to 400 million tons per year or approximately 10 percent.
--Reduction of U.S. emissions of fine particulate matter and sulfur
and nitrogen oxides by approximately 10 percent.
The CFFLS is requesting $1.5 million from DOE Fossil Energy in
fiscal year 2000, with an aggregate of $0.75 million in cost-sharing to
be provided by the five consortium universities. Your support for this
important program is requested.
______
Prepared Statement of Gerald Holder, Dean; John W. Tierney, Professor;
and Irving Wender, Distinguished University Research Professor,
University of Pittsburgh
Because of new environmental standards now being promulgated and in
the interest of increased efficiency, the Consortium For Fossil Fuel
Liquefaction Science (CFFLS), consisting of participants from the
Universities of Pittsburgh, Kentucky, Utah, West Virginia and Auburn
have, after thorough study, been engaged in a basic research program on
C1 chemistry. C1 chemistry involves the conversion of simple molecules
such as natural gas, carbon dioxide, synthesis gas (a mixture of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide) and methanol into environmentally clean,
efficient transportation fuels as well as chemicals and polymers.
There is currently no coherent national research program on
innovative aspects of this expanding technology. Although DOE has a
program on the conversion of synthesis gas to transportation fuels by
the Fischer-Tropsch process, no such plants will be built in the lower
48 states; instead, advantage is being taken of cheap natural gas
converted to synthesis gas in distant countries. Indeed, to meet diesel
fuel standards in California, Fischer-Tropsch diesel has been imported
from a Royal Dutch Shell plant built in Malaysia.
The CFFLS has developed a program on C1 chemistry that deals with
the most important needs and aspects of this country. The program
involves cheaper ways of converting natural gas, biomass or coal into
synthesis gas, the conversion of two global warming gases, methane and
carbon dioxide, into synthesis gas and the conversion of methane and
hydrocarbons into pure hydrogen gas for use in fuel cells. Synthesis
gas is the source of essentially all the hydrogen produced in the U. S.
This country has a large capacity for the production of methanol, all
produced from synthesis gas; diesel fuel of the highest quality,
meeting environmental and efficiency requirements can be made directly
from synthesis gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process or from methanol,
and the CFFLS has a program to do this. The U.S. may look to the
conversion of natural gas in turnkey plants to methanol which can then
be used to meet our needs for the production of gasoline, diesel, jet
fuels, lubricating oils, chemicals and polymers.
While acknowledging the realities of the present budget austerity,
the undersigned recommend and request your strong support for the much-
needed program and budget proposed for the Consortium.
______
Prepared Statement of John M. Owens, Associate Dean for Research,
Auburn University
In the course of your deliberations for fiscal year 2000
appropriations please be aware of the importance of current federal
funding for research now under way at Auburn University through the
Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science.
This program is insuring the continuation of research on the
conversion of domestic fossil fuel and wastes into transportation fuel
and chemicals. The research is being carried out by an experienced team
of faculty that has more than 50 years of collective experience with
this technology. Reduced Federal and private funding has threatened the
existence of this team and similar ones in the United States. Although
significant funds are being provided by the State of Alabama for our
work, they are insufficient to maintain a high quality program over the
long term.
Probably the most important products of academic research are the
students produced for industry and government. Dramatic decreases in
federal funding for such research are threatening the production of the
next generation of scientists and engineers that will conduct essential
research programs on the conversion of domestic fossil fuels into
transportation fuels and chemicals.
Research initiatives at Auburn are coordinated with other members
of the Consortium (University of Kentucky, University of Utah,
University of Pittsburgh, and West Virginia University) and focus on C1
chemistry. C1 chemistry encompasses the conversion of feed stocks such
as natural gas, carbon dioxide, and synthesis gas into clean
transportation fuels, hydrogen and chemicals. It is likely that C1
chemistry will be a major source of transportation fuel in the country
early in the next century. We strongly support funding of this program
in order to develop an important option in the solution of a national
problem.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, this testimony is
submitted on behalf of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). The National Association of State Energy Officials
is comprised of energy officials from 53 of the 56 State and Territory
Energy Offices.. We are testifying in support of funding for the State
Energy Program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Specifically, NASEO supports funding levels of no less than the
request contained in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for State
Grant programs, including, $37 million for the State Energy Program
(SEP), $154 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP),
and the budget request levels for the competitive energy partnerships.
In addition, we support the administration's request for the
buildings sector to implement the building code provisions of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 through state grants, and we support the
proposed budget for the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Within
EIA's budget, we support the continuation of the State Heating Oil and
Propane Program. We also urge the Subcommittee to support at least
level funding for the Municipal Energy Management Program.
Mr. Chairman, it has been more than a year since the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing in which my colleagues from
Ohio, New York, and California testified on what they believed the
Subcommittee needs to make a priority for research, development, and
deployment funding. NASEO members agree that in order for our nation to
remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must have a balanced
approach to energy policy, an approach that includes government support
for both R&D and deployment activities. Consequently, we have
established six working groups whose mission it is to develop Memoranda
of Understanding between DOE and the states.
In order to have successful R&D initiatives we must ensure that the
research is necessary, information is shared, markets are prepared, and
that technologies are viable. Market preparation and deployment are the
linkages that provide feedback to guide R&D and increase its relevance
to businesses and consumers. State Energy Offices should be involved
early in this process, along with state research institutions, in order
to improve the use of DOE- and laboratory-developed programs.
You have received testimony from a number of individuals and
companies who will tell you of the wonderful successes that they have
accomplished as a result of funding from this Subcommittee. We would
add that many of these individuals and companies either received direct
financial assistance or technical assistance from their State Energy
Offices as well. The assistance that they received from their State
Energy Office was more than likely funded by federal appropriations,
state appropriations, or remnants of oil overcharge refunds that are
perpetuated through revolving loan programs. Without a strong network
of State Energy Offices, the funding requests to this Subcommittee
might see a dramatic rise. Moreover, the assistance provided by the
states provides greater value and greater local relevance to these
national efforts.
Like the Subcommittee, requests for assistance to the State Energy
Offices continues to increase. Many of the efficiency initiatives, and
corporate R&D programs that have historically been funded by utilities
and industry have all but evaporated due to electric utility
restructuring, and State Energy Offices are feeling the pressure to
support the continuation of these activities.
To date, 15 states have passed electricity restructuring
legislation, while five others have acted through their public service
commissions. Most other states are considering electric utility
industry changes. These changes began with Energy Policy Act of 1992,
which permitted wide expansion in the number of market participants.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accelerated these changes
through Order 888, opening the transmission grid.
As part of this change, traditional franchised utilities attempt to
compete on the basis of price with non-utility generators, while public
benefits programs, such as energy R&D, energy efficiency, renewable
energy, fossil energy R&D, and low-income programs have all suffered.
This is a gap that must be filled in order to meet national, state, and
local needs. The State Energy Offices, such as my own, have been
filling that gap, albeit with diminished resources. In a restructured
environment, energy efficiency and fossil energy R&D programs must
adapt to the changing reality of the new electric utility industry in
which franchised utilities are no longer major technology deployment
partners. A long-term strategic plan--of the type you seek to build by
prioritizing research, development, and deployment appropriations--must
include provisions for this changing industry structure.
At the state level, the types of activities we are planning must
also take into consideration these new trends. We hope to work with
you, Mr. Chairman, to recognize the importance of coordinating energy
R&D with energy deployment activities. The type of programs we have
successfully implemented, include linking DOE's industrial programs
with our state activities and those of our industries.
For example, the State of Ohio worked with Alumitech, Inc., in
Cleveland (through a NICE3 grant, state assistance, and Alumitech
commitments) to develop and install facilities that would separate
aluminum, salt, and other useful aluminum recycling by-products.
Alumitech is now able to prevent energy losses and resource losses from
by-products of the aluminum industry through the utilization of all
components in the manufacturing process.
In the state of Washington, the energy office coordinated and
provided financial assistance to the City of Seattle and Boeing
Corporation for a joint waste-to-energy project whereby effluent from
Seattle's Renton treatment facility is used to heat and cool Boeing's
Customer Services Training Center. This project has reduced the need
for new generation capacity by 20 megawatts.
States are also a great source for financing of school and hospital
efficiency retrofits. A number of state and territory energy offices
operate their own revolving loan programs for schools and hospitals
including: Wyoming, Alabama, Tennessee, Maine, Indiana, Louisiana, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Iowa. In
Vermont, my office works with the state Superintendents Association to
address energy efficiency problems in the public schools. The objective
is to attain long-term benefits and develop sound management practices.
By working through the Superintendents Association we are able to gain
quick and widespread approval for the program and ensure that it is
responsive to local needs.
In addition to schools and hospitals retrofit programs, State
Energy Offices operate a number of other buildings programs. The
buildings industry represents 8 percent of our GNP, 36 percent of our
energy consumption, with over $232 billion in energy bills annually.
However, the diverse and local nature of the buildings industry, makes
this a challenging sector to impact on a national level. Thus, it is
critical to maintain the state-based delivery mechanisms for national
buildings programs. Fortunately, many states have excellent track
records in delivering results in this area.
Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, and
Wisconsin all operate state buildings programs designed to increase the
efficiency facilities through the installation of energy efficient
equipment. A number of states, including Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, North
Carolina, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and Tennessee, partner with
local governments to finance community-wide energy efficiency planning.
The Department of Energy also provides technical assistance to this
effort and, in some instances, federal appropriations are made
available to assist.
Lighting is an area where DOE's research efforts have aided in
developing a host of new, super efficient products. State Energy
Offices are preparing the markets for these new products by conducting
pilot programs that demonstrate the savings potential for new ballasts
and lamps. Michigan, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin have all
conducted their own market transformation programs which incorporate
the use of new lighting technologies in state buildings, commercial
buildings, single-family homes, and in public areas such as parks.
In the past year, Minnesota, Delaware, Kansas, Nevada, Hawaii, and
Louisiana have all utilized federal appropriations to update their
state's building codes. The improvements in Louisiana alone will save
$4 million in energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by 113 million
pounds within 10 years.
While buildings activities are a focus of a great number of
programs, I am sure that you are quite familiar with their
transportation efforts as well. From alternative fuels programs in
Indiana, West Virginia, and Nebraska to transportation management
projects in California, Washington, and Oregon, states are very
effective in reducing our dependency on imported oil. In Oregon alone,
the state has reduced the number of miles traveled by participants in
their pilot telecommuting program by 4.1 million miles.
NASEO also strongly supports the so-called Special Projects, known
as competitive energy partnerships. These competitive programs, which
provide matching funds to states in a variety of areas within
buildings, transportation, and industry, allow State Energy Offices to
conduct joint projects with industry and other partners. At your
request, this is the first year that it is separately funded out of
each division's accounts. It has been a dramatic success.
We are pleased that since the summer of 1998, State Energy Offices
in California, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas
have focused some of their attention on making oil production a more
cost effective business. Energy related oil extraction costs for
independent producers can exceed 50 percent of the total costs of
production. This combined with recent low oil prices has resulted in
extremely tough times for small producers. In response, NASEO and the
states developed a project with DOE's Offices of Fossil Energy and
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to provide technical assistance,
testing, and financing for cost-effective energy improvements in the
oil fields. The technical assistance and testing is being conducted
utilizing federal and state appropriations and the financing utilizes
private-sector capital. Our goal is to strengthen domestic producers
and the associated service industry--providing both economic and energy
security benefits.
In addition to the ongoing work with the Office in the oil and gas
industry, a number of State Energy Offices are working with Fossil
Energy's coal division on activities relating to domestic clean coal
technologies and international opportunities for exports of U.S. coal
technologies. This work includes the expansion of our successful Peer
Exchange Program into the international arena for advanced coal
technology development. This new direction for State Energy Offices and
the Office of Fossil Energy appears to be quite successful, and we look
forward to additional partnerships in the future.
Finally Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that both the
energy R&D and deployment programs cannot operate effectively without
accurate, sufficient, and timely energy data from the Energy
Information Administration. This is especially true in light of
electricity restructuring and the addition of an array of new market
participants. Therefore, we encourage the Subcommittee to support
funding for the Energy Information Administration. We have worked
closely with EIA, and they are an effective partner providing real-time
data and information.
conclusion
In conclusion, we would like to remind the Subcommittee of the
critical role that State Energy Offices play in the delivery of energy
efficiency programs and a variety of other energy programs, in spite of
the relatively small federal investment in the program. Our success is
based upon our ability to directly meet the needs of taxpayers, small
business people, farmers, and industry. We support at least the request
of $37 million in funding for SEP for fiscal year 2000--a small price
to pay for continued success.
______
Prepared Statement of the General Electric Power Systems
This testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power
Systems (GE) for the information of the Committee during its review of
the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget requests. GE
strongly supports the Administration's request for $41.8 million for
the Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, including $32.590 million
for major systems development, within the Fossil Energy budget account.
DOE's funding request signifies the important contributions that ATS
technology will make to the nation's energy security and environmental
objectives. GE appreciates the strong Congressional support that has
been so critical to the success of the ATS program, and welcomes this
opportunity to update the Committee on the progress of the ATS research
and development effort.
ge-doe ats cooperative agreement
In March 1998, GE and DOE executed a modified Cooperative Agreement
providing for GE's continued, cost-shared participation in the ATS
program. The modified 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. DOE's fiscal year 2000 funding request
represents the last major increment of Federal funding for the ATS
program.
The modified GE-DOE Cooperative Agreement, which extends through
December 2000, eliminated the planned demonstration phase of the ATS
program and extended the technology validation phase. Demonstration of
the ATS technology will be the responsibility of industry at the end of
the technology validation phase. Under the restructured ATS program, 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 of the ats program
The ATS program occupies a key position in the DOE's fossil energy
research and development portfolio, and is an integral part of the
evolving ``Vision 21'' concept for future highly efficient, clean power
generation. Through the government's partnership with industry, the ATS
program is well on the way to supporting the commercial introduction of
the world's most efficient gas turbine, securing U.S. technological
leadership in this critical technology area and producing important
benefits to the nation:
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.--Fuel savings will, in turn, lower
electricity costs, benefiting 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 existing
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.
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 stiff international
competition. U.S. jobs depend on continued U.S. global leadership in
turbine technology, which is supported by the ATS program.
the technical challenge
Existing gas turbine technology benefited from the knowledge gained
from years of national investments in military aircraft engine
technologies. The need to meet high efficiency and low emissions
requirements simultaneously for power generation systems in 2000 and
beyond has necessitated the development of a steam--cooled turbine
generation system--the first time that the industry has been called
upon to develop a new technology specifically for power generation
applications. Government has shared the risks inherent in meeting this
technical challenge through the ATS program.
GE's ``H System'' advanced turbine is an advanced combined-cycle
system designed to break the 60 percent thermal-efficiency barrier
while offering the lowest cost of electricity production with the
lowest levels of emissions. Combined-cycle systems generate electricity
from both a gas turbine and a steam turbine driven by steam generated
from the gas turbine's exhaust. Where other gas turbines are air-
cooled, ATS combined-cycle power blocks are based on a unique
technology platform in which the gas turbine buckets and nozzles are
steam-cooled by an integrated steam system. Steam cooling of the
turbine airfoils enables higher turbine inlet temperatures to be
achieved without increases in combustor exit temperatures, resulting in
low levels of NOX and significant improvements in
efficiency. Efficiency gains also translate directly into reduced
emissions of greenhouse gases. The ATS will also be a fuel flexible
system; because of its higher thermal efficiency and output, the ATS is
expected to substantially advance the economic viability of coal gas
(IGCC) systems.
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 is
helping to assure that advanced, efficient technologies are available
to meet market demand.
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.
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. Domestic electric industry
restructuring makes potential investors in new technologies more risk
averse. At the same time, the increasing pace of electric industry
restructuring makes the need for advanced, competitive power generation
technologies more urgent, and the completion of the ATS program more
timely. According to the Energy Information Administration, 81 percent
of new U.S. demand for electric generation will be met by gas turbines
in 2010. The ATS program will assure the availability of more
efficient, lower emission domestic technology to meet this demand.
The same key enabling technologies being developed through the ATS
program are required for both international and domestic applications.
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.
ge ats program accomplishments
GE's work during the initial phases of the ATS program focused on
the technologies and component developments necessary for high
temperature operation, and validation of the technically-innovative
steam cooling concept. To date, GE has:
--Completed full-scale, steam-cooled, first stage nozzle cascade
design validation testing at ATS turbine design operating
conditions. The first stage nozzles and buckets are the most
critical high temperature components in the ATS. Testing
included combustion system mapping, as well as nozzle
aerodynamic, heat transfer, and low cycle fatigue validation.
--Completed initial tests of the ``H'' series combustor design at the
component level, and in a full-scale combustion test stand that
permitted testing at full pressure, temperature, and flow
design conditions. GE's design for the gas turbine combustion
system permits its ATS to achieve high firing temperatures
while minimizing oxides of nitrogen, a key objective of the ATS
program.
--Developed, with suppliers, single crystal casting technology to
provide the high temperature strength required for the very
large ATS machine turbine buckets and nozzles.
--Completed tests of two builds of the \1/3\ scale H compressor,
which allowed operation of the compressor over its entire
speed/flow range, and validated the fundamental design of the
compressor.
--Completed tests of elements of the steam cooling system, in both
component rigs and under utility field test conditions, along
with design of a particulate filter which has been fully
validated in testing at an operating combined cycle power plant
to resolve concerns about the effects of impurities in the
steam on the operation of the cooling system.
--Developed manufacturing technologies essential for the success of
the ATS, including extensive development in thermal barrier
coatings (TBCs), which are critical to the steam cooling
design. Performed separately-funded tests to validate the
performance of TBCs in utility customers' current gas turbines
under actual conditions. Designed a robot to assure proper
application of TBCs. Improved the forging process to allow for
production of the largest gas turbine Inconel wheels ever made.
--Developed testing processes to 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 the
combined cycle unit in greater detail than previously required.
recent accomplishments
With fiscal year 1998 and 1999 funds, GE has continued development
activity on its ATS engine, which remains on schedule for a full-speed,
no-load demonstration test in December 1999, and has continued full-
scale combustion system development, with test results meeting ATS
design goals. The initial 9H (50 Hz) full-speed, no-load test was run
in the second quarter of 1998 at GE's Greenville, SC, manufacturing
facility. The testing validated rotor dynamics and vibration levels;
compressor airfoil aeromechanics; compressor airflow and efficiency;
scale-up effects from the compressor rig testing; compressor and
turbine running clearances; and the Mark VI control system. GE also has
initiated the 7H (60 Hz) ATS design and manufacturing programs, using
information derived from the 9H component and full scale testing
programs. It is anticipated that fiscal year 2000 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 continue,
setting the stage for the completion of the program in the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2000.
conclusion
Through R&D investments in programs like the ATS, the Federal
government assists industry in taking on high risk, high payoff
opportunities that challenge accepted technological limits. GE urges
the Committee to continue to provide the resources necessary to
complete the ATS program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council
These written comments are submitted on behalf of the members of
Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC). The CURC is an ad hoc group
of electric utilities, coal producers, equipment suppliers, architect,
engineering and consulting firms, state government offices and
universities interested in the utilization of coal in a cost-effective
and environmentally acceptable manner.
introduction and summary of recommendations:
These comments are derived from a strategic research and
development (R&D) program--drafted and recommended by the CURC--for
ensuring the utilization of our Nation's coal resources. The coal-based
R&D program is described in a CURC technology ``roadmap'' by which R&D
activities supported by the Department of Energy (DOE), as well as
other private and government sectors, might be guided. (A copy of the
roadmap is available upon request.)
As the Congress considers the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
the DOE's fossil energy program, it is requested that priority in
funding be provided to those activities that directly further the R&D
goals set forth in the roadmap. Consideration of future year programs
and accompanying funding requirements should be guided by the roadmap
as well.
The CURC endorses the goals of DOE's Vision 21 program and supports
the Department's efforts to establish programs in pursuit of those
goals. In examining those goals, we have concluded that additional
amounts of time--a minimum of five years--will be required to achieve
the Vision 21 goals. Additional federal R&D funding might accelerate
those development efforts. The CURC and DOE are actively engaged in
collaborative discussions to develop consensus on implementation
strategies and specific program content in order to achieve the Vision
21 goals. The DOE has been very receptive in our mutual interests to
insure that Vision 21 is consistent with CURC's technology roadmap.
The DOE's coal R&D program should be structured and funded so as
not to prematurely limit the number of technology options pursued.
Because the future practical, economic and environmental viability of
technologies cannot be assured today, the CURC recommends DOE pursue an
aggressive, collaborative R&D program, focusing increased funding on a
portfolio of technology options, as outlined in the roadmap, to
increase the probability of success of DOE's overall investment.
Emphasis on the need to sequester CO2 and to develop
technology solutions to address the risks of anthropogenic climate
change is but one basis upon which to build technology options. Other
important reasons to pursue a variety of options include the
recognition that coal is among our most cost-effective fuels used to
produce electricity. We will use coal well into the future to generate
electricity-only from central station powerplants. We should also
recognize the need to pursue development of highly efficient advanced
coal combustion systems for use in domestic or overseas applications.
These systems will achieve CO2 reductions, or avoidance,
through greatly improved conversion efficiency.
The CURC also recognizes that the Offices of Fossil Energy and
Energy Efficiency are each engaged in R&D that could benefit coal use.
To ensure that government and industry resources are targeted
effectively and managed coherently, the CURC encourages the DOE to
ensure that programs supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency are
managed in consultation with and supportive of the mission of Fossil
Energy.
The CURC makes the following specific recommendations with respect
to the DOE's fiscal year 2000 budget request:
1. The CURC advocates priority funding in R&D support for high-
efficiency coal-based generation technologies, including integrated
gasification combined cycle, pressurized fluid bed combustion (PFBC),
and fuel cells based on syngas. By focusing on technologies such as
these with the potential for the highest efficiency, the nation can
capture the greatest possible reductions in CO2 emissions
(and the smallest requirement for sequestration) while maintaining the
ability to use its strategically important coal resource.
As a general observation, the DOE's research program should focus
on the following areas in which breakthroughs in performance and cost
are achievable: In particular, near-term, high risk technologies which
have significant increased performance or reduced cost potential; and
longer-term, high risk technologies that might achieve significant
efficiency improvements and cost reductions. As the CURC roadmap
suggests, emphasis upon incremental improvements in the current state
of the art should be secondary unless such improvements are part of the
critical technology path for the advanced technologies identified in
the roadmap.
2. The CURC suggests that DOE insure coordinated attention is given
to the technology needs for advancing the use of supercritical boilers,
PFBC and other advanced coal combustion systems. In particular, it
appears that DOE-supported work on steel alloys, ceramics and other
materials needed to operate in high temperature, high pressure and
changing combustion chemistry regimes should be better focused upon the
needs of the electric power generation industry. The DOE-supported work
on advanced materials should be specifically directed towards large
power generation applications, particularly with reference to boilers,
turbines and heaters, with special attention being given to the
materials research needs for gasification, PFBCs and fuel cells.
Industry's aim is to improve cost-competitiveness, efficiency and
reliability.
3. In addition, it has become increasingly clear over the last
several months that countries like China and India have developed a
renewed interest in advanced supercritical units and other advanced
coal combustion systems, including PFBCs. The U.S. possesses a
technology know-how advantage in this area and every effort should be
made to assure that these more advanced technologies are made available
to developing country markets. To this end, the CURC suggests that the
DOE host a workshop to which a large cross section of industry,
academia and the national laboratories should be invited. At this
workshop, the technology requirements and opportunities offered by
advanced pulverized coal systems need to be explained and explored.
Workshop attendees should be invited to make recommendations to the DOE
regarding various technology needs for these advanced direct combustion
systems.
4. With respect to the proposed Vision 21 program, the CURC is
aware that the DOE has under consideration a proposed set of activities
based upon the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request as well as
an additional set of activities that may need to be undertaken at a
later point in time as funds are made available. If certain activities
on the critical path of a technology's development are delayed, that
critical path item could easily prohibit a technology from being
considered for use or application when the market requires new or
replacement power generation. In particular, it is important to
determine that certain postponed or delayed activities will not
adversely impact the timely development of hardware or know-how that
may be key to success of a particular technology. It is imperative not
to foreclose any promising clean coal technology options in the short
term that are consistent with the Vision 21 program and CURC's
technology roadmap.
5. The CURC continues its support for technology development that
will permit the cost-effective conversion of coal to cleaner fuels and
chemical feedstocks. Successful technology development will permit the
use of one of the world's most abundant fossil fuels in a manner that
could provide useful products from coal to regions of the world that
are in need of clean fuels and chemical feedstocks for industrial
growth. In this regard, the CURC suggests increased investment in the
Indirect Liquefaction program. Given the long-term importance of
developing technologies to convert coal to other useful forms of energy
and chemical feedstocks, increased funding in the Indirect Liquefaction
program would be justified. Such additional funds should be targeted to
developing two or three alternative co-production technologies that can
be readied for possible commercialization by 2010. Specific areas for
investment include basic research in catalysis and process research,
reactor modeling, and scale-up and fuels testing.
background
U.S. economic growth and worldwide sustainable development depend
upon the availability of plentiful and relatively low cost supplies of
energy and industrial feedstocks. Stable, affordable energy supplies
can be best achieved and maintained if the marketplace has a variety of
reasonable options from which to choose. A fuel-diversified economy
provides a balanced approach to energy and the environment and
practical, cost-effective protection against supply disruptions and
price spikes resulting from domestic infrastructure problems or
international crises.
Coal is a critical component of the global energy portfolio and a
cornerstone of U.S. energy and economic strength. Further, coal likely
will play a growing role in the transportation and industrial sectors
as technological advances make it economically possible to convert coal
into high-grade, low polluting fuels and chemical feedstocks. Given
these factors, coal is projected to remain vitally important to the
global economy. Technology is the key to assuring that expanding coal
use throughout the world can be achieved economically and with only a
minimal impact upon the environment.
Government and industry must work together to support an
appropriate balance of short and long-term activities required to
develop and commercialize technology which will permit the economic,
efficient and environmentally compatible use of coal.
development of a coal-based technology roadmap to insure the continued
use of coal
The CURC has developed a coal-related set of technology roadmaps
for continued funding of research to preserve the coal-based option in
the United States. The objective of this industry-led collaboration has
been to determine which technologies would be needed to maintain the
viability of coal as a contributor to the U.S. energy generation
portfolio as well as to the transportation and chemical feedstock
sectors of our economy.
CURC identified the following as examples of the types of
technologies that need to be developed for coal to maintain an
important role in supplying energy in the future:
For advanced pressurized fluidized bed combustion designs, meeting
these performance targets will require improvements in hot gas cleanup,
in improved high-temperature gas turbines and associated combustors,
and in the creation of higher efficiency steam cycles.
For advance integrated gasification combined cycle, improvements
will be needed in gas cleanup and turbine performance. Also,
development will be needed on new turbines that eliminate the need for
the steam cycle and on reducing the cost and improving the performance
of air separation systems.
Fuel cell development can greatly improve the performance of
gasification approaches and while approaches based on the combustion of
a solid fuel alone do not appear capable of meeting CURC-established
performance targets for the year 2020, a fuel cell, gasification system
could achieve significant environmental performance over standard,
conventional pulverized coal units and thus be tremendously useful in
applications abroad (e.g., India and China).
conclusion
In the next century, for coal to remain a competitive source of
energy for power generation and become a viable source of
transportation fuels or chemical feedstocks, targeted and sustained R&D
is essential. If technology is the key to coal's competitiveness, then
coal research and development is the key to available technology.
Technology that enables cost-competitive use of coal while assuring
compliance with environmental standards will assure a maintenance of
low cost power for the economy.
______
Prepared Statement of James D. Mosman, Chief Executive Officer, State
Teachers' Retirement System, State of California
Congress Should Appropriate the Funds Necessary to Fulfill the
Federal Government's Settlement Obligation to Provide Compensation for
the State of California's Interest in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve
summary
Acting pursuant to Congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
California's claims, the Administration reached a settlement with the
State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
over an extended period of time.
Following the settlement, the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve went
forward without the cloud of the State's claims and produced a winning
bid of $3.65 billion, far beyond most expectations. Last year, Congress
appropriated the $36 million necessary to satisfy the Federal
Government's obligation to make the first annual installment payment of
compensation due in fiscal year 1999 to the State for its interest in
the Elk Hills Reserve.
The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget includes a request for an
appropriation of the $36 million necessary to make the second annual
installment of compensation due to the State under the settlement
agreement. Congress should appropriate the $36 million to fulfill the
Federal Government's obligation to make the second installment payment
of compensation due under the settlement that Congress directed the
Administration to achieve.
background
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
support public education.
Two of the tracts of State school lands granted by Congress to
California at the time of its admission to the Union were located in
what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve.
The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
of their original value to inflation.
congressional direction to settle the state's claims
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
In addition, in the Act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, Sec. 3415). The
Secretary was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered
settlement payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the
State's claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount
reserved in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
settlement reached that is fair to both sides
Over the course of the year that followed enactment of the Defense
Authorization Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Administration
and the State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations over a
possible settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was
reached, and a written Settlement Agreement was entered into between
the United States and the State, signed by the Secretary of Energy and
the Governor of California.
The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
claims in advance of the sale.
Federal revenues maximized by removing cloud of state's claim in
advance of the sale
The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
to the sale.
The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.65 billion
in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier estimates.
Proper compensation for the state's claims as congress directed
In exchange for the State's waiver of rights to Elk Hills to permit
the sale to proceed, the Settlement Agreement provides the State and
its teachers with proper compensation for the fair value of the State's
claims, as Congress had directed in the Defense Authorization Act.
While the Federal Government received the Elk Hills sales proceeds
in a cash lump sum at closing of the sale in February, 1998, the State
agreed to accept compensation in installments stretched out over an
extended period of 7 years without interest. This represented a
substantial concession by the State. Congress had reserved 9 percent of
sales proceeds for compensating the State. The State school lands'
share had been estimated by the Federal Government to constitute 8.2 to
9.2 percent of the total value of the Reserve. By comparison, the
present value of the stretched out compensation payments to the State
has been determined by the Federal Government to represent only 6.4
percent of the sales proceeds, since the State agreed to defer receipt
of the compensation over a 7-year period and will receive no interest
on the deferred payments.
Accordingly, under the Settlement Agreement the Federal Government
is obligated to pay to the State as compensation, subject to an
appropriation, annual installments of $36 million in each of the first
5 years (FY 1999-2003) and the balance of the amount due split evenly
between years 6 and 7 (FY 2004-2005). The State's compensation will be
adjusted to reflect the Federal Government's final share of revenues
once the determination of equity interests with the Federal
Government's co-owner Chevron is finally made.
the money is there to pay the state
The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected
from the sales proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills
and are now being held in escrow for the express purpose of
compensating the State.
the president has requested an appropriation of $36 million to fulfill
the federal government's obligation to pay the second installment of
compensation due under the settlement agreement
In the Administration's Budget for fiscal year 2000, the President
has requested an appropriation of $36 million to fund the second
installment of compensation due to the State under the Settlement
Agreement.
congress should appropriate the funds due under the settlement that
congress directed the administration to achieve
Congress should appropriate the $36 million requested by the
Administration for fiscal year 2000 from the special Elk Hills
compensation fund to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to
make the second installment payment of compensation due under the
settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald L. Klass, President, Biomass Energy
Research Association
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2000 (FY00) request for
appropriations by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for the mission-oriented
Agriculture Vision under the Industries of the Future (Specific)
program within the Energy Conservation budget. This portion of DOE's
request deals with research, development, and deployment (RD&D) for the
production of chemicals from biomass feedstocks. The program is carried
out by EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT).
Specifically, BERA recommends that $10 million be appropriated for
the Agriculture Vision program in FY00. The high priority activities
and the dollar allocations recommended for each activity by BERA in
FY00 are:
--In-depth assessments of biomass feedstock production and needs for
the Agriculture Vision in collaboration with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and with independent
contractors if needed. $1,000,000.
--Finalization and clear definition of the structure of the
Agriculture Vision and the critical pathway that meets the
overall objective of the program. $1,000,000.
--Selection and initiation of the mission-oriented projects that have
the highest probability of contributing to the overall program
objective. $8,000,000.
--Internal coordination and joint management of all DOE biomass
programs at DOE.
The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) is a non-profit
association in Washington, DC, founded in 1982 by researchers and
private organizations that conduct biomass research. Our objectives are
to promote education and research on the conversion of renewable virgin
and waste biomass to energy, fuels, and chemicals that can be
economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of
information on biomass policies and programs.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA's
members for the opportunity to present the position of BERA's Board of
Directors on the federal funding of the Agriculture Vision. Continued
support of this program is essential to provide the stimulus to develop
environmentally clean, indigenous resources that can displace fossil
feedstocks and fuels, stimulate regional and national economic
development and employment, reduce our dependence on imported oil, and
help to reduce adverse climate and environmental changes.
background
I have examined several reports on the Agriculture Vision program
and the information presented by DOE in the request for appropriations.
The overall goal of the Agriculture Vision is to develop the
technologies necessary to displace 10 percent of the U.S. market for
industrial chemical feedstocks with biomass for the production of
organic commodity chemicals and chemical products by the year 2020.
Two million dollars were appropriated in the Interior and Related
Agencies Bill in fiscal year 1999 to start this program, and $4 million
are requested by DOE for its continuation in fiscal year 2000. The
``roadmap'' developed by OIT's Executive Steering Group (A Technology
Roadmap for Plant/Crop-Based Renewable Resources 2020, February 1999)
is expected to identify the major barriers to progress and to
prioritize research areas. The selection of competitively awarded
research contracts is in progress.
brief commentary
The BERA Board believes that this program is very worthwhile.
Successful implementation of the Agriculture Vision is expected to
result in many regional and national benefits. Virtually all basic
organic chemicals--including petroleum-and natural gas-derived
chemicals and plastics--can be manufactured from biomass feedstocks.
Utilization of agricultural and forest lands for production of
renewable fossil feedstock substitutes will significantly improve
economic growth and the environment. New markets will be opened for
farmers and foresters, rural development and employment will increase,
about 80 cents of every dollar spent on biomass in a given region will
stay in that region, and biomass feedstock usage will help reduce
federal farm subsidy payments and trade deficits. The use of biomass
feedstocks will also help to reduce atmospheric pollutants such as
sulfur oxides and unburned hydrocarbons that are emitted by
conventional manufacturing plants.
recommendations
The total fossil feedstock converted to organic chemicals in the
United States today, in terms of barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), is
roughly 1.26 million BOE/day. Ten percent of this value is 126,000 BOE/
day, while the corresponding process energy consumption is about
136,000 BOE/day. BERA therefore recommends that the overall goal of the
Agriculture Vision program be expanded to include the use of biomass
energy, biofuels, and other renewable energy resources for process
energy. In addition, reductions in process energy consumption through
higher efficiency unit operations and process energy conservation
should be part of this goal.
The potential amounts of fossil feedstock and process energy
displaced by biomass feedstock and biomass energy and biofuels should
be estimated for each technology contract considered for the
Agriculture Vision program before an award is made. This is essential
to predict how large a contribution can be made by a given project
toward achievement of the overall program goal, presuming the project
is successfully completed and the technology is implemented by
industry. This assessment, along with preliminary economic analyses,
when applied to development of the Agriculture Vision, will help ensure
the success of the program.
In-depth assessments of the availability, logistics, chemical and
physical properties, growth requirements and characteristics, and
competitive uses and economics of existing biomass resources, including
specific biomass species and agricultural residues, are required to
properly structure the Agriculture Vision program and to select optimum
biomass feedstocks. These assessments should include the energy and
feedstock potential of new additions to biomass feedstock ``reserves.''
Note that the maximum economic transport distance of biomass to
processing plants for conversion is about 50 to 75 miles. Note also
that a one-quad block (489,000 BOE/day) of biomass energy (gross)
produced by hypothetical biomass plantations, exclusive of the energy
inputs needed for planting, growing, harvesting, and transporting the
feedstock to the conversion plant gate, and converting it to organic
commodity chemicals, requires about 10,000 square miles of biomass
growth area, the equivalent of a square 100 miles on each edge. This
assumes average biomass yields of 10 dry ton per acre per year, a yield
level that is generally on the optimistic side in moderate climates.
The in-depth assessments must therefore be concerned with the
parameters outlined here and the design and net energy production
efficiencies of integrated biomass feedstock production-transport-
conversion systems. DOE's EERE and its predecessor groups in DOE, the
USDA, and others have performed such assessments. The results of this
work should be incorporated into the assessment of the Agriculture
Vision.
In BERA's separate statement in support of EERE's mission-oriented
biomass energy and fuels programs funded under the Energy and Water
Bill, it is emphasized that all of DOE's biomass-related projects
should be internally coordinated by joint management at DOE
Headquarters. This includes EERE's power, transportation fuels, and
biomass-related hydrogen programs, the basic academic biomass research
program funded by DOE's Office of Science (formerly the Office of
Energy Research), the biomass-related portion of OIT's Chemical
Technology Vision 2020 program, and OIT's Agriculture Vision program.
______
Prepared Statement of Maj. Gen. Scott B. Smith (U.S. Army Ret.), Chief
Executive Officer, Western Research Institute
On behalf of Western Research Institute (WRI), I request that the
following statement be submitted as part of the record of proceedings
for the Subcommittee's considerations of the Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2000 fossil energy research and development budget request.
The Cooperative Agreement Program represents a successful collaborative
partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy, industry and WRI and
has consistently and repeatedly met and exceeded the goals placed upon
it by the Congress. Technologies developed at WRI during the past eight
years will add measurably to the nation's energy reserves while
providing a cleaner, healthier and safer environment. For the reasons
explained below, we strongly urge that the Cooperative Agreement
Program be supported at an annual level of $7.7 million, split evenly
between Western Research Institute and the Energy and Environmental
Research Center at the University of North Dakota.
successful leveraging of federal funding with private cost sharing
The Jointly Sponsored Research (JSR) Program emphasizes technology
commercialization and continues to be successful and supported
enthusiastically by WRI's industrial clientele. Since entering into a
new JSR cooperative agreement with the Department of Energy on March
26, 1993, WRI has put in place projects utilizing a total of
$15,166,860 in USDOE funds. These funds have been combined with
$21,047,823 in industrial funds to produce a $36,214,683 program. The
use of fiscal year 1999 funds will produce a program valued at or above
$40 million while using less than $18 million in USDOE funds.
While it is always desirable to acquire an asset worth more than
$35 million for a price of less than $16 million, these numbers
substantially understate the true value of the program. What price does
one put on the value of new technology that improves regional economies
and enhances our quality of life?
As this report illustrates, the technology developed during the
past four years makes accessible billions of dollars of increased or
enhanced energy reserves, as well as offers the possibility of a
cleaner, healthier and safer environment. This means a safer and more
secure energy and environmental future for us, our families and for
future generations.
technology meeting national needs
The Cooperative Agreement Program emphasizes technology
commercialization consistent with the USDOE's mission to enhance the
nation's energy security through increased efficiencies in exploration,
production and utilization with minimal or no adverse environmental
consequences. Technologies emerging from the program are consistent
with this goal and include:
clean fuels from coal
Thermo Ecotek announced in August 1995 the signing of an agreement
to construct a 500,000 ton per year coal upgrading plant in the Powder
River Basin of Wyoming. The plant cost $42 million and uses the
Koppelman Series C Process. This process was successfully demonstrated
by WRI and KFx Inc. in early 1994 using a pilot plant funded by
matching funds from the USDOE JSR Program. WRI is presently working
with KFx Inc. on projects to increase the throughput and reduce the
cost of second generation plants that will use the improved version of
the Koppelman Series C Process and to test foreign coals as feedstocks
for the process.
reduced environmental impact associated with oil production
Tank bottom wastes from petroleum production are estimated to
exceed 27,000,000 barrels in the U.S. alone with an accumulation rate
of 2,800,000 barrels per year. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations currently allow storage in permitted pits or tanks,
but fewer and fewer permits are being approved. WRI developed and
patented (US Patent No. 5,259,945) the Tank Bottom Recovery and
Remediation (TaBoRR) process to address this problem. The method
results in separation of water, a light hydrocarbon stream, a heavy
hydrocarbon stream, and an inert, non-leaching, liquid-free solid. The
process is currently undergoing testing in a 300-barrel-per-day process
development unit, and negotiations are under way with a number of
domestic and international companies for extended testing and
deployment within operating fields.
remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated sites
Thousands of sites in the US have subsurface hydrocarbon
contamination, and many are contaminated with heavy oils. WRI developed
the CROW process to mitigate such sites. JSR funding has supported
field demonstrations of the technology at the Bell Lumber site in New
Brighton, Minnesota, and the Pennsylvania Power and Light site in
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Installation and shakedown of all field
equipment at both sites are complete. The PPL system has been fully
operational for more than two years and has produced more than 42,000
gallons of recovered oil. The owner estimates that the CROW process has
reduced the cost of remediation by more than $1.3 million.
improved environmental monitors
The determination or screening of environmental contaminants in the
field using portable analytical methodologies or downhole real-time
measurements is an area of great interest in the environmental
industry. The TROLL (SP4000), which became commercially available in
fiscal year 1996, is a fully submersible intelligent probe designed for
monitoring water level and temperature. Using Windows-based software,
the TROLL can be easily programmed in the office, car or field and
connected either to a PC, which is used for programming and receiving
stored data, or to other units via separately supplied wiring or
telemetry.
increased health and safety
PEAC is a hand-held computer system that provides first responders
with fast, easy-to-use information for chemical spills and emergencies.
The size of an emergency response area often dictates how limited
resources are allocated. Evacuation distances vary greatly with spill
and weather conditions. PEAC gives emergency responders the ability to
determine protective action distances using actual conditions, which is
crucial to resource allocation. Commercial PEAC units are being
produced and sold. Discussions are ongoing regarding possible spin-offs
of the technology and its possible modification to include chemical
warfare agents.
solving energy and environmental problems to improve our economy and
enhance our quality of life
Each of the five technologies brought to commercialization with the
funds provided by the Cooperative Agreement Program contributes to the
overall goals of the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nation. Each has
broad applicability both within the United States and abroad, thereby
helping to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. and western energy
technologies in international markets and assisting in technology
transfer. The Koppelman Series C Process is expected to generate
markets for as much as 20 millions tons annually of low-sulfur coal and
contribute substantially to the goal of increased production of U.S.
energy resources and reducing the Nation's dependence on foreign energy
supplies. The TaBoRR technology helps to minimize the impact of energy
production and utilization on the environment while simultaneously
recovering an estimated ten million barrels of usable oil. This
technology is joined by the TROLL smart probe, CROW and PEAC
technologies, all of which contribute measurably and substantially to a
cleaner, healthier and safer environment. The total funding to bring
these technologies to this stage of development was more than $35
million, with the government's share of this being less than $16
million. We certainly feel that these funds were well spent in solving
energy and environmental problems to improve our economy and enhance
our quality of life.
In a high-technology global economy, technology development is
crucial to the preservation and growth of the American economy and
standard of living. Much of this technology and growth will come from
companies that were small or nonexistent just a decade earlier. These
emerging companies must rely on creative and innovative organizations
such as Western Research Institute to assist them with their process
and product development activities. It is a tribute to the wisdom and
the foresight of the United States Department of Energy and the
Congress that activities such as the Cooperative Agreement Programs
exist to meet these crucial national needs.
As we enter the second year of our present Cooperative Agreements,
we have a sense of pride and accomplishment regarding what has been
achieved during the program. We hope that as you read the enclosed
materials you share our pride and spirit of accomplishment. Certainly,
much has been done and done well. Technologies developed at WRI will
add measurably to the nation's energy reserves, while providing a
cleaner, healthier and safer environment. Yet much still remains to be
done. Increasingly, the demonstration and commercialization of
technology requires strong, coordinated and focused activities, often
spanning several years. Accordingly, we find our industrial partners
requiring multi-year commitments of time and funding. In turn, if
meaningful projects are to be undertaken and technologies
commercialized, there must be some assurance of long-term and
dependable support. Ensuring that this support is available and put to
good use in fueling our domestic economy is the challenge facing us
all. We at Western Research Institute look forward to working with
members of Congress to accomplish this extremely important and
necessary task.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary A. Styles, Manager, Planning and Analysis
Power Systems Development Facility, Southern Company Services, Inc.
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: This statement of
Southern Company Services, Inc., (SCS) is in support of $20 million for
the Wilsonville Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in the
Advanced Clean and Efficient Power Systems Program in the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Fossil Energy R&D program for FY'2000.
Specifically, the request is for $12 million in the high efficiency--
integrated gasification combined cycle (DOE Key 7) activities and $8
million in the high efficiency--pressurized fluidized bed (DOE Key 6)
combustion activities. This request is a $0.670 million increase above
the Administration's FY'2000 budget request for these two activities.
However, the $20 million total request is consistent with prior PSDF
budget projections and SCS's negotiations with DOE.
Southern Company, through SCS and its operating companies, supports
and conducts research that will help the nation utilize its abundant
coal resources while minimizing its environmental effects. As a result,
SCS has participated in projects in both DOE Clean Coal Technology
(CCT) program and the DOE Fossil Energy Research and Development
program.
The purpose of this testimony is thank this subcommittee for its
past support for the PSDF and to request continued support for the PSDF
for advanced coal gasification and pressurized combustion research.
objectives of the psdf research program
The objectives of the PSDF research program, in conjunction with
other DOE research projects and programs, are to reduce technical risk,
improve environmental performance (including a 25 percent reduction in
CO2 emissions), and reduce the cost of producing electricity
from coal, our nation's most abundant fossil fuel resource. For many
reasons, natural gas fired combustion turbines and combined cycle power
plants are currently the most cost-effective electric power generating
technologies in many areas of the United States. Natural gas fired
power plants are projected to capture over 50 percent of new electric
generation capacity over the next 10 to 15 years. This rapid expansion
of usage will result in upward pressure on the price of natural gas.
Also, many may remember that less than 15 years ago, electric utilities
were prohibited by federal law from burning natural gas to produce
electricity due to shortages of natural gas and its importance to
domestic heating. During the current period of energy stability, we
must not, as a nation, become complacent as we may face another energy
crisis in the future. Our nation needs competitive, cost effective,
clean, and efficient coal-based technologies to meet our future
electric energy needs.
The fundamental purpose of the PSDF is to support the national
program to assure competition between energy resources and, thereby,
keep electricity prices low. By identifying and resolving important
technology integration issues at the PSDF, the reliability of first-of-
a-kind plants can be significantly improved prior to commercial
applications.
The Wilsonville PSDF is the only facility in the world where all
the components of an advanced coal-fired power plant can be tested in
an integrated system at a practical engineering scale prior to assuming
the risk and cost of commercial applications. It has already provided
vital support information to two CCT projects (Pinon Pine in Nevada and
City of Lakeland in Florida) which should increase the likelihood of
the success of these projects. The PSDF and other DOE fossil energy
programs will allow U.S. electric utilities to maintain reasonable
domestic energy prices and U.S. equipment suppliers to gain a
technological advantage in electric power production that help increase
competitiveness in foreign electricity markets. Maintaining low-cost
electricity also helps constrain inflation and increase the
competitiveness of U.S. goods.
The PSDF will also play a key role in DOE's ``Vision 21'' program.
Technology modules developed in the Vision 21 program, such as high-
temperature ceramic membrane air separation, can be tested in the
integrated power generation system at PSDF prior to scale-up to
commercial size.
Coal currently accounts for over 90 percent of the U.S. combined
energy reserves and supplies over 56 percent of the energy for electric
power generation. Coal is still our nation's lowest cost fossil fuel.
However, for coal to remain competitive, we must reduce the capital
cost of new coal fired power plants by at least 20 percent while
simultaneously increasing efficiency and improving environmental
performance. Recent economic studies completed by the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), DOE, and SCS show that if advanced coal
research projects and programs are successful, the capital cost for
these plants can be reduced to less than $900/kWe. Based on the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) latest fuel cost estimates, coal can
regain its competitive advantage by as early as 2007 if the $900/kWe
capital cost is achieved.
To accomplish these objectives, we must improve the reliability of
individual plant components and optimize system integration and
performance. Research to help these objectives can be accomplished most
cost effectively at the PSDF. The PSDF is designed to be the U.S test
facility to support the Clean Coal Technology program and advanced
coal-based power generation development for the next five to 15 years.
accomplishments of the psdf project during the first 30 months of
operation
Some of the PSDF project's most significant accomplishments through
the end of 1998 include:
--construction of the Kellogg, Brown and Root transport reactor train
was completed in May 1996 and the first coal fire in the
combustion mode began in August, 1996.
--completed construction of the Foster Wheeler circulating PFBC
system in March 1998.
--over 5,300 hours of fluid mechanical testing for the transport
reactor have been successfully completed including over 4,000
hours of operation on coal.
--99.95 percent combustion efficiency at relatively low operating
temperatures.
--over 99 percent sulfur removal with low limestone use.
--insignificant erosion of refractory and pipes.
--over 4,000 hours of testing and life assessment of high-
temperature, high-pressure filter elements including over 3,000
hours at full operating temperature.
--demonstrated easy startup and operation of the transport reactor.
Most early operating problems have been due to coal feed and
ash letdown systems but these have been essentially eliminated.
--developed theoretical and practical solutions to the fluid
mechanics of the transport reactor system that will benefit
future power plant designs and current fluid-bed cracking
technology in the petroleum industry.
--transferred operating experiences to the Pinon Pine CCT project.
--completed initial commissioning and startup of the advanced low
NOX burner and combustion turbine system for the
Foster Wheeler train. Results have lead to better understanding
and redesign of this City of Lakeland burner.
future plans
In 1999, the transport reactor will be operated in both the
combustion and gasification modes and tests on improved particulate
control devices will continue. Testing and development of improved
solids feed and handling systems will also continue. Continued
operation of the Foster Wheeler train is scheduled to begin in the
second quarter of 1999 after return of the redesigned burner.
description of power systems development facility
The Wilsonville PSDF is a joint industry/DOE facility for
engineering-scale testing and development of devices to remove
particulates and other contaminants from hot gas in high-efficiency
coal gasification and pressurized fluidized-bed combustion power
plants. SCS and our industrial partners are supplying over $40 million
in cost sharing to the PSDF project. The industrial partners, which
represent a major portion of domestic electric power generation, power
generation design and manufacturing, construction, and coal mining
include: Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., Peabody Coal Company, Foster
Wheeler Corporation, Southern Company, Rolls-Royce Allison, Southern
Research Institute, Siemens-Westinghouse, Combustion Power Corporation,
and the Electric Power Research Institute. Three of the industrial
partners, Foster Wheeler, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and Siemens-
Westinghouse are also actively involved in CCT demonstration projects
(Pinon Pine and City of Lakeland) that will enhance commercialization
opportunities for technologies being developed at the PSDF. Southern
Company, and its industrial partners in the PSDF, have financial
incentives to see that technologies successfully developed at
Wilsonville and other sites are effectively implemented in the market
place.
In addition to the Wilsonville, Alabama plant site, components for
the facility are being developed at the following locations: Grand
Forks, North Dakota (gasifier testing), Houston, Texas (gasifier
development); Indianapolis, Indiana (combustion turbine development);
Livingston, New Jersey (combustor development and testing); Menlo Park,
California (filter fabrication); Orlando, Florida (gas turbine low-
NOX burner), and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (filter
fabrication).
To use new high-performance gas turbines in coal-based power
plants, high-temperature, high-pressure gas cleanup must be perfected.
When fully developed, these technologies will:
--improve the efficiency of power generation from coal by over 25
percent compared to pulverized-coal power plants.
--CO2 emissions will be reduced by 25 percent as a result
of the increased efficiency.
--lower the cost of electricity by over 20 percent;
--be more acceptable to coal-based utilities than today's oxygen-
blown coal-gasification combined-cycle designs; and
--reduce pollutants by over 95 percent.
The PSDF is the focal point for much of America's advanced electric
power generation technology development and will continue to supply
important technology into the twenty-first century. The PSDF currently
contains four modules:
--an advanced pressurized fluidized-bed combustor (``PFBC''), an
extremely clean method for burning coal;
--a transport reactor gas source, an advanced type of coal gasifier
and pressurized combustor;
--a hot gas cleanup module to test filters for removing fine
particles and other contaminates from coal-derived gases;
--an advanced low-NOX burner-gas turbine module
A fifth module, an advanced fuel cell, may be added to the project
at a later date.
At the PSDF, private developers are able to test innovative
electric power system components--new combustors, improved cleanup
systems, and advanced turbines and fuel cells--at a central location,
saving the time and expense of building separate test facilities.
The Wilsonville PSDF offers a number of advantages to the utility
industry and to the nation by being able to address issues for the
near-(five years), middle-(ten years), and long-term (fifteen years)
management of technology risk:
--The testing of hot gas cleanup systems addresses near-term
developmental needs, and the schedule of the PSDF is geared
towards providing support to CCT projects for advanced power
generation as these projects enter the design and operational
phases.
--The advanced pressurized combustion process offers the potential of
a high-efficiency system for the mid-term that may be widely
used in repowering applications or in greenfield plants.
--The transport gasifier/combustor has significant commercial
potential due to its compact size and resulting lower capital
cost.
--The integrated gasification/fuel cell concept is a system that has
the potential to become the most efficient and environmentally
superior coal-based system available over the long-term.
conclusion
The United States has always been a leader in energy research.
Current DOE fossil energy research and development programs for coal
will assure that a wide range of technology options continues to be
available for future needs. We recognize the difficult choices that
confront Congress when it examines the near-term effects of research
programs on the Federal budget. We believe, however, that supporting
advanced coal-based energy research today, in programs like the PSDF,
will be a net plus for the economy, the federal government, and the
American people in the future. For the foregoing reasons, SCS requests
your continued support for the Power Systems Development Facility by
including $20 million in funding in the Department of Energy's Fossil
Energy Budget.
______
Prepared Statement of Andrew G. Sharkey, III, President and CEO; and
Lawrence W. Kavanagh, Vice President, Manufacturing and Technology,
American Iron and Steel Institute
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to contribute to the Subcommittee's hearing record again
this year and to deliver the support of the American Iron and Steel
Institute for continued funding of steel-related collaborative research
programs. In previous years, these have been conducted under the
auspices of the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). In 1998, we began working with the Office
of Building Technology (OBT), on the energy efficiency of steel
framing, and this year we hope to expand our collaborative work to
include the Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT), on the
application of our safe, energy-efficient, lightweighting technology to
trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
office of industrial technologies
The technology roadmap project: building on past successes under the
metals initiative
The steel industry has long made collaborative research an integral
part of its business strategies. A prime manifestation of that way of
thinking has been our longstanding relationship with DOE and
specifically the Office of Industrial Technologies.
Our most recent success is the Advanced Process Control (APC)
Program. Since 1993, APC participants--steel companies, other research
organizations and a number of the national laboratories--working
together have developed sensors which see, hear and feel steelmaking
processes. The common goal of the APC projects is to reduce waste of
time and energy by employing advanced measurement techniques and
controls to assure that our steel products meet our customers
specifications the first time, every time. Important discoveries have
been made under the Advanced Process Control Program and these
breakthroughs in ``smart steelmaking'' are now being applied in
domestic steel plants. Detailed reports on each of the APC projects
have been prepared regularly over the life of the program and we would
be happy to provide the Subcommittee with any additional information it
might desire.
Building upon APC, AISI and OIT launched the Technology Roadmap
Research Program in 1997. Through careful cooperation between the steel
industry and DOE, we first developed the Technology Roadmap, a document
that defines the breakthroughs necessary for steel to remain on the
leading edge of technology application and therefore able to compete
effectively in our global economy. The Technology Roadmap is divided
into four critical areas:
1. Process development,
2. Product properties,
3. Environmental performance and
4. Recycling.
The document has been translated into a five-year research program
that is refocused annually on different sections of the Roadmap. In
1999, we elected to focus on steel properties, environmental advances,
joining technologies and process development and we look forward to the
new challenges and opportunities this research will address.
In closing this section of my statement, I wish to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and the entire Subcommittee for your faithful and yearly
support for these programs. We strongly endorse this Subcommittee's
funding of the DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies at the levels
requested in the President's budget. Our industry remains committed to
shouldering our share of the research funding and we look forward to
continuing the fruitful partnership your steadfast support has made
possible.
office of transportation technologies
Partnership for a new generation of vehicles (PNGV) and the
consideration of steel
There is a widely held but false belief that to reduce weight in
auto bodies, other materials must be substituted for steel. This was
clearly disproved in 1998 when the steel industry demonstrated a 36
percent weight reduction using conventional steels and automotive
manufacturing practices under its Ultra-Light Steel Auto Body (ULSAB)
program (described in detail in our 1998 testimony).
Despite steel's accomplishments in designing lightweight steel
vehicles, last year steel was again excluded from consideration by PNGV
as a viable material for the car of the future. This is evidenced by
PNGV Report Number 4 (April 1998) which was dismissive of steel. We
have now been informed by PNGV officials that it is also unlikely that
Report Number 5 (due second quarter 1999) will recognize steel, the
incumbent automotive material, as a solution for the future.
Our concern that alternate materials have been pre-ordained as the
only viable materials for future auto bodies cannot be overstated.
However, recent events might compel PNGV to consider steel. AISI has
recently announced the ULSAB-AVC (Advanced Vehicle Concept) Program
whose goal is the design of an auto body that meets the PNGV goals for
weight reduction, recycling, safety, affordability and performance.
ULSAB-AVC will explore new steels and technologies to bridge the gap
between the 36 percent weight reduction of ULSAB and the PNGV goal of
50 percent weight reduction, without sacrificing recycling, safety,
affordability or performance.
Mr. Chairman, we ask for the Subcommittee's careful oversight of
PNGV to ensure that steel's case is heard and that we have a fair
chance to compete with other materials in the market where steel
remains--and with good reason--the material of choice.
Energy efficiency through downweighting of trucks: steel is ready to
help
On the general topic of collaborative research on vehicles, we have
worked on dozens of major engineering challenges with the Big Three U.
S. automakers in the prototype supplier-customer collaboration known as
the Auto/Steel Partnership, dating back to 1987. More recently, we have
been deeply involved with the automakers and other materials
industries--under the auspices of the United States Automotive
Materials Partnership (USAMP)--in compiling a comprehensive ``lifecycle
inventory'' of materials used in autos. Completion of this painstaking
task will make new and important information available to the auto
sector, enabling it to weigh as never before the environmental impacts
of competing materials across their full life of mining, manufacturing,
production, use, recycling and disposal.
With respect to downweighting light trucks specifically, it has
long been a priority of AISI to develop a lightweight steel design for
this market of make-or-break importance to U. S. auto manufacturers.
Our original Auto Weight Reduction Program (AWRP) included $1 million
to conduct a light truck study with one of the automobile companies. A
proprietary project was initiated with Ford in 1995 to achieve the
weight target set for the MY 2000 Explorer. Preliminary analysis
conducted by Porsche Engineering demonstrated that the weight goal
could be met with a steel structure, at which time Ford took the
research inside the company for completion.
Building on that experience, the Auto Weight Reduction Program task
force developed the Light Truck Structure (LTS) project. Under the LTS
project, Porsche Engineering developed a conceptual design for a
lightweight steel body for the light truck market that includes a
modular body-in-white, a flexible-design modular frame and related
chassis elements. The concept demonstrated the capability to modify
both sport utility and heavy duty/extended cab options using steel. The
total cost of the LTS study was over two million dollars. The design
concept study took approximately fifteen months to complete and the
results were presented to the auto companies and OEM suppliers in 1997.
With our considerable experience and motivation toward
downweighting trucks (and sport utility vehicles), we fully support the
OTT's intended programs in this area beginning in fiscal year 2000. We
ask that the Subcommittee set aside funds for this important research
which the steel industry stands ready to cost-share.
office of building technology
Thermal Efficiency of Homes Framed in Steel; A Promising Beginning to a
new Partnership
One Technology Roadmap project organized under our partnership with
OIT has permitted us, for the first time, to work with the Office of
Building Technology. AISI (in the form of its North American Steel
Framing Alliance (NASFA)) has teamed with OIT, OBT, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and the National Association of Homebuilders Research Center
to explore the thermal energy efficiency of homes framed in steel. The
3-year project is comprehensive, including such things as air
infiltration (steel houses are ``tighter'') and other heating
efficiency factors.
We hope that this new partnership with DOE, the national labs, the
NAHB-RC and other federal agencies will not only yield results useful
to the American homeowner but will inform the international
homebuilding community as well. Other governments, including housing
officials of the Peoples Republic of China, have shown strong interest
in steel framed housing. We also hope there will be additional
opportunities for this partnership and other partnerships to pursue
other common goals together. For example, we are actively looking into
the Office's new initiative in improving the energy efficiency of
schools. School construction is yet another instance in which steel--
especially highly reflective roofing steel--offers outstanding
qualities as a material responsive to the energy efficiency needs of
the nation.
Again, AISI urges careful and favorable consideration of the
Department's requests for funds to pursue this legitimate line of
public-private inquiry in building technologies.
In summary, let us say that AISI and its member companies have had
a very positive experience in working with the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under Assistant Secretary Dan
Reicher. EERE is a highly motivated and effective government agency.
The OIT/AISI relationship came first and has matured into a productive
collaboration and led to the additional opportunities represented by
OTT and OBT projects. We strongly urge the Subcommittee's favorable
response to the Department's request for additional funds to be matched
and multiplied into additional achievements in the national interest.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to offer these
comments. We stand ready to supply any additional information you,
Subcommittee members, or Subcommittee staff might wish to have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the fiscal year 2000
appropriations for the U.S Department of Energy (DOE). PTTC strongly
supports Congressional funding for DOE's Office of Fossil Energy at the
level requested in the Administration's budget or higher.
PTTC is a national not-for-profit organization formed in 1994 by
the independent oil and natural gas producing industry to accelerate
the dissemination of exploration and production (E&P) technologies and
help identify the highest-priority technical needs of industry. PTTC
receives funding under a cost-shared grant from DOE's Office of Fossil
Energy. These funds are matched by support from several state
governments, universities, state geological surveys, and industry
donations. Although PTTC's grant is administered through the National
Petroleum Technology Office, funding comes from both the oil and
natural gas programs of DOE. The Federal Energy Technology Center also
provides multi-faceted support for PTTC activities related to natural
gas resources.
PTTC would like to make several key points in support of DOE's oil
and gas programs under the Office of Fossil Energy:
industry crisis heightens the need for access to technologies
The U.S. petroleum industry is trying to survive its worst crisis
in history--one that has had devastating effects on employment,
production, and the basic infrastructure of this vital business. The
following quotes from testimony presented by Steve Layton, President/
CEO of Equinox Oil Company, on behalf of the Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA) on January 28, 1999, before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, summarize the
importance of independent producers and the serious implications of
today's crisis:
``The onshore lower 48 states account for about 60 percent of total
domestic oil production. The Energy Information Agency has released a
recent report that over 60 percent of this onshore lower 48 production
comes from independents, a percentage that has increased by ten percent
over the past decade. It reflects an irreversible trend. Major oil
companies are leaving the onshore lower 48 states. . . . Consequently,
the onshore is now the principal province of independent producers. In
contrast to the majors, independents do not have the capital and other
resources to carry them through protracted lean time. . . . At current
prices, most--if not all--of the onshore lower 48 production is at risk
of loss.
``The vital infrastructure of our industry is being shattered. . .
. This loss of activity reflects the serious impact low oil prices will
have on future production. . . . If we lose our onshore lower 48
production, our reliance on foreign oil will increase from about 55
percent to over 70 percent--Behind these numbers is a realization that
jobs are being lost by the tens of thousands, skills that will not be
recovered by the industry in the future. . . . IPAA analyzed the
domestic oil industry based on economic multiplier factors associated
with lost revenues. This analysis concludes that the domestic oil
industry has lost 50,000 jobs or more from the current price crisis.
``Without this infrastructure it is not only the nation's oil
industry at risk but its future natural gas use as well. This country
has a vision of building a future on expanded use of clean burning
natural gas. . . . It cannot happen without a healthy oil industry. Oil
and gas are found together. They rely on the same tools, the same
science, the same skills, and the same financial resources.''
In response to the seriousness of the industry crisis, DOE formed
an Oil Emergency Task Force last year that resulted in many initiatives
that are proving beneficial to independents in the technology arena--
especially DOE's commitment to provide millions more in cost-shared
programs to assist small independents with specific production
problems. In addition, its pilot program to showcase new energy-
efficient technologies and motor replacements is showing promising
results in several regions. Starting with a prototype in Texas, DOE's
program to help move industry toward online permitting could save
millions in administrative costs. PTTC also supports the other
important programs in the fiscal year 2000 budget for DOE's Office of
Fossil Energy.
In trying to survive the crisis, the nation's small independent
operating companies are also turning more and more toward PTTC's
information network and local, inter-disciplinary referral system. In
this way, independents are able to gain access to the results of DOE's
research and development (R&D) programs to recover more domestic
petroleum resources and slow the abandonment of marginal wells. An
estimated 40 percent of U.S. marginal wells have already been shut
down, and more are in jeopardy.
industry and government should share in r&d investments
At the same time that the major companies are moving overseas and
independents are trying to weather the crisis conditions, industry
investment in petroleum technology and R&D is being cut to the bone.
Therefore, it is critical for DOE's Office of Fossil Energy to continue
its important work in R&D and technology transfer activities. The focus
on these programs should continue on advances in geosciences that 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. Both industry and the
public sector 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 domestic
resources are produced efficiently and with respect for the
environment. To achieve these goals, industry and government must work
together. PTTC is proud to be a prime example of how the federal
government can work with industry and state governments in a successful
partnership.
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. 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.
identifying industry's technological needs
PTTC performs various technology transfer functions to inform
producers of potential solutions to economically address their
problems. Where answers 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. PTTC distributed a technology needs
survey to industry in 1998, and will be releasing the results in an
updated report by June 1999.
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
sufficient staff or budget for R&D) have new access to cost-efficient
technologies to maximize the recovery of oil and natural gas reserves.
technology transfer programs showing results
In less than five years, PTTC has achieved its original goals--and
gained the widespread credibility within the upstream petroleum
industry that is vital to success. PTTC programs are set up to
disseminate cost-effective technological solutions addressing a wide
range of problems--exploration, drilling and completion, operations and
production, reservoir and development, as well as environmental
compliance. . . . Following are the most important accomplishments in
expanding industry awareness and technology usage at the national and
regional level:
--Industry Crisis Action Plan.--PTTC initiated a crisis action plan
in Dec. 1998. Nearly 20 survival-oriented workshops, addressing
the economic margin, were held in early 1999, with more coming.
--Technology workshops.--PTTC held 100 workshops last year and is on
track to hold just as many this year. Nearly 4,500 individuals
attended PTTC workshops in fiscal year 1998, with nearly 75
percent of those from industry. These workshops are held in
throughout the oil and gas producing areas to provide real-
world information and solutions to address E&P challenges on a
variety of topics from 3-D seismic applications to produced
water disposal. To leverage limited resources, most PTTC events
are held with other organizations such as professional
societies and state/regional producers associations.
--Workshops with DOE.--PTTC has sponsored many workshops to transfer
the results of DOE programs to independents, including DOE's
Reservoir Class Demonstration Project. In upcoming events, PTTC
will be releasing the outcome of DOE-funded research in
microbial enhanced recovery projects, and underground natural
gas storage, as well as a new coiled tubing field manual.
--Distance Learning.--Some regions are exploring new technology
transfer mechanisms for disseminating workshops to those who
cannot attend, including on-line training resources and
webcasting--full audio and video transmission of workshops via
the Internet.
--Regional resource centers.--Independents contact their local PTTC
resource center for a variety of services: (1) access to
information/data resources, (2) expert response to inquiries,
(3) demonstration and training for E&P software, (4)
information products, (5) help with understanding technological
problems and opportunities, (6) access to special purpose
databases, and (7) special outreach efforts.
--E&P Software Training.--PTTC issued a Petroleum E&P Software
Sampler on CD-ROM last year that contains overview information
on 50 PC-based upstream software programs that have been
generously donated to PTTC resource centers by c ommercial
software vendors.
--Internet websites.--With a national website plus 10 regional sites,
PTTC's electronic network is a key delivery system for oil and
gas information, data, case studies, calendars of events, and
technical summaries. Industry usage is increasing as the on-
line technical content and search capabilities grow.
--Newsletters.--The 16-page, quarterly national newsletter, PTTC
Network News, reaches nearly 6,000 readers (about half are
independent E&P companies). Regional newsletters also inform
thousands of local producers about technology transfer
activities and the results of DOE technical programs.
--Case Studies/Reports.--PTTC has developed many producer-vendor case
studies and is releasing a new digest this summer with more
articles. In addition, an updated report is expected in June
1999 summarizing the technical information conveyed during the
best workshops held in the past two years.
--Region-Specific Products.--Several regions have developed products
specific to local needs, such as the Louisiana Desktop Well
Reference on CD-ROM, which provides lease and production data.
The West Coast Region is developing a reservoir/field CD-ROM
with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the state of
California. There are many similar examples in other regions.
conclusion
Congress should continue to support an active DOE role in
petroleum-related R&D and technology transfer through the Office of
Fossil Energy, especially in light of the devastating effects of the
recent industry crisis. Through technology transfer efforts, the value
of DOE programs in these areas extends far beyond geoscience research.
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. 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.
As one successful example, PTTC delivers demonstrable and
measurable benefits to the producing industry and to the nation.
Additional information can be provided for the record from independent
producers who have learned about new technological solutions through
PTTC.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and please let us know
if PTTC can supply any additional information for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc.
foreward
Mr. Chairman and members of the Sub-Committee, Hydrocarbon
Technologies, Inc. (HTI) appreciates your prior support and invitation
to testify with respect to the Fossil Energy Research and Development
Programs and, in particular, restoring the appropriation for
Hydroconversion (Direct Liquefaction) of carbon-based feedstocks to $3
million.
Today, we find our country entering the 21st century with major
concerns for the environment with a focus on global warming but also an
awareness that liquid hydrocarbons will continue as a major source of
transportation fuels. As a nation of high-energy consumers, we must
study and address these forecasts. Hydroconversion of coal, wastes, and
renewables answers both the environmental concerns of global warming
and reduces the potential for ground water pollution from landfills,
while producing clean, high-mileage, and specialty transportation fuels
and high value by-products.
Direct Liquefaction (hydroconversion) is a high-efficiency (>75
percent) process that adds hydrogen to low-value carbon feedstocks
(coal, heavy oil, MSW, biomass) and removes sulfur, nitrogen, and other
heteroatoms to directly produce ultra-clean fuels and chemicals. The
overall energy consumed is a third that of other indirect conversion
technologies. The Administration, in its subtle efforts to de-emphasize
the use of coal, is reducing and closing down many of the programs that
rely on coal. Coal is the most abundant and lowest-cost energy form in
the United States; it can be utilized in an environmentally acceptable
manner if the emissions reduction accomplishments of the last two
decades can be improved and extended. High efficiency and low-cost
emissions control can significantly reduce environmental concerns over
the use of coal. This work needs to be given a higher priority over the
support now going to existing, commercially proven energy sources.
HTI, working with the United States Department of Energy (US DOE),
is planning to improve the current coal/oil technology and expand its
scope to include wastes and biomass leading to a more environmentally-
friendly, higher efficiency, lower cost technology. We are using the
vast knowledge base attained through direct liquefaction
(hydroconversion) R&D over the last 30 years and recent advances that
can leapfrog the technology into the 21st century as a more
environmentally responsive industry based on domestic raw materials.
The area in which HTI will concentrate its efforts will be to
develop this highly efficient, versatile technology to produce high-
value carbon products, specialty chemicals, and alternate fuels at a
lower cost and smaller scale for wider application using diverse
carbon-based feedstocks with coal in balance with the environmental
objectives of the US DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Our vision is to create an energy industry based on technologies
focused on zero emissions and the reduction and stabilization of
harmful atmospheric gases, an industry that will protect the public
interest while maintaining social progress.
program objectives
--To provide a versatile, high-efficiency, variable feed, co-
processing process for integration into a Vision 21 Concept
Modular Plant that will produce clean opportunity fuels at zero
emissions
--To study and develop processes based on co-processing for the
conversion of renewable and waste energy sources into hydrogen,
clean fuels, and chemicals
--To further the development of waste/coal/oil co-processing and
hydroconversion processes for refinery integration and for the
production of specialty fuels, carbon products, and chemicals
in an environmentally-benign manner
Help is requested to provide sufficient funding to carry on R&D on
the following concepts nurtured at HTI and DOE:
--The Co-Processing (Hydroconversion) of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),
waste plastics, and renewables with fossil fuels to produce
clean transportation and specialty jet fuels, chemicals, and
carbon products
--The preparation of carbon products from fossil fuels--Ultra high
strength carbon fibers are produced from coal-derived liquids
and are used to produce durable, light-weight, structural
materials for automobiles and for military transport
--R&D on breakthrough mass transfer reaction technology that will
result in more than a twofold performance improvement in Co-
Processing (Hydroconversion) making it more competitive and
more environmentally responsive
--A new technology for easily converting MSW and renewables to
hydrogen and synthesis gas for inclusion in a Vision 21 Modular
Plant
--Carbon Dioxide, available in concentrated form from hydroconversion
processes, can be reduced and used in steel making, can also be
used for conversion to hydrogen and syngas and for conversion
to carbon and carbon monoxide for reforming
HTI is requesting support for a budget of $3 million to be
allocated for obtaining commercialization data and for work in the
foregoing areas that transcend from hydroconversion to programs much
wider in scope and programs that will provide solutions and direction
to solve the environmental challenges of the 21st century. Help us to
realize this vision of a new energy industry for the United States that
does not compromise the environment.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fuel Cell Commercialization Group
The FCCG is an association of utilities and other energy users
interested in the business potential of the Direct Fuel Cell Energy
Plant for electric generation and customer service. The FCCG supports
the development of this technology by providing market and operations
experience and demonstration support to Energy Research Corporation's
(ERC) technology development program. This technology was chosen in
1988 as a result of ERC's outstanding response to a utility industry
Notice of Market Opportunity.
direct fuel cell energy plant
Fuel cells represent a superior option for FCCG members' compliance
with all existing and anticipated environmental control legislation,
including the Clean Air Act of 1990 and its mandates on acid rain
pollutants. Since fuel is not combusted in ERC's Direct Fuel Cell
Energy Plant, there are virtually no acid rain gases such as nitrogen
oxide or sulfuric oxide exhausted. In fact, ERC's use of natural gas
and unmatched high efficiency results in carbon dioxide emissions 22 to
36 percent lower than any other fossil-fueled alternatives. Compared
with coal-fueled power plants, whose efficiency can be an average of 37
percent, stationary fuel cell power plants have demonstrated a 55
percent performance efficiency in power production. This efficiency
rating can be increased to 80 percent or higher through the use of its
byproduct heat, which itself has many applications. Fuel cells combine
these possible savings with lower maintenance needs due to the lack of
moving parts. This clean, quiet, and efficient technology will be an
excellent resource for distributed generation sited close to electrical
customers. Only ERC has demonstrated its dedication by using a
continuously operational advanced fuel cell energy plant to supply
250kW of electricity to its company headquarters in Danbury,
Connecticut.
industry requests
Constituents in the utility and energy industries have seen
distressing trends in previous appropriations of Congress for the
Department of Energy's stationary fuel cell programs. The aggregate
need for stationary fuel cell programs in fiscal year 1999 was
underfunded by over $15 million. This affects the timeliness of
industry access to fuel cell technology. Already, three FCCG members
are negotiating for procurement of the Direct Fuel Cell Energy Plant.
With constituents queuing up to purchase and commencing field trials,
Congressional support of DOE stationary fuel cell programs is critical
to enhancing market confidence and keeping the program on track.
The DOE is currently supporting three fuel cell development
programs contained in the line item for Fossil Energy natural gas
budget line. The fiscal year 2000 aggregate need approaches $65
million.
We commend you and the Appropriations Committee for your past
support. We ask that you recognize the growing importance of the DOE
stationary fuel cell initiatives and appropriate the necessary $65
million in fiscal year 2000.
The completion of the Direct Fuel Cell Energy Plant will have major
economic and environmental benefits, not only for utilities and
electricity consumers in the U.S., but for the global energy
marketplace.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the service
organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal and
other state and locally owned utilities throughout the U.S.
Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to one of
seven electric consumers (about 40 million people) serving some of our
nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's member systems are
located in small and medium-sized communities in every state except
Hawaii. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement
concerning fiscal year 2000 appropriations. The focus of our testimony
will be on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs within this
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
doe energy efficiency programs
APPA supports the Administration's emphasis on DOE energy
efficiency programs in its funding request for fiscal year 2000. We ask
that this Subcommittee ensure these important programs continue to be
among the options available to our nation's electric utilities as they
strive to meet the increased competitive and environmental demands
placed on them by the marketplace and society. While we realize the
budget constraints you face, we ask for favorable action on the
Administration's request in this area. DOE's energy efficiency programs
received funding of $717 million in fiscal year 1995. Appropriations
were cut 25 percent in fiscal year 1996 and were increased by nearly 9
percent in fiscal year 1998. The Administration is proposing to further
increase funding in fiscal year 2000 to approximately $838 million, 34
percent above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Such increased
expenditures are warranted because energy efficiency is becoming even
more important in the context of changes occurring as a result of
electric utility industry restructuring. Due to these changes, many
utilities already have downsized or terminated some energy efficiency
programs in order to reduce costs. Yet these programs can be very
helpful in maximizing the overall progress made toward achieving a
competitive, high-growth economy for our nation while maintaining the
kind of environmental quality we all desire for the future.
Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle--We urge the Subcommittee
to fund DOE's PNGV program at the $143 million level requested by the
President. It is important that these advanced technologies be
available for application to both mobile and stationary sources. The
availability of fuel cell technology for transportation is critical for
cities and states that must achieve mandated federal air quality
standards. The fuel cell vehicle is virtually pollution free and highly
efficient. Even a 10 percent market penetration could reduce regulated
air pollutants by more than one million tons a year and emissions of
carbon dioxide by 60 million tons a year. (This would fulfill the U.S.
commitment to bring its CO2 emissions back to 1990 levels.) It also
would save 800,000 barrels of oil a day. One of APPA's members, the
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), has done extensive
research in this field because of the outstanding environmental and
energy efficiency attributes of the technology.
Community and Building Technologies.--APPA supports the
Administration's request of $335.9 million to restore previous
reductions to these energy partnership programs. Among them are
#T3Rebuild America, designed to accelerate energy efficiency
improvements in existing commercial and multi-family buildings, and
DOE's Energy Partnerships for Affordable Homes Program, a collaboration
of public and non-public groups working to make public and private
housing more energy efficient and affordable. DOE can play a
facilitating role in helping bring new technologies and standards to
market. Examples of valuable DOE efforts in this regard include the
Technology Introduction Partnerships (TIPS) program and Motor
Challenge. TIPS, in particular, has been an important one for APPA
member systems. Motor Challenge is a voluntary partnership between DOE
and industry designed to promote adoption of motors and motor-driven
equipment that increase energy efficiency, enhance productivity and
improve environmental quality. By the year 2000 it is estimated Motor
Challenge will generate energy cost savings of $1.2 billion and
electricity savings of 25 billion kWh.
Building Codes and Standards.--EPAct also requires each state to
certify that it has reviewed its residential and commercial building
codes to determine whether they meet energy efficiency targets. DOE is
providing important technical assistance to encourage states to adopt
such codes. We support the Administration's request that $26.7 million
be provided to continue this program.
Community Energy Systems.--District heating and cooling systems act
as community energy systems by transporting waste energy (from local
power plants, industrial processes and natural resources) to buildings
to provide heating and/or cooling. In addition to reducing emissions of
carbon dioxide and other pollutants, these systems enhance energy
security and cost stability, stimulate community development and
facilitate phase-out of ozone-destroying refrigerants. APPA member
systems that receive information and technical assistance from this
program include those located in Burlington, VT; Fairbanks, AK; San
Antonio, TX; Holyoke, MA, and Lansing, MI. APPA recommends $5 million
to provide: (1) an integrated information campaign to local and state
governments and the private sector on the benefits of district energy,
and technical assistance and cost-shared funding for community energy
resource assessments and feasibility studies, and (2) research,
development and demonstration in partnership with ongoing cooperative
international efforts to reduce costs and improve efficiencies of
district energy technologies.
Municipal and Community Energy Management.--This program, within
the Office of Building Technology, provides funding to municipalities
for conducting a variety of projects that address energy-related areas
of greatest concern to local governments. APPA recommends this program,
operated by the Urban Consortium Energy Task Force (UCETF), receive
$1.6 million, funding level to that provided in fiscal year 1998. UCETF
is a program of Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), the non-profit
technology organization of the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties and the International City/County Management
Association. Currently 22 jurisdictions, including many public power
communities, are represented on 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 Diego, CA; San
Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA, and Washington, D.C.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--APPA wholeheartedly supports
the Administration's budget request of $154 million for weatherization
assistance, especially important to the working poor, elderly and
disabled. The program helps more than 100,000 residents annually.
Weatherization programs have the additional benefit of stimulating
economic growth by increasing disposable income and creating jobs in
the service sector. The DOE Weatherization Assistance Program has been
especially effective at helping low income citizens afford their energy
bills and at the same time reduce their energy usage. The funding
increases requested for fiscal year 2000 should be provided to this
valuable program to help alleviate the multi-year backlog of
weatherization work requested locally.
State Energy Conservation Program.--State energy offices work on
nearly every energy efficiency issue. They encourage technology
development, renewable energy, alternative fuels, energy emergency
preparedness, energy facility siting, recycling, transportation
efficiency programs, energy conservation and economic development,
among other activities. State energy offices have been extremely
successful in identifying the needs of local communities, businesses
and consumers, and funding appropriate efforts to effectively transfer
technology to constituents. With increased devolution of
responsibilities to the states, this program offers the ideal
combination of state-level implementation on a flexible basis with
federal support. We ask that this Subcommittee favorably consider the
Administration's request of $37 million for the State Energy
Conservation Program. The program suffered a 50 percent cut in fiscal
year 1996. The spending level requested for fiscal year 2000 represents
an increase of nearly $4 million above the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level.
doe fossil energy research and development programs
Fuel Cells.--Fuel cells have captured the interest of government
and industry alike. Their modularity, high efficiency and negligible
emissions of smog and acid rain precursors make fuel cells an important
growth area deserving national priority. A consortium, including APPA
member systems, along with the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
DOE, is co-sponsoring carbonate fuel cell research, testing and the
first utility-scale demonstration of a carbonate fuel cell power plant.
The direct fuel cell program consists of two major efforts--the Santa
Clara Demonstration Project and the ongoing Product Design Improvement
(PDI) cost-shared initiative.
The first demonstration of an U.S.-developed fuel cell power plant
has now begun operation in Santa Clara, CA. This 2-MW fuel cell unit
has achieved a 44 percent efficiency level, a record for a fossil
fueled power plant of this size, has recorded emissions below
conventional detection limits and is providing valuable information on
fuel cell power plant operations. APPA member systems participating in
the consortium include the City of Santa Clara, Los Angeles Department
of Water & Power, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of
Vernon, CA, the Salt River Project and Northern California Power
Agency. The final phase of the development effort, the design and
fielding of a pre-commercial unit has now begun. The 21 members of the
Fuel Cell Commercialization Group (FCCG) support performance and cost
targets for this final phase. In addition to those named as supporters
of the Santa Clara project, APPA member systems comprising FCCG include
Alabama Municipal Electric Authority, City of Anaheim (CA) Public
Utilities Department, Florida Municipal Power Agency, City of Manassas
(VA) Electric Department, City of Tallahassee (FL) Electric Department
and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. In fiscal year 2000, the
cost-shared contract calls for DOE support in the amount of $41.4
million. We urge Congress to fully fund this project so that progress
can continue toward full commercialization.
``Industries of the Future--Specific.''--APPA strongly supports the
fiscal year 2000 request of $74 million for this public-private
partnership efforts which focus on developing technologies that cut
energy use, emissions, and waste in multiple industries and provide
cost-effective solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. fiscal
year 2000 efforts concentrate on a new biogasification initiative and
accelerated development of a new electrode system for aluminum
production. In addition, efforts with the Petroleum industry are
revitalized after a period of reorientation to develop technology road
map for future joint R&D.
Energy Information Administration (EIA).--APPA supports the
Administration request of $72.6 million to enable EIA to continue its
important role in data collection and dissemination. With increasing
competitiveness in the electric utility industry, it is critical that
utilities, government, regulators and the public all have access to
reliable data from EIA in order to monitor pricing and structural
changes in the electric utility industry and their effects on
competition.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Frank Derbyshire, Director, University of
Kentucky, Center for Applied Energy Research
introduction
In 1994, the Kentucky Coal Council and the University of Kentucky
Center for Applied Energy Research began to work with the Department of
Energy to develop a mechanism for accelerating the deployment of
advanced coal-fired power generation plants. The basic concept involves
using coal gasification as the cornerstone technology of a multiplex
facility that will co-produce added-value products together with
electrical power from coal. In this way, chemical and materials
production can be integrated with power generation, attracting
investment by a range of industries, and reducing the risks associated
with the construction of a first of a kind plant. The scheme now forms
an important component of the Department of Energy's Vision 21
strategy.
In testimony that I have provided over the last few years, I have
asked this committee to support this initiative in order to facilitate
the commercialization of advanced technologies for the production of
environmentally friendly, efficient coal-fired power generation that
have matured under the DoE Clean Coal Technology program. Today, I
would like to update the committee on the status of our efforts to
develop and advance the concept, and to request continued
appropriations to the Department of Energy in order to sustain relevant
programs over the next few years.
coal and the national economy
Every credible forecast of future energy use indicates that coal
will continue to remain the backbone of the American economy. The
Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that coal use in the
United States (US) will increase by about 20 percent between 1996 and
2015, while energy from non-fossil sources is predicted to decline over
this period as a result of the retirement of nuclear plants. On a
global basis, EIA projections forecast that coal use will increase by
almost 50 percent from the current level of 5122 million tons annually
to 7495 million tons in 2015. Only 10 percent of this increase is
expected to occur in OECD countries and the former Soviet Union. In the
developing world, coal use is forecast to increase by 100 percent.
The annual coal production in the United States is around 1 billion
tons per year and most of it is used to generate 56 percent of our
electricity. While coal production levels over the last 20 years have
increased, the number of people involved in coal mining has decreased
by almost two-thirds and productivity has increased by almost the same
proportion. Due to this increase in productivity, we have actually
experienced declining energy costs. The cost of coal is the same now as
in 1979, without correction for inflation. The low cost of coal-derived
energy has had a buffering influence on the cost of competing forms of
energy generation, and has helped to stabilize the cost of electric
power.
Although we must continue to emphasize the use of coal in the
future, we also face environmental challenges. There are serious
concerns over emissions from coal-fired power plants: oxides of sulfur
and nitrogen; air toxics; fine particulates; and carbon dioxide. These
emissions may have an adverse influence on human and animal health, and
upon our environment, and the production of greenhouse gases, notably
CO2, CH4, and N2, may potentially
affect our climate.
The solution to these regional and global problems lies in the
development of new technologies, their implementation, and their export
to developing countries. In this regard we fully support the principles
that the Department of Energy has put forth in the Vision 21 Program.
That is, ``the integration of emerging concepts for high-efficiency
power production and pollution controls into a new class of fuel
flexible electric generation facilities''. Vision 21 also offers market
entry strategy for new concepts to co-produce high value fuels and
chemicals from coal or other feedstocks.
the co-production concept
Research and development fostered by the DoE's Clean Coal
Technology Program has clearly demonstrated that integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power generation can allow the
production of clean electrical power from coal. The advantages of IGCC
include: flexibility in fuel selection; advanced emissions control;
improved thermal efficiency; and waste minimization. Low grade coals
and/or waste materials can be utilized with up to 99 percent sulfur
removal. NOX emissions are reduced relative to combustion
processes, and the thermal efficiency is increased by as much as 35
percent over conventional plants, with a concomitant reduction in
CO2 emissions per unit of power produced.
To date, there has only been limited implementation of these
technologies. Numerous studies have found that utilities recognize the
potential advantages of advanced power generation technologies.
However, they are unwilling to incur costs that adversely affect their
competitive position, and with any emerging technology there is some
technical risk associated with a ``first-of-a-kind'' plant. IGCC
represents a fundamentally new technology, and there is limited
experience of economics and operation at the commercial scale. As a
consequence, decisions to build new base-load capacity, and the type of
technology that will be employed, are being deferred as long as
possible. The life of existing plants is being extended, and
comparatively low cost natural gas turbines are being used to meet
peaking power needs.
The co-production concept is based upon the principle that coal
gasification can be a common denominator in the production of electric
power and the synthesis of chemicals and liquid fuels from coal. The
ability of the gasifier to accept a range of feeds of varying quality,
and to generate of a clean synthesis gas, creates the prospect of being
able to produce a range of high-value chemicals and alternate fuels as
well as electric power in the same plant. Technical and economic
advantages can be realized through the development of such an
integrated, multiplex operation. Available technologies allow
considerable latitude in selecting the desired end product or range of
end products. These include: methanol, acetic acid, and acetic
anhydride; pure hydrogen and CO; a spectrum of fuels and chemicals that
is attainable through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; and carbon materials.
We believe that this concept will facilitate the commercial
implementation of both IGCC and chemical synthesis, and it is fully
congruent with the programs and policies of Vision 21.
the kentucky pioneer energy project
As a direct result of our endeavors in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, an Independent Power Producer, Global Energy, has decided to
pursue the construction of a 400MW IGCC power plant, known as the
Kentucky Pioneer Project. In a landmark agreement that was announced in
February by the Governor Paul Patton, Global Energy has contracted with
East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) for the lease of a site and for
the sale of electric power. Thus EKPC, an established utility, has
integrated a flexibly-fueled IGCC plant into its future power
production planning needs. These developments move the Kentucky Pioneer
Project from a working concept into the next phase of financing and
permitting.
The plant is intended to be the most efficient and environmentally
advanced coal-based power plant in the United States. The three main
components of the plant involve fuel preparation, gasification and gas
clean-up, and power generation. The plant will be fuelled by a mixture
of coal and municipal solid waste (MSW), although other recyclable
fuels may also be considered for co-firing with coal. The use of MSW
further lowers the amount of fossil fuel CO2 emissions by up
to 60 percent over that of a conventional coal fired power plant. The
plant will convert over 1 million tons/year of MSW into clean gas.
The gasifier was developed by British-Gas/Lurgi (BGL). It is a
slagging gasifier that is the product of years of intensive development
effort. Using the same technology, a coal/MSW-fed IGCC plant is in the
latter stages of development in Scotland, and another is scheduled to
go online in Germany this summer. The fuel versatility of the gasifier
allows the production of clean energy while providing a solution to the
environmental problems caused by the accumulation of solid wastes. The
emissions from the plant will be close to zero: the gasifier byproduct
is a hard, high density vitreous material that is inert and has
attractive properties for different forms of construction.
An important provision in Global Energy's plans is for the coupling
of the power plant with a unit to use a slipstream of the synthesis gas
to co-produce chemicals by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. The eventual
integration of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis with the Kentucky
Pioneer Energy Plant will be pursued as a second stage of development.
In addition to low cost power, co-products would then include high-
value, high-purity chemicals, as well as ultra clean transportation
fuels.
future needs
The construction of the Kentucky Pioneer Energy Plant represents a
major step forward in the development of a fully integrated,
environmentally acceptable, energy-efficient power complex for the next
millennium as described under Vision 21. It presents a unique
opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of the co-production
approach as an incentive to the extensive commercialization of advanced
technologies, and to providing solutions to other pressing
environmental issues.
At this critical stage, the continued involvement of the DoE and
the sustainment of the Vision 21 program are pivotal to ensuring that
this promising beginning translates into the realization of the long
term goals. While IGCC and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis are proven
technologies, the integration of these and other processes into
flexible efficient systems have yet to be achieved. Supporting research
and development on pertinent issues is essential to provide the
assurances that the projected environmental and economic benefits that
are promised by ventures such as the Kentucky Pioneer Plant can be
brought to fruition.
In this regard, we request that the Department of Energy's fossil
fuel budget be strengthened in the areas of coal-based fuel
preparation, gasifier byproduct management and utilization, synthesis
gas clean-up, the production of added value materials from coal by
synthesis gas conversion (specifically Fischer-Tropsch synthesis), and
the use of heavy coal liquids for carbon materials synthesis in
relation to the application and integration of these technologies in
the co-production concept.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Committee of the Council on
Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Energy Committee of the Council
on Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME
International) regarding national energy needs, and to offer comments
on appropriations for Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation programs at
the Department of Energy.
The 125,000-member ASME is an international engineering society
focused on technical, educational, and research issues. The Energy
Committee consists primarily of members representing eight technical
divisions whose activities address energy technologies and energy
resources.
role of technology in meeting our energy needs
Increased national and international concerns about the environment
are placing higher demands on the performance of our energy systems.
These demands force us to make choices that balance economic growth and
environmental quality. Investments in science and technology,
particularly basic research, are essential for enabling our nation to
meet our needs for inexpensive energy that is produced and consumed in
an environmentally friendly manner. Such investments stimulate the
development of innovative technologies, conquer major science and
technology challenges, and maintain our educational pipeline to ensure
a supply of human capital to address future energy needs.
recommendations concerning energy policy
Energy R&D is one of ASME's three most important topics of concern
according to a recent survey of our membership on public policy issues.
Energy Committee members recommend support for an energy policy that:
--maintains US competitiveness in the international marketplace and
preserves jobs in our energy extraction and manufacturing
industries;
--ensures against energy disruptions due to external threats of
interrupted supplies or infrastructure failure;
--provides low cost energy to maintain our economic growth;
--includes strong programs to improve the efficiency of our
electricity generating systems and increase the efficiency of
energy use in the buildings, industrial, and transportation
sectors;
--seeks technological solutions to concerns about global climate
change and the emission of pollutants associated with energy
use; and
--protects the environment in all phases of the energy cycle from the
extraction of fuels to the ultimate disposal of the byproducts.
projected use of fossil fuels
Fossil fuels have been the mainstay of the world's energy supplies
for the past 150 years. It is well established that carbon dioxide
concentrations have increased by 30 percent since pre-industrial times
and that the energy industry contributes 80 percent of the
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. Less well established is the
cause and effect relationship between CO2 emissions and
global climate change and also the timing and magnitude of these
changes with respect to our increased use of fossil fuels.
Globally, energy use is likely to triple or quadruple in the next
100 years to meet a growing world population and associated economic
aspirations. Fossil fuels will provide the bulk of this new energy.
Even with a 30-fold increase in the use of renewable energy
technologies by 2050, fossil fuels will dominate the energy supply and
demand well into the next century.
ASME issued a general position paper on Technology Implications for
the U.S. of the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emission Goals in February 1999.
Among the paper's conclusions was that the development and deployment
of a broad suite of conversion and utilization technologies must be
dramatically accelerated to meet the Kyoto goals. We also concluded
that a time scale longer than that proposed by the Kyoto Protocol would
be needed to achieve these goals, even with accelerated programs.
To mitigate the potential consequences of increased carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere, we believe it is prudent to look at
ways to reduce CO2 emissions by:
--improving the efficiency of energy production and utilization;
--moving to less carbon-intensive fuels; and,
--capturing or sequestering carbon dioxide emissions
Any climate change strategy will fail unless longer-term, advanced
fossil energy technologies are part of the solution. Our fossil fuel
programs must take a longer-term view, perhaps as far out as 2050. A
shorter-term focus prohibits the development of effective technologies
for the long-term use of fossil fuels. The Department of Energy's
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy must include recognition of the
inevitable increased use of fossil fuels by our international
neighbors, such as China and India. We therefore urge your support for
fossil fuel technologies which we can export internationally, thereby
ensuring the vitality of our national energy industries while acting as
responsible global citizens in promoting overall reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions. We also note that meeting our future energy needs in
a manner consistent with national and global well-being will require
development of a broad suite of technologies ranging from renewables to
nuclear energy, in addition to fossil energy. We advocate fuel
diversity, both with respect to different types of fossil fuels and
with respect to other energy generation technologies.
We also support legislation such as S. 296, which would authorize
the doubling of federal investments in civilian energy R&D over the
next 11 years.
fossil energy programs
We are disappointed that the Administration has recommended less
fossil energy funding research this year compared to last year's
appropriations. The Administration's budget is also $31 million less
than recommended by the PCAST study on Federal Energy R& D for the
Challenges of the 21st Century. ASME's Energy Committee last year
issued a position paper analyzing the PCAST study, concluding that
significant funding increases above the PCAST recommendations are
required for fossil energy R&D.
Given the current and projected dominance of fossil energy use
compared to other fuels, small improvements in fossil energy technology
can yield large environmental and economic benefits. We therefore
recommend increased funding for the following fossil energy programs in
excess of the Administration's budget request:
Vision 21
We urge your continued support for this integrative program that
makes efficient use of a wide range of fuel feedstocks to produce
electricity, steam, chemicals, hydrogen, transportation fuels, and
useful byproducts. With carbon sequestration, these Vision 21 plants
can have virtually zero discharges, and thus eliminate concerns about
increased carbon dioxide emissions. We recommend fiscal year 2000
funding in the range of $50--$100 million for Vision 21 programs, with
levels approaching $150 million in the out years. Funding for carbon
sequestration should be increased to $25 million for fiscal year 2000
with levels of $50 million per year in the out years.
Advanced research
We also recommend advanced research to develop better materials, to
develop newer advanced cycles using natural gas, coal, or syngas for
energy production, and to produce liquid transportation fuels, which
have fewer emissions.
Clean coal technologies
We advocate the deployment of Clean Coal Technologies and urge
consideration for programs which provide incentives for deployment of
these technologies both nationally and abroad. We recommend investments
in developing intermediate range turbines to increase the
competitiveness of US manufacturers in this area.
Fuel cell R&D
We are particularly disappointed in the Administration's proposed
reduction in fuel cell R&D. These advanced technologies have the
potential for providing major new power generation alternatives for the
US and abroad. We recommend an additional $10 million for fiscal year
2000.
Methane hydrates and oil R&D
We recommend that research on methane hydrates be emphasized since
these vast energy resources could provide a major source of natural
gas, a less carbon-intensive fuel. We also recommend support for oil
technology programs to assist our smaller producers to increase their
production capability, thereby maintaining domestic employment and
increasing our national energy security through enhanced recovery
programs.
Climate change initiatives
We recommend that government-wide initiatives in addressing climate
change and carbon sequestration be coordinated under the Office of
Fossil Energy.
programs in energy conservation
Emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to increase in several
energy sectors in the future, particularly the transportation sector,
whose emissions are expected to increase nearly 50 percent over the
next fifty years. At a strategic level, we recommend:
--continued emphasis on developing more energy efficient
transportation vehicles and the increased use of alternative
fuels lower in carbon intensity which emit fewer pollutants;
--research in new materials and vehicle designs to increase fuel
efficiency; and
--continued cooperation of the Office of Transportation Technologies,
the Office of Industrial Technologies, and the Office of Fossil
Energy in developing new fuels and chemicals.
We support for the Administration's funding request for the Office
of Transportation Technologies.
Energy Conservation R&D funding levels proposed by the
Administration generally remain below those recommended by PCAST. The
Energy Committee believes the potential for systemic efficiency
improvement in the industrial sector is neglected in the DOE's Energy
Conservation budget request, which proposes only a 3.1 percent increase
compared to the 25-50 percent increases proposed for the other sectors.
The Industries of the Future Program offers much promise in developing
energy efficient processes which are also environmentally friendly. We
support continued funding for these programs, especially in
crosscutting areas such as advanced materials, combustion, and reduced
carbon emissions. We recommend increased funding to a minimum of $180
million for fiscal year 2000 for programs administered by the Office of
Industrial Technologies.
While the Energy Committee believes substantial increases in
funding are necessary for the buildings sector, we are concerned that
the proposed increases for building technology may invite expenditures
that would be more prudently allocated by budget growth over a more
extended period.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National Corn
Growers Association representing 30,000 corn growers in 48 states,
appreciates this opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our
recommendations regarding the fiscal year (FY) 2000 Interior
appropriations bill. Thank you for your leadership in ensuring that
start-up funding for the agriculture vision, the ``Renewables Vision'',
was included in the fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill. This
year, we, strongly, urge you to provide $10 million for the Department
of Energy's PlanVCrop-Based Renewable Resources Vision 2020 research
program (Renewables Vision) that is funded under the Industries of the
Future (Specific) program within the Energy Conservation budget.
The fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill provided,
approximately, $2 million to execute research in bio-based renewable
feedstocks to support the Renewables Vision. The Administration
includes $4 million for the program in the fiscal year 2000 budget
request. While we appreciate the Administration's recognition of the
importance of this program, we believe that $4 million is insufficient
to accomplish the minimum objectives of the Renewables Vision.
background on the renewables vision
To increase energy efficiency and boost long-term competitiveness,
the U.S. agricultural, forestry, and chemical communities began
working, in 1996, with the Office of Industrial Technology (OIT) at the
Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a long-term, strategic vision
based on increased utilization of renewable inputs for basic, chemical
building blocks. In February 1998, the unique, broad-based coalition of
growers, manufacturers, environmentalists, academicians, and state and
Federal governmental agencies unveiled a long-term, strategic vision
called the ``PlanVCrop-based Renewable Resources 2020'' (Renewables
Vision). The coalition agreed to work towards achieving significant
increases in the use of crops, trees, and agricultural wastes as
feedstocks to produce a wide range of everyday consumer goods and
industrial products.
The vision is to provide continued economic growth, healthy
standards of living, and strong national security through the
development of planVcrop-based (often referred to as ``big-based'')
renewable resources that are a viable supplement to non-renewable,
diminishing fossil fuels. The principal goal of the Renewables Vision
is for renewable big-products to capture 10 percent of the basic
chemical building blocks market by 2020 and to achieve 50 percent of
that market by 2050. Gaining 10 percent of the market would represent a
five-fold increase from today's tiny market share of these basic,
chemical building blocks. The Renewables Vision envisages supplementing
petroleum with big-based renewables as sources of material inputs that
can be used as industrial building blocks to create a wide range of
consumer products.
In addition to the principal goal stated above, vision goals
include:
--Establishing plant-based (i.e., crop, forestry, and processing)
systems with efficient conversion processes that allow an
economically viable and environmentally sensitive manufacturing
platform for selected products by 2020; and
--Building collaborative partnerships among industrial stakeholders,
growers, producers, academia, and federal and state governments
to develop small-to large-scale commercial applications that
improve integration along the value-added processing and
manufacturing chain.
Accomplishing these goals will help to cut costs, decrease our
dependence on oil imports, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase
recycling opportunities, and create world-class industries here at home
and revitalize our rural economies.
Due to the volatility in oil prices, the power of unstable oil
exporting countries affects the price of gasoline and many consumer
goods, such as plastics, given our ever-increasing reliance on imported
oil. The U.S., currently, imports more than 50 percent of domestic
petroleum consumption, and, by 2020, net imports are expected to grow
to over 65 percent. To ensure sustainable economic growth, the U.S.
needs a secure, long-term supply of durable, high-performance raw
material inputs. Both renewable resources and non-renewable basic
building block resources for industrial production will be needed in
the future.
While we have a finite supply of fossil fuels, we have abundant
planVcrop-based resources, in the U.S., that are renewable over short
periods of time (e.g., annual and perennial crops). Renewable
materials, from American-grown crops, trees, and agricultural wastes
can provide many of the same basic, chemical building blocks as
petrochemicals, and can provide others that petrochemicals cannot.
Using historical, average prices for corn and oil, the cost of carbon
from corn approaches the cost of carbon from oil.
To achieve the bold vision, we must begin laying the research
foundation today. If we are to realize, fully, the potential for big-
based resources as a supplement to fossil fuels, we need new routes for
more efficient processing and utilization as well as a whole range of
plant-derived building blocks. New technologies require time to develop
and implement. Now is the time for significant research and development
on what renewable sources and novel processes might be available, and
for beginning to develop selection criteria among the possible
alternatives.
After the Renewables Vision was unveiled in 1998, work on a
technology roadmap began. Inputs were gathered from two workshops with
scientific and marketing experts from a broad range of disciplines. The
roadmap, published in February 1999, identifies performance goals and
establishes a focused research and development agenda for developing
the technologies needed to make the industry vision a reality. The
technology roadmap identified research needs in four major research
categories. For each of these categories, the top priority is--
--Plant Science--understand gene regulation and control of plant
metabolic pathways;
--Production--alter plants to produce components of interest rather
than heterogeneous seeds;
--Processing--develop new separations methods--membranes,
distillation, etc.; and
--Utilization--understand structure function relationships for plant
constituents (protein, starch, etc).
We do not expect all of this research to be funded under the
Interior appropriations bill. OIT funds will be for projects that
address its mission of improving energy efficiency and environmental
performance. Fulfilling the vision of a big-based economy will require
vast resources from numerous public and private organizations. A
coordinated, industry-led effort, operating under the auspices of the
Industries of the Future program will help us achieve the goals of the
Renewables Vision.
status of fiscal year 1999 awards
The OIT, working with the industry partners, is in the process of
distributing the fiscal year 1999 funds through a competitive
solicitation. Industry executives have created an executive steering
group to help guide the process and review potential areas of research.
A request for proposals was issued in early February 1999. The deadline
for submitting proposals is April 23, 1999.
For fiscal year 1999, the focus will be on a few, selected
priorities in the processing and utilization categories identified in
the Technology Roadmap. All proposals must be ``multi-institutional''
(i.e., at least two organizations must be involved in the proposed
research) and a 50 percent cost-share is required. It is anticipated
that the DOE will award 3 to 6 cooperative agreements with total
funding per project ranging between $200,000 to $600,000 per year for a
two or three year period.
conclusion
Increased population, coupled with rising demands for consumer
products and finite fossil fuels, will require us to increase,
substantially, the amount of bio-based feedstocks for industrial
production if we are to meet these needs and demands. At the same time,
we must decrease our reliance on unstable foreign oil supplies. We are
at a unique place in history in that the tools are beginning to be
available that will revolutionize the American and global economies and
ensure that future demand is met with the increasing use of renewable
resources as basic, chemical building blocks. Today, the 21St Century
is referred to often as the ``Biology Century'' because genomics (i.e.,
the science of identifying the location and function of genes), coupled
with biotechnology, is ushering in a new age of innovation in plant-
based technologies that will revolutionize the American and world
economies. We will be able to meet the challenges of the 21St century
much sooner if we focus our efforts towards the ambitious Renewables
Vision and act now to fund much needed research.
Multi-disciplinary research, along several different pathways, will
be necessary to improve the performance of plant resources as raw
materials. For the long-term success of the program, it is critical
that research in the broad, major research categories, identified in
the roadmap, be coordinated and integrated to ensure that progress is
made on all fronts. With a significant increase in appropriations for
the OIT Renewables Vision, funding could be provided for projects that
address the highest priorities in each of the four major research
categories listed in the roadmap, not just in plant utilization and
processing. Support could begin for projects that show clear linkages
across all of the major research categories in the roadmap.
We, strongly, urge you to provide a minimum of $10 million for
fiscal year 2000 for OIT to implement, more fully, the technology
roadmap. The agriculture team at OIT has a unique research and
development focus and a decision-making process that relies heavily on
funding high priority research targets developed by industry partners.
This funding will help to ensure that we can meet the ever-increasing
world demand for basic, chemical building blocks by using plant and
crop-based feedstocks. We look forward to working with you as we lay
the foundation for renewable chemical building blocks.
______
Prepared Statement of Conn Abnee, Executive Director, Geothermal Heat
Pump Consortium
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present my testimony to you today. My name is Conn Abnee
and I am the executive director of the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium
(GHPC). The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium is a non-profit, public-
private partnership between the Department of Energy, electric
utilities serving over one-half the residential meters in the United
States, geothermal heat pump manufacturers, energy service companies,
drillers and mechanical contracto rs. Well over 800 organizations are
part of this effort, which is a central feature of the Administration's
Climate Challenge Program.
Under Climate Challenge, DOE and the private partners, pledged to
move forward on a comprehensive program to dramatically boost consumer
acceptance and installations of geothermal heat pumps in recognition of
the tremendous energy savings to consumers and environmental benefits
through reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The private partners
agreed to match DOE contributions on a two for one basis.
To date, GHPC's program under its grant from DOE has focused on
numerous activities designed to strengthen the industry=s
infrastructure and jumpstart the technology into the marketplace. We've
supported short-term R&D to generate better information about the
benefits of geothermal heat pumps and to ensure more successful and
cost-effective applications. For example, research on products used in
the installation process resulted in an enhanced product that will lead
to more cost-effective installations. We've co-funded market
mobilization demonstration programs to help utilities and their
subsidiary energy service companies learn how to deploy the technology
during a period of rapid electric industry restructuring. Over 30
projects have been successfully implemented throughout the United
States. We've supported a training and technology transfer program to
ensure a growing infrastructure of trained designers and installers. In
1997, GHPC established six centers that have already trained over 1,000
technicians. We also implemented a design assistance program to help
customers, particularly schools and owners of commercial facilities,
understand that geothermal heat pump systems are the most cost-
effective pollution prevention technology for their facilities. To
date, over 80 percent of the projects that have chosen a heating and
cooling system will use GeoExchange technology. Through these
approaches, GHPC has played a lead role in increasing market deployment
of geothermal heat pump technology.
geothermal heat pumps: a unique renewable technology
Geothermal heat pump technology, also known as GeoExchange, is a
renewable technology that uses the Earth as a source and sink for
energy to heat and cool buildings, and to heat water. GeoExchange
systems do this through the use of direct connections to the ground or
surface waters--usually closed water/antifreeze loops that transfer
heat back and forth between the ground and a building without depleting
or affecting groundwater resources. The loops consist of polyethylene
piping, which are laid out in shallow vertical wells, horizontal
trenches, or in ponds. GeoExchange systems can operate in virtually all
climates and soils--tapping a resource that is right under our feet in
our own backyards and parking lots.
There are over 400,000 GeoExchange installations in North America
to date. GeoExchange systems are used in homes and commercial
applications, bringing economic benefits to businesses ranging from
hotels and resorts, to large and small office buildings, to schools,
and to restaurants and convenience stores.
The GHPC and the DOE are beginning a new phase of the partnership
with many of the fundamental building blocks necessary for market
acceptance of this new technology being established and fundamental R&D
having been completed. Over the last three years, the GeoExchange
industry has shown remarkable growth, largely due to the programs put
in place by the Consortium. Though GeoExchange technology represents
less than one percent of the overall heating and cooling market,
installations have increased by 20 percent in each of the three years.
Through that success, the focus of DOE and the Consortium is shifting
toward a more market segment specific program.
energy smart schools
The Consortium's focused approach would target specific market
segments in the commercial sector that can lead to continued growth in
the industry and increased economic, energy and environmental benefits
for the nation. Last fall, the Secretary of Energy announced the Energy
Smart Schools program, an initiative to reduce school energy costs and
redirect savings towards children's education. There is no heating and
cooling technology in the market today that can demonstrate such
significant energy cost savings and other benefits than GeoExchange.
Even before this initiative was announced, the Consortium had been
focused on working with school systems to show them how energy costs
can be reduced with this technology. We have had remarkable success in
gaining school system acceptance of our technology. There are now more
than 500 school installations across the country using GeoExchange.
We believe that the Energy Smart Schools program can have true
success at achieving dramatic reductions in energy costs. Schools using
GeoExchange are realizing savings of 25-40 percent annually on their
heating and cooling bills. At Kittitas Middle School in Kittitas,
Washington their GeoExchange system has led to a significant reduction
in energy consumption and maintenance costs. In addition, the school is
able to maintain constant temperatures in both the classrooms and the
gymnasium, creating a pleasant environment for both staff and students.
And the science and administration buildings at Whitman College in
Walla, Walla both use GeoExchange systems.
While we do not believe we are the only solution to reducing school
energy costs, we do believe that the Consortium is ideally qualified to
play a major role in the Energy Smart Schools program. Working with DOE
to advance the Energy Smart Schools initiative is the logical outgrowth
of our work over the past three years. But to be successful, it will
require a well constructed, concentrated program with dedicated
funding. To accomplish those goals, we are seeking an appropriation of
$6.5 million in energy conservation building technology funds.
With those funds, we will be able to build on our existing
infrastructure and conduct a more comprehensive program to boost
acceptance of this new technology and to increase installations in the
commercial market, and especially the school market by conducting the
following activities:
--Market education
--Strategic outreach to commercial customers, such as school
superintendents and school board officials
--Design assistance and feasibility analysis
--Training for engineers and architects
--Design conferences and workshops with DOE
--Business planning assistance for utilities and energy service
companies to promote GeoExchange without expensive rebates or
other subsidies.
You may be interested to know that there is alot of GeoExchange
activity in Washington. Other facilities that are saving significantly
on their energy bills are the county jail and the Tower building in
Yakima, Grant County Courthouse in Ephrata, the city hall in North
Bonneville, the City Light building in Tacoma, and Prairie Electric's
office building in Vancouver. In addition, there are numerous
installation companies in the state that have increased their bottom
line by incorporating GeoExchange technology into their business.
Mr. Chairman, at the Consortium, we have gained valuable experience
and demonstrated real success at moving toward the Administration's
goals of dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We look
forward to helping school systems improve classroom comfort, make
significant reductions in their utility costs related to heating and
cooling and enabling them to redirect their investments into books and
computers. Thank you for considering our request. We hope you will
direct DOE's support for phase 2 of our program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council for Chemical Research
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.
OIT acts as a leading federal interface for the Nation's major process
industries (chemicals, agriculture, aluminum, mining, forest products,
steel, metal casting, glass, and petroleum refining). Focused by key
technology roadmaps, OIT funds high-risk, cost-shared, industry-driven
cooperative R&D through the partnerships of the ``Industries of the
Future'' 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 (CCR) believes that the full
potential of the ``Industries of the Future'' program can be realized
through appropriate funding levels deployed in ways that recognize the
different nature of all the industries involved. In all cases,
substantial leverage is obtained by catalyzing productive interactions
between industrial, academic, and government laboratories. Leveraging
may be accomplished by the development of technology roadmaps,
investment in pre-competitive and crosscutting technologies, and the
development and demonstration of advanced technologies beyond the
normal risk profile of industrial companies themselves.
CCR reaffirms its conviction that improved industrial technologies
are critical to the Nation's future, that R&D aimed at long-term goals
is essential, and that the chemical sciences and engineering play a key
role in a broad range of new technologies for the Nation's major
process industries. As a high-leverage contribution to these goals, the
Council for Chemical Research fully supports the Administration's
fiscal year 2000 request of $171 million for the Office of Industrial
Technologies.
Because of the complexity, size, and diversity of the chemical
industry (more than 7,300 companies in SIC Code 28), CCR believes that
additional and continuing activities to develop and renew the research
agenda of Vision 2020 should be funded within the fiscal year 2000
request. Specific research programs should be funded in areas where
technology roadmaps have been developed, including polymers and other
materials, catalysis, separations, bioprocessing, computational
techniques, and advanced measurement and control.
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, by that, more productive and competitive, and less
polluting.
Despite its modest funding, the ``Industries of the Future''
framework plays a key role and exerts high leverage for the development
of needed technologies. OIT's initiatives bring different perspectives
together on the appropriate research agenda, stimulate collaborative
programs, and help develop and demonstrate innovative technologies
beyond the risk tolerance and horizons of the chemical industry today,
but needed for Vision 2020. At the same time, ownership of the fully
developed technologies will reside appropriately in the private sector,
which will make the necessary investment when it is economically
attractive.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas
introduction and overview
This testimony is presented on behalf of the Electric Vehicle
Association of the Americas (EVAA), 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. Recently, the EVAA
consolidated with the Electric Transportation Coalition (ETC), and our
new organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is now the single,
united voice for the use of electricity in the transportation sector. A
membership list of the newly combined EVAA and ETC is attached.
A principal activity of the EVAA 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
for use in on-road and off-road applications. Electric vehicles (EVs)
provide significant environmental, energy security and energy
efficiency benefits. For example, EVs offer significant reductions in
VOCs and NOX, the major precursors to ozone. In addition,
widespread use of energy efficient EVs would help to reduce
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, EVs can be
domestically produced from a wide variety of fuel feedstocks. This
domestic orientation offers an important energy security advantage at a
time when the U.S. is importing more than one-half the oil it consumes.
After many years of research and development, all of the world's
major automobile manufacturers, as well as several independent small
businesses, have EVs available to the marketplace. Not surprisingly,
these vehicles are expensive. Until greater volumes are achieved, the
price of EVs is likely to remain high. The EVAA urges the Congress to
assist industry by helping to reduce the cost to the early purchasers
of EVs. By increasing the number of vehicles sold or used, the price of
these emissions-free modes of transportation will decrease. In addition
to federal government assistance to Agrow the numbers@ of EVs on the
road, the EVAA also supports current DOE programs that will result in
the testing and demonstration of products, the improvement of
components for EVs, particularly batteries, and the cost reductions
attained by these R&D activities.
More specifically, the EVAA believes the role of the federal
government is essentially four-fold: to continue to participate with
industry in efforts to advance electric transportation technologies
through programs like the United States Advanced Battery Consortium
(USABC); to join industry in the test and evaluation of the latest EV
technologies through programs like the Department of Energy (DOE) Field
Test and Evaluation Program; to work with communities and industry to
facilitate deployment of the infrastructure required to support the
convenient and safe operation of EV; and, to use the purchasing power
of the federal government to initiate the market for EVs by acquiring
commercially-available products for federal agency fleets.
The EVAA urges the Subcommittee to provide funding to a number of
DOE programs essential to the development of EVs. The partnership of
the federal government will help industry successfully introduce clean
transportation technologies to the market, and will further the
national policy objective of increasing clean, domestic and alternative
fuel use.
industry goals and objectives
Four years ago, the ETC adopted a strategic business plan to assure
the successful commercial launch of electric vehicles. The ``EV Ready
Market Launch Framework'' calls for the building of a partnership among
the automobile 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 EVs. The goal of
the plan is to demonstrate the viability of EVs through the successful
deployment of up to 5000 EVs in eleven urban areas. To achieve this
goal, the Framework focuses on insuring the purchase and placement of
vehicles and preparing the infrastructure systems in eleven target
communities to support EVs. 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 are:
--Initiation of a commercial demonstration of up to 5000 electric
vehicles in up to eleven urban jurisdictions;
--Government (federal, state and local) purchase agreed-upon number
of vehicles in each urban area;
--Utilities in selected areas purchase agreed-upon number of vehicles
and secure investment of up to $2,000 per vehicle for charging
infrastructure;
--Vehicle manufacturers make available, and support the sale of,
electric vehicles;
--Seek to ensure that one-half of the vehicles placed into the eleven
urban areas are equipped with advanced batteries and/or other
enabling technologies; and,
--Seek a $10,000 per vehicle government incentive for EV purchases.
role of doe in meeting industry goals and objectives
A number of the on-going DOE EV-related programs are providing
critical support to the success of this 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 2000
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 important DOE programs
supporting EV development include the following:
the united states advanced battery consortium
The Coalition supports funding for the USABC at the $11 million
level requested by the Administration. The USABC is a battery research
and development program critical to the advancement of EVs. 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 EVs 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 of the major
automobile manufacturers have announced that nickel metal-hydride
batteries will be offered in 1999 EV models.
An increase in FY2000 funding for the Electric Vehicle R&D program
will fund research, development and validation testing of lithium-based
batteries and initiate a third phase development with the USABC. An
important goal for the Electric Vehicle R&D program in FY2000 is to
complete extended testing of USABC long-term, lithium-polymer batteries
to determine battery life and safety under accident conditions.
funding for the hybrid propulsion systems development program
The EVAA supports the efforts of industry and the federal
government to develop affordable hybrid vehicles with high fuel economy
and ultra-low emissions. DOE's Hybrid Systems R&D fiscal year 2000
goals include testing to meet high power energy storage requirements,
demonstration of improvements in fuel efficiency, and reductions in
particulate and oxides of nitrogen emissions. The long-term goal of the
hybrid propulsion systems development program continues to be
development of a production prototype hybrid electric vehicle that will
meet the PNGV goal of 80 miles per gallon in 2004.
funding for the vehicle field test and evaluation program
The Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas adopted specific,
targeted goals in 1998 to assure adequate penetration of EVs in key
target markets throughout the United States. One key sector targeted
for EV acquisitions is federal agency fleets. The U.S. Department of
Energy, through the Secretary of Energy Federico Pena, committed to
facilitate the purchase and use of up to 500 EVs in these federal
fleets. With assistance from EVAA and the Edison Electric Institute,
the DOE has initiated a Federal Electric Vehicle Acquisition (FEVA)
Program as a means to assure that the federal government reaches its
commitment to acquire 500 EVs. The FEVA Program is targeted to the
placement of EVs in federal agency fleets operating in key Market
Launch communities. To achieve this end, electric utilities have
stepped forward to ``manage'' EVs that have been acquired by the DOE.
Each participating utility is managing up to 5 EVs that are being
placed into the fleets of participating government agencies. In 1998,
awards were issued to six electric utilities that are participating in
the program: the Potomac Electric Power Company, Southern California
Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Virginia Power, Georgia
Power, and Boston Edison. The electric utilities in these areas are
providing the service and supporting infrastructure for the vehicles.
Some of the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program monies are used
to fund the costs associated with the lease or purchase of the EVs used
in the program, or to fund the administrative costs associated with
each electric utility's program. The vehicles are managed by the local
utility and are loaned B free of charge B to interested federal
agencies. Once those federal agencies use the vehicles they are then
encouraged to place orders to acquire their own EVs. The Department of
Energy will assist those federal agencies by supporting the difference
in costs to the agency associated with the EV.
The FEVA Program is bringing results. For example, 20 federal
agencies in Washington, D.C. have been loaned Ford Electric Rangers,
including the Departments of Energy and the Interior, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Smithsonian, the Architect of the Capitol. As a
direct result of the FEVA program, federal agencies in the Washington,
D.C. area are procuring EVs for use in their fleets.
Importantly, the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program also
provides funding to federal agencies to cover the incremental cost for
purchase or lease of an electric vehicle. As of this writing, federal
agencies throughout the U.S. have requested funding from the Department
of Energy to cover the incremental cost of approximately 150 EVs that
the agencies are seeking to place in their fleets. While these orders
are encouraging, much more should be done. Indeed, federal law (Public
Law 102-486) requires federal fleets to transition to alternative fuels
and these fleet conversions have been far short of statutory
requirements. Department of Energy must be encouraged to do more.
With 500 EVs as the target, the EVAA urges the Congress to insure
that the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program has sufficient
funding to accomplish the following:
--adequate financial resources to support federal agency requests to
provide funding to cover the incremental cost differences for
as many as 350 EVs purchased or leased by these federal
agencies, with contracts for these vehicles to be made before
the end of this calendar year;
--appropriations to support up to 5 additional Market Launch
communities to participate in the on-going FEVA program, which
includes the acquisition of up to 30 EVs for use by the
participating utilities, as well as support of those utilities
for the costs incurred in administering the program; and,
--appropriations adequate to support the efforts of the U.S. Postal
Service as more fully described below.
Earlier this year, the United States Postal Service (USPS) issued a
solicitation for 500 electric powered carrier route vehicles in 1999,
with options for another 5,500 additional vehicles. The contract for
the first 500 EVs is valued at approximately $17 million, or $34,000
per unit. The USPS represents an important guaranteed market for EVs
and the Department of Energy should be encouraged to provide adequate
funding to cover the incremental costs for these vehicles.
The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $4
million for the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program. The key to
successful deployment of this new technology is now widespread use. The
greater the number of vehicles, or use of EV components, the more
likely we will be able to reduce costs and increase consumer
confidence. Therefore, EVAA requests an increase of $2.5 million to the
Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program to fund the incremental costs
of EV acquisitions like those planned by the United States Postal
Service. Further, DOE should consider supporting large scale
demonstrations of electric bikes and scooters in municipal government
operations (e.g., police departments.) Not only will this improve air
quality, and increase exposure of the technology to potential new
customers, these types of programs assist in bringing down the cost of
batteries--a major barrier to the successful commercial launch of
electric modes of transportation. Whereas the Vehicle Field Test and
Evaluation Program is slated to fund a variety of EV-related activities
at the Department of Energy, EVAA believes the funds could be best
utilized by meeting the goals and commitments that industry and
government agreed to under the EV Market Launch Framework (i.e., the
placement of a significant number of electric vehicles in the federal
fleet.)
Further, to expedite the acquisition of EVs by federal agencies,
innovative leasing arrangements should be encouraged. For example, EVAA
applauds General Services Administration (GSA) efforts to provide a
``pass through'' lease program with the federal agencies. Through this
program, GSA signs a lease with the participating automobile
manufacturer, and the federal agency interested in leasing an EV then
signs a lease with GSA. This allows the federal agencies to continue
their relationship with GSA, an agency the federal agencies have worked
with for many years.
other department of energy programs of interest
In addition to the programs outlined above, the Association also
supports funding to a number of other AFV programs administered by the
DOE.
To assure that the marketplace is prepared and receptive to new
forms of transportation like EVs, the Association encourages full
funding, at the levels requested by the Administration, of DOE's
programs designed to create an infrastructure for alternative fuel
vehicles, including EVs, and to build public awareness and confidence
in these new modes of transportation. These funds include $10.7 million
for the Clean Cities program to support the demonstration of
alternative fuel and advanced vehicle technologies and $2 million for
the EPACT Replacement Fuels Program to track and improve compliance
with EPACT alternative fuel vehicle programs. Further, EVAA supports
the $41.4 million in funding being requested by the Administration for
continuation of research and development on fuel cell technologies that
can be incorporated into advanced transportation technologies. These
various activities by DOE encourage investment by industry and help to
build market acceptance for alternative fuel vehicles.
conclusion
Recent highly publicized examples of successful AFV models have
highlighted the possibilities associated with these DOE programs. While
these recent successes demonstrate the progress being made with regard
to AFV technologies, now is the critical time to use partnerships with
the federal government to develop markets for these products and reduce
the costs associated with these cutting edge technologies. The DOE
programs mentioned in this testimony are essential to bringing
affordable EVs to the public, and the EVAA strongly urges the
Subcommittee's support.
______
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 Council supports energy
policies and programs that enhance the nation's economic,
environmental, and national security goals through the rapid
development and deployment of clean and efficient energy technologies.
The Council supports the Administration's fiscal year 2000 request
for energy efficiency programs. The BCSE believes that the least
intrusive and most efficient means of addressing environmental
challenges is to promote cost-shared government-industry partnerships
to develop clean energy technological solutions. Expanded reliance on
natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable energy are the three
pillars of a more secure and sustainable energy strategy that will help
strengthen the U.S. economy and clean up the environment.
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 several programs that the BCSE
believes illustrate the value of the federal government's energy
efficiency effort.
gas turbine & engine technologies
Microturbines are small (25 to 300 kilowatt) gas turbines derived
from automotive and truck turbochargers, auxiliary power units for
aircraft or tanks, and small jet engines. They are designed for
distributed generation, combined heat, and power (CHP) and mechanical
drive prime mover applications. Improvements in materials, ceramic
components, and aerodynamic design can potentially increase efficiency
to 35 to 45 percent. This is more efficient than power generated at a
distant, central-station power plant which suffers losses as it is
delivered through the electric transmission and distribution grid. By
recovering exhaust heat, energy consumers can utilize microturbines in
a CHP application and raise total fuel utilization efficiency to
greater than 75 percent.
Microturbines today can contribute to reducing emissions
(NOX and CO2) associated with electric power
generation. When fueled by natural gas from our domestic resource base,
they currently emit NOX at 9 to 40 ppm, which is an
improvement over the existing U.S. generation fleet. Emissions
reductions technologies, such as catalytic combustion, offer the
potential of near zero emissions levels. To achieve the environmental,
efficiency, and cost-reduction goals of the program, the BCSE
specifically seeks $2.5 million above DOE's current request of $2.5
million for microturbine engine development research.
Advanced reciprocating engine systems (ARES) are the leading
customer choice for distributed generation and CHP applications in the
300 to 3000 kilowatt size range and provide significant advances in
efficient use of natural gas resources while minimizing environmental
impact levels. This will result in annual NOX emissions
reductions of 40,000 to 60,000 tons per year and CO2
emissions reductions of 7.6 to 11.5 million tons. Estimated annual
savings in unburned natural gas (from improved efficiency) are
approximately 110 to170 billion cubic feet, which equals the annual
energy consumption of approximately 1.4 million homes.
The ARES program will position domestic natural gas engine
manufacturers to compete effectively against foreign engine producers
looking to enter the U.S. market as well as further promote and expand
export markets for high-technology. The BCSE seeks $2 million for this
research. DOE has not requested funding for this program.
alternative fuel vehicles
Transportation is the fastest growing energy consuming sector. In
1998, DOE reported that approximately two-thirds of all U.S. petroleum
consumption was directly attributable to the transportation sector. The
recent popularity of low fuel economy sport utility vehicles, pickup
trucks, and vans used for personal transportation, coupled with an
expanding economy, low fuel prices, increasing numbers of drivers, and
increasing miles traveled by each vehicle continues to raise the
nation's overall fuel consumption. Spurred by this increase in demand,
total domestic petroleum use is expected to increase from approximately
35 quadrillion btu in 1997 to approximately 48 quadrillion btu in 2020.
Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)--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 a
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).
batteries
Advanced batteries are critical to the success of electric vehicles
(EVs) and other alternative fueled vehicles. DOE has conducted
research, in cooperation with the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium that
has led to significant improvements in battery performance for EVs. One
of its singular accomplishments was the Ovonic Nickel-Metal Hydride
(NiMH) electric vehicle battery developed by Ovonic Battery Co., a
subsidiary of Council member Energy Conversion Devices. The Ovonic EV
battery has met or exceeded the mid-term performance goals set by the
Consortium, affirming the future market viability of EV technologies.
Numerous cars powered by the batteries have far exceeded 200 miles in
range in on-the-road test drives. The absence of highly toxic battery
materials is another advantage of this technology. High volume
production coupled with additional improvements in battery technology
will enable the batteries to further improve performance as well as
reach the Consortium cost goals.
Notwithstanding the success of the NiMH EV battery program, DOE is
focusing its battery research exclusively on lithium based battery
technologies. We believe this to be a mistake. NiMH batteries have been
developed which demonstrate excellent properties for hybrid electric
vehicles. Yet another application of NiMH batteries is for high
performance starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries. Increased
use of power electronics coupled with the need to reduce vehicle weight
and increase fuel efficiencies in conventional vehicles is creating
demand for a low weight higher performing SLI battery. NiMH battery
technology shows great promise in this application. Accordingly, the
Council recommends that the battery R&D program be expanded to build
upon the successful NiMH EV battery development program by including
advanced research for NiMH batteries for EV and other vehicle
applications.
natural gas vehicles
Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are certified to be up to 99 percent
cleaner than traditionally fueled vehicles and can reduce emissions of
carbon monoxide (CO) by 70 percent, non-methane organic gas by 89
percent, nitrogen oxides (NOX) by 87 percent, and can
produce 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases than traditionally fueled
vehicles. In 1992, no original equipment manufacturers offered NGVs for
sale and few NGV fueling stations were available. Today, over 50 NGV
models are available and there are over 1300 NGV fueling stations open
nationwide. Despite this impressive growth, the actual number of NGVs
on the road is less than one-half of one percent of all registered
vehicles. Additional research is required to reduce the initial cost of
NGVs, which will encourage their widespread acceptance by the general
public.
While DOE has submitted substantial requests for the Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles program over the past several years,
the agency has continued to depart from its commitment to a joint five-
year research plan, developed in response to this Subcommittee's
request in fiscal year 1997. Accordingly, the BCSE seeks to restore
funding levels for priorities identified by the industry and DOE's
five-year plan. DOE requested no funds for the light-duty vehicle
portion of the plan. $2 million is needed for this program. The plan
requested $11.1 million for medium and heavy-duty vehicle research, but
the agency has requested only $8.9 million. The Council requests an
additional $2.2 million for the program in fiscal year 2000.
fuel cell technologies
Ballard Generation Systems, a BCSE member, will begin field trials
on a 250 kilowatt natural gas Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) at
selected sites in the U.S. and internationally in 1999 and 2000. More
fuel cell power plants of various power sizes will be available in the
future to fill diverse power generation requirements. High-temperature,
natural gas fuel cell systems that are presently 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.
Another key to the successful commercialization of the PEM fuel
cell vehicle will be the availability of a safe on-board hydrogen
storage device. Energy Conversion Devices has been developing metal
hydride alloys to provide a safe solid-state means of on-board storage
of hydrogen in PEM fuel cell vehicles. Currently, DOE's support for on-
board storage devices for the PEM fuel cell is negligible. Given the
importance of this component of the fuel cell system, we would urge
greater funding levels for metal hydride storage systems for PEM fuel
cell vehicles. These devices would also be the safest means of storing
hydrogen in hydrogen powered internal combustion engine or hybrid
vehicles as well as for use in fuel cells for stationary applications
and or portable power.
Further development of all fuel cell types must focus on refining
system designs to reduce costs, improve performance, and minimize
maintenance requirements while developing the manufacturing technology
needed to achieve market pricing. In order for PEM fuel cell power
plants to achieve full commercial status, the aforementioned challenges
will need to be overcome. The lessons learned will make U.S. technology
more competitive in the global marketplace.
The Council supports the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy's fiscal year 2000 request for PEM fuel cells and the Office of
Fossil Energy's work on Molten Carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) and Solid
Oxide fuel cells (SOFC). However, the BCSE opposes DOE's proposal to
shift $4.95 million from the two MCFC teams and the SOFC program and
move these funds to its new ``Vision 21'' Internal Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) program. Similarly, $5.1 million which the
Department proposes to shift to ``Vision 21'' support activities within
the Fuel Cell Development Program should be restored to the three
principal contracts. Without separate funds, the MCFC and SOFC programs
will, in DOE's own words, be ``stretched out.'' Additionally, the core
fuel cell research underway is fundamental to any new applications in
these technologies. Initiating new ``Vision 21'' fuel cell
applications, while diminishing support for core fuel cell research,
would appear to be imprudent. Consequently, the Council would like to
see the funding returned to the original programs so that existing
schedules can be honored and fundamental research can continue.
heat pumps, gas cooling & 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.
The GAX heat pump, based on a generator-absorber heat exchange (GAX)
cycle, is envisioned as the residential space conditioning technology
of the future due to its energy efficiency (as much as a 40 percent
improvement over existing technologies) and low maintenance costs. DOE
is working with industry to develop commercially feasible GAX heat
pumps, and a complete prototype was put into full operation at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in 1998. By investing in advanced gas cooling
technologies, U.S. industries will be able to capture the growing
domestic and global market for clean, efficient technologies. The BCSE
supports these programs and places great emphasis on robust research
for the GAX and large commercial chiller programs and systems
integration of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.
The Council 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 have worked
with DOE to help promote efforts to encourage consumers to replace
older appliances with newer and more energy efficient models.
industrial technologies
The BCSE supports DOE's Industries of the Future program and the
agency's combustion research efforts. However, the Council believes
that DOE should do more to develop advanced industrial boilers and
heaters that increase efficiency and reduce emissions. Boilers and
steam systems consume over 6.0 quads of energy with approximately half
of that consumption represented by natural gas. A recent study by the
Gas Research Institute, a Council member, documented that over 80
percent of the Nation's boilers were purchased prior to 1978, with the
bulk of the purchases made in the 1960s. The majority of these aging
boilers are due for replacement during the next 15 years.
The Super Boilers program (SBP), DOE's effort to replace these
technologies, seeks to provide a 50 percent improvement in boiler
efficiency over today's models. The Super Boiler will be 50 percent
smaller, cost 25 percent less to manufacture and maintain, and will
have emissions which meet regulations beyond 2025. The focus of the
program is to develop a suite of enabling boiler and combustion
technologies under a standardized, common technology platform that will
allow low-cost manufacturing of packaged boilers that provide
significant benefits over presently available technologies. From an
environmental and equipment replacement standpoint, industry and DOE
should coordinate their efforts to develop new steam generation
technologies in the next 15 to 25 years and beyond. To meet this need,
the BCSE seeks $2 million for SBP research. DOE has not requested any
funding for this activity.
The BCSE supports OIT's $1 million request for technical assistance
activities for combined heat and power (CHP) technologies within the
Crosscutting Industries of the Future (IOF) program. This initiative
can address barriers and provide technical tools and expertise which
demonstrate the successful industrial application of CHP technologies,
strengthening awareness of and confidence in their development and
deployment. Furthermore, in recognition of the value of CHP
applications across industries, the Council supports the increased
adoption and use of CHP within Industrial Distributed Generation
activities in the Crosscutting IOF program.
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--ensure that our nation's housing 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 $3.0 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 Sempra Energy, 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 2000
request for energy efficiency programs represent an increase over
fiscal year 1999. 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 the National Association of Energy Service
Companies
The National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO)
appreciates the opportunity to submit the following written testimony
in support of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2000
budget request for energy efficiency contracting and other energy
efficiency project support services.
NAESCO is a trade association of energy service companies (ESCOs)
and their trade allies, including utility and manufacturing companies.
NAESCO's current membership of over 140 organizations includes firms
involved in the design, manufacture, financing and installation of
energy efficiency equipment and services in the private and public
sectors, including Federal buildings.
The thousands of energy efficiency retrofits installed by NAESCO
member companies to date enable energy consumers to save an average of
25 percent of their previous building energy costs. Energy Service
Company projects can include non-energy renovations as well as measures
to improve efficiency. These projects can be customized for each
facility's particular needs. In addition, ESCOs assume the performance
and technical risk so that repayment for project costs comes only from
measured and verified energy savings generated by a successful, ongoing
project. In this way, the cost of an energy efficiency project is paid
entirely from energy savings, requiring no additional budget outlay to
support the capital investment.
The Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the
world. In 1994, the Federal Government spent about $3.8 billion of
taxpayer money for the energy it used in the buildings that it owns and
leases. Competitively procured energy efficiency improvements, financed
by the private sector, can reduce these energy costs by as much as $1
billion per year through the use of Energy Savings Performance
Contracts (ESPCs). The capital upgrades and energy cost savings offered
to federal facilities through Energy Savings Performance Contracts come
at no additional cost to the federal budget, or to American taxpayers.
In line with the reasons and comments set forth below, NAESCO fully
supports the DOE's budget requests for the Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP) and for the Rebuild America Program to promote and
support competitive energy efficiency contracting in federal
facilities.
naesco supports doe's full budget requests for its federal energy
management program and its rebuild america program
NAESCO believes that the budget requests for DOE's energy
efficiency initiatives through the FEMP and the Rebuild America Program
are relatively negligible when compared to the potential for savings to
the Federal Treasury and the Treasury of each state and local
government. The impact of DOE's efforts in these areas has been
significant and deserves the continued support of the Committee.
naesco supports the department of energy's creation of the femp service
network for the purpose of facilitating federal budget savings through
energy savings performance contracting
The DOE awards delivery orders for private sector energy efficiency
investments in federal facilities under its Regional Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (also referred to as ``Super ESPCs''), that have
been awarded as a result of multiple competitive solicitations. In
addition, federal agencies may procure private sector energy efficiency
services for their facilities through individual Energy Savings
Performance Contracts under the procedures set forth in the 1992 Energy
Policy Act.
Under the Regional ESPCs, the DOE's approval of a delivery order is
required for the Energy Service Company to undertake actual
implementation of the energy efficiency project. One of the most
difficult issues faced by the Federal Energy Management Program in its
efforts to facilitate private sector energy efficiency investments in
federal facilities, has been the often significant delay between the
initial Energy Savings Performance Contract award and the award of the
delivery order itself. In general, the principal cause of delay has
been the lack of trained contracting personnel.
To address this problem, DOE's Federal Energy Management Program,
during the past year, launched the ``FEMP Service Network.'' Through
this program, which operates on a fee-for-service basis, FEMP technical
and contracting experts provide support for individual Energy Savings
Performance Contracts and for task orders under the Regional Energy
Savings Performance Contracts. In launching these services, DOE's
Federal Energy Management Program has made expeditious contracting
support for energy efficiency projects for federal facilities a
priority activity.
The creation of coordinated fee-for-service technical and
contracting support, such as that offered by DOE's FEMP Service
Network, is a key step in the Federal Government's development of
programs to facilitate the installation of energy efficiency upgrades
in federal facilities. Therefore, NAESCO strongly recommends that the
reimbursable methods authorized by Congress for the FEMP program be
authorized immediately for all other agency ESPC contracting offices.
NAESCO also notes that any language referring to ``the Economy Act
provisions''--such as the language that the Air Force has interpreted
to mean that they cannot use DOE contracts--in fact should not be
considered germane to the use of one agency's ESPCs by any other
agency. NAESCO encourages the Committee to support all efforts to
expedite the award of delivery orders once the competitive
solicitations have been concluded.
in addition to the femp service network, doe's federal energy
management program provides critical training and other support for
competitive energy efficiency contracting in federal facilities
The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Renewable
Energy, where the Federal Energy Management Program is located, has
demonstrated leadership and initiative on a number of important federal
energy efficiency fronts, most importantly:
(1) the ongoing technical guidance and training of Federal energy
managers with respect to the development of energy efficiency projects;
(2) the formulation of standardized guidelines and procedures for
quantifying the measured and verified energy savings resulting from the
installation of energy efficiency measures; and
(3) the development and dissemination of materials designed to
educate both the public and private sectors regarding the availability
and benefit of energy efficiency measures.
In addition to the above, FEMP provides ongoing training for the
over 3,000 energy managers and contracting officers in the Federal
Government.
The DOE's support in each of the above areas is essential to
ensuring that individual facility Energy Savings Performance Contracts
and the Regional Energy Savings Performance Contracts already awarded
result in actual energy efficiency projects in federal facilities.
naesco supports the department of energy's rebuild america program,
designed to increase energy conservation in the state government, local
government, and private sectors
In keeping with its commitment to energy efficiency, the DOE's
Office of Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Renewable Energy also has
created the Rebuild America Program, which is removing the barriers to
increased delivery of energy efficiency in the state government, local
government, and private sectors by:
(1) the ongoing technical guidance and training of state and local
government organization representatives, as well as schools colleges,
universities, and hospitals about how performance contracting works and
how to acquire performance contracting services in order to achieve the
building upgrades they need, and to have those upgrades paid for out of
energy cost savings;
(2) the development of multi-sector energy efficiency project case
studies to help customers understand how they can use performance
contracting to upgrade their buildings;
(3) the identification of direct actions that can be taken to
increase the implementation of energy efficiency measures by ESCOs and
other providers, with or without the existence of utility industry
restructuring; and
(4) participating in inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional efforts
involving DOE, EPA, State Energy offices and State Air offices to
develop the necessary guidelines and authorities to allow energy
efficiency to be a fully recognized compliance mechanism for air
emissions reductions required by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under the Clean Air Act.
The use of energy efficiency as an air quality compliance mechanism
lowers the cost of achieving environmental objectives, while increasing
the market based incentives for energy efficiency investments. DOE's
efforts in this regard are especially timely now, since the ongoing
restructuring in the electric utility industry is creating a situation
where energy efficiency is becoming an ever more important vehicle for
addressing energy demand and environmental issues.
conclusion
NAESCO supports full funding for the DOE's Federal Energy
Management Program and Rebuild America Program. These programs pay for
themselves many times over by generating public budget savings through
the promotion and implementation of competitive, performance-based
energy efficiency contracting. FEMP program benefits accrue directly to
the Federal Government and U.S. taxpayers. Rebuild America program
benefits accrue to state and local governments and to U.S. taxpayers at
the state and local levels.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
______
Prepared Statement of Glenn Coontz, Vice Chair, Department of Finance
and Administrative Services, Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
This testimony is submitted for the information of the Subcommittee
during the consideration of the fiscal year 2000 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 policy makers and
administrators from major urban areas around the United States.
Currently, 24 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; Little Rock, AR;
Long Beach, CA; Memphis, TN; Monroe County, NY; Montgomery County, MD;
Orange County, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; San
Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Santa Fe County, NM;
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, apply and transfer innovative
approaches and technological solutions to common 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 a competitive energy program with
funding provided by the Department of Energy, Municipal Energy
Management Program. 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 role of memp in meeting local energy needs
Local governments are in the forefront of the nation's response to
interrelated energy supply, clean air and climate change issues. Local
governments have assumed leadership roles in energy efficiency
programs, ranging from the introduction of advanced energy building
retrofit and ``green building'' practices; to encouraging the use of
alternative fuels to cut dependency on imported oil and reduce air
emissions from the transportation sector; to developing and
implementing local strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases;
to recognizing the importance of reducing energy usage, and creating
local energy industries, for local economic growth and sustainable
development. Larger urban governments in particular have been able to
use energy policy and programs as tools to help reduce the cost of
government and stimulate the local economy to produce more revenues
that can be used to deliver priority services to local populations. The
Municipal Energy Management Program directly increases the ability of
local governments to identify, design and implement energy policies
that support local economic objectives, including jobs growth and
retention.
MEMP creates a direct relationship between the Federal government
and local governments on energy issues. It is the only Federal energy
efficiency research, development and technology application and
transfer program directed by local governments, which responds to the
specific energy-related needs of local governments.
As administered by the UCETF, MEMP leverages federal, state and
local funds for the conduct of competitively-selected energy research
and technology transfer projects. The UCETF develops an annual request
for proposals for projects that will address the energy-related topics
of the greatest common concern among local governments. The RFP is
widely circulated through direct mailing and on the Internet to cities
and counties across the nation. Between 50 and 60 proposals are
typically submitted by jurisdictions around the United States in
response to the annual competitive solicitation. Submissions are peer
reviewed by local energy officials, and evaluated on the basis of their
energy and dollar savings, innovation, job creation and economic
development benefits, partnerships and cost-sharing, benefits to the
environment, and overall benefit to the community. Selections are based
on merit. Projects are conducted by local government staff, in
furtherance of the UCETF/MEMP mission to improve the energy management
capabilities of local governments. To encourage technology transfer,
results are documented and disseminated broadly among state, city and
county energy professionals. Although per-project funding is modest,
MEMP funding frequently permits communities to undertake projects that
would not otherwise have been conducted and to leverage other resources
to address key energy issues. Project results are applied in
communities to cut energy use and reduce costs.
MEMP is cross-cutting, permitting local governments to address
priorities in a variety of energy efficiency areas, including
buildings, transportation, business and industrial energy efficiency,
solar and renewable energy technologies and other energy use/power
supply technologies. As energy concerns have evolved, so has MEMP. From
its early focus on energy emergency response and creating an energy
management capability in local governments, the program has grown to
emphasize cutting edge technology advances that can save energy and
money, assure environmental quality and enhance prospects for local
economic growth. Today, the UCETF/MEMP program serves as a source of
information and technical assistance to enable local government to
address current issues, such as restructuring and change in the
electricity industry, local responses to climate change, possible local
government alternative/replacement fuel requirements, energy-related
aspects of congestion mitigation and air quality improvement programs,
and energy considerations in programs to combat sprawl and encourage
smart growth.
The MEMP program is a proven successful method to deliver and apply
energy technologies to address community issues and to share energy
information among communities around the country, thereby preparing
local officials to respond to the energy and energy-related
environmental issues in their own communities. More than 400 projects
in over 60 different jurisdictions across the United States have been
conducted through the UCETF/MEMP program over the years.
the ucetf's 1998-1999 applied energy program
The 1998-1999 UCETF program is supporting projects addressing
energy and economic development; issues and opportunities for local
governments in electric industry restructuring; and strategies for
environmentally responsible local energy production and usage. 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. In addition, the program includes three projects to further
develop and apply the results of prior UCETF projects. A summary of the
energy technology development/application or technology transfer
projects selected for inclusion in the 1998-1999 program is presented
below:
Energy and Economic Development.--Energy efficiency activities and
the use of new energy technologies can contribute to creation of a
sustainable urban environment. The UCETF 1998-1999 economic development
unit is focusing on developing and sharing information on the benefits
of energy efficiency/new energy technologies in communities, and on
means of preserving the economic benefits of demand side management
programs as the electricity market becomes more competitive. Clark
County, NV, will conduct research to support new hydrogen
transportation technologies, by studying a ``transition'' hydrogen
technology--a hydrogen enriched lean burn modification to a standard
compressed natural gas vehicle. The popular Denver, CO, cable
television program, Earth Cafe, will be used to share the knowledge and
experience gained through UCETF projects among more than 18 million
potential viewers in communities across the nation. Barnstable County,
MA, will examine the local government role in assuring that the
economic benefits of demand side management energy efficiency programs
remain available as competition is introduced into the electricity
market. Seattle, WA, will promote and support market transformation in
building practices in three communities in Washington state, to lead to
greater implementation of sustainable building construction design.
Utility Restructuring.--Again this year, significant attention 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 is a leading national resource for communities on approaches
to, and the implications for local governments of, coming changes in
the structure of the electricity industry. San Francisco, CA, will
evaluate the energy efficiency services being offered in the
restructuring electric utility industry. The City will also develop
guidance for local governments in evaluating the increasingly complex
offerings of energy service companies and other energy service
providers. Juneau County, WI, will assist Wisconsin counties in
preparing for utility restructuring in the state by helping them
aggregate electricity loads to reduce power prices. St. Louis County,
MO, will determine the effects of utility restructuring on power
prices, on-site electricity generation and new technology development.
Energy Usage and Supply.--Local governments face continuing
requirements to cut energy usage and costs, and search for
opportunities to apply new technologies expressly suited to local
climatic conditions that use local energy resources. Albuquerque, NM,
will produce a guide book--based on the city's extensive experience
with solar technology--to assist other communities in developing and
deploying solar applications at typical public facilities and public
housing projects. This project will contribute directly to achieving
the goals of the President's Million Solar Roofs Initiative. Thousand
Palms, CA, will undertake a project to deploy renewable energy in
municipal transit buses by producing hydrogen using photovoltaic and
wind generated electricity. Philadelphia, PA,was selected to build on
its ground-breaking work to achieve energy savings through light
emitting diode (LED) technology. The project would investigate the
feasibility of integrating LEDs and photovoltaics in outdoor lighting
applications. Chicago, IL, will analyze opportunities for obtaining
electricity for use in multiple facilities from renewable energy
applications rather than the local utility.
Technology Transfer.--The UCETF is conducting three projects
specifically designed to document and transfer lessons learned through
local government energy programs. Portland, OR, will document its work
in determining the most economic and efficient uses of surplus digester
gas. This work will provide guidance to other communities investigating
options for the use of methane fuel cells to produce electricity.
Austin, TX, will develop an Internet and CD Rom course based on
Austin's pioneering work in developing the ``green building'' concept.
The course will explain the principles of green building, their
application to design and construction, and how to demonstrate the
benefits of green building to building occupants. Memphis, TN, will
develop a communications protocol to link building electronic
monitoring and control systems of different manufacturers, in order to
maximize the effectiveness of the city's building automation network.
The Memphis approach should be highly transferable to other communities
facing similar needs.
As part of the 1998-1999 core technology transfer program, the
UCETF is continuing distribution of publications designed to address
issues facing communities in electricity restructuring. In addition,
the UCETF is developing new tools to transfer lessons learned in the
areas of alternative transportation fuels and solar technology
applications.
conclusion
Local governments are a crucial component of the effort to maintain
the United States as the world's leader in developing, applying and
exporting sustainable, environmentally benign and economically
competitive energy technologies. Through its participation in MEMP, the
UCETF provides important opportunities for hands-on applied energy
research in local communities, serving as an urban laboratory for the
development and testing of new technology. The program is an effective
means of delivering energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies
to jurisdictions across the country. Efforts in recent years to broaden
and diversify the UCETF/MEMP program have met with success, as the
UCETF has built on its strengths in identifying and addressing the
specific energy challenges facing the nation's communities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Natural Gas Industry
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Natural Gas
Industry's Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) Initiative
(hereinafter the ``Initiative'') is comprised of producers, pipelines,
distributors, and research and trade organizations. We appreciate this
opportunity to present our views on natural gas-related RD&D sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The Initiative has worked closely with DOE and this Subcommittee
over the years with the objective of advancing cost-shared projects
that serve the national interest. Within the Interior Subcommittee's
jurisdiction, DOE's fiscal year 2000 budget request for natural gas
RD&D programs in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) and Office of Fossil Energy (FE) totals $205 million. While this
is only slightly lower than last year's request of $207 million it
represents a 13 percent decrease from the fiscal year 1999
appropriation approved by Congress. Yet, in stark contrast to these
reductions, EERE's fiscal year 2000 overall budget request for RD&D
represents a 23 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
appropriation. The Initiative is disappointed that DOE, and EERE
specifically, continues to give greater emphasis in its budget requests
to other programs, inconsistent with the levels approved by Congress.
Thus, the Initiative has identified several natural gas RD&D programs
that deserve additional attention.
Consistent with the past, and our published Blue Book, listing RD&D
rationales for the next five years, our top priorities for fiscal year
2000 include: microturbines (seeking $2.5 million above DOE's request);
advanced reciprocating engine systems (seeking $2 million above DOE's
request); industrial combustion systems (seeking $2 million above DOE's
request); fuel cells (seeking a shift of funds from Fossil Energy's
various ``Vision 21'' activities back to the three existing research
projects and agreed upon schedules); natural gas cooling and combined
cooling-heating & power (seeking $2 million above DOE's request);
natural gas vehicles (seeking $4.2 million above DOE's request); and
natural gas supply (seeking $1 million above DOE's request). The
specifics of each of these requests are presented below.
gas turbine & engine technologies
Due to regulatory restructuring coupled with technology innovation,
electric power in the U.S. will likely experience more change in the
next decade than throughout its history. Microturbine (MT) technologies
will emerge as one of the leaders in power production. Valuable
attributes of MT's are modularity, the ability to be remotely operated,
high reliability, and excellent power quality. This translates to
maximum flexibility to consumers and opportunities in markets that
require premium power.
MTs are small (25-300 kW) gas turbines derived from automotive and
truck turbochargers, auxiliary power units for aircraft or tanks, and
small jet engines for drone aircraft. They are designed for distributed
generation (DG), combined heat and power (CHP), and mechanical drive
prime mover applications. Technology improvements in materials, ceramic
components, and aerodynamic design can potentially increase efficiency
to 35-45 percent. This is more efficient than power generated at a
distant, central-station power plant which suffers losses as it is
delivered through the electric transmission and distribution grid. By
recovering exhaust heat, energy consumers can utilize MTs in a CHP
application and raise total fuel utilization efficiency to greater than
75 percent.
MT's today can contribute to reducing emissions (NOX and
CO2) associated with electric power generation. When fueled
by natural gas from our domestic resource base, they currently emit
NOX at 9-40 ppm, this is an improvement over the existing
U.S. generation fleet. Emissions reduction technologies, such as
catalytic combustion, offer the potential of near zero emissions
levels. To achieve the environmental, efficiency and cost-reduction
goals of the program, the Initiative specifically seeks $2.5 million
above DOE's current request of $2.5 million for microturbine engine
development research.
Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems (ARES) are another important
technology for DG applications in a deregulating electric marketplace.
Natural gas engines are the leading customer choice for DG and CHP in
the 300 kW--3000 kW size range. These products offer significant
benefits for small to medium-sized industrial customers, commercial
building and retail customers, institutional customers (hospital and
education), federal government and military facilities, as well as
municipal, cooperative, and public electric utility companies. ARES
provide significant advances in efficient use of natural gas resources
while minimizing environmental impact levels. This will result in
future avoided annual emissions for NOx of 40,000-60,000 tons per year
and 7.6-11.5 million tons for CO32. Estimated annual savings
in unburned natural gas (from improved efficiency) are approximately
110-170 billion cubic feet. This equals the energy consumed annually in
about 1.4 million homes.
The ARES program will position domestic natural gas engine
manufacturers to compete effectively against foreign engine producers
looking to enter the U.S market as well as further promote an expanding
export market for high-technology. The Initiative seeks $2 million for
this research, DOE's has not requested anything for reciprocating
engines.
industrial technologies
The Initiative remains supportive of DOE's Industries of the Future
program and DOE's on-going combustion research effort. The Initiative,
however, again believes that DOE must do more to develop advanced
industrial boilers and heaters that both increase efficiency and lower
emissions. Boilers and steam systems consume over 6.0 quads of energy
with about half of the fuel consumption represented by natural gas. The
nation is faced with an aging boiler population. A recent GRI study
documents that over 80 percent of these boilers were purchased prior to
1978, with the bulk of the purchases in the 1960s. The majority of
these aging boilers are due for replacement within the next 15 years.
This effort, known as the Super Boilers program (SBP), seeks to
provide 50 percent improvement in efficiency over today's installed
boilers. The Super Boiler will be 50 percent smaller, cost 25 percent
less to manufacture and maintain, and will have extremely low emissions
that meet the ever-stringent emission regulations beyond 2025. The
boiler marketplace is very diverse, with multiple manufacturers and
designs; one technology concept will not fit all needs. It is the focus
of this program to develop a suite of enabling boiler and combustion
technologies under a standardized, common technology platform that will
allow low-cost manufacture of packaged boilers that provide significant
benefits over the currently available boilers. The timing is ripe, both
from the environmental and equipment replacement standpoint, for DOE
and industry to join forces on a crosscutting approach to develop new,
leapfrog steam generation technologies to meet the competitive needs of
the U.S. industry in the next 15 to 25 years and beyond. To this end,
the Initiative seeks $2 million for SBP research. DOE has not requested
any funding for this activity.
fuel cells technologies
The Initiative is highly supportive of EERE's fiscal year 2000
request for Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells and Fossil Energy's
work to date on Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC) and Solid Oxide Fuel
Cells (SOFC). The Initiative, however, opposes DOE's proposal to shift
$4.95 million from the two MCFC teams and the SOFC program and moving
those funds to its new ``Vision 21'' IGCC program. Similarly, $5.1
million which the Department proposes to shift to ``Vision 21'' support
activities within the Fuel Cell Development Program should be restored
to the three principal contracts. Without both these funds, the molten
carbonate and solid oxide programs will, in DOE's own words, be
``stretched out.'' Moreover, DOE should not be permitted to rush into
new fuel cell applications related to ``Vision 21'' while shortchanging
the very core fuel cell research which is fundamental to any subsequent
applications of either technology. Consequently, the Initiative
specifically seeks to have the funding shifted (keeping the program
whole at $40 million) back so that the existing schedules can be
honored.
gas cooling, heat pumps & appliance technologies
The Initiative is supportive of DOE's fiscal year 2000 request for
natural gas cooling technologies. However, there is a distinct
opportunity to significantly conserve resources and reduce greenhouse
gas by accelerating the use of combined cooling, heating and power
(CCHP) systems in commercial buildings.
Historically, research, development and commercialization efforts
have been focused on individual equipment (e.g. cooling, thermal
storage, ventilation air systems, power generation and cooling). CCHP
for buildings now focuses on on-site fuel conversion making it possible
to combine power generation and HVAC system optimization and
integration with other innovation building technologies. This yields
remarkable building-level energy efficiency gains and emission
reduction achievements. The CCHP initiative goal is an additional 40
percent efficiency improvement over and above improvements projected in
other elements of the Buildings Program. To this end, the Initiative
seeks $2 million for CCHP research. DOE has not sought funding for
these activities. Specifically, we seek $1 million for design tools to
optimize selection for new and retrofit CCHP systems, and $1 million
for associated materials and manufacturing technology.
Finally, DOE should place a greater emphasis on the direct use of
natural gas for appliances in residential and commercial buildings.
There is an inherent conflict between national increased efficiency
requirements and the gas consumer's desire for lower first-cost
equipment. RD&D is needed to reduce the high first-cost hurdle between
efficiency requirements and consumer needs. However, the Initiative
seeks no additional funding above DOE's request.
natural gas vehicles
The United States remains critically dependent on petroleum as a
transportation fuel. This dependence has contributed to significant air
quality and energy security concerns. Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) offer
proven, cost-effective solutions to both of these problems. NGVs are
certified to be up to 99 percent cleaner than traditionally fueled
vehicles and, when compared to average petroleum vehicles, reduce
exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by 70 percent, non-methane
organic gas by 89 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOX) by 87
percent, and produce 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases.
While the availability of NGVs has grown dramatically over the past
ten years, the number of actual sales has not. In 1992, no Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) offered NGVs for sale, today there are
over 50 models available. In 1992, there were a few NGV fueling
stations, today there are over 1300 NGV fueling stations open for
business nationwide. Despite the impressive growth in available NGVs
and fueling infrastructure, the actual number of vehicles on the road
today remains well under one-half of one percent of all registered
vehicles (70,000). Research is still required, aimed at reducing the
NGV's first cost, before the public will accept them as mainstream.
Over the past few years, DOE continues to submit robust requests
for the transportation sector, specifically the Partnership for a New
Generation Vehicle program. However, DOE continues to depart from its
commitment to the Comprehensive Program Plan for NGV research, which
was developed in response to this Subcommittee's directive in fiscal
year 1997. Accordingly, the Initiative must once again seek to restore
funding levels for priorities identified by the DOE and industry 5-year
plan. Specifically, no funds were requested for the Light Duty portion
of the Plan. $2 million is needed there. The Plan calls for $11.1
million for Medium and Heavy-Duty vehicle research, but DOE has
requested only $8.9 million that is consistent with the Plan in this
area. Thus, we are requesting an additional $2.2 million for Heavy Duty
Vehicles.
natural gas supply
Natural gas is domestically abundant today, and real gas prices are
only half of what they were in the mid-1980's. Continuing gas supply
technology advances are key to meeting projected levels and sustained,
affordable prices for gas supply. These advanced supply technologies
are of paramount importance to more than 8,000 independent producers,
who drill 85 percent of the wells and produce 66 percent of the gas in
the lower 48 states.
The Initiative continues to support DOE's request for natural gas
supply research. In fiscal year 2000, the Initiative particularly seeks
$1 million for research on laser drilling technology. DOE sought no
funding for this activity. Current estimates of future natural gas use
indicate that drilling will take place in increasingly more difficult
environments. Therefore, DOE should assess the opportunities to develop
revolutionary drilling concepts such as the use of lasers. The benefits
of laser drilling technology are penetration rates that are 10-100
times faster than those achieved with conventional rotary drilling
techniques.
conclusion
The Initiative is giving great emphasis to developing comprehensive
programs across end-use sectors that compliment each other and
compliment electric deregulation efforts to provide cheaper energy to
the end-user while reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency,
quality, and reliability. We are striving to coordinate our efforts
with federal and state research initiatives to enhance the benefits for
each party and the natural gas consumer. Our combined efforts to
advance natural gas technologies will create high paying American jobs
and boost US competitiveness in the global marketplace. The Initiative
greatly appreciates your past support and consideration of these
proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of General Electric Power Systems
This testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power
Systems (GE) for the information of the Committee during its review of
the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget requests. GE
strongly supports the Administration's request for $41.8 million for
the Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, including $32.590 million
for major systems development, within the Fossil Energy budget account.
DOE's funding request signifies the important contributions that ATS
technology will make to the nation's energy security and environmental
objectives. GE appreciates the strong Congressional support that has
been so critical to the success of the ATS program, and welcomes this
opportunity to update the Committee on the progress of the ATS research
and development effort.
ge-doe ats cooperative agreement
In March 1998, GE and DOE executed a modified Cooperative Agreement
providing for GE's continued, cost-shared participation in the ATS
program. The modified 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. DOE's fiscal year 2000 funding request
represents the last major increment of Federal funding for the ATS
program.
The modified GE-DOE Cooperative Agreement, which extends through
December 2000, eliminated the planned demonstration phase of the ATS
program and extended the technology validation phase. Demonstration of
the ATS technology will be the responsibility of industry at the end of
the technology validation phase. Under the restructured ATS program, 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 of the ats program
The ATS program occupies a key position in the DOE's fossil energy
research and development portfolio, and is an integral part of the
evolving ``Vision 21'' concept for future highly efficient, clean power
generation. Through the government's partnership with industry, the ATS
program is well on the way to supporting the commercial introduction of
the world's most efficient gas turbine, securing U.S. technological
leadership in this critical technology area and producing important
benefits to the nation:
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
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 existing 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.
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 stiff international competition. U.S. jobs depend on
continued U.S. global leadership in turbine technology, which is
supported by the ATS program.
the technical challenge
Existing gas turbine technology benefited from the knowledge gained
from years of national investments in military aircraft engine
technologies. The need to meet high efficiency and low emissions
requirements simultaneously for power generation systems in 2000 and
beyond has necessitated the development of a steam-cooled turbine
generation system--the first time that the industry has been called
upon to develop a new technology specifically for power generation
applications. Government has shared the risks inherent in meeting this
technical challenge through the ATS program.
GE's ``H System'' advanced turbine is an advanced combined-cycle
system designed to break the 60 percent thermal-efficiency barrier
while offering the lowest cost of electricity production with the
lowest levels of emissions. Combined-cycle systems generate electricity
from both a gas turbine and a steam turbine driven by steam generated
from the gas turbine's exhaust. Where other gas turbines are air-
cooled, ATS combined-cycle power blocks are based on a unique
technology platform in which the gas turbine buckets and nozzles are
steam-cooled by an integrated steam system. Steam cooling of the
turbine airfoils enables higher turbine inlet temperatures to be
achieved without increases in combustor exit temperatures, resulting in
low levels of NOX and significant improvements in
efficiency. Efficiency gains also translate directly into reduced
emissions of greenhouse gases. The ATS will also be a fuel flexible
system; because of its higher thermal efficiency and output, the ATS is
expected to substantially advance the economic viability of coal gas
(IGCC) systems.
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 is
helping to assure that advanced, efficient technologies are available
to meet market demand.
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.
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. Domestic electric industry
restructuring makes potential investors in new technologies more risk
averse. At the same time, the increasing pace of electric industry
restructuring makes the need for advanced, competitive power generation
technologies more urgent, and the completion of the ATS program more
timely. According to the Energy Information Administration, 81 percent
of new U.S. demand for electric generation will be met by gas turbines
in 2010. The ATS program will assure the availability of more
efficient, lower emission domestic technology to meet this demand.
The same key enabling technologies being developed through the ATS
program are required for both international and domestic applications.
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.
ge ats program accomplishments
GE's work during the initial phases of the ATS program focused on
the technologies and component developments necessary for high
temperature operation, and validation of the technically-innovative
steam cooling concept. To date, GE has:
--Completed full-scale, steam-cooled, first stage nozzle cascade
design validation testing at ATS turbine design operating
conditions. The first stage nozzles and buckets are the most
critical high temperature components in the ATS. Testing
included combustion system mapping, as well as nozzle
aerodynamic, heat transfer, and low cycle fatigue validation.
--Completed initial tests of the ``H'' series combustor design at the
component level, and in a full-scale combustion test stand that
permitted testing at full pressure, temperature, and flow
design conditions. GE's design for the gas turbine combustion
system permits its ATS to achieve high firing temperatures
while minimizing oxides of nitrogen, a key objective of the ATS
program.
--Developed, with suppliers, single crystal casting technology to
provide the high temperature strength required for the very
large ATS machine turbine buckets and nozzles.
--Completed tests of two builds of the \1/3\ scale H compressor,
which allowed operation of the compressor over its entire
speed/flow range, and validated the fundamental design of the
compressor.
--Completed tests of elements of the steam cooling system, in both
component rigs and under utility field test conditions, along
with design of a particulate filter which has been fully
validated in testing at an operating combined cycle power plant
to resolve concerns about the effects of impurities in the
steam on the operation of the cooling system.
--Developed manufacturing technologies essential for the success of
the ATS, including extensive development in thermal barrier
coatings (TBCs), which are critical to the steam cooling
design. Performed separately-funded tests to validate the
performance of TBCs in utility customers' current gas turbines
under actual conditions. Designed a robot to assure proper
application of TBCs. Improved the forging process to allow for
production of the largest gas turbine Inconel wheels ever made.
--Developed testing processes to 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 the
combined cycle unit in greater detail than previously required.
recent accomplishments
With fiscal year 1998 and 1999 funds, GE has continued development
activity on its ATS engine, which remains on schedule for a full-speed,
no-load demonstration test in December 1999, and has continued full-
scale combustion system development, with test results meeting ATS
design goals. The initial 9H (50 Hz) full-speed, no-load test was run
in the second quarter of 1998 at GE's Greenville, SC, manufacturing
facility. The testing validated rotor dynamics and vibration levels;
compressor airfoil aeromechanics; compressor airflow and efficiency;
scale-up effects from the compressor rig testing; compressor and
turbine running clearances; and the Mark VI control system. GE also has
initiated the 7H (60 Hz) ATS design and manufacturing programs, using
information derived from the 9H component and full scale testing
programs. It is anticipated that fiscal year 2000 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 continue,
setting the stage for the completion of the program in the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2000.
conclusion
Through R&D investments in programs like the ATS, the Federal
government assists industry in taking on high risk, high payoff
opportunities that challenge accepted technological limits. GE urges
the Committee to continue to provide the resources necessary to
complete the ATS program.
______
Prepared Statement of David O. Webb, Vice President, Government
Programs Services Ccenter, Gas Research Institute
The Gas Research Institute (GRI) appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony to the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee to
present GRI's views and recommendations for fiscal year 2000 funding of
gas-related research and development (R&D) programs within the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency
programs. GRI generally supports the Administration's request for these
programs. However, we are concerned that the gas-related request is $21
million less than appropriated last year. GRI has recommended an
increase of $7.5 million in four specific areas to strengthen the
natural gas related research.
GRI manages a comprehensive research, development and
commercialization (RD&C) program for the natural gas industry. GRI has
over 330 member companies representing producer, pipeline, and local
distribution companies. GRI jointly plans and cofunds approximately
$15-$20 million annually with DOE Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency
programs. Therefore, Congressional action on the DOE budget can impact
these joint programs.
For the past twenty years, GRI has been funded principally through
a FERC-approved pipeline surcharge on interstate natural gas
transactions. However, in recognition of the changing gas industry
business environment, GRI will become a fully voluntarily-funded
organization during the next six years. During that time, and
thereafter, GRI will be seeking funding outside of the traditional
FERC-approved surcharges in order to maintain and continue a viable R&D
program for the gas industry and its customers. While GRI's methods of
funding will change, GRI will continue to focus it research program on
developing widely dispersed benefits to gas consumers through the
development of new and improved technologies. In addition, GRI will
continue to address the specific needs of the gas industry, our member
companies and the interests of our new voluntary investors.
federal energy r&d policy
The role of the federal government in funding energy R&D is
critical as a basis for decision-making by industry as it competes in
an ever increasingly competitive world market. Our technical world is
becoming increasingly complex and as the cost of R&D grows, no single
company or group of companies can afford the cost and risk associated
with the development of many of the new energy technologies whose broad
benefits flow predominately to the gas users, not the companies.
Therefore, in times of declining budgets, government funds should be
used primarily for investment that are expected to yield broad public
benefits and, therefore, not likely to be undertaken by the industry
unless government is a major participant in the funding.
The government must continue to have the primary role and
responsibility for funding and managing fundamental long-term basic
research in energy because private companies are market driven and
cannot capture the economic benefits of much of this research. Society
receives large and continuing benefits from fundamental research, and
since industry alone cannot fund the level of basic research necessary
to achieve national goals and objectives, the government role in
funding is critical.
On the other hand, both government and industry have a joint
responsibility to plan, conduct, and fund applied R&D to meet the
nation's energy goals. Industry should be brought in early to assist in
the planning, financing, and management of the applied research. The
partnership of private industry in federally sponsored R&D accomplishes
several goals:
--Industry will use rigorous cost-benefit analysis to prioritize the
R&D.
--If the federal research is aimed at top industry priorities,
industry will provide cofunding. If industry is not willing to
support a specific applied energy research program, government
should reevaluate its own role in that research.
--Once industry participates financially and managerially in the
research, the commercialization path will be shorter because
industry will be committed to bringing the product or process
to the marketplace in order to benefit from the research.
--When the project is ready for commercialization, industry is
already on board and has a vested interest in ensuring the
technology reaches the marketplace, thus ensuring success from
the government/industry investment.
--Finally, costly duplication of research is eliminated.
doe fiscal year 2000 gas-related budget
The DOE fiscal year 2000 gas-related R&D budget request is
generally supported by the gas industry acting through the Natural Gas
RD&D Initiative. Industry support of this budget is evidenced through
significant cost-sharing from the private sector. The research
proposals set out by DOE will result in completion and
commercialization of technologies which will contribute significantly
to the nation's goals as we pursue all of our energy options. In
addition, many of the products which result from this R&D are excellent
candidates for export to other countries, thereby increasing the U.S.
position in global competitiveness.
Congress has recognized and needs to continue to recognize the role
of government and industry in cofunding applied energy R&D and should
give priority to those DOE research programs that are jointly funded
with industry.
recommended adjustments to the doe fiscal year 2000 budget request
While GRI and the Natural Gas RD&D Initiative are supportive of the
DOE fiscal year 2000 budget request for gas-related research and
development, there are several adjustments GRI would recommend in order
to further strengthen the natural gas-related R&D program and to
address the important issues in the gas industry. These adjustments, if
incorporated in the fiscal year 2000 budget, would receive the support
and cofunding of GRI and the natural gas industry. The following
recommendations are requested:
Development of laser drilling technology (fossil energy)--+$1 million
Much of the technology developed for the drilling industry in the
past few decades has focused on reducing cost primarily by drilling
wells faster to minimize rig time. Laser drilling has the potential to
revolutionize gas drilling in the 21st century. It offers the potential
to increase the rate of penetration more than 10 times that of
conventional rotary drilling techniques. It would ultimately reduce
time and cost. This proposed joint industry/government initiative is a
two-year program to investigate the potential of laser drilling
systems.
Microturbine power generation (energy efficiency)--+$2.5 million
Microturbines are small (25-300 kW) gas turbines which can
significantly increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. The
potential worldwide market for microturbines is very large. Due to
regulatory restructuring coupled with technology innovation, the
electric power industry in the U.S. will likely experience more change
in the next decade than throughout its entire history. Energy customers
in their own search for improved energy service are recognizing that
electricity can be produced and delivered more cost-effectively and
cleaner than it is today. One of the emerging technologies that can
help the U.S. realize this is the natural gas-fueled microturbines.
Advanced reciprocating engine systems (energy efficiency)--+$2 million
The U. S. energy industry, natural gas reciprocating engine
manufacturers, and other committed partners have participated in and
are recommending expanding a joint industry-government partnership to
develop breakthrough advancements in natural gas reciprocating engine
technology. This challenging R&D effort will result in significant
societal and economic benefits for the United States. Natural gas
reciprocating engines are internal combustion piston engines which with
breakthrough advancements would provide a clean, energy efficient
system for use in the emerging distributed generation, combined heat
and power, and combined cooling, heat, and power markets.
Superboilers (energy efficiency)--+$2 million
The nation's commercial and industrial boilers are aging. Over 80
percent of these boilers were purchased prior to 1978, with the bulk of
the purchases in the 1960s. A major ``Super Boiler'' effort by the
industry and federal government will seek to provide over 50 percent
improvement in efficiency over today's installed units. In addition,
this effort would result in units that will be up to 50 percent
smaller, cost 25 percent less to manufacture and maintain, and will
have extremely low emissions that meet the stringent emission
regulations beyond the year 2025.
summary
GRI encourages the Subcommittee to support the Administration's
total request for gas-related R&D of approximately $224.5 million plus
the above recommendations for additions of $7.5 Million. These
recommended increases fill a need in the gas production industry as
well as the distributed power generating market through the development
of more efficient, clean options for the consuming public. The fiscal
year 2000 DOE budget request for gas-related research is approximately
$21 million lower than the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The
additions recommended will still result in lower gas-related funding in
fiscal year 2000 than approved by Congress for fiscal year 1999, but
will provide the much needed research in order to address the needs for
a secure, efficient, and clean energy future. GRI strongly urges the
Subcommittee to support the Administration's fiscal year 2000 gas-
related budget as well as the recommendations of the gas industry.
DOE GAS-RELATED FUNDING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------
1999 2000
appropriation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Energy:
Natural Gas Supply...................... 27.0 25.8
Fuel Cells.............................. 44.2 37.7
Gas Turbines (ATS Utility Scale)........ 44.5 41.8
---------------------------
Subtotal Gas-Related Fossil Energy.... 115.7 105.3
===========================
Energy Efficiency:
Industrial.............................. 67.9 48.7
Transportation.......................... 34.4 31.2
Buildings Technologies.................. 12.2 20.5
Power Technologies...................... 3.0 5.5
---------------------------
Subtotal Gas-Related Energy Efficiency 117.5 105.9
---------------------------
Total Gas-Related (Subcommittee 233.2 211.2
Jurisdiction)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Richard Morrow, Vice President, Southern
California Gas Company, and Chairman of the American Gas Cooling Center
I am Rick Morrow, Vice President of Southern California Gas
Company, a division of Sempra Energy. I am hear today to testify on
behalf of the American Gas Cooling Center, an association of natural
gas utilities, manufacturers and others interested in promoting natural
gas cooling as an alternative or enhancement to other air conditioning
and refrigeration choices. The Center, of which I serve as Vice
Chairman, is comprised of over 150 utilities, 50 equipment
manufacturers, and almost 100 other national and international
organizations.
Our association has a long history of successful cooperative
research, development and demonstration projects with the Department of
Energy. More importantly, we believe the need is greater now than ever
to develop and commercialize gas cooling technology that saves energy,
reduces emissions and provides lower cost options to consumers and
businesses.
In response to that critical need, we are specifically requesting
the Subcommittee to provide a total of $12.0 million to the Department
of Energy's Building, State and Community Programs to co-fund natural
gas cooling research, development and demonstration with our industry
partners. This request represents a $1 million increase over the
President's budget.
Our request for increased funding is being driven by the many
changes facing today's residential and business energy consumers.
Deregulation of the energy industry is increasing customer choice for
energy services, while environmental regulations banning CFC
production, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tightening indoor air
quality standards will potentially increase their energy costs.
Specifically, we expect that electric rates during summer electric
peaks will remain high, and may even grow, while off peak electric
rates may decrease.
As the American energy industry becomes more horizontally
integrated, utilities are no longer either gas OR electric. By way of
example, my company recently merged with San Diego Gas and Electric and
has a merger pending with KN Energy. Our company's interests have
broadened, but our focus remains on providing the customer with the
best energy solution.
Fortunately, natural gas cooling technologies can often provide the
most efficient and economical option for both our customers and for
ourselves. Moreover, the latest generation of high efficiency turbines,
micro-turbines, fuel cells, and other types of distributed generation
can work in combination with these gas cooling technologies to
dramatically increase overall energy efficiency. We are working with
the Department of Energy's Roadmapping process to incorporate these
combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) systems into new and existing
buildings resulting in potential energy efficiency improvements of up
to 40 percent.
For the residential consumer, the American Gas Cooling Center is
working cooperatively with DOE to complete development of a natural gas
fired heat pump, the generator absorber exchange cycle (GAX). DOE has
been conducting research for almost a decade and private industry has
become very involved in the past couple years. In fact, two consortia
of gas companies now exist to bring GAX to the market. As in a previous
gas heat pump commercialization effort (engine driven) for which the
gas industry committed over $14 million, we are willing to do the same
for the GAX, should it prove as efficient and cost effective as
preliminary DOE estimates. This technology, when commercialized, will
provide consumers with a lower cost, high efficiency alternative to
provide heating and cooling in their home. Current priorities in the
cost shared program include field test of multiple units and continued
component cost reduction and efficiency improvements.
We have numerous other projects that are either under development
or yet to be funded that will provide similar benefits to those I have
already mentioned. However, additional funding is needed to bring these
technologies to the consumer and to integrate them into the design
process for residences and commercial buildings.
We are very involved in cost shared research on desiccant
technology. Moisture removal has long been an issue for modern space
conditioning systems. When U.S. standards increased efficiency of
building envelopes, they negatively impacted indoor air quality,
thereby increasing air conditioning loads. New ASHRAE standards require
more outside air, thereby bringing in more humidity. Desiccants'
ability to remove moisture introduced by increased ventilation, can
provide a comfortable indoor environment more efficiently and
economically than conventional means. The gas industry views desiccant
technology as a real energy efficiency opportunity and is supporting
research and development jointly funded by industry partners, the Gas
Research Institute and the DOE. In fiscal year 2000 our priorities
include testing the performance of liquid desiccant prototypes and
field test of a desiccant air pre-conditioner that can be fully
integrated with electric air conditioning, as well as continued R&D
into indoor air quality implications.
In addition to these two programs, the industry continues to
support demonstration of the triple effect absorption chiller at the
Clark County Municipal Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. This technology,
aimed at the large commercial market, is approximately 20 percent more
efficient than the best available technology. In 1999 funding was
provided to finish prototype fabrication and fiscal year 2000 funds
will be sued to cost share installation and evaluation.
Our final priority is in line with our recent roadmapping
activities at DOE that incorporate combined cooling, heat and power in
building applications. Our activities in that capacity have already
produced one early need-design guidelines and criteria for integrating
on site power generation in buildings. Current building design tools,
such as DOEII and Energy 10, do not include on site power generation.
Effectively utilizing waste heat can increase efficiency of our
buildings' systems by 40 percent. We would like to see the current
design tools enhanced or new tools developed to address combined
cooling, heat and power. This activity, obviously, reaches beyond
natural gas cooling; however, we see systems integration as a key to
increased use of natural gas in space conditioning.
In conclusion, we are very excited about the many economic and
environmental benefits that will accrue from the continued development
and commercialization of natural gas cooling technologies for both the
residential and business customer. To achieve these benefits, the
American Gas Cooling Center encourages the Subcommittee to provide a
total of $12.0 million to the Department of Energy's Building, State
and Community Programs to co-fund natural gas cooling research,
development and demonstration projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael Dickens, Chief Executive Officer,
Integrated Building and Construction Solutions
My name is Michael Dickens. I am the CEO of IBACOS (Integrated
Building And Construction Solutions), a founding partner in the
Department of Energy's Building America Program.
IBACOS is made up of more than thirty leading companies from the
homebuilding industry, including equipment manufacturers, builders,
design firms, and other parties interested in improving the overall
quality, affordability and efficiency of our nation's homes and
communities. Although we are located in Pittsburgh, PA, our membership
is derived from across the country and our associated building product
manufacturers include Carrier Corporation of Indianapolis, IN, GE
Appliances of Louisville, KY, USG Corporation of Chicago, IL, Kohler
Company of Kohler, WI, GE Plastics of Pittsfield, MA, Owens Corning of
Toledo, OH, and IBM of Raleigh, NC Our Builder Network includes such
large builders and developers as Pulte Homes of Bloomfield Hills, MI
RGC of Newport Beach, CA, Classic Homes of Colorado Springs, CO and
Case Enterprises of Tucson, AZ. Other builders and developers in PA,
IN, CA, GA, and MD, also participate.
We have been working with the Department of Energy's Office of
Building Systems since the start of the Building America Program in
1993 (?). Along with three other consortia, we represent over 70
residential builders, developers, designers, equipment suppliers and
community planners, who have a common interest of improving the energy
efficiency and livability of America's housing stock, while avoiding
any increase in home costs. In pursuit of this goal the four partners
in Building America pursue common activities that will ultimately
assist all home builders, such as systems integration R&D to improve
energy efficiency, indoor air quality and durability of housing,
thermal distribution R&D, incorporation of passive and active solar
techniques, techniques that reduce material waste at building sites,
use of recycled and recyclable materials, and building materials
improvements.
We at IBACOS are excited about preliminary research results on
systems integration. One of the major hurdles in homebuilding has been
the issue of putting the home together on the building site in a way
that maximizes integration of the various components and equipment
within a house. Systems integration allows an airtight house in which
subsystems are used together to optimize the home's engineering and
otherwise increase the overall energy efficiency and rationality of the
home. There have been a number of concrete and encouraging results from
research, development and demonstration activities in cooperation with
the Federal government. In fact, IBACOS, as a part of the Building
America Program, has been able to demonstrate to production builders
such as RGC Homes of California that they can build homes that save
more than 40 percent in energy costs while avoiding any increase in
initial builder costs. The rate of technology transfer from the
national laboratories and the industry to the marketplace requires
additional demonstration opportunities and we are glad to be working
with DOE towards this end.
We view one of our most important functions, however, as creating a
resource of proven homebuilding methods for the tens of thousands of
small home builders across the country. Because the home building
industry consists of almost one hundred thousand small builders, some
of whom build only a few houses a year, it is very difficult to bring
innovations to this community. Building America partners, such as
IBACOS have the ability to diffuse information throughout the building
community. We are working to significantly expand the active team
membership of Building America, but, perhaps more importantly, we are
diffusing information to hundreds of builders through participation in
national conferences, technical committees and the internet. We are
working towards directly transferring systems innovations for homes to
over 100,000 production homes in the next four years, which could save
consumers approximately $50,000,000 in annual energy costs.
Our understanding is that the Department's Office of Building,
State and Community Programs has reorganized the Residential Buildings
program. We are encouraged by this reorganization and, as such, are
supporting the entire residential budget area. We are glad to see the
Department join programs that rightly belong together: Building
America, with industrialized and manufactured housing energy efforts
and the new Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH).
As an interested stakeholder in PATH, I think it is important to
understand the relationship that program has with the Building America
Program. PATH is a government-wide effort to improve the way America
builds housing stock and takes into consideration all aspects of
homebuilding. For this reason, HUD, DOE, NIST, EPA, NIOSH, OSHA,
Commerce and a number of other government entities are involved. DOE's
role is specific: improve the energy efficiency and livability of
America's residential buildings while incurring no additional first
cost. We have had no small measure of success and are working with PATH
on demonstration communities that incorporate the Building America
principles.
IBACOS is supporting all of these efforts for the simple reason
that they belong together. We in Building America are using several
types of industrialized housing in some of our test homes and field
developmental programs, and we are working with PATH communities as a
part of Building America.
One of the PATH communities is in Tucson, AZ. IBACOS, through the
Building America program is working with the developer and builders on
a 2600-home sustainable new town called Civano. The first test homes in
this community are proving to be at least 60 percent more efficient
than comparable homes and are costing only $150 per home more up front,
while saving hundreds of dollars annually on energy bills for each home
owner. Other communities in which Building America is serving as a
partner with developers, builders and PATH are Village Green in
California, Playa Vista in California, Summerset in Pittsburgh, and
emerging communities in Denver, CO and in Florida.
IBACOS intends to fully participate in any ``housing of the 21st
century'' road mapping activities. We feel very strongly that the
integration of the systems into a home is as important, or even more
important, than the individual pieces of equipment that are installed.
We have proven the ability to work with builders to build single pilot
homes and support them through early adoption in their production
lines. Now, we are very excited about our work with community planning
and larger scale projects. We look forward to continuing to work with
DOE to try to bring energy efficiency to housing at no incremental
first cost, while building markets for efficient equipment.
DOE plays a critical role in bringing this research, development
and deployment agenda to the marketplace. Because the home building
industry is made up of so many builders, suppliers, and equipment
manufacturers, it is virtually impossible for them to come together to
perform common research without a third party such as the DOE.
Additionally, there has been little incentive in the building area for
builders to improve on energy efficiency for a number of reasons.
First, energy and resource efficiency does not necessarily contribute
to the bottom line of the builder; instead, it benefits the homeowner
and the nation. Because the builder cannot directly recoup costs for up
front investments through energy savings (since he does not own the
home), he has little reason to spend more initially. For this reason,
we are working to make a better home for no incremental costs with the
belief that, eventually, energy and resource efficiency, durability and
affordability will be business as usual in the homebuilding industry.
DOE's role in bringing together the right entities and cost sharing
common research is therefore invaluable in fulfilling the social goods
aspect of improving our nation's building stock, while we work to
reduce up front builder costs.
We at IBACOS urge you to approve the DOE fiscal year 2000 budget
request for the Residential Buildings Program. Along with the industry
cost share in the program of at least one hundred percent, this program
can significantly catalyze improvements in what has traditionally been
a very fractionalized homebuilding industry.
Thank you for your attention today.
______
Prepared Statement of Eric L. Simpkins, Energy Research Corporation
This testimony requests $19.5 million for the Energy Research
Corporations portion of the U.S. Department of Energy's stationary fuel
cell program within a $65 million budget for the overall stationary
fuel cell program.
This statement is provided in support of the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program. The DOE/ERC Cooperative
Agreement (DE-FC21-95MC31184) defines that $19.5 million is needed in
fiscal year 2000. Key activities for this period are to organize sub-
megawatt and megawatt field trials, conduct sub-megawatt field trials
at customer sites, and realize continued progress in reducing the cost
of producing and installing Direct Fuel Cell--energy plants.
ERC expresses its appreciation to the Subcommittee for its support
of the stationary fuel cell program and the U.S. developers during the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations and conference process. Federal support
for the program makes the impressive accomplishments of the DOE program
possible.
summary
Enduring support for the Direct Fuel Cell program by the Congress,
the Administration, and the electric utility community is paying off.
The final activities necessary to validate the technology, and complete
the designs for a family of Direct Fuel Cell energy plants, are being
completed. In 1997, the 2-megawatt Santa Clara proof-of-concept test
was completed, providing the confidence to proceed, and the engineering
information necessary for designing and building market-ready energy
plants. ERC is proud to report another key milestone--the commissioning
of a 250-kilowatt Direct Fuel Cell stack. The largest Direct Fuel Cell
ever operated, it represents the building block for a family of energy
plants that will begin entry into domestic markets late next year. We
can also report that our German partner's fuel cell plant (containing
the Direct Fuel Cell stack) will be made available for U.S. markets
while, conversely, ERC's plant will be sold in Europe. Early adopters
are queuing for acquisition of the first plants, and negotiations for
field trials are underway in the U.S. and Europe. And significant
progress has been made in rendering the Direct Fuel Cell energy plant
affordable; the Direct Fuel Cell cost has been cut in half, and under
the field trials initiative will be cut in half again.
evolving markets for fuel cells
The process of restructuring of the electric utility industry is
accelerating, making the case for completing the stationary fuel cell
program promptly even more compelling. Over time this it is expected to
lead to lower but more volatile electricity prices for larger
customers, and potentially higher prices for smaller customers. Both
volatility and higher prices for some consumers reflect continued
dependence on the established grid, regardless of what entities
generate, transmit and distribute electricity. Also, traditional and
even newer central generation systems promulgate existing issues such
as costly maintenance, environmental emissions, and lower than needed
reliability. Dwindling capacity margins, from nearly 30 percent in the
mid-1980's to less than 15 percent today, threatens power availability
for everyone. This scenario bodes well for stationary fuel cell energy
because fuel cells aggressively respond to each of these issues.
Fuel cell energy plants are not large central generating systems.
Because they are sited at the load center, dependence on the
transmission & distribution grid is retired. Fuel cells are fuel
flexible. Should the price of one fuel rise dramatically, another
available fuel may be readily substituted until primary fuel prices
again become affordable. Because fuel cells are a combustionless
process, there is no rotating machinery. Consequently, operation and
maintenance processes are vastly simplified and reduced in number,
hence reliability will be greater than conventional systems. Lastly,
smog producing emissions are at or below the limit of delectability,
while greenhouse gas emissions are less than half those of traditional
generation systems.
The markets for stationary fuel cell energy plants are becoming
increasingly stronger. New applications for distributed generation are
being identified by user/buyers, accompanying a growing demand for
field trials to gain operational familiarity and experience. ERC and
its partners are conducting two projects that demonstrate the
innovative applications for fuel cell generation developing in domestic
markets:
--An ethanol production facility in Nebraska, production-limited
because of the quantity of its process waste effluent, will be
employing an integrated high tech digester/fuel cell plant to
pre-treat the effluent. The methane by-product will be consumed
by the fuel cell to generate electricity and thermal energy
needed for the ethanol production facility. This enables
production capacity growth and increased competitiveness for
the ethanol producer, while realizing the benefits of on-site
fuel cell energy production.
--An experimental greenhouse co-located with a county landfill in New
Jersey will use the fuel cell and landfill gas to generate
electricity and heat, as well as carbon dioxide needed for more
rapid plant growth. This reduces energy costs for the grower,
readies his produce for market faster, and productively uses
otherwise environmentally damaging landfill gas.
achieving planned objectives
ERC is committed to completing the DOE/ERC Cooperative Agreement
while establishing field trials that will validate the commercial
viability of these highly efficient and affordable energy plants. This
is the last pre-commercialization effort necessary to validate plant
designs, manufacturing processes, on-site installation procedures and
fuel cell operations. Toward this objective, several milestones have
been achieved and reported to this Subcommittee. In 1997, we described
in testimony the completion of the 2-MW Santa Clara (CA) proof-of-
concept test, which validated the carbonate fuel cell technology at a
utility scale. Since that watershed event, design changes dictated by
that test have been incorporated to optimize fuel cell performance and
reduce cost. Last month, the pre-commercial version of a 250 kW Direct
Fuel Cell stack (Figure 1) was commissioned at ERC's headquarters.
Providing, virtually, an endless supply of electricity for corporate
offices and engineering laboratories, this stack is the building block
for a family of Direct Fuel Cell energy plants that will be available
for domestic markets beginning in late 2000. A decade's investment in
the Direct Fuel Cell by the Congress and our country is paying off as
hoped, a testament to the enduring support of the Appropriations
Committee, the Administration, and the electric utility industry.
Optimizing the Direct Fuel Cell energy plant design to reduce cost
is the thrust of our endeavors today. ERC believes the plant will
achieve below market clearing prices of $1500 per kilowatt, established
by the electric utility industry, upon reaching product maturity. This
is a realistic expectation, validated through an independent audit by
the DOE, in consideration of the progress since the Santa Clara proof-
of-concept test. The power output from a single Direct Fuel Cell stack
has been doubled, while its durability has increased several-fold. The
engineered improvements coupled with the development of integral
relationships with our suppliers have reduced Direct Fuel Cell cost by
half. It is anticipated that the cost will be halved again through
completion of field trials that will begin later this year.
In the effort to condition markets worldwide for the Direct Fuel
Cell energy plant, ERC is aggressively developing strategic
partnerships and alliances. The Fuel Cell Commercialization Group, a
utility consortium established in the early 1990's for buying the first
energy plants, has supported ERC's efforts with market education and
systems level requirements definition. More recently, ERC have
established a cross-licensing relationship with the MTU division of
Daimler Chrysler, our strategic partner in Europe. Under this
arrangement MTU will provide 200-kilowatt class fuel cell plant, that
employs the Direct Fuel Cell, for U.S. markets, while ERC will make
available its megawatt-class Direct Fuel Cell energy plants to MTU for
sales in European markets.
With the partnerships and alliances being developed, Direct Fuel
Cell energy plants such as, nominally, the 3-megawatt plant (Figure 2),
as developed by ERC, will be sold worldwide. Additional members of the
family of Direct Fuel Cell products will include a 200-kilowatt, and,
nominally, 1.5 megawatt plants.
plans for completion
ERC is committed to completing the DOE/ERC Cooperative Agreement on
the existing schedule. This is dependent upon receiving the
Department's share of funding to support this schedule. ERC has
exceeded its cost share commitment, and will continue to meet or exceed
its share. We remain eager to launch the family of proven Direct Fuel
Cell energy plants into markets worldwide.
To meet this ambitious goal, ERC is conducting the tasks necessary
to complete the work defined in the Cooperative Agreement. The 250-
kilowatt Direct Fuel Cell energy plant, generating electricity for our
corporate headquarters facility, will continue operations throughout
the summer. This unit is the largest operational advanced fuel cell
energy plant in the U.S. today, representing the cooperative efforts of
the Congress, Administration, and the electric utility industry in
preparing the first advanced fuel cell for commercial markets. It
validates the design of the prototypic commercial fuel cell stack that
launches sub-megawatt and megawatt-class field trials.
Field trials are being developed with U.S. and European utilities
to showcase the Direct Fuel Cell, build user confidence in the multi-
level benefits of fuel cells, and attract the investment needed to
establish a broad manufacturing capability. The first of these field
trials will be conducted in Bielefeld, Germany beginning later this
year, while negotiations are underway for the first domestic projects.
Concurrently, ERC is focused on reducing the production cost of the
Direct Fuel Cell, and simplifying overall energy plant design. As the
Direct Fuel Cell approaches product maturity following field trials,
the plant cost will cross the market clearing price line. Highly
efficient electricity and heat generation, combined with super clean
emissions, will offer users remarkable value. These flexible energy
plants will engender a wide variety of uses including electric and gas
utilities, reliability and power quality applications, rural and on-
farm generation, electric service for ships, landfill sites, industrial
cogeneration, and environmentally sensitive areas.
conclusion
The many changes in the electric utility industry are driving
customer interest in new generation technologies. The Direct Fuel Cell
technology has been proven in hundreds of thousands of hours of testing
worldwide to meet specifications and the expectations of those
interests that will use them to solve problems of cost, power
reliability and availability. Early adopters are eager to apply fuel
cells to solve existing challenges or preclude the impacts of electric
utility industry deregulation. Its many benefits invite innovators to
study applications never before considered.
Bipartisan support has propelled the stationary fuel cell program
through the many years of study, experimentation and testing. Today, at
the threshold of market entry, continued support is needed to complete
the task. ERC sincerely appreciates the work of the Subcommittee and
the Department of Energy in behalf of the stationary fuel cell program.
We request that the Direct Fuel Cell program be funded in fiscal year
2000 at $19.5 million within a $65 million stationary fuel cell budget
that represents the aggregate need of the U.S. developers.
______
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Prepared Statement of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of
New Mexico
Request: A one-time $3 million appropriation from the National Park
Service to the University of New Mexico that will match private funds
for the construction of a facility for the storage and research of
archeological holdings located at UNM. These include the estimated 1.5
million artifacts from the Chaco Culture National Historic Park, a
UNESCO World Heritage Site also listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. This research collection is held jointly by NPS and
UNM.
Background: The Maxwell Museum of Anthropology at the University of
New Mexico houses and interprets a world-renowned and priceless
collection of cultural materials from around the world. More than half
of this collection focuses on the Anasazi (Early Pueblo) culture of the
American Southwest centered in world-renowned Chaco Canyon, one of only
two UNESCO World Heritage Sites in North America, which is managed by
NPS.
The Chaco holdings at Maxwell include archeological artifacts as
well as the extensive archival inventory of field notes, reports,
architectural descriptions and photographs that gives the artifacts
cultural meaning and preserves their original locations of use. Since
the 1930s, UNM and NPS have worked collaboratively on the archeological
research, education, publication and curation of collections from this
site. Significantly, it has been this long archeological collaboration
that has provided much of the expertise and information that enabled
the stabilization and long-term preservation of the unique architecture
of Chaco Canyon, thus enabling it to become an important part of the
nation's cultural heritage.
In addition, under a regularly renewed Cooperative Agreement
between NPS and UNM, the curatorial staffs of the Maxwell Museum and
the Chaco Culture National Historic Park jointly curate the
collections. In this regard, the missions of the agencies coincide and
include the long-recognized need to store the collections in a facility
that is adequately equipped to house them and to ensure their use by
scholars and availability to the general public. The 1995 Cooperative
Agreements states that ``The University and the Service will continue
to work collaboratively towards the planning and implementation of
long-range goals for the Collection e.g. the Inter-Agency/University
Research facility.''
The Maxwell Museum also houses major collections from all of the
other prominent archeological cultures of the Southwest region as well
as many other parts of the world, all of which will be consolidated in
the proposed facility. The best known of these is the collection of
Mimbres material of southwestern New Mexico that was recovered during
the 1960s and 1970s by the Mimbres Project of the Maxwell Museum. This
decade-long archeological salvage program excavated many of the
surviving Mimbres sites during a time of rapid land development and
looting, and in so doing, it added immeasurably to the understanding of
this brilliant culture.
The Maxwell holds many of the rare remains of the earliest human
occupation of the Western United States, including artifacts of Clovis
and Folsom hunters recovered from such famous early sites as Blackwater
Draw, the Folsom site and Sandia Cave. These are accompanied by equally
important paleolithic collections from the Old World that include some
of the best documented collections from Western Europe and East Africa.
Finally, the Maxwell holds major collections from the important
Mogollon civilization of present-day Arizona and the Casas Grandes
culture of Chihuahua, Mexico.
Need: The UNM/NPS Chaco project and several others that have
contributed to UNM's prominence in the fields of anthropology and
archeology continue to grow. Given the growth over the past 70 years,
the available space for storage and laboratory research has become
increasingly inadequate both in quantity and quality. The more than
five million artifacts currently held by the Maxwell are housed in five
different buildings, none that entirely meets the stringent standards
demanded by museum professionals and the NPS or by general federal (36
CFR 79) guidelines. Environmental and climatic controls, fire detection
and suppression, and security are less than optimal. Serious
overcrowding has limited the access of scholars intent on research and
of the general public seeking to view the remains of one of the world's
great prehistoric civilizations. Thus the collection and its
educational value are underutilized.
New Building Project: The Maxwell Museum and the Chaco Culture
National Historic Park, with the backing of their parent institutions,
have jointly developed a plan to address these urgent needs by building
a new curatorial and research facility adjacent to the Maxwell on the
University of New Mexico campus. The goals of this project are to
curate and preserve the archeological holdings; to make them available
for study, interpretation and public exhibition; and to generate
research and informational programs in accordance with the university's
education mission and that of NPS to bring national heritage to the
general public.
In support of these goals, UNM has received a commitment of $3
million toward the construction costs from a private donor. A further
$3 million is required to complete the storage/research facility in
accordance with preliminary plans completed by UNM-sponsored
architects. Architectural plans and estimated costs accompany this
document.
The new facility will house the Maxwell Museum and Chaco Culture
National Historic Park archeological artifacts, archives and related
photographic documentation, thereby consolidating components stored in
several different areas and benefiting users by having all materials
related to Chaco Canyon stored in one location. The facility will
conform fully to federal standards of curation required by 36 CFR 79
and will accommodate the current collection as well as anticipated
growth for the next fifty years. In addition to the collection storage
areas, the facility will include research laboratories and work space
for the curatorial staff from UNM and NPS; a teaching area, a research
library and archive containing the Chaco Canyon-related materials; on-
line access to catalog data and Internet access at all workstations;
and a conservation laboratory, visible storage for the most popular
component of the collection (Southwestern pottery and basketry) and
space dedicated for the use and study of the collections by Native
Americans.
Impact: The educational potential is almost unlimited, with the
facility serving as a dynamic laboratory for archeological and cultural
preservation training by NPS and UNM conservators and curators as well
as a center for innovative public education, outreach and
interpretation programs. K-12 students and the general public will
benefit from the increased use of the collections in the Maxwell
Museum's outreach, public and exhibition programs, which now reach more
than forty thousand children, adults and senior citizens each year. The
increased work space and laboratory facilities will encourage
University students and professional scholars to conduct research on
the artifacts and in the archives, thereby increasing the understanding
of the history of Southwestern cultures and enhancing the public
appreciation of the rich cultural resources of New Mexico and the
Southwest.
Because of its integral participation in the development of the
research facility, the NPS will be able to expand its existing
relationships with other federal agencies and with Native American
tribes. For instance, the NPS has long maintained a close working
relationship with the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Division with
regard to the examination and care of archeological sites located near
Chaco Canyon on Navajo lands. This work is essential to the full
understanding of the Chaco people in their regional context during the
Anasazi period. This collaboration has been severely hampered by the
inability of the NPS to store, analyze and curate the materials
resulting from the work. The new facilities will resolve this problem.
The central location of the facility in Albuquerque will also enhance
the NPS ability to consult with its many affiliated tribes on
collection use and NAGPRA compliance issues. Moreover, a major goal of
the Maxwell Museum is to open its doors for training and participation
of Native American people in museum management activities. The NPS is
fully supportive of this goal and feels that the new center will
further its ability to incorporate native views, perspectives and
concerns into the planning of its collections management strategies.
The presence of a major archeological research center on the UNM
campus in close proximity to related disciplinary centers such as
Biology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Native American Studies and the
Center for Southwest Research will facilitate interdisciplinary
research. In the past eight decades, research on the Chaco Canyon
collections has generated 45 graduate dissertations and theses. With an
increased potential for inter-disciplinary education, even greater
productivity is expected in the coming decades as the collection
catalog (now at 90 percent) is completed and computerized information
is made accessible. This increased research will greatly expand UNM's
ability to develop innovative public programming, enhancing
interpretive programs and exhibits in the Maxwell Museum and the Chaco
Culture National Historic Park.
In recognition of the importance of these collections for such
future work, the Society for American Archaeology, which is the
national professional body for archeology, solidly supports this
project. The new research facility represents a rare example of a
university--federal--private partnership in the vital area of
collections care and management. It also pioneers the full integration
of curation and education in a comprehensive mission that will provide
unusual opportunities for both the academic community and the general
public to expand their knowledge of the past and develop greater
awareness of the richness and diversity of our national heritage.
SUMMARY BUDGET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal grant
Cost funds Matching funds Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultant Fees: Architecture/Engineering................ ......... $202,366.50 $202,366.50 $404,733
Equipment:
Furnishings.......................................... $225,000 112,500.00 112,500.00 225,000
Data/Telecommunications.............................. 200,000 100,000.00 100,000.00 200,000
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... ......... 212,500.00 212,500.00 425,000
------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................................. 4,761,563 2,380,781.50 2,380,781.50 4,761,563
Other:
Project Contingency.................................. 101,205 50,602.50 50,602.50 101,205
Project Administration \1\........................... 307,500 153,750.00 153,750.00 307,500
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... ......... 204,352.50 204,352.50 408,705
------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget Costs................................. ......... 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes UNM Utility Charges of $240,000 (4 percent of budget) to bring utilities to the site and to pay for
increase in power supply.
______
Prepared Statement of Edward H. Able, Jr., President and CEO, American
Association of Museums
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 helped America's museums and their staffs serve communities
and families since 1906.
For over 30 years, the Federal cultural agencies have provided
invaluable financial assistance to museums of every kind, from art
museums and aquariums to youth museums and zoos, in their mission to
serve and educate the public. I urge you to bolster this effort in
fiscal year 2000 by funding the National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the levels
requested in the President's budget. In addition, I encourage you to
substantially increase the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to $40 million. This
increase would accommodate both the president's budget request of
$10.45 million for new technology and leadership initiatives as well as
the museum community's request of $6 million for a much needed boost
for major programs, such as General Operating Support (GOS) grants,
which have been level funded for several years. As my time is very
limited, I will simply underscore the critical support the NEH and NEA
provide museums, and will focus my attention on the importance to
museums of OMS General Operating Support (GOS) funds. 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. A museum's ability to serve its community well
stems from the health of the museum's most basic operations. Funding
for such operations are the most difficult to obtain.
the museum boom
Over the past ten years museums have witnessed a huge increase in
attendance. For evidence, we do not have to look further than down the
street to the National Gallery of Art, which during the Van Gogh
exhibition accommodated 5,339 visitors a day for a total of 480,496
visitors. The new California Science Center had over 2 million visitors
in the last year. There are more examples from 1998: An exhibition of
Leonardo da Vinci's ``Codex Leicester'' at the Seattle Art Museum had
2,916 visitors a day; ``Titanic: The Exhibition,'' drew approximately
5,000 visitors a day for a total of about 830,000 visitors to The
Florida International Museum in Saint Petersburg, Florida; and The New
York Historical Society during ``Treasures from Mount Vernon: George
Washington Revealed'' served 45,264 visitors in a three month period.
This is not simply a blockbuster phenomenon. According to a recent
and conservative AAM estimate, museums get 865 million visits per year
compared with around 600 million only a decade ago. That's an
impressive 2.3 million visits to American museums per day. More people
visit American museums today than in any time in history. And this
trend shows no sign of slowing down.
This attendance boom is not just at our nation's biggest
institutions. The Telfair Museum of Art, Savannah, Georgia, the oldest
art museum in the South, has seen its attendance double over the last
four years to 146,000 per year. And this increase in popularity is not
just for art museums--museums of all types and sizes are being built,
expanded, or renovated to serve the needs of children, families, and
life-long learners. We estimate that $4.3 billion will be spent on
museum construction between 1998 and 2000 and that more than 150
museums will be built or expanded during the same period.
So what are the reasons for this boom? While no doubt our healthy
economy is a major contributor, the real reason for museums' popularity
goes much deeper. Museums are now benefiting from the results of their
efforts to reach out to communities and families, which was key among
recommendations put forth to the field six years ago in AAM's landmark
report Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of
Museums. This report urged museums to become social and community
centers and to ensure that ``they are an integral part of the
multifaceted human experience.''
Museums have become what a recent supplement in the Washington Post
dubbed ``The New Town Square,'' ``offering everything from jazz
concerts to education forums'' while remaining places of learning for
children, families and adults; of scholarly research; and quiet
contemplation of beauty, our cultural heritage, and civilizations past
and present. No doubt museums are succeeding because they invest
tremendous resources to ensure that they are both intellectually
understandable and that they meet real community needs.
To demonstrate the impact of the Office of Museum Services at IMLS,
I turn back to the Telfair Museum. The museum was awarded a 1998 OMS
General Operating Support grant of $112,500 (GOS grants span two years)
to help support market research to determine what Savannah wants from
the museum and incorporate the findings into its new building and
mission. According to the museum, this GOS grant will help take its
service to the community ``to another dimension.''
needs resulting from the boom
1. Infrastructure Stress.--More than ever, museums are being asked
to be many things to many people. They greet this call with enthusiasm
and a strong sense of responsibility. However, all this success places
tremendous demands on infrastructure. With regard to art museums, for
example, it costs an average of $38 per visitor while the average
admission charge per visitor is $1.46. With the huge increases in
attendance, the main reason for establishing the OMS in 1976--``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. According to a recent AAM
survey, almost 90 percent 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.
One of the hallmarks of GOS grants is their flexibility. While
these awards cannot be used for construction or renovation, they can be
used for a multitude of purposes from education programs, to
collections care, to providing increased access to collections via
technology. For example, the Utah Museum of Natural History in Salt
Lake City received $112,500 that it will use in part to hire additional
security guards to meet the demands of increased attendance. The museum
had received state operating support funds, which allowed it to extend
its hours, which in turn had led to increased use by the public. The
museum also has an insect infestation problem, which threatens a very
important ethnographic collection. The funds will be used to rent very
large cold storage trailers to freeze the artifacts and eliminate the
infestation. In addition, the collections storage room will be sealed
and fumigated to ensure the long-term safety of the collection.
Another example of GOS being used for critical collections care is
the Bisbee Mining and Historical Museum in Bisbee, Arizona. This museum
will use its $39,140 GOS grant in part to help preserve its highly
regarded collection of 25,000 historic photographs, which are in need
of proper archiving and storage. According to the museum, archival
supplies are very expensive and it is especially difficult for small
museums to find the resources to care for collections at the level of
current professional standards. GOS is the only funding they can find
for collections care.
2. Education.--While education has long been critical to museums,
in recent years it has moved to the forefront of their public service
missions. Museums are a tool of learning for us all. They put us in
touch with the past. They bring us information about history's
successes and failures. Museums help us make real choices today as we
learn to value who we are, where we came from, and what we have. For
children, museums open new and wonderful doors to the universe. They
broaden our children's horizons, enrich their lives and introduce them
to new opportunities and experiences. Museums help young people to
learn and grow for the future.
We know from a recent OMS survey that museums in the U.S. spend
$193 million annually on K-12 programs and provide nearly 4 million
hours on educational programs such as guided field trips, staff visits
to schools, and traveling exhibits in schools. 88 percent of America's
museums now provide K-12 educational programming. Seventy percent of
museums have at least one full-time paid staff who offers K-12
educational programming. More schools everywhere recognize the value of
museum resources and are taking advantage of them. Museums' commitment
to education programs for schools is increasing: Over 70 percent of
museums surveyed report an increase in numbers of students, teachers
and schools served in the last five years.
Museums use GOS funds to support their education missions,
including expanding geographic outreach.--For example, the Museum of
New Mexico in Santa Fe will use its $112,500 GOS grant to continue
circulating its ``education van'' throughout the state. In this
program, museum staff go through intensive planning (working with
community leaders) to meet community needs. For example, staff worked
with Navajo elders of Crownpoint who were concerned that their weaving
traditions were not being passed on to future generations. Museum staff
brought artifacts to study and held weaving, tutoring, and mentoring
classes with the elders, to ensure this important tradition will
continue. The ``education van'' has been to 30 communities in its first
fourteen months of operation. According to the museum, this program
would not have happened without IMLS funding, which attracted funding
from five additional sources--giving yet another example of how
relatively small amounts of Federal funding leverages significant
public and private support at the state and local levels.
For the Green Mountain Audubon Nature Center in Huntington,
Vermont, which has an island sanctuary for endangered species on Lake
Champlain, a GOS grant of $42,700 was ``a shot of whole blood.'' The
museum was able to keep the educator it employed on a seasonal basis
and work him into all of its on-site and outreach education programs
throughout the year. The museum hopes to use this grant to build a
constituency for their outreach program so it can stand on its own when
the grant runs out--as happened at the Arizona State Museum, which
received ESEA Title I funding from local schools to sustain a program
begun with GOS funds.
3. Technology.--Our country's museums house an enormous wealth of
information for scholarly research and public education--more than 700
million objects and associated documentation of our cultural, artistic,
and scientific heritage. However, a museum at any one time has only
approximately five to ten percent of its collection on exhibition, and
access to objects in storage is necessarily restricted.
Before the advent of the digital age, museums were only able to
share their collections with the public in teaspoon amounts to on-site
visitors. Now, however, museums are leaders in developing interactive
exhibits and applying new technologies to increase their accessibility
through distance education. ``Virtual visits'' and school programming
via satellite, one and two-way video, over the Internet, or with a
combination of these and other communications technologies, can
supplement the more than 865 million actual visits each year to
America's museums.
A $60,439 GOS grant will allow the Sheldon Museum and Cultural
Center in Haines, Alaska to hire a specialist curator to enter their
entire collection, including local pioneer-transportation, mining,
local industries, Tlingit and other northwest coast Native American
artifacts, on computer for access by the public. For part of the
grant's matching requirement, the museum was able to leverage a digital
camera so they can sustain the process of providing the public on-line
access to their collection.
Similarly, the Hood Museum of Art in Hanover, New Hampshire is
using part of its $112,500 GOS grant to fund full time staff for data
collection and digitizing of their collection. The grant has enabled
the museum to provide an impressive level of detail about its
collection so that any student or faculty member at any time can access
the collection for meaningful study. This effort has brought the museum
into a closer relationship with students who are increasingly taking
advantage of all of the museum's resources. The museum would not have
been able to serve the students and faculty so well without this
funding.
But such examples are too few, too sporadic, and have only begun to
scratch the surface--fewer than ten percent of the nation's museums
have websites at this time. While 90 percent of the nation's teachers
believe that using the Internet boosts student achievement and prepares
students for a future requiring technological literacy, 60 percent of
the teachers are concerned about the quality of on-line content. The
president's budget calls for $5 million to make museum resources part
of a National Digital Library for Education. This funding is part of a
$30 million initiative to create a digital library that could be used
in American classrooms and throughout the world. The library will
include special collections from the Park Service and Smithsonian, math
and science resources from the National Science Foundation, and through
IMLS, books and museum collections.
In addition, the president's budget calls for $7.6 million for OMS
National Leadership Grants for Museums, such as Museums Online to help
museums use technology to create regional electronic networks, support
networked museums through training and technical assistance, share best
practices in the development of educational resources and implement and
upgrade Internet access at museums. These well-timed initiatives would
provide much needed coordination and focus facilitating museums'
efforts to provide distance education and increased access to their
collections. We have made great strides in U.S. libraries in terms of
information access and navigation. To be effective partners with our
library colleagues, it's critical to make the same advances for museum
collections, if we are to maximize their potential impact on the
education of our youth.
4. Other GOS Statistics.--While need has increased, the OMS has
shrunk, despite an exemplary record. Funding has dropped dramatically
since fiscal year 1995, when it was $28.7 million, to today's level of
$23.4 million. This has meant that the General Operating Support
program was able to fund only 20 percent of applications in fiscal year
1998 versus 26 percent in fiscal year 1995, and down from a high of
46.3 percent in fiscal year 1981. The 20 percent figure is very low
when you consider outside peer reviewers determining that 59 percent
were worthy of funding. While GOS grants can be used for multiple
purposes, 88 percent of grantees use their awards to improve visitor
services, while 94 percent enhance their educational programs.
The proposed $40 million is modest relative to the demonstrated
need. Funding all of the recommended applications would cost nearly $65
million. Nevertheless, $40 million would significantly increase the
ability of the agency to help a broader range of museums across the
country to reach out to their publics and use the OMS award to leverage
more private funding. The number of awards would increase significantly
and while most of those additional awards would be small grants, they
would have a strong multiplier effect on private and state funds for
the recipient museums, given past experience. Additional funding would
also help museums increase and enhance services to local school systems
and other community organizations.
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, important leadership
initiatives and awards which ``shine a spotlight'' on best practices
and replicable programs, and also funds a critical program to improve
individual museums' standards and performance--the Museum Assessment
Program, which is produced by AAM. Let me just end by applauding the
OMS as an incredibly efficient and effective agency. With its staff of
20, OMS's total non-program costs--including research--are 6.3 percent
of requested funding, less than its authorized cap of 10 percent. Over
93 percent of all dollars go directly to museums.
The public's expectations of museums are higher today than ever
before, and they are likely to continue to rise. Museums are facing the
challenge to meet and exceed these expectations. I urge you to answer
this challenge in partnership with us and ask that you recommend
funding for the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (IMLS) at $40 million and recommend funding
for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the levels requested in the President's
budget.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Symphony Orchestra League
On behalf of America's orchestras, the American Symphony Orchestra
League urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2000 funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts at the level of $150 million, as
requested in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
Grants from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) play a key
role in orchestras' efforts to bring musical performances of the
highest quality to the largest possible number of Americans. Supported
by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators and community
leaders, America's adult, youth, and college orchestras total more than
1,800 and exist in every state and territory, in cities and rural areas
alike. They engage more than 76,000 instrumentalists in playing
positions, employ (with and without pay) more than 11,000
administrative staff, attract more than 250,000 volunteers, and
annually perform nearly 30,000 concerts to total audiences nearing 31
million. The federal commitment to the arts, as embodied by the NEA, is
irreplaceable to this multitude of individuals involved in the
orchestra field.
While the fiscal year 2000 request for the NEA represents a
substantial increase in funding over the current level of $98 million,
the President's request for $150 million is still well below the $167.4
million in 1995 funding that preceded the drastic 40 percent cuts to
the NEA in 1996. The NEA has since significantly restructured its
grant-making process to make the most of the limited resources
available to serve the cultural needs of our country, and has now
further defined a method for serving those needs with additional
funding, embodied in a proposal titled Challenge America.
challenge america
Challenge America will provide support to state arts agencies and
arts organizations for activities in five specific areas: Access to the
Arts, Arts Education, Cultural/Heritage Preservation, Youth-At-Risk,
and Community Arts Partnerships. Through these areas, the NEA seeks to
reinforce its commitment to make the arts more central to American
families and to strengthen the arts infrastructure in communities that
are underserved by the arts.
access to the arts
The NEA currently supports programs at the national, state, and
local level that serve to increase access to the arts throughout the
country. In response to concerns about the distribution of NEA funds,
the agency created a new program, titled ArtsREACH, which is designed
to encourage grant applications from arts organizations and community-
based coalitions in 20 states considered underrepresented by direct NEA
grants. After a representative from the Sioux City Symphony Orchestra
attended an ArtsREACH grants seminar, the Orchestra successfully
applied for an fiscal year 1999 grant through the NEA's Creation &
Presentation category.
The $7,500 grant enables the Sioux City Symphony Orchestra to bring
musicians to small communities whose residents are unable to travel to
Sioux City for performances. The Orchestra is currently implementing
the grant, which supports outreach concerts and educational residencies
in neighboring communities in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
Through collaborations with local community centers, schools,
churches, and educational institutions, the orchestra will perform four
specialized concerts in rural areas. In one such collaboration, an
unprecedented partnership between chamber players and the nearby
Winnebago tribe will culminate in a performance that reflects Winnebago
traditions. The outreach programs of the orchestra also focus on
sending string musicians to schools for interactive sessions called
Informances. Students in classrooms in rural Iowa, many of whom have
never heard a stringed instrument performed in-person, can listen,
learn, and test out the instruments of Sioux City musicians.
Thanks to the recent grant, the Orchestra will expand education
programs to reach a larger number of schools that have requested to
participate in the Informances program. Likewise, the collaboration
with the Winnebago tribe would not be possible without the support
provided by the NEA and the additional community support the grant
leverages. The Orchestra is currently attracting new funding through
publicizing its NEA grant award in requests for contributions from
corporate sponsors, individual donors, and subscribers, and through
press releases and newspaper coverage.
arts education
Results from the NEA-supported 1997 National Assessment of
Educational Progress in the Arts demonstrate that arts literacy
provides the creative and communications skills necessary for today's
students to succeed in tomorrow's workplace. In its 34-year history,
the NEA has maintained a strong commitment to promoting the benefits of
early childhood learning in the arts, establishing arts education as a
core subject in the K-12 curriculum, and supporting the lifelong
learning opportunities offered by arts organizations.
An fiscal year 1998 Education & Access NEA grant currently supports
Arts in Community Education (ACE), an interdisciplinary education
program of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. In addition to requiring
that participating schools employ at least one full-time music
specialist, ACE integrates the arts into all subject matters, offering
in-service training and a summer curriculum workshop to all
participating teachers. Teachers then tailor the ACE curriculum for use
in their own classrooms.
cultural heritage/preservation
In order to preserve the rich traditions of our cultural heritage,
the NEA supports projects that increase public awareness of and
participation in uniquely American arts forms. Creative music and
performance traditions are supported through the NEA's American Jazz
Fellowships and National Heritage Fellowships, and through direct
grants to arts organizations.
An fiscal year 1998 Heritage & Preservation grant to the Atlanta
Symphony Orchestra supported a showcase of works by African-American
composers in a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration. NEA-sponsored
activities included: a January 1998 concert by the Atlanta Symphony
with the Glee Clubs of Morehouse College and Spellman College; national
and European broadcasts of the concert; production of compact discs of
works by African-American composers; and performances and master
classes for area college students.
youth-at-risk
An NEA-supported publication, Art Works!: Prevention Programs for
Youth & Communities, confirms that students who participate in
organized arts activities are significantly less likely to abuse drugs
or alcohol. Orchestra's programs for at-risk youth have further
demonstrated that arts participants develop higher self-esteem, are
more likely to remain in school, and are more likely to attend college.
Orchestras across the country, in small rural communities and large
urban centers, collaborate with teachers and community service
organizations to identify students that may be at risk of substance
abuse or gang activity, and offer learning opportunities for at-risk
youth during the school day and afterschool, weekends, and summers. At-
risk youth who participate in music programs experience the joy of
creativity, the discipline required to learn new skills, and the
satisfaction of participating in a safe community of peers and mentors.
community arts partnerships
Challenge America would support a collaborative effort to assist
community renewal through the arts. These projects range from
developing arts-related solutions for economic and social issues, to
increasing public awareness of the importance of the arts. Long-term
community arts partnerships have proven to stabilize arts organizations
in their communities and, particularly in the case of orchestras, been
key to audience development efforts.
An NEA grant created a new community partnership in support of the
Billings Symphony Orchestra. The Orchestra's outreach program for
residents of rural, tribal, and urban southeast Montana and northeast
Wyoming includes the Annual Free Youth Concert. An fiscal year 1998 NEA
grant of $5,000 leveraged matching support from the Stillwater Mining
Company, a first-time contributor to the Orchestra, and a significant
employer in Montana. While the Annual Free Youth Concert is typically
limited to one free performance by the full orchestra, the Stillwater
Mining Company's contribution made possible a second free concert in
January, raising the combined attendance to number more than 2,300.
One audience member expressed his appreciation for the performance
opportunity and for the Mining Company's support: ``Since my limited
income does not allow me to attend concerts more regularly, I
especially appreciate the efforts of the Stillwater Mining Company and
other sponsors who make it possible for the community at large to
attend the fine programs produced by the Symphony. Groups like the SMC
who sponsor such things show that they care for the Billings community,
and by so doing gain much support for what they desire to accomplish in
their business.''
The Symphony's outreach program also includes, Rural Rhythms, a
partnership with four rural counties, through which the Billings
Symphony Orchestra sends musicians as individuals and in pairs to
perform in informal settings. After front-page promotion and coverage
in the Rosebud County Press, one such performance attracted 15 percent
of the Colstrip population, which numbers near 500. One Colstrip
resident expressed her thanks: ``I just wanted to commend the Billings
Symphony on their program that allows those of us who live in rural
communities the opportunity to see and hear such wonderful musicians
and ambassadors of the Billings Symphony.'' Another audience member
commented, ``I believe you will have a few more Colstrip people attend
the Billings Symphony after Tuesday night's performance . . .''
In sum, the NEA grant to the Billings Symphony Orchestra has
sparked a new partnership between art and industry, increased access to
live performances, and helped the orchestra to build future audiences.
The Challenge America initiative will devote $50 million in funding
to provide crucial opportunities for community arts programs, such as
those described above. In conceiving this initiative, the NEA consulted
with the state arts agencies and other government agencies,
representatives from arts organizations, and the private sector to
forge an agenda that will further increase investments in the arts,
ensure access to the arts, promote individual creative endeavors, and
advance learning. On behalf of America's orchestras, we urge the Senate
to approve $150 million in fiscal year 2000 support for the National
Endowment for the Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of B. Lester Abberger, III on Behalf of the
Federation of State Humanities Councils
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
privilege of speaking to you today on behalf of the state humanities
councils. My name is Lester Abberger. I serve on the board of directors
of the Florida Humanities Council and the Federation of State
Humanities Councils. I live in Tallahassee, Florida where I work as the
senior vice president of the Florida Water Services Corporation.
I am here today on behalf of the National Endowment for the
Humanities and more specifically the state humanities councils to
advocate funding as requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget in the
amount of $150 million for the NEH and $39.13 million for the Federal-
State Partnership.
My involvement in the Florida Humanities Council began in 1989 when
I was asked to participate in an ambitious experiment in participatory
democracy called the ``Governor's Challenge Conference.'' Each year the
governor of Florida and the Florida Humanities Council chose a topic to
be discussed by regional and statewide citizens' groups throughout the
state in a process that would culminate in a list of recommendations
presented to the Governor and the state legislature. The year that I
participated the topic was ``Medical Ethics: The Have and Have Knots of
Health Care.'' Our group, composed of civic activists, medical
professionals and business leaders, explored and debated the choices we
face in the allocation of health care resources, terminal illness,
long-term care for the elderly and health care education.
The Governor's Challenge Conferences provided political leadership
with thoughtful recommendations, rooted in the informed concerns of the
various constituencies of the state and enlightened by the perspectives
of the humanities. These public discussions allowed us to not only
examine options in thoughtful ways but to inquire about the values
implicit in the choices. The most distinctive aspect of these programs,
however, was that they were rooted in the humanities. With the help of
humanities scholars we looked at what philosophy, history, religious
studies and literature tell us about the things that really matter most
to us as individuals and as a society. In the medical community, where
we often look to science and technology for solutions, we found that
the perspectives of the humanities challenged our assumptions and
opened our minds to entirely new possibilities.
My story is not unlike those of Americans in every state who have
been educated and enriched by the public humanities. For nearly 30
years humanities councils in all 50 states have sponsored and funded
programs that bring citizens together to discuss history, literature,
ethics, culture and public policy. In my state, the Florida Humanities
Council sponsored more than 900 public humanities programs last year--
programs for school teachers, business leaders, elected officials,
senior citizens and families--all with a total budget of only $1.5
million. I want to repeat this because I believe it is impressive and
important. With a total budget of only $1.5 million--about one-third of
which comes from the federal government--the FHC sponsored more than
900 programs throughout the state in a single year.
Many of these programs play a vital role in reaching out to the
small rural towns, which often have no cultural or educational
institutions of their own. In such areas, these programs may be the
only opportunity residents have to participate in live programs that
offer insight into their own history, to join a reading and discussion
group, or to discuss issues of common concern. Last February, for
example, more than 300 residents of Bartow, Florida turned out to hear
two prominent Florida writers, one black and one white, talk about
growing up in the segregated world of 1950's Florida. The discussion
after the program was every bit as enlightening as the program itself,
as the black and white residents talked about race relations in their
community over the past 40 years.
Such discussions are taking place in communities large and small
throughout the country. Mississippi's ``Hometown Initiative'' has
residents of Booneville, Clarksdale and Aberdeen researching and
documenting their local histories. The Washington Humanities
Commission's ``Inquiring Minds'' speakers bureau sent speakers to 400
presentations to schools, libraries and community centers in 35 of that
state's 39 counties. The Pennsylvania Humanities Council's Speaker
Bureau requests have doubled in three years.
Education is integral to the mission of all state humanities
councils, and each council has carved out a niche in the educational
system of its state, striving to ensure the highest possible quality in
classroom teaching. School programs and teacher seminars bring a wealth
of humanities resources into the classroom. In Louisiana, Summer
Teacher Institutes have reached a quarter of the state's middle and
high school humanities teachers, who in turn teach 300,000 students
annually. These 4-6 week intensive training session are taught by
college professors in humanities subjects identified by teachers.
Programs in Florida, Illinois and Minnesota provide week-long
residential seminars designed to provide outstanding teachers with the
opportunity to recharge intellectually, network with other excellent
teachers and study with distinguished humanities professors.
Responding to mandates from the Georgia legislature and the state
board of education that public schools provide character education, the
Georgia Humanities Council has a new character education initiative.
They have developed a resource center, sponsored a statewide conference
and conducted two summer teachers academies designed to help teachers
to use the great stories found in literature and history as a way of
looking at the virtues and values passed down from generation to
generation and which form the foundation of a civil society. The New
Mexico Endowment for the Humanities provides an annual history teachers
institute and also sponsors that state's National History Day
celebration and competition.
Several state councils have developed innovative interactive
humanities websites and cd roms, and many are working with teachers in
their states to help them integrate this technology into their
humanities curricula. Programs such as the Texas Council's ``Teaching
Humanities with Technology,'' are making certain that humanities
teachers are not left out of the information age.
At the heart of many humanities programs are children and families,
and nowhere is this more evident than in the expanding number of
literacy and family reading programs undertaken by state humanities
councils. In several states, including California, Minnesota, North
Carolina, Utah, Washington and Alabama, a program known as Motheread/
Fatheread is helping parents improve reading skills, build critical
thinking ability and talk about literary themes and family issues.
Through Motheread/Fatheread parents and children learn to appreciate
reading, good books, and the questions and discussion that good books
generate.
The Vermont Humanities Council has been a pioneer in that state's
efforts to combat illiteracy through ``Connections,'' a program that
offers adult literacy students an opportunity to gather with their
peers to discuss timeless themes and to make connections between the
books they read and their own lives. This year the Vermont Humanities
Council in partnership with the American Library Association and 27
state humanities councils will offer ``Connections'' in 40 sites
throughout the U.S. Through these exemplary programs and others
elsewhere across the nation, humanities councils are helping parents
improve reading skills while also providing opportunities for parents
and children to examine their values, their relationship with each
other, and their role in society.
An effective way to extend the reach of limited resources is to
develop productive partnerships, and this is an area in which state
humanities councils are particularly skilled. An outstanding example is
the partnership between the councils and the Smithsonian Institution
Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES), which resulted in a program
called Museum on Main Street, designed specifically to serve rural
communities. This seven-year-old collaboration has made it possible for
small towns in 22 states, including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and
Washington, to host high quality, portable Smithsonian exhibits and
build humanities programs around them. Typically the exhibit is
displayed in a community historical society or museum, and a local
planning committee, working with the humanities councils, plans
activities that explore the culture and history of the community and
surrounding area. In a number of participating sites, the audience for
the exhibit has exceeded the population of the town itself, and
participants in almost all cases report that the effects of the program
on the host institution and the community far outlast the few weeks
that the exhibit is displayed.
Rural museums are just one of many settings in which councils have
made it possible for citizens who would otherwise not have this
opportunity to participate in substantive humanities programs. The
Minnesota Humanities Commission, to cite another example, designed a
program for the elderly in nursing homes. Using an anthology of
readings they compiled, the council trains volunteers to read aloud to
those who can no longer read on their own. The New Hampshire Humanities
Council has conducted a program called ``A Backward Glance,'' which
involved scholars also working with nursing home residents to read
memoirs and then write their own, assisted by the scholars and also
local high school students who were enlisted to help with compiling
production of the written product. In South Dakota, humanities programs
on reservations help Native Americans to record and preserve their
native culture.
Other programs use the humanities to help citizens cope with the
often bewildering and rapidly changing world around them. The
Pennsylvania Humanities Council recently conducted a program involving
non-traditional audiences in the inner cities and rural districts of
southwestern Pennsylvania in exploring, through community forums and
discussions both face-to-face and on-line, the impact of communications
technology on their lives and American society as a whole. Of the 1,200
people who participated in this very successful program, more than half
did not have college degrees; three-quarters had never before attended
a public humanities
The board of directors of the Florida Humanities Council and our
counterparts in state councils are keenly aware of the changing nature
of the non-profit sector. We know that a secure financial future relies
on our ability to diversify and strengthen our funding base. Over the
past several years councils have been systematically analyzing programs
to make certain they fit our mission, exploring new markets and
investigating areas of potential profitability. All of us are engaged
in an organization-changing process that has helped us to generate
earned income, to attract new partners and to renew our confidence in
the vital role that the public humanities plays in clarifying issues,
building connections and creating a sense of community.
Our efforts are producing results, as nearly two-thirds of the
councils are receiving state funding, with several receiving
appropriations of more than $500,000. Over 90 percent of the councils
have received funds from foundations, corporations and individuals.
While all councils are working hard to build their resources through
state appropriations, membership support, corporate and foundation
grants and entrepreneurial ventures, the demand for our programs and
services far exceed what we can supply, and the federal support is
critical to all other fund-raising efforts.
Community grants programs, which enable local communities to plan
and fund their own local programs, have been seriously affected by
budget cuts, and most councils have reduced both the size and number of
grants they are making. Literacy and family reading programs are
substantially under funded in most states.
Speakers Bureau programs, through which citizens are able to engage
with high-quality scholars on a wide variety of ideas, are often the
only live humanities programs available to residents of small
communities in remote areas. And yet, many states report that they
spend their entire Speakers Bureau budget in the first half of their
fiscal year. Kentucky is only able to fulfill 20 percent of the
requests for speakers it receives. Minnesota has eliminated its
Speakers Bureau program entirely because they could not adequately
sustain it.
Consequently, I am here today to ask youno, to implore you--to
increase funding for the state humanities councils through the Federal-
State Partnership. Funding for the councils has been level for much of
this decade; indeed, our purchasing power has eroded, yet, as I have
tried to illustrate, our activities, demands and opportunities are
great. We are meeting needs not only in public programming but also in
education, teacher training, literacy and reading. Every dollar put
into the Federal-State Partnership goes directly and expeditiously into
the states and into programs that directly serve people. Even an
additional $100,000 for the Florida Humanities Council, for example,
could translate into 1,000 or perhaps even 1,100 programs rather than
900, which would greatly benefit the civic and cultural life of
Florida. It would allow us to expand the scope, breadth and geographic
range of our efforts within each state. It would allow us to reach more
of our people directly and personally with the programs that truly
affect our values and our humanity.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Abberger, B. Lester, III, on behalf of the Federation of State
Humanities Councils, prepared statement........................ 780
Able, Edward H., Jr., President and CEO, American Association of
Museums, prepared statement.................................... 774
Abnee, Conn, Executive Director, Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium,
prepared statement............................................. 743
Alexander, Clarence, Chairman, Council of Athabascan Tribal
Governments, prepared statement................................ 645
Allen, W. Ron, President, National Congress of American Indians,
prepared statement............................................. 543
Allen, W. Ron, Tribal Chairman and Executive Director, Jamestown
S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement............................ 580
American:
Public Power Association, prepared statement................. 734
Sportsfishing Association, prepared statement................ 490
Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement................ 778
Anderson, Ike, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior............................ 129
Apache, Burton, President, Alamo-Navajo School Board, prepared
statement...................................................... 588
Arita, Steven J., Environmental Coordinator, Western States
Petroleum Association, prepared statement...................... 506
Axfod, Craig, Program Director, Utah Environmental Congress,
prepared statement............................................. 694
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary, Department of the Interior.......................... 315
Prepared statement........................................... 320
Summary statement............................................ 318
Bajura, Richard, Director, National Research Center for Coal and
Energy at West Virginia University, prepared statement......... 708
Ballew, Tim, Chairman, Lummi Nation, prepared statement.......... 574
Barnett, Jack A., Executive Director, Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement..................... 479
Beetham, Mary Beth, Senior Associate, Defenders of Wildlife,
prepared statement............................................. 497
Begay, Jimmie C., Executive Director, Rock Point Community
School, the Navajo Nation, prepared statement.................. 673
Belone, Phillip, Executive Director, Ramah Navajo School Board,
Inc., Pine Hill, NM, prepared statement........................ 587
Bennett, Hon. George E., Chairman, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, prepared statement........... 628
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, opening
statement...................................................... 190
Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, prepared statement........... 669
Bighorn, Spike, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation, prepared statement......................... 614
Blazer, Karen Dixon, on behalf of Association of Navajo Community
Controlled School Boards, Inc., prepared statement............. 584
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Opening statement............................................ 131
Prepared statements........................................212, 317
Questions submitted by.....................................294, 433
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 749
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Opening statements.....................................47, 189, 316
Questions submitted by................................103, 298, 439
Campbell, Faith T., Ph.D., Washington Representative, on behalf
of Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement................ 699
Campbell, Hon. Ben, Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Opening statement............................................ 46
Questions submitted by.....................................165, 181
Chase, Mike, Endangered Species Coordinator, Kern County Farm
Bureau, prepared statement..................................... 506
Clark, Les, Vice President, Independent Oil Producers Agency,
prepared statements..........................................506, 515
Clark, Robert, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Area Health Corp.,
prepared statement............................................. 562
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, prepared statements....475, 508
Coal Utilization Research Council, prepared statement............ 716
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, prepared
statement...................................................... 2
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 606
Conrad, Gregory E., Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact
Commission, prepared statement................................. 471
Coontz, Glenn, Vice Chair, Department of Finance and
Administrative Services, Urban Consortium Energy Task Force,
prepared statement............................................. 755
Council for Chemical Research, prepared statement................ 745
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Opening statement............................................ 224
Questions submitted by....................................... 438
Cukro, George, Executive Director, Black Mesa Community School,
prepared statement............................................. 595
Cunha, Manual, Jr., President, NISEI Farmers League, prepared
statements...................................................506, 515
Derbyshire, Dr. Frank, Director, University of Kentucky, Center
for Applied Energy Research, prepared statement................ 736
Dickens, Michael, Chief Executive Officer, Integrated Building
and Construction Solutions, prepared statement................. 768
Dombeck, Mike, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.. 187
Prepared statement........................................... 201
Summary statement............................................ 197
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by.......................................164, 177, 289, 427
Dorgan, Hon. Bryan L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, questions
submitted by..................................................39, 460
Ebel, John E., Ph.D., Director, the Weston Observatory of Boston
College, prepared statement.................................... 539
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, prepared statement. 746
Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement.................... 738
Evans, Peter H., Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board,
prepared statement............................................. 535
Evetts, Robert M., President, National Association of Abandoned
Mine Land Programs, prepared statement......................... 704
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, questions
submitted by........................................42, 184, 311, 465
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement... 616
Frank, Billy, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission, prepared statement................................. 577
Fuel Cell Commercialization Group, prepared statement............ 733
Fumich, George, Program Advisor, National Research Center for
Coal and Energy at West Virginia University, prepared statement 708
Gainesville, FL, city of, prepared statement..................... 523
Garcia, Martha, President, Ramah Navajo Chapter, prepared
statement...................................................... 597
General Electric Power Systems, prepared statements............713, 761
Geringer, Hon. Jim, Governor, State of Wyoming, prepared
statement...................................................... 481
Gilmartin, Hon. Tim E., Mayor, Metlakatla Indian Community,
prepared statement............................................. 675
Gipp, David M., President, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 660
Goergen, Michael T., Jr., Director, Forest Policy, Society of
American Foresters, prepared statement......................... 696
Goerl, Vincette, Deputy Chief, Chief Financial Officer, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 187
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Opening statements.............................1, 45, 129, 187, 325
Questions submitted by............................62, 167, 239, 354
Gover, Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior..................................... 129
Prepared statement........................................... 145
Summary statement............................................ 142
Guenthardt, Hon. Robert, Tribal Ogema (Chief Executive), Little
River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan, prepared statement... 664
Hamilton, Lee H., Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Summary statement............................................ 28
Hansen, Kenneth C., Chairman, Samish Indian Tribe of Washington
State, prepared statement...................................... 656
Havatone, Earl, Chairman, Hualapai Tribal Council of Arizona,
prepared statement............................................. 554
Hazard, Holly E., Executive Director, Doris Day Animal League,
prepared statement............................................. 489
Heyman, I. Michael, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution........... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Summary statement............................................ 18
Hocker, Jean, President, the Land Trust Alliance, prepared
statement...................................................... 527
Holder, Gerald, Dean, University of Pittsburgh, prepared
statement...................................................... 710
Holmer, Steve, Campaign Coordinator, American Lands Alliance,
prepared statement............................................. 692
Holmes, Constance D., Senior Vice President, Policy National
Mining Association, prepared statement......................... 482
Huffman, Dr. Gerald P., Director, Consortium for Fossil Fuel
Liquefaction Science, prepared statement....................... 706
Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement.......... 502
Hunsinger, Scott, Director, Non-Academic Programs, Shiprock
Alternative Schools, Inc., prepared statement.................. 591
Huntington, Gilbert, Co-Chair Upper Yukon, Yukon River Drainage
Fisheries Association, prepared statement...................... 507
Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc., prepared statement............... 732
Ivanoff, Larry, Chairman, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium,
prepared statement............................................. 618
James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark, NJ, prepared statement 518
James, Ted, Planning Director, Kern County Planning Department,
prepared statement............................................. 506
Janger, Stephen A., President, Close Up Foundation, prepared
statement...................................................... 512
John, Hon. Ismael, Senator, Nitijela of the Marshall Islands,
prepared statement............................................. 690
Johnson, Myrna, Director, ORCA, prepared statement............... 703
Jones, Hon. Gerald J., Tribal Chairman, Port Gamble S'Klallam
Tribe, prepared statement...................................... 681
Joseph, Jason L., Chairman, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 568
Kavanagh, Lawrence W., Vice President, Manufacturing and
Technology, American Iron and Steel Institute, prepared
statement...................................................... 727
Kenahan, Robert E., Tribal Police Chief, Narragansett Indian
Tribe, prepared statement...................................... 643
Kenny, Michael P., Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, prepared statement...................................... 515
Ketchum, Dee, Chief, Tribal Council of the Delaware Tribe of
Indians, Bartlesville, OK, prepared statement.................. 624
Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research
Association, prepared statement................................ 720
Kohl, Hon. U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
Opening statement............................................ 214
Questions submitted by....................................... 183
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions
submitted by.................................................310, 452
Lewis, Robert, Deputy Chief, Research and Technology Development,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 187
Lonetree, Jacob, President, Ho-Chunk Nation, prepared statement.. 601
Lopeman, David, Chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 571
Lyons, James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......... 187
Prepared statement........................................... 195
Summary statement............................................ 190
Manning, Gloria, Acting Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 187
Maulson, Tom, Chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, prepared statement........................... 611
Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
prepared statement............................................. 772
McCabe, Preston, President, Pinon Chapter, the Navajo Nation,
prepared statement............................................. 592
McDougle, Janice, Acting Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry 187
Meadows, James, Executive Director, Presidio Trust, prepared
statement...................................................... 520
Merculief, Hon. Boris R., President, St. George Island
Traditional Council, St. George Island, AK, prepared statement. 632
Miami Beach, FL, city of, prepared statement..................... 517
Moore, Donald Sr., Chairman, Bad River Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, prepared statement........................... 608
Morrow, Richard, Vice President, Southern California Gas Company,
and Chairman of the American Gas Cooling Center, prepared
statement...................................................... 766
Mosman, James D., Chief Executive Officer, State Teachers'
Retirement System, State of California, prepared statement..... 718
Murphy, Charles, Board President and Chairman, Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe, prepared statement................................ 660
National:
Association of Energy Service Companies, prepared statement.. 753
Association of State Energy Officials, prepared statement.... 710
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
statement.................................................. 509
Corn Growers Association, prepared statement................. 741
Indian Child Welfare Association, prepared statement......... 652
Natural Gas Industry, prepared statement......................... 758
Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement.............................. 649
Norton Sound Health Corporation, prepared statement.............. 641
Old Chief, William, Chairman, Blackfeet Tribe, Blackfeet Indian
Reservation, prepared statement................................ 666
Ornithological Council, prepared statement....................... 486
Owens, John M., Associate Dean for Research, Auburn University,
prepared statement............................................. 710
Patrick, Barbara, member, Board Supervisors of Kern County and
member, California Air Resources Board, prepared statement..... 515
Patt, Olney Jr., Chairman, Tribal Council, Confederated Tribes of
the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, prepared statement..... 638
Perschel, Robert, Chairman, Northern Forest Alliance, prepared
statement...................................................... 529
Peter, Hon. Neptali, Mayor, Enewetak Atoll on behalf of the
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement.. 690
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement........ 729
Pinkham, Jaime, President, Intertribal Timber Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 620
Powell, Earl A., III, Director, National Gallery of Art.......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Summary statement............................................ 13
Poynter, Ken, Executive Director, Native American Fish & Wildlife
Society, prepared statement.................................... 495
Preston, Victor R., Chairman, Susanville Indian Rancheria,
prepared statement............................................. 658
Pugmire, Ronald J., Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Research,
Professor of Chemical and Fuels Engineering, University of
Utah, prepared statement....................................... 709
Queton, Hilton G., Executive Director, American Indian Graduate
Center, Albuquerque, NM, prepared statement.................... 549
Quickel, Dr. Kenneth E., Jr., President, Joslin Diabetes Center,
prepared statement............................................. 627
Quinn, Timothy H., Acting General Manager, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, prepared statement............ 474
Rainwater-Sande, Hon. Stephanie, President, the Ketchikan Indian
Corporation, prepared statement................................ 630
Randall, Vincent, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 556
Reheis, Catherine H., Managing Coordinator, Western States
Petroleum Association, prepared statement...................... 515
Reicher, Dan, Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Energy................................ 45
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions submitted
by............................................................. 458
Rice, Stan, Jr., President, Board of Directors, Prescott Indian
Tribe, prepared statement...................................... 648
Richardson, Hon. Bill, Secretary of Energy, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Energy................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Summary statement............................................ 48
Rosebud Sioux Tribe, prepared statement.......................... 551
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 671
Sharkey, Andrew G., III, President and CEO, American Iron and
Steel Institute, prepared statement............................ 727
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, prepared statement.................. 677
Simmons, Roger, Consul General, Canada, letter from.............. 494
Simpkins, Eric L., Energy Research Corporation, prepared
statement...................................................... 769
Siyuja, Thomas, Chairman, Havasupai Tribal Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 557
Smith, Maj. Gen. Scott B. (U.S. Army Ret.), Chief Executive
Officer, Western Research Institute, prepared statement........ 722
Southern Environmental Law Center, prepared statement............ 701
Sparrowe, Rollin D., President, Wildlife Management Institute,
prepared statement............................................. 476
Stevens, Christine, Secretary, Society for Animal Protective
Legislation, prepared statement................................ 505
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, question submitted
by............................................................. 288
Stewart, Ron, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 187
Styles, Gary A. Manager, Planning and Analysis Power Systems
Development Facility, Southern Company Services, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 724
Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys Professor of Environmental
Engineering, University of Tulsa, Director, Integrated
Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC), prepared statement.. 583
Thompson, Clyde, Deputy Chief, Business Operations, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 187
Thompson, Thomas M., Acting Special Trustee for American Indians,
Office of the Special Trustee, Department of the Interior...... 129
Prepared statement........................................... 135
Summary statement............................................ 132
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, questions
submitted by................................................... 467
Tierney, John W., Professor, University of Pittsburgh, prepared
statement...................................................... 710
Tom, Young Jeff, President, Mariano Lake Community School, Inc.
of the Navajo Nation, prepared statement....................... 600
Tsosie, Wallace, board member, Greasewood Springs Community
School, Inc., prepared statement............................... 596
Tucker, Hon. Daniel, Vice Chairman, Sycuan Band of Mission
Indians, prepared statement.................................... 567
Tutt, James M., President, Crownpoint Institute of Technology,
Crownpoint, NM, prepared statement............................. 557
University of New Mexico, prepared statement..................... 532
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 537
Ward, Justin R., Senior Policy Specialist, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, prepare statement............................. 700
Ward, Peter J., Chairman, United States Park Police Labor
Committee, Fraternal Order of Police, prepared statement....... 524
Webb, David O., Vice President, Government Programs Services
Ccenter, Gas Research Institute, prepared statement............ 764
Wender, Irving, Distinguished University Research Professor,
University of Pittsburgh, prepared statement................... 710
Wilde, Harry, Sr., Co-Chair, Lower Yukon, Yukon River Drainage
Fisheries Association, prepared statement...................... 507
Wilker, Lawrence J., President, John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts................................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Summary statement............................................ 3
Wopsock, Ronald J., Chairman, Tribal Business Committee of the
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 564
Wynne, Bruce, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians, prepared
statement...................................................... 560
Yallup, William F., Sr., Chairman, Yakama Indian Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 602
Zimmerman, Gerald R., Executive Director, Colorado River Board of
California, prepared statement................................. 479
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 239
Administrative appeals........................................... 229
Allocation of funds:
Among the regions............................................ 303
Criteria..................................................... 210
Beetles.......................................................... 212
Douglas fire................................................. 225
Budget:
Accountability............................................... 188
President's.................................................. 202
Resolution................................................... 187
Restructuring................................................ 189
Structure reform............................................. 238
Carson National Forest drainage problem.......................... 291
Clean water action plan.......................................... 193
Crown jewel mine................................................. 235
Drought assessment............................................... 222
Education........................................................ 219
Elk River limited partner land acquisition and donation.......... 308
Environmental litigation......................................... 221
Financial accountability.......................................200, 252
Fire............................................................. 239
Risk assessment.............................................. 222
Forest:
Access.....................................................210, 213
Health and sustainability.................................... 191
Initiative, four corners sustainable......................... 290
Management, balanced......................................... 217
Plan development process..................................... 231
Service Accountability....................................... 206
Reorganization........................................... 296
State and private............................................ 254
Stewardship contracts........................................ 295
Transitional management...................................... 218
Urban and community.......................................... 193
General........................................................285, 294
Administration............................................... 237
GPRA............................................................. 252
High-risk agency list............................................ 237
Highland scenic highway landslides............................... 307
In-holdings...................................................... 223
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan.........225, 233, 283
Insects and disease.............................................. 193
Gypsy moth................................................... 214
Institute:
Of Hardwood Technology Transfer and Applied Research......... 207
Partnerships................................................. 208
Invasive species................................................. 227
Land:
Acquisition priorities....................................... 223
Legacy initiative............................................ 191
Management planning.......................................... 283
Law enforcement.................................................. 284
Legislative proposals............................................ 264
Maintenance...................................................... 194
Multiple-use................................................. 201
Mining Act implications.......................................... 237
Mining laws...................................................... 238
Interpretation of............................................ 236
Monongahela National Forest...................................... 209
Radio system................................................. 303
Watershed restoration needs of............................... 308
Natural Resource Agenda.......................................... 203
New burn policy.................................................. 294
New legislation for more revenues................................ 297
Noxious weeds.................................................... 226
Payments to states........................................194, 213, 217
Prescribed:
Burns........................................................ 227
Fire......................................................... 228
Presidential priorities.......................................... 195
Public involvement............................................... 225
Puget Sound map photographs...............................192, 234, 238
Record of decision authority..................................... 232
Recreation....................................................... 242
Regional office move............................................. 215
Research......................................................... 259
Centers, West Virginia....................................... 306
Roadless moratorium.............................................. 247
Roads..........................................................194, 211
And mineral closures......................................... 295
And timber sales............................................. 228
Rural community assistance....................................... 290
Seneca Rocks Visitor Center...................................... 301
Smoke jumpers ceremony in Montana................................ 296
Southwest conservation strategy.................................. 291
Surplus land disposal/inholder relief............................ 289
Sustainable forest management.................................... 199
Timber harvests.................................................. 199
Program...................................................... 282
Tongass:
Land management plan.......................................229, 230
Record of decision........................................... 215
Tongass Timber Reform Act........................................ 216
U.S. Forest Service--litigation costs............................ 292
Southwestern drought......................................... 293
Watersheds....................................................... 198
Improvements................................................. 209
Wood Education and Resource Center.............................207, 298
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
Accomplishments.................................................. 62
Additional committee questions................................... 62
Boiler system, low emission...................................... 68
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 50
Carbon sequestration............................................. 65
Clean fuels research, advanced................................... 106
Climate change..................................................61, 119
Activities................................................... 126
Coal technology, clean.........................48, 53, 54, 83, 114, 125
Economic regulation.............................................. 54
Energy conservation.............................................. 90
Efficiency................................................... 50
Information administration..................................54, 103
Use measurement.............................................. 60
Federal and private sector partnerships.......................... 56
Federal Energy Management Program................................ 93
Federal Technology Center......................................122, 127
Fossil energy research and development............52, 55, 103, 125, 114
Natural gas.................................................. 74
Research--Coal............................................... 105
Fuel Cells......................................................77, 114
Great Plains gasification plant.................................. 72
Indirect fired cycle............................................. 69
Industries of the future......................................... 98
Lighting and appliance standards................................. 92
Liquefaction:
Direct....................................................... 66
Indirect..................................................... 67
Metallurgical processes, advanced................................ 83
Methane, coal mine............................................... 113
Hydrates..................................................... 112
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves...........................53, 88
Program direction................................................ 82
Research and environmental technology............................67, 69
Standards, building.......................................... 90
Technology development....................................... 71
Restructuring.................................................... 64
Electric power industry...................................... 57
Research--natural gas........................................ 112
Rocky Flats...................................................... 58
Science, security and energy: Powering the 21st century.......... 49
Source measurement techniques, site versus....................... 65
Standards, appliance efficiency.................................. 123
Strategic Petroleum Reserves.....................................52, 87
Technology, oil.................................................. 79
Ramjet....................................................... 103
Transportation............................................... 96
Turbine systems, advanced........................................ 102
Programs..................................................... 113
Vehicles, alternative-fueled..................................... 59
Vision 21........................................................ 110
Waste isolation pilot plant...................................... 58
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Additional committee questions................................... 164
Alcohol and substance abuse...................................... 149
Budget summary, fiscal year 2000................................. 146
Construction..................................................... 148
Education.................................................... 149
Contract support................................................. 173
Environmental management......................................... 177
Fractionation legislation........................................ 141
Ishi's remains................................................... 186
Law enforcement................................................150, 172
Organization..................................................... 146
Programs:
Indian, operation of......................................... 147
Land consolidation pilot..................................... 183
Trust funds.................................................. 184
Schools.......................................................... 152
Chief Leschi................................................. 169
Construction bonding initiative.............................. 167
Grant, unlawful investments by............................... 171
Improvement and repair....................................... 169
More Teachers in Native American............................. 185
Phased funding for construction.............................. 152
Secretary's Trust Management Improvement Project................. 150
Special Initiatives.............................................. 148
Tribal courts.................................................... 149
Water rights litigation.......................................... 176
Office of the Secretary
Additional committee questions................................... 354
Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, role of.............. 329
Alaska projects.................................................. 379
American Samoa................................................... 422
AML increases.................................................... 384
Animas-LaPlata................................................... 336
Automated land and mineral record system.......................349, 364
BIA school construction.......................................... 464
Biological Resources Division in USGS............................ 350
Brown Tree Snake................................................. 423
Budget:
Overview..................................................... 320
Priorities................................................... 345
Bureau:
Of Indian Affairs..........................................418, 433
Of Land Management........................................... 364
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge........................... 446
Canadian Lynx.................................................... 335
Central HAZMAT................................................... 373
Coalbed methane permits.......................................... 365
Commendation to Park Service employees........................... 341
Competition with the private sector.............................. 388
Construction program reform...................................... 394
Projects..................................................... 413
Contract support on tribal contracts............................. 418
Contractor offsets............................................... 386
Corridor H....................................................... 326
Crown Butte Agreement............................................ 437
Crown Jewel mine application rejection........................... 351
Project...................................................... 368
Dams............................................................. 352
Removal...................................................... 414
Deepwater issues................................................. 380
Departmental management.......................................... 354
Destin dome...................................................... 376
Determinations of eligibility.................................... 329
By the National Register of Historic Places.................. 328
Domestic energy industries....................................... 436
Endangered species water needs................................... 330
Energy conservation.............................................. 403
Equipment replacement............................................ 415
Everglades land acquisition...................................... 415
Modified water delivery system............................... 413
External administrative costs.................................... 405
Facility condition assessments................................... 404
FDR Memorial..................................................... 414
Fines............................................................ 359
Fire............................................................. 367
Fish and Wildlife FWS--Silvery Minnow............................ 427
Service...................................................... 391
Birding Guide............................................ 463
Easements................................................ 462
Wolf Questionnaire....................................... 427
Five year plans.................................................. 356
Focus on emerging biological problems............................ 324
GAO report....................................................... 348
General.......................................................... 374
George W. Beaver................................................. 339
Glen Echo Park................................................... 413
Government Performance and R354, 371, 382, 387, 389, 392, 415, 419, 426
Grazing permits.................................................. 366
Grizzly bear reintroduction....................................339, 435
Harpers Ferry Center for Interpretation and Design............... 441
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park........................... 439
Hawaiian impacts................................................. 425
Historically Black Colleges and Universities..................... 412
Impact assistance................................................ 424
Independence for functions of contract rate setting and audit in
the Department................................................. 363
Indian gaming.................................................... 349
Trust fund................................................... 336
Initiative:
Appalachian streams.......................................... 386
Coral reef................................................... 422
Lands legacy................................................. 321
Natural resources............................................ 397
Inspections...................................................... 382
International activities......................................... 376
Kanawha-New River water-quality assessment....................... 451
Keeper responsibilities.......................................... 327
Kempthorne bill.................................................. 345
Land and Water Conservation Fund...............................359, 397
Leafy Spurge at Theodore Roosevelt National Park................. 462
Leetown Science Center........................................... 449
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Project............................. 461
National Historic Trail...................................... 460
Litigation costs................................................. 432
Livability....................................................... 322
Lower Mississippi River 10-year plan............................. 343
Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan......................... 434
Mandan on-a-slant and Lewis and Clark............................ 460
Mandated use of critical habitat designation..................... 331
Marine Minerals Research Center.................................. 377
Minerals Management Service...................................... 374
Montana mineral withdrawal....................................... 437
Natchez Trace Parkway maintenance................................ 342
National:
Center for Preservation Technology and Training.............. 410
Conservation Training Center................................. 445
Constitution Center.......................................... 412
Fish Hatcheries Program...................................... 448
Park Service................................................. 394
Petroleum Reserve of Alaska................................334, 371
Recreation and Preservation.................................. 409
New Mexico drought............................................... 330
New River Gorge National River................................... 443
North Star project............................................... 333
Off-stream storage sites.......................................338, 339
Office of Insular Affairs........................................ 421
Office of Surface Mining......................................... 384
Offsetting receipts.............................................. 374
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge...................... 447
Onshore oil and gas regulations.................................. 438
Otter Creek...................................................... 337
Park:
Police....................................................... 400
Service:
Acquisition.............................................. 416
Housing.................................................. 417
PILT funding..................................................... 434
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse.................................... 335
Presidio......................................................... 401
Prior Service Trust Fund......................................... 425
Problem with offsets............................................. 346
Program coordination among the four agencies..................... 347
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program...........................347, 356
Reengineering.................................................... 378
Refuge revenue sharing........................................... 392
Repair and rehabilitation........................................ 399
Restoration...................................................... 322
Restoring:
Ecosystems................................................... 322
Parks, refuges and public lands.............................. 323
Species...................................................... 323
Rock Creek Parkway telecommunications tower...................... 341
Royalty-in-kind.................................................. 378
Safe visits to public lands...................................... 324
Salmon recovery.................................................. 353
Sand and gravel.................................................. 379
Save America's treasures......................................... 411
Science.......................................................... 323
Seven generations into the future and past....................... 325
Southwestern drought............................................. 431
Sportfish restoration grants to States........................... 391
State minimum funding............................................ 386
Surplus land disposal/inholder relief............................ 430
Taxes, payments in lieu of....................................... 463
Timeliness of approving projects funded with recreation
demonstration fee receipts..................................... 347
Tribal trust management improvement.............................. 326
Tribally controlled community colleges........................... 463
U.S. Geological Survey........................................... 388
United States Park Police........................................ 467
Valuation........................................................ 375
Vanishing treasures.............................................. 399
Virgin Islands................................................... 421
Water rights..................................................... 332
Wild horse and burro............................................. 370
Y2K.............................................................. 404
Office of the Special Trustee
Additional committee questions................................... 164
Budget:
Future requests.............................................. 138
Priorities................................................... 142
Fiscal year:
1999 supplemental appropriations............................. 136
2000 budget request.......................................... 137
Funding.................................................. 137
GAO report....................................................... 139
IIM litigation................................................... 140
Land fractionation............................................... 140
Improvements, staff support for.................................. 139
Trust:
Functions, consolidation of.................................. 138
Indian, management reform progress........................... 135
JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
American College Theater Festival Participants, 1998............. 12
University/College........................................... 12
Appropriated Funds, use of....................................... 8
Board of Trustees................................................ 7
Budget request................................................... 1
Fiscal year 2000:
Capital Repair Program....................................... 9
Operations and Maintenance Program........................... 9
General Accounting Office (GAO) audit requirement................ 9
History.......................................................... 7
Income, sources of............................................... 8
Kennedy Center:
Artistic programming......................................... 10
Building..................................................... 8
Education programming........................................ 10
Performing Arts for Everyone..................................... 11
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART
Art care funding................................................. 39
Attendance....................................................... 38
Budget request................................................... 1
Fiscal year 2000 request......................................... 14
Paul Mellon's bequest, restrictions on........................... 38
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Additional committee questions................................... 39
Affiliations program............................................. 18
Budget request................................................... 1
Capital accounts................................................. 22
Facilities, repair, restoration and alteration of................ 23
Heyman's objectives, Secretary................................... 23
Internet access.................................................. 19
Lewis and Clark.................................................. 42
Museum of the American Indian.................................... 39
National Air and Space Museum--Dulles center..................... 35
Outreach Programs................................................ 19
Rural initiative................................................. 41
Participating communities.................................... 41
Smithsonian:
Business ventures............................................ 36
Environmental research center................................ 21
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.............................. 21
Institution traveling exhibition service..................... 19
Smithsonian research institutes.............................. 20
Star-Spangled Banner preservation project........................ 20
Visitorship...................................................... 20
Washington, outreach to areas outside of......................... 40
Woodward and Lothrop building.................................... 37
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Budget:
Reductions................................................... 34
Request...................................................... 1
Center:
Activities at the............................................ 32
Where the, goes from here.................................... 33
-