[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JIM KOLBE, Arizona JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Deborah Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, and Christopher
Topik,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 6
Page
Secretary of the Interior........................................ 1
National Park Service............................................ 189
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................... 309
U.S. Geological Survey........................................... 449
Bureau of Land Management........................................ 505
Minerals Management Service...................................... 537
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration............... 561
Office of Insular Affairs........................................ 563
Office of Inspector General...................................... 574
Office of the Solicitor.......................................... 579
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement............. 581
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-796 WASHINGTON : 2002
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama NANCY PELOSI, California
JAMES T. WALSH, New York PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
DAN MILLER, Florida ED PASTOR, Arizona
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM LATHAM, Iowa SAM FARR, California
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri ALLEN BOYD, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KAY GRANGER, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, February 27, 2002.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WITNESSES
HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET
Opening Remarks of Chairman Skeen
Mr. Skeen. Good morning, Madam Secretary. We are looking
forward to hearing your testimony on the fiscal year 2003
budget. I anticipate that this will be a lean year from the
allocations standpoint for the Interior bill, as we will need
to support the war on terrorism and homeland security needs.
We are also pleased to see Lynn Scarlett, the Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, joining with you.
I would ask you to summarize your opening statement for us.
Your statement will be made part of the official record.
Before I begin, I would like to defer to Mr. Dicks, my good
friend and Ranking Member, for any opening remarks he may wish
to make at this time.
Opening Remarks, Congressman Dicks
Mr. Dicks. Good morning, Madam Secretary, and thank you for
being here today.
As you know, my highest priority in the bill is the
conservation spending category that this Subcommittee enacted
in fiscal year 2001. I was pleased to see that the President's
proposed budget for the coming fiscal year maintains the basic
statutory framework, but disappointed that it was not fully
funded.
Last year when faced with a similar budget, our
Subcommittee worked on a bipartisan basis to restore full
funding to the conservation program at its authorized level of
$1.32 billion. It is my hope that we will do so again and
provide the $1.44 billion authorized for fiscal year 2003. I
understand that because of other budget priorities, the
Interior Department request is essentially flat funded.
However, when reviewing the proposed Interior budget, I am
concerned about the introduction of new or expanded initiatives
that have the effect of reducing existing programs.
I look forward to hearing more details about the new
proposals in the budget this year, especially the Cooperative
Conservation Initiative and its impact on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Similarly, it is my great hope that the
Subcommittee will restore funding for the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program, which unfortunately was eliminated
in the Administration request.
I look forward to hearing directly from you about the
status of Indian trust reform. Two weeks ago, your staff
briefed the Chairman and myself about the litigation and its
impact on the Department. I know this is a matter of great
concern to you, as it is to us. Probably a little more to you,
because your name is on a lot of these lawsuits.
As you are no doubt aware, this Subcommittee has been
extremely supportive of the efforts to fix this problem,
approving every funding request made from both this
Administration and the last. I know that you are spending an
enormous amount of time on this personally, and I hope for all
of our sakes that a solution is soon within reach.
Lastly, I was extremely pleased to see the Park Service
construction budget contains full funding for the Elwha River
Recovery Project on the Olympic Peninsula in my district and
State, enabling the project to proceed as scheduled. Our
Subcommittee members had a chance three years ago to see this
project personally. I look forward to bringing them back out
there when it is completed, or before if necessary.
Again, welcome, and I look forward to hearing your
testimony. I regret the fact that we are going to have a vote
here, but I think the Chairman was wise to get us started.
Mr. Skeen. You guys who do not have anything else to do can
go over there and vote.
Secretary Norton. We will go ahead and start until we have
to break. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am pleased to be here with you today to talk about
our 2003 budget request.
You have already mentioned Lynn Scarlett, but let me for
the record introduce her. She is our new Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget, and we are delighted to have
her involved this year in development of our budget.
Also with me is John Trezise, who is our Department's
Director of Budget and who has been with me here in the past.
Opening Statement of Secretary Norton
Let me just briefly talk about the Department of the
Interior's overall responsibility. We have a huge impact on the
lives of Americans. We are responsible for over one out of
every five acres of land in this country. We have some of the
most beautiful and pristine areas that are part of our
responsibility. The pictures you have on these walls are many
of our wonderful areas.
We also have some of the Nation's patriotic symbols, such
as the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and the Washington
Monument. We provide approximately one-third of the Nation's
domestic energy supply, natural gas, oil and coal, from our
lands. We supply the water that has made the arid west bloom.
We serve visitors from around the Nation. There are
approximately half a billion visits to our lands and our water
areas every year. Over 200,000 wonderful volunteers assist us.
We have more volunteers than we have employees by nearly three
to one, and they are a tremendous help for us.
In the most recently completed fiscal year, we collected
$11 billion in revenue from the lands and the offshore areas
that we manage, which was approximately $1 billion more than
was appropriated to us.
As we began the process last June to build this year's
budget, we were guided by President Bush's commitments to build
a new environmentalism through cooperative conservation
partnerships, to improve our management of public lands and
waters, to advance thedevelopment of domestic energy, to
improve both the classrooms and the classroom performance of Indian
students, and to manage for excellence through citizen-centered
governance.
Obviously, as for all of the agencies of the Federal
government, our priorities were reshaped by September 11th. Our
employees have responded to the call to increase our vigilance
and our preparedness for the changed world that we face. In the
wake of those events, we have put in place security measures to
protect our important national assets, our visitors, and our
employees. We have increased park police patrols in our urban
areas, we have increased guard services and protection at our
other significant areas, and have instituted around the clock
security at several of our major dam facilities.
The Department's 2003 budget request for programs funded by
this Subcommittee is $9.5 billion in current appropriations.
There is an additional $245.6 million for a Government-wide
accounting adjustment for retirement and employee health
benefits. This budget is essentially level with the budget
enacted in 2002. It sustains a 21 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2000 budget, well above increases in costs due to
inflation.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
One of the most significant aspects of this budget is the
Cooperative Conservation Initiative. We are very excited about
this proposal and view it as a real landmark approach to
improving our management and our cooperation with States, local
governments, and other partners. It fosters innovation and
creates incentives for stewardship through a competitive
process. It fills a void by giving our land managers a tool to
work with their neighbors, volunteers, States, tribes, and
community groups to achieve conservation goals.
Of the $100 million requested for the Cooperative
Conservation Initiative, half would go to the States through
the Land and Water Conservation Fund State grant program. The
other half would be divided among our land management agencies,
the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service. It would address unmet needs for
natural resource restoration in refuges, parks, and other
public lands and adjacent areas. It complements existing grant
programs that fund conservation by States and private
landowners.
The Cooperative Conservation Initiative targets
conservation of areas for the benefit of multiple species. It
will complement existing grant programs that focus on migratory
bird and endangered species conservation. It is significant in
creating a shared partnership kind of approach to these issues.
Instead of our Federal land managers just sitting back and
thinking about what they will ask for through the
appropriations process, this calls on them to be creative to
reach out to non-Federal partners and construct partnership
approaches to solving their problems. That allows us to amplify
the Federal resources and to build partnerships that will be
valuable for management of those areas in the long term. So it
fulfills both a budget need and also the need to build
cooperative partnerships with long-term benefits.
TRUST REFORM
I would like to highlight a few other aspects of our
budget. One of those is trust reform that fulfills the needs of
American Indians and Alaska Natives. I would also like to focus
on education that affects those groups.
I appreciate the support of the members of this
Subcommittee for our efforts in both of these areas. We face
difficult and complex challenges in our management of trust
assets. I have announced an outline for reorganization and
consolidation of Indian trust management functions. We are in
the process of consulting with the tribes on what a
reorganization might look like. We have put together what I
believe is a very valuable process of having a task force of
tribal representatives who will look in-depth, not just at our
proposal, but at proposals that have been generated by the
tribes.
Then we have our management consulting organization, EDS--
Electronic Data Services--that will go through and analyze each
of the different proposals to see what the management benefits
would be from the different types of reorganization, so that we
have a good basis of the pros and cons of each approach. We can
then sit down and work with the tribes to determine what would
be the best approach, one that we can get broad consensus on
for the long term. This process is now underway, and we are
working over the next few months to reach consensus on a
reorganization proposal.
We also have other challenges including the recent concerns
identified with our information technology security measures
related to Indian trust data. As you know, many of our computer
systems were disconnected from the internet. We are working
with the special master to obtain approval to reconnect them.
The internet shut-down prevented us from making some payments
to tribes and to individuals as well as to others. Some of our
systems are now operating again, and we are able to go through
the regular computer process to be able to handle those
payments. I believe through that process we have sent out
approximately $15 million in payments since the court's
injunction went into effect in December. We can provide you
with specific figures if you would like.
There are also some other areas that deal with the Minerals
Management System computer that processes royalty payments and
has information on royalties. That system has not yet been
approved for renewed operation, so we have made estimated
payments. We are in the process of providing estimated payments
to individuals based on what they would receive in their
royalty payments.
For the longer term, we have concluded that there is a need
for a dedicated network to secure trust data. We briefed the
Subcommittee on February 13th on this issue, and will be
providing you with a reprogramming proposal for the network in
the near future.
Our 2003 budget request is based on the current
organizational structure and does not reflect our conclusions
on reorganization or the computer network. We will be getting
back to you as we get the plans finalized on the computer
system and what needs to be done on that. And we will work with
you on exactly how the money we have requested for the Indian
trust reform is to be allocated.
The budget provides significant new resources to address
these needs. These are very important requests for us, and we
believe very important for the future of trust reform. We have
requested an increase of nearly $84 million, which is the
largest increase in the history of trust reform.
INDIAN EDUCATION
I would now like to turn to Indian education. Our budget
continues a high level of funding for Indian school repair and
replacement and includes an increase of $19 million for school
operations. Our request promotes tribal management of
schoolsseeking increased funding for the costs related to contracting
out, including administrative cost grants. This would allow us to out-
source to the tribes themselves, and not just to private organizations,
so this is something that we want to explore.
In his State of the Union address, the President emphasized
the importance of early childhood development programs. Our
budget includes an increase of $3 million for BIA's successful
early childhood education program.
PARK FUNDING
The budget continues robust funding to manage the
maintenance backlog in the parks. We are requesting an increase
of $18 million for the Natural Resource Challenge, which
provides scientific management of resources in the Park
Service.
REFUGE FUNDING
In 1903, President Teddy Roosevelt established the first
national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, Florida. Our budget
commemorates the 100th anniversary of the refuge system by
requesting a $56.5 million increase in the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This is an 18 percent boost in spending, and
represents the largest dollar increase ever requested in the
history of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
OTHER FUNDING
To continue to protect our national assets, our employees,
and our visitors, the budget includes $62 million for security
and protection measures essentially continuing the amounts
provided in the 2002 emergency supplemental. In support of the
President's National Energy Policy, the budget includes
increases totaling $28 million in four bureaus. We continue
working with the Corps of Engineers in the Everglades,
including implementation of the comprehensive plan.
MANAGING FOR EXCELLENCE
Finally, we are committed to managing well the resources
entrusted to us in this budget. We are working diligently to
improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the
services we deliver and to enhance the accountability and
transparency of the work we do with the resources of the
American people. We have developed a plan for citizen-centered
governance that builds on the President's management agenda.
Lynn Scarlett has led an effort that has resulted in an
outstanding plan. It has been well received by both the Office
of Management and Budget and the President's Management
Council.
We are working to bring innovation, competitiveness, and
accountability to all that we do. I would like to thank the
members of the Subcommittee. Your support on our management and
funding issues has been very significant. I look forward to our
continued collaboration.
I would also like to thank the work of the Subcommittee
staff. They have been very helpful. Their knowledge of our
programs and their involvement in our initiatives have been
very positive.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
[The written statement of the Secretary follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Thank you for the kind notes about
our supporters here. We could not do very much without them.
Now, we will get the heck out of here and go vote. We will be
right back.
[Recess.]
BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Mr. Skeen. Thank you for staying around.
The budget highlights a new $100 million Cooperative
Conservation Initiative to foster partnerships with non-Federal
partners. Yet there are substantial reductions to core Federal
programs. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program is reduced by
$45 million. The U.S. Geological Survey is reduced by $55
million. The Department's fire program is reduced by $25
million and Abandoned Mine Reclamation Grants are reduced by
$29 million. Could you explain this rearrangement of
priorities?
Secretary Norton. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, whenever we are
facing a budget analysis, we have to go through and make
choices, and we have to make choices among good programs. The
Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, for example, is something
that I understand the importance of. We had to balance that
with our other priorities, and this is the allocation that we
felt best met our needs.
Part of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes issue is that it is
one of a number of programs that allow us to work well with
local communities. Our Cooperative Conservation Initiative, for
example, is designed as a way of make sure that that really
happens through our management approach. We certainly will work
with you to help you in providing the information that you all
need in determining your allocation of those funds.
Mr. Skeen. We appreciate that.
Mr. Dicks.
INDIAN TRUST REFORM EFFORTS
Mr. Dicks. Madam Secretary, two weeks ago your senior staff
briefed the Chairman and several other members of this
Subcommittee on the status of the Indian Trust reform effort. I
have to tell you I find the situation pretty discouraging. Let
me read a few of the findings from the latest review of the
Indian trust reform activity submitted jointly by EDS and the
Department last month.
Existing trust reform has lacked a vision and strategy.
There is no over-arching fiduciary duty focused to trust
management. Trust reform sub-projects are not coordinated or
integrated. Beneficiaries are not receiving services comparable
to those found in commercial bank trusts. Insufficient human,
financial, and technological resources have been applied to
complete trust reform initiatives.
Madam Secretary, why after so much effort and so much
funding is trust reform still such a mess?
Secretary Norton. Unfortunately, Congressman Dicks, those
are the conclusions that we have reached after really looking
at our trust reform process and getting EDS as an
outsideconsultant to come in and give us their expertise on this. It is
something like peeling an onion. Every time we peel one layer we find
another layer of problems.
We found in part that the planning process had been
lacking. People in the field and in various programs were
working hard to do the things in the trenches. And yet, because
they had not really been focused in a way that was productive
for the overall effort, they were not prioritizing their work
to really achieve productive results.
We did not have in place a management structure that
provided the centralized focus. Different people in different
agencies were doing different things, all in the name of trust
asset management, but not with the kind of results that we
wanted to see. So we have put in place an effort to bring a
better performance structure into place. EDS is now working
with us on an effort that will be getting underway soon to do a
complete business practices model that will look at how a trust
asset is managed and how the different elements of that
management interconnect with each other, so that all of them
are done in the right way.
We have tremendous decentralization, so that things are
done differently for each different tribe and each different
BIA region and so on. There has to be some standardization to
have a system that is really going to work well. We have to
work with the tribes on figuring out what kinds of
standardization are going to be appropriate.
It is very complex. We are working with a great group of
people in my office dedicated to that, headed by my Deputy
Secretary, Steve Griles, to ensure that we are pushing hard to
make real changes in that area, but it is not easy.
Mr. Dicks. Specifically with respect to the Cobell case,
Assistant Secretary Neil McCaleb in an interview earlier this
month said, the only way to settle the case is a negotiated
settlement between the plaintiffs and the Government. I
certainly agree that that should be looked at. But there seems
to be no indication that the settlement is likely.
Madam Secretary, is there anything which you and the
President in consultation with tribal leadership could do to
push a settlement, so we can invest scarce dollars in services
for Indians, rather than fruitless historical accounting
efforts and litigation costs? It just seems to me that this
thing is so, they used to say, the guy who played left field
made so many errors that when they put the next guy in, he
said, left field is so screwed up that nobody can play it.
Well, this may be one of those situations where we have got
such a mess that it would be much better to try to come up with
a negotiated settlement. Even if the Congress had to legislate
it. If we could work out an Administration proposal where you
would come in and give a legislative settlement, we settle
these disputes.
Something like that has got to be attempted, or we are just
going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to do
accounting and detailed factual gathering over things that I am
afraid we cannot do. So rather than waste the money, why not
try to work out a settlement at this point, and resolve this
matter?
Secretary Norton. There are some aspects of this that might
be amenable to a legislative settlement or a regular type of
settlement. There are other aspects that are simply managerial
problems that need to be fixed, no matter what happens with the
underlying litigation. For example, our computer system is
something that we are working to bring up to the OMB circular
A-130 standards. That is something that, while the litigation
is providing the focus, is a management issue that we need to
deal with one way or the other.
Mr. Dicks. You are saying even going forward today, that we
do not have this thing under control?
Secretary Norton. That is correct. There is a management
problem. That is why we have looked at reorganization, to be
able to manage it going forward. There are things we need to do
that are backward looking that are really litigation focused,
but very much of this problem is also forward looking and
managerially focused. It is not simple. We would be happy to
work with you.
Mr. Dicks. Fine. We want to help if we can.
ABANDONED COAL MINE RECLAMATION REDUCTION
Mr. Peterson. Good morning, Madam Secretary. It is a
delight to have you here.
I believe that coal is going to play a major role in the
decades facing us in energy, because we are the Saudi Arabia of
coal, and we have clean coal technology. But I question, for
the second year in a row you have proposed cutting mine
reclamation. And I am very aware of that, coming from a coal
State, Pennsylvania, where those programs are very effective.
Why are we cutting reclamation? Should we not be sending the
message that we are going to clean up the evils of the past and
we are going to do it right in the future?
Secretary Norton. The cut that we are proposing this year
is from the appropriated level. We are proposing more than we
proposed last year.
Mr. Peterson. That is progress. [Laughter.]
Secretary Norton. This is a two-part program. We have the
regular AML grants and the Federal emergency program. There are
some funds on the Federal program that will be carried forward.
So amounts requested for programs that are not the cut that
they might appear to be.
Mr. Peterson. Do you have that figure?
Secretary Norton. John.
Mr. Trezise. We will be carrying over a balance of perhaps
as much as $20 million. The annual spending in that program has
only been about $10 million, so program performance will not be
affected.
Mr. Peterson. So States that have money will not have
problems?
Mr. Trezise. Mr. Peterson, this is the Federal emergency
program.
Mr. Peterson. Okay. But have you consulted States on how
much money? I know States that have money set aside, waiting
for the Federal money, to clean up these areas. Have you
inventoried, have you talked to the States before you made this
cut?
Secretary Norton. We have a new head of the Office of
Surface Mining, who has been the head of the Pennsylvania State
program before he came to us. He has only been in office now
for a few weeks. So he is now going to----
Mr. Peterson. He will get that corrected, we hope, right?
Secretary Norton. This is something that we are still
looking at from the perspective of the amount of acreage that
we can reclaim. And it appears that this would allow us to
reclaim an additional 6,900 acres.
Mr. Peterson. I have witnessed this program in Pennsylvania
where we had streams that were dead for decades and now are
trout streams and almost restored to their normal habitat. When
you remove that old trace coal and get the land cleaned up and
reclaimed, you do reclaim the streams. I just think that is a
program that should be high priority.
Secretary Norton. We have also been looking at re-mining
approaches and so forth as possibilities.
Mr. Peterson. That is correct. That works, too. We also in
Pennsylvania have a number of coal plants, I think we are
building another one, that will use low BTU waste coal with the
fluidized bed process and burn it cleanly. So that removes the
debris, then the reclamation can move forward and the streams
can be restored. I can name a number of streams that are
delights today, and they were dead streams just 10 years ago.
So I personally have at the State level witnessed that
progress, and I would hope we could get with the States. Maybe
your new mining guy, I will have to talk to him.
LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT
Issue of no net gain. I was reading through the proposals
in your budget of land purchases. Where do you stand on, it is
my view that we own enough of this, we may not own all the
pieces we want, we may have some treasures we want to save. But
we own a lot of this country, a third of it the Federal
Government, when you add local and State, you are approaching
half. I am a believer that private ownership does well. When
the Government owns things, it is more communistic than free
enterprise.
And I think as far as land is concerned, the Federal
Government is not the best manager of land, in my view. We
ought to have a no net gain policy that when we buy pristine
places that we want to keep, that we ought to be looking at
land especially in areas where we own 70, 80 percent of the
land, and let some land go back to private ownership. What is
your theory on that?
Secretary Norton. We have looked at the issue of land
management from a managerial perspective and from achieving
environmental results. I think there has been in the past a
tendency to look at the question as being simply, do we want to
see these resources protected? If the answer is yes, we have to
buy it. That is not the simple, one-dimensional approach that
we want to adopt.
We are looking at a range of tools, conservation easements,
the improvement of habitat through things like our landowner
incentive program, and partnership kinds of managerial
arrangements. So that when you look at trying to achieve the
result of protecting the land and better managing resources, we
can accomplish much more for a lower cost. For example, on the
acquisition of a conservation easement, we have an example. I
will get you the exact location, but it was about $400 an acre
to purchase the land, and only $200 an acre for the
conservation easement.
In St. Lawrence County, NY, we have a Partners in Fish and
Wildlife program. We restored 50 acres of wetlands at a cost of
$120 an acre. To acquire that land would cost much, much more.
The average cost to restore a forested wetland in North
Carolina is between $10 and $80 an acre, again, far less than
the acquisition costs. So we are looking at those kinds of
programs, not so much from a philosophical perspective but
because those are the kinds of approaches that are really going
to work from an environmental perspective.
Mr. Peterson. I think my view of the Federal Government is
we have not been very good land managers. We have been on a
decade of land buying, often taking the money out of management
to buy. So we can not manage well, so we have backlogs of road
maintenance and building maintenance and our facilities are in
problems, and I do not think anybody can argue with that, to
buy land. It seems to me we ought to get our priorities
straight.
I just want to conclude with, this week the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer saying
that in the effort to slow the pace of sprawl on the New Jersey
shore, the Service has identified 7,840 acres it says must be
kept from developers. Is preventing sprawl a new criteria for
the Federal Government?
Secretary Norton. That is not a specific statutory
responsibility, certainly not for our widespread types of
programs. What I would like to see us do is to work with local
partners to see if there are shared environmental benefits that
we are trying to achieve. There may be local partners who would
like to be involved and perhaps work with us on joint projects.
That may be their motivation.
Our responsibilities are really much broader. I recently
saw that article myself. We will be looking at that proposal.
Mr. Peterson. I am going to be proposing legislation that
will say, if we own 50 percent of a county that we need local
approval to buy more, letting the locals and the governors of
those States have some say. And if they approve it, it will be
okay. Would you find that a reasonable position?
Secretary Norton. I hesitate to take a formal position on
that. I would be happy to work with you further on it.
There are some good examples that we have seen in the
Nevada and Las Vegas area, where that kind of concern arose.
Some of the land is being transferred to the private sector,
and the proceeds from that are being used to improve habitat
and acquire sensitive areas. The Federal government is going to
own those lands that really make sense for Federal protection,
and the private sector and the local governments are acquiring
other lands.
Mr. Peterson. I can be a witness to you that my district is
predominantly owned, or heavily owned by State government and
Federal Government. When a county is more than 50 percent
owned, I want to tell you, there is huge concern there when the
Government is buying more, unless they are releasing some that
they have. That is why the no net gain concept. I would just
urge you to think about it.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
KLAMATH BASIN
Welcome, Madam Secretary, and to the rest of the panel. I
want to address with you a subject that is of grave concern to
the west, the northwest in particular, and that is the Klamath
Basin issue. Congressman Greg Walden, who happens to be here in
the hearing room today, and I and Mr. Dicks and others in the
west are watching the Administration's actions with respect to
this issue very closely, because we think it has a deep impact
on all of the west and all of the rural counties who may be
similarly situated.
I have submitted for the record, or will submit here for
the record some specific questions that I would request that
the Department answer expeditiously. But in the limitations of
time we have, I am going to do my best to get through them, and
would appreciate your response.
The President went to Portland on January 5th and made some
encouraging remarks regarding Klamath. And that was, those
words were watched carefully and listened to carefully as we
looked at the budget. And as we look at the budget, there is no
new money for Klamath.
So there is no money for restoration or water augmentation
in the Basin, and this is a hot bed of environmental activity.
The Administration assures us that something is being done, but
there is not a lot to show for it. So I would ask that you
address that issue with the Committee and tell us, what is the
Administration going to do, will there be money, and what is
the plan?
Secretary Norton. This problem unfortunately came at a
difficult time in terms of the budget cycle. We are now going
through the process of the biological assessment and biological
opinion that essentially will determine what needs to be done
there. That information is not finalized at this point. It was
difficult in the budget process to say how much we need, when
we do not know what those numbers need to be.
We worked with OMB on this, and they have agreed to allow
us to work further with them to identify funding for the
Klamath area and for specific projects. There are some projects
that are funded that we know will have a benefit, for example,
a fish screenin the Bureau of Reclamation and some habitat
restoration. We are continuing to work on releasing the biological
assessment from the Bureau of Reclamation that forms the basis for what
we do in that area. We take this very seriously and will continue to
work with the congressional delegation, as well as other stakeholders
on further developments.
Mr. Nethercutt. So in listening to your answer, I assume
then that there will be, that there is a commitment on the part
of the Administration that there is a dollar amount that would
be appropriate to address this problem? Is that accurate? Would
you agree that this is due some resources and some money with
respect to the farmers and the losses, the problems that exist
out there and the financial nature of those problems?
Secretary Norton. It is due work and activities being
accomplished and projects being done. I do not know what that
translates to at this point in terms of a dollar figure. It is
not just the Department of the Interior, it is also Agriculture
and Commerce that need to be involved in this. We are working
together on these issues and will continue to do so.
We also have the National Academy of Sciences study that
has been done. We are working to incorporate that study into
our decisionmaking process. The study has also provided us with
additional information about what needs to be done in that
area. We have a very serious commitment to this. The President
has stated his views on the need to address this area. So we
are working to do that.
Mr. Nethercutt. I appreciate that. However, I think it
cannot be done short of a really serious economic commitment to
this region and to this problem. You mentioned the National
Academy of Sciences report. That is a good review. But I am
wondering, as a follow-on to that, there was an instruction
from your Department that the Fish and Wildlife Service and
Bureau of Reclamation would review those findings and give you
a report within 10 days. I am wondering if that report is
complete; if so, what where the findings from those two
agencies?
Secretary Norton. We had feedback from the heads of those
agencies, and we are incorporating their views into a two-fold
kind of process. One is looking at overall improvement of
science within the Department. The other issue is learning what
we can for the Klamath Basin specifically and the biology
there. The results of that should be coming out as we release
the biological assessment and as the Fish and Wildlife Service
does its review of that assessment.
Mr. Nethercutt. I assume there will be lawsuits, there will
be challenges to the biological opinions, the biological
assessment. What is your strategy for preparing for that?
Secretary Norton. We hope there will not be, but we are
trying to make sure that the science and the work behind that
is done in all of the appropriate ways to withstand litigation.
We are also hoping to bring together the affected parties
to find some common sense solutions and avoid the litigation.
Mr. Nethercutt. A lot of people in rural America are
watching very carefully. It is a big issue, and I know the
President is beholden, with all due respect, to all the voters,
to rural America for helping this Administration be in place.
So I urge your continued attention.
Secretary Norton. We will be doing some things in the
coming weeks that I think you will find are a positive step.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Secretary Norton.
Secretary Norton. Good morning.
COMPETITIVE SOURCING
Mr. Moran. The rumor circulating in your Department that
there is a grand plan to privatize or out-source as many as
25,000 career Interior jobs, maybe you could share with us what
might be the origin of that rumor and if you can deny it, maybe
you could do so unequivocally to put peoples' concerns to rest.
Secretary Norton. Congressman, let me refer you to a law
that you all passed as the source of that rumor. It is called
the FAIR Act, and perhaps someone can supply exactly what the
abbreviation stands for.
Mr. Trezise. Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act.
Secretary Norton. What the Act requires us to do is to look
at the positions within the Department of the Interior that are
providing essentially private sector, non-governmental type
functions that are not regulatory functions, and that are not
ones that require the exercise of governmental-type discretion,
and to then go through a process of analyzing those positions
and evaluating whether those jobs should be out-sourced.
This is first of all a process that we go through. The end
result of that process is intended to be improved services to
citizens and to provide cost effective Government. It is not
designed just to reduce the number of Government employees. It
is designed to improve the quality of service delivery.
Mr. Dicks. Who does this within your department?
Secretary Norton. Lynn Scarlett is the one who is in
overall charge of the program. Sorry, Lynn. [Laughter.]
It is something that is done and carried out by each of the
bureaus. In terms of the numbers, for 2002 and 2003 together,
we will be analyzing a total of 3,300 positions. I do not have
any idea where a 25,000 number came from, unless that is over
the next decade we would be analyzing those numbers of
positions.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOBS REDUCTION
Mr. Moran. Fair enough. Let me ask you about a specific
reduction that I am very much troubled by, and that is in the
U.S. Geological Service. I understand that as many as 250
Federal jobs will be lost due to a major reduction in the
programs implemented by USGS, the only earth science and
biological agency that the Federal Government has.
I would like to get a sense of the actual numbers at
headquarters and in the field and what you are doing about any
RIF situations that might occur, and most importantly, justify
why we should be making that kind of a reduction when a lot of
these programs are becoming increasingly important in terms of
homeland security, protection of the water supply,
understanding of the topography and geology of a lot of our
regions.
Secretary Norton. There are a number of different kinds of
programs that are affected by our proposal. We have gone back
through and really looked at the various ways in which we are
providing our services. One of the proposals is to transfer the
USGS toxic substances hydrology program to the National Science
Foundation. That is a portion of this. That would be a multi-
year transfer involving approximately 100 FTE that would be
affected in USGS. That program would be ultimately transferred
entirely to the National Science Foundation.
Mr. Moran. With a concomitant increase in NSF?
Secretary Norton. The NSF does its work in a different way
than the USGS. We tend to do our work in-house, where the
National Science Foundation tends to work through universities
and other research activities.
Mr. Moran. It would be a reduction, in the process of that
transfer.
Secretary Norton. I cannot speak for exactly what the
National Science Foundation would do. Let me ask these folks to
provide you with more details.
Mr. Trezise. Mr. Moran, specifically with respect to the
proposal to transfer the toxics program to the National Science
Foundation, the Geological Survey and NSF have been working
together on a transition plan which would provide for a three
year transition of that program. There are about 90 employees
in the program, and at the end of three years they would need
to be absorbed elsewhere in the Geological Survey. In terms of
the overall employees in GS, that is less than 1 percent of the
employment. We would anticipate that all of those employees
would be able to be placed in other positions.
Mr. Moran. The toxic program has received a fair amount of
publicity recently, because they found out how importantit was
and how imperative it is to pursue that research. You are doing it with
the university in California, is it CalTech? I am not sure which one it
is, but it is being done in collaboration with the university. There
has been a fair amount written about it, because of the danger to our
water supply. It is what the USGS has done that is the source of the
knowledge that we have to go on.
Well, I do not want to overdo the lenience of the Chairman
here on this issue, but I do think it is important enough that
we are going to have to revisit it. I am not sure that NSF
wants it, is ready for it, and I am not sure we can really
afford to be sending that kind of effort out of house to
contract it out and lose the kind of institutional knowledge we
have built up in the U.S. Geological Service.
Secretary Norton. If I can just quickly address your
overall point. I want to make clear that our total proposed
reduction would be 249 FTE, which is less than 3 percent of
USGS employment. We believe that can be absorbed within the
existing turnover within USGS, because of retirements and so
forth. We do not anticipate any RIF at the levels that are
proposed within the budget.
Mr. Moran. That is encouraging, but I do have concerns over
the loss of that kind of expertise. Even though you will be
moving them around, they will no longer be focusing in that
area where they have developed their expertise. I think that
could be a problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being here today.
A couple of questions I want to ask that really follow up on,
at least one of them follows up on something this Committee did
a couple of years ago. In fact, this Subcommittee and two other
subcommittees included language in our report dealing with the
problem of environmental degradation that we have experienced
along the border as a result of the huge influx of illegal
immigrants coming across the border. It really is a staggering
problem, and I have had an opportunity to look at it on several
occasions. Just mountains of trash and abandoned clothes,
abandoned plastic bottles, human feces, camps just everywhere,
just covering the ground there.
We asked, in the language, we asked the Forest Service and
BLM, the INS and EPA to work on a plan to mitigate
environmental damage that was caused by these illegal
immigrants crossing. I am very pleased that BLM took the lead
on this and has worked on that.
The report of how we are to proceed with this was supposed
to be done by October 1st. It has not been completed. I do not
want to be too critical, because it is your Department of the
three of them that is taking the lead in actually getting
something done. But as we proceed with our budget
considerations here, it would be very helpful if you might at
least provide for the record the initial findings and funding
recommendations that you have, because we are going to need to
consider that when we get around to writing a bill.
I do not want people in Arizona to have to wait another
year to do anything about the cleanup of this horrible mess
that we have along the border.
Secretary Norton. Congressman, you raise an issue that was
significant for us last spring and summer. I asked my Chief of
Staff to participate in a border conference and to examine that
issue personally. It obviously assumed new importance after we
began looking seriously at homeland security issues. We are
working with Homeland Security, with the INS, and with others
on the overall issue of our borders and how we insure that we
are taking the right steps there.
The report that you mention is currently in the review
process. We anticipate being able to provide you with a final
report in the very near future that will reflect our new
perspectives on this, post-September 11th, as well as the
initial type of information we would have given you earlier in
the year.
[The information follows:]
Immigration Impacts Study
The report on impacts caused by undocumented aliens
crossing Federal lands in southeast Arizona was transmitted to
the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
April 29, 2002.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. I appreciate that response. Please
keep in mind the deadlines of this Subcommittee in drafting its
bill, as you do that. Try to make sure we have that information
in hand.
Secretary Norton. It is my understanding that it should be
mid to late March that the final report would be available.
IPA PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
Mr. Kolbe. Another very local issue. I have a town in my
district that wants to participate in the IPA program. I think
that stands for Interagency Personnel Assignment, I am not
exactly sure. It is a program where the salary is paid by the
Federal agency, the housing and the other provisions are made
by the town or the local community. It is a win-win, because
the Federal agency gets some real world experience and the town
gets an experienced person to assist them. They want to use
this person to develop their habitat conservation plan. We
have, as you know, major issues of habitat conservation in
Arizona with the pygmy owl.
I know you have supported Federal-local partnerships, so I
hope you would be willing to work with us to find somebody
possibly from the Fish and Wildlife Service who might
accomplish the objective. It would be extraordinarily helpful
in what we are trying to do down there.
Secretary Norton. That is very consistent with the type of
thing that we are trying to do to work better with States and
local communities. I will be happy to look into that specific
situation to see what we might be able to make available.
HOOVER DAM BYPASS
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much. One other fairly
substantive question. I have been told that you believe that
Hoover Dam is one of the major security issues that comes under
your Department. We have been advised that there have been some
security breaches of credentials for that that are very
disturbing, loss, theft of security credentials. We need to do
something, as you know, to get that bypass built, so that we do
not have these trucks going right over the top of the dam all
the time.
I know you do not have jurisdiction over the Bureau of
Reclamation, or this Subcommittee does not have jurisdiction,
you have jurisdiction. We do not have jurisdiction over the
Bureau of Rec. But it is my opportunity to ask you about this,
and I hope you can address this matter and suggest ways the
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation can
help to move this project along as rapidly as possible. I think
it is a critical project.
Secretary Norton. First of all, let me say I am not aware
of the security breach problems that you are discussing. We
have enhanced the security at the dam. We went through a major
process of looking at security as we made the decision to re-
open the dam for limited visitor tours. That hasbeen on our
radar screen. I personally visited the dam.
The Administration has endorsed the proposal for an
alternative route, so that traffic does not have to go over the
dam itself.
Mr. Kolbe. We have appropriated some money, but it is very
slow in getting us to where we need to be to actually construct
that.
Secretary Norton. I had some interaction with the
Department of Transportation in preparation for a visit to
Hoover Dam a few months ago. The Administration supports
getting the new road done and getting it done quickly.
Mr. Kolbe. I hope we can make this a very high priority,
both in Transportation and the Bureau. It is critical. You know
from having been there how that winds down there and the
danger, not only the physical danger, but the overload of these
trucks in what is now the Phoenix-Las Vegas corridor, a major,
major transportation corridor. It is not in my district, not
even close to my district, it is a major problem for our State
and for that area of the Southwest.
Thank you for your response, and let me just also say the
Upper San Pedro Partnership that has been supported by your
department has been doing absolutely outstanding work, and I
appreciate it and hope that you will continue to support the
work that it is doing.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ROLE OF USGS
Madam Secretary, welcome. I want to first compliment you on
your first year of service. To me, you combine grace and reason
with resolve and tenacity. And that is a rare combination in
our Executive Branch or any branch of Government, and I really
commend you on your first year.
Three issues. U.S. Geological Survey, Representative Moran
mentioned it. But the budget request is so slim that I would
just ask if there is a changing role from the Administration
for USGS's role on other issues, just based on the budget
request. Does this mean that certain missions will be moved to
other areas? What is the Administration's position relative to
USGS's role on issues like water?
Secretary Norton. To begin with, USGS provides very
important scientific information for our land management
agencies. They are the scientific support for a lot of the
challenges that we face as land managers and for administrative
programs like the Bureau of Reclamation. So we are working to
increase the coordination between USGS and our land management
and other agencies.
Secondly, there are programs that USGS performs that are
done for the benefit and in cooperation with State governments,
for example. Some of those have truly been done in a
partnership kind of way. Some of those are things where the
USGS has done the work without getting the outside partners
financially involved. We are looking at those programs to see
what can be done to enhance the partnership by getting those
partners financially involved.
Mr. Wamp. By leveraging the investment?
Secretary Norton. By leveraging the investment. That is one
of the things that is reflected in our proposal.
Third, there are some over-arching analyses of the way in
which scientific activities are performed for the Federal
government. The National Science Foundation has won very high
marks for the way in which it approaches its management of
scientific activities and the cost effectiveness and quality of
the work that it does. So they are being looked to for
fulfilling some of the responsibilities, such as the toxic
substances program.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Mr. Wamp. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the budget request
does not match the stated objective to fill it. How do you see
us filling it since it is not asked for in the budget?
Secretary Norton. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve would
receive royalty-in-kind transfers. There are two aspects of our
cost on that. One is for a computer system that would allow us
to handle the processing of the royalty-in-kind program, which
is different than our usual accounting program. That program,
that computer funding, is in the budget. What is the dollar
amount?
Mr. Trezise. About $6 million.
Secretary Norton. The other aspect of that is
transportation costs for the oil itself. We are still working
as an Administration on that issue.
Mr. Wamp. You are looking to us for help I guess also?
Secretary Norton. There are some possibilities in terms of
sale of some of the oil to cover the transportation costs. That
is still an unresolved issue.
Mr. Dicks. Would you need legislative language to allow
that?
Secretary Norton. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Trezise. Yes, Mr. Dicks we would.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
INDIAN TRUST REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING
Mr. Wamp. One other Dicks issue I want to follow up on.
Typically, cabinet Secretaries get little sympathy over here.
But I do not know of anything I have felt more sorry for any
Cabinet Secretary in the last eight years on than Indian trust
reform and what a burden that is that you have inherited. As I
have studied this, I know you mentioned it in your opening
testimony and I know you and Mr. Dicks had some commentary on
it.
But can you go into a little more detail about this Bureau
of Asset Management and how that is actually coming together,
specifically, and whether or not this Assistant Secretary
position you think will happen?
Secretary Norton. I believe very strongly that reform and
organizational restructuring will happen. We are committed to
see that a process goes forward that will give us a structure
allowing us to effectively manage these assets.
I also believe strongly that we ought to be encouraging,
allowing, and providing opportunities for the tribes to manage
their own resources. Some of the tribes viewed our proposal as
perhaps interfering with that. That is frankly the last thing I
want to do. I want to enhance the ability of the Tribes to
manage their own assets.
We are going through a process of consultation with Tribes.
We are working through our management consultants, analyzing
all the different parts of that program and determining how
best to go about meeting those reform objectives. We want to
work with the Tribes to see that whatever proposal we come out
with is one that does have their support and at least has
something that they will feel comfortable with.
I think there are a variety of different ways of
accomplishing our goals. I made a good faith judgment that our
proposal for a new Assistant Secretary was the best way to go.
I keep an open mind in terms of seeing if there are other ways
that we can accomplish the objectives. So I do not want to
foreclose and say this is the only way to do it. I feel like we
have come up with a good proposal. I have been asked to take
that off the table and I have refused to do that, because I
think it is a valid proposal.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOGS ON PUBLIC LANDS
Mr. Wamp. Being concise, let me just go in one other
direction, which I just thought of. Let us just ask, on all the
backlog of all of our public lands, add MPS, everything
together, it is obviously a big priority of this
Administration, and understandably so. It is obviously a big
priority to this Subcommittee, our Chairmen has really made it
a big priority. Can we come up with a seven year plan? Let us
say this Administration has seven years to address this. Can we
come up with a long range plan to get out of debt, so to speak,
with the backlog of maintenance on public lands in America?
Secretary Norton. We could look at a seven year plan. But
we are doing several things. One is trying to address backlogs
in, for example, the national park area. We are enhancing the
ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to deal with some of
their backlogs. As managers, we take seriously the
responsibility to manage what we have and take care of what we
have and not just keep looking at acquiring new things.
Another important part of that is getting the management
systems, the ranking systems, the tracking systems in place to
really figure out the backlog, figure out what is routine
maintenance, and prioritize the things that need to be done.
Frankly, it is an almost limitless amount if you start going
out and asking, what could we do for this particular area?
People will come up with a huge laundry list. We need to be
able to prioritize that.
We are getting those kinds of systems in place. The Park
Service has been working on assessments of their park areas to
find out in a uniform kind of way what needs to be done and
what are the most pressing needs at the various parks.
Mr. Wamp. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it is great to see you again. On a
personal basis, I had the opportunity to go to Ellis Island and
the Statue of Liberty in August with my family. It is a great
facility. I only wish you could find a way to let more people
climb up to the top of the Statue of Liberty, because they shut
that down in the heat of the summer because of the crowds, or
they greatly restrict it. It is a little anti-climactic, when
you go there and you cannot get up there.
I do not know if there is architecturally a way to do it.
But the staff there was just really great to us. We appreciated
it.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Kingston. A couple of oddball questions, and I am
really amazed at the way you can answer all these micro-issues
so easily, so I have some more for you.
MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
Habitat conservation plans, the Riverside in California, it
is a State-Federal-local partnership. It costs them about $1.5
billion. These plans are very successful. But how can we afford
to do these? What are our plans in terms of expanding this or
coming up to some level where it is practical to do it?
Secretary Norton. We are working on a number of fronts on
endangered species. One of those is to enhance our cooperative
efforts with the landowner incentive program and with the other
programs that will bring in partners to work cooperatively on
endangered species issues, before we get to regulatory
situations that create conflict over endangered species.
We are working with the States in a way that I think is
fairly unprecedented. We have a new head of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who was head of the Kansas Department of Fish
and Wildlife and who has really been working to build
partnerships with his State counterparts. That gives us the
ability to amplify our resources by working with the States.
We need to look at the result on endangered species habitat
conservation plans. I want to make sure that we are looking at
just what needs to be done for the species and improving the
habitat, and not changes in legal ownership of the land. Most
species cannot really read land titles to know who owns the
land. I want to be sure that we are focusing on what needs to
be done for the species and then working together in
partnership to solve those problems.
The multi-species habitat conservation plans like that one
are excellent models for trying to solve those problems. So I
am supportive of that kind of approach.
Mr. Kingston. They had a lot of promise, but they just had
such a big price tag that we need to just try to find a way to
make it work.
USGS PROGRAM REDUCTIONS
At USGS they are doing a lot of studying on toxic
substances, hydrology, but yet the budget eliminates that. Any
comments on that? Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Norton. We already had a bit of discussion on
that. Basically what that proposal does is transfer that
program to the National Science Foundation. There is a
transition process for doing so.
Mr. Kingston. And stream gauging? You reduced the budget
for that?
Secretary Norton. Let me defer to my colleagues here.
Mr. Trezise. Mr. Kingston, we are maintaining the stream
gauging budget at the same level as in the year 2000.
Mr. Kingston. But not the same as 2002?
Mr. Trezise. Correct.
Mr. Kingston. Well, I just think in terms of the flood,
that might be something we need to look at, because there is a
14 percent reduction.
MIDWAY ATOLL
Midway Atoll, as you know, there is a national wildlife
refuge there. But there is also an opportunity, we have an air
strip there, and it is run by a private company. It is a great
strategic location; the Battle of Midway 60th anniversary is
coming up. What are your thoughts on that? There seems to be a
little bit of a tug of war right now between the private
company that is operating it and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Secretary Norton. That situation has been a great
frustration for us. We became aware of that when an issue came
up about providing some fuel to Midway that could then be sold
to aircraft.
Basically the Midway Phoenix Corporation defaulted on a $2
million payment for fuel several years ago and owes the Fish
and Wildlife Service $340,000 for service and equipment. We
reached an agreement with them on a fuel contract last
November. They agreed to pay us $300,000, and they made one
payment of $50,000 but then notified us that they would be
leaving the island and not following through on that contract.
So we are in the process of negotiating with them to see if
we can dissolve the cooperative agreement without litigation.
We are trying to maintain the continuity of operations, but we
may seek flexibility in reprogramming or authorization to try
to do that. Unfortunately, it appears that our private sector
cooperative approach has not been successful.
Mr. Kingston. But if that happens, the Federal Government
has to step in and pick up the cost of it?
Secretary Norton. It either needs to be borne by the
private party, perhaps as a result of litigation, or it needs
to be the Federal Government, or the activities need to be
scaled back. There is no other option that I am aware of for
that.
Mr. Kingston. If we can be part of that, we want to be.
That is, as you know, a Georgia company. That is our interest
in it. But also, our interest is that in the long run, it
should be less expensive on the taxpayers if we keep that
partnership and that involvement.
Secretary Norton. I believe they have informed us that they
are now walking away from those operations.
Mr. Kingston. In fact, I think March 2nd, but I do notknow
if there is a way to save the relationship or not. I do not know what
the budget impact would be if that happens. Do you know?
Secretary Norton. Beyond what I have said here, I do not
know. Do you have any further information?
Mr. Trezise. Mr. Kingston, we will be working with other
agencies that have concerns with continuing air service at
Midway. The Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, Federal
Aviation Administration and private cooperators, including
Boeing, have an interest in seeing that the airstrip is
maintained in service. We are hopeful that we can at least
arrive at an arrangement that will allow us to maintain a
functioning air strip that can receive commercial service.
As far as the facilities, we will be working with the Fish
and Wildlife Service to see what arrangements we can arrive at
to continue to provide the wonderful opportunities visitors
have to visit the island.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Mr. Regula.
Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EVERGLADES WATER SUPPLY
Madam Secretary, I want to commend you for your
Department's handling of the binding agreement between the
Federal Government and the State of Florida to ensure that
specific targets are set for ensuring adequate clean water
supply to the Everglades and other natural areas. I would like
to say, getting you the authority to make those agreements was
not achieved easily. That is history, of course.
The Committee is aware of your current negotiations with
the Army Corps of Engineers on the programmatic regulations.
What is the status of those negotiations?
Secretary Norton. I recently had the wonderful opportunity
to visit the Everglades and also to participate in our South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. I think that is a
very positive process. It brings together all the different
interests and allows them to express their views.
The Corps of Engineers was good enough to let all of us
have the opportunity to have input on their regulations even
before they reached the preliminary draft stage, and we are
still working with them. I am not sure of the exact status of
their proposed regulations, but I do not think the official
draft form has come out. We are going through a number of
meetings of the Task Force, which includes the Corps of
Engineers, to give them the opportunity to hear first hand from
all the various interests about their views on the regulations.
Hopefully when their draft comes out, it will already include
input from many different entities, including our Department.
Mr. Regula. Are they respecting your right to have input?
Secretary Norton. Very much so. They have been working with
us and we have been commenting informally and going through
their preliminary regulations. Obviously, we have differences
in view, but we have had a very good working relationship.
Mr. Regula. I assume from what you said you are going to be
able to ensure that the Interior Department's interests are
satisfied.
Secretary Norton. We are certainly working to see that that
takes place.
Mr. Regula. The draft regulations call for the Department
of the Interior to participate in many of the planning, design
and assessment activities involved in implementing the plan,
but does not provide for a leadership role for DOI. Should DOI
have a leadership role on the recovery team which would give
the Interior Department more say in determining what
performance measures and targets are used in judging success in
restoring the ecosystem, and how will you ensure that that
happens? Because you do have a huge stake.
Secretary Norton. I know that there are a number of
different processes for different projects and different
portions of the project. Interior has been involved in working
out how our role would be fulfilled in those different types of
projects. I would be happy to have Ann Klee, who is my
appointed person as chair of the Restoration Task Force,
provide some additional information to you and your staff about
how exactly that is carried out in different aspects.
Mr. Regula. I assume the challenge is to ensure that there
is adequate water to replenish the ecosystem in the Everglades.
Secretary Norton. That is the commitment made by the
President and by Governor Bush in the agreement that they
signed--that as these new projects are done, the water is not
immediately shifted away to other uses. The restoration of the
ecosystem is the priority use for that water as it becomes
available.
Mr. Regula. That it would have the highest priority?
Secretary Norton. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Regula. That is very important. Well, I wish you well.
Mr. Dicks. Would the gentleman and former chairman yield
for just a point?
Mr. Regula. Yes, of course.
WATER LEVEL IN CANALS IN SOUTHERN EVERGLADES
Mr. Dicks. Apparently there is a dispute about the level of
the dikes in the southern part and how much water can actually
get through. How is that going? Because that seems to me to be,
it not getting fresh water back to, is it Florida Bay, a very
crucial element of the success of this project?
Secretary Norton. There are a number of different places
where they are doing that sort of thing. And they are making
decisions about what needs to be done with specific canals and
with roadways and so forth. I do not know the specifics, to be
able to give you exact information. But I would be happy to
provide that for the various projects. I have gone down and
toured that area. I know the general hydrology problems that we
are facing, but I cannot tell you as to specific projects.
Mr. Dicks. Just one final point. The Task Force has not
approved one of the Committee's work items, an analysis of the
human dynamics of the restoration. Why not? Do you know why
not?
Secretary Norton. I am not familiar with that, but I would
be happy to provide that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM
Mr. Regula. Just one last question. I believe that you will
be the agency to develop the African American museum, which
will be maybe in the Smithsonian, we are not sure. What is the
status of that at the moment?
Secretary Norton. I have worked with the Park Service and
just designated the head of the Park Service, Fran Mainella, as
the head of our operation to analyze that. We will be moving
forward with that, and we are very enthusiastic about
fulfilling that project.
Mr. Regula. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I apologize for not being here earlier. It
is very nice to see you and to go over some questions with you.
Secretary Norton. Nice to see you.
EVERGLADES REGULATIONS
Mr. Hinchey. I want to follow up on the Everglades
situation, if I may. This question has to do with the draft
regulations and the authority of the Department of Interior to
concur in specific aspects of those regulations, including
those which define the quality, quantity, timing, and
distribution of water prior to the restoration of the
Everglades.
What we see happening is that there has been every effort
made to put these decisions into protocols and mechanisms
outside of the regulations. In effect, the initial draft in
effect circumvents the authority of your agency to concur in
the contents, and decisions regarding the contents of the
regulations. So if there is little or no content in the
regulation, then the Department of Interior has nothing in
which to concur or not concur.
Can you tell us how you are trying to address the
shortcomings in the initial draft of the regulations?
Secretary Norton. That is one of the points that was
discussed in great detail and has continued to be discussed in
great detail through the Everglades Restoration Task Force. We
have informed the Corps that we would like to see that issue
addressed in their regulations. We have until December to
complete final regulations. They began the process fairly
early, and we are getting those issues out on the table.
Hopefully there will be an ability through this discussion to
have more concrete information fleshed out as to the various
projects and the way in which the regulations address those
projects.
Mr. Hinchey. May I be so bold as to strongly encourage you
to be a fierce advocate for the Department of Interior in these
decisions? The issue of water in the Everglades is obviously,
as we all know, the most critical issue. If people are
maneuvering within the Administration to try to exclude your
agency from the important decisionmaking activities regarding
how this water is going to be manipulated, then we are going to
lose this ball game. We have an awful lot of money, an awful
lot of time and effort invested in it under the leadership of
the present Chairman and particularly the previous Chairman, to
see that happen.
This is the most important restoration project ever
conceived and carried on by anyone anywhere. So I would just
hope and will be supporting you in every way that you will be
tough on this. You have to fight for your responsibilities and
your decisionmaking abilities in this battle. Because as you
know, people are trying to squeeze you out.
Secretary Norton. The President has made a commitment in
the agreement he signed with the Governor of Florida that the
water will be available for the restoration of the ecosystems.
The Administration is committed to that. My people are working
very hard through the Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and our
other efforts to ensure that that is going to happen. I am very
optimistic about the way in which that process is moving
forward.
Mr. Dicks. Would you yield just briefly? Has the Corps of
Engineers been told about this? [Laughter.]
They have a different view, I am told.
Secretary Norton. They are involved in this process.
INTERIOR'S ROLE IN DEVELOPING REGULATIONS
Mr. Hinchey. The initial draft regulations are at issue
here. What those regulations contain when they finally come out
is going to be critical. How those regulations define your role
as an active participant in this process is critical. So we are
going to be watching that process very, very closely.
Also there is an interagency group, which is known for its
acronym, RECOVER, that has provided a scientific advisory role
in the implementations. But I wonder what your role is. I
understand that you do not have a leadership role in that
advisory group, or that the Department of the Interior does not
have a leadership role in that advisory group.
Secretary Norton. Let me provide that information for the
record for you. I am aware of that group, but I would like to
provide accurate information.
[The information follows:]
RECOVER
The purpose of the Restoration, Coordination and
Verification (RECOVER) teams is to provide system-wide
evaluations and analyses to determine whether modifications to
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are needed.
Additionally, RECOVER assists in CERP implementation through
its support of the adaptive assessment program.
RECOVER is chaired jointly by the Army Corps of Engineers
and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD. It is
composed of six technical teams and a leadership team; each
team with tri-chairs who are then eligible to sit on the
leadership committee. Interior staff participate on RECOVER,
and are serving as a team tri-chairs on nearly all the teams.
The Corps and the State are currently drafting a Memorandum
of Understanding that will define the framework of the RECOVER
teams. They have sought Interior's insight into this issue. The
Department believes that this will place Interior in an
appropriate role to ensure that Interior science will serve as
a solid basis for decision making. The Department looks forward
to working with the Corps, the SFWMD and other agencies on
RECOVER teams.
ROADS AS WATER FLOW IMPEDIMENTS
Mr. Hinchey. I would appreciate that very much. And the
question that was raised by Mr. Dicks a few moments ago, having
to do with the way the water flows, and the impediments to that
flow? The impediments, of course, are the roadways that have
been built east to west across Florida. Unless the water is
able to get through those roadways, which were built on an
elevated level, the restoration of the Everglades is not going
to occur. You are not going to have that wash of water back and
forth.
The proposal is to elevate the roadway in a way that, for
example, Interstate 10 is elevated as you go out of New Orleans
in that area of Louisiana. I do not know if you have ever
driven over that road, but take my word for it, Interstate 10
is up in the air and it is on stanchions or pillars. The
natural ecosystem underneath it just continues to behave as it
would normally, with minimal interference.
That is what must occur in Florida with regard to these
roads. This is probably one of the most expensive parts of this
project. But unless the roads are elevated, and I mean
seriously elevated, not just in two or three places, but
seriously elevated all across the peninsula, you are not going
to get that flush of water back and forth, and we are going to
lose the battle. Then all of the money that we have spent is
going to be in vain, and the opponents of restoration are going
to be the winners.
So Mr. Dicks' question is absolutely critical. I know that
our Chairman knows this. So I would hope that you can give us
some concrete assurances that that road is going to be,
Alligator Alley is going to be, elevated so that the water will
flow.
Secretary Norton. It is my understanding that a decision on
that is several years away, and that scientific studies are
underway to look at how much of it needs to be elevated to
accomplish the environmental goals.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, that is why I am concerned about the
draft regulations and your role in RECOVER. If you are excluded
from participating in the draft regulations, and if the draft
regulations exclude your ability to then come in and make
appropriate comments about aspects of the regulations once they
get into place, that roadway is not going to be elevated. If
you do not have a leadership role in the RECOVER operation,
that roadway is not going to be elevated. People are fighting
that, and that is very critical.
I know the decision is several years away. But the
decisions we make today are going to lead into that decision.
Unless we make the right decisions today, the wrong decision is
going to occur several years in the future.
Secretary Norton. We are chairing the task force through
which the decisions are being made and discussed. This is an
important issue for the Administration. I am confident that we
will be having those kinds of issues appropriately addressed in
the long run.
Mr. Hinchey. Okay, but let us address them in the short run
as well. Let us address them in the context of the regulations.
We have got to have a different attitude expressed in those
regulations when they become final. The draft does not look
good the way it is now. You need a responsible position in this
RECOVER group, because your voice needs to be heard. The voice
of the Department of the Interior is critical and needs to be
heard. If it is not heard, we are not going to get good
decisions.
Secretary Norton. I am not feeling silenced.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dicks.
LEASES FOR DRILLING OFF COAST OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dicks. Madam Secretary, I was very concerned earlier
this month when the Washington Post reported that the Justice
Department has appealed the Federal Court ruling which
recognized the State of California's right to block drilling
for oil and gas off the California coast under a group of old
leases. As you know, George Bush, Senior, proposed the current
ban on California drilling and Congress has extended it through
2012. The ban includes a general provision to the Interior bill
which the President has not proposed in his budget to change.
Can you clarify the Department of Interior's position
generally on drilling off the California coast and with respect
to these old leases in particular?
Secretary Norton. Let me start with the litigation. The
concern about the issue is its impact throughout everything
that the Minerals Management Service does. Our ability to
suspend leases is one of the ways that we can make sure that
activities do not go forward on a lease until environmental
standards are met. We have emergency lease suspensions, we have
suspensions for a variety of reasons. Those are basically just
extending the status quo while other things are being worked
out.
The managers that handle these issues at the MMS felt that
their ability to manage their programs would be impacted by the
decision of the district court in that case.
Mr. Dicks. Which granted the State of California the right
to block, I guess, like 32 of these leases. I think the issue
here is whether the State of California has the right to block
these and if the State does not, then it is going to be up to
the Administration to decide whether they want to go forward
with these 32 older leases I think that were done even prior to
the time when we had this ban.
Mr. Regula. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Dicks. Certainly.
Mr. Regula. Were those not excluded in the ban?
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I think that is correct. They were excluded
in the ban. But the decision the Administration is going to
have to make is, I would assume, a challenging if not difficult
decision, on whether they in fact want to, considering the
situation in California, want to go ahead with this if they
should prevail in the lawsuit.
Secretary Norton. We are certainly aware of that issue.
Without saying too much, because of the litigation, there are
issues as to the compensation that those lease holders might
demand, if the Federal Government is not following through on
what they paid for when they acquired those leases. So we need
to balance the long standing obligations under leases that were
issued years ago with the current concerns.
Mr. Dicks. Just generally, do you favor, would you favor
going ahead with these leases if a court said that you could?
Secretary Norton. We are opposed to any additional leasing
in the moratorium areas. The President has made that position
clear. We have to do the difficult analysis of what the impact
is on existing leases.
DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Mr. Dicks. All right. Madam Secretary, you have been
forthright in stating your support for drilling for oil in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a position which
notwithstanding last summer's vote in the House remains highly
controversial. Would you update the Subcommittee on the status
of the Administration's current proposals for oil and gas
exploration within ANWR?
Secretary Norton. We are currently working with the Senate
on that proposal. We have gone forward using the House
legislation as the core of the Administration proposal. It
provides very stringent environmental protections. It is the
most stringent environmental regulation ever applied to oil and
gas operations.
We have agreed to the provision that would limit the
surface impact to 2,000 acres of the ANWR area. It would
require the use of 21st century technology and directional
drilling so that we could reach underground for long distances
without surface impacts.
CANADA LYNX CONTROVERSY
Mr. Dicks. One other final issue. There has been a lot of
press recently about employees of the Fish and Wildlife
Services and other agencies planting false samples of lynx hair
in conjunction with a Canadian lynx survey done in Washington
State. What specifically is being done to address this problem,
and what are you doing to ensure it is not repeated in other
programs?
Secretary Norton. We have referred that issue to the
Department's Inspector General to look at the specific
situation that happened there. We are awaiting his report on
that.
Overall, we need to ensure that science in the Department
is professional and is appropriate. I would like to see that we
have as the core principles for science in Interior high
ethical and professional standards, appropriate training and
allocation of staff resources, independent scientific review,
and active participation with States and other partners in our
science.
Mr. Dicks. All right. Mr. Chairman, I did not know this
when I asked the last question. Mr. Obey has a question he
would like to have asked.
Mr. Skeen. All right.
Mr. Dicks. Madam Secretary, Mr. Obey could not be here this
morning because of full committee obligations. But he has a
number of questions which he will be submitting for the record.
FISHERS PEAK VISITORS' CENTER
Mr. Dicks. There is one, however, which he wanted me to ask
about this morning. He and Congressman Boucher have taken the
lead in support of a new visitor's center at Fishers Peak in
the Blue Ridge. The 2002 bill provided the final appropriation
for the Fishers Peak construction. Do you expect to initiate
the construction in the near future?
Secretary Norton. My information is that the Fishers Peak
Music Center has not yet been constructed. The Development
Advisory Board of the National Park Service is scheduled to
review this project in May of 2002. It reviews line item
construction and partnership projects to ensure that technical
requirements, value based decisionmaking, and policy guidelines
are met. The exhibits, which are being done by the National
Council for the Arts, are not yet at a stage where they can be
reviewed by that board. The board will provide a determination
at a later date as to whether or not to exempt the exhibits
from review.
Mr. Dicks. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LYNX PROBLEM INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT
Madam Secretary, as a follow-up to the issue of the lynx
problem, when will the IG report be forthcoming? Is there a
date set?
Secretary Norton. There is not a set date. I assume it will
be fairly soon that we will be getting those results.
Mr. Nethercutt. Are you thinking within the next 30 days as
fairly soon? Would that be the range?
Secretary Norton. The inspector general operates
independently, but that would be my expectation.
Mr. Nethercutt. Have you reached any preliminary
conclusions based on any evidence that has been presented to
you about this situation, given the concern about the Klamath
Basin science, given the concern of, again, Pacific
Northwestern residents who have real troubles with respect to
this lynx issue, as well as the Klamath issue?
Secretary Norton. As to that particular situation, I do not
want to comment on the lynx situation until I see the Inspector
General's report. But overall, we want to take steps to ensure
that we do have good, solid science as the basis for our
decisionmaking and that we peer review appropriate decisions,
because I think that peer review is one of the best ways of
ensuring that we have appropriate science. That was the basis
for referring the Klamath situation to the National Academy of
Sciences.
One of the other things we have found is the training of
our scientists and making sure that the people who are
providing scientific advice are truly qualified to do so. In
the Klamath situation, for example, we found that the person
who was overseeing the biologist doing our analysis was an
economist, not trained as a scientist. We want to look at our
allocation of staff resources to ensure that we have
appropriate scientific expertise where we need it.
The head of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Steve Williams,
is taking this very seriously. As he adjusts to his new role--
he has only been in that position for a few weeks--that is one
of his top priorities.
Mr. Nethercutt. I think you face a daunting task in terms
of making sure that the Administration officials are able to
have some control over the civil servants, who have sometimes
an agenda that may be contrary to those who are brought in with
the new Administration. So I hope that science will rule the
day as opposed to agendas ruling the day and finding science to
conform to the agenda.
BULL TROUT REPORT
Final question. It is my understanding that the bull trout
report has been hung up in the Budget Office. There were some
changes expected. The report was due January 31 a year ago.
There is a significant increase for bull trout in the budget,
$3.7 million, I believe. I am wondering where the report is,
why you are asking for more money when we do not know the
results of the report and what it will say about bull trout. I
know we are short on time.
Mr. Skeen. We have a vote going on now.
Mr. Nethercutt. Could we have that answer for the record?
Secretary Norton. I will do so.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
BANKS LAKE
Mr. Kingston. My question concerns Banks Lake in Georgia,
which has been under the Fish and Wildlife management for I
think 10 years or so. There was a memorandum of understanding
that Saxby Chambliss had pushed to get the State of Georgia to
manage it. I do not know if you know anything off the top of
your head, but if you could look into that and see, I was down
there last week and people are extremely unhappy with what is
going on there.
Secretary Norton. We will look into that. I do not have any
information on that right now.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey.
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION OUTSIDE CANYONLANDS AND ARCHES NP
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a couple of
questions about wilderness and the budget. The budget is flat,
$10.3 billion from last year. But there are significant
priority changes within that spending plan. It seems to me from
looking at the budget that resource exploitation is given
precedence over preservation, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund promises are not being kept, and that the Federal
responsibly to manage land is being turned over increasingly to
private interests.
Specifically, the Administration is opening tracts of
pristine wilderness land outside of Canyonlands and Arches
National Parks for oil and gas exploration. Both areas are in
proposals to be designated as wilderness areas. Seismic testing
has already been completed, and the Canyon Lands, up until last
week it was recurring also outside of Arches.
Saying that the BLM Federal land managers in Utah may have
violated environmental laws over this past weekend, Interior's
Office of Hearings and Appeals has ordered work stopped
indefinitely on this Yellow Cat project, which is the seismic
exploration of Arches National Park. The Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance has claimed that the project will damage
sensitive desert soils which can take up to 300 years to fully
recover.
The Interior board agreed, citing, ``resource harms lasting
decades or even centuries.'' The Utah Wilderness Alliance also
is concerned that thumper trucks will travel about three miles
into the Dome Plateau, which is a 35,000 acre area proposed for
federally protected wilderness status.
On this point, I would like to ask you two questions. Have
you considered suspending leasing activities in sensitive areas
such as the ones that I have described? And if the BLM asks you
to overturn this decision and resume seismic testing, what is
your response likely to be?
Secretary Norton. These areas are multiple use areas. They
are not wilderness areas. The proposal for going forward in
these areas is one that has been underway for several years, as
I understand it. The land managers inthis area have felt that
it was an appropriate proposal.
I will take a closer look at that. I just saw this morning
about the IBLA decision. This area, if this is the area that I
believe that it is, is essentially a flat sagebrush area that
is above Canyonlands and below Arches. It is not the scenic
area that we think of as associated with those two parks. It is
an area outside the parks. Since we have within our Department
approximately half of the State of Utah, and we have lots of
park areas there, any place in Utah is somewhere near one of
our parks.
Mr. Hinchey. What about the second question? If the BLM
asks you to overturn the decision and resume seismic testing,
what is your response going to be?
Secretary Norton. At this point, I will look at the issue.
I do not have a decision now.
Mr. Hinchey. I would like to give you a photograph. This is
Delicate Arch in Arches Park. And the red spots, first of all,
is not sagebrush area. This is in Arches National Park. The red
items there are places where drilling would occur under the
Administration proposal. So it is a situation where, from
Arches National Park viewing out over the area right next to
it, you have a whole array of drilling apparatus searching for
oil, not knowing whether they are going to find it or not.
Secretary Norton. I have no idea whether that information
is accurate or not. I would be happy to try and obtain that
information.
Mr. Hinchey. I am not asking you to take my word for it.
But I am asking you if you would kindly look into it and give
us some information in a concrete way about what the proposals
are and what we can anticipate with regard to these lands.
These lands are not lands that have been designated as
wilderness yet. That is true. But they are lands that qualify
for wilderness designation, and they have, up to this point,
received protection from every administration going back to the
last two centuries. We are worried now that the changes in this
Administration are going to make significant changes in them.
So I would like you to look at that and give us some
concrete answers with regard to what we can expect in these two
areas.
Secretary Norton. I do not have any information about your
assertions. I will look for some additional information.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kingston [Assuming chair]. Thank you very much. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Additional questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 10, 2002.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WITNESSES
FRAN P. MAINELLA, DIRECTOR
DONALD W. (DON) MURPHY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
A. DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SUE E. MASICA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
C. BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER
TERESA C. CHAMBERS, CHIEF, U.S. PARK POLICE
DANIEL N. WENK, MANAGER, DENVER SERVICE CENTER
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Opening Remarks of Chairman Skeen
Mr. Skeen. Welcome, Director Mainella. We are looking
forward to hearing your testimony on the fiscal year 2003
budget for the National Park Service. We are pleased that you
have your two new deputies with you, Mr. Randy Jones and Mr.
Don Murphy. Welcome, gentlemen.
I would ask that you please summarize your opening
statement for us, and your complete statement will be made a
part of the official record.
Before you begin, I would like to defer to Mr. Dicks, our
Ranking Minority Member, for any opening remarks he may wish to
make.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Dicks
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning and it is a pleasure to have Fran Mainella
here in her first appearance before the Interior Subcommittee.
She and I had an opportunity to meet in my office recently and
I look forward to working with her. I also am anxious to hear
about her first visit to the Olympic National Park and to the
Elwha River, a very important project.
OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK AND ELWHA RESTORATION PROJECT
It was with great pleasure that I hosted the members of
this subcommittee to the Olympic, where we were given a full
tour and update on the Elwha Restoration Project, and the
subcommittee has been very supportive. I appreciate the fact
that the Chairman was there and we had a great time up there on
Hurricane Ridge.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
I also had the opportunity over the Congressional recess to
visit the Everglades and view firsthand the work being done to
restore one of our most precious areas in this country. This
subcommittee, under the leadership of former Chairman, Ralph
Regula, made this project one of its highest priorities. I am
pleased to see that the work is continuing uninterrupted with
this new Administration. It is imperative that the Department
of Interior maintain its leadership role and ensure the first
priority of the Everglades Project is environmental
restoration. I hope we can work on that together because I do
believe that is the first and the most important priority,
which I think the Administration has stressed.
BUDGET REQUEST
While I was pleased to see no major cuts to the overall
Park Service budget, I do have some concerns about specific
reductions in this year's budget proposal which I hope we will
discuss in greater detail today.
Like several other Interior agencies, I am concerned that
the Park Service appears to have a budget that proposes new or
expanded initiatives but does not provide new money, instead
taking the money from existing programs. This is a difficult
proposition for the subcommittee because these existing
programs struggle each year with limited funds.
URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Mr. Chairman, there is one specific cut in the budget this
year that I was extremely disappointed to find, the Urban Parks
and Recreation Program, which was completely eliminated in the
2003 request, though through this subcommittee's conservation
spending category, this program was revived in 2001 and was
just getting going again with two years of level funding. Now
the Administration has chosen to single it out and totally
eliminate it despite the fact that hundreds of communities
across the Nation are making applications for desperately
needed projects.
FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION
Also, I am sure the Director is keenly aware of the
importance of Federal land acquisition under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund but sees that the budget reduces land
acquisition by 41 percent. I would hope the subcommittee would
give great consideration to this cut while evaluating any new
programs proposed in the budget.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Lastly, I am pleased to see the increase for park
operations that will continue our commitment to address park
backlog and maintenance. I am glad to see that the efforts of
our former chairman and the former Administration will be
continued so that we can more fully address the needs of our
aging facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the
Director and working with her on this year's budget.
Opening Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director
Ms. Mainella. I am very pleased to be here today and I am
appreciative of any of you who were able to visit with me ahead
of this meeting.
Introductions of NPS Staff
I would like to introduce some of the folks that are here
with me, some of the key people you may want to speak to.
You met Don Murphy, our Deputy Director, and also Randy
Jones, our Deputy Director. I think many of you know Sue
Masica, our Associate Director for Administration and Bruce
Sheaffer, our Comptroller. Also our new Chief for the U.S. Park
Police, Teresa Chambers and I hope you will get a chance to
know her a bit more. We have Dan Wenk, our new Manager of the
Denver Service Center and, Dan, we are pleased to have you here
today. John Trezise has joined us as Director of the Office of
Budget for the Secretary. Also we have with us some
superintendents, Marilyn Parris from Lassen Volcanic National
Park and also Dennis Vasquez from Bandelier and also from New
Mexico, Glenn Fulfer from Salinas Pueblo Missions. I also want
to introduce Michael Soukup, our Associate Director for
National Resource Stewardship and Science.
VALUE OF PARKS IN AMERICAN LIFE
As you know, particularly since September 11, all our lives
have changed and there is even a greater appreciation for the
value parks play in the lives of every American and every
visitor to this Nation. The Secretary designated Veterans Day
weekend as our weekend for unity, hope and healing. Our parks
had free admission and many of our State parks and others
joined withus to demonstrate the importance the parks play in
the lives of all Americans.
I want to thank you and this committee because you have
been so supportive of all we have done in the past and I know
you will continue that support in the future. You are going to
continue to see enthusiasm from our visitors for our parks.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG REDUCTION
I appreciate President Bush and the Administration coming
forward with a budget that will continue to help us move
forward, as Congressman Dicks said, in the operations area, but
also in addressing our maintenance backlog, which is not very
glamorous but is something so critical.
For fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $660 million for
our maintenance backlog. Part of that includes working on our
condition assessments and working on what we call our cyclic
maintenance so we don't get behind again. The budget also
contains a $10 million request to better support our efforts in
addressing the maintenance backlog by helping our regions have
more capability to have project people either through contract
or through staffing.
NATURAL RESOURCE CHALLENGE
Our Natural Resource Challenge--we are so proud of that
program--has another $18 million requested that helps us work
on the science of our national parks. Also through the Natural
Resource Challenge we are developing a baseline or benchmark to
be able to measure and understand how we are doing in taking
care of our resources. The $18 million increase will bring us
to almost $68 million so far for monitoring and inventory and
for partnership efforts working with our colleges and
universities.
PARTNERSHIPS
This budget also brings forth some more partnerships. As
Congressman Dicks mentioned, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Program, particularly on the Stateside, has an increase.
It is important to work with our Stateside partners to make
sure that efforts are maximized.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
We have a new program called the Cooperative Conservation
Initiative where we are going to be able to partner on a
grassroots level with individuals and be able to work in
partnership to do conservation efforts that have never been
done before. It will hopefully increase our base of operations
as $50 million would go for Stateside Grants and $22 million
would help us in our parks.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BACKLOG MANAGEMENT
We are pleased with all we have been able to work on
regarding the efforts in making sure we are more accountable.
In this budget there is money to improve accountability, making
sure technology is available and giving us the capability to
deal with our maintenance backlog in an automated manner.
VOLUNTEERS
Another area we continue to emphasize through the budget is
how we continue to work with volunteers. The national parks are
already great leaders in volunteerism. We are going to work
even more aggressively in that area. We are going to be working
on a Senior Ranger Program.
I am very proud of the changes we have already made. You
met some of our new staff and I think we have seen a lot of
changes taking place, while still respecting the tradition of
the National Park Service.
BUSINESS PLAN INITIATIVE
One of the changes involves one of our partners, the
National Park Conservation Association, and our business plans.
We have here some of our superintendents who are able to
address the business plan efforts underway in the Park Service.
It gives us a chance to be more businesslike and address some
of our priorities in a better manner.
CONCESSIONS EFFORTS
Don Murphy is overseeing our concession efforts. We are
working in a much more businesslike manner on that as well. Our
50 largest concessions now will have an outside contractor,
Pricewaterhouse Coopers working with us to be more businesslike
in how we deal with things. You have provided some funding to
help us in that effort as well. We would appreciate that
continued ability.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
You have seen some changes in the way we are addressing our
maintenance backlog. Not only do we have a new Denver Service
Center Director, a real dynamic person moving us forward, but
we have also been able to work more aggressively in how we
address our condition assessments, and how we are going to move
forward on those efforts. Earlier, I mentioned the budget
having some of those efforts out there. We are now contracting
out 90 percent of all design. I think that is a real step
forward.
NAPA RECOMMENDATIONS
This committee was very instrumental in making sure we had
the opportunity through NAPA and others to address some changes
in the construction program. I think you will see a follow-up
NAPA report, from initial comments we have had from them in our
briefing, that recognizes a substantial amount of success in
that area. We still have a way to go but we are working
aggressively in that effort.
U.S. PARK POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
We have with us also our new head of Park Police, Chief
Teresa Chambers. You helped us look at the Park Police through
a NAPA report. We are moving forward aggressively in that
effort. I know Don Murphy has been working along with the Law
Enforcement Task Force to look at Park Police and law
enforcement as a whole and making sure we are making the
appropriate changes. Already a change has been made where
Teresa reports directly to me, no longer reports on a regional
level.
TEAM EFFORT
As far as addressing our maintenance backlog, our
concessions, our park police and our law enforcement efforts as
a whole, I think you are seeing a team that is bringing
together a dynamic that means a focus on partnerships, a focus
of going beyond the boundaries of our parks. There is a
realization that we have to make sure we take care of our
natural and cultural resources but we also have to allow for
environmentally friendly access to our parks. This is an effort
in which I see our team pulling together. That is why we have
so many folks with us here today. We wanted to present this new
team, one that I think will help us move further forward in our
efforts.
I would like to close by saying thank you to all of you. I
appreciate your support for the Park Service and all that they
do. We are here to answer any questions and to visit with you
on any issues that we can.
[The written statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. PARK POLICE IMPLEMENTATION OF NAPA RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Skeen. The committee understands the U.S. Park Police
are prepared to implement most of the recommendations in the
NAPA report. Critical to implementing major change is strong
leadership. I think you have certainly demonstrated that. I
understand Teresa Chambers, the new Chief of the U.S. Park
Police, is here today. Ms. Chambers, would you please come
forward to answer a few questions?
After a month on the job, how long do you believe it will
take to see significant management and fiscal improvements
consistent with the recommendations of the NAPA report?
Ms. Chambers. Mr. Chairman, we are already seeing
significant changes. We already have systems in place where we
are monitoring our own budget. For the first time, the United
States Park Police has its own account as part of the National
Park Service. We are no longer a subactivity under an
operations budget, so we have more hands-on involvement and
ultimately more responsibility for accountability and
recordkeeping.
The Major in charge of our financial oversight was
handpicked because of his talents in that area. He works
closely with both me and his Deputy Chief in making certain we
have regular updates.
Last week we spent an entire week off-site with our command
staff learning from some of the best in Interior about the
Federal budget process and how it comes about, what we need to
do to not only have a good budget process on the front end but
how to have accountability throughout so we do not have the
problems we have had in the past.
NEED FOR RECRUIT CLASSES
Mr. Skeen. What do you see as the greatest need at this
time?
Ms. Chambers. The greatest need is one that is already
under my control because we have gotten some staffing issues in
the plans. If the budget goes through as recommended, we have
funding there for an additional four recruit classes next
fiscal year 2003. In our current fiscal year, we are about to
hire a third recruit class and funds have been identified for a
fourth recruit class. That is our most critical need right now.
We have a tremendous force that comes together and works
long overtime hours. This drives up the overtime budget, but if
we can build that base of young men and women on the front end
we can make progress. We do have a tremendously high attrition
rate right now as do many of our Federal agencies because of
the air marshal situation which has recruited many Federal
officers away from their original agency. We would like to have
an agency people can be proud to be a part of, and I think our
attrition will slow and folks will be beating down our door to
come and be a member of the United States Park Police.
Mr. Skeen. We appreciate that.
Mr. Dicks.
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK; FUNDING LEVEL
Mr. Dicks. I did have a chance to meet with Maureen
Finnerty and her excellent staff. I was very impressed.
One of the impressions you get is that we are spending all
this money on the Everglades so that means the Everglades
National Park is also getting a lot of money. I found to my
disappointment that is not the case, the money is going to the
restoration efforts, a very high national priority but the park
still has things it needs to deal with. I wanted to say how
much I appreciated the cooperation and the effort to take me
around. I know, you being from Florida, you realize how
important the project is.
I have some questions, most of which I am going to put in
the record, and ask that maybe the people in the field be
allowed to help in answering them.
CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM STUDIES INITIATIVE
The parks Critical Ecosystem Study Initiative (CESI) has
spent five years and about $42 million on understanding the
science of the Florida Everglades. What are the results of the
work that has been done?
Ms. Mainella. I will start and then Mike, you will go from
there.
I want to thank you for taking the time to go down and
visit our parks. I would always encourage the committee,
whenever possible, to go visit parks even outside your areas if
you can because I think you get the chance to see behind the
scenes.
I think the science of all that we have to do in the
Everglades and throughout our parks is absolutely critical.
Mike is our expert and I am going to have him lead it from
here. We really think it is an important part of all we do to
make sure that the science is really done well.
Mr. Soukup. If you are going to spend the kind of money we
are talking about, you really want to have the appropriate
direction indicated by strong science. If you look at what has
happened with the funding under the CESI Program, a number of
things have been done that have directed and shaped the
direction we are going into now.
I was there for six years and I know the modeling efforts
are first class down there. The linkage of biological models to
the hydrological models, in my opinion, has never been done
anywhere else ever before and it is so complicated. The water
is easier to get straight or to understand where it should go
than what is going to happen after that is in place. What
happens and how the animals and plants respond is really quite
complicated. You will see a set of models there that are really
state of the art.
The fact that the topography is so flat there, a lot of
what has been poured into USGS efforts is to really have an
incredibly precise understanding of the topography. All of that
has improved the accuracy of these models and to make them
something I think we can be fairly sure is going in the right
direction.
Mr. Dicks. The Administration had proposed moving CESI
funds from the National Park Service to the U.S. Geological
Service. Why is this being done after five years and what
effect would this have on the park's ability to conduct science
activities related to the Corps' projects?
Mr. Soukup. The real impact is how you spend the money, not
who gets it. We have just crafted an MOU that is going to have
a joint approach to spending the dollars in those funds. Some
of that money will go back to the Park Service, some will stay
within USGS.
Throughout the CESI history, it has gone to a number of
different places for the appropriate answers at the appropriate
time. That won't be changed. I think it is just a matter of the
money landing someplace and then people deciding where it
should go next.
Mr. Dicks. We may have something to say about this.
Is there any indication the Park Service was not properly
managing the program?
Mr. Soukup. I don't think so. I think there was a fairly
good track record of the agencies working together. That is not
always without some sense of inappropriate timing about getting
the money out. As the Park Service, we put a lot ofstrings on
that money. We wanted to know exactly where it was going and follow up
on how it was spent. In general, I think we understand how it was spent
and I think you will see a fairly elaborate study done by GAO and also
the National Academy of Science in looking at how that money was spent.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, because there are several science panels
reviewing the work, correct?
Mr. Soukup. That is correct.
Mr. Dicks. Which I think is good?
Mr. Soukup. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. The focus of getting the water right for the
restoration has always been on quantity, quality, timing and
distribution of water. In the last year or so, the discussion
among scientists has been on the flow of water, as you
mentioned. What does this mean for the Everglades National Park
and other natural areas of the system? Are we making
restoration the first priority, which is what the President,
the Governor and all of us have said we want?
Mr. Soukup. I think that is the thing we have to
continually focus on--to make sure we put those processes back
in place that are missing or shifted somewhat over time and
location. We need to put all those processes back in place. The
flow and the fact that you need to have a continuous deep
slough effect that will provide a year's worth of support for
the plants and animals is really getting back to what we had
originally. That is the important part, that at the end of the
dry season, we still have a deep slough that supports a lot of
the wildlife. I think we are headed in that direction pretty
well.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of other detailed
questions some of which I may ask in a later round but I would
like to ask them for the record and I would appreciate if you
have the people in the field work with you on the answers so we
will get a good record.
Ms. Mainella. Definitely, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Taylor?
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Mr. Taylor. Madam Director, we appreciate having you today
and congratulate you on your good start.
On the question of maintenance, we have had years and years
of backlog in maintenance, so it will take some time. You may
want to do this in writing, but could you give us a projected
idea of how much we are going to be able to do in general
percentage? Can we get rid of 20 percent of the backlog this
year, 10 percent or 50 percent? If you can do it today, fine.
If you want to send a letter, fine.
Ms. Mainella. I think we are making great steps forward in
that effort. To give you the complete answer, it would be good
if we do that for the record, but I think we are making major
inroads through a major increase in our obligation level and
everything else as far as completing those maintenance
backlogs.
With some of the changes we are making, some of the
emphasis, working with private sector and more contracting, I
think you are going to see a greater success story there.
[The information follows:]
National Park Service Deferred Maintenance Backlog
The exact parameters of the NPS facility backlog will not be known
precisely until full assessments of each facility's conditions are
completed at the end of FY 2003, the first time an objective assessment
of NPS deferred maintenance needs and priorities will have been
achieved. By the end of FY 2002, 123 park units will complete an
initial inventory of assets and we will use this information to support
our FY 2004 request. The President is committed to the continuing
reduction of the NPS backlog and funds to complete facility condition
assessments are fully supported by the President in his $663 million
request for maintenance backlog reduction in the FY 2003 budget.
The Park Service is taking a two-track approach to the backlog by
completing the condition assessments and devoting significant amounts
to maintenance backlog projects. Within the President's request for FY
2003 are $205 million for line-item construction projects, $74 million
for repair and rehabilitation projects and $47 million for cyclical
maintenance projects. While the amounts devoted to deferred maintenance
remain the largest in NPS history, we will not be able to measure
precisely the progress made, in terms of percentages or otherwise,
until the changing condition of NPS facilities is factored into the
evaluation after FY 2003.
LAND HELD TO SELL TO THE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Taylor. I would like to mention that there is a
plethora of groups over the years, many times well meaning, who
buy land, then come to the Park Service and the Forest Service
to take it over. There are two or three problems with that.
First of all, it is land that is available and it may be
premature for the park to own it at that time because it may
not fit in with the budget and ability to take care of it.
I have noticed some nonprofit groups put a substantial
increase on the price so the Government is actually taxpayer
funded in that group because there is hundreds of thousands of
dollars sometimes in profits in the nonprofit group.
We may want to send some direction, although we appreciate
groups that often act in what they perceive to be the country's
best interest. If they purchase this land, they should be
prepared to hold it, protect it and manage and maintain it
themselves because we are then put under pressure to try to
take that in as quickly as possible.
ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY ACCESS
You mentioned environment friendly access. Could you tell
me what you meant by that?
Ms. Mainella. I think our parks are to be available for the
public to be able to come in and enjoy but it needs to be done
in respect to the environment and the resource. I think we can
do that in a way that is very friendly to the visitor but also
friendly to the environment. I think the key is some of the
things we are doing with our Natural Resource Challenge in
understanding the science better, as well as working with
partners and with various groups to understand their particular
needs.
For example, when we work on management plans, our
superintendents understand we need to make sure we have all the
players at the table. We want to make sure the recreation
users, the environmental leadership and other groups, and the
community are there at the table so we can understand what
their possible interests may be. We need to address resource
issues and try to work together to make sure we have an
environmentally friendly ability to have access while still
making sure we protect these parks for today as well as for
future generations.
Mr. Taylor. I agree with you. I didn't want that
misunderstood. Some of the environmental groups now have taken
the attitude that not only the parks fee simple land but the
area outside the parks, sometimes they have said as much as 120
miles, should be impacted by Federal Government in managing
private property in cities, counties and so forth. I did not
want that to be misunderstood. I certainly agree with you in
the parks and the environmental friendly access to the parks
and the park management.
U.S. PARK POLICE SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS TEAM
Ms. Chambers, you mentioned, or I have seen something
about, a SWAT team in the Park Police. I am a great admirer of
the Park Police and worked with your predecessors in a variety
of ways in other subcommittees that I have chaired. Could you
tell us about a SWAT team? The parks are all over the country.
Ms. Chambers. Right now, at each of our three major
locations--Washington, D.C., New York and San Francisco--we
have officers either as individuals or as a member of a team
who are prepared to take care of a high risk situation, a
hostage barricade situation.
Mr. Taylor. These are rangers that operate in regular
duties but have been trained to focus on emergency action of
SWAT leadership?
Ms. Chambers. In the case of Washington, D.C., it is an
actual unit. That is the primary responsibility of that unit.
Their concurrent duties would be to patrol the parks, their
beats or to serve at parade routes or anything else.
In the two other locations, being a SWAT member is a
concurrent duty. They are a beat officer or a sergeant on the
street and if there is a hostage situation, then they would
take care of that.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. From an economystandpoint
and training standpoint, it may be wise to coordinate with the
multitude of other agencies, Forest Service, or any number of
environmental SWAT teams that already exist. I was asking whether or
not we have a separate group that just stands ready to be active in
that type of area. It is cross training?
Ms. Chambers. That is correct, sir.
EVERGLADES CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS STUDIES INITIATIVE
Mr. Taylor. One question about the Florida environmental
situation. I have heard a number of scientists in Florida are
questioning--not the majority--the Government's work and what
they are doing there. Have you made some effort to get opposing
views to see if there is any reasonable or scientific fact in
what we are doing, knowing the Government will mess up a one-
car funeral?
Mr. Soukup. I think it is also safe to say that scientists
will probably not always agree about the direction we are
going. I think you will find the overall CERP Plan is more of a
concept and a direction that is going to require a tremendous
amount of tracking, modification, peer review over a period of
about 40 years.
My impression is that most scientists feel we are headed in
the right direction. The National Academy, I think, is in the
second year of a study of the science that underpins where we
are going. I think with that kind of scrutiny, we will see
we're probably not totally accurate right now but we will hone
in on it as we go.
Mr. Taylor. The Government set up the situation you are
trying to correct now, so it is not infallible. I am glad that
we will go slowly and take assessment as we go if what we are
doing is having the desired impact. I appreciate that.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. You know my affection for the person who happens
to be President of the United States and since he is not here,
I will say what he would say, and that is, good morning,
Frannie, and happy early birthday.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
BUSINESS PLAN INITIATIVE
Mr. Wamp. I have three fronts, one nationwide and then two
parochial. This business plan initiative, I am sure we will
come back to the Denver Service Center later. I am grateful for
the changes we know are underway there because that has been a
five-year process of trying to improve the efficiency.
On the business plan initiative, my understanding is we are
now working with graduate students from the greatest business
schools in America, Wharton, Harvard and Yale, and they are
becoming involved. As I studied this, I thought it would be
great if young people in America could be attracted to the
National Park Service because they love nature and numbers, and
the bottom line.
Can you update us on how that is going? I understand there
may be some superintendents here today who have already worked
with those professionals and have the business plans underway.
Maybe they could give the subcommittee and our professional
staff an update on the progress which definitely will improve
the bottom line of management of the Park Service.
Ms. Mainella. We are pleased with our business plans
efforts. It is a partnership and we have some wonderful
individuals working with us. We have been able to hire I think
five or six of them to be permanent park employees. They bring
that business sense to us that I think is so needed.
The business plan effort has been a great asset to the
Service and it also deals with partnership. Dennis, would you
go first and talk a bit about the process?
BANDELIER NATIONAL MONUMENT BUSINESS PLAN
Mr. Vasquez. At Bandelier National Monument, we put
together a business plan last summer and I had the opportunity
to put together a business plan in the White Sands National
Monument as a superintendent there a few years back. Last
summer we had two business students, one from Harvard and one
from MIT, who spent ten weeks in the park, and drew together
the park management team and program managers in not a totally
painless process. They forced us to look at the business of
national parks, to look at the way we function, why we do the
things we do, how we do those things, and allowed us to think
in a more businesslike way about the business of national
parks.
From that process, we put together a very fine plan. We are
very pleased with the identified key opportunities and key
challenges that will allow us to prioritize those challenges
and opportunities. It has allowed us in many ways to streamline
and align all our financial planning documents and financial
planning efforts under the priorities of this business plan. So
it was a good management tool for us.
It has allowed us to think and act in a more business savvy
way. I realize we have not been the best practitioners of it in
the past, but certainly at Bandelier and other parks who have
done business plans, we are talking in a more businesslike way
and acting in a more businesslike way. I think it has been a
fine management tool for us.
I see benefits on the management side. It also is a
communications tool, and has provided great opportunities to
communicate with the many diverse publics in ways they
understand and in a way regular people can understand.
I will let Marilyn Parris speak a bit more to the
communications part of the business plan.
LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK BUSINESS PLAN
Ms. Parris. I found the business plan process to be one of
the most valuable experiences I have ever participated in in
the National Park Service. At the time we started our business
plan, we were right in the middle of doing our general
management plan for the park. Both validated each other. A
general management plan outlines for the next 10 or 15 years
what the management action will be. Our business plan marched
right along with that.
I have spent a lot of time in the communities, we live in a
very rural area of northern California. Community support is
very important to us, kind of a depressed economy in that area
and they are very dependent on the national park for tourism
and such.
I talked a lot with these communities about the importance
of tourism and what it is we are trying to do and it never
clicked until we went forward with our business plan. It is
done in layman's terms, lays out our strategies, lays out where
our money comes from, how we spend it, what we are trying to
achieve. For the first time in my career as a superintendent,
they were like, I get it, it clicked for those communities in
seeing what our strategies were, where they could be a part of
helping us manage and meet those strategies.
Also it proved to these communities the importance of not
only the tourism that comes to visit our parks but having that
park infrastructure there. I have about 70 permanent employees,
hire up to 120 seasonals, and have about a $3.7 million annual
budget, plus other monies.
I wasn't born in Plumas County, California but I live
there. Having the park infrastructure really made a difference
with those communities in seeing the importance of having a
park there not only for tourism.
I have scattered those all over northern California with
all our partners in our communities and it has been very
effective for us.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BUSINESS PLAN
Ms. Mainella. Randy Jones was superintendent at Rocky
Mountain. Would you share your experience?
Mr. Jones. I completely agree with the other
superintendents. We found it an extremely valuable management
tool that goes far beyond just identifying budgetary needs in
the future.
Another side benefit in the case of Rocky Mountain, a year
ago we hired Anne Dubinsky, one of the MBA students who helped
on the Bryce Canyon business plan. We brought her into the park
staff as a permanent employee where she is now managing the
park's concessions program which is building a huge increase in
credibility and professionalism in how we deal with concessions
and how we run the program.
BUSINESS PLAN INITIATIVE
Mr. Wamp. A decentralized, site specific approach because
the expenses at one site are different than another and you
can't do it from a central location. We found as we traveled
these parks that the problems they have in large parks are
completely different than small national monuments. You have to
write that plan at that location. It sounds like you are
getting a new culture at the Park Service with this business
plan initiative.
What about obstacles that you may still face in possibly
recruiting these students? You said you hired several but can
you go into the schools and recruit students to the Park
Service so you have business savvy professionals coming in?
Ms. Mainella. We are making every effort to do that. The
business plans help in orientation so the colleges know we are
interested in this aspect. I think that will help us. It is
something we will have to be more aggressive on and we are
moving forward.
Mr. Dicks. Would the gentleman yield? It is my
understanding you have done how many of these, about 50?
Ms. Mainella. Thirty-seven and we have 12 more to come.
Mr. Dicks. So we will get up to about 50. I am told in
order to implement the business plan, we need additional funds.
Can you tell us about that?
Ms. Mainella. I think as we go forth in our business plan
efforts we will look at where dollars can come from. We don't
just look at appropriations as being our only source.
We do look at what our needs are and set it out for a
number of years, so as we do our planning, we try to put money
in for that effort. We are trying to figure out other ways to
find those dollars other than appropriated dollars. I think
Marilyn your foundation has been successful in that?
LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK BUSINESS PLAN
Ms. Parris. Yes. We have about four pages of financial
strategies beyond our base budget of meeting our needs. One is
working closer with our foundation. Through the business plan,
we were able to show them we had a strategic plan and they are
marching along with us.
It helped us go to the Forest Service. My park is
completely surrounded by Lassen National Forest. We went to the
Forest Service and looked for areas especially in resource
management and fire management where we can work closer
together.
Yes, it does show shortfalls but it makes you think of
other ways to deal with that.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you for yielding.
WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA PARTNERSHIPS
Mr. Wamp. Also from a parochial standpoint, you and I have
talked before and I want the record to reflect some of the
progress that is being made in the Washington, D.C. area, Park
Service assets like Kenilworth and Fort Dupont. We have
organizations like First Tee that would like to bring golf to
inner city children. Those kinds of partnerships I think would
really bode well for our Nation's capital. Can you give us an
update on the progress being made with Kenilworth and Ft.
Dupont, the possibility of soccer, the possibility of stronger
Park Service kind of urban settings with these two assets?
Ms. Mainella. We do feel our partnerships are critical. We
are looking at all those options right now as we go back and
revisit our planning effort. As you know, there had been some
environmental issues that had to be addressed first before we
could reopen our planning. We are in that planning process now
and working with all the different groups and hopefully will be
able to try to accommodate all the different interests. We do
think those are very important.
Don, do you know any follow up to that, Don Murphy, my
deputy?
Mr. Murphy. I was just at both of those parks and out at
Langston. We met with all the partners that are going to be
involved with First Tee. The USGA has provided a grant of
$50,000 and has almost completed their practice facility for
youth. The First Tee Program is hot on the trail of getting a
nine-hole practice course in there as well.
I have taken a personal interest, and the Secretary and I
talked about this last Friday. She and I both are going to take
a personal interest in doing the private and corporate
fundraising we need to do to provide additional recreational
services for that underserved community. I am real enthusiastic
about it. I just got off the phone before this meeting with the
regional director talking about our other corporate partners
and putting together a strategic plan that is going to
facilitate our expediting our partnerships there. It is
extremely important to me and something for which I think the
National Park Service ought to provide the leadership.
Mr. Wamp. When we christen that First Tee facility in
Washington, DC, Director Mainella and I are going to have a
three-hole match that day.
Ms. Mainella. We definitely will.
BILL TO ESTABLISH MOCCASIN BEND NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE
Mr. Wamp. As you well know, there is a House-passed bill to
add a national park unit to the system in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, the Moccasin Bend National Historic Site. However,
there continues to be a moratorium on new additions. That
moratorium was lifted temporarily when the President signed
Ronald Reagan's boyhood home into law, which was the latest
addition, and that is the only addition since you took over
since he became President.
The House-passed bill is now pending in the Senate and I
just wanted to check with you since this is so important and
the House-passed bill I wrote, to see if the remaining two
issues on the Senate consideration to receive Park Service
support for the bill in the Senate are the moratorium itself,
which continues to be an issue, if the President says it is
okay, then that would be resolved.
The second issue is the Moccasin Bend Mental HealthCenter
and the termination date at some point. It is my understanding that a
date into the future as early as 2035, not later than 2050, that kind
of range where by that time, that facility would be taken down and the
original condition of the land would be turned over from the State to
the Park Service but it would be grandfathered in under its current
use.
Are those the only two issues from your perspective left
for the Park Service to support the bill?
Ms. Mainella. It is my understanding those are the two main
issues we have in front of us. The only other thing, there may
be some access issues dealing with the golf course but I think
that can be worked out on the side.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you for your continued support.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey?
GOVERNOR'S ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT
Mr. Hinchey. I would like to ask a few questions. The first
has to do with Governor's Island. Before President Clinton left
office, he declared about 20 acres of Governor's Island,
including its two forts, to be a national monument. I
understand President Bush has now proposed selling the island
to the State and the City of New York jointly for a nominal
fee. This is probably a very good idea.
I am concerned about the future of the national monument.
How do you propose to deal with that?
Ms. Mainella. We have been working with the White House to
give them information about our vision for the monument and
making sure we understand the dollars and cents that might go
along with it. I am not sure of the process from there but we
are providing that information to the White House.
Mr. Hinchey. Is the information you are providing how the
national monument would be consistent with the sale?
Ms. Mainella. No, how we would manage it in the Park System
and the benefits it provides, things of that nature such as
cost analysis.
Mr. Hinchey. Of the national monument?
Ms. Mainella. The monument part, yes, the two forts.
Mr. Hinchey. Are you talking about how you would continue
to maintain the monument?
Ms. Mainella. Right, we are giving that information to the
White House but at this point, I am not sure of the progress
from there.
Mr. Hinchey. So the decision has not been made with regard
to the future of the national monument. Will that decision be
made by the White House?
Ms. Mainella. I assume. That is the guidance I am looking
for from the Administration. We are being asked to participate
by giving information.
Mr. Hinchey. I want to emphasize that we are very
interested in the maintenance of this idea for the creation of
the national monument at Governor's Island. It has been created
and there is a national monument there. The Park Service has
responsibility to help develop and maintain it appropriately
within the context of the use of the rest of the island. I am
told that the purposes could include a campus for the city
university, which seems like a good idea.
We do not want to lose the national monument and I
appreciate what I take to be your support for continuing that.
Ms. Mainella. We had expressed interest in that. We are
right now giving our information and we will see what goes from
there.
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
Mr. Hinchey. The system of National Heritage Areas is
proposed to be reduced in funding under the budget. I would
like to make you aware of the importance of National Heritage
Areas to many places around the country. This is an opportunity
for the Federal Government to coordinate the natural resource
husbandry, that you are a part of, with the maintenance and
promotion of our national history and the important reminders
of our national history contained in these historic areas. The
development of these heritage areas is a lovely idea and works
very well on at least two counts.
The Administration has proposed cutting this program almost
in half. I want to express to you that I think that this
proposed cut is a bad idea. These heritage areas have broad
support across the country in many areas, including many areas
where the people do not have ready access to national parks. I
am speaking mostly of the south, the midwest and the eastern
sections of the country.
I would hope that you would take the opportunity to review
the question of the National Heritage Areas and perhaps make
some recommendations with regard to keeping that program's
funding at the level it deserves.
Ms. Mainella. The heritage areas have been an excellent
asset. The National Park Service doesn't need to own and manage
everything. We can work in partnership. It is a good example. I
think the proposed reduction was just a dollars and cents
balancing situation.
Mr. Hinchey. I see you have been looking at this program.
There is also a proposal in the budget also for the
creation of something called cooperative conservation
initiative. This is described as a $100 million initiative
which would depend upon 50 percent non-Federal match from
private groups, private consortium groups, and State or local
governments. I think that this is another very good idea.
URBAN PARK AND RECREATION FUND
At the same time that is being done, the National Heritage
Areas is proposed to be cut in half and the program for urban
parks and recreation is being eliminated. The later is a very
modestly funded program, funded last year at $30 million. I
want to express to you that this seems to be a misallocation of
priorities because the urban program provides recreational
opportunities for young people who may not have those
opportunities otherwise. I would hope the Federal Government
would recognize the value of these urban parks and recreation
programs such that you would continue to stay involved with
them and continue to fund them. Thirty million dollars is a
very tiny amount of money to try to deal with this issue across
the country in our urban areas.
I would hope the value of this program could be impressed
upon the Park Service and the Administration so we could seek
continued funding.
Ms. Mainella. It has been. It has been an excellent
program.
Again, I think the Cooperative Conservation Initiative
(CCI) Program involves a new partnership that is going to allow
us to do some conservation efforts that maybe we haven't been
able to achieve in the past.
BAT CONSERVATION
I know Mike Soukup and his folks have been working with
exciting issues like bats and being able to make sure that
protection is accomplished. If the CCI Program goes through, it
will give us an opportunity to be able to do some additional
bat habitat restoration on park lands and partner with a bat
conservation association to work with us. Those are possible
options that will offer some new opportunities we may not have
at this moment.
Mr. Hinchey. I wanted to ask some questions about Big
Cypress and the Everglades restoration, but I think I will do
that in the second round.
SNOWMOBILES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK
The last question I want to ask now has to do with the
issue of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. There was a
10-year study that ultimately came to the conclusion that
snowmobiles should be phased out of Yellowstone and other
national parks over a three-year period because it is the crown
jewel of the park system.
Recently we have been made aware that some of the park
employees in the kiosks have had to wear respirators in the
morning as hundreds of snowmobiles warm up to penetrate the
park. This seems to me to visually create a circumstance
contrary to the image we want to project about our national
parks.
I am wondering where the policy of the present
Administration and your policy is going to take us with regard
to snowmobiles? They were proposed to be phased out over three
years; they create a situation detrimental to the use of the
park by the vast majority who would like to use it and do use
it. My bias is to get the damned things out of the park but I
want to know what you think.
Ms. Mainella. I will ask Randy Jones who has been working
on this to follow up for me. We have our superintendent from
Yellowstone here. We are looking at different alternatives.
Most of the alternatives involve change from what you see
today, be it snow coach, or some version of snowmobiles. I was
there in January to take a look at it firsthand. We want to
make sure we take care of our employees when there is an air
problem, which there often is, when there is an inversion going
on combined with some of the two cycle operations underway
today.
I think as we look at the different options that are out
for public review, we need to examine how we can better look at
winter use access in different ways. Randy, could you follow
up?
Mr. Jones. We are in the middle of the public review
process. That will continue for a little over another month and
end in late May.
Mr. Hinchey. The public review process of what?
Mr. Jones. Pursuant to an out of court settlement, we
agreed to do a supplemental environmental impact statement
which was prepared and has been released to the public in
computer form about a month ago and in paper form a couple of
weeks ago. So we are out for 60 days of formal public review
and then, pursuant to the terms of the out of court settlement,
we will be making recommendations and a decision by mid-October
of this year.
Mr. Hinchey. Would you summarize briefly what is contained
in that settlement and what is out for public review?
Mr. Jones. The supplemental environmental impact statement
is out for public review.
Mr. Hinchey. What are the recommendations?
Mr. Jones. There are four alternatives identified that were
developed in cooperation with dealing with the local
communities, the States and local interest groups. Alternative
1A is the status quo under the regulations that were developed
which would be the phaseout period you described. Alternative
1B would be to delay that phaseout period for an additional
year. Alternative 2 is an alternative developed by one of our
cooperators, the State of Wyoming, that would allow snowmobile
use. Alternative 3 is a proposal developed by the professionals
on the park staff that has a heavy emphasis on new technology,
including four stroke snowmobiles, and guided trips. The
emphasis is to reduce harassment of wildlife and to control air
pollution.
A footnote to that--last week I was in Tetons where there
was the third year of the clean snowmobile challenge which is a
university and Society of Automotive Engineers event held in
Jackson, Wyoming each year. I have been very impressed with
what engineering students all over the country have been able
to do to address some of the problems of noise and air
pollution. Technology does, I think, offer some hope. We also
have to look at how we can do a better job with snow coaches
and public access.
Yellowstone is a special, unique place and we think it is
important that we provide visitor access and opportunities to
get to places like Old Faithful in the middle of winter. So
what is the best way to protect the park and do it with the
best interest of the public is the balance we are trying to
find.
Mr. Hinchey. So you are backing away from the ten-year
study and the recommendations, and you are backing away from
the phaseout and now proposing some other alternatives. Will we
see a decision made with regard to what you are going to do
sometime within the next what?
Mr. Jones. Mid-October.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston?
Opening Remarks of Mr. Kingston
Mr. Kingston. I do want to ask a few oddball questions.
Before I do, I appreciate your sensitivity on the snowmobile
issue to visitor access and multiple use of the facilities
there. I hope the technology in reduction of air pollution,
noise and any other environmental impairment can be handled
without this blanket outlawing them because the side against
them is more vocal than the actual noise of the snowmobile
itself. I have been out there in the winter and I know it is
pretty much shutdown at times.
WASHINGTON D.C. PARK UNITS
Is the Botanical Gardens under your jurisdiction?
Ms. Mainella. No, sir.
Mr. Kingston. Good. I just want to say, don't ever hire
that contractor working on that since time began.
The Washington Monument has reopened and looking good.
Everyone is happy. What are you doing down there near the
Reflecting Pool, the street in between where there is a
fountain.
Ms. Mainella. Pennsylvania Aenue?
Mr. Kingston. No. If you are facing the Lincoln Monument,
there is the Reflecting Pool and a fountain behind there. You
have it all fenced off. What is going on there?
Ms. Mainella. That is the World War II Memorial, I believe.
Mr. Kingston. I am sure everyone in town but me knew that.
LANDS AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Land and Water Conservation Fund, the goal of that is what?
I don't mean to buy land, what is the mega goal, the big
picture?
Ms. Mainella. It is a partnership program.
FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION
Mr. Kingston. It would appear to me there should be a
megagoal which should be to own all the land in the United
States of America eventually or to own all the land not already
developed in the United States of America, to get up to 50
percent of the land or something. Is there any thoughtto the
end game as to how much land should be purchased eventually?
Ms. Mainella. With the Land and Water Conservation, there
are two parts, the Federal side of land acquisition which helps
us acquire new parks, things of that nature. We have a list of
acquisitions in priority order to work with as we go forward.
STATE GRANTS
Also, the Stateside of Land and Water Conservation, Don and
I have both been administrators of that program. He was State
Park Director in California and I was State Park Director in
Florida. This program is a way for the park service to work as
partners with the States and not just acquire land. The
majority of the Stateside Land and Water Program goes to
provide more recreational opportunities. That is a different
side of the picture.
FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION
When we look at our lands, we look to make sure we are
doing things for protection. We have a plan for each park which
talks about what may be needed for protection or to work with
partners in follow up.
Mr. Kingston. Shouldn't there be some mega picture that
says there is a saturation point or a proper inventory level
for land ownership by the National Park Service?
Ms. Mainella. Some of our land acquisition involves
inholdings and emergency acquisitions. On an emergency basis
when something is going to happen with a piece of land everyone
knows should not be taking place, we are able to work with
sellers to make that acquisition.
As far as a total game plan, we base our acquisitions on
what Congress has authorized. We have a priority list we work
from. We look at the resources necessary to keep a balance in
the system, both recreationally and natural and cultural
resources.
Mr. Kingston. I think it would be good at some point for us
to have a mega picture, this is where we are going. I often
hear you have a willing buyer, a willing seller. No kidding,
somebody wants to sell the land at a good profit and bale out
of a problem that they can't get a permit to build on or
something like that. I think that is kind of an old world
philosophy that we need to move past.
Ms. Mainella. Randy does have a follow up if you wish.
Mr. Jones. Every park does have a land protection plan
which is a document that goes through a public involvement
process before it is finalized. Those plans identify what lands
need to be acquired in the long term interest of the park, and
the nature of that interest, easement or acquisition.
When we do recognize a willing seller opportunity, before
we proceed, that track of land should be identified as a high
priority in the land protection plan. Otherwise we should be
saying thank you but no thank you.
When we advise the committee of the backlog in land
acquisition needs, it is essentially the roll up of all the
national plans that identify the dollar amounts needed to
accomplish all of them.
Mr. Kingston. So if each park has an idea of what kind of
land would fit into their need, then there ought to be an
inventory of all those park studies that would come up with a
total that says at this point it looks like we need to buy as
the United States Government 100 million new acres and the
total summary of all these, but we don't have that, do we?
Mr. Jones. No. The starting point is the boundaries
identified by the Congress. What we look at are the private
lands within those authorized boundaries as to what should be
acquired as opposed to looking outside.
Mr. Kingston. If you picked up the telephone now and dialed
any park superintendent, he or she could say we need to buy 20
acres just outside here, right?
Ms. Mainella. Most of them do have that knowledge.
Mr. Kingston. If you took all those reports, you would come
up with the total acreage?
Ms. Mainella. I don't know if we do it on an acreage basis
but we do that on a list basis of things that need to be
acquired.
Mr. Kingston. Do we have that?
Mr. Jones. We can provide a list of all the inholdings in
their priority order.
Mr. Kingston. I think it would be interesting for this
committee to know what that would be.
Ms. Mainella. We will provide that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DUPLICATION OF A HISTORIC BUILDING
Mr. Kingston. If I wanted to build a historic Federal
building that is not historic, but I wanted to match a historic
building, I understand the National Park Service, my historic
society says the National Park Service won't let us duplicate
that building. A federal courthouse, for example, if you are
building an annex to it and you want to build one of like kind
and quality similar to a 200-year old existing building, there
is some National Park prohibition from doing that. You have to
have looks similar in quantity or volume but it can't be exact?
Ms. Mainella. I know we have standards as far as being able
to give tax credits when people are using----
Mr. Kingston. This would be a Federal building.
Ms. Mainella. Is it a physical attachment to a historic
building?
Mr. Kingston. No, it would be next door to it.
Ms. Mainella. I am not sure. Let us look into that. If you
can give me that particular example, let us follow up on it. I
am not sure of that. I don't know anything in that area but I
would be glad to check on it for you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE
Mr. Kingston. Cumberland Island National Seashore--A group
of stakeholders that included historic preservationists,
environmentalists, island residents, academics, community
representatives, government officials, preservationists of
African-American heritage, reached a formal and unanimous
written agreement about how to handle the historic resources,
the wilderness values, ensure public access to the important
sites and preserve the resident rights and so forth.
Part of that called for this committee to purchase more
land for the park which we have done, but in turn, the other
end of the bargain, to let the public have more access to some
of these valuable resources, some people are balking at right
now.
I don't expect you to be up to speed on Cumberland Island
but in a general, philosophical discussion about the value of
concurrently preserving different types of resources such as
national historic structures and wilderness land.
Ms. Mainella. We put a great emphasis on protecting our
historic structures and actually give grants to local
governments and others to help in doing some of that
preservation when it is not on our land. At Cumberland I know
we are dealing with wilderness issues as far as what access can
take place. I think we have been working with your staff to
figure out different alternatives that might allow us to
achieve a win-win in regard to the cultural resources and also
dealing with the aspect of our wilderness and making sure we
are respectful of that.
Mr. Kingston. It is not true that Mr. Hinchey and I are
offering an amendment to say we will take the snowmobilers down
there to get public access. We are not considering that.
Mr. Hinchey. Speak for yourself.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Moran?
CUSTIS-LEE MANSION
Mr. Moran. It is nice to see you and I appreciate your
touring with me the Custis-Lee Mansion of Arlington Cemetery. I
do hope the Park Service is going to ensure that land the Park
Service owns is not encroached upon further.
Ms. Mainella. We are continuing to work on that.
Mr. Moran. Working on it is one thing but ensuring that it
stays with the Custis-Lee Mansion is what we want. I trust that
is a commitment to do that.
Ms. Mainella. We are working on it. We are getting that
done. I know we are getting our land protection plan updated as
far as making sure everything was being protected. I don't know
of any action not consistent with that.
Mr. Moran. Your intent is that wooded area the Park Service
owns adjacent to the Custis-Lee Mansion is going to stay with
the Park Service?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, that is what we are working on. The
answer is yes.
Mr. Moran. You keep saying you are working on it. To say we
are working on it is about the vaguest commitment. I don't want
to be argumentative with you, I just want to make sure that
commitment exists.
Ms. Mainella. Yes.
PRIVATIZATION OF THE WORKFORCE
Mr. Moran. I understand the Park Service has an objective
to privatize about 15 percent of its work force. I don't have
any objection to privatization as such but I am troubled by
setting up a predetermined quota for the number of civil
service positions that will be privatized. It seems to me it is
a judgment call. When you set up these kinds of quotas, you
wind up being forced to make decisions not necessarily the most
reasonable or responsible in terms of the functions assigned to
the Park Service.
There are also areas such as grant awards, budget and
contract oversight, things like that I think really need to
remain within the Civil Service and not be privatized, not be
contracted out.
I bring this up because we have a very serious Federal work
force crisis. We estimate that over the next several years at
least half of the work force is going to be eligible for
retirement. Within two or three years, we will have about one-
third and if you look at the projections, these people were
hired largely in the 1960s and 1970s and will be gone.
To impose a 15 percent privatization requirement on top of
that, to be forcing out people you need, I question if that
isn't politically driven more than responsible policy. I know
you are doing a study. I don't know how much that cost. How
much is the study on the privatization deal?
Ms. Mainella. At this point, we have 1,800 individuals in
the Park Service whose positions will be looked at for
competitive sourcing. This means we look at whether their job
is it better able to be done by public employees or not.
As far as the cost, we do not have that cost at this time.
John Trezise is here and he may be able to follow up more on it
but we are working with the Department to understand how we
best get this analysis completed. Is it through contract, is it
through in-house? So we do not have a dollar figure yet on
that.
Mr. Moran. At least this member thinks we need to be very
careful that we not let go people we very much need. We have
seen that happen in other areas of the Federal and State
government. We have a Department of Transportation where that
was done for political reasons and we are suffering terribly
because we lost our best people as a result.
CONCESSIONAIRES
On vendors, you have a vendor policy that holds them all
accountable but you have a wide range of vendors, some
multimillion dollar contractors and others one or two people,
basic mom and pop operations. We have an operation at Belle
Haven Marina that a number of employees and members are
interested in and that is one guy. As you know, he is having
lots of trouble complying.
I tend to agree with the Park Service on virtually all
these issues, but how much flexibility do you have between
applying these standards that are very appropriate for the
large corporations but maybe somewhat less appropriate when you
are dealing with a minimal operation?
Ms. Mainella. I know that in our larger concessions,
anything over half a million dollars, under the new rules they
have to go out for open competition, I can't remember if Belle
Haven is at that level or not. If it is a smaller one, they do
get preferential treatment and that will continue.
We look at our concessionaires as part of our partnership.
We want to work with them. Don, I know you haven't worked
directly with Belle Haven but you are working with our
concession efforts. Is there anything on flexibility you are
familiar with? I know after September 11, we have gone back to
our concessionaires that had to close during that time and are
reducing, for a period of time, the franchise fees.
Mr. Moran. I have to get to the floor but I wanted to raise
these issues.
In this case there are a lot of infrastructure
improvements, capital investments that need to be made. The
problem is you can't get a bank loan if you can't get a lease
for anywhere near the period of the loan. No rational bank is
going to give you money if they don't know whether you are
going to be the concessionaire and the concessionaire can't
comply with Park Service requirements if they can't borrow the
money, if they are just a small operation.
Mr. Murphy. I should probably comment on that. I couldn't
agree more. One concrete thing we did recently was from the
Concessions Reform Act that gave us the ability to extend
concession contracts for up to 10 years. We had previously
interpreted that on the lower end and were doing concession
contracts for 5 years. But, recognizing exactly what you said,
the need many times to amortize an investment means you need a
longer contract.
I just issued a memo last month directing all our
superintendents on these smaller contracts to issue them for
ten years, rather than five years, and to make that the
standard.
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AND SKYLINE DRIVE AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Moran. Nice going. That is music to my ears. That is
reasonable policy and I appreciate that.
I was going to get into the Blue Ridge and Skyline Parkways
because we have a serious problem there. If you drive up there,
some days you can't see anything because ofall the pollution.
You are doing studies on air quality but the study is going to tell us
what we already know, they are coming from the coal-fired powerplants
in West Virginia. It will be just one more study telling us the
obvious, but I don't think you have any control over those powerplants.
I don't know what you will do about the Blue Ridge and Skyline
Parkways. It is a darned shame. Sometimes you can suffocate there with
the air pollution. Here is this gorgeous vista and people are choking
from the air pollution.
Ms. Mainella. I think we have a success story in Kentucky
so it is indirectly affecting Blue Ridge and others but we have
been working with some of the companies on the front side as
they start to put in new plants. This one is called
Thoroughbred and they can help us with a new plant to have
things at a lesser level. So we are trying that angle as much
as we can.
Mr. Moran. That is nice but these guys are grandfathered.
They are not going to voluntarily do anything they are not
required to do.
EMPLOYING LOCAL TROUBLED YOUTH
You use a Conservation Corps to help maintain the national
parks. Have you ever looked into working with local law
enforcement to see if you can employ some of the troubled youth
in these local areas, because it is a potential resource and I
think it would be an opportunity for them to do something
constructive.
Ms. Mainella. I think we have done that in many of our
parks. I know Big Cypress in Florida has done that and some
others have done that. Maybe we need to emphasize that at a
greater level.
Mr. Moran. It would be a nice idea.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt?
Mr. Nethercutt. I want to compliment you for responding to
my office so quickly and in a timely fashion on some questions
we had. I appreciate the attitude of the office and your
leadership.
CONCESSIONS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
I want to follow up a bit on the concessions issue. Maybe
for the record you could tell us today and later if you need to
supplement, what management and operation improvements you have
made and intend to make in the concession program itself?
Ms. Mainella. We are trying to make it more businesslike
than it has ever been. I am going to ask Don Murphy to finish.
We have looked at the top 50 concessions, the big ones. We are
working with Pricewaterhouse Coopers to help us be more
businesslike in the way we address those.
We are responsible for the final determination but it gives
us a chance to work along with them. Don, I think you mentioned
some of the flexibilities, increasing contract length and some
of the others.
Mr. Murphy. Let me start with our Category 3 contracts
which are smaller contractors. I mentioned the fact that for
those contracts the standard will be 10 years rather than 5. We
took great pains to streamline the contract language. We used
to have contracts that were 300 pages and now we are down to
well below 100.
The preferential right of renewal was jeopardized by
smaller outfitters and guides when they attempted to sell
certain items like a T-shirt or a cap that reminded the visitor
of the trip. We just took steps to provide clarifying language
to our superintendents who manage those smaller contracts so
that those contractors can now sell those kinds of items
without jeopardizing their preferential right of renewal.
On the larger contracts, the 50 largest, we mentioned
Pricewaterhouse Coopers but more important is the fact that our
people are now getting the proper business training. We have
instituted a program at Northern Arizona University where we
are putting our concessions managers through training in
concessions and hospitality management. They are also paired
with the professionals from Pricewaterhouse Coopers to learn
more professional business techniques, management techniques
and managing our concessions operations.
I can't emphasize enough that there is a change in
attitude, as well as in our relationship with our
concessionaires; we are thinking of them as partners. While
that may seem almost rhetorical, in some ways it is really
fundamental to changing the way the National Park Service does
business and professionalizes our ranks since it eliminates an
adversarial business point of view. Although I must say now we
are taking a more businesslike approach, we certainly look out
for the taxpayers' interest. So the concessionaire and the Park
Service aren't always going to agree, but at least it is based
on sound business principles.
That partnership attitude makes a lot of difference and
engenders the kind of respect that is necessary in this
relationship. Those are some of the more significant things
that we have done.
As you know we were in litigation with our concession
partners and that litigation is now over although some things
have been left hanging. We are now going to enter into a
negotiation to resolve some longstanding issues on leasehold
surrender interests as well as possessory interests which are
very contentious. But I think we will be able to work out those
things in partnership as well. Just establishing the importance
of continual dialogue with our concession partners has made a
tremendous difference.
EMPLOYING BUSINESS STUDENTS
Mr. Nethercutt. Is there room in your system for taking in
some business administration students in the summer to think
about assisting the local management of a particular park?
Mr. Murphy. Before you came in, Randy Jones mentioned he
did hire one of our business students who had been in the parks
helping with the business plans into his concession office
before he left Rocky Mountain.
Mr. Jones. At Rocky Mountain National Park, we hired a
recent MBA graduate who is now running the concession program
at the park. She has just turned it around, and is doing a
wonderful job.
Mr. Nethercutt. Do you see potential in that in other parks
around the country?
Mr. Jones. I hope so. We need to do a better job of going
out and recruiting to bring in the skills we need in these
programs.
Mr. Nethercutt. Do you plan to do that?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Regula?
Mr. Regula. That was a positive response to Mr.
Nethercutt's question because we have had a concern.
VISITATION AFTER SEPTEMER 11 TERRORIST ATTACK
I am curious. Since September 11, what is the attendance
situation?
Ms. Mainella. We have had a drop in attendance. In fact,
our attendance for the year 2001 dropped about 6 million. Of
that, almost 5 million has been since September 11. However, we
are seeing parks like Shenandoah that have actually increased
visitation since September 11. September 11 certainly had a
visitation impact but we see ourselves comingback. We are now
back to 85 percent. The cherry blossoms may have pushed us over the
edge. We do feel it is coming back.
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Mr. Regula. What is the status of the transportation system
at Grand Canyon?
Ms. Mainella. At this point, a proposal came in, it was
reviewed by OMB and has now come back again for a review by us
to be able to move forward with an evaluation of the various
options. Some of the concern was the cost. Light rail was the
first recommended direction. Grand Canyon is one park where
attendance is still down since September 11. International
travel has been one of the big areas that is down.
Before we can give you a good game plan on that, we have to
make sure we understand where we are attendance-wise and
financially to be able to make a recommendation. That is being
reviewed now with this new data.
IMPLEMENTATION OF NAPA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Regula. In the several years since NAPA made its
recommendations for reforming and streamlining the Park Service
construction program, what is the status of that?
Ms. Mainella. We have revisted our construction efforts at
the Denver Service Center area. Thanks to you and others here
we had a NAPA report that looked at that effort. When you see
the newest report, I think you will be pretty proud of the
accomplishments we have made in implementing those
recommendations. Dan Wenk may want to speak in greater depth
about that.
We are using the private sector so much more with 90
percent of our efforts for design being contracted out. We have
developed models and other things of that nature. I feel we are
moving much more quickly.
We do need help in the regions a bit more to make sure we
have sufficient project managers and contracting capacity. The
$10 million in this 2003 budget will help immensely.
Mr. Regula. To make it work, you have to get the
superintendents.
Ms. Mainella. When I say regions, I mean our
superintendents.
Mr. Regula. Do you have a program of some type where those
who are now superintendents, or will be, can get some education
or instruction in contracting policies?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, we do. We have been doing a lot of
training. Dan, I would love you to answer that question because
you know more in detail than I. This is Dan Wenk, our new
Denver Service Center Director.
Mr. Wenk. We have gone from doing the work in-house to 90
percent outside. We have about 165 contracts in place around
the country with contractors who can do that design work, who
are familiar with the local conditions and have the expertise
we need to do it. Some of that expertise we need goes directly
to your question, training for the superintendents and staff in
the parks. We have conducted, I think, seven training courses
on a nationwide basis and have had about 160 park
superintendents take that course. Another 50 or 60 appropriate
park personnel have taken the course. They are better able to
understand the process they need to use as well as their role,
because they have been made accountable for the construction
part in their park in accordance with the NAPA recommendations.
We are very pleased where that is going.
Mr. Regula. Has outsourcing indicated any diminishing
quality in your construction?
Mr. Wenk. No. One of the great things about using the A&E's
familiar with locations is we have standard contracts with
these companies around the country, so we have developed
relationships with them. We also use a very strong project
management system where we always have involvement of National
Park Service project managers and the staff within park areas
and the regions. They assure the projects are being done to the
standards and the quality that we require and the American
public demands of the national park.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Ms. Mainella. Mr. Regula, we appreciate your being willing
to be a star in our training video. You were a participant in
that video for training and we appreciate that.
VANISHING TREASURES PROGRAM
Mr. Skeen. The committee has strongly supported the
Vanishing Treasures program designed to reduce the threats to
ancient prehistoric and historic sites and structures,
particularly in the southwest. I understand that Glenn Fulfer,
the Superintendent from Salinas Pueblo Mission National
Monument in New Mexico, is here today. Glenn, can you come
forward and tell the committee how the program is working?
Mr. Fulfer. It is a great honor to stand before you and
this committee and to give you a little information about the
Vanishing Treasures program. We are very proud of Vanishing
Treasures. It is a grassroots effort conceived and brought
forth from three New Mexico parks which got together and began
to share information and concerns about the preservation of
these sites, the primary resources for which a lot of these
parks were established.
Through the efforts of several park superintendents and
with the support of the National Park Service leadership,
Vanishing Treasures has now grown to include 41 parks. These
are in the States of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Colorado
and Wyoming, soon to include three California desert parks,
Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave Desert.
The initiative has two major thrusts: the preservation of
the resources, and the building of a cadre of professionals in
the parks to take care of these resources. In 1998, we received
the first appropriations and we are very grateful for the
funding that you provided to us.
From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001, we have
been able to add about 48 individuals, mainly a minority work
force, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, 48 new positions
in 22 parks, and undertake 65 emergency stabilization projects
in 37 parks. The total through fiscal year 1998-2001 has been a
little over $7 million, small potatoes when we look at other
programs. We feel we are a small program but we have done some
big things. We do appreciate your help.
Every year, we develop a year-end report which gives those
that are interested in the status of Vanishing Treasures a
breakdown of what we have done with the money appropriated to
us. We have always been very proud of our level of
accountability. If you give us money and we say we are going to
do something special with it, then we like to come back and be
able to say to you, this is what we accomplished.
It is an effort very much needed in the arid West,
something the National Park Service leadership has supported,
and we are grateful for that. If there is anything I can answer
I would be more than happy to do that.
Also, the year-end report not only includes the lastyear's
activities, it also is a combination of all the previous years
activities. It is the history of Vanishing Treasures, what we have
done, where we have done the work, the people hired and brought on, and
we are proud of the program and grateful for the support we have
received.
CARLSBAD CAVERNS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Skeen. Can you get lunch down at Carlsbad now?
Mr. Fulfer. Yes, sir, you can.
Mr. Skeen. Can I buy a T-shirt?
Mr. Fulfer. Yes, sir, you can. In fact, I have T-shirts at
Salinas.
Mr. Skeen. I am delighted to hear this because it has been
a real sore spot for our part of the country.
TENNIS STADIUM IN ROCK CREEK PARK
Mr. Dicks. Let me bring up an item of interest I have had
for years, the work of the Washington Tennis and Education
Foundation. Zack Wamp's discussion about golf, I thought the
tennis players ought to get in there.
This has been somewhat controversial, but one of the things
we have worked on has been the stadium at 16th and Kennedy
which is in Rock Creek Park, one of our national parks. There
was an agreement between the Park Service and the Foundation
for this stadium to be turned over to the Park Service. It was
an agreement that has been reached and apparently it still
hasn't happened. The Foundation is very concerned about it.
They sponsor the major tennis tournament here but the money
goes to help inner city youth both in terms of bringing them
into tennis and helping them with education, so it is a
charitable effort and I think a positive one. It has done a lot
of good work, started by Arthur Ashe many years ago. A lot of
us in Congress have been involved and sustain it. In fact, we
are having a tournament on the 20th. If you can find out about
it and let me know.
Ms. Mainella. I will do that and let you know.
[The information follows:]
William Fitzgerald Tennis Center--Rock Creek Park
In 1997 an Agreement was reached between the National Park
Service and the Washington Tennis Foundation (now the
Washington Tennis and Education Foundation [WTEF]) regarding
the William Fitzgerald Tennis Center at 16th and Kennedy
Streets in Rock Creek Park. The WTEF was obligated to complete
certain prescribed unfinished items of work, in addition to two
major accessibility modifications, after which title to the
facility would be conveyed to the National Park Service.
WTEF has accomplished the unfinished items by the end of
1998, and later accomplished one of the accessibility
modifications. To expedite the process Rock Creek Park agreed
to assume responsibility for the second accessibility
modification. An Architectural & Engineering (A&E) firm has
been contracted to evaluate the current status of the
unfinished work, as well as the condition of the facility. The
contractor is reviewing plans, and will be coordinating with
the original construction contractor. We anticipate completion
of the second accessibility modification within 60 days after
the completion of that process.
Assuming the WTEF has accomplished and maintained the
required work, the accessibility modifications are completed
and the A&E does not discover unknown substantive construction
or maintenance deficiencies, we expect timely conveyance of the
title to the facility.
SECURITY AT NATIONAL MONUMENTS
Mr. Dicks. The other thing I wanted to ask you about is the
question on homeland security. Can you summarize for the
committee what actions have been taken so far this year to
improve security at our national monuments and other at-risk
sites?
Ms. Mainella. We have been doing a lot. The area that we
probably gave our greatest attention to initially are the
Statue of Liberty and the New York areas and also the
Washington area, the two major areas of initial impact. Thanks
to some supplemental funding, we have been able to move forward
with increasing the law enforcement efforts at the Statue of
Liberty, Ellis Island and Liberty Island both reopened. We have
not been able to actually reopen the Statue. We are consulting
right now with the Secret Service, getting their advice, to be
able to do that.
We have everything reopened here in Washington D.C.
including the Washington Monument. In the 2003 budget there is
an additional $12 million to help us with the Park Police.
Another $23 million is requested to deal with Washington D.C.
monuments, getting away from the ugly barriers and putting in a
security system that will be more appropriate at the
Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials.
SECURITY AT THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT
Mr. Dicks. One question on that whole subject, several
months ago the Department conducted a tour of the Washington
Monument and described the need for the screening facility as
extremely urgent. They pointed out that under the current
arrangement, a terrorist could be inside the Monument before he
or she could be detected. Can you tell us why the funds for the
Washington Monument screening facilities have not been included
in the 2003 request?
Ms. Mainella. These funds will be in our 2004 request. We
are planning at that level. The screening facility as it is
today is not the ideal scenario but it is one that gives us
enough safety for people coming in. We are doing metal
detection at this time, so the security is adequate. It is not
ideal. Putting the screening facility underground and more
distant from the Monument will be an even greater attribute.
When we had our plan reviewed by outside sources, it was a
strong recommendation, but we felt financially the first thing
we wanted to do was go after car bombs or anything like that.
So we are working on the barriers and in 2004, we will come
back with requests for the actual screening facility.
Mr. Murphy. We also are working under an expedited schedule
for the security at the Washington Monument. We have done a
design and build competition already, chosen the designer, gone
through an expedited approval process with the Fine Arts
Commission and also with our Historic Preservation Council. We
have a construction schedule that really doesn't allow for any
breaks between the design and build and approval processes we
have to go through.
We are redirecting some construction funds which will allow
us to continue to the planning process and get to the
construction process without any gap at all.
Mr. Dicks. You are saying even if we added money in a
supplemental, could you move forward on the screening facility
any faster?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. The reason is it will come to a point
where we will get a break but right now we have provided all
the money we can to move as quickly as we can to a point. After
that point we will need supplemental money to allow us to
continue even faster.
Mr. Dicks. If the Congress wanted to do this, do you want
to tell us how much you need to move this forward as
expeditiously as possible?
Ms. Mainella. I think we would best provide it for the
record.
Mr. Dicks. We understand it is somewhere between $18 and
$20 million.
[The information follows:]
Supplemental Funding for Security Projects
The Department and the National Park Service consider this
to be a very important project and have included it in the FY
2003 budget request. We would move forward as soon as the FY
2003 budget is enacted. The first phase will install most of
the permanent vehicle barrier system and begin site preparation
for the underground visitor screening facility. We plan to
request the balance of the funds to complete the project in the
FY 2004 budget.
Mr. Dicks. Chief, is this screening facility important?
Ms. Chambers. Absolutely, it is, sir. In the meantime, the
system that is in place is adequate. It would not be a
recommended permanent solution because we want the safety of
the visitors as our primary concern. Right now, it is true
someone could enter the screening facility, adjacent to the
Monument, with some type of weapon.
We looked at the previous studies from Booz Allen Hamilton
and others and are confident that whatever a person could carry
into that screening facility is not sufficient to damage the
Monument itself. So the Monument itself is in secure hands
right now but the preferred way is to get that screening
facility as far away as possible from the Monument itself.
Mr. Dicks. From your professional point of view, you would
like to see this done as quickly as possible?
Ms. Chambers. Absolutely.
SECURITY IN OTHER PARK UNITS
Ms. Mainella. Also, one of the things we do have is another
$6 million requested in this budget to help us in law
enforcement at some of our park units.
CONSTRUCTION AT FORT JEFFERSON AT DRY TORTUGAS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Dicks. We are having a difficult time obligating all
these construction funds. I noticed we need to do some work at
Fort Jefferson, so that may be an ongoing issue. If you do have
some extra money around, that might be one.
Ms. Mainella. I will be out there in the near future with
the Park Foundation. We will take a look at it.
Mr. Dicks. They are doing it kind of one-sided at times and
that means you have to set up the crew, do all their stuff,
then they disband, then they reassemble. It would be better to
get one crew out there, do the thing, get it done, and I think
you would save a ton of money. So you take a look at it.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir. We will.
URBAN PARK AND RECREATION FUND
Mr. Dicks. I did notice you did have nice things to say
about UPAR?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. That was noted. The question from the staff was,
if it is so good, why have they zeroed it in the budget. If you
could help me answer that?
Ms. Mainella. I think it has all been a balancing act and
it is always a challenge.
Mr. Dicks. I know. We will try to help you with that
challenge.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston?
COLLEGE INTERNSHIPS IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Kingston. George Nethercutt got my curiosity up. In
terms of internship, there are a lot of college programs that
have outdoor recreation degrees. If you are a freshman or
sophomore in college and want to try to get an internship with
the National Park Service, are those opportunities available?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, they are. I just met with a number of
the curriculum chairs across our Nation, encouraging them to
think about national parks as a place to place interns. I am
hoping together we will be able to further enhance the
opportunities for internships in our parks because I think that
is a great learning opportunity as well as an opportunity to
have folks learn about the values of our parks resource-wise
and visitor-wise.
Mr. Dicks. If we have some college student names, where do
we turn them in?
Ms. Mainella. If you get them to me I will make sure they
are put with the proper Education and Training Coordinator.
Don?
Mr. Murphy. I just met with the Associate Director this
morning on just that issue. We have directed our Human
Resources staff to put together a pamphlet that we will be able
to send out to you in the next couple of weeks outlining all of
our intern opportunities, and telling how to apply as well. We
did not have that in a central location and just nailed that
down this morning. We should be able to get it to you in a
couple of weeks.
YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS
Mr. Dicks. What about the Youth Conservation Corps? We have
expanded that. Are you using that?
Ms. Mainella. We sure are and they are very important in
our whole maintenance backlog effort and many Youth
Conservation Corps become employees for us in the future.
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Kingston. The Blue Ridge Parkway, when you drive up
there, I think it says ``Today's temperature,'' and then it has
a pollution index number. Is that something that is just trendy
or does that have science behind it?
Ms. Mainella. I am not sure I know that answer. Mike, is
that a scientific measurement?
Mr. Soukup. I am not sure what we monitor in that park. It
is probably related to ozone.
Mr. Kingston. I believe it is ozone related.
[The information follows:]
Pollution Index Signs
The signs referred to were located at entrance stations
along Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park. These signs,
which provided park visitors and commuters with the current
temperature and air quality index (AQI) were removed in 1997 as
a result of questions about the timeliness of, and need for,
the information provided.
The park has since developed an Ozone Advisory System in
conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Virginia State Department of Environmental Quality. This system
is a telephone-based program, by which visitors can access an
informational hotline via the park's main number that provides
them with the daily AQI from May 1st through September 30th.
Additionally, weather and AQI information are broadcast over
the park radio system on a daily basis so that Rangers can
respond to visitor inquiries.
Discussions are ongoing within the park and with
neighboring parks and stakeholders concerning additional ways
to best obtain and communicate air quality information.
Ms. Mainella. Let us check on that.
Mr. Nethercutt. There is a GAO study that we just did last
year which focuses on part of the Blue Ridge Parkway and TVA.
The Administration is working in that area. If you look at
nuclear, then you will find you can reduce, you can reduce a
lot of the powerplants. There are three nuclear powerplants
stopped in 1993, the last one was about 95 percent complete.
You could cut a lot of pollution by reinstituting those plants.
I just mention that as an aside.
Mr. Kingston. I would mention as an aside that 76 percent
of the houses in France get power from nuclear sources.
Mr. Nethercutt. And England gets 40 percent of the national
currency by doing work in Asia and reprocessing far ahead of
the United States.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK CONCESSIONS
Mr. Kingston. The Rocky Mountain National Park, the visitor
center is where the main concession stand is up on the top?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Kingston. Why don't you sell some stuff at the bottom
near Estes Park because you have a park information center
where you sell a few books but you don't sell the trinkets and
junky little things you could turn a profit on.
Mr. Dicks. Check the business plan.
Mr. Kingston. Isn't it 26 miles up the road to the Trail
Ridge Visitor Center?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kingston. I think you are missing a big business
opportunity. That is not even technically inside the gate, so
you could get all those people who saved $10 by not driving in.
Mr. Jones. We could, but we also have a wonderful community
in the town of Estes Park that has a wide range of businesses
that do a good job of providing merchandise for the public.
Mr. Kingston. That is right. I forgot. They have fake
arrowheads just as easy as anyone else.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
In the Denver Park Service Center, you caught some
criticism about construction. My question isn't so much about
Denver as much as the criticism that everyone in this room
involved in the National Park Service catches, the $300,000
outhouse and so forth. Do you feel on construction, this is a
nagging problem with the National Park Service?
Ms. Mainella. I think we learned a lot from that situation
because we made a lot of changes. We made changes in the
process, contracting out and doing a lot more private sector
partnership at the Denver Service Center. We also instituted a
Development Advisory Board which involves not only people from
the Park Service but outside individuals looking at what we are
doing and evaluating. Any large projects have to go through
that review. That did not exist before, so we have added those
elements. I think that has also helped us be a lot more
realistic in our opportunities as far as construction and
making sure we are using appropriate cost effectiveness.
As you know, sometimes building in government requires
extra bonding and other things that need to take place which
sometimes affects pricing, but I think we are a lot better
positioned. We also are packaging ourselves a little more
appropriately when we tell you how much a house costs in the
Park Service and also talking about all the roads it took you
to get there. Sometimes we were doing that in the past.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey?
SEISMIC STUDIES AND OIL EXPLORATION AT CANYONLANDS AND ARCHES NATIONAL
PARKS
Mr. Hinchey. I wanted to ask a couple questions about the
seismic studies that were going on around Canyonlands and
Arches particularly, and the controversy going on there.
The Bureau of Land Management seems insistent upon moving
forward with these seismic studies but the Park Service and
others have intervened to try to slow down that process.
Ms. Mainella. I don't know if the seismic studies will take
place. I think BLM the properties are quite far away from where
we are. I can get a more complete answer on that if you would
like.
Mr. Hinchey. The Bureau of Land Appeals has issued a
disagreement with BLM's assessment that there was no impact, so
they have intervened and the seismic studies have been stopped,
as I understand.
Ms. Mainella. Let me get back to you after I check on that.
I apologize, I don't have the full details on that.
Mr. Hinchey. It is a complex issue. I wouldn't expect you
to have the details on it. I am sure there are very few people
who do and they are the ones intimately involved in this. I
raise it because of a concern for the impact these seismic
studies, and perhaps some resultant exploratory activities for
oil, will have on the quality of Canyonlands particularly. I
would ask you to pay attention to that and I know you will.
Ms. Mainella. We will, sir. It is very important. It is
right there by that arch where the torch came in at the
Olympics in the State of Utah. I was there at 5 a.m. or
sunrise.
[The information follows:]
Bureau of Land Management Seismic Exploration Project in Vicinity of
Canyonlands and Arches National Parks
The project in question is the Yellowcat Geophysical
Survey, approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) after
an environmental assessment and public review. During this
process the National Park Service stated that the Survey's
seismic testing would have no impact on either Canyonlands or
Arches National Parks.
The Survey was being conducted by representatives of the
oil and gas lease owners until a stay issued by the Interior
Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) suspended work on February 22,
2002. (IBLA has not yet ruled on the merits of the case.) The
Survey involved no drilling of either exploratory or
development wells. In fact, if any proposals for field
development were to result from this seismic testing, a full
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), conducted by BLM and
involving the National Park Service, would be required.
The closest portion of the seismic project area is
approximately four miles from Arches National Park, and five
miles from the world-renowned landmark--Delicate Arch. At that
distance even the largest vehicles employed by the project are
not visible to the naked eye.
Mr. Hinchey. In any case, it is important to us. I want you
to be aware of that and I know you will be paying close
attention.
SEISMIC STUDIES AND OIL EXPLORATION AT BIG CYRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE
A similar situation exists in Big Cypress, something with
which you are more familiar. I wonder if you could bring us up
to date on what is happening there, with particular regard to
oil explorations and the impact of that on the ongoing efforts
to restore the Everglades in association with the Big Cypress?
Ms. Mainella. As you know, Big Cypress is part of the
Everglades Ecosystem and as a preserve, does have a unique
situation where it has had oil drilling going on for a long
time. It does have the Collier family and some other
individuals, but mostly the Collier family has an opportunity
because of their ownership on some of those rights to continue
to move in that direction.
We are working closely with the Collier family to see if
there are any alternatives, any options from exchange to other
options that could be considered. We are working on those
aggressively right now.
Mr. Hinchey. What would that mean?
Ms. Mainella. That effort has been with our attorneys and
others. I am not sure of any of the details other than it might
be able to address the oil issues in Big Cypress, which are a
big concern for us all. I would be glad to keep you informed as
that progresses. At this point, all I know is there has been
negotiations underway.
Mr. Hinchey. I think we should have an answer for the
record.
Ms. Mainella. I'll follow up when I find out the answer.
Mr. Hinchey. Will that answer include what the
Administration's position is with regard to energy exploration
in the Big Cypress at the same time that we are spending, over
a period of time, several billions of dollars to bring about
restoration?
Ms. Mainella. Exactly. Big Cypress is an important part of
our whole Everglades effort.
Mr. Hinchey. I want to have it clear to what extent we may
be engaged in conflicting activities.
Ms. Mainella. Exactly.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
VANISHING TREASURES PROGRAM
Mr. Hinchey. I wanted to express my appreciation for the
Vanishing Treasures Program. Your presentation was very good.
The documents you presented about the work you are doing is
also very impressive and would seem to me to be something that
really needs to be done.
It is an interesting project and I hope you will keep us
posted on how you are proceeding with it. We would like to be
helpful to you in whatever way we can.
Ms. Mainella. It is a good program. It has allowed us to
bring Native Americans on as part of our employment because of
the skills they have been able to afford us not available
before.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt?
Mr. Nethercutt. One comment and a short question.
You speak of your personnel. I imagine I speak for everyone
on the subcommittee in congratulating you and your park rangers
at the various parks. I think we have all had exposure. Talking
about Native Americans, I went to climb the Grand Canyon years
ago and the Native American guides and informational resources
they provided were great. Your people are doing a fine job out
in the field dealing with the public.
Ms. Mainella. They do a great job and are our best asset.
Mr. Nethercutt. I think you are right.
PARK RANGERS ASSIGNED TO SECURITY AWAY FROM PARK
The Grand Coulee Dam issue, you and I talked about a bit
previously. There are some Park Service people providing
security there. You have answered me in writing. If you could
update as best you can any further information you have about
the timetable?
Ms. Mainella. The Department is working aggressively to
have our park law enforcement rangers so back to the parks.
Right now we are supporting some work at the dams and other
things like that. The date they have given us would be October
1 that we would get our rangers back.
We have also been doing security in Washington, D.C. and I
understand we may be able to have some of our rangers go back
as of May 1. So we are looking at that.
Mr. Murphy. That is correct. The situation at the dams has
been very difficult because BOR has had to get up to speed, had
to have authority to hire, under contract, law enforcement
personnel, and we are assisting them in doing that. We just
deployed five people to their regions to assist in putting
together their law enforcement programs. We are now trying to
expedite that by providing additional personnel. I think we
will make that October date.
Mr. Nethercutt. I hope so because it is putting some
pressure on and frankly it is not our best resource. With all
due respect, I think we need pretty specifically trained people
for the kind of problems we might face out our way. I know you
are trying. Thank you.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
SNOWMOBILES IN PARKS
Mr. Dicks. Going back to the snowmobiles, I have been out
there and seen the park and I think this is a serious issue.
One thing is the improvement in technology. These four stroke
engines are much better and there may be a way to address this
by using the better technology. I hope you will take a serious
look at that.
Mr. Skeen. If there are no additional questions, I would
like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today and this
concludes the hearing on the National Park Service budget.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir.
[Additional questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 11, 2002.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WITNESSES
STEVEN WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR
MARSHALL JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
STEPHEN GUERTIN, BUDGET OFFICER
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DENISE SHEEHAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUDGET, PLANNING AND HUMAN
RESOURCES
DAN ASHE, CHIEF, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
TOM MELIUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MIGRATORY BIRDS AND STATE PARTNERSHIPS
WILLIAM KNAPP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FISHERS AND HABITAT
CONSERVATION
GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENDANGERED SPECIES
TEIKO SAITO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
KEVIN ADAMS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT
ROBYN THORSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
PAUL HENNE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Opening Remarks of Chairman Skeen
Mr. Skeen. Today we have the new director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Steve Williams, here to testify on the
Service's 2003 budget request. Welcome, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear today.
Mr. Skeen. I know that 2003 marks the 100th birthday of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. That's quite an honor, and I
look forward to hearing about the preparations for the Refuge
centennial.
Your full statement will be made a part of the record, and
I'll ask that you summarize your testimony. But first let me
turn to Mr. Dicks, the Ranking Minority Member.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Dicks
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Director
Williams.
The fiscal year 2003 budget for the Fish and Wildlife
Service contains some very positive proposals, namely the
significant increase of 18 percent for our Nation's refuge
system, to coincide with the 100th anniversary, as the Chairman
has mentioned, of the Refuge system next year. However, a
closer look at the details of the budget for this agency shows
that the increase, while laudable, comes at the expense of
other programs, in some cases from programs that also support
the refuge system. This budgeting tactic has been used for
other agencies under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. And
I must admit that I am troubled by it. If a program is
important, we ought to pay for it.
The budget also makes several reductions for programs that
were added by this Subcommittee. While I understand the
Administration's right to propose its own priorities, I was
disappointed to see that a number of reductions had tremendous
agency support. In some instances, programs were eliminated
from the base budgets of an agency after having started as a
Congressional priority.
I also hope to discuss the State Wildlife Grant program at
greater length today, so that the Subcommittee can get a better
understanding of where the agency is going with this program.
Having spent an enormous amount of time on this topic, I am
still troubled by how the agency has proceeded with this
program since it was created two years ago. I am pleased that
the Administration did not propose the significant cut to the
Fish and Wildlife Service that we saw last year.
Coming from a region of the country faced with tremendous
ESA related pressure, I am keenly aware of how important it is
to adequately fund these programs and staff this agency. While
I would advocate for agency increase, I'm relieved to see the
Administration's proposed level funding instead of a reduction.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony
of Director Williams.
Mr. Skeen. Director Williams, would you please introduce
your companions and then summarize your testimony.
Opening Statement of Steven Williams
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
introduce first, to my left, your right, Marshall Jones, the
Deputy Director. To my right, Steve Guertin, our Chief of
Budget.
Mr. Skeen. We're glad to see you.
Mr. Williams. And I have assistant directors behind me
that, with your permission as we go through questioning, I'd
like to refer some of the questions to them for answering, if
that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still scurrying to
learn the budget and learn the issues that confront the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
It is a pleasure to appear here today to present the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget request. As you mentioned,
I have prepared remarks. I'll just highlight a few of those
remarks.
This is my first appearance before this Subcommittee, but I
am told and I am aware of how this Subcommittee has championed
in particular the National Wildlife Refuge System by advocating
increased use of those lands, cooperative partnership efforts
and carrying out the Service's responsibility. I am pleased and
honored to be sitting in this chair as we prepare for the 100th
anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Our 2003 budget request totals nearly $2 billion, which is
the largest ever. It provides direct financial and technical
assistance to States, local communities, land owners and
conservation groups, including the new cooperative conservation
initiative. And it provides a major increase for the operation
and maintenance of the refuge system.
At this time, I'd like to begin some of the major items in
the budget. We are requesting nearly $377 million for refuge
system operations and maintenance, which is an increase of
almost $57 million above fiscal year 2002 and $76 million above
the fiscal year 2001 budget. Our request includes a $12 million
increase for refuge operations, a minimum of $5 million
increase for the highly successful cost share program, $2
million for a new initiative on visitor facilities, $1 million
to complete CCP's, and an increase of approximately $31 million
to reduce the number of deferred maintenance projects.
As I said, I want to acknowledge and express my
appreciation for the support of this Committee that you have
all provided through the years for the refuge system under both
you, Chairman Skeen, and former Chairman Regula. Your efforts
have certainly laid the groundwork for these proposals to
advance the refuge system.
Our budget request also includes $283.9 million forprograms
assisting States, tribes and local communities and land owners. That
amount includes $50 million for the Landowner Incentive grant program,
$10 million for the Private Stewardship Grants program, $91 million for
the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, $43.6 million for
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, $60 million for State
and Tribal Wildlife Grants, and approximately $29.3 million for the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program.
Also included in the Department's request is a proposal for
$100 million for new flexible, incentive based programs to
implement the Secretary's goal of conservation through
cooperation, consultation and communication. Of that $100
million, $50 million would be allocated to the States through
the National Park Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The other $50 million would be available to the Service and to
other Interior agencies for projects benefiting Federal lands
and resources.
We are requesting $18 million to implement this initiative.
A minimum of $5 million would be directed toward the refuge
system challenge cost share program and the remaining $13
million would be available competitively to nearly all the
Service programs, including refuges. We're requesting a total
of about $126 million for the Endangered Species programs. This
includes the $1.1 million increase for candidate conservation
efforts, $2.3 million for consultations, technical assistance
and habitat conservation plan efforts.
For recovery of listed species, we enter into a bit of
budget speak. The request shows up as a decrease of $3.4
million from the enacted level. This is primarily due, however,
to the proposed discontinuation of earmarks. If Congress
accepts this, we would actually result in a $2.5 million
general increase in funding for Service priorities.
We are asking for an overall increase of $1.5 million for
our law enforcement programs. This money is much needed to
continue our efforts to strengthen our law enforcement program
by providing funds to support enforcement activities of onboard
staff.
We are requesting $94.8 million for the Fisheries program,
which is a net decrease of $9.1 million below the 2002 enacted
level. An issue of concern, I'm sure, to many members, includes
a net decrease of $1 million from the hatchery programs, in
order to implement the Administration's management reform
initiatives.
I want to stress at this point our continued commitment to
work with Congress and all other stakeholders to determine how
to eventually apply this reduction, and more importantly, or as
importantly to address the future of our hatcheries system and
Fisheries program.
The land acquisition request totals about $71 million. We
request $5 million for the Multi-national Species Conservation
Fund. I would conclude by saying that although this budget
development and budget request was finalized prior to my
confirmation, it's one that I'm proud to recommend to you.
There are significant increases for important priorities and I
would urge the Subcommittee to support the budget request.
As I said, I have Marshall Jones with me, and Steve
Guertin, head of our Budget Office and numerous assistant
directors that sit behind me.
[The written statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
REFUGE EXPANSION
Mr. Skeen. What are you doing to control the number of new
refuges that are added to the National Wildlife Refuge System,
and what are you doing to control expansion of the existing
refuge?
Mr. Williams. That's a good question, Mr. Chairman. There
are a variety of efforts that have been undertaken prior to my
confirmation. Starting with a new project idea that deals with
preliminary project proposals, these proposals are drafted at
the regional level, and at the local level. The proposal
presents an idea that goes before the regional management team.
That team evaluates the fitness of a potential unit or
potential property to be acquired. That starts the process for
consideration of future expansion or new areas being brought
into the refuge system. We can provide additional information
for you in our prepared remarks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I would like to bring to your attention a new effort that I
intend to undertake and actually have initiated in discussions
with our chief of the refuge system, Dan Ashe. Dan and I have
discussed the need for the development of priorities and
guidelines for future land acquisition, future refuge
expansion, that would provide a greater direction and focus for
future land acquisition efforts by providing a national
priority, if you would.
The intent here is a number of intentions. One is to help
folks in the field understand what the priorities of the
Service are from a national perspective. Two is to filter land
acquisition requests that come in from the field through this
priority and guidance document, so that we limit the number of
requests, the acreage that would be requested to be added to
our refuge system, and focus our efforts on those highly
exceptional land areas that provide, for instance, critical
habitat for threatened and endangered species, perhaps critical
wetland values and a variety of other characteristics that an
internal group of employees within the Service will be
developing hopefully within the next few weeks.
Mr. Skeen. How do you factor in operating costs when making
a decision on a new refuge?
Mr. Williams. My understanding is that's a relatively
recent development in the Service as we plan for the future,
and it's one that I am very supportive of. I also understand
that a lot of impetus for that came through this Subcommittee.
When proposals are sent through the chain of command, if
you will, we have requested that those making proposals for
expansions or new lands provide their best estimates of out-
year costs for operation and maintenance. We take that into
account when it moves through various levels of approval and
ultimately now those approvals are made not at the regional
level, but at the Washington level, in fact, at the Director's
level. When any of those proposals come forward, I can assure
you that I will be asking perhaps similar questions to what
this Committee would ask in terms of, what are the out-year
costs, the ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
I believe strongly taking care of what it is that we own
now, not to the exclusion of additional acreage, needs to be
factored into our considerations or our decisions before we
take on new properties. This includes what it is costing us to
operate currently, what are the deferred maintenance costs that
are out there, and what future O&M would we have to take under,
or what future O&M costs we would have with any additional
properties.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DIRECTOR WILLIAMS' EXPERIENCES
Dr. Williams, you have spent the last seven years in Kansas
as Director of the Wildlife and Parks. Prior to that, spent
considerable time in both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania
working with State wildlife agencies.
What did your experience out in the field teach you about
what was and what wasn't working at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Mr. Williams. One of my primary goals for the Service,
based on my 16 years of experience in State agencies, was to
strengthen the relationship between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and State agencies. By that I mean, to bring State
agencies to the table on a variety of issues, whether they be
endangered species issues, refuge issues, fisheries issues, law
enforcement and so on, all programs of the Service, to bring
State agencies to the table to look for ways that we could
assist them in their conservation mission and they could assist
us.
That's not to say that there aren't wonderful partnerships
that exist, because there are. I have had the pleasure of
working with, in my capacity as a state employee, many Fish and
Wildlife Service employees on projects on the ground that have
been, in my opinion, very successful and advanced fish and
wildlife conservation. I think we can do a better job as a
Federal agency in reaching out to the States and working with
our employees to, as I said, advance conservation.
Another part of that equation deals with partnerships. I
think the Service can improve and strengthen its relationship
with other partners. By that I mean non-governmental
conservation organizations. We can improve our relationship and
partnerships with the hunting and fishing and other wildlife
oriented industry groups that promote fish and wildlife
conservation.
And last, my experience at the State level, and its first-
hand experience in working with sportsmen and women and three
different States is, I think the Service can take steps to
further improve our working relationship with the sportsmen and
women in this country, and as far as that goes, with all
members of the public in this Nation. But particularly those
that are interested in wildlife dependent or wildlife related
outdoor recreation.
Mr. Dicks. Let me ask you, there have been several major
controversies this year that go over the last several years.
One is on the Canadian lynx, and the other on the Klamath Basin
controversy, which we have previously attested to the
Secretary, these have caused great controversy and considerable
damage to the reputation of the Service. The conclusions to the
National Academy Review regarding water in the Klamath Basin
were particularly troublesome.
In your view, what do these episodes tell you as a new
Director about the quality of the science and the ethical
standards within the Service?
KLAMATH BASIN
Mr. Williams. If I could, I'd address the Klamath situation
and the lynx situation separately.
Mr. Dicks. That would be fine with me.
Mr. Williams. I think it's important that we separate those
two issues, because they need to be addressed. Some of the
things we need to do to address both of those I can discuss at
the same time. But they are separate issues.
In terms of the National Academy of Science's review of our
biological opinion at Klamath, I would point out that there
were a number of conclusions that were reached during our
biological opinion or in the biological opinion document that
were strongly supported by the National Academy of Science.
However, the perhaps most significant in some perspectives was
a conclusion we reached that water levels, maintaining a
certain water level, was important for the survival of the fish
species in Klamath.
I believe that our employees on the ground used the best
information they had available. I would say that that
information, even they would agree, I'm sure, was not the best
that they would have liked to have available, but it was the
best available at the time. From their analysis they drew
conclusions based on their professional judgment. The
conclusion that they drew, in essence, was if nutrient loading
was a concern and is a concern for the survival of the sucker
species in question, that higher volumes of water, higher lake
levels, I think is an intuitive conclusion and judgment you
might come to. If we had higher lake levels, we might expect
better survival of the fish.
Unfortunately, when the National Academy of Science
reviewed our opinion and our judgment, they didn't concur.
Looking back, with the benefit of further review, we would
agree that the science that we had, the data that we had, were
not conclusive, did not support our opinion that we needed to
maintain those higher lake levels, based on the information we
had.
The lessons I've learned there certainly, well, there are a
number. One is, that we need to strive to get the resources to
monitor, survey and collect the information we need for all of
our decisions. And honestly, we don't have or neither does any
State fish or wildlife agency, have all the information they
would like to have to make the best decision. So we're taking a
look at that, how do we best apply our finite resources to
those areas where we're going to have to make decisions,
particularly controversial decisions and particularly decisions
that are going to have the type of impact that we saw in the
Klamath Basin area.
So the use of best science is something that we continue to
be very committed to.
We were going to talk about peer review of science, but
before I do that, I would point out that our opinion did go
through some peer review prior to being published. But we are
committed to searching out ways to bring peer review to all of
the science, all the decisions that were involved and as
appropriate, recognizing that there are time commitments, there
is statutory time commitments, there is sometimes a reluctance
to have folks peer review data, conclusions, scientific
research. But we're committed to involving peer review, outside
peer review, as much as possible.
Mr. Dicks. When do you expect to receive the final
recommendations from the Academy, and what will you do in the
interim?
Mr. Williams. I believe the final recommendations are due
in March of 2003. In the interim, we are incorporating the
conclusions of the NAS study as we speak in the development of
the ten year biological opinion for Klamath. That's going on
right now as we develop that biological opinion. So we're
looking at information presented there, using that as
additional information to help guide our opinion.
So the lesson there in a nutshell is, we need to get the
best science we can, better science if we can, and we need to
incorporate peer review when and where possible. And it also
has driven the agency to involve other folks within the agency
with certain areas of expertise that may not be available at
the local level where those decisions are made. So that's kind
of my thinking on Klamath.
CANADA LYNX
The lynx case is a bit of a different issue to try to
tackle. I would start out by pointing out to this group that in
my opinion, and it's my strong opinion, the incident
surrounding the submission of fur from a captive lynx to a lab
for identification involved bad judgment by those individuals
involved. Not bad science by this agency. We need to put
responsibility where the responsibility is. That
responsibility, in my mind, lies with those individuals that
were involved.
I'd like to take a second to provide a little more
information on the lynx survey issue, because I'm disappointed
in some of the accounts I've read in the newspaper about what
it was that happened. I'd just take a couple of minutes if I
could to just kind of lay that out as I understand it, based on
my reading of the GAO report and the Department of Interior's
Office of Inspector General's report.
With regard to the Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and
that's the only two that I'll speak to, what occurred there was
two individuals had apparently discussed concerns about the
lab's ability to correctly identify samples that were sent in.
That led one of the individuals to procure some lynx hair from
a captive lynx, provide it to the second Service employee, and
that Service employee sent it in to the lab for identification.
There were notes made on his data sheets that were sent in,
indicating that that sample was in essence, in his mind, a test
sample. Once it came to light the Forest Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service and Washington State employees had taken these
steps, the lab stopped all examination of samples sent in and
those sampleswere eventually weeded out from what was sent.
Now, having said that, I don't say that as an excuse. I
don't say that in defense of those employee's actions. It
exhibit poor judgment at best. I think it was certainly ill-
advised, perhaps unethical. What happened was, two employees
who took it upon themselves, perhaps for good intentions in
their minds, but took it upon themselves to go outside of the
scientific protocol that was established. That in and of itself
is an unprofessional activity.
It was not, as some newspaper reports claim, fur planted in
the forest. It was fur that never, to my knowledge, again based
on the reports, not fur that was planted in the forests. It was
fur that was taken from a captive lynx and submitted as a
sample.
Steps that we've taken to deal with that are numerous. I'd
just to go through a few of those. One is that we have
developed through Director's order personnel standards which
specify disciplinary consequences for inappropriate or
unacceptable behavior related to science entitled Disciplinary
Action for Unauthorized Activities in the Course of Scientific
Studies or Investigations.
Some of the key components of this order include requiring
all employees that are involved in scientific studies or
investigations to adhere strictly to established survey and
scientific protocols; requiring any employee who questions the
scientific methods, which seem to be the case in the lynx
issue, any employee who questions scientific methods being used
in the study, including quality assurance and quality control
procedures, must use appropriate channels to address these
concerns. They cannot take it upon themselves to address those
concerns.
It states that any measures taken outside of established
study protocols to ``test'' any aspect of the study without the
knowledge and consent of the principal investigator is always
unacceptable and we inform employees that acting outside of
these aforementioned established protocols would be grounds for
disciplinary action, up to and including removal from the
Service. That deals with performance and conduct.
Further, I've taken steps that I categorize under
leadership steps. I've met with regional field managers in
three of our southern regions, next two weeks from now I'll be
in the fourth and plan to conclude all of our seven regions,
stressing the importance of scientific rigor and scientific
integrity as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We will attempt to optimize external resources, bringing
support from individuals and organizations outside of the
Service to cooperate with us in looking at how we conduct
research, how we analyze that research and the decisions made
on that research. And finally, in terms of training for current
and future employees, we've employed the National Conservation
Training Center, which is a component of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, in the full range of its instructional programs, to
stress the importance of scientific rigor, scientific integrity
and ethics. So we're trying to cover as many bases or all bases
in getting through to all employees the importance of
professional, ethical behavior and the importance of scientific
integrity.
Mr. Dicks. Just one final comment. Because I know we want
to get to the other members.
What happened to the employees? Were any of these people
fired? Or were they just counseled and reassigned to other
jobs?
Mr. Williams. Again, my understanding is that when this
came to light, the two Service employees in question were
counseled. Immediately upon receipt of the knowledge that this
had gone on, Secretary Norton requested an OIG audit. That
audit came to us some time in March. We are reviewing the OIG
findings and any appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.
Mr. Dicks. I just would say, things like this, when we have
to make these hard decisions about the enforcement of the
Endangered Species Act, and the credibility of the agency is
absolutely crucial. I do strongly support the idea of trying to
bring peer review to bear on some of these controversial
decisions, because of people having questions about the
adequacy of the science.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REFUGE LAND ACQUISITION
Mr. Williams, you state that you are going to acquire
approximately 50,000 acres between fee lands and easement
interest in this budget. Could you break down just the general
percentage, is it 50-50, 35 fee and 75 easements? Or if you
don't have that now, I'd like to have that if you don't mind,
before the record closes.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. We'll get that for you. I don't
have it immediately available.
[The information follows:]
Easement Acquisition
In the FY 2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
request, the Service has roughly estimated 11,000 acres of
easements to be acquired which corresponds to 22 percent of the
request. The Service pursues less than fee acquisitions
(easements) from willing sellers whenever practical. Since
1997, the Service has established four new refuges, Dakota
Tallgrass Wildlife Management Area (WMA), North Dakota WMA,
Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and
Western Montana NWR/Blackfoot Valley, that focus primarily on
Easement acquisitions.
Mr. Taylor. In your studying the acquisitions of land, do
you ever study the elimination of land from Federal ownership
that have little or no use in the major focus of the Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Mr. Williams. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn to
Dan Ashe, of the Wildlife Refuge System, if that would be okay,
to respond to that.
Mr. Skeen. Absolutely.
Mr. Ashe. Mr. Taylor, we don't do any regular comprehensive
review on the status of lands in the National Wildlife Refuge
System for the purpose of surplusing lands, anything similar to
the base closure process or anything like that. We have in the
past from time to time looked at specific refuges and
recommended deletions, minor deletions that are necessary.
We did one I think last year in the State of Washington
where we had a small parcel of property that we had acquired at
one point for an administrative site. We weren't using it, we
had never constructed the visitor's site. So we encouraged a
piece of legislation to transfer that piece of property to the
local government, because they had a use for it.
We are currently looking at a couple of refuges, John Hay
in New Hampshire, and evaluating whether that refuge is
necessary any longer, because it's primarily an historical
piece of property. So from time to time we do look at
individual pieces as issues arise. We do evaluate whether or
not we need those refuges to accomplish some specific mission
requirement.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate it. I just want to call to your
attention that there's nothing in the Constitution or the Ten
Commandments that says the United States Government ought to
own the whole United States. We are gradually getting close to
40 percent. While I share the idea of acquiring lands that are
favorable and you want to focus especially in the area of the
Everglades where damage has been done. I'veserved in State
House and State Senate and as chairman of the Parks and Recreation
Council of North Carolina and the North Carolina Conservation Board.
We all know we have a lot of land thrust upon us that is
not necessarily in areas we can use. I remember North Carolina
got a lot of landfills given as parks, because about cleanup
time, they all came in with parks, and of course, the millions
of dollars we had to fork over for cleaning it up. But I just
mention that.
FOREST SERVICE COOPERATION
I'd like to also ask you, Mr. Williams, you're working with
cooperative and consultation, does that include the U.S. Forest
Service? I'd like to tell you that the multitude of wildlife
organizations in my district, and there are a number, because I
have 15 rural counties with about a million and half acres of
park, forest, U.S. Forest Service and so forth.
And I'll also say that in my 36 years of public service, I
feel the sportsmen's organizations, the sportsmen and women of
the country have done more to make a difference in wildlife
than any Government agency, although we appreciate the State
services and the Federal services. But the multitude of funds
that they provide and the consistent means of people involved
with it, fowl or fish or big game. It's made a real difference.
Those organizations are now very puzzled with the failure
of modern silviculture in our Forest Service, which is
supported by our best universities. Their idea that Federal,
State research organizations and most wildlife organizations,
they realize that modern silviculture, including harvests, are
needed for us to increase and diversify the quality of wildlife
programs for the Nation. While your $600 million and so forth
is a help, how we manage our other lands is also very
important. There's sort of a Luddite approach now that, never
harvest a tree, even though the failure to administer salvage
is costing us tens of millions of acres in fire damage and
insects and wildlife or disease.
It also isn't consistent with a diversity of wildlife
harvest. Have you gotten into that? Because the low grouse,
game, small birds, that sort of thing, cannot stand an old
growth forest that's consistent, that's all there is, non-
managed forest. If we could focus in that area, we could do a
great deal in increasing wildlife on public lands.
Mr. Williams. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I would love to
talk about that just for a couple of minutes. Your first
question was, do we cooperate and work with the U.S. Forest
Service. And in the past, the Service has, and we certainly
will continue.
But I think you'll see, I hope you'll see that under the
direction of this Administration there needs to be closer
working relationships. I've had a couple of meetings with Mark
Ray in USDA and Dale Bosworth, the Chief of the Forest Service.
We've scheduled additional meetings to try to better bring
together the expertise that we have as a fish and wildlife
conservation agency and the expertise Forest Service has in
terms of land management.
So the proof will certainly be in the pudding. But we are
doing our best to work more cooperatively together on many
issues, including timber harvest, wildfire protection and so
on.
I would also agree with your comments that the sportsmen
and women have provided the bulk of the financial contribution
to much of the fish and wildlife conservation successes in this
country. Relative to timber harvest, I spent a fair amount of
my educational career and professional career working in the
northeastern part of the country. My Ph.D work was on rough
grouse habitat. Ruffed grouse, woodcock and numerous songbirds
and numerous other species of birds and animals are dependent
upon early successional stage forests, or young forests. It's
disconcerting as we see in some areas woodcock populations,
grouse populations, perhaps declining because of or at least
the best professional judgment is, because of aging timber
stands in the northeast.
Like so many other things that we do in natural resource
management, I think we need to find a balance between old
growth and young stands between timber harvest of some areas
and protection of forest from harvest and other areas. But I
view timber harvesting, if done appropriately in the right
areas, as a wildlife management tool, as do most wildlife
management professionals. So I can assure you that when it's
appropriate, I would be personally supportive of it and work
with, or as an agency, work with the Forest Service, State
forest organizations, to provide some technical expertise in
order to bring off timber harvest in those areas.
I'm not opposed to the appropriate use, multiple use of our
forests.
Mr. Taylor. I'm glad to hear it, because it's been in the
last few years, almost ceased in the southeast, and I'm not
that much familiar with the northwest, but I understand that's
true there. But we appreciate that, without getting into any
debate about any particular forest or any particular stand
that's being brought forth, the concept of multiple use has
been successful in years past. I think it can be again.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
gentlemen.
Mr. Williams, have you visited the State of Washington, or
the northwest, since you've been appointed to your position?
Mr. Williams. I have not, sir. I am planning on going to
Portland, Oregon, at the end of this month for a few days. I
look forward to that.
Mr. Nethercutt. I urge you to come to Washington State.
Mr. Dicks. It's just across the river. [Laughter.]
EMPLOYEE JUDGMENT
Mr. Nethercutt. An easy trip. It is a big river, though.
Let me tell you, I find your answers on the lynx issue to
be equivocal. I heard you say bad judgment of individuals, that
these individuals questioned the lab's ability to conduct
testing. I don't know where they got the ability to do that or
make that judgment.
I heard you say unprofessional. I heard you say
unacceptable. I heard you say perhaps unethical, which I think
you ought to strike the perhaps, with all due respect. And I do
respect you and your agency.
That they'd been counseled, these employees. That doesn't
mean much to me, in the world of equivocation that surrounds
that verb. And that they would be given appropriate
disciplinary action, which is also equivocal.
If, if these people had faked it the other way and said,
there's no lynx in the area, I would argue that you would be
absolutely inundated with outrage from those who have the
greatest respect for the Endangered Species Act, as I do and I
think everybody else at this table does. I think your answer
would be completely different, with all due respect.I think
you'd say, goodbye, you tried to fake the idea that there isn't a
species in this area, as opposed to fake that there is.
So can you help me understand whether you care at all about
this or is this going to be sort of unimportant as it relates
to the argument that can be made that the science in your
agency is flawed across the board, and that you ought to have
an obligation, it seems to me, perhaps, to go back and check
every bit of science that's been done on species issues that
comes before your agency, based on this example. I can make a
powerful argument that you ought to do that, that in a new
Administration, that perhaps policy and philosophy and politics
maybe supplanted the law and fair and reasonable policy as it
relates to the requirement that your agency have integrity.
You talk about peer review, I agree with you. But if
everybody's questioning your science based on the way you treat
the employees who breached ethics, as you say, professionalism,
unacceptable behavior, bad judgment, why are you keeping them?
Make them an example, it seems to me. Assuming that what you
say is correct about these adjectives that go with their
conduct, seriously. And I'm a Republican. I support your
Administration.
But my gosh, I think that's--for us in the west, this is a
big issue, just because we get whacked with Endangered Species
Act issues all the time. And it costs us tens and hundreds of
millions of dollars. I'd appreciate your answer.
Mr. Williams. There's a lot of things to cover there. I'll
try to start at the beginning.
As I sit here, and again, first time appearing before the
Committee, I don't know that I've ever been known to be
extremely politically correct, but I am trying to choose my
words carefully. I said perhaps unethical. I would strike the
word, as I view it, perhaps, and call it unethical. How others
view that word, what that word means, I don't know. So that's
why, again perhaps, I put that qualifier in there.
Mr. Nethercutt. It isn't a positive adjective, it's
negative. As the other ones are as well.
Mr. Williams. As far as the actions the agency took at the
time, I can't speak to that first-hand, because obviously I
wasn't here. But I do know that from my experience at the State
level, there are regulations, there are policies that guide the
actions taken, both in investigating an incident and then
deciding upon the appropriate discipline and level of
discipline.
The full investigation really didn't come out until the
IG's report came out.
Mr. Nethercutt. I understand.
Mr. Williams. As we decide what disciplinary action is
appropriate, we need to make sure we're following established
regulations, policies, whatever exists regarding personnel
actions.
Mr. Nethercutt. The policy ought to be, if it's unethical,
unprofessional, bad judgment, and what were the others? Maybe
that's enough. It seems to me that ought to be----
Mr. Williams. I need to work obviously with what's there,
and deal with that.
CULVERTS/FISH PASSAGE
Mr. Nethercutt. That's fine. I appreciate it. As long as
you're going to pay attention. I just think you've got a great
agency, and this is a big smear on you that's self-inflicted.
We heard testimony yesterday at a hearing that U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has big problems with culverts. The ability of
fish to pass from upstream to downstream and downstream to
upstream, it's a huge backlog issue. Mr. Dicks raised the issue
and I pursued it with respect to the question of whether you're
following, your agency is not legally exposed for not enforcing
the Endangered Species Act by not doing the culvert work to
allow safe passage of these fish. I think that's a big problem.
I just saw a report yesterday by a fellow by the name of
Howard Shawler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are you
familiar with his report on the mortality on fish in dams?
Mr. Williams. No, sir.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, he's out there on a limb making
statements about the transportation of fish, Snake River dams,
big issue in the northwest. I urge you to come and see us. He's
out there with respect to somebody else making judgments about
this whole issue. I've got a situation, last year in our fiscal
year 2002 Interior Appropriations Conference Report, your
agency was obligated to provide information about the presence
of bull trout in the State of Washington. Before--excuse me,
you're right, Forest Service and BLM. Forgive me on the
culverts.
Mr. Dicks. But they have the enforcement.
Mr. Nethercutt. I know.
Mr. Dicks. Through the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Nethercutt. That's right.
BULL TROUT REPORT
The Fish and Wildlife Service was to provide this
Committee, the Congress, with a report on bull trout, just
distribution maps and time lines for completion of such maps,
by January 31st, 10 weeks overdue. I haven't had it. You're
coming in and asking for more money for bull trout assistance.
You want us to put the money in the bank? Where's the report?
When can we get it?
BOX CANYON RELICENSING
Mr. Nethercutt. Finally, I know I'm abusing my time here,
we've got a little 60 megawatt dam up in Box Canyon,
Washington, Pend Oreille County, the poorest county in the
State. Double digit unemployment, 7,500 residents. A little
relicensing, literally a small dam, 60 megawatts. Fish and
Wildlife Service, we calculate, is asking for requirements for
relicensing with other agencies, including BIA, the total we
expect, $500 million to relicense a 60 megawatt dam. Your
agency keeps putting on requirements that cost a tremendous
amount of money of a county, probably they'll say to heck with
it. That's going to mean a loss of a big business, a big paper
company and loss of hundreds of jobs.
So again, I'm here to tell you, I love your agency, it's a
fine agency. However, the four or five examples that I've given
here make me have deep questions. And maybe it's too big a job
to try to straighten out.
Mr. Williams. I don't think it's too big a job or I
wouldn't be here. Honestly.
Let me just comment on a couple of those items. I want to
go back to something you said earlier, and not let that pass. I
say this very respectfully. I disagree with an observation that
the activities of the two individuals involved in the lynx
case, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'll put
it this way, paints the entire Fish and Wildlife Service with a
broad brush of unethical, well, I say perhaps again,
unprofessional.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. And an agency that does not conduct the best
research, that does not do the best analysis and come upwith
the best conclusions with the information that's available. I don't
accept that. I think the Fish and Wildlife Service, I know the Fish and
Wildlife Service has a stellar reputation. Have we made mistakes?
Absolutely. Do we need to be held accountable? Absolutely.
But I don't think it's fair to use that one example and if
I'm overextending your remarks, I apologize.
Mr. Nethercutt. I don't. I think you ought to come to my
district. You'll hear 200 farmers get up and say, what in the
world is going on? This is what we suspected, that there's
something more than science driving this. And it hits us right
in our pocketbook and our livelihood in a natural resources
based economy.
Mr. Williams. And I appreciate that deeply. I spent the
last seven years working in Kansas where the agriculture
community is a major part of that economy and a major part of
the State. And I've heard those same criticisms leveled at my
agency. I'll tell you the same thing I told them, that we're
making the best decisions, the best recommendations in some
cases, that we can with the information that's available. We
need to be held accountable if those decisions are later proven
to be inappropriate. That doesn't change at any level of
government.
I'll just touch on a couple of things. The bull trout
report, I apologize for the delay in that. In fact, I signed
that today and sent it up the chain in Interior. I hope you
will receive that very shortly.
Mr. Nethercutt. Shortly meaning?
Mr. Williams. As soon as I can get it through the
correspondence control unit there within Interior.
Mr. Nethercutt. Within two weeks? Is that reasonable?
Mr. Williams. I don't know if I can commit for the
Secretary's office. But I will take the message back that you
deserve it and would like to see it as soon as possible.
The issue regarding the dam, Deputy Director Jones, I
understand, has met with some folks there. Again, with your
permission, maybe he could address your concerns.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, yes, Mr. Nethercutt. I met with
representatives from Pend Oreille County yesterday morning. We
had a very good discussion. They educated me about the
situation in the county, 11,000 inhabitants, a rural economic
base, the importance of power to the pulp mill, which is one of
the major suppliers of jobs for the county. We had a very good
discussion, Mr. Nethercutt.
It was my understanding from the county that they have
concerns about the overall relicensing of the project. Those
concerns are not primarily with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and they were very complimentary of our staff in the field who
have worked cooperatively with them. They asked that we
continue that dialogue, which I pledged we would. I have talked
to Director Williams about that. I have talked to our Regional
Director Anne Badgeley, who is here in Washington, about the
importance of her personally ensuring that that dialogue
continues.
And then we said that we would also encourage the other
agencies involved, where apparently the dialogue is not as
good, to join with us to have that kind of dialogue so that we
can work together to ensure that our trust resources are
protected for the benefit of the people in the county in a way
that also does not adversely impact economic development.
Mr. Nethercutt. I appreciate that. I appreciate my
colleagues' indulgence and the Chairman's indulgence in this
line of questioning. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston.
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION PLANS
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams, in terms of expansions and new acquisitions,
was it 13 last year, the last couple of years? Something like
that. It doesn't really matter. I think it was in your report I
saw the number 13.
My question is a lot broader than that. My concern is that
every year we hear from Fish and Wildlife, National Parks, BLM,
that we need X amount of money for more land acquisition. Every
year I ask the question and never get a satisfactory answer
from neither Republican nor Democrat administrations, what is
the end game? How much land do you want? Right now, if we could
say, hey, whatever you want, take it, what would you do?
The reason why I say that, it just seems such a narrow
focus of our Government that every year we come in and because
it's politically correct we want to buy land and every year
there's a little controversy, somebody can't get a zoning or
building or mining permit or grazing permit, so golly, suddenly
there's a willing seller and we're out there to buy it. It
doesn't seem to be any real, what is the philosophy? Thirty-
three percent of the land in America is owned by the Federal
Government, which excludes interstate highways and military
bases.
But what is it, should it be 50 percent? Should it be 10
percent? Are we where we need to be? I know generally speaking,
agencies rarely give up land. But what is your philosophy on
that? What can you tell me to make me feel a little better
about my Government, which I'm a part of, and my fingerprints
are on the document as well, as a guilty party?
Mr. Williams. Let me start out with, you asked about my
philosophy. My personal philosophy, that's been forged by
working in States where you couldn't get enough of land
acquisition, and then working most recently in a State where it
was only 3 percent publicly owned, and that included DOD
installations and interstate highway systems and so on.
Based on my last seven years of experience, and again,
which was sort of night and day from where I've been, I have
developed a very deep respect for private property rights and
the concern that some individuals have about the acquisition of
those private properties and putting those lands into public
lands. So I come to you with that kind of perspective.
I also come to you with the perspective of someone that has
been trained in and worked in natural resource management for
altogether 22 years. There is no, and this won't make you real
comfortable, and probably it won't be any different than what
you heard others say----
Mr. Kingston. I'll tell you the truth, I didn't come to
Washington to seek comfort anyhow. I haven't been disappointed,
either. [Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. Same here, very much so.
We do need to balance our land acquisition with leaving
lands in private hands. I can give you examples in the Flint
Hills of central Kansas where the stewardship of tall grass
prairie by private individuals probably could not be surpassed
by any Federal agency. I've seen that and I appreciate that.
What we try to do, as part of our mission to conservefish
and wildlife resources for the benefit of the American public, land
acquisition is a tool in trying to achieve that mission. We are looking
for landscapes that provide fish and wildlife values that may be lost
if we were not to acquire them, and I would hasten to add here, from
willing sellers.
It provides benefits for the fish and wildlife that occur
on those lands and the habitat that occurs on those lands, but
it also benefits for the American public. Again, coming from a
State with very little public land, I'm keenly aware of the
demand for the use of that public land by everyone from hunters
to anglers to bird watchers to wildlife photographers and so
on. So there is no set percentage that I would offer to you, or
no set acreage.
It depends on the region of the country, it depends on the
requests, the desires of those folks that live in those
regions. And that should guide our future efforts and
acquisition. What it is people are looking for, the values of
those lands to fish and wildlife and the values of the public
for outdoor recreation.
Mr. Kingston. Do you agree, and I hate to ask you yes or
no, but should we as say, the four major entities of the
Federal Government agencies that do the land acquisition, land
ownership, should you have an end game ultimately?
Mr. Williams. I'd like to answer yes or no, I'm not sure
what you mean.
Mr. Kingston. As I said before, a set number, golly, this
is great, but it seems like there would come a critical point
where you would say, we just can't afford it any more, we're
going to have to revisit this through easements, tax credits to
private property owners, we're going to have to find some way
to reinvent this.
And let me tell you what really drives me. I'm from
Savannah, Georgia. We have the largest area in the National
Historic Register in the country. The reason why it's been so
successful is the private sector was in essence deputized into
historic preservation. Everybody is into it, because there was
a Federal tax credit for it. I often say, why can't we do the
same with endangered species or critical habitat and so forth,
and have it so the farmers in my area, when they get a red
cockaded woodpecker, would love it rather than, oh, golly,
there goes my life savings.
Mr. Williams. I wish we could get to that point. I'm not
sure right now how we do that. I think we'd all strive for
that.
Mr. Kingston. If it would be possible, if you could tell
me, not now, but if you could send me the land that your
refuges want to buy in the next one to five years, and kind of
give an idea of how much money that is, how many acres we're
talking about, and then what would be your suggestions to look
at this from a different angle. And I'm just trying to say,
there might be something out there that we can look in a
different direction about.
BANKS LAKE
I do want to move on and wrap up with two other issues. On
Banks Lake, which I have now in my district, Mr. Phillip
Hoffman came down last week and visited, which we greatly
appreciate, we appreciate the sensitivity to it, I don't think
you have had time to get up to speed on it personally, but I
wanted to bring it on your list. There's a problem about water
drainage, private property rights and that's one of those
situations where Fish and Wildlife has a great reputation. We
have Harris Wildlife Refuge, the Savannah River Wildlife
Refuge, Okefenokee Swamp in my area. We're very proud, great
people down there, Skippy Reeves, Jim Burkhardt, all friends of
mine, they do an excellent job.
Banks Lake, though, is an institutional problem. I don't
think it's a management problem. I think there are some legal,
technical issues that have caused us to throw common sense out
the door. What we need is just, you know, somebody to cut some
red tape and get some things done on that. I have an article,
I'm going to give it to you, that expresses some of the
frustration of the local population down there. Just some of it
is petty stuff like they drained the lake, all these fish were
dying and the locals wanted to get the fish out to eat them,
Fish and Wildlife wouldn't let them get the fish out. That was
not a good PR move in the fish fry country of South Georgia.
Moving on, I just want you to be aware of that. I do think
Mr. Hoffman is working on it very diligently.
Mr. Williams. I know enough to be dangerous, and I think
I'm just going to keep my mouth shut. I don't know all the
aspects of it, I know that it involves some court orders and
individuals.
But our Regional Director, Sam Hamilton, has been recently
in touch with Mr. Chambliss' office, talking about this. So
he's really, and Paul Hoffman, as you said, from Interior has
been down there. Sam is trying to take the lead on that and
resolve those issues as best he can.
Mr. Kingston. We give Sam high marks also from past
dealings.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
MIDWAY ISLAND
Mr. Kingston. That area is new to me because of
reapportionment.
On another issue, Midway Island, there has been ongoing tug
of war, Midway Phoenix is leaving May 1st as I understand. We
put in money last year for new hangars. But there have been
some management problems. We have the 60th anniversary of the
battle of Midway coming up. What are the future plans for
Midway?
Mr. Williams. Let me try to explain this as best I can. On
March 6th, the Service and Midway Phoenix Corporation signed a
no-cost settlement agreement. As part of that settlement,
Midway will stay on, Midway Phoenix will stay on the island
under a special use permit until May 8th of this year. They
will continue to operate and maintain infrastructure, including
the airfield, until May 1st.
After May 1st, the Service will take over responsibility
for the island's $300 million infrastructure, including the
airfield, power generation plant and substations, water, sewer,
residences and so on. We are looking at how we make, and are
working on how we do the transition between when Midway Phoenix
leaves and hopefully another contractor would come in.
With respect to the celebration of the 60th anniversary of
the battle of Midway, Assistant Secretary Craig Manson has
taken a lead role there to explore ways of providing the
opportunity for veterans of that battle to actually go to
Midway if they choose to do so, to commemorate the 60th
anniversary. So although at this point I can't give you a lot
of details, but I will tell you that it is front and center on
our radar screen. We are trying to work through what it is we
need to do to transition to, I would hope, a new contractor to
come into the area to operate. If we're unable to do that, plan
B, if you would, would be to transition into, I guess I'd call
it a caretaker status of the facilities on Midway Island.
Mr. Kingston. I certainly thank you, and look forward to
working with you on Midway, Banks Lake and all the other areas.
We've had very pleasant experience with the Fish and Wildlife
people in our area. But there are a lot of problems that I
think, that cause often the situation we have in Banks Lake to
go on in other areas. That's not the face, I don't think
anybody in Fish and Wildlife wants to have in the public.
Mr. Williams. No, sir. And strive as we do for continuous
improvement, and we will strive for continuous improvement,
human nature being what it is and humans being what we are, we
all have, myself included, many opportunities to mess things up
on occasion. We will work as hard as we can not to have that
happen a lot.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams, nice to see you.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Mr. Hinchey. I think a philosophical attitude such as the
one you just expressed is something that's very handy to have
in a job like yours.
I wanted to talk a little about the National Wildlife
Refuge System also. First of all to express my appreciation to
you for a decision that was made with regard to a small
grassland National Wildlife Refuge called Shawangunk, which is
up in New York. The scientists with the agency, after a long
study, finally concluded that competing interests would be
incompatible with maintaining the integrity of that particular
refuge. I think just watching it from the outside, I think the
process was handled very, very well and that you reached the
right conclusion.
So I just wanted to express my opinion to you for the work
that your people did and the approach they took to it, all of
which was very well received by the people in the community as
well.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Mr. Hinchey. It's the 100th anniversary of the National
Wildlife Refuge System this year, and it's an opportunity for
us to look back on all the contributions that have been made to
things in which we are vitally interested, which is maintaining
the integrity of wildlife and the diversity of wildlife. I
think that refuge system has been very important in that
regard.
There was a discussion earlier with regard to scientific
evaluations of issues. I can't help but mention one having to
do with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It was the end of
March 29th this year that that report was produced by the
Interior Department scientists. That report concluded that oil
development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may pose
substantial risks to caribou and other wildlife. This was a
peer reviewed analysis of 12 years of research on wildlife, and
found that caribou, musk oxen and migratory birds are
particularly vulnerable to the kinds of disturbances
development would bring. They found that because there is no
other quality habitat outside the refuge coastal plain that
provides a suitable alternative of feeding, breeding and
rearing their young. I'm sure you're aware of that study.
It was interesting that one week after the U.S. Geological
Survey study warned that caribou may be particularly sensitive
to oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that
the agency completed a quick follow-up report suggesting that
the most likely drilling scenarios under consideration should
have no impact on the caribou. Trying to reconcile those
differences from the outside is a little bit difficult. I know
from my experience that unfortunately, too often, politics
intervenes in scientific evaluations and conclusions.
I'm not asking you for any comment on this, frankly,
certainly you may if you like. But it just seems to me that
this was a clear example of the perversion of science for
political ends.
Mr. Williams. I will venture to offer a comment. The
report, I would first point out, and I know you're aware, the
report was authored by the U.S. Geological Survey, not the Fish
and Wildlife Service. I'll refer to the first report, but
comment more on the second one.
The second report, as I best understand it, was an attempt
to explain that in the coverage of the release of the first
report that there were a variety of scenarios presented in
terms of how much drilling would occur, where it would occur,
the facilities that went along with drilling and so forth. I
believe that even in the first report, there was reference to
potential for disturbance, but also reference to the fact that
if these drilling operations and the arrangement and timing of
drilling operations were done in an appropriate manner, that
disturbance would be, I don't want to say insignificant, that's
not the right term, but would be much reduced.
And the second report tried to point that out, that there
were a variety of scenarios, and from the time of the study, as
you mentioned, it started 10 or 12 years ago, until where we
are today, there have been, I think, advances in technology,
not advances, but development of a potential plan for drilling
in the refuge. The 12 year study looked at a whole bunch of
scenarios, the second study or the second report that came out,
said here's what we're really thinking, here's what we're
really talking about in terms of where potential drilling
activities would take place. And if they were to take place in
those areas, the authors of the study concluded that effects
would be minimized by appropriate planning and appropriate use
of technology and so on.
That's my take on reading the studies, reading newspaper
reports, reading the second report.
[A description of relevant findings in the report and its
addendum follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hinchey. I appreciate that. The only thing I would say
in response to that is that, this was a 12 year study, but it
was produced on the 29th of March. So it's a study that took
into consideration a whole array of scenarios, but it is very,
very up to date when it was published. And it represented the
point of view of the people who were publishing it at that
moment, the end of March. Two weeks later we have a different
point of view that says, in spite of the fact that the original
report makes the point that these species are particularly
vulnerable to the kinds of disturbances development would bring
for a number of reasons, then you have this other report which
says that well, you know, maybe we can deal with it in ways
that will not be so significant.
Mr. Williams. If memory serves me correctly, and often it
does not, I might add, but if it serves me correctly, the first
report also had made statements relative to reducing impact,
minimizing impact by the appropriate siting of drilling
platforms and appropriate siting of roads that would service
those platforms, and also the timing of that. Even the first
report said under certain scenarios there may be impact, under
other scenarios that are done in the most environmentally
sensitive way, those impacts would be minimized.
Mr. Hinchey. Right. I'm sure that there may be some words
like that in the report, but I'm quoting to you from the
report.
Mr. Williams. I understand.
Mr. Hinchey. Where it says, ``may pose substantial risks to
caribou and other wildlife.'' It says specifically that
particularly vulnerable to the kinds of disturbances
development would bring to caribou, musk ox and migratory
birds. So the report is very, very clear, the initial report.
It was made a little fuzzier by the addendum which somebody
found necessary to put out shortly thereafter.
In any case, with regard to the current situation, the
refuge system is up for an increase in funding, or at least
you're recommending an increase in funding, 18 percent, $56
million. And that for all of us who appreciate the value of
these systems, that is very, very welcome and very much
appreciated.
But our job is here to find fault, not to praise so much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. I'd be more than happy to help you break with
that tradition right here, today.
LAND ACQUISITION BACKLOG
Mr. Hinchey. So I don't want to put too much praise on you,
and just make the observation that nearly half the funding of
this increase is being diverted from the land acquisition
account. And although this Committee is rich in diversity of
opinion with regard to land acquisition particularly, I happen
to believe that it's a good thing. I note that according to the
Conservation Fund, that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a
backlog of needed acquisitions that total more than $3 billion.
So we know there's a lot of valuable habitat out there, and
a substantial backlog that has been observed, at least by the
Conservation Fund to exist. So I'm just wondering if that is
the proper way to do this. The increase is certainly welcome,
and I congratulate you for asking for it. But isn't there some
other way we can get it without tapping into the land
acquisition fund?
Mr. Williams. Well, thank you. Just to add something to the
Conservation Fund statement, the $3 billion is a figure that is
derived from, and it's our figure, but derived from the
estimate of what it would cost to acquire all the lands within
the boundaries that have been laid out for each refuge, which
really kind of defines potential areas for future acquisition.
They may or may not ever be acquired.
So that kind of puts that in context.
Mr. Hinchey. That money would be necessary just to fill out
the existing refuge system?
Mr. Williams. That money would be used to purchase, to
acquire lands within lines drawn on maps, within boundaries
that local refuge managers have defined as areas that would
be----
Mr. Hinchey. Essential to meeting the requirements of----
Mr. Williams. Well, in their view, important in meeting the
requirements of that particular refuge. We may or may not ever
get there. But it's a planning tool.
To try to address your comment of taking money away from
acquisition for deferred maintenance, I think that was one of
your questions, even though I wasn't involved in the
development of this budget, it tracks my past philosophy in
other States, in that we need to have the opportunity and the
resources to acquire critical lands, but we also need to take
care of the things we have, those lands that we have now. So
I'm encouraged that we're continuing an effort to acquire
lands, but also stepping up and addressing problems that exist
on lands that we currently own.
I would just, and I hesitate to do this, but I'm just
looking at a note here, which I could read to you and it
wouldn't mean anything to you, but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. If I could have Steve Guertin, our Chief of
Budget, explain a little bit further about the funding levels.
Mr. Guertin. Thank you. Just to clarify two other points as
well, the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Service is
funded at basically historic levels this year in the request.
Secondly, we also can count on the Duck Stamp program, the
permanent appropriations of about $42 million as well. So when
you couple those two together, we have over a $100 million
package of funding for land acquisition in total, sir.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, that's good, but if you have a backlog
of $3 billion, that's not going to make much of a dent. The $3
billion, we've learned this morning, is to just identify land
that has been identified by the people within the system who
recognize that the acquisition of that land is valuable to
meeting the requirements of these refuges.
So that's good. But my observation is that it's unfortunate
that we have these two very worthwhile purposes in contention
with each other. I was just, I think in looking at the budget,
we ought to try to make some changes there that would avoid
that kind of contention.
But I thank you, I respect what you're trying to do. I
think given the circumstances you're working under, I think
you're trying to do the best thing you can.
Mr. Williams. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dicks.
STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Williams, do you believe the State Wildlife Grant
program is an effective tool to aid wildlife conservation and
recovery efforts?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Why did you cut it by $25 million?
Mr. Williams. That, well, again----
Mr. Dicks. You say it's because Congress rescinded. I mean,
come on. We had to do it as a budgetary matter, that was----
Mr. Williams. I'm going to refer that to Steve.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, that's a good one to give to Steve.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. And that's why I'm doing it.
Mr. Guertin. I might actually turn that one to the esteemed
Director of Budget for the Department, John Trezise--no, just
kidding. [Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. If I had known John was back there, it would
have been a lot easier.
Mr. Trezise. Thank you, Director Williams.
Mr. Dicks, the formulation of the budget every year starts,
as you know, with the enacted level and the Interior support
table. Then when the Office of Management and Budget looked at
the Interior support table, it reflected a $60 million State
Wildlife Grant program. That's the starting point that they use
for their formulation decisions.
It is an important program, and in balancing all of the
needs that the Department faces we would have liked to increase
that program above the----
Mr. Dicks. You would have liked to keep it at least at last
year's level?
Mr. Trezise. Yes, but there were a number of competing
considerations.
Mr. Dicks. Understand. Let's not waste a lot of time,
because we haven't got a lot of time here.
One of the things that I tried to do in this program was to
put in some language that said that the States had to do
planning if they wanted to compete for these grants on a wide
array of wildlife, not just game, but to look at their
conservation requirements and to develop a plan to say, here's
what we're going to do for conservation of our endangered
species and our other problem areas in the State. Do you have
any problem with that?
Mr. Williams. That's a great question, because I'm seeing
from both sides now. I don't have any problem with the concept.
It depends, the devil is always in the details of what that
plan must include and who would be responsible for ultimate
approval of that plan. Let me expand on that. If we're talking
about resident species, not under the authority and
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as a State
director, I saw the arm of Federal Government from Washington
come out and question how we were managing resident species. I
and many others would have philosophical concerns with that.
So should States have some kind of plan in place that
assures that these monies are spent efficiently and effectively
to benefit fish and wildlife conservation? I think they should.
The details, the components of the plan and who ultimately
approve those plans for any individual State, I think that's
something that would merit further discussion.
Mr. Dicks. But, the law is in place, and I think you are
enforcing it, is that not true?
Mr. Williams. Yes, and I think where we are right now----
Mr. Dicks. Because they do have to have a plan and they do
have to discuss a wide array of wildlife, not just game.
Mr. Williams. That's right. Where we are now, States are
comfortable with that.
Mr. Dicks. And the States are coming in with it. So I think
we should stay with that. And it's Federal money. The Federal
Government has every right to put conditions on money that it's
going to give to the States. A lot of people wonder why we're
doing this in the first place. Members of this Committee
question whether we should be giving money back to the States
for this purpose at all.
Now, we have the Endangered Species Act responsibility.
Your agency has it. We've got to emphasize conservation. So it
seems to me that we have to stay with this and make sure, and
then the States will get the money, they can use it the way
they want to, but they have a plan on record that forces them,
in my mind, to at least address the subject matter.
Mr. Williams. I agree.
Mr. Dicks. I think a lot of the most enlightened
environmental groups in the country feel this is crucially
important if you're going to maintain biodiversity, you're
going to maintain these species. I just hope we can stay with
that.
Mr. Williams. I agree with that, and if I can just add
something quickly, if we're dealing with only threatened and
endangered species, federally listed species, it even makes
more sense, when money is provided to States, that a plan be
one that receives some Federal oversight. When you talk about a
broad array, I thought you meant covering all species, whether
they're threatened or imperiled or endangered or what have you.
That was where I was directing my comments about State concern:
those species that are not federally listed or there's no
Federal nexus, I should say, that's where States said, we're
happy to put these plans, most States have these plans anyway,
it's just, where does the State-Federal authorities lie.
Mr. Dicks. Do you think this money should be done by
competitive grant, or should it be done by just an allocation
to the States?
Mr. Williams. Given the various grants that are out there,
the allocation makes sense to me, to give all States an
opportunity to, after developing plans, to try to put those
plans in place. Because these issues occur, as you well know,
in every State in the country.
Mr. Dicks. Right. What is the status of the fiscal year
2001 wildlife competitive grants funds--we had a competitive
grant fund at first--that you announced many years ago but
which have been tied up in the courts? Marshall's responsible.
Mr. Williams. Let's let Marshall answer that one, I agree
with you, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. Well, Mr. Dicks, we did our best.
Mr. Dicks. It wasn't quite good enough.
Mr. Jones. But we do have an unfortunate situation now. As
you know, after discussions with you and with Mr. Skeen, we had
the $25 million. What we decided was that we would allocate $15
million of that to States which had already applied and that we
would hold the other $10 million for States which had not
applied for grants, States which arguedthat they were waiting
for us to publish final guidance before they submitted their proposals.
We announced the allocation of those $15 million to five
States, but then another State filed suit and got an
injunction, which has prohibited us from distributing any of
the funds. So right now we are gridlocked in court, not
something that we sought, and certainly not something which
benefits wildlife. But we understand that there are States on
each side of the issue and there may have been some discussion
among those States, but they haven't achieved any resolution.
In the meantime, the Government has filed briefs in that case,
and we'll wait to see what the judge does.
FISH HATCHERY REFORMS
Mr. Dicks. Switching out to the Pacific Northwest, right
across that river, actually Oregon is involved here too, the
budget documents refer repeatedly to the process of carrying
out critical reforms in fish hatchery programs. Can you update
the Committee on this process, what you're talking about here,
or have one of your lieutenants discuss it?
Mr. Williams. Yes, we can. And I'd like to ask Bill Knapp
to address that, please.
Mr. Knapp. Thank you, sir.
We are working in several ways to examine our hatcheries
system and reform the way it operates, its business practices,
its application of science, its relationship to its partners.
One of the forums that we're involved with is a year long
process of working with our partners and stakeholders in a
collaborative strategic planning process, where we are bouncing
issues off of each other, sharing solutions, looking at the
hatchery system and asking, what does it do well, what could it
do better, how could we make it do things better.
You may be aware that the stakeholders and partners
recently issued a draft report which is their perspectives on
those questions. We are folding that report into a document
that we are developing which we hope will be available later
this summer.
We've also established eight work groups, each one run by a
member of our directorate, led by a member of our directorate,
looking at eight major categories of issues, again, that fall
under good business practices, good governance, good science.
Mr. Dicks. Where is it being done?
Mr. Knapp. It is being done throughout the country in the
sense that we are working with State fish and wildlife leaders,
we are working with the international association, we are
working with NGOs, organizations like that. The work groups
that have been meeting and convening that are internal have
been meeting throughout the country as well, regionally,
nationally. It is a very dynamic and extremely demanding
process.
We hope to reflect the reforms in a strategic plan that
we're working on now, the first component of which should be
ready the end of this summer.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.
[Additional questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 7, 2002.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
WITNESSES
CHARLES G. GROAT, DIRECTOR
MICHAEL A. KELLEY, BUDGET OFFICER
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Opening Remarks of Chairman Skeen
Mr. Skeen. Let me welcome the USGS Director, Dr. Charles
Groat, who will discuss the Survey's 2003 budget request. For
fiscal years 2002, 2003, the budget request for the Survey has
included proposals to significantly reduce and in some cases
eliminate entire science programs. In many cases, there is
broad-based bipartisan Congressional support for these same
programs, and I think I speak for the entire Subcommittee when
I say we are concerned over these science programs and the
impact these reductions would have on the Nation's natural
resources.
We want to welcome you here this morning. Let's get down to
some work with this thing. Mr. Dicks?
Opening Remarks of Mr. Dicks
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo the Chairman's comments here. I am extremely
disappointed to see this year's budget proposal submitted by
the Administration. A year ago, the new Administration
requested $813 million for USGS for fiscal year 2002, a $69
million reduction that included big cuts in the water resources
program, cooperative mapping program and biological research
programs. The Congress wisely rejected these proposals, and
under the leadership of Chairman Skeen, provided a $31 million
increase for the USGS rather than a cut.
Now, I want to caution you, we don't want to have you lose
your job. [Laughter.]
Mr. Groat. You read the paper this morning.
PROPOSED BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Mr. Dicks. So make sure you say you support the
Administration's budget, but then we'll move on.
Here it is, a year ago, and we are in exactly the same
place, looking at a budget that cuts the same programs. This is
in spite of the fact that USGS programs have widespread support
from other Federal and State resource management agencies,
academic institutions, and the members of this Subcommittee.
The National Research Council has issued report after report in
support of USGS programs and has even called for funding
increases.
I am deeply concerned about this disconnect, the
Administration's apparent disregard for the Subcommittee's
judgment and these repeated attempts to disrupt a successful
Federal program. Let me read off some of what was provided to
us from your own budget office to highlight the 2003 budget
changes. National water-quality assessment program, $5.8
million reduction. National cooperative geologic mapping, $6
million reduction. Streamgauging activities, $2.1 million
reduction. Water Resources Research Institutes, $6 million
reduction.
Fire science, $2.8 million reduction. Mineral resources,
$1.3 million reduction. National Mapping improved Internet
access, $1 million reduction. High speed performance and
computing, $3 million reduction. Urban dynamics, $800,000
reduction. Volcano hazards, if anything we should be studying,
$1 million reduction. Minerals information, $750,000 reduction.
And it just goes on and on and on. And I'll just put those in
the record.
Mr. Dicks. I must admit that I am somewhat confused as to
how the Administration decided to submit a budget at these
levels. I look forward to hearing the testimony of Director
Groat, who has been at USGS since 1998 and should be very well
versed on each of these programs and what these budget levels
would mean to the work of the Survey.
So we welcome you here for your testimony, but I must say,
we're disappointed in the budget that the Administration has
submitted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Dr. Groat, if you would summarize your
statement, your full statement will be made part of the record.
Opening Statement of Dr. Groat
Dr. Groat. I'll do that, Mr. Skeen, thank you very much.
Mr. Skeen. We're glad to have you here this morning.
Dr. Groat. Well, this is certainly important business for
us, as it is for you. Mr. Dicks, I appreciate your comments. I
will submit my testimony for the record, and I want to say that
I have with me this morning Ike Kelley, who's our budget
officer, and behind me, our Associate and Regional Directors,
who are the subject matter experts on some of these things.
I do recognize the seriousness of the cuts, Mr. Dicks and
Mr. Skeen, and I recognize the challenge of being positive
about a budget that has cuts in it. But I would like to take a
few minutes to talk to you aboutsome of the positive things
that have happened as a result of the Administration's actions and your
support for us in the past.
SEPTEMBER 11TH RESPONSE
One of the things I want to highlight is something that's
probably been less publicized than most things about the USGS,
and that's our response to the tragic events of 9/11. Our
organization, through our EROS Data Center, and through our
mapping facilities and geology and water as well, has provided
a lot of support to the Administration and to the country in
response to the Twin Trade Towers crisis, and in the
preparedness the country is undertaking for future terrorist
attacks.
We distributed over 100,000 maps to local response groups
and emergency responders in the Trade Center incident, and
we're participating in the homeland defense program through the
120 cities program. We are also working hard through our
National Map Program to update the Nation's topographic mapping
system, which is the only continuous and uniform set of maps
across the country, which are going to be increasingly
important in homeland security developments.
We have pilot programs right now in our National Map
Program in Delaware, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Utah, Washington, and Idaho. This is an important part of our
role, in the present and in the future.
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS
There are some core mission programs of the U.S. Geological
Survey that are supported in this budget, and we're very
pleased to see that. You're right, Mr. Dicks, most of the funds
that were added by the Congress this past year have been
eliminated from our budget. But some of the funds that have
been added in recent years have been retained. We're very
pleased that, in the hazards area, the 2002 funding increase
for the Advanced National Seismic System has been maintained,
particularly in your area and many areas of the West and
Midwest. Earthquake preparedness is an extremely important
topic. We have been able to improve that program through the
additions that have been made.
We do, in the long run though, have an overwhelming
challenge of funding our earthquake preparedness program, the
Advanced National Seismic System, at the levels at which it has
been authorized. That is a challenge not just for this
Administration, but for any administration, and for any
appropriations committee.
ENERGY RELATED BUDGET INCREASES
We are also heavily involved with some increased spending
authority in our new budget for the Administration's and the
President's National Energy Policy. We are going to be spending
an additional $2.7 million to support the National Energy
Policy, and specifically the Energy Act of 2000. We will be
conducting estimates of undiscovered oil and gas resources in
the West. During 2002, we have some funds from the Bureau of
Land Management to estimate volumes of oil and gas beneath the
five study areas in the Rocky Mountains. In 2003, the increase
that the Administration is proposing will allow us to work
beyond those areas.
ALASKA DIGITAL MAPPING INCREASE
It also includes a million dollars for digital base maps in
Alaska, particularly the National Petroleum Reserve, where
increased development is planned, and where our maps will be
the basis for roads and other infrastructure creation there.
GEOTHERMAL INCREASE
There is also half a million dollars of additional funding
identified to support renewable energy resources. Both of you
gentlemen being from the West appreciate the value of
geothermal resources. We have a small amount, half a million
dollars, that will allow us to update some of the work we did
in the 1970s on geothermal resources and focus this initial
year on cooperative work in the Great Basin region of the West.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INCREASE
We also have a million dollars to initiate a new program in
the U.S.-Mexico border region. I think, Mr. Skeen, that you
certainly appreciate the challenges that there are in that area
from inadequate water resources along the Rio Grande, the
issues related to environmental health that plague large
numbers of people who make their living and live along the
border. We have a cooperative relationship with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, where the
environmental information that we have been gathering through
our core programs over the years--geochemistry, water
information, rocks--allows us to make a series of maps that
relate environmental stresses to environmental health issues.
Clearly, adequate supplies of good water are a key part of
health on the border. We plan to emphasize the ground-water
aspects of that as well. So we will produce maps and documents
that will be useful to local areas and to the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in understanding
health challenges in the area.
COASTAL GEOLOGY FUNDING
Another area where we have maintained funding in this
budget that was put in at the request of the Administration and
supported strongly by the Congress is in the coastal area. I
don't think there is any part of this country's geography that
is experiencing more growth pressures than coastal areas.
People are moving into them for their scenic beauty and their
recreational and economic value. As you all know, coastal areas
pose some significant threats in terms of natural hazards.
There are difficulties with water supplies, with aggregate
materials, with many resources there.
So we are maintaining that program, and we've had a very
successful pilot program in the Tampa Bay area where we have an
interagency, interdisciplinary program that is meshing our
science with the needs of decision makers in the area to
provide a pilot that we hope will be mirrored around the
country as the coastal program grows. With the Ocean Commission
working this year and due to complete its work next year, we
hope that we will have an opportunity to work with them in
developing our coastal program to meet the country's need.
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND INFORMATION FUNDING
Finally, we've also had an increase, that has been
maintained, that came from 2001 and 2002, an extremely
important area for us. That's in the biological research
centers that support the Fish and Wildlife Service. The $3.4
million that was put in in 2001 allows us to extend our science
support in a more direct way to the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and we have plans to increase our interaction with other
Department of the Interior bureaus in that way.
The biological Gap Analysis Program and the NBII program
that were increased have been continued and supported. We feel
those are on the frontiers of where we want to be going in the
future.
GROUND-WATER RESOURCES FUNDING
The budget also provides increases in an area that links to
what I described for the border, and that is ground-water
resources. The Congress asked us to deal with the question of
ground-water resources and their viability. They are the most
under-appreciated, misunderstood part of this Nation's water
resources, and we have some unique capabilities to help
understand thosebetter, particularly working in cooperation
with States and universities. So the funding that you provided in the
past to allow that program to get started has been maintained and is
extremely important, I think, to the whole country.
PROGRAM DECREASES
Let me close with a few comments about the reduction.
Certainly we have some significant reductions in our budget, as
you indicated. I would put a note of optimism to that in the
sense that, if you remember last year, we were in twice as
difficult a shape as we are this year. I think the intent of
the Congress did have some influence.
Mr. Skeen. Time heals all.
Dr. Groat. Time can heal some things and can make some
things better. We think the fact that our cut has been reduced
significantly this year is due to your influence and the
influence of better understanding of our programs. So, despite
the fact that we have a significant reduction in our NAWQA
program, the intent of trying to fund that program in some
other way indicates that it's not a criticism of the program
itself, but is rather a question of budget priorities. The
Department and the Administration had to make some very
difficult choices among good programs in carrying out the
fiscal policy that we are supporting. And in this case, while
we lose direct support for it, which we of course don't
welcome, on the other hand, we are given the opportunity to get
other sources.
TOXICS PROGRAM REDUCTIONS
The toxics program that you mentioned, Mr. Dicks, is a $14
million program that has an interesting twist to it in that the
budget proposes to eliminate $4 million and transfer $10
million to the National Science Foundation for that program.
That reflects similar actions taken in other parts of the
Government. In our case, the toxics program is not a grant-
driven program. It supports laboratories; it supports long term
field tests. It supports a determined pursuit of toxics in the
environment and their fate and effect.
So, while the National Science Foundation is a wonderful
organization that has high scientific credibility, we do have
some concerns about whether the program as we carried it out
would be carried out in the same way there. We're having
discussions for our transition period for that program with
NSF.
ELIMINATION OF WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTES
We also, as you indicated, will lose support for the Water
Resources Research Institutes. That partnership has been a good
one for us, and we have benefitted from that. That was a
difficult choice that had to be made to do that.
So let me close by saying that, despite the fact that we
have some cuts in programs that are valued by the Congress and
by others, we have some strong support from the Administration
for some of the programs that you also value. We're maintaining
many activities. We have some opportunities for some new starts
in areas of core capability for us, as I mentioned, in energy
and water in this budget that does represent growth of those
programs. So, we will continue under any budget circumstances
to do the best that we can to remain strong, dynamic, and ready
to meet the needs of the Nation.
With that I will close and respond to any questions that
you might have.
[The written statement of Dr. Groat follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EFFECT OF BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Mr. Skeen. Last year, this Subcommittee went to great
lengths to restore unjustified cuts in the Survey's budget,
indicating Congress' support for these programs. But once
again, you are proposing to cut or eliminate many of the same
programs.
What activities would be lost as a result of these budget
cuts?
Dr. Groat. Of the general budget cuts, Mr. Skeen?
Mr. Skeen. Yes.
Dr. Groat. I think the most significant activities that
would be lost, totally lost, are in the area of our toxics
program. Because that is a program that would be totally
eliminated.
The NAWQA program, which provides baseline and long-term
understanding of pollutants and watersheds across the country
on a selected basis, would lose about six study units. So we
would lose those units totally, from the program, but we would
maintain 36 units.
So most of the cuts would not eliminate programs totally,
with the exception of the toxics program, but they would reduce
our activity in those areas in several cases.
Mr. Skeen. The water situation in those States, I'd like to
tell the folks around the country, we've got 12 year-old kids
who have never seen a rain storm. So we appreciate the work
that you have put together to take good care of this.
Dr. Groat. I think one of the things that you recognized in
your comment about kids never seeing rain is the fact that
water quality, and most importantly, water quantity, is
incredibly important----
Mr. Skeen. They go hand in hand.
REPORT ON FRESH WATER AVAILABILITY
Dr. Groat. They go hand in hand. This Subcommittee asked us
to recommend to you what needed to be done to understand better
the availability of fresh water in this country, and we are in
the process of finalizing a report to you on that. We are also
working with the Senate on a bill that would identify us as a
player in assessing the availability of fresh water resources
in the country.
So we recognize that water issues are preeminent to the
well-being of this country and the world and hope to continue a
strong role in understanding both the quality and quantity of
those resources.
ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH
Mr. Skeen. I notice that the President's budget proposes a
new program to address the environment and human health and
groundwater resources along the U.S. and Mexico border. That's
what we are alluding to. Why is this such a priority, and what
is the nature of problems?
Dr. Groat. Mr. Skeen, I think that program embodies for us,
and hopefully for the people that we work with, all the
qualities we'd like to see in programs where there are
opportunities for growth for the USGS and its partners.Ground
water is a significant resource in the area. There are partners there
in the State water resources research institutes and in the State
geological surveys and water organizations that can come together with
us as a science organization to better understand the distribution of
those resources.
It is also an opportunity to apply the environmental
information that we have been gathering as part of our major
programs over the years to an area of great concern to all
Americans, and that is their health. So it represents the
application of core U.S. Geological Survey biology, waters
geology, and mapping capabilities to a very critical problem.
So it is a good program from a science point of view; it is
a good program from a critical resource point of view. And most
importantly, in our future, it is a good program in a
partnership point of view. More and more of the work we do is
going to be done with State and university partners. This
program has all those elements. So I think it is a good one,
and I hope that we are able to grow it.
Mr. Skeen. I'm right with you on that particular point,
because we anticipate the bringing of the extra piece of
universities and water resources institutes from the region
into the particular studies.
Dr. Groat. In this year, Mr. Skeen, our intent is to focus
on an area that we both know well, and that is the southern New
Mexico-El Paso areas where both ground-water and health issues
are very preeminent. We have good cooperation, especially with
the water resources research institutes in New Mexico and Texas
on that, as well as the State agencies.
Mr. Skeen. We'd like to work with you on that.
Dr. Groat. Very much so.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dicks.
TOXICS PROGRAM TRANSFER
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. I appreciate your efforts to explain
the budget, and we realize that some of these things happen
downtown at OMB. You are proposing, as you said, to transfer
the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program to the National Science
Foundation. The toxics program has done important work in the
past, including looking at mercury in the Everglades and
finding new, efficient ways to clean up contaminated
groundwater.
In fact, the USGS authors whose papers were listed among
the most cited in the Environmental Science and Technology
Journal, are from your toxics program. Have you been assured
that the NSF will continue these programs? Can you comment on
the specifics of the transfer in terms of the effects on USGS
staff and any shifts in the focus of the program?
Dr. Groat. Yes, sir, I can. First of all, I am pleased that
you recognize the value of that program, and the fact that the
toxics program deals not only with toxic materials in the
environment with long term field sites and with our laboratory
work, but also is a key part of some other programs in the USGS
that are important. The toxics program supports Everglades,
clearly, and the mercury work there. It is also an important
part of the California Bay Delta program, and an important part
of the amphibian program in trying to deal with the
environmental factors related to those serious concerns.
The concern that we would have in the sense of a transfer
to the National Science Foundation is not that they would not
support quality science. They do that, and they do that very
well. But the very nature of the toxics programs being an
integral part of the USGS effort, not only with the toxics
themselves but with other programs that depend on that
expertise, is that there is no guarantee or identified way----
Mr. Dicks. That it would be sustained in the future.
Dr. Groat [continuing]. That it would be sustained in the
future through an NSF driven program. So while we are really
encouraged that the Administration is not proposing elimination
of the program as such, but rather is proposing a transfer, we
are concerned about the impacts that that will have on what the
toxics program within the USGS is intended to do.
Mr. Dicks. Remind me, what was the number last year for the
toxics?
Dr. Groat. It's a $14 million program, Mr. Dicks. The
budget proposes to transfer $10 million and eliminate $4
million, adding up to the $14 million.
Mr. Dicks. Okay, so it is completely done away with. So
this is one where the Committee is going to have make a
decision on whether we agree with that or not.
Dr. Groat. We have been having discussions with the
National Science Foundation about a 3-year transition period,
which would allow impacts on our programs to be reduced, as
well as the opportunity to successfully conclude some
activities. So it is not an immediate cut, totally, but it is a
phased cut.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION INITIATIVE
Mr. Dicks. Who would provide the science for the
Department's initiatives like the Everglades Restoration
initiative?
Dr. Groat. Some of the science that we do in those programs
is not related to the toxics program. But frankly, with respect
to the mercury work that you referred to and other toxics
related contributions, we would no longer have the capability,
because the staff that did them would not be there.
Mr. Dicks. So this would undermine the Administration's
Everglades--I shouldn't say undermine. This certainly wouldn't
help----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks [continuing]. The Administration's efforts in the
Everglades, if all of a sudden they lost one of their
scientific experts who was giving advice on how to deal with
this important issue. Is that not a possibility?
Dr. Groat. The USGS contributes to the Everglades program
in a very broad way. That support would be maintained. However,
the component of it, which particularly in the Everglades
relates to mercury and some of the effects mercury has on
critical ecosystems there, would be lost. It would definitely
be a negative.
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Dicks. The National Water-Quality Assessment was
praised by the NRC as a program of exemplary quality and
importance. Yet your request is for a decrease of $5.8 million.
How will this affect the program? What is the total number
again for the National Water-Quality Assessment?
Dr. Groat. It's a $64 million program. This reduction would
eliminate 6 of the 42 study units that are supported by that
$64 million. So it would not wipe out the program, but it would
cause us to make some difficult choices as to which basins that
are part of that program would no longer be continued in the
study. And I appreciate the fact that it has been reviewed and
it has received good marks for its scientific quality. We think
that the quality of all of our programs, as they have been
reviewed by NRC, have been judged to be good. We take that as a
plus.
So this budget reduction is not picking on any particular
program from a quality point of view, clearly. It is part of a
difficult decision process that relates to our water activities
in general.
Mr. Dicks. The current 42 study units are far below the
proposed program, isn't that right, or the original program
design?
Dr. Groat. Yes. The NAWQA program has been around for a
while. It has gone through two or three generations of suites
of units that have been studied. The 42 is less than we had
originally on the books. So the program has dwindled in size,
due to the fact that funding has not increased for that
program. This would be a further reduction in the scope of the
program.
STREAMGAGING AND FLOOD PREDICTION
Mr. Dicks. Flood prediction has become critically important
to protecting the lives of U.S. citizens. On average, U.S.
flooding kills more people each year than any other single
weather hazard, including tornadoes and hurricanes. The
Administration has acknowledged this by including an increase
of $4.5 million in the National Weather Service budget for the
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, to improve river
forecasts and water resource management.
However, these forecasts rely on data from USGS stream
gaging network. Can you explain to me why there is a $2.1
million decrease for this streamgage network?
Dr. Groat. Mr. Dicks, I think the reduction in the
streamgage network was part of the overall reduction that came
about as removing things that the Congress added money to.
You're clearly right, not always appreciated is the fact that
much of the Weather Service's flood forecasting capability
comes from use of data from our streamgage network. Reducing
that network by approximately 135 gages across the country
would certainly have some impact on that. It would not totally
reduce the Weather Service's capability, but it would limit it.
Mr. Dicks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have further
questions, but I know there are other members who want to ask
theirs at this point.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Mr. Nethercutt.
RATIONALE FOR BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen. It is troubling, really, to see the
budget reductions. I know you have to make difficult choices,
but with respect to water quality and flood control and fire
suppression and fire control. It seems to me, it may not be
far-sighted to make these reductions. I know in my part of the
State of Washington, we had some very, very serious floods four
or five years ago. Little communities just got flooded out. And
the whole issue of streamgaging was critically important.
As a result of those floods, and others around the country,
I think there was a move to increase the number of streamgages
to give predictability to the downstream communities who could
at least prepare, have a little better warning as to when the
water is coming in high water areas. So what is the
justification, other than trying to make the size 13 foot fit
into a size 12 shoe? Is there any rationality to it?
Dr. Groat. Let me just start with the comment about the
program. You are absolutely right. In response to the Congress'
request that we provide a recommended program for streamgaging
for the Nation, the National Stream Flow Information Program,
we have identified the need for additional gages in areas that
need to be supported with Federal funds, so that we don't lose
them when we have cooperator challenges. The challenges to the
streamgaging program come in two forms right now. First is the
fact that we are having to reduce the number that we support
through this budget action. But maybe more significant in the
immediate near term is the fact that the States, with their
difficult budget situations across the country, are having
difficulty coming up with the cooperative funds that they
provide for streamgages. As you know, many if not most of these
gages are supported through our cooperative program, which is a
50-50 cost share.
So the decrease in Federal funding will be paralleled by
some decreases in State funding, which poses a real challenge
for the program. Concerning your comments about the water
quality part of the water resources program and decreases
there, including the toxics program, there has been a proposal
for reduction of Federal funding for the program directly
through appropriations to the USGS. There has been the license,
in fact the encouragements for us to seek other sources of
funding to continue those NAWQA study units and to continue the
streamgaging program.
The difficulty and the challenge, of course, is the
environment that we're working in at both the Federal and the
State level. I don't think there is any lack of appreciation of
the need for both flood information and water resource
information. But I do think there is a difficulty in raising it
to the priority that it gets the funds put toward it in
comparison with other things. That reflects back on the
difficult choices that I referred to before.
FIRE SCIENCE REDUCTION
Mr. Nethercutt. And I appreciate that you have a tough row
to hoe. If you cut anything, somebody is going to be upset. But
I do think water quality should be high on the list of
protected programs. Certainly the very negative impact that
flooding has on communities is a high priority. I note that
this is the second year in a row that the Administration has
proposed reducing the Survey's fire science program, the $2.8
million before and again $2.8 million this year, for 2003.
I take it, can we take it from that budget reduction that
the Department feels that fire science and wildfires issues are
a low priority?
Dr. Groat. I don't think so, Mr. Nethercutt. I think in
fact, given the difficult fire season of a couple years ago,
that the profile of ability to deal with fires, both Forest
Service forest fires and in the case of our fire science
program, which is geared more toward the grasslands and other
areas, is an extremely high priority. I think the challenge
that we face as a science organization is having the profile of
the fire science that we do high enough in the overall fire
program to be appreciated.
The budget recommendation that we've put forward does say
that the fire program of the Bureau of Land Management should
be sought as a way to support this work. So it is not saying
the program ought to be abolished, it is saying that we ought
to get it through other fire funds given to the Department. It
certainly is easier if it comes directly to us. But it is not a
black mark on the program as such.
And we agree, it is an extremely important program. Our
fire science program emphasizes biology, but we also do work in
looking at the effects of fires on basins and the effectsfrom a
geology and hydrology point of view that it has on landslides and
flooding, the total after-effects of fires as well. So we are a
significant player in fire science, and it's only this part of the
program that has the immediate change in a sought-after source of funds
for it.
NATURAL HAZARDS RESEARCH
Mr. Nethercutt. I am informed that BLM has a rather narrow
fire science mission, they can't do the kind of work that you
do. I noticed your comment about Congressional adds, but I
think it really is the Subcommittee's obligation to make its
best judgment. Certainly this independent branch of the Federal
Government has, or co-equal branch has the right and the
obligation, I think, to make those judgments. It helps us to
have your sense of what is valuable and maybe what is not, and
where we were caught short and where we are not.
Following on Mr. Dicks' comment about the $4.5 million
increase to NOAA in the budget for natural hazards research
programs, and that is dependent on USGS data, I don't know if
that is the same issue he was speaking of that you responded
to. But there are cuts in the USGS water quality programs that
NOAA increases its budget to do certain work based on
scientific work by your agency. But yet we are cutting our side
of the ledger.
Dr. Groat. I think there is clear evidence that the
Administration does appreciate the importance of floods and
flood hazards, both in the NOAA increase, and a proposal for a
$300 million increase in the FEMA budget.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, that was just pointed out to me.
Dr. Groat. For flood plain mapping.
Mr. Nethercutt. That's a $300 million increase.
Dr. Groat. Which we hope as the Nation's civilian mapping
agency that we would have a role in helping FEMA spend that
money, assuming they get it, for better flood plain maps.
I think what our cuts in streamgaging reflect is more a
lack of understanding of the role that streamgages play in that
flood protection network. That is probably as much our
responsibility as anybody else's, to make sure that
understanding is there. So I don't think it is any kind of
prejudice against the importance of flooding, I think it is
just that understanding that needs to be expanded.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, sir. We appreciate your being here,
and your testimony to help us try to make our best decisions as
a Committee as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Mr. Kingston.
AMPHIBIAN RESEARCH
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Groat, it is great to see you again. I saw with great
disappointment you guys were cutting the amphibian research. We
have a long way to go on that. That is a pretty big cut.
Dr. Groat. Yes, sir. There is a proposed reduction of half
a million dollars from that program. And that again was part of
the reduction of Congressional adds to the program. We received
no prejudicial language about the amphibian program as such,
and we still consider it as one of the leading efforts to
integrate our understanding of a very critical indicator
species and a very critical part of the natural systems through
a combined effort of biology, hydrology in particular, and
mapping science.
So we are strongly committed to the program. We recognize
the shortfall that that cut will bring, but it does not reduce
our commitment to the program and our efforts to carry it out,
as you and others have so adequately helped us define it.
Mr. Kingston. Why is it important to study an indicator
species?
Dr. Groat. Well, I think that whether we are talking about
the Nation's biological resources, its water resources, or its
mineral and energy resources, with the capabilities we have now
to measure, to monitor things that are truly indicative of
environmental health, that we have to make some good selections
of those parts of ecosystems, in the case of amphibians that do
really reflect what is happening to those systems, and to do a
very thorough job of understanding how they are faring. The
amphibians gave us a very good opportunity, because there was a
clear threat. There was a clear loss of important parts of the
populations, and, as it turns out, there are some very complex
causes for that that really reflect the complexity of the
environmental challenges we have in this country, whether they
be human or natural or climate change sources of challenges.
So these indicator species and indicators of other
resources are going to be extremely important. We have to do a
thorough job of understanding them.
Mr. Kingston. Do you have any idea, could you guess where
we are in the process on a scale of one to ten, how much
progress we made? If ten is our destination, are we at a one or
a two, are we at a seven or an eight?
Dr. Groat. I would say probably a four or a five. I think
what we have been able to do with the funding so far is to
complete the monitoring and survey assessment network across
the country, so we are getting a better feel each year for the
state of health of the populations of amphibians. Through our
toxics program and through work coming directly through the
amphibians, we are beginning to look into the relationships
between the declines in populations and the stressors that are
causing that. We have published some pretty good papers, I
think, that reflect the growing understanding and reflect the
complexity of it. Because it is complex.
I think the four relates to a better understanding of the
problem, but a long ways to go in understanding the complex
causes of the problem. And as you said, that will have clear
ramifications for other organisms, including humans, that
depend on the same environments that are threatened in terms of
the amphibians.
Mr. Kingston. So the Committee needs to take a real strong
look at that, because it sounds like we just don't need to pull
the plug on something that is halfway and would have a very
good benefit to everybody if we come to a good conclusion and
know how to handle it.
Dr. Groat. We certainly want to continue our activity in
the amphibian program and have appreciated your support in the
past.
Mr. Kingston. But a reduction like this would really slow
it down some?
Dr. Groat. It would certainly slow it down. It would not
diminish our commitment to it, but it would slow it down, yes.
MAPPING EFFORTS IN TERRORISM RESPONSE
Mr. Kingston. Also, your national mapping and remote
sensing data programs that you have, did they play a role in
the post 9/11 aftermath?
Dr. Groat. They did, indeed. The EROS Data Center in South
Dakota is the base for our remote sensing program. We are
really pleased that the support of the Landsat program, both
Landsat 7 and Landsat 5, has been maintained, because it
provides a space base for land remote sensing. Those images
were used extensively in the response to 9/11 and are being
used in the preparedness for the national defense program
against terrorism.
Our mapping capabilities that come out of the EROS Data
Center and out of the Central Region and our other mapping
centers for geospatial information, including topographic maps
and orthophotoquads, are an extremely important part not only
for protection of the country and its infrastructure, but for
the day-to-day business of local, State, and national
governments. So we are really committed to modernizing those,
because old data is not good data in that sense. We are
emphasizing through our National Map Program and our
participation in the 120 cities program the need to update
those across the country.
MAPPING AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Kingston. Among other things, those maps would show
emergency evacuation routes.
Dr. Groat. Yes.
Mr. Kingston. Probably the most high profile example of
needing that, if you have read the book Blackhawk Down, was
when the rescue convoy went on the wrong street, through a
series of complications. It would appear to me that this would
be a key part of homeland security. Are Tom Ridge and the
homeland security folks involved with you guyson this mapping?
Do they understand what a great source of knowledge this is? Do they
want to increase your budget any for that reason?
Dr. Groat. We have had continuing discussions with NIMA,
the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and with Governor
Ridge's staff at the homeland security program, about the need
and the value of these sorts of maps. You hit it right on the
head when you talked about evacuation routes. One aspect of the
USGS as a civilian mapping agency doing this and being funded
to do this is that that information does become public. It is
available to local responders, State responders, as well as the
Federal establishment.
So our concern in that program is that we continue to do
that work because it is in the public domain, and that we
receive the funding necessary to do it on the accelerated basis
that is needed for homeland security. So the funding issue is
certainly a significant one. We have limited funds to do that.
We are committing everything we can to it. And we would hope
that there would be some opportunities through supplemental
funding to provide that very fundamental information, which is
as important to homeland security as are some of the more
visible aspects of it that are receiving funding through the
supplemental process.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN MAPPING
Mr. Kingston. I understand there are a lot of private
companies that are involved in that, and that you have worked
with a lot of them through grants. I think you even have an
award program for somebody who's done----
Dr. Groat. We do. In fact, much of the work that is done in
preparing our maps and our input into the geospatial
information system is done by private contractors. Most of it
goes out through two contracts to gather the data and to
actually produce the product. So it is a true partnership with
the private sector.
Mr. Kingston. Well, I applaud you on the kind of
partnership approach that you have been taking as I understand
in more recent years, but I also encourage you to do that.
Because as a businessman, I know as a purchaser that it is very
important to have a lot of different vendors. I think for all
of us, because that technology is evolving so quickly, it is in
the national interest to have a lot of different players that
are out there on kind of a subcontractor or independent
contractor basis.
Dr. Groat. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We do have a
very diverse set of private cooperators and people that we fund
privately to do this work. It is a strength.
Mr. Kingston. Well, thank you. It is good to see you again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Groat. Thank you, Mr. Kingston.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dicks.
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Mr. Dicks. The National Research Council Commission on
Geosciences, Environment and Resources recently released a
report on the future roles and missions of the U.S. Geological
Survey. The report noted the Survey's research programs would
benefit from increased interaction with industry and
universities. The report cited the Water Resources Research
Institutes as an example of how enhanced collaboration with
researchers at academic institutions could help the Survey to
accomplish its research goals.
How does the Federal Government benefit from the work of
the Water Resource Research Institutes? How do State and local
governments benefit?
Dr. Groat. Our relationship with the Water Resources
Research Institutes is really emblematic of the relationships
we are trying to build across the country with, in this case,
university-based groups. Because they bring expertise to the
science program that both complements what we have and, in some
cases, extends what we have through letting other folks do the
work with funding that we are able to provide.
So it also provides a base within the States, which is tied
to State interests. Each Water Resources Research Institute is
on a land grant college campus within the State, and its
mission is to serve the State broadly as a university and
specifically as an institute. So it really strengthens our
relationship in doing what President Bush and Secretary Norton
have made high priorities, and that is, increasing
relationships with State and local groups to help provide
information for sound decisions. This is one way the U.S.
Geological Survey can increase our ability to do that.
So those partnerships as defined there, and also through
our increasing co-location on college campuses across the
country, with State and other Federal agencies, is increasing
this interaction at the State and local level. We see it as an
important part of how we are going to do our work in the
future.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Mr. Dicks. Is there a peer review process in the Survey for
allocating funds to science projects? If so, how does this
process work?
Dr. Groat. Our scientific programs are generally driven
through a proposal and review process within the disciplines.
We have a strategic plan, we have science directions, we have
priorities that we march to. But within that, we have to define
programs and projects. That is left to our program leaders and
our scientists to make proposals, which are then reviewed at
several levels within the Bureau, within the USGS, before they
are accepted for funding.
Programs, as they are developed, are also reviewed by
outside advisors and members to ensure that it is not just
totally an internal review. So the peer-review aspect both of
the programs themselves and of the products of those programs
are what I think contributes to the good opinion that the NRC
has had about our programs, that they are quality programs and
they are objective programs.
PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS
Mr. Dicks. How many scientists and support personnel will
have to be RIF'd as a result of the significant funding
reductions proposed in your budget?
Dr. Groat. Well, Mr. Dicks, we hope none. There is a
potential personnel impact on the level of 249 or so people, if
you add up all the reductions. But we would hope through
attrition, through the opportunity for early outs and others,
that we would not have to go to that extreme.
Mr. Dicks. You think you can handle it?
Dr. Groat. Well, I'm not sure. We don't know yet if we can
handle it. That certainly is one of the tools in the quiver
that might have to be called on. But we have no plans now to
use that tool.
Mr. Dicks. And of course, if Congress rescues you again,
then you wouldn't have to face these kinds of problems.
Dr. Groat. We would not have to face those difficult
decisions. [Laughter.]
REDUCTIONS EFFECT ON SCIENCE QUALITY
Mr. Dicks. What would be the effect of these cuts on your
ability to do high quality science at the USGS?
Dr. Groat. I would hope that, even cut down to ten people,
we would still do high quality science. Because that is our
hallmark. We consider ourselves credible and objective, and we
are going to maintain that posture at all costs. It more has an
impact on our ability to provide the suite of quality science
that we think we are uniquely qualified to provide. It does not
reduce the science as a whole, it reduces it in selected parts.
BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCE
Mr. Dicks. So you would still do, it is important to have a
mixture of basic science and applied science?
Dr. Groat. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Dicks. Would the applied science be affected here by
these cuts?
Dr. Groat. Both the applied and the basic science would be
affected. Our toxics program is a good example. There is a lot
of good fundamental research that goes on in the toxics program
to understand how, these toxic elements behave in the
environment. There is also an applied element where that
understanding is being applied to places like the Everglades
and by people who are concerned about water treatment and water
quality mitigation.
So most of our programs, hazards programs, coastal
programs, are a combination of good, sound basic research that
drives the applications that are important to the country.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. We have a vote on, so I think we had better--
Mr. Dicks. Do you want to continue?
ENERGY RESEARCH
Mr. Skeen. Does anybody have any further questions?
Mr. Nethercutt. One quick question. Sir, I notice that the
Administration has worked very hard to get the energy policy
plan through the House and it was frustrated in the Senate. I
know that USGS does a lot of energy scientific research that
appears to be at risk in the budget.
Can you quantify quickly for the Subcommittee how important
you feel the energy research might be as it relates to the
budget condition you find yourself in?
Dr. Groat. We have actually some additional spending
responsibilities under the proposed budget in the energy area,
specifically the Energy Policy Act, for assessment of
undiscovered resources in the West and also to provide basic
mapping in the National Petroleum Reserve. We have a multiple
kind of energy program that ranges from coal to oil and gas
resources and a modest effort now in, if this is accepted, in
geothermal resources. Given the increased emphasis on programs,
we think that those will remain important.
We do not see any substantial cuts to existing programs,
nor do we see substantial growth. But we would hope in the
future, as this priority continues for the country, that those
programs would be higher profile, and that the growth we've
seen this year would be continued.
ASSESSING UNDISCOVERED ENERGY RESOURCES
Mr. Nethercutt. I think we can get a lot from the science
that your agency provides as it relates to energy.
Dr. Groat. I think a lot of what we do in assessing
undiscovered resources in oil and gas, for example, that is not
part of any regulatory or private sectors gives it some
objectivity that is really needed, as you know, in the intense
debate that is going on in the Congress over the energy policy.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dicks.
VOLCANO MONITORING ACTIVITIES
Mr. Dicks. You talked a little bit about monitoring
volcanic activities and things of that nature, which USGS has
been one of the leaders in. How are we doing on that? How do
you see that program in terms of the budget? Will we be able to
do the, having the monitoring capability, the sensors, all this
stuff that we need to do?
Dr. Groat. It is not growing, Mr. Dicks. We are continuing,
within existing funds, to use the best technology to monitor.
The fact that the technology is improving so greatly, radar
interferometry, for example, and the tools that are available
from space and on the ground to monitor volcanoes in a much
more real time sort of basis are out there, is causing us to
spend an increasing amount of our budget on these enhanced
tools.
What we lack the ability to do in that case is to expand
the monitoring network, say, for example, in the Aleutian
Islands, where the actual impacts on air travel are important.
So we have not had to cut the program, but we have not been
able to grow the program, with the exception of the add that
was removed in this particular approach, yes.
Mr. Dicks. Put in the, if you could add for the record,
just expand upon what you could do if you had adequate
resources in this area.
Dr. Groat. In the volcano program?
Mr. Dicks. Yes. That would be important to me.
Dr. Groat. We would be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
Volcano Monitoring Funding
Over the past decade, the Volcano Hazards program has built
a near-real time eruption monitoring system for 44 of the 70
active or potentially active U.S. volcanoes, including
volcanoes in the Cascades of Washington, Oregon, and
California; the island of Hawaii; and the Long Valley (CA) and
Yellowstone calderas; as well as the volcanoes of the Aleutian
Islands of Alaska. The volcanoes of the Aleutian Islands of
Alaska pose a frequent threat to airline safety on the busy
north Pacific jet routes. New resources would enable USGS to
upgrade the existing monitoring program, expand the network to
include additional hazardous volcanoes, and increase volcano
hazard assessments and research activities.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Groat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the Committee
for its support in the past years, and particularly you, Mr.
Skeen. We have enjoyed working with you and appreciate your
understanding and support of our programs.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Have a good day.
[Additional questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Adams, Kevin..................................................... 309
Ashe, Dan........................................................ 309
Burton, R. M. ``Johnnie''........................................ 550
Chambers, T. C................................................... 189
DeLuise, F. M.................................................... 561
Devaney, E. E.................................................... 574
Frazer, Gary..................................................... 309
Groat, C. G...................................................... 449
Guertin, Stephen................................................. 309
Henne, Paul...................................................... 309
Jarrett, J. D.................................................... 609
Jones, A. D...................................................... 189
Jones, Marshall.................................................. 309
Kelley, M. A..................................................... 449
Knapp, William................................................... 309
Mainella, F. P................................................... 189
Masica, S. E..................................................... 189
Melius, Tom...................................................... 309
Murphy, D. W (Don)............................................... 189
Myers, W. G...................................................... 579
Norton, Hon. G. A................................................ 1
Saito, Teiko..................................................... 309
Scarlett, P. L................................................... 1
Sheaffer, C. B................................................... 189
Sheehan, Denise.................................................. 309
Thorson, Robyn................................................... 309
Trezise J. D...........................................1, 189, 309, 449
Wenk, D. N....................................................... 189
Williams, Steven................................................. 309
I N D E X
----------
Secretary of the Interior
Page
Abandoned Coal Mine Land Reclamation............................. 24
African American Museum.......................................... 41
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge.............................. 49
Biography of Gayle A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior.......... 20
Biography of Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.. 21
Budget Overview.................................................. 8
Budget Reduction................................................. 22
Bull Trout Report................................................ 47
Canada Lynx: Controversy......................................... 45
Inspector General Report..................................... 46
Competitive Sourcing............................................. 28
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.............................. 3, 9
Endangered Species Conservation.................................. 15
Environmental Degradation from Illegal Immigration............... 30
Everglades: Developing Regulations............................... 42
Funding...................................................... 14
Human Dynamics............................................... 40
Regulations.................................................. 41
Restoration, Coordination, and Verification (``RECOVER'').... 42
Roads as Water Flow Impediments.............................. 42
Water Levels in Canals in Southern Everglades................ 39
Water Supply................................................. 37
Fishers Peak Visitors' Center.................................... 45
Harnessing National Resources.................................... 15
Homeland Security................................................ 17
Hoover Dam Bypass................................................ 32
Indian Education................................................. 5, 12
Indian Trust Reform Efforts...............................4, 10, 22, 34
Interagency Personnel Assignments Program (IPA).................. 31
Klamath Basin.................................................... 27
Land Acquisition and Management; No Net Gain..................... 25
Land Owner Partnerships.......................................... 9
Land Use Planning................................................ 16
Maintenance Backlog on National Parks............................ 13
Maintenance Backlog on Public Lands.............................. 34
Managing for Excellence.......................................... 6, 18
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge............................ 36
Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans......................... 35
National Park Funding............................................ 5
National Wildlife Refuge System: Centennial...................... 14
Funding...................................................... 5
Natural Resource Challenge....................................... 13
Office of Insular Affairs........................................ 17
Oil and Gas Exploration and Development: Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge......................................................... 45
California Coastal Areas..................................... 44
Canyon Lands and Arches Vicinity............................. 49
Opening Remarks of Mr. Dicks..................................... 1
Opening Remarks of Mr. Skeen..................................... 1
Opening Statement of Secretary Norton............................ 2
Other Conservation Tools......................................... 10
Other Funding.................................................... 5
Strategic Petroleum Reserves..................................... 33
US Geological Survey: Job Reductions............................. 29
Program Reductions........................................... 36
Role of Agency............................................... 33
Uncontrollable Travel Costs...................................... 18
Wildland Fire Management......................................... 16
Written Statement of Secretary Norton............................ 7
Questions for the Record.........................................56-187
Abandoned Coal Mine Land Reclamation......................... 85
Budget Priorities............................................ 62
Bureau of Indian Affairs: School Privatization............... 78
Trust Asset Management Proposal.......................... 83
Canada Lynx.................................................. 71
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.......................... 56
Departmental Science......................................... 83
Endangered Species........................................... 68
Everglades Restoration....................................... 64
Indian Trust Reform.......................................... 79
Internet Access.............................................. 81
Klamath Water Issues......................................... 74
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge........................ 76
National Wildlife Refuge Expansions.......................... 77
National Wildlife Refuge Land Acquisition.................... 63
Riverside, California Multi-Species Conservation Plan........ 70
Territorial and Insular Affairs.............................. 89
Wetlands..................................................... 75
Questions for the Record from:
Congressman Skeen............................................ 90
Congressman Nethercutt....................................... 109
Congressman Peterson......................................... 115
Congressman Dicks............................................ 93
Congressman Moran............................................ 116
Congressman Hinchey.......................................... 138
Congressman Sabo............................................. 187
National Park Service
Accelerating Partnerships........................................ 194
Air Pollution: Blue Ridge Parkway and Shenandoah NP.............. 229
Index Signs Along Skyline Drive in Shenandoah NP............. 238
Biography of Ms. Fran P. Mainella................................ 198
Biography of Mr. Donald Murphy................................... 199
Biography of Mr. Randy Jones..................................... 200
Biography of Ms. Teresa Chambers................................. 201
Biography of Mr. Dan Wenk........................................ 202
Budget Request Observations...................................... 190
Business Plans Initiative.................................192, 208, 210
Bandalier National Monument.................................. 209
Lassen Volcanic National Park..............................209, 211
Rocky Mountain National Park................................. 120
Business Students, Purpose and Employment of..................... 208
Carlsbad Caverns National Park................................... 234
College Internship............................................... 237
Concessions Efforts.............................................. 192
Business Students............................................ 231
Concessionaires.............................................. 228
Program Improvements......................................... 230
Rocky Mountain National Park................................. 238
Construction: Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas National Park......... 237
NAPA Recommendations Implementation........................193, 232
Program Management........................................... 239
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.............................. 192
Bat Conservation............................................. 214
Cumberland Island National Seashore.............................. 227
Curtis-Lee Mansion............................................... 227
Elwha Restoration Project at Olympic National Park............... 189
Employing Business Students...................................... 231
Employing Troubled Youth......................................... 230
Environmental Friendly Access to National Parks.................. 206
Everglades National Park: Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative
(CESI).......................................................204, 208
Funding Level................................................ 208
Restoration.................................................. 189
Governor's Island National Monument.............................. 212
Grand Canyon National Park Transportation System................. 232
Historic Buildings and Historic Districts: Duplication of a
Building....................................................... 225
Policy and Guidance on Additions............................. 226
Introductions of NPS Staff....................................... 191
Land Acquisition: Federal.................................190, 216, 217
Land Held by Private Organizations to Sell to the Government. 206
Prioritization List.......................................... 219
Land and Water Conservation Fund................................. 216
State Grants................................................. 217
Law Enforcement in Parks--see Security Issues and US Park Police.
Maintenance Backlog:......................................190, 193, 205
Accountability............................................... 192
Managing Facilities.......................................... 195
Reduction.................................................... 191
Management Reforms............................................... 196
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site, Bill to Establish.......... 212
National Heritage Areas.......................................... 213
National Resource Challenge....................................191, 196
Oil and Gas Exploration in: Arches National Park................. 239
Big Cypress National Preserve................................ 240
Canyonlands National Park.................................... 239
Olympic National Park............................................ 189
Opening Remarks: Mr. Skeen....................................... 189
Mr. Kingston................................................. 216
Mr. Dicks.................................................... 189
Opening Statement of Ms. Fran P. Mainella........................ 190
Park Operations.................................................. 196
Park Values in American Life..................................... 191
Partnerships..................................................... 192
Washington, D.C. Area........................................ 211
Privatization of the Workforce................................... 228
Security Issues: National Parks and Monuments.................... 235
Park Rangers Assigned to Security Duties Away From Parks..... 243
Park Units Outside Washington, D.C. Area..................... 237
Washington Monument.......................................... 235
Snowmobiles in National Parks..................................214, 244
In Yellowstone National Park................................. 214
Team Effort...................................................... 193
Tennis in Rock Creek Park........................................ 234
US Park Police: NAPA Recommendations...........................193, 203
Recruitment.................................................. 203
Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT)...................... 207
Urban Parks and Recreation Fund...........................190, 214, 237
Values of Parks in America Life.................................. 191
Vanishing Treasures Program....................................233, 243
Visitation after September 11, 2001.............................. 231
Volunteers....................................................... 192
Washington, D.C. Area Park Units................................. 216
Written Statement of Ms. Fran P. Mainella........................ 194
Youth Conservation Corps (YCC)................................... 238
Questions for the Record........................................245-307
Backlog Maintenance.......................................... 272
Business Plans............................................... 248
Concession Contracts......................................... 274
Construction--Denver Service Center.......................... 281
Cooperative Conservation Initiative & Challenge Cost Share... 254
Ellis Island................................................. 288
Enhancing Fee Programs....................................... 292
General Policy............................................... 245
Natural Resource Challenge................................... 275
Operations of the National Park System....................... 294
Personal Watercraft.......................................... 287
Security in Parks............................................ 280
Snowmobiles.................................................. 287
South Florida Restoration.................................... 249
Valley Forge NHP............................................. 291
Yosemite NP.................................................. 290
Questions from Mr. Dicks......................................... 296
Questions from Mr. Hinchey....................................... 306
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.................................. 345
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge.............................. 343
Biography of Mr. Steven Williams................................. 326
Budget Request, Comprehensive Summary............................ 315
Bull Trout Report................................................ 339
Box Canyon Relicensing........................................... 339
Canada Lynx...................................................... 333
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.............................. 314
Culverts and Fish Passage........................................ 339
Everglades Restoration, Comprehensive Plan....................... 314
Employee Judgment................................................ 337
Experience of Director Williams.................................. 330
Financial and Technical Assistance to States, Tribes, and other
Entities.....................................................315, 351
Fish Hatchery Reform............................................. 353
Forest Service Cooperation....................................... 336
Klamath Basin.................................................... 331
Land Acquisition and Refuge Expansion................327, 334, 341, 349
Management Reforms............................................... 323
Midway Island National Wildlife Refuge........................... 343
National Wildlife Refuge System.................................. 344
Opening Remarks: Mr. Skeen....................................... 309
Mr. Dicks.................................................... 309
Opening Statement of Mr. Steven Williams......................... 310
Pacific Northwest Salmonid Conservation.......................... 314
President's Management Agenda.................................... 323
State Wildlife Grants............................................ 351
Written Statement of Mr. Steven Williams......................... 313
Questions for the Record........................................355-448
Bear River National Wildlife Refuge.......................... 394
Canada Lynx.................................................. 366
Coastal Programs............................................. 373
Construction of Visitor Centers.............................. 402
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.......................... 368
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund............. 392
Coordination with the Forest Service......................... 405
Cost Allocation Methodology.................................. 384
Endangered Species........................................... 397
Expanded Refuges............................................. 355
Fisheries.................................................... 378
Fish Screens................................................. 387
Grassland Birds.............................................. 407
Joint Ventures............................................... 371
Klamath Basin................................................ 364
Land Acquisition Management.................................. 358
Landowner Incentive Program.................................. 399
Management Agenda............................................ 409
Mexican Wolf................................................. 361
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge........................ 390
National Wildlife Refuge Fund................................ 395
National Wildlife Refuge System.............................. 359
Neotropical Migratory Birds.................................. 377
New Refuges.................................................. 355
Private Stewardship Grants................................... 400
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program......................... 396
State Wildlife Grants........................................ 369
Tern Island Seawall.......................................... 394
Timber Harvesting on Refuges................................. 404
Washington Hatchery Projects................................. 389
Questions from Mr. Skeen......................................... 410
Questions from Mr. Peterson...................................... 411
Questions from Mr. Moran......................................... 425
Questions from Mr. Hinchey....................................... 417
Questions from Mr. Sabo.......................................... 424
U.S. Geological Survey
Assessing Undiscovered Energy Resources.......................... 471
Basic and Applied Science........................................ 470
Biography of Dr. Charles Groat................................... 459
Budget Highlights................................................ 457
Budget Decreases............................................. 453
Amphibian Research....................................... 466
Effects of.............................................460, 470
Fire Science............................................. 464
National Water Quality Assessment Program................ 462
Water Resources Research Institutes--Elimination......... 454
Rationale for Reductions................................. 463
Stream Gaging............................................ 463
Toxics Program........................................... 453
Budget Increases: Alaska Digital Mapping..................... 451
Biological Research and Information...................... 452
Energy Related........................................... 451
Environmental Health..................................... 452
Geothermal............................................... 452
Ground Water Resources................................... 453
Budget Maintenance: Coastal Geology.......................... 452
Earthquake Preparedness.......................................... 451
Elimination of Water Resources Research Institutes............... 454
Energy Research.................................................. 470
Environment and Human Health..................................... 460
Everglades Restoration Initiative................................ 462
Mapping: Efforts in Terrorism Response........................... 467
Homeland Security............................................ 467
Public and Private Partnerships.............................. 468
Natural Hazard Research.......................................... 465
Opening Remarks: Mr. Skeen....................................... 449
Mr. Dicks.................................................... 449
Opening Statement of Dr. Charles Groat........................... 450
Peer Review Process.............................................. 469
Personnel Reductions............................................. 469
Reductions Effect on Science Quality............................. 470
Report on Fresh Water Availability............................... 460
Response to September 11, 2001................................... 450
Stream Gaging and Flood Prediction............................... 463
Toxics Program Transfer.......................................... 461
Volcano Monitoring Activities.................................... 471
Water Resources Research Institutes.............................. 468
Written Statement of Dr. Charles Groat........................... 455
Questions for the Record........................................473-503
Biology...................................................... 487
General Questions............................................ 473
Geology...................................................... 487
Mapping...................................................... 484
Water Programs............................................... 480
Questions from Mr. Skeen......................................... 490
Questions from Mr. Regula........................................ 495
Questions from Mr. Dicks......................................... 498
Questions from Mr. Moran......................................... 492
Questions from Mr. Hinchey....................................... 501
Bureau of Land Management
Questions for the Record........................................505-535
Construction and Maintenance................................. 513
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.......................... 507
Enterprise Architecture--Information Technology.............. 528
General Questions............................................ 505
Land Resources............................................... 519
Land Use Planning............................................ 522
Mining Law Administration.................................... 521
NLCS, Cultural, Recreation................................... 524
Oil and Gas.................................................. 520
Planning..................................................... 509
Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring........................... 511
Use Authorizations........................................... 530
Wildland Fire Management..................................... 515
Minerals Management Service
Questions for the Record........................................537-549
Electronic Government Initiative............................. 545
Environmental Studies Program................................ 548
Internet Shutdown............................................ 537
Offshore Minerals Management................................. 543
Royalty-In-Kind.............................................. 542
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.................................. 537
Testimony of Mr. R.M. Burton, Director........................... 550
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
Testimony of Mr. Frank De Luise, Restoration Program Manager..... 561
Office of Insular Affairs
Questions for the Record........................................563-573
American Samoa............................................... 564
CNMI Immigration, Labor and Law Enforcement Initiative....... 572
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands................. 565
Compact of Free Association.................................. 567
General Questions............................................ 563
Guam......................................................... 566
Territorial Assistance....................................... 569
Virgin Islands............................................... 566
Office of Inspector General
Testimony of Mr. Earl Devaney, Inspector General................. 574
Office of the Solicitor
Testimony of Mr. William Meyers, Solicitor....................... 579
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Questions for the Record........................................581-608
Abandoned Mine Lands Trust Funds............................. 581
Administration............................................... 600
Appalachian Clean Streams.................................... 606
Federal Reclamation Program.................................. 605
Fee Collection Compliance.................................... 600
Other........................................................ 607
Regulation and Technology.................................... 593
United Mine Workers Health Fund.............................. 601
Testimony of Mr. Jeffrey Jarrett, Director....................... 609