    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
       ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
                                    SERVICE

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   before the

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 March 19, 2003

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 108-8

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                                     ______

    85-772              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                     RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska                    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey                   Samoa
    Elton Gallegly, California           Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Ken Calvert, California              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming                   Islands
    George Radanovich, California        Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Jay Inslee, Washington
        Carolina                         Grace F. Napolitano, California
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Tom Udall, New Mexico
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada,                 Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
      Vice Chairman                      Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Dennis A. Cardoza, California
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               George Miller, California
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska                Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    Jeff Flake, Arizona                  Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana           Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
    Rick Renzi, Arizona                  Joe Baca, California
    Tom Cole, Oklahoma                   Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Rob Bishop, Utah
    Devin Nunes, California
    VACANCY

                         Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                        Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                     WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
            FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska                    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana         Samoa
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey               Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Rob Bishop, Utah                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
    Richard W. Pombo, California, ex     Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
        officio                              ex officio

                                     ------
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on March 19, 2003...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
          American Samoa.............................................     8
        Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland......................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Ortiz, Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas.............................................     7
        Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New Jersey....................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Lautenbacher, Vice Admiral Conrad C., Under Secretary for
          Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
          Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    78
        Williams, Steven A., Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
          U.S. Department of the Interior............................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    42

       OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
    REQUESTS FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
                     AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 19, 2003

                         U.S. House of Representatives

          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                             Committee on Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
    room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
    Gilchrest, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Pallone, Faleomavaega,
    Ortiz, and Bordallo.

       STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order. We will
    be joined shortly by the Ranking Member, Mr. Pallone from New
    Jersey. He is being held up at another Committee markup, but we
    will get started and welcome him when he arrives.
        Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee will conduct its
    annual review of the Administration's budget request for the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration. I am pleased to welcome Admiral
    Lautenbacher and Director Steve Williams and Marshall Jones of
    the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Four of NOAA's strategic goals, including promoting safe
    navigation, sustaining healthy coasts, building sustainable
    fisheries, and restoring protected species are under the
    jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and I look forward to hearing
    about these programs for Fiscal Year 2004.
        I want to commend the Administration for again increasing
    funds to promote safe navigation. Over the last 5 years, the
    projected time for surveying and producing new charts for the
    roughly 1 percent of the exclusive economic zone that is
    considered commercially critical has fallen from nearly 35
    years to as few as 15 years. The agency has made strides toward
    implementing electronic charts that will form the basis for
    improved port security and better protection of human life and
    the environment.
        Of course, this would not be a NOAA budget hearing if we
    did not discus the perennial--it almost sounds like flowers,
    perennials versus annuals, so this is, I think, both perennial
    and annual--inequities between NOAA's wet side and dry side.
    Two examples, the budget request seeks $687 million for
    satellites and no funds for the third fishery survey vessel,
    and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is reduced
    by $8.2 million, however, climate and weather programs are
    increased by $18.3 million while ocean, coastal, and great lake
    programs decline by $26.6 million. Nevertheless, I remain
    hopeful that in the not-so-distant future, we will see a budget
    that equitably distributes resources between the oceanic and
    atmospheric portions of NOAA.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service is still facing over
    100 lawsuits, many of them disputing management actions taken
    by the agency. One fishery in particular, the New England
    groundfish fishery, has been in and out of court with a judge
    rather than the management agency making some of the decisions.
        I know how complex and how difficult the fishery issues are
    and we will try to address some of those in the reauthorization
    of the Magnuson Act and certainly listen to the Oceans
    Commission and the Pew Commission, and I will tell you,
    Admiral, that we have an ongoing, very good relationship with
    NMFS and certainly Director Hogarth. But these are some of the
    issues that we really need to tackle to get back into the
    management of fisheries, using good science to manage fisheries
    and not tie up a lot of these dollars in Federal court.
        I am hopeful that the fishery will soon come out from under
    the court's control, not that people don't have a right to file
    a lawsuit, but I think things will go a lot easier if we find a
    way to reduce that necessity.
        I am pleased to see the agency has requested $3 million to
    address the need for additional observer coverage for the
    fishery. This will help as we reauthorize the Magnuson Act, to
    plug that in there.
        NOAA also requested additional funding for bycatch
    reduction measures, including gear research and testing.
    Bycatch is a national concern and any actions taken to reduce
    its occurrence will be well received. It is important that this
    research be conducted cooperatively with the industry. So if we
    can get more of those fishermen on board, so to speak, and
    seeing what they see as practical measures to reduce bycatch,
    it will go a long way into increasing the flow of information.
    Then there is inevitably less anxiety and more trust.
        NOAA's budget also includes an increase of $12.5 million to
    modernize and expand the scope of fisheries research and
    management capabilities. Included in this increase are funds
    for much needed stock assessments.
        After reviewing the budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, I am in agreement with the funding levels requested
    for many accounts. For instance, just last week, the National
    Wildlife Refuge System celebrated its 100th birthday. I
    strongly support the President's request to allocate $292
    million for refuge operations and $109 million for refuge
    maintenance, which are both at historic levels. This money will
    be spent to revitalize the system and to pay down the capital
    and equipment maintenance backlog.
        Mr. Williams, we really want to work over the next couple
    of years with this added money to focus it where it really
    needs to be spent and then try to figure out in some instances
    how to manage wildlife refuges in more of a natural way. Nature
    was the management of a lot of these areas for a long, long,
    long time, and I know some of the refuges are managed so that
    they create feeding areas for migrating water fowl, and the
    necessity of that is that a lot of areas have been developed,
    so their natural flyway as far as their nesting areas, their
    feeding areas, their raising their young areas, and so on, has
    been significantly reduced, but very often a refuge spends
    enormous amounts of money berming and dyking and building ponds
    and things like that. So if we could work through some of those
    high-cost areas, it would be productive for everybody.
        Secondly, I support the request of $103.6 million for
    fisheries. In particular, there was a renewed emphasis on
    repairing and modernizing some of our Federal fish hatcheries.
    These hatcheries provide some $5 billion worth of fish which
    are used for recovery, restoration, mitigation, stocking
    activities.
        Third, the President has asked for $50 million for the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Fund--that was the bill
    signing we went to, right? At that bill signing, I gave Mr.
    Bush a copy of a fascinating book called Water written by Alice
    Outwater from Vermont, and it is a history of the hydrologic
    cycle in the United States over the past 500 years and how
    human activity has changed that natural cycle and some of the
    problems that have resulted. So you might want to read that,
    and the next time you see the President, you can discuss that
    book together. So the President has authorized $50 million for
    the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, and this fund,
    as we know, is providing protection for millions of acres of
    habitat for migrating water fowl in the three different
    countries.
        Fourth, I fully concur with the request of $7 million for
    the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. In fact, we should
    do more for these fisheries and I support the World Wildlife
    Fund's efforts to allocate $14 million for African elephants,
    Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, and neotropical
    migratory birds. There is no question that these funds are
    critical for the long-term survival of these flagship species.
        And from a local perspective, I strongly support the $1.1
    million for land acquisition for the Blackwater National
    Wildlife Refuge and $800,000 for this invasive species nutria,
    and we would like to continue working with Fish and Wildlife to
    deal with the whole panorama, array of issues surrounding
    invasive species and the high cost that is incurred from that.
        And also, the number of species that are imported here,
    whether it is for fish tanks in your house or whether it is for
    bait, you know, we have had a problem with some fish in
    Maryland, but we also have some potential problems with
    Vietnamese worms used for bait. We will hold a few hearings in
    this session looking at some of those issues and we will try to
    give Fish and Wildlife Service some adequate statutory
    authority to deal with those growing issues.
        Finally, I would support enhanced funding for the
    Endangered Species Account, Land Acquisition, and National
    Wildlife Refuge Fund.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony, and just as an
    aside, I want to express my thanks to the three of you and
    those who are with you today for your public service. It is not
    always very easy. It is often very volatile. But we appreciate
    your patience with us and look forward to working with you over
    the next 2 years.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
                 on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

        Good afternoon, today, the Subcommittee will conduct its annual
    review of the Administration's budget request for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration. I am pleased to welcome Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher and
    Director Steve Williams.
        Four of NOAA's strategic goals including promoting safe navigation,
    sustaining healthy coasts, building sustainable fisheries and restoring
    protected species are under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. I
    look forward to hearing how these programs fare in the Fiscal Year 2004
    budget request.
        I want to commend the Administration for again increasing funds to
    promote safe navigation. Over the last five years, the projected time
    for surveying and producing new charts for the roughly 1 percent of the
    exclusive economic zone that is considered commercially critical has
    fallen from nearly 35 years to as few as 15. The Agency has made
    strides toward implementing electronic charts that will form the basis
    for improved port security, and better protection of human life and the
    environment.
        Of course this would not be a NOAA budget hearing, if we did not
    discuss the perennial inequities between NOAA's wet and dry sides. I
    will cite two examples: the budget request seeks $687 million for
    satellites and no funds for the third fishery survey vessel and the
    Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is reduced by $8.2 million.
    However, climate and weather programs are increased by $18.3 million
    while ocean, coastal and great lake programs decline by $26.6 million.
    Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that in the not so distant future, we
    will see a budget that equitably distributes resources between the
    oceanic and atmospheric portions of NOAA.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service is still facing over a
    hundred lawsuits, many of them disputing management actions taken by
    the Agency. One fishery in particular, the New England groundfish
    fishery, has been in and out of court with a judge rather than the
    management Agency making some of the decisions. While I am hopeful this
    fishery will soon come out from under the court's control, I am pleased
    to see the Agency has requested $3.0 million to address the need for
    additional observer coverage for this fishery.
        NOAA also requested additional funding for bycatch reduction
    measures including gear research and testing. Bycatch is a national
    concern and any actions taken to reduce its occurrence will be well
    received. It is important that this research be conducted cooperatively
    with industry.
        NOAA's budget also includes an increase of $12.5 million to
    modernize and expand the scope of fisheries research and management
    capabilities. Included in this increase are funds for much needed stock
    assessments.
        After reviewing the budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I
    am in agreement with the funding levels request for many accounts. For
    instance, just last week, the National Wildlife Refuge System
    celebrated its 100th birthday. I strongly support the President's
    request to allocate $292 million for refuge operations and $109 million
    for refuge maintenance which are both historic levels. This money will
    be spent to revitalize the system and to pay down the capital and
    equipment maintenance backlog.
        Second, I support the request of $103.6 million for fisheries. In
    particular, there is a renewed emphasis on repairing and modernizing
    some of our Federal fish hatcheries. These hatcheries provide some $5
    billion dollars worth of fish which are used for recovery, restoration,
    mitigation and stocking activities.
        Third, the President has asked for $50 million for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund. This Fund has protected millions
    of acres of essential wetland habitat in Canada, Mexico and the United
    States. Just last year, we reauthorized this effective program and this
    money is a sound investment of our tax dollars.
        Fourth, I fully concur with the request of $7 million for the
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund. In fact, we should do more for
    these species and I support the World Wildlife Fund's efforts to
    allocate $14 million for African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinos,
    tigers, great apes and neotropical migratory birds. There is no
    question that these funds are critical to the long-term survival of
    these flagship species.
        From a local perspective, I strongly support the $1.1 million for
    land acquisition for the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and
    $800,000 for nutria eradication in the State of Maryland.
        Finally, I would support enhanced funding for the Endangered
    Species Account, Land Acquisition and the National Wildlife Refuge
    Fund.
        I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I
    recognize the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.

     STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to apologize
    because I have laryngitis, so I don't know how well you can
    hear me.
        But I wanted to say that I think we would lose a great part
    of ourselves as a nation if we were to allow our remaining
    wilderness to be destroyed and that this statement is certainly
    as true today as it was 100 years ago, but now we face much
    greater challenges in conserving and protecting those
    wildlands.
        Much of the responsibility for preserving our fish and
    wildlife heritage falls to the wide-ranging programs and
    activities conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is
    why I must state my disappointment in the Administration's
    request for both agencies in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget.
        Important authorized programs administered by Fish and
    Wildlife Service remain underfunded and neglected in order to
    fund this administration's own initiatives. Funds that should
    be devoted to fully supporting State and tribal wildlife
    grants, land acquisition, or the backlog in ESA critical
    habitat designations continue to be shifted away to support
    unauthorized grant programs. Even in a year when we are
    celebrating the centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System, this year's budget request hardly comes close to the
    $700 million recommended by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement to address the growing operations and maintenance
    backlog afflicting the Refuge System.
        I was equally disappointed in reading through NOAA's
    proposed budget. This budget represents a broad retreat from
    recent significant increases in funding for NOAA's ocean,
    coastal, and fisheries accounts and I question the priorities
    and the deceptive rationale for this shift in funding to other
    dry-side programs in NOAA.
        For example, the Administration portrays its $57 million
    request for Sea Grant as an increase of $57 million when it is
    actually a $3 million cut from the Fiscal Year 2003
    appropriation of $60 million. This type of budget sleight of
    hand is unwarranted and the deception springs from the fact
    that the Administration proposed transferring the National Sea
    Grant program to the National Science Foundation in last year's
    proposed budget. Sea Grant belongs under the auspices of NOAA,
    and furthermore, it is a valuable program that needs and
    deserves significant funding increases, and I know some of you
    realize that I know that firsthand because I was a Sea Grant
    specialist at one time, working as a coastal lawyer for Sea
    Grant.
        Cuts to other important NOAA programs, such as harmful
    algal bloom research, coastal monitoring, fisheries data
    acquisition, and oil spill response and restoration also
    concern me, as do level funding requests to support State
    grants under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow these programs to
    be shortchanged. As we await the release of the National Ocean
    Commission and Pew Ocean Commission's reports later this year,
    Congress should be prepared to address the priorities that the
    reports have identified. Slashing funding for research and
    monitoring is a regressive approach to dealing with the
    fisheries and wildlife issues that face this nation.
        These budget requests require our careful consideration and
    oversight. I am willing to work with you, obviously, Mr.
    Chairman, and other members of this Subcommittee to clearly
    understand the implications of the budget and to engage the
    Administration toward some thoughtful reconsideration, and I
    hope that we can look at the budget and this hearing in that
    regard.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for the voice.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Ranking Democrat,
          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been said that we would lose a
    great part of ourselves as a nation if we were to allow our remaining
    wilderness to be destroyed.
        This statement is certainly as true today as it was one hundred
    years ago, although now we face much greater challenges in conserving
    and protecting those wild lands.
        Much of the responsibility for preserving our fish and wildlife
    heritage falls to the wide-ranging programs and activities conducted by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration.
        This is why I must state my disappointment in the Administration's
    requests for both agencies in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget.
        Important authorized programs administered by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service remain under-funded and neglected in order to fund this
    administration's own initiatives. Funds that should be devoted to fully
    supporting State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, land acquisition, or the
    backlog in ESA critical habitat designations continue to be shifted
    away to support unauthorized grant programs.
        Even in a year when we are celebrating the centennial of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System, this year's budget request hardly
    comes close to the $700 million recommended by the Cooperative Alliance
    for Refuge Enhancement to address the growing operations and
    maintenance backlog afflicting the Refuge System.
        I was equally disappointed in reading through NOAA's proposed
    budget. This budget represents a broad retreat from recent significant
    increases in funding for NOAA's ocean, coastal and fisheries accounts,
    and I question the priorities and deceptive rationale for this shift in
    funding to other ``dry-side'' programs in NOAA.
        For example, the Administration portrays its $57 million request
    for Sea Grant as an INCREASE of $57 million when it is actually a $3
    million CUT from the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriation of $60 million.
    This type of budget sleight of hand is unwarranted, and the deception
    springs from the fact that the Administration proposed transferring the
    National Sea Grant Program to the National Science Foundation in last
    year's proposed budget. Sea Grant belongs under the auspices of NOAA,
    and furthermore, it is a valuable program that needs and deserves
    significant funding increases.
        Cuts to other important NOAA programs, such as harmful algal bloom
    research, coastal monitoring, fisheries data acquisition and oil spill
    response and restoration also concern me, as do level funding requests
    to support State grants under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
        In closing Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow these programs to be
    shortchanged. As we await the release of the National Ocean Commission
    and Pew Ocean Commission's Reports later this year, Congress should be
    preparing to address the priorities that the Reports have identified.
    Slashing funding for research and monitoring is a regressive approach
    to dealing with the fisheries and wildlife issues that face this
    nation.
        These budget requests require our careful consideration and
    oversight. I am willing to work with you and the other members of this
    Committee to clearly understand their implications and to engage the
    Administration towards some thoughtful reconsideration. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Ortiz, opening statement?

      STATEMENT OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Ortiz. Maybe I can give my time to my big friend. He's
    bigger than I am, Mr. Chairman, so I don't know if he wants to
    say something.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome all our
    witnesses today to this hearing and I thank you for holding
    this hearing today, Mr. Chairman. There are a couple of things
    that concern me greatly and I have a few comments and questions
    that I would like to address when appropriate concerning my
    district and the whole Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp industry.
        In addition, while NOAA is an important player in the
    future of the shrimp industry, it is my hope that we can have a
    hearing soon on the state of the industry and how agency
    regulators are negatively impacting the shrimp personnel at the
    fisheries.
        Recently, the National Marine Fisheries Service put out a
    new regulation which mandates for larger, more expensive turtle
    excluder devices, known as TEDs, that will cost the fisheries
    industry thousands of dollars to install, which will further
    impact the vessels.
        Mr. Secretary, if I recall correctly, when the turtle was
    on the brink of extinction, it was the seafood industry working
    in conjunction with Fish and Wildlife that provided the most
    funding and worked hard to ensure this did not happen.
    Currently, there are efforts in South Texas and Mexico, Rancho
    Nuevo, where everyone is working together to keep the turtles
    off the endangered species list.
        What concerns me is that after the industry has worked in a
    good-faith effort, NMFS still continues to penalize them, and I
    think this is very, very unfair, specifically now that we are
    being dumped with tons and tons and tons of shrimp from other
    countries into the United States. They don't have the same
    regulations we have. They don't have turtle excluder devices.
    They don't have OSHA. This is an industry, Mr. Chairman, that
    is being on the verge of extinction.
        So when the proper time comes, Mr. Chairman, I will ask
    some questions, but I know that if I am correct, and I stand to
    be corrected, I understand that some of these devices will cost
    $2,000 to $3,000 per boat. And now when you try and go to the
    gas pump and try to fill up the tank, you see that gasoline and
    the energy prices are going out of sight. When the proper time
    comes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions, and
    thank you for your indulgence.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?

    STATEMENT OF ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
                             AMERICAN SAMOA

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my
    colleague from Texas in expressing his concerns about some of
    the budgetary cuts that have been given to the programs that
    certainly are of interest to his constituents in his district.
        My particular interest, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we
    worked very hard last Congress to increase the authorization of
    the National Sea Grant program, and I notice here on the
    syllabus that the Administration does not have any intention of
    putting not one red cent in addition to the authorization that
    we had worked so hard in providing this program, which I
    believe should be right in conjunction with the Land Grant
    program.
        Here we expend almost $1 billion a year for the Land Grant,
    which I have no problem with. But the fact that to me it seems,
    Mr. Chairman, the Sea Grant program is just as important,
    especially serving the millions and millions of people
    throughout the country, especially among the coastal States,
    and somehow this administration does not view the Sea Grant
    program as an important part of our country's interest.
        I am looking forward to hearing our friends and their
    testimony and seeing where we need to go from there.
        I join also my leader, our Ranking Member from New Jersey,
    Mr. Pallone, for his concerns and the statement that he has
    brought forth before our Committee and certainly look forward
    to hearing from our friends on the budgetary request for Fiscal
    Year 2004. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Committee
    will work with you on the Sea Grant issue, seeing that it is an
    important program that implements the science on the ground,
    and Mr. Ortiz, we certainly will work with you on the shrimp
    issue as we move through this Congress.
        Mr. Lautenbacher, Admiral, you may begin, sir.

      STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., U.S.
        NAVY (RET.), UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE,
         NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of
    the Subcommittee, and staff. It is a great honor to appear
    before you. I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
    NOAA budget and to ask for your support for the programs that
    we are attempting to enact this year.
        The Administration's request for NOAA this year is $3.326
    billion. That is a small amount of money when you consider the
    broad scope of responsibilities that the agency has to cover.
    When you bounce that against the enacted bill, which, I might
    mention, just came out recently, in the last month or so, it is
    about a 1-percent change. It is about $45 million difference.
    So we are about the same level as was enacted by Congress in
    this omnibus bill that we had at the end of February.
        We have essentially within that $3 billion about $284
    million of changes, so those are the--and you mentioned some of
    them in your opening statement, so that is the churn. It is
    about 10 percent of that total amount that we are talking about
    now in terms of priorities that we need to deal with.
        In those changes, I would like to make a strong pitch for
    support from the Committee for our people. The scientific core
    that makes up NOAA is extremely important to our country. This
    is the essence of ocean and atmospheric science for this entire
    nation. As I like to point out, we are about the size of one
    Army light division, but this is the only division we have in
    this whole work and we are deployed platoon by platoon, from
    Maine to American Samoa to Key West and Point Barrow. So this
    is a big operation.
        People are essential. I am asking for adjustments to base
    to pay our people the authorized pay raises that Congress
    approved of 4 percent and then 2 percent. That is about $52
    million. I think it is critical that we keep this scientific
    cadre together and working. It is not something that can be
    rebuilt quickly if it gets torn down. That is my No. 1
    priority, and again, people are the heart and soul of NOAA
    operations.
        The budget this year was submitted in terms of six themes.
    The first piece is the infrastructure, maintenance, safety, and
    human capital, of which I just mentioned the biggest piece is
    paying our people to do the important work that they do.
    Homeland security is the next topic, which is extremely
    important. Climate, change, a big issue this year politically,
    as well as scientifically. Ecosystem forecasting and
    management, which is an area that you're all very concerned
    about. Energy and commerce and environmental monitoring and
    prediction. Let me just mention a couple of the things that I
    think are important so we have more time for questions.
        I have already mentioned the maintenance, safety, and human
    capital. The biggest piece of that is paying our people the
    authorized pay raises.
        In homeland security, we have a small amount of money, but
    one program that I think is worthwhile mentioning is the
    extension of NOAA weather radio to an all hazards system
    nationally. This will automate emergency managers' input into a
    system which, of course, you know of NOAA weather radio's
    alarm. Every house that they are in, they are essentially a
    built-in alarm clock for any kind of emergency that might come
    up, not just weather.
        So this initiative of roughly $5 million would take a
    system that reaches--has the potential to reach 95 percent of
    the population of the United States. It would take any
    emergency actions that a local or regional manager might have
    concern for the local population, such as chemical spills,
    fires, as well as weather, and within 2 minutes get it out to
    all the people who have these NOAA weather radios. It is a
    great step forward. Right now, it takes seven to 8 minutes
    under good circumstances to do it manually through this system.
        In ecosystem forecasting and management, which is very
    important, as I just heard from the opening statements, NOAA is
    a large regulatory agency as well as environmental agency and
    there are modest increases in this area. I will mention that
    Sea Grant is back in, as was mentioned, and I think it is
    important that it is back in NOAA and I am pleased to be able
    to report that the Administration has put this back in a NOAA
    program versus the NSF program.
        We also have some modest increases in there which the
    Chairman mentioned in terms of trying to build our base of
    fisheries science and fisheries management, money for
    observers. We have some court ordered coverage in New England
    that we must cover which is in this budget. We have $13.5
    million for the Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion,
    which goes to salmon recovery in the Northwest. We have, as
    mentioned, $2.8 million for reducing bycatch. Bycatch is a huge
    issue that we need to work for.
        And in terms of the regulatory streamlining, we have added
    money to try to make it better and easier for the public, $1.5
    million additional for regulatory streamlining. I might mention
    that our court cases recently dipped below 100, so we are doing
    better in terms of consistency and winning some of the cases
    that are coming up to us and eliminating some others from
    coming up.
        In energy and commerce, which is very important, the
    mapping and charting that was mentioned, we have an increase
    for our electronic navigation charts. We are looking to build
    that coverage completely by Fiscal Year 2008, and it would be
    about 1,000 charts that would be maintained in electronic
    navigation. I might add that we have had a great success in
    delivering them electronically over the Internet. This last
    month, in February, we had the largest, something like 17,000
    charts were delivered electronically over the Internet, free of
    charge to users, and so that is a growing business and a
    growing market for us and it is working out very well.
        In energy and commerce, we are also asking for an increase
    to keep our National Water Level Observer Network up. We are
    grateful for the increases that we received in years past. We
    are up to about a 74 percent effectiveness level. We need to
    get higher to be able to produce the kinds of port management,
    port modeling schemes in order to ensure that our commerce
    comes in and out of our harbors as it should, safely and
    efficiently.
        We have increased the money for our vessel time charter
    program to ensure that we can cover the requirements in the
    Gulf and Alaska, as well.
        I will just mention the environmental monitoring
    prediction, which is what most of you refer to as the dry side.
    It continues to try to build the programs that are essential to
    everyone, wet side and dry side, and those are the observing
    platforms. The satellites that we have are the foundation of
    everything we do. And I might add, we are using more and more
    of that data to work in ecosystem management. It allows us to
    do things such as pinpoint harmful algal blooms, different
    types of sediment activity that is happening in coasts. So
    there will be more and more usefulness from satellite coverage
    for our coasts and ecosystems in the years to come if we stay
    on course with some of those programs.
        With that, I will close my formal remarks. Again, I
    appreciate very much the support of this Committee and the
    members and the staff. I look forward to working with you as we
    move through the budget 2004 budget process, and again, it is a
    delight to be here today. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Lautenbacher follows:]

     Statement of Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce
      for Oceans and Atmosphere, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), National
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for this
    opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
    Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        NOAA activities and operations contribute to the Nation's economic
    and environmental health. This budget request allows us to provide
    essential support to the programs that enhance our scientific
    understanding of the oceans and atmosphere, in order to help sustain
    America's environmental health and economic vitality.
        NOAA is at the forefront of many of this Nation's most critical
    issues from weather forecasting to fisheries management, from safe
    navigation to coastal services and from environmental observations
    through NOAA's satellites to climate research and ocean exploration.
        The Administration requests $3.326 billion for these people,
    products and services for Fiscal Year 2004. This represents a very
    modest total increase of $45.0 million, only about 1.4% more than the
    fiscal year 03 enacted amount. It targets essentials, such as $284.2
    million in program changes of which $52.0 million are adjustments to
    base (ATBs), or mandatory cost increases, which are mostly inflationary
    costs related to salaries for NOAA employees.
        This budget request focuses on NOAA's core responsibilities: severe
    weather prediction; long- term climate and environmental trends;
    sustaining healthy marine habitats, robust ecosystems and coastal
    environments;, and managing safety and environmental compliance issues
    impacting our people. People are NOAA's top resource, the heart and
    soul of NOAA operations. It is the people who work for NOAA who allow
    us to remain a premier oceanic and atmospheric science, service &
    stewardship agency.
        The Fiscal Year 2004 NOAA budget request is organized slightly
    differently than the NOAA budget requests that have been presented to
    Capitol Hill in past years. I believe that looking at the NOAA
    organization and programs through a thematic matrix yields a more
    complete view of the interrelationship of NOAA programs and project
    teams that cut across the traditional NOAA product and service lines.
    Organizing the budget in this manner demonstrates NOAA's commitment to
    addressing critical environmental issues in a multi-disciplinary
    manner. The six themes included in the Fiscal Year 2004 NOAA budget
    are: Infrastructure, Maintenance, Safety & Human Capital; Homeland
    Security; Climate Change, Research, Observations & Services; Ecosystem
    Forecasting & Management; Energy & Commerce; and Environmental
    Monitoring & Prediction. I would like to briefly address what is
    covered under each theme.

    Infrastructure, Maintenance, Safety & Human Capital ($248.4M, $62.0M
            increase)
        The full $52.0 million requested for adjustments to base (ATBs)
    appears in this theme. This is the most basic, fundamentally important,
    investment in the infrastructure category. It is the funding necessary
    to support NOAA's people, so they can continue to improve service and
    product delivery to carry out NOAA's mission. This figure includes the
    annualization of the 4.1% pay raise in Fiscal Year 2003, the 2% pay
    raise requested in Fiscal Year 2004, and the funds necessary to
    increase the NOAA Corps and improve ship crew training.
        The funds requested in this category will also assist NOAA in
    beginning to implement agency-wide management improvements. This
    includes addressing remediation projects to improve environmental
    safety and compliance at NOAA facilities, and participating in the e-
    gov initiatives that make NOAA more accessible to the American public.
    Funding is also requested for operation and maintenance of the NOAA
    Ship FAIRWEATHER, weather forecast office and housing construction in
    Alaska and the Pacific Region, the $10.4 million NOAA share in the cost
    of the Center for Weather and Climate Prediction construction and the
    NOAA Satellite Operations Facility in Suitland, Maryland.
        This theme also includes investment in health and safety through
    improvements and upgrades in NOAA's facilities and equipment, such as
    the NOAA P-3 ``hurricane hunter'' aircraft. An investment of $1.7
    million this year is requested to upgrade the navigational system of
    this advanced atmospheric and environmental platform used for hurricane
    research.
        Among all the items included in this theme, the most important
    component of NOAA activities is the people who generate our products
    and services. Retaining and appropriately compensating the people at
    NOAA who are working to help us reach our goal of improving services
    delivery is crucial to attaining this goal. As you are aware, last year
    NOAA underwent an Agency- wide realignment to help move NOAA into a
    more efficient mode of operations. The Program Review Team (PRT) posed
    3 questions to the NOAA staff, the answers to which formed the core of
    the PRT report and recommendations:
        Is NOAA's organization aligned with its current missions, now and
    for the future?
        Are NOAA's resources properly aligned with requirements?
        Is NOAA doing things as efficiently as possible?
        The goals of the PRT exercise were to improve NOAA business
    practices, including grant management and facilities planning, and to
    move towards becoming a citizen-centered, results-oriented, market
    based organization. This effort has resulted in several management
    improvements just in the last year, including the creation of the
    Planning, Programming and Integration (PPI) office, and establishing
    official matrix management teams for the Coral Reef, Habitat
    Restoration, Ocean Exploration and Climate programs. NOAA is also
    moving towards integrating program budgeting and performance,
    separating fisheries science and regulation, and strengthening NOAA
    administrative services by implementing Activity Based Costing (ABC),
    and Business Management Fund Development.

    Homeland Security and Related Programs ($65.1M, $7.7M increase)
        The investments in this area focus on existing NOAA products and
    science which can be utilized for Homeland Security. Priorities are on
    the ``first responders,'' which enable NOAA technology to be accessed
    and used by local, state, and Federal emergency managers. The funding
    provided under this theme provides critical infrastructure and enhanced
    security to current NOAA facilities.
        For first responders, NOAA is requesting $5.5 million to support a
    scaled upgrade of the current NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) network to an
    All Hazards Warning Network for civil emergency messages. The existing
    NWR network provides the most robust government-owned dissemination
    infrastructure capable of meeting the all-hazard dissemination
    requirements. This investment will decrease the time to disseminate
    civil emergency messages from an average of 7 minutes to 2 minutes.
    This request is a one-time cost. The funds will allow NOAA to modify
    existing Advance Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
    communications software to allow emergency managers to directly
    transmit a civil emergency message over secure lines. This modification
    will have immediate, nationwide impact because NWR is located in every
    state, linked to the Emergency Broadcast System, and NOAA weather radio
    receivers are widely available in the commercial market.
        The security and safety of NOAA facilities is an equally important
    element of this budget theme. $2.2 million is requested in the Fiscal
    Year 2004 budget for emergency preparedness and safety to improve the
    overall physical security at National Weather Service (NWS) facilities
    to preclude unauthorized individuals from entering and tampering with
    NOAA property. This investment will provide for alarm or monitoring
    systems at 92 weather forecast offices and national centers, as well as
    electronic or cipher door locks at 149 weather forecast offices or
    national centers. These small improvements will go a long way towards
    improving the safety and security of the physical workplaces of NOAA
    employees across the country.

    Climate Change, Research, Observations & Services ($295.5M, $16.9M
            increase)
        NOAA is requesting a $16.9 million increase for our climate
    research activities, which is just a portion of the government-wide
    $185 million Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). This funding
    will allow NOAA to complete 29 stations out of a network of 36
    atmospheric vertical profiling stations around North America, and begin
    producing improved decision support tools, including regional carbon
    maps. This theme also includes funding for the increased computing
    needs at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton,
    New Jersey, and further development of the global ocean observing
    system to meet long-term observational requirements of operational
    forecast centers, research programs, and major scientific assessments.
    This initiative builds on the Fiscal Year 2003 request, focusing on the
    effective use of scientific knowledge in climate policy and management
    decisions to reduce uncertainties in climate science and develop
    research and operational climate products based on science. This
    strategy is aligned with National Academy of Science recommendations,
    and takes operational climate forecast capabilities to a 24x7 world.
    Climate Symposium Event
        From December 3-5, 2002, under the leadership of James R. Mahoney,
    Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA and 12
    other U.S. Government Agencies hosted a major workshop in Washington,
    D.C. under the umbrella of the newly formed U.S. Climate Change Science
    Program (CCSP). The CCSP incorporates both the U.S. Global Climate
    Change Research Program and the Climate Change Research Initiative. The
    workshop responded to the President's initiative to make the U.S.
    global change and climate change science programs more objective,
    sensitive to uncertainties and open for public debate. The workshop
    specifically focused on reviewing the CCSP's draft strategic plan for
    climate change and global change studies, with an emphasis on
    developing short-term (two- to four-year) products to support climate
    change policy and resource management decision-making. The Fiscal Year
    2003 budget for the CCSP is approximately $1.75 billion. The NOAA
    request for CCRI for Fiscal Year 2004 is $41.6 million, out of a
    government wide $185 million.

    NOAA's Climate Services Program
        The nation needs accurate, comprehensive and timely information
    about climate variability and trends, climate change and climate
    uncertainties. NOAA's Climate Services Program is an integrated
    endeavor designed to develop and deliver climate information, thereby
    providing an improved basis for climate-related decision-making. NOAA's
    Climate Services Program will be managed in a new way within the
    organization. NOAA has instituted a new Climate Office. The new NOAA
    Climate Office will consist of representatives from each of the NOAA
    Line Offices (NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data and
    Information Service (NESDIS), NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS), NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA National Weather
    Service (NWS) and NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
    (OAR)) and will focus on all NOAA climate programs. This is in contrast
    with the current NOAA Climate Observations and Services Program office,
    which primarily focuses on new climate funding and only has
    representatives from OAR, NWS and NESDIS. The new NOAA Climate Office
    will work on NOAA's climate programs, as well as supporting NOAA's
    efforts in the interagency Climate Change Science Program. It will be
    established in accordance with the matrix management principles
    outlined in the Program Review Report (while the existing Climate
    Observations and Services Program office will form the basis of the new
    NOAA Climate Change and Variability Office and will continue to be
    hosted by OAR).
        One of NOAA's top strategic goals in this area is to understand and
    enhance society's adaptation to climate variability and change. NOAA
    has initiated a new Climate Services Program in an effort to coordinate
    climate activities across all NOAA line offices. NOAA is requesting
    $2.0 million to help improve our understanding of how climate change
    affects marine and coastal ecosystems in the Bering Sea and Gulf of
    Alaska. The waters of Alaska are the most productive fisheries in the
    world and are home to a wide variety of ecosystems. While NOAA is aware
    of changes occurring in the climate, we currently lack comprehensive
    understanding of how these processes can effect biological and other
    changes in marine ecosystems. The study of the effects of climate
    changes upon fisheries, marine mammals and birds, ocean temperatures
    and currents, and other impacted areas is an important task to ensure
    that the fisheries remain productive in the 21st century. These funds
    will be used to develop and implement models to understand these
    dynamics and will fund long-term observations and studies to correlate
    the relationships between climate and changes in marine ecosystems.
    Researchers in the Northwest Climate Impacts Group interact with
    stakeholders to develop and test products based on stakeholder's
    needs--linking climate and weather information to marine ecosystems
    (chiefly Pacific salmon); hydrology and water resources (including
    hydropower, forest resources), coastal resources; and health.
        NOAA's success in providing integrated climate services to the
    nation can be attributed to NOAA's unified strategy for transitioning
    research into systematic and sustained outreach. Specifically, NOAA's
    Climate Services Program will benefit from the participation of several
        NOAA line offices: NWS, NESDIS, and OAR are the primary producers
    of climate information within NOAA. It is also important to acknowledge
    the role of the NOAA Officer Corps. The NOAA Corps operates a fleet of
    research vessels and aircraft that directly contribute to and support
    these line offices with implementing their climate research,
    observations and service activities.

    NOAA Climate Partnerships, Education, and Outreach Efforts
        NOAA maintains partnerships with universities, private industry,
    other U.S. agencies, nations and international bodies to observe and
    monitor the climate, further scientific knowledge, and make climate
    assessments/predictions. NOAA also works closely with private sector
    partners to develop products to meet stakeholders' needs and to ensure
    that the data and information delivered are readily understood and can
    be used to develop value-added tailored products and services for
    business, industry and the public.
        Climate is a key issue for NOAA and its strategic goals for the
    future. From observations to research to operational product delivery,
    NOAA maintains significant involvement in helping the nation and the
    world respond to the impacts of climate variability and change. NOAA
    manages several global data bases--for meteorology, oceanography, solid
    earth geophysics, and solarterrestrial sciences. From these sources,
    NOAA develops and provides environmental data and information products
    and services. NOAA gathers global data about the oceans, Earth, air,
    space, and sun and their interactions to describe and predict the state
    of the physical environment.
        The President's CCRI led to the creation of a new interagency
    framework to enhance coordination of Federal resources and research
    activities. Under this framework, thirteen Federal agencies are working
    together under the leadership of a Cabinet-level committee on climate
    change to improve the value of U.S. Climate Change research. Even in
    this time of difficult budget decisions, the President is committed to
    fully funding climate research so that we can continue to reduce the
    uncertainties associated with climate change.

    Ecosystem Forecasting & Management ($1,017.1M, $3.47M decrease)
        NOAA is the largest regulatory agency within the Department of
    Commerce. Most NOAA regulatory functions and activities are captured
    under this budget theme. Due to reductions for the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty and other programs, there is a net reduction in the Ecosystem
    Forecasting theme of $3.4 million. Absent reductions, however, the net
    increase is $18.6 million. The increases in this theme involves
    investments in rebuilding fisheries, and conserving and restoring
    living marine resources and habitats. This theme focuses on enhancing
    the understanding of the physical, chemical and biological components
    of ocean and coastal ecosystems by supporting research and prediction
    of impacts of environmental factors on the distribution and fate of
    species and their habitats. Another important activity carried out
    under this theme is satisfying immediate legal and regulatory
    requirements of resource stewardship, including Section 7 consultations
    under the Endangered Species Act, Northeast Groundfish observers,
    regulatory streamlining, socioeconomic capacity and management of the
    Columbia River Biological Opinion process. This area also includes a
    reduction of $39.9 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty for which all
    U.S. obligations have been met.
        Research initiated under this theme includes studying the influence
    of climate change on the stewardship of coastal and marine ecosystems,
    and the scientific basis for management of fisheries to rebuild
    fisheries and recover protected species. Specifically, as I mentioned
    earlier, this theme includes $2.0 million for improving the
    understanding and prediction of climate change on major U.S. marine and
    coastal ecosystems in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska.
        Funding is included to modernize and expand stock assessments.
    Funds will allow for research days at sea which will be used to improve
    the comprehensiveness, timeliness, quality and communication of state-
    of-the-art assessments to NOAA Fisheries and the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils. The resulting assessments will be of higher
    quality and more frequency, which reduces the uncertainty in choosing
    and monitoring rebuilding and management policies. This improvement in
    the scientific basis for mangement will raise the confidence and
    certainty of both fishery managers and the industry that our management
    strategies are necessary and sufficient to return the greatest benefits
    to the nation.
        $4.4 million is also requested in the Protected Resources
    Conservation and Management line item, including 10 FTEs for Section 7
    consultation activities. This new funding will help NOAA meet the
    court-ordered deadlines to conduct consultations on pesticides with the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
        There is also $6.3 million included in this theme that will be used
    to increase the number of New England Groundfish observers to meet the
    court ordered level of 5% observer coverage in the region.
        The $13.5 million requested for the Federal Columbia River Power
    System Biological Opinion (Columbia River BiOp), and Basin-wide
    Recovery Strategy will be used to ensure that management activities
    necessary for this program are undertaken. This includes allowing NOAA
    fisheries to promote subbasin planning, enhance recovery planning, and
    review passage and screening enhancements in priority watersheds.
        The $2.8 million requested for reducing bycatch will be used to
    support approximately 2,000 days at sea for observers. These days at
    sea will be used to enhance and coordinate technical expertise to
    respond to bycatch issues, including examining existing bycatch
    reduction methods, evaluating their effectiveness, and designing and
    testing new methods. These additional funds would complement existing
    marine mammal efforts and the provisions of the Administration's
    legislative proposal for the Marine Mammal Protection Act to reduce
    mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial
    fishing. These efforts include the collection of data to assess the
    impact of fishery mortality on marine mammals and to evaluate and
    develop new fishing gear or practices.
        This theme also includes $1.5 million for regulatory streamlining
    activities, to improve NOAA's ability to administer the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other regulatory collection
    activities through the development of an information technology (IT)
    system.

    Energy & Commerce ($116.0M, $17.9 M increase)
        This theme includes a $17.9 million investment in the safety and
    productivity of our nation's waterways and harbors which will help
    sustain our economy by increasing the levels of trade and improve our
    abilities in forecasting regional climate and temperature variations
    which will serve to improve power forecasting and result in savings for
    the power industry and other public groups.
        This theme also incorporates $1.2 million to support our High
    Impact Weather investment. This investment enhances the modernization
    of the NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Observer
    Network, which provides the nation with a network of state-of-the-art
    measurement, monitoring, and communication equipment for surface
    weather data collection. This includes the modernization of 307
    Cooperative Observers Program (COOP) stations in New England.
        Also included are funds to build and maintain an additional 100
    electronic navigational charts (ENC) to provide contiguous coverage of
    the Gulf of Mexico and the east coast of the United States. This will
    go a long way towards helping us achieve our goal of expanding the ENC
    inventory to a total of 550 by 2006, just over half the 1000 ENCs
    required to achieve full coverage of all U.S. waters.
        Another element of this theme is the $7.9 million investment for
    mapping and charting activities and the development of additional
    forecast model systems for key ports and bays to promote the safe and
    efficient transit of cargo through our waterways. This will provide
    full three-dimensional coverage of a commercial port for water levels,
    current fields, salinity and water temperature and help measure under-
    keel ship clearances.
        The $4.4 million for a Vessel Time Charter to expand our
    hydrographic surveying capacity is also included in this theme. The
    funds requested for this activity in Fiscal Year 2004 build on the
    request from Fiscal Year 2003, allowing the vessel to operate in both
    the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, collecting data on an additional 550
    square nautical miles. Using both government and private resources to
    collect this data will allow NOAA to accomplish this goal efficiently
    in Fiscal Year 2004.
        Another system that requires upgrades is the National Water Level
    Observation Network (NWLON), which is over 20 years old. The requested
    $1.5 million for NWLON will be used to repair these ailing stations,
    which provide data used for nautical charting, real-time navigation,
    hazardous material response efforts, and tsunami and storm surge
    warnings, to name a few uses.

    Environmental Monitoring & Prediction ($1,600.6M, $183.3M increase)
        This theme is organized around two components-observing platforms
    and sustaining current capabilities. Environmental Monitoring and
    Prediction includes a $13.5 million investment by the Agency (not
    including Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES),
    Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) and the National Polar
    Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (NPOESS)) to support
    technological advancements in NOAA's severe weather prediction efforts.
    This theme includes data collection activities on the status and health
    of the ecosystem. This area also covers the maintenance of the
    infrastructure needed to ensure basic operations and safety of NOAA
    employees, and incorporates and expands NOAA's satellite monitoring and
    in situ observations. The demand for these types of NOAA products and
    services is expected to rise significantly over the next several years,
    particularly in the key areas of Homeland Security and Climate Change.
        In light of the recent tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia,
    as Deputy Secretary Bodman noted in his testimony before the House
    Science Committee on February 13, I would like to remind the Committee
    that NASA and NOAA have a long history as partners in the development
    of our environmental satellite systems. As part of our routine support
    to the NASA shuttle program and satellite launches, NESDIS and NWS
    provide specialized services, including space-based observations and
    weather forecasts. At the time of the accident, NWS transmitted
    emergency broadcasts in Texas and Louisiana via the NOAA Weather Radio
    (NWR) network.
        The Fiscal Year 2004 request for the polar-orbiting and
    geostationary satellites ensures the simultaneous operation of existing
    satellite series while supporting planned critical path acquisition
    activities for future systems. These data are used to predict
    hurricanes and other types of severe weather, support search and rescue
    operations, provide global monitoring and climate assessment and
    prediction, and monitor significant events such as volcanic eruptions,
    wildfires and oil spills.
        The bulk of the funding under this theme will be used to support
    NOAA's observing platforms. This includes a $107.3 million net increase
    for post launch requirements for GOES I-M, the continued procurement of
    the GOES- N series satellites, instruments, ground systems and systems
    support necessary to maintain the continuity of geostationary
    operations, as well as planning and development of the GOES-R series of
    satellites and instruments. GOES-R will significantly improve weather
    forecasting as well as homeland security. To support the POES and
    NPOESS programs, NOAA has requested a $70.6 million net increase in the
    Fiscal Year 2004 budget. The NPOESS program will continue the space-
    based climate record, as well as significantly improving weather
    forecasting and homeland security. The satellites supported by NESDIS
    are used by NWS, NOS, NMFS and OAR to support their weather, climate
    and navigation safety missions.
        A relatively small $2.0 million of the funding requested under this
    theme is requested to add sensors to the NOAA's Coastal Global
    Observing System to provide definitive information on the effects of
    the changing climate on coastal communities in the United States, and
    to improve ocean condition forecasts that adversely affect coastline
    erosion. The funds will be used to add ocean instrumentation for
    surface salinity, water temperature and currents to all the existing
    buoys and coastal marine stations operated by the National Buoy Data
    Center (NDBC). It adds 15 moored buoys and 15 coastal marine (CMAN)
    units in areas where data collection buoys are sparse.
        This theme also includes $1.3 million in funding requested to
    sustain the operations of the international research program known as
    THORpex, which stands for The Observing Research and Predictability
    Experiment. THORpex seeks to gain a better understanding of the global
    impact of weather predictability, with the goal of improving our 3 day
    forecast accuracy to that of our current 2 day forecast, and producing
    reliable forecasts up to 14 days in advance. This investment will be in
    new technologies and improving our data assimilation and numerical
    weather prediction capability.
        An additional $1.3 million is requested under this theme for
    sustaining our flood prediction capability along the Susquehanna River
    in the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The Susquehanna
    is a 444-mile river whose basin extends from Cooperstown, NY, to the
    Chesapeake Bay. It sustains six times the nation's average in flood
    damages per square mile each year. The $1.3 million can be broken down
    as follows: $0.6 million for flood forecast enhancements, $0.5 million
    for the data network and $0.2 million for the Susquehanna River Basin
    Commission for Outreach and Community Assistance.
        We are also asking for $3.6 million to sustain our weather warning
    and forecast services for the Pacific Islands. This will allow NOAA to
    continue providing upper-air and aviation surface observations in the
    Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia
    and the Republic of Palau. These observations are critical to
    accurately forecasting weather events in the Pacific Region.
        Another important element covered by this theme is aircraft
    maintenance. We are requesting $1.5 million for necessary aircraft
    maintenance including manufacturer- required, mid-life inspection of
    our G-IV aircraft used for hurricane surveillance and winter storms
    reconnaissance. $1.6 million is also requested for a replacement
    aircraft to conduct snow surveys. The aircraft currently used for this
    purpose is experiencing an increase in unscheduled maintenance
    downtime, and this aircraft provides critical data as part of our
    airborne snow survey program.
        Another area where we are looking to add funding for a technology
    infusion is for our NWS Telecommunications Gateway. The $2.9 million
    requested for this purpose will be used to reduce time delays for
    disseminating critical hydrometeorological data for NWS national
    centers, weather forecast offices, and other Federal agencies and
    partners that rely on this data for operations. This funding will
    address electric power and facility deficiencies, and be used to
    replace the communications matrix switch, and some enterprise servers
    and front-end processors. The servers and processor replacement
    activity will be ongoing because it is a two-year refresh program.
    These pieces of equipment need to be replaced in order to meet our goal
    of achieving transmit times of less then 10 seconds for watches and
    warnings by 2005. Currently the average delay is between one and two
    minutes. More efficient information technology equipment is the key to
    reducing this transmit time to the required level by 2005. Another area
    that warrants investment is NEXRAD technology deployment. The $3.8
    million requested for this activity will also improve lead times,
    expanding average tornado warning lead times from 11 minutes to 15
    minutes by 2007, and increasing the forecasters' ability to detect
    small tornadoes. This investment will allow NOAA to purchase and deploy
    82 all Open Radar Data Acquisition (ORDA) systems prior to the onset of
    severe-weather season in Fiscal Year 2005, and complete deployment of
    ORDA systems by the end of Fiscal Year 2006. Supporting these programs
    and initiatives will significantly improve NOAA's ability to support
    weather and water, ecosystems, and homeland security programs.
    Other Key Projects/Programs in Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget
        Some of the other key areas of investment in the Fiscal Year 2004
    budget request include funding for our laboratory research programs,
    which provide for continued ocean observations, baseline observatories,
    and climate change assessments. Funding also provides for our SEARCH
    program that focuses on detection of climate change in the Arctic, and
    to continue NOAA's Energy Initiative, which consists of high impact
    weather and air quality activities, including funding for the Joint
    Hydrography Center in New Hampshire. Funding is also provided for
    undersea exploration, research, and technology in both the deep ocean
    and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as well as to maintain our
    fundamental data collection and assimilation for the National Weather
    Service. This type of funding also allows NOAA to continue the vessel
    monitoring system for our enforcement and surveillance activities.

    Conclusion
        NOAA's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget request invests in our priority
    areas: people, climate, energy, homeland security, infrastructure,
    research, science, and services. In this time of tight budgets and
    difficult funding decisions, this budget maintains NOAA on its course
    to realize its full potential as this nation's premier environmental
    science agency. The new thematic budget structure reflects NOAA's
    business approach as an integrated NOAA team which responds to the
    needs our customers and employees have voiced in workshops and
    communications efforts. NOAA is also doing its part to exercise fiscal
    responsibility as stewards of the Nation's trust as well as America's
    coastal and ocean resources. And, in the same way that NOAA is
    responsible for assessing the Nation's climate, we have assessed and
    are improving our management capabilities. NOAA will continue to
    respond to key customers and stakeholders, and will continue to
    leverage its programs and investments by developing those associations
    that most efficiently and economically leverage resources and talent,
    and that most effectively provide the means for successfully
    maintaining NOAA mission requirements. NOAA's budget strongly
    demonstrates the success of performance budgeting, where funding has
    been matched by results. Each request in the Technical Budget includes
    specific goals and descriptions of expected performance factors. NOAA
    Senior Management is now required to report every quarter on a set of
    performance measures that have come to be known as ``The
    Administrator's Metrics.'' This new set of reporting requirements
    reflects NOAA's commitment to ``Management by Fact,'' a philosophy NOAA
    will continue to demonstrate throughout Fiscal Year 2004 and beyond.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA's Fiscal Year 2004
    budget.
        [NOTE: The attachment entitled ``FY2004 NOAA Budget Summary
    Tables'' has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Williams?

     STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE
       SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY
     MARSHALL JONES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Subcommittee. I also appreciate the opportunity to testify
    before you today and report on the Administration's Fiscal Year
    2004 budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Before I discuss the budget request or highlight our
    request, I would like to mention our recent decision to
    downlist gray wolves throughout much of its range. Wolves are
    coming back and their new status highlights our progress toward
    recovering them across their range. Our final rule will give us
    greater management flexibility for most gray wolf populations
    as we work toward removing gray wolf populations from the list
    of endangered and threatened species.
        I would now turn to highlighting a few items in our Fiscal
    Year 2004 budget request, starting with the Endangered Species
    program. The 2004 request is $3 million above the 2003 level.
    An increase of $3.2 million over the 2003 request level is
    required to address the growing listing program litigation-
    driven workload. This additional funding is necessary to
    address listing actions required by court orders or settlement
    agreements.
        Additional high priority recovery actions, including
    immediate actions needed to stabilize critically imperiled
    species and actions that could lead to delisting nearly
    recovered species will be implemented nationwide, with a
    request for $2 million above the President's 2003 budget
    request.
        We request $103.6 million to implement the Fisheries
    Program Vision for the Future, through increased funding for
    hatchery operations and hatchery maintenance and increased
    emphasis on aquatic invasive species. This request will help us
    to do more for aquatic resources and the people who value and
    depend on them through enhanced partnerships, scientific
    integrity, and a balanced approach to conservation.
        Significant funding increases will support high-priority
    needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Last year, the
    President's budget requested the largest increase in the
    system's history to celebrate the Refuge System's centennial
    earlier this month. This year, the Administration request
    builds on that substantial increase with another $25.5 million
    over the 2003 request.
        To date, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program has
    worked with about 28,700 private landowners through voluntary
    partnerships to implement on-the-ground habitat restoration
    projects covering some 360,000 acres across the country. We are
    requesting an additional $9.1 million in the 2004 request to
    increase the program's capability to enter into meaningful
    partnerships resulting in on-the-ground habitat restoration
    accomplishments.
        In addition, we are requesting an additional $1 million
    over the 2003 request to fund our nutria control obligations. A
    $3 million increase for the joint venture program will provide
    a total of $10.4 million, or full funding for that program. As
    of December 2002, partners have contributed approximately $1.5
    billion to protect, restore, or enhance almost five million
    acres of U.S. wetlands, grasslands, forests, and riparian
    habitat.
        Our law enforcement program, we hired nine additional
    wildlife inspectors to interdict and deter the illegal trade in
    protected species. In addition, manatee protection efforts will
    be accelerated in Florida by protecting manatees from boat
    strikes, enforcing speed zones in refuges and sanctuary areas
    with a half-a-million dollar increase.
        The President's 2004 budget continues to support active
    participation on the part of States and other partners in
    resource conservation efforts. To this end, the budget request
    provides $247 million for five service grant programs that
    facilitate State and local conservation efforts. As part of
    this $247 million request, the budget includes $50 million to
    continue the Land Owner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grant
    program.
        We are requesting $86.6 million for the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund, a $60 million request
    which includes $5 million for tribal set-aside for the State
    and Tribal Wildlife Grant program, and we request $50 million
    for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. This fund
    protects and restores wetland ecosystems that serve as habitat
    and resting areas for migratory game and non-game birds and
    supports non-regulatory private-public investments.
        I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. We
    appreciate this Committee's interest and support, and I look
    forward to working with you in the future.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

     Statement of Steven A. Williams, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
                        U.S. Department of the Interior

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify before you today and report on the
    Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        Our budget request for 2004 is almost $2.0 billion, consisting of
    $1.3 billion in current appropriations under the purview of this
    Subcommittee as well as $674.0 million in permanent appropriations.
        The request continues key Administration priorities such as the
    Secretary's continued emphasis on conservation partnerships through a
    revised Cooperative Conservation Initiative that focuses on existing
    successful programs.
        The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife, North American
    Wetlands Joint Venture, Coastal and Refuge Challenge Cost-share
    programs are all included in this year's Cooperative Conservation
    Initiative. The budget provides $15.0 million in increased funding for
    these programs, including $9.0 million for Partners, $3.0 million for
    Joint Ventures and $3.0 million for Refuge Challenge Cost-share.
        Our main operating account--Resource Management--is funded at
    $941.5 million, a net increase of $38.0 million over the 2003 request.
    We note this account is funded at $30.0 million over the recently
    signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
        The request includes $7.0 million for fixed pay and other cost
    increases. The budget also includes a $3.4 million general decrease for
    travel and transportation costs as well as an $8.1 million reduction
    tied to information technology streamlining savings. Last, funding for
    several lower priority projects has been redirected to higher
    priorities.
    President's Management Agenda
        We support the President's Management Agenda and continue to create
    a citizen-centered organization by evaluating and implementing
    strategies to integrate budget and performance management, conduct
    workforce planning, competitively out-source with the private sector,
    expand e-government, and provide greater accountability to the American
    people.
        The Service has worked closely with the Department over the past
    year to develop a more business-like approach to strategic planning and
    the 2004 budget. Substantial new performance information is contained
    in our justifications along with the series of traditional information
    that has supported previous Congressional decision-making on the budget
    request.
        Last, the National Fish Hatchery System and Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program were evaluated under the Administration's Program
    Assessment Rating Tool during the 2004 budget process. I will discuss
    more on the PART process later.
    Fisheries Vision for the Future
        We request $103.6 million, a net increase of $8.8 million over the
    2003 request to implement the Fisheries Program's ``Vision for the
    Future'' through increased funding for hatchery operations and hatchery
    maintenance and increased emphasis on aquatic invasive species. For
    comparative purposes, this level is $3.0 million below the recently
    signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill, largely attributed to unrequested
    projects included in the Omnibus bill.
        Our ``Vision for the Future,'' with the backing of this
    Presidential budget request, will help to do more for aquatic resources
    and the people who value and depend on them through enhanced
    partnerships, scientific integrity, and a balanced approach to
    conservation. This ``Vision'' will help the Service better support the
    sport fishing community, which has historically been one of this
    agency's most valuable and valued partners. It also will help efforts
    to restore imperiled species.
        We seek a total of $58.0 million for the National Fish Hatchery
    System, a net increase of $8.0 million above the 2003 request level.
    The National Fish Hatchery System was one of over 200 programs
    evaluated using the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool
    during the Fiscal Year 2004 budget process. New goals were developed
    consistent with the President's Management Agenda, the Department's
    Draft Strategic Plan, and the Fisheries Vision. This year's increase is
    a direct reflection of the program's shift towards becoming more
    performance oriented.
        $5.0 million will support operations:
         $1.6 million will support an additional 29 priority
    recovery tasks prescribed in approved Recovery Plans in 2004, an
    increase of 11%.
         $2.5 million will implement 32 additional restoration/
    recreation projects to conserve and restore aquatic resources, roughly
    72% of all restoration activities.
         $900,000 will be used to conduct 16 high priority
    projects addressing science and technology objectives supporting
    valuable recreational fisheries and recovery of imperiled species.
        $3.0 million will improve the hatchery system's aging
    infrastructure to good and fair operational conditions to meet fishery
    management and recovery plan requirements. Of this total, $2.5 million
    will be directed toward 16 additional high priority deferred
    maintenance projects. The remaining $500,000 will enable the Service to
    complete Condition Assessments on 75 percent of its field stations in
    2004, and to streamline maintenance reporting and accountability by
    implementing the Service Asset and Maintenance Management System
    (SAMMS).
        An additional $1.0 million will prevent the introduction of aquatic
    invasive species, detect and rapidly respond to aquatic invasive
    species, and control and manage aquatic invasive species such as Asian
    carp in the Mississippi drainage and Asian swamp Eel in the Everglades.
        We also note that while this year's budget focuses on much needed
    increases for the hatchery system, we continue to strongly support
    aquatic habitat needs through a variety of programs. For example, the
    budget continues base funding for fish passage projects, for aquatic
    habitat restoration, and for other projects, some of which will be
    discussed below.

    Partners for Fish and Wildlife
        To date the Partners program has worked with 28,700 private
    landowners through voluntary partnerships to implement on-the-ground
    habitat restoration projects covering 360,000 acres across the country.
        The Partners Program was also one of over 200 programs evaluated
    using the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool during the
    Fiscal Year 2004 budget process. This year's increase is a direct
    reflection of the program's achievement of annual performance goals.
        We are requesting an additional $9.1 million in the 2004 request to
    increase the program's capabilities to enter into meaningful
    partnerships resulting in on-the-ground habitat restoration
    accomplishments.
        For example, the Service will work with the California University
    of Pennsylvania on a landscape-scale habitat restoration program in the
    Buffalo Creek Watershed, Washington County, Pennsylvania and Brooke
    County, West Virginia to install streambank fencing, cattle crossings,
    and constructing alternate watering sources for livestock. And, in
    Alaska, the Service will work with the Chickaloon Village to restore
    fish passage within the Moose Creek watershed to restore all five
    species of Pacific salmon to the watershed.
        During 2004, the Partners program will:
         enhance or restore a total of 66,365 acres of wetlands
    through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife
    habitats;
         enhance or restore a total of 287,507 acres of upland
    habitat through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife
    populations;
         enhance or restore a total of 830 miles of riparian and
    stream habitat through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and
    wildlife populations.

    National Wildlife Refuge System
        Significant funding increases will support high priority needs of
    the National Wildlife Refuge System. Last year, the President's Budget
    requested the largest increase in the system's history to celebrate the
    Refuge System's Centennial in March 2003. This year the Administration
    request builds on that substantial increase with another $25.5 million.
    For comparative purposes, this is a $33.6 million increase over the
    recently signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
        Together with last year's request, this totals over $82.0 million
    for much needed operations and maintenance projects within the refuge
    program.
        A $5.0 million increase will provide start up costs for new and
    expanded refuges including Vieques, Midway Atoll, and Don Edwards.
    Invasive species encroaching upon the refuge system will be addressed
    with an additional $2.1 million to combat nutria, Tamarisk and Giant
    Salvinia, among others.
        We will fund additional Challenge Cost Share projects under the
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative with $3.0 million; support
    additional Comprehensive Conservation Plans with $2.0 million; and
    control Chronic Wasting Disease on the refuge system with $500,000.
        Other priorities include $1.6 million for refuge law enforcement,
    $2.0 million for Land Management Research Demonstration Units, $1.0
    million for environmental education, and $7.0 million for refuge
    specific priorities.
        On the maintenance front, additional maintenance funding will
    upgrade the SAMMS module with $2.0 million.

    Endangered Species
        The endangered species program is funded at $129.0 million, $3.0
    million above the 2003 request level. The program funding will support
    operations that enhance implementation of the Endangered Species Act,
    one of the nation's most significant environmental laws.
        An increase of $3.2 million is required to address the growing
    listing program litigation-driven workload. This additional funding is
    necessary to address listing actions required by court orders or
    settlement agreements.
        Additional high priority recovery actions, including immediate
    actions needed to stabilize critically imperiled species and actions
    that could lead to delisting nearly recovered species will be
    implemented nationwide with an additional $2.0 million. Potential
    actions include, for example, propagation and habitat restoration for
    aquatic species in the Southern Appalachians and Lower Tennessee
    Cumberland ecosystems, a region containing the highest diversity of
    freshwater fishes and snails in the United States and the highest
    diversity of freshwater mussels and crayfishes in the world.

    Other Operations Increases
        A $3.0 million increase for the Joint Venture program will provide
    a total of $10.4 million for the program, in line with target levels.
    As of December 2002, Plan partners have contributed approximately $1.5
    billion to protect, restore, or enhance almost 5 million acres of U.S.
    wetlands, grasslands, forests, and riparian habitat, more than one-
    third of the 16 million acres of U.S. habitat objectives under the
    Plan.
        Our law enforcement program will hire nine additional wildlife
    inspectors with an additional $1.0 million to interdict and deter the
    illegal trade in protecting species thus sustaining biological
    communities. In addition, manatee protection efforts will be
    accelerated in Florida by protecting manatees from boat strikes and
    enforcing speed zones in refuges and sanctuary areas with a $500,000
    increase.

    Easements and Land Acquisition
        The President's budget request reduces our traditional land
    acquisition program by $29.6 million to a $40.7 million level to fund
    high-priority conservation easements or acquisition of land from
    willing sellers. For comparative purposes, the account is funded at
    $32.2 million below the recently signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
    Highlights include $5.0 million for conservation easements on the
    Quinault Indian Reservation in Washington State and $5.0 million for
    the Baca Ranch in Colorado.

    Construction
        The Construction account totals $35.4 million, roughly equal with
    last year's request. This request level will fund 19 dam safety, road
    and bridge safety, and other priority projects at national wildlife
    refuges, fish hatcheries, and law enforcement facilities. Highlights
    include replacement of the Great Lakes fish stocking vessel M/V Togue,
    replacement of the office building at Cabo Rojo NWR in Puerto Rico, and
    $1.0 million to begin an aircraft replacement program to support
    important migratory bird surveys important to setting hunting
    regulations.

    Grant Programs
        We will continue conservation efforts through cooperation,
    consultation and communication with all stakeholders including States,
    the District of Columbia, Territories and Tribes. The President's 2004
    budget continues to support active participation on the part of the
    States and other partners in resource conservation efforts. To this
    end, the budget provides $247.0 million for five Service grant programs
    that facilitate State and local conservation efforts.
        Recognizing the opportunities for conservation of endangered and
    threatened species through partnerships with private landowners, the
    budget includes $50.0 million to continue the Landowner Incentive and
    Private Stewardship programs.
        We are requesting $86.6 million for the Cooperative Endangered
    Species Conservation Fund, $2.3 million below the 2003 request level,
    and $6.1 million above the 2003 Omnibus spending bill. The proposed
    funding level would provide $50.0 million to support Habitat
    Conservation Plan Land Acquisition; $17.8 million for Recovery Land
    Acquisition grants to help implement approved species recovery plans;
    $7.5 million for traditional grants to states; and $8.9 million for HCP
    planning assistance to states.
        The budget includes $60.0 million (including a $5 million tribal
    set-aside) for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, roughly level with the
    Fiscal Year 2003 request level, and $4.6 million below the 2003 Omnibus
    spending bill.
        A $50.0 million request for the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Fund includes an increase of $6.0 million above the 2003
    request level, and $11.3 million above the 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
    This Fund protects and restores wetland ecosystems that serve as
    habitat and resting areas for migratory game and non-game birds, and
    supports non-regulatory private-public investments in the U.S., Canada,
    and Mexico.

    International Conservation
        $7.0 million is available for the Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund, $2.0 million above the 2003 requested level.
    Conclusion
        Thank you very much. We appreciate the Committee's past support,
    and look forward to working with the Committee in the future.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Mike, I think what we'll do, we may turn the
    lights on. We have got a few members now. What we will do is we
    will use the lights as we go through the questioning and we
    will come around for a second or third time to do that.
        Admiral, you mentioned a number of interesting items here
    and I would just ask, could you tell us a little more about
    this emergency radio system that sounds like it can be
    purchased in a store, Radio Shack? It is not a radio, but tell
    us a little bit. Does it come on when there is an emergency?
    Can you purchase something like this at Radio Shack? Do you
    have to buy a subscription? How does that work?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. It is very easy. It is a very easy,
    simple system. It is commercially produced by a number of
    manufacturers. A couple that come to mind are Midland Radios
    and Radio Shack.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Is this going to be a regular radio, or is
    this something separate?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. It is separate from a radio. It has
    the frequencies in it that receive broadcasts from the NOAA
    weather transmitters, radio transmitters which are populated
    all around the country. Obviously, it is most popular in the
    areas, seacoast areas as well as tornado-prone areas. So folks
    in the Midwest know a lot about this and some of our folks
    along the coast do, as well, because they use the NOAA
    broadcasts.
        But the idea is that as long as you have it plugged in, and
    they come in battery sets, too, so you can have portable ones,
    any time it gets a signal, a danger signal or a warning signal,
    it is going to alarm. It is going to set off a noise, and you
    can program the noise in some cases so it is a pleasant noise.
    But, in other words, it is an alarm that tells you you had
    better pay attention. Something serious is about to happen. It
    has been used very successfully for tornadoes and
    thunderstorms.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So at that point, this little device will
    send a signal, but there is no voice communication in it?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, there is voice. It can be voice
    and also some of them have digital readouts.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. So there is voice and digital
    readout. It depends on the brand you buy or what your
    preference is, what would you like to have in terms of--
        Mr. Gilchrest. So it would be some form of communication
    that is specific to the occurrence?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. That is right, and it comes through
    the NOAA weather--from our weather forecast centers that have
    access to the transmitters that are located around the country.
    We have had a voluntary program over the years where citizen
    groups have bought these transmitters and put them in towns,
    and now we are up to the point where it covers about 95 percent
    of the country. So it is broad coverage.
        It is automatic warning, and this initiative that is in our
    budget would automate the system for emergency managers, all
    the county emergency managers now. You would build firewalls
    and codes in there, PIN numbers, whatever, so they can get into
    it, and within 2 minutes, you could get from the time that the
    emergency managers decide that you have to evacuate something
    or warn the public about a fire or a chemical spill or a
    terrorist attack, as well as a thunderstorm and--
        Mr. Gilchrest. Well, that sounds good.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. And they are going to put it on
    television this summer. The Thompson-RCA group will be coming
    out with, and I don't want to scoop them, but they will have a
    similar band width on a television set for you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Well, you are going to have six Members of
    Congress sending out a press release on that scoop this
    afternoon.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. I will be glad to provide
    more information for you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. You mentioned in the series of things that
    are funded ecosystem forecasting and management. What is that?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. This is a way to look at the NOAA
    budget. NOAA has always been considered five stovepipes, and
    you indicate that, as well, wet and dry, because those are our
    stovepipes, sort of fall in a wet and dry area.
        When you look at the issues that our country faces in terms
    of environmental monitoring and ecosystem management
    forecasting, they really cut across all of our branches. It
    takes all of them working together. So ecosystem forecasting
    and management is an attempt to get out of this managing
    fisheries species by species, looking at National Marine
    Sanctuaries just as a park and not part of a big system,
    looking at various pieces of habitat restoration in abstract
    from what they really do, which is build life in a water column
    and support the nurseries of our coastal and our sea systems.
        So the object is to look at the programs with a mission
    output, and that mission output, in our view, should be going
    toward an ecosystem approach. We can't even define it very well
    today, so I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know
    exactly what it means.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So you look at NOAA's resources--
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Right.
        Mr. Gilchrest. --what NOAA's fundamental job is, and blend
    or understand that the climate, the ocean, the fisheries--
        Admiral Lautenbacher. They all work together.
        Mr. Gilchrest. --they all work together as a very complex
    system and how to collaborate and use that concept of
    conciliance in that whole flow.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. And to put the pieces together so
    that when we have little pieces of our budget and you say, why
    are we spending money here, why aren't we spending it there, I
    have an answer to you that says, the reason is because it
    supports an outcome on the basis of a system management
    principle so that we can have a better dialog between what the
    priorities ought to be and so that I can judge--not I, but the
    whole administration can judge better where the money ought to
    be in a systems context than just saying, well, it all belongs
    in fisheries, it all belongs in NOS, it all belongs in weather
    or in weather service. It actually is supporting a much bigger
    mission.
        This budget was developed in terms of those six cross-
    cutting strategies which I invented when I came into the agency
    last year. This year, we have a formal strategic planning
    process that's gone into place and there are four themes. You
    will see the Fiscal Year 2005 budget. By the way, one of them
    is ecosystem management, so that is still a prime principal and
    that was gained with having workshops around the country from
    stakeholders, employees, other scientists, academia, staff
    members and Congress were involved in building the strategic
    plan. We hope we have a better basis on which to come to you
    and explain why we do what we do.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. My time is up. I will yield to
    Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, and again, I have to apologize for
    my voice or lack of voice, I guess I should say.
        Admiral, several of our Democratic members from the San
    Francisco Bay area, including our Democratic leader, Mrs.
    Pelosi, Congresswoman Eshoo, and Congresswoman Wolsey also have
    expressed concern about the reassignment of the sanctuary
    manager at the Gulf of the Farallons National Marine Sanctuary
    and the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. It is a
    gentleman named Ed Ueber, I guess, who has been transferred to
    NOAA's headquarters in Silver Spring to work on special
    projects, and I guess he has been the manager of these two
    sanctuaries since their designations in 1981 and 1989,
    respectively, and he worked very hard to build strong
    protection of the resources within those sanctuaries.
        I guess the problem is that NOAA is currently initiating
    management plan review processes for all four California
    sanctuaries--the other two are Monterey Bay and Channel
    Islands--and NOAA has decided to combine three of these mid-
    coast sanctuaries into one process, leaving Channel Islands to
    be considered separately. Many of the environmental advocates
    there are concerned that this could result in a weakening of
    the sanctuary regulations for Ueber's sanctuary in the name of
    harmonization with the Monterey Bay regulations, which are, I
    guess, a lot less stringent.
        We have got a number of NGO's and other Federal and State
    officials and industry groups that strongly support Ueber and
    are urging NOAA to transfer him back to his original duties.
        I know you sent a letter to Mrs. Pelosi just recently, 2
    days ago, but I have to be honest and say that, having looked
    at the letter, I don't really think it completely responded to
    those concerns and I was going to ask you if you would respond
    now, if you could give us some more information.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. I would be delighted to talk about
    it. First of all, in terms of--no decisions have been made in
    terms of combining any of the marine sanctuaries. Each of them
    is undergoing the normal 5-year review process, and since they
    were sort of close--they were formulated close to about the
    same time, it was felt reasonable--this process started before
    I ever showed up on the scene--was to do the management plan
    reviews simultaneously because they are connected. There are
    boundaries that make sense, or boundaries that--maybe the
    boundaries don't make sense in terms of an ecosystem approach.
        But anyway, the management reviews went forward
    simultaneously in each of these groups. Of course, one of the
    options could be to make one larger sanctuary. That is not a
    decision that has been made nor are we anywhere near doing
    that. These management plan reviews are going on in accordance
    with the law and there is no--I have asked that--I have been
    out there and talked to some of the constituent groups and I
    have asked that everybody be involved. This is a public
    process. It is designed to serve the citizens of the region as
    well as the United States, and so there is no indication here
    that we are trying to do anything that is against what the
    local organizations, constituencies, and support groups want to
    do.
        Regarding the individual in question, there is not--the
    issue is not anybody--nobody is trying to knock down any of the
    protections. The issue is some internal management, and so--and
    I don't want to compromise any internal investigation that is
    going on because I do have a good deal of respect for the
    gentleman. This is not about protections. This is about
    responsible management of management functions. That is what
    this is about. It is not about reducing the protections in the
    marine sanctuary or trying to undercut any of his programs that
    he has put in place or anything else.
        It is about responsible management, and so while that--I
    don't like to use the word ``investigation,'' but while we are
    looking at the situation out there, he has been temporarily
    relieved of those duties and it is in the hands of his
    assistant, who is very well qualified to carry out all of the
    programs and plans that he has put in place.
        Mr. Pallone. I guess my concern would be that, given that
    all this is happening in terms of this review, wouldn't it make
    sense, given Mr. Ueber's experience, that he be there when
    these things are happening?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Not if he is doing things with--I
    don't want to get into an internal investigation, but, I mean,
    we are talking about his integrity and management, not the--we
    are talking his ability to handle money, people, issues like
    that. We are not talking about the substantive issues of the
    management plan review. And so if there is any question, we owe
    it to the taxpayers to ensure that our employees who are taking
    taxpayer money are acting at the highest level of ethics in
    terms of managing money and managing people and following the
    rules and laws of the land and I am responsible to try to make
    that happen. That is all we are talking about here. We are not
    talking about reducing any protections, changing any thrusts of
    the way environmental policies are going. We are talking about
    management, internal management issues and ethical
    responsibilities.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Admiral. I alluded earlier to
    the Sea Grant program. Again, I am probably beating this to
    death, but I wanted to ask you, what was the total
    appropriations from last year for the Sea Grant program? I
    notice that for Fiscal Year 2004, it is proposed at $57.4
    million.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. It is proposed in Fiscal Year 2004 at
    $57 million.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. What was it last year?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. It was proposed in the NSF budget at
    $57 million. Now, it was enacted at supposedly $62 million, but
    they said use the unobligated balances, which we don't have, so
    it is really a $60 million program that Congress left us with
    for 2003. So there is a $3 million difference between the bill
    that--by the way, we just got that bill just a month or so ago
    at the $60 million level.
        Why is it at $57 million? It is at $57 million because that
    was the level the Administration had submitted for 2003. At the
    time that I had to build the Fiscal Year 2004 budget and make a
    strong representation that I felt Sea Grant could be--the
    Administration would be best served by having Sea Grant within
    NOAA, that was the level at which the Administration had agreed
    to fund it in 2003, and, therefore, it stayed at that level.
        I am a strong supporter of the program, as you know. I
    believe, as you have said, that it belongs in NOAA. The
    Administration agrees it belongs in NOAA and we will continue
    to work hard to provide the proper resources for it.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I will have some more questions later,
    Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Ortiz?
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you are key
    players in the different natures that we talk about and my
    shrimpers have told me that this devised new regulation will
    cost anywhere between $2,000 to $3,000. Do you have any idea as
    to what the real price will be?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. My folks tell me that it depends on
    how many they have to--how big their nets are and that sort of
    thing, but that is about $200 per one of the TED, or the turtle
    excluder devices. So it depends on how big the net is and it
    also depends on how many times they turn their net over in a
    season. I am told that some can use a net for an entire season,
    and some groups, because of wear and tear, it takes two or
    three replacements.
        So, theoretically, if you had large nets that had two or
    three of these in and so it was, say, $500 and you had three
    nets, used up three nets in a season, you would get up $1,500.
    I mean, it depends on the size of the boat and the amount of
    hard wear and tear that they put on the nets. But anywhere from
    a small boat for $200 with one net for the season to maybe
    $1,200 or $1,500.
        Mr. Ortiz. I doubt if you will find a boat that has only
    one net.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Now, the issue is that they also are
    required to do this now, so it is not a new expense. It is a
    replacement expense. In other words, they have been buying
    these all along. These are not more expensive. This is a device
    which is about the same as the devices before. It is just that
    it turns out to be much more effective in terms of both shrimp
    and--catching shrimp and releasing turtles. It is a much better
    technical device.
        Mr. Ortiz. And this is through testing and they have been
    now that they are more effective? Who tested them?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Our laboratories tested them and we
    have the data and we are delighted to meet with anybody you
    would like us to meet with. I have sent Bill Hogarth down. He
    has been down in Texas. He has been in Louisiana. He was in
    South Carolina this weekend and he is going to North Carolina
    next weekend to try to talk to everybody more about it.
        I am very sympathetic. I understand the state of the
    shrimping industry. It is exactly as you say. It is on the edge
    and it is competing with foreign imports, most of which, I
    might say, are aquaculture types of imports that are coming in
    now.
        It also is very--our economic analysis indicates it is very
    dependent on the cost of fuel at this point, that fuel is the
    largest single expense in operating a shrimp fleet, and you
    change a few pennies--they are so on the edge now in terms of
    profit margin that you change a couple of pennies fuel one way
    or another and you put people in trouble. I couldn't agree more
    with your analysis of the industry.
        Mr. Ortiz. Admiral, when you look at the fuel, the new
    regulations, new devices, and the liability, when I first came
    to Congress 21 years ago, we had one of the largest fleets of
    shrimp boats in my district. They have dwindled down to a few
    hundred. And then besides that, the dumping that takes effect,
    and those people from other countries don't have to contend
    with the regulations that we impose on our shrimpers.
        So I know you all have been very fair in the past. I am
    just hoping that maybe you can give us some idea as to how we
    can approach this, this serious problem, because these are
    Americans. They pay taxes, whether they buy gasoline, or
    anything they buy, anything they do, they pay taxes. But they
    are taking a beating, a serious beating to the point that we
    won't have an industry.
        Do you anticipate, now that these new regulations came
    about, do you anticipate any other regulations that are about
    to come out?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. I don't know of any other regulations
    in this regard that are to come out. By the way, I might say
    that this didn't happen overnight. We have been taking comments
    and talking to people for 2 years on it and have tried to--and
    we are still testing other devices that folks in Louisiana say
    will work just as well. As soon as we have the weather and some
    turtles around, we are going to test another device--I forget
    the name of the TED, but anyway, it is one that they
    particularly like there and we will test that.
        We have also delayed the regulations until August. We are
    doing everything that we can. But we know that if we don't have
    the regulations, that because of the environmental laws our
    country has, there is a chance that a court case could shut the
    industry down. We are looking for the right balance in
    maintaining environmental concerns as well as trying to keep
    the industry viable.
        As I said, Bill Hogarth is out talking to people on the
    last 4 weekends. We are still working hard to try to gain
    people's confidence--
        Mr. Ortiz. We appreciate that--
        Admiral Lautenbacher. We are doing the best we can for
    them.
        Mr. Ortiz. Just one last question. I won't take long. Are
    you considering any type of what economic impact it will have
    on those communities?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, in terms of the--we don't
    believe that the turtle excluder device issue that we are
    talking about right now is a huge--we think it is a very, very
    small factor in the overall industry picture based on the
    comments that I made earlier.
        There may be other things to do to help these communities
    that are outside the purview of the NOAA and National Marine
    Fisheries organizations that could be used. For instance, we
    are prepared to issue grants immediately as soon as requests
    come in. The $17.5 million of aid that was appropriated in the
    final bill for Gulf shrimpers, we are ready to pass that money
    out. So we are doing everything we can to help.
        Mr. Ortiz. We thank you very much. All we want is fairness.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ortiz. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking
    for a handout, just fairness.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Understood.
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
        The gentlelady from Guam.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
    you, Admiral, and the other witnesses.
        I have noticed in the news recently that the National
    Weather Service will begin issuing 5-day hurricane forecasts
    this year, extending the 3-day forecasts that have been issued
    since 1964, so this is a change. As you know, Guam has
    considerable interest in accurate and timely weather
    forecasting, given our vulnerability to powerful typhoons.
    Could you provide me some clarification on your new 5-day
    hurricane forecast standard. Does it apply to the National
    Weather Service work in the Western Pacific, and if not, then
    what is your standard for forecasting storms in the Western
    Pacific, because we haven't had very accurate readings in the
    last two super typhoons that we have had.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, that is the new standard. We
    believe, after looking at the data, that given the improvements
    we were able to make technologically in forecasting, that we
    can produce a 5-day forecast which is as accurate as the 3-day
    forecast was 10 years ago, or something like that, which is--
    while it is not perfect, it is a lot better than not having
    that kind of information earlier.
        As more and more people crowd into our coasts--more than 50
    percent of our folks live in coastal counties--emergency
    managers are begging for more time and more accuracy because it
    makes a big difference to saving lives and mitigation of
    economic damage, the sooner you can get warnings to people. So
    that is why we are pushing the state out to 5 days.
        We intend to hold to that standard everywhere. The
    forecasting in the Pacific, you are aware that Hurricane
    Squadron that used to be there isn't there--
        Ms. Bordallo. No longer there.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. --so it makes it harder for us to
    provide the kinds of advanced accuracy. So I can't sit here and
    tell you with all honesty that every hurricane, that it is
    covered well in the United States that we are going to be
    able--exactly the same accuracy is going to exist out in the
    Pacific with the system that we have today, but we do believe,
    given the--there will be differences, but we are getting better
    at it and we are going to try to make the forecast sooner
    advanced so that people have more warning.
        Ms. Bordallo. So the 5-day forecast will apply to the
    Western Pacific?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
        I have one other short question, Mr. Chairman. Is the Fish
    and Wildlife Service maintaining their effort to control for
    and mitigate against the brown tree snakes on Guam, and if
    possible, can you inform me of how much funding the
    Administration is proposing for this purpose in the Fiscal Year
    2004 budget, and how is the recovery program for endangered
    species on Guam coming along?
        Mr. Williams. We are continuing our efforts on the National
    Wildlife Refuge in Guam in terms of controlling brown tree
    snakes. The majority of the spending on brown tree snake
    control comes through the U.S. Geological Survey. Some years
    ago, the dollars for control flowed through the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, but again, some years ago, that money was
    redirected or reprogrammed and is now--those control efforts
    are primarily through the U.S. Geological Survey. But we do
    obviously work in cooperation with them and have efforts--
        Ms. Bordallo. So you are not aware, then, of what the
    budget contains?
        Mr. Williams. The last I knew, which was last year at this
    time, it was approximately $3 to $3.5 million. I believe that
    is correct. Steve Guertin, the Chief of our Budget office, says
    that is roughly what it is in USGS's budget this year, around
    $3 to $3.5 million.
        Ms. Bordallo. About the same amount.
        Mr. Williams. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. And what is the status of the
    critical habitat proposal for Guam? We had to delay this
    because of our last super typhoon and I just wondered about
    that.
        Mr. Williams. Apparently the comment period for that
    critical habitat designation has been reopened. I am not sure.
    We will get you an answer to that, whether that comment period
    is closed yet.
        Ms. Bordallo. We delayed it for some time because of our
    situation.
        Mr. Williams. Right.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right.
        Mr. Williams. We can provide you an answer.
        Ms. Bordallo. I would appreciate if you could send that to
    my office.
        Mr. Williams. We would be happy to do so.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentlewoman yield?
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to ask the Admiral, as a
    follow up question to Ms. Bordallo. Concerning weather
    forecasts, if the services that NOAA provides are also for the
    Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshalls and Palau. It is
    my understanding the Administration intends to take it out. Is
    there any information to that regard? What kind of a weather
    service system are we providing for these three entities, the
    FSM, Palau, as well as the Marshalls?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. We have money in our budget to
    continue providing support for the weather systems in the area
    that you have mentioned. There was, it is called the Pacific
    Island Compact, COFA, and the funding came through, I believe
    through Interior at one point, and now that the period of
    transition has ended, we have asked for the same amount of
    money in order to continue what we consider very vital
    services, both to gain the observing data as well as to provide
    the forecasting expertise to the Republic of Micronesia,
    Marshall Islands, Palau, et cetera. So we are very sensitive to
    that issue. We are asking Congress to support a continuation of
    those services.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So basically the Interior Department
    provides the funding, but you provide the services?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. We are providing the funding this
    year.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You are funding it, as well, but my
    question here is: has there been any decision to the effect
    that you intend to take out the servicing of weather forecasts
    for these three entities?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. No, sir.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. No, there is not.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Admiral.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega and the
    gentlelady from Guam.
        We will start another round of questions. From Fish and
    Wildlife, Mr. Williams, can you tell us the current number of
    species listed under the Endangered Species Act?
        Mr. Williams. It is approximately 1,800.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Eighteen hundred. Can you send the
    Subcommittee the list? I am not sure if we have that, what they
    are.
        Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gilchrest. How many species are currently being
    reviewed for listing?
        Mr. Williams. Oh, boy. This will probably be pretty
    accurate. What I am going to quote here is some information on
    litigation that we are involved in on listing, and the reason I
    use this to respond to your question is that much, if not all,
    of our listing activity and critical habitat designation
    activity is driven by the courts, by litigation.
        As of March 17, we are involved in 31 active lawsuits on
    listing issues with respect to 32 species, including four
    lawsuits on petition findings for four species, four lawsuits
    regarding final determination for three species, eight lawsuits
    regarding critical habitat for 11 different species, and 17
    lawsuits regarding merits challenges on 19 species.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Let me ask you, since they are lawsuits and
    they go to court, and there are 31 or 32 lawsuits undergoing
    and various other ones dealing with species and critical
    habitat and so on and so forth, is it then the opinion of Fish
    and Wildlife that those lawsuits represent species or areas
    designated as critical habitat as not really necessary, that
    the species are not endangered, that the habitat is not
    critical?
        Mr. Williams. I don't think it is fair to characterize all
    of those lawsuits in that manner. There may be some that we
    wouldn't agree with.
        I think an important point to make is that although in the
    past, recent past, we have tried to put together a logical
    process to prioritize which species that we work on, and I will
    use this term, the avalanche of lawsuits that we are confronted
    with and a lawsuit saying that we couldn't prioritize
    necessarily on a biological basis, our workload, our listing
    workload is really driven by the court system.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
        Mr. Williams. And some--well, it would be premature to
    judge whether some of these petitions to list are--
        Mr. Gilchrest. I guess there is not enough Fish and
    Wildlife personnel to be crawling all over the country to
    determine what 50-acre or 100-acre forest that has just been
    zoned residential, and somebody starts cutting the trees down
    to build a housing development, and then somebody says there is
    a Delmarva fox squirrel in there and then everything comes--and
    then Fish and Wildlife didn't stop that, and so a lawsuit
    develops.
        Given the problems that NMFS has with lawsuits, and given
    the problem that Fish and Wildlife has with lawsuits--of
    course, people filing those lawsuits would say that they are
    pushing the envelope or that they are just requiring the
    Federal Government to comply with the statute--and given the
    amount of money that is allocated from your meager budgets to
    deal with those issues, I think what we would like to do in
    this 108th session of Congress is to periodically get together
    and figure out how we cannot limit people's rights to file
    lawsuits, but create a policy that would so effectively deal
    with those issues that even the most ardent environmental group
    would see it unnecessary to file a lawsuit.
        We are not going to have an expanded budget. We are not
    going to have expanded personnel, and we may not probably be
    able to pay the people, Admiral Lautenbacher, what they are
    actually worth, but we don't want to lose them. So creating a
    policy that will more effectively deal with some of the
    problems that cause species to become endangered or fish stocks
    to plummet, I think would be a valuable use of our time.
        For example, what is a major cause for species decline? Is
    it habitat loss? Is it invasive species? What is causing that
    in the different areas and can that, then, be somehow corrected
    through Federal effort, through a voluntary program, Mr.
    Williams, like you have discussed with habitat restoration
    across the country, through voluntary efforts. So let us pool
    our meager resources with our unbounding intellect. I think we
    will prove to be successful, and it is your unbounding
    intellect that we are going to rely upon.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pallone?
        Mr. Pallone. I don't know if I want to follow that one, my
    unbounded intellect, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if I have that,
    but maybe the panel does.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gilchrest. We would like you to bellow out your most
    passionate remarks, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I wanted to ask Mr. Williams about
    the Suarez circus polar bears. Last year, the Fish and Wildlife
    successfully secured the transfer of polar bears in the Puerto
    Rico-based Suarez Brothers Circus to more appropriate living
    conditions in the U.S. based on charges that their living
    conditions violated both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
    the Animal Welfare Act, and the circus and the polar bears'
    trainers have since taken steps to contest the confiscation of
    the bears. They say they are ready to fight to get them back.
    There are even rumors that the circus has offered Fish and
    Wildlife Service a deal where they would donate money to the
    circus in exchange for the bears.
        Could you give the Subcommittee an update on the Suarez
    polar bear situation and comment on the validity of the
    suggestion to donate money to the circus in exchange for the
    bears' return, and also, what steps are being taken to ensure
    that the bears don't return to a circus?
        Mr. Williams. Thank you. As I am sure you are aware, the
    Service was involved in seizing those bears in conjunction with
    veterinarians and accredited zoos in the country, of bringing
    them back to the mainland. They are now in--they have been
    dispersed to three or four zoos.
        Mr. Pallone. One of them died, right?
        Mr. Williams. Unfortunately, one died in transport. The
    remaining bears are in three or four different zoos, accredited
    zoos, and obviously in much better living conditions than they
    were.
        I couldn't comment on--I don't think it would be
    appropriate to comment on any lawsuit that may have been filed
    against us. We don't normally make the kind of arrangements
    that you might have referred to, in terms of dollars for bears
    and so on. But I don't think I should go beyond that in terms
    of making any comments on the lawsuit.
        Mr. Pallone. Can I just ask you this. You are still opposed
    to their return to the circus, right? You are talking about any
    deal that might be made in the context of a lawsuit, but you
    are still opposed to their return, right?
        Mr. Williams. Well, certainly to their return to the kind
    of living conditions that they were found in, yes.
        Mr. Pallone. So it is possible that the Fish and Wildlife
    Service would return them if certain conditions were met?
        Mr. Williams. I am not saying that. That is conjecture. I
    put it this way. I don't see at this point any way that they
    would be returned. Now, the court system will do what the court
    system would, but that is certainly not our intention. Our
    intention was to bring them back and put them into more
    suitable living conditions.
        Mr. Pallone. Mr. Williams, I am not trying to be difficult.
    I appreciate your response. I think--could I ask this question.
    You don't want to comment on any potential deal because that
    would be something they would offer in the context of the
    lawsuit as a settlement. That is the reason you don't want to
    comment, essentially, that you can't because it would be in the
    context of the settlement and you don't really want to get into
    that, is that--
        Mr. Williams. I thank Marshall Jones for reminding me.
    There are also pending criminal charges involved and I don't
    want to comment on that case.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, I appreciate your saying that it is not
    your intention and you are not looking to return. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a couple questions as sort of
    a follow-up on your questions about the Endangered Species Act.
    I was glad to see that the President's budget recommended a
    modest increase for the listing account under the Endangered
    Species Act. However, my understanding is that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service currently has a backlog of more than 250
    species awaiting listing at a cost of more than $130 million,
    and to deal with this backlog, the Service needs about $25
    million per year over the next five or so years.
        So given this, Mr. Williams, can you explain why you are
    not requesting more money for listing under ESA and--well, why
    don't you answer that first, if you could.
        Mr. Williams. Sure. Well, as we put together the 2004
    budget, as any agency was involved in, we have to make some
    tough decisions on priorities, and knowing that budgets would
    be tight, looking at all the priorities of all the programs in
    the Service, the request of an additional $3.2 million is what
    we feel will be adequate to get us through Fiscal Year 2004 in
    terms of responding to existing court decisions, court
    deadlines, and settlement agreement deadlines. That is what we
    think we need to get through that and comply with court orders
    for the Fiscal Year 2004.
        Mr. Pallone. And that is for the listings, right?
        Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, and critical habitat designations.
        Mr. Pallone. I don't know if we will have a third round,
    but my time is done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if
    Mr. Williams or our good friend, the Admiral, could respond to
    this. Probably many of my colleagues are not aware, Mr.
    Chairman, but the cleanest air is measured in my district. In
    fact, my district happens to have the cleanest air in all of
    America.
        Mr. Gilchrest. You know, I was at the South Pole about a
    month ago and they said the cleanest air was down there, so--
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No--
        Mr. Gilchrest. We will have to have a clean air contest.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I think the South Pole is definitely not
    the answer, but my understanding is that the cleanest air
    measurement taken by NOAA is done in my district and I wanted
    to ask Mr. Williams and our good friend the Admiral, have any
    of you been there recently? We need a little renovation on this
    facility that we have in my district. Any--
        Admiral Lautenbacher. I have not been there yet. I would
    like to do that and I hope it will be on my list the next time
    I get to the Pacific.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, Admiral.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you.
        Mr. Williams. And I would ditto the Admiral's comments.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. It is my understanding that the White
    House recently initiated an Oceans Commission, I guess for
    purposes of offering at a later point in time, at least quite
    soon, I understand, a report with a list of recommendations in
    terms of establishing an oceans policy. Is NOAA anticipating
    any major changes by way of our national policies toward what
    should be done as far as the oceans are concerned?
        I wanted to know and am curious if this budget proposal has
    any connection with what we may need to do as a nation as a
    matter of a national policy, if there may be changes, and I
    suspect there will be major changes made? I am just wondering
    if the Admiral could comment on that.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. I am very supportive of the concept
    and the purpose of the Oceans Commission. I have certainly been
    an advocate, saying it is a worthwhile endeavor to have
    citizens from our country sit down and talk about the oceans
    and the policies. I have supported it. We have testified before
    the Oceans Commission and I have allowed the rest of my
    organization to testify and answer their questions and we have
    provided whatever support they have asked for. So we have been
    engaged to the extent that we can, given that they are an
    independent body and working for the President and for
    Congress, for that matter.
        I do not have a good feel for what they will say in their
    report. As you are aware, they have delayed their final report
    until they can have another meeting in April and then they are
    going to decide when to get something out. But I am not
    expecting to see something--this is my speculation--until the
    end of the summer, early fall in terms of recommendations to
    look at.
        It will be difficult for me to project myself into their
    thinking, but listening to the deliberations, many of the
    members are very interested in ensuring that education about
    oceans, ocean literacy, ensuring the public knows what is going
    on, ensuring that we have a good research program, make sure it
    is connected to our operations. They are concerned about the
    NOAA organization.
        I have presented my reorganization plan that Congress
    approved and I am hoping that they will be supportive of the
    types of things we are doing to make NOAA more effective, and
    as I mentioned to the Chairman, the idea of looking at systems
    of systems and having a strategic management process to ensure
    that we do the right things with the money the taxpayers give
    us. So I am hoping that there will be some endorsements of
    things that we are doing at this point.
        Also, interagency activity. We have a National Oceans
    Research Leadership Council that is an interagency group to
    look at policies on a higher level. I think they are very
    interested in interagency mechanisms, and we may see some
    recommendations in that area.
        So those are the things I am looking for. I don't have a
    crystal ball as to exactly what they will say, though.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I am not going to get into always the
    constant problems we have when a fish becomes the property of
    the Department of Commerce and becomes the Department of
    Agriculture. I have a very serious concern with the problems
    that we have with our fisheries programs. To the extent that I,
    at least in my understanding, if NOAA is part of that
    responsibility, we look at fisheries as a matter of
    conservation, environmental considerations, but then fisheries
    also as a matter of commercial need for the livelihood of those
    who participate in this very important industry.
        My district happens to be one of those that is totally
    dependent on the question of where fisheries come into play. I
    happen to have the largest tuna canning facility in the world,
    and in this process, in the problems with the free trade
    agreements, with the WTO and NAFTA, to the point now that the
    entire U.S. tuna fishing industry, the very existence is at
    stake to the extent that we have got these free trade
    agreements or countries are now asking for total free access of
    our markets to sell their canned tuna, but then right around
    they said, no, we have to pay 20 percent tariffs if we want to
    export our tuna to them. I find this very unfair.
        I do believe in fair trade, but it should be--I mean, I
    believe in free trade, but it should also be fair. There should
    be a sense of reciprocity so that our some 10,000 people whose
    livelihood depends on it, just as what my friend, Congressman
    Ortiz, has alluded to earlier about the problems now with the
    shrimp industry that has now gone to pot.
        I just wanted to ask if the Administration is committed to
    private sector development. To what extent are we then going to
    get into regulation and they say, you can't do this, you can't
    do that, but still allow foreign competition just to simply
    walk in the door and just say, come on in, we will buy your
    goods, supposedly as a benefit to the consumer but the death
    knell of people whose livelihood depends on it.
        And I wanted to ask on the issue of fisheries alone, and I
    don't know if these figures are accurate, Mr. Chairman, but a
    couple of years ago, we had to import $9 billion worth of fish
    from foreign countries because we don't produce enough of it
    domestically. My question is, why can't we produce fish
    domestically? I am not asking for $9 billion, maybe even $1
    billion, but we don't seem to have the policies and the laws
    such that some sense of protection is given to our fishing
    industry, the same way that we are protecting our farmers from
    going out of business. I don't call that competition. I call
    this a very, very unfair process.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Faleomavaega--
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry, my time is--
        Mr. Gilchrest. --we will come around for another round of
    questions.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Can you respond to that,
    Admiral? Is this administration really committed to private
    sector development as far as fisheries is concerned?
        Mr. Gilchrest. If I could just make a quick comment before
    the Admiral, you would probably need a half-a-dozen other
    Subcommittees to deal with the issues that you have just
    raised. I agree that we ought to just be able to do it in this
    Subcommittee, take all the jurisdiction from Ways and Means and
    Energy and Commerce and so on. But it is an issue that we will
    look at and I would like to sit down and talk to you, Mr.
    Faleomavaega, about all of those issues.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw
    my question--
        Mr. Gilchrest. I will let Admiral Lautenbacher respond to
    the area of jurisdiction that he has as Undersecretary of NOAA.
    But I would like to work with you on all those issues to ensure
    that we look at this issue in a very comprehensive way.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. I don't want to take too long, but
    let me just say, we are in the Department of Commerce, so I do
    care about, even though it is not my portfolio, I am around the
    people who deal with these issues. As you are well aware,
    Secretary Evans has stated many times his desire to create more
    jobs and create a sound private economy in the United States.
    So we are very supportive of that.
        He has also been supportive of free trade, but I think in a
    sense of fair play, you can look at the work that has gone on
    with the steel industry and the lumber industry that is going
    on right now, trying to make it fair, exactly what you are
    talking about. So he has ruled on both sides of this issue to
    try to make it fair. He is not trying--we are not trying to
    create industries that put fair trade that puts our people out
    of business unfairly.
        In terms of the NOAA issue, what we do is try to go on the
    international level into these organizations and ensure that
    they are trying--that we get them to follow the same prudent
    rules of conservative management, of management of resources,
    that we do so that the playing field is level and they can't
    come in and rape and pillage areas with illegal fishing
    practices, unsound fishing practices, and then compete against
    us.
        I spend a great deal of time--we just sent the Deputy
    Administrator to Vietnam to work on a compact with Southeast
    Asia to prevent some of these practices that we feel that are
    against our interests and against the world's interests in
    conservation. So we are very sensitive to it and we are going
    to work hard to help you with those issues, sir.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        The gentlelady from Guam.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was
    listening very attentively to my colleague here from American
    Samoa when he said that he had the cleanest air in all the
    world. I was always under the impression Guam and the Northern
    Marianas was the place that had the cleanest air, but we will
    share.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bordallo. My question is, noting that the
    Administration's budget proposed $1.3 million to continue the
    comprehensive conservation plans for each wildlife refuge, as
    required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
    of 1997, can you give us an update on where the Service is in
    terms of completing these plans and how many plans do you
    expect to complete in Fiscal Year 2004, given this proposed
    funding.
        Mr. Williams. I can answer that in general. The specifics,
    again, I apologize, but I will make sure it gets to this
    Committee and your office.
        We continue our efforts to, and actually request some
    additional dollars to accelerate efforts to complete the
    comprehensive conservation plans. Normally, I think it is safe
    to say that we are working through half a dozen to a dozen a
    year, depending on the complexity. I believe we have 15 years
    from the enactment of the Improvement Act, 1997, to complete
    all those CCPs.
        What I would offer to do for you and for the Committee is
    provide you a status report on where we are and the plans for
    the future, if that is OK.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, the gentlelady from Guam.
        Mr. Williams, there is some--I am not familiar with this,
    but there is some issue apparently in Florida dealing with
    manatees. Could you tell us the status of the potential Section
    7 consultation which may be necessary in order to build a boat
    dock because of its impact on manatees and the biological
    studies that show that boat docks--I would say boat docks have
    an impact on everything, especially because of what is docked
    there and the movement of propellers--but the biological
    information that shows that boat docks, and then probably
    boats, have an impact on manatees.
        How many species of manatees are there? Is there one
    manatee or are there are a couple of different kinds of
    manatees, and are any manatees on the endangered species list?
        Mr. Williams. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, if I
    could ask Marshall Jones to address that question.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, Mr. Jones, please.
        Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we will start with your last
    question first because it is the easier one. There are--the
    West Indian manatee is the species that is listed that occurs
    in the United States.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Which manatee came up to the Chesapeake Bay
    a couple of years ago?
        Mr. Jones. That is that same.
        Mr. Gilchrest. And he is endangered? So he was looking for
    a new homeland, I guess.
        Mr. Jones. Well, he must like the Chesapeake Bay, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Has he been back?
        Mr. Jones. He has been back several times--
        Mr. Gilchrest. Really?
        Mr. Jones. --although I don't know that he has been back in
    recent years.
        Mr. Gilchrest. He leaves, though, because it gets cold
    here, right?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct, and it is typical of some
    manatees every year that they leave Florida waters and go both
    West along the Gulf and North up the Atlantic, but that one
    obviously was very unusual. We knew about him because he was
    radio collared by the U.S. Geological Survey that monitored
    him, and he went back and forth more than once. Several years
    in a row, he did the same thing and found his way back to
    Florida again. So if you can call a manatee a snowbird, he is
    one.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So that particular species of manatee is on
    the endangered list?
        Mr. Jones. Correct, and Mr. Chairman, there are other
    manatees. They are all, I believe, considered to be endangered.
    There is a South American manatee, a different species. There
    is a West African manatee. And then there is the--
        Mr. Gilchrest. So the Florida manatees are on the
    endangered list?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Mr. Gilchrest. And what is the status of this proposed
    Section 7 consultation and what size dock, if any, does it
    affect, and are you looking to reduce the number of docks
    because that will reduce the number of motor boat interactions
    with the manatees? I guess the obvious question that the
    manatees are endangered is because there is--what is the
    obvious answer to the cause for the reduction of the population
    of manatees?
        Mr. Jones. Well, Mr. Chairman, we don't know all the
    factors, but collisions with boats clearly are a significant
    mortality factor for manatees. There may be habitat issues.
    They are subject to cold weather, and that is why they
    congregate at warm springs and now manmade warm water sources,
    like the outflows from power plants.
        We have had a manatee protection program for many years and
    I was personally involved in that years ago.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Is that effective?
        Mr. Jones. Well, we certainly believe that we have made
    some progress, and, in fact, statistics over the last few years
    have indicated that the manatee population actually was
    increasing. But the number of boat mortalities also have been
    increasing. There is some new data just recently received about
    manatee--done through manatee population modeling that we are
    still evaluating to see, is the increase in manatees as large
    as we thought it was or not.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Is the specific reason--can you give
    us some of the biological--is it the boat dock that is causing
    the problem with the manatee or is it the boat?
        Mr. Jones. No, sir, it is not the dock.
        Mr. Gilchrest. But the potential for a Section 7--are you
    thinking about a Section 7 consultation to build a boat dock?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct. In fact--
        Mr. Gilchrest. What if you are going to build a boat dock
    for a canoe or a sailboat?
        Mr. Jones. It depends on where the dock is. But in general,
    Mr. Chairman, we and the State of Florida were each sued by
    Save the Manatee Club and environmental organizations--
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
        Mr. Jones. --and as a result of the settlement of that
    lawsuit, part of that settlement was we agreed for now, at
    least, that we will require a Section 7 consultation--
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
        Mr. Jones. --for every proposed new boat dock if it is in
    an area that may affect manatees.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see. OK.
        Mr. Jones. Obviously, it is the boats, not the docks, but
    it is the docks that--the number of docks directly correlated
    to the number of boats operating in any area.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I will just conclude with this. This is
    probably an unlikely solution for the protection of manatees,
    but the Great Barrier Reef off the northern coast of Australia,
    when they went in to plan that in a similar way that the
    planning went into sanctuaries in Key West and other areas,
    they looked at the whole ecosystem from the land out to where
    different species would roam, and in creating a management
    program for the Great Barrier Reef for commercial traffic, for
    commercial fishing, recreational fishing, tourists, you name
    it, they created a blue highway where they knew species
    wandered and migrated and spawned and that blue highway, which
    was an understanding of the habitat necessary for the life
    cycle of these species, was in some instances declared off
    limits to certain types of boating traffic, certain types of
    activity. And while it was controversial in the beginning, it
    gradually became a very effective tool so humans could recreate
    over here and the natural species could live over there.
        I was going to make a comment also to Fish and Wildlife
    about the main reason for species becoming listed, habitat loss
    and invasive species, and it used to be a whole host of other
    things, from hunting to toxic chemicals. But when you think
    about these habitat areas, and I am not going to ask you to
    answer this now because I would like to have a continued
    conversation, I guess you probably think about corridors
    covering large areas, both for animal species and for plant
    species, where those are the corridors for the wildlife, and
    outside those corridors, then, you can put your shopping
    plazas, sort of balance the activity between what is necessary
    in the natural world--I guess, actually, we are a part of the
    natural world, but what is necessary for us.
        But I will stop now and look forward to working with you
    over the next couple of years. We have a number of questions to
    submit to you, but I think maybe we can have breakfast and go
    over those questions rather than have your staff do it, because
    it takes a long time to be reviewed by everybody in your
    agencies and we don't seem to ever get those answers back. So
    maybe if we could have breakfast or dinner at the Chinese
    restaurant up here, we could get to the bottom of these things.
        I will yield to Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask
    Mr. Williams one question, and I had a couple for Admiral
    Lautenbacher.
        With regard to endangered species again, Mr. Williams, on
    the recovery aspect, there are more than 200 currently listed
    species that are in serious danger of extinction in the next
    several years, in large part due to lack of funding for
    recovery activities. So again, would you explain why you are
    not requesting more funding for recovery, and maybe you can
    provide the Subcommittee with a list of these species.
        Mr. Williams. We certainly, to answer your last question,
    we certainly will do that and can do that.
        The request, it kind of reminds me of Admiral
    Lautenbacher's response to one of his previous questions, and
    we are in a similar situation. Our request for recovery dollars
    was actually above the President's request, 2003 request. When
    the 2003 enacted budget came out, it actually looks like a
    decrease. So as we were putting our budget together prior to,
    obviously, prior to knowledge of what was going to be enacted,
    we did focus some additional dollars there for recovery
    efforts.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. With regard to NOAA, Admiral, we
    understand that NOAA has a lot of missions, but I am troubled
    that NOAA has been cut, or I should say the National Oceans
    Service has been cut by nearly $84 million below last year's
    appropriation. Key conservation programs such as coral reefs,
    coastal zone management grants, non-point source pollution,
    coastal ocean science, national estuary and research reserves,
    and marine protected areas have been level funded or cut
    compared to Fiscal Year 2003. Can you please explain again the
    Administration's rationale for this deemphasis which is
    demonstrated by these cuts in the National Ocean Service?
        Admiral Lautenbacher. The issue is the same thing that Mr.
    Williams just mentioned. When we build our budget,
    unfortunately, it is built on the last year's Presidential
    request because--actually, I am trying to build right now a
    Fiscal Year 2005 budget, not knowing what is going to happen in
    2004. So we have a delicate tightrope to see how can we
    allocate resources, balance them against the priorities that
    Congress has suggested and the priorities that the
    Administration has pushed forward the year before.
        And so there are areas in NOS where we have asked for more
    money, but they do, in fact, look like a decrease because there
    was more money added from the Congressional bill. But there are
    areas in NOS where we are, in fact, absolutely higher in
    dollars. I will give you the charting example. My original
    testimony to you was going to say that we asked for, I think, a
    $2 million--$2-point-something million increase for charting,
    and it turned out that after the bill is over, I can come to
    you and say we are asking for $7 million--
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. --because we had $5 million--this is
    an example where we had some money cut in the bill. We have
    this unfortunate timing issue--
        Mr. Pallone. I understand.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. --and I would like to get this closer
    together. I have made suggestions--
        Mr. Pallone. Maybe look at it again in the context of
    appropriations.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. But we are absolutely committed.
    There is a long list of needs. I think we all agree on national
    needs in the Ocean Service and our wet side that I would
    certainly love to be able to put more money against, and I am
    always working hard to try to get funding to meet the needs of
    the country.
        Mr. Pallone. Let me ask you about the non-point source
    pollution program, because you asked for $10 million to
    implement that. But I wanted to say, what administrative
    actions is NOAA presently considering to address those States
    failing to develop Federally approved non-point source
    pollution plans pursuant to Section 217 of the CZMA? There was
    talk about penalties a few months ago, and I just wondered if
    you could answer that.
        Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, we have been working hard to
    try to get all the States qualified with qualified plans so
    that penalties will not be necessary. We at one point used to
    have sort of one-third/one-third/one-third, one-third
    completely certified, one-third provisionally certified, and
    another third working. We now have almost two-thirds that are--
    well, one-third completely certified, but 21 States that are
    now close to being fully certified. We believe by the end of
    this year we can get another nine or ten fully certified.
        So we are hoping that through concerted action, there will
    be a smaller pool of States that would be subject to penalties,
    and we are also working with EPA, who has a larger share, you
    might say, of the resources to put against this problem to try
    to encourage States and the local authorities to provide the
    last bits and pieces they need to do this. I would prefer not
    to provide a penalty, but I obviously have to live with the
    law. But we are trying to work hard not to have to go to a
    penalty phase.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Faleomavaega, any further questions?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, just an observation. I
    thank Admiral Lautenbacher and Mr. Williams for their testimony
    this afternoon. But my observation, Mr. Chairman, I may be
    wrong, but the eve of the situation that we do not yet know in
    terms of the war that is now pending, it seems that all the
    numbers are going to have to be readjusted down the line
    somewhere, the entire national budget. I may be wrong in this,
    and this, I suspect, will also have a definite impact on the
    proposed budget for NOAA as well as with the national
    fisheries. Just an observation, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. We feel your
    apprehension on that one.
        Admiral Lautenbacher, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones, thank you
    so much for your testimony this afternoon. We do have a number
    of other questions, but we won't bring you in here for another
    hearing for several weeks, anyway, I guess. But at some point
    in the next month or so, maybe we can meet for breakfast or
    lunch or dinner and any member of the Subcommittee that would
    want to come by for an informal chat about these issues, I
    think that would be mutually beneficial.
        We can make it unanimous consent that the record remain
    open for 20 days. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Responses to questions submitted for the record by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follow:]

        Answers to questions submitted by the Subcommittee on Fisheries
                       Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

        1. What is the current number of species listed under the
    Endangered Species Act? What is the number of candidate species?
        There are 1262 domestic species on the list of threatened and
    endangered species: 1235 of them are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Service) species. There are 257 candidate species.

        2. How many species are currently being reviewed for listing?
        There are 38 species proposed for listing. We have court orders to
    propose or complete petition findings on an additional 8 species. The
    Service is also continually evaluating its candidates and other species
    to determine if they warrant emergency listing.

        3. What is the value of critical habitat designation? How many
    acres have already been designated for listed species?
        Conservation of habitat is vitally important to successful recovery
    and delisting of species.
        However, as my predecessor, Director Jamie Clark, testified before
    the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on May 27, 1999,
    the designation of critical habitat under the provisions of the
    Endangered Species Act provides little additional protection to most
    listed species while consuming significant amounts of scarce
    conservation resources.
        We do not have a tally of acres of designated or proposed critical
    habitat because it involves more than just adding up all the proposed
    and designated acres. To obtain an accurate figure, we would need to
    take into account overlapping acres--both designated and proposed for
    designation, throughout the country.

        4. In Director Williams's testimony, he notes that $3.2 million is
    requested to deal with litigation driven listing decisions. How many
    court cases does this involve and how was this figure calculated?
        The Service has requested $12.3 million for the listing program for
    Fiscal Year 2004. This request is a $3.2 million increase over the
    Fiscal Year 2003 requested level--the largest increase ever requested
    for the listing program. This increase will go exclusively to court-
    ordered critical habitat designations. The requested increase includes
    a total of $3,831,498 for critical habitat for already listed species.
    The increased funding will allow the Service to meet its anticipated
    court orders for the designation of critical habitat for already listed
    species. Other listing activities will be decreased by $645,498. This
    decrease is a result of the need to provide additional funding to make
    certain that the Service can meet all of its court-ordered deadlines
    for critical habitat for already listed species. The Service expects in
    Fiscal Year 2004 to work on complying with court orders and settlement
    agreements to designate critical habitat for 43 species and court
    ordered listing actions for 20 species.

        5. How many Safe Harbor Agreements are now in place? How many are
    anticipated in Fiscal Year 2004?
        There are currently 16 Safe Harbor Agreements in place. We
    anticipate permitting 12 Safe Harbor Agreements in Fiscal Year 2004.

        6. In terms of the Save the Manatee Club lawsuit, the Service
    intends to require a Section 7 consultation and a Biological Opinion
    for the construction of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of boat docks in
    the State of Florida? What is the estimate of the annual number of boat
    docks and what is the cost to implement this program?
        We are currently conducting consultations on all watercraft access
    activities that may affect manatees in peninsular Florida (coastline
    and navigable waterways of the State of Florida from the mouth of the
    St. Mary's River on the Atlantic Coast to the mouth of the Aucilla
    River on the Gulf of Mexico Coast) consistent with the regulations
    found in 50 C.F.R. Part 402. While we cannot predict the number of
    future activities, we believe it is likely to be similar to recent
    numbers. For example, during 2001, a total of 3,625 new boat slips
    (note that one dock may contain multiple slips) were permitted in
    Florida, and between January 2 and June 30, 2002, an additional 1,408
    boat slips were permitted; of these, an estimated 2,809 slips (56
    percent) were located in southwest Florida (USFWS, unpublished data).
    In addition, the Service reviews approximately 30 marine events (e.g.,
    high speed races and parades and other events) annually in Florida in
    association with U.S. Coast Guard permits.
        Section 7 consultations for manatees are conducted through our Vero
    Beach and Jacksonville Field Offices. So far, for Fiscal Year 2003, the
    Service has allocated approximately $400,000 for these consultations.

        7. Could the Service provide the Subcommittee with a list of the
    literature and scientific analysis that justifies the conclusion that
    boat docks adversely affect the safety of manatees?
        Section 7 of the ESA imposes certain requirements on federal
    agencies. Federal agencies must consult on actions that they believe
    may affect listed species or designated critical habitat. During the
    section 7 consultation process, the federal agency must consider the
    manner in which the agency's action may affect any listed species or
    critical habitat and an analysis of any cumulative effects. The effects
    of the action include direct and indirect effects, together with the
    effects of other activities that are interdependent with that action.
    In National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman, 529 F.2d 359 (5th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979 (1976), the court ruled that indirect
    effects of development resulting from the proposed construction of
    highway interchanges had to be considered as impacts of a proposed
    federal highway project, even though the private development had not
    been planned at the time the highway project was proposed. Further, the
    Fifth Circuit's holding in Coleman was followed in the Tenth Circuit.
    Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews, 758 F.2d 508 (10th Cir.
    1985). In that case, the court held that an indirect effect that was
    more than 100 miles from the project site had to be considered. Under
    section 7 of the ESA, indirect effects are those effects that are
    caused by the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably
    certain to occur throughout the life of the project.
        We completed our final EIS for a proposed rule to authorize
    incidental take of manatees from watercraft access and operation in
    Florida under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and have attached a
    copy of the literature cited section for your reference. (See
    Attachment 1). A significant portion of the EIS is devoted to
    discussing the relationship between watercraft use and incidental take
    of manatees. Specifically, Ackerman et al. (1995) demonstrated that a
    positive correlation exists between watercraft use of Florida's
    waterways, access facilities, and watercraft-related incidental take.
    The evidence of watercraft-related incidental take of manatees is based
    on probabilities and trends and a thorough assessment of the action,
    the effects of the specific action on manatees, and any conservation
    measures that may minimize these effects. As the absolute number of
    access structures increase, so does the incidence (or probability) of
    the occurrence of watercraft related incidental take of manatees.
    Incidental take of manatees is reasonably certain to occur as
    additional watercraft access structures are added to Florida's
    waterways, if appropriate measures are not in place.
        Authorizing watercraft access activities (building of docks,
    marinas, boat ramps; conducting boat races; etc.) by Federal agencies
    in manatee-inhabited areas indirectly affects manatees by increasing
    the likelihood of manatee mortality, injury, or harassment resulting
    from interaction or collisions with boats associated with the permitted
    facility. For example, the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI)
    database now documents 1,184 living individuals scarred from collisions
    with boats. Most of these manatees (1,153, or 97 percent) have more
    than one scar pattern, indicating multiple strikes with boats.
    Carcasses examined at necropsy also bear healed scars of multiple past
    strikes by boats; one extreme case, recently noted by the FMRI, had
    evidence of more than 50 past boat collisions (O'Shea et al. 2001).
    Placement of boat access points has the potential to concentrate
    boating activities to that particular vicinity based on the use of the
    waterways. If this area is frequented by manatees, the likelihood of
    boat collisions with manatees is increased proportional to the number
    of boats using the area, given that the boats may be operated in a
    manner and at a speed that could result in collisions with manatees.
    (Ackerman et al. 1995) Simply put, more boats in areas used by manatees
    will increase the likelihood of boat strikes.

        8. What is the current number and acreage covered by Habitat
    Conservation Plans? What is the estimated cost to the Service and to
    the recipient for completing a HCP?
        As of March 31, 2003, we have issued permits for 416 Habitat
    Conservation Plans (HCP) affecting 38,388,495 acres.
        The estimated costs to the Service and the permit recipient of
    completing an HCP vary dramatically. The number of species that are
    covered by the permit, the size of the area covered, the number and
    range of stakeholders involved, the types of covered activities, and
    the necessary level of environmental documentation are all among the
    factors that affect the complexity of any HCP effort and its likely
    cost. We lack the information necessary to estimate the total costs of
    permit applicants in developing and finalizing an HCP; however, the
    grants we have awarded through our Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund - HCP Planning Assistance Grants Program provide a
    rough idea of the scope and range of costs to permittees. In 2002, we
    awarded 24 HCP Planning Assistance Grants, for an average grant amount
    of about $275,000; the range of awards was from a low of $60,000 to a
    high of $1,066,505. These amounts underestimate the total costs to the
    permit applicants, both because of section 6's cost-share requirements
    and because many permit applicants have already undertaken significant
    work towards the HCP before applying for a Planning Assistance Grants.
        We also do not have the information needed to estimate the costs to
    the Service of completing a typical HCP. For the same reasons described
    above for applicants, each HCP varies, and the Service's workload for
    each also varies significantly. Moreover, we do not allocate funds on
    an HCP-by-HCP basis, and as of yet we have not tracked expenditures on
    each particular HCP; without this information, we cannot provide an
    accurate estimate.

        9. How many species are now covered by recovery plans? How many
    species have been declared recovered? What is the estimated cost to
    recover all of the domestic species currently listed in the United
    States?
        Of the 1,254 U.S. species listed at the end of Fiscal Year 2002,
    1,000 species (80 percent) are covered by an approved recovery plan.
    Over the years, 11 U.S. species have been delisted because they are
    considered recovered. These are the Aleutian Canada goose, the American
    alligator, the American peregrine falcon, the Arctic peregrine falcon,
    the east coast population of the brown pelican, the gray whale, the
    Palau fantail flycatcher, the Palau ground dove, the Palau owl, Robbins
    cinquefoil, and the Rydberg milkvetch. Several more species have
    achieved their recovery goals, and the Service is preparing proposed or
    final rules to delist them. Additional species have improved in status
    to the point of nearly meeting their delisting criteria. In our
    assessments conducted to prepare the Fiscal Year 2002 Recovery Report
    to Congress, a report on the status of U.S. species listed as
    threatened or endangered under the ESA, the Service considered 314 (25
    percent) of the 1,254 listed species to be stable or improving in
    status since 1996.
        Recovery plans include an estimate of the costs to recover the
    species. However, we have not compiled this information into a single
    estimate of the costs to recover all species. Also, because some
    recovery plans were developed many years ago, the figures may no longer
    be reasonable estimates of the costs to recover the species. The
    Service has begun development of a database to identify recovery tasks
    identified in recovery plans and to track their implementation. The
    database will include cost estimates and other useful information. In
    addition, the Service is beginning development of guidance on the
    estimation of recovery costs to improve the quality and consistency of
    these estimates. We will provide this information to the Committee once
    it is completed.
        The Service has also not calculated how much it would cost to
    recover all of the domestic species currently listed in the U.S. The
    scientific community has studied the cost of recovery in more detail.
    For instance, a paper published in Bioscience (The Endangered Species
    Act: Dollars and Sense? Miller et. al., February 2002) suggests that an
    increase of $300 million per year above current spending would result
    in improved levels of recovery for many more species. The Service
    neither supports nor refutes this estimate. The Service's Fiscal Year
    2004 budget request includes $62 million to be used for funding the
    highest priority recovery actions.

        10. What is the current number of priority projects listed in the
    capital and equipment maintenance backlog? What is the total dollar
    amount of the maintenance backlog?
        The National Wildlife Refuge System's (NWRS) Condition Assessment
    Program was established in Fiscal Year 2001 to systematically assess
    the condition of refuge system's real property. The condition of all
    NWRS property with replacement costs at more than $50,000 will be
    assessed every 5 years. Refuge system maintenance databases have been
    modified to meet Department of the Interior (Department) standards and
    data requirements for property condition assessments. The 5-year
    program to complete comprehensive conditions assessments for all field
    stations is presently on target. To date, 40 percent of all facilities
    have had comprehensive condition assessments completed through the
    field inspection stage. Facility Condition Index (FCI), which is the
    ratio of deferred maintenance needs to replacement costs will
    ultimately be used to rank and verify facility maintenance needs at
    field stations and provides information for strategic Departmental
    planning within the NWRS.
        There are 9,159 projects identified and included in the Service
    Assets Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) that may be funded through
    deferred maintenance: 8,396 projects have deferred maintenance
    components; 863 projects suitable from funding from the Construction
    budget have deferred maintenance components. Comprehensive Condition
    Assessments are still underway to evaluate all field facilities. As
    noted above, these assessments require 5 years to fully complete and
    are currently in their third year.
        The Refuge System has a diverse equipment fleet that includes about
    4,000 transportation vehicles and about 4,000 items of agricultural and
    construction equipment. Since equipment repair and replacement is not
    considered deferred maintenance, there is no backlog figure available
    for equipment.
        The Service regularly produces deferred maintenance and
    construction plans to ensure that the highest priority projects are
    funded each year.
        The Service's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request includes $75 million
    for deferred maintenance, including $7 million for heavy equipment
    replacement, and $13 million for refuge construction for the highest
    priority needs.

        11. How much has the Bush Administration requested for refuge
    maintenance funds in the past three years? How does this compare with
    the prior four years and eight years of the Clinton Administration?
        Refuge Maintenance budget history for the requested time period is
    displayed in the table below:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.001

        12. How large is the invasive species problem in the National
    Wildlife Refuge System? What are the top five invasive species that you
    must confront?
        A formal survey of managers, administrators and biologists on
    National Wildlife Refuges led by researchers at Colorado State
    University, determined that 80 percent of the refuges have identified
    invasive species problems. The problems are caused by more than 670
    nonnative plant species, non-indigenous animals and emerging diseases.
    Management actions to control invasive species have been taken on over
    300 separate refuges and we have identified other invasive species
    projects that exceed $150 million within the NWRS. The magnitude of the
    problem varies from site to site, but in all cases refuge-managed
    natural resources are being adversely affected.
        Since different geographical regions are affected by different
    species it is extremely difficult to determine the ``top five''
    invasive species affecting National Wildlife Refuges. Among the most
    insidious plant invaders on refuges are salt cedar, leafy spurge,
    perennial pepperweed, Canada thistle, Brazilian pepper tree, purple
    loosestrife, Australian pine, Chinese tallow trees, old world climbing
    fern, and melaleuca. Exotic/nonindigenous animals affecting refuge
    resources include tilapia, Norway rats, Asian carp, nutria, Asian swamp
    eels, brown tree snake, feral goats, and wild pigs. In addition,
    diseases such as the West Nile Virus have created a threat to wildlife
    as well as human health. Many of the species that are creating problems
    on refuges have also been identified by other agencies as issues that
    need to be addressed. The multi-agency National Invasive Species
    Council has identified salt cedar, leafy spurge and yellow star
    thistle, Asian carp, brown tree snake and emerald ash borer as some of
    the highest priority invasive species for all federal agencies. If
    required to identify only five of the species as our highest priorities
    for action, we would likely include salt cedar (Tamarisk), leafy
    spurge, melaleuca, perennial pepperweed and Canada thistle based on
    information regarding impacts to native species and their habitats and
    the magnitude of the problems caused by these species throughout the
    NWRS.

        13. How will the $800,000 request for nutria eradication in
    Maryland be spent?
        The Service will utilize the $ 800,000 in accordance with the
    Nutria Control Project Plans. The project is a partnership of 27
    federal, state, and private partners with a management team comprised
    of Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (USGS),
    Maryland Department of Natural Resources, University of Maryland
    Eastern Shore (UMES), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Blackwater NWR & the Chesapeake Bay Field Office). Funding will be
    dedicated exclusively to this pilot eradication effort and will fund
    the salaries of the 14 trappers, a trapper supervisor and technicians
    as appropriate, and the procurement of equipment necessary to
    accelerate and expand the eradication effort level of intensity and its
    geographical extent. Intensive harvest will continue at Blackwater NWR,
    Tudor Farms, and Fishing Bay State Wildlife Management Area. Expanded
    eradication efforts will focus on public and private lands where marsh
    restoration activities are being implemented by the Corps of Engineers.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.002

        14. How many individuals now volunteer their time in the National
    Wildlife Refuge System? What is the dollar value of their labors?
        In Fiscal Year 2002, a total of 34,408 volunteers provided their
    time, talents and skills to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Their
    contributions are valued at $12.2 million.

        15. What is the Service proposing for the Midway Atoll National
    Wildlife Refuge in Fiscal Year 2004?
        The Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget includes an increase of
    $1.0 million to address critical operations needs at Midway Atoll NWR,
    which would increase the base operations budget to $1.5 million. The
    Service's Five-Year Deferred Maintenance Plan also includes $460,000 in
    Fiscal Year 2004 to address critical health and safety deficiencies at
    Midway Atoll NWR.
        The requested increase will be directed towards the highest
    priority refuge operations and maintenance needs. Operations funding
    will provide fuel, transportation, equipment and supplies to support
    existing staff. It will also be used to address the highest priority
    refuge maintenance needs at Midway Atoll NWR.
        The $3.5 million provided in the Fiscal Year 2003 Transportation
    bill (P.L. 108-7) will be used to cover Fiscal Year 2003 airfield and
    related infrastructure costs once the interagency agreement between
    Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Service is signed.
        The Service continues to work with other stakeholders, including
    the Department of Transportation, to develop a long-term operations and
    maintenance funding strategy for the airfield and supporting
    infrastructure at Midway Atoll NWR. Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations
    report language prohibited the Service from covering airfield and
    related support infrastructure expenses from within its budget, beyond
    the requirements associated with refuge operations and maintaining a
    reasonable level of visitor access.

        16. There are many communities, especially those in the Northeast
    and Midwest, that have experienced increasing, significant and
    economically damaging conflicts with the growing numbers of Canada
    geese that have become ``resident'' by failing to migrate to nest. The
    negative economic impact at some sites, including golf courses, parks
    and beaches has reached thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of
    dollars each year at each site. Some communities and individuals have
    begun to develop efficient and cost effective public private
    partnerships to control the population growth of Canada geese in their
    area using their own staff or trained volunteers to treat goose eggs.
    Unfortunately, the long application processing periods of your agency
    kept many of these communities from implementing their program last
    year because permits were not processed before nesting season began in
    late March or early April.
        Even more distressing, the Hadley Regional office is now telling
    applicants that there is a six month backlog of applications which
    means those entities that wish to treat eggs this spring will not be
    able to begin because they will be unable to get the required approval
    from your agency. Last year thousands of additional geese were added to
    this problem because localities were told by your agency that they
    applied ``too late'' even when they applied months in advance. This
    year, potentially thousands more geese will be added to this number.
    Communities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and
    Virginia, and others are all either waiting for or have been
    discouraged from even applying for these permits.
        What can the agency do, considering the negative consequences of
    allowing additional geese to be added to the resident population, to
    ensure that every community, property owner or commercial operation
    that applies for a permit this spring, with a two week or more window
    before nesting begins, has the application processed and given due
    consideration?
        The Service is aware that the communities in the Northeast are
    experiencing increasing, significant, and economically damaging
    conflicts with resident Canada geese. We have taken several measures to
    be responsive to the growing need to address Canada goose management
    locally. For instance, in 1999, we issued regulations for a special
    Canada goose permit to provide state wildlife agencies the ability to
    manage and control resident population Canada geese. These permits can
    authorize addling of eggs from March 11 through August 31. Fourteen
    states have taken advantage of these special permits, including
    Delaware and New York in the northeast.
        In addition, the Service published a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (DEIS) to address resident Canada goose management. The
    preferred alternative, if adopted, would allow state wildlife agencies
    (or their agents) to conduct or authorize direct control of resident
    geese including the take of birds, nests and eggs, and provide states
    needed flexibility. Depending on a state's selection of control
    strategies, the number of Service-issued permits necessary to address
    nuisance geese is expected to decrease significantly.
        While we are completing the Final EIS and associated regulations,
    we have implemented a number of actions to help streamline the
    permitting process and facilitate timely issuance of Canada goose
    permits, including the following.
        Of the Service Regions issuing Canada goose egg addling permits,
    the Northeast Regional Permit Office processes the greatest number.
    That Region has taken several measures recently to streamline the
    permitting process. Among other things, they recently implemented a
    streamlined biological review process to reduce processing time. Each
    year, prior to the nesting season, staff biologists will assess
    populations and document compliance with National Environmental Policy
    Act. Completing and documenting the biological review programmatically
    in advance of the nesting season will facilitate processing of most
    addling permits. In addition, the scope of issued permits has been
    broadened to accommodate the needs of entire municipalities, as well as
    county park agencies, to addle Canada geese eggs. The Region also has
    begun mailing permit renewal forms in September each year to encourage
    more timely submission of renewal requests for the following season.
        The Northeast Region has already issued more than 350 addling
    permits for the 2003 nesting season, including all applications
    received by January 31. While our regulations advise applicants to
    submit applications 60 days in advance, we are making every effort to
    process addling applications within 30 days of receipt. The Service
    processed nearly 2000 depredation permit requests last year, over half
    of which were in the Northeast Region. We will continue to implement
    measures to facilitate timely processing of permits while ensuring
    compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other applicable laws
    and regulations.

        17. One significant criticism of the process of approving permits
    is that the agency requires the same application and consideration of
    applicants requesting authority to addle or oil eggs as for other
    ``depredation'' options. While the agency may wish to give analysis to
    requests for lethal takes, the agency rarely if ever, denies a permit
    for addling nests. Because, by definition, Canada geese which nest in
    the United States, are not part of the migratory flocks that FWS has a
    strong interest in protecting, and because an analysis of other control
    methods requires additional scrutiny, why doesn't FWS separate the non-
    lethal egg addling depredation permit from other options and expedite
    the process for property owners requesting only egg addling or oiling.
        Recognizing the limited period during which egg addling can be
    conducted, the Service already separates Canada goose egg addling
    permits from applications for other types of depredation permits and
    assigns them priority for processing.

        18. When communities try to solve their Canada geese nuisance
    problems in urban and suburban communities, a significant controversy
    arises in the community when there is a suggestion to round up the
    geese during the molt. What can the agency do to promote effective
    solutions for non-controversial population stabilization methods for
    Canada geese like egg addling or oiling that build, not destroy
    communities?
        In conjunction with an overall management program egg addling or
    oiling can be an effective and relatively non-controversial means of
    managing local resident Canada goose populations, and we support
    community efforts to address local depredation problems. We will
    continue to seek and implement measures to streamline the application
    process and expedite processing of permits.

        19. We understand that the agency has been aware for a number of
    years that the regulations in place, designed to protect growing
    numbers of Canada geese, are draconian and unnecessary for resident
    flocks given their extreme proliferation and unnatural commitment to
    residing year round on one site. The agency has been in the process of
    revising regulations related to the management of Canada geese for over
    three years. The final rule is expected to require that states become
    the regulators with an unfunded mandate. Several states have objected
    to this additional burden in the proposed rule and may sue the agency.
    This will surely delay your agency from accomplishing any reform. Why
    not implement reform for the system today to streamline the application
    process and relieve your workload for addling/oiling permit
    applications and place on a separate track the more contentious issues.
        The process of revising the regulations relative to the management
    of resident Canada geese is a complex issue and process. The associated
    DEIS on Resident Canada Goose Management is a comprehensive
    programmatic plan intended to guide and direct resident Canada goose
    population control and management activities in the conterminous United
    States. As such, it requires extensive Flyway, state and public
    participation. The objective of the DEIS and any ultimate proposal is
    to provide a regulatory mechanism that will allow state and local
    agencies, other federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond
    to damage complaints or damages by resident Canada geese. Any strategy
    should be more effective than the current system, and should be
    environmentally-sound, cost-effective, and flexible enough to meet the
    variety of management needs found throughout the Flyways. Further, the
    management strategy should not threaten viable resident Canada goose
    populations, as determined by each Flyway Council, and must be
    developed in accordance with the mission of the Service.
        We believe that the preferred alternative meets these objectives.
    However, we are aware that some states may view the strategy
    unfavorably, or with uncertainty. Our analysis indicates that depending
    on the states'' selection of management strategies, workload could vary
    widely under the preferred strategy. In participating states, decisions
    regarding resident Canada goose management activities would fall to the
    state. In those nonparticipating states, most workloads regarding
    resident Canada geese would be largely unaffected. In no case does this
    constitute an unfunded federal mandate, as state participation would be
    voluntary and based on their own decision as to whether they believe
    this is the approach they want to adopt.
        We believe the ``State Empowerment'' alternative provides states
    the most flexibility to deal with resident Canada goose damage
    management activities. States are provided with a menu of available
    management options ranging from specific depredation orders dealing
    with airports, agriculture, public health, and nests and eggs, to
    increased hunting opportunities both inside and outside the Treaty
    frameworks. Thus, states are able to choose and implement only those
    specific programs they are either comfortable with, have experience
    with, or believe to be the best available option to deal with goose
    conflicts and populations in their respective states.
        Further, there is no federal requirement in any of these management
    alternatives for the state to issue permits or subpermits to those
    allowed to conduct management activities. If a state wishes to keep
    detailed records of those parties allowed to conduct management
    activities or issue permits, it may do so. However, if a state merely
    wishes to grant, through an order of their choosing, a certain group of
    entities or individuals the authority to conduct resident goose damage
    management activities, it may also do so. The only federal
    requirements, other than overall program restrictions, are to monitor
    the spring breeding population and annually report the number of geese
    (adults, gosling, nests, and eggs) taken within the state. These
    requirements are necessary in order to adequately assess population
    status and the effectiveness of management activities.

        20. Why has the administration requested no money for Canada geese
    depredation?
        The Service is aware that damage complaints to personal and public
    property, agricultural damage, and concerns related to human health and
    safety caused by populations of Canada geese have been increasing over
    the past few years. Some of these problems are attributed to increasing
    populations of Canada geese, while others are more closely related to
    goose distribution issues. Given our priorities, we continue to try and
    work within available resources to meet these increasing public needs.
    Through cooperative relationships with our state and federal partners,
    we are working extremely hard to develop integrated management
    strategies for nationwide Canada goose management while continuing to
    strive towards state and Flyway established management goals and
    objectives for the various populations. Once management strategies are
    fully developed, we will work with all of the affected parties for full
    implementation.

        21. What is the status of management plans for light geese and
    double crested cormorants?
        Light geese: In October 2001, the Service made a DEIS on light
    goose management available for public comment. The following four
    alternatives were analyzed.
            A. No Action.
            B. (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Modify harvest regulation options
            and refuge management.
            C. Implement direct light goose population control on
            wintering and migration areas in the U.S.
            D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding
            grounds in Canada.
        The public comment period on the draft document closed on January
    25, 2002. Public comments on the Draft EIS were submitted by 486
    individuals, agencies, and organizations. Approximately 63 percent of
    comments supported implementation of light goose population control.
    Most supporters of control favored alternative B. However, some Flyway
    Councils and several state agencies suggested that a new alternative be
    developed that includes aspects of Alternatives B, C, and D above. In
    addition, it was suggested that methods of take should be revised to
    include (among other methods) the adoption of baiting regulations
    during the conservation order that are similar to dove baiting
    regulations. The Service will include analysis of a new alternative in
    the Final EIS that includes aspects of alternatives B, C, and D above.
    For this alternative, a two-phase approach will be developed that will
    continue to use regulations to increase harvest of light geese (e.g., a
    conservation order) and, if needed, a second phase would provide for
    direct control of the population by the agency.
        It is anticipated that a Final EIS and subsequent final rule will
    be published sometime this summer. If either the current preferred
    alternative, or the new alternative, are adopted, state agencies will
    be provided with regulatory options that will maintain increased
    harvest of light geese during the 2003-2004 regular season, and a
    conservation order during spring 2004 and beyond. Adoption of the
    preferred alternative would also allow Atlantic Flyway states to
    implement new regulations to increase harvest of greater snow geese.
    New actions are not currently being proposed for the Pacific Flyway.
    However, inclusion of the Pacific Flyway may become necessary if
    habitat damage becomes evident in the western Arctic, or if additional
    harvest pressure is needed for birds that breed in the central Arctic
    and winter in the Pacific Flyway.
        Cormorants: The DEIS on double-crested cormorant management was
    completed in December 2001. The proposed rule, which is the regulatory
    implementation of the preferred alternative in the DEIS was published
    in the Federal Register on March, 17, 2003. Following a 60-day public
    comment period on the proposed rule, the final rule and Final EIS are
    planned for completion in the fall of 2003. Our preferred alternative
    would authorize state fish and wildlife agencies, APHIS - Wildlife
    Services, and Tribes to control double-crested cormorants without a
    Service permit where necessary to protect public resources (fish,
    wildlife, plants, and their habitats) in 24 states.

        22. What is the status of efforts to reduce the exploding
    population of light geese?
        From 1955-1998, the winter index (a partial count of the entire
    population) of light geese in the mid-continent region increased from
    approximately 693,000 to nearly 3.2 million birds. In February 1999,
    new regulations were published that authorized new methods of take
    (unplugged shotguns, electronic calls) and a conservation order for
    light geese. Among other changes, the conservation order allowed take
    of light geese after the closure of regular hunting seasons on March
    10. In the 5 years prior to implementation of the new regulations, the
    average harvest of light geese in the U.S. portions of the Central and
    Mississippi Flyways was approximately 488,000 birds per year. New
    regulations resulted in an increase in the harvest of mid-continent
    light geese to over 1.1 million during the 1998-1999 regular season and
    spring 1999 conservation order, combined. In the subsequent three
    years, the total annual harvest has ranged from 900,000 to 1.4 million
    birds. Inclusion of harvest in Canada increases the range in harvest
    during 2000-2002 from 1.0 to over 1.5 million birds.
        This effort to increase harvest clearly has had an effect on the
    light goose population. Following the peak in the winter index of 3.2
    million birds in 1998, the population experienced 3 successive years of
    decline to 2.6 million birds in 2001. However, favorable nesting
    conditions and good production of young resulted in an increase to 2.9
    million birds in 2002. The increase would have been even higher had it
    not been for the increased harvest level. These statistics show the
    complexity of managing a wildlife population at a continental level.
    Population modeling indicates that an annual harvest of 1.4 million
    birds should achieve the goal of reducing the population by 50 percent.
    Although the target level of harvest may not be reached every year, we
    believe that implementation of new harvest regulations during the past
    4 years has been successful and that more drastic measures of direct
    population control may not be necessary in the immediate future.

        23. Has the critical habitat of the Hudson Bay region been spared
    further destruction from light geese?
        Extensive grazing and grubbing of above and belowground plant
    material by light geese causes the removal of the vegetative mat, which
    protects underlying sediments, and results in the eventual
    desertification of saltmarsh habitat. Under such conditions there may
    be little or no chance of plant recovery within 25-50 years, or more.
    Of the 135,000 acres of coastal salt marsh habitat in the Hudson Bay
    Lowlands, 35 percent is considered to be destroyed, 30 percent is
    damaged, and 35 percent is overgrazed. Due to the remoteness and
    expense of conducting research in the arctic, no studies have generated
    quantitative estimates of yearly habitat loss. However, comparison of
    infrared satellite photos from 1984 and 1993 suggests that vegetation
    decline in La Perouse Bay alone has been approximately 393 acres per
    year. Observations by biologists indicate that habitat degradation and
    loss is occurring at other sites in eastern and central arctic and
    subarctic regions.
        Although the number of light geese has been reduced through
    management action, large numbers of geese continue to occupy arctic and
    subarctic breeding areas. Therefore, damage to habitats will continue
    to occur, but likely at a reduced rate. Achievement of the goal of a 50
    percent reduction in the mid-continent light goose population should
    result in decreased grazing and grubbing pressure on remaining
    habitats. However, long-term vegetation studies will be needed in order
    to monitor habitat response to light goose management actions.
    Information from such studies should be used in an adaptive management
    approach to help us better understand goose-plant relationships and
    determine the optimum size of the light goose population.

        24. Why has the D. C. Booth National Fish Hatchery in South Dakota
    been designated as an historic hatchery and what does that mean?
        The D.C. Booth Historic National Fish Hatchery in Spearfish, South
    Dakota, was established in 1896 and is one of the oldest remaining Fish
    Hatcheries in the country. The facility includes a high number of
    preserved historic structures and is listed as a historic district on
    the National Register of Historic Places. With a large and growing
    collection of historic fisheries material, the Service designated D.C.
    Booth as an historic hatchery in 1989 ``to protect and preserve fishery
    records and artifacts for educational, research, and historic purposes,
    and provide interpretive and educational programs for the public.''
        With the addition of a 10,000 square foot controlled environment
    building in 1995, D.C. Booth provides the Service with a museum
    collection facility that meets Department of the Interior directives
    and standards for the preservation of heritage and cultural resources,
    and houses the largest collection of historic fisheries conservation
    material in this country. Operation of the site is shared through a
    series of partnerships with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
    and Parks; the City of Spearfish, South Dakota; the American Fisheries
    Society; and the Booth Society, the oldest and largest ``Friends''
    group in the Fisheries Program. Using the collection and historic site
    for interpretation and educational purposes, D.C. Booth shares the
    history and values of fisheries conservation with 150,000 annual
    visitors. In addition, D.C. Booth's unique collection of historical
    documents and other reference materials, much of which is provided by
    other Service facilities and would otherwise be lost, is made available
    to meet a growing number of research requests from federal, state,
    university, and private entities each year relating to hatchery
    operations, fish culture and techniques, and other fisheries science
    and conservation topics.

        25. What is the backlog of maintenance projects at our National
    Fish Hatchery System? What is the average age of these hatcheries?
        The National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) has been conducting
    condition assessments of its field stations for the past two years,
    completing 25 assessments (32 percent) out of its 79 field sites. These
    assessments have been certified by the National Condition Assessment
    coordinator. The NFHS will continue to work with the Department, the
    Service's Division of Refuges and Engineering, and its regional and
    field coordinators in implementing two significant improvements in the
    management of the Service's facility information: condition assessments
    and Service Assets Maintenance Management System (SAMMS).
        There are 1,426 identified deferred maintenance (rehabilitation and
    repair) projects included in the Service Assets Maintenance Management
    System (SAMMS). Of these 1,426 deferred maintenance projects, 643
    projects estimated at $181 million involve critical water management
    assets and are considered highest priority, i.e., those assets that
    directly influence the quality or quantity of water delivered and
    discharged, or assets that determine the actual rearing or holding
    environment of the fish or other aquatic species being held.
        The Service's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request includes $17 million
    for the highest priority maintenance needs, including a increase of $3
    million for deferred maintenance over the Fiscal Year 2003 request.
        The average age of the NFHS's 86 field stations (which include 69
    National Fish Hatcheries, 7 Fish Technology Centers, 9 Fish Health
    Centers, and 1 Historic NFH) is 55 years old, with 66 percent of them
    over 30 years old.

        26. How much is requested for hatchery maintenance in Fiscal Year
    2004?
        In Fiscal Year 2004, a total of $17.215 million is requested for
    hatchery maintenance, a significant increase of $3 million over the
    Fiscal Year 2003 request.

        27. Why are there no funds requested for the Cooperative
    Conservation Initiative in 2004?
        Actually, the 2004 request includes a total of $113 million for a
    second year of the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI), which
    reflects Secretary Norton's emphasis on building partnerships for the
    conservation of natural resources and provides expanded opportunities
    for land managers to work with landowners and others to participate in
    creative conservation partnerships. Of this total, over $70 million is
    targeted to Service programs.
        Revised from last year's proposal, the initiative builds on
    existing conservation partnership programs that have successfully
    established productive relationships with local communities and
    citizens. Nearly half of the CCI, or $54 million, will be implemented
    through the challenge cost share programs of the Department's three
    land management agencies. The remaining programs include the Service's
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the Joint Venture Program, and
    the Coastal Program, as well as the Park Service Public Lands
    Volunteers Program.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.003

        28. Please provide the total number of conservation projects, the
    dollar amount appropriated, private matching funds, number of affected
    range states and updated population figures on African elephants, Asian
    elephants, rhinoceros and tigers, great apes and Neotropical Migratory
    Birds?
        Attached are two charts that provide the requested information. The
    first displays the number of grants awarded, the range countries
    affected, the dollar amount appropriated, and matching funds, including
    the amount matched with in-kind services for the African Elephant
    Conservation Act, Asian Elephant Conservation Act, Rhinoceros-Tiger
    Conservation Act, Great Apes Conservation Act and the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act. (See Attachment 2). The second
    provides population figures for African elephants, Asian elephants,
    rhinoceros and tigers, and great apes. (See Attachment 3).
        With respect to Neotropical Migratory Birds, about half of the 341
    species of neotropical migratory birds are known to have declining
    populations. In addition, the Service has identified 62 Neotropical
    migrants on its list of ``Birds of Conservation Concern'' including the
    Swainson's hawk, Red Knot, wood thrush, and Cerulean warbler.

        29. The Administration has requested $3 million for the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Account. What is the justification for this
    figure? Are neotropical birds in greater peril of extinction than
    rhinos, tigers or certain great ape species?
        The Neotropical grants program has identified a significant unmet
    need, with demand for these funds far exceeding the supply, partially
    because those species did not benefit from a sustained conservation
    program in the past directed at neotropical migratory birds.
    Conservation activities are needed throughout the Western Hemisphere
    for more than three hundred species, and a budget of $3 million,
    requested through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, would
    allow the Service to address the highest priority projects to conserve
    neotropical birds. About half of these birds have declining
    populations, and some are threatened with extinction. The Service has
    identified 62 Neotropical migrants on its list of ``Birds of
    Conservation Concern,'' those that are likely to become candidates for
    listing under the Endangered Species Act. Some examples include
    Swainson's hawk, Red Knot, wood thrush, and Cerulean warbler.

        30. How much additional funding do neotropical migratory birds
    receive under other Fish and Wildlife Service programs?
        The Service does not track funding data in this fashion. However,
    other Service programs can benefit neotropical migratory birds but are
    not specifically designed to fund critical conservation needs for these
    species, and almost all do not extend conservation activities to the
    full range of the species in Latin America. Nevertheless, other Service
    programs benefit neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl and many other
    species of wildlife, including the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Fund (U.S., Canada, and Mexico), Partners for Fish & Wildlife, Coastal
    Program, Endangered Species, Habitat Conservation, National Wildlife
    Refuge System, Migratory Bird Management, Law Enforcement, and State
    Wildlife Grants.
        The Service's Wildlife Without Borders--Latin America and the
    Caribbean and Wildlife Without Borders--Mexico programs could also
    potentially benefit neotropical migratory birds beyond U.S. borders
    through training, educational opportunities, capacity building and
    field projects.

        31. How many permits will be reviewed and issued by the
    International Affairs office in Fiscal Year 2004?
        During Fiscal Year 2004, approximately 6,000 permits will be
    reviewed and, if past trends are any indication, 90 to 95 percent of
    these will be issued. These permits include import or export of
    internationally protected plant and animal species for purposes of
    species management and scientific research to conserve populations in
    the wild, as well as to ensure that all trade is conducted in a legal
    and sustainable manner. They are issued under a number of wildlife
    conservation laws and treaties. In most instances, we issue one permit
    when a species is protected under more than one law and treaty.

        32. How many polar bears have been imported from approved
    populations in Canada?
        Between April 1997 (when regulations authorizing these imports went
    into effect) and December 31, 2002, the Service issued import permits
    and collected issuance fees for 504 polar bear trophies sport hunted by
    U.S. citizens in Canada from approved populations. This includes pre-
    Amendment trophies (bears taken prior to the enactment of the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994.)

        33. Does the Service expect to approve additional Canadian polar
    bear populations in Fiscal Year 2004?
        In response to new information from Canada on the Gulf of Boothia
    population, and a request to approve this population, the Service is
    currently conducting a review of whether the Gulf of Boothia polar bear
    population should be added to the list of populations approved for the
    import of sport-hunted polar bears by U.S. citizens.
        In order to ensure that our review of the population is based on
    the most current information and accurately reflects Canada's
    management program, we have requested additional information from the
    Canadian Wildlife Service. This request seeks information on
    management, quotas, and population models used for the polar bear
    population in the Gulf of Boothia, as well as on Canada's overall polar
    bear management program. If we determine that the new information
    warrants a change in the status of the Gulf of Boothia polar bear
    population, we will initiate a proposed rule making, including a
    Federal Register notice with a request for public comments, regarding
    the approval for import of sport-hunted trophies from this population.
    We anticipate that a decision on this population will be completed
    during late Fiscal Year 2003 or early Fiscal Year 2004.

        34. Please describe the construction of a hangar at the Anchorage
    International Airport? Why is it necessary and why is the cost of
    construction the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
        The Department of the Interior's Office of Aircraft Services''
    (OAS) mission is to maintain and operate Government-owned aircraft
    operated by Departmental bureaus, such as the Service. OAS is located
    next to the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (AIA) on a
    Service-owned 11-acre site at the Lake Hood float plane base. Outdated
    construction and safety concerns severely affect the existing hangar/
    aircraft maintenance building. It is deficient in several areas,
    including soil and groundwater contamination, asbestos, no storage
    separation for fuels and other flammable materials, faulty wiring,
    incompatible uses, and an open-flame heating system. It is not energy
    efficient. The OAS cannot maintain all functions on a smaller site
    without constructing a new building for administration, hangar space,
    storage and related site improvements. If construction is not
    completed, administrative support of aircraft operations, aircraft
    parking and secure storage will be lost, which will severely hinder
    efficiency. The new facilities will substantially reduce critical
    mission deferred maintenance needs such as encapsulating asbestos,
    separating the storage of fuel and other flammable materials, replacing
    faulty wiring, maintaining the open-flame heating system, and
    completing other corrective maintenance tasks. The new facility will
    improve OAS operating efficiency by eliminating the need to relocate
    functions lost by the AIA expansion. In addition, the safety risks to
    OAS pilots, staff and passengers will be reduced. Because the hangar is
    on Service property, the funding is being requested through the
    Service's budget.

        35. Please update the Subcommittee on the status of the visitors
    center at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge?
        The construction of the Herbert H. Bateman Educational and
    Administrative Center on the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge is
    slightly behind schedule; however, both the construction of the
    buildings and the fabrication of the exhibits are proceeding without
    major difficulties. The Administrative Building and the Educational
    Building are expected to be completed in May and June of this year,
    respectively. The exhibits will be installed in August and September
    with a grand opening planned in October 2003.

        36. Why has the Big Muddy National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri been
    listed as the top land acquisition priority?
        The Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS) is designed to: (1)
    document land acquisition needs and opportunities nationwide; (2)
    prioritize land acquisition projects submitted by the regions; and (3)
    serve as the starting point for the annual land acquisition budget
    request. The LAPS is a dynamic ranking process comprised of a project
    summary and four components that are each associated with Service trust
    resources. The components are: Fisheries and Aquatic Resources;
    Endangered and Threatened Species; Bird Conservation; and Ecosystem
    Conservation.
        Each of the components is worth a maximum of 200 points and the
    project summary is worth up to 50 points, for a total maximum score of
    850 points. Each project is scored in every component to yield a
    cumulative score. The same questions are used for each project to
    provide consistency. Also, the criteria are biologically based and
    create a biological profile for the project. The Big Muddy NWR has a
    LAPS ranking of 686 out of a possible maximum of 800, this is the
    highest of all projects currently in LAPS. This ranking is composed of
    a score of 165 for fish and aquatic resources; 171 for endangered and
    threatened species; 180 for bird conservation and 170 for ecosystem
    conservation. Also, the project supports and complements the Missouri
    Department of Conservation's 10-year fisheries strategic plan for the
    Missouri River.
        The pre-settlement Missouri River was subject to large seasonal
    variations in flows which coursed through a 1,500 feet to one-mile-wide
    braided channel that was constantly eroding and shifting. These dynamic
    conditions resulted in a diversity of riverine and floodplain habitats
    including sheltered backwaters, sloughs and chutes, oxbow lakes,
    sandbars, gravel bars, mud flats, timbered islands, deep pools, shallow
    water areas, marshes, seasonally flooded bottomland forests, and wet
    prairies.
        Now, due to extensive human development of the river's water supply
    and floodplain, most of this once rich diversity is gone. More than 90
    percent of the original floodplain forests, wetlands and prairies have
    been converted to agricultural lands. Hydrology has also been altered
    and the floodplain isolated from the river through the construction of
    levees and other flood control structures.
        Degradation and removal of remaining riverine and riparian habitats
    seriously threatens many of the Missouri River's native and unique fish
    populations. Past alterations and ongoing impacts to riverine habitats
    also threaten migration and breeding habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds,
    and other migratory birds.
        The combination of drastically depleted habitats, a continuing
    threat to the remaining habitats, and the species richness and
    diversity of remaining habitats result in the highest LAPS score of all
    Service acquisition projects.
        A Final EIS for this project was published in February 1999. The
    selected alternative in the Final EIS involves acquisition of 43,372
    acres from willing sellers along the 800,000 acre Missouri River
    floodplain from Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri and the lower 10
    miles of major tributaries. This brings project authorizations up to a
    total of 60,000 acres. Additions could be located in any of the 20
    counties that lie along this stretch of river. The purpose of these
    refuge additions is to preserve and restore natural river floodplain,
    manage fish and wildlife habitats, and provide for compatible public
    recreational use.

        37. At the Key West National Wildlife Refuge, the Service proposes
    to spend $1.4 million to acquire seven acres of land. Why is the price
    so expensive? Please describe the characteristics and ownership of this
    property?
        The property is Ballast Key, a 20 acre island that is the last
    inholding within Key West NWR. It is situated in close proximity to the
    resort area of Key West. The property was appraised at $5.3 million in
    fee title for the 20 acres. It is an improved property with two
    dwellings, owned by an 84-year-old man who wishes to retain a life-use
    reservation in the property. If appropriate, the $1.4 million will
    enable the Service to acquire about seven acres or approximately one-
    third of the property in Fiscal Year 2004. The remaining acreage would
    be acquired in ensuing years Acquiring this island is critical for the
    Refuge since it will complete the refuge and its purchase will ensure
    that the refuge's purpose and mission of protecting habitat for
    wintering populations of terns, frigate birds, white crowned pigeons,
    ospreys and great white heron, as well as nesting Atlantic green and
    loggerhead sea turtles is met.

        38. Please describe the 1,091 acres that will be acquired for the
    Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge?
        The 1,091-acre tract that is proposed to be acquired is in two
    ownerships and within the approved boundary of the Blackwater National
    Wildlife Refuge and would support the refuge's purpose of protecting
    high quality habitat for the American bald eagle, Delmarva fox squirrel
    and other endangered species, along with nesting and wintering habitat
    for migratory waterfowl, colonial water birds, shorebirds, and
    songbirds. The tract is a combination of high-quality palustrine
    forested wetlands that are dominated by large, very mature loblolly
    pine, swamp white oak, red oaks, willow oak, red maple, sweet gum; and
    pristine emergent marshes of three square miles of bulrush and salt
    marsh hay that adjoin the existing refuge property. Some portions of
    the tract have been developed with moist soil impoundments that are
    currently managed for waterfowl, and these areas and the surrounding
    marshes support several thousand ducks and geese and many species of
    wading birds each year. The woodlands also support Delmarva fox
    squirrels and nesting bald eagles. Other endangered species include the
    swamp pink, and many state listed species of amphibians and reptiles.
    However, the single most important aspect of the tract is for the
    future management of forest interior dwelling songbird species that are
    highly area-sensitive and are most vulnerable to forest loss,
    fragmentation, and overall habitat degradation. Consequently, this is
    the one group of migratory bird species that Blackwater NWR chose to
    target during development of its draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    (CCP).
        During the CCP process, we identified the few remaining large,
    contiguously forested areas that currently adjoin the refuge that would
    meet this minimum patch size, and determined that it would be possible
    to ultimately create seven mature forest cores within the refuge's
    approved planning boundary through reforestation, strategic land
    acquisition, regrowth of cut over areas previously acquired, timber
    stand improvement, and regeneration cuts. The most effective strategy
    for increasing the current number of forest cores was land acquisition
    or easements. Contact was made with the owners of the 1,091-acre tract
    since this tract is the highest priority for protection and exceeds the
    size requirements, composition, and other criteria for a forest core
    with a minimum of 865 acres.

        39. Why has the allocation for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund
    been further decreased from 51 to 49 percent?
        The 2 percent reduction in the estimated payments to counties for
    2004 is primarily due to the rise in the estimated full entitlement
    payment to $35,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2004 versus an estimated full
    entitlement payment of $34,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2003. The
    appropriations and the net receipts available to make the payments to
    counties are projected to be about the same in Fiscal Year 2004.
    However, estimated full entitlement payments have increased by
    $1,000,000 due to acquisition of additional lands for the Refuge System
    and the reappraisal of about 175 units of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System.

        40. Why does the Administration not support or request full funding
    for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
        The Service will combine $2.9 million in receipts with the request
    of $14.4 million to provide $17.3 million, or almost 50 percent of the
    entitlement level, in revenue sharing to counties.
        Given a number of other priorities, the Administration was unable
    to include additional funding in the 2004 request for this program. The
    Service notes, however, that billions of dollars trickle down to local
    community tax bases through outdoor recreation programs, many centered
    on the National Wildlife Refuge System. During 2001, for example, 23
    million people fished, 13 million people hunted, and 66 million people
    participated in at least one type of wildlife-watching activity
    including observing, feeding or photographing fish and other wildlife.
    Along the way they spent $108 billion, or 1.1 percent of the GDP. This
    included spending not just on sporting equipment, but also lodging,
    transportation and food purchases, important to the economies of many
    rural areas.
        41. The Administration has requested $50 million for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund. How many acres of wetlands in
    Canada, Mexico and the United States will be acquired with those funds?
        Based on the last five years of program accomplishments, $50
    million in appropriations will result in the following acres acquired,
    restored, and created habitat acres:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.004

        42. When will an Assistant Director be named for the Federal Aid
    Program? Secretary Norton made this commitment on January 30, 2003 and
    the Subcommittee is anxious for this person to be appointed?
        The Service has obtained approval to fill the Assistant Director,
    Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. The Director is currently
    considering the options available to fill the position and plans to
    make a decision in the near future.

        43. Why has the amount of money allocated under the Sport Fish
    Restoration Program been projected to increase by $6 million?
        The money allocated for the Sport Fish Restoration Program is
    projected to rise due to estimated increases in excise tax collections
    from motorboat gasoline. These receipts are deposited into the Aquatic
    Resources Trust Fund for subsequent distribution to the states through
    the Sport Fish Restoration Account.

        44. How many people are now engaged in sport fishing activities?
        The most current estimate is that there are 34.1 million U.S.
    citizens 16 years old and older who participate in sport fishing.
    Approximately 28.4 million participate in freshwater fishing and 9.1
    million participate in saltwater fishing. These estimates were reported
    in the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
    Associated Recreation that was recently completed by the Service in
    conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau.

        45. How many individuals will buy a hunting license in the current
    fiscal year?
        Based on trends in previous years, we estimate that approximately
    15 million individuals will purchase a hunting license in the current
    fiscal year.

        46. What is the impact of the growing number of foreign made arrows
    that are beginning to flood the United States market without paying the
    required excise tax?
        The financial impact of untaxed foreign-made arrows entering the
    United States is unclear. Neither the volume nor the value of these
    arrows is known from which estimates could be generated.
        Excise taxes currently collected from bow and arrow manufacturers,
    producers, and importers are a major source of revenue for Wildlife
    Restoration programs. These funds are largely distributed to states by
    formula for grants that support wildlife conservation and hunter
    education and safety programs. While data is not available to
    separately identify revenues generated by arrows as a separate product,
    in Fiscal Year 2002, excise taxes on bows and arrows combined to
    contribute over $19 million out of total Wildlife Restoration receipts
    of $223 million.

        47. How many new law enforcement agents will be hired in Fiscal
    Year 2004?
        At the President's Budget request level, the Service plans to fill
    18 special agent vacancies in Fiscal Year 2004, which would bring the
    total force to 241.

        48. How many duck stamps were purchased in Fiscal Year 2002?
        The sale of Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (Duck
    Stamps) are tracked on a June 30 fiscal year not a federal fiscal year,
    so the following totals reflect stamp sales between July 1, 2001 and
    June 30, 2002. During this 12 month period there were 1,694,739 duck
    stamps sold. Therefore, at a cost of $15 per stamp, there was
    $25,421,085 raised during that period for the Migratory Bird
    Conservation Commission.
        a. What is the projection for the current fiscal year?
        Based on a review of past sales, the number of waterfowl hunters
    nationally, and input from experts we expect that sale of duck stamps
    for the period of July 1, 2002 until June 30, 2003 to remain level.

        49. How many additional refuge or hatcheries will seek approval to
    become part of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program in Fiscal
    Year 2004?
        We estimate that no more than 10 sites will seek to join the fee
    demonstration program in Fiscal Year 2004. A lot depends on whether the
    program is extended or made permanent. It is doubtful that many sites
    will seek approval for an expiring program.
        The last re-authorization of the fee demonstration program, in
    October 2000, allowed agencies to include more than 100 sites per
    agency. At that time, the Service had 91 sites approved for the fee
    demonstration program. Since that time, we have added 18 sites, for a
    total of 109 sites.

        50. Please describe the types of projects that have been completed
    at the local facilities under the Recreational Fee Demonstration
    Program?
        Service-managed sites have accomplished a wide variety of visitor
    service enhancement projects, resource protection projects, and
    maintenance projects with fee demonstration dollars. Examples include
    major maintenance projects such as those at J. N. ``Ding'' Darling NWR,
    in Florida, where the refuge first upgraded its septic system and a few
    years later connected with the municipal sewer system. Other
    maintenance projects include general road and trail maintenance,
    building repairs, painting, safety equipment checks and upgrades, etc.
        Some sites made significant visitor service improvements through
    sign and interpretive panel installations, replacements and upgrades.
    Most notable among these is Chincoteague NWR, in Virginia, which is
    completing a multi-year project to install new interpretive panels on
    the Refuge. Another visitor service amenity that fee demonstration
    dollars funded was the acquisition of a boat to transport students and
    teachers from the Texas mainland to Matagorda Island NWR as part of an
    environmental education effort.
        With 2003 being the Centennial year of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System, fee demonstration dollars also enhanced Centennial celebrations
    across the country. Some refuges used part of their collections to
    purchase banners and new signage for special Centennial-related events.
    Monies went to purchase time capsules for each refuge and Centennial
    exhibits for use at special events year-round. These dollars even
    helped pay for the kiosk and spotting scopes at Pelican Island NWR, our
    very first national wildlife refuge.
        Other visitor service improvements include printing of
    environmental education materials, development and printing of
    brochures and other publications, landscape improvements, etc. Our
    annual Progress Reports to Congress contain more detailed lists of
    accomplishments. These reports may be found on-line at: http://
    www.doi.gov/nrl/Recfees/RECFEESHOME.html

        51. In terms of the acquisition of the 3,382 acres for the Alaska
    Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, please describe for the
    Subcommittee the following:
        a. What is the status of the proposed acquisition? Is there an
    agreement in place?
        The Regional Office has made a fair market value purchase offer to
    corporation representatives, who plan to present the offer to their
    Board at the end of August; a purchase agreement has not yet been
    signed. In addition, an appraisal has been conducted (in accordance
    with the offer).
        b. What is the basis for and what is included in the $750,000
    figure?
        Actual acquisition costs will not be available until the land is
    appraised. However, based on previous land sales in the Pavlof Bay
    area, approximately $750,000 will be required to purchase the smaller
    tract, totaling 3,382 acres, on the northeast side of Pavlof Bay and to
    pay for contract costs in conjunction with the acquisition. Purchase of
    the remaining 4,120 acres on the northwest side of Pavlof Bay would
    necessitate a separate transaction.
        c. What is the nature of the interest that is to be acquired? Is it
    a fee estate or an easement? Is it just the surface estate or does it
    include the subsurface as well?
        The acquisition will be for surface fee title. Non-development
    easements have such a low value in this area that they are generally
    unattractive to landowners. The purchase would not include the
    subsurface estate which is held by the Aleut Regional Corporation.
        d. Do the acreage and dollar figures reflect the entire
    transaction, i.e., are other lands or interests to be acquire from the
    same owner (Shumagin Native Corporation) through other means?
        The acreage and dollar figures included in this request only
    include a portion of Shumagin's total holdings on Pavlov Bay. As noted
    above in the answer to paragraph b., the Service intends to acquire the
    remaining 4,120 acres on the northwest side of Pavlof Bay. Land
    conservation organizations have shown considerable interest in this
    area and have acquired and donated (or intend to donate) a total of
    51,298 acres within the Pavlof Unit. It is possible that these
    organizations will negotiate additional purchases in the area.
        e. Does the Service intend to acquire the remaining 4120 acres
    owned by the Shumagin Native Corporation or any other Native
    Corporation lands in the same vicinity?
        As noted above, the Service does intend to acquire the remaining
    4,120 acres on the northwest side of Pavlof Bay. This acquisition would
    complete refuge ownership along the shoreline of Pavlof Bay and would
    safeguard the rights of area residents to use these lands for
    subsistence hunting and fishing.

        52. The Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000 authorized $1.0
    million for USFWS for the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue
    Assistance Grant Program for marine mammal species under its
    jurisdiction. Has the Agency requested any funds under this authority?
    If not, why?
        The Service has not requested any funds under the John H. Prescott
    Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. The Service supports the
    authority created by the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000 to
    provide assistance to eligible marine mammal stranding network
    participants. Stranding network participants carry out activities--
    including rescue and rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals, and
    collection of data from living and dead stranded marine mammals--that
    are essential to the conservation and management of marine mammal
    species under our jurisdiction. Much of the work performed by these
    organizations can not be done by the Service, which makes their
    contributions even more important. Some of these organizations have
    expressed to us their interest in obtaining grants to assist in their
    work, however, due to many competing priorities and limited budgets,
    the Service has not yet requested funds for the program.

        53. Have any marine mammal strandings occurred for species under
    the USFWS's jurisdiction? How has the USFWS responded to these
    strandings? Where did the funding come from?
        Strandings of marine mammal species under Service jurisdiction have
    occurred. The Service has jurisdiction for manatees, dugongs, and
    marine sea otters, walruses, and polar bears.
        Regarding sirenians (manatees and dugongs), the Service, its
    recovery program partners, permittees, and other federal agencies have
    responded to strandings. Response efforts in Florida, Puerto Rico, and
    the southeastern United States have been well documented. The Service
    began a manatee carcass salvage program in 1974, a program that
    continues today. Current efforts are coordinated through the State of
    Florida, other states, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Since 1974,
    salvage efforts have documented over 4,000 manatee deaths in this
    region, including over 1,200 attributable to human activities. In
    addition to salvage efforts, the Service coordinates a manatee rescue,
    rehabilitation, and release program. Over 600 manatees have been
    rescued since 1973. Manatees are also known to have stranded in the
    U.S. Virgin Islands and at the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo naval facility.
    The Service is not involved in stranding response for dugongs. We note
    that dugongs have reportedly stranded at the U.S. Navy's Okinawa naval
    facility, although these events have not been thoroughly documented.
        Funding for responding to sirenian stranding events comes from a
    variety of sources. The Service provides some funding in support of
    manatee rescue program activities, supports research programs that rely
    on live and dead stranded animals (including funding to better assess
    the effects of boating activities on manatees, the effects of cold
    weather, disease processes, etc.), and has provided funding to offset
    costs associated with unusual mortality events. Service funding for
    these efforts is from the Ecological Services base budgets of field
    offices and the regional office in the Southeast region. Funding
    support for these initiatives is also provided by the State of Florida,
    the United States Geological Survey (USGS), non-government
    organizations, and other entities.
        Southern sea otters often strand in California (approximately 180
    events last year). Local otter stranding networks respond to these
    events. Participants in the stranding networks include non-government
    organizations, California Department of Fish and Game, and USGS. The
    Service also responds to stranding events. However, because the Service
    field office that is nearest to the southern sea otter population is
    located at the extreme southern end of the population's range, our
    participation is minimal. Funding for Service participation is provided
    in the field office's base budget. The majority of expenditures for sea
    otter stranding response is through the budgets of the stranding
    network participants. We note that Monterey Bay Aquarium is the primary
    recipient of live stranded otters and works to rehabilitate the animals
    and return them to the wild, and that USGS maintains the stranding
    database.
        Regarding species under our jurisdiction in Alaska, stranding
    events are detected and responded to infrequently (sea otters), or not
    at all (walrus and polar bears). Stranding episodes of sea otters occur
    approximately 6 times each year, primarily in south central Alaska, and
    sometimes in the southeast region of the State. The Alaska Sea Life
    Center in Seward has a rescue and rehabilitation permit from the
    Service, and they take responsibility for sea otter stranding events,
    including the expense.

           Answers to questions submitted by Congressman Ken Calvert

        54. What is the purpose of informal consulting with the Service if,
    after a year of discussion, negotiation and changes of property
    designed to accommodate Service requirements, the rules change?
    Agreement is reached to design property development, plans are prepared
    and ready for formal consultation then the rules change due to change
    in staff. What is the Service doing to insure that uniform, best
    practices are used by all its staff?
        The informal consultation process fulfills two important functions:
    (1) it assists action agencies and their applicants in determining
    whether formal consultation is necessary; and (2) allows for exploring
    modifications to the proposed action that would avoid all adverse
    effects to listed species or critical habitat such that formal
    consultation would not be required.
        The Service uses a variety of training and oversight approaches to
    insure that uniform, best practices are used by all staff conducting
    section 7 consultations. Our National Conservation Training Center
    conducts 4 to 6 sessions of basic training in section 7 consultation
    each year; cumulatively, this training has reached 680 Service
    employees and 169 employees from other federal agencies, state/Tribal/
    local governments, or representatives of the private sector. Our
    headquarters office, in coordination with our regional offices, has
    conducted national section 7 workshops in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003;
    at these workshops we discuss a wide array of issues with the specific
    purpose of improving national consistency in delivery of the section 7
    program. Many of our Regional Offices also conduct their own periodic
    training and workshops for their field and regional staff involved in
    section 7 consultations. In addition, each month the headquarters staff
    and Regional Office section 7 coordinators conduct a section 7
    conference call to enhance consistency in the consultation program. All
    consultation decision documents are approved by Field Office
    Supervisors to further promote consistency and if the decision finds
    that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
    of any listed species the document must also be approved by the
    Regional Director.

        55. The Department of the Interior is aware that approximately 50
    percent of the endangered species are in the State of California, and
    is also well aware of the shortage of Carlsbad office staff. Is it
    possible for the Department of Interior to detail staff from other,
    less environmentally impacted offices to the Carlsbad office to address
    under staffing issues which adversely affect constituents who are
    applying for permits in order to comply with the Endangered Species
    Act?
        As of March 31, 2003, there are 268 listed threatened and
    endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act in the State
    of California, or roughly 21 percent of the total number of U.S. listed
    species. Of those 268 species, 104, or 8 percent of the national total,
    occur within the geographic area covered by the Carlsbad Fish and
    Wildlife Office.
        The Service's consultation appropriation is allocated through a
    process designed to ensure that each Region receives a minimum
    capability allocation of $200,000 plus an amount determined by a
    formula that reflects the Region's proportion of the national workload.
    The workload factors are based primarily on how many listed species
    occur within each Region, with adjustments for complexity factors such
    as migratory or wide-ranging species. This allocation process results
    in a significant portion of the appropriations for consultation going
    to the Pacific Region. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Pacific Region received
    $18.8 million from the consultation sub-activity (41 percent of the
    national total). The Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office received $3.18
    million from the consultation subactivity (7 percent of the national
    total).
        As a result of this workload-based allocation of consultation
    funding, there are not other, less-impacted offices that could serve as
    a source of under-utilized staff who could be detailed to the Carlsbad
    Fish and Wildlife Office. Instead, each of our Ecological Services
    field offices is equally impacted, given their expected workload and
    our available resources. Because of their high absolute consultation
    workload (and despite their correspondingly high share of the
    consultation allocation), the impacts to our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
    Office (and several other similarly large field offices) are more
    apparent; however, a significant reallocation of resources from our
    other offices to Carlsbad would only shift the impact and make it
    disproportionately high in another area.
        Furthermore, while the use of details can have significant merit in
    many circumstances, many of the regional habitat conservation planning
    efforts and complex section 7 consultations faced by the Carlsbad Fish
    and Wildlife Office do not easily lend themselves to short-term and
    temporary increases in staffing. These efforts require long-term staff
    commitments to build relationships with the local jurisdictions in
    developing habitat conservation plans. Complex section 7 consultations
    also require scientific knowledge on the biology of endangered and
    threatened species affected by a project, and this knowledge is often
    built over time by biologists working in the office. Regardless, we
    will continue to explore and expand our efforts to detail staff from
    other offices to assist in addressing the significant workload faced by
    Carlsbad (and several other offices) when appropriate.

        Answers to questions submitted by Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Endangered Species Funding

        1. The President's budget recommends a modest increase for the FWS
    listing account under the ESA. However, my understanding is that FWS
    currently has a backlog of more than 250 species awaiting listing at a
    cost of more than 130 million dollars. To deal with this backlog, FWS
    needs about $25 million per year over the next five or so years. Given
    this, why is the FWS not requesting more money for listing under ESA?
        The President's budget request for the Endangered Species listing
    program is the largest increase ever requested for this element of the
    Endangered Species program. This element, which includes funding for
    the Service to act on petitions, listing determination and critical
    habitat designations, was developed, as were all other aspects of the
    budget, in recognition of the need to control domestic spending, and in
    light of all the priorities of the Service, the Department and other
    government agencies.
        Also, would you be able to provide the subcommittee with:
        a. A list of species you intend to list this year.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.005

        b. A year-by-year accounting of the species listed since the Bush
    Administration took office.
        Below are tables listing the species that were listed as threatened
    or endangered for 2001-2002.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.006

        c. The entire list of outstanding species that cannot currently be
    listed under ESA due to lack of funds?
        Attached is a list of all of the candidate species from the
    Service's Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). (See
    Attachment 4). However, even once the listing for these species has
    been proposed, changes in circumstances affecting the species, or new
    information that is received during the public comment period, may lead
    the Service to determine that the species should not be listed.
    Therefore, it cannot accurately be concluded that all or any given
    percentage of these would actually be listed even if funding were
    available to immediately initiate the listing process for all candidate
    species.

        2. I also understand that there may be more than 200 currently
    listed species that are in serious danger of extinction in the next
    several years in large part due to lack of funding for recovery
    activities. Given this, can you explain why you are not requesting more
    funding for recovery? Also, can you provide the subcommittee with a
    list of these species?
        Every 2 years, the Service is required to report to Congress on the
    status of species listed as threatened and endangered. We are now
    developing the Fiscal Year 2002 Recovery Report to Congress. In our
    initial assessments conducted to prepare this Report, we have
    identified 216 (17 percent) of the 1,254 listed species as
    ``declining'' or known to be decreasing in numbers or whose threats to
    their continued existence are increasing in the wild since 1996. (See
    Attachment 5). We emphasize that these are our preliminary findings,
    which may be refined with further review as we finalize the Report.
        The Service is directing considerable resources towards halting the
    decline of species most at risk of extinction and the 1,000 other
    listed threatened and endangered species. For Fiscal Year 2004, the
    Service has requested a $2 million increase over the Fiscal Year 2003
    request for the recovery program, in part to stabilize high priority
    declining species. However, the Service also has many statutory
    obligations under the ESA and other laws, as well as many on-going
    commitments towards existing recovery efforts that limit our ability to
    direct more resources towards these species. Wherever possible,
    endangered species funding is leveraged with the limited discretionary
    funding available from other Service programs and our partners to
    achieve the greatest improvements in the status of rare endangered
    species.

        3. There have been reports that ESA recovery money is often
    siphoned off to pay for consultation activities. Is this the case? If
    so, this siphoning of funds would suggest a funding shortfall in the
    consultation as well as recovery budgets. Why is the FWS not requesting
    additional funding for the consultation budget rather than siphoning
    off desperately needed recovery funds?
        The allocation of staff resources within the Service's Endangered
    Species program was recently reviewed by the General Accounting Office.
    The results of the GAO's review are summarized in their report
    ``Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are Allocated
    and What Activities Are Emphasized'' (GAO-02-581), issued in June 2002.
    We would be pleased to provide you with our response to the GAO report.
        While the GAO review raised valid concerns that there may be
    inaccuracies in how Endangered Species Program activities are charged
    to budgetary elements, we do not believe that the fieldwork performed
    was sufficient to conclude that spending on endangered species
    activities is materially different than how Congress intended. In
    addition, the Department's efforts to implement Activity Based Costing
    by Fiscal Year 2004 will help ensure that endangered species activities
    are accurately charged to budgetary elements. Throughout the ABC
    workload tracking process, the Service will be reviewing its processes
    for recording time charges and taking necessary steps to ensure that
    the Endangered Species Program is adhering to reprogramming policies.

    National Wildlife Refuges

        1. The Wildlife Refuge System has a demonstrated annual need of at
    least $300 million more for operations and maintenance than it now
    receives. Why is the Administration only asking for a $34 million
    increase?
        The National Wildlife Refuge System documents needs as a planning
    tool for future budget requests, and doesn't anticipate fulfilling all
    or even most of those needs in any given year. Annual funding requests
    are carefully balanced against these priorities and those of other
    bureaus within the Department and other federal agencies. The National
    Wildlife Refuge System has experienced healthy funding growth in recent
    years that has enabled the System to address many important needs and
    leverage partner contributions.

        2. I am concerned that the request for refuge land acquisition has
    been substantially decreased by $58 million, or a 59% decline below
    Fiscal Year 2002. A recent report identified a $3 billion backlog of
    needed acquisitions in the Refuge System. Considering the significant
    need in the field, what is the rationale for this request?
        The federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has made
    an outstanding contribution to protecting America's land over the past
    38 years. The Service does not have an exact forecast on what the land
    acquisition picture will look like in the future. The current reality
    is that we are faced with increasing pressure associated with
    socioeconomic factors such as urban sprawl, recreational development
    and general population growth. With these factors in mind it is very
    difficult to gauge whether the pace of land acquisition has crested or
    it is still on the rise. However, this request reflects a more limited
    federal land acquisition program with increased emphasis on
    conservation partnerships. This request also reflects an emphasis on
    the need to balance land acquisition against maintaining lands already
    under our jurisdiction. The amounts included in the budget will be used
    to fund high priority projects that are important in the Service's
    program to protect the Nation's wildlife. The Administration is
    dedicated to protecting and passing on to future generations of
    Americans our important recreational and scenic lands, wildlife
    habitats, improved waterways, and cultural resources.

        3. What is the Administration's total estimate of operation and
    maintenance backlog for the National Wildlife Refuge System? Does the
    backlog include projects traditionally within the construction
    accounts, including roads and parking lots? If not, please estimate the
    cost of this backlog as well.
        The NWRSs Condition Assessment Program was established in Fiscal
    Year 2001 to systematically assess the condition of refuge system's
    real property. The condition of all NWRS property with replacement
    costs at more than $50,000 will be assessed every 5 years. Refuge
    system maintenance databases have been modified to meet DOI standards
    and data requirements for property condition assessments. The 5-year
    program to complete comprehensive conditions assessments for all field
    stations is presently on target. To date, 40 percent of all facilities
    have had comprehensive condition assessments completed through the
    field inspection stage. The Facility Condition Index (FCI), which is
    the ratio of deferred maintenance needs to replacement costs, will
    ultimately be used to rank and verify facility maintenance needs at
    field stations and provides information for DOI strategic planning
    within the NWRS.
        Due to changes in government-wide accounting rules, a Department
    wide initiative to implement new software to track facility maintenance
    activities, new information being generated by condition assessments,
    and new Department wide strategic planning efforts; data management on
    NWRS funding is in a state of transition. Total funding for management
    of the NWRS are described below and segmented based on the most
    appropriate budget source for particular aspects. All information is
    portrayed as of the beginning of Fiscal Year 2003; projects funded in
    Fiscal Year 2003 and requested in Fiscal Year 2004 are still included
    in the datasets.
        1) Projects most suitable for Refuge Operations budgets: The Refuge
    Operating Needs System in past years included facility improvement
    projects, but it has been streamlined to include only staffing and
    mission critical projects. Projects are prioritized into Tier 1,
    highest priority needs, and Tier 2, important but not as urgent needs,
    as summarized in the table below.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.007

        2) Facility maintenance projects most suitable for funding from
    Refuge Maintenance, Construction, or Refuge Roads (Transportation
    Department) budgets: Using the latest methodology for calculating
    deferred maintenance, as of the beginning of Fiscal Year 2003 the
    Refuge System has 9,159 projects that contribute to the deferred
    maintenance for fixed facility assets. The total amount of maintenance
    is still tentative as Comprehensive Condition Assessments are still
    underway to evaluate all field facilities, and data from a nationwide
    inventory of Refuge Roads has not yet been fully incorporated into
    datasets. These assessments, which require 5 years to complete, are
    currently in their third year.
        The 9,159 projects referenced above have a maintenance component;
    however, the projects may also have capital improvement components as
    well. The tables below segment needs into projects best suited for
    funding from Refuge Maintenance (generally less than $500,000 in cost
    per project), Construction (more complex projects generally over
    $500,000 in cost per project), and Refuge Roads (public roads and
    related projects funded through the Transportation Department under the
    Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century). Lines for Refuge
    Maintenance and Construction projects exclude projects that would be
    eligible for Refuge Roads funding.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.008

        3) Equipment and vehicle fleet: The Refuge System has a diverse
    equipment fleet that includes about 4,000 transportation vehicles and
    about 4,000 items of agricultural and construction equipment. Since
    equipment repair and replacement are no longer categorized as deferred
    maintenance, there is no backlog figure available for equipment and
    vehicles.
        4) Projects that are 100 percent capital improvement: To satisfy
    public demand for visitor amenities and to meet needs for habitat
    management purposes, new facilities such as roads, trails, water
    management facilities, maintenance buildings, restrooms, boat ramps,
    and other visitor facilities have been identified through completion of
    Comprehensive Conservation Plans or other means. These projects are
    summarized below under the categories of small construction (projects
    generally less than $500,000 in cost suitable for funding from annual
    budgets) and large construction (projects generally over $500,000 in
    cost that would be funded from the multi-year Construction budget).
    Large construction projects are further subdivided between visitor
    centers and other facilities because the total amount of need is
    heavily influenced by the amount of funding identified for visitor
    centers.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.009

        In light of these backlogs, how can the refuge system meet its
    mission for the 21st Century without adequate resources for both
    operations and maintenance and land acquisition?
        The President's Budget provides adequate resources to address the
    Services high priority needs, as well as plan for the future of the
    System to ensure the System meets its mission in the 21st century.
        The Refuge System is working to identify highest priority needs and
    focus on them. We actively recruit volunteers and outside partners to
    work with us in our various efforts. We also strive to plan facility
    development in a manner that calls for development of modest facilities
    that can be economically managed once they are built. Land acquisition
    priorities call for finishing existing refuges rather than starting new
    refuges. Collectively, these efforts allow us to meet highest priority
    needs and appropriately plan for the future.

    Migratory Bird Treaty Act Concerns

        1. Last week the USFWS proposed to allow the depredation of double
    crested cormorants in 24 states without the permit required under the
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The fundamental justification for
    depredation is that cormorants eat fish; therefore fewer cormorants
    will mean more fish. I am concerned that piscivorous birds are being
    wrongly blamed for fisheries declines without scientific basis. Does
    the FWS anticipate depredation for other fish-eating bird species such
    as eagles or ospreys? What criteria will the Fish and Wildlife Service
    consult if another piscivorous bird species emerges as an alleged
    threat to fish populations? Has the Fish and Wildlife Service ever
    issued a similar depredation order for another non-game bird species
    listed under the MBTA?
        The fundamental justification for the depredation order is not that
    cormorants eat fish, but that cormorants can have detrimental impacts
    on a variety of public resources (including fish, other birds, and
    vegetation) and that the agencies who have trust responsibility for
    these resources or their protection need to be given increased
    regulatory flexibility, with Service oversight, in the management of
    cormorants. Service has never blamed piscivorous birds for fisheries
    declines, but has stated that localized impacts do occur, a position
    which is fully supported by the available science. We have not
    experienced many problems with depredation by eagles or osprey. All
    requests are dealt with according to regulations found in 50 C.F.R.
    Sec. 21.41, which governs the issuance of depredation permits for
    migratory birds. The Service has established depredation orders for
    other non-game birds (blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and
    magpies; certain sparrows and finches; purple gallinules; and jays) for
    the protection of agricultural resources. In 2001, the Service issued a
    conservation order for mid-continent light geese to protect public
    resources--specifically, habitat.

        2. I have heard that the Department of the Interior is considering
    promulgating rules or regulations that would allow federal agencies to
    incidentally take migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    The FWS is instrumental in protecting these birds under the MBTA, and I
    feel that allowing any sort of incidental take will lead to higher
    mortality rates if agencies no longer have the incentive to implement
    preventative strategies. Are there plans to allow federal agencies
    incidental take of migratory birds under the MBTA? If so, will you
    please submit this to us in writing? Is this rulemaking part of the
    Fish and Wildlife Services activities to implement E.O. 13186?
        In accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13186, the Service is
    currently in the process of drafting Memorandums of Understanding (MOU)
    with 15 federal agencies whose activities may affect migratory birds.
    Several of these are close to being finalized. Subsequent to completing
    with a particular agency a MOU that meets conservation standards,
    establishes appropriate processes to minimize and mitigate for take,
    and promotes the conservation of migratory bird populations consistent
    with the EO, the Service will issue special purpose permits under 50
    CFR Sec. 21.27 to address actions specified in the MOU. These permits
    should not result in a higher mortality rate of migratory birds but
    should actually have the opposite effect. We believe that requiring
    agencies to address migratory bird conservation, while implementing
    actions to meet their mission, will help ensure that migratory birds
    concerns are more adequately addressed than at present. Issuing these
    permits should also decrease the potential for litigation brought
    against other federal agencies by private interests under the
    Administrative Procedures Act. No rulemaking relative to implementation
    of EO 13186 is currently proposed by the Service.

        3. In a Federal Register Notice dated January 24, 2003, the
    Administration asked for public comment on proposed changes in the
    Endangered Species Act that would allow the EPA to grant itself
    exemption from Section 7, which requires consultation with FWS or NOAA
    Fisheries on pesticide registrations that may impact endangered
    species. Considering that in the past ten years the EPA has failed to
    complete a single Section 7 consultation on a pesticide it has
    registered, despite repeated formal requests from FWS, why is the EPA a
    good candidate for exclusion from consultation requirements?
        On January 24, 2003, the Service, the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NOAA Fisheries), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    jointly published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) which
    announced our intention to promulgate ``counterpart regulations'' under
    the Endangered Species Act. These counterpart regulations would address
    ways to better integrate EPA's requirements for pesticide registration
    under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act with the
    ESA consultation requirements, with the goal of more effective and
    efficient consultations on EPA's pesticide registrations. None of the
    possibilities considered in the ANPR would allow EPA to grant itself
    exemption from section 7 of the ESA.
        One approach we are considering is a modification of the informal
    consultation procedures for EPA pesticide registrations. Under the
    current regulations, agencies that determine that their proposed
    actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
    species or designated critical habitat must obtain written concurrence
    from the Service and NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate for the species
    affected, before informal consultation can be concluded. In the ANPR,
    we asked the public to comment on whether we should pursue, through
    counterpart regulations or some other means, two potential approaches
    to conducting pesticide consultations: (1) if EPA determines that a
    pesticide registration is not likely to adversely affect listed species
    or designated critical habitat, then no further consultation is
    required; and (2) if EPA determines that a pesticide registration is
    not likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical
    habitat, EPA would continue to consult with the Services but EPA would
    not need to obtain their written concurrence to satisfy EPA's section 7
    requirements. Either approach would make better use of EPA's scientific
    and technical capabilities while allowing the Services to focus their
    resources on consultations for pesticide registrations that are likely
    to adversely affect listed species or their designated critical
    habitat.
        The ANPR asks the public to comment on these and other possible
    revisions to the consultation process for pesticide registrations. We
    are considering the public comments that we have received, and expect
    to propose any counterpart regulations this spring. The primary goal of
    these counterpart regulations will be to improve the efficiency and
    effectiveness of section 7 consultations on pesticide registrations,
    while also improving the public's understanding of EPA's
    responsibilities under FIFRA and the ESA. While the counterpart
    regulations may involve minor changes in how the requirements of
    section 7 are met, we will not propose any exemption from these
    requirements; for example, even if we propose that EPA does not need
    Service concurrence on a not likely to adversely affect determination,
    this determination would still be subject to the same standards and
    requirements of other not likely to adversely affect determinations,
    and will be subject to the citizen suit provision of the ESA and
    possible judicial review.

              Answers to questions submitted by Delegate Bordallo

        1. Is the Fish and Wildlife Service maintaining their effort to
    control for and mitigate against the brown tree snake in Guam?
    Specifically, how much funding, if any, is included for this purpose in
    the requested Fiscal Year 2004 budget for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service? And how will this funding be used to control and eradicate the
    brown tree snake in Guam?
        The Fish and Wildlife Service will maintain its efforts to control
    for and mitigate against the brown tree snake (BTS) in Guam. From 1999
    through 2002, the Service, through the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
    Program, has allocated between $100,000 and $175,000 per year for
    activities to control BTS. The Service has allocated $170,000, through
    base funding, for BTS control in 2003 and includes a comparable level
    of funding in the Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget. The funding will
    be used to continue and build upon the Service efforts outlined below.
        BTS Prevention Activities on Guam. The Service supports efforts on
    Guam conducted by APHIS--Wildlife Services to inspect shipments of
    household goods being shipped from Guam to the mainland U.S. and other
    areas.
        BTS Control Efforts on Guam. The Service is working in partnership
    with other agencies to construct a ``typhoon proof'' snake barrier
    around a forested site, 54-hectares in size, on Anderson Air Force
    Base, Guam. The project is a multi-agency (territorial and federal)
    effort to begin restoration of endangered species on Guam. Funding for
    this effort has come from multiple sources within the Department of the
    Interior.
        Implement ANS Task Force Responsibilities. The Service is
    designated Chair and provides staff support to the ANS Task Force's BTS
    Control Committee as an essential element to the success of this broad
    interjurisdictional effort. A cooperative Plan developed by the
    Committee continues to serve as the basis for cooperative action by
    federal agencies and Pacific jurisdictions and for establishing funding
    requirements. This plan was supplemented by the 1999 report from the
    DOI Office of Insular Affairs on ``Integrated Pest Management
    Approaches to Preventing the Dispersal of the Brown Tree Snake and
    Controlling Snakes in Other Situations.''

        2. Can you please provide an update on the recovery program for
    endangered species on Guam, particularly for the Mariana fruit bat,
    Mariana crow, and the Micronesian kingfisher?
        The Mariana fruit bat was listed as endangered in 1984. A recovery
    plan for this species was finalized in 1990. A graduate student from
    the University of Guam has been funded to study the movement patterns
    and foraging behavior of Mariana fruit bats on Guam. This study will
    help to assess habitat use of the Guam population and further
    management efforts for the species. The 1990 recovery plan for the
    Mariana fruit bat describes tasks in three categories: Category 1-18
    tasks to minimize mortality; Category 2 - 9 tasks to determine
    ecological requirements of fruit bats; and Category 3 - 4 tasks at 13
    locations to secure and protect essential forest ecosystems. Of the 31
    tasks identified in the 1990 recovery plan, 21 are ongoing or have been
    completed.
        In Category 1, 12 of the 18 tasks are underway or ongoing and these
    six tasks are outstanding:
         Determine the identity and origin of imported fruit bats
    through standard monitoring of imported bats or the use of
    electrophoretic tests and comparison with museum specimens.
         Establish appropriate regulations on the fruit bat import
    trade into Guam to prevent confusion with protected Guam bats.
         Develop and implement a multi-agency anti-poaching
    strategy which defines roles and responsibilities of all involved
    agencies.
         Meet periodically to review effectiveness and refine
    anti-poaching strategies.
         Guam police department law enforcement efforts.
         Determine the extent of predation on fruit bats by
    snakes.
        In Category 2, five of the nine tasks have been addressed or are
    underway and these four tasks are outstanding:
         LDetermine the phenology of bat foods.
         LGather and analyze information on the breeding biology of
    Mariana fruit bats.
         LDetermine factors limiting reproductive success.
         LDetermine incidence and causes of infant mortality.
        In Category 3, the four tasks have been addressed at locations
    mostly on Federal land, and baseline surveys have been undertaken over
    most of the island.
        The Mariana crow was listed as endangered in 1984. A recovery team,
    including a Guam representative, was formed several years ago to help
    plan and implement a recovery program for the species on Guam and Rota.
    The team recently submitted a draft revised recovery plan for the
    species which is being reviewed in the Service's Pacific Regional
    Office in Portland, Oregon. The Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife
    Resources (DAWR), using federal funds, has been translocating chicks
    and eggs from Rota, raising them in captivity, and releasing them in
    northern Guam over the last several years to increase the population on
    Guam. Guam DAWR also continues to monitor the remaining crows and
    protect crow nests from brown treesnake predation.
        The Micronesian Kingfisher was listed as endangered in 1984. A
    recovery committee, including a Guam representative, was recently
    formed to develop and implement a recovery program for the species.
    Currently, the recovery plan for the kingfisher is being revised and
    plans are underway to bring kingfishers back to Guam for captive
    breeding. When adequate numbers are available, the Guam Division of
    Aquatic and Wildlife Resources hopes to begin reestablishing
    kingfishers on the island.

        3. What is the status of the critical habitat proposed for Guam?
    Does the Fish and Wildlife Service have a timetable for their
    designation process, particularly noting their delay decision and
    extension of the public comment period last month due to Supertyphoon
    Pongsona?
        On April 3, 2000, the Marianas Audubon Society and the Center for
    Biological Diversity filed a suit to challenge the Service's 1994
    withdrawal of critical habitat for six Guam species, the Mariana fruit
    bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), little Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus
    tokudae), Guam Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina
    cinnamomina), Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), Guam broadbill (Myiagra
    freycineti), and Guam subspecies of bridled white-eye (Zosterops
    conspicillatus conspicillatus). On September 7, 2000, the Service filed
    a motion to voluntarily remand the withdrawal and not prudent decision.
    This motion set a deadline of June 3, 2003, for the Service to
    determine prudency and designate final critical habitat (proposed
    critical habitat for these species was published on December 5, 2002),
    if prudent, for these six species. On June 13, 2003 the District Court
    of Guam, acting on a motion by the Government of Guam, extended the
    deadline for submission of the Guam critical habitat final designation
    and set a status conference for October 7, 2003.
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.010

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.011

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.012

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.013

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.014

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.015

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.016

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.017

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.018

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.019

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.020

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.021

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.022

        [Responses to questions submitted for the record by the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration follow:]

        Questions for the Record from the Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                          NOAA's FY '04 Budget Request

                                 march 19, 2003

    General Fisheries Management Questions for Vice Admiral Conrad
            Lautenbacher, Jr.

        1. Question: How much funding is being proposed for cooperative
    research programs for FY '04? Has NMFS identified regional or fishery
    specific priorities for this money?
        Answer: NOAA's FY 2004 budget request includes $9.5 million for
    cooperative research. This amount includes $2.75 million for the
    national cooperative research program, $3.75 million for northeast
    cooperative research and $3.0 million for southeast cooperative
    research.
        NOAA Fisheries is in the process of identifying priorities to be
    addressed by cooperative research. This approach varies from region to
    region ranging from bottom-up planning among scientists and the fishing
    industry to a formalized solicitation selection. In addition, a number
    of projects unfunded in FY 2003 will likely be a component of the FY
    2004 cooperative research programs:
         Yellowtail flounder tagging study (northeast)
         Study of mixing rates of Atlantic herring stock
    components in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank region (northeast)
         Cooperative research on the development of gear
    modifications and fishing practices to reduce turtle takes in the U.S.
    Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries (southeast)
         Assessment of lobster trap-fishing habitat impacts in the
    northwestern Hawaiian islands (Pacific Islands Region)
         Central California groundfish ecology survey (southwest)
         Characterizing the habitat of adult Pacific salmonids
    (southwest)
         Fixed gear survey of sablefish in Oregon (northwest)
         Feasibility of acoustic surveys to estimate distribution
    and abundance of pelagic west coast rockfishes (northwest)
         Pre-recruit survey of Pacific whiting (northwest)
         Measures to eliminate seabird injuries and mortalities
    from interactions with trawl nets and cables (Alaska)
         Cooperative studies of essential fish habitat and mobile
    fishing gear effects in the Aleutian Islands (Alaska)
         Augmentation of annual red king crab survey in the
    Eastern Bering Sea (Alaska)

        2. Question: The FY '03 appropriation includes funding of $17
    million for increased stock assessments, particularly off the west
    coast. How does the FY '04 request compare with this level of funding?
        Answer: NOAA's FY 2004 budget request includes a total of $14.9
    million for increased stock assessments, this is $3 million dollars
    over the FY 2003 request. NOAA's request proposes continuation of
    priority investments in fishery stock assessments, including charter
    vessel days-at-sea to support regionally-identified priority surveys,
    advanced sampling technology, and programmatic needs in applied fishery
    oceanography studies. NOAA's investments in fishery science
    infrastructure and staff resources will improve the comprehensiveness,
    timeliness, quality, and communication of state-of-the-art assessments
    as outlined in the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan. The additional
    $5.0 million provided in FY '03 by Congress over what was requested in
    FY 2003 will enable NOAA to accelerate projects not expected to start
    until FY 2004. NOAA will also continue its high priority stock
    assessments from FY 2003.

        3. Question: Can you give us an update on the agency's progress in
    deploying new fishery research vessels? How much is in the FY '04
    request for these new vessels?
        Answer: NOAA awarded a contract for a new fishery research vessel
    with contract options for three additional vessels on January 1, 2001.
    The shipyard that was awarded the contract, VT Halter Marine, Inc.,
    subsequently encountered financial difficulties and was briefly under
    bankruptcy court protection. The financial issues have since been
    resolved and the company has emerged from bankruptcy. Significant
    progress has been made on construction of the first vessel, OSCAR
    DYSON, with delivery to NOAA expected to occur August 31, 2004. With
    funding provided in our FY 2002 and FY 2003 appropriations, NOAA plans
    to award the contract option for construction of the second vessel in
    August 2003. The expected delivery date for the second vessel is
    September 2006.
        Due in part to uncertainty about the financial status of the
    shipyard during formulation of the FY 2004 budget, and to allow
    adequate progress on FSV I and II, the Fiscal Year 2004 President's
    Budget does not include a request for funds for the third fishery
    survey vessel. NOAA has until January 31, 2005 to exercise the option
    to build FSV III under the existing contract with VT Halter Marine. The
    FSV contract options are written so that the options can be awarded
    when the funds become available and until expiration of the option.

        4. Question: The increase in the FY '03 funding for stock
    assessments will be a substantial increase. Will the agency be
    contracting with private or university vessels to do some of this
    fishery survey work?
        Answer: Out of an estimated total of 5453 days at sea, NOAA
    Fisheries plans to charter approximately 3553 or almost 65% of its
    total vessel needs for FY 2003. Academic and private charter ships are
    used to the maximum extent possible to conduct NOAA Fisheries survey
    work.

        5. Question: Included in the FY '03 appropriation is $100 million
    for fisheries disasters. Can you tell us how quickly the money will get
    to the affected fishermen and will the funding go through the states or
    will NMFS administer the money?
        Answer: NOAA is working to provide these funds to the states as
    expeditiously as possible and in accordance with the applicable
    statutory and regulatory requirements. Funds intended for fishermen in
    Alaska and Hawaii, as well as shrimp and blue crab fishermen, will be
    administered through the applicable states. Administrative and
    logistical matters, such as eligibility and the specific method of
    paying funds, will be resolved by the states. The actual timing for the
    receipt of funds by the individual fishermen will be dependent on these
    procedures and schedules established by the states.

        6. Question: How much funding is included in the FY '04 request for
    gear research? Will the agency be working cooperatively with the
    fishing industry to develop cleaner gear that also will work to catch
    fish?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries is currently conducting gear research in
    each of its five regional science centers. Some examples of the types
    of projects NOAA Fisheries is spearheading include gear modifications
    to reduce bycatch of:
         Turtles and red snapper in Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
    Mexico otter trawl fisheries
         Halibut, cod, and pollock in Alaska groundfish trawl
    fisheries
         Turtles and non-target finfish in Atlantic pelagic
    longline fisheries
         Seabirds and turtles in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries
        Within the $2.8 million request for reducing bycatch is a request
    for $0.6 million to expand and improve bycatch reduction research and
    testing. This testing will be achieved through cooperative research
    activities. Research and testing (including independent monitoring),
    using leased vessels to test bycatch reduction devices, will address
    innovative methods to reduce bycatch. The vessels will be leased to
    follow the experimental protocols developed by this initiative, while
    gaining insight into the effectiveness of the bycatch reduction devices
    through the use of the technologies by the fishermen who work these
    fisheries.

        7. Question: NMFS has recently released a national plan on bycatch.
    Can you give the Subcommittee more details on what will be done in FY
    '04 and how much funding is available for these activities?
        Answer: The 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments imposed a
    significant new requirement in National Standard 9 that conservation
    and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize
    bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the
    mortality of such bycatch. There is great concern that harvesting and
    then discarding catch in most fisheries has a detrimental effect on the
    marine ecosystem and on the condition of the targeted species. The
    national bycatch goal, as set forth in the NOAA Fisheries National
    Bycatch Strategy is ``to implement conservation and management measures
    for living marine resources that will minimize, to the extent
    practicable, bycatch and mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided.''
    This includes meeting the current bycatch reduction requirements of
    relevant statutes including National standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act, Section 118 of the MMPA, and the take prohibitions of the ESA.
        Currently, NOAA Fisheries spends $35.3 million on bycatch related
    activities, including all observer data collection effort. The FY 2004
    budget requests an increase of $2.8 million specifically for reducing
    bycatch. This initiative has three components:
        (1) Within the $2.8 million, $0.2 million will be used to enhance
    and coordinate technical expertise to respond to bycatch issues. NOAA
    Fisheries believes bycatch reduction can be enhanced and better
    coordinated utilizing national bycatch reduction expertise of gear
    specialists, fishery and protected species experts, socio-economic
    specialists, and outreach experts. These specialists will be located
    across the country and will examine bycatch reduction pertaining to
    both fisheries gear needs (i.e., conservation engineering) and
    protected species and marine mammal interactions. This group will
    examine existing bycatch reduction methods, evaluate their
    effectiveness, and design and test new methods.
        (2) Additional funds ($0.6 million) for public/private bycatch
    reduction research and testing would expand and improve cooperative
    research activities in three fisheries per year. Research and testing
    (including independent monitoring), using leased vessels to test
    bycatch reduction devices, will address innovative methods to reduce
    bycatch. The vessels will be leased to follow the experimental
    protocols developed by this initiative, while gaining insight into the
    effectiveness of the bycatch reduction devices through the use of the
    technologies by the fishermen who work these fisheries.
        (3) Additional funds ($2.0 million) to expand the number of bycatch
    observers would provide for approximately 2,000 additional observer sea
    days to enhance NOAA Fisheries efforts to expand and modernize
    fisheries observer programs for the collection of bycatch data from
    commercial and recreational fishing vessels. The improved data will
    allow better assessment of impacts of fishing activities on living
    marine resources--finfish, shellfish, marine invertebrates, marine
    mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds.
        Fisheries change from year to year due to a variety of
    environmental, economic, and management conditions; their effects on
    non-target or undersized finfish and protected species can change
    annually as a consequence. Bycatch levels need to be monitored
    throughout the range of the fisheries to quantify the removal of
    protected species and discarded finfish and to identify alternate
    fishing practices to reduce bycatch.
        Fisheries requiring increased observer coverage and the focus of
    the requested 2000 additional observer days under the bycatch
    initiative include:
         Mid-Atlantic and New England scallop dredge fisheries.
    Bycatch of incidental take of ESA-listed sea turtles and regulated
    groundfish species;
         West Coast groundfish open access fishery. Bycatch of
    overfished finfish in the open access components of the fishery;
         Mid-Atlantic haul seine, purse seine, pound net, stop
    net, gill net and pot fisheries. Significant incidental take of
    protected species, such as marine mammals and sea turtles;
         Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shrimp otter trawl fishery.
    Bycatch of juvenile red snapper and other commercially valuable
    finfish, as well as sea turtles;
         Alaska halibut longline fishery. Bycatch of seabirds;
         California, American Samoa, and Guam pelagic longline
    fisheries. Bycatch of Pacific sea turtle populations;
         Atlantic recreational charterboat and headboat fisheries.
    Bycatch of finfish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and/or seabirds;
         Alaska gillnet and purse seine fisheries. Incidental take
    of marine mammals and seabirds;
         Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico reef and bottom longline and
    bandit rig fisheries. Bycatch of non-target and undersize finfish;
         Hawaii bottomfish fishery. Interactions with Hawaiian
    monk seals, a critically endangered species; and
         Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico reef and bottom longline and
    bandit rig fisheries. Bycatch of non-target and undersize finfish.

        8. Question: What is the latest on the new TEDs requirement? Is
    there any funding for helping the shrimp industry to finance this new
    gear requirement since they are currently facing an economic crisis?
        Answer: The new TED requirements to enhance the effectiveness of
    TEDs in reducing sea turtle deaths that result from trawling in the
    southeastern United States were published in the Federal Register on
    February 21, 2003. The rule took effect in state and federal waters on
    April 15, 2003 in the Atlantic and will take effect on August 21, 2003
    in the Gulf of Mexico. Fishermen have until those dates to complete
    what, for most, are minor modifications to increase the size of the TED
    escape openings through which turtles exit. The main effect of the new
    rule is that shrimpers will have to ensure that the openings on their
    TEDs are large enough to release large sea turtles--up to the size of
    large loggerhead turtles in inshore waters (bays and sounds inside the
    COLREGS lines), and up to the size of leatherback turtles in offshore
    waters of the Gulf and Atlantic and inshore waters of Georgia and South
    Carolina. These turtles are too large to escape through the minimum
    escape opening sizes required in the previous regulations. The new
    requirements are expected to reduce deaths of loggerhead turtles--a
    threatened species--by tens of thousands each year and will reduce
    deaths of leatherback turtles--an endangered species--by thousands each
    year. NOAA Fisheries is consulting with the Department of State
    regarding how the new rule will affect the implementation of P.L. 101-
    162 which, in part, requires foreign nations to have sea turtle
    conservation programs in place comparable to the U.S. The use of TEDs
    has been an integral part of these conservation programs. Global use of
    the larger opening TEDs will greatly enhance the conservation and
    recovery of threatened and endangered sea turtles.
        Congress has appropriated $35 million to aid the southeast United
    States shrimp fishery. NOAA Fisheries is working with the states and
    industry to distribute this money. Additionally, a substantial number
    of fishermen in the Atlantic (up to 70% in some areas) and some in the
    Gulf (up to 15% in some areas) already have TEDs that comply with the
    new regulations and won't have to make any changes. Most of the rest
    will only have to make modifications to the escape hole and flap on
    their existing TEDs. The modification consists of removing the webbing
    flap that covers the escape opening, cutting away additional meshes to
    enlarge the escape opening, and installing a new, larger flap over the
    escape opening. Fishermen can make the modification in under thirty
    minutes, with less than $25 of material costs, or spend an estimated
    $45 to have the modification done at a net shop. The regulations also
    increase the minimum size of the TED grid (the hardware portion of the
    TED). Because larger TED grids perform better at excluding debris and
    retaining shrimp, most fishermen use TED grids that exceed the minimum
    required sizes already. The regulatory change is expected to affect few
    to no fishermen in the Atlantic and only a small percentage of the
    fishermen in the Gulf.

        9. Question: Has FDA been cooperative in increasing inspections for
    illegal antibiotics which have been found in some shrimp imports and
    are they working cooperatively with NMFS in these activities?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries has had a long, collegial working
    relationship with FDA. We have had numerous Memorandums of
    Understanding (MOUs) and Interagency Agreements with FDA, or with other
    federal agencies involving FDA's participation, dealing with such
    matters as seafood safety and inspection operations, research,
    inspecting animal feed ingredients (fish meal), providing funds to
    determine the effects of fish consumption on human mercury toxicity,
    transferring funds to assist their agency in their molluscan shellfish
    food safety assistance project and other funds to partially support the
    ISSC office in Columbia, SC, and joint funding with FDA, USDA, and DOD
    to support the National Advisory Committee for the Microbiological
    Criteria for Foods. Aside from these MOUs, we have further collaborated
    with FDA on numerous other fishery related food safety issues.
        Specifically for chloramphenicol analysis, the principal, NOAA
    Fisheries'' National Seafood Inspection Laboratory (NSIL) has been in
    contact with FDA relative to assisting that Agency in performing
    chloramphenicol analysis. Discussions between NOAA Fisheries and FDA
    have resulted in FDA's provisional approval of methods for sample
    submission, custody, routing, and accounting and documentation
    procedures necessary to maintain the regulatory chain of custody and
    tracking required for import collections. Further, FDA expects to fund
    4,800 analyses on a reimbursable basis in the amount of approximately
    $200K. An interagency agreement toward that end is currently being
    negotiated. Two other NOAA facilities--NOAA Fisheries Northwest
    Fisheries Science Center, and the NOAA National Ocean Services Coastal
    Center for Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research--also may
    provide assistance to FDA in performing laboratory analysis. FDA has
    expressed an interest in assessing these two facilities Mass
    Spectrometry capabilities to confirm rapid screening methods. NOAA
    expects to follow up with FDA in this regard.

        10. Question: During our hearings on the reauthorization of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, it became apparent that the agency was spending a
    large amount of manpower and funds defending lawsuits. What steps has
    the agency taken through this budget request to address this problem?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries is undertaking the necessary changes to
    improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations and increase
    compliance with all procedural requirements. As a critical component of
    this improved compliance, NOAA Fisheries is using the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a structured, analytical framework
    within which to make informed decisions integrating environmental,
    social, and economic factors. NOAA Fisheries is taking a number of
    actions to front-load the NEPA process through the active participation
    of all regional, science center, and Council staff in key
    responsibilities (e.g., sustainable fisheries, protected resources
    habitat, economics, legal review) at the early stages of fishery
    management action development--a ``no-surprises'' approach. A
    headquarters Environmental Policy Coordinator and regional coordinators
    (National Environmental Policy Act Coordination Officer) have been
    hired to ensure national and regional consistency, provide advice on
    integrating statutes, and remain current on national policy issues
    related to environmental compliance.

        11. Question: It appears that NEPA compliance has been the target
    of a number of lawsuits. What does this budget request do to ensure
    that NEPA compliance is addressed? Has the agency looked at how the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA contradict and/or how the process
    timelines can be coordinated? Will there be any suggestions on this
    issue when the Administration sends its Magnuson-Stevens Act
    reauthorization to the Hill?
        Answer: The FY 2004 budget request contains an $8 million dollar
    request (a $3 million increase over FY 2003) specifically for the
    purpose of improving compliance with NEPA. These funds would be used
    primarily for increasing our NEPA specialists within our regional
    offices. Remaining funds would be used for support of the Regional
    Fishery Management Councils who assist us in NEPA implementation.
        In developing the Regulatory Streamlining Project ($1.5 million
    requested in FY 2004), NOAA Fisheries reviewed how all process
    timelines can be coordinated. NOAA Fisheries believes that the solution
    to the coordination problems that have been experienced is to establish
    a process under which NEPA and other related environmental impact
    review requirements are fully completed as early as possible for
    proposed Regional Fishery Management Council actions and well before
    such actions are the subject of formal Regional Fishery Management
    Council recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce. Accordingly,
    frontloading the completion of the NEPA process into the Operational
    Guidelines that govern both the Regional Fishery Management Council's
    and NOAA's analysis, review, and consideration of proposed Regional
    Fishery Management Council actions is a major component of the
    Regulatory Streamlining Project.
        NOAA Fisheries does not believe changes to Magnuson-Stevens Act
    related to this issue are necessary. Rather, NOAA Fisheries is placing
    emphasis on effectively implementing the Regulatory Streamlining
    Project in conjunction with an increase in NEPA efforts--and that
    should avoid the need for any legislative changes regarding this
    matter.

        12. Question: What is the latest on the Advisory Committee on
    Marine Protected Areas?
        Answer: Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans notified thirty nominees
    of their selection as candidates for the Marine Protected Areas Federal
    Advisory Committee on January 3, 2003. All thirty have indicated their
    desire to serve. The first meeting was held on June 24-25, 2003 in the
    Department of Commerce Auditorium.

        13. Question: The Appropriations Committee has required the Agency
    to submit an annual report on the use of Pacific salmon funds along the
    west coast and how the use of those funds has recovered listed salmon
    populations. The Resources Committee would like the Agency to provide
    it with that information as well. Can the Agency cite for us today any
    specific actions taken by the Agency that have helped recover salmon
    stocks?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries has taken numerous actions under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect and restore the twenty-six
    populations of Pacific salmon that have been listed as threatened or
    endangered under the ESA. The agency is implementing changes needed to
    protect and recover these fish, including those necessary to address
    human impacts from habitat destruction, dams, hatcheries, and harvest.
    NOAA Fisheries has sought to reduce or eliminate threats to the species
    as the first step towards recovery. NOAA Fisheries has also sought to
    minimize the impacts to affected parties and to fulfill its treaty
    obligations with treaty Indian tribes. A small sample of the many
    actions NOAA Fisheries has taken to date are given below. All of these
    examples have led to improved salmon survival and will aid in future
    recovery of the runs.
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF)--Over the past three
    years, NOAA Fisheries has provided over $250 million through the PCSRF
    to the states and tribes for over 2200 ``on-the-ground'' salmon
    recovery projects that contribute to the restoration and conservation
    of healthy and sustainable Pacific salmonid populations and the
    habitats upon which they depend. The PCSRF supplements state, tribal
    and federal programs to implement salmon recovery efforts and fosters
    state-local-tribal-federal collaboration and engagement in recovery
    programs. The majority of the PCSRF funds have been used for salmon
    habitat restoration projects in ESA listed salmon habitat. A Report to
    Congress on the PCSRF was recently transmitted to Congress.
        Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations--NOAA Fisheries
    conducts several hundred ESA consultations each year on habitat,
    harvest, hatchery and hydropower activities on the West Coast to ensure
    Federal activities don't harm salmon recovery efforts. These
    consultations are an essential component of our progress towards
    restoration of Pacific salmon populations and their habitat and have
    been instrumental in minimizing or eliminating the effects of federally
    permitted or funded activities on ESA listed salmonids. Major
    consultations include the Federal Columbia River Power System
    consultation where hydropower actions affect 12 ESA listed salmonid
    populations, and programmatic consultation covering fifteen categories
    of permit actions regulated by the Corps of Engineers.
        Habitat Conservation Plans--NOAA Fisheries has completed ten major
    Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) related to forest land operations,
    hydropower operations, and withdrawal of water for residential,
    municipal, industrial and agricultural use. These HCPs provide for the
    protection of listed species while allowing the activities to continue
    in modified form.
        Harvest and Hatcheries--NOAA Fisheries has worked with states,
    treaty Indian tribes, Fishery Management Councils, and international
    forums to minimize harvest impacts to ESA listed stocks, while
    maximizing the harvest of unlisted hatchery produced salmon in tribal,
    commercial and recreational fisheries. These efforts have been taken in
    a variety of forms from development and ratification of the U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty to development of tribal and state resource
    management plans under the ESA 4(d) rules for threatened species.
        Research and Monitoring--NOAA Fisheries has developed an extensive
    research and monitoring program that is carried out by the Northwest
    and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers. A variety of projects are
    being conducted on such tasks as evaluating the efficacy of different
    habitat restoration techniques, the use and importance of estuaries for
    juvenile salmon, the growth and survival of salmon in the Columbia
    River plume and ocean environments, the passage of fish through dams
    and migration through the Columbia and Snake Rivers, and the role of
    salmon carcasses in providing nutrients for juvenile fish production.
        Recovery Planning--NOAA Fisheries has organized the twenty-six ESA
    listed populations into eight recovery areas or ``domains'': Puget
    Sound; Willamette/Lower Columbia; Interior Columbia; Oregon Coast;
    Southern Oregon/Northern California; North-Central California Coast;
    South- Central California; and California Central Valley. For each
    domain, NOAA Fisheries is developing a Recovery Plan that addresses all
    listed salmon and steelhead populations within that domain. NOAA
    Fisheries is working with local entities to develop sub-basin plans
    that are the building blocks for these Recovery plans. Technical
    Recovery Teams (TRT), comprised of NOAA Fisheries scientists as well as
    technical experts from other entities, are conducting technical
    analyses related to recovery goals and scenarios (Recovery Planning
    Phase I). TRTs have now been established for seven recovery domains,
    and the remaining will be appointed shortly. For the Interior Columbia
    domain, NOAA Fisheries released interim recovery planning targets in
    the spring of 2002.
        There is no single factor responsible for the decline in runs of
    Pacific salmon and steelhead, and there is no single solution for their
    restoration. The recovery of salmon runs will be a cooperative effort
    involving hundreds of affected parties and federal, state, local and
    tribal governments. NOAA Fisheries is working with many partners to
    take the incremental steps needed to recover salmon, and those actions
    are reducing the probability of extinction and leading to increased
    runs throughout the West Coast.
    General Marine Mammal Management Questions

        14. Question: What is NOAA doing to address the late release or
    non-release of funds for specific Congressional grant projects?
        NOAA's handling of the funds for Congressional grant projects has
    unnecessarily turned what should be a 3 month process to a 9-15 month
    process causing many grantees to miss critical research seasons. FY
    2002 funding for specific Congressional projects was held up for many
    grantees and many still haven't received funds as of January 2003.
        Answer: NOAA has examined its grants process as part of its
    comprehensive Program Review. Sixty-eight Program Review Team
    recommendations emerged from last year's program review. Among them was
    the critical need to adopt ``cycle time standards'' for allocating
    financial resources. The challenge was to make sure program funding
    arrived in a timely manner. Based on recommendations of the Program
    Review, NOAA has streamlined its grants process in order to provide
    funds to grantees in a more timely manner. Our ultimate goal is to have
    a cycle time of approximately 80 to 100 days from receipt of funds to
    award for non-competitive grants.

        15. Question: The Prescott Grant program was designed to give
    stranding network facilities much needed funds for research and
    construction programs, as well as funds for mass stranding events, to
    support their efforts in recovering and rehabilitating stranded marine
    mammals.
        In the solicitation for applications released by NOAA, it states
    the Agency's decision to combine the FY 2003 and 2004 grant cycle. This
    by itself is not a bad idea, but what disturbs the Committee is the
    ruling made by the Agency that facilities will only be eligible to
    apply for up to two grants instead of four grants in the two year
    cycle.
        Facilities have the potential of losing up to $200,000 in grant
    funding based on this ruling. Congress had to argue with the Agency
    about Congress's intent to allow facilities to apply for up to two
    grants per facility per year.
        Why did the Agency determine that in a two year combined funding
    cycle facilities could only apply for two grants instead of four, when
    in a regular two year cycle facilities would have the chance to apply
    for four grants?
        Answer: In order to adequately fund the more than 100 stranding
    network members with the limited funds available per cycle
    (approximately $4 million), NOAA Fisheries must limit the number of
    grants per institution per funding cycle. In 2001 and 2002, only two
    grants were allowed per institution because it was a combined funding
    cycle (approximately $8 million). This year is also a combined cycle
    (2003 and 2004), thus we are once again allowing two grants per
    institution.
        The Prescott Grant Program limited the number of awards in the
    combined 2003 and 2004 grant cycle to two per stranding network
    participant to ensure that the greatest number of applicants could
    receive assistance. In determining who should receive funding, the
    Program (according to statute) must ensure that funds are equitably
    distributed across the stranding regions, as well as to existing
    facilities with established records in the marine mammal stranding
    networks. In order to allow smaller organizations with limited federal
    grants experience to compete fairly with the larger for-profit and
    university participants, the Program determined that limiting the
    number of awards per participant was appropriate for this funding
    cycle. There was no limitation on the number of proposals a participant
    could submit. The 2005 solicitation for proposals will be published in
    April 2004. Before publication, policies regarding the number of awards
    per network participant per year will be reviewed to ensure that they
    meet the Program's goals, funding priorities, and Congressional intent.

        16. Question: Another issue that has been raised by stranding
    network facilities concerns the release of grant funding. After NMFS
    approves a grant the facility is required to go through an additional
    paper work process with the Treasury Department to get their funding
    released. Concerns have been raised relating to the lack of
    compatibility of the Treasury Department's computer system with Word
    Perfect or Word systems used by the stranding facilities. Can you
    explain the process a facility goes through with the Treasury
    Department and why the Agency is required to use the Treasury
    Department when releasing funds?
        Answer: The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act
    (P.L.106-107) required all Federal Agencies to reduce the number of
    grantee payment systems. After passage of P.L. 106-107 the number of
    payment systems was systematically reduced to three systems. One of
    these systems, the Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP),
    managed by the Department of Treasury, was selected by the Department
    of Commerce as its grantee payment system. A grantee must fill out
    standard enrollment paper work found at the Dept of Treasury's website
    and the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS) website. All
    forms can be downloaded from those sites. Once a recipient is in the
    ASAP and CAMS systems, they do not have to re-enroll with every grant
    they receive. ASAP offers two options for payment: 1) the Voice
    Response System (VRS) via telephone or 2) electronically via the
    computer. Although NOAA has no control over Treasury's payment system,
    NOAA tries to help applicants with the process and directs recipients
    to Treasury to ensure they follow up with Treasury as soon as possible
    for enrollment so they can begin to draw down funds. NOAA cannot
    formally request recipients to start their financial enrollment
    paperwork until NOAA completes a thorough review of the administrative
    and financial capabilities of the organization. NOAA is improving it
    grants processing by establishing a grants on-line system and has made
    other improvements through its ``Quick Wins'' efforts, such as
    improving the compatibility of databases between NOAA's finance office
    and the program offices to reduce processing time.

        17. Question: How much funding is included in the Agency's base
    funds for marine mammal research?
        Answer: Funds considered as base funds for marine mammal research
    totals $16 million. Total NOAA funding on marine mammal research is
    nearly $42 million. Protected species research focuses on marine
    species population abundance, distribution and trends, marine ecosystem
    dynamics and the impacts of human activities on marine mammals and
    other protected marine species. NOAA Fisheries conducts studies on
    large whales, porpoises, seals, sea lions, salmon, and sea turtles.
    NOAA uses this information to develop conservation and recovery plans
    in fulfillment of its Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered
    Species Act responsibilities. Scientists conduct research programs
    nationwide in NOAA research laboratories and provide fundamental
    information required by Federal, state and industry decision-makers for
    conservation and management purposes. The base funding for marine
    mammal research includes funding for marine mammal projects in several
    Program, Project, and Activities (PPA) lines. For example, of the
    $7,120K allocated to the Marine Mammal Protection line, $5,200K is used
    for marine mammal research. The remainder of these funds supports
    management and administrative activities, primarily the implementation
    of sections 117 (Stock Assessment) and 118 (Fishery Interactions) of
    the MMPA.
        Of the $3,500K allocated to the Endangered Species--Marine Mammals,
    Sea Turtles and Other Species line, $2,700K supports marine mammal
    research. All of the funds allocated to Hawaiian Monk seals ($825K),
    Steller sea lions--Endangered Species Act ($850K), and Recovery of
    Endangered Whales ($1,000K) support marine mammal research.
        Approximately $2,700K of the funds allocated to the ETP Tuna/
    Dolphin lines ($2,950K) supports related research.

        18. Question: How much is appropriated annually to the agency for
    marine mammal research?
        Answer: The amount varies from year to year. Total NOAA funding on
    marine mammal research is nearly $42 million. Funds considered as base
    funds for marine mammal research totals $16 million. NOAA Fisheries
    received the following funds totaling $25.95 million for research in FY
    2003:
        Program, Project, and Activities(PPAs) that support research in
    part:
         Marine Mammal Protection: Ice Seals ($250K): New item--
    all of this will likely support research.
         Marine Mammal Protection--Joint Alaska Harbor Seal
    Research ($900K): $450K of this supports research (SeaLife Center).
         Marine Mammal Research--manatee--New College ($250K): New
    item--all of this will likely support research.
         Protected Species Management--Southern Resident orca
    ($750K): All of this supports research.
         Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan ($5,000K): About $4,800K
    of this is used for research.
         Steller Sea Lion External entities (i.e., Alaska SeaLife,
    State of Alaska, NPFMC, etc) ($13,500K): About $12,700K is used for
    research or research management.
         Endangered Species Act--Right Whale activities
    ($10,000K): About $4,000K supports research.
         Bottlenose Dolphin Research ($2,000K): all of this
    supports research.
         Protected Species Management--California sea lions
    ($750K): all of this supports research

        19. Question: Is there coordination between marine mammal
    researchers and resource managers to focus funds on management
    priorities?
        Answer: Yes, there is close coordination among marine mammal
    scientists, managers, and policy advisors to make sure that effective,
    efficient research activities address the highest priority needs. From
    1992 through 1999, this coordination took place in the form of an
    annual meeting of senior marine mammal staff from science centers,
    regional offices and headquarters to discuss proposed research and
    priorities. Since 2000, the coordination is more informal, with
    extensive communication between science centers and regional offices,
    and periodic communication with NOAA Headquarters' senior staff.

        20. Question: What type of marine mammal research is done by the
    Agency?
        Answer: Most research addresses the abundance and trends of marine
    mammal populations and the impacts of human activities, particularly
    commercial fisheries, upon marine mammals. The latter generally
    consists of observer programs. NOAA Fisheries also conducts research
    into ecological relationships, health assessments, and the effects of
    specific agents (pollutants or disease agents) on marine mammals,
    population genetics, and the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine
    mammals. Indirect research activity includes investigations into
    fishing gear and practices that would reduce bycatch of marine mammals
    or technological approaches to avoid ship strikes.

        21. Question: Is the Agency conducting any research on the effects
    of sound or sonar on marine mammals? If so, how much is spent annually
    and what is the extent of the research? If not, why?
        Answer: The program has had a budget of $200,000 per year for each
    of the last three fiscal years. These funds have been used to support
    workshops (Acoustic Resonance, Auditory Brainstem Response, Temporary
    Threshold Shift), an NRC panel on ocean noise, the development of
    acoustic criteria (noise standards) for the agency, research on whale
    calls, and the creation of a computer program for calculating safety
    zones around sound sources (for issuance of MMPA authorizations).

        22. Question: How is the Agency working to ensure that valid
    scientific research regarding the effects of sonar on marine mammals is
    properly permitted?
        Answer: All scientific research permit applications undergo a
    rigorous review, especially those involving marine mammals and
    acoustics. In addition to a review of the merits (assisted by the
    Marine Mammal Commission), environmental impacts are also considered
    during the NEPA and ESA Section 7 (for listed species) analyses. Only
    those permits that meet the issuance criteria of the MMPA, including
    the standard for ``bona fide'' scientific research, are issued.

        23. Question: The research conducted by Dr. Peter Tyack, a
    researcher with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was permitted by
    the Agency, but halted by the court due to its interpretation that NEPA
    requirements were not met by the Agency when issuing amendments 1 and 3
    to the permit. How is the Agency addressing this issue and how will the
    Agency work to ensure this doesn't happen again and in the meantime
    facilitate permitting of this much needed scientific research?
        Answer: The Agency has addressed this issue administratively by
    issuing a new scientific research permit to Dr. Tyack. The permit was
    issued on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, thereby allowing the initial portion
    of the research to proceed in the Gulf of Mexico on schedule (beginning
    in early June, 2003). Dr. Tyack is now authorized for a five-year
    period to take various cetacean species including endangered whales for
    scientific purposes to study the biology, foraging ecology,
    communication, and behavior of these animals, with a focus on their
    responses to anthropogenic sounds. The Agency has analyzed the
    potential impacts of this research in an Environmental Assessment (EA),
    thereby fulfilling its obligations under the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA). Based on the outcome of the litigation the Agency
    has determined that all future marine mammal scientific research
    permits that involve active acoustics will be analyzed in an EA or an
    Environmental Impact Statement. In the longer term, based on available
    resources, NOAA Fisheries intends to complete programmatic NEPA
    document(s) and programmatic Section 7 consultations to reduce the time
    needed to process these types of applications.

        24. Question: How many fisheries have interactions with marine
    mammal stocks?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries monitors interactions between marine mammals
    and fisheries through various observer and stranding programs around
    the country. In its annual List of Fisheries, a requirement of Section
    118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NOAA Fisheries
    categorizes all U.S. commercial fisheries based on whether they have
    frequent, occasional, or a remote likelihood of no known incidental
    mortality and serious injury of marine mammals--Category I, II, and III
    fisheries, respectively.
        Six fisheries are currently considered Category I fisheries, while
    thirty-three fisheries are currently considered Category II.
    Approximately 200 fisheries are classified as Category III. NOAA
    Fisheries is proposing changes to some classifications in the 2003 List
    of Fisheries.

        25. Question: How many of these fisheries have observers? How many
    fisheries need observer coverage? Who pays for these observers?
        Answer: To date, observer programs are the best way to obtain
    accurate information about the level of marine mammal and other bycatch
    occurring in fisheries. Section 118 of the MMPA provides that only
    owners of vessels engaged in a Category I or II fishery are required to
    take on board an observer if requested to do so. By definition, these
    fisheries have the highest levels of incidental mortality and serious
    injury of marine mammals; thus, NOAA Fisheries prioritizes observer
    coverage within Category I and II fisheries based on standards and
    priorities listed in Section 118 of the MMPA.
        Approximately one-third of Category I and II fisheries have had
    some level of observer coverage in the past five years. Our goal is a
    level of observer coverage or other monitoring effort that yields an
    accurate representation of the bycatch occurring in the fishery
        Observer programs are funded through industry, federal, and state
    programs depending on the region, fisheries, and resources affected.

        26. Question: How does the Agency coordinate data collected by
    marine mammal observers and commercial fishery observers?
        Answer: All observers are trained in the identification of marine
    mammals and other species and collect data on a range of conservation
    and management issues, including species composition of the catch,
    weights of fish caught, and bycatch of finfish, marine mammals, sea
    turtles, and other protected species. Observers fill out and submit
    forms to NOAA Fisheries that report on all of the above information.
        Given the nature of marine mammal and other protected species
    bycatch, however, sampling methods for observer programs primarily
    devoted to monitoring marine mammal bycatch may vary from those
    primarily devoted to monitoring finfish bycatch. For example, because
    protected species bycatch events tend to be rarer than finfish bycatch
    events, marine mammal observer programs may require different levels of
    coverage and allocation of observers to vessels operating in distinct
    locations in order to obtain an accurate depiction of the occurrence of
    marine mammal bycatch.

        27. Question: Do marine mammal observers collect fishery bycatch
    data in addition to marine mammal data?
        Answer: Yes (see response to Q26). Observers are able to record a
    range of information about each fishing trip. In addition to recording
    marine mammal takes, observers note related factors such as gear
    characteristics, fishing methods, environmental conditions,
    and the presence of birds, and all species caught or interacting with
    gear. Observers take biological samples and photographs to positively
    identify species of mammals, birds, and fish.

        28. Question: Can the Agency use fishery data collected from marine
    mammal observers and marine mammal data collected from commercial
    fishery observers or are separate data collection protocols applied?
        Answer: In most cases, observers collect information on all catch
    and bycatch (fish, marine mammals, sea birds, sea turtles). (See
    responses to Q26 and Q27.) NOAA Fisheries created its National Observer
    Program specifically to ensure that observer programs were collecting
    data related to the full range of marine resource issues. Nonetheless,
    different data collection protocols are applied in terms of sampling
    designs for observer coverage in order to account for the differences
    in the nature and occurrence of marine mammal/other protected species
    bycatch versus finfish bycatch.

        29. Question: The Administration's draft bill to reauthorize the
    MMPA includes a provision that would allow the Secretary of Commerce to
    conduct a voluntary fishing gear buyback program. The Secretary has
    similar authorities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Why is a separate
    authority necessary?
        Answer: The provisions in the Administration's MMPA reauthorization
    bill would enable NOAA Fisheries to focus on new ways to address the
    problem of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in
    commercial fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not address the
    issue of marine mammal bycatch; rather, it deals with ``fish'' bycatch,
    defined as ``finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of
    marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.''
    Thus, a separate authority under the MMPA would help focus increased
    attention on finding creative solutions to the problem of marine mammal
    bycatch, something that is not currently authorized under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act.

        30. Question: The Agency has stated that by definition,
    insignificant levels of marine mammal deaths due to commercial fishery
    interactions means that total mortality or rate of death is no more
    than 10% of the maximum number of marine mammals that could die from
    human-caused mortality. What is the scientific rationale for ``no more
    than 10%?'' How was it developed and how is it applied to fisheries
    with marine mammal interactions?
        Answer: Although NOAA Fisheries proposed a rule to define
    insignificant levels of incidental mortality and serious injury as 10%
    or less of a stock's Potential Biological Removal (PBR) levels, that
    definition was not included in the final rule. NOAA Fisheries has used
    this as a working definition for purposes of Stock Assessment Reports
    under Section 117 of the MMPA until a regulatory definition is
    finalized. NOAA Fisheries is preparing to initiate a notice-and-comment
    rulemaking to define the phrase, ``insignificant levels of incidental
    mortality and serious injury approaching a zero mortality and serious
    injury rate,'' based on continued analysis over the past several years.
        In accordance with Section 114 of the MMPA, the Marine Mammal
    Commission suggested that a negligible impact could be considered one
    that (1) would no longer be detectable after a year of reproduction or
    (2) would delay recovery of a threatened or endangered species by no
    more than 10% over the expected recovery if the incidental mortality
    did not occur. Although a clear link between negligible impact and
    insignificant levels of mortality is not made within the MMPA or its
    legislative history, there is an indirect reference in the legislative
    history accompanying the 1988 amendments that suggests an insignificant
    level of incidental mortality would have a negligible impact on the
    population. Using simulation analyses, NOAA Fisheries scientists found
    that mortality limited to 10% of a stock's PBR would delay recovery by
    no more than 10% and, for a population already at its carrying
    capacity, such a level of mortality would allow it to equilibrate
    within 95% of the carrying capacity (excluding fishery-related
    mortality). This was the scientific basis for the definition in the
    proposed rule in 1995 and the working definition for purposes of Stock
    Assessment Reports. However, later simulations suggested that 10% of
    PBR may be too restrictive in some cases. Based on these simulations
    and comments received on the definition in the proposed rule, NOAA
    Fisheries excluded this provision from the final rule. We have
    continued to evaluate and formulate definitions that are most
    appropriate in interpreting the intent of this standard.

        31. Question: The bottlenose dolphin take reduction team (TRT) will
    reconvene in a few weeks. Has NMFS finalized the stock assessment for
    the TRT to use in its deliberations? If not, the TRT will have to
    continue its deliberations using 8 year old data which may not be
    reflective of the current bottlenose dolphin population. The Agency in
    the past has told the Committee that data over 5 years old is not
    reliable. Why hasn't the Agency processed this data to have it
    available for the TRT?
        Answer: Yes, NOAA Fisheries provided updated bottlenose dolphin
    abundance estimates to the TRT at its last meeting during the first
    week of April 2003. The updated estimates were based on surveys
    conducted in Winter and Summer 2002.
        NOAA Fisheries supplemented bottlenose abundance data with data
    that were less than five years old for the TRT to review and consider
    for its first series of meetings. At the time of convening the TRT, the
    abundance data provided represented the best available science and
    allowed the TRT to begin to address the high levels of incidental
    mortality of bottlenose dolphins occurring in several Atlantic
    fisheries. Based on concerns from members of the TRT, NOAA Fisheries
    had the data independently reviewed, and the independent review
    resulted in the same conclusion. Ultimately, NOAA Fisheries would like
    to provide updated abundance analyses on a regular basis; however,
    given resource constraints to date, it has not always been possible.
    Aquaculture/Hatcheries

        32. Question: How much is requested for Aquaculture activities?
    What types of activities are funded through these activities?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries has approximately $2.0 million in base
    funding for aquaculture. This funding does not include Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery Funding or Columbia River Hatchery funds. NOAA
    Fisheries has ongoing research on fish culture and stock enhancement
    techniques at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Milford
    Laboratory and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center's Manchester
    Research Station. The FY 2004 budget provides the NOAA's Fisheries
    Finance Program with $19 million in loan authority for aquaculture
    financing and NOAA Research has $2.6 million available for aquaculture
    research in the FY 2004 request.

        33. Question: What is the current policy on the use of hatchery
    raised fish for supplementation and/or restoration programs? How much
    money is being used by NOAA for grants for private supplementation
    programs?
        Answer: The current NOAA Fisheries policy for the use of hatchery
    fish for supplementation and/or restoration programs is to allow the
    use of hatchery fish for these purposes on a limited and experimental
    basis. No funding appropriated to NOAA Fisheries is used for private
    supplementation programs.
        34. Question: How much money is in the FY '04 request for hatchery
    programs? Can you give us a detailed list of all of the NOAA-funded
    hatchery operations and the funding levels for each hatchery? What
    types of fish are grown at each of these hatcheries?
        Answer: The FY 2004 request includes $11.457 million for operation
    and maintenance costs at Columbia River salmon and steelhead
    hatcheries. This funding is intended to support the operation and
    maintenance costs for about 18 hatchery facilities that are to produce
    about 60 million juvenile salmonids each year consisting of coho
    salmon, spring chinook salmon, fall chinook salmon, steelhead, and
    Reddish Lake sockeye salmon. The funding needs by facility vary due to
    annual adjustments to production targets, mass marking costs,
    inflationary costs, new/additional upgrade and maintenance costs, but
    are approximately $4.1 million for Washington Department of Fish and
    Wildlife for Klickitat Hatchery, Washougal Hatchery, Skamania Hatchery,
    Kalama Falls Hatchery, Toutle River Hatchery, Elochoman Hatchery, and
    Ringold Hatcheries; $3.7 million to Oregon Department of Fish and
    Wildlife for OxBow/Herman Creek Hatchery, Cascade Hatchery, Bonneville
    Hatchery, Big Creek Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Clackamas Hatchery;
    $3.2 million to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Spring Creek/ Big
    White Salmon National Fish Hatchery, Little White Salmon/Willard
    National Fish Hatchery, Carson National Fish Hatchery, Eagle Creek
    National Fish Hatchery; and $0.2 million to the Yakama Indian Tribe for
    Acclimation Ponds.
        35. Question: What statutory authorities give NOAA the authority to
    operate hatcheries and how do these activities differ from the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service authorities?
        Answer: The primary statutory authority to operate hatcheries is
    the Mitchell Act. Appropriations through this Act allow NOAA Fisheries
    to distribute funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
    states for the operation of Mitchell Act mitigation hatcheries in the
    Columbia Basin. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, states, and Tribes
    also operate other Pacific Northwest hatcheries, but under separate
    legislative authorities.

        Questions for the Record from the Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.,
          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                          NOAA's FY '04 Budget Request
                                 march 19, 2003

        1. Question: Our nation's fisheries continue to have serious
    problems. In New England, the West Coast or many other areas of the
    country, fisheries disasters have become the norm, not the exception.
    In FY 03, NMFS asked for a total of $12 million for fisheries stock
    assessments. Recognizing a greater need, Congress appropriated $17
    million in FY 03. But, as I understand it, the actual need is closer to
    $26 million.
        Why has NMFS only sought an additional $3 million for stock
    assessment work when the status of a significant majority of fish
    stocks remains either unknown, depleted, or overfished?
        Answer: NOAA's FY 2004 request includes a total of $14.9 million
    for improving and expanding stock assessments. This request provides a
    tremendous investment to address the fisheries data collection needs of
    the agency.

        2. Question: I am pleased to see that there has been an increased
    request in the budget for fishery observers and reduction of bycatch.
    Some of this increase is necessary to address court orders imposed on
    NMFS through litigation or settlement.
        How will you allocate the budget increase in these two sections
    among regions and fisheries to fulfill court orders but also fulfill
    your duties, thereby preventing continuing litigation in other
    fisheries?
        Answer: NOAA is requesting $2.8 million in increased funding to
    reduce bycatch during marine fishing operations in federally managed
    waters. This funding will assist NOAA Fisheries in meeting the criteria
    of National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that
    ``Conservation and management measures shall, minimize bycatch and to
    the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such
    bycatch.'' Reducing bycatch will more efficiently utilize the harvest
    of America's living marine resources. This initiative has several
    components:
        Bycatch Observers--($2.0 million) This request will provide for
    approximately 2,000 observer sea days to enhance NOAA Fisheries efforts
    to expand and modernize fisheries observer programs for the collection
    of bycatch data from commercial and recreational fishing vessels. The
    improved data will allow better assessment of impacts of fishing
    activities on living marine resources--finfish, shellfish, marine
    invertebrates, marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds.
        Fisheries change from year to year due to a variety of
    environmental, economic, and management conditions; their effects on
    non-target or undersized finfish and protected species can change
    annually as a consequence. Bycatch levels need to be monitored
    throughout the range of the fisheries to quantify the removal of
    protected species and discarded finfish and to identify alternate
    fishing practices to reduce bycatch.
        The projected distribution of these funds would be:
         Alaska Fisheries Science Center $300,000
         Alaska Regional Office $175,000
         Southeast Fisheries Science Center $75,000
         Northeast Fisheries Science Center $700,000
         Pacific Islands Regional Office $50,000
         Southwest Regional Office $425,000
         Northwest Fisheries Science Center $175,000
         National Observer Program $100,000
        Fisheries requiring increased observer coverage under the bycatch
    initiative include:
         Mid-Atlantic and New England scallop dredge fisheries.
    Bycatch of incidental take of ESA-listed sea turtles and regulated
    groundfish species;
         West Coast groundfish open access fishery. Bycatch of
    overfished finfish in the open access components of the fishery;
         Mid-Atlantic haul seine, purse seine, pound net, stop
    net, gill net and pot fisheries. Significant incidental take of
    protected species, such as marine mammals and sea turtles;
         Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shrimp otter trawl fishery.
    Bycatch of juvenile red snapper and other commercially valuable
    finfish, as well as sea turtles;
         Alaska halibut longline fishery. Bycatch of seabirds;
         California, American Samoa, and Guam pelagic longline
    fisheries. Bycatch of Pacific sea turtle populations;
         Atlantic recreational charterboat and headboat fisheries.
    Bycatch of finfish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and/or seabirds;
         Alaska gillnet and purse seine fisheries. Incidental take
    of marine mammals and seabirds;
         Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico reef and bottom longline and
    bandit rig fisheries. Bycatch of non-target and undersize finfish;
         Hawaii bottomfish fishery. Interactions with Hawaiian
    monk seals, a critically endangered species; and
         Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico reef and bottom longline and
    bandit rig fisheries. Bycatch of non-target and undersize finfish.
        In addition, $ 800 K will be used to enhance technical expertise
    and testing. NOAA Fisheries believes bycatch reduction can be enhanced
    and better coordinated utilizing national bycatch reduction expertise
    of gear specialists, fishery and protected species experts, socio-
    economic specialists, and outreach experts. These specialists will be
    located across the country, and will examine bycatch reduction from
    gear perspectives, economic analysis of gear use, and devise methods
    for outreach to fishermen. This group will examine existing bycatch
    reduction methods, evaluate their effectiveness, and design and test
    new methods.
        Public/Private Bycatch Reduction Research and Testing--Funding is
    expected to expand and improve cooperative research activities to
    support research and testing in three fisheries per year at a cost of
    $0.6 million. Research and testing (including independent monitoring),
    using leased vessels to test bycatch reduction devices, will address
    innovative methods to reduce bycatch. The vessels will be leased to
    follow the experimental protocols developed by this initiative, while
    gaining insight into the effectiveness of the bycatch reductions
    devices through the use of the technologies by the fishermen who work
    these fisheries.

        3. Question: There is a substantial backlog in the days at sea
    required to adequately assess fish populations. How would this backlog
    be reduced if the President's budget were fully funded? How much is
    need to completely eliminate the backlog?
        Answer: The FY 2004 President's budget, including $14.9 million to
    expand and improve fisheries stock assessments, will provide a total of
    2,765 charter days at sea. A total of 4,665 days at sea are planned for
    fisheries surveys including 1,900 NOAA fleet days at sea funded under
    the NOAA Marine and Aviation Office's Marine Services line. The NOAA
    Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan calls for a total of 6,005 days at sea.
    Therefore, the FY 2004 request includes a backlog of 1,340 days at sea.

        4. Question: One of the key provisions of the 1996 Sustainable
    Fisheries Act was the requirement to identify and protect essential
    fish habitat, yet there has been a significant lack of progress in
    reducing the adverse impacts of fishing on habitat. The FY 04 budget
    request for Reducing Fishing Impacts on EFH was level funded from the
    fiscal year 03 level of $500,000, despite our growing awareness of the
    impacts of bottom trawls, dredges and other types of fishing gear on
    deepwater corals and other valuable marine habitat. In addition, the
    fiscal year 04 request for Fisheries Habitat Restoration is $4 million
    below what was appropriated in fiscal year 03 and $5 million below
    fiscal year 02 appropriations.
        What is the status of NOAA Fisheries activities to designate EFH as
    required under the SFA?
        These funding requests, taken together, give the impression that
    the Administration considers the identification and protection of EFH a
    low priority. Is this the case?
        Answer: The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions (Section
    303(a)(7)) in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act required that all
    Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) identify and describe EFH, minimize to
    the extent practicable adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify
    other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.
    Much progress has been made to fulfill the EFH mandate. Currently, all
    43 FMPs address the EFH provisions.
        EFH has been identified and described for close to1,000 species and
    their associated multiple life-stages. NOAA Fisheries approved all
    designations except for several in Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
    fisheries. Both the Gulf and Caribbean Councils are rectifying problems
    with their first attempts to designate EFH. Alternatives for improved
    EFH designations in the Gulf and Caribbean will be available in Draft
    Environmental Impact Statements, which will be available to the public
    for public comment later this summer.
        Councils continue to address the requirement to minimize adverse
    effects of fishing to the extent practicable. NOAA Fisheries approved
    efforts to minimize adverse effects of fishing for all FMPs except for
    nine in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic. Both Councils are
    working to address problems with how fishing effects were originally
    addressed. Alternatives for addressing fishing impacts to EFH in the
    Gulf of Mexico will be included in a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement, which will be available for public review later this summer.
        In addition to the efforts described above to rectify past
    deficiencies in implementing the EFH provisions of SFA, at least seven
    of the eight Councils are reviewing and refining their originally
    approved EFH provisions. NOAA Fisheries is also reviewing the FMPs for
    Highly Migratory Species (which is under the purview of the Secretary
    of Commerce, not a Fishery Management Council). The EFH Final Rule
    requires a review and update of the EFH provisions every 5 years. The
    5-year reviews are being undertaken in the order in which the original
    FMPs were approved.
        There are two line items in the NOAA Fisheries budget that
    specifically address EFH. One is ``Refine EFH Designations.'' The
    second is ``Reduce Impacts on EFH.'' In FY '03, NOAA Fisheries
    requested $1million to refine EFH designations and $500,000 to reduce
    impacts on EFH. In fiscal year 03 $500,000, was appropriated to refine
    EFH and the agency's request for new funding to reduce fishing impacts
    was zero funded. In FY '04, NOAA Fisheries actually seeks more funds
    for EFH than it received in FY '03. This request reflects the agency's
    commitment to designate EFH and minimize adverse effects of fishing.
    The additional funds will support much needed research and management
    efforts to further improve the conservation value of the EFH program.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.023

        The budget figures cited in the question from Congressman Gilchrest
    for habitat restoration do not represent expenditures for the EFH
    program. The line items for Fisheries Habitat Restoration support the
    NOAA Fisheries Habitat Restoration Division, which includes the
    Community Based Habitat Restoration program. While the Fisheries
    Habitat Restoration line-item certainly supports projects that benefit
    essential fish habitat, that program is not directly related to the
    agency's obligation to fulfill the EFH mandates in the SFA, which go
    beyond restoration.

          Questions for the Record from the Honorable Solomon Ortiz,
          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                         NOAA's FY 2004 Budget Request

                                 march 19, 2003

        1. Question: Recently, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) put
    out a new regulation which mandates the use of larger and more
    expensive Turtle Excluder Devices (TED's) that will cost the fishery
    thousands of dollars to install. Is NOAA planning to purchase and
    install these new devices for the shrimp fishery in order for them to
    comply with the new NOAA mandate to install larger and more expensive
    TED's? Do you anticipate even further changes to TED regulations in the
    future and what do you believe the economic impact of the new
    regulations will be?
        Answer: NOAA Fisheries is not planning on purchasing new TEDs and
    installing them for fishermen and believes that the majority of
    fishermen will not have to purchase new TEDs to comply with the new
    rule. A substantial number of fishermen in the Atlantic (up to 70% in
    some areas) and some in the Gulf (up to 15% in some areas) already have
    TEDs that comply with the new regulations and won't have to make any
    changes. Most of the rest will only have to make modifications to the
    escape hole and flap on their existing TEDs. The modification consists
    of removing the webbing flap that covers the escape opening, cutting
    away additional meshes to enlarge the escape opening, and installing a
    new, larger flap over the escape opening. Fishermen can make the
    modification in under thirty minutes, with less than $25 of material
    costs, or spend an estimated $45 to have the modification done at a net
    shop. The regulations also increase the minimum size of the TED grid
    (the hardware portion of the TED). Because larger TED grids perform
    better at excluding debris and retaining shrimp, most fishermen use TED
    grids that exceed the minimum required sizes already. The regulatory
    change is expected to affect few to no fishermen in the Atlantic and
    only a small percentage of the fishermen in the Gulf.
        NOAA Fisheries believes that most fishermen will only have to make
    minor changes to their equipment to comply with the new regulations;
    however, those fishermen whose current TED grids are too small will
    have to buy new grids, since they can't be easily modified, at an
    average cost of $220 for a new TED that would already include the
    enlarged escape opening. The net impact of the rule (using the worst
    case scenario) is not expected to significantly change average profits
    per vessel ranging from a gain of 0.5% to a loss of 2.4% relative to
    current TED requirements.
        NOAA Fisheries, through its regulatory authority, provides for
    modifications to TEDs as appropriate and warranted. For example, a
    process exists for testing new TED designs, often developed by
    fishermen, which can result in the authorization of new TEDs or
    modifications to existing TEDs to increase efficiency. Technical
    changes, often brought to our attention by fishermen, also may be made
    to the regulations as warranted and appropriate. Additionally, as the
    best available science evolves regulatory changes may become necessary.
        Shrimp loss under the new TEDs requirements will not be a
    significant source of economic impact. The use of a double cover flap
    TED showed a 0.1% shrimp gain and the use of the new seventy-one inch
    opening TED showed a 1% to 3% loss when compared to current
    commercially available TEDs.

        2. Question: The surge in foreign shrimp imports has severely
    suppressed the price per pound of shrimp, placing the fishery on the
    verge of involuntary bankruptcy. In my district alone, the economic
    impact in South Texas between year 2000 and 2001 is $86.4 million. Now,
    not only are shrimpers contending with the low price per pound of
    shrimp due to imports but also high cost in diesel fuel, which has
    forced vessels to be placed dockside. I realize there was $35 million
    Fisheries Disaster funding in the Omnibus bill but that was not
    sufficient to sustain this valuable fishery. It was a band-aid, not a
    solution to the problem. What plans does NOAA have to assist the Gulf
    and South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery in easing the economic constraints
    that have been imposed on the Gulf and South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery
    due to the tremendous surge in foreign imports?
        Answer: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is
    developing a business plan to provide economic and financial relief to
    the Gulf of Mexico and southern Atlantic states shrimp fisheries. The
    business plan may identify a series of alternatives that could relieve
    the financial pressure in the shrimp industry. These alternatives have
    been identified through a series of meetings that have been held with
    industry representatives, fishery managers, and academic fishery
    experts since last fall, from Texas to North Carolina. These
    alternatives are being analyzed by experts in the field of fisheries
    economics with specific expertise in the southeastern region shrimp
    fishery, under contract to NOAA Fisheries. They are preparing an
    assessment of proposed industry alternatives that are most likely to
    relieve the financial pressure on the harvesting sector brought about
    by higher fuel costs and lower ex-vessel prices due to increased import
    levels. Although the analysis of proposed management alternatives has
    not yet been finalized, a combination of limited entry and a marketing
    and quality assurance program to provide high quality, wild caught,
    fresh shrimp to specialty and niche markets are expected to be the best
    alternatives that will allow fishers to capture the benefits of
    improved shrimp prices.
                                     ______

      Issues and Questions from the Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking
       Member, Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee,
        Regarding USFWS and NOAA's FY 04 Budget Request, March 19, 2003

    I. General Overview Questions
    Question 1: Based on the new budget, NOAA (especially the National
            Ocean Service) appears to be de-emphasizing its ocean
            activities and increasing funding toward programs that do not
            address ocean issues. Please explain the rationale behind this
            shift in focus.
        Answer: The President's FY 2004 budget for NOAA's Ocean Service
    (NOS) requests a $6.5 million increase, all of which is dedicated to
    programs that address ocean issues. The FY 2004 increases will help
    improve the Nation's most extensive coastal water level monitoring
    system and support a forecast capability for real-time observing
    systems, which will result in an improved capability to provide
    mariners, emergency responders, and coastal managers with information
    on water levels, including storm surge warnings. Also, the FY 04 budget
    includes program increases for Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs)
    and the vessel time charter. The $2M program increase for ENCs provides
    NOAA with the ability to expand ENC coverage of U.S. waters in order to
    enhance navigational safety. With the $2M program increase for the
    vessel time charter, NOAA will increase hydrographic surveying capacity
    where the most critical survey needs exist.
        Within the FY 2004 President's Budget Request, NOAA's Satellite and
    Information Services will continue their support to NOAA's ocean and
    coastal missions. Specifically, NOAA utilizes satellite data and
    communications systems from its polar-orbiting and geostationary
    operational environmental satellites, POES and GOES, respectively, to
    develop global to local scale sea surface temperature measurements.
    These are critical to track the onset and duration of the El Nino and
    La Nina signals in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, as well as global and
    national coral bleaching events. NOAA also utilizes data from non-NOAA
    satellites to measure sea surface height used to support the formation
    and duration of eddy's in the ocean currents. Data are also used from
    commercial systems to monitor harmful algal blooms in near coastal
    waters. NOAA's satellites carry data collection systems that are used
    to collect data from buoys in the ocean. Without these oceanic
    readings, NOAA could not support its weather and climate, and ocean and
    coastal missions. NOAA will continue to support this critical support
    to the ocean and coastal community in its future satellite systems,
    GOES-R, and the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
    Satellite System (NPOESS). In addition to providing satellite-derived
    products and services, NOAA also houses the world's largest collection
    of climatic, geophysical, ocean and coastal data within NOAA's National
    Data Centers.
        In addition to continued support in FY 2004 for dedicated ``ocean''
    programs, including the National Undersea Research Program, the
    National Sea Grant College Program, and the Ocean Exploration program,
    NOAA Research is requesting increases for two significant ocean/coastal
    activities.
        The President's FY04 budget request includes an increase of $1.0 M
    (and total request of $1.8M) for National Invasive Species Act support,
    and for aquatic nuisance species prevention and control activities.
    One-third of the increase will support competitive grants through the
    Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program administered by Sea
    Grant. Another third will assist with the development of a nationally
    coordinated monitoring and early detection system beginning with a
    pilot project in Hawaii. The final third will be used to control
    invasions and restore habitat in invaded ecosystems.
        Finally, NOAA Research is requesting an increase of $16.9M for the
    Climate Change Research Initiative, of which $6.3M is for support of
    the Global Ocean Observing System. This is a critical part of the
    President's Climate Change Research Initiative because of the ocean's
    large role in storing heat and carbon dioxide, key components for
    understanding oceanic process and the global climate. The system is a
    composite of complementary networks, which include tide gauges, surface
    drifting buoys, tropical moored buoys, ships-of-opportunity, the Argo
    array, ocean reference stations, the ocean carbon network, and support
    systems for data assimilation, management and product delivery.

    Question 2: Of the total amount of line items that received
            appropriations for FY 2003, for which NOAA did not request
            funding in FY 2004, how many were considered by NOAA to be one-
            year appropriations?
        Answer: The following line items received appropriations in FY
    2003, were not requested in FY 2004, and are considered by NOAA to be
    one-year appropriations. Those marked with an asterisk (*) were also
    funded in FY 2002.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.025

    Question 3: What is the purpose of NOAA's new Business Management Fund
            (requested at $172,463 million)?
        Answer: The Business Management Fund (BMF) would provide a
    mechanism to capture all of NOAA's centralized services. It would allow
    for a more accurate distribution of corporate services costs to NOAA's
    Line Offices based on consumption of services. The BMF will allow NOAA
    to more distinctly apply accepted business practices to its corporate
    costs processes, thereby providing for a more accurate distribution of
    these service costs to programs. Creating this fund would allow NOAA to
    have increased clarity in its budgetary reporting as well as enhance
    accountability among service providers. The BMF will promote NOAA's
    ``truth-in-budgeting'' goal by adding rigor to its corporate process
    and handling centralized charges through an appropriate budgetary
    mechanism.

    What types of activities fall under ``general support and service
            activities''?
        General support and service activities are those current functions
    that NOAA's Office of Finance and Administration (OFA) performs for the
    line offices. OFA has broadly grouped these activities into six
    business lines:
         Workforce Management--Provides traditional human
    resources services to the NOAA line offices. Additionally, this
    business line contains the efforts of the civil rights and diversity
    offices.
         Facilities--Provides services related to the occupancy of
    NOAA-owned and leased real and personal properties.
         Information Technology--Provides networking, desktop, and
    telecommunications services primarily to an OFA customer base. Non-OFA
    customers are serviced at select NOAA Facilities.
         Acquisitions--Provides contracting and purchasing
    services to the NOAA line offices. Additionally, this business line
    contains the DOC BankCard center.
         Grants--Provides for the award and administration of
    grants and other financial assistance agreements.
         Financial Services--Provides accounting, budgeting, and
    compliance services to the NOAA line offices.
    If the funds are transferred from line offices to the BMF, how is this
            different than the current system where line offices are
            directed to transfer funds to headquarters to cover agency
            overhead and administration?
        The current system provides for an annual allocation based on a
    rate agreed to by the line offices using historical (FY 1992) labor
    data. Under a BMF the transfer of funds would be made upon quarterly
    billings based on consumption. OFA and the line offices will negotiate
    projected future-year consumption rates based upon prior-year actuals.
    Billings will be in advance based upon the negotiated annual
    consumption rates. Quarterly billings may be adjusted up or down based
    upon annualized prior-quarter consumption rates.

    Should the BMF be approved in the FY 04 process, would the $172 million
            amount requested be drawn evenly from transfers made by the
            various line offices? In other words, would the National Ocean
            Service contribute the same amount as the National Weather
            Service?
        No, the current allocation methodology would be used so as not to
    produce any funding shocks to the line offices given that their budgets
    have been previously established for FY 2004. The line offices will be
    provided with a bill based on consumption for their planning purposes
    for the out-year budgets. Starting in FY 05 the line offices will pay
    for corporate services based on actual consumption.
    In the event that there were un-obligated funds leftover in the BMF at
            the conclusion of the fiscal year, how would these funds be
            handled? Would they be rolled-over into the next fiscal year
            and credited against new transfers from the line offices? Would
            they be distributed back to the line offices to supplement
            program budget shortfalls? What would prevent this fund from
            becoming over-capitalized?
        The BMF, acting as a working capital fund, has requested (in our
    legislative language) an amount not to exceed 4% of the full costs
    necessary to maintain a reasonable operating reserve and to fund new
    requirements as determined by the Administrator. A working capital fund
    is a revolving fund. Reserves in excess of the 4% would be rebated to
    our customers based on their overall payment proportions to OFA (i.e.,
    If NWS share of the OFA billings represented 35%, then 35% of any
    monies refunded would be distributed to NWS). A routine overage/
    underage for OFA services would trigger a review of OFA pricing
    procedures, with adjustments made accordingly.

    Question 4: What needs have changed in NOAA's Corporate Services to
            warrant a funding increase of more than $25 million for FY 04?
        Answer: Of the $25 million requested (see Summary below), $15.3
    million of the change from FY 2003 to the FY 2004 President's Request
    for Corporate Services is not an increase. Rather, it is a transfer of
    $15.3 million from the Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC)
    account to the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account for
    the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS). This transfer is
    necessary because NOAA's new financial system--CAMS--became the
    official financial system of record on October 1, 2003. As a result of
    this change in CAMS' status, NOAA now needs operational resources, not
    acquisition funding, for operations, maintenance, and user support on
    the new system.
        The FY 2003 Enacted budget reduced NOAA's Policy Formulation and
    Direction budget below its FY 2002 level. Therefore, $6.5 million is
    requested to restore funding required to support this activity's
    current program level. Attachment 1 provides a summary listing of
    services projected for restoration with full funding of this request.
    In addition, $3.7 million is required for restoration of funding and
    annualization of the Under Secretary and Associate Offices, and
    implementation of recommendations that came from the NOAA-wide Program
    Review Taskforce (PRT).
        NOAA is requesting $1.0 million for the Program, Planning and
    Integration office (PPI). Among the most pressing of the PRT's
    recommendations were those delineating needed improvements in NOAA's
    corporate decision-making processes. Specifically targeted were those
    processes most necessary to support the Budget and Performance
    Integration Initiative of the President's Management Agenda. It was
    determined that the introduction of matrix management and the
    establishment of a NOAA-wide, requirements-based management process
    would be vested in PPI. This office is mandated to effectively execute
    highly complex, cross-cutting programs. Funds for these programs will
    be allocated to each Line Office, but administered and monitored by the
    matrix program manager under the oversight of PPI.
        In addition, as part of the President's Management Agenda, NOAA is
    supporting the Department of Commerce's E-gov initiative in its request
    for $3.0 million. This investment will enable American citizens to have
    one-stop, electronic access to grant, recreational, disaster, and
    geospatial information. In view of the increased concerns regarding
    attempted cyberterrorism following the attack of September 11, 2001, it
    is imperative that NOAA solidify the protection of its information
    technology (IT). Instead of piecemeal IT security efforts scattered
    among the various Line Offices, NOAA has requested $4.05 million to
    enhance IT security bureau-wide.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.026

    National Ocean Service

    Question 1: Coral Reef Programs--Please discuss the elimination of the
            Coral Reef Program in the FY 04 budget request. Does the
            concurrent increase (from $500,000 to $13.5 million) in funding
            for the National Coral Reef Institute offset this cut? What is
            the National Coral Reef Institute? Will NOAA be able to
            implement all of the authorized activities under the Coral Reef
            Conservation Act? Will the reductions in NOAA's request for
            coral reef funding result in decreased funding available for
            coral reef grant assistance to states and territories in FY 04?
        Answer: The NOS Coral Reef Program was not eliminated or reduced in
    NOAA's FY 2004 Budget Request. The tables which appear in NOAA's FY
    2004 Budget Summary contain some typographical errors. The correct
    labeling of NOS' coral budget lines appears below. There is no
    reduction to NOAA's request for coral reef funding in FY 2004. Page 77
    of NOAA's FY 2004 budget summary provides a brief description of the
    NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, and shows an FY 2004 Request of
    $28.3M, an increase of $2 million from the FY 2003 level.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5772.027

        Since 2000, NOAA has implemented all but two of the activities
    called for under the CRCA. The following activities have been
    implemented: National Coral Reef Action Strategy (Sec. 203), Coral Reef
    Conservation Program (Sec. 204), Coral Reef Conservation Fund (Sec.
    205), and the National Coral Reef Conservation Program (Sec. 207). NOAA
    has not implemented Section 206 to provide Emergency Assistance grants
    because of other funding priorities, and there have been no emergency
    incidents during this time. NOAA has not ignored an emergency. NOAA is
    developing the first Effectiveness Report (due by end of 2003) as
    required by Section 208.
        The National Coral Reef Institute (NCRI) was established in
    response to FY 1998 appropriations legislation (P.L. 105-277) and
    direction in the accompanying reports (H. Rept. 105-405 and S. Rept.
    105-48). NCRI's primary objective is the assessment, monitoring, and
    restoration of coral reefs through basic and applied research and
    through training and education. NCRI operates at the Nova Southeastern
    University Oceanographic Center near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

    Question 2: Marine Protected Areas--What is the status of the
            appointments process to establish a Marine Protected Area
            Advisory Committee pursuant to Executive Order 13158? When will
            the Administration have this committee appointed and
            operational? Does the NOAA funding request for Marine Protected
            Areas include sufficient funds to complete the inventory of
            existing MPAs in the Federal, State, and local coastal waters
            as required under E.O. 13158? When will this inventory be
            completed?
        The Secretary of Commerce notified 30 nominees of their selection
    as candidates for the MPA Advisory Committee on January 3, 2003. NOAA
    held the first advisory committee meeting on June 24-25, 2003, in the
    Department of Commerce Auditorium. However, the Federal Office of
    Personnel Management, which has given priority to homeland security
    reviews, had completed mandatory background checks for only 21 of the
    30 nominees at the time of the meeting. Those 21 members were
    officially appointed as Committee members by the Secretary of Commerce,
    and comprised the operational committee which met in June.
        Background checks for eight of the remaining nine members were
    still in process at the time of the June meeting. One of the nominees
    had yet to submit the information necessary to initiate his background
    check. Four of these eight members have successfully completed the
    background check process and were officially informed of the
    appointment as committee members at the end of August. The one nominee
    not submitting information has since withdrawn his name from
    consideration, and a new nominee will be selected by the Department of
    Commerce and the Department of the Interior. The next meeting of the
    committee is scheduled for the week of November 17, 2003, and will be
    held in San Francisco, California.
        The NOAA/Department of the Interior Inventory Team is making
    significant progress on developing the U.S. Inventory of Marine Managed
    Areas, including up to 80 descriptive data fields for each site.
    Information is being collected for three governmental levels, Federal,
    state/territorial/commonwealth, and tribal, and placed on the MPA
    website, http://mpa.gov/. The first state/territorial/commonwealth
    information, for sites in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
    Islands, was added to the web site this year. The agencies recently
    published a Federal Register Notice to solicit public comment on site
    inventory criteria, a vital step in determining which sites will be
    included in the final inventory. The Notice will close on September 23.
    The final inventory is planned for completion by the end of December
    2004, but will continue to be updated afterwards on a regular basis as
    Federal, state, and tribal sites are modified, established, or
    disestablished.
        Continued funding at the FY 2004 Request level of 3.0M is
    sufficient to complete the inventory by December 2004, and keep it
    updated thereafter.
    Ocean and Atmospheric Research

    Question 1: Why were the Aquatic Nuisance Species/Zebra Mussel
            Research, Gulf of Mexico Oyster Initiative, and Oyster Disease
            Research programs cut from Sea Grant's budget?
    When considered in conjunction with other cuts in the Oceans
            Restoration and Response Programs, the decrease in Sea Grant
            funding and elimination of many Sea Grant programs appear to be
            a significant blow to science and environmental research.
            Please comment.
        Answer: The Administration chose to request Sea Grant in FY 2004 at
    the level that had been proposed the previous year for transfer to NSF.
    No formal decision was made as to what parts of the earlier FY 2002
    program would or would not be funded. Some activities will still
    continue, but at a lower level.

        Question 2: Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes research sustained a $27
    million reduction from FY 03 enacted appropriations level of $112,216
    million. Weather and Air Quality Research (within OAR) received a small
    ($209,000) reduction, while Climate Research received an $18 million
    increase. Given that there is a direct relationship between the world's
    oceans and the atmosphere, funding for both oceanic and atmospheric
    research has become increasingly important in better understanding
    climate change. How can NOAA justify this asymmetry in research
    funding?
        Answer: At first glance, the relative increases and decreases among
    the three budget sub-activities in NOAA Research (OAR) might give the
    impression of an asymmetry in research funding, with decreases in
    funding in the President's budget request correlating most closely to
    the termination of programs not requested in the President's budget.
    However, the picture is quite different when one looks at NOAA's
    overall investments in research across the agency. The total funding
    levels included in the FY04 request reflect a balanced research program
    that addresses both oceanic and atmospheric issues. Further, NOAA's
    climate research activities are not exclusively focused on the
    atmosphere. For example, the President's FY04 budget request includes
    funding for ocean observations, which are critical for improving
    understanding of climate change.

    Conservation Funding
    Passed by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Initiative represented a
            major advancement in conservation funding. Over the last three
            years Congress has used this category to provide critical
            increases for NOAA conservation programs that have historically
            been underfunded, such as Procurement, Acquisition, and
            Construction in the National Marine Sanctuaries and National
            Estuarine Research Reserve and Operations, Research, and
            Facilities for the Coastal Zone Management Act programs and
            Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery. The Administration's budget
            request only seeks $329 million of the $520 million requested
            in FY04, which represents a $151 million cut below FY03.
    Question: Why has NOAA chosen to request less than what Congress has
            appropriated in the past to support activities authorized under
            the Conservation Initiative? Why has the Administration not
            explicitly incorporated requests for funding under a specific
            Conservation Initiative category lines items?
        Answer: A major goal of this Administration is to limit the overall
    growth of Federal discretionary spending. Keeping that goal in mind
    when formulating the FY 2004 budget request, NOAA faced many difficult
    choices. However the request includes many high priority programs.
    NOAA's FY 2004 Budget request includes $329.4 million under the
    Conservation Initiative category. The reduction from the FY 2003
    appropriation is primarily due to two decreases. First, the FY 2004
    NOAA budget request for the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund does not
    include the $40.0 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty funded in FY
    2003. The FY 2003 appropriation completes the commitment under the 1999
    Pacific Salmon Agreement to fund the Northern and Southern Funds.
    Secondly, there are many one-time habitat restoration projects and
    estuarine land acquisition and construction projects funded in FY 2003
    that are not included within the FY 2004 request.
    Attachment 1
                            RESTORATION OF SERVICES
                        POLICY FORMULATION AND DIRECTION
                         FY 2004 BUDGET REQUEST ($6.5M)

        Following is a summary list of the types of services that would be
    restored by fully funding the Policy Formulation and Direction budget
    for FY 2004:

    Grants Management
         Process a workload that has increased by 50% in a timely
    manner
         Meet financial assistance award (grant) cycle times for
    NOAA's Joint Institutes and vital cooperative research programs with
    universities
    Acquisition
         Reduce cycle times of simplified acquisitions and
    contracts to ensure the timely delivery of products and services needed
    to support NOAA mission
         Contract throughout the year for audit support services
    to ensure that capital leasing determinations are correctly made and
    accounted for instead of on a ``crisis basis'' at the time of an audit
         Contract for contract close-out services
         Perform required oversight of purchase card activity to
    prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and ensure the most effective use of
    resources
         Perform many of our Contracting Officer Technical
    Representative (COTR) functions
         Provide clients with training in the areas of COTR, Basic
    Procurement, Purchase Card, and Small Purchases
         Represent NOAA and our clients at post-award contractor
    meetings
         Conduct required reviews of purchase cardholders and
    individuals with delegated procurement authority
         Provide on-site assistance to clients in the areas of
    procurement planning, contract administration, development of
    statements of work, and dispute resolution.

    Information Technology
         Resolve long standing financial audit issues, including
    providing a dedicated Information Technology Security Officer and
    continue segregation of duties issues
         Reduce risk of compromise or loss to both systems
    supporting NOAA Finance and Administration (NFA) and to the integrity
    of the data housed in outdated systems
    Facilities
         Provide effective oversight and management of NOAA's
    personal property inventory in order to maintain a clean financial
    audit
         Provide clients with timely and professional occupational
    safety and health service, training, accident investigation, and
    workplace inspections
         Perform routine site inspections and lessor compliance
    reviews
         Perform ongoing lease contract management
         Provide customer outreach training for new or revised
    procedures and/or requirements in the area of safety, inventory
    control, etc.
         Provide sufficient facilities services to support client
    missions
         Reinstate timely shipping and receiving services
    including hazardous materials to meet cycle times for NOAA's critical
    field research programs
         Reinstate efforts to establish required Continuity of
    Operations Plans with the appropriate testing and drills,
    telecommunications, and fly-away kits

    Financial Services
         Provide timely and accurate payments to vendors and
    reduce penalty payments
         Conduct required Imprest Fund audits
    Workforce Management
         Resolve thousands of leave discrepancies affecting the
    Department of Commerce's and NOAA's audit findings
         Provide timely advice and assistance to NOAA managers and
    employees
         Provide timely notice of personnel action activity to
    managers and employees
         Process NOAA employee awards, personnel actions, payroll
    actions, and other recruitment actions timely and accurately
         Reduce the cycle time for hiring personnel critical to
    the efficient and effective accomplishment of NOAA mission
         Provide retirement calculations timely
         Negotiate union contracts timely
         Perform organizational analysis required by OMB for
    buyout proposals
         Train managers and employees on the Department of
    Commerce Demonstration Project training and Commerce Opportunities On
    Line
         Evaluate NOAA's two-level performance management system
         Market e-learning, one of OMB's e-government initiatives
         Respond to employee relations inquiries in a timely
    manner
         Respond to requests regarding labor relations and
    bargaining unit activities
         Create data reports needed by NOAA management for
    decision making
         Conduct ongoing workforce/succession planning, including
    skills gaps or needs analyses
         Advise managers on the employee aspects of competitive
    outsourcing and A-76 studies
         Provide face-to-face counseling to employees on their
    rights and potential courses of action when facing separations
    resulting from reorganization, RIF, and competitive outsourcing
         Provide on-site training sessions in the area of labor
    relations, reduction-in-force, A-76, classification, staffing, and
    employee relations
         Provide on-site benefits and retirement training for new
    employees and those within five years of retirement respectively
         Develop, implement, and monitor affirmative employment
    activities, including cultural awareness and outreach initiatives and
    to provide EEO training to supervisors managers and employees
         Facilitate workgroup meetings (team building) and plan
    organizational improvement and productivity in response to the NOAA
    Survey Feedback Action employee satisfaction survey
         Provide a NOAA Employee Worklife Center
         Educate NOAA employees on Diversity
         Provide NOAA team building services (Myers Briggs Type
    Indicator, Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model, Diversity/Organizational
    Development Education )
         Recognize NOAA employees with the Diversity Spectrum and
    Best Practices Awards