Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That  
Support Ecological Indicators (02-SEP-05, GAO-05-376).		 
                                                                 
The federal government supports numerous data programs that	 
assemble and analyze quantitative measures of the nation's	 
environmental conditions and trends (known as indicators). A	 
substantial number of these data programs are housed in several  
federal agencies, and provide various types of data used	 
routinely by decision makers from the private sector and all	 
levels of government. As federal agencies take actions to improve
the coverage and usefulness of these programs, it is equally	 
important that the quality and availability of existing data	 
generated by these programs do not erode overtime. In this	 
regard, periodic uninterrupted monitoring to determine conditions
and trends is important to accurately describe the extent or	 
seriousness of environmental problems, or conversely,		 
improvements in environmental conditions. GAO reviewed 20 data	 
programs to determine whether federal agencies responsible for	 
the programs anticipate that changes during fiscal years 2005 and
2006 related to funding, shifting priorities, or other factors	 
will affect the ability of the programs to (1) continue to	 
generate data comparable with data from past years, and (2)	 
continue providing data used in a nationwide ecological indicator
study by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and 
the Environment, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-376 					        
    ACCNO:   A35437						        
  TITLE:     Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data	      
Programs That Support Ecological Indicators			 
     DATE:   09/02/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Earth sciences data systems			 
	     Environment evaluation				 
	     Environmental assessment				 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Research program management			 
	     Environmental research				 
	     Environmental indicators				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-376

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2005

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

       Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators

                                       a

GAO-05-376

[IMG]

September 2005

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators

                                 What GAO Found

The federal officials responsible for 14 of the 20 data programs that GAO
reviewed are confident that the 14 programs will continue to provide all
of the types of data that they provided in 2002 at a comparable or higher
level of availability and quality. Agency officials do not expect 2 of the
programs to provide such data and are uncertain about the ability of 4
programs to do so. However, several of these programs are likely to
benefit from enhancements, including new satellite observations and
improved sampling and methodological techniques.

However, in the near term, regarding the specific data used to support 58
ecological indicators that were identified as suitable for national
reporting in the Heinz Center's 2002 State of the Nation's Ecosystems
report, agency officials are confident that 15 of the 20 data programs
that produced these data will provide all of the types of data at a
comparable or higher level of availability and quality as needed for the
next edition of the report, which is planned for issuance in 2007. Even
though agency officials informed us that they anticipate that the overall
availability and quality of the data supporting the 58 indicators will be
maintained, they also indicated that, in some cases, data weaknesses or
uncertainties exist that could affect the usefulness of the data for the
Heinz Center's 2007 report. For example, the information on the nation's
forests will not be as current for some states as for others because of
funding limitations. Furthermore, agency officials responsible for 2 of
the 20 data programs stated that data will not be of an overall comparable
level of quality and availability for 2007, and officials responsible for
the remaining 3 data programs were uncertain as to the availability or
quality of the data for 2007.

Examples of Ecological Attributes, Their Associated Descriptions, and
Example Indicators

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

                                    Letter 1

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 8

Appendixes

Appendix I:

Appendix II:

Appendix III:

Appendix IV:

Appendix V:

Appendix VI:

Scope and Methodology 10
Scope 10
Design and Methodology 10

Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture 12
Background 12
Summary 19
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 20
Glossary of Conservation Reserve Program Terms 21

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture 24
Background 24
Summary 26
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 28

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture 30
Background 30
Summary 30
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 31

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture 35
Background 35
Summary 39
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 40

National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 43
Background 43
Summary 44
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 46

Contents

Appendix VII:	National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 50
Background 50
Summary 52
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 55

Appendix VIII:	Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
Administration, Department of Commerce 58
Background 58
Summary 59
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 61

Appendix IX:	National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information
Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce 63
Background 63
Summary 63
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 65

Appendix X:	National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce 72
Background 72
NMFS Environmental and Ecological Data Collection Activities Are

Diverse 75
Summary 81
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 83

Appendix XI:	National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce 91
Background 91
Summary 97
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 100

Appendix XII:	Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency 111
Background 111
Summary 111
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 113

Appendix XIII:	Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program,
Environmental Protection Agency 117
Background 117

Contents

Summary 118
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and
Program Changes 120

Appendix XIV:	Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne Disease
Outbreaks, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
HHS 126
Background 126
Summary 127
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 128

Appendix XV:	Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior 131
Background 131
Summary 132
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 133

Appendix XVI:	Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior 135
Background 135
Summary 135
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 137

Appendix XVII:	National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior 144
Background 144
Summary 147
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 148

Appendix XVIII: National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior 152
Background 152
Summary 153
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and
Program Changes 154

Appendix XIX:	National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior 159
Background 159
Summary 159
Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and

Program Changes 161

                                    Contents

Appendix XX:	National Streamflow Information Program and National Water
Information System, Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior 164
Background 164 Summary 166 Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of
Funding Levels and

Program Changes 168

Appendix XXI:	Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related Sensors (MODIS
and AVHRR), National Aeronautics and Space Administration 175 Background
175 Summary 176 Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels
and

Program Changes 176

Appendix XXII: Comments from the Department of Commerce 180

Appendix XXIII: Comments from the Department of the Interior 181

Appendix XXIV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 183

Tables Table 1:

Table 2: Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7: Table 8: Table 9:

Data Programs and the Continuity and Availability of Data
in the Future
Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment and Outlays
Conservation Practices by Sign-Up Type Installed on CRP/
CREP Acreage as of March 2005
Cost of Selected ERS Data Analysis Activities for Fiscal
Years 2000-2005
NRI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006
Forest Service Direct Funding for the NSRE, Fiscal Years
2000-2004 and Projected for Fiscal Years 2005 and
2006
NESDIS Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006
Fisheries Statistics and Economics Funding for Fiscal
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006
FSED Headquarters Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2005,
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

5 14

16

28

46

53 65 84 85 86 89

Table 10: Office of Protected Resources Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Table 11: Estimated State Marine Fisheries Agency Funding of Recreational
Fishery Surveys in 2004

                                    Contents

Table 12: Selected NOS Entities Responsible for Environmental Data and
Respective Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for
Fiscal year 2006 101

Table 13: Estimates of Ozone Monitoring Sites and Data Collection Costs
and Overall AQS Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2006 114

Table 14: EMAP Enacted Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 120 Table
15: BRD Funding for Program Components for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 134

Table 16: EROS Appropriated, Reprogrammed, and Reimbursable Funds for
Fiscal Years 2000-2005, and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 138

Table 17: EROS Funding by Operation for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 139 Table
18: EROS Salary Costs and Staffing Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 140
Table 19: NASQAN Stations in Operation, Fiscal Years 2000, 2005, and 2006
151 Table 20: NWI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed
for Fiscal Year 2006 161

Table 21: Projected Costs for Full Implementation of NSIP for Fiscal Years
2006-2010 and Operating Costs in Subsequent Years 170

Table 22: Funding for USGS Streamgaging Activities for Fiscal Years 2000
through 2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 171 Table 23: USGS Funds
for Selected Streamgaging Activities for Fiscal Year 2005 172

Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6:

Conservation Reserve Program Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 19
Economic Research Service Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 27
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program Budget for Fiscal
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 31
National Agricultural Statistics Service Budget for Fiscal
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 40
National Resources Inventory Program Budget for Fiscal
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 45
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed Fiscal
Year 2006 54

Contents

Figure 7:	Bureau of Economic Analysis Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 60

Figure 8:	National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 64

Figure 9: National Marine Fisheries Service Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 82 Figure 10: National Ocean
Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year
2006 98 Figure 11: Air Quality System Program Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 112

Figure 12: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Budget for
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 119

Figure 13: Biological Resources Discipline Program Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 132

Figure 14: Earth Resources Observation Systems Program Budget for Fiscal
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 136

Figure 15: National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network Budget for
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 147

Figure 16: National Water Quality Assessment Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 153 Figure 17: National
Wetlands Inventory Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for
Fiscal Year 2006 160

Figure 18: Funding for USGS Streamgaging Activities from Federal and
Nonfederal Sources for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year
2006 167

Abbreviations

AQS Air Quality System
AREI Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators
AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
BRD Biological Resources Discipline
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Contents

CRP Conservation Reserve Program
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
EDC EROS Data Center
EDS Environmental Data Service
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EROS National Center for Earth Resources Observation & Science
ERS Economic Research Service
ESI Environmental Sensitivity Index
FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
FSA Farm Service Agency
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASQAN National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment Program
NCA National Coastal Assessment
NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
NLCD National Land Cover Dataset
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
NRC National Research Council
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRI National Resources Inventory
NSIP National Streamflow Information Program
NSRE National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWIS National Water Information System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
SeaWiFS Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WBDO waterborne-disease outbreak
WRD Water Resources Discipline

Contents

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

September 2, 2005

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert
Chairman
Committee on Science
House of Representatives

The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
Committee on Science
House of Representatives

Comprehensive and reliable information on the nation's environment and
natural resources is a cornerstone of effective environmental management
and an integral part of a national strategy to anticipate and address
problems. Governments, businesses, and the general public depend on
relevant, accurate, and timely environmental information to make informed
decisions in evaluating the performance of environmental programs,
aligning the efficiency of markets with environmental protection,
assessing
the state of the environment and natural resources, and identifying
emerging issues and options for action. Although reliable data and
statistical information is rarely the sole factor that determines how
society
should address any particular issue, such information is essential to
support the assessment of various alternatives and to inform policy
decisions.

The federal government supports numerous data programs that assemble
and analyze quantitative measures on the nation's environmental
conditions and trends (known as indicators). These data programs are
housed primarily in agencies within the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, and the Interior; the
Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Twenty of these data programs, which provide various
types of data used routinely by decision makers from the private sector
and
all levels of government, provided data used by the H. John Heinz III
Center
for Science, Economics and the Environment to prepare its 2002 State of
the Nation's Ecosystems report. This report portrays on a national scale
what is known and not known about the state of our lands, waters, and
other living ecosystems using a comprehensive, science-based effort. The
report lists 103 indicators relating to six major ecosystem types (coasts
and
oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and shrublands, and

urban and suburban areas). The report both provides a blueprint for
periodic reporting on the condition and use of the nation's ecosystems and
identifies major gaps in the data available for each of the ecosystems.The
Heinz Center is currently working with federal agencies and other
organizations to identify the efforts necessary to fill the data gaps
identified in its 2002 report.

While closing the data gaps identified in the Heinz Center report is
essential to fully characterize the state of the ecosystems, it is equally
important that the quality and availability of the data that formed the
foundation of the report in 2002 do not erode over time. In this regard,
periodic uninterrupted monitoring to develop data and trends is crucial to
decision makers and scientists in accurately describing the extent or
seriousness of an environmental problem or, conversely, the extent to
which a condition may be improving. Changes in environmental conditions
occur, sometimes imperceptibly, as a result of a complex web of natural
and human factors such as changes in economic conditions, weather
patterns, pollution, and environmental policies. Consequently,
establishing cause and effect relationships is difficult and relies on
periodic monitoring of data over a long period of time. For example, the
dynamic mechanisms of how freshwater ecosystems change in response to
contaminants, water withdrawals, fishing activity, and the introduction of
nonnative species are often understood only after gathering comparable
data on numerous water characteristics, from many locations, and at
regular intervals.

In this context, you asked that we determine whether the data programs
used to generate or support the ecological indicators included in the 2002
State of the Nation's Ecosystems report will continue to provide
comparable data in the future. Specifically, for each of the data programs
under review, we were asked to determine whether the federal agency
responsible for the program anticipates that changes during fiscal years
2005 and 2006 related to funding, shifting priorities, or other factors
will affect the ability of the program to continue to generate data
comparable with data from past years and sufficient to compare
environmental conditions in 2002 with conditions in 2007, the expected
date of the Heinz Center's next State of the Nation's Ecosystems report.
As agreed with your offices, we limited the scope of our review to the 20
data programs that provided the information used for 58 of the 103
ecological indicators identified in the Heinz Center report. The 58
indictors are those that the Heinz Center identified as suitable for
national reporting in 2002 because they were supported by data of
sufficiently high quality, with adequate

nationwide geographic coverage, and from established monitoring activities
offering a reasonable prospect for future data availability.

For each of the 20 data programs, we used a data collection instrument
along with follow-up contact with key officials responsible for the
program, to obtain the agency's views on funding, program priorities,
anticipated changes, data quality, and other related issues. We analyzed
the information obtained and placed the programs in categories according
to the agencies' responses to our questions. The categories reflect
whether the information we obtained from the agencies indicates that the
20 data programs will continue to provide (1) all of the types of data
provided in 2002 at a comparable level of availability and quality and (2)
the specific data on the 58 ecological indicators reported in the Heinz
Center's 2002 report as having data sufficient for national reporting.
Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology. We performed our work from July 2004 through August 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

In summary, our analysis of the information we obtained indicates that
agency officials are confident that 14 of the 20 programs will provide all
of the types of data that they provided in 2002 at a comparable or higher
level of availability and quality. Several of these programs are likely to
benefit from enhancements, such as improved sampling and methodological
techniques. Agency officials do not believe that two data programs will
provide all of the types of data they produced in 2002 at a comparable or
higher level of availability and quality, and are uncertain whether four
other programs will do so.

However, in the near term, regarding the specific data used to support the
58 ecological indicators discussed in the Heinz Center's report, agency
officials are confident that 15 of the 20 programs will provide all of the
types of data that they provided in 2002 at a comparable or higher level
of availability and quality. Agency officials responsible for two data
programs stated that data will not be available at comparable levels of
quality and availability, and officials responsible for the remaining
three data programs were uncertain as to the availability of data needed
for the Heinz Center's 2007 report. In some cases and as shown in table 1,
even though agency officials informed us that they anticipate that the
overall availability and quality of the data will be maintained, data
weaknesses or uncertainties exist that could affect the usefulness of the
data for the Heinz Center's 2007 report. Following are some examples:

o 	While the data provided by the Earth Resources Observation and Science
Data Center for the 2007 Heinz Center report will be more recent than that
used for the 2002 report, having been acquired before a Landsat 7
satellite malfunction that occurred in May 2003, updates of these more
recent data that were planned by the United States Geological Survey and
other sponsors of the data sets will likely not be possible before the
2009 launch of the Landsat Continuity Mission, which will replace the
Landsat 7 satellite.

o 	The overall availability and quality of the data provided by the Forest
Inventory and Analysis program will be improved, according to Forest
Service officials. However, data for six states (covering about 23 percent
of the nation's forests) may not be as accurate as data provided in prior
years because of a lack of funding to perform field validation of data
obtained from remote sensors.

o 	The Forest Service anticipates that the National Survey on Recreation
and the Environment will provide comparable data for the next Heinz Center
report. Nevertheless, potential reductions in funding from other federal
agencies that support the survey could result in a decline in the
availability and quality of the data.

o 	The 2002 Heinz Center report utilized the Agriculture Department's
Census of Agriculture that included the latest available data from 1997.
Similarly, the 2007 Heinz Center report will have access to the latest
available Census of Agriculture that includes data from 2002. While
Agriculture will have collected census data for 2007 by the time the next
Heinz Center report is issued, the census data will not have been
processed and published by that time for use in the Heinz Center's report.

Table 1 shows the data programs we reviewed and the results of our
analysis of agency responses related to the continuity of program data in
future years and data availability for the Heinz Center's planned 2007
State of the Nation's Ecosystems report. See appendixes II through XXI for
specific information on the future direction of each data program we
reviewed.

Table 1: Data Programs and the Continuity and Availability of Data in the
Future

Data availability for the planned Data program Continuity of program data
in future years 2007 Heinz Center report

No No

National Stream Water  o  Water sampling frequency has continued a  o 
While data used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 Quality Accounting Network
decline begun in 1980, from monthly to report came from more than 400
sampling stations, (NASQAN), U.S. Geological bimonthly or quarterly. data
for the center's planned 2007 report will be Survey (USGS), Department
from fewer than 30 sampling stations. of the Interior

No No National Water Quality  o  Study units dropped from 51 to 42 over
the last  o  Some data used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 Assessment
(NAWQA), decade, and the funding reductions in fiscal year report are no
longer collected (e.g., contaminants in USGS, Interior 2005 have resulted
in a reduction in long-term fish tissues and streambed sediment), while
others

surface water monitoring sites from 145 to 84. are still collected but at
reduced frequency.

Forest Inventoryand Analysis (FIA) Program, U.S. Forest Service, USDA

Yes

o  According to program officials, by 2007, the FIA program will be able
to provide some of the most complete data in its history, on a much
timelier basis. Newly designed information systems that use new software
will integrate data and map-based information.

Yes

o  Although data for 6 states, covering about 23 percent of the nation's
forests, may not be as fresh as the data for the other 44 states due to
funding constraints, the set of forest data that will be available for the
planned 2007 Heinz Center report will be superior in coverage, detail, and
timeliness to the data available in 2002. In 2002, 80 percent of the data
were from "old" periodic inventories and 20 percent was from "new"
inventories based on an annual data collection using a new,
technologically superior system that began in 1999. For the 2007 Heinz
Center report, 80 percent of the data will be from the new system and 20
percent of the data will be from the older periodic inventory approach.

Yes Yes Biological Resources  o  BRD data will continue to be collected in
similar  o  Officials expect that BRD data the Heinz Center Discipline
(BRD), USGS, form in coming years. used in 2002 will continue to be
available in Interior satisfactory form for the planned 2007 report.

Uncertain Uncertain

National Survey on  o  Reductions in funding of NSRE by the Forest  o 
With adequate support from collaborating agencies Recreation and the
Service mean that the survey program will be for the 2005-2006 NSRE,
recreation data used by Environment (NSRE), U.S. more dependent on funding
from other sources, the Heinz Center for its 2002 report will be matched
Forest Service, USDA including other federal agencies with interests in in
quality and comprehensiveness for the planned

various facets of outdoor recreation activities 2007 report. Funding
insufficient to match the

and participation.	coverage of the 2000-2001 NSRE, however, may result in
fewer responses and data that are less geographically rigorous.

Yes Yes

Economic Research Service  o  ERS develops four data sets the Heinz Center
    o  Officials expect their data will be available in (ERS), USDA used in
its 2002 report, all of which are integral comparable or better form for
use in the planned

to its programs.	2007 Heinz Center report, and suggest that additional ERS
data that will be available could be used to develop new ecological
indicators.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Data availability for the planned Data program Continuity of program data
in future years 2007 Heinz Center report

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA

Yes

o  NASS data are developed in part through a Census of Agriculture that is
prepared every 5 years and will provide data of the type used in the Heinz
Center 2002 report. In addition, NASS officials expect that some crop data
will improve as a result of a NASS initiative to restore the collection of
certain survey data that were suspended for budgetary reasons in fiscal
year 2003.

Yes

o  The previous Heinz Center report, published in 2002, utilized the
latest available Census of Agriculture data from 1997; similarly, the
planned 2007 Heinz Center report will be able to include the latest
available Census of Agriculture results from 2002, released in the spring
of 2004. The Heinz Center will add data for its ecological indicators as
they become available from the 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Yes Yes Conservation Reserve  o  The CRP is USDA's largest conservation  o
    CRP officials are confident that the data used for the Program (CRP),
Farm program. The data generated by the program 2002 Heinz Center report
will continue to be Service Agency, USDA are essential to program
administration and are available in comparable form for the center's

expected to be available for as long as the planned 2007 report.

program exists.

                                     Yes                    Uncertain         
      National Marine     o  Officials expect to           o  Funding cuts or 
         Fisheries        generate data similar in         rising costs could 
                                                              result in lower 
      Service (NMFS),     quality and                sampling levels and      
          National        comprehensiveness to those delayed processing and   
                          in                         
        Oceanic and            previous years.        reporting for data used 
        Atmospheric                                  in the 2002 Heinz Center 
       Administration                                        report.          
(NOAA), Department of                             
          Commerce                                   

Uncertain Yes

National Ocean Service  o  According to agency officials, minor budget
cuts  o  Officials believe that data collection and analysis will (NOS),
NOAA, Commerce may affect the breadth and comprehensiveness continue for
all programs, and that data will be of certain data collection and
fieldwork activities. available at similar or improved quality for the
Heinz Center's planned 2007 report.

Yes Yes

National Wetlands Inventory  o  The quality and comprehensiveness of
wetland  o  16 U.S.C. S: 3931(a)(4) requires USFWS to produce (NWI), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife status and trends data will be comparable or wetland
status and trends reports. These data were Service (USFWS), Interior
superior to that of past reports. Agency officials used in the 2002 Heinz
Center report, and the data

also indicated that the President has directed are expected to continue to
be available for the next that these wetland reports be prepared more
iteration of the center's report. These data and frequently, beginning in
2006. reports continue to be the highest priority of the NWI

program.

Yes Uncertain

National Center for Earth  o  The quality and comprehensiveness of data  o
    Data for the 2007 Heinz Center report will be more Resources Observation
and collection and analysis will be similar or superior recent than the
1992 data used for the center's 2002 Science (EROS), USGS, to that of past
years. Changes in analytical report, having been acquired in 2001, before
a May Interior approaches may expand the utility of datasets 2003 Landsat
satellite malfunction. However, further

such as the National Landcover Dataset. Data significant updates of these
data will likely not be
on vegetation condition from planned satellite possible before the planned
2009 launch of the
missions are also expected to be of higher Landsat continuity mission.
quality.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Data availability for the planned Data program Continuity of program data
in future years 2007 Heinz Center report

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS),
NOAA, Commerce

Yes

o  As reflected in NOAA's strategic plan, efforts are under way to build
and advance the capabilities of an ecological component of the NOAA global
environmental observing system to monitor, assess, and predict national
and regional ecosystem health, as well as to gather information consistent
with established social and economic indicators. Under this direction,
NESDIS will be supportive of sustaining, and improving, the ability of its
data programs to provide data and information at a level and quality of
previous years.

Yes

o  According to agency officials, NESDIS environmental data are expected
to be available in an equivalent or improved form for the expected 2007
Heinz Center report. For example, bathymetric mapping and physical
oceanographic data products are continually improving the resolution and
accuracy of coverage as new data sources become available. Looking into
the next decade, next-generation satellites will reduce atmospheric
contamination of the data compared to the present, and is also expected to
significantly improve sea surface temperature data.

Yes

input techniques and expanding the budget of the Regional Economics
Directorate, the source of data on county personal income used by the
Heinz Center in its 2002 report.

                                      Yes

National Resources Inventory  o  According to program officials, improved 
o  Officials expect NRI data to be available in 2007 in a (NRI), Natural
Resources estimates at both national and regional scales form comparable
to or better than that used for the Conservation Service, USDA are
expected to be available in coming years. 2002 Heinz Center report.

Yes Yes

Bureau of Economic Analysis  o  BEA officials will devote a proposed
fiscal year  o  Officials expect their data will be available in
(BEA), Economics and 2006 budget increase to initiatives to improve the
comparable or better form for use in the 2007 Heinz
Statistics Administration, accuracy and timeliness of its data by
upgrading Center report.
Commerce information technology for sampling and data

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Uncertain

o  Funding cuts for extramural ecological research have affected the
nature, scope, and timing of EMAP research and required EMAP managers to
adjust the program's research strategy and devise new ways of
accomplishing its research objectives. The loss of this funding may result
in extending the completion dates of program components or scaling back
the size of research efforts and the extent of data produced.

Yes

o  According to agency officials, ongoing and projected EMAP research,
data collection, and data analysis efforts will yield data for the
projected 2007 Heinz Center report similar in quality and
comprehensiveness to that used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 report.

Yes Yes Air Quality System (AQS),  o  According to agency officials,
planned  o  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and OAQPS Office of Air
Quality Planning improvements to AQS will make data reporting officials
predict that AQS data of the type used in the and Standards (OAQPS), more
timely and will optimize the Photochemical 2002 Heinz Center report will
be available in U.S. Environmental Air Monitoring Stations (PAMS) used to
measure improved form for the center's 2007 report. Protection Agency
chemical precursors for ground-level ozone.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Data availability for the planned Data program Continuity of program data
in future years 2007 Heinz Center report

Yes

o  Officials believe that there are no changes in program funding or
priorities that would preclude generating data in coming years that are
comparable with data produced in the past. Sea-surface temperature data
are expected to be superior as a result of merging microwave and infrared
sensors.

Yes

o  According to agency officials, data used in the 2002 Heinz Center
report will be available in improved form for use in the center's planned
2007 report.

Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS), Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) measurements, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration

Uncertain

o  According to agency officials, the USGS-operated streamflow information
program and NWIS will continue to collect and analyze streamflow and other
key water-related data but at slightly reduced levels due to budget
declines since fiscal year 2001. Heavy reliance on streamgages funded by
cooperators and partners rather than USGS makes the network inherently
unstable.

Yes

o  WRD officials said data used to support the 2002 Heinz Center report
will be available at comparable levels of quality and comprehensiveness
for the center's planned 2007 report.

National Streamflow Information Program and National Water Information
System (NWIS), Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

Yes Yes

Surveillance and Reporting  o  Officials predict that system enhancements 
o  Agency officials expect that data used to support the
of Waterborne Disease should improve collection, analysis, and Heinz
Center's 2002 ecological indicators will be
Outbreaks (WBDO), Centers reporting of WBDO information. available at
similar or superior levels of quality and
for Disease Control and comprehensiveness for use in the center's expected
Prevention, Department of 2007 report.
Health and Human Services

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and the
Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. The agencies generally agreed with
the information in the report, and in some cases provided additional
information regarding the availability and quality of the data that will
be available for the planned 2007 Heinz Center's report. We incorporated
such information and the agencies' technical comments, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 14 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate

congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Health
and Human Services, and the Interior; the Administrators of EPA and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report or need
additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are included in
appendix XXIV.

John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I

                             Scope and Methodology

The overall objective of this review was to examine the likelihood that
various data programs relied on to generate ecological indicators
identified in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems-a report issued in 2002
by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment-will continue to provide comparable data. Specifically, for
each data program under review you asked us to determine whether the
federal agency responsible for the program anticipates that changes
related to funding, shifting priorities, or other factors will affect the
ability of the program to continue to generate data comparable to data
from past years.

Scope	We gathered information on 20 federal data programs housed within
the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, and Health and
Human Services as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We limited our scope to
include only those federal data programs providing information used for 58
of the 103 ecological indicators in the Heinz Center report. These 58
indicators were identified in the Heinz Center report as being supported
by data with sufficiently high quality, with adequate geographic coverage
on a nationwide scale, and from established monitoring programs offering a
reasonable prospect for future data availability.

Design and Methodology

For each of the 20 data programs we reviewed, we sent a data collection
instrument that contained basic questions for each agency to answer. These
questions covered budget issues, data-quality issues, and expected changes
to the respective programs and data collection efforts, among other
things. We pretested a basic set of questions with officials from two
agency data programs, and then revised these questions before sending them
to officials from the other 18 data programs. In addition, we added, on a
case-by-case basis, questions that were unique for each agency and its
respective data programs. The agencies had from November 2004 to May 2005
to review and respond to the questions. Once we received and reviewed the
program responses, we made follow-up contacts to clarify remaining issues
and to ensure we completely understood the agency responses. All of the
agencies responded to our questions. We did not independently corroborate
the responses from the agencies with regard to nonbudget questions. We
determined that agency responses to our questions met our criteria for
budget-data reliability. These criteria included independent verification
or audits of financial reports, and data corroborated by inspector-general
reports or financial statements. Because

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

agency expenditures associated with data collection, archiving, and
dissemination are at times embedded within other agency programs or
functions and are not explicit line items in budget requests or
determinations, some of the funding totals we obtained represent the
agencies' best estimates. We conducted our work from July 2004 through
August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

We compiled a summary table of agency responses to identify possible
changes in data availability and continuity when compared with past years.
We assigned a "yes" to responses if agency officials indicated that data
were expected to be available at similar or improved levels when compared
with previous years. We assigned a "no" to responses if agency officials
indicated that data were decreasing in availability. We assigned an
"uncertain" if agency officials indicated that some aspect of the data
being generated from the program was compromised or expected to be
compromised in other ways. Similarly, with respect to data availability
between the 2002 and the planned 2007 Heinz Center reports, we presented
the agencies' assessments with respect to the expectation the data will be
available at the same quality and comprehensiveness for the 2007 update.
In all cases, our determinations were based on a review of written and
oral testimony provided by agency officials.

Appendix II

Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of
Agriculture

Background	The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) largest and most ambitious conservation effort.
Administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), CRP was established by
the Food Security Act of 19851 and currently operates in all 50 states and
Puerto Rico. CRP encourages and assists farm owners and operators to
conserve and improve soil, water, air, and wildlife resources by
withdrawing environmentally sensitive cropland and pastureland from
agricultural production and keeping them under long-term vegetative cover.
Program participants enroll eligible acreage for at least 10 years, and
for up to 15 years by arrangement, during which they agree to adopt a
variety of approved conservation practices (CP), specific actions such as
installing structures, planting vegetation, or implementing management
techniques recognized by USDA as protecting, conserving, and enhancing
natural resources such as soil, water, air, plants, and wildlife.2

In return for implementing these conservation practices, program
participants receive annual rental payments that average about $48 an acre
(payments vary with prevailing local rental rates). Participants receive
cost-share payments for up to half the cost of implementing approved
conservation practices such as planting grasses and trees, installing
windbreaks, and preserving wildlife flora. Participants also receive
technical assistance from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), which provides technical land-eligibility determinations and
advice on conservation planning and implementation techniques. The U.S.
Forest Service provides technical advice on tree selection and planting.3

Farm owners and operators can enroll their land in CRP in two ways,
through general or continuous sign-up.4 General sign-up occurs for a few
weeks every year or so. During this period, program staff accepts
enrollment applications and evaluates them using an Environmental Benefits
Index (EBI) that weighs six factors: (1) wildlife habitat benefits;

1Pub. L. No. 99-198 S: 1231, 99 Stat. 1354, 1509.

216 U.S.C. S:S: 3831-3832 sets forth the elements of the CRP. See the
glossary at the end of this enclosure for descriptions and examples of
CRP-approved conservation practices.

3The USDA Service Centers are sometimes co-located with FSA county
offices, although they do not correspond strictly to the nation's
approximately 3,100 counties.

47 C.F.R. S: 1410.6 contains criteria to establish the eligibility of land
for enrollment in the CRP.

Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

(2) water-quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching; (3)
on-farm benefits of reduced soil erosion; (4) enduring environmental
benefits; (5) air-quality benefits from reduced wind erosion; and (6)
cost. During the most recent general sign-up, in 2004, more than 26,000
applications (or "offers") totaling 1.7 million acres were received. Over
19,700 offers were accepted for an enrollment of about 1.2 million acres.
About 32 million acres of CRP's enrolled acreage have been brought into
the program through general sign-up.

Continuous sign-up, in contrast to general sign-up, is available at any
time of year for owners who agree to adopt certain high-priority
conservation practices. These practices include installation of filter
strips, riparian buffers, grass waterways, shelterbelts, field windbreaks,
living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, shallow water areas for
wildlife, and wetland restoration. Under continuous sign-up, there is no
weighting of applications, and farmers and farm operators do not compete
for acceptance into the program. Continuous sign-up enrollees may also
receive added up-front and annual financial incentives for participation.

Incentive payments to encourage practices supported by continuous signup
include $100 to $150 an acre for selected practices and cost-share
payments up to 50 percent for implementing conservation practices (applies
to all CRP, general and continuous). Additional practice incentive
payments of up to 40 percent are allowed for selected continuous signup
practices.

As of March 2005, general CRP sign-up had enrolled 31.8 million acres and
continuous sign-up nearly 3 million acres, for a total of approximately
34.8 million acres. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
extended CRP enrollment authority through 2007 and increased the program's
maximum acreage from 36.4 million to 39.2 million.5 For fiscal years 1986
through 2005, total CRP spending has amounted to $30.5 billion. Rental
payments have totaled $27.4 billion, cost-share payments $1.9 billion,
incentive payments $478 million, and technical assistance outlays $682
million. Nine-tenths of the technical assistance outlays have gone to the
NRCS and 1/10th to the Forest Service. Table 2 shows CRP's enrollment and
outlay activity for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 (as of March 2005).

516 U.S.C. S: 3831.

 Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department
                                 of Agriculture

 Table 2: Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment and Outlays Millions of acres
                             Dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year

                             Cumulative enrollmenta

Rental paymentsb

Cost-share paymentc

Incentive paymentsd

Technical assistance outlayse

Total outlays

                31.4       1,333        133     10             35       1,511 
                33.6       1,397        150     78             32       1,657 
                33.9       1,527        143    115             20       1,805 
                34.1       1,580        101    104             55       1,840 
                34.7       1,581        120     85      60 (est.)       1,846 
                                                                       (est.) 
         35.2 (est.)    1,660    102 (est.) 86 (est.)   90 (est.)       1,938 
                       (est.)                                          (est.) 
Total                9,078                                          10,597 
                       (est.)    749 (est.) 478 (est.) 292 (est.)       est.) 

Est.= Estimate

Source: USDA.

aAcres under contract at end of fiscal year.

bRental payments in a fiscal year apply to acres under contract in the
previous fiscal year. Includes miscellaneous adjustments and adjustments
for haying/grazing usage.

cCost-share payments are made after cover establishment work is done. For
contracts beginning in a given year, payments can occur over several
years.

dSigning and Practice Incentive payments for continuous sign-up
enrollment.

eTechnical assistance outlays are generally paid to NRCS and the Forest
Service in the year sign-ups occur.

For both general and continuous sign-up, applicants must appear at one of
FSA's 2,351 offices (most are colocated with USDA service centers or
county offices) and formally enter into a CRP contract. The CRP contract
is between the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the program
participant, and payments are disbursed by the CCC.6 The contract requires
information on the participant (e.g., name, address, Social Security
number, and phone number) and information on the conservation practices
agreed to, the acreage enrolled, and the acreage committed to each
practice.

6The Commodity Credit Corporation is a federally owned and operated
corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and protect farm income
and prices. Exec. Order No. 6340 (Oct. 16, 1933). CCC helps maintain
balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities and aids in
their orderly distribution. Initially managed and operated in close
affiliation with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, CCC was
transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1939.
CCC was reincorporated on July 1, 1948, as a federal corporation within
USDA by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 15 U.S.C. S: 714.

Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Participants agree to apply specific conservation practices on their land,
to file forms used by the CCC to determine limits on payments, and to
perform certain management work such as breaking up the soil or burning
specified cover. For its part, the CCC agrees to calculate and make
costshare payments, rental payments, and interest payments for cost-share
disbursals not made on time. Both parties agree to a conservation plan
that describes the vegetative or water cover to be established, trees to
be planted, completion dates, and estimated environmental benefits. Agency
representatives make occasional spot checks of the land entered into CRP
but routinely rely on data provided by participants.

As contracts are written at each local USDA office, FSA creates a data
file that includes all contract-related information, including information
on the conservation practices agreed to, the acreage enrolled, and the
rental and cost-share estimates. At the end of each workday, computer
programs in the service centers record and store these new contract
details, and once a week contract data are transmitted electronically to a
USDA national computer processing center in Kansas City, Missouri. Held in
this central file are all of the conservation practice, acreage, and
payment details for 690,000 active CRP contracts. These records are
integral to contract oversight and management and serve an essentially
administrative purpose. At the same time, however, they contain valuable
information for tracking environmental trends. This is especially true
because the data are updated weekly and summarized monthly down to the
state level. Conservation practices described in the records include, for
example, plantings of new native grasses, development of wildlife food
plots, and plantings of salinity-reducing vegetation (see table below).
CRP payments to participants are made by the CCC.

In table 3, conservation practices are reported as of March 2005 for
general and continuous sign-up. Distinctions are made for acreage enrolled
by the CRP and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)-both
administered by the FSA. CREP was initiated after enactment of the 1996
Farm Bill as a federal-state conservation partnership targeting designated
areas-such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Pacific Northwest-to address
specific state and nationally significant agriculture-related
environmental problems. Of foremost concern to CREP are issues relating to
water supplies and areas around wells, wildlife species endangered by loss
of critical habitat, soil erosion, and reduced habitat for fish such as
salmon.

 Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department
                                 of Agriculture

CREP offers additional financial incentives, such as sign-up bonuses
beyond those available under CRP, to encourage farmers and ranchers to
enroll in 10-to 15-year contracts to retire land from production. Like
CRP, CREP is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation, but unlike
CRP, CREP receives part of the program's costs from the federal government
and part from state or tribal governments. Enrollment in CREP is on a
continuous basis, without the competition involved in CRP's general
sign-up. CREP supports particular conservation initiatives such as
installing filter strips and forested buffers to protect streams, lakes,
and rivers from sedimentation and agricultural runoff. CREP also
encourages landowners to develop and restore wetlands by planting
appropriate ground cover. This year, federal-state CREP agreements are in
effect in 25 states.

Table 3: Conservation Practices by Sign-Up Type Installed on CRP/CREP Acreage as
                                 of March 2005

Acres

                               General Continuous

                                                 Non-CREP          
    Conservation practice   CRP sign-up   CREP    sign-up Farmable      Total 
                                        sign-up           wetland  
      CP1 New introduced                                           
           grasses                                                 
         and legumes          3,269,470  108,669   72,090        0  3,450,229 
    CP2 New native grasses    6,448,277   62,391   19,393        0  6,530,061 
    CP3 New softwood trees                                         
             (not                                                  
          longleaf)             427,355      372      320        0    428,046 
CP3A New longleaf pines      185,281        0        0        0    185,281 
CP3A New hardwood trees      526,583    8,270      877        0    535,729 
    CP4 Permanent wildlife    2,318,006   38,506    3,066        0  2,359,578 
           habitat                                                 
     CP5 Field windbreaks           833    2,714   70,383        0     73,930 
        CP6 Diversion               834        0        0        0 
     CP7 Erosion control            653        1        1        0 
          structures                                               
     CP8 Grass waterways          1,009      581  107,289        0    108,880 
CP9 Shallow water areas                                         
             for                                                   
           wildlife               1,943    2,284   46,046        0     50,274 
    CP10 Existing grasses                                          
             and                                                   
           legumes           15,147,916   11,785   37,587        0 15,197,289 
     CP11 Existing trees      1,093,763      357        0        0  1,094,120 
CP12 Wildlife food plots      75,407    1,733        0        0     77,141 
    CP13 vegetative filter       29,467        0        0        0     29,467 
            strips                                                 
      CP15 Contour grass             36      115                 0            
            strips                                 78,062              78,213

 Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department
                                 of Agriculture

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

Acres

                               General Continuous

                                                  Non-CREP          
     Conservation practice   CRP sign-up   CREP    sign-up Farmable     Total 
                                         sign-up           wetland  
       CP16 Shelterbelts             364      384   28,657        0    29,406 
    CP17 Living snow fences            2        0    4,128        0     4,130 
    CP18 Salinity reducing                                          
          vegetation                   0        0  294,766        0   294,766 
      CP19 Alley cropping             52        0        0        0 
       CP20 Alternative               23        0        0        0 
          perennials                                                
      CP21 Filter strips               0  127,711  841,236        0   968,947 
            (grass)                                                 
     CP22 Riparian buffers             0  146,817  561,557        0   708,374 
CP23 Wetland restoration    1,568,820   91,683        0        0 1,660,502 
CP23 Wetland restoration                                         
         (floodplain)                  0        0   67,118        0    67,118 
CP23A Wetland restoration                                        
        (nonfloodplain)                0        0    4,512        0     4,512 
     CP24 Cross wind trap              0       38      645        0 
            Strips                                                  
    CP25 Rare and declining                                         
            habitat              655,671   38,279        0        0   693,950 
    CP26 Sediment retention            0        6        0        0 
     CP27 Farmable wetland                                          
             pilot                                                  
           (wetland)                   0        0        0   36,641    36,641 

     CP28 Farmable wetland                                         
             pilot                                                 
            (upland)                   0       0     0      89,657     89,657 
     CP29 Wildlife habitat                                         
             buffer                                                
       (marginal pasture)              0   1,889  14,464         0     16,353 
      CP30 Wetland buffer                                          
           (marginal                                               
            pasture)                   0     219  10,906         0     11,125 
    CP31 Bottomland hardwood           0      58   9,645         0      9,703 
    CP33 Upland bird habitat                                       
            buffers                    0      26  25,623         0     25,649 
          Unspecified                -21     668    130          0        678 
             Total            31,751,747 645,557 2,298,502 126,299 34,822,105 

Source: USDA.

Note: Data sources used for the 2002 Heinz Center report indicator land
use (grasslands and shrublands) are shown in bold-faced type.

Six of the approved CRP conservation practices are by far the most widely
used. Of the 34,822,105 acres enrolled in the program as of March 2005,
nearly half are contracts to maintain existing grasses and legumes. New
plantings of grasses and legumes compose another third of the acreage.

Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Other widely used conservation practices include creating permanent
wildlife habitat, preserving existing trees, creating filter strips using
grass to secure the soil, and restoring wetlands. Together, these six
practices account for 28,631,268 (82 percent) of the total acres enrolled
in CRP.

As indicated in table 3, CRP data were used to support the ecological
indicator land use (grasslands and shrublands) in the 2002 Heinz Center
report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems.7 For its calculations, the
Heinz Center reported on acreage for 14 of the 35 CRP-approved
conservation practices: introduction of new grasses and legumes, new
native grasses, permanent wildlife habitat, grass waterways, existing
grasses and legumes, wildlife food plots, vegetative filter strips,
contour grass strips, living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation,
alternative perennials, filter strips (grass), cross wind traps strips,
and rare and declining habitat.

7To assist the Heinz Center with its first ecological indicators report in
2002, FSA analysts reviewed prior-year data files to provide the Heinz
Center with trend information for 1994 through 2001. Specifically, the
Heinz Center used data issued April 30, 2001, in a report titled Summary
of Practices Acreages for Active Contracts Beginning in Program Year 1998.
The latest edition of this annual report was published on August 31, 2004.

 Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department
                                 of Agriculture

Figure 1: Conservation Reserve Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

                       Funding level (in millions) 2,000

                                     1,800

                                     1,600

                                     1,400

                                     1,200

                                     1,000

800

600

400

200

 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year Program funds Proposed fiscal
                               year 2006 funding

                      Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)

                                 Source: USDA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained gross
domestic product (GDP) price index based on information from the U.S.
Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional
Budget Office.

Summary	According to agency officials, CRP budgets have more than kept
pace with inflation since fiscal year 2000, an advantage expected to
continue with the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget. Data collection and
analysis of the conservation practices and acreages are not likely to
entail additional expenses. In fiscal year 2005, CRP was funded at
$1,937,211,000. For fiscal year 2006, the President has requested
$2,020,503,000 for the program. In view of its recent funding history and
long-range financial commitments (10-to 15-year contracts), program
officials indicated that CRP is wellpositioned to continue to provide data
similar in quality and comprehensiveness to that used by the Heinz Center
in its 2002 report, including data for use in the center's projected 2007
report.

 Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department
                                 of Agriculture

According to agency officials, the data CRP collects to administer its
contracts are intrinsic to the program and are not affected by policies or
priorities. For example, unless CRP discontinues support for a particular
conservation practice, its application (e.g., acreage and locale) can be
expected to appear in the weekly, monthly, and annual tabulations that CRP
prepares.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USDA officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to CRP's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	The CRP data provided to the Heinz Center will continue to be available
in the future, even if funding for CRP acreage enrollment were to be
reduced at some point. This data comes from active CRP contracts overseen
and managed by FSA's National CRP Contract Administration system (the
National CRP Contract File), which, among other things, provides monthly
and annual tabulations of acreage by conservation practice installed.
Budget reductions to the Conservation Reserve Program would have no direct
effect on this data collection and reporting process.8

o 	CRP data may potentially contribute additional ecological and
environmental information in the future to support Heinz Center
indicators. For example, CRP data could be used in support of the Heinz
Center ecological indicators riparian condition and carbon storage, once
these indicators are better defined by the center's staff and advisers.
Riparian condition describes streamside areas using an index that combines
key factors such as water flows, streambed physical condition, riparian
vegetation's composition and structure, and use by various species. Carbon
storage describes how much carbon-a major component of all organisms-is
stored in forests.

8CRP's computerized data and contract administration system at the FSA
center in Kansas City, Missouri, requires 2.5 full-time equivalent
employees to operate, at a total annual cost of about $155,000 per year.

 Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department
                                 of Agriculture

Glossary of Conservation Reserve Program Terms

Conservation Practices	CP1 New permanent introduced grasses and legumes: a
vegetative cover of introduced grasses and legumes on eligible cropland
that will enhance environmental benefits.

CP2 New permanent native grasses: a vegetative cover of native grasses on
eligible cropland that will enhance environmental benefits.

CP3 New softwood trees (not longleaf): a stand of trees in a timber
planting that will provide multipurpose forest benefits.

CP3A New hardwood trees: a stand of predominantly hardwood trees in a
timber planting that will provide multipurpose forest benefits, includes
Longleaf Pine and Atlantic White Cedar trees.

CP4 Permanent wildlife habitat: a permanent wildlife habitat cover to
enhance environmental benefits for the wildlife habitat of the designated
or surrounding areas.

CP5 Field windbreaks: a windbreak established to reduce cropland erosion
below soil loss tolerance and to enhance the wildlife habitat on the
designated area.

CP6 Diversions: structures designed to divert water away from farmland and
farm buildings, and from agricultural waste systems, in order to reduce
runoff damage, control erosion, and protect terrace systems from
degrading.

CP7 Erosion control structures: structures such as dikes on river and
stream banks to prevent loss or damage to land uses and protect adjacent
facilities.

CP8 Grass waterways: strips of grass planted where water tends to move
across a field, planted to prevent gully erosion.

Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

CP9 Shallow water areas for wildlife: areas of shallow water (average
depth 6 to 18 inches) near or within crop fields that are protected by
permanent trees, shrubs, and grasses.

CP12 Wildlife food plots: plantings of foods for wildlife in plots up to 5
acres in size.

CP15 Contour grass strips: narrow bands of perennial vegetation
established across the slope of a crop field and alternated down the slope
with wider strips of crops. Properly designed and maintained, they can
reduce soil erosion, minimize transport of sediment and other waterborne
contaminants, and provide wildlife habitat.

CP16 Shelterbelts: rows of trees, shrubs, or other plants used to reduce
wind erosion, protect young crops, and control blowing snow. They also
provide excellent protection from the elements for wildlife, livestock,
houses, and farm buildings.

CP17 Living snow fences: similar in design to field windbreaks and
shelterbelts, living snow fences serve the added function of being used to
help manage snow deposits to protect buildings, roads, and other property.
They can be designed and placed to help protect nearby areas for
livestock, provide wildlife cover, and collect snow to enhance soil
moisture and nearby water supplies.

CP18 Salinity seducing vegetation: plantings of trees or shrubs that
either install salt-tolerant vegetative cover within a saline seep area or
establish permanent vegetative cover in areas causing saline seeps.

CP21 Filter strips (grass): strips of grass planted between crops that are
used to trap sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants from
surface runoff and subsurface flow before they reach streams and creeks.
The minimum width is 30 feet, the maximum 120 feet.

CP22 Riparian buffers: trees, shrubs, and grasses planted along stream
banks to catch pollutants in both surface runoff and groundwater before
those pollutants reach the stream. Buffers also trap nutrients and
sediment. Native trees and grasses are planted for this practice. The
minimum width is 35 feet, the maximum 180 feet.

CP23 Wetland restoration: restores wetlands for return to agricultural use
by increasing sediment trapping, reducing flood flows, constructing

Appendix II Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

barriers such as dams or levees, and introducing grasses and legumes to
stabilize the soil.

CP24 Cross wind trap strips: one or more strips of permanent, vegetative,
wind-resistant cover planted perpendicular to the prevailing wind to
reduce erosion and trap wind-borne sediments and contaminants.

CP29 Wildlife habitat buffer (marginal pastureland): grass, shrub, and
forb (nongrass herb) cover planted to provide wildlife protection and to
remove nutrients, sediment, organic matter, pesticides, and other
pollutants from surface runoff and subsurface flow.

CP30 Wetland buffer (marginal pastureland): planting of vegetative cover
adjacent or parallel to a stream (with perennial or seasonal flow) to
remove nutrients, sediment, organic matter, pesticides, and other
pollutants before they reach the stream.

CP31 Bottomland timber establishment on wetlands: establishing stands of
trees to control erosion, reduce water and air pollution, promote carbon
sequestration, and extend wildlife habitat.

CP32 Expired CRP hardwood tree planting on marginal pastureland: land
established to trees under CP1 that expired on or before September 30,
2001, and reoffered to grow hardwood trees.

CP33 Habitual buffers for upland birds: allows for enrollment of field
borders to provide valuable habitat for quail and other upland birds in
cropland areas.

Appendix III

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Background	The Economic Research Service (ERS), an agency of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the department's main source of
economic information and research on agriculture and related topics.
Officially established in 1961, ERS has its origins in the 1905 formation
of the Office of Farm Management, which was set up to examine economic
aspects of farming within USDA's Bureau of Plant Industry.1 For nearly a
century, ERS and its predecessor agencies have supported USDA programs
with economic data, research, and analysis needed for sound decision
making and policy formulation. ERS continues to inform and enhance public
and private decision making on economic and policy issues related to
agriculture and rural development-the central traditional concerns of USDA
economic research activity. At the same time, however, ERS's mission has
broadened to reflect the changed environment of the nation's food and
agricultural system and now includes research on such diverse topics as
food safety and nutrition, natural resources, conservation, rural
development, and the environment.2

ERS, along with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and the
Agricultural Research Service, is located within USDA's Research,
Education and Economics Mission Area. The Administrator of ERS reports
directly to the USDA Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics.
ERS carries out its work under a single USDA appropriations line
item-economic analysis and research. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005,
ERS funding has consistently amounted to less than 0.4 percent of the
total USDA discretionary budget, which was $21.2 billion in fiscal year
2005.

1From 1922 until 1953, these economic analysis and research functions were
carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics within USDA and from
1953 until the creation of ERS in 1961 by the Agricultural Marketing
Service and the Agricultural Research Service. In 1977, ERS merged briefly
with USDA's statistical agency and was called the Economics, Statistics
and Cooperatives Service, but was returned to agency status in 1981. ERS
was established pursuant to the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture
under section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. S:
1622. The agency sometimes conducts specific studies pursuant to annual
appropriations laws and related congressional conference reports.

2Five major areas of research define the scope of ERS activity: (1) a
competitive agricultural system; (2) a safe food supply; (3) a healthy,
well-nourished population; (4) harmony between agriculture and the
environment; and (5) an enhanced quality of life for rural Americans.

Appendix III Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

ERS's work is structured among three program divisions and one support
division: the Food and Rural Economics Division, the Market and Trade
Economics Division, the Resource Economics Division, and the Information
Services Division. The ERS program encompasses research, analyses of food
and commodity markets, policy studies, and development of economic and
statistical indicators.3 ERS employs approximately 450 full-time staff,
all in Washington, D.C. For primary data, which it does not collect, ERS
relies on other agencies, particularly within USDA. Developing and
analyzing secondary data, on the other hand, are an essential part of
ERS's short-term and long-term research efforts.

The Resource Economics Division is the ERS division that produces all data
used to support indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of
the Nation's Ecosystems.4 This division conducts research in three primary
areas: (1) the interactions among natural resources, environmental
quality, and agricultural production and consumption; (2) the economics of
agricultural research and development and technological change; and (3)
the structure and financial performance of the agricultural sector.
Specific research topics within the division's purview include
conservation and environmental programs, technology and sustainability,
production practices and the environment, water use and management, farm
finance, and farm-sector economic performance. The Resources Economic
Division has 100 full-time staff, about 75 of whom are economists working
in such specialty areas as industrial organization, international
economics, natural resource/environmental economics, production
economics/farm management, regional economics, and research and
development/technological change.

One key activity carried out by the Resource Economics Division is the
estimation of agricultural cash receipts, which are calculated from sales
of

3ERS disseminates economic information and research results through an
array of outlets, including: (1) agency published research reports, market
analysis and outlook reports; (2) the agency's Web site
(www.ers.usda.gov); (3) oral briefings, written staff analyses, and
congressionally mandated studies; (4) articles published in high-quality
journals; and (5) papers presented to academic colleagues at annual
meetings of scientific and professional organizations.

4Data compiled and reported by ERS's Resource Economics Division were used
exclusively or in part to support Heinz Center report indicators for
ecosystem extent (a core national indicator), production of food and fiber
(also a core national indicator), total cropland (including pasture and
hayland), agricultural inputs and outputs, and monetary value of
agricultural production.

     Appendix III Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

more than 25 agricultural commodities.5 Cash receipts include data from
about 150 crop and livestock communities collected by NASS and the
Commodity Credit Corporation. ERS analyzes and publishes these data
annually under the title "Farm Income Forecasts." ERS will continue to
generate these data in future years. Moreover, these data go directly into
the Department of Commerce's National Income and Product Accounts as the
farm-income component and into the Bureau of Economic Analysis's regional
and county estimates of personal income, which are used to distribute
Federal Revenue Sharing Funds.6

The Heinz Center also employed data from the Resource Economics Division's
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (AREI) compilations,
specifically for various cropland uses, to support its indicator total
cropland. Also used by the Heinz Center were the AREI land use indicator
and NASS's Crop Production Annual Summary.7 ERS officials said they plan
to continue publishing the AREI indicators and will update the entire
series with new information later this year. The Heinz Center used ERS
cropland categories when developing its indicators for total cropland and
ecosystem extent.

Summary	ERS officials indicated that funding for the agency for fiscal
year 2005 and funding proposed in the President's budget for fiscal year
2006 (as shown in fig. 2) are expected to result in the continuation of
research activities and

5Cash receipts data were used by the Heinz Center to support its indicator
for the monetary value of agricultural Production. The gross monetary
value of agricultural production figures used by the Heinz Center were
determined by multiplying the amount of physical output of major crops and
livestock by the prices (in dollars) received by farmers (converted to
1999 dollars).

6ERS staff is not involved in the collection of the data that serve as the
basis for estimates of farm cash receipts. The estimating system used to
estimate cash receipts comprises an integrated set of computer
applications with numerous equations that simulate the value of marketing
from agricultural production. The system incorporates the use of USDA's
mainframe computer and ERS's PC-LAN.

7As noted previously, ERS does not engage in the primary collection of
data, including agricultural land use data. Instead, it takes existing
data, primarily from NASS field crop acreages and makes various
adjustments, including adding adjusted acreages of orchards, vegetables,
and other minor crops, to arrive at an overall figure for cropland used
for crops. To that figure, ERS adds cropland pasture and idle cropland to
arrive at a figure for total cropland. The ERS cropland data series is
compiled every 5 years, which is the reporting cycle for the NASS Census
of Agriculture data on which the data series is based.

Appendix III Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

data analysis such that ERS data will be of similar or superior quality
and comprehensiveness compared with that used to support ecological
indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center report.8 Moreover, they anticipate no
budget-driven changes to the activities supporting these indicators.

Figure 2: Economic Research Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and

Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds

Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)
Source: USDA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

8While the overall ERS budget request for fiscal year 2006 is $80,700,000,
representing a 6 percent increase over fiscal year 2005 funding, the
funding of staff resources dedicated to those activities whose data were
used to support the ecological indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center report
is expected to remain at the fiscal year 2005 level of $250,000.

     Appendix III Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Table 4 reflects funding for staff time devoted to the key ERS data
analysis activities that were cited as sources of data to support Heinz
Center indicators in the Center's 2002 report:

    Table 4: Cost of Selected ERS Data Analysis Activities for Fiscal Years
                                   2000-2005

                              Dollars in thousands

                                         2000   2001  2002  2003  2004  
    Agricultural productivity measures     $23  $24    $25   $26   $27    $28 
              Land use data                 17   17    18    19    20   
              Cash receipts                164  171    179   186   195  
                  Totals                 $204   $212  $222  $231  $242   $250 

                                 Source: USDA.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

ERS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to ERS's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	Program priorities in the current ERS strategic plan, including
increasing the "quality and sustainability of the nation's agricultural
resources" by evaluating conservation policies on working and retired
farmlands and analyzing the dynamics of land use change, should enhance
ERS's ability to produce useful data for the planned 2007 edition of the
Heinz Center report.

o 	Overall ERS funding (adjusted for inflation) has increased by less than
1 percent from fiscal year 2000 through 2005, while funding for ERS data
programs increased by 12 percent in the same period. ERS staff time
devoted to the data activities cited by the Heinz Center as sources of
support for its indicators increased by 2 percent from fiscal year 2000
through 2005.

o 	Data programs are essential to the mission of ERS, an applied economic
research organization. The agency requires data to provide decision makers
with accurate, timely, and scientifically rigorous analysis of issues
facing the agricultural sector, rural America, and consumers. Thus, the
agency has no plans to reduce its data activities, including those cited
as data sources by the Heinz Center. Should ERS's budget be cut in the
future, the agency would "make every effort to protect the

Appendix III Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

scope, extent, and quality of [its] data programs." Such efforts would be
undertaken in consultation and collaboration with NASS and other USDA
agencies that are responsible for collecting the primary data that ERS
uses. As a last resort, funding reductions could force changes in ERS data
collection procedures by, for example, necessitating smaller sample sizes
or less frequent sampling. ERS would adopt such changes before actually
eliminating any data program.

o 	ERS could potentially have provided data to support other indicators
used in the 2002 Heinz Center report. For example, ERS has a research
program on rural economics and maintains indicators on urban/rural
differences, definitions of rurality, rural (nonmetropolitan) conditions
and trends, etc. These data could be relevant to the issues discussed in
the Heinz Center's report chapter on farmlands. The data are readily
available, and ERS plans to continue reporting on a range of rural
(nonmetropolitan) conditions in the future.

Appendix IV

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Background	For nearly 80 years, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
program has provided state and national lawmakers, environmental
organizations, private industry, research institutions, and the media with
information regarding resource management and protection, wildlife habitat
conditions, the sustainability of current ecosystem management practices,
forest health, and the effects of global change. FIA provides periodic
data on the area and location of forests; the structure and composition of
forests in terms of species, sizes, and volume; tree growth rates,
mortality, and removals; patterns of forest ownership; and harvest
efficiency and wood product flows.

Summary	According to FIA officials, the funding for fiscal year 2005 will
have only a minimal effect on the program's ability to generate data of a
quality and comprehensiveness similar to data generated in previous years.
Furthermore, the fiscal year 2005 funding and the estimated funding for
fiscal year 2006 would enable the agency to fulfill its overall program
objectives and incorporate updated information into its annual forest
inventory. However, for six states the funding levels will provide for
only remote sensing and not actual data from on-the-ground observations
(field data), which are needed to facilitate the validation of the
remote-sensing estimates. The existing field data for the six states are
several years old. If that information is not updated with new
measurements in the next few years, FIA officials recognize that for those
states, the old data will offer a weaker basis for estimating ecological
indicators, planning forest management activities, and making estimates of
the health, productivity, and sustainability of the forests.

  Appendix IV Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

Figure 3: Forest Inventory and Analysis Program Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

                         Funding level (in millions) 80

                                       70

                                       60

                                       50

                                       40

                                       30

                                       20

              10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

              Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding

                      Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)

                                 Source: USDA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Agency officials told us that FIA has no planned program priorities that
will affect its ability to generate data in the coming years that are
comparable to data generated in previous years. Furthermore, they told us
they believe that FIA data will be available in an improved form for the
expected 2007 update of the Heinz Center's The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems report.

Agency Perspectives USFS officials provided the following information on
funding levels and

program priorities relative to the FIA program's ability to continue on
Potential Impacts of providing environmental and ecological data
comparable with past years: Funding Levels and

Program Changes  o 	When the next Heinz Center report is issued in 2007,
the FIA program will be able to provide some of the most complete data in
its history on a

Appendix IV Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

much timelier basis. Newly designed information systems that use new
software will allow the integration of data and map-based information. To
allow for meaningful trend analysis, historical data will be loaded into
these systems. In the case of the 2002 Heinz Center report, the FIA data
used were 80 percent "old" data (from older, periodic inventory systems
that were done cyclically, state by state) and 20 percent "new" data. By
the time the Heinz Center is ready to prepare its next report, these
proportions will be reversed: Fresh data will be obtained in every state
each year, so the Heinz Center data could be updated on an annual basis
with "new" data.1

o 	The fiscal year 2005 funding and the proposed fiscal year 2006 funding
could affect the FIA program's data provided in support of the Heinz
Center indicators in that the data would be older for six states (Hawaii,
Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and interior Alaska) that
include about 23 percent of the nation's forests. FIA program officials
plan to continue gathering remote-sensing estimates for these regions, but
without updated field data, the remote-sensing estimates are difficult to
validate. Such data, some of which were collected 10 years ago, are
distinctly less valuable for forest management planning and for use in
supporting ecological indicators. For example, as estimates of forest
growth get older, it becomes more difficult to determine allowable harvest
levels and sustainability.2

o 	Delay in transitioning to an annualized inventory system is expected to
have minimal effect on the ability of FIA's data users to compare data
from the new inventory system with data generated under the old system
(i.e., data used in the 2002 Heinz Center report). According to program
officials, the main reason for delay in implementing a complete annualized
inventory cycle is the significantly increased cost that this

1One major goal of the FIA program's strategic plan for fiscal years
2004-2008, not yet fully achieved, is to implement an FIA program that
involves (1) generating 10 state-level reports every year over a 5-year
cycle (all 50 states would be covered after 5 years), and (2) preparing a
national summary report every 5 years describing the same forest and
ecological categories at regional and national scales that are described
in the state-level reports.

2Generally, if net annual growth exceeds annual removals (i.e., what was
cut), then the forest is not being diminished and the volume of the forest
is "sustainable." However, the concept of sustainability is much more
complex than whether total volume is sustainable. For example,
"sustainability" is contingent on species composition, structure, and
landscape juxtaposition in the "proper" mix to sustain the goods and
services we want from the forest.

Appendix IV Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

change represents. This is particularly the case for Alaska, which
contains about 17 percent of the nation's forestland and has vast tracts
of forestland that are difficult to access for field validation
activities. A recent inventory of a portion of Alaska indicated that 2.1
million acres of what were believed to be trees based on remote-sensing
data were actually acres of tall shrubs (and thus not forest by
definition). FIA officials intend to utilize sophisticated remote sensing
technologies to determine the minimum amount of field data necessary for
validation, thus optimizing the cost of obtaining data of good quality.
However, as FIA develops remote-sensing technologies, more ground data are
generally needed in the short term in order to develop the models that
will in turn reduce the need for extensive ground-level data. FIA expects
a "big payoff" from the short-term additional field validation investments
in the long-run.

o 	Major challenges to the FIA program in recent years have included the
following:

o 	State contributions, which are used to leverage FIA work, have not
matched increases in federal funding for the FIA program over the past few
years.3 Fluctuations in state budgets can undermine FIA program goals and
associated data collection activities. Historically, states provided about
15 to 20 percent of total annual funding for the FIA program. But in
fiscal year 2004, the percentage fell to an all-time low of 12 percent.

o 	Assessments made at the department or agency level, which are
generalized reductions of FIA program funds for such things as GSA rent,
worker compensation, unemployment compensation, transit subsidies, and the
National Finance, Visual Communication, and National Information
Technology Centers, have risen. Such assessments rose from just over $1
million for fiscal year 1999 to an

3According to Forest Service officials responsible for the FIA, Congress
in April 1999 determined that the cost of the annualized inventory was too
high and instructed FIA to complete, annually, 15 percent of all plots in
each eastern state and 10 percent of all plots in each western state (and
7 years for complete plots in the East and 10 years for complete plots in
the West). These activities, also outlined in the FIA strategic plan, are
collectively known as FIA's "base program." FIA indicated that it was the
intent of Congress that states participate financially to bring the
coverage up to 20 percent annually in each state. Currently, 25 states
provide funds to meet this objective, primarily in the East. Any increase
in the number or percentage of plots measured annually would be an
enhancement at the client's expense, known as the "extended program."

Appendix IV Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

estimated $5.7 million for 2006. While FIA program funding increased by
approximately $5 million from fiscal year 2004 to 2005, about $900,000 of
the increase went to assessments.

o 	FIA officials are exploring new ways to use and deliver FIA data.
Spatial analysis and remote-sensing technologies are being coupled with
fieldsampling verification activities and will produce improved spatial
products, such as maps of known statistical quality that will be relied
upon more heavily for effective and timely inventories.4 In cooperation
with the Forest Health Monitoring Program, the National Forest System, and
the Remote Sensing Applications Center, FIA is using these technologies to
develop maps showing information on forest types, biomass, fuel loading,
and fire risks. FIA is currently performing accuracy assessments and peer
reviews of these maps.

4The initial phase of the sampling process is done by remote sensing. In
this phase, remotely sensed data is used to estimate the area of forest
and nonforest land. Then, in the field, the forest land is sampled to
acquire information about and validate various attributes, such as
biomass. These validated data can then be used to develop much more
detailed and useful maps of forests and their attributes.

Appendix V

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Background	The history of collecting data on U.S. agriculture extends back
to the earliest days of the nation. In 1791, President Washington wrote to
several farmers requesting information on land values, crops, yields,
livestock prices, and taxes. It was, in effect, the nation's first
agricultural survey. The next major step forward in agricultural data
collection came in 1839, when the Commissioner of Patents prevailed upon
Congress to designate $1,000 from the Patent Office Fund for "collecting
and distributing seeds, carrying out agricultural investigations, and
procuring agricultural statistics." Then, in 1840, detailed agricultural
information was collected through the first Census of Agriculture, which
provided a nationwide inventory of agricultural production. When the 1840
federal census information arrived, the Commissioner of Patents was able
to combine it with other information to estimate production by states and
territories. These estimates, made yearly through 1844, established the
general pattern of annual agricultural reports that continues to this day.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was itself established by
Congress in 1862, and its first crop report appeared in 1863. The National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) traces its roots to that year, when
USDA established a Division of Statistics. The creation of USDA's Crop
Reporting Board in 1905 (now called the Agricultural Statistics Board) was
another landmark in the development of a nationwide statistical service
for agriculture. A USDA reorganization in 1961 led to the creation of the
Statistical Reporting Service, known today as the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), of which the Agricultural Statistics Board is a
part. The board prepares and releases the NASS reports. It consists of a
permanent chairperson, secretary and other NASS staff members chosen to
participate in the preparation of a specific report based on their
detailed knowledge of a particular topic.

The mission of NASS is to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics
in service to U.S. agriculture.1 NASS's Agricultural Statistics Program is
responsible for collecting, processing, analyzing, and disseminating
statistical information on agricultural production, market structures,
economics, and environmental impacts. Each year, the Agricultural
Statistics Program conducts hundreds of surveys and prepares reports

1NASS activities are based on the Secretary of Agriculture's authority
under the Organic Act of 1862 that created the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), 7 U.S.C. S: 2204; section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946, 7 U.S.C. S: 1622; and the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, 7
U.S.C. S: 2204g.

Appendix V
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

covering virtually every facet of U.S. agriculture, including production
and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, and
farm labor and wages. NASS publications cover agricultural products and
topics as diverse as production and prices of traditional agricultural
crops (e.g., corn and wheat), specialty crops (e.g., mushrooms and
flowers), number of live births of calves, number of hogs slaughtered, and
land in farm use. In any given year, NASS publishes more than 400 national
reports for 120 crop and 45 livestock items. NASS's 46 state statistical
offices (also called field offices) publish data about many of the same
topics for local audiences.2

In addition to the many statistical activities directly related to its
mission, NASS conducts surveys for and lends technical assistance
expertise to other federal agencies, state governments, and private
organizations. NASS provides support and assistance in the areas of
questionnaire and sample design, data collection and editing, analysis of
survey results, and training. Among its more notable projects, NASS
conducted a farm injury survey for the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health; carried out a pilot study on Native American
contributions to agriculture for the Intertribal Agriculture Council; and
surveyed producers' sources of agricultural information for USDA's Office
of Communications. Field offices have also become increasingly involved in
performing special surveys in cooperation with land-grant universities and
state departments of agriculture. Data have been collected on such diverse
subjects as specialty fruits and vegetables, nursery products, waste
management in rural communities, and producers' opinions of farm bill
proposals.

NASS's field offices serve all states and Puerto Rico. These offices
publish more than 8,000 reports a year. Through these field offices, NASS
conducts its many surveys by relying on data from state agriculture
departments, land-grant universities, and the agricultural industry.3 The
field offices are the primary NASS units to collect, process, evaluate,
and estimate agricultural data. Each field office collects and summarizes
data, prepares estimates, and submits them to the Agricultural Statistics
Board in Washington, D.C. Production forecasts for some products are
considered

2NASS has about 1,100 employees divided between its Washington, D.C.,
headquarters and state statistical offices (field offices).

3NASS maintains a series of cooperative agreements with its various
in-state sources. Cooperative federal-state programs first began in 1917.

Appendix V
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

"speculative" because these products are traded on commodity markets.4
Thus, field offices send the board data and comments on these products via
encoded computer transmissions. Preparing official crop estimates involves
tight security until these data are publicly released according to a set
schedule each year.

Since 1997, NASS has had responsibility for developing, administering,
compiling and reporting data from the quinquennial Census of Agriculture.
In prior years, the agricultural census was conducted by the Commerce
Department's Bureau of the Census. The transfer of responsibility reduced
response burden on the public and made planning, collection, and release
of agricultural census results more efficient. The Census of Agriculture
is the most comprehensive source of agricultural statistics available and
the only one with uniform agricultural data for every U.S. county.5 It is
the only attempt to enumerate every farm and ranch operation in the
country.6 Data are collected every 5 years on a wide array of topics,
including corporate structure, chemicals employed in agriculture, energy
expenditures, farm programs, irrigated land, machinery and equipment, land
use and ownership, market value of products, and production expenses.
Using mailings, telephone calls, and rare personal visits by enumerators,
data are collected and then aggregated to protect confidentiality and
proprietary information. The census is released in print, on CD-ROM, and
on the

4Corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and oranges are "speculative" crops, but
NASS maintains strict secrecy for other crop reports, as well, in order to
forestall economic advantages from early knowledge.

5The Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 S: 2, 7 U.S.C. S: 2204g, requires
the Census of Agriculture. It provides county-level census coverage and is
administered via mail-out/mailback data collection. USDA uses census data
to provide local farm income and production costs, evaluate agricultural
programs and policies, administer farm programs, and plan contingencies
for disease or pest emergencies. The Farm Credit Administration uses the
data to evaluate farmer loan programs. Congress uses census data to
oversee farm programs and assess legislative proposals. State and local
governments and farm organizations use census data to analyze and develop
policies on land use, water use and irrigation, rural development, and
farmland assessments. Agribusinesses use census statistics to develop
sales territories, and determine the best locations for wholesale and
retail outlets. Rural electric companies use statistics to forecast future
energy needs.

6The definition of a "farm" has changed several times over the history of
agricultural data collection. Since 1975, a farm has been defined by joint
agreement among USDA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Bureau
of the Census as "any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural
products (crops and livestock) were sold or normally would be sold during
the year under consideration." USDA estimates include institutional farms,
experimental and research farms, and Indian reservations. The department
counts government payments as part of farm sales.

Appendix V
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Internet. In print, volume 1 of the census contains "U.S. National Level
Data" and "U.S. State Level Data." Other volumes, 50 in total, present
data for individual states. The Census of Agriculture was last conducted
in 2002. The next census will provide statistics for calendar year 2007.7

Congress has mandated that several federal programs use NASS data in their
operations and when making payment calculations for program beneficiaries.
For example, NASS data are used by other USDA programs in the calculation
of countercyclical payments and crop insurance;8 and the Agriculture
Secretary is required to report, using data from NASS's Census of
Agriculture, the rate of increase or decrease by which socially
disadvantaged groups participate in agriculture.9 In addition, NASS
conducts annual data user meetings to assess the relevance of its work to
government, business, academic, and private applications.

In its 2002 report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, the Heinz Center
used NASS data in support of three ecological indicators. The indicator
for total cropland was based on the 1997 census, which used data from 1945
through 1997.10 The indicator for major crop yields was based on NASS
historical track records, on United States crop production data for May
2001, and annual Agricultural Statistics for 2001. Finally, the indicator
for production of cattle was based on data from NASS surveys of livestock
herd size, which are conducted and reported in January and July of each
year. Data on cattle and calves come from state-level reports by NASS, and
data on the value of cattle are from NASS Agricultural Statistics for
2000. NASS Historical Track Records are national-level statistics that
include historic estimates and final plantings for crops, grain stocks,
and livestock. U.S. crop production data are tabulated annually for more
than 100 products.11 The Heinz Center used crop production records from
1950

7Funds for the Census of Agriculture, a separate line item in NASS's
budget, are appropriated and available until obligated.

87 U.S.C. S: 7914(b)(1).

916 U.S.C. S: 590h(b)(5)(B)(v)(II).

10The Heinz Center used data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture for its
total cropland indicator when generating the 2002 report, The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems. Census data on Total Cropland were collected using
mail-in forms, direct enumeration, and telephone and personal interviews.

11The Heinz Center indicator was supported with data from NASS Historical
Track Records and U.S. crop production data, both published in 2001.

                                   Appendix V
                 National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

through 1998 to prepare its major crop yields, augmented by NASS annual
statistics for 1999 and 2000. While there are numerous legislative
mandates for statistical data in the U.S. crop production reports, such as
for cotton acreage, crop reports throughout the growing season, and
miscellaneous fruits and vegetables, none specifically mention any of the
data used in the Heinz Center report.

Summary	NASS officials indicated that actual funding for fiscal year 2005
and projected funding for fiscal 2006 will have no adverse effect on the
ability of NASS programs to generate data comparable in quality and
comprehensiveness with data from previous years. The officials indicated,
in particular, that there should be no effect on the ability of its
programs to generate data used to support indicators in the 2002 Heinz
Center report. In important respects, NASS officials expect their data to
improve in the future. For example, the agency plans to continue efforts
begun in 2004 to restore and modernize its survey and estimation programs.
In fiscal year 2006, NASS expects to achieve target precision levels for
83 percent of its data, a 12 percent improvement over 2004 levels. The
long-term target is 90 percent precision.

The NASS budget contains two line items: agricultural estimates and the
Census of Agriculture. Total appropriated funds for NASS for fiscal years
2000 through 2005 and proposed funding for fiscal year 2006 are shown in
figure 4.

                                   Appendix V
                 National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

Figure 4: National Agricultural Statistics Service Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

                        Funding level (in millions) 160

                                      140

                                      120

                                      100

                                       80

                                       60

                                       40

                                      20 0

NASS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to NASS's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	Funding for NASS typically fluctuates over a 5-year cycle, rising
around the time of activities related to the conduct and analysis of the
Census of Agriculture and falling thereafter. Because of the cyclical
pattern of the census, $29,115,000 of the proposed fiscal year 2006
funding total of $145,159,000 will remain available until obligated for
the 2007 census's preparation and publication. Funding levels will rise in
a predictable manner within the funding cycle for the 2007 census, peaking
in fiscal

                 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

              Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding

                       Inflation adusted (FY '00 dollars)

                                 Source: NASS.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

Appendix V
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

year 2008 when the census tabulations are made.12 Such cyclical
fluctuations will have no effect on NASS's ability to generate data of
similar quality and comprehensiveness when compared with data from
previous years.

o 	NASS's Agricultural Estimates budget more closely parallels inflation
as it supports routine activities that occur throughout the year. For
example, appropriations for Agricultural Estimates were $79 million in
fiscal year 2000, and increased yearly to $82 million (fiscal year 2001),
$84 million (fiscal year 2002), $93 million (fiscal year 2003), $103
million (fiscal year 2004), and $106 million (fiscal year 2005). The
President has proposed a budget of $116,044,000 for Agricultural Estimates
in fiscal year 2006. Using $7 million from this increase, NASS plans to
continue efforts begun in 2004 to restore and modernize its survey and
estimation programs. NASS has set three goals: to (1) restore sample sizes
that have been reduced in recent years; (2) provide staff to manage
surveys and better review and summarize data; and (3) meet research,
training, travel, and other expenses. In fiscal year 2006, NASS expects to
achieve target precision levels for 83 percent of its data, a 12 percent
improvement over fiscal year 2004 levels. (The long-term target is 90
percent).13

o 	Lacking appropriations to cover the full cost of congressionally
mandated salary increases, NASS finds its annual operating budget
constrained, necessitating economies elsewhere, such as less-frequent
sampling. For example, fewer farms in a state might be sampled in the
preparation of crop estimates, or production figures might aggregate
several crop types.14 However, NASS officials cited no examples of such
economies affecting the data used by the Heinz Center to support its
indicators. In addition, in an effort to compensate for recent unfunded

12In the case of the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the highest level of
appropriations occurred in fiscal year 2003, when the 2002 data were
collected, compiled, and analyzed.

13Funding for NASS varies with sample sizes to improve precision and the
coverage provided on U.S. agriculture.

14However, NASS officials cited no examples of such economies affecting
the data used by the Heinz Center to support its indicators. In addition,
they noted that increased workloads were being accomplished with fewer
staff primarily through efficiencies in methodologies and technology, such
as enhanced electronic data capture and data analysis procedures. For
example, upgraded computers can now tabulate and process data streams
directly from field offices, requiring less work at USDA headquarters.

Appendix V
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

pay increases, the proposed fiscal year 2006 NASS budget includes a net
increase of $16.7 million, with $1.3 million designated for salary costs.

o 	Beginning in 2004, NASS instituted an Agricultural Restoration
Initiative to restore the collection of certain statistical data. For
example, NASS had dealt with budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 by
dropping "objective yield" cotton surveys, and the initiative restored
them. Crop production forecasts and estimates employ both subjective and
objective probability surveys. Subjective evaluations come from a sample
of farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses. In objective yield probability
surveys, selected fields are visited during the growing season by
enumerators, who count the plants and later the actual ears, pods, or
bolls produced. These are accurate measurements, but are also labor
intensive and costly, requiring enumerators to walk into fields and record
growth in randomly sampled plots. Less-intensive surveys collect most data
by mail or telephone.

o 	The results of the 2002 Census of Agriculture were published in 2004.
The five-year schedule for the census means that data from the 2007 Census
of Agriculture is scheduled to be released in February 2009, too late to
be used in the next iteration of the Heinz Center report, in 2007.
However, with the continuous upgrading by the Heinz Center of its own Web
site, the center will add data for its ecological indicators as they
become available from the 2007 census and from other sources.

o 	A Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of NASS was conducted by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the fiscal year 2006 budget.
It found the Census of Agriculture and annual cropreporting programs to be
rated "moderately effective" because there were no recent external reviews
of the program data. Specifically, OMB concluded that reviews by USDA data
users meeting in 2002 and 2003, and a report by USDA's Advisory Committee
on Agricultural Statistics, did not provide sufficient "independent
evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis"
to evaluate its effectiveness and relevance. NASS is now working to
establish an external, independent evaluation system. In most other
respects, OMB found NASS's performance to be exemplary, granting perfect
scores of 100 percent for program purpose and for design and management.

Appendix VI

National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Background	The National Resources Inventory (NRI), conducted by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with Iowa
State University's Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, is a
statistical survey of land use and natural resource conditions and trends
on U.S. nonfederal lands.1 It produces a nationally consistent database
capturing data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland, soils,
wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices, and related
resource attributes. Information derived from the NRI is used by a wide
variety of users, including natural resource managers; policymakers;
analysts; consultants; the media; other Federal agencies; state
governments; universities; and environmental, commodity, and farm groups.
These users employ NRI information to formulate effective public policies,
fashion agricultural and natural resource legislation, develop state and
national conservation programs, allocate Department of Agriculture (USDA)
financial and technical assistance to address natural resource concerns,
and enhance the public's understanding of natural resource and
environmental issues.

The NRI was first conducted in 1977, then every 5 years through 1997. In
2000, the NRI transitioned to an annual inventory process to provide more
timely data to support the development and assessment of agricultural and
conservation policies and programs. Data collected from 1982 to 2003
enable trend analysis extending over 21 years. Data used for the most
current NRI were primarily collected using high-resolution aerial
photography, field office records, historical records and data, and a
limited number of on-site visits.

1According to NRI definitions, nonfederal lands include privately owned
land, tribal and trust land, and lands controlled by state and local
governments.

                                  Appendix VI
                     National Resources Inventory, Natural
                      Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

o 	The primary sampling units in the NRI are areas of land called
segments. Segments vary in size, from 40 acres to 640 acres. Data such as
urban land and water area are collected for an entire segment. Detailed
data on soil properties and land use are sampled from random points within
the segment. Generally, there are three sample points per segment, but
40acre segments contain two points. Some data variables, such as total
land area, federally owned land, and area in large water bodies, are
collected on a census basis separate from the sample survey. A typical
national sample contains about 70,000 segments.2

o 	Two possible ways to classify the surface of the Earth in the NRI are
land cover and land use. Land cover is the kind of vegetation, constructed
material (such as roads or buildings), or natural material (such as sand,
water, or ice) that actually covers the Earth's surface. Categories for
land use include crop production, residential zones, and wildlife habitat.
In the NRI, all land is placed into mutually exclusive and exhaustive
categories, called "coveruse" categories. As the name suggests, the
classification is based on both the land cover and the land use. For
example, land is classified as urban if it has a certain building density,
even if the predominant cover is trees. Roads in rural areas are
classified as roads, while roads within the urban area are classified as
urban area. Other coveruse categories include cultivated cropland, forest,
rangeland, and pastureland.

The NRI program continues to evolve as cost-effective methods are
developed to collect more timely and relevant data that address emerging
agricultural and environmental issues. New inventory approaches will
incorporate new tools, methodologies, and technologies. In addition to the
transition to an annual NRI report, efforts are under way to implement a
continuous inventory process, incorporate various assessment tools for
measuring resource health, and more fully use inventory data for modeling
and policy analysis.

Summary	NRI and NRCS officials indicated that actual NRI funding for
fiscal year 2005 and funding proposed in the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2006 (as shown in fig. 5) are expected to assure the
continuation of data collection and analysis, and will allow for data
generation of similar quality

2The national annual sample size of 70,000 segments is selected from the
NRI framework sample of 300,000 segments, which were used for the 5-year
cycle through 1997.

Appendix VI
National Resources Inventory, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

and comprehensiveness when compared with data from previous years. The
officials indicated, in particular, that data used in the 2002 Heinz
Center report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, are expected to be
available with similar or improved quality and comprehensiveness when
compared with data from prior years.

Figure 5: National Resources Inventory Program Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005

and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds

Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)
Source: USDA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, agency officials reported that planned program activities
will improve the ability of NRI to produce data in the coming years
comparable with data generated in previous years. As used in the 2002
Heinz Center report, agency officials stated that data are expected to be
available in a

                                  Appendix VI
                     National Resources Inventory, Natural
                      Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

similar form for the Heinz Center's expected 2007 follow-on indicator
report, with new estimates available at both national and regional
scales.3

Agency Perspectives NRI and NRCS program officials provided the following
information on

funding levels and program priorities relative to NRI's ability to
continue on Potential Impacts of providing environmental and ecological
data comparable with past years: Funding Levels and

Program Changes  o 	Specific funding amounts for the various NRI
activities for fiscal years 2000 through 2005, as well as proposed funding
for fiscal year 2006, are portrayed in table 5 (aggregate totals are
presented in fig. 5):

Table 5: NRI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for
Fiscal Year 2006

                              Dollars in thousands

        Activity          2000    2001    2002    2003    2004  2005a    2006b 
  Resources inventory  $1,076  $1,175  $1,176  $1,180  $1,211  $5,622   $5,668 
        supportc                                                       
    Data collection,                                                   
  photo-interpretation                                                 
          and                                                          
        supportd         8,497 15,573  11,020  14,907   9,844   4,359    3,700 
      On-site data                                 882  3,389   3,933    4,006 
      collectione                                                      
        Imageryf         3,400  5,789   4,074   5,700   5,636   5,920    6,000 
Statistical unitg     1,100  1,700   1,500   1,600   2,213   2,000    2,400 
     Remote-sensing                                                    
      laboratories                                                     
(established June                                            9,600   10,000 
         2004)h                                                        
     NRI-CEAP data                                                     
       collection                                                      
       (initiated                                                      
         2003)i                                 3,470   4,409   3,522    4,000 
         Total         $14,073 $24,237 $17,770 $27,739 $26,702 $34,956 $35,744 

Source: USDA.

aCurrent fiscal year 2005 estimate.

bPresident's fiscal year 2006 budget.

3The 2003 Annual NRI data are being prepared for public release starting
in spring of 2005. These data will be used to produce a series of reports,
available at the national and regional level, covering status and trends
in use of the nation's rural land, soil erosion, wetlands, irrigation
patterns, and conversion of rural lands to urban uses. The Heinz Center
report used NRI data on land use extent and trends for cropland and
cropland erosion; the 2003 annual NRI data should provide comparable
estimates. The Annual 2005 NRI will be the first of the annual inventories
to include sub-state-level estimates for many topics previously reported
through the 5-year inventory cycle, with the exception that most
sub-state-level trend estimates will still have unacceptable levels of
statistical uncertainty.

Appendix VI
National Resources Inventory, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

cState-level staff support-represents one-quarter staff year per state for
fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2004, and a full staff year per state
for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.

dDerived based on the number of sample points selected for
photo-interpretation data collection in the survey year and the staff time
required to complete the inventory cycle.

eDerived based on the number of on-site points for data collection and the
estimated amount of staff time required for conducting the on-site data
acquisition.

fObtained via contract, this number reflects the amount expended for
acquisition of high-resolution imagery.

gObtained via contract (cooperative agreement), this number reflects the
amount allocated in the fiscal year for statistical services from Iowa
State University.

hFiscal year funds allocated for contracted data collection staff,
facilities, and infrastructure.

iFiscal year funds transferred to National Agricultural Statistical
Service (NASS), plus NRCS field office support for conducting the NRI
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (NRI-CEAP).

o 	Changes between 2004 and 2005 funding estimates for remote-sensing or
photo-interpretation activities constitute the difference in overall NRI
funding for these years. This should not be interpreted as a general
increasing trend in overall NRI funding levels. At the time,
photointerpretation data collection and support activities were shifted
from 21 nationally distributed Inventory Collection and Coordination Sites
to newly-formed Remote Sensing Laboratories (RSL) as part of NRCS
outsourcing initiatives. Fiscal year 2004 funding for this shift included
only RSL start-up costs, while fiscal year 2005 funding included
additional costs for interpretation of the imagery obtained in 2004.

o 	Preparation of imagery for photo-interpretation acquired in 2004 is in
progress-delayed by the transition to the new inventory organization and
structure, as well as by unanticipated problems in securing RSL facilities
and staffing. The estimates provided for photo-interpretation in 2004 (as
shown in table 5) reflect completion of 2003 Annual NRI
photo-interpretation, preparation for conducting 2004 and 2005
photo-interpretation, and limited state-level photointerpretation
activities, such as acquiring information for sample points from field
office files.

o 	The shift to the RSL structure, along with the adoption of improved
digital technology, and the acquisition of higher-resolution imagery, will
enhance quality assurance and control procedures for data collection and
statistical processing. Consolidation of data collection and
interpretation under full-time, permanently staffed RSLs will facilitate
stricter adherence to rigorous data collection and quality assurance
protocols based on scientific principles, will improve data
confidentiality, and will improve security requirements for safeguarding
data. Plans are being developed for additional quality

Appendix VI
National Resources Inventory, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

assurance components for the NRI, including a calibration study and more
comprehensive data review procedures.

o 	The transition to an annual NRI provides continued capacity for
longterm trend analysis while accelerating the acquisition and delivery of
new information on natural resource conditions and trends. However, the
scale of NRI estimates is affected during this transition to full
implementation of the Annual NRI approach. It will take a number of years
before the Annual NRI provides reliability levels comparable with those of
the 1997 NRI. The 2001 Annual NRI provided national scale estimates for a
limited number of topics. The 2002 Annual NRI provided national and
regional scale estimates, but again on a limited number of topics.
Estimates from the 2003 and 2004 Annual NRIs will cover more topics and
provide estimates at finer scales. Reliability levels for results from the
2005 Annual NRI should approach those from the 1997 NRI, with the
exception that many sub-state-level trend estimates will still have
unacceptable levels of statistical uncertainty.

o 	An expansion of the NRI to include a number of issues of national
significance is expected with respect to assessment of the environmental
benefits of conservation practices, measurement of soil quality, and
development of nonfederal grazing land sampling protocols.

o 	The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) was formed in 2003
as a five-year effort to study the collective environmental benefits of
conservation projects on agricultural lands implemented through 2002 Farm
Bill programs. It is composed of two parts: a nationwide assessment of
conservation benefits and more in-depth studies of those benefits in 20
selected watersheds. Specifically, CEAP will evaluate conservation
practices and management systems for nutrient, manure, pest management,
buffer systems, tillage, irrigation, and drainage practices, as well as
for soil quality enhancement, wildlife establishment, and wetland
protection and restoration. As NRI is used as the sampling basis for
estimating environmental benefits of conservation practices, the
inventory's cropland field sample points will be used in conjunction with
National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) farmer surveys to study
farm-field-level management and data on conservation practices. The CEAP
assessments will be reported annually starting in 2006.

Appendix VI
National Resources Inventory, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

o 	Beginning with the 2003 NRI, new protocols were introduced to improve
the information available on nonfederal grazing land- rangeland,
pastureland, and grazed forestland. Data collected during 2003, 2004, and
2005 will be used to provide estimates on rangeland conditions by
employing the updated field-based inventory protocols. Improvements in
field-based inventory protocols for pastureland and grazed forestland are
under development and are planned for inclusion in future annual NRI data
collection efforts.

o 	A Soil Conditioning Index (SCI) will be developed for each NRI sample
site that uses NRI data on soil type, characteristics, and
interpretations, along with historical information on land use, management
practices, erosion, and historical climate data. This index will quantify
cropping sequences, tillage, and other management influences on soil
organic matter content, which serves as an indicator of soil quality.
Future NRI reports will present long-term trends in soil quality using
this index.

o 	A February 2004 Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment
Rating Tool review on the NRI indicated that NRI has a "results not
demonstrated" rating, stating that "improvements are needed in the NRI's
long-term performance measures." The NRCS response includes expanded
language and clarification of plans to provide updated natural resources
information to the scientific community, decision makers, and the public
on an annual basis (Annual NRI). The Annual NRI process will address more
resource concerns, at greater levels of geographic reliability, and
increasing levels of data accuracy (statistical reliability) over time.
Ongoing and expanded onsite data collection activities for increased data
quality (ground truthing), support of new measures such as grazing land
health, and reporting on conservation program environmental effects (e.g.,
reductions in surface water pollution from agricultural runoff) will
increase the utility of the data set. The next phase in long-term measure
development is to establish targets and associated performance periods.
These measures and targets then will be reviewed for approval by agency
leadership. The present schedule calls for completing this effort by the
end of the third quarter of 2005.

Appendix VII

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Background	The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) is
the latest in a continuing series of surveys begun in 1960 as the National
Recreation Survey (NRS).1 The NSRE serves as the only consistent source of
recreation participation data for the U.S. population, providing outdoor
recreation trend and demand data on regional and national scales. The NSRE
serves the data needs of federal land management and other agencies
(including the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National
Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration), as well as state and other governmental
agencies, educational institutions, and private-sector organizations. It
is a collaborative, interagency effort that combines data needs across
programs of different sponsoring agencies that have different legislative
mandates for evaluating and reporting outdoor recreation and related
information.

The current NSRE, NSRE 2005-2006, is the eighth in the continuing series
of U.S. national recreation surveys.2 Although similar to the previous
surveys, it explores the outdoor recreational needs and environmental
interests of the American people in greater depth. Reflecting continued
growth of interest in outdoor recreation and the natural environment, NSRE
20052006 is an in-the-home phone survey of over 40,000 households across
all ethnic groups throughout the United States. Survey questions broadly
address such areas as outdoor recreation participation, demographics,
household structure, lifestyles, environmental attitudes, natural resource
values (e.g., concerning wilderness), constraints to participation, and
attitudes toward management policies. For example, the NSREs seek

1The first NRS, renamed the NSRE in 1990, was conducted by the now defunct
congressionally established Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
(ORRRC). Between 1960 and 1982, four additional surveys in the series were
conducted, keeping to the schedule recommended by ORRRC. Financial
constraints eliminated the next NRS, and 10 years elapsed until the next
survey, the 1994-1995 NSRE. This was the first NSRE to address outdoor
recreational uses of coastal and ocean resources. The management of the
NSRE was turned over to the Forest Service by the National Park Service in
1987-1988. NSRE 20002001 is the latest to be completed and reported.

2The aim of the NSRE is to repeat the core data collection cycle every 5
years in order to be able to describe trends. NSRE 2005-2006 was recently
begun after receiving the approval of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) portion
of NSRE 2005-2006 was under way as of February 2005. Additional content
will be added to the survey as funding becomes available. The full cycle
of the survey, generating 40,000 responses, is expected to run through
calendar year 2006, perhaps lasting into 2007. The approximate cost for
data collection is estimated to be about $900,000, of which the Forest
Service expects to cover $150,000 or about 17 percent.

Appendix VII
National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

information on participation in such outdoor activities as visiting nature
centers, bird-watching, hunting, backpacking, camping and rock climbing,
as well as participation in these various activities by age and ethnic
groups. The information resulting from the NSREs can be reported both
nationally and on a regional basis.

The NSRE is managed by a unit of the Forest Service's Southern Research
Station in Athens, Georgia. Forest Service direct funding for the data
collection phases of the NSRE comes from the Forest Service's Research and
Development (R&D) and State and Private Forestry appropriation accounts.
The Forest Service share of the total NSRE data design and collection
costs has typically amounted to just over 40 percent, not including
in-kind contributions (such as scientist and technician salaries,
technical services, and administrative support).3 These funds are used for
cooperative agreements with universities, specifically with the University
of Tennessee, which collects the data by phone interviews, and with the
University of Georgia, which collaborates in the design and testing of
data collection processes and in the analysis of collected data. For
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, direct costs for NSRE-related data
collection totaled approximately $1,407,000, of which the Forest Service's
contribution was approximately $570,000.4

Other federal agencies, under their various authorities and mandates,
contribute approximately 59 percent of the direct costs for NSRE-related
data collection. For example, for NSRE 2000-2001 the primary "other

3Of the Forest Service contribution to data costs, 75 percent is funding
through R&D and 25 percent through State and Private Forestry accounts.
R&D funds are from two sources: (1) funds appropriated directly to the
Forest Service's Southern Research Station and (2) funds allocated to the
Southern Research Station through the Strategic Planning and Resource
Assessment Staff in Washington, D.C., headquarters. In-kind contributions,
primarily for salaries, amount to approximately $50,000 annually.

4The NSRE does not have a budget line item in the Forest Service budget
and is not mentioned in budget justification documents sent to the
Congress.

                                  Appendix VII
                     National Survey on Recreation and the
                     Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

agency" contributing funding was NOAA.5 For fiscal years 2000 through
2004, NOAA funding for data collection totaled $514,700, not including the
13.6 percent overhead assessed by the Southern Research Station.6 NOAA is
expected to be a major contributor to NSRE 2005-2006 as well, having
already contributed $280,000. Other federal agencies that have supported
the NSRE (NSRE 2000-2001) include: the National Park Service ($17,280),
Environmental Protection Agency ($95,040), Bureau of Land Management
($46,928), and Economic Research Service ($17,280). Support from these and
other agencies for NSRE 2005-2006 is yet to be developed and is currently
unknown. Different state agencies over different periods have also
provided funding for the NSRE. For NSRE 2000-2001, this funding amounted
to about 1 percent of the total.7

Summary	Forest Service officials responsible for managing the NSRE were
unable to indicate precisely the effect of future funding on the ability
of the survey program to generate data of similar quality and
comprehensiveness when compared with data from previous NSREs. This is
because of uncertainty regarding the level of funding from Forest Service
R&D as well as uncertainty regarding support that will be forthcoming in
future years from other federal agency sponsors. The officials noted that
all aspects of the NSRE are vulnerable to budget reductions, both
across-the-board and more specifically targeted reductions, and that
recreation research (and, more broadly, research in the social sciences)
is among the areas of Forest

5Different agency sponsors add modules of questions to the NSRE specific
to their interests. However, the core modules of participation in
activities and demographics remain the same and are consistent back to the
1960 survey. Other agencies support the design, testing, analysis and
reporting of only their own modules of questions but also partially
support the NSRE core modules of participation and demographics. NOAA's
needs for state-level data in support of development of its mandated
coastal damage assessment capacity required a target of 50,000 completed
interviews across recreational activities. NOAA's contribution to "other
federal agency funding" for NSRE 2000-2001 represented approximately 63
percent of this "other" 59 percent of total funding.

6NOAA's annual contributions in this period were as follows: 2000,
$281,700; 2001, $168,200; 2002, $0; 2003, $43,200; 2004, $21,600.

7States use the NSRE for their statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation
plans. For NSRE 2000-2001, four states contributed relatively small
amounts of funding to the NSRE: California ($2,729), Missouri ($880),
Tennessee ($4,700), and Vermont ($4,401).

Appendix VII
National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Service R&D to be cut first.8 Reductions in Forest Service funding for
recreation research have already occurred in fiscal year 2005, and in
fiscal year 2006 there are proposed cuts to recreation research funding
that could further erode the Forest Service's ability to contribute toward
funding of the NSRE.9 The outlook, according to NSRE managers in the
Forest Service's Southern Research Station, is that the NSRE will
increasingly depend on external, or "other agency," funding sources.

Table 6: Forest Service Direct Funding for the NSRE, Fiscal Years
2000-2004 and Projected for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006a

                      2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006b

           $175,000 $75,000 $187,274 $33,800 $90,390 $90,000 $60,000

Source: USDA.

Notes: Funding for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are to be determined.

aThe unit of the Southern Research Station that manages the NSRE receives
notification of its budget from the Southern Research Station. None of
this funding is specifically designated for funding the NSRE. In fact,
very few individual studies are identified and earmarked for specific
funding.

bEstimated.

8Across-the-board reductions would include government wide funding cuts
and reductions to a parent agency's overall budget. NSRE officials
explained that there is not as strong a constituency for recreation and
social science research as there is, for example, for Forest Inventory and
Analysis research, which has strong industry backing.

9A 5-year plan of research, called a Research Work Unit Description,
includes mention of the NSRE as one of the Southern Research Station
unit's primary studies for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, without, however,
specifying the amount of support for the survey.

Appendix VII
National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

Figure 6: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment Funding for
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in thousands)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Program funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted (FY '00
dollars) Source: USDA.

Notes: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP
price index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

The precise amounts of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 funding for the NSRE have
yet to be determined because of uncertainty regarding the Forest Service's
contributions as well as contributions from other agencies.

Apart from the potential effects of future funding levels, Forest Service
NSRE managers indicated that there were no planned changes in the
recreation research program that would affect the ability of the NSRE to
produce data of similar comprehensiveness and quality compared with that
used to support ecological indicators in the first Heinz Center report
published in 2002. In fact, they said, the NSRE, adequately funded, has
the ability to produce a considerably more comprehensive and robust set of
data in support of the Heinz Center indicator "outdoor recreation," across
all of the ecosystems that the center reported on, including coasts and
oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and shrublands, and

                                  Appendix VII
                     National Survey on Recreation and the
                     Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
                           Department of Agriculture

urban and suburban areas. The primary problem is financing sufficient
numbers of observations for each of the six categories of ecosystems to
permit the reporting of valid and reliable estimates nationally and
regionally. In fiscal year 2003, NSRE staff conducted a pilot test that
included in the NSRE questions that would differentiate recreation
participation across all of the Heinz ecosystem categories. The pilot
produced promising results, officials said, but with small sample sizes,
they were not able to estimate confidence levels. They added that they are
committed to meeting the outdoor recreation-related data needs of the
Heinz Center and others as much as possible within the constraints of
available funding.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

NSRE program management officials provided the following information on
funding levels and program priorities relative to NSRE's ability to
continue providing environmental and ecological data comparable with past
years:

o 	The NSRE in the future will remain much the same, except that there are
likely to be fewer interviews completed for the full array of recreational
activities covered, and there is likely to be an increased emphasis on
boating and related activities because of the participation of the U.S.
Coast Guard in the survey to satisfy a need for boating safety data. The
core modules of the NSRE, i.e., activity participation and demographics,
will change little, however. These modules contain questions relating to a
variety of outdoor recreational activities, the frequency of
participation, the age and ethnicity of participants, the geographic
location of participants, etc. Because there will be fewer observations,
it is anticipated that the data will be somewhat less geographically
resolute. Funding sponsors are still developing, however, meaning that
ultimately a number of observations similar to NSRE 2000-2001 may be
collected in NSRE 2005-2006. The pattern of funding portrayed in figure 6,
in particular the pattern of funding between fiscal years 2000 and 2004,
represents a fairly typical cycle of funding for the NSRE.10 The bulk of
the NSRE surveying was completed in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, and
data were compiled, analyzed and published in fiscal years

10Funds for the NSRE must be committed before data collection begins.
While some data were still being collected in 2003, some of the funding
for this activity had already been committed in 2002. As noted previously,
the NSRE is not a line item funded project, and typically there is not a
steady stream of funding for the survey.

Appendix VII
National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

2003 and 2004. Whether this cyclical pattern will hold in coming years,
however, is uncertain, given the pattern of spending reductions across the
federal government in many program areas.

o 	It is unclear how Forest Service management will prioritize the NSRE.
Recreation is one of six goals for the Forest Service for fiscal years
2004 through 2008.11 In addition, broad-scale assessments of national and
regional demand for recreation constitute one of the primary targets
within R&D goal No. 3. Recreation research is also identified as one of
seven strategic program areas for Forest Service R&D in the agency's
projected R&D strategic plan.12 Thus, it would seem that the NSRE would be
a relatively high priority for the agency, even though program funding for
recreation research in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 would suggest otherwise.

o 	Operation of the NSRE program for fiscal year 2005 will depend
primarily on non-Forest Service funding. The same will be true for fiscal
year 2006 and likely for the foreseeable future. To the degree that
outside sponsorship continues, the NSRE data collection, analysis, and
reporting will continue. Work is scheduled as funding is made available.
The Forest Service portion of NSRE 2005-2006 data collection has not yet
begun; and, thus, the agency has not yet obligated funds to NSRE direct
data costs.13

o 	Rising annual salary obligations for the Southern Research unit are
steadily eroding discretionary funding that would normally be obligated

11The six Forest Service goals are: (1) reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire, (2) reduce the impacts from invasive species, (3) provide
outdoor recreation opportunities, (4) help meet energy resource needs, (5)
improve watershed conditions, and (6) other mission related work.

12The strategic plan for Forest Service R&D is slated for implementation
in fiscal year 2007. Recreation is one of seven strategic program areas.
Developing, interpreting and reporting data from the NSRE would be
important to meeting "Creditability through Accounting" targets within the
plan. The other six Forest Service R&D goals are: (1) wildlife fire R&D,
(2) invasive species R&D, (3) fish and wildlife R&D, (4) air and water
R&D, (5) resource management R&D, and (6) resource data and analysis R&D.

13The full cycle of NSRE 2005-2006 to generate 40,000 responses could
perhaps last into winter/spring 2007. Additional content will be added to
the survey as funding becomes available. In addition, as new sponsors are
identified with special needs, their question modules will be designed and
included to meet those needs. The exact timing and objectives of such
specially sponsored modules are yet to be determined.

Appendix VII
National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

to the NSRE, and thus affect the unit's ability to continue personnel,
administrative, design analysis, and other "in-kind" contributions to the
NSRE. Other factors also impact this ability, including increased costs of
acquiring data (up 25 percent) because of more costly procedures required
by OMB, rising Forest Service overhead costs, rising costs of official
travel, and increased costs of almost all other input factors for
operation of the NSRE. The areas particularly affected by these cost
increases are survey design and testing, data collection, and data
analysis. "In-kind" financing is also essential to the development and
reporting of national and regional recreation statistics, since no other
agency would be doing such reporting.

Appendix VIII

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration,
Department of Commerce

Background	The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is part of the Economics
and Statistics Administration (ESA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
BEA's mission is to promote understanding of the U.S. economy by providing
timely, relevant, and accurate economic accounts data in an objective and
cost-effective manner.1 To do this, BEA collects source data, conducts
research and analysis, develops and implements estimation methodologies,
and publishes statistics.

BEA prepares economic accounts that present essential information on such
key issues as economic growth, regional economic development,
interindustry relationships, and the nation's position in the world
economy. Among these economic accounts and other statistics, BEA produces
the gross domestic product (GDP) estimate, the market value of goods and
services produced by labor and property in the United States.2 It also
produces the balance of payments account, which records transactions
between U.S. residents and foreign residents during given periods. These
payments include transactions in goods, services, income, assets, and
liabilities.

In addition, BEA produces state personal income estimates as well as
input-output accounts that show the relationships between all of the
industries in the economy and all of the commodities that these industries
produce and use. Government and business decision makers, researchers, and
the general public use BEA's information to follow and understand the
performance of diverse sectors of the nation's economy. For example, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress use the GDP estimates
and national accounts to prepare budget estimates and projections; and the
Federal Reserve uses them to set interest and exchange rates. Federal
agencies employ BEA's regional income and product account estimates in
formulas used to distribute more than $190 billion in program funds to
states, tribes, and localities. This includes payments for Development
Block Grants, Medicaid, Foster Care, Child

1Economic accounts record flows in the national economy. An "account" is a
numerical record of all flows (outputs, costs, income, etc.) during a
given period. Accounts can be international, national, regional, local,
industry, financial, etc., depending on the economic activity they
measure.

2Gross domestic product replaced gross national product as the primary
measure of U.S. production in 1991.

      Appendix VIII Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
                     Administration, Department of Commerce

Care and Adoption Assistance, Vocational Education, and a number of other
programs.

BEA state personal income estimates are important for a variety of
indicators because they have been made over many years and are prepared
quarterly. Since 1969, BEA has developed annual personal income
estimates,3 for all metropolitan areas, and for all counties and county
equivalents (e.g., parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska).4 BEA's
annual estimates of personal income for local areas provide the most
detailed economic pictures of local areas that are available because they
are the only data sets covering the entire country over an extended
period, allowing for both short-and long-term trend analyses. State and
local governments use these data to plan spending, make revenue estimates,
and track their economies; businesses use them to measure business
development and regional growth. BEA's per-capita personal income
estimates serve as a measure of the economic well-being of the residents
of an area.

Summary	Based on funding proposed in the President's fiscal year 2006
budget, BEA officials expect that total agency funding levels for fiscal
year 2006 will increase by more than 10 percent, following a 7 percent
rise in fiscal year 2005. These increases allow the BEA to continue to
generate data of similar or superior quality and comprehensiveness when
compared with data from previous years. In general, the proposed fiscal
year 2006 budget increase is to be devoted to initiatives to improve the
accuracy and timeliness of BEA's statistics.

3The BEA defines personal income as income received by persons from all
sources. Estimates are derived by including income received from
participation in production as well as from government and business
transfer payments. Personal income is the sum of compensation of employees
(received), supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors' income with
inventory valuation adjustment and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj),
rental income of persons (with CCAdj), personal income receipts on assets,
and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government
social insurance.

4BEA prepares estimates for 3,111 counties and county equivalents, as well
as for 361 metropolitan areas, 575 micropolitan areas (urban clusters with
10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants), and 179 BEA economic areas (centers of
economic activity defined by commuter patterns and information focus).

Appendix VIII Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
Administration, Department of Commerce

Figure 7: Bureau of Economic Analysis Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006
Funding level (in millions)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted
(FY '00 dollars) Source: BEA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

BEA's Regional Economics Directorate is the source for the data series on
county personal income, which was used by the Heinz Center in its 2002
report, and this directorate's budget is projected to increase 17 percent
in fiscal year 2006. This increase will be used to improve regional
economic accounts by enhancing data accuracy, timeliness,
cost-effectiveness, and accessibility through the Internet and other
electronic media. For example, three key regional statistics will be
released on accelerated schedules: gross state product (12 months sooner),
metropolitan personal income (8 months sooner), and county personal income
(7 months sooner, i.e., appearing 10 months after the reference year
instead of the current 17 months).

      Appendix VIII Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
                     Administration, Department of Commerce

The 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, relied
on BEA data to support one of its ecological indicators: the monetary
value of agricultural production. The monetary value of agricultural
production indicator used BEA county-level estimates of cash receipts from
farm marketings to derive agricultural sales per square mile.5 The
county-level cash receipts from farm marketings were divided by the number
of square miles in a county to calculate agricultural sales per square
mile.

BEA officials reported that planned activities and goals for the Regional
Economics Directorate will have a positive effect on the agency's ability
to produce data in the coming years comparable with or superior to data
produced in previous years. For example, officials expect that the BEA
data that the Heinz Center relied on to support indicators in its 2002
report will be available in an improved form for the center's planned 2007
followon report.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

BEA officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to BEA's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	The BEA regional economic accounts activity is expected to increase
from 100 to 116 staff persons with the President's proposed fiscal year
2006 budget request for the Regional Economics Directorate. This 20
percent funding increase (approximately $2.5 million) constitutes
recognition of the labor-intensive nature of data analysis and is intended
to generate more timely data for several programs, including the state and
county personal income data relied on by the Heinz Center. With additional
staff and computer enhancements, BEA economists expect to be able to
accelerate their release of regional statistics. As a continuing effort,
BEA is also developing new regional statistics and extended timeline data,
as well as conducting research to develop substate gross product data and
alternative ways to measure income.

5For 16 states that are major agricultural producers, state offices
affiliated with the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
prepare annual county estimates of farm cash receipts. For other states,
state-level cash receipts estimates based on Economic Research Service
data are allocated to counties in proportion to the Census of Agriculture
data in census years. For noncensus years, BEA extrapolates the Census of
Agriculture data from annual production data for commodities.

Appendix VIII Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
Administration, Department of Commerce

o 	By the time the next Heinz Center report is issued in 2007, BEA should
be in a position to provide some of the most complete data in its history
and in a timelier manner. Newly designed information systems will improve
response times by coordinating related data more comprehensively and more
quickly. Response times will also be shortened by more rapid computation
and reporting methods. Improved reporting on long-term trends will be
possible because BEA will have data for total and per-capita income for
counties and their equivalents extending back to 1969.

o 	BEA has the flexibility, if need be, to find alternative source data
needed to prepare and publish state and county personal income
calculations. For example, should NASS, its current data source,
discontinue producing the necessary primary data, BEA could find alternate
means to continue making these estimates that are a key part of its
responsibilities. One example of an alternative technique for determining
income is that used by BEA when the state of Nebraska ceased publication
of annual cash receipts because of state budget cuts. In this case, BEA
estimates Nebraska's cash receipts using Census of Agriculture data for
the census years, although it still lacks year-to-year changes. For the
intervening noncensus years, BEA makes interpolations with annual
agricultural production data from NASS, where appropriate.

Appendix IX

National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

Background	The mission of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service (NESDIS) is to provide timely information and access
to global environmental data from satellites and other sources to promote,
protect, and enhance the nation's economy, security, environment, and
quality of life. NESDIS was formed in 1982 by combining two pre-existing
NOAA components, the Environmental Data Service (EDS) and the National
Environmental Satellite Service (NESS). It collects data and statistics
under various legislative authorities.1 The operation of environmental
satellites goes back to the April 1960 launch of the first weather
satellite.2 Over the years, the capabilities of satellites have steadily
improved, and new environmental applications have been added to the array
of space-based sensors.

Summary	NOAA and NESDIS officials indicated that actual NESDIS funding for
fiscal year 2005 and funding proposed in the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2006 (as shown in fig. 8), are expected to result in the
continuation of data collection and analysis across all programs. The
officials indicated in particular that data used in the 2002 Heinz Center
report, The State of the

1Some of the statutes giving NESDIS data collection, analysis, and
dissemination authority include: (1) 15 U.S.C. S: 313, which authorizes
meteorological forecasting and warning responsibilities, as well as
monitoring and recording climatic conditions; (2) the Supplemental
Appropriation Act, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-332; 75 Stat. 733, 734 (1961),
which authorizes NOAA to establish and operate a system for the continuous
observation of worldwide meteorological conditions from space satellites
and for the reporting and processing of the data obtained for use in
weather forecasting; (3) the Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. S:S:
3101-3107, which is the authority for retention of data by NESDIS; (4) 33
U.S.C. S: 883d, giving the Secretary of Commerce authority to conduct
investigations and research in the geophysical sciences (including
oceanography) in order to increase engineering and scientific knowledge;
and (5) the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. S: 5621,
which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue licenses for private
(commercial) remote-sensing satellite space systems.

2Round-the-clock operation of all NESDIS satellites is the responsibility
of the Office of Satellite Operations (OSO), which oversees a
constellation of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites
(GOES), Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellites (POES), and satellites
within the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). The Office of
Satellite Data Processing and Distribution (OSDPD) handles operational
data processing and distribution. The Office of Research Applications
(ORA) oversees development of algorithms and new products based on the
satellite data streams. The POES carries five sensors, one of which, the
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), was integral to the
collection of data used in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems.

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

Nation's Ecosystems, are expected to be available at similar or improved
quality and comprehensiveness when compared with data from prior years.

Figure 8: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
Budget for

Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted
(FY '00 dollars) Source: NOAA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Agency officials told us that NESDIS has no planned program changes that
would adversely affect its ability to generate data that can be compared
with data generated in prior years. Furthermore, they told us that NESDIS
data will be available in an improved form for the expected 2007 update of
the Heinz Center's The State of the Nation's Ecosystems report.

                                  Appendix IX
                   National Environmental Satellite, Data and
                    Information Service, NOAA, Department of
                                    Commerce

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

NOAA program officials provided the following information on funding
levels and program priorities relative to the NESDIS program's ability to
continue providing environmental and ecological data comparable with past
years:

o 	NESDIS data collection and statistics programs have been well supported
through the federal budget process over the past 5 fiscal years. Based on
this history, it does not appear that any programs are particularly
vulnerable to budget reductions. In addition, no budget reductions are
planned or requested. Specific funding amounts for the various NESDIS
programs for fiscal years 2000 through 2005, as well as proposed funding
for fiscal year 2006, are portrayed in table 7 (aggregate totals are
presented in fig. 8):

Table 7: NESDIS Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for
                                Fiscal Year 2006

                              Dollars in thousands

    2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006a Operations, research and facilities

Environmental satellite observingb $56,903 $60,167 $77,891 $85,612 $82,945
                               $101,460 $100,278

Data centers and information servicesc 52,363 64,792 64,417 64,032 68,725 74,600
                                     53,704

    Subtotal $109,266 $124,959 $142,308 $149,644 $151,670 $176,060 $153,982

Procurement, acquisition and construction

Satellites  $455,856 $500,032 $558,125 $555,739 $661,600 $705,911 $792,813 
  Nonsatellite        0   14,967    3,542      497   13,839   25,477   17,091 
    Subtotal   $455,856 $514,999 $561,667 $556,236 $678,439 $731,388 $809,904 
     Total     $565,122 $639,958 $703,975 $705,880 $830,109 $907,448 $963,886 

Soruce: NOAA.

aEstimate based on President's proposed budget.

bRepresenting costs associated with the operation of existing satellites
and their data processing and distribution functions.

cRepresenting costs of operating data centers (e.g., National Climatic
Data Center, National Geophysical Data Center, and National Oceanographic
Data Center) and related services.

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

o 	The funding totals are from all sources, including standard
appropriations, other NOAA programs, other federal agencies, and
nonfederal sources.3 The two most substantial funding increases from
fiscal year 2004 through 2005 include the following:

o 	For "Environmental Satellite Observing," an $18.5 million increase is
planned. This total includes $7.4 million for sustaining capacity in
existing operations within the Office of Satellite Operations, Office of
Satellite Data Processing and Distribution, and the Office of Research
Applications; $0.7 million for "Coral Reef Monitoring" (previously
appropriated in the National Ocean Service budget); and $10.4 million for
services requested by congressional direction or planned program changes.
These services or planned program changes include operations, maintenance,
and rent of a new satellite command and control facility; a partnership
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for
research-to-operations projects; and funding for two new NESDIS
responsibilities, the Office of Space Commercialization, and the
Secretariat of the Interagency Global Positioning System Executive Board.

o 	For the multiyear acquisition for new and replacement satellites, a
$44.3 million increase is planned. Spending for the new satellite series
increases by $82.5 million, while spending for replacement satellites of
the present series decreases by $38.2 million. The comparable fiscal year
2005 to 2006 increase is $86.9 million. Of this amount, $11 million is for
a Landsat replacement-a new NESDIS responsibility added in fiscal year
2006. The remaining $75.9 million is the net increase for polar and
geostationary satellite acquisitions.

o 	Other NOAA programs and federal agencies provide funds to NESDIS as a
result of at least two general types of determinations:

3The primary source of nonfederal funds is from sales of data sets and
products. This source has been declining in recent years as more customers
access data from Internet sources rather than purchasing data on media
such as publications, compact discs, and magnetic tapes. The proportions
of receipts have been roughly consistent over recent years with about 78
percent from commercial firms, 12 percent from foreign organizations, and
5 percent each from academic institutions and the general public. NESDIS
data centers provide products at prices set to recover the cost of
reproduction and distribution only, and the costs recovered do not pay for
data collection or analysis activities.

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

o 	A NOAA program may require some form of specialized data management
service and decide that NESDIS data centers are the most effective
organization to implement the service on the program's behalf. Such NOAA
programs often extend funding over several years, terminating when the
programs no longer need the service. One example is the NOAA Coral Reef
Information System (CoRIS)-which is a "Web portal" to coral reef
information resources that the National Oceanographic Data Center (one of
four NESDIS data centers) operates and maintains on behalf of multiple
NOAA program activities.

o 	Competitive research proposals emerge where the needs of a research
topic are a good match with a NESDIS data center's capabilities and,
through a competitive process, the agency or program sponsoring the
research selects a NESDIS data center from among the various proposals
they receive from service providers. These service arrangements tend to be
short-lived, providing only 1 or 2 years of funding to work on a specific
topic.

o 	Although NESDIS does not anticipate any funding reductions for its data
collection and analysis activities across its data centers, in the event
of NESDIS funding reductions, the following are some factors that would
apply in the process of deciding how NESDIS components would be affected
and what priorities would apply:

o 	Environmental satellite observing. The first priority would be to
sustain current operational satellite services used for protecting life
and property. This includes such products as those delivered to the
National Weather Service for weather forecasts and warnings, volcanic ash
plume images for warnings to air traffic, and wildfire imagery to support
firefighting operations. The impact on data collection pertinent to the
Heinz Report would likely be minimal. For example, much of the data
collection and processing to create sea surface temperature information
requires the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data set, a
high-priority data set

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

likely to be funded in order to provide service to other customers, such
as the National Weather Service.4

o 	Data centers and information services. Any impact would not affect data
collection activities, as the data centers and information services
section of the budget is not used to fund such activities. The NESDIS data
centers gather data collected by other programs, preserve it for users,
compile new products, and provide public access to the data and products.
Funding for the centers and services is used for archiving, accessing, and
assessing data. Failing to fund and preserve new observations (reducing
the archive activity) would harm the future capability to document changes
in the environment. Similarly, reducing the assessment activity would halt
production of some products that assist users in interpreting the past and
present state of the environment. Finally, reducing the access budget
would pose more difficulty to users in obtaining information from the
archives and the assessment products. One priority consideration would be
to sustain the archiving activity because it would not be possible to go
back in time and replace missing observations. Unless observations are
archived on a regular basis, it is likely that they will be lost forever.
The access and assessment capabilities, on the other hand, could be
rebuilt later as long as the observations have been archived.

o 	Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC). This section of the
budget deals with building future capability, so any potential reductions
would have impacts on future data collection activities. Funding
reductions that reduce or eliminate the acquisition or construction of
future satellites-for example, the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System-would not be felt immediately; however,
there would be a significant impact on future data and information
services if those satellites cannot be

4AVHRR data is used by multiple federal agencies, nonfederal entities, and
commercial firms for a variety of products related to measurements of the
atmosphere, ocean, and land. Typical applications include day and night
cloud mapping, snow and ice detection, land-water boundaries, sea surface
temperature, and the vegetative index. For example, the cloud imagery seen
on many local television weather reports often comes from AVHRR data.
Department of Defense weather centers also regularly use AVHRR data to
supplement their Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) sources.
AVHRR is a radiation-detection imager used for remotely determining cloud
cover and the surface temperature (the surface of the Earth, the upper
surfaces of clouds, and the surface of a body of water).

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

launched on schedule with the planned suite of sensors and capabilities.

o 	NESDIS will be supportive of sustaining and improving the ability of
its data programs to provide data and information at a level and quality
of previous years, including data that were used to support indicators in
the 2002 Heinz Center report. NESDIS contributes to the outcomes and
strategies of all of the NOAA goals and programs by providing long-term
archive and access services for environmental observations and
information. The NESDIS strategic plan states a goal of building and
advancing the capabilities of an ecological component of the NOAA global
environmental observing system to monitor, assess, and predict national
and regional ecosystem health, as well as to gather information consistent
with established social and economic indicators.

o 	Officials expect capability improvements to NESDIS satellites and to
its data centers over time that portend significant improvements to all
types of environmental observations in the future:

o 	National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) and geostationary operational environmental satellites will have
improved observational capabilities, including higher resolution and more
accurate sea surface temperature and ocean color products.

o 	Integration of observing systems-for example, the Integrated Ocean
Observing System and the Global Earth Observing System-are being
emphasized at the national and international levels.5

o 	New capabilities in support of agriculture and forestry, such as
drought monitoring, fire and fire risk, and monitoring of vegetation
condition and health will be developed and improved.

5The Integrated Ocean Observing System is being designed to satisfy user
needs for coastal and ocean data, and will facilitate the study of
short-and long-term ocean resource issues. The system is envisioned as a
coordinated national and international network of observations, data
management and communications, and data analysis and modeling that
systematically acquires and disseminates data and information on past,
present, and future states of the oceans and coasts, including the Great
Lakes. The Global Earth Observing Systems are intended to facilitate the
sharing and applied usage of global, regional, and local data from
satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations, and other surface and airborne
Earth-observing instruments. The goal is to provide environmental
information that is integrated into new data products, benefiting
societies and economies worldwide.

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

o 	Through the application of information technology and by providing more
services over the Internet, more data users are being served despite a
declining federal workforce and during a period when the NESDIS budget for
data and information services has grown at less than the rate of
inflation.

o 	Following are anticipated changes to the programs that were used in
support of ecological indicators, in particular, those used in the 2002
Heinz Center report:

o 	With respect to topography and bathymetry products, mapping programs of
various U.S. agencies and others are continually improving the resolution
and accuracy of coverage, and this trend is expected to continue.

o 	With respect to salinity data, the emergence of a national effort to
implement an Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) will help to
increase the observing capability for such critical parameters at a
national level.

o 	With respect to sea surface temperature, two developments are expected
to significantly improve the capability to provide this data. The first is
the planned increase in capabilities of the next-generation satellites
(NPOESS) that will replace existing ones (POES) and the AVHRR used to make
measurements.6 The "threshold" specification for sea surface temperature
calls for one-kilometer resolution globally with 0.5 degree centigrade
uncertainty. That alone is better resolution than now achieved by AVHRR.
But the "objective" specification, which may likely be achievable, is
250-meter resolution with only 0.1 degree centigrade uncertainty. A second
development is the type of research now under way to produce sea surface
temperatures by blending observations from multiple sources, rather than
relying on a single satellite system. The present research is

6When launched in 2010, the NPOESS will carry a different sensor suite
with improved capabilities compared with the AVHRR. Specifically, the next
generation of visible and infrared radiometers (that will replace the
current AVHRR) will have a wavelength range for both visible and
near-infrared data that has been narrowed to reduce atmospheric
contamination of the data compared with the present AVHRR, which may
impact the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values used to
derive the Plant Growth Index included in the Heinz Center Report.
Research is ongoing within NOAA, supported with funds provided by the
NPOESS Integrated Program Office, to assess the impact of these future
instrument changes.

Appendix IX
National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce

being done under the GODAE High-Resolution Sea Surface Temperature Pilot
Project. One particularly attractive aspect of that research is that
blending of multiple measurements will allow an objective estimate of the
uncertainty in the resulting values, which will be useful when using the
values as input to predictive models or assessments.

o 	Two factors bear on the data gap for the ecosystem extent ecological
indicator used in the Heinz Center report, where national reporting on the
extent of brackish coastal water was not possible:

o 	As noted in the Heinz Center report, many of the nearshore observations
now being taken are collected by state and local entities for their own
purposes and are not reported to a national or even regional repository.

o 	A major effort is currently required to adequately sample these waters.
The coastline of the U.S. is a highly dynamic environment in terms of both
space and time, with tidal mixing, varying river discharges, and coastal
storms, and is estimated at about 20,000 kilometers long. The inventory of
oceanographic observing stations near coastal waters, however, is only
about 250 stations-many of which are buoys located miles offshore that do
not collect salinity or other important habitat characterization measures
such as nutrient concentrations and dissolved oxygen. Covering 20,000
kilometers of coastal waters with a few hundred stations does not provide
enough observations to address the gap raised by the Heinz Center report.
The relative dearth of coastal observations and the failure to share those
observations that are collected are recognized problems nationally. Recent
national efforts toward building an Integrated Ocean Observing System will
help address these types of gaps.

Appendix X

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce

Background	The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department
of Commerce, is responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living
marine resources and their habitat through science-based conservation and
management and the promotion of healthy ecosystems. Among its many
responsibilities, NMFS assesses and predicts the status of fish stocks,
ensures compliance with fisheries regulations, and works to reduce
wasteful fishing practices. NMFS coordinates with partners to collect data
on landings, harvest levels, catch, effort, participation, economic,
sociocultural, and biological data on commercial and recreational
fisheries through surveys, registration and reporting systems, and
observation.1 This data is the foundation of information upon which
fishery policy and management decisions are made.

NMFS carries out various activities pursuant to legislative mandates and
other requirements for managing programs that rely on environmental data
or necessitate monitoring, reporting, and the collection of such data.
Those activities include the following:

o 	The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) vests responsibility
for the protection and monitoring of all cetaceans and pinnipeds, except
walrus, to NOAA.2 All other marine mammals fall under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior. Congress found that knowledge of marine
mammals was inadequate3 and required stock assessment

1Landings are defined as the number of pounds of fish that is selected and
kept during the sorting procedures on vessels and discharged at dockside
by commercial or recreational fisherman; harvest levels are defined as the
total number or weight of fish caught and kept from an area over a period
of time; catch is defined as the total number (or weight) of fish caught
and killed by fishing operations, including fish that are discarded;
effort is defined as the amount of time and fishing power used to harvest
fish; economic data include employment harvest revenues by species,
harvesting costs, capital expenditures and other fishing expenses;
sociocultural data includes demographic characteristics of individuals and
communities and community public health and social problems.

2See 16 U.S.C. S: 1362(12). Cetaceans, warm-blooded mammals that spend
their whole life in water and nourish their young with milk, include
whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Pinnipeds are carnivorous aquatic mammals
that use flippers for movement on land and in the water. Examples of
pinnipeds are the seal and sea lion. Pinnipeds spend the majority of their
lives swimming and eating in water and have adapted their bodies to move
easily through their aquatic habitat.

316 U.S.C. S: 1361(3).

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

reports, based on the best scientific information available.4 Each stock
assessment report is required to have a base set of information.5

o 	The Endangered Species Act (ESA) vests responsibility for some marine
and anadromous species with the Department of Commerce.6 Among other
things, the ESA requires use of the best scientific and commercial data
available for (1) decisions to list a species as threatened or endangered,
(2) designation of critical habitat, and (3) consideration of petitions to
list animals as endangered.7 The Department of Commerce is also required
to monitor the status of all species for which a petition is warranted and
monitor the status of all species that have recovered for not less than 3
years.8

416 U.S.C. S: 1386.

5Under 16 U.S.C. S: 1386, each stock assessment must include a description
of the stock's geographic range, a minimum population estimate, current
population trends, current and maximum net productivity rates, optimum
sustainable population levels and allowable removal levels, and estimates
of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury through interactions
with commercial fisheries and subsistence hunters. These measures will be
used to evaluate the progress of each fishery toward achieving its goal of
zero mortality and serious injury.

6Anadromous refers to fish that spawn in freshwater and live most of their
lives in saltwater; it is often used interchangeably with diadromous,
which refers to fish that migrate between saltwater and freshwater.

7See 16 U.S.C. S: 1533(b)(1)(A), 16 U.S.C. S: 1533(b)(2), and 16 U.S.C. S:
1533(b)(3), respectively.

8See 16 U.S.C. S: 1533(b)(3)(C)(iii) and 16 U.S.C. S: 1533(g)(1)
respectively.

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

o 	Congress established the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response
Program to, among other things, "correlate the health of marine mammals
and marine mammal populations, in the wild, with available data on
physical, chemical, and biological environmental parameters."9 The section
of the MMPA that specifically addresses response to unusual marine
mortalities directs the Secretary of Commerce to be able to evaluate
whether an unusual mortality event (UME) has occurred and to develop a
contingency plan for responding that includes identification of the types
of marine mammal tissues and analyses necessary to assist in diagnosing
causes of UME, determining the effects of UME on the affected population,
and identifying physical, chemical, and biological factors that may have
played a role in the UME.10

o 	In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
was reauthorized.11 Included in the reauthorization were the following
requirements intended to improve data collection and information efforts
within NOAA. The reauthorization required NMFS to develop a plan for a
nationwide Fisheries Information System, and to develop a recommendation
for the implementation of a standardized fishing vessel registration.12
Fisheries Information System requirements were developed to fix the
problems of imprecise data on assessed stocks and extremely limited data
on many exploited stocks; burdensome collection and data management
processes requiring duplicate reporting by stakeholders; and inadequate
economic and social impact analyses resulting in court challenges with
dramatic staff

916 U.S.C. S: 1421(b)(2). The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response
Act of 1992, 16 U.S.C. S:S: 1421c(c), designated NMFS as the lead agency
to coordinate activities of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding
Program, which responds to unusual mortality events. Complete pathologies
to investigate diseases and parasites can be performed on UMEs, and they
provide an opportunity to collect and validate reproductive biology data,
life history (what do the animals eat; how long do they live; how many
calves do they have; how old are they when they first reproduce),
pollution, and normal biology and physiology parameters. These types of
sampling opportunities also provide validation and increased understanding
and interpretation of data collected from wild populations. UMEs have also
provided data on the incidence of human interactions including ship
strikes, entanglements, hooks, and marine debris ingestions. These data
help NMFS to make better management decisions about these stocks of marine
mammals.

1016 U.S.C. S: 1421c.

11Sustainable Fisheries Act, Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110 Stat. 3559 (1996).

1216 U.S.C. S: 1881(a).

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

costs and burdens on the agency. In 1998, NMFS submitted a report to
Congress entitled Proposed Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration
and Fisheries Information System, which put forth a strategy to coordinate
regional efforts for data collection, facilitate the dissemination of data
and statistics, and integrate vessel registration and fisheries
information systems nationally. The Fisheries Information System was
envisioned as a highly collaborative process with stakeholder involvement
to include regional implementation in cooperation with states, fishery
management councils, and marine fisheries commissions.13

NMFS Environmental and Ecological Data Collection Activities Are Diverse

Across NMFS, a diverse set of offices, divisions, and programs are charged
with collecting environmental and ecological data with respect to
fisheries and marine-related matters. Among the primary entities are the
six regional Fisheries Science Centers; the Office of Science and
Technology-in particular, its Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division
(FSED) and its Assessment and Monitoring Division; and programs within the
Office of Protected Resources (OPR). NMFS also supports numerous regional,
state, and local data collection efforts and programs.

13According to NOAA officials, by 2003 the Fisheries Information System
(FIS) provided a context for the design, development, and implementation
of data collection and data management for fishery dependent statistics
nationwide to improve the timeliness and accuracy of data. FIS is a data
portal that identifies the existing federal and state fisheries
information systems or databases (data collections) and provides
integrated business solutions for effective information sharing.

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

Regional Fisheries Science Centers

Because marine ecosystems, and the fisheries within them, differ
regionally, the field component of the NMFS science enterprise is divided
into six regional Fisheries Science Centers.14 These centers provide the
scientific knowledge base on which the NMFS, in concert with its six
regional offices, the eight regional fishery management councils,
interstate fishery commissions, and other agencies, formulates stewardship
policies for sustainable fisheries, protected resources, and endangered
species. The six centers encompass 25 principal laboratories employing
over 1,550 scientific and support personnel. The scope of their work is
temporally and spatially broad and multidisciplinary.

The science centers collaborate extensively with other federal and state
agencies, international entities, nongovernmental organizations, academia,
and the private sector, including the fishing industry. These partnerships
enhance and extend NMFS's research capabilities. Many NMFS scientists
serve as university adjunct professors, which enhances the ability of
agency scientists to remain on the cutting edge while expanding the
teaching capabilities of the universities and bringing NMFS's expertise
into the academic community. Academic scientists also play an important
role in the periodic review and evaluation of NMFS's research program.

Fisheries Statistics and As the principal source of U.S. national fishery
statistics, the Fisheries

Economics Division	Statistics and Economics Division (FSED) provides
authoritative advice, coordination, and guidance on matters related to the
collection, analysis, and dissemination of biological, economic, market,
and sociological statistics by NMFS and state agencies. FSED is primarily
concerned with fisheries data, including domestic recreational fisheries,
domestic

14The six Fisheries Science Centers are as follows: (1) Alaska Fisheries
Science Center (responsible for research in the marine waters and rivers
of Alaska), (2) Northwest Fisheries Science Center (conducts
multidisciplinary research to provide fisheries management information and
technical advice in the Pacific Northwest), (3) Southwest Fisheries
Science Center (conducts integrated research programs in biology,
mathematics, oceanography, economics, and computer sciences for the
purpose of developing scientific information to support the management and
allocation of Pacific coastal and high-seas fishery resources; also
conducts Antarctic research and monitoring), (4) Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (manages a multidisciplinary program of basic and applied
research in New England and the Mid-Atlantic), (5) Southeast Fisheries
Science Center (conducts multidisciplinary research in waters adjacent to
the southeastern United States, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands); and (6) the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (conducts
multidisciplinary basic and applied research on insular and oceanic
pelagic living resources and fisheries of the Pacific islands and central
Pacific).

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

commercial fisheries, and foreign commercial fisheries.15 FSED coordinates
with other federal agencies, states, interstate commissions, and regional
councils on the collection of data and market information, the publication
of official fishery statistics for the United States, and the
representation of NMFS on federal and international statistical agencies.
FSED provides statistics to U.S. government agencies, foreign governments,
national and international organizations, private businesses, and
individuals interested in the management and development of U.S. fishery
resources.

According to NOAA officials, the FSED budget is derived from various
congressional budget lines based on the specific tasks that this division
performs. The primary source of funding for FSED salaries and expenses has
been the Fisheries Statistics line item, which also funds salaries and
expenses for fisheries statistics staff in the NMFS regional offices and
science centers. Some funds obtained in this line item are used to fund
contractors or grantees to conduct data collection, data processing, and
information management tasks. As an example, recent-year funding for FSED
programs came from a number of additional budget line items, as follows:

o 	Fisheries Statistics-Economics & Social Sciences Research. This funding
(approximately $4 million in fiscal years 2004 and 2005) is used to
conduct economic and sociocultural surveys of commercial fisheries and to
cover salaries and expenses of the additional professional staff needed to
analyze these data and provide the economic and social assessments needed
to support existing fishery management plans. It is also used to support
economics and social-sciences research for all of NMFS and is distributed
among headquarters offices, the regional offices, and the regional science
centers. Only a portion of this funding actually covers staff and projects
by FSED.

o 	Fisheries Statistics-National Fisheries Information System. This
funding (approximately $2.5 million each in fiscal years 2004 and 2005)
supports NMFS projects designed to implement the National Fisheries
Information System. The funding is distributed according to a

15According to NOAA information sources, FSED also (1) develops national
standards, policies and operational guidelines for the coordinated
collection and publication of fishery statistics; (2) coordinates regional
commercial statistics surveys and market data programs; and (3) designs
and conducts national commercial and recreational statistics surveys.

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

cooperatively developed annual spending plan to fund projects in
headquarters offices, regional offices, and regional science centers.

o 	Fisheries Statistics-National Standard 8. This funding (approximately
$1 million annually) is used to support the staffing and data collections
needed to comply with the fisheries information requirements laid out in
National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.16 This funding is
distributed among headquarters offices, regional offices, and regional
science centers. Only a portion of this funding actually covers staff and
projects by FSED.

o 	Recreational Fishery Harvest Monitoring/Recreational Fisheries
Information Network (RecFIN). This budget line item has been providing
approximately $3.5 million annually since 2000 to support marine
recreational fishery surveys. Congressional budget language specifies that
$500,000 of this amount is to be used each year to support economic data
collection and analyses. It also specifies that the funds must be split
equally between the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

Assessment and Monitoring Division Science Centers

The Office of Science and Technology's Assessment and Monitoring Division
represents the NMFS Fisheries Science Centers at NOAA headquarters. The
division supports at-sea resource surveys, stock assessments, fisheries
observer programs, and cooperative research, and manages the Center for
Independent Experts, which provides independent peer reviews of NMFS
science through a contract with the University of Miami. All of these
activities are vital for maintaining and enhancing the NMFS science
enterprise. The division develops policies, procedures, and budget
initiatives to ensure that NMFS's science is high quality, cost effective,
productive, and fully supported. It coordinates and prepares annual budget
formulations and annual spending plans to improve stock assessments and
modernize and expand observer programs.

16National Standard 8 states that "conservation and management measures
shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act
(including the prevention of over fishing and rebuilding of over fished
stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing
communities in order to: A) provide for the sustained participation of
such communities, and B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse
economic impacts on such communities." 16 U.S.C. S: 1851(a)(8).

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

Office of Protected Resources

The Office of Protected Resources provides oversight and guidance on the
conservation of marine mammals, endangered species, and their habitats in
cooperation with NMFS regions, science centers, and various partners. The
office has four divisions: (1) Permits, Conservation, and Education
Division (it implements policies and regulations for issuance of permits
and authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered
Species Act and coordinates national policy to minimize harassment of
marine mammals), (2) Marine Mammal and Turtle Conservation Division (it
develops policies and regulations to implement the requirements and
provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and to protect turtles
under the Endangered Species Act), (3) Endangered Species Division (it
develops policies and regulations to implement the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act with the goal of protecting and recovering
endangered and threatened marine and anadromous species and their
habitats), and (4) Planning and Program Coordination Division (it provides
guidance and support to the office on budget, strategic planning,
personnel management, information technology, and education).

Regional Fisheries Information Systems and Programs

NMFS also supports a number of regional fisheries information systems and
programs that coordinate data collections, management, and dissemination
of data among NMFS, interstate commissions, state agencies, and regional
councils. These programs were developed to provide a common framework for
the monitoring and management of fisheries statistics needed to support
both resource assessments and regional management strategies.17 The
regional information systems and programs include the following:

o 	Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. This is a cooperative
state-federal program to design, implement, and conduct marine fisheries
statistics data collection programs and to integrate those data into a
single management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers,
scientists, and fishermen on the Atlantic Coast. According to NOAA
officials, this program is currently funded annually at $3.5 million

17According to NOAA officials, the regional programs or networks gather
and audit data by one or more of the partners using rigorous
quality-control protocols. Partners participate in regularly scheduled
reviews of data or preliminary catch and effort statistics to identify and
resolve possible problems. Once data have been finalized by consensus,
final catch and effort statistics are generated and integrated into the
regional information system, where they can be accessed by stock
assessment scientists and fishery managers.

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

by two line items.18 Program partners include NMFS, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
and the marine fishery agencies of 15 Atlantic Coast states.

o 	Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Information Network. The network is a
statefederal cooperative program for the collection, management, and
dissemination of statistical data and information on fisheries in Texas,
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. It is funded annually at
approximately $4.2 million by two line items.19 Participating agencies
include NMFS, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, USFWS, the
National Park Service, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the marine fishery agencies of
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.

o 	Pacific Recreational Fisheries Information Network. This is a
statefederal cooperative program to coordinate collection, management, and
dissemination of Pacific Coast marine recreational fishery data. The
program has been funded annually at about $2.2 million by as many as three
line items.20 Participating agencies include NMFS, the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission, and the state marine fishery management
agencies of California, Oregon, and Washington.

o 	Pacific Fisheries Information Network. This is a state-federal
cooperative program to coordinate collection, management, and
dissemination of Pacific Coast marine commercial fishery data. The program
is currently funded annually at $3 million by its own line item.
Participating agencies include NMFS, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission, and the state marine fishery management agencies of Alaska,
California, Oregon, and Washington.

18The Fish Statistics-Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission line
item provides $2 million, and the "Interstate Fish Commissions-Atlantic
Cooperative Management" line item provides an additional $1.5 million.

19The two line items that contribute to this funding are Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Information Network and Recreational Fishery Harvest
Monitoring/Recreational Fisheries Information Network.

20In fiscal year 2004, funding was provided by these line items: (1)
Recreational Fishery Harvest Monitoring/Recreational Fisheries Information
Network, (2) Expand Stock Assessments-Improve Data Collections, and (3)
the Fish Statistics-National Fisheries Information System.

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

o 	Alaska Fisheries Information System. This is a cooperative program
involving the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and NMFS.21 The program is
currently funded annually at $3.2 million by its own line item. It
supports the collection, entry, transfer, analysis, and management of
Alaska fishery information.

o 	Recreational Fishery Harvest Monitoring/Recreational Fisheries
Information Network-South Carolina. This budget line usually provides
$250,000 to 500,000 annually to support a recreational fishery tagging
program for red drum in South Carolina.

o 	Alaska Groundfish Monitoring-Field Fishery Monitoring. Two budget lines
provide approximately $2.3 million in fiscal year 2005 to fund monitoring
programs for commercial groundfish fisheries in Alaska. This funding goes
directly to the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Summary	NOAA officials indicated that funding levels for NMFS activities
in fiscal year 2005 and proposed for fiscal year 2006 (as shown in fig. 9)
will not have an effect on the ability to generate data of similar quality
and comprehensiveness when compared with data from previous years. In
addition, priority would be given to maintaining data that was and is
expected to be used in generating the Heinz Center indicators from the
2002 report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. However, officials
stated that certain data efforts are vulnerable, in particular those data
collection and statistical programs that are funded but not required by
Congress. In addition, while most of these NMFS data collection or
statistics programs are equally vulnerable to funding reductions,
significant funding cuts to NMFS data and statistics programs would most
likely result

21Authorized by Congress in 1947, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission is one of three interstate commissions dedicated to resolving
fishery issues. Representing California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and
Alaska, it does not have regulatory or management authority; rather, it
serves as a forum for discussion and works for coastwide consensus to
state and federal authorities. Its goal is to promote and support policies
and actions directed at the conservation, development, and management of
fishery resources of mutual concern to member states through a coordinated
regional approach to research, monitoring, and utilization.

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

in less-timely reporting, lower levels of sampling, and less-timely
processing and dissemination of statistics.

Figure 9: National Marine Fisheries Service Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted
(FY 2004 $) Source: NOAA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

o 	Agency officials told us that NMFS will continue to promote program
initiatives and activities that will support comprehensive data
collections, and at least provide baseline assessments of all federally
managed fish species. If faced with the need to prioritize data
activities, however, the agency would: (1) maintain core
fishery-independent resource surveys and assessment staff salaries, (2)
ensure the continuance of dealer and vessel trip reporting programs, and
(3) reduce sampling levels in some geographic areas with respect to
biological and recreational fishery catch and effort data. With respect to
unusual

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

marine mortalities, priority would be to focus on investigating events in
"hot-spot" areas based on past occurrences. Agency officials indicated
that any such priority changes would still result in the availability of
data at a similar or improved form for the expected 2007 update of the
Heinz Center's The State of the Nation's Ecosystems report. In addition,
improved availability of information through the Internet, such as an
improved Fisheries Information System and regional information systems
like the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program, will facilitate
more rapid access to all of the fisheries information needed for
ecological indicator reporting.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

NOAA and NMFS program officials provided the following information on
funding levels and program priorities related to the ability of certain
NMFS data and statistics programs to continue providing environmental and
ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, NMFS funding levels have
consistently exceeded the agency's requested amounts. Funding increased
from fiscal year 2000 through 2003 with a decrease in fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2004 decrease was due to a $100 million Fisheries Disaster
appropriation in fiscal year 2003 that was not appropriated in 2004, along
with a decrease in the appropriated amount for the Pacific Salmon Recovery
fund from about $130 million to $90 million.

Fisheries Statistics and As shown in table 8, total funding for the
agency's fisheries statistics and

Economics Programs	economics programs has remained relatively steady
between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, and proposed funding for fiscal year
2006 is expected to be at or above previous years. Overall, these programs
have composed approximately 25 percent of the NMFS annual budget.

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

Table 8: Fisheries Statistics and Economics Funding for Fiscal Years
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

                              Dollars in thousands

              Fiscal Year   President's budget request         Actual enacted 
                     2000                         $23,557             $28,931 
                     2001                          28,171              33,692 
                     2002                          43,854             38,762a 
                     2003                          39,262              36,209 
                     2004                          39,482              38,791 
                     2005                          40,482              39,516 
                     2006                          44,880                 TBD 

Source: NOAA.

aFiscal year 2002 funds for the Fisheries Information System that were not
made available until fiscal year 2003 are counted in fiscal year 2003.

o 	The Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division (FSED) of the NOAA
Fisheries Headquarters Office of Science and Technology receives only a
portion of the funds that NMFS allocates to support fisheries statistics
and economics programs, as some funds are allocated directly to regional
offices and science centers to support regional state/federal cooperative
programs to coordinate the collection, processing, management, and
dissemination of fisheries information. Broadly, most of the allocations
for each NMFS Fisheries Science Center are permanent; each science center
is provided an annual amount sufficient to cover its annual operating
expenses, including labor costs. Some of these funds are used to cover
full-time equivalent costs and contracts for recreational fishery data
collections. Funding for regional commercial fishery data collections is
directed to the respective regional offices or science centers, while
funding for economic or sociocultural data collections and research is
generally split between headquarters offices, the regional offices, and
the regional science centers. FSED, however, has been responsible for
coordination, planning, and strategic distribution of those funds.

o 	Table 9 table shows fiscal year 2000 through 2005 funding amounts, as
well as proposed fiscal year 2006 funding, directed to the FSED within the
headquarters Office of Science and Technology:

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

Table 9: FSED Headquarters Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed
for Fiscal Year 2006

                           Fiscal year Actual enacted

                                2000 $10,044,700

                                2001 12,169,900

                                2002 15,342,200

                                2003 12,711,500a

                                2004 15,542,875

                                2005 17,232,647

                             2006 To be determined

Source: NOAA.

aFiscal year 2002 funds for FIS that were not made available until fiscal
year 2003 are counted in fiscal year 2003.

o 	Data and statistics programs not mandated by law would be most
vulnerable to significant funding reductions. Given this, NMFS would
prioritize data program activities or take the following actions if faced
with budget reductions:

o 	Core fishery-independent resource surveys (which is a characteristic of
information or activity obtained or undertaken independently to avoid any
biases inherent in fishery-related data) and assessment staff salaries
would have priority over other program reductions.

o 	Dealer reporting and vessel trip reporting programs (which are
mandatory programs under state and federal regulations requiring seafood
dealers who purchase fish or shellfish to obtain federal or state permits
and requiring vessel operators to record data on fishing efforts,
locations, and landings on a trip-by-trip basis) would have second
priority, and would be maintained by expanding time-frame requirements for
the reporting and processing of data.

o 	Programs for biological data or recreational fishery catch and effort
data would be the third priority, and would be maintained by reducing
sampling levels in some geographic areas or for certain time periods or by
reducing sample sizes and maintaining coverage of all geographic areas and
time periods.

o 	Funding cuts would most likely result in less-timely reporting for
commercial fishery monitoring programs, lower levels of sampling for

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

commercial and recreational fishery survey programs, and less-timely
processing and dissemination of commercial and recreational fishery
statistics. Priority would be given to maintaining complete coverage of
the respective fisheries for the collection of the minimum set of data
elements needed to support production of the fishery statistics used for
the Heinz Center report indicators. Statistics should continue to be
representative, but they would likely be less precise and less readily
available. Any change of sampling would be done in cooperation with
respective interstate commissions and state agency partners.

Office of Protected  o  The Office of Protected Resources data collection
and statistics

Resources	programs, including those providing data on UMEs, are vulnerable
to budget reductions. Funding for such programs has been relatively stable
over the past 3 years, between fiscal years 2002 and 2004.

o 	Table 10 shows fiscal year 2000 through 2005 funding amounts, as well
as proposed fiscal year 2006 funding, directed to the Office of Protected
Resources:

Table 10: Office of Protected Resources Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

                              Dollars in thousands

                           Fiscal year Actual enacted

                                  2000 $90,173

                                  2001 143,600

                                  2002 142,448

                                  2003 144,701

                                  2004 145,118

                                  2005 175,530

                             2006 To be determined

                                 Source: NOAA.

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

o 	Between fiscal years 2002 and 2004, an increasing amount of program
funds (approximately $9.5 million between fiscal years 2003 and 2004) were
expended as earmarks that shifted resources away from base protected
species activities.22 At the same time, there were decreases in base
funding for general marine mammal surveys and assessments in fiscal year
2004. The limited amount of discretionary funds available severely limits
the program's ability to respond to high-priority, timely research needs
and to continue comprehensive long-term monitoring and research needs.
This was evident in fiscal year 2004 when Congress significantly decreased
funding for base marine mammals activities and those activities targeted
at "other species."

o 	In cooperation with agency partners, NMFS would reduce sample sizes
before reducing sampling coverage areas. Unusual marine mortalities would
prioritize its data collection efforts by focusing on and investigating
events in "hot-spot" areas based on past occurrences.

Regional, State, and Industry Fisheries Activities

o 	Between fiscal years 2000 and 2004, the fishing industry provided
approximately $13 million annually to support data collections by
observers in three major fisheries across the nation.23 Nearly all of this
funding is provided by fishermen in the North Pacific Groundfish Observer
Program, designed to collect and disseminate information essential for the
management of sustainable fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and eastern
Bering Sea. This program is administered with federal funding, but the
observer services (including observer compensation, travel, and insurance)
are paid for by the fishing vessels.

22The earmarks directed funds toward efforts such as right whales,
Hawaiian sea turtles, Puget Sound orca whales, and Stellar sea lions, and
to specific entities, including the North Pacific Universities Marine
Mammal Consortium, the Alaska Sea Life Center and Charleston Health and
Risk Assessment.

23Observers are fishery biologists deployed onboard commercial fishing
vessels to collect data and information on fishery catch and bycatch
(i.e., the incidental capture of unintended fish species and protected
species). This includes data on fishing practices, vessel and gear
characteristics, fishing locations and times, environmental conditions on
the fishing grounds, compliance with fishing regulations, and, for some
fisheries, socioeconomic data. Observers also collect biological samples
and may assist in fish tagging and tag recovery, or special data
collections for stock assessment programs. The level of required observer
coverage is based on the size of the vessel, with the largest vessels
paying for 100 percent observer coverage.

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

The other two fisheries also provide funding to place observers on board
their vessels: (1) the At-Sea Hake fishery ($350,000) and (2) the
Northeast Closed Area Scallop Fishery ($490,000). The At-Sea Hake observer
program was a voluntary program until 2004, when mandatory coverage became
required. The Northeast Closed Area Scallop observer program requires the
industry to pay for an observer to fish inside the closed area. However,
vessels are able to retain an additional amount of scallops, thereby
offsetting the cost of the observer.

o 	A number of state marine fishery agencies contribute funding to support
recreational fishery survey data collections, which are accomplished in
two different ways.24 First, some states contract directly with NMFS data
collection contractors to fund state-specific survey sample size
increases. For example, states increase sampling by committing additional
labor and resources beyond what is paid for with federal funds. Second,
states can opt to collect survey data through federally funded cooperative
agreements or as subcontractors of NMFS contractors.

o 	Without access to state budgets, it is difficult for NMFS to assess the
actual amount of funds contributed directly by individual states, or
contributed by payment through NMFS contractors, for data collections.
Estimates of state agency funding contributions, based on an assessment of
actual sample sizes obtained in recreational fishery survey data
collections in 2004, total about $3 million and are shown in table 11.
These estimates are considered to be representative of the relatively
stable levels of annual contributions made from 2000 to 2004.

24Since 1979, recreational fishery surveys have provided a reliable
database for estimating the impact of recreational fishing on marine
resources. In 1997, nearly 17 million anglers made 68 million marine
fishing trips to the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts. The estimated
marine recreational fish catch was 366 million fish, more than 50 percent
of which was released alive.

                                   Appendix X
                    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
                             Department of Commerce

Table 11: Estimated State Marine Fisheries Agency Funding of Recreational
Fishery Surveys in 2004

                      State Estimated state contributions

                              California $700,000

                               Connecticut 78,000

                                Delaware 150,000

                                 Hawaii 150,000

                                  Maine 50,000

                                Maryland 30,000

                             Massachusetts 160,000

                              New Hampshire 50,000

                             North Carolina 380,000

                                 Oregon 550,000

                              Rhode Island 150,000

                                Virginia 85,000

                               Washington 700,000

                                Total $3,233,000

Source: NOAA.

o 	Recreational survey sample sizes funded with federal dollars are
adequate for producing coastwide recreational fishery landings statistics
that are sufficiently precise for most common fish species for possible
use in conjunction with commercial landings statistics as reliable Heinz
center indicators. The recreational fishery survey sample size increases
funded by state agencies are primarily aimed at improving the precision of
landings statistics for individual states in support of state fishery
monitoring and management practices. However, such state sample size
increases have also resulted in even more precise coastwide recreational
fishery landings statistics.

Advances in NMFS Data  o  In some regions, NMFS is testing electronic
sampling methods that

Collection Activities 	allow the samplers to gather biological data on
field computers and transfer acquired data via the Internet, to all end
users.

o 	NMFS takes advantage of electronic vessel monitoring systems that have
been developed to gather daily landings, discards, and bycatch of selected
species in some commercial fisheries. In addition, days-at-sea reporting
systems provide fishery managers with information related to

Appendix X
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,
Department of Commerce

fishing effort and latent capacity by requiring up-to-date reporting of
days at sea for certain regulated commercial fisheries.

o 	At least two identified activities being undertaken by NMFS are
important in supporting the Heinz Center indicator work. First,
improvements to the National Fisheries Information System- efficiency,
integration, and standardization of data collection, quality assurance,
quality control, data processing, statistical estimation, and information
management across geographic regions and state/federal partners-make it
easier to combine data from different sources in a meaningful way to
provide summary coastwide and nationwide statistics. Second, the Atlantic
Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program and other regional, state/federal
cooperative fisheries information programs are important in supporting the
Heinz Center indicator work. These programs result in fewer steps needed
to access and combine data and statistics, bringing the information closer
to potential users. The ultimate goal of these improvements is to provide
both regional and national information via the Internet through which
users can readily gain access to all of the publicly available fisheries
data and statistics provided by state/federal partner agencies. The
national FIS and the regional systems will facilitate more rapid access to
all the fisheries information needed for the indicator report.

Appendix XI

National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce

Background	The National Ocean Service (NOS) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) performs multiple functions. NOS
performs data and information activities to support safe marine
navigation, collects and analyzes oceanographic data, provides
geopositioning reference information and standards, manages marine
resources, responds to hazardous spills, performs coastal damage
assessments and restoration activities, and monitors and predicts the
consequences of natural and human-induced marine environmental
disturbances. In fulfilling many of these diverse responsibilities NOS
provides a variety of services, information products, and environmental
data. For example, NOS develops assessments of coastal and ocean resources
and habitats, creates and maintains data on ambient coastal pollution, and
forecasts algal blooms. Such assessments and other environmental data are
provided by NOS primarily through its National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science and its programs within the Office of Response and Restoration.

National Centers for Coastal The National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science (NCCOS) were formed

Ocean Science	within NOS in March 1999 to evaluate environmental,
societal, and economic issues through assessments that describe ecosystem
conditions, forecast future ecological health, and evaluate management
strategies and their consequences.1 In doing so, NCCOS provides scientific
information and tools needed to balance society's environmental, social,
and economic goals.2 NCCOS includes the following entities:

1One of the primary legislative mandates for NCCOS is the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-383,
112 Stat. 3447. In addition, the following give NOAA and NCCOS authority:
Title II of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
33 U.S.C. S:S: 1341-1344, requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish
a comprehensive monitoring and research program on the effects of ocean
dumping; Title V of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 1992, 33 U.S.C. S: 2803, directs the Administrator of
EPA and the NOAA Under Secretary to jointly develop and implement a
program for the long-term collection, assimilation, and analysis of
scientific data to measure the environmental quality of the nation's
coastal ecosystems.

2According to NOS officials, scientists within NCCOS conduct applied
research and manage complex long-term research projects. The projects
provide a link between research science in academia and the needs of those
who make decisions on the use of coastal and marine areas. NCCOS
scientists integrate research across scientific disciplines to examine
future scenarios of coastal ecosystem conditions. NCCOS strives to
maintain a balance between basic and applied research and provides the
capability to anticipate future environmental issues and technologies.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

o 	Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. The center assesses and
forecasts coastal and marine ecosystem conditions through research and
monitoring. It provides the best available scientific information for
resource managers and researchers, technical advice, and accessibility to
data. Scientists conduct field observations on regional and national
scales with a focus on contaminant, biogeographic assessments, and coastal
remote sensing. One of the primary ways this center addresses pollution is
through the National Status and Trends Program (NS&T). Scientists in this
program conduct long-term monitoring of toxic chemicals and environmental
conditions at approximately 300 sites along U.S. coasts. The program also
documents the nature and severity of the biological effects associated
with toxic chemicals in sediments in 30 coastal ecosystems.3

In addition to the data and research activities, a National Estuarine
Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) was performed by NOAA initially in 1992,
representing the first comprehensive assessment of estuarine
eutrophication conditions across the United States.4 The NEEA mission was
to provide the basis for sound nutrient management (including development
of analytical tools for managers) in U.S. estuaries and coastal water
bodies by measurement and analysis of: (1) status and trends of water
quality related to nutrient enrichment, (2) causes of observed problems
(e.g., susceptibility and nutrient loads), (3) socioeconomic impacts of
nutrients as they relate to water quality

3Established in 1984, the NS&T's primary objective is to determine the
status of environmental quality in the nation's coastal and estuarine
waters by monitoring contaminants in sediments, bottom-dwelling fish, and
bivalve tissues. It is the only nationwide source of long-term data on
toxic contaminants in U.S. coastal waters and estuaries, and provides
temporal and regional trends in levels of toxic chemicals in the coastal
environment and in sentinel organisms like bivalves. The Heinz Center's
2002 report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, lists contaminants in
shellfish and contamination in bottom sediments as major ecological
indicators for coasts and oceans. NS&T's data and information products are
available to the public via publications and the Internet.

4Eutrophication is a process in which nutrients (primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus) are added to water bodies, stimulating algae growth. Increased
algae growth can lead to depleted oxygen, which in turn can result in fish
kills and losses of submerged grasses that act as habitat for nursery
fisheries. Estuaries have always received nutrients from natural sources
in the watershed and from the ocean, but in recent decades, population
growth and urban runoff, agricultural practices, wastewater treatment
plants, and the burning of fossil fuels have increased nutrient inputs
beyond what occurs naturally.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

degradation, and (4) alternative management responses and the impacts of
those alternatives.5

In 2002, NOAA facilitated a multidisciplinary workshop of federal
officials and academics to review the results of the 1999 NEEA. In the
workshop summary published in April 2004, participants provided a
framework for the design of a long-term monitoring and assessment program
to address nutrient overenrichment and consequent water-quality problems
in estuaries and coastal waters. Participants highlighted the importance
of classifying estuaries and coastal water body types, establishing
appropriate variables for characterization of nutrient overenrichment
status, assessing methods for determination of nutrient pollution status
and trends, understanding human use impairment, developing methods for
translation and transfer of data and information from scientists to
managers, identifying and developing a database or data access framework,
identifying long-term data sources, and identifying potential partnerships
to support long-term efforts.

o 	Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research. The center develops and
improves predictive capabilities for managing the nation's use of its
coastal resources through competitive research programs. It supports
efforts to translate the results of its research investments, and those of
others, into accessible and useful information for coastal managers,
planners, lawmakers, and the public to help balance the needs of economic
growth with those of conserving the resources of the nation's Great Lakes,
estuaries, and coastal oceans.

o 	Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research. The center supports
research such as habitat dependence, ecosystem modeling, food webs,
physiology, genetics, and oceanography. In addition, the center maps and
characterizes coastal habitats such as salt marshes, seagrass meadows, and
coral reefs to develop an understanding of the processes that determine
their functioning and utilization by humans and other species. A primary
use of this knowledge is to plan and monitor restoration of damaged
habitats.

5The NEEA was based on nutrient related loading and water quality data and
information acquired from scientists and resource managers for 138 US
estuaries and coastal waters. The data and information for individual
systems was summarized to show conditions on a regional and national
basis, painting a picture of the conditions, causes and future outlook of
eutrophic symptoms in the nation's coastal waters.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

o 	Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research. The
center conducts interdisciplinary research to resolve issues related to
coastal ecosystem health, environmental quality, and related public health
impacts. Chemical, biomolecular, microbiological, and microscopic cell
tissue research is conducted to describe, evaluate, and predict the
significant factors and outcomes of natural and human influences on marine
and estuarine habitats.

o 	The Hollings Marine Laboratory. The laboratory provides science and
biotechnology applications to sustain, protect, and restore coastal
ecosystems, emphasizing linkages between environmental and human health in
a multiinstitutional and multidisciplinary environment. Partner
institutions include NOAA's NCCOS, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, the University of Charleston, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and the Medical University of South Carolina.

These NCCOS entities facilitate and conduct research on five key stressors
or causes of ecosystem change (pollution, land and resources use, invasive
species, climate change, and extreme natural events):6

o 	Pollution. Pollutants, such as toxic metals, petroleum hydrocarbons,
industrial chemicals, pesticides, and nutrients can cause a wide range of
adverse biological effects in organisms, including direct chemical
toxicity, genetic damage, physiological abnormalities, compromised immune
systems, biochemical alterations, and behavioral aberrations. Excessive
input of nutrients in coastal waters causes unwanted algal growth, oxygen
depletion, species death, and altered food chains or species composition.

o 	Land and resource use. NCCOS develops products, applications, and
processes for defining and interpreting the relationships between species
distributions and their environments in coastal ecosystems. In doing so,
NCCOS engages in cooperative efforts among several agencies, including
NOAA's National Geodetic Survey, the U.S.

6The geographic scope of NCCOS's research includes coastal watersheds to
the outer boundary of the U.S. 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Because
of the large size of this research area, NCCOS focuses primarily on those
ecosystems managed directly and indirectly by NOAA. These ecosystems
include coastal estuaries, national marine sanctuaries, and coral reef
ecosystems.

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

Department of the Interior, state and local governments, and various
educational institutions.

o 	Invasive species. The introduction of nonnative species to coastal U.S.
ecosystems has profound environmental effects. For example, invasive algae
and nonnative fishes are wreaking havoc with Hawaiian coral reefs, zebra
mussels are overwhelming native shellfish populations in the Great Lakes,
and the European green crab is exceedingly prevalent in the Northeast,
where it competes more successfully than native crabs for local resources.
NCCOS is conducting assessment studies to examine species ecology in
coastal waters and estuaries that are being impacted by invasive species.

o 	Climate change. Climate affects sea level, sea temperature, ocean
currents, storm frequency and intensity, and levels of precipitation.
Changes in climate can cause stress on coastal communities and ecosystems.
Research suggests that climate change may lead to rising sea levels or
changes in ocean salinity, which can alter geographical ranges of species.
It may also lead to temperature shifts, coastal erosion, and increased
sediment and pollutant delivery to sensitive ecosystems. NCCOS assesses
the impacts of climate change on coastal ecosystems using satellite
imagery provided by NASA and data from NOAA's National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service to examine the conditions of an
area. Other projects include habitat mapping, particularly in coral reef
environments, that will help to determine a habitat's baseline conditions
and to assess changes over time.

o 	Extreme events. Extreme natural events, such as hurricanes,
earthquakes, and floods, cause major stress on the natural environment. To
assess and monitor a variety of extreme events, the centers partner with
several other NOAA agencies, including the National Weather Service,
National Data Buoy Center, Coastal Services Center, and the National Ocean
Service's Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services.

Office of Response and Among other things, the Office of Response and
Restoration (ORR)

Restoration	provides environmental data in the form of the Environmental
Sensitivity Index (ESI), which is a product of the Hazardous Materials
Response

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

Division within ORR.7 ESI maps are generated to identify vulnerable
coastal locations before a potential hazardous spill occurs, so that
protection priorities can be established and oil and chemical cleanup
strategies identified. The data are directed primarily to the spill
response community, which uses the data both for planning and response.
The spill response community is composed of individuals from ORR and other
NOAA programs, a wide array of other federal, state and local government
agencies, industry, and academia. Secondary users are coastal zone
managers, and nonprofit organizations use the data to track changes in
shoreline usage and to examine species distribution. The maps, available
for nearly all of the continental U.S. coastline, Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S.
territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands,
are composed of three parts: (1) shoreline classified by physical and
biological characteristics, (2) sensitive biological resources, and (3)
human use resources.8 ESI shoreline types are classified using a
combination of overflight information, aerial photography, local habitat
maps, National Wetlands Inventory data, and ground verification.9

According to NOAA officials, ESI maps are the product of collaboration
with local user communities. Local interest and often financial support
are major influences in determining what areas will be mapped. Once a
project is undertaken, resident experts provide information regarding the
presence and geographic extent of both the biological and human-use
resources.

7Established on February 28, 1999, ORR brought together three programs
previously housed in NOS's Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment. ORR currently consists of the Hazardous Materials Response
Division, the Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, and the Damage
Assessment Center. Broadly, the legislative mandates for ORR are the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, the Clean Water Act, and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

8The ESI shoreline classification system is based on 10 standard shoreline
types, with a variety of subtypes specific to particular geographic
regions.

9According to NOAA officials, the Heinz Center chose to place shoreline
types into five categories. ORR worked with experts from the Heinz Center
to determine what shoreline categories were appropriate and how the NOAA
ESI types would collapse into these five shoreline types. All of the
existing ESI data were then processed to determine the number of miles of
each shoreline type present within the geographic regions specified by the
center. The shoreline types were determined by consolidating atlases by
region, and were placed into five primary categories based on substrate
and slope: (1) steep sand, rock or clay; (2) mud or sand flats; (3)
beaches (sand or gravel); (4) wetlands and mangroves; and (5) armored
(e.g., exposed, solid man-made structures and riprap). Some of the atlases
used for areas in the Pacific Northwest region were 15 years or older. In
addition, data are not currently available for the majority of coastal
regions.

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

Experts may include individuals from state and local government agencies,
other federal agencies, academic institutions and nonprofit organizations.
Data gathered are then compiled and mapped by ORR. All mapped data are
reviewed by each of the data providers. Ultimately, the published data
reflect the species and resources of critical importance mapped as defined
by the user community.

Summary	Overall, agency officials indicated that actual NOS funding levels
for fiscal year 2005 and proposed for fiscal year 2006 (as shown in fig.
10) are expected to result in the continuation of data collection and
analysis across all programs; in particular, the data used in the 2002
Heinz Center report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, is expected to
be available at similar or improved quality and comprehensiveness when
compared with data from previous years. The major differences between
fiscal year 2000 and 2001 funding were attributed to additional program
increases and targeted congressional funding in the following areas: (1)
Great Lakes Community Grants, (2) Pribilof Island cleanup, (3) National
Estuarine Research Reserves, (4) Nonpoint pollution implementation grants,
and (5) construction projects. The primary reason given for the disparity
between fiscal year 2005 funding and the President's fiscal year 2006
funding proposal is that the latter does not include congressional
earmarks and program increases that were provided for in the fiscal year
2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act. For example, the fiscal year 2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $41.6 million (with the
rescissions) for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program. The
President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal did not provide funds for the
program.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

Figure 10: National Ocean Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted
(FY '00 dollars) Source: NOAA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

According to NOAA officials, only in the event of a severe budget
reduction would NCCOS, ORR, and other agency data activities be halted;
however, minor budget reductions may have an impact on the breadth and
comprehensiveness of certain data collection and fieldwork activities.

o 	The National Status and Trends Program (NS&T) has experienced moderate
fluctuating budgets with an overall decline over 20 years but is expecting
an increase in fiscal year 2006. A major challenge of the NS&T program is
that fiscal year 2005 funding, as well as proposed fiscal year 2006
funding, does not provide sufficient staff and the necessary skill sets to
produce data products and services that keep pace with the quantity and
quality of data generated by the program annually.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

o 	A reduced effort on data collection-for example, in the Mussel Watch
program within the NS&T-could impact the scope of analyses and the ability
to report on such ecological indicators as contaminants in sediments,
benthic fish, and bivalve tissues and on emerging contaminants of concern.
At the same time, however, a recent external NS&T program review
recognized the value of the program for NOAA and recommended that NOAA
take steps to increase and stabilize support for the program. NOAA plans
to maintain this data program as long as marine pollution remains a
serious issue for the nation. NOAA recognizes its unique role in
contaminant monitoring and in the development of bioeffects and
eutrophication assessments for the nation's coastal ecosystems.

o 	A reduction in fieldwork would require NOS to rely heavily on external
data sources, over which the agency has limited or variable influence. For
example, if NS&T data collection efforts had to be severely reduced, then
NOS would rely most heavily on data from such programs as the
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, the Gulf of Maine's Mussel Watch project, and the USGS's National
Water Quality Assessment program. However, these alternative data sources
do not cover the same temporal period or spatial distribution as the NS&T
data.

o 	Any further reduction in funding to the NEEA project would eliminate
the staff necessary to conduct, summarize, and synthesize the data that is
held in other agencies and organizations. At present, there is only one
full-time federal staff position and one contractor part-time position
assigned to the NEEA update. Any reduction in funds would eliminate the
contract position, and preclude travel required to host scheduled NEEA
workshops.

o 	Only under a severe budget reduction would there be an impact to the
continued reporting of data as used in the Heinz Center report. Agency
officials stated that, on the whole, data utilized in the 2002 Heinz
Center report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, is expected to be
available in a comparable form in subsequent report iterations.

Agency officials reported anticipated modifications to programs that
support ecological indicators to reflect new approaches assessing
nationwide contaminant trends in coastal ecosystems. This is based largely
on the findings stemming from a recent NS&T program review, conducted by
NOAA scientists and by an external panel of scientists from other

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

federal agencies and academia. The report from the second review session,
held in February 2005, was received in the spring of 2005. A positive
change in the way data is being delivered to users has already been
implemented as of February 2005, and will continue to be improved in the
coming months: Data is now publicly available via a new data portal,
accessed through a Web site, and users of the site may create reports
based on parameters they choose. This change was initiated to make the
scientific information collected through the program more widely available
to, and more easily used by, coastal and ocean resource managers,
academics, and others.

Efforts are also under way within NOAA to obtain raw data records, perform
quality assurance, develop digital data for long-term archival, and
disseminate data in digital format as a means to addressing challenges in
maintaining and building data programs with currently available funds.
According to agency officials, the change in the way data is being
delivered should make it easier to include relevant data in the follow-on
Heinz Center ecological indicator report, anticipated in 2007.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

NOS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to the ability of certain NOS data programs
and centers to continue providing environmental and ecological data
comparable with data provided in past years:

o 	The NOS budget is derived from numerous "line items" in the NOAA
budget. NOS is considered one budget "activity" with three
"subactivities": (1) Navigation Services, (2) Ocean Resources Conservation
and Assessment, and (3) Ocean and Coastal Management. NOS funds dedicated
to environmental data collection, analysis, processing, and dissemination
have composed approximately 80 percent of the entire NOS budget for fiscal
years 2000 through 2005, and proposed for fiscal year 2006.10

10This assumes that the following items were not included: the Coastal
Zone Management Grants program, which was not considered as being
dedicated to environmental data collection; the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program, created by Congress in 2001 to provide grants to
states or local units of government in order to protect coastal and
estuarine areas with significant conservation, recreation, ecological,
historical, or aesthetic values (or areas that are threatened by
conversion from their natural state to other uses); and construction
projects.

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

o 	Estimates of specific funding amounts for the various NOS programs from
fiscal year 2000 through 2005, as well as proposed funding for fiscal year
2006, are portrayed in table 12 (aggregate totals are presented in fig.
10):

Table 12: Selected NOS Entities Responsible for Environmental Data and
Respective Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for
Fiscal year 2006a

Dollars in millions

  2000b 2001c 2002d 2003e 2004f 2005g 2006 National Centers for Coastal Ocean
                   Science Office of Response and Restoration

    Center for Coastal Monitoring   $4.7  $6.2  $7.2  $10.4 $9.2  $14.0  $8.9 
            and Assessment                                              
      National Status and Trends     1.0   0.8   0.9   0.8   1.0   0.8  
               Program                                                  
     Center for Sponsored Coastal   19.3  28.0  29.2  21.0  14.9  30.5   19.0 
            Ocean Research                                              
Center for Coastal Fisheries and                                     
               Habitat                                                  
               Research              1.9   2.4   2.4   4.8   5.3   7.9  
Center for Coastal Environmental                                     
              Health and                                                
        Biomolecular Researchh       8.4   8.7   9.8  14.0  18.0  20.1  
    The Hollings Marine Laboratory   0.5   1.3   1.5   4.0   5.2   4.5  
               Subtotal             $35.8 $47.4 $51.0 $55.0 $53.6 $77.8 $47.9 

     Hazardous Materials Response   $3.5  $3.9  $5.0  $5.0  $5.4  $5.0   $5.0 
               Division                                                 
Environmental Sensitivity Index                                      
            (ESI) mapping                                               
              activities              0.2  0.3   0.1   0.2   0.4   0.2  
               Subtotal             $3.7  $4.2  $5.1  $5.2  $5.8  $5.2   $5.2 
                Total               $39.5 $51.6 $56.1 $60.2 $58.2 $83.0 $53.1 

Source: NOAA.

aFunding estimates based on enacted appropriation for fiscal years
2000-2005. The fiscal year 2006 column is based on the President's
proposed budget.

bFiscal year 2000 funding includes part or all of the following budget
lines: Ocean Assessment Program, Oceanic and Coastal Research, and Coastal
Ocean Program.

cFiscal year 2001 funding includes part or all of the following budget
lines: Ocean Assessment Program, Oceanic and Coastal Research, and Coastal
Ocean Program. In addition, funding includes $5 million for Harmful Algal
Blooms provided under the Coastal and Ocean Activities heading.

dFiscal year 2002 funding includes part or all of the following budget
lines: Ocean Assessment Program Base, Pfiesteria and HAB Rapid Response,
South Florida Ecosystem, Harmful Algal Bloom Research, Oceanic and Coastal
Research Base, Fish Forensics/Enforcement, MEHRL, Pfiesteria/Toxins
Research, Coastal Ocean Program Base, ECOHAB, Hypoxia, and South Florida
Ecosystem.

eFiscal year 2003 funding includes part or all of the following budget
lines: Ocean Assessment Program Base, Pfiesteria and HAB Rapid Response,
South Florida Ecosystem, Harmful Algal Blooms, Beaufort NC, Oxford MD,
Oceanic and Coastal Research Base, Fish Forensics/Enforcement, MEHRL,

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

Pfiesteria/Toxins Research, Coastal Ocean Program Base, ECOHAB, Hypoxia,
and South Florida Ecosystem.

fFiscal year 2004 funding includes the National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science line item, and a portion of NOS Salaries and Expenses.

gFiscal year 2005 funding includes the National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science line item, and a portion of the Ocean Assessment Program base
budget line South Florida Ecosystem.

hThe Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research
includes facilities in both Charleston, South Carolina, and Oxford,
Maryland.

o 	Approximately $823,000 was provided to the Center for Coastal
Monitoring and Assessment in fiscal year 2005 through NOAA's Ecosystems
Observation Program. This included $458,000 for programmatic funds
(contracts) for the NS&T program and an additional $365,000 for staff
salaries.

NOAA Environmental and Ecological Data Sets

o 	NOAA and NCCOS conduct a wide variety of coastal environmental
monitoring and research studies that generate invaluable data sets on the
biodiversity, abundances, and distributions of marine benthic
(bottom-dwelling) species. Recent efforts have set out to capture this
information and make it available as a readily accessible resource to
support the needs of other related programs dealing with important coastal
management, research, and educational issues.

o 	A primary outcome of recent efforts is the centralized NOAA National
Benthic Inventory (NBI), set up as a dynamic quantitative database on the
biodiversity and abundances of marine benthic species that is accessible
through a corresponding Web site.11 The NBI is intended to provide access
to relevant biological information through automatic database queries by
species name, project name, or geographic region; and provides links to
additional NCCOS data sources on other environmental data from
corresponding sites (e.g., the NOAA NS&T Web site for chemical contaminant
and toxicity data). The framework for the NBI was completed in 2003 and
the Web site was approved for public release in March 2004.

o 	An additional significant accomplishment in fiscal year 2005 has been
the successful completion of a digital gateway linking the NBI with the
Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), a Web-based

11See http://www.nbi.noaa.gov.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

provider of worldwide geo-referenced data on marine species.12 OBIS is the
information component of the Census of Marine Life, a 10-year initiative
involving more than 45 nations to assess and explain the diversity,
distribution, and abundance of life in the oceans. OBIS includes
information on all types of marine species (plants, algae, protozoans,
invertebrates, and vertebrates) from various parts of the world. The new
link to the NBI provides OBIS with an additional source of data on
marine-benthic invertebrate species from studies conducted throughout the
United States by NCCOS and its partners. The link also provides an
opportunity for the NBI, in serving as a source of biological
observations, to become an integral component of a larger integrative
ocean observing system with access to a broader range of species and
geographic regions. Users of OBIS include scientists, marine resource
managers and policymakers, educators, students, and the public.

o 	NCCOS has a project titled "Development of Indicators for Assessing and
Mitigating Risks of Biological Effects from Sediment-Associated Stressors"
that is devoted specifically to the development of new ecological
indicators. The purpose of this project has been to develop reliable
indicators and associated thresholds for detecting and predicting risks of
adverse effects of sediment-associated stressors on the integrity of
ambient bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms.13 A key goal of the project
is to use information on the responses of these organisms in the
development of optimal sediment-quality targets and restoration goals in
order to sustain healthy coastal conditions and maintain the integrity of
living resources. Specifically, work in recent years by NCCOS and its
partners has resulted in two related types of products: (1) development of
indices of biotic integrity as indicators of the condition of ambient
benthic fauna in relation to the quality of their surrounding sediment
environment; and (2) derivation of benthic-based sediment quality targets
for assessing and predicting the incidence of degraded benthic condition
within different ranges of sediment

12See http://www.iobis.org.

13Bottom-dwelling or benthic biota are a key component of coastal
ecosystems, playing vital roles in detrital decomposition, nutrient
cycling, and energy flow to higher trophic levels. Benthic fauna live in
close association with bottom substrata, where contaminants tend to
accumulate and where low-oxygen conditions are typically the most severe.
Because of their relatively stationary existence, it is difficult for
these organisms to avoid pollutants and other adverse conditions in their
immediate surroundings, and as such, they are good signals of
human-induced stress.

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

contamination. The products have been put to use in various coastal
assessment applications, including state and national coastal condition
reports.

National Status & Trends (NS&T) Program

o 	The Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's NS&T program has
experienced moderately fluctuating budgets with an overall decline over 20
years and is expecting an increase in fiscal year 2006. A major challenge
of the NS&T program is that fiscal year 2005 funding, as well as proposed
fiscal year 2006 funding, does not provide for sufficient staff and the
necessary skills to produce data products and services that keep pace with
the quantity and quality of data generated by the program annually.
Furthermore, additional NS&T activities supplemental to the key program
activities, including recovering historical data, conducting bioeffects
assessment studies, and building a Web-based statistical analysis tool for
NS&T data, are desired but currently not budgeted, and are estimated to
cost $200,000 in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

o 	Due to past funding levels, NS&T has had to adjust the geographic scope
and magnitude of sampling activities for each of the projects that
constitute the integrated NS&T program-namely the Mussel Watch and
BioEffects projects.14 The Mussel Watch project uses shellfish to measure
general ambient contaminant concentrations in the nation's estuaries and
whether these contaminants are increasing or decreasing. Similarly, the
BioEffects project identifies and assesses biological effects associated
with contaminant exposure. Thirty intensive regional studies, of 2-to
4-year durations, have been conducted since 1986. The BioEffects
databases, when complete, will include: sediment, tissue, and water
chemistry for over 80 organic and inorganic contaminants; toxicity
bioassays; biomarker assays; histopathology; and benthic community
assessment.

o 	The NS&T program has continued to characterize the extent of sediment
contamination in the nation's estuaries since 1986 and has

14Coastal states with contaminant "hot spots" and those where restoration
or remedial activities have taken place have asked NOAA to consider
establishing long-term environmental monitoring sites, using natural
populations or caged mussels as sentinel species. These requests have not
been made to alter the program, but instead to tailor aspects of the
program to meet user needs.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

the longest-running primary data record for such information. In previous
years, some of NOAA's monitoring and assessment activities, including the
characterization of chemical contamination in bottom sediments and the
condition of bottom-dwelling animals, have been conducted in collaboration
with the estuarine component of the EPA Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program.15 Such joint activities included work in the
Chesapeake Bay, along the coasts of the Carolinas, and in the
Hudson-Raritan and Long Island Sound estuaries.

o 	Half of the Mussel Watch project sites are now sampled every other
year, rather than annually, due to funding limitations. If Mussel Watch
samples were collected at sites on a further reduced schedule-for example,
on a 3-year cycle-the ability to determine changes in environmental trends
would take years longer and the likelihood of not identifying the release
of regulated chemicals would become more likely. Data quality, however,
would not be adversely affected by a reduction in sample collection and
the resultant analyses in the Mussel Watch project.

o 	In fiscal year 2005, approximately $823,000 is required to operate the
Mussel Watch component of the NS&T.16 Of that total, $413,000 will be used
to collect and analyze bivalve mollusks for a suite of over 100 toxic
contaminants at coastal sites from around the United States. An amount of
$8,700 was used in fiscal year 2005 to conduct an outside review of the
NS&T program, done periodically to ensure the program is meeting its goals
and objectives, and the needs of the user community.17 In addition,
$15,000 was used to reinstitute "specimen banking," in which some of the
tissues collected are archived for later analysis. Specimen banking allows
for retrospective analyses of

15The joint Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-NCCOS
Estuaries sediment data were of use to the Heinz Report, and data from
subsequent collaborative efforts in near coastal shelf waters along the
West and East Coasts of the United States (sampled in 2003 and 2004) will
be useful in future relevant reports.

16In fiscal years 2004 and 2005, Mussel Watch was included under the
"Ecosystems Observations Program (EOP)," and is included in the Center for
Coastal Monitoring and Assessment base budget estimate in table 12.

17The recent NS&T program review recognized the value of the program for
NOAA and recommended that NOAA take steps to increase and stabilize
support for the program. Plans are to maintain this important record as
long as marine pollution remains a serious issue for this country.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

chemicals that have not yet been recognized as a threat. The remaining
funds will be used for salaries/overhead ($353,214) and for NS&T
program-related travel, supplies, and equipment ($33,086).

o 	The NS&T program has recently undergone thorough reviews, the latest
being in February 2005, and a scientific review panel provided their
recommendations in early April. The review panel was composed of some of
the world's most respected scientists in the field, each bringing their
unique academic, federal, state, regional, and international perspectives
to the review. The NS&T program was the beneficiary of applying the
group's collective knowledge to streamlining program operations, and
optimizing its business practices.18 In total, the panel provided more
than 85 comments and recommendations. These ranged in theme from
optimizing statistical design to strengthening partnerships and outreach.
The panel's key findings, as well as a short discussion of how NS&T has
already begun to act on many of the recommendations provided, are
described below:

o 	Due to its unique history, scope of data collection, exacting
quality-control standards, and a developing Web site to deliver data and
derived products, the NS&T program is poised to become the leader in
national contaminant monitoring, and in the development of bioeffects and
eutrophication assessments for the nation's coastal ecosystems. The group
felt that success in this endeavor could be catalyzed by expanding and
enhancing internal NOAA and domestic U.S. partnerships, by linking
relevant initiatives to the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), and
by focusing on the needs of the nation's resource managers. NS&T
scientists have been working closely with agency partners to finalize the
data portal, which will

18According to NOAA officials, the panel praised NS&T as one of the most
successful and longest-running monitoring programs in the United States,
and recommended expanding the program to include monitoring "emerging
contaminants of concern," as well as continued monitoring of existing
legacy contaminants. In response, NS&T program scientists organized a
workshop held in partnership with several other NOAA programs in May 2005.
The workshop was designed to prioritize expansion of monitoring and
research efforts based on the consensus of many of the nation's experts in
the field.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

provide resource managers with easy access to program data, and is
expected to be ready by the end of fiscal year 2005.19

o 	The panel recommended that NS&T should strive to become the primary
program for contaminant information within NOAA. As a recognized data
clearinghouse within NOAA, NS&T should consider developing "knowledge
products" (e.g., fact sheets, annual summaries, site assessments, etc.)
that synthesize data for the general public and for coastal mangers (e.g.,
ranking estuarine contamination, completing a national scorecard of
coastal contamination, etc.), and that this information stream (both data
and products) should be delivered using the data portal. This Web-enabled
system can then be used to ensure NS&T maintains an explicit link and
prominent role within IOOS. NS&T specialists who engineered the data
portal have already initiated substantive conversations with the NOAA IOOS
community, and are developing a strategy to implement the link as soon as
the portal comes online.

o 	The panel suggested that the NS&T team must first revisit its stated
goals and objectives to better clarify its vision, to re-establish the
program's important work within the "general public's consciousness," and
to articulate its relevance to NOAA, its partners, coastal managers, and
the broader scientific community. Addressing this recommendation was the
first action that came from the program reviews. Since the February 2005
review, NS&T management and personnel have been developing a cogent and
forward-thinking strategic plan which recognizes the needs of the program
customers. This 5-year strategic plan is due to be completed by August
2005, and will reflect many of the recommendations provided by NS&T
program review panels.

o 	Because the NS&T program is the longest-running element of national
coastal monitoring in the federal government, it should

19When completed, the database will include quality-assured data from the
Mussel Watch, Benthic Surveillance, Bioeffects studies, and other
components of the program, some of which have existed since 1984. The Web
site dissemination of data is intended not only to improve data
accessibility, but also to allow mapping and analyses (e.g.,
identification of point sources of contaminants, trends in specific
contaminant loading, etc.) and visualization capabilities through a
variety of data display and analytical tools. Its use will greatly
facilitate sharing of coastal environmental data among researchers,
resource managers, and the public at large, thereby promoting more
informed and transparent decisions.

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

contribute to the backbone of the National Water Quality Monitoring
Network as envisaged under recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy and as included in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan.20 NS&T has acted
swiftly on this guidance by assigning senior personnel to participate from
start to finish as members on the National Water Quality Monitoring
Council, charged with developing the National Water Quality Monitoring
Network. This will ensure that NS&T capabilities play prominently among
components of the Network once in place.

Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI)

o 	Stakeholders such as local-use communities contribute financial support
and are major influences in determining areas for Environmental
Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps. ESI maps are often the product of
collaboration among such stakeholders, and assurances of their
participation are sought with respect to data collection before an ESI
atlas project is begun. For example, the Coast Guard and Minerals
Management Service often provide funding for ESI mapping. Much of the
Alaska ESI work was funded by the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery
Institute, a program authorized by Congress through the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990, in part to identify and develop the best available techniques for
preventing and responding to oil spills in the Arctic and sub-Arctic.
State and local governments, environmental agencies, and industry
occasionally contribute funds for ESI mapping activities, but probably
influence the ESI mapping efforts more by demonstrating interest and
acceptance in the ESI methodology.

o 	Although there are anomalies in ESI maps dictated by local
environmental variations and needs, NOAA has made a significant effort to
assure uniformity of ESI maps across regions. In the early 1990s, NOAA
began an association with a number of states, including California,
Florida, Texas, and New Jersey in order to obtain input on environmental
mapping needs and the best way to provide a standard

20Recognizing the importance of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes to the
United States, in 2000, Congress established the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. Oceans Act of 2000 S: 3, Pub. L. No. 106-256, 114 Stat. 644. The
commission began work in September 2001, and pursuant to its legislative
mandate, completed a thorough and expansive report, An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century, on September 20, 2004, which contains proposals for the
establishment of a comprehensive and coordinated ocean policy for our
nation. The U.S. Ocean Action Plan was formed to identify immediate,
short-term actions that provide direction for ocean policy and also
outline additional long-term actions for the future.

                                  Appendix XI
                    National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
                                  of Commerce

mapping product from one locale to the next. Out of this effort, the first
draft of the Environmental Sensitivity Guidelines was published in April
1993. It has since been updated twice, providing greater detail and
refined methods for ESI data mapping. Among other things, the guidelines
include information on how data should be collected and categorized,
database structure, a master species list and description of ESI shoreline
types, and information on how ESI data should be symbolized and displayed.
This document has helped a few states develop their own environmental
sensitivity maps that mimic the standard NOAA product. The guidelines are
strictly followed by NOAA and contractors with the intent that a responder
can be on any coast and have an ESI product that appears just like every
other ESI product they may have used.

o 	Coastal areas that have not been mapped digitally or that do not
include the full suite of standard ESI elements include Maine, Maryland,
the outer coasts of Washington and Oregon, and the Great Lakes. The
development of an ESI atlas covering a state or geographic region
typically takes 12 to 24 months to complete. Costs vary based on the
complexity and extent of the geographic region, but a typical ESI mapping
project generally costs $200,000 to $350,000.

o 	The biggest shortcoming of ESI maps is the length of time between
updates for a given atlas. The few atlases that are still not available
digitally were published in the early 1980s. The goal, until now, has been
to get as much of the coastline mapped as possible and to place the maps
in GIS formats. Though this goal is nearly met, an update strategy has not
been developed, and funds are not available to proceed with timely
updates. The first GIS produced atlases are now around 10 years old, while
the user community in these areas is established and the desire for more
current data exists. Lack of annual funding for ESI updating efforts is an
impediment.

National Estuarine  o  To complete the update of the NEEA, a streamlined
survey collection Eutrophication Assessment tool is being developed for
use by investigators who will enter data (NEEA) which will be validated by
a simultaneous data collection and synthesis

effort for a select number of systems. In the 1999 assessment, rather than
collecting data directly, NEEA staff collected categorical responses from
survey respondents and participants based on their own synthesis and
analysis of data for their estuaries or waterbodies.

Appendix XI
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department
of Commerce

o 	It is difficult to acquire updated data for the NEEA. Due to a lack of
funding to support a national level data collection and synthesis effort,
NEEA staff are

o 	creating and implementing an online data collection survey tool that
will result in a national database of chlorophyll-a values representing
the highest measurement levels in the system on an annual basis, in terms
of spatial area and frequency (there will also be simultaneous case
studies for select estuaries where data will be collected and analyzed in
order to validate the results of the survey results); and

o 	collecting data for 14 estuaries in a pilot study in the North and
mid-Atlantic Ocean (including the Gulf of Maine), and designing an online
data collection survey tool to comprehensively collect data and
information on a national basis for the 138 systems in the 1999 NEEA
report.

o 	There is no comprehensive sampling program within NOAA that collects
chlorophyll-a data, though some samples are collected by the National
Estuarine Research Reserve Program and those working on remote-sensing
observations. If it were collected, it could be used to determine
concentrations within estuaries and zones within estuaries, if the data
were spatially distributed. The 1999 NEEA was based on regional reports
that show where, within the estuaries studies, the elevated chlorophyll-a
concentrations occur.

Appendix XII

Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency

Background	The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) serves to enhance and protect the
quality of the nation's air by managing programs to improve air quality
where the current quality is unacceptable and to prevent deterioration in
areas where the air is relatively free of contamination. The Clean Air Act
required that EPA establish a national network to monitor pollutant
concentrations in ambient air.1 This network comprises monitoring stations
throughout the country that are operated by state and local agencies.
Accordingly, EPA regulations direct states to collect and report air
quality data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).2 States are also required
to use standardized ambient monitoring methodologies and to follow EPA
guidelines for monitoring siting and other technical requirements, such as
the process of choosing a location for a monitor.

OAQPS evaluates the status of the atmosphere by comparing ambient air
conditions with clean air standards and historical information using a
variety of methods and tools, at the heart of which is a network of
ambient air quality and meteorology monitoring stations. The data
collected from these stations are stored in the AQS, which provides data
for a variety of functions in both the public and the private sectors. The
data are used to assess air quality, assist in determining
attainment/nonattainment designations, evaluate state implementation plans
for nonattainment areas, perform modeling for permit review analysis,
enable scientists to study the relationships between air quality levels
and health and ecological effects and evaluate options for emissions
control strategies.

Summary	Agency officials indicated that the AQS data management system is
funded entirely from the EPA budget and that the expected funding level
for fiscal year 2005 and the proposed funding for fiscal year 2006 for
operating AQS will not have an effect on the ability to provide data of
similar quality and comprehensiveness when compared with data from
previous years. These funding amounts represent preinflation-adjusted
decreases of about 11

142 U.S.C. S: 7403(c)(2). 240 C.F.R. S: 58.35.

Appendix XII
Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency

percent and 7 percent, respectively, when compared with funding received
for AQS in fiscal year 2004.3

Figure 11: Air Quality System Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

3

2

1

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds

Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)
Source: EPA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, agency officials reported that planned improvements to the
ambient air-monitoring program will result in improved timeliness in
reporting data to AQS and optimization of the Photochemical Air Monitoring
Stations (PAMS), which provides information on chemical precursors for
ozone. Although this may require minor enhancements to AQS, officials
indicated that it will not have an effect on the system's ability

3EPA officials indicated that funding for AQS for fiscal year 2005 is
subject to change as the fiscal year progresses.

                                  Appendix XII
                   Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality
                     Planning and Standards, Environmental
                               Protection Agency

to produce and compare data in the coming years with data generated in
previous years. As utilized in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of
the Nation's Ecosystems, agency officials stated that AQS data related to
ground-level ozone and ozone precursors is expected to be available in an
improved form for the expected 2007 follow-on indicator report.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

EPA officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to the ambient air-monitoring program's
ability to continue providing environmental and ecological data comparable
with past years:

o 	Because the ambient air-monitoring program is a high priority within
EPA's Office of Air, it is likely that the current data system would
continue to be funded in the event of funding reductions to EPA's budget
for air-quality programs (i.e., funding reductions would be absorbed by
other, lower-priority air-quality programs). However, funding reductions
would be likely to adversely affect EPA's ability to develop enhancements
to the current data system and, if the funding reduction were significant
enough, changes could be made to the basic spatial and temporal framework
of the ambient air-monitoring program, lowering the quality of the
existing AQS data. In the event of such changes, EPA would examine ways to
develop alternative monitoring strategies.

o 	The cost of monitoring pollutants is significantly greater than the
cost of operating the AQS. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the costs of
monitoring and collecting ozone data reported into AQS were an estimated
$34 million, or about $28,000 per monitoring site for the 1,194 sites.
Funding for AQS in fiscal year 2003 was $2.6 million. Operating the
ambient air-monitoring program, including AQS, requires costs associated
with contracting for services, staffing, and data processing and data
storage. Pollutant monitoring activities include costs for computer data
processing, site installation of monitoring devices, sampling and
analyses, maintenance, data management, quality assurance, supervision
within the operating program, and the costs associated with coordinating
with other agencies. Since the AQS is designed to provide data for
numerous pollutants, it is difficult to identify the costs associated with
any one pollutant (such as ozone data that were included in the Heinz
Center report), and EPA has not attempted to do so. Estimates of
ozone-monitoring sites and data collection costs (using the total number
of ozone-monitoring sites and prorating the full costs of ozone monitoring
and reporting) and AQS

Appendix XII
Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency

funding between fiscal years 2000 and 2006 were provided by EPA and are
shown in table 13:

Table 13: Estimates of Ozone Monitoring Sites and Data Collection Costs
and Overall AQS Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2006

                   Number of ozone sites Costs of monitoring    
           Year         reporting to AQS                  ozone   AQS funding 
           2000                    1,123            $30,068,849    $1,700,000 
           2001                    1,170             32,059,993     2,400,000 
           2002                    1,180             32,906,268     2,500,000 
           2003                    1,194             33,839,222     2,600,000 
           2004                    1,182             33,939,729     2,800,000 
           2005                      TBD                    TBD     2,500,000 
           2006                      TBD                    TBD    2,600,000a 

TBD = To be determined

Source: EPA.

Notes: AQS funding includes the annual costs for the development,
operation, and maintenance of the AQS data management system. The costs
are for contracts, staffing, and system support (e.g., password and other
user support activities). Not included in these figures are computer
related costs (e.g., central-processing unit-hours and data storage) for
loading and retrieving data from the system for all users. These
additional costs amount to approximately $0.9 million annually. Funding
for fiscal year 2005 is subject to change as the year progresses.

Ozone monitoring is performed during the warmer months of the year. EPA
does not yet have specific estimates of the number of monitors that will
be reporting in 2005 and 2006. However, it expects the number to be
similar to the 1,182 reporting in 2004.

aPresident's proposed budget.

o 	Regarding changes anticipated in the ambient air-monitoring program,
specifically with respect to the collection and analysis of monitoring
data for ozone, over the past several years EPA has been developing a new
Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy that is intended to change the size,
composition, and distribution of the current ambient monitoring network.
The strategy is expected to produce more relevant measurements at
representative urban and rural locations across the country. Minor changes
would occur in certain technical specifications of the system and the
pollutants they measure. For example, in addition to having access to
ozone data, AQS users are expected to have access to a robust set of data
on total reactive nitrogen, which is a precursor to ozone. The strategy
also includes improvements in the timeliness of reporting data to AQS and
optimization of the Photochemical Air Monitoring Stations (PAMS) used to
characterize chemical precursors

Appendix XII
Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency

for ozone. Although the AQS system is fairly flexible and can handle many
of the anticipated changes, officials noted that some minor enhancements
to the system may be needed to implement all of the changes expected as a
result of implementing the new monitoring strategy. Such enhancements
typically would expand or improve AQS's operation to support the needs of
EPA's national ambient monitoring program. They provide a more
user-friendly system for state, local, and tribal agencies to submit and
retrieve data from the AQS. Most of the enhancements are designed to
improve the overall operation of the ambient air-monitoring program and
are not directly related to a particular pollutant, such as ozone.

o 	States, localities, and tribal agencies must monitor and report ambient
ozone concentrations as well as data on concentrations of five other air
pollutants that EPA uses as indicators of air quality.4 EPA provides
grants to partially fund the establishment and operation of some types of
monitoring stations, including those for monitoring ozone and its
precursors. EPA provides funding for monitoring to state, local, and
tribal air-monitoring agencies under the authority of section 105 of the
Clean Air Act.5 Under section 105, EPA may fund up to three-fifths of the
costs of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air
pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient
air-quality standards. Grantees are to provide two-fifths of the costs.
EPA typically uses section 105 grant authority for programs that are
ongoing. EPA typically uses different grant authority under section 103 of
the Clean Air Act to provide for full funding of new programs to
accelerate their deployment.6 For fiscal year 2005, the actual amount of
funding to support all ozone-related activities provided to state, local,
and tribal agencies through section 105 grants was $64,960,023. This
includes activities that go beyond monitoring and data handling, such as
development of state implementation plans. Ozone-monitoring activities
carried out by state, local, and tribal agencies generate data that are
reported to EPA and processed by the AQS. Some state, local, and tribal
agencies use AQS as their primary data management system for airquality
data. Many other agencies use some of the capabilities of AQS to
supplement their own systems' capabilities.

442 U.S.C. S: 7410(a)(2)(B). 542 U.S.C. S: 7405(a). 642 U.S.C. S:
7403(b)(3).

Appendix XII
Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency

o 	In general, the factors driving changes to EPA's air-quality data
management system have been: (1) changes in the characteristics (e.g.,
size, composition, and location) of the national monitoring program with
concomitant growth in the volume of data collected; (2) the need for
additional types of information (e.g., information about other pollutants,
detailed monitoring site descriptions, and information on monitoring
methods used to collect the data); (3) the need for the data system to
perform more sophisticated analyses and provide expanded retrieval
capabilities; and (4) advances in information technology, especially
recent advances associated with the widespread use of personal computers
and the Internet.

Appendix XIII

                    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
                    Program, Environmental Protection Agency

Background	The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) was
initiated in the late 1980s within the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD).1 EMAP is essentially a
long-term research and technology transfer program with an internal
research component and, until recently, an important external research
component funded by competitively awarded grants. EMAP focuses on
developing indicators and unbiased statistical design frameworks that
allow the condition of aquatic ecosystems to be assessed at the local,
state, regional, and national levels. The current condition of the
nation's aquatic ecosystems and the stressors most closely associated with
impaired condition are key assessment activities. Developing sound
scientific approaches for these activities has been and continues to be
EMAP's primary mission.

Through a probability-based sampling design, the EMAP approach provides a
statistically valid basis for determining ecological condition with a
known statistical confidence. When implemented over time, the approach can
provide quantifiable estimates of the environmental benefits derived from
EPA's protection and restoration strategies. Using the EMAP approach, ORD
hopes to reduce data gaps, develop new hypotheses for testing
causeand-effect relationships in ecosystems, and provide scientifically
defensible assessments of changes and trends in ecosystem conditions.

At the national level, EMAP's efforts toward comprehensive and comparable
methods are aimed at permitting, for the first time, meaningful
assessments and regional comparisons of aquatic ecosystems across the

1The need for significant advances in the way EPA and other federal
agencies monitored the condition of the environment had long been
recognized. A 1988 report by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), Future
Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990s, concluded that EPA needed more
research relating the effects of cumulative, regional, and long-term
anthropogenic disturbances to ecosystems. Increased research was also
needed, the SAB said, to develop ecological indicators and protocols for
monitoring and to analyze and quantify uncertainty in assessments
resulting from monitoring data. The goals were improved detection of
ecosystem status and greater predictive capability. Toward these ends, SAB
recommended that EPA undertake research on techniques that can be used to
help anticipate environmental problems and make a more concerted effort to
be aware of and interact with the research efforts of other federal
agencies concerned with these problems. SAB's recommendations, the
emerging vision of ecological risk assessment within EPA, and the
importance of high-quality monitoring in this risk assessment paradigm
were together responsible for the creation of EMAP. EMAP's challenge was
to develop the tools necessary for measuring the condition of ecological
resources and the designs for detecting both spatial and temporal trends.

                                 Appendix XIII
                    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
                    Program, Environmental Protection Agency

United States. EPA regions will benefit as well from consistent and
comparable environmental data as a result of the EMAP approach, since
regional decision makers must also prioritize protection activities across
multiple states and environmental media and often seek to develop unbiased
state-of-the-region reports for their stakeholders. Finally, at the state
and local levels, managers and technical staff frequently struggle to
balance local information needs with federal reporting requirements. The
goal that EMAP seeks to achieve with state and tribal partners is the
adoption of a cost-effective monitoring methodology that simultaneously
serves both levels of decision making.

Summary	EPA officials indicated that funding for EMAP for fiscal year 2005
and proposed funding for fiscal year 2006 are expected to result in the
continuation of EMAP research, data collection, and analysis activities
that will produce data of similar or superior comprehensiveness and
quality compared with that used to support ecological indicators in the
first Heinz Center Report, published in 2002. They noted that the strength
of the EMAP science, the program's focus on working with the states to
produce largescale and national demonstrations of the program's ecological
monitoring approach, and the focus on key agency research needs should
continue to make EMAP a high priority within ORD. Nevertheless, recent
reductions in the funding of EMAP research, specifically the elimination
of funding for an important category of extramural research in fiscal year
2005 and subsequent years, have the potential to adversely affect the
nature and mix of EMAP activities and the implementation of the program's
multiyear research strategy promulgated in mid-2002.

Appendix XIII
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Environmental Protection Agency

Figure 12: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Budget for
Fiscal

Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted
(FY '00 dollars) Source: EPA.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Despite these funding challenges, program officials reported that progress
in EMAP research achieved since publication of the first Heinz Center
report and the expected results of ongoing EMAP studies should enhance the
ability of the program to provide data in support of ecological indicators
in future iterations of The State of the Nation's Ecosystems report and in
EPA's own State of the Environment Report.

                                 Appendix XIII
                    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
                    Program, Environmental Protection Agency

Agency Perspectives EPA officials provided the following information on
funding levels and

program priorities relative to EMAP's ability to continue providingon
Potential Impacts of environmental and ecological data comparable with
past years: Funding Levels and

Program Changes  o 	All of the direct funding for EMAP has come from the
federal government, specifically from funds provided through EPA's Science
and Technology (S&T) appropriation. Funding of each major component of
EMAP between fiscal years 2000 and 2005 is shown in table 14.

        Table 14: EMAP Enacted Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005

Dollars in millions

               EMAP Program               2000  2001  2002  2003  2004   2005 
National Coastal Assessment Program    $7.0  $7.5  $7.3  $7.6  $7.5   $8.2 
          Central Basin Program            0.0  0.0    0.0   4.7   5.7  
           Western EMAP Program            8.1  8.1    8.1   6.8   8.0  
          Regional EMAP Program            2.1  2.1    2.0   1.5   2.5  
              EMAP - Othera               20.3  19.4  22.4  20.7  17.2  
                  Totalb                 $37.5 $37.1  $39.8 $41.3 $40.9 $33.7 

Source: EPA.

aThe EMAP-Other category comprises three components: (1) the STAR grants
program, until fiscal year 2005, when this component of the Ecosystem
Protection research program was eliminated; (2) workforce support-related
costs, which account for the major part of the category (EMAP staff
support the programmatic design, coordination, planning, and
administrative oversight and support of the program and its components);
(3) the remainder of the category funds general support contracts related
to the full-time equivalents.

bTotal includes Central Basin resources from the President's budget for
fiscal years 2003 through 2005. Fiscal year 2005 funding is subject to
congressional approval of the enacted fiscal year 2005 budget.

o 	In many instances, other federal agencies and states partnering with
EMAP have provided in-kind contributions. Depending on the particular EMAP
geographic demonstration, states have contributed in-kind support ranging
from between 25 percent and 50 percent of the overall investment. For
example, the National Coastal Assessment (NCA) has used cooperative
agreements with the 23 marine coastal states and territories. These states
and territories have met between 10 percent and 50 percent of the costs
necessary to complete the estuarine surveys and the subsequent laboratory
processing and reporting. The Western EMAP program has 11 cooperative
agreements with states involved in the program. These agreements are
augmented by the participation of other agencies (primarily United States
Geological Survey, or USGS) that have

Appendix XIII
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Environmental Protection Agency

secondary agreements with some states to conduct the field sampling.
Additionally, each of the 12 western states contributes staffing and, in
many cases, equipment that supports the collection of field data for
Western EMAP. EMAP-Large and Great Rivers (EMAP-GRE) are being conducted
using partnerships with USGS, states, and the Ohio River Sanitary
Commission (ORSANCO). Interagency agreements with USGS were created to
fund state and USGS field crews and laboratory analyses. Cooperative
agreements with states will be the primary vehicle for funding fiscal year
2005 EMAP-GRE activities.

o 	ORD's ecosystems protection research program, of which EMAP has been an
important part since its inception, underwent an OMB Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) review for the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
request. As a result of that review, the Ecosystems Protection Research
program received a rating of "results not demonstrated." OMB's
recommendations included a $22 million reduction in fiscal year 2005
funding for ORD's ecosystems research. The fiscal year 2005 EMAP research
program was reduced by $11.7 million as part of the overall ($22 million)
ecosystems research reduction, even though the quality of EMAP and its
cost-effectiveness were not commented upon by OMB. Reductions to EMAP
research were taken from the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants, a
program of extramural research that was relied upon to build much of the
basic scientific underpinnings of EMAP. Because of the elimination of STAR
grants funding for ecological research, including EMAP-related research,
for fiscal year 2005 and beyond, the integration of EMAP research with
academic research through STAR will no longer be possible.2 STAR grant
funding was the primary source of academic research contributing to EMAP,
and the elimination of this research will slow the development of new
monitoring designs and indicators, the adaptation of existing indicators
for new uses, and the integration of probability designs into state-based
impaired water listings for all current and proposed EMAP programmatic
areas.3 Within EMAP, some

2EMAP STAR funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 was as follows:
fiscal year 2001, $10.2 million (27.6 percent of total EMAP research
funding); fiscal year 2002, $11.6 million (29.1 percent of total EMAP
research funding); fiscal year 2003, $8.5 million (20.6 percent of total
EMAP research funding), fiscal year 2004, $7.5 million (18.3 percent of
total EMAP research funding).

3Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states must identify bodies
of water that are not meeting applicable state water-quality standards and
submit a list of those waters to EPA, along with an explanation of the
methodology used to identify them.

Appendix XIII
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Environmental Protection Agency

of the intramural personnel (as opposed to STAR-funded external
researchers) would continue working on these issues. However, the effort
would be much smaller and less encompassing than that which had been
previously associated with the STAR program.4 Moreover, as currently
configured, EMAP would not be able to fill the void for developing new
indicators in any of its programs with non-STAR extramural funding, with
the possible exception of Great Rivers.5 Moreover, if EMAP, as it is
currently constituted, is to continue pursuing its research goals in
conjunction with its state and federal partners, it cannot not rely on
non-STAR extramural funding to compensate to any substantial degree for
the loss of the STAR research program.

o 	While EMAP developed a multiyear research strategy that envisioned
substantial reliance on extramural research in fiscal years 2005, 2006,
and 2007, the strategy is flexible and a certain amount of what the
program seeks to accomplish could be achieved through a combination of
other means, including intramural research, reduced reliance on major
national studies, increased use of regional scale studies involving EPA
regions and states, partnerships and collaborative arrangements with other
federal agencies (to leverage ORD resources), and by extended study time
frames. For example, the National Coastal Assessment (NCA) is slowing the
pace of its national assessments. In 2005, NCA will embark on a
transitional period for state-level estuarine condition surveys where a
complete national level monitoring will occur every 2 years. The first of
these survey periods (2005-2006) will be completed using ORD resources.
ORD will continue to work with EPA's

4For example, according to EMAP officials, since approximately fiscal year
1999, the development of new or improved indicators for establishing
ecological condition has been viewed as a research area particularly
well-suited to external academic research and has been funded through the
STAR grants program.

5EMAP's attempt to estimate the biological condition of Great Rivers is a
"first-of-its-kind" research. Because work on large rivers is difficult
and dangerous, little work on the development of large river condition
indicators has been conducted. Recognizing that there was not an extensive
scientific literature or experience to build from or major centers of
academic excellence in this field, an indicator development component was
built into EMAP-GRE. Even in the case of EMAP-GRE, however, EMAP had
intended to augment and integrate its "in-house" research with academic
research through the STAR program.

Appendix XIII
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water, EPA regions and the states with the intent of
transitioning the state-based monitoring to other funding sources.6

o 	In the case of EMAP-GRE, work is being conducted using partnerships
with USGS, states, and the Ohio River Sanitation Commission. Interagency
agreements with USGS were created to fund state and USGS field crews and
laboratory analyses. Cooperative agreements with states will be the
primary vehicle for funding fiscal year 2005 activities. Due to the loss
of funding for the STAR grants program associated with EMAP, EMAP-GRE has
developed its own research strategy. EMAP officials are committed to
moving EMAP into new areas of high-impact research based on the scientific
strength of previous accomplishments.

o 	Further changes in EMAP research would likely occur in response to
future budget changes. The areas most vulnerable to budget reductions
would likely be the continuation of state-level condition surveys for
aquatic resources through cooperative agreements with the states.
Integration of new assessment approaches into state monitoring programs
requires sufficient time and funding to demonstrate the efficacy of the
approach in the states and educate them on the benefits of adopting the
approach. It is through state adoption of these approaches (i.e.,
successful technology transfer and institutionalization) that aggregation
of state-level data into national condition assessments would be ensured.
Other vulnerable areas would be research affecting the ability to conduct
regional and national verifications and validations of new Clean Water Act
section 303(d) listing approaches for impaired waters in support of
improved total maximum daily load (TMDL) development. If further budget
reductions were to occur, the new approaches would be demonstrated on a
smaller scale and with a longer time frame. Some EMAP personnel would
continue to work on this research; however the program would likely no
longer have sufficient funds to engage large numbers of state partners to
participate in multiregional or national demonstrations of such
approaches. Without such large-scale demonstrations of the effectiveness
of the improved approach to 303(d) listings, EPA's Office of Water would
not have

6The NCA has used cooperative agreements with the 23 marine coastal
states. These states have provided between 10 percent to 50 percent of the
costs necessary to complete the estuarine surveys and the subsequent
laboratory processing and reporting. Memoranda of Understandings with NOAA
have resulted in NOAA providing an oceangoing research vessel at no cost
to EPA to conduct the offshore surveys of the West and Southwest coasts
and plans to do the same for Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico
surveys.

Appendix XIII
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Environmental Protection Agency

widespread data to support development of national guidance to the states
regarding use of a new approach. In the final analysis, all EMAP
components and activities could be modified. Modifications could range
from complete elimination of component programs, transition of program
components to an EPA program office (e.g., the Office of Water), reduced
activities in one or more program areas, no further large-scale
demonstrations, or delaying or eliminating new key research areas.

o 	EMAP-NCA provided information regarding dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll,
water clarity, nutrient concentrations, and fish tissue contaminants to
the Heinz Center prior to publication of its 2002 report, but the center
did not use this information in its report. Subsequently, NCA provided the
same information for the Heinz Center's update activity in 2003, based on
findings from NCA work from 1999 to 2000. NCA has collected information on
water quality, sediment quality, benthic condition, and tissue contaminant
variables for marine coastal areas of the United States from 1999 to 2004.
These data have been, and will continue to be, made available to the Heinz
Center. The data will expand the sediment contaminants and benthic
condition information to allow a national evaluation. NCA has and will
continue to provide its water quality and fish tissue contamination to the
Heinz Center, as well, so that it may be used in future iterations of the
center's report on the State of the Nation's Ecosystems.

o 	EMAP could provide lake indicators and stream/river indicators for the
Heinz report. Data collected in EMAP-West is being combined with data
being acquired on streams in the remainder of the contiguous United States
by EPA's Office of Water (OW). EMAP developed a compatible design for OW's
stream assessment and is also providing technical guidance and analysis
support to OW. By combining western stream data and data from the
remainder of United States streams in OW's assessment, the first National
Wadeable Streams Assessment will be produced near the end of 2005. This
would be available for inclusion in the Heinz Center's report after fiscal
year 2005.

o 	In terms of long-term availability of information to inform and support
ecological indicators, it is important to bear in mind that EMAP is
primarily a research and development program, not a long-term monitoring
program. EMAP's goal and intent is to transfer its research findings and
technology to the appropriate entities, typically states, for adoption and
long-term implementation. If funding reductions were of

Appendix XIII
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Environmental Protection Agency

such magnitude as to prevent the EMAP monitoring approach from being
adopted by all of the states or mandated by EPA program offices or
regions, it would not be possible over the long run to realize the full
potential of this approach for augmenting the body of data needed to
support ecological indicators, including those contained in the Heinz
Center report series or in EPA's own State of the Environment Report.

Appendix XIV

Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, HHS

Background	Since 1971, a voluntary, collaborative reporting system
involving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) has been in place to track the
occurrences and causes of waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDO) associated
with drinking water.1 Tracking recreational water-associated outbreaks
began in 1978.2 Under this collaborative surveillance system, state,
local, and territorial health officials and epidemiologists use a standard
form to report outbreaks of waterborne diseases to CDC.3 Through the
compilation and reporting of WBDO data in periodic summaries, local and
state health departments and others involved in the implementation of
water protection programs have become more aware of factors involved in
WBDOs. Moreover, through this collaborative system it has been possible to
make assessments of trends in causative agents, focus attention on common
errors in water handling, assist in setting program priorities and
planning activities, and institute better training programs. Information
from the WBDO surveillance system has influenced EPA's research priorities
and has

1The reporting of waterborne diseases in the United States began in 1920
when state and territorial health officers, concerned about high morbidity
and mortality caused by typhoid fever and infant diarrhea, recommended
that cases of enteric fever be investigated and reported. Statistical data
regarding U.S. WBDOs were collected by different researchers and federal
agencies between 1920 and 1970. With the exception of a few waterborne
diseases, however, there are no specific federal legislative or regulatory
mandates for collecting or reporting information on WBDOs associated with
either drinking water or recreational water. Public health departments in
states, territories and localities continue to have primary responsibility
for detecting and investigating WBDOs. At the outset of this collaboration
in 1971, the WBDO Surveillance System served three objectives: (1) disease
control, (2) improved knowledge of disease causation, and (3) provision of
administrative guidance. These objectives continue to provide the basic
rationale for the system.

2The unit of analysis for the WBDO surveillance system is an "outbreak,"
not an individual case of a waterborne disease. Two criteria must be met
for an event to be defined as a waterassociated disease outbreak. First,
two or more people must have experienced a similar illness after exposure
to water. This criterion is waived for single cases of laboratoryconfirmed
primary amebic meningoencephalitis, single cases of wound infections
associated with exposure to recreational water, and for single cases of
chemical poisoning, if water-quality data indicate contamination by the
chemical. Second, epidemiologic evidence must implicate water as the
probable source of the illness. Reported outbreaks caused by water or ice
contaminated at the point of use (e.g., a contaminated water faucet or
serving container) are not classified as water-associated outbreaks.

3CDC uses a standard form (form 52.12) to collect this data. Numeric and
text data are abstracted from the form and supporting documents and are
entered into a CDC database system that tracks the occurrences and causes
of WBDOs associated with drinking water and recreational water.

                                  Appendix XIV
                    Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne
                     Disease Outbreaks, Centers for Disease
                          Control and Prevention, HHS

influenced the development of improved drinking-water-quality regulations
and the development of guidelines for recreational activities in
freshwater and coastal waters as well as documenting decreases in
drinking-waterrelated outbreaks following institution of new EPA
regulations.

Periodically (typically once every 2 years), CDC publishes summary
statistics on waterborne disease outbreaks in a publication series
referred to as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
Surveillance Summaries.4 In 1989, management of the waterborne disease
surveillance system within CDC moved to the Division of Parasitic Diseases
(DPD), a division of the National Center for Infectious Diseases, and
continues to be managed by that group. In collaboration with EPA, CDC
staff receives, analyzes, and compiles the information submitted via the
collaborative reporting system.5 CDC has no full-time staff dedicated to
the WBDO surveillance system; staff time is devoted to the activity as
available. Furthermore, CDC does not track the use of staff time for this
purpose and does not seek or obtain reimbursement for it. After the WBDO
surveillance data has been analyzed and summarized and is ready for
publication, it is made available in printed copies of the MMWR
Surveillance Summary and posted to CDC's Web site, which can be freely
accessed.

Summary	CDC officials indicated that while their agency's participation in
the collaborative WBDO surveillance system is not mandated, they are
confident that CDC will continue to play the role that it has played in
this system over the past 30-plus years. They indicated, in particular,
that data from the WBDO surveillance system used to support ecological
indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, are expected to continue to be available at similar or
superior levels of quality

4All MMWR publications are in the public domain, and the majority of
issues from 1992 to the present are available on the Internet. The first
surveillance summary of WBDOs was published in the MMWR on June 1, 1988.
Prior to this, surveillance data from 1971 through 1984 were published in
a series of status reports by the Enteric Diseases Branch of the Division
of Bacterial Diseases of CDC.

5DPD and EPA each play important roles in evaluating and ranking the
reports that are received and in follow-up activities, as necessary, to
address gaps, discrepancies, or ambiguities in the reports. If any
discrepancies, errors, or other inconsistencies are found during this
process, the CDC WBDO Surveillance System Coordinator contacts the health
department in question for clarification. An extensive clearance process
is undertaken with EPA staff and key experts within CDC that have relevant
expertise (parasitic, bacterial, viral, or environmental health).

                                  Appendix XIV
                    Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne
                     Disease Outbreaks, Centers for Disease
                          Control and Prevention, HHS

and comprehensiveness when compared with data from prior years. CDC
officials also indicated that there are no planned changes for the WBDO
surveillance system that would adversely affect the system's ability to
provide data that can be compared with data in prior years. In fact,
planned enhancements to the system should improve the collection of WBDO
information and its analysis and reporting.6

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

CDC officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to the ability of the WBDO surveillance system
to continue providing environmental and ecological data comparable with
past years:

o 	Costs that are specifically accounted for by CDC in connection with the
WBDO surveillance system are for publication of the MMWR Surveillance
Summaries of WBDOs. These costs have varied in recent calendar years,
totaling, for example, $4,882 in 2000, $10,285 in 2002, and $10,696 in
2005. The total costs of publications for fiscal years 2000 through 2005
have amounted to $25,863. CDC officials reported that there have been
discussions with EPA that resulted in EPA paying for publication costs of
the 2001-2002 MMWR Surveillance Summaries. Discussions are also ongoing
regarding the possibility of that agency sharing the costs of publication
of the MMWR Surveillance Summaries in the future.

o 	Despite there being no statutory or other requirements for CDC's
participation in the WBDO surveillance system, officials said that there
is a demonstrated commitment on the part of CDC to continue to support the
system in the same way it has done for the past 30-plus

6The consensus among experts is that the actual incidence of WBDOs is far
greater than that reported by the MMWR Surveillance Summaries. The
sensitivity of the WBDO surveillance system (i.e., the probability that an
actual outbreak will be identified correctly, reported to CDC, and
recorded into the surveillance database) is unknown because the actual
number of WBDOs cannot be determined. However, the sensitivity of the
system is probably low because of underreporting of WBDOs, likely caused
by lack of recognition that an outbreak is occurring or has already
occurred. Multiple sequential barriers exist to reporting cases of
outbreak-related illness, including that many people who become ill after
exposure to drinking water or recreational water do not make a connection
between their exposure and their illness and may not seek medical
treatment. To complicate matters, standardized clinical and environmental
laboratory methods that are both sensitive and specific are lacking for
many viruses, and routine testing for parasites in fecal samples is not
always done.

Appendix XIV
Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne
Disease Outbreaks, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, HHS

years. The information on WBDOs that has been obtained through the WBDO
surveillance system is very important to CDC, state and local health and
environmental authorities, and the EPA. CDC's strategic objective for the
surveillance system is to continue to work collaboratively to meet the
goals for which it was originally established and to make improvements to
the system wherever possible.

o 	EPA and CDC scientists recently determined that more information needed
to be collected through the WBDO reporting system. As a result, the WBDO
surveillance system report form was revised to allow for more specific
reporting of water source or setting, water treatment, and factors
contributing to water contamination, particularly pertaining to
recreational water-associated outbreaks.

o 	More options are now provided on the report form for listing the types
of problems and deficiencies encountered in drinking water systems (e.g.,
lack of filtration, lack of back-flow prevention, crossconnection, and
negative pressure) and in recreational water settings (e.g., heavy bather
density, and animal or human fecal contamination). The system has also
expanded the types of outbreaks that it includes, including legionellosis
and single cases of wound infections associated with exposure to
recreational water.

o 	In 2007 and 2008, it is anticipated that public health departments in
all 50 states and in other territories and localities will be able to
report their WBDO surveillance data either by completing and mailing or
faxing the paper-based form currently in use, or by entering and
transmitting the data electronically. Discussions are under way between
the DPD and Diarrheal Diseases Branch at CDC to integrate the WBDO
surveillance system with the Electronic Foodborne Outbreak Reporting
System (EFORS). EFORS is an Internet-based system designed for state
health departments to report foodborne disease outbreaks.7 Integration
with the EFORS system will facilitate transitioning to electronic
reporting of WBDOS, a transition that has been requested by various state
health departments.

7EFORS is available in all 50 states and in Washington, D.C., U.S. Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, Johnston Atoll, Marshall Islands, U.S.
Minor Outlying Islands, Navassa Island, Wake Island, Baker Island, Howland
Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll.

Appendix XIV
Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne
Disease Outbreaks, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, HHS

o 	Both CDC and EPA have responded to trends observed in the WBDO
surveillance data.

o 	In response to the increase in reported recreational water outbreaks,
CDC has developed a Healthy Swimming Program, including a Web site
(http://www.cdc.gov/healthyswimming) with information for the general
public, the aquatics sector, and health professionals. It also includes
information for public health professionals on how to report such
outbreaks and how to investigate them. Over 800,000 visits to this site
have been recorded since its inception in 2002. Similar efforts have been
made in the development of a CDC drinking water Web site in response to
the observed relative increase in the number of drinking water outbreaks
associated with private wells.

o 	EPA has responded to trends in the WBDO surveillance data by enacting
drinking water regulations and providing recreational water guidelines.
Outbreak trends have also stimulated EPA and CDCsponsored research, such
as the National Epidemiologic and Environmental Assessment of Recreational
Water (NEEAR) study. As a result of data from the MMWR Surveillance
Summaries, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists passed a
2004 position paper requesting that CDC convene a national workshop to
develop a national prevention plan for infectious diseases spread through
chlorinated swimming venues. The national workshop was held in February
2005. CDC's National Center for Environmental Health has also allocated a
portion of a full-time employee to work on recreational water issues
resulting from CDC's response to the WBDO surveillance data.

Appendix XV

Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior

Background	The Biological Resources Discipline (BRD) provides the
scientific understanding and technologies needed to support sound
management and conservation of the nation's biological resources. In
October 1996, BRD was established within the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), bringing an important living resources dimension to the USGS earth
sciences orientation, thus making it possible for the bureau to bring
physical plus biological science to natural resource management problems.
BRD supports federal stewardship responsibilities and mandates to estimate
the availability and abundance of fish and wildlife resources, determine
the distribution and abundance of migratory birds, investigate and report
on North American birds, conduct inventories of all public lands and their
resources, implement programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants, conserve marine mammals, and implement the Convention on Great
Lakes Fisheries.1 BRD works cooperatively with federal and state agencies
to share information necessary to develop a comprehensive picture of the
nation's biological resources.

The majority of BRD programs and resources remain directed toward the
needs and responsibilities of Department of the Interior resource
management bureaus, such as studies supporting development of annual
waterfowl regulations, research leading to better land protection
strategies for national parks, and investigations seeking optimal water
control practices for enhancement of fisheries.

However, an equally important BRD objective has been the establishment and
ongoing development of a National Biological Information Infrastructure
(NBII), a network of distributed databases and information sources on
biological resources. NBII information is being used by federal and state
agencies, researchers, universities, museums, planning and environmental
consultants, private companies, landowners, and the public.

1These legislative mandates include the Organic Act of 1879, 7 U.S.C. S:
2204; Migratory Bird Treaty Act (enacted 1918), 16 U.S.C. S: 704;
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (enacted 1929), 16 U.S.C. S: 715d; Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, 16 U.S.C. S: 661; Fish and Wildlife
Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. S: 742a et seq.; Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956,
16 U.S.C. S: 939a; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. S:S:
1361 -1421h; Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. S:S: 1531-1544;
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. S: 1701 et seq.;
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. S: 666g;
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, 16
U.S.C. S: 4721; Water Resources Development Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. S:
2317(a)(3)(A).

Appendix XV Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey, Department
                                of the Interior

Summary	USGS officials indicated that actual funding for biological
programs for fiscal year 2005 and anticipated funding for fiscal year 2006
will not have an adverse effect on the ability of these programs to
generate data of similar quality and comprehensiveness when compared with
data from previous years. The officials indicated, in particular, that
there should be no effect on the ability of these programs to generate
data used to support indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State
of the Nation's Ecosystems.

Figure 13: Biological Resources Discipline Program Budget for Fiscal Years
2000

2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds

Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)
Source: USGS.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, agency officials indicated that planned BRD program
activities and priorities set out in its strategic plans will not have a
significant effect on the ability to produce data in coming years when
compared with data in previous years. The officials added, however, that
BRD does not anticipate

Appendix XV Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey, Department
                                of the Interior

any significant new resources becoming available to significantly expand
its ecological monitoring efforts. Barring significant budget reductions,
they said, BRD recognizes the importance of continuing the research and
monitoring efforts cited above, primarily in response to the legislative
mandates these projects were first developed to address. As utilized in
the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, agency
officials stated that data is expected to be available in a satisfactory
form for the next Heinz Center report on the nation's ecosystems, expected
in 2007.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USGS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to BRD's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	Biological Research is a budget activity (budget line item) within the
USGS appropriation "Surveys, Investigations, and Research." BRD officials
indicated that budget allocations for the BRD programs for fiscal year
2005 are about 1.6 percent below enacted appropriations for fiscal year
2004 (as depicted in Figure 13) but nearly 2.5 percent above the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget request for BRD. The officials added
that this slight reduction in enacted funding from fiscal year 2004 to
fiscal year 2005 has had no effect on the ability of BRD programs to
collect data supporting ecological indicators.

o 	The BRD program components that generated data utilized by the Heinz
Center in its 2002 report and the 6-year funding history of those programs
are as follows:2

2USGS/BRD officials indicated that the President's proposed fiscal year
2006 budget maintains the current fiscal year funding for all three data
programs on which the Heinz Center relied for data to support the
indicators in its 2002 report.

Appendix XV Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior

    Table 15: BRD Funding for Program Components for Fiscal Years 2000-2005

                       2000      2001      2002      2003      2004 
North American                                                             
Breeding Bird  $250,000  $250,000  $250,000  $250,000  $250,000   $250,000
       Survey                                                       
Nonindigenous                                                              
      Aquatic     $262,000a $250,000b $255,000c $277,000d $477,000e $593,000f
      Species                                                       
      Database                                                      
Animal Deaths                                                              
        and                                                         
    Deformities       1,072     1,147     1,228     1,313     1,403     1,539

Source: USGS.

aUSGS provided $167,000, FWS provided $55,000, and EPA provided $40,000.
bUSGS provided $170,000, and FWS provided $80,000.
cUSGS provided $175,000, and FWS provided $80,000.
dUSGS provided $222,000, and FWS provided $55,000.
eUSGS provided $422,000, and FWS provided $55,000.
fUSGS provided $538,000, and FWS provided $55,000.

o 	BRD officials indicated that congressional appropriations are not the
sole source of funding to support their program activities. BRD has
various models for obtaining funding from other sources, including other
federal agencies, states, nongovernmental organizations, and industry
associations. The extent of supplemental funding from outside sources
varies among BRD programs. As an example, the Cooperative Research Program
is funded through appropriations used to staff, support, and manage
USGS/BRD participation in this partnership with states. Similarly, the
research and technical assistance activities of individual BRD units are
supported by reimbursable funds from state, federal, and local
governments.

o 	With regard to possible future budget reductions, agency officials
indicated that their response would depend upon the degree of severity of
the cuts and any guidance that might come from the Department of the
Interior, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. They said
that any substantial reductions in funding would slow the collection and
input of data and databases would no longer be as up-to-date, resulting in
incomplete data for indicators. They noted that under past budget
reductions, USGS generally received specific guidance regarding the types
of projects and activities to cut. They anticipate that USGS would receive
and follow such guidance in the future and, where possible, would modify
data program activities so as to have the least adverse impact on its
customers' highest-priority needs.

Appendix XVI

Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior

Background	The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Earth
Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center encompasses three areas:
(1) science (promoting knowledge of land information to better understand
our planet), (2) data access (ensuring that scientists, researchers,
businesses, policymakers, and the public have ready access to this
information), and (3) data archiving (safeguarding and expanding the
national archive of remotely sensed land data).

EROS traces its origins to the 1960s and the development and use of
remote-sensing technology to survey the Earth's surface for land
management, natural hazard analysis, and resource analysis applications.
An Earth-observing program was formally established in 1969 through a
joint initiative of the USGS and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). In July 1972, the first Earth Resources Technology
Satellite, later named Landsat-1, was launched. From its inception, EROS
was designed to be interdisciplinary in nature, which is reflected in its
mix of federal and contractor workforce skills, including experts, among
others, in geology, hydrology, forestry, satellite systems engineering,
satellite data acquisition, and information science.1

EROS comprises satellite operations, long-term data preservation and
access, and remote-sensing research and data utilization. EROS holds the
world's largest collection of civilian remotely sensed data covering the
Earth's land surface, archiving millions of satellite images and aerial
photographs. The archive holdings, coupled with engineering and scientific
expertise at EROS, provide a unique capability for developing and
promoting science applications of remotely sensed data to identify,
monitor, and understand changes on the landscape and across the interface
between nature and human activity.

Summary	USGS officials indicated that the fiscal year 2006 budget includes
funding for the continuation of Landsat 7 operations and begins to fund
the planning and preparation for receiving, archiving, and providing
access to the next-generation satellite data in 2010. This funding will
result in the continuation of data collection and analysis such that in
future years the

1The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. S:S: 5601-5672, and
Presidential Decision Directive National Science and Technology Council-3
(signed May 10, 1994, and revised Oct. 16, 2000) give EROS a mandate for
collecting data.

Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

data used in the Heinz Center report will be of similar or superior
quality and comprehensiveness when compared with past years. However, for
purposes of the center's 2007 report, the data will not likely be as
current as initially planned because of a May 2003 malfunction of the
Landsat 7 satellite.

Figure 14: Earth Resources Observation Systems Program Budget for Fiscal
Years

2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions) 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Program funding

Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)
Source: USGS.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Agency officials reported that in the next 5 to 10 years, largely due to
planned satellite deployments, the next-generation satellite data can
improve the ability to produce data for most of the Heinz Center
ecological indicators used for the 2002 report, The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems. Changes in analytical approaches may expand the utility of
data sets such as the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) used in the Heinz
Center

 Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S. Geological
                       Survey, Department of the Interior

report, and may result in higher quality national digital elevation data;
also, data on vegetation condition expected from planned satellite
missions are expected to be of higher quality.2

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USGS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to EROS's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	Reimbursable funds received from other federal agencies, international
cooperators, and other USGS disciplines constitute about half of EROS's
total funding.3 The operations and research conducted at EROS have relied
equally on appropriated and reimbursable funds. The largest source of
reimbursables historically was the sales income from satellite images and
other digital remotelysensing products. Other reimbursable funding was
derived from camera calibration support, service, and assistance to other
Department of the Interior agencies as well as federal and international
agencies, and ground station fees charged to international cooperators
receiving Landsat data. However, as a result of Landsat 7 satellite
malfunction in May 2003, that degraded the quality for portions of the
Landsat 7 images transmitted by the satellite, images became less
marketable, and reimbursable income dropped sharply with fewer data sales.
The loss of Landsat 7 income had a significant affect on the development
of NLCD and the phenology dataset. All EROS programs were affected by the
income loss, including research, which funds NLCD and plant growth
datasets. The loss of Landsat 7 income therefore slowed the creation of
the NLCD by at least a year. In

2USGS established the USGS Land Cover Institute as a help center for users
of land cover data, such as the NLCD. The institute staff provides
on-demand assistance in determining the data requirements for user
applications. The staff of the forerunner to the Land Cover Institute, the
Land Cover Applications Center, provided the consultative and data
processing support services needed for the 2002 Heinz Center report.

3Other USGS disciplines (water, biology and geology), and other Department
of the Interior agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, are sponsors of and
partners in EROS projects and provide reimbursable funds. Non-Interior
agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest
Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Bureau of the Census, and United Nations
Environment Program are also major partners with EROS.

 Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S. Geological
                       Survey, Department of the Interior

fiscal years 2003 and 2004, USGS reprogrammed funds to compensate, in
part, for this drop in revenue. EROS funding is shown in table 16:

Table 16: EROS Appropriated, Reprogrammed, and Reimbursable Funds for
Fiscal Years 2000-2005, and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Dollars in millions

                                     2000 2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006a 
            Appropriatedb           $27.9 $29.9 $32.5 $30.7 $29.8 $30.6 $43.4 
     Reprogrammed/Working Capital      --    --    --  2.2   3.8   6.0     -- 
                Fundc                                                   
             Reimbursable            24.9 29.1  30.3  29.7  31.9  25.7   25.7 
                Total               $52.8 $59.0 $62.8 $62.6 $65.5 $62.3 $69.1 

Source: USGS.

aPresident's proposed budget.

bAppropriated amounts include funding from other USGS programs. The
majority of the EROS's appropriated funding comes from the Land Remote
Sensing Program (LRS), and from two other programs: the Geographic
Analysis and Monitoring (GAM), and Cooperative Topographic Mapping (CTM).
For example, in fiscal year 2004, EROS received about $3,010,000 from GAM,
$4,844,000 from CTM, $18,688,000 from LRS, and about $3,300,000 from other
USGS programs.

cIn fiscal year 2003, funds were reprogrammed by reducing training,
supplies, equipment and nonlabor contracts, and cancellation of planned
deposits to a working capital fund for maintenance of the EROS facility.
In addition, contract funds were reprogrammed from both the Cooperative
Topographic Mapping (CTM) Program and from an emergency facility
contingency fund used to cover repairs to other USGS facilities. In fiscal
year 2004, the Mapping, Remote Sensing, & Geographic Investigations
Activity reprogrammed funds from the CTM Program, resulting in a reduction
of funds for mapping contracts, National Academy of Sciences studies, and
funds for travel, training, recruitment/hiring, and equipment purchases.
In fiscal year 2005, USGS will use a working capital fund to cover costs.

The requested appropriation of $43.4 million for fiscal year 2006 reflects
an increase of $6 million to provide base funds to continue Landsat 7
satellite operations until the 2009 launch of the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LDCM), and $7.4 million to begin system development activities
that ensure capabilities are in place to ingest, archive, process, and
distribute LDCM data from the first National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) satellite that year.4 This
additional funding request for both the Landsat continuity operations and
the preparation for NPOESS is the beginning of a 4-year effort; after the

4The data from NPOESS is expected to be of higher quality and
comprehensiveness when compared with earlier data as used in the 2002
Heinz Center report, as colocated atmospheric and weather instruments will
allow for better atmospheric correction of data than can currently be
achieved.

 Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S. Geological
                       Survey, Department of the Interior

expected launch in 2009, operation and maintenance costs are estimated to
be approximately $23 million a year.

o 	EROS archiving costs have been kept relatively constant for fiscal
years 2000 through 2005 by taking advantage of technological advances to
manage the ever-increasing volume of data. However, as more data are
collected at an unprecedented rate, there is some potential of
overwhelming the archiving capacity. One of the specific legislative
mandates of EROS is to archive data generated by Landsat and other
Earth-observing satellites.5 This includes the transfer of old data to
state-of-the-art electronic storage media for long-term preservation and
access as well as archiving and preserving a considerable amount of legacy
data (e.g., old aerial photographs) and declassified images from military
intelligence satellites of an earlier era. The dollar amounts dedicated to
archiving (in data management/information technology funding) and each of
the other major components of EROS's operations are shown in table 17:

         Table 17: EROS Funding by Operation for Fiscal Years 2000-2005

Dollars in millions

                                           2000 2001  2002  2003  2004   2005 
            Imagery acquisitiona           $8.0 $8.0  $8.0  $8.0  $8.0   $8.0 
        Data management/information        11.9 13.6  16.3  13.6  13.0  
                technologyb                                             
            Science applicationc            7.0  7.2   6.5   7.1   6.5  
                Facilitiesd                 1.0  1.1   1.7   2.0   2.2  
          Landsat 7 reprogramminge          0.0  0.0   0.0   2.2   3.8  
               Total Funding              $27.9 $29.9 $32.5 $32.9 $33.5 $36.4 

Source: USGS.

aCosts of operation and control of the Landsat satellite system, including
scheduling acquisition of satellite images and controlling the satellite.

bCosts of data archiving and information technology support of desktop and
computer-room computer systems, networks, and help desk functions.

cCosts of applied and research science and training utilizing data from
the EROS archive and other data center archives for internal projects and
for partnership projects with reimbursable customers.

dThe appropriated share of costs of operations and maintenance of the EROS
facility, including security, custodial, and operations and maintenance
contracts, materials and supplies for the

515 U.S.C. S: 5652.

 Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S. Geological
                       Survey, Department of the Interior

contracted activities, employee safety, government vehicles, grounds
maintenance, and various other facilities-related activities.

eCosts of providing Landsat operations functions normally funded by data
sales, but funded by reprogramming funds due to the loss of data sales
revenue.

o 	Funding levels have not kept pace with mandated cost-of-living
adjustments affecting all USGS programs, including operations and research
at EROS. Salaries for 80 or more federal employees and 600 or more
contactor employees at EROS have risen steadily from year to year as a
result of cost of living increases. In fiscal year 2002, staff costs
constituted 83 percent of available funding. By fiscal years 2003 and
2004, these costs accounted for 85 percent of funding at EROS. For fiscal
year 2005, staff costs are projected to account for nearly 90 percent of
available funds. Federal employee cost of living pay increases are covered
by legislated pay increases; the contract employees are entitled to
receive the same pay increases that federal employees receive. However,
there is no provision in the USGS budget request for covering these
increased contract costs. The salary costs and total number of staff at
EROS are shown in table 18:

Table 18: EROS Salary Costs and Staffing Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005

Dollars in millions

                                           2000 2001  2002  2003  2004   2005 
        Total funds (appropriations,                                    
             reprogramming ,and                                         
               reimbursables)             $52.8 $59.0 $62.8 $62.6 $65.5 $62.3 
    Salary costs (federal employees and   $42.7 $47.7 $52.2 $53.4 $55.6 $56.2 
                contractors)                                            
     Salary costs as a portion of EROS      81%  81%   83%   85%   85%    90% 
                   budget                                               
                Total staff                 648  668   656   647   655  

Source: USGS.

o 	The malfunction of the Landsat 7 satellite in May 2003, which degraded
the quality for portions of images transmitted by the satellite, is not
expected to impact the type of data used by the Heinz Center in its
report.6 The next NLCD is being developed using Landsat 7 data acquired in
2001, prior to the data anomaly. Thus, it is not expected to

6The Heinz Center used data from the 1992 NLCD derived from Landsat 5
Thematic Mapper data for most of its purposes, and also, from Advanced
Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data spanning a number of NOAA
polar orbiters for plant condition analysis.

Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

have a negative effect on the portrayal of ecological conditions or usein
the projected 2007 Heinz Center report.7 While the malfunction of Landsat
7 does not seriously affect the currently planned NLCD effort, it does
jeopardize planned future updates. The USGS and agencies that sponsor and
fund the development of the NLCD would like to update the 2001 database,
once completed, using 2006-2007 remotely sensed data. The Landsat 7
malfunction, uncertain Landsat 5 status and projected LDCM launch in 2009
threatens the update.

o 	EROS supports current satellite missions and missions under development
that are expected to provide increasingly detailed assessments of land
characteristics and conditions, collecting data with improved
specifications and analytical capabilities.

o 	The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) recently released a
Landsat data continuity strategy that calls for transitioning the Landsat
program from a series of independent missions to an operational program by
incorporating Landsat-type sensors on future satellites within the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) series. The program is to be operated jointly by the Department
of Defense and NOAA. The first NPOESS spacecraft is scheduled for launch
in December 2009.

o 	Next-generation satellite data are expected to improve the ability to
produce the Heinz Center ecological indicators ecosystem extent and
fragmentation and landscape pattern. In addition, satellite-derived data
(e.g., data on land cover) can serve as inputs to at least five additional
indicators: (1) those using data on nutrients such as carbon and oxygen,
(2) chemical contaminants, (3) condition of plant and animal communities,
(4) soil biological conditions, and (5) production of food, fiber, and
water. These Heinz Center ecological indicators may benefit the most from
such improved satellite data. The specific advantages provided will depend
on the specifications of the mission, satellite, instrument, and ground
data processing. Key design factors in the next-generation satellites
essential to improved environmental indicator data sets are as follows:

7Up to nine federal agencies have contributed funds to purchase the
Landsat data needed to develop the NLCD. Development of the NLCD is funded
through partnerships with USGS, EPA, Interior, and USDA. While the
specific funding varies from year to year, USGS contributes approximately
half of the funds needed to provide for the NLCD. The funding level for
NLCD in fiscal year 2006 is expected to be flat.

Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

o 	Availability. The most urgent issue is the long-term availability of
data. Without access to appropriate remotely sensed data, it will not be
possible to develop current indicator datasets.

o 	Continuity (comparable spatial and spectral coverage, temporal
frequency). It is important that future generations of data be comparable
to data from the past. While identical specifications are not necessary,
data collected in the future must be compatible with the characteristics
of legacy data.

o 	Calibration for comparison over time. Improved sensor and data
calibration will greatly enhance comparisons of measurements over time by
reducing the uncertainty and error resulting from comparing data. This is
particularly crucial for quantifying trends in ecological conditions.

o 	Improved geometry. The precision of image geometry will ensure that
data measurements represent specific places on the Earth. This is also
important when comparing data over time. The greater the precision to the
Earth's surface, the more reliable are trends based on comparisons of data
from different times.

o 	Improved spectral characteristics. This will permit improved
characterization of key vegetation attributes, including chemical and
physiological status.

o 	Surface imperviousness data and tree canopy density data are being
developed for the newest generation NLCD. Surface imperviousness provides
a representation of the amount of paved material covering each 30-meter
Landsat 7 pixel. Canopy density is an estimate of the percentage of woody
vegetation in each 30-meter pixel. These data layers may be quite useful
in addressing indicators related to human activity and disturbance as well
as vegetation condition and biogeochemistry status.

o 	USGS is engaged in a national assessment of the rates, causes and
consequences of 1973-2000 land use and land cover change for each of the
84 conterminous U.S. ecoregions and selected Alaska ecoregions. In this
study, for each ecoregion, detailed analysis of the types, rates, and
causes of change are being estimated, trends in landscape fragmentation
and patterns are being derived, and estimates of changes in ecoregional
carbon dynamics are being modeled.

Appendix XVI Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

o 	Future data on vegetation condition should improve in quality as the
USGS transitions from the use of the Advanced Very High Radiation
Radiometer (AVHRR) to the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS) and then NPOESS.8 While data quality will improve due to advanced
calibration, as well as spectral and geometric properties, research is
needed to ensure the continuity of measurements from those datasets.

8AVHRR is a radiation-detection imager used for remotely determining cloud
cover and the surface temperature to generate a variety of products
related to measurements of the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Typical
applications include day and night cloud mapping, snow and ice detection,
land-water boundaries, sea surface temperature, and the vegetative index.
MODIS is an instrument aboard select satellites that collect data to
improve our understanding of global dynamics and processes occurring on
the land, in the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere, in particular
supporting models to predict global change accurately enough to assist
policymakers in making sound decisions concerning the protection of our
environment.

Appendix XVII

National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior

Background	The National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN)
consists of 35 stations at which systematic and continuing measurements
are made to determine the quality of the nation's largest rivers
(Mississippi-including the Missouri and Ohio river basins-Columbia,
Colorado, Rio Grande, and Yukon) and their major tributaries.1 The network
measures a range of characteristics selected to aid in the utilization and
protection of these major rivers at regional and national levels. The
network's objectives are to (1) account for the quantity and quality of
water moving within and from the United States, (2) detect changes in
water quality, (3) depict area variability, and (4) lay the groundwork for
future assessments of changes in stream and river quality.2

NASQAN produces data used by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration for reports related to
important off-continent resources, such as the Gulf of Mexico. NASQAN data
and information have been prominent in identifying the amount of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and other nutrients leaving the million-square-mile
Mississippi River Basin and contributing to Gulf of Mexico hypoxia
conditions. NASQAN provides information needed to improve and eventually
validate management actions needed to control the size of the hypoxic zone
in the gulf. The link between Mississippi River Basin influences on Gulf
of Mexico hypoxia is one reason the Mississippi sampling by NASQAN remains
the highest priority for the network.

From 1973 (when sampling began) until 1980 (at the peak of NASQAN's
operations), water at the stations was sampled monthly, but as resources
declined, sampling frequency decreased to bimonthly and then quarterly.
Reduction in sampling frequency and the number of sites sampled began in
1981, when there were about 515 sites with about 165 sites measured

1NASQAN was originally established in 1973 to address the following
problems associated with the nation's streams and waterways: (1) a
relatively small amount of hydrologic records, (2) frequent changes in
sampling location and frequency of observations, (3) chemical measurements
that did not include hydrologic measurements (stream flow was not
included), and (4) a lack of data to determine temporal variability of
specific constituents of the streams and rivers, so trends could be
identified.

2NASQAN operates primarily through federal appropriations to achieve its
objectives; however, it also participates in collaborative efforts with
some states that use NASQAN data for their information needs under the
Clean Water Act, section 305(b). In some cases, states collect additional
samples at NASQAN sites to complete their data needs, thus building on the
base-level information NASQAN provides. According to USGS officials, given
NASQAN's modest size, its ability to meet site-specific state needs is
limited.

Appendix XVII
National Stream Water Quality Accounting
Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
of the Interior

bimonthly (six times a year), with the remaining sites measured monthly.
By 1986, there were about 496 sites-one site measured monthly, 285 sites
measured bimonthly, and the remaining 210 sites were sampled quarterly.
From 1987 to 1992, about 410 sites operated, with about 240 bimonthly and
the remaining 170 quarterly. Finally, in 1994, about 285 sites were
operating, with about 160 bimonthly and the remaining 125 quarterly.3

During 1995, the NASQAN network was redesigned consistent with existing
budgets to focus on the transport of constituents within and from the four
largest river basins in the conterminous United States: the Mississippi,
Rio Grande, Colorado, and Columbia.4 USGS chose to make NASQAN's objective
the transport of constituents in large rivers of the United States
because, at the national level, no other organization was able to provide
such data and information. Further, large rivers transport constituents
like nutrients that have a major influence, seasonally and even
year-to-year, on the condition of receiving waters like the gulf. In 1996,
the new design for NASQAN included 47 stations in the four large river
basins, with monthly sampling, plus three high-flow samples per year. The
monthly samples, taken on a fixed time interval-like the first week of
each month-cover many different water conditions, and allow scientist to
determine how conditions vary by seasons (e.g., spring versus fall) and
over years. The three high-flow samples help to ensure that the most
important flows for transport estimates are sampled during times when the

3By multiplying the sites and sampling frequency, at the peak of operation
in 1980, NASQAN collected about 6,200 samples annually. By 1994, NASQAN
collected only about 1,450 samples.

4The transport of constituents here refers to the movement of nutrients,
metals, pesticides or other components of a water sample down a river,
expressed as a mass measurement such as pounds per year. Since that time,
NASQAN has been measuring nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, and
silica; metals like lead, zinc, copper, and cadmium; and pesticides like
atrazine, diazinon, and simonizes.

Appendix XVII
National Stream Water Quality Accounting
Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
of the Interior

river flows are largest, or highest.5 NASQAN now samples constituents such
as nutrients, metals (both dissolved and metals on sediment particles),
major ions, pesticides, and field parameters such as flow, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, and alkalinity. The two major
differences between samples collected prior to 1996 and more recently are:
(1) more frequent sampling now (12 to 15 times per year versus about 4
times per year previously, allowing coverage of many more flow
conditions), and (2) the addition of pesticides, and metals associated
with sediment particles, neither of which were previously collected prior
to 1996 (metals associated with particles may be the major transport
mechanism for some metals). Since transport is the primary objective,
adding the metals associated with particles was an important change.

5High flows do not always occur during the preselected times for monthly
samples to be collected. NASQAN sampling crews have the flexibility to
both sample the regularly scheduled monthly sample, plus at other times of
the month if the flows are high and should be sampled to improve our
transport estimates. Transport is the result of multiplying concentration
(e.g., pounds per gallon) with flow (gallons per day) to provide a result
of pounds per day. So, since transport values (pounds per day or pounds
per year) result from a multiplication of flow and concentration, high
flows are important in influencing the results of pounds per year. For
some streams, 90 percent of more of the annual transport may occur over
the span of just a few days (3 to 5 days, for example) in a given year.
That is why the high flow sampling can be important, and must be included
in the sample scheme when transport is one of the sampling objectives.

                                 Appendix XVII
                    National Stream Water Quality Accounting
                   Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
                                of the Interior

Figure 15: National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network Budget for
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

                        Funding level (in millions) 3.5

                                      3.0

                                      2.5

                                      2.0

                                      1.5

                                      1.0

                                      0.5

               0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

              Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding

                      Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)

                                 Source: USGS.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Summary	Information provided by USGS officials indicated that NASQAN is
not reducing the quality of data collected, and remains committed to
maintaining the highest level of its water-quality data nationwide.
However, due to funding reductions over the previous three years and the
impact of inflation, there has been a reduction in the geographic coverage
of data collected under the program.6 In 1996, when NASQAN began
operations

6USGS officials indicated that the fiscal year 2006 budget request
includes an inflation adjustment equal to about $30,000, or about 1.3
percent of its budget, but otherwise, the funding request is equal to the
enacted fiscal year 2005 amount. Officials believe that this is less than
what is needed to keep pace with inflation for one year. As a result of
this and program reductions in real dollars, NASQAN operations will
continue to be reduced.

                                 Appendix XVII
                    National Stream Water Quality Accounting
                   Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
                                of the Interior

with the new design for the network, NASQAN was operating with an annual
budget of $3 million. Even with the 2006 request of about $2,277,000, 10
years after redesign, NASQAN is operating with about 76 percent of the
1996 operating budget. According to USGS officials, inflation impacts
simply exaggerate that reduction over 10 years. Furthermore, the 2002
Heinz Center report relied considerably on NASQAN data collected when more
than 400 stations were being used for sampling; the current NASQAN network
now gathers data from only 35 stations, which is about 8 percent of the
previous total. NASQAN cannot duplicate the data used for the 2002 Heinz
Center report, as there are many areas of the country that are no longer
covered by NASQAN. Most of the coastal and Great Lakes stations no longer
operate, the stations in the arid West are generally no longer part of
NASQAN, stations in the Mid-Atlantic and the southeastern United States
are no longer operative, and the Mississippi River Basin, while still in
operation with 18 stations, is just a sparse presence compared with the
approximate 175 stations previously operating in the Mississippi River
Basin. NASQAN can still provide valuable insight on loading for a large
river like the Mississippi, whose watershed includes about 40 percent of
the continental landmass of the nation.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USGS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to NASQAN's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	A major factor influencing future NASQAN operations is the effect of
economic inflation. Because about 88 percent of NASQAN funding goes to
sample collection and chemical analysis in river basins, future inflation
(or any other network resource reductions) would likely result in the
sampling of fewer sites.

o 	NASQAN funding declined from about $4 million in fiscal year 1990 to
about $3 million in 1995. In fiscal year 2005, funding is about $2.2
million.7

o 	Reductions in available operating funds have reduced the number of
geographic locations included in NASQAN. Of the five major river

7USGS does not reduce the quality of data collected even as the funding
levels have declined. Regardless of the number of samples and geographic
extent of data collected, data quality would remain high and comparable
with past data.

Appendix XVII
National Stream Water Quality Accounting
Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
of the Interior

basins, sampling in the Yukon will end in fiscal year 2005. As necessary,
to accommodate any future funding reductions, fewer sites would be sampled
and the frequency of the samples performed would be reduced for the
Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande, in that order. Continued funding
reductions could ultimately limit operations in the Mississippi River
Basin.

o 	Reductions in available funds often reduce the number of geographic
sites at which samples are collected. Overall, in fiscal year 2000, NASQAN
operated 41 stations, and in fiscal year 2005, it plans to operate 35
stations. An estimated 29 stations will be operated in fiscal year 2006.

o 	NASQAN is a perennial activity, and as such, the following major
components of the program do not change substantially from year to year:

o 	River basins-where data is collected. These are the major geographic
components of NASQAN, and consume most of the resources for field
collection and processing of samples, with subsequent analysis at the USGS
National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. River basin
activities consume 88 percent of the program's resources.

o 	Network coordination and database operations-support the field
logistical operations and quality assurance of the data generated by
NASQAN. Database operations are focused on ensuring the data are of high
quality and are freely available over the Internet through the USGS
National Water Information System. Together, these activities consume the
remaining 12 percent of the program's resources.

o 	Analysis and reporting-review and analysis of data and creation of
meaningful reports and information products. Historically, these
activities have been important to NASQAN; however, no funds are currently
available for analysis and reporting.

o 	In fiscal year 2006, following conclusion of field work in the Yukon in
fiscal year 2005, funds totaling about 10 percent to 15 percent of the
total NASQAN funds will become available and be devoted to analysis and
reporting, with an equal decrease in resources devoted to river basin data
collection activity. The decrease in river basin data collection is mostly
from the planned conclusion of sampling in the Yukon. Since

Appendix XVII
National Stream Water Quality Accounting
Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
of the Interior

fiscal year 2000, NASQAN has operated five fixed stations in the Yukon and
has also done additional sampling along the length of the Yukon each
summer from 2000 through 2005. However, after fiscal year 2005, the
stations will cease operating and the summer sampling will end. NASQAN
will redirect some of its resources from the Yukon to sampling at the
remaining network stations and to analyzing and reporting on NASQAN data.
The analysis and reporting function of NASQAN has largely been absent
since 2000 because of the Yukon sampling, NASQAN funding decreases, and
inflation impacts.

o 	Over the last 4 years, the National Water Quality Laboratory has
reduced the number of personnel needed to produce a consistent level of
data. This reduction has helped offset annual salary increases due to
cost-ofliving increases provided to federal employees.

o 	Monitoring at five stations in the Yukon River basin began in fiscal
year 2001. To provide the resources for the Yukon monitoring, monitoring
in the Colorado basin was reduced from eight stations to two and in the
Columbia basin from six stations to one. The objective of the Yukon River
basin monitoring is to establish baseline waterquality conditions for
comparison with future conditions. These comparisons will be important for
understanding the release of carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients from
the expected partial melting of permafrost in the Yukon basin. A broad
range of chemicals-including nutrients, mercury, natural and manmade
organic chemicals, and trace elements-are being measured at five stations
from the Canadian border to the mouth of the river.

o 	Resources in fiscal year 2006 are projected to be insufficient to
restore the monitoring stations that were closed in the Columbia and
Colorado river basins in prior years in order to provide funding for
monitoring in the Yukon River basin. In addition, sampling is expected to
stop in the Columbia, Colorado, and much of the Rio Grande river basins in
order to provide funding for data analysis and interpretation of data on
the Mississippi River basin, and to finalize reports on the results of the
monitoring activity in the Yukon River basin.8 Table 19 shows the river

8For the Rio Grande, negotiations are not complete, but USGS officials
anticipate that of the eight stations, six will remain in operation in
2006. Officials also anticipate that 2006 will be the last year of
operation for those six stations. These NASQAN operational plans may have
to change if the NASQAN 2006 budget turns out to be less than currently
projected.

Appendix XVII
National Stream Water Quality Accounting
Network, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Department
of the Interior

basins and number of stations operated in fiscal years 2000 and 2005,
along with an estimate for fiscal year 2006:

Table 19: NASQAN Stations in Operation, Fiscal Years 2000, 2005, and 2006

             Mississippi    Rio    Columbia     Colorado     Yukon      Total 
                   River  Grande   River        River        River     NASQAN 
                   basin   River          basin       basin   basin     sites 
                           basin                                    
2000               18         9            6           8       0        41 
2005               19         8            1           2       5        35 
2006a              18         8            1           2       0 

                           Source: USGS. aEstimated.

Appendix XVIII

National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior

Background	The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) proposed the National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program in 1985 to (1) provide a nationally
consistent description of current water-quality conditions for a large
part of the nation's water resources; (2) define long-term trends (or lack
of trends) in water quality; and (3) identify, describe, and explain, to
the extent possible, the major factors that affect observed water-quality
conditions and trends.1 NAWQA was established in large part because of the
complexity of water-quality issues, including the challenges of managing
diffuse sources of pollution; the introduction into the environment of
hundreds of synthetic organic compounds, such as pesticides and volatile
organic compounds in solvents and gasoline; and the need to better
understand the interrelatedness of groundwater and surface-water systems.

The NAWQA program is a primary source for long-term, nationwide
information on the quality of streams, groundwater, and aquatic
ecosystems. This information supports national, regional, and state, and
local decision making and policy formation for water-quality management.
At river basins and aquifers across the nation, USGS scientists collect
and analyze information on water chemistry, hydrology, land use, stream
habitat, and aquatic life.

NAWQA studies focus on streams and groundwater. Lakes, reservoirs,
estuaries, and coastal areas are monitored in only a few selected areas
for specialized studies. Because many of the assessed streams and rivers
contribute to lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries, an ongoing goal is to
collaborate with other USGS programs, such as the national stream quality
accounting network; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies; and
states to assess major receiving waters, such as the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, and the Gulf of
Mexico. In these collaborations, NAWQA provides quantitative information
on (1) amounts, and long-term trends in concentrations, of nutrients,
pesticides, and sediment that enter receiving waters from major
tributaries; (2) regional source areas of contaminants; and (3) effects of

1In 1987, the National Academy of Science's Water Science and Technology
Board reviewed the NAWQA pilot program and in 1989 concluded that the
implementation of the program was in the best interest of the nation, and
that USGS was well qualified to establish and implement the program. In
1991, the administration requested and Congress appropriated $18 million
to begin the full NAWQA program.

                                 Appendix XVIII
                   National Water Quality Assessment Program,
                   U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
                                    Interior

population growth and land use on the amounts and concentrations of
contaminants. This information is critical for developing strategies aimed
at reducing contaminants in individual river basins and their effects on
receiving waters.

Summary	USGS officials indicated that the fiscal year 2006 budget request
includes a cost-of-living adjustment equal to about 2.7 percent of the
NAWQA program; however, years without full cost-of-living adjustments and
the actual funding reduction in fiscal year 2005 have required substantial
changes to the planned NAWQA data collection and analysis activities. As
utilized in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, agency officials stated that only some of the NAWQA data are
expected to be available in a similar form for the expected 2007 follow-on
indicator report.

Figure 16: National Water Quality Assessment Budget for Fiscal Years
2000-2005

and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds
Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding

                      Inflation adjusted (FY '00 dollars)

                                 Source: USGS.

                                 Appendix XVIII
                   National Water Quality Assessment Program,
                   U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
                                    Interior

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

NAWQA is not reducing the quality of data collected regionally or
nationally, and remains committed to maintaining the highest level of its
water-quality data nationwide. However, the collection and measurement of
contaminants in fish tissues and in streambed sediment is expensive, and,
given resource constraints, USGS determined that other information on
measurements and trends had higher priority. While data on contaminants in
fish tissues and streambed sediment will no longer be available, NAWQA
officials expect all other data used in the Heinz Center report to be
available, although the data will be based on fewer streammonitoring sites
and groundwater information networks.

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USGS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to the NAWQA program's ability to continue
providing environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	Data collection activities have been altered by a reduction in program
funds (by about $1,640,000) in fiscal year 2005.2 About 60 percent of the
NAWQA program budget is used for data collection and field activities. In
the fiscal year 2005 budget, about $500,000 has been cut from data
collection activities.

                                       o

                                       o

The time period for data collection is being lengthened for some
activities. For example, in some cases, data will be collected over 4
rather than 3 years.

Inflation and about $861,000 in funding cuts in fiscal year 2005 have
forced the geographic scope of sampling to be reduced. For example, in
fiscal year 2005, NAWQA officials reduced from 145 to 84 the number of
long-term surface-water monitoring sites, forcing managers to redesign
their programs and approaches to data

2NAWQA requested a decrease of $779,000 for fiscal year 2005, reflecting
an intended restructuring of USGS, moving some of the expenses from
programs such as NAWQA to the Geographic Information Office (GIO). GIO, in
turn, will provide directly for the information technology needs of
programs, including NAWQA. The proposed budget restructuring was
anticipated and will not adversely impact NAWQA activities; however, the
additional reduction from the rescission accompanying the fiscal year 2005
omnibus appropriations bill impacts the amount of data collection NAWQA
can accommodate.

Appendix XVIII
National Water Quality Assessment Program,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior

collection.3 If additional budget reductions were required of the program,
officials said they would probably further reduce the number of "study
units" participating in the program-rather than eliminate specific goals
and objectives or further dilute the assessment efforts in any one
particular geographic area.4

o 	Because of program changes and inflation, only selected sites and
measurements made during the first decade of the NAWQA program will be
repeated during the program's second decade. Cycle 1 of the NAWQA program
occurred approximately from 1992 through 2001. This cycle focused on
describing the status and condition of waters (or "current water quality
conditions") in some of the nation's largest and most important rivers and
aquifer systems.5 The NAWQA program has since begun a second 10-year cycle
(Cycle 2) that is focused on identifying changes in water-quality trends
and understanding factors affecting water quality, rather than determining
current water-quality conditions. The change in focus will result in the
elimination of some types of data used in the Heinz Center report.
Specifically, data suited to describing water conditions will be decreased
or not sampled again, and data for establishing trends or providing
insights into causative factors will be increased. For example, data on
the contaminants in fish tissue or in streambed sediment will not be
reproduced as a result of the shift in emphasis and the impact of
inflation. Some of these data (from 1993 to 1998) were used in the Heinz
Center report of 2002, and will no longer be available. Many of the
organic compounds measured in these media

3Fewer surface-water sites at both the regional and national level
decreases the comprehensive coverage that was provided by the larger
number of sites. As a result, there are fewer sites in individual study
units to represent the range of important environmental settings, such as
watersheds, and range and grasslands, and agricultural and urban areas.

4Study units represent major river basins and aquifers across the nation,
and were selected to represent important hydrologic and ecological
resources; critical sources of contaminants, including agricultural,
urban, and natural sources; and a high percentage of the population served
by municipal water supply and irrigated agriculture. A study unit is the
primary building block of the program, and about 60 percent of the program
funding is allocated to study unit activity.

5All of the NAWQA data (from about 1993 to about 1998) used to support the
2002 Heinz Center report resulted from Cycle 1 (the data collected between
1998 and 2001 were not available at the time the Heinz Center report was
published).

Appendix XVIII
National Water Quality Assessment Program,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior

have been banned or controlled.6 It is known that concentrations of these
contaminants, while still present, are generally declining.

o 	The NAWQA program is vulnerable to losses in purchasing power at all
levels of the program, chiefly due to a lack of full cost-of-living
adjustments in its appropriations. At its inception, NAWQA was intended to
provide data on 60 study units across the nation. Over the years, USGS has
opted to keep the quality of the data generated by individual study units
at as high a level as possible. Because of the impacts of inflation,
however, to maintain the quality of the data from individual study units,
USGS has found it necessary to reduce the number of study units included
in NAWQA.

From the outset of the NAWQA program, available resources limited the
initial assessments to 51 study units, rather than the 60 study units
initially planned.

o 	After a decade of operation, with the program's transition in a second
cycle to study trends in water quality and understand the factors that
cause changes in water quality, the number of study units has been further
reduced to 42.7 Data collection activities are the most expensive, and
thus the most vulnerable, of NAWQA's activities. However, all aspects of
the program, including analysis, synthesis, research, and management must
also be reduced since, according to program officials, this is the only
way to keep data collection efforts as robust as possible.

o 	NAWQA's funding level for fiscal year 2005 forced cuts in the number of
studies within each study unit that address the factors causing
water-quality changes. Study units will perform an average of one study,
rather than two studies, during the year, substantially reducing

6Such contaminations include, for example, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).

7Commenting on this reduction in its most recent review of the program in
2001, the National Research Council (NRC) stated that "[the program]
cannot continue to downsize and still be considered a national water
quality assessment. Though it could certainly be redesigned, this would
likely undo the basis for assessment of trends and would waste a decade or
more of effort." As a result of NRC's comments, NAWQA program managers
have chosen to maintain the 42 study unit design and reduce specific
activities within the design. In addition, the Cycle 2 design that was
reviewed and endorsed by NRC in 2001 was based on the erroneous assumption
that full cost-of-living adjustments would occur.

Appendix XVIII
National Water Quality Assessment Program,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior

the ability to identify such causes and doubling the time required to
cover a wide range of environmental settings around the nation.
Prioritization of study units in the past has been based on a combination
of factors, including: (1) ensuring representation of the diverse
hydrologic landscapes and ecological regions of the nation, (2) examining
water use for public and domestic supply, and (3) ensuring representation
of the major contaminant sources (urban, agricultural, and natural).

o 	Given current financial constraints, NAWQA has begun to reduce some
program activities, such as its work involving volatile organic compound
(VOC) synthesis, and applying the related funds elsewhere. NAWQA is in the
process of completing its national synthesis of VOC information with
respect to aquifers and groundwater used for drinking water. Once
completed, the related financial resources can be applied to other
synthesis topics, such as those involving nutrients and pesticides.8

o 	The implementation of continuous monitors and the application of new
data collection schemes over the past 30 years have provided additional
data and insights not obtainable through conventional sampling schemes by
providing the capability to enhance knowledge of conditions and address
new questions. Following are examples of NAWQA efforts to improve
approaches to measuring contaminants and water constituents:

o 	NAWQA's research budget includes efforts to develop new methods to
measure water contaminants at low concentrations and efforts to measure
new contaminants that are not currently studied by NAWQA.

o 	Newly developed continuous monitors, such as those that measure
nutrients, are deployed to obtain additional information, even though they
are costly and often require increased maintenance to keep them in
calibration. At present, NAWQA sends sampling crews to stream or well
locations to physically obtain a water sample, process

8NAWQA work on the subject of VOCs has had a major influence on how the
nation thinks about gasoline additives, specifically methyl-tert-butyl
ether (MTBE), which has been shown to move long distances under the ground
and contaminate drinking-water wells. Partly as a result of NAWQA data,
California, Maine, and New Hampshire have either restricted or banned the
use of MTBE in gasoline products to protect their drinking-water wells.

Appendix XVIII
National Water Quality Assessment Program,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior

the sample, and send it to NAWQA analytical laboratories in Denver,
Colorado. New monitoring instruments pump samples from streams, process
them internally, and produce measurements that are stored digitally. While
improving efficiency, these instruments cost over $100,000, require
considerable maintenance, and require verification that the samples they
pump and analyze represent the conditions of the stream. Typically, the
additional work and costs do not end up saving the USGS funds and are
often difficult to justify, although the instruments provide more-frequent
sampling, which can be important for understanding stream conditions and
what influences those conditions. By using and evaluating new instruments,
USGS officials have learned that the instruments provide new types or
amounts of data, increasing their value. These devices also allow
measurement in locations without the need for people to be present.

o 	NAWQA has made efforts to improve or deploy new instruments for
measuring surrogates, which can substitute for the measurement one wants
to make, but can be made more frequently or cheaply than the measurement
of interest. For example, a turbidity monitor could be used in lieu of
taking direct phosphorus measurements. In order to obtain phosphorus
measurements, a person is required to visit a stream site, remove a water
sample, process the sample, and send it to a laboratory for analysis, or,
as described above, utilize a continuous monitoring station at a
significantly greater cost. Alternatively, a turbidity monitor costs much
less (usually under $10,000), does not require as much maintenance as a
nutrient analyzer, and does not generate the chemical wastes that must be
addressed with a nutrient analyzer. Thus, if a turbidity instrument can
serve as a substitute for a nutrient analyzer for phosphorus, one can
operate the turbidity monitor for less cost than the nutrient monitor. The
problem is that turbidity (a physical measurement) does not always work as
a replacement for the direct measurement of phosphorus, and thus may not
be an adequate surrogate for phosphorus in many situations. In such
situations, the phosphorus measurement has to be made by a site visit,
collecting a sample, and sending it to the laboratory.

Appendix XIX

                   National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
                  Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior

Background	The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) provides federal, state,
tribal, and local governments, business, and the public with wetlands data
that are used for a wide range of applications, such as helping conserve
and restore wetland resources and providing information to assess the
efficacy of resource policies. The three strategic goals of the NWI
include: (1) updating wetlands maps in priority resource areas, (2)
intensifying wetlands status and trends reporting at national and regional
scales, and (3) identifying threats to aquatic habitats at risk.1 The
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, as amended, directs the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to map the nation's wetlands and
deepwater habitats, and produce scientific information on their
characteristics, extent and status at 10-year intervals (published as the
Status and Trends report).2 The Status and Trends report represents the
most comprehensive, technically advanced federal effort to track wetlands
on a national scale.

Summary	USFWS officials indicated that funding has been consistent with
requests, and actual NWI funding for fiscal year 2005 and funding proposed
in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2006 will enable the NWI
to produce results and accomplishments as presented in its budget document
requests. In particular, the officials told us that they do not foresee
any impacts to the data used in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of
the Nation's Ecosystems, as the NWI Status and Trends report and the data
therein is mandated by law.3

1In a general sense, USFWS strives to map wetlands and deepwater habitats
and to produce information on their location, type, and size. Maps are
prepared from the analysis of highaltitude imagery, where wetlands are
identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography. A margin
of error is inherent in the use of remotely sensed imagery; thus, detailed
on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of
the wetland boundaries or classification established through image
analysis.

216 U.S.C. S: 3931(a)(4).

3According to USFWS officials, the Status and Trends report is a
strategically important and long-standing national monitoring program, and
is a crucial element of the President's Wetlands Initiative. Without it,
they say, the success or failure of wetland program investments cannot be
conclusively determined.

Appendix XIX
National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior

Figure 17: National Wetlands Inventory Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006

Funding level (in millions)

5

4

3

2

1

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Appropriated funds Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding Inflation adjusted
(FY '00 dollars) Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

Agency officials told us that there are no planned program changes for the
NWI that would adversely affect its ability to generate data that can be
compared with data from prior years. Furthermore, they told us that the
President requested more frequent wetland reports in the future. Because
of this, NWI data is expected to be available in an improved form for the
expected 2007 update of the Heinz Center's The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems report.

                                  Appendix XIX
                   National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
                  Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USFWS officials provided the following information on funding levels and
program priorities relative to the NWI's ability to continue providing
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years:

The NWI has been well-supported through the federal budget process over
the past 5 fiscal years, although reimbursable funding amounts (funding
provided by other federal agencies) have varied and their availability in
future years remains uncertain.4 Funding for the NWI-both appropriated and
reimbursed-for fiscal years 2000 through 2005, as well as proposed funding
for fiscal year 2006, are portrayed in table 20:

Table 20: NWI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal
                                   Year 2006

                              Dollars in thousands

                            2000  2001    2002    2003    2004  2005    2006b 
       Appropriated       $4,528 $4,516  $4,607 $4,540 $4,468  $4,636  $4,777 
       Reimbursables                                                          
    (reimbursables as a      847     731    278    228     461    595a    TBD
       percentage of                                                   
      total funding)     (18.7%) (16.2%) (6.0%) (5.0%) (10.3%) (12.8%) 
           Total          $5,375 $5,247  $4,885 $4,768 $4,929  $5,231     TBD 

TBD = To be determined

Source: Department of the Interior.

aAs of February 2005.

bEstimate based on President's proposed budget.

o 	USFWS is currently conducting the analysis to complete an updated NWI
Status and Trends report by December 31, 2005, 5 years ahead of schedule.
The President requested this updated report on Earth Day in 2004, and also
has requested that USFWS conduct more-frequent updates in the future.5 The
Status and Trends report is required by law each decade, although many
users would like the report to be done on 5

4"Appropriated" dollar amounts are defined as the amount provided by
Congress for the National Wetlands Inventory program, while "reimbursed"
dollar amounts are monies from other federal or state agencies or entities
that were used for mapping activities. For example, if the Bureau of Land
Management had an interest in mapping riparian wetlands in the Southwest,
it would directly contribute funding to USFWS that, in combination with
USFWS funds, would be used to perform the mapping activity.

5The data from the previous Status and Trends report was used by the Heinz
Center in its 2002 report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems.

Appendix XIX
National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior

year cycles. USFWS is considering doing additional regional status and
trends reports as needed or requested on a shorter time scale.

o 	Currently, updating the Status and Trends report involves funding
contributions from a consortium of federal agencies (including the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense, as well as the
Environmental Protection Agency), although the extent to which such
funding will be available in future years is uncertain. Funding Status and
Trends in this manner does not assure stable funding for future monitoring
and reporting cycles and may ultimately affect NWI data collection.

o 	The Status and Trends report costs approximately $2.7 million to
produce and it would be unlikely that the report could be done without a
consortium approach.6

o 	No changes in NWI mapping activities are planned in fiscal years 2005
and 2006, although maps are updated at little more than 1 percent annually
at current funding levels.7 About 17 million to 19 million acres of
wetlands have been or are expected to be updated annually between fiscal
years 2004 and 2006, with total digital wetlands coverage for 46 percent
of the nation.8 However, despite the conversion of the mapping process to
a digital system and the development of new tools, in the present budget
environment, less than 3 percent of all wetlands maps

6One portion of the costs of this report is the selective procurement of
imagery from USGS (e.g., the Earth Resources Observation Systems Data
Center) and other USGS (Mid-Continent Mapping Center) and USDA (Aerial
Photography Field Office) units in support of digital wetland mapping and
wetland status and trend analyses.

7The number of maps produced in a given year is a performance measurement
for the NWI.

8Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the NWI mapping program
because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source
used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of
estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities
have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of
their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. By policy, USFWS also
excludes certain types of "farmed wetlands" as may be defined by the Food
Security Act.

Appendix XIX
National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior

are 10 years old or newer.9 Maps will continue to be less accurate each
year as natural and man-made landscape changes occur, and the backlog of
priority map updating projects for areas experiencing rapid change will
continue to grow. However, data quality and comprehensiveness can be
expected to continue to improve as USFWS enters into partnerships to
update maps of high-priority resource areas, conducts analyses of habitats
at risk, converts existing paper maps to digital format, and digitally
maps areas not yet mapped.

o 	Currently the NWI has 28 full-time employees for the 38 approved
program positions. Eight occupied positions provide coordination of
wetlands issues and strategic digital mapping in the seven regions of the
service. There are 13 employees for technical program support at the NWI
Center, in St. Petersburg, Florida.10 Seven occupied positions in
headquarters provide program, budget, and policy direction, as well as
status and trends capabilities. No more than 2 employees have been devoted
full-time to wetlands status and trends. To accomplish wetlands status and
trends reporting, the service has drawn on expertise within the NWI as
well as from cooperators.

9In an attempt to reposition the National Wetlands Inventory for the
future, USFWS highlighted the need for the availability and application of
contemporary digital information in support of resource management and
decision-making. USFWS digitized its wetlands data in a centralized
Wetlands Master Geodatabase. This is a storage mechanism for spatial data
and allows for much easier storing, editing, analyzing, and archiving of
natural resource inventory information. The digital wetlands data set is
registered and available via the Department of the Interior's Geospatial
One-Stop Web portal.

10The National Wetlands Inventory comprises three units: (1) the
Washington, D.C., headquarters, (2) Regional Wetlands Coordinators, and
(3) the NWI Center. The Washington Office coordinates national budget
preparation, program planning, national-level program administrative
issues, wetlands policy issues, and national-level interagency
coordination. Wetlands coordinators in each service region direct and
coordinate all regional technical activities, and provide wetlands
expertise to the Regional Director, service field offices, and the public.
The National Wetlands Inventory Center, in St. Petersburg, Florida,
coordinates the procurement of imagery, provides technical assistance and
review of digital wetlands data, and serves digital data over the
Internet.

Appendix XX

National Streamflow Information Program and National Water Information
System, Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

Background	The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary federal agency
charged with acquisition and quality control of data on water, including
data on water levels and discharge rates, and the transformation of this
data into usable information. High quality information about the elevation
and discharge of our rivers and streams is important for forecasting
floods and managing droughts; ensuring water supply for agriculture,
industry, cities and towns; maintaining in-stream flows for game fish and
other aquatic species as well as for canoeing, white-water rafting and
other recreational purposes; and enforcing legal agreements between states
and nations. Users of the information include land and resource managers
and planners, municipal and state governments, private citizens, academic
institutions, and federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Weather Service.
USGS placed its first streamgage in the arid West in 1889 to determine if
there was adequate water to open the region for irrigation and
agriculture. Since then, societal needs have changed, science and
technology have advanced, and the USGS streamgaging program has evolved
accordingly. Examples of this evolution include satellite data
transmission, use of Doppler technology for discharge estimates, and
improvements in flood forecast models, all of which have combined to make
USGS streamflow data much more valuable for flood forecasting today than
in the past.1

The increase in the amount of streamflow information about the nation's
waters has been accompanied by innovations in information technology that
are changing old paradigms regarding the access, storage, and generation
of water-related information-including streamflow information. In 1975,
USGS established the National Water Information System (NWIS) as a
distributed network of computers, databases, and supporting software for
the storage and retrieval of water data collected at approximately 1.5
million sites around the country. Among other things, NWIS serves as a
national archive for national records of groundwater quality and levels,
surface water quality, and streamflow stage and discharge. As a long-term
database (with over a century of data on U.S. water resources) and an
information delivery system that makes extensive

1Information from the USGS streamgaging program is the primary source of
the nation's streamflow statistics and is used for trend reporting. These
statistics include mean annual flows and flood and drought frequency
statistics (including statistics used for design and regulatory purposes,
such as the 100-year flood and the 7-day, 10-year low flow measures).
Streamflow data are also used to explore issues such as trends due to
urbanization, groundwater development, and climate change.

Appendix XX
National Streamflow Information Program
and National Water Information System,
Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

use of the Internet, NWIS provides both real-time and historic streamflow
information, along with information on groundwater and water quality.

In 1999, in response to congressional concern that there had been a
decadelong decline in the number of streamgages-even as the need for
streamflow data for flood forecasting and long-term water management uses
and new needs such as for total maximum daily loads (TMDLS) continued to
grow-USGS performed a study that showed that the ability of its network to
meet long-standing federal needs had declined due to: (1) an absolute loss
of streamgages, (2) a disproportionate loss of streamgages with a long
data record, and (3) the declining ability of USGS to continue operating
high-priority streamgages when program cooperators and partners (i.e.,
local jurisdictions, states, and other federal agencies) discontinued
funding. USGS also reported increased demand for streamflow information,
caused in part by new data delivery capabilities (such as the Internet)
and by a Clean Water Act program that requires states to monitor water
quality. New technologies were needed to improve the reliability and
application of streamflow information and decrease the cost and
uncertainty of the information. To remedy this situation, USGS proposed a
plan for a National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), a new approach
to the acquisition and delivery of streamflow information. As part of
NSIP's design, USGS established five goals intended to satisfy minimum
national streamflow information needs and conducted an analysis to locate
streamgage sites that meet these goals.2 These sites constitute NSIP's
"base" or "backbone" streamgage network, and were intended to satisfy the
"federal interest" in streamflow information and

2The five national goals (or needs) that NSIP was intended to provide
streamflow information for: (1) meeting legal and treaty obligations on
interstate and international waters (to monitor legal requirements for
deliveries of water at state and national borders), (2) flow forecasting
(providing data for validation and improvement of forecasts where the
National Weather Service and other federal agencies carry out flood or
water supply forecasts), (3) measuring river basin outflows (for
calculating regional water balances over the nation), (4) monitoring
sentinel watersheds (providing data from basins that are minimally
affected by human activities for regionalization of streamflow
characteristics and assessments of trends in streamflow due to factors
such as changes in climate, land use, and water use), and (5) measuring
flow for water-quality needs (for purposes of characterizing the quality
of surface waters). A total of 5,293 streamgages are listed under the five
criteria, but some serve more than one criterion, thus the actual number
of streamgages identified as NSIP base gages is 4,425.

                                  Appendix XX
                    National Streamflow Information Program
                     and National Water Information System,
                   Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

would be entirely supported by federal funding.3 This federal need
backbone network would be supplemented by streamgages cooperatively funded
with partners to better meet state and local needs for streamflow
information. In addition, the proposed NSIP had four other components: (1)
intense data collection during floods and droughts, and additional
analysis of these data; (2) periodic regional and national assessments of
streamflow characteristics; (3) enhanced information delivery; and (4)
data collection and analysis methods development and research.

Summary	USGS officials indicated that actual funding for the streamgaging
network and for NWIS in fiscal year 2005 and anticipated funding for
fiscal year 2006 (as shown in fig. 18) are expected to result in the
continuation of data collection and analysis across key programs but at a
slightly reduced level as a result of slightly declining budgets since
fiscal year 2001. The officials indicated, in particular, that data used
to support indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center Report, The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, are expected to be available for the center's 2007
report at similar levels of quality and comprehensiveness. However,
because of uncertainties regarding funding in fiscal year 2007 and beyond,
the long-term ability of the USGS streamgaging network to provide data to
support ecological indicators at comparable or improved levels of quality
and quantity is less clear.

3According the National Research Council, the national economy is
inseparably bound to the adequacy of water supplies. By mass, consumptive
use of water is the single-largest material flow in the U.S. economy, by a
factor of more than 20. The national interest in economic information on
commodity flows has long been recognized and supported with federal
funding. The NSIP, as proposed by USGS, includes a set of minimum national
streamflow information needs that should be met by the federally funded
portion of the streamgage network. Federal support of a base streamgaging
network is needed to ensure the long-term viability of the network for
national needs and is justified because many national interests are served
by providing streamflow information, which has many of the properties of a
public good.

Appendix XX
National Streamflow Information Program
and National Water Information System,
Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

Figure 18: Funding for USGS Streamgaging Activities from Federal and
Nonfederal Sources for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year
2006

Funding level (in millions)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal year

Program funding Proposed fiscal year 2006 funding

Inflation adjusted (FY 2004 $) Source: USGS.

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP price
index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office.

USGS officials also indicated that the agency has no changes planned for
the national streamgaging network or for NWIS that would adversely affect
their ability to provide data that can be compared with data from prior
years. In fact, there are planned improvements to both systems that, if
implemented over a period of years, would significantly improve the
quantity, quality, and availability of information to support future
iterations of the Heinz Center's report. The officials noted, however,
that realization of these improvements and their potential for enhancing
streamflow information depend on funding being made available to implement
the plans that have been developed. Likewise, adoption of technological
innovations that have the potential to increase the quantity, variety,
timeliness, accessibility, and utility of streamflow information will
depend on the future availability of funding.

                                  Appendix XX
                    National Streamflow Information Program
                     and National Water Information System,
                   Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program
Changes

USGS streamgage program officials provided the following information on
funding levels and program priorities relative to the ability of the
national streamgaging network and NWIS to continue providing environmental
and ecological data comparable with past years:

o 	While NSIP has been extensively reviewed and widely supported by a
number of expert bodies, including the National Research Council, and has
been accepted and endorsed essentially as originally developed, its
implementation has proceeded far more slowly and haltingly than
anticipated by USGS and its funding has been insufficient for realization
of a base federal streamflow network and satisfaction of the federal
interest in streamgage information that was envisioned in NSIP:4

o 	NSIP's fiscal year 2005 budget is only about 15 percent of what would
be required under full implementation, according to USGS's 5-year NSIP
plan, developed in 2003. In fact, none of the five NSIP goals proposed are
currently being met. Only about 17 percent of the 4,425 streamgages that
make up the base or backbone network designed to satisfy the federal
interest in streamflow information are currently fully or partially
federally funded; regional assessments of streamflow characteristics are
currently only about 7 percent of full funding; data collection to enhance
understanding of floods and droughts is about 5 percent of full funding;
and, while improved information delivery is almost fully funded, the needs
and goals as proposed in 1999 will take many years to be met.

o 	Appropriations for NSIP in fiscal year 2000 amounted to $5.8 million,
as shown in table 22. In fiscal year 2001, NSIP experienced a significant
increase in funding, with appropriations of $14.1 million. Since that
time, however, funding for NSIP has been level or slightly declining.
Because of the effects of inflation and the program's priority of keeping
existing streamgages operational, other

4USGS is developing a contract to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the
streamgaging program. The intent of the analysis is to perform a
semiquantitative evaluation of the program and its benefits in comparison
with the program's costs. Evaluation of benefits can help to sharpen
USGS's understanding of the linkage of the basic data to public and
private decisions and to public benefits, perhaps pointing to changes in
the design or operation of the program that could enhance the level of
benefits the program provides. The analysis will not be extensive. It will
be limited initially to evaluating the costs and benefits associated with
only a few of the many uses of streamflow information. It will be
performed by an organization external to and independent of USGS.

Appendix XX
National Streamflow Information Program
and National Water Information System,
Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

components of the program have taken most of the cuts required to maintain
funding for streamgages. These other components, including development of
new technologies, regional statistical analysis, flood and drought
monitoring, and database enhancements, are currently barely functioning at
a markedly reduced level and cannot absorb additional reductions and still
perform the functions for which they were designed. As a consequence, any
future funding reductions will result in discontinuing existing
streamgages.

o 	Because USGS appropriations for NSIP fund such a small proportion (less
than 20 percent) of the current active NSIP federal interest streamgages,
the majority of the network is heavily dependent on partner funding, and,
as a result, the continued operation of streamgages largely depends on
partner interests, priorities, and needs. This situation creates great
instability in the network and results in many streamgages being
vulnerable to cuts in state, local, and other partner funding. At present,
of the 4,425 streamgages planned to make up the backbone streamgaging
network to meet federal needs for streamflow information, only
approximately 63 percent are active streamgages. Of these, approximately
750 streamgages (17 percent) receive some funding from NSIP. Approximately
400 streamgages (9 percent) receive all of their funding for operation and
maintenance from NSIP, and the other 350 (8 percent) receive only partial
funding from NSIP.

o 	To fully implement the 5-year NSIP plan and the five related federal
goals for NSIP for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 would require: (1) total
funding of approximately $103 million spread over the 5 years to cover
one-time costs, and (2) funding of approximately $95 million per year for
the continued operation of the program. The full $95 million per year for
operations would not be needed from year one because the full streamgage
network would not be operational until year five. The total costs,
one-time costs, and recurring operational costs to accomplish the 5-year
buildup to full implementation of NSIP result in the annual funding needs
shown in table 21:

                                  Appendix XX
                    National Streamflow Information Program
                     and National Water Information System,
                   Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

Table 21: Projected Costs for Full Implementation of NSIP for Fiscal Years
               2006-2010 and Operating Costs in Subsequent Yearsa

Dollars in millions 2011b

                                                                        Total 
                                                                   additional 
     Fiscal     One-time      Recurring    Total     Already   funding needed 
      Year        costs         costs       cost     funded    
                        $31           $31      $62         $14            $48 
      2007               31            47       78          14             64 
      2008               26            63       89          14             75 
      2009               15            79       94          14             80 
      2010                0            95       95          14             81 

Source: Department of the Interior.

aThe funding needs depicted in this table reflect a particular funding
scenario. If contributions to additional funding needed were to vary from
this scenario from year to year, then the total additional funding needed
in any particular year would also vary. For example, if in fiscal year
2006 the total additional funding of $48 million is received (for a total
of $62 million), then in fiscal year 2007 the total additional funding
needed is not $64 million , but $16 million to make the total cost for the
year $78 million ($62 million + $16 million). The total additional funding
needed column for the five year "ramp up" or full implementation of NSIP
ignores the increases in the previous years and goes back to the existing
$14 million as the starting point.

b$95 million plus inflation into the future for continued operation of
NSIP.

o 	At the current rate of federal spending, full implementation of NSIP
will not be achieved. The rate of federal spending has been flat or
slightly declining since fiscal year 2001, and, as a result, NSIP is not
able to progress toward full implementation. In fact, NSIP has recently
experienced degradation in its ability to achieve its goals. The costs of
operating the streamgaging network and of carrying out the other NSIP
goals have increased due to inflation, and because of the flat or
declining funding, NSIP has had to do less each of the past several years.
From the perspective of the percentage of the base network streamgages
that are currently in operation and the NSIP goals that they serve, the
sentinel watershed goal is the one that is most directly affected, with
about 60 percent currently in operation by USGS or other agencies. Flow
forecast sites are the second lowest, with about 70 percent currently in
operation. In terms of absolute numbers, the flow forecast goal has the
largest shortfall, with about 920 streamgages short of the goal of NSIP
for the base federal network. The second-largest shortfall is about 330
streamgages for the sentinel watershed goal.

o 	With insufficient federal funding to establish the full NSIP network,
the ability of the current network to satisfy the federal interest is
basically dependent on cooperator funding and not federal funding to USGS.
The

                                  Appendix XX
                    National Streamflow Information Program
                     and National Water Information System,
                   Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

result is that the NSIP goals cannot be achieved. For example, one of the
goals of the federal streamgaging network design is to have a streamgage
at each of the National Weather Service (NWS) flood forecast locations, so
that NWS can more accurately predict floods and better issue warnings to
protect life and property. Because many of the streamgages at these
forecast locations are funded by cooperators, their continued existence is
dependent on the cooperators and is outside the control of USGS. If the
cooperators decide they do not need the streamgages or cannot afford to
fund them, USGS is not in a position to step into the breach to keep the
streamgages operating, and the federal need is, as a result, not met.
Modifications to program activities are constantly being made in response
to the changing priorities of USGS funding partners, since they provide
most of the funding to maintain the network. Any budget reductions would
cause the streamgaging network to shrink. Streamgages identified for
termination due to reductions in federal appropriations would be selected
based on the priorities used to design and establish the NSIP federal
interest streamgaging network. Any funding reductions would have a direct
proportionate impact on the ability of the streamgaging network to support
ecological indicators. In the same way, loss of streamgages would
proportionately reduce information available to the Heinz Center to
support its ecological indicators.

Table 22: Funding for USGS Streamgaging Activities for Fiscal Years 2000 through
      2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006 Dollars in thousands Federal
           appropriations for NSIP 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

        Requests Unknown Unknown $9,321 $12,214 $14,356 $14,254 $14,200

  Appropriationsa 5,839 14,127 14,310 14,217 14,179 13,814 14,200b Cooperative
Water Program (CWP)c CWP appropriations $26,590 $23,281 $24,449 $21,639 $22,506
$22,400 $22,500 Contributions from partners Nonfed coop partners $38,956 $43,526
                    $46,808 $46,232 $49,605 $52,580 $55,736

 Other federal agency partners 25,512 25,687 26,106 25,711 27,826 28,382 28,949

     Totald $96,897 $106,621 $111,637 $107,799 $114,116 $117,176 $121,385e

Source: USGS.

Notes: Total funding figures for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006
represent estimates, since key appropriations decisions regarding CWP
appropriations, fiscal year 2006 NSIP appropriations, and data on
contributions from partners are not yet available.

aNSIP became a separate line item in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2003,
under the subactivity "Hydrologic Monitoring, Investigations, and
Research" within the budget activity "Water Resources

Appendix XX
National Streamflow Information Program
and National Water Information System,
Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

Investigations." Prior to that, USGS funds for streamgaging were embedded
in a line item that contained a wide range of scientific activities.

bFor purposes of estimating fiscal year 2006 funding for streamgaging, we
have assumed that Congress will enact the entire amount requested by the
President.

cThe Federal State Cooperative Water Program (CWP) was established in 1895
to share the costs of streamgaging and certain other water-related
activities between the federal and state governments. This program funds a
significant amount of streamgaging based on matching funds from USGS
partners. The total cost for the USGS streamgaging program in fiscal year
2004 was approximately $114.1 million. Of this amount, $14.2 million was
from the USGS appropriation for NSIP and $22.4 million was from the
appropriations for CWP. USGS does not submit a budget request specifically
for streamgaging within CWP; hence, this amount can be determined only
with respect to actual 'expenditures at the close of each fiscal year.

dFor fiscal years 2000 through 2005, appropriated funding for the USGS
streamgaging program has ranged between 17 percent and 22 percent of the
Water Resources Discipline (WRD) budget. During the same period, funding
for streamgages has averaged about 4 percent of the overall USGS budget.

eUSGS officials indicated that since fiscal year 1990, nonfederal
cooperative partners have increased their contributions to the
streamgaging program by an average of 6 percent per year. Assuming
continuation of this trend, contributions in fiscal year 2006 could be as
high as $55.7 million. Over the same period, federal partners have
increased their contributions to the program by an average of 2 percent
per year. Assuming, again, that this trend continues, contributions in
fiscal year 2006 could be as high as $29 million. Together with USGS
contributions, total funding for streamgaging activities in fiscal year
2006 could be as much as $121.4 million. However, given the multitude of
political and economic factors that influence availability of funding from
partners, USGS believes that to protect the nation's investment in the
streamgaging network and ensure continuity of data, it must be
conservative when estimating partner funding for future years. As a
result, agency officials currently estimate total fiscal year 2006 funding
at no more than $115 million.

o 	For fiscal year 2005, the following is the distribution of USGS funds
invested in selected streamgaging activities from funds appropriated for
NSIP and estimated funding from appropriations for the Cooperative Water
Program (CWP):

Table 23: USGS Funds for Selected Streamgaging Activities for Fiscal Year
2005

                              Dollars in thousands

                                                          Percentage of funds 
                               Activity      Funding                 invested 
                        Data collection      $37,289 
                          Data analysis          135                      < 1 
                       Database support          849                        2 
                        New streamgages        3,000                        7 
               Research and development          959                        2 
              Quality assurance/quality              
                  control and oversight        2,679                        6 

Source: USGS.

Appendix XX
National Streamflow Information Program
and National Water Information System,
Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

o 	Database support funds are used to help develop and maintain the NWIS
database. Data analysis funds are those from NSIP appropriations used to
develop regional assessment techniques and to better understand floods and
droughts. Database support funds are used to develop and maintain the NWIS
database. New streamgage funds are those invested in CWP to establish new
streamgages and to help decommission existing streamgages due to changing
local needs for streamflow information. Research and development funds are
used to develop new techniques and tools to provide streamflow information
more accurately, at a lower cost, and to obtain it more safely. Quality
assurance/quality control and oversight funds are for national quality
control and oversight of NSIP and related surface water activities.

o 	Funding for NWIS, the repository for historical and real-time data on
streamflow as well as a host other data related to surface water and
groundwater characteristics, remains steady at about $7.1 million per
year. This level of funding allows NWIS to maintain system viability with
minimal improvements, but is not sufficient to allow significant
modernization efforts. In the last few years, NWIS has had to undertake a
series of costly measures to comply with new information technology
security requirements. Most of the funds that would have been used to
improve system functionality have been absorbed by these security efforts.
In addition, because the NWIS funding has been flat, the costs due to
inflation and federal pay raises (with no increase in budget to cover
those pay raises) have slowly diminished the level of maintenance and
enhancement that can be done for NWIS each year. NWIS is not a line item
in the USGS budget, and its funding is not shown in table 22. NWIS
receives funding from the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program, NSIP,
the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), and individual USGS
water offices across the nation. USGS does not believe that NWIS should be
counted as a cost of streamgaging because NWIS includes many other types
of real-time and historic water-related data in addition to streamflow
data. It is not possible to separate the NWIS costs related to streamflow
data from the costs associated with other types of data. Furthermore, the
NWIS costs are not related to the size of the streamgaging network.

o 	NWIS has been successful in making some technological improvements in
the past few years, but available funding has restricted the number of
improvements that can be made and has increased the time needed to
implement the improvements. The

Appendix XX
National Streamflow Information Program
and National Water Information System,
Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior

advancement in technologies that USGS would like to implement has outpaced
the funding needed to incorporate them into NWIS. Examples of some of the
technologies that have been deferred are: (1) systems to provide users
with ready access to continuous time series data (currently they have
ready access only to daily averages of these continuous time series data),
(2) an ability to approve and release finalized streamflow data on an
incremental basis (e.g., a few months at a time) rather than waiting for a
complete release at the end of the year, (3) full utilization of graphical
systems for editing hydrographs and rating curves, and (4) systems for
storing the full set of depth and velocity data collected during the
operation of new acoustic Doppler current profiler systems.

o 	At the current average annual funding level of approximately $7.1
million, improvements to NWIS require multiple funding years or cycles to
implement. Although some improvements are complex and necessitate longer
development time, the current schedule for implementing improvements could
be shortened with additional funding. With funding flat and primarily
consumed by maintenance of NWIS, the level of work that can be done for
enhancements is minimal.

Most of the changes in the way that the agency does streamgaging in the
future will be due to advances in technology. Some changes, however, will
be driven by demand, such as requests for more unit-value data (e.g., data
based on hourly instead of daily or weekly averages). In addition, some
changes will be driven by requirements, such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's requirement to convert to high data rate
transmitters for real-time data transmission. Providing users with better
information and better access to data will occur because more streamgages
will be equipped with higher data rate transmitters that will allow data
transmission more frequently, providing users with quicker access to the
streamflow information. As funding permits, new technologies will also be
used to improve streamflow measurement capabilities. New hydroacoustic
technologies for measuring the velocity or rate of streamflow will allow
USGS to obtain higher-quality data at lower costs, especially during
periods of hydrologic extremes (floods and droughts). Although USGS's goal
is to provide users with better information and better access to data, it
is more realistic to expect that there will be only incremental
improvements to information and data access in the near term.

Appendix XXI

Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related Sensors (MODIS and AVHRR),
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Background	It is part of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) mission to look at the Earth from satellites in
space to better understand how the Earth works and changes. Satellites
provide quantitative data on ocean biological, physical, chemical, and
geological properties. Subtle changes in the ocean's color can signify the
presence of or changes in various types and quantities of marine
phytoplankton (microscopic marine plants), the knowledge of which has both
scientific and practical applications. Phytoplankton accounts for the
largest amount of marine plant production and serves as the direct or
indirect food source for most marine organisms. In addition to helping
monitor the short-term spatial and temporal variability in the ocean's
biology, physics, chemistry, and geology, satellites also provide the
means for NASA to quantify the ocean's longterm biological response to
global environmental change.

Some of NASA's satellites estimate the amounts of phytoplankton
chlorophyll-a, which is a proxy for phytoplankton biomass. NASA proved the
concept of remote detection of phytoplankton by placing into orbit the
Coastal Zone Color Scanner (in operation from 1978-1986), and continued
the measurement of phytoplankton chlorophyll-a with the Sea Viewing Wide
Field-of-view Sensor, known as Sea WiFS (in operation from 19972003);
these efforts were followed by two versions of the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectoradiometer (MODIS), which were launched in 1999 and 2002.
Both MODIS sensors remain in operation.

Under a joint program (Pathfinder) with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA obtains data on sea surface
temperature, based on measurements from space using NOAA's Advanced Very
High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). Sea surface temperature is a
fundamental oceanographic indicator of climate change, and is used to
support various ecosystem indicators. In addition, AVHRR data are used in
support of a vegetation index, known as the Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index, created in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey,
the European Space Agency, and the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Program. Scientists collect images of the Earth's surface and quantify the
concentrations of green leaf vegetation around the globe. Such data allow
the scientists to create detailed maps of the Earth's green vegetation
density that identity where terrestrial plants are thriving and where they
are under stress, for example, due to a lack of water. The vegetation
index is the core of the data set that was used for the Heinz Center's
ecological indicator for plant growth.

                                  Appendix XXI
                   Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related
                      Sensors (MODIS and AVHRR), National
                      Aeronautics and Space Administration

Summary	NASA officials told us it is difficult to provide annual funding
information for the production of a specific type of measurement based on
satellite observations because funding is generally allocated within NASA
for broader missions or for satellites and sensors that collect multiple
forms of data. NASA officials told us that no planned changes in program
priorities will affect NASA's ability to generate data in the coming years
that will be comparable with data from previous years. Furthermore, they
told us they believe that NASA data will be available in an improved form
for the expected 2007 update of The State of the Nation's Ecosystems
report. For example, future sea surface temperature data will have the
same spatial and temporal resolution as earlier data, but will be superior
by merging microwave and infrared sensors to mitigate problems associated
with performing satellite observations during times when clouds obstruct
the view of the Earth from space.

Agency Perspectives NASA program officials provided the following
information on funding

levels and other factors relative to NASA's ability to continue
providingon Potential Impacts of environmental and ecological data
comparable with past years: Funding Levels and

Program Changes

                          Phytoplankton Chlorophyll-a

o 	Estimates for activities associated with collecting chlorophyll data
from fiscal year 2000 through 2005 from satellite observations are $2.9
million, $3 million, $3.1 million, $1.4 million, $1 million and $1
million, respectively. These funding estimates include costs such as the
portion of the total costs of multiple satellite missions that can be
prorated to the specific function of collecting chlorophyll data and the
costs of analyzing the data. The substantial reduction of from $3.1
million to $1.4 million from fiscal year 2002 through 2003 reflects the
end of the Sea WiFS project. Agency officials told us that the actual NASA
funding level of $1 million for fiscal year 2005 and the proposed level of
$1 million for fiscal year 2006 should be sufficient to allow NASA to
generate chlorophyll data from the MODIS sensor, which is expected to
provide higher-quality data than previous sensors.

o 	NASA is currently working with the Department of Defense and NOAA to
manage the Integrated Program Office (IPO), which was created by NASA and
the Departments of Commerce and Defense in 1994 to

                                  Appendix XXI
                   Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related
                      Sensors (MODIS and AVHRR), National
                      Aeronautics and Space Administration

develop, acquire, manage, and operate the next generation of polarorbiting
operational environmental satellites. As such, IPO will oversee the future
operational missions and continuity of phytoplankton chlorophyll-a data in
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS). The first IPO mission is planned to be launched in October 2006.

Sea Surface Temperature  o 	NASA's expects that sea surface temperature
data using AVHRR Pathfinder will be better documented and more
comprehensive in future years. Such data are a few years away from being
fully developed, although prototypes of the data will be available in the
summer of 2005. NASA officials stated that there will be no gaps in sea
surface temperature (SST) data or its availability for use by the Heinz
Center and other users.

o 	Responsibility for sea surface temperature data has never been placed
with one entity. Instead, a wide range of project managers and scientists
have overseen data collection, research, calibration, and validation
activities because NASA had never placed into orbit a sensor that was
dedicated to determining sea surface temperature. NASA will continue this
approach through the Multi-sensor Improved Sea Surface Temperature (MISST)
Project and the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment High Resolution
Sea Surface Temperature (GHRSST) Pilot Project. MISST is to be funded by
NASA, NOAA, and the Office of Naval Research through the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program, with approximately $600,000 per year
for 5 years (fiscal years 2004 through 2008). A goal of these projects is
to combine, in an optimal and documented way, data from different sensors
so as to provide a global sea surface temperature independent of the
constraints of cloud cover and the limited coverage provided by any single
sensor.

o 	While the AVHRR Pathfinder sea surface temperature data set has been
useful for multiple users, it has shortcomings that will need to be
addressed through future research. The primary challenges to be overcome
by further research include the optimal merger of in-situ and remotely
sensed sea surface temperature sensors, merging infrared and microwave
measurements, and providing a comprehensive error estimate for data sets.

o 	To address current challenges in obtaining quality sea surface
temperature measurements, the Global Data Assimilation

Appendix XXI
Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related
Sensors (MODIS and AVHRR), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration

Experiment Sea Surface Temperature Pilot Project (GHRSST-PP) was formed.
GHRSST-PP is intended to provide a significant improvement over current
data sets, which have recognized deficiencies in a number of
areas-especially in consistent global coverage and the characterization of
sea surface temperature data accuracy and uncertainties (e.g., cloud
contamination and diurnal warming effects). GHRSST-PP does not replace
AVHRR Pathfinder SST but provides an emerging framework and "product line"
that will be better in many respects. The lessons learned in the
development of Pathfinder are being used in GHRSST.

o 	The input data streams to GHRSST-PP will come from several different
sources, including both microwave and infrared sensors on polar orbiting
and geostationary platforms. GHRSST-PP supports a process whereby
satellite data streams from a number of sources will be reformatted into a
standardized format, complete with error statistics and ancillary data,
which will significantly enhance their usability for assimilation into
climate and ocean/atmosphere models.

o 	GHRSST-PP involves the integration of new technologies that will
improve current data transmission, validation, and processing. These
technologies potentially will be applicable across a wide range of
satellite-derived data sets.

o 	GHRSST-PP provides an opportunity to deliver data under standardized
formats and error characterization to an international user community.
Activities sponsored by the U.S. include data distribution and management
through a Global Data Assembly Center. International partners include
Australia and several European countries (additional international
partners are expected as the project matures).1

In sum, GHRSST-PP has several important features that will serve to test
future strategies involving both international data management and the
creation of satellite-derived measurements suitable for both
near-real-time research and climate studies:

1The European Medspiration project will provide sea surface temperature
data products to specific operational European users in near real time.
The project will consist of a data processing system, an off-line data
archive, and a data product dissemination service. The Australian Bluelink
Project centers on ocean prediction and analysis, and forecasting of
day-to-day variations in ocean currents, ocean eddies, and temperatures.

                                  Appendix XXI
                   Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related
                      Sensors (MODIS and AVHRR), National
                      Aeronautics and Space Administration

o 	rigorous calculation of error statistics for each estimate of sea
surface temperature data;

o 	near-real-time distribution of data, in collaboration with
international partners (the Web interface also allows global data to be
chosen for a specific area of interest defined by the user);

o 	standardized formats for all data products that include ancillary data
sets for complete error characterization of sea surface temperature data;
and

o 	models to calculate sea surface temperatures at predefined depths,
enabling users to know the exact depth of the sea surface temperature.2

Vegetation index	NASA plans to continue research involving its Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index. In particular, a 5-year research and
development data project that began in fiscal year 2004 is planned through
fiscal year 2008, at approximately $800,000 to $900,000 per year. The
objective of this project, which relies on AVHRR, is to create and make
available a consistent record of the index, dating from 1981.

2NASA believes that the temperature at the surface of the ocean and at one
meter below the surface may vary significantly, up to 1 degree Celsius, as
the surface of the ocean more directly responds to winds and heat from the
sun. To understand changes in climate, for example, such differences must
be understood and modeled correctly. This is also critical because,
although satellite infrared sensors measure the skin temperature (the very
top of the ocean surface), most in-situ measurements are taken at depths
of several meters. A clear understanding of the depth of the temperature
measurement is critical to properly using sea surface temperature data.

Appendix XXII

Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix XXIII

Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix XXIII
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

Appendix XXIV

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact John Stephenson, (202) 512-3841

Staff 	In addition to the contact named above, Nancy Bowser, Nancy
Crothers, Denise Fantone, Tim Guinane, Ed Kratzer, William Lanouette,
Ralph Lowry,

Acknowledgments	Omari Norman, Aaron Shiffrin, and Jay Smale made key
contributions to this report.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***