[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE BUDGET REQUESTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 3, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-133 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Joel Hefley, Colorado Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California Adam Smith, Washington
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina Jay Inslee, Washington
Mac Thornberry, Texas Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Jim Gibbons, Nevada James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 3, 2001...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
New York Times article dated May 2, 2001, entitled ``Two
Breeds of Survivor: Gulf Shrimp and Texas Shrimpers''
submitted for the record............................... 28
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam.. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Gudes, Scott B., Acting Under Secretary and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Jones, Marshall, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 66
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
Thursday, May 3, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the
Subcommittee. We will examine the budget priorities of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration for the upcoming year.
In terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service, we were
basically pleased that the administration has requested an
increase of $14 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System
and full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
We were somewhat disappointed in the $9 million decrease
for endangered species, and I am troubled by the artificial cap
that the administration has proposed for ESA listing funds. I
look forward to a justification of these decisions and a
thorough explanation of the new proposed landowner incentive
program and private stewardship grant program.
In terms of NOAA, we strongly support the proposed
increases for the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the
Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Sea Grant College
Program, navigation services, and ocean exploration.
While funding for fisheries management programs has been
restored to pre-CARA Lite funding contained in the consolidated
appropriations act, I was pleased to see additional money for
blue crab, blue fish, and striped bass studies; a $2.5 million
increase for the eight regional fishery management councils;
and $2 million more to protect highly endangered right whales.
There are accounts, like the National Estuarine Research
Reserves, for which we will require additional resources. But
on balance, this is a defensible budget request for the ``wet
programs'' of NOAA.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
and hope that members will ask probing questions on these
budget requests. This is the members' best chance to inquire
about any program under the jurisdiction of these two agencies.
Gentlemen, we thank you for coming this morning. We look
forward to your testimony, and we have some interesting,
probing inquiries for all of you this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, today the Subcommittee will examine the budget
priorities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the upcoming year.
In terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I was pleased that the
Administration has requested an increase of $14 million for the
National Wildlife Refuge System and full funding for the land and water
conservation fund. I was disappointed in the $9 million decrease for
endangered species and I am troubled by the artificial cap that the
Administration has proposed for ESA Listing funds. I look forward to a
justification of these decisions and a thorough explanation of the new
proposed landowner incentive program and private stewardship grant
program.
In terms of NOAA, I strongly support the proposed increases for the
National Marine Sanctuary Program, the Coastal Zone Management Program,
the National Sea Grant College Program, navigation services, and ocean
exploration.
While funding for fisheries management programs has been restored
to the pre-CARA lite funding contained in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, I was pleased to see additional money for blue
crab, blue fish and striped bass studies; a $2.5 million increase for
the eight regional fishery management councils and $2 million more to
protect highly endangered right whales.
There are accounts, like the National Estuarine Research Reserves,
which will require additional resources, but on balance this is a
defensible budget request for the ``wet programs'' of NOAA.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and hope
that Members will ask probing questions on these budget requests. This
is the Members's best chance to inquiry about any program under the
jurisdiction of these two agencies.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening statement that
he may have at this time.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I now yield to Mr. Underwood.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing on the Fiscal Year 2002 budget
requests for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I appreciate the
opportunity to learn more about these requests and to ask
questions--probing questions--on those areas of particular
relevance to not only to my constituents but, I think, to
people across the country.
As you can understand, Guam has a definite interest in the
funding of both these agencies and their important programs.
And as a committee, we have a firm responsibility to ensure
that the funds appropriated to these agencies are used in a
responsible manner and for the benefit of people in the entire
country.
In general, I am pleased to see President Bush recognizes
the importance and relevance of NOAA's ocean, coastal, and
fisheries programs, and has maintained or increased funding in
vital areas. I am especially interested in learning more about
NOAA's ocean exploration initiative.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, on the other hand, does not
seem to have fared so well, unfortunately, in some areas. There
are, of course, certain programs for which I would like to see
more done, including management and eradication of invasive
species, such as the brown tree snake in Guam, which has
decimated native bird populations.
In addition, I am concerned about specific Fish and
Wildlife Service grant programs which have been zero funded
with no assurance that they will be funded under a newly
expanded Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside program. I
will ask more about this after hearing from our witnesses.
I think it is important to reiterate the important tasks
that these agencies are responsible for in preserving and, more
and more, restoring the natural environment in which we live.
Coastal Zone Management, coral reef protection, the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the Marine Sanctuary Program, and
migratory bird management are all vital services provided to
this country by these agencies.
The Congress must continue to provide sufficient funding to
ensure that these agencies are able to fulfill their missions.
Only by paying now and spending wisely will we ensure that we
do not incur greater costs in the future for protecting and
utilizing our natural environment and its resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, A Delegate to Congress
from Guam
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing
on the Fiscal Year 2002 budget requests for the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about these requests and to
ask questions on those areas of particular relevance to my
constituents.
As you can understand, Guam has a definite interest in the funding
of both these agencies and their important programs. And as a
Committee, we have a firm responsibility to ensure that the funds
appropriated to these agencies are used in a responsible manner and for
the benefit of all the people of the United States.
In general, I am pleased to see President Bush recognizes the
importance and relevance of NOAA's ocean, coastal and fisheries
programs and has maintained or increased funding in vital areas. I am
especially interested in learning more about NOAA's ocean exploration
initiative.
The Fish and Wildlife Service does not seem to have fared so well,
unfortunately, in some areas. There are, of course, certain programs
for which I would like to see more done, including management and
eradication of invasive species, such as the brown tree snake in Guam
which has decimated native bird populations.
In addition, I am concerned about several specific Fish and
Wildlife Service grant programs which have been zero funded with no
assurance that they will be funded under a newly expanded Land and
Water Conservation Fund state-side program. I will ask more about this
after hearing from our witnesses.
I think it is important to reiterate the important tasks these
agencies are responsible for in preserving, and more and more
restoring, the natural environment in which we live. Coastal zone
management, coral reef protection, the National Wildlife Refuge System,
the Marine Sanctuary Program and migratory bird management are all
vital services provided to this country by these agencies.
The Congress must continue to provide sufficient funding to ensure
that these agencies are able to fulfill their missions. Only by paying
now and spending wisely will we ensure that we do not incur greater
costs in the future for protecting and utilizing our natural
environment and its resources.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Ortiz?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Ortiz. I would just like to request that my statement
be included in the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Underwood, thank you for
holding this hearing this morning. I am glad to see our witnesses this
morning and am very interested in hearing what they have to say about
their funding needs.
It is my hope that we will find some money to help our hard-working
men and women in the fishing industries. They are being hammered almost
monthly by oppressive regulations that are slowly, but surely, putting
them out of business. These are not just people worried about their
livelihoods and families. In many cases, we are losing a culture and
way of life that has been diligently carried on for generations.
If we were concerned, would we not dedicate the money needed
substantiate these regulations? I have been in meeting after meeting
where our fishery regulators have said that their Red Snapper database
has holes in it and need large gaps filled, but I never see any
requests for help with funding research for these needs. Instead, I
keep hearing that the best data available is being used..
I believe we need to do our homework and know why we are putting
people out of jobs if that is what we have to do to sustain our
fisheries. Under the current situation, we are spending too much of our
needed funding in court trying to defend inadequate databases.
Mr Chairman, thank you again for this hearing. I look forward to
working with you and the members of this committee on this issue.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Unfortunately, gentlemen, we will probably
have a series of votes at 10 o'clock.
I think, Scott, you have to leave at 10?
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So we will do what we can between now and 10
o'clock. And we wish you well in the next hearing.
Scott, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS
AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MARGARET DAVIDSON, ACTING
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION; BILL HOGARTH, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; LOUISA KOCH,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Secretary Evans and our 12,500 men and women
in NOAA working around the country, I really want to thank you
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of our Fiscal Year
2002 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
I also want to thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Congressman
Underwood, Congressman Ortiz, and the members of this
committee, and the professional staff of this committee--John
Rayfield, Dave Whaley, Dave Jansen, Jean Flemma, all the
professional staff--for your continued interest and support for
NOAA.
The overall NOAA budget this year, the administration's
budget, is $3.152 billion. That is some $61 million below the
current level. Our budget has about $330 million in reductions
and about $270 million in increases, some of which you talked
about, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Evans has asked us to invest in high-priority
areas that are about the most core issues, and we have done
that. We are presenting you with one of the strongest NOAA
budgets ever presented, I believe, by any administration.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other overall point. In
the budget business, we think and talk in terms of changes,
pluses and minuses; I was just doing some of that. But NOAA has
often come up here with budgets, in the President's budgets,
that propose reducing items that are of great interest to
Congress and to this Subcommittee and to us. And this year, to
the extent practical, we have sought to narrow these
differences and fund items at or slightly above the levels
enacted by Congress last December.
So, for example, the Sea Grant program, a key NOAA program,
is at $62.4 million. This is only the second year in the last
20 years that we have come back with the same level as
Congress, and it is really great.
Hydrographic survey by the private sector, a big interest
in these; charters are included at $20.4 million.
The National Undersea Research Program, with centers in New
Jersey and Hawaii, is at $13.8 million, the first time ever
that we have been able to bring that fully in the President's
budget.
Steller sea lion research, we are at $40 million. The
research program is at $40 million, slightly below the level
that Congress added last year.
And as you said, Mr. Chairman--you talked about it last
year--blue fish and striped bass need research. Well, I am
happy the President's budget is requesting, in fact, a little
above the level the Congress appropriated, $1.5 million. They
are two very, very important recreational species in Maryland,
New Jersey, all along the east coast of the United States.
Let me turn to a quick summary of this $270 million of
increases that we proposed back to Congress. Let me go to the
slide that says ``People.''
When we are testifying in Congress, people always say,
``Well, that's great. You've given us all these proposals. But
what's your highest priority?'' Well, what I am going to tell
you today, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, is that my
highest priority as acting administrator is our people of NOAA,
supporting our people, supporting the human resources mandatory
costs sometimes called, in the budget business, ``adjustments
to base'': the cost-of-living adjustments, inflation, benefits,
GSA rent--$60 million for this.
This is about truth in budgeting, I believe, keeping
current services for our programs. It is about not hollowing
out our programs and our laboratories. We have the greatest,
most motivated workforce in NOAA, on behalf of Americans, and
we need to support them.
Turn to the next slide, infrastructure. Equipment,
facilities, maintenance, what I call infrastructure, we have
not traditionally done well in this area at NOAA. We need help
enabling NOAA not just to do our mission this year and be the
premier oceanic and atmospheric agency, but it is really about
enabling us to do our job in future years.
The requested $3 million is for our Honolulu fisheries
laboratory, which is co-located at the University of Hawaii. It
is non-ADA--Americans with Disabilities Act--compliant. It has
a number of structural facility problems, and we need to get on
with addressing that facility requirement and replacing that
laboratory.
A total of $1 million is for our National Oceans Service
Fisheries Beaufort, North Carolina, laboratory. It is the
second oldest marine science laboratory in the nation, behind
Woods Hole. And we just celebrated the 100th anniversary there.
An increase of $1.7 million for overall safety and
environmental issues at NOAA facilities overall. And I believe
this is the first time we have been able to get a request like
this in the budget.
And $5.8 million is for overall modernization to two of our
NOAA fisheries vessels: the Albatross IV, which is based in
Woods Hole, our workhorse for northeast surveys; and the Gordon
Gunter in Pascagoula.
Next slide, coastal conservation activities. Mr. Chairman
and members of the Subcommittee, we are requesting $284.4
million for a number of our coastal conservation programs. The
budget includes the full $27 million that Congress provided for
coral reef programs last year, and a $700,000 increase for
satellite work to look at coral reef issues, one of the really
great products that our satellite service has been able to
provide resource managers.
Coral reefs are a major interest to this Subcommittee, for
NOAA, and, in fact, I co-chair the Coral Reef Task Force. In
Fiscal Year 2001, 74 percent of our resources that Congress
provided for coral reefs are going for work, restoration,
research for coral reefs in the Pacific.
The $16.6 million increase, as you point out, Mr. Chairman,
is really for marine sanctuaries, for a total program of $52
million. These are, of course, really underwater national
parks, if you will. Most of this is for education facilities,
to bring these sanctuaries really to the American people. And
$6.5 million of this amount is to fully fund the completion of
the Dr. Nancy Foster Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
complex in Key West.
A $12.2 million increase is included for coastal zone
management programs. And the reductions in the National
Estuarine Research Reserves programs (NERRS), are really about
taking out one-time earmarks. So the operations grants to the
states for NERRS go up by $1.7 million, and land acquisition
and facilities are requested at $9.9 million.
Obviously, I don't need to come tell this Subcommittee
about the importance of coastal issues, like loss of wetlands
and water quality and coastal storms and the special nature of
our 25 National Estuarine Research Reserves around the country,
from Maryland to California.
And, finally, our budget continues to provide $90 million
for Pacific coastal salmon grants, part of more than $184
million that NOAA spends on this important resource.
Next slide, modernization of NOAA fisheries. With respect
to fisheries, it is my view that our budget responds to the
leadership of this committee and Congress. Our budget seeks to
modernize the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NOAA
fisheries, as we call it, and proposes increases to meet
existing statutory and regulatory requirements of Magnuson-
Stevens, National Energy Policy Act(NEPA), Endangered Species
Act (ESA), and other statutes.
This is an area in which I have put a lot of personal
attention in the last 2 years. Last year, I requested Ray
Kammer, the director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to perform a study to take a look at our fisheries
service and the budget and the requirements.
And Bill Hogarth is here today. In Bill Hogarth, you have
an acting director of NOAA fisheries who is changing the way we
do business. He is reaching out to our partners, our
constituents. He is conducting business in a much more open way
and really working with the councils and the states. He just
got all the marine managers together, from all the states. It
is the first time we have done that in a number of years.
Our budget does the right thing: It invests in science, in
management, and in enforcement. It also maintains many of the
increases provided by Congress last year, from the red snapper
surveys to NEPA compliance. I will just highlight a few of
these fisheries initiatives.
An increase of $13.3 million is requested for expanding and
improving stock assessments. This will add 829 days by charter
to do surveys. This is about getting the data that we need to
support the science behind our regulatory framework that the
fisheries management councils need as well.
An increase of $2 million is requested for fisheries
oceanography, looking at the larger ecosystem issues affecting
fisheries, again responding to a couple comments made by this
committee.
An amount of $4 million is for additional fishery observers
and improving data collection. Increasingly, fishery
observers--these young men and women who go to sea on these
commercial vessels--are essential to managing fisheries and
marine mammal stocks.
An increase of $2 million for a total of $10 million is
requested for the community-based habitat restoration program.
This is a partnership with groups like the American Sport
Fishing Association, National Fisheries Institute (NFI), the
Nature Conservancy. It makes a real impact, a real difference,
and provides leverage of about 4-to-1 in terms of funding.
I have often taken part in these grassroots efforts. Just 2
weeks ago, I was in coastal Louisiana, trying to save some
wetlands. Last weekend, I was taking part in coastal
restoration down on the Magothy River, just north of Annapolis.
An increase of $2.5 million, as you point out, Mr.
Chairman, is for regional fishery management councils. They are
the cornerstone of how we manage fisheries in this country.
They have those adjustments to base, just like we do as well.
They need support, and I am proud that the President's budget
does that.
Also, $7.5 million is for protected species and management,
like sea turtles, right whales, dolphins, and salmon.
And $10 million is for enforcement and for vessel
monitoring assistance, an essential program.
Next slide, climate services. Climate is, of course, a
major area of science and research for NOAA. Much of what we
know is due to the long-term monitoring and observations that
NOAA has made for over 40 years in places like Mauna Loa in
Hawaii, where we do observation of CO2 every day.
Climate is both seasonal--we look at if it will be warmer,
the weather, this summer--as well as longer term, such as: What
is happening with global atmospheric and sea surface
temperatures? What do we think will happen?
Climate is about real world issues, Mr. Chairman, like
water levels or west coast salmon and hydropower, about sea
levels rising, drought. In fact, it is an essential ingredient
to be able to forecast harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake
Bay. Understanding Pfiesteria is about understanding whether or
not we are having a drought.
Climate is, of course, an oceanic issue. As the oceans are
changing, they drive the world climate system. And our budget
proposes an increase of $16.5 million for climate services.
I will just point out that there is $7.3 million for ocean
systems. For example, an increase of $3.2 million is included
for the ARGO profiling float survey. These are like a weather
balloon system, if you will, for the oceans. We are working to
obtain a 3,000-float system worldwide. This budget gets us up
to about 275 floats per year from NOAA.
And $4.1 million completes support for other ocean
observational components, including Arctic Ocean fluxes, ocean
reference stations, volunteer observing ship obligations.
Modernization of the Marine Transportation System. In 1988,
Congress directed Federal agencies to produce an assessment of
the U.S. maritime transportation system and a plan for
modernizing government navigation services. I testified before
you last year on our efforts to modernize both programs, and
this budget does step up to show what we are doing in our
oldest mission in NOAA, which goes all the way back to 1807
when Thomas Jefferson said that we needed to map the coast for
safety for Americans. This is about safety, jobs, and economic
competitiveness.
Included in this request is $9.5 million to complete the
refurbishment of the FAIRWEATHER, a ship that we have had in
mothballs in Seattle, which will be working in Alaska, where we
have some of our biggest backlogs, so we really need this one
now.
Included is $3.6 million for electronic navigation charts,
and an increase of $1 million is for shoreline mapping by
contract.
And $3 million is for our coastal storms initiative, which
is about using better sensors, bathymetric data, and storm
models to help coastal communities deal with severe storms and
flooding and the fact that more and more of the population is
in the coastal areas.
The final slide is ocean exploration. We are requesting $14
million for NOAA ocean exploration. That is an increase of $10
million over the $4 million Congress provided last year. This
is about exploring new computers and resources from the sea,
America's heritage, and something called the Census of Marine
Life, which is looking at the ocean canyons and shelves before
the fishing industry moves to exploit those resources, so we
know what is out there.
We are moving out this summer with the funds that Congress
provided, and we will be conducting a series of exploration
dives and submersible work off the east coast in the canyons,
off the west coast in the vents, and in the seafloor study area
in the Gulf of Mexico. These are really voyages of discovery
that will map the physical, chemical, biological, and
archaeological treasures of the United States Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ).
So much of our marine climate, Mr. Chairman, remains
uncharted and unexplored. Only a small percentage of marine
species have been categorized.
Last year, we had an ocean exploration panel, chaired by
Dr. Marcia McNutt and included Dr. Bob Ballard, Shirley
Pomponi, and a number of experts in ocean exploration. And they
pointed out to us that some 95 percent of our oceans have
really not been explored.
NOAA really has not stepped up to this mandate that was
established by the Stratton Commission back when our agency was
created, but we are doing so now. And it is in partnership with
other Federal agencies like the National Science Foundation and
the Navy.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, ocean exploration is about
education and outreach. It is about reaching schools and kids
across this country and including them in this voyage of
discovery.
In fact, 10 percent of anything that this Congress gives us
for ocean exploration will be used for education and outreach.
It is part of the program. NOAA, in its entirety, I really do
believe, is about creating the next generation of marine
biologists, oceanographers, cartographers, and, yes, explorers.
And the final slide I gave you is a depiction of our Web
site, www.noaa.gov. The people here with me worked hard
reengineering our Web site. In today's age, that is part of how
we get these products that this Committee and this Congress
invest in out to the American public. And I am very proud of
this.
When I go around the country, one of the things that really
makes it worthwhile for me is when teachers and students and
citizens come up to me and they tell me, ``You know that Web
site, www.noaa.gov? That's great. We were able to get the
satellite imagery,'' or track that hurricane or learn about
whales or estuaries. It is about that, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to say again that we do very much
appreciate the support of you and the Subcommittee, and we look
forward to working with you as we have in the past.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Let me begin by saying that NOAA, a key component of the Department
of Commerce, plays a vital role in the everyday lives of our citizens
through our numerous contributions to the Nation's economic and
environmental health. In a period of strongly competing Government
priorities, the President's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request for NOAA is
$3,152.3 million in total budget authority for NOAA and represents a
decrease of $60.8 million below the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted levels.
Within this funding level, NOAA proposes essential realignments that
allow for a total of $270.0 million in program increases in critical
areas such as infrastructure, severe weather prediction, coastal
conservation, living marine resources, and climate.
The funding requested in the Fiscal Year 2002 President's Budget
Request will allow NOAA to ensure that our vision for environmental
stewardship and assessment and prediction of the Nation's resources
becomes a reality and that NOAA will continue to excel in our science
and service for the American people.
From safe navigation to coastal services, fisheries management to
climate research and ocean exploration, NOAA is at the forefront of
many of this Nation's most critical issues. NOAA's people, products and
services provide vital support to the domestic security and global
competitiveness of the United States, and positively impact the lives
of our citizens, directly and indirectly, every single day.
NOAA's mission is to describe and predict changes in the Earth's
environment and to conserve and manage the Nation's coastal and marine
resources to ensure sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA implements
its mission through its line and staff offices: the National Ocean
Service (NOS); the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); the Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); the National Weather Service
(NWS); the National Environmental, Satellite, Data and Information
Service (NESDIS); the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO);
and Corporate Services (CS).
Today, the Nation and the world look to NOAA to provide timely and
precise weather forecasts that protect lives and property; to manage
fisheries and protected species; to promote and sustain healthy
coastlines; to make America more competitive through safe navigation;
to examine changes in the oceans; and to inspire and create approaches
that will protect and keep our precious natural resources alive for the
generations to come.
NOAA conducts research to develop new technologies, improve
operations, and supply the scientific basis for managing natural
resources and solving environmental problems. NOAA's comprehensive
system for acquiring observations from satellites and radars to ships
and submersibles provides critical data and quality information needed
for the safe conduct of daily life and the basic functioning of a
modern society.
NOAA's products and services include nautical charts, marine
fisheries statistics and regulations, assessments of environmental
changes, hazardous materials response information, and stewardship of
the Nation's ocean, coastal, and living marine resources.
NOAA's programs for Fiscal Year 2002 support several key cross-
cutting initiatives. These cross-cutting initiatives illustrate the
degree to which NOAA's programs are inter-related. Each of the
component programs within a cross-cutting initiative uniquely
contributes to NOAA's ability to meet its mission.
The Fiscal Year 2002 President's Budget Request supports NOAA's
cross-cutting initiatives, each of which is I will discuss in greater
detail.
People and Infrastructure
The request for the People and Infrastructure cross-cutting
initiative brings together the heart of what NOAA is and does. These
are the underlying and interconnecting threads that hold NOAA and its
programs together. Investments in NOAA's scientific and technical
workforce and NOAA's facilities and equipment is essential to the
agency carrying on it's mission into the 21st Century. ``People and
Infrastructure'' is about investing in the future.
People
NOAA requests $60.0 million in base adjustments that are critical
to preserve and develop NOAA's human capital, our greatest asset. The
demand for NOAA's scientific work products and services is expected to
increase significantly in Fiscal Year 2002 and beyond. This trend is
evidenced by market responses to increasingly accurate seasonal
forecasts, protection of life and safety, competing interests for
marine resources and the need to protect and recover endangered
species, and the application in pharmaceutical manufacturing of the
earliest rewards from increased ocean exploration. Similar increases in
demand for NOAA's products and services are expected from the national
energy community and other potential user communities. To ensure NOAA's
mission capacity is adequate to respond to these demands, NOAA must
continue to invest in its people.
This investment will ensure NOAA's programs are maintained at the
current services level. These are ``must-pay'' bills like pay raises,
benefits, inflation, and rent. Failure to receive these adjustments in
any given year results in program dislocations and minor cutbacks.
Failure to receive these adjustments over time has a cumulative erosion
effect that can be programmatically devastating. Consequently, these
adjustments to NOAA's funding base are essential for NOAA to continue
meeting core mission-related requirements and the expectations of the
American public.
Infrastructure
NOAA's facilities and information technology infrastructure
directly and immediately impacts the ability of NOAA's program offices
to satisfy mission demands. The condition, readiness and
vulnerabilities of this infrastructure have direct consequences on
human welfare, economic well being, and the advancement of the state of
the sciences. To ensure mission capacity, NOAA requests infrastructure
funding of $73.3 million in the following key categories: critical
systems, construction, maintenance and repair, and NOAA program
support.
Systems
The total request of $4.0 million for the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) Computer Hardware and Software represents an increase of
$0.5 million. This continued investment will be used for information
technology refreshment to support the scientific and computational
needs of the NMFS. Many of the observational data elements obtained
from the new sensors, observers, Fisheries Research Vessels (FRVs) and
survey and census data collection programs in this budget submission
will rely on the NMFS Information Technology infrastructure for all or
part of their life cycle. The cumulative effect of rising costs, the
unmet need for adjustments to base, and expanding requirements have
created an erosion of base program functionality. These funds will
result in a continuous process of technology refreshment to keep pace
with the increasing information flow created by the deployment of new
sensors, platforms and data collection activities throughout NMFS'
initiatives.
Construction
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 for the Honolulu laboratory. This
investment will continue the replacement of the Honolulu Laboratory
which consists of a main lab building and two annex building. This
funding will enable the project to proceed with work needed to correct
several deficiencies such as overcrowding, lack of laboratories,
inadequate or nonexistent handicap access, and hazardous materials.
The Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget request includes a total of
$1.0 million for the Coastal Services Center Wing. This investment will
allow for construction of a new wing adjacent to the main facility of
the Coastal Services Center (CSC) in Charleston, SC. This small
expansion will add an estimated 6,000 square feet to house office
space, a storage area and a loading dock. The funding will also allow
for a partial demolition of CSC's obsolete and deteriorating
structures. The demolition would eradicate some, but not all, of the
structures that pose threats to CSC's inhabited buildings. Additional
needs for security enhancements and other expansion remain under
consideration in the comprehensive facilities plan being completed in
Fiscal Year 2001.
Maintenance
The total request of $4.4 million for the National Marine Fisheries
Service Facilities Operations and Maintenance represents an increase of
$0.4 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued
investment will be used to cover increased operation and maintenance
costs of two key NMFS facilities, the new Santa Cruz, California
Laboratory, and the Kodiak, Alaska Laboratory.
NOAA's request of $3.6 million for Facilities Maintenance, Repairs
and Safety represents an increase of $1.7 million above the Fiscal Year
2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will allow for
remediation of NOAA's deteriorating facilities. NOAA's capital assets,
totaling 496 installations spread across all 50 states are valued in
the hundreds of millions of dollars. The majority of these facilities
are over 30 years old, and 29 percent are over 40 years in age. To
date, renovations have been relatively few, and maintenance has been
deferred. NOAA has already identified over $50 million in maintenance
and repair projects, and this continues to grow as a comprehensive
facility assessment unfolds. Major systems in many facilities are in
imminent danger of failure, or are well past their useful lives. The
requested funds will help address these facilities maintenance, repair
and safety needs.
Funding in the amount of $1.0 million is requested for NOAA's
Beaufort Laboratory. This investment will allow for repairs at NOAA's
Beaufort, NC Laboratory. The funds will be used to address health and
safety issues, primarily the installation of a sanitary sewage
connection and electrical repairs. The Beaufort Laboratory is the
Nation's second oldest marine research center a national treasure and
is collocated with the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research
Reserve.
NOAA's request of $1.8 million for the GORDON GUNTER will allow for
the upgrade of the vessel to meet modern safety standards and to
provide a more capable platform to support fisheries research, stock
assessment and other missions such as submersible operations. The
upgrade will include modifications to an engine-room bulkhead that will
enable the ship to meet modern safety standards for one-compartment
damage stability, allowing a compartment to be fully flooded and the
ship to remain afloat with stability. This funding also would provide
positioning and instrumentation upgrades. The GORDON GUNTER, homeported
in Pascagoula, MS, is a former Navy T-AGOS vessel which has been
converted and currently serves in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea
and the Southeast Atlantic Ocean.
Included in NOAA's Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget request is
$4.0 million for the ALBATROSS IV. This investment will allow for
repairs and the extension of the ship's useful life until a new
Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV) can be constructed for the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). In order to calibrate the new vessel
with the ALBATROSS IV, the ALBATROSS IV must be upgraded and its
service extended until a new vessel is completed. This calibration-
overlap protects the integrity of long-term surveys.
Additional funding has also been requested for the FAIRWEATHER.
This investment is identified under the Marine Transportation System
crosscut.
Coastal Conservation Activities
Over the past several years NOAA has proposed, through various
initiatives and programs, funding to address some of the most serious
challenges facing the U.S. coasts and oceans. Through those programs
NOAA has made significant progress in addressing a number of critical
environmental issues. The Coastal Conservation Activities Initiative
will continue to build on the progress made to preserve the Nation's
coasts and oceans.
In the Fiscal Year 2002 President's Budget, NOAA requests $284.4
million to continue environmental programs that are critical to
ensuring the continued preservation of our Nation's coastal and ocean
resources. The Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request includes resources to
enhance our ability to effectively manage the National Marine
Sanctuaries, enhance habitat protection through the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System and strengthen and improve Marine Protected
Area (MPA) programs and their conservation goals. These funds will be
leveraged through improved Federal, state, local, tribal, and
territorial coordination and collaboration to fill shared information,
technical and operational needs. Also included are additional resources
to increase Coastal Zone Management grants to states to enable coastal
states to address such issues of national importance as the impact of
coastal storms, declining water quality, shortage of public shoreline
access, loss of wetlands, deteriorating waterfronts, and the challenge
of balancing economic and environmental demands in the coastal zone.
With the funds requested in Fiscal Year 2002 NOAA will also continue to
implement recommendations of the Coral Reef Task Force and enhance the
recovery of threatened and endangered coastal salmon. The programs that
comprise the Coastal Conservation Activities cross-cut are highlighted
below.
Coral Reef Activities
The total request of $27.7 million for Coral Reef Activities
represents an increase of $0.7 million above the Fiscal Year 2001
Enacted level. This continued investment will allow for NOAA's support
for coral reef activities across the Nation. Funding will enable NOAA
to continue implementing priorities of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
and recommendations included in the America's Ocean Future Report.
Working with state, territorial, and local partners, this level of
funding will support research, monitoring, and local level projects to
reduce human impacts and increase sustainable use of America's valuable
coral reefs.
Coastal Zone Management Program
The total request of $75.4 million for the Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Program represents an increase of $12.2 million above the Fiscal
Year 2001 Enacted level. This includes an increase of $8.6 million for
CZM grants, a technical change in the transfer from the CZM Fund, and
an increase of $0.4 million for Program Administration. In addition,
$10.0 million is requested for Nonpoint Pollution Implementation
Grants, a separate but integral program, which will be discussed later.
The total request of $69.0 million for CZM Grants represents an
increase of $8.6 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This
continued investment will allow NOAA to provide direct grants to
coastal states for implementing and improving their approved coastal
management programs. Currently 33 of the 35 eligible coastal states
have an approved coastal management program, with approval of the 34th
state program, Indiana, expected in Fiscal Year 2002. Combined, these
programs serve to manage and protect 99.9 percent of the Nation's
shoreline to the benefit of the environment and the economy. The
requested investment would provide resources for coastal states to more
fully implement their coastal management plans. Specifically, NOAA
provides grants to coastal states and territories to address issues of
national importance such as the impact of coastal storms and flooding,
declining water quality, shortage of public access to the shoreline,
loss of wetlands, deteriorating waterfronts and harbors, and the
challenge of balancing economic and environmental demands in
increasingly competitive ports.
In order to streamline CZM administrative processes, NOAA proposes
to consolidate all funding for CZM Program Administration under ORF.
Doing so requires replacement of the $3.2 million that had been
transferred from the CZM Fund (a non-ORF account) in prior years. In
Fiscal Year 2002, the CZM Fund is proposed as a general offset to CZM
Act activities.
The total request of $6.4 million for the CZM Program
Administration represents an increase of $0.4 million above the Fiscal
Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will support NOAA's
national program administration responsibilities under the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), which continues to grow. This request will
assist NOAA's ability to bring together representatives from state,
Federal, and tribal governments and the private sector, to address
issues such as coastal hazards, habitat and polluted runoff. It will
allow NOAA to address the increasing requests of the states (33 in the
program, one state program in development) for support and technical
assistance. This level of funding will also enable NOAA to maintain
national support for the 25 National Estuarine Research Reserves.
Nonpoint Pollution Implementation Grants
NOAA requests a total of $10.0 million for Nonpoint Pollution
Implementation Grants. This investment will provide states with
resources to reduce nonpoint pollution, the greatest single threat to
coastal water quality. Coastal waters are increasingly impacted by
polluted runoff. Symptoms include the impacts of Pfiesteria in coastal
waters of the eastern seaboard, nutrient over-enrichment in the Gulf of
Mexico, the loss of salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest and local
closures of shellfish beds and beaches throughout the country. NOAA
will provide grants to states with approved plans to address the causes
of these and other symptoms of the degradation of our coastal water
quality.
National Estuarine Research Reserves
The total request of $26.3 million for the National Estuarine
Research Reserves (NERRS) represents a decrease of $29.3 million below
the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This funding level supports an
increase in operations of $1.7 million for a total of $16.4 million in
the Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) Account, and a decrease
in one-time construction items of $24.5 million, for a total request of
$9.9 million in the PAC Account. With regard to the increase for NERRS
operations, these funds will improve the ability of NOAA and its state
partners to understand, manage, and protect these special estuarine
habitats and biodiversity. The NERRS is a network of protected areas
established to improve the health of the Nation's estuaries and coastal
habitats through long-term research, protection, and education and to
address such issues as water quality, loss and degradation of habitat,
and loss of species biodiversity. The increase will significantly
enhance the monitoring and technical training programs at the 25
designated reserves, and ultimately lead to healthier estuaries,
coastal water quality, and fisheries.
Of particular interest is the NERRS' System-Wide Monitoring Program
(SWMP). The SWMP is a national monitoring system that will integrate
water quality, and biological and land-cover change elements, making
the information available to scientists and managers. The 25 existing
reserves will expand their participation in SWMP by increasing spatial
coverage of water quality stations, and by monitoring additional
biological indicators. Reserve staff will also improve estuarine
resource management by providing enhanced technical training for
planners, policy-makers, and other state and local coastal decision-
makers on water quality, habitat, invasive species, and sustainable
ecosystem issues. Funding of $9.9 million for infrastructure
investments in the Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC)
account includes resources to complement these activities by providing
resources for research, education, and visitor facilities at multiple
reserve sites across the Nation. The NERR system uses a competitive
priority -setting process each year to fund the best projects from the
long list of eligible proposals. At some sites, land acquisition from
willing sellers may be a high priority to enhance the protection of key
resources. At other sites, facilities and related structures, such as
interpretive centers, laboratories, boardwalks, and boat docks may be
the best use of funds to enhance the outreach, education, and research
programs within the NERRS.
National Marine Sanctuaries
The total request of $52.0 million for the National Marine
Sanctuaries represents an increase of $16.6 million above the Fiscal
Year 2001 Enacted level. This increase of $16.6 million is comprised of
$3.6 million for operations (for a total ORF request of $36.0 million),
and an increase of $13.0 million for new construction (for a total PAC
request of $16.0 million). With regard to National Marine Sanctuaries
operations, this continued investment will provide funding to upgrade
the operating and technical capacity in the thirteen national marine
sanctuaries. The results will improve protection of important sanctuary
resources, including coral reefs, endangered marine mammals, sensitive
habitats, and significant cultural resources. In addition to supporting
the operations, this investment will provide for additional site
characterization, additional enforcement capabilities, public
education, and the implementation of key management changes. Changes
are expected in a wide range of activities, including drafting and
amending regulations, establishing new partnerships, expansion of
outreach and education efforts, and additional research, monitoring and
restoration.
The Congress has called for sufficient resources for operational
staff, facilities and equipment, effective implementation of management
plans, enforcement, and particularly for site characterization
including cultural resources and inventory of existing natural
resources. Elements that must be compiled for cultural and natural
resource inventories include location of shipwrecks, data on marine
mammals, fish, shellfish and sea birds, habitat types, and physical
characteristics, such as bottom typography, water quality, and water
temperature. The goal is to gather enough characterization information
at each site to be able to effectively manage the resources. New
funding will support these efforts and the Sustainable Seas
Expeditions. This Fiscal Year 2002 Budget responds to Congressional
direction and the recently passed National Marine Sanctuary Amendments
Act.
With regard to the increase of $13.0 million for Marine Sanctuaries
construction in the PAC Account, NOAA will continue to implement the
detailed, comprehensive facilities plan developed in Fiscal Year 2000
in order to respond to the growing public interest in the ocean
environment and the Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA will work in
partnership with other Federal agencies and private institutions such
as museums, aquaria, and foundations. NOAA will establish or upgrade
facilities to ensure access to sanctuary resources and allow public
appreciation of the unique marine habitats in those sanctuaries. These
facilities provide important outreach and education functions for these
special places, since many visitors are unable to visit the actual
sanctuary sites which, in several cases, are many miles offshore or
require individuals to be certified scuba divers in order to view
firsthand these national treasures.
Within these funds, an estimated $6.5 million is targeted for the
Dr. Nancy Foster Florida Keys Environmental Center to complete
renovation and construction at this former Navy installation and
properly support the multi-agency partnership and the Center's mandates
to promote environmental education, protection, marine safety and
rescue, and coastal stewardship. This center, which was dedicated last
year, stands as a tribute to the late Dr. Nancy Foster, NOAA's
Assistant Administrator for the National Ocean Service. One of the two
buildings will host a state-of-the-art multi-agency (NOAA, National
Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service) visitor center. The other
building will become the operations center for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary and host office space; laboratory space; a
diving locker; a maintenance area for mooring buoys, boats and
vehicles; and dock space. The new facility will also provide
consolidation of office space and boat docks that are currently
scattered across multiple leased facilities in the Key West area.
Marine Protected Areas
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million for Marine Protected Areas.
This investment will strengthen and improve agency-wide Marine
Protected Area (MPA) programs and their conservation goals. This effort
supports NOAA's responsibilities for fulfilling the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program, National Estuarine Research Reserve Program,
Coastal Zone Management Program, and coral reefs. This funding will
foster collaboration with the Department of the Interior and other
Federal agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial governments as
well as non-governmental partners. Efforts will focus on developing a
supporting framework for effective communication and collaboration
among MPA programs by creating a national system of marine protected
areas including NMS, NERRS, and other Federal, state, and tribal marine
protected areas. These funds will also support preparation of the first
comprehensive inventory and assessment of the existing system of U.S.
MPAs. The NOAA MPA Program will consist of a Marine Protected Areas
Center, comprised of a small core staff in Washington, DC and two
regional Institutes of Excellence.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
The total request of $90.0 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund represents an increase of $0.2 million above the Fiscal
Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will allow the
states and tribes to continue support for habitat restoration and
protection, research and enhancement, monitoring and evaluation, and
salmon recovery planning and implementation efforts. Funding will be
used to enhance Pacific coastal salmon recovery and for the purpose of
helping share the costs of state, tribal and local conservation
initiatives. Programs funded within this account will assist in the
conservation of Pacific salmon runs, some of which are at risk of
extinction in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.
Funds provided to these states will have at least a 25 percent matching
requirement. This request responds to current and proposed listings of
coastal salmon and steelhead runs under the Endangered Species Act by
forming lasting partnerships with states, local and tribal governments
and the public for saving Pacific salmon and their important habitats.
Climate Services
From the storms of next week to the drought of next season to the
potential human-induced climate change over the coming century, issues
of climate variability and change will be continue to be a major issue
for the Nation. Whether responding to the ongoing drought in the
Pacific Northwest and its effect on power generation and endangered
salmon, or in determining how much atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken
up by the North American biosphere, these questions influence users
from the Western water manager to the shapers of national policy. The
challenge is to extend the research successes, maintain the
observational backbone, and improve the capability to provide useful
information services to our customers. Improved climate predictions
will enable resource managers in climate sensitive sectors such as
agriculture, water management, and energy supply to alter strategies
and reduce economic vulnerability. Building on the understanding of the
Earth's climate system that has resulted from the Nation's strong
scientific research and numerical modeling programs, this Climate
Observations and Services Program will begin the transition of research
data, observing systems and understanding from experiments to
applications, and from basic science to practical products.
NOAA maintains a balanced program of focused research, large-scale
observational programs, modeling on seasonal-centennial time scales,
and data management. In addition to its responsibilities in weather
prediction, NOAA has pioneered in the research and operational
prediction of climate variability associated with the El Nino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). With agency and international partners, NOAA has
been a leader in the assessments of climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion, and the global carbon cycle. NOAA scientists have been
leaders internationally in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). It maintains national coordination through participation
in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
The agency-wide Climate Observations and Services activity
represents a partnership that allows NOAA to facilitate the transition
of research observing and data systems and knowledge into operational
systems and products. During recent years, there has been a growing
demand from emergency managers, the private sector, the research
community, decision-makers in the United States and international
governmental agencies and the general public to provide timely data and
information about climate variability, climate change and trends in
extreme weather events. The economic and social need for continuous,
reliable climate data and longer-range climate forecasts has been
clearly demonstrated. NOAA's Climate Observations and Services
Initiative responds to these needs. The following efforts will be
supported by this initiative:
Continuing Climate Services
NOAA's request for Ocean Observations in Fiscal Year 2002 is $5.0
million. NOAA maintains the sustained global observing and data
stewardship system necessary for climate research and forecasting as
well as the long-term monitoring system necessary for climate change
detection and attribution. The observation network is based on a set of
``core'' observations (e.g., temperature, surface wind stress,
salinity, sea level, carbon dioxide), consisting of both in-situ and
remotely sensed measurements, that have been identified in NOAA and
other national and international reports as needed to satisfy research
and operational climate requirements.
Ocean System for Improved Climate Services
NOAA requests a total of $7.3 million for the Ocean System for
Improved Climate Services. This investment will contribute to the
global operational ocean-observing system by enhancing its present
components and establishing new components. Of the $7.3 million
requested, $3.2 million is required to support the U.S. commitment to
deploy and maintain 1000 ARGO profiling floats in the proposed global
array of 3,000 floats. This commitment requires a deployment of 280
ARGO floats per year. The remainder of this request, $4.1 million,
supports other observational components including Arctic Ocean fluxes,
ocean reference stations, oceanic carbon, and augmentation of the
volunteer observing ship (VOS) instrumentation. Finally, investments
are to be made for data management and assimilation. Based on a firm
scientific foundation, this ocean observing system is closely coupled
with other U.S. and international observing efforts, and will greatly
improve the data available for understanding climate variation.
Modernization of NOAA Fisheries
The Fiscal Year 2002 President's Budget Request for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), referred to as ``NOAA Fisheries,''
follows Congressionally enacted levels in Fiscal Year 2001 and invests
in core programs needed for NOAA to meet its mission to manage
fisheries, rebuild stocks, and protect endangered species such as sea
turtles and whales. NOAA Fisheries modernization funds will be
allocated within NMFS to ensure that existing statutory and regulatory
requirements are met for fisheries and protected species management
programs (including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Environmental
Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and other statutory requirements). In Fiscal Year 2002, there are
sufficient funds for NMFS to meet its statutory and regulatory
requirements.
This budget request builds upon last year's effort to begin the
modernization of NOAA Fisheries. The Modernization of NOAA Fisheries
Initiative encompasses a long-term commitment to improve the NMFS'
structure, processes, and business approaches to meet its mission of
sustaining the Nation's living marine resources and their habitat. This
initiative focuses on improving NMFS' science, management, and
enforcement programs and beginning to rebuild its aging infrastructure.
These improvements will result in measurable progress in the biological
and economic sustainability of fisheries and protected resources. In
order to ensure the viability of these modernization efforts, the
Fiscal Year 2002 President's Budget Request includes the following
program investments:
Science
A total of $1.9 million is requested for research and monitoring
activities for the South Florida ecosystem, an increase of $0.6 million
over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.As a result of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers construction projects within the Florida Everglades,
NMFS must monitor the impact of inland restoration efforts and the
changing freshwater inflow on Florida Bay habitats, nutrient flow,
hydrodynamics, and ultimately on measurable ecosystem productivity and
health.
The total request of $15.0 million for Expanding Annual Stock
Assessments represents an increase of $13.3 million above the Fiscal
Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will provide for
additional scientific survey data collection to improve NMFS' ability
to make accurate, timely stock predictions. Funding at this level would
add 829 chartered ship days toward the deficit of 2,564 days identified
in the NMFS Stock Assessments Improvement Plan as needed for adequate
stock assessment coverage. Included in this increase is $1.0 million to
enhance the assessment of marine mammal population status and trends as
required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
A total request of $2.0 million for fisheries oceanography
represents a $2.0 million increase above the Fiscal Year 2001 level.
This request is comprised of two increases, $1.5 million for NMFS and
$0.5 million for fisheries oceanography within the National
Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS). The
$1.5 million increase will enable NMFS to assess how long-term
environmental factors affect fish stocks. By better identifying the
potential environmental causes of fish population fluctuations, NMFS
will be able to improve its stock predictions and resultant management
actions. The $0.5 million increase will enable NESDIS to explore using
Synthetic Aperture Radar technology and data in fishery resources
monitoring. This investment would build on applications demonstrated in
October 1999 using RADARSAT-1 imagery in Alaska, and would result in
radar data and products useful in fisheries enforcement, NMFS
laboratories and for other agencies such as the Coast Guard.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to promote environmentally
sound marine aquaculture. NOAA will improve the aquaculture regulatory
framework by developing and implementing of a code of conduct for
responsible aquaculture. NOAA will also address the important
environmental aspects of aquaculture in the non-indigenous species
area, especially for shrimp viruses.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million for Pacific highly migratory
species research. This request would fund growing and critical research
needs as a new Fishery Management Plan for these species is
implemented. Activities include: conducting stock assessments and
biological studies for four major tuna species and three species of
sharks, conducting research to evaluate the extent of bycatch and
effectiveness of mitigation measures in purse seine fishing using fish
aggregating devices, and developing and implementing assessment
methodologies tailored for highly migratory species.
A total request of $6.0 million for Cooperative Research represents
an increase of $0.5 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This request will expand cooperative research activities in the
Southeast and will involve fishermen in designing and conducting
research programs, utilizing their expertise and insights in resource
survey design and interpretation. By working together to design and
implement data collection programs, these partnerships between NMFS and
the industry significantly strengthen fisheries research. This
Southeast cooperative research effort compliments similar efforts,
including Northeast Cooperative Research funded at $5.0 million,
cooperative research coordinated by the Northeast Consortium funded at
$5.0 million and, and National Cooperative Research efforts, funded at
$3.0 million.
A total request of $4.4 million for expanding economic and
statistics research represents a $1.4 million increase over the Fiscal
Year 2001 level. This request is needed to conduct economic and social
assessments of management alternatives by improving NMFS' economic and
social science staff capability, and initiation of data and applied
research programs. This funding will enable NMFS to better evaluate and
predict the economic and community impacts of potential management
actions, and satisfy statutory, regulatory and Executive Order
requirements for assessing the benefits and costs of fisheries
management and protected species management actions
NOAA requests a total of $8.0 million for the National Fisheries
Information System. This investment will begin the implementation of a
National Fisheries Information System to improve the quality,
timeliness, coverage and access to data collected by state and Federal
entities for use in the science and management of fisheries. This
system will be developed in cooperation with the fishing industry,
states, interstate fisheries commissions, and other stakeholders as
outlined under section 401 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The funding
provided to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for
regional implementation activities in Fiscal Year 2001 is included in
addition to this funding. The proposed system would improve the
accuracy and effectiveness of existing data collection programs by
establishing common data collection, information technology, and
quality standards for regional programs, and integrating the results
into unified Web-enabled information system. The proposal will also
fill critical information gaps through initiation of new data
collection programs that will subsequently improve living marine
resource policy decisions by reducing data uncertainties.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to reduce fishery impacts on
essential fish habitat. This request funds research that will focus on
the effects of specific fishing activities on essential fish habitat,
comparing those impacts with other sources of habitat degradation,
monitoring habitat recovery in areas where fishing has been curtailed,
and developing management strategies to ensure sustainable harvesting
practices.
NOAA requests $4.0 million for additional Fishery Observers -
Improving Data Collection. This investment will provide for increased
observer coverage to minimum levels around the country as required by
regulation or to optimal levels as recommended by fisheries scientists
for statistical validity, and initiates coverage in fisheries that were
previously not observed. Observers are increasingly essential to
managing fisheries and marine mammal stocks. To improve the quality of
data collected by observers and to provide a more sound base for
fishery management decisions, the plan includes resources to provide
better coordination and consistency of NMFS observer program policies
and procedures. It also provides for the development of technological
enhancements to make the future observer program less costly and more
efficient. A total request of $10.0 million for Fisheries Habitat
Restoration represents an increase of $2.0 million over the Fiscal Year
2001 level. These funds will expand NMFS involvement in community-
based restoration projects. This highly successful national effort
encourages partnerships with groups outside NOAA and has regularly
leveraged appropriated funds by factors of five to six, and by as much
as ten to one.Presently, NOAA receives many more high-quality habitat
restoration proposals than it has funds to support. The requested funds
would enhance national restoration efforts to meet this enthusiastic
demand.
NOAA requests a total of $0.3 million for Habitat Characterization.
This investment will allow NESDIS to develop maps of fishery habitat
distributions in space and time, and to answer important questions with
such maps. A computer mapping capability will be created that will
allow spatial/statistical delineations (stratification) of the
landscape. Such maps can represent inferred ecosystem ``potentials''
that are critical in monitoring, assessment, and management. The system
will allow rapid iteration of the mapping process, thus affording
opportunities to test, modify, and document model criteria, statistical
mapping technique, and data selection. In this manner, habitat maps can
be adaptively maintained.
Management
NOAA requests a total of $1.5 million to refine essential fish
habitat designations.This request funds programs to collect critical
scientific data needed to identify essential fish habitat more
precisely for managed species, enhancing the effectiveness of fishery
management actions, and filling data gaps that can result in
litigation.
NOAA requests a total of $3.5 million for the Northeast Fisheries
Management program. This investment will enable NMFS to continue
rebuilding overfished and overcapitalized Northeast fisheries including
groundfish and scallops by reducing the amount of fish takes by
fishermen, thus giving the fish stocks time to recover. Funding will
also be used, in part, to implement new and innovative cooperative
research efforts in the Region.
The total request of $15.6 million for Regional Councils represents
an increase of $2.5 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This continued investment will support all eight Regional Councils'
increased workload from new programs and regulations as a result of
implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The Regional Councils are integral partners with NOAA in
the management of the Nation's fisheries. NOAA is the Regional
Fisheries Councils' only source of funding to carry out their mission.
The total request of $6.3 million for marine sea turtle activities
represents an increase of $3.0 million over the Fiscal Year 2001
Enacted level. This investment will allow NOAA to recover Atlantic and
Pacific marine sea turtle stocks threatened by domestic and
international fisheries interactions as well as inadequate conservation
of marine turtles on nesting beaches.
The total request of $4.5 million for dolphin conservation and
recovery represents an increase of $1.0 million over the Fiscal Year
2001 Enacted level. This investment will allow NOAA to expand current
activities in dolphin stock identification and assessment, to reduce
mortality incidental to commercial fishing activities, and to initiate
efforts to use bottlenose dolphins as an indicator of the health of the
ecosystems they occupy.
The total request of $3.5 million for Atlantic salmon represents
and increase of $1.5 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This investment will allow NOAA to conserve and restore healthy
populations of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) and their habitats. NOAA will use this investment to
expand the monitoring of Atlantic salmon population dynamics, expand
habitat assessment and conservation, enhance scientific knowledge
related to human resource usage and development activities that are
affecting species survival, and strengthen evaluations to minimize risk
through coordinated planning, innovative partnering, and on-site
involvement in restoration, conservation, and protection activities.
The total request of $7.0 million for Northern Right Whales
represents an increase of $2.0 million over the Fiscal Year 2001
Enacted level. This investment will allow NOAA to expand current
Northern Right Whale population and health assessments and recovery
efforts in the North Atlantic and in the North Pacific.
Enforcement
The total request of $47.3 million for Enforcement Activities
represents an increase of $10.0 million above the Fiscal Year 2001
Enacted level. This continued investment will allow NOAA to modernize
its fisheries and protected species enforcement programs. Improved
enforcement is essential to ensuring that fisheries regulations are
effective and yield conservation benefits for the industry and the
public. Of the total funding amount, $7.4 million (of which $6.1
million is new funding) is included for additional support, continued
modernization and expansion of the vessel management system (VMS)
program. The VMS national program is capable of accommodating nearly
10,000 vessels throughout a number of different fisheries. The request
also includes $39.9 million (of which $3.9 million is new funding) to
expand and modernize base enforcement programs. These programs include
Alaska and west coast groundfish enforcement, protected species
enforcement, state and local partnerships, specialized Magnuson-Stevens
Act investigatory functions, community oriented policing and problem-
solving, and swordfish/Patagonian toothfish import investigations.
Modernization of the Marine Transportation System (MTS)
Since our Nation's founding, maritime trade has been vital to
economic prosperity. NOAA's lineage dates back to 1807 when President
Thomas Jefferson called for charting the coasts and harbors. Today,
more than 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade moves by sea. In 1998, about
2.4 billion tons of cargo moved on our waterways and through our ports.
U.S./foreign waterborne commerce grew about 23 percent from 1993 to
1997about 4.6 percent per year. Trade is projected to at least double
by 2020. Vessels have also grown dramatically; over the last 50 years,
the length, width, and draft of commercial vessels has doubled, pushing
the limits of many ports and posing significant safety concerns.
Ensuring safe and efficient port operations is vital to maintaining the
competitiveness of the U.S. port industry and exports. Growth in ferry,
cruise line, and recreational boating is contributing to increased
congestion on our waterways.Nearly half of all goods in marine commerce
are petroleum products or other hazardous materials. One key to
reducing risk is to invest in the national information infrastructure
that supports the safe and efficient movement of goods and people.
In 1998, Congress directed Federal agencies to produce an
assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) and a plan
for modernizing government navigation services. This Fiscal Year 2002
request is NOAA's effort to direct a set of targeted investments to
expand and capitalize on its existing programs in Mapping and Charting,
Survey Backlog, Geodesy, Tide and Current Data, Response and
Restoration, and Fleet Replacement to further the goals of this ongoing
effort. This is a first step toward developing a 21st century
transportation system that can address the major issues faced by the
country in maritime safety, security, infrastructure, the environment,
and competitiveness.
NOAA maintains the Nation's suite of nautical charts, the coastal
water level observations system, and the geodetic positioning reference
system needed to ensure safe navigation. NOAA also maintains the
scientific expertise to respond to hazardous releases when they occur.
NOAA charts are developed from NOAA's hydrographic and shoreline
surveys, tide and current measurements, and national geodetic/
geographic positioning data, as well as information from other sources.
Demonstration projects have shown that these programs can provide the
accurate data necessary for determining precise under-keel and
overhead/bridge clearances and support near zero visibility docking,
allowing commercial vessels to more safely navigate and efficiently
load and move cargo in and out of depth-limited harbors. NOAA's
integrated suite of surveying, charting, water level, and positioning
services is capable of increasing the efficient movement of goods while
significantly reducing the risk of marine accidents and resulting
environmental damage. When accidents do occur, NOAA can provide the
necessary support to ensure a scientifically-based response and
restoration of damaged coastal resources. Economic benefits include
reducing vessel fuel consumption and port pollution, supporting just-
in-time delivery of goods, enhancing the competitiveness of U.S.
exports, and restoration of important coastal resources that support
tourism, fishing, and other ocean- and coastal-dependent industries.
Specific program increases are described in detail below.
NOAA requests an increase of $3.6 million for Electronic
Navigational Charts (ENCs). This continued investment will allow for
the ongoing production and maintenance of ENCs and the ability to
enhance and expand the full suite of ENCs to a total of 200 from the 70
in existence at the end of Fiscal Year 2000. ENCs provide a more
complete picture of coastal waterways. NOAA requests an increase of
$1.0 million for Shoreline Mapping. This investment will allow for a
more accurate national shoreline. An increased emphasis on shoreline
mapping is required to keep pace with the growing stress on our
Nation's marine transportation system and to assist states and coastal
managers.
NOAA requests an increase of $0.5 million for the National Spatial
Reference System (NSRS). This investment will increase the Nation's
access to the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS), a set
of Global Positioning System (GPS) stations, and the mainstay of the
NSRS. This investment will expand the number of National CORS, expand
the Federal Base and Cooperative Base Network stations connected to the
national standard for vertical heights, which are used for all
applications that require surveying. These activities will provide
better access to accurate and consistent height data for a wide-range
of economic pursuits.
NOAA requests a total of $0.5 million to Implement Forecast Models.
This investment will enhance tides and tidal current services to the
user by obtaining new current meter measurements at locations critical
to the navigation community and by accelerating the development of
nowcast/forecast products for users of oceanographic data.
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million for Coastal Storms. This
investment will build upon existing NOAA environmental monitoring and
data management capabilities and will enhance our efforts to provide
Marine Transportation System users, as well as coastal resource
managers, with the data and tools needed to safely maximize commercial
shipping, mitigate hazards, and sustain the environmental health of
coastal communities and resources when disasters strike. Initial
efforts will focus on a pilot project in Florida and include updating
shallow water bathymetry, adding sensors to National Water Level
Observation Network stations, and developing a hydrodynamic model for
improved forecasting applications.
NOAA requests an increase of $2.0 million for Spill Response and
Habitat Restoration. This investment will develop and distribute tools
and guidance to assist decision makers when releases of contaminants
occur within the Marine Transportation System and other coastal
environments. These funds will enable NOAA to more accurately evaluate
the effectiveness of spill response measures, leading to improved
response techniques as well as better methods of restoring injured
resources.
The total request of $9.5 million for the FAIRWEATHER repair and
activation represents an increase of $2.7 million above the Fiscal Year
2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will complete the
refurbishment and reactivation of the FAIRWEATHER and help reduce the
survey backlog, a high marine transportation priority. This project was
directed by Congress in 2001 and makes efficient use of this vessel
which has been located at NOAA's Pacific Marine Center. With its home
port in Alaska, the FAIRWEATHER will provide a platform that will help
reduce the critical hydrographic survey backlog.
Other Key NOAA Programs
The total request of $14.0 million for Ocean Exploration represents
an increase of $10.0 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted
level.Despite covering 70 percent of Earth's surface, the oceans remain
largely unexplored and unknown. Not surprisingly, most of the oceans'
resources remain untapped. Our best scientists believe that fewer than
25 percent of the species that live in the oceans have ever been
identified. Even within America's own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
less than five percent of the ocean floor has been mapped in high
resolution. In fact, prior to Fiscal Year 2001, the United States did
not even have a concentrated program of ocean exploration. As a result,
NOAA has pursued a course of ocean resource management without adequate
decision-making data and information being available to policy makers,
regulators, and commercial users of the ocean's resources.
However, today we live in an age of technological innovation. There
are many opportunities that simply were not available in earlier
decades. We now can completely rethink how we might conduct exploration
in Earth's oceans. Developments in sensors, telemetry, power sources,
microcomputers, and materials science have greatly improved our ability
to go into and study the undersea frontier.
The benefits of such a program of exploration are potentially
enormous. For example, gas hydrates comprise more than 50 percent of
all of our planet's carbon and potentially hold more than 1000 times
the fuel in all other estimated reserves combined! In addition, there
are certain to be other benefits which currently are beyond our ability
even to conceive. With 95 percent of the underwater world still unknown
and unseen, what remains to be explored may hold clues to the origins
of life on earth, cures for human diseases, answers to how to achieve
sustainable use of our oceans, links to our maritime history, and
information to protect the endangered species of the sea.
We are stewards of our oceans' resources. We need to explore and
know more about our oceans if we are to effectively manage them. We
need to explore the oceans in the same way that the U.S. has
successfully explored space. We need to determine what our marine
resources are, their relative abundance, and the rates at which they
can be used and replenished. Accurate knowledge of the oceans is
essential for environmental, economic, and national security.
The Fiscal Year 2002 budget increase will enable NOAA to fund six
major and several minor interdisciplinary voyages of discovery that
will map the physical, geological, biological, chemical, and
archaeological aspects of parts of the U.S. EEZ. NOAA will conduct
missions of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic Bight,
Northwest Hawaiian Islands, Northeast Pacific, California, and the Gulf
of Alaska. Education and outreach is a major component of NOAA's Ocean
Exploration Initiative. NOAA will carry-out this program relying on
partnerships with universities, the private sector, and other agencies.
NOAA's Ocean Exploration Initiative will help us to fulfill our
national strategic goals to Sustain Healthy Coasts, Recover Protected
Species, and Build Sustainable Fisheries.
Marine Environmental Research
The total request of $11.6 million for Marine Environmental
Research represents an increase of $1.8 million above the Fiscal Year
2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will support ongoing
operations at OAR's Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratory
(AOML) and the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). The
requested funds will enable AOML's Remote Sensing Division to
reactivate its field measurements that provide data for major community
health-related decisions in contaminant-release emergencies in Florida
and elsewhere.Coral reef monitoring activities are also supported.
These funds will also enable PMEL's Fisheries Oceanography program to
continue ocean measurements planned for the Gulf of Alaska and the
Bering Sea. These funds are important to the study of the potential
influences of climate changes on recent shifts in the species
composition of these ecosystems including declines in salmon and
Steller sea lion populations.
NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million for the Estuary Restoration
Act. This investment will allow for NOAA-wide activities mandated by
the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. NOAA will work with other partners
to implement a national estuary habitat restoration strategy designed
to ensure a comprehensive approach towards habitat restoration
projects. Healthy estuarine ecosystems provide a number of benefits
pertaining to wildlife habitat, commercial and recreational fisheries,
water quality, flood control, erosion, and outdoor recreation. NOAA's
activities include the development of scientifically sound monitoring
protocols and standards for coastal habitat restoration projects
throughout the United States and its protectorates. NOAA will develop
restoration databases that provide quick and easy access to accurate
and up to date information regarding all projects funded under the
Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. This work will provide scientists and
resource mangers with information critical to successful estuary
habitat restoration efforts.
The total request of $63.8 million for Marine Services represents
an increase of $1.9 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This continued investment will allow NOAA to operate its fleet of 15
vessels capable of safely collecting hydrographic and coastal
assessment data, conducting fishery independent scientific and survey
operations, and conducting sustained oceanographic and atmospheric data
collection in various marine environments and provides funds for
outsourcing to meet some data-collection requirements. The request
includes an increase of $1.0 million to provide days-at-sea, primarily
through University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) and
charter vessels, to support research in the Gulf of Mexico concerning
the interactions of the Mississippi River plume, nutrient loading, and
resulting effects of hypoxia on Gulf fisheries. These funds will also
maintain or increase day-at-sea levels supporting other NOAA programs,
including the science programs in NOS and the sanctuary program. The
request also includes an increase of $0.9 million which will be used to
pay the increased costs for operating the ADVENTUROUS' and to add days-
at-sea on fisheries research vessels. The ADVENTUROUS, which will
replace the TOWNSEND CROMWELL, is a larger and more capable vessel that
will carry more scientists and complete more research on a daily basis.
NOAA's Budget and Financial Management
NOAA requests a total of $19.8 million for the Commerce
Administrative Management System (CAMS). This investment will allow for
the full benefit and value of CAMS to be realized in NOAA.CAMS is in
the final stages of completion, expected in Fiscal Year 2003, and
adequate funding will ensure that CAMS is deployed in a timely manner,
allowing all modules to progress toward completion. Once fully
deployed, CAMS will contribute in significant ways to maintaining a
clean NOAA financial audit through systematic controls rather than
through labor-intensive manual efforts. It will provide managers with
on-line, real-time, and accurate financial information in support of
their programmatic missions, and will be legally compliant. Requested
funding for CAMS is vital to preserve NOAA's ability to have a
satisfactory financial accounts system and allow NOAA and DOC to meet
statutory obligations under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act (FMFIA) and the Chief Financial Officer Act (CFO Act).
For the Fiscal Year 2000, NOAA received an unqualified opinion on
NOAA financial statements from an independent auditor. The Fiscal Year
2000 audit represents the second consecutive year NOAA has received a
clean audit and demonstrates the intensive efforts made by NOAA to
improve financial management. NOAA continues to place a high priority
on improving fiscal and financial management in order to increase
accountability and efficiency.
Over the past several years, NOAA has been working to respond to
Congressional concerns stemming from the NOAA budget structure. The
Congressional Appropriation Committees have challenged NOAA to make
recommendations to simplify its budget structure. NOAA has taken
several actions that address the restructuring of its budget and
financial management processes. The outcome of these actions is already
apparent and demonstrated in its improved budgetary communications as
well as in the improved accuracy of its documentation (e.g., sustaining
a clean audit and improved timeliness in the distribution of funds).
NOAA continues to work toward meeting the challenges of restructuring
the NOAA budget and is excited about the improved efficiency a new
budget structure will bring.
As evidenced by NOAA's improving financial and budgetary
management, NOAA is doing its part to exercise fiscal responsibility as
stewards of the Nation's trust as well as America's coastal and ocean
resources. And, in the same way that NOAA is responsible for assessing
the Nation's climate, we are responsible for assessing our management
capabilities. It is within this broader management context that NOAA
continues looking for opportunities to improve. NOAA's Fiscal Year 2002
Budget Request includes measures which track results to the level of
public investment. NOAA will continue to leverage its programs and
investments by developing those associations that most efficiently and
economically leverage resources and talent, and that most effectively
provide the means for successfully meeting mission requirements.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Scott.
I think, with the indulgence of Mr. Jones, since we do have
a couple of votes at 10 o'clock and Scott has to leave, we will
do some questions, Scott, for the next few minutes.
Mr. Jones. Fine. Absolutely.
Mr. Gilchrest. Scott, I think we can hold you a little
after 10, because everybody is going to leave at 10, so your
next hearing will be disrupted as well, if that is all right.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. That way members can ask those questions.
Mr. Gudes. Sir, I follow Secretary Evans. I will stay.
Mr. Gilchrest. What was that?
Mr. Gudes. I need to back up Secretary Evans at the next
hearing, and, as you point out, that hearing will be--
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. I think by the time they can get
started--I don't think they can get started.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
A couple of quick items: Is there any proposal being
floated around in NOAA about an expansion of any particular
marine sanctuary? Or are there any areas around the Exclusive
Economic Zones that you might want to expand or add a new
Marine Protected Area?
Mr. Gudes. First of all, in terms of sanctuaries, I think
all of the sanctuaries deal with this issue as part of their
just being sanctuaries, whether or not there is an expansion of
boundaries.
I know, for example, to answer your question, at the
Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary in California, there is an
ongoing proposal on what their boundaries should be, how far
should they expand beyond current boundaries, and should they
have areas that exclude, for example, ongoing oil and gas
exploration in that area.
I think you know, Mr. Chairman, I think it was last week,
the State of Florida and Governor Bush's Cabinet supported the
creation of an MPA, if you will, for the Tortugas Ecological
Reserve as part of the Florida Keys sanctuary.
I think, actually, this is an issue that is part of the
ongoing review and understanding of the Marine Sanctuary
Program. But I do think that, in each case, where these issues
are successful, it is because of the local people.
Mr. Gilchrest. Same with a wildlife refuge. If it is
managed appropriately by the people in the region, I think
there is more of a chance of expansion.
Mr. Gudes. Our local managers, like Billy Causey in the
Keys, work very hard with the local community. They have
advisory committees that include the fisherman, include the
divers, include the people who work with the resources. And it
is all from a consensus-based approach, and it is one of the
things that is a very important part of these.
Mr. Gilchrest. Another question: Is there enough money in
NOAA to come up with a pretty clear analysis of the Navy's use
of sonar and its impact on whales under certain circumstances?
I understand it is an ongoing research study with the Navy. Is
there anytime soon that we can see some type of analysis or a
further conclusion to that?
Mr. Gudes. Both in general, Mr. Chairman, sound in the sea
and its effects on marine mammals is, of course, a big issue.
NOAA fisheries really plays the lead role in that.
There is a specific issue now out for public comment,
having to do with a specific proposal by the Navy for a low-
frequency sonar called the LFA SURTASS, I believe the name is,
where we are involved in going out to the public and holding
public hearings; I probably shouldn't comment on that specific
one.
But sound in the sea and sonar and its impact on marine
mammals, this is something also that I think we work closely
with the Navy on, in the last year especially, to work together
in terms of issues. And the Navy takes a number of measures,
for example, in terms of military uses of sonar, to ensure that
there is not a negative impact on marine mammals.
[NOAA's response follows:]
NOAA-Navy Low Frequency Active Study
Although there has been no comprehensive NOAA-Navy Low Frequency
Active (LFA) study to date, NOAA and the Navy did prepare a preliminary
report last summer on the investigation into the stranding of beaked
whales in the Bahamas. A final report on this investigation should be
completed this summer. We will provide a copy of the report as soon as
it is available.
In addition, NOAA consulted with the Navy on a Environmental Impact
Statement on LFA for their Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System,
described more fully below. Our liaison with Navy indicates that the
Executive Summary of the Final EIS was provided to your staff. Copies
of the entire Final OEIS/EIS and technical reports of this research are
available from Navy. NOAA will be pleased to assist the Committee in
obtaining these reports, as desired:
Background on NOAA-Navy LFA Consultation
In the early stages of the preparation of the Surveillance Towed
Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active Overseas Environment
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (LFA OEIS/EIS), Navy
organized a Scientific Working Group (SWG) on ``The Potential Effects
of Low Frequency Sound on the Marine Environment.'' This was a forum
for scientific discourse among government and non-governmental
organizations to address the underlying scientific issues. NMFS
participated in the SWG and throughout the progress of the resulting
scientific research and its integration into the OEIS/EIS as a
``cooperating agency'' with Navy.
Navy provided resources for the Low Frequency Sound Scientific
Research Program (LFS SRP), that involved approximately 60 researchers
studying the potential effects of low frequency sound on baleen whales,
and the Diver Risk Analysis Team, that developed guidance for safe
exposure limits for recreational and commercial divers who might be
exposed to low frequency sound.
The SRP involved controlled experimental tests in three phases that
involved the following species and settings
LPhase 1: Blue and fin whales feeding in the Southern
California Bight (September-October 1997)
LPhase 2: Gray whales migrating past the central
California coast (January 1998)
LPhase 3: Humpback whales off Hawaii (February-March 1998)
Final OEIS/EIS for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency
Active (SURTASS LFA) SONAR
LTechnical Report 1 - Low Frequency Sound Scientific
Research Program Technical Report
LTechnical Report 2 - Acoustic Modeling Results
LTechnical Report 3 - Summary Report on the Bio-effects of
Low Frequency Waterborne Sound (Divers)
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Last question I have now--I do have a series
of questions, and I would like to set them up here, Scott, and
get some response over the coming weeks: The Chesapeake Bay has
had a program with NOAA for ballast water. And ballast water in
our region, because of the vulnerability of the bay as a result
of it being so shallow, and the heat in the summertime, it is
susceptible to a lot of problems, one of which is the ballast
water issue. And you zeroed out ballast water study in your
budget.
We were wondering if we could--
Mr. Gudes. We hear you. Not everything can end up back in
the budget, but I should say that actually ballast water is an
issue that the Sea Grant program does a lot of work on. The
University of Maryland Sea Grant program is working on the use
of ultraviolet light to try to treat water and ballast.
Some of our port partners, like the Long Beach port, are
doing a lot of work to try to educate shippers, as well as with
the new technologies. I don't know the specifics of the--
Mr. Gilchrest. We would like to work with you to somehow
get that--
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very heartened, Scott, by the interest in ocean
exploration, and I am glad to see that there is a $14 million
request in the administration's budget.
However, other than your basic comments that you made
earlier about this emphasis, it really seems to me that it
really lacks clarity in terms of what kind of exploration this
office is going to do. I know that it is emerging, but I would
like to hear some ideas.
And then I want to also ask whether the ideas expressed in
last year's report by the previous administration's panel on
ocean exploration, especially the emphasis on the development
of new technologies to facilitate deep-ocean exploration, I
want to hear what your comments are about that and see if NOAA
has received that kind of emphasis.
Mr. Gudes. Well, first, a real priority, Congressman, I am
looking forward to the $4 million that Congress provides for
the jump start of this program. And as I mentioned, that is
going to ensure a few things, including some specific missions
this summer.
We have 30 days on the ALVIN, the deep-sea submersible for
the ship the ATLANTIS, and we will be working on the east
coast, for example. Secondly, we created an office of ocean
exploration, a small office, in our research component. But it
is a joint NOAA office. The first is new frontiers. The second
is new products, drugs, different types of products of the
ocean resources. Third, America's heritage; there are the
shipwrecks--I don't have the exact number--there are thousands
of shipwrecks that have really not been explored. As I
mentioned, census of marine life and deep-ocean exploration.
There is a theme to the President's panel, which talked
about nonhypothesis-driven exploration. It may be a nuanced
difference, but we are trying to follow what the President's
panel told us they want us to do in ocean exploration.
And what that means is, in the case of these missions, for
example, in September, we are going to go to the Hudson Canyon;
we are going to some of the canyons on the east coast. We are
going to go there to explore, but we also are going to be doing
science when we go there.
The difference is that our National Undersea Research
Program over the years has tended to be hypothesis-driven,
where we go into an area for a specific type of research
intent. So that is one area.
In terms of the investment in technology, I do think that
for this country, overall, that is a real issue that the
commission pointed out. The Alvin, which is our principal
person submersible, was built about 1964, 1965, and it has been
renovated since that time. It is principally run by NSF; NOAA
has some portion of days on there. The Aquarius, which is our
undersea habitat off the Keys, which is run by the University
of North Carolina at Wilmington, again, older technology.
That is a real issue, and it is my hope that the ocean
exploration program will get all Federal agencies to focus on
the new technology issue, not just NOAA.
Mr. Underwood. You know, there is no deeper part of the
ocean than where I am from.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Underwood. And I am sure interested in that technology,
and I am glad you recognize the fact that technology has not
been developed for several decades. And that is always of
interest to me.
So now, am I understanding that you are talking about
mapping and you are talking about commercially driven or
products that we can get out of the ocean, and we are also
talking about exploitable resources? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Underwood. On the Marine Protected Areas, under
Executive Order 13158, it called for NOAA and other Federal
agencies to develop a nationwide system of Marine Protected
Areas. In your budget, there is request of $3 million to
complete this process that was detailed by this executive
order.
How much of this money has been spent for this purpose? And
is this money sufficient to carry out the activities envisioned
under this executive order?
Mr. Gudes. I think it is only a one-person office in the
Fisheries Santa Cruz lab that we have. And that is really the
science center, if you will, or the site that we will run a lot
of science for this issue of MPAs, which is a term, actually, I
think, that probably means a lot of different things to a lot
of different people. And I probably should comment on that.
And then secondly, at the training site in Charleston, at
the Coastal Services Center, we try to work with marine
managers in terms of the larger issue of MPAs. We did that out
of existing funds. I think we are talking several hundred
thousand dollars in the current year.
The budget proposal is $3 million, actually, to reinforce
those capabilities and to be able to do more science in terms
of MPAs overall. Our marine sanctuaries, all 14 of them, are
MPAs. Our 25 National Estuarine Research Reserves are MPAs.
There are also special areas of protection within those sites;
those are MPAs.
And so one of the issues on this whole issue, if you will,
is the definition of an MPA. For us, it means all of the above.
And often, the issue is, what is the science behind what kind
of benefit this sort of area of special protection will have.
We need to do that, and we are hopeful that the budget request
will be supported.
Mr. Underwood. Well, you know, in general, I am in support
of MPAs, but there is a lot of loose thinking about what
constitutes MPAs. And more importantly, at the community level,
it is being interpreted to mean various things and being used
in long-standing arguments between people interested in
protecting the environment, people interested in pursuing
indigenous practices.
And it is very important that a very clear definition be
given to this and, more importantly, that sufficient outreach
be given to stakeholders in local communities, so that they
have a good understanding. Because otherwise, I think we are
setting up a dynamic for some local conflicts which are
entirely unnecessary.
Mr. Gudes. I think next week, Congressman, we are doing a
public meeting in Charleston to talk about these issues. And a
few weeks ago, we held one here in Washington, DC.
And I agree with you, there is a lot of confusion about the
issue of what does exactly MPA mean. If Margaret Davidson was
here, who will be coming up, she would remind us this is an
international term. Marine Protected Areas is an international
term about special areas.
Mr. Underwood. All right, thanks.
I have other questions that I will submit for the record
and let you proceed you to the other hearing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
[NOAA's response to Mr. Underwood's statement follows:]
Consumption of shrimp has steadily increased over the last decade;
rising from 2.2 pounds per capita in 1990 to 3.0 pounds in 1999. The
U.S. shrimp fishery has been relatively stable over that period, with
landings fluctuating between a high in 1990 of 213.9 million pounds and
low of 175 million pounds (heads-off weight) in 1994. In 1999, U.S.
landings were 189.1 million pounds. According to the state of Texas,
Texas shrimpers land about 70 million pounds of shrimp a year. The
industry is experiencing low profit margins and faces competition from
foreign imports and farm raised shrimp. Approximately 4-5 million
pounds are raised annually on Texas shrimp farms. To meet the increase
in consumer demand, imports of shrimp have continued to rise over the
1990s. Imports of shrimp, at 579.4 million pounds (heads-off weight) in
1990, have steadily increased to 959.9 million pounds in 1999. Setbacks
to the Texas shrimping industry in recent years include rising fuel
costs, level price of shrimp caught, the prohibition against fishing in
Mexican waters, and measures to reduce the catch of sea turtles and
other species in shrimp nets. The Texas shrimp industry is
overcapitalized and the state is reducing the number of bay shrimpers
in its waters. Although there has been some reduction in the shrimp
fleet there remains a large number of vessels in the fishery. There
were 5,676 vessels in the Gulf shrimp fishery in 1990, 4,682 vessels in
1993 and 4,246 vessels in 1998 (the latest year available).
______
Mr. Ortiz?
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple, or
three questions for the Under Secretary.
What is the priority of NOAA for fish stock assessments, in
particular, the red snapper stock? How is NOAA working to
address this need? And if this is a priority, what funding is
being requested for these type of activities?
Mr. Gudes. Congressman, red snapper is a very significant
fishery, obviously, in the Gulf of Mexico. Bill Hogarth is
here, who, before he got to Washington, was the southeast
regional director.
It is a difficult type of species in that they tend to
congregate in certain areas, and it is a little more difficult
to survey. We obviously use both our independent data as well
as the industry statistics to take a look. It also is a species
that is not a directed fishery but rather on the shrimp
fishery, and so that is a big issue.
I would say that, last year, Congress came forward with
$8.3 million to help us do the kind of surveys that you have
asked us to do. And that was one of the issues, Congressman.
Our budget includes the continuation of $8.3 million, and I
believe that our men and women in places like our Pascagoula
laboratory will do the kind of research needed. And with the
right management measures, we will bring back the stocks of red
snapper.
Mr. Ortiz. I have some other questions, like Mr. Underwood.
I would like to enter into the record a story that came out
in New York yesterday about progress and what we used to have.
And this is for both of you; Mr. Jones as well.
[The news article referred to follows:]
Two Breeds of Survivor: Gulf Shrimp and Texas Shrimpers
By R. W. APPLE JR.
New York Times, May 2, 2001
ARANSAS PASS, Tex.--For the better part of the last century, they
billed this little port near Corpus Christi as ``the shrimp capital of
Texas.'' As a matter of fact, it was one of the shrimp capitals of the
United States, working flat-out to help satisfy the nation's ravenous
appetite for its favorite shellfish.
But not anymore. A few shrimpers still operate out of windswept
Conn Brown Harbor, but the mood along the docks is decidedly downbeat.
Imported shrimp have made up for any shortfall in the catch here
and elsewhere in this country, so prices have not risen much. But
fresh, never-frozen shrimp--always that little bit pinker and sweeter,
always that little bit more succulent, in my obdurately old-fashioned
view--are harder to find now, even in stores and on restaurant menus
hard by the Gulf of Mexico.
Stop for breakfast at the Bakery Cafe, founded in 1929, for a
glimpse of Aransas Pass in its glory days. Color photographs mounted on
the walls show dozens of trawlers in smart red-and-white livery, lined
up with military precision, with a forest of masts and booms towering
above.
A waitress, whose name tag said ``Bobbi Ann,'' noticed me eyeing
the photos and put me straight.
``Long gone,'' she said. ``Every one of them.''
Long gone to Nicaragua, to which they were dispatched six years ago
by their owner, Sydney E. Herndon. For a half-century, his companies,
doing business here under the trade name Gulf King, caught, packed and
shipped gulf shrimp.
But Mr. Herndon, who is now 83 years old, finally gave up,
convinced that he could find better weather, less bureaucratic bother
and cheaper labor farther south, plus ample stocks of highly prized
pink shrimp. As for the shrimp stocks here along the Coastal Bend of
Texas, which once seemed inexhaustible, their well-being is the subject
of urgent and impassioned debate. Here, as in other parts of the world,
a combination of rapidly accelerating demand for fish, heightened
ecological consciousness and more aggressive government intervention
has unsettled the old order.
Marine biologists, determined to safeguard the local sea turtle
population, especially a rare species called Kemp's ridley, see the
shrimpers' nets as a threat to their efforts, and government officials
have backed turtle-protection plans. Fearful that overfishing could
expose gulf shrimp themselves to the kind of dramatic depletion that
hit the cod of the Grand Banks and the redfish of the Gulf of Mexico,
the officials have also adopted tight restrictions on commercial
shrimping in this area.
The fishermen, beleaguered, feel misunderstood and persecuted.
``I'm like the last of the Mohicans,'' a grizzled skipper said as
he unloaded his day's catch at the People's Street T-Head, a pier in
downtown Corpus Christi, where a few small shrimp boats share space
with excursion boats. ``Who's going to want to go into this work now?''
Wilma Anderson, the hard-boiled, hard- smoking executive director
of the Texas Shrimp Association, acknowledged that times are tough--but
not, she said, because the shrimp are disappearing. Poor catches in
recent years, she insisted, were part of the normal cycle of bad years
and good, caused by the changing conditions in the estuaries where the
shrimp eggs hatch.
``Our big problem is the environmentalists and the bureaucrats,''
Mrs. Anderson said. ``They won't let us catch our maximum, even in good
times. The recreation and environment lobbies get listened to, but we
don't. They outshout us at hearings, and they'd as soon as not put us
out of business.''
Although some studies have shown a 30 percent decline in shrimp
stocks, the fishermen question those findings, and Hal Osburn, the
director of the coastal fisheries division of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department in Austin, conceded that estimating fish stocks was
``an elusive thing at best.''
He said that there had been no significant decline in the amount of
shrimp landed in Texas in the last five years; the average from 1994
through 1998, he said, was 216 million pounds, and the total for 1999
was 236 million pounds.
``But we think we see warning signs, little things,'' Mr. Osburn
continued, ``and because of them, we think it is time to be proactive.
So, we've tightened up the regulations. The shrimpers hate it, but the
fact is, if we wait until the stocks start to collapse, it may be too
late to do much about it. And I don't propose to preside over the
demise of the shrimp fishery in the gulf.''
Federal figures collected over the last 39 years show that, on
average, shrimp are caught earlier and earlier in their life cycle;
that means that more and more of them are taken before they have a
chance to reproduce. New technology has made it possible to peel and
market the tiniest shrimp.
``All in all, it seemed to us that they were in danger of
harvesting most of their chickens as chicks,'' Mr. Osburn said. ``We
wanted to pull back from that, not to penalize the gulf shrimp industry
but to save it.''
DEEP-FRIED gulf shrimp are almost as much a Texas staple, at least
in the eastern half of the state, as barbecue and chicken- fried steak.
But these days, a lot of the ``gulf'' shrimp come from other, less
familiar waters.
Already, more than half the shrimp consumed in the United States
comes from overseas, according to federal statistics. Much of this
originates in Ecuador and Thailand, which specialize in farm-raised
shellfish. Increasingly, gulf fishermen also have to compete with
domestic shrimp farmers, including some located here along the Texas
coast and others who operate in the seemingly unpromising setting of
arid West Texas, where they utilize saline groundwater.
``In 1990, shrimp farming was essentially zero in the United
States,'' said Addison L. Lawrence, a shrimp mariculture expert at
Texas A&M's Port Aransas campus, on Mustang Island to the east.
``Today, it's a $20 to $30 million annual industry in terms of value to
the farmer. No matter what happens to the gulf fishery, farmed shrimp
will have to fill much of future need.''
The most famous seafood restaurant in these parts, the King's Inn,
sits picturesquely in the evocative coastal marshlands south of Corpus
Christi. ``On the water's edge,'' its advertisements say. As we
approached the place along little-used back roads, my wife, Betsey, and
I couldn't help thinking that the shrimp must practically jump from the
water into the fry basket.
An old-fashioned, curiously formal sort of fried fish emporium, the
inn boasts white tablecloths, a crystal chandelier and a dress code. We
overheard a hostess politely instructing a sheriff, who was sitting at
the next table, to remove his hat while eating. Face reddening, he
meekly complied.
Someone in the King's kitchen knows how to fry. Oysters in a
cornmeal batter were small, firm and nutty. Onion rings were sweet and
spicy. And the shrimp were all that we had hoped for--butterflied,
incredibly plump and juicy, their crunchy jackets light and greaseless,
awaiting a squirt or two of lemon juice or a drop of Tabasco. We must
have eaten a dozen each, and I quietly confessed to myself that I could
have handled a dozen more.
When it came time to pay the bill, I complimented the young man at
the register and asked whether the inn had its own shrimp boats.
``Oh, no, not at all,'' he responded. ``Those shrimp come in by
truck from San Antonio, from Sysco--you know, the big wholesale
house.''
We looked on other tables in the area for fresh local shrimp,
without much success. A waiter at Vietnam, a busy place in Corpus
Christi, told us that the chef stopped using local shellfish in his
spicy Vietnamese shrimp salad and in his shrimp with eggplant because
it sometimes smelled of gasoline. But Guy Carnathan's two restaurants
out at Port Aransas, across the Inland Waterway, make do with the
genuine article.
Mr. Carnathan buys his shrimp every day from a local boat. At
Beulah, his upmarket establishment, he seasons them with lime and
cayenne, grills them a second or two less than you or I would and
serves them with a cilantro pesto on the side. The centers of the
shrimp stay sweet, mild, still fleshy, while the edges, charred by the
grill, provide a crisp, bitter accent.
Next door, at his bar and bistro, which is called ``The Other Guy's
Cafe,'' Mr. Carnathan turns out nonpareil regional classics, including
deep-fried shrimp. I found them wonderfully tender, a notch better than
the King's Inn's, and the portions were smaller, so this time we did
order seconds. ``There is freezing and freezing,'' an old seafood hand
told me. ``Freeze shrimp the minute you catch them and keep them frozen
until you cook them--do that and you can't tell them from fresh. But
that's not what happens in 99 percent of the cases these days. They're
frozen, thawed, sorted, refrozen and rethawed. You have to have a cast-
iron palate not to taste the difference between that stuff and fresh
shrimp.''
In addition to telling the shrimpers where they can fish, when they
can fish and what they can catch, the state has required them for the
last decade to use ``turtle excluder devices,'' which are metal plates
or pieces of webbing designed to keep turtles out of the nets.
The fight to save gulf turtles centers on Kemp's ridleys, the most
seriously endangered of the five sea turtle species in the region. They
weigh as much as 100 pounds each.
Environmental groups sought the excluders and tighter restrictions
on shrimping zones and seasons in the conviction that most of the
turtles washed up on beaches had died in shrimpers' nets. Since the
various limitations have been imposed, the population of Kemp's ridleys
has slowly increased to about 9,000 adults, according to Donna J.
Shaver-Miller, a research biologist, who heads the United States
Geological Survey's field station on nearby Padre Island.
``Not all the turtles that are stranded--killed, wounded, sick--are
stranded because of the shrimp trawlers,'' said Dr. Shaver-Miller,
whose soft-spoken manner masks a passion for her work. ``But it's a
significant factor. Our figures show that there has always been a big
reduction in strandings during the closed shrimp season.''
Mr. Herndon, the rubicund old-timer who runs Gulf King, has another
set of figures, which, he said, proves the opposite. Shrimpers, he said
``don't catch any turtles, never have, but the people who make the
rules don't accept what we say.'' During last summer's closure, he
insisted, there were 41 strandings, against 38 in the comparable six-
week period that followed the closure.
In addition to moving his boats south, Mr. Herndon was forced to
shut down a $12 million shrimp processing plant that was built in 1986.
``If the shrimp industry collapses,'' Mr. Herndon said, with
considerable asperity, ``it's Osburn's and Shaver's regulations that
will cause it, not overfishing by our boats.''
The Texas authorities began sharply curtailing the number of new
bay shrimp boat licenses in 1995 to guard against the danger of more
and more boats pursuing a finite number of shellfish. So far, 550
licenses have been bought back for $2.8 million, and Mr. Osburn, the
Parks and Wildlife official, said he hopes to get the number down to
roughly 1,500 from twice that five years ago.
Thousands of Vietnamese refugees, fishermen in Southeast Asia, took
up shrimping 20 years ago in Texas and Louisiana, originally in small,
cheap wooden boats well suited for fishing in the shallow, protected
bays along the coast. Many settled in Rockport, a fishing village just
north of here; its local celebrity is Dat Nguyen, a linebacker for the
Dallas Cowboys.
But bay fishing dwindled. Some immigrants found other jobs in
Corpus Christi or Rockport, and others, with more capital, bought
bigger seagoing boats and joined the Vietnamese-American colonies
around Palacios and Port Lavaca, farther up the coast. Some of those
boats--modern, efficient shrimp-stalking machines--cost $600,000.
In the Mekong Delta, where most of the Vietnamese came from, they
would qualify as ocean liners.
______
Mr. Ortiz. We don't have a shrimping fleet any more. We
have to put up with a lot of imported shrimp, from other
countries. And I would like you to answer this question for the
record. I think this is a very, very interesting problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Ortiz. Your
question will be submitted for the record.
Mr. Gudes, thank you for coming. Good luck in your next
hearing.
Mr. Jones, we will be back as soon as we can.
Mr. Gudes. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. The committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come back to order. We
are trying to figure out what we are doing up here.
[Laughter.]
I think what we will do is, we will start with Mr. Jones.
We will hear your testimony, sir. And then we will have the
members ask questions both to NOAA and to deal with Fish and
Wildlife issues.
Mr. Jones?
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to
work with you in any way we need to as you go through your
procedures this morning. We have plenty of hours, too.
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the Fiscal
Year 2002 budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
administration is requesting $1.78 billion, an increase of
about $30 million from last year's request and $205 million
more than was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2000. My formal
statement contains extensive details relating to these amounts
that I won't repeat now, but I do want to highlight some of the
issues.
The request for the resource management account, which
funds the bulk of the service's operational programs, is $807
million, which is essentially the same amount appropriated last
year, although it has some different components, and $92
million more than was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2000.
Within this $807 million for what we would call base
programs, there are proposed reductions of $41 million,
primarily from the elimination of earmarks and pass-through
funds and corresponding increases, which just coincidentally
added up to about the same amount, restoring about $41 million
for high-priority programs and for pay costs, the increases for
those uncontrollable expenses, which Mr. Gudes has also alluded
to in his testimony.
Thus, while total funding for the resource management
account is the same as last year, there are program amounts
which have been adjusted to reflect the President's priorities.
There are also proposed reductions in the additional funding
provided the service in Title A of last year's appropriation
act. Most of these reflect the President's proposal to fully
fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Within the resource management account, we are proposing an
increase of $15 million over last year's enacted level for the
National Wildlife Refuge System. $10 million of this will be
used to hire additional maintenance workers for essential
needs, to increase annual preventive maintenance, and to
address the maintenance backlog, while an additional $5 million
will go toward covering the increase in our fixed costs. There
is also $12.2 million in our construction request for refuge
facility rehabilitation projects.
This Subcommittee has, for many years, been a champion of
increased funding for the refuge system. I am very pleased that
the administration's request continues the increase in funding
for the system that we have seen with your help in the last
several years, and hope that we can continue to count on
working with you to build on your support this year and in the
future.
We will provide Congress later this year with a report that
is called for in the refuge centennial act on how we might
address additional unfunded needs.
In the Endangered Species Program, we are requesting an
increase of $2 million for endangered species listing. This
request provides a 34 percent increase above Fiscal Year 2001
and a 37 percent increase above Fiscal Year 2000 funding
levels.
This increase will help return balance to the listing
program, enabling the service to protect species that are in
decline, respond to citizen petitions to list new species, and
designate critical habitat for species that are already listed.
Due to a flood of litigation, as detailed in my formal
statement, we cannot now do this. All of our available funds
must be spent as dictated solely by court orders and settlement
agreements.
I want to note that this proposal was initiated by the
service over the last several months, and we viewed it as a
continuation of efforts that began several years ago to find a
more rational way to address this issue.
This is a real problem which needs to be addressed, Mr.
Chairman, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with you
and other interested members of the committee and the Congress
as a whole to craft a solution that would meet with wide
approval.
The request for both our fisheries and law enforcement
programs is slightly more than last year, while that for the
contaminants and migratory bird programs is essentially
unchanged. There is a slight decrease requested for the Habitat
Conservation Program.
Mr. Chairman, the President's decision to fully fund the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, as you noted in your opening
remarks, includes $450 million for Federal land acquisition, as
well as $450 million for the stateside land and water program.
Of the Federal portion of this, the administration is
requesting $164 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Within that $164 million, $104 million will be used for refuge
easements and land acquisitions, and an additional $60 million
for two proposed new grant programs. Included within the refuge
land acquisition proposal is $1 million for Blackwater refuge
in Maryland, $3.2 million for the Forsythe refuge in New
Jersey, $3 million for Laguna Atascosa in Texas, $500,000 for
the Louisiana black bear complex, and a number of other
priority acquisitions.
In terms of the two new grant programs that are included in
the Land and Water Conservation Fund proposal, the first of
these is a $50 million landowner incentive program, which will
provide competitively awarded grants to states, tribes, and
territories for technical and financial assistance to
landowners who voluntarily desire to protect and manage
wildlife habitat on their land while they continue traditional
land use practices.
The second new program is a $10 million private stewardship
grant program. These grants would go directly to individuals
and groups that are engaged in local, private, and voluntary
conservation efforts that benefit listed candidate endangered
species or at-risk species.
The states are given the opportunity to provide additional
funding for some of the service's programs through the
President's proposal to expand the purposes of the stateside
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under this proposal, states
would receive flexibility to use these funds for endangered
species and other wildlife and habitat conservation efforts,
including protection, enhancement, and restoration of wetlands,
if consistent with the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving us the
opportunity to present an overview of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request, and we look forward
to answering any questions that you or the other members of the
committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of Marshall Jones, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interiorse pelican
I appreciate this opportunity to present the President's Fiscal
Year 2002 Budget Request for the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The Service's Fiscal Year 2002 budget requests $1.782 billion,
consisting of $1,091,265,000 in current appropriations and $690,754,000
in permanent appropriations. The Fiscal Year 2002 budget for current
appropriations is $167,935,000 less than Congress enacted in Fiscal
Year 2001, but an increase of $204,747,000 above Fiscal Year 2000. The
2002 request for the resource management operating account totals
$806,752,000, $64,000 less than levels enacted for Fiscal Year 2001.
The Land Acquisition account, is funded at $164,401,000, including
$104,401,000 for land and easement acquisition from willing sellers,
$50,000,000 for a new Landowner Incentive Program, and $10,000,000 for
a new Private Stewardship Grants Program. The Construction account is
funded at $35,849,000 in accordance with the Department's five-year
plans for construction and maintenance.
The Service's principal trust responsibilities encompass protecting
and conserving migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,
certain marine mammals, and inter-jurisdictional fisheries. The Service
mission is to work with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. The Service manages 535 National Wildlife Refuges, 78
Ecological Services Field Stations, 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 64
Fisheries Resources Offices, nine Fish Health Centers, seven Fish
Technology Centers, 37 Wetland Management/waterfowl production areas,
and 50 Coordination Areas, totaling about 94 million acres. We work
with diverse partners, including other federal agencies, state and
local governments, tribes, international organizations, private
entities, and the local citizenry, both on and off Service lands.
The Service's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget increases resources for state
and local conservation initiatives and provides our state, local and
tribal partners more flexibility to support the programs that best suit
their needs. The Service's mission will be furthered by the President's
historic decision to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) at $900 million. Full LWCF funding and more flexible program
choices will enable states, tribes, communities and private landowners
to protect great places and conserve and restore open space for
recreation and wildlife. For example, states may use their share of the
new Department of the Interior $450 million state LWCF program for
grants in line with their habitat restoration and other conservation
priorities within their overall allocation.
Two new grant programs under LWCF and administered by the Service
can achieve state and local species protection and habitat restoration
priorities. A new $50 million Landowner Incentive Program for states
and tribes will help private landowners protect and manage habitat for
imperiled species--while continuing to engage in traditional land use
or working land conservation practices. A new $10 million Private
Stewardship Program will fund grants to individuals and groups for
conservation projects on private lands.
All of these efforts anticipate the future needs of conservation,
as land use decisions grow more complex and increasingly require
cooperation with states, tribes, communities, and the private sector.
We will assist these partners, who are among America's most ardent
conservationists, in their efforts to preserve lands and the wildlife
that inhabits them.
In summary, the programs and projects contained in this budget
serve people, champion fish and wildlife, and address every major
habitat type across the nation. The Service intends to do this, while
streamlining work practices and improving program delivery. The Service
will continue using cross-cutting cost allocation methodology to fund
general operating expenses.
In addition, the budget proposes several targeted initiatives to
address high-priority conservation needs in California, the Pacific
Northwest, the Florida Everglades, and the Great Lakes.
CALFED Bay Delta Restoration
The Service requests an additional $1,000,000 to support the multi-
agency CALFED Bay-Delta Program that rehabilitates ecosystems and
improves water management in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-
Delta estuary. The Service has a major role in addressing compliance
with state and federal endangered species acts; managing the
Environmental Water Account; and overseeing wetlands, flood plain
management, and restoration contracts under the CALFED Program. The
Service will participate on collaborative, multi-agency teams to
develop water project operations and will take part in many of the
approximately 170 different site-specific projects.
Trinity River Restoration
The Service requests an additional $2,000,000 to implement a
comprehensive river restoration program for the Trinity River in
northern California and southern Oregon. The program specifies flows in
the river, restoration actions, and monitoring/adaptive management
necessary to restore the lost fisheries of the Trinity River. The
Service will work closely with the Trinity Management Council to select
the highest priority habitat restoration projects. The projects will
help increase populations of coho, steelhead, and chinook salmon,
increase suitable spawning habitat, and establish adequate water
quality for essential fish migration.
Columbia Basin Salmon Conservation
The Service requests an additional $3,500,000 to address salmon
conservation in the Columbia River Basin of the Pacific Northwest.
Development in the Columbia Basin has contributed to the decline of
listed fish (bull trout, Kootenai white sturgeon, and salmon and
steelhead populations) and others. The Service, with over a century of
involvement in fisheries management in the Columbia Basin and
Endangered Species Act responsibility for bull trout and Kootenai white
sturgeon, will be a key player in this multi-species, basin-wide
strategy. We will restore and protect federal and non-federal habitat;
modify fish propagation strategies; improve hydropower operations for
native aquatic species survival; manage harvests to minimize take of
listed species while meeting treaty trust responsibilities; provide
sustainable levels of sport and commercial harvest; and, address
Caspian tern depredation on juvenile salmon.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
The Service requests an additional $2,700,000 to support the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the most far-reaching
and ambitious ecosystem restoration project ever undertaken in the
United States. The 30-year restoration effort is designed to restore
the Everglades'' hydrological and ecological functions, which have been
seriously degraded by 50 years of flood control and drainage projects.
We will work with the Corps of Engineers and other interagency partners
to ensure ecosystem benefits consistent with long-term CERP project
goals. These efforts, a major Service focus in South Florida, will
restore habitat for wetland-dependent and other aquatic species,
restore native aquatic species, recreational and commercial fisheries,
and other aquatic resources.
Great Lakes Consent Decree
The Service requests an additional $1,200,000 to uphold tribal
fishing rights and allocate fishery resources between tribes and state
fishers in accordance with the U.S. v. Michigan 2000 Consent Decree. As
a party to the Consent Decree, the United States, through the Service,
is required to provide expert technical support on dispute issues
related to the Decree; provide biological expertise and technical
assistance to tribes and the State of Michigan on the allocation and
management of shared fishery resources; maintain and increase the
number of lake trout stocked in Lakes Michigan and Huron; and, evaluate
the success of lake trout rehabilitation.
Let me now direct my comments about the Fiscal Year 2002 budget to
the specifics of each of the resource management programs the Service
administers.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programs and Benefits
There is a national consensus that fish and wildlife conservation
is integral to our way of life, our national economy, and the outdoor
legacy we will leave for future generations. Viable fish and wildlife
populations are resources the nation cannot afford to lose. More than
ever, the Service is turning to conservation partners for common-sense
approaches that benefit both wildlife and people.
Resource Management
Ecological Services--The Service requests a total of $198,493,000,
a net decrease of $11,389,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level,
but an increase of $12,111,000 above Fiscal Year 2000 levels, for
Ecological Services programs, including:
Endangered Species--The Service requests a total of
$111,814,000, $9,133,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted
level, but $5,743,000 above Fiscal Year 2000. The program
funding will support operations that enhance implementation of
the Endangered Species Act, one of the nation's most
significant environmental laws.
Candidate Conservation * The request will keep three
species from being listed by supporting additional
Candidate Conservation Agreements with private
landowners and state and local governments to better
manage threats to species and their habitats before
they become critically imperiled.
Listing * The request includes a $1,962,000 program
increase to address a critical backlog of required
listing actions, help meet statutory time frames,
complete court-ordered listing and critical habitat
actions within imposed deadlines, and adequately inform
the public about listing actions. This program
determines whether to list wildlife and plant species.
If listed, a species is protected under the ESA,
including prohibitions on taking (e.g. killing or
harming) the species.
This request provides a 34% increase above Fiscal
Year 2001, and a 37% increase above Fiscal Year 2000
funding levels. This increase will help return balance
to the listing program, enabling the Service to protect
species that are in decline, respond to citizen
petitions to list new species and designate critical
habitat for species that are already listed.
A flood of court orders requiring the Service to
designate critical habitat for hundreds of species
threatens to consume the entire listing budget in
Fiscal Year 2002, as it has in 2001. The budget
increase will not be enough by itself to restore this
balance. In fact, after complying with existing court
orders to designate critical habitat, the Service does
not have any remaining resources or staff to place new
species on the list of threatened and endangered
species or to respond to citizen petitions to list new
species. In short, because of the lawsuits, we
currently do not have an effective listing program.
The prior Administration requested that Congress
place a cap on the listing program beginning in 1998,
and this Administration is asking Congress to continue
the cap. The reason for the cap is to ensure that the
Service can maintain an overall endangered species
program that not only includes listing new species and
designating critical habitat but also undertaking
recovery programs, working with states, landowners, and
others to conserve species before they require listing,
consulting with federal agencies where required by the
Act, and delisting species when they have recovered.
Absent the cap, the Service is concerned that the
courts might require us to take funds from not only
other endangered species activities, but also possibly
other resource management accounts to designate
critical habitat. If this were to happen, the imbalance
that currently plagues the listing program could spread
not only to the entire endangered species program, but
also potentially affect other non-endangered species
resource management programs within the Service.
The President, therefore, is continuing efforts begun
by the last Administration to break this gridlock and
get back to the important business of protecting
imperiled species. We are asking Congress to concur
that funds be spent on listing actions that provide the
greatest benefit for species at risk of extinction.
This proposal would not change any of the underlying
substantive requirements of the ESA, but would allow
the Service to use its resources to protect the species
that are in greatest need of listing. The Service hopes
to engage the public and interested groups in the
development of a listing priority system, and then to
put the resulting priority system out for public review
and comment this summer.
We recognize that this proposal has resulted in
considerable controversy. While the problem is real and
needs to be addressed, we would welcome the opportunity
to work with this Committee and other interested
Members to craft a solution that meets with wide
approval.
Consultation/HCP * The request includes a $520,000
program increase to support the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. In addition, we will
continue to address the growing demand by landowners,
state and local governments, and developers for Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs). The Service expects to be
involved in implementing more than 650 HCPs covering
more than 48 million acres in Fiscal Year 2002, and
developing an additional 200 HCPs, covering 26 million
acres.
As part of these efforts, the Service will assist in
development of a regional HCP with the Edwards Aquifer
Authority in central Texas for individual, municipal
and industrial water withdrawals from the Edwards
Aquifer. Also Fiscal Year 2002, final application
documents are expected from Pima County, in southern
Arizona for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, a
multispecies, watershed-based HCP on 5.9 million acres.
The Service also anticipates an HCP in Fiscal Year 2002
with International Paper for the threatened gopher
tortoise on more than 275,000 forested acres in Alabama
and Mississippi. The Service, during informal and
formal interagency consultations, now reviews
approximately 62,000 federal actions for section 7
compliance per year.
Recovery * The request includes a $390,000 program
increase to support the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan. In addition, we will continue
activities to recover, downlist, and delist species,
conduct ESA-mandated, post-delisting monitoring, and
involve private landowners in recovery through Safe
Harbor agreements. The most recent delisting is that of
the Aleutian Canada goose. The Service will intensify
efforts for species in need of special attention, such
as Columbia River salmon with a requested increase of
$625,000.
Habitat Conservation--The Service requests a total of
$76,209,000 for Habitat Conservation programs, $2,081,000 below
the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level, but $5,760,000 above Fiscal
Year 2000.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife * The request will
continue this highly effective program for voluntary
habitat restoration on private lands. The 14-year-old
Partners program has quietly worked with 24,000 private
landowners through voluntary partnerships to implement
on-the-ground habitat restoration projects across the
country. The program provides cost-sharing and one-on-
one restoration expertise to assist private landowners
in restoring wetlands, grasslands, streams and other
habitats important to migratory birds, anadromous
(migratory) fish, and declining species. These habitat
restoration projects will enhance habitat for fish and
wildlife while recognizing the need to maintain
profitable agriculture, sustainable communities, and
the nation's overall quality of life.
Project Planning * The request includes a $1,690,000
program increase to support the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan and a $1,000,000 program
increase to support efforts (consistent with the
California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act) to
assess potential fish, wildlife, and habitat
restoration impacts of federal, state, local and tribal
water management projects. The San Francisco Bay-Delta
area has many listed, proposed, and candidate species,
including Delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, California
clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, and Suisun
thistle. The Service will assist federal, state, and
local agencies in planning and implementing habitat
restoration and species recovery.
Environmental Contaminants--The Service requests a total of
$10,470,000 for the Environmental Contaminants Program, a net
decrease of $175,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level,
but $608,000 above Fiscal Year 2000 levels.
The request will continue to fund cooperative partnerships
with federal, state and private entities to identify, quantify
and provide remedies for pollution problems affecting fish,
wildlife and habitat resources. In particular, the contaminants
program will continue proactive efforts with the Environmental
Protection Agency to improve water quality criteria, assess
effects of EPA's proposed new and re-registered pesticides, and
continue work at Superfund sites; coordinate pre-spill
planning, response efforts and development of new response
options; and implement integrated pest management to control
invasive and nuisance species on Service lands.
National Wetlands Inventory--The Service will continue to
strategically produce maps and updated digital resource
information, with emphasis on areas of the nation experiencing
substantial developmental growth and change. Contemporary
habitat maps in digital format will also assist in the planning
for needed energy and infrastructure development projects that
avoid potential adverse effects on trust fish and wildlife
resources.
National Wildlife Refuge System: Fulfilling the Promise--The
Service requests $314,664,000 for National Wildlife Refuge operations
and maintenance, a net increase of $14,986,000 above the Fiscal Year
2001 enacted level and $55,687,000 above Fiscal Year 2000, which
includes a $10 million program increase to address the Secretary of the
Interior's commitment to reducing maintenance backlogs.
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed upon seeing
Pelican Island, a tiny Florida island crowded with birds, he
immediately established it as the first federal wildlife refuge.
Pelican Island still thrives as a living legacy and symbol of the
Refuge System's upcoming Centennial. The budget requests funds to begin
constructing an Interpretive Center and Administrative facility to
share Pelican Island's legacy.
These are historic times for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
As we approach the centennial anniversary, we are proud of the progress
we have made together strengthening the Refuge System. Several
important events during the last few years have given us the
opportunity to make the Refuge System an even more powerful
conservation tool and to provide even greater opportunities for people
to enjoy the Refuge System. These events set the stage for us to
address our most pressing operational and maintenance needs, and to
develop comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge in the System.
Refuge operations and maintenance focus areas include:
Wildlife * The Refuge System will implement projects that
support its core mission to protect wildlife. The projects will
improve science-based management, expand management
capabilities on newly acquired refuge lands, and enhance the
protection and management of endangered species throughout the
refuge system.
Habitat * The Refuge System will employ a full range of land
management activities, from protection of pristine areas to
intensive manipulation of soils, water, topography, and
vegetative cover, and fighting invasive species. These invaders
threaten critical wildlife habitat and native species on
refuges and adjacent lands. Invasive species spread nationally
over 5,400 additional acres each year, and now affect more than
six million refuge acres, indicative of invasive species
threats in many communities.
People * The Refuge System will accommodate more than 37
million visitors in 2002, a number expected to grow by another
six million by the Centennial in 2003. The Service will improve
public use, environmental education, recreational, and
interpretive programs on refuges to better serve these
visitors. Other high priorities include the recreational fee
demonstration program, refuge law enforcement, support for the
Alaska subsistence program, Challenge Cost Share grants, the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and
volunteer activities.
Refuge Maintenance * The request includes a $10,042,000
program increase to address the most critical annual and
deferred maintenance projects. In Fiscal Year 2002, we will
implement a three-step approach to reducing the deferred
maintenance inventory by increasing funding to hire essential
maintenance workers, performing additional annual preventive
maintenance, and performing additional deferred maintenance,
including a $1.8 million increase for condition assessments and
improving maintenance management systems.
Migratory Bird Management--The Service requests $25,159,000 for
migratory bird management, a net decrease of $525,000 below the Fiscal
Year 2001 enacted level, but $3,560,000 above Fiscal Year 2000.
Conservation and Monitoring * The request includes a $250,000
program increase to address Caspian tern depredation in support
of the Columbia Basin Salmon initiative. In addition, we will
implement management projects in priority habitats and
throughout annual migratory cycles. Migratory birds travel
thousands of miles across and between the Americas. They are
among the best indicators of landscape health. They provide
recreational opportunities for millions of people, and a major
boost to the economy. The Migratory Bird Management program
provides reliable status and distribution information that
forms the scientific basis for effective conservation decisions
and sound hunting regulations.
Partnerships in Action: The North American Waterfowl
Management Plan * The Service is improving coordination of the
Joint Venture program, which expanded by nine newly funded
Joint Ventures for a total of 15 in Fiscal Year 2001. This
successful program protects and restores essential habitat for
diverse migratory bird species across all of North America,
both on, and, to a greater extent, off Service lands. As of
December 2000, Plan partners have contributed approximately
$1.5 billion to protect, restore, or enhance 5.9 million acres
of U.S. wetlands, grasslands, forests, and riparian habitat,
more than one-third of the 17 million acres of U.S. habitat
objectives under the Plan.
The Service and more than a thousand communities,
governments, nonprofit organizations, ordinary citizens,
federal agencies in 49 states, and academia have participated
in this program to date.
Law Enforcement--The Service will implement many important
initiatives in our newly strengthened law enforcement program,
including hiring and equipping up to 20 new agents, to fill vacancies,
continuing to train the 35 agents hired in Fiscal Year 2001,
establishing a designated port in Anchorage, Alaska, and addressing the
growing docket of wildlife crimes. Today's law enforcement program is
at a critical crossroads--facing increasingly complex and potentially
devastating illegal trade, unlawful commercial exploitation, habitat
destruction, and environmental contaminants. Priorities will include
ensuring successful species reintroduction and Habitat Conservation
Plans, working with industry to reduce contaminants and other
industrial hazards, and controlling illegal wildlife trade.
Fisheries--The Service requests $92,979,000, $950,000 above the
Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level and $9,039,000 above Fiscal Year 2000,
to continue supporting activities that restore the nation's waterways,
native aquatic species, and habitats. Our waterways are an economic
lifeline, provide recreation, and have a significant impact on the
quality of life in our communities.
National Fish Hatchery System * The request includes a
$1,000,000 program increase to support the Columbia River
Salmon Initiative and $575,000 to implement lake trout
restoration activities for the U.S. v. Michigan Consent Decree.
Federal hatcheries are a powerful tool for conserving
biological diversity, restoring imperiled aquatic species, and
recovering listed aquatic species. Nearly two-thirds (56) of
all approved recovery plans for fish and more than one-third of
all fishery restoration plans prescribe hatchery propagation,
refugia, or technology development as essential components of
species recovery. The hatchery system is currently assessing
how it will re-direct its activities, with an emphasis on
retaining the wild characteristics and genetic diversity of
fish produced for reintroduction to their native environments.
Fish production and refugia strategies complement actions to
restore habitats and waterways.
Fish and Wildlife Management * The request includes a
$1,625,000 program increase to support the Columbia Basin
Salmon Initiative, a $625,000 program increase for tribal trust
responsibilities under the U.S. v. Michigan Consent Decree, a
$100,000 program increase to support the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Initiative, and a $2,000,000 program
increase to implement the Record of Decision resulting from the
Trinity River Flow Evaluation to restore steelhead, chinook
salmon and coho salmon to pre-dam levels.
Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance assists state,
federal, tribal, and private partners in restoring watersheds,
recovering endangered species and managing inter-jurisdictional
fisheries and marine mammals by administering cooperative
programs such as the Cooperative Tagging Program for striped
bass, the Mark-Recapture Programs for Pacific salmon, the
Mississippi River Basin Paddlefish Research Project, and the
Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission Tagging Program.
The program facilitates effective decision-making and large-
scale restoration, conservation and management of aquatic
resources by bringing diverse interest groups together; sharing
population and habitat information; and coordinating research,
planning, and management activities. These cooperative
activities ensure environmental, economic, and aesthetic
benefits of restored or improved river habitats, increased fish
and other aquatic populations, and sustained recreational and
commercial fishing.
General Operations--The Service requests $124,053,000 a net
decrease of $4,913,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level but an
increase of $809,000 above Fiscal Year 2000, for Central Office
Administration, Regional Office Administration, Service-wide
Administrative Support, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National
Conservation Training Center, and International Affairs programs.
Cost Allocation Methodology
Allocation of General Operations Expenses * The Service has
implemented a cost allocation methodology (CAM) to fund general
operations expenses. General operations include both
administrative and facility support programs that are essential
to all Service programs. CAM distributes these costs among all
Service appropriations and funding accounts based on actual use
of specific business operations to benefiting activities. As a
result, each appropriation and account funds an equitable share
of general operations costs. CAM was implemented in response to
internal and external (Congress, the General Accounting Office)
reviews of Service funding practices. The CAM is displayed on
all funding tables as a non-add item indicating that the
operating expenses are integral to program operation.
Streamlining
As part of the overall Department initiative, we will
implement $3,518,000 in administrative cost savings, travel
reductions, across-the-board initiatives, and headquarters and
regional consolidation of functions.
Construction--The Service requests $35,849,000 for Construction, a
net reduction of $27,028,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level
and $17,679,000 below Fiscal Year 2000, for our most urgent
construction needs.
Construction Projects * The request includes $ 27,357,000 for
18 dam safety, road and bridge safety, and other priority
projects at national wildlife refuges, fish hatcheries, and law
enforcement facilities, including dam and bridge safety
inspections. The rehabilitation and replacement projects will
address the most critical health, safety, and resource
protection needs in the Service's Five-Year Construction Plan.
Nationwide Engineering Services * The remaining $8,492,000
supports the Nationwide Engineering, seismic safety, and
environmental compliance programs.
Land Acquisition--The Land Acquisition Account has been
significantly restructured to reflect the President's commitment to
fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and enhance
partnerships with states, communities, tribes, and private landowners.
The Service requests $104,401,000 for high-priority acquisition of land
and conservation easements from willing sellers. This request would
acquire approximately 53,855 fee interest acres and 23,053 permanent
easement interest acres. Major focus areas for Fiscal Year 2002 include
Pelican Island, Balcones Canyonlands, Canaan Valley, Chickasaw and
Columbia. A full list of requested projects is included in the Land
Acquisition section of the budget.
The request includes $19,291,000 for acquisition management, land
exchanges, inholding acquisitions, and emergency acquisitions, an
increase of $7,218,000 above the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level. The
increase reflects an internal transfer of $4,526,000 from projects to
land acquisition management to more accurately reflect personnel costs
that were charged to projects in Fiscal Year 2001. This is an interim
step, and the Service is working with the Department to estimate non-
project costs and develop standards and the types of costs that should
be charged to projects.
Landowner Incentive Program * The budget proposes a
$50,000,000 Landowner Incentive Program for states to help
private landowners protect imperiled species while engaging in
traditional land use or working land conservation practices.
Private Stewardship Grants * The budget proposes a
$10,000,000 Private Stewardship Grant Program to provide
federal funding for private conservation initiatives.
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund--The Service
requests $54,694,000 for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund, $50,000,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level
but $31,694,000 above the Fiscal Year 2000 level. The proposed funding
level would provide $21,000,000 to support Habitat Conservation Plan
Land Acquisition; $17,759,000 for Recovery Land Acquisition grants to
help implement approved species recovery plans; and $6,650,000 for HCP
planning assistance to states. The Service will use $7,520,000 to
provide conservation grants for habitat restoration, studies, surveys,
and other state activities supporting endangered species conservation.
The budget provides additional funding opportunities to protect
species and habitat by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation
Fund at $900 million and giving states the flexibility to use these
funds to meet the purposes of the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund.
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
The Service requests $14,912,000 for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, $25,000,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001, but about
the same as the Fiscal Year 2000 enacted level. These funds are being
redirected toward new state conservation initiatives in the budget.
This Fund protects and restores wetland ecosystems that serve as
habitat and resting areas for migratory game and non-game birds. The
Fund supports non-regulatory private-public investments in the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. To date, nearly 1,500 partners have worked together
on nearly 900 projects in 48 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, ten
Canadian provinces, and 21 Mexican states to protect, restore and/or
enhance almost seven million acres of wetlands and associated uplands
in the U.S. and Canada and vital habitat on millions of acres within
Mexico's large biosphere reserves. This request is expected to generate
approximately $49,000,000 in total partner funds and resources and
protect and enhance 409,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat.
The budget provides additional funding opportunities to protect
species, habitat and wetlands by fully funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund at $900 million and giving states the flexibility to
use these funds to meet the purposes of the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund. Likewise, the existing Partners for Fish and
Wildlife program and two new grant programs, the $50 million Landowner
Incentive Program and the $10 million Private Stewardship Program, may
also fulfill these purposes by protecting imperiled species and their
habitats.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
The Service requests $3,243,000 for the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund, the same as the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level, to
provide technical and cost-sharing grant assistance to African and
Asian nations for conserving elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, great apes,
and their habitats. African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros,
tigers and great apes are endangered species protected from take and
trade by CITES and U.S. laws. This Fund provides successful, on-the-
ground support to range countries involved in elephant, rhinoceros,
tiger and great ape conservation; and, generates local matching
resources from these countries.
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
The Service requests $11,414,000, the same as the Fiscal Year 2001
enacted level, for payments to counties in which Service lands are
located. This amount will be augmented by an additional $197,000 in
expected receipts from the sale of products, other privileges, and
leases for public accommodations or facilities on the refuges. The
Fiscal Year 2002 estimate for payments to counties is $15,682,000.
The Service's estimates indicate that refuge visitors contribute
more than $400,000,000 to local economies each year. These benefits
will continue to grow with projected increases in visitation.
Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund
The Service proposes to discontinue this account in Fiscal Year
2002 and redirect these funds toward other state and local conservation
initiatives. The President's Budget provides additional funding
opportunities to protect species and habitat by fully funding the Land
and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million and giving states the
flexibility to use these funds to meet the purposes of the Wildlife
Conservation and Appreciation Fund. Likewise, the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife program and two new grant programs, the $50 million Landowner
Incentive Program and the $10 million Private Stewardship Program, may
also fulfill these purposes by protecting imperiled species and their
habitats.
State Wildlife Grants Fund
The Service proposes to discontinue both the formula and
competitive State Grant programs in Fiscal Year 2002 and redirect these
funds toward other state and local conservation initiatives. The
President's Budget provides additional funding opportunities to protect
species and habitat by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation
Fund at $900 million and giving states the flexibility to use these
funds to meet the purposes of the State Wildlife Grants Fund. Likewise,
the existing Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and two new grant
programs, the $50 million Landowner Incentive Program and the $10
million Private Stewardship Program, may also fulfill these purposes by
protecting imperiled species and their habitats.
Permanent Appropriations--In Fiscal Year 2002, receipts into the
Service's permanent appropriations are projected to total $690,754,000,
a combined $54,983,000 increase to Fiscal Year 2001 deposits, to the
following accounts: National Wildlife Refuge Fund, North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund, Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund, Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, Migratory Bird
Conservation Account, Sport Fish Restoration Account, Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Account, Miscellaneous Permanent Appropriations,
and Contributed Funds. The major changes are:
Sport Fish Restoration Account * An additional $50,355,000 in
receipts will become available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service due to anticipated increases in tax revenues and
interest on invested tax collections. Tax receipts and interest
earned are available for obligation in the year following their
deposit into the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Account * Tax receipts
available in Fiscal Year 2002 for Wildlife Restoration projects
are expected to slightly increase by $66,000 above Fiscal Year
2001 levels, and due to increased interest rates, interest
earned is estimated to increase by $2,000,000. Tax receipts
become available for obligation in the year following their
deposit to the U.S. Treasury, although interest earned in the
current year is available during the year in which it is
earned.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
The last couple of things that you talked about, the grant
program for land use and people who will continue to use the
land in a traditional way and receive grant dollars for habitat
restoration or habitat protection, those kinds of things, were
they two programs you just described? Two grant programs?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. What were the names?
Mr. Jones. The first was a $50 million landowner incentive
program; the second, a $10 million private stewardship program.
Both programs are directed toward ways that we can work with
landowners and communities to address the needs of the--
Mr. Gilchrest. Those are existing programs in Fish and
Wildlife right now?
Mr. Jones. No, sir. Those are both new programs.
Mr. Gilchrest. That we will have to authorize? We would
have to authorize those programs?
Mr. Jones. That is correct. They would be authorized
through the appropriations process.
Mr. Gilchrest. We would not have to authorize that here in
this committee?
Mr. Jones. No, Mr. Chairman, because these programs are
included in the broad umbrella of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund request.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Jones. But they, unlike the other part of Federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund, the part that we would use--
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Mr. Underwood said ``consternation.''
[Laughter.]
This is something I would like to talk to you further
about--I don't know if any other members have questions--
whether we need specific authorizing language from this
committee or whether you just go through the Appropriations
Committee. It sounds interesting, in the context that, between
those two programs, it is about $60 million before some effort
to work with the private sector.
Just briefly, on the Delmarva peninsula--Maryland,
Delaware, Virginia--we have been working for about 2 years with
a number of people, including farmers; chambers of commerce;
planning and zoning committees; ag extension agents; and, to a
lesser extent, just conversations with the Department of
Agriculture, Federal and state; and the Department of Natural
Resources; and, to some extent, Fish and Wildlife.
Without working through any existing structure or any
existing program, what we want to do on the Delmarva peninsula,
we are about ready to do some structural things, and $60
million pumped into Delmarva, I don't know if that is a
national program or a Delmarva program--
[Laughter.]
At any rate, what we do with the Delmarva peninsula is keep
its rural character, help create a situation where agriculture
will be unique and profitable, and create a habitat
conservation corridor for wildlife through public land and
private land.
So this program sounds like it may not be a significant
part of that, but certainly a piece of that. The director of
Fish and Wildlife for this region has also been attending some
of the meetings, and he has been very helpful.
While we are on the endangered species, can you give us
some idea of the rationale for the proposed cap and how the
agency may spend ESA listing funds to comply with the court
orders for legal settlements? What is the practical effect of
the funding restriction?
Mr. Jones. I would be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman.
The cap itself is not new. We have had that included in our
appropriation for the last couple of years.
We first asked for the cap when it became clear that we
were no longer in control of the process of listing and
designating critical habitats because of litigation. And all of
our resources were being consumed with court-ordered actions or
actions for which we had settled with plaintiffs, where we knew
that we had little chance of winning in court.
And so the result was that we could foresee that not only
our entire listing budget might be consumed with these actions
that were the result of court orders of settlements, but in
addition, if there were no barrier, courts might begin to
direct us to spend other funds outside of the endangered
species listing budget for these actions.
And so we could see, Mr. Chairman, kind of a black hole
that could consume all the resources that get near it. That
could include our very important resources for our consultation
work, endangered species candidate work, for recovery, and
then, at least conceivably, might even extend it beyond the
Endangered Species Program into other programs in the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any idea of the number of
pending court cases or the number of settlement agreements?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we have those statistics. As I
recall, it is in the several dozens of pending actions that we
have not yet been able to resolve right now. We also have large
backlog of petitions that have not been addressed, of proposed
rules that have not been finalized.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, we have 22 cases right now that
are pending, in terms of critical habitat designation, and we
have nine other challenges to critical habitat designations
that we have already made.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where are they? Are they mostly out west?
Mr. Jones. I would guess they are out west. But, Mr.
Chairman, they are not all out west by any means. A very recent
decision challenged our decision regarding critical habitat for
the Gulf sturgeon on the gulf coast. So, these could come up
anywhere.
We have 38 other active listing lawsuits right now, ones
that are not pending, and 12 notices of intent to sue that are
still within the mandatory 60 day period before they can
actually be taken to court. And we have 82 notices of intent
where the 60 day comment period has expired, but they have not
actually gone to either court or settlement, and another 200 or
so listing actions that have some other kind of legal
vulnerability.
Mr. Gilchrest. You proposed the cap because it is your
sense that other monies of Fish and Wildlife could be siphoned
off to go to lawsuits?
Mr. Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. There has to be some fix for the problem.
Eventually, you have to deal with these lawsuits, I would
guess.
Mr. Jones. And that is the other part of our proposal for
this year, and that is what is new. The concept of a cap is not
new. It has been in our appropriation for the last couple of
years.
This year, we requested an increase for listing, so that
the total amount would go from a little over $6 million to a
little over $8 million. We would like to continue the cap, so
that--
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the cap?
Mr. Jones. The cap would be that amount.
Mr. Gilchrest. The $8 million.
Mr. Jones. The $8.4 million.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you have asked for $8.4 million for
listing, but you have some idea that instead of listing
species, that money is going to be used for litigation.
Mr. Jones. As it stands now, Mr. Chairman, a significant
part of that $8.4 million already was committed to those court-
ordered actions and settlements we have already reached for
next year. Those things go on even in 2003, some of them.
But we are requesting $8.4, and we are also requesting a
limit that no more than that amount, $8.4, is going to be spent
on all the different aspects of listing. Now, that will include
addressing petitions for listings; it would include making the
findings that are required; it would included proposed or final
rules to list species; and it would also include critical
habitat.
So under the broad category of listing, we would spend no
more than $8.4 million on all of those actions.
Mr. Gilchrest. But any idea of the number of species you
have not listed because of the lawsuits?
Mr. Jones. That have not been listed? Mr. Chairman, I am
advised that we have 236 candidate species. Now, those species,
some of those may be subject to the lawsuits that I mentioned.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Jones. We have a number of outstanding notices. Others
are not. Those are the species that we believe are ones that
likely should be listed, but we have not been able to get to
because we don't have all the resources that are necessary to
address all of them in any given year.
But, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the cap, we ask for
something else in the Fiscal Year 2002 proposal, and this is
something new. We have asked that there also be some
congressional guidance for us on how we should be spending that
$8.4 million. And we asked for an endorsement of concepts that
we proposed, so we suggested to Congress the guidance that we
believe would be most helpful. That guidance would say that our
expenditures of the $8.4 million in Fiscal Year 2002 would go
for two things.
The first would be for those court-ordered actions and
settlement agreements we have already made. We made a deal with
people; we do not believe there is any way we could go back on
those agreements that we have already made.
But for the remainder of funds that are not yet committed,
we are asking for an endorsement of the concept of a listing
priority system, a system that we would develop this summer. We
would propose it for public comment. We would work with this
committee and the Congress and any others who are interested as
we develop this so that we would have this priority system in
place for next fiscal year.
And then we would be guided in all of our listing actions
by that priority system.
Mr. Gilchrest. You feel that that priority system would
reduce significant lawsuits?
Mr. Jones. We hope so. It would not eliminate in any way
the citizen suit provision that is already in the Endangered
Species Act, so we still could be sued. But we would feel that
as long as we were acting in good faith, following that
priority system, and were to work on those actions which were
determined through the application of that system to be the
highest priorities, we would believe that we were operating
with guidance from Congress. And we would believe that it would
unlikely, then, that courts would tell us to do something else.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you were acting with the guidance of
Congress, you would feel much more secure--
[Laughter.]
I am out of my time. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
I yield to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You certainly would be, perhaps, one of most litigated
agencies in the government.
I have to say that it is kind of a novel approach that you
are pursuing here, with the capping of the money for listing
issues. And I just wanted to ask: It is my understanding that
the ESA listing language that you have requested will only
restrict citizen suits seeking to have species listed as
endangered or threatened, that it wouldn't restrict lawsuits to
have a species down-listed, for example, from endangered to
threatened or removed from the list altogether. Is that
correct? And what is the rationale behind that?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Underwood, that is a very good question. We
fund the down-listing and delisting out of our recovery program
not from this.
We wish we had a big backlog of species ready to be
delisted. We want to put more emphasis on recovery in the
future so that we will have more species that can be delisted.
But we don't have any contention there, in terms of a backlog
of litigation. And the money that would fund that activity is a
different source.
And one of the reasons we asked for the cap certainly would
be to make sure that the resources which we would need for
undertaking down-listing and delisting activities wouldn't be
tied up in court orders. So that wall protects those funds as
well as all the other endangered species activities.
Mr. Underwood. On the funding for the state conservation
grant programs, it seems to me that what you have done by
submitting this request for $450 million for the state Land and
Water Conservation Fund is, in reality, shifted some funds from
other programs.
What is the rationale behind that? And what is the net
effect on these programs? It seems to be a major policy shift.
Mr. Jones. I think that is true. This was reflective of the
desire of the administration to give the states and territories
more control over how the funds would be spent.
Let me start with a little background. The program for this
current year, which funds outdoor recreation activities and
urban parks and other things that are administered by the
National Park Service, I believe is funded at about $90
million. So this would add another $360 million or so to that.
These funds would be available for additional wildlife
purposes. This would include work that would benefit endangered
species and candidate species. It would include work that would
be consistent with the wetlands conservation goals of the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act. And it would also include
those projects and programs that were consistent with the new
wildlife conservation and restoration program, which was in
this year's budget.
That is an example; that $50 million new program is not
included in the President's budget for next year. Instead,
there is this larger program. But the states would have choice
on how they would use their allocation of funds. The funds are
apportioned to each state by a formula; part of it is a equal
amount, part of it is an amount that reflects the population
and the land area of the state or territory.
And then within that, they would have full choice. Each
state could decide, and a state might decide to use its entire
allocation for wildlife purposes or its entire allocation for
parks purposes or anything in between.
And the Chairman mentioned the work in the Delmarva
peninsula. That would be something that the states of Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia each could determine whether they felt
there were projects there that were worthy of being funded
under this program.
But the state would be the one to make the decision about
how the funds would be applied. They would submit grant
proposals that would be reviewed. The National Park Service
would administer this program, but in consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service. And we, in turn, will be working
with states and territories to develop further the details of
how that would be administered, so that we would have a new,
cooperative program.
And I think it does reflect a new philosophy, Mr.
Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. In general, I would support that philosophy.
But it seems to me that we are going at this without a lot of
attention to making sure that the money would be spent for the
kinds of purposes that Congress has outlined in the past.
Like so many of the other things that we are talking about
here, we are wondering whether this needs some kind of clarity
in the legislative language, in the authorization of these
activities.
Certainly, I am one that has always been supportive of
trying to not only create opportunities for local communities
to have more input into the operations of the Federal
Government in their area, but more participation in rulemaking.
But it seems to me that this a major shift.
Lastly, I just want to one specific question, and it goes
back to the invasive species.
And I have other questions, if we have another round, Mr.
Chairman.
On the invasive species question, you know, it is kind of
an old song with me. Certainly one of the things that is most
disturbing is that I can't see any money that is being spent by
Fish and Wildlife to deal specifically with the brown tree
snake, other than supporting the Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Much
of the money that is spent on actually controlling or trying to
deal with the irradication of this invasive species comes from
other units.
Would you like to explain to me the rationale of that?
Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised, Mr. Jones.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. Well, Mr. Underwood, we do have some
expenditures. You are correct that we don't spend what we used
to spend.
At one time, the entire program for brown tree snake
control was part of the research division of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. When the previous administration made the
decision that the research division would go out of the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and eventually became part of the U.S.
Geological Survey, all the funding that went with that program
went with it. We had no funding left for that program. And we
relied on them to do research on control mechanisms.
On the other hand, we are looking to find ways that we can
be a good neighbor and a good partner with Guam, with the Air
Force. And we are now exploring Federal money to provide
matching funds for the brown tree snake trapping that is going
on at the munitions storage area on the Andersen Air Force
Base, matching funds that the Air Force has put forward and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, which also has a role here, has
put forward.
We will seek other ways through the budget, both for the
refuge division and through the budget for our ecological
services activities, so that we can be a partner and
participate. But it would be misleading for me to say that we
could ever invest the same kinds of funds that we had at one
time, since the bulk of that program, the funding for it, was
transferred to another agency.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Pombo?
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In regard to the new programs that are being created under
this budget, Mr. Chairman, it has been the position of the
committee in the past that new programs would need to be
authorized by the committee. And I would hope that you, as the
new Chairman of the Subcommittee, and Mr. Hansen, as the
Chairman of the full committee, would use the ability of this
committee to authorize those programs by the committee and not
allow the appropriation process to authorize new programs.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pombo, you can be assured that while we
have great respect for the appropriators, we will look at this
particular issue. And I assure the members of the committee, it
will be authorized by this committee first.
Mr. Pombo. I appreciate that.
Mr. Jones, in response to the question of how many species
were not listed as a result of the legal challenges or the
lawsuits, you gave the number as to the number of candidate
species that are out there.
And I guess, in an effort to be fair, no one really knows
how many species were not listed, because those species are
candidate species because the science has not yet been done to
determine whether or not they are endangered. And it could be a
number of those may ultimately be listed as endangered species,
but until Fish and Wildlife Service is allowed to actually do
the science that is necessary to determine whether or not they
are endangered, I don't think anybody really knows yet how many
species there are.
Mr. Jones. I would agree with that in the sense that these
are species that we believe right now, based on the information
at hand, likely qualify.
But you are certainly right. Before they would ever be
added to the list, there would be additional study, there would
be a proposed rule, public comment. And we can't presume to say
right now how many of them would wind up finally being added to
the list.
But these are the ones that we believe are the best
candidates right now.
Mr. Pombo. Along those lines, can you tell me how much
money the Federal Government spent on those lawsuits? And how
much of that went to the litigants to pay for their legal
expenses?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Pombo, I do not have that figure. The
Department of Justice pays for the litigation expenses for
plaintiffs in many of these cases. And so, in terms of payments
to attorneys for plaintiffs, that would have to come from the
Department of Justice.
I suspect it would be a big number. I suspect it would be a
number that all of us might feel, in an ideal world, ought to
be used for things other than just paying legal fees. That is
the situation we are in.
Then there would be our own costs, both our attorneys and
our staff, who are involved on their side. And we would be
pleased to get you some information for the record, but I don't
have statistics with me today.
Mr. Pombo. I would appreciate it if you could get me the
number as to how much money has been spent by the Federal
Government as a whole, not just Fish and Wildlife Service, and,
out of that, how much has gone to the plaintiffs in those
cases, both in their attorneys' fees and in settlements that
may have come as a result of any of those cases.
On the different requests that are being put forward, and I
understand that you are trying to make an effort to limit the
amount of money that would be spent in those particular
lawsuits and to use as much money as we possibly can for its
intended purpose, and you have outlined for us here this
morning somewhat of a request that we put guidelines on that.
Can you give the committee this morning an idea of what
kinds of things you are looking for in that particular request,
as to how the money would be spent? Are you looking for
specific line items coming out of Congress, saying we want this
money broken down in this way?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Pombo, we have not asked for it to be
divided up any more specifically than $8.4 million as a
maximum. What we have asked for, we provided suggested
language, which I assume could be included a report to us that
would accompany the appropriations bill, that would endorse the
concept of a listing priority system, a system that we would
develop, that we would propose over the summer, that all
Members of Congress as well as all the interested parties--both
those who have been involved in suing us, those who are
affected by endangered species listings, and everyone else, the
general public, everyone--would have a chance to comment on it.
And so everyone would see this before the time that the
final appropriations are done. Here is the priority system that
we would be working under. This priority system would address
how you factor the best science into decisionmaking so that you
have a balanced program that results in the highest priority
actions going ahead first, and other actions will just have to
wait their turn.
Since this was an appropriations issue, how to spend an
amount that we know won't be as much the courts may ask us to
do, that is why we put this forward in terms of appropriations
guidance.
Mr. Pombo. I am very interested in how that is going to
work. I think it is probably a good idea to try to put
something like that together, but I am very interested to see
how we proceed with that, how that is going to actually come
out. So I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Pombo, if I could just correct one thing? I
think I said language to be included in report, but I think
what we propose is actually appropriations bill language rather
than report language.
But we would be pleased to work with you and all the other
members of the committee as we go through this process.
Mr. Pombo. Well, Mr. Chairman, if it is bill language and
would carry the force of law--which I think, in order to
achieve what you want, it would have to be bill language, to
have the force of law--that is one area where I believe this
Subcommittee and the full committee ought to be very involved
with, exactly how that language comes out, because that is
completely under the jurisdiction of this committee and the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will pay close attention to that as we
move through the process.
Thank you, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Ortiz?
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that I was
able to come back.
Mr. Jones, as the director, I know you are aware of recent
actions on piping plover critical habitat designation. And I
understand that some think the economic impact assessment for
the wintering habitat is inadequate, and you have had several
months to develop it.
This is going to be devastating. I would like you to look
at the impact of it.
Now, what are your plans for completing this assessment on
1,600 miles of coastline? And I might suggest that working
together might be a lot easier than going through last 2 weeks
again. For 2 straight weeks, I have tried to get a meeting with
your office. Maybe you all were working hard in changing the
assessment.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Ortiz, I recognize that. It certainly has
been very difficult for us. I know that it was difficult for
you.
On the advise of our legal counsel, Fish and Wildlife
Service refused all requests for meetings that would take place
because the comment period was closed, and because we were not
allowed, under ex parte rules, to be able to consider any new
information.
Ultimately, we made the decision. However, we also were not
ready to adopt this as a final critical habitat designation.
I will note that this is one that we are here where we are
because of litigation that resulted in our making an agreement
that we would publish this final critical habitat designation
by April 30. It wasn't in our plans at the time the litigation
came about; we weren't ready to do that.
But as a result of the litigation, and the situation we are
in, where we felt we had, as a result of previous court
decisions, we were very unlikely to be able to prevail in
court, we entered into the settlement. Thus, we have our staff
working under extremely difficult conditions.
As you noted, Mr. Ortiz, this is a very complicated issue.
There is a lot of coastline. We are talking about the wintering
habitat, in particular for the piping plover, that stretches
from the Carolinas all the way around to Texas.
Lots of information, biological information, that we had to
assess. And in addition, we contracted for an economic
analysis.
The economic analysis, the first version of it, required
revision. We sent it back to the contractor. We only received
the economic analysis with those revisions 1 week before the
April 30 deadline, and that was not enough time for us to be
able to make the rational decision we need to make.
The Endangered Species Act does include provisions under
Section 4(b)(2). It says we should include areas of critical
habitat unless the benefits of excluding those areas outweigh
the benefits of including those areas. And we still need more
time to go through that analysis and decide if there are areas
that would meet that test and should be excluded.
I cannot say what the results of that evaluation will be. I
can say that we sent to the Federal Register a notice that we
need an additional time period of up to 60 days to complete
this review. We have also notified the judge in this case. And
the actions from here will depend partly on what the judge
decides.
But let's assume the judge and the court doesn't do
something which changes the course that we are on now. Over the
next 60 days--so through the months of May and June--we would
be reviewing the biological data and the economic analysis that
we have. But we have said, in order to make sure that we don't
run afoul further of the court, that we will do this based on
the existing record.
Now, we know, Mr. Ortiz, you have constituents who have
concerns. We believe that those concerns are on our record. We
have a lot of material, including quite a bit of material, I
know, from constituents in your district, as there are from a
number of other Members of Congress.
Everything that is on that record will be reviewed and will
be part of this decision. We are not in a position to entertain
new information. And so we are still going to be operating
under ex parte rules. Otherwise, I think we would be in some
real legal difficulties.
So our attorneys have advised us, we have to keep this
process one where we are doing it internally, but we are going
to use every bit of information that people provided to us, in
making those decisions.
Mr. Ortiz. I guess your agency understands the impact that
this going to have. Maybe you can tell me, how are you going to
be able to complete this in 60 days?
Mr. Jones. It is going to be a challenge for us. We
certainly do recognize the concerns that are out there. And we
will be taking those concerns into account as we go through
this process, working within the structure of the law to decide
what the final critical habitat should be.
Mr. Ortiz. I wish you had a plan on how you are going to do
this in 60 days.
Mr. Jones. It is going to take some concentrated effort by
our staff to do that, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
It is my understanding that the Kemp's ridley sea turtle
population is doing better these days. I think that most of us
are aware that the shrimping industry has had problems. In
Mexico, they were harvesting the eggs and reducing turtle
populations. At one time I think the service was giving them
$200,000 to be sure that the population of the Kemp's ridley
turtle was increased. All of a sudden, it was stopped. Am I
correct?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Ortiz, I don't think it has been stopped. I
think it has been reduced due to other competing priorities.
But we still have an active program working with the government
of Mexico to help them provide protection for Mexican nesting
beaches.
Mr. Ortiz. So you are still doing that now?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the amount that it was reduced to, from
$200,000.
Mr. Jones. I believe it was cut about in half, but let me
consult here.
Mr. Ortiz, we will have to get you an answer for the
record. But I have had discussions with our regional director
in Albuquerque about this program to make sure that this is one
that doesn't get cut unduly because we have other priorities
and a limited budget. But I think it has been cut about in
half, maybe $90,000 to $100,000, somewhere in that range.
But we still have people actively working with the
government of Mexico and with private organizations. And I
think they have done a marvelous job.
And we hope that, in the future, they will be able to take
on an increasing share of this program, and then maybe we can
shift other resources to other places. But we will never walk
away from this program, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. I just want to put in the record, Mr. Chairman,
that the shrimping industry has done a great job. There has
been real progress in working together, and I just want to make
sure that this is included in the record.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
I think we have time for another round of questions, if the
witnesses don't mind.
Mr. Jones. We are at your disposal.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Jones, getting back to the issue of
invasive species, your agency has requested $2.7 million for
invasive species problems. Does the agency have any ballpark
estimate as to the damage, ecologically or economically, that
invasive species have done around the country or specific
refuges or looking at the brown tree snake or looking at
nutria, comparing the ecological damage and the economic damage
to the amount of money that Fish and Wildlife is putting
forward to solve the problem?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a number here. We
would be happy to see what kind of number we can provide for
you. Obviously, this is a much bigger issue than just the Fish
and Wildlife Service. It involves all of us who are involved in
conservation within the Federal Government, the states, private
interests. When you look at--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have some idea? It is a pretty
complicated issue, but do you have any idea as to the estimated
costs of the number of projects recognized by the agency?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, in our budget proposal, we have an
estimate of about $123 billion as the cost to the nation for
aquatic invasive species.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is that figure?
Mr. Jones. $123 billion.
Mr. Gilchrest. $123 billion.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that economic costs?
Mr. Jones. Economic costs; that is, the losses to regional
and local economies as a result of invasive species, the costs
of interference with operations--
Mr. Gilchrest. That is--
Mr. Jones. The zebra mussels that clog the intakes for
power plants, and the costs of fighting the species and
everything else with it.
Now, that is not specific, Mr. Chairman, to refuges. And
that doesn't count nonaquatic. So it wouldn't count invasive
beetles in trees or something like that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Or snakes.
Mr. Jones. Or snakes. Exactly.
Mr. Chairman, I am advised, though, in our refuge
operations needs system, our database for future operating
priorities for the refuge system, there is about $140 million
in invasive-species-related projects. So those would be
priority projects that we identified--
Mr. Gilchrest. Priority projects, $147 million.
Mr. Jones. No, sir. This is in our needs.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is the backlog.
Mr. Jones. That is the backlog of our--
Mr. Gilchrest. $140 million backlog--
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. --for just refuge specific; billions of
dollars of economic damage nationwide.
The Invasive Species Council--I think I have the name of
that correct--a couple of years ago--
Mr. Jones. Right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they still out there?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, they are. The Invasive Species
Council was established by an executive order in the previous
administration. I think the new administration will need to
sort out exactly how it wants to use the Invasive Species
Council, but there is staff.
The staff is located in the Department of Interior, but it
is a staff that serves not just Interior, but serves the
Department of Commerce, NOAA, the Department of Agriculture,
consists of people from several agencies. And they are actively
working now on ideas about how the new administration might
continue to address--
Mr. Gilchrest. Invasive species just has not been a high
priority for a lot of people?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an increasing
priority. Obviously, in the Department of Interior right now,
our only Senate-confirmed appointee is the secretary. Though we
have a nominee for the deputy secretary, we have others who are
still not even in the pipeline yet.
We in the Fish and Wildlife Service will certainly take
every opportunity to educate all of the new appointees about
the problems that invasive species are causing fish and
wildlife conservation. And I think we will see the
administration taking a hard look at what to do nationwide.
It is an issue that affects everyone. It is bipartisan. The
Federal Government, the states, private industry, individual
landowners, everyone, has a stake in a strong national program
to combat and--
Mr. Gilchrest. Everyone has a stake in a strong national
program, but you don't seem to be coordinating it out--
Mr. Jones. The Invasive Species Council is an attempt to do
that.
Now, that builds on things that already existed, like
aquatic nuisance task force that has been in existence for some
time. It is very active. Our assistant director for fisheries
and habitat conservation, Cathy Short, who is here today, is
co-chair of that, along with a co-chair from NOAA. And we have
a lot of state partners in that, other agencies.
So in the aquatics area, I think it is fair to say, Mr.
Chairman, the country recognized this. There was legislation by
Congress several years ago that authorized this, and we stepped
out.
We are now coming to grips with the fact that we still need
a lot more than we have. And that is something that we--
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to work with you, to try to
come up with a program that will have the resources to make it
work.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you. I certainly want to associate
myself with those remarks and concern about the invasive
species.
You gave, Mr. Jones, a dollar amount related to aquatic
invasive species. I don't know if you have a dollar related to
beetles and snakes on land. And if there isn't, is there a way
to come up with such a figure?
Mr. Jones. We certainly can provide you with a figure. In
our budget, I think we have a total, right now, of about $9.5
million that will be oriented toward invasive species
nationwide.
That includes a little under $2.7 million that Mr. Gudes
mentioned for the refuge system. It includes about $4.5 million
for our Fish and Wildlife management assistance office for the
branch of invasive species which works on the aquatic nuisance
task force and other things. It includes a little under $2
million in our partners for fish and wildlife program, private
landowners with invasive species issues. And it includes about
$200,000 for our international work, to work with other
countries. So that is about $9.5 million total.
Again, brown tree snakes, there was an additional amount
which previously was in our budget but now would be in the
budget of the U.S. Geological Survey's biological resources
division.
But in addition, we want to be a good partner. We want to
work with the government of Guam. We want to work with the Air
Force and others, and make sure that we do everything that we
can to control brown tree snakes on Guam and prevent them from
showing up anywhere else.
Mr. Underwood. It seems like the only way we can get
attention is to have a dead snake show up on the tarmac in
Honolulu. Then you get lots of it. [Laughter.]
But you get more for a live one. [Laughter.]
Okay, I want to ask you a question on the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act. This is one of those activities that
received a $25 million decrease from the Fiscal Year 2001
appropriation. And I would assume that this is part of the
money that ended up in the LWCF.
My understanding of this program is that a good chunk of
this money is done on a matching basis. And, in fact, it has
been able to leverage a 3-to-1 basis so that, over the years
since NAWCF's inception, over $1 billion has been generated
from nonfederal partners. A $25 million cut, under the same
understanding, would mean, basically, $75 million is not going
into these activities from nonfederal resources.
It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when you have
some programs that are designed to in fact generate the kinds
of partnership across the country which would bring money into
conservation activities, and now we are finding ways to
actually reduce those grant programs.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Underwood, there is no question that the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund has been one of our
most successful program, and it certainly enjoys wide support.
The funding level that we have requested for Fiscal Year
2002 basically is what we requested in Fiscal Year 2000, which
is $15 million. In 2001, we had a substantial increase for it.
We returned it, in our proposal, back to the Fiscal Year 2000
level of $15 million.
But what we have that we hope will enable states to perhaps
invest an even larger amount is the stateside Land and Water
Conservation Fund. And the administration's proposal is that
this fund, the stateside program, be amended to include the
projects which would be consistent with the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act.
We can't give a fixed dollar amount, because that would be
up to states and territories to decide how much of the total
amount available to each one of them they would actually choose
to orient in this direction. But it is a total of $450 million
altogether that would be available. And this would be one of
the purposes that those funds could be--
Mr. Underwood. I understand the logic behind that. But in
this particular instance, this is an example of a very popular
program, a program widely supported in Congress, a program that
is basically accountable, that we know where the funds are
going and have a good sense of national direction. And in this
particular instance, I think we are sacrificing some of that.
I understand the logic behind what you are outlining, and I
understand the logic behind the proposal. But I just think that
it is probably not a good idea at this time, certainly in
reference to the Wetlands Conservation Act.
I just wanted to ask a quick question on Marine Sanctuary
Program. In the National Marine Sanctuary system, NOAA has
requested an increase of approximately $3.6 million over last
year's appropriation. Has NOAA used this? And will NOAA be
using this and other recent increases in funding to achieve its
goal of establishing minimum management capability at all the
existing national marine sanctuaries?
Ms. Davidson. Congressman, we believe that the proposed
increase would get about 70 percent of the sanctuaries up to
what we consider the baseline operational level by year 2002,
with 100 percent to be achieved by 2006, if the year 2002
numbers were to continue until that time.
I do have to point out, though, that would not take into
account operations of a sanctuary program in the northwestern
Hawaiian islands. And the process of the designation of that as
a sanctuary has not yet quite begun.
Mr. Underwood. So none of this includes funding to support
the designation process in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands?
Ms. Davidson. We actually had some separate appropriations
to support the process of establishing the coral reef ecosystem
reserve there, and to begin the process of the sanctuary
designation. You might recall, perhaps, from your own
experience, it actually takes several years to go through the
designation process.
Mr. Underwood. How much funding will be spent on
sanctuaries system-wide?
Ms. Davidson. Excuse me, Congressman?
Mr. Underwood. How much funding will be spent on
sanctuaries system-wide, as opposed to just individual
sanctuaries?
Ms. Davidson. Well, there are funds within the proposed
increase that not only address individual site requirements,
management capabilities, such as official enforcement officers.
But it also addresses system-wide concerns, such as the issue
of reviewing management plans, which we have begun, for
instance, on the California coast, and hope to complete
throughout the sanctuary system over the next few years.
So there are system-wide increases accounted for in that
request, sir.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, thank you.
If I could just ask one more question on backlogs, back to
Fish and Wildlife. I remember in the previous year, you had a
chart, a very interesting chart that defined the decline of
backlogs, the decline of the rate of increase.
[Laughter.]
It is going to be a long time before I forget that chart.
[Laughter.]
Now, under the budget proposal that you have, we are
actually, probably, going to increase that rate of increase,
are we not? Or is that decline of the rate of increase going to
continue?
It is your chart, so that is why I am asking--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. Mr. Underwood, I am glad that chart was so
memorable.
The fact is that we are continuing to decrease that rate of
increase. In other words, we are kind of flattening it out. We
are doing our best to keep pace, but we also kind of have a
large documented backlog.
We do believe that the President's budget proposal for
Fiscal Year 2002, which puts an emphasis on our maintenance
backlog with a $10 million increase for that, will continue to
make a contribution in the right direction.
We have identified in our refuge operating needs system the
full scale of the priority projects which are backlogged, and
it is for operating projects, and it is considerable.
Maintenance, we also have a big backlog of deferred
maintenance, but we are continuing to chip away at it.
And we look forward over the next few years to working with
this committee and with our new National Wildlife Refuge
centennial commission, which the Secretary will be announcing
soon, and the activities that lead up to the refuge centennial
in 2003, to continue to think about ways that we can address
the needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the right
context.
Mr. Underwood. I won't forget that chart. I am also not
going to forget Scott Gudes's nonhypothesis research.
[Laughter.]
Nonhypothesis research; that is, you just go in the ocean
and whatever you find--
[Laughter.]
And that is how you go do research? I didn't get exactly
what was going on with nonhypothesis research.
Look, we have a taker.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Koch. The purpose of--
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you use a microphone, please?
Ms. Koch. I'm sorry.
I am Louisa Koch, deputy director for the NOAA research
program in which the ocean exploration program resides.
The concept of nonhypothesis-driven exploration came out of
the commission. It was to respect the fact that, for example,
NSF has specific scientific hypotheses for their going out, --
and NOAA does, as well--to look at coral species and the health
of them and what we think the factors are in continued health.
As to exploration, we were trying to differentiate
exploring a deep trench for the sake of going there, where no
one has ever been before, being able to go into depths where we
never--
Mr. Underwood. It sounds like a good TV program.
Ms. Koch. Excuse me?
Mr. Underwood. It sounds like a good TV program.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Koch. Exactly. Exactly. We are hoping to get TV
coverage.
Mr. Underwood. But I am glad to see that nonhypothesis
research was validated by a commission.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
If I may just follow up on a very good question on
nonhypothesis research? I assume that is deep-ocean
exploration. Is it your view that when you go down there, there
is some sense of the landscape? There is some sense of what is
there, so that we can connect that in an ecological way to
other regions of the ocean and then pursue some specific
hypothesis?
Ms. Koch. Absolutely. In fact, one of the things that we
have seen is, when there is exploration into deep trenches,
there is often a follow-on activity, be it fishing or be it
mineral exploration, where there are specific commercial
pursuits.
And one of the things that we want to do when we explore
geographic areas of interest is to make sure that we fully
understand what is there, and understand the impact of what may
be coming, and can protect and provide a proper framework for
whatever follow-on endeavors there may be.
But certainly, there would be follow-on endeavors.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that a collaborative effort with the Navy
or with anybody else?
Ms. Koch. Navy and NSF and also other NOAA programs, and
also the National Geographic. We have a number of private
sector partners as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there specific areas that are targeted
for this endeavor?
Ms. Koch. We have target missions that we are pursuing both
in 2001 and in 2002, along the east and west coast.
Mr. Gilchrest. Marianas Trench, is that one?
Ms. Koch. Marianas Trench, no.
[The above question was originally answered incorrectly and
the response was changed from ``yes'' to ``no'' during the
editing process.]
Mr. Underwood. We are relieved to hear that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Where else?
Ms. Koch. South Atlantic Bight
Ms. Davidson. From Belize through the Keys, following the
Gulf Stream, and then beginning in the Hudson Canyon this year
and following the Hudson Canyon down through the mid-Atlantic
region.
Mr. Gilchrest. And each of those, what you just described,
is still in the stage of a nonhypothesis exploration?
Ms. Davidson. To go where no man has gone before.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. No one has gone with nonhypothesis
exploration.
But moving through the stages: So you are down there not
with any particular, specific hypothesis or theory, but you
will evaluate that after you are there.
While you are down there, is there any sense of studying
continuing motion current, the potential for disruption for
ocean current, its impact on the weather, those kinds of
things?
Ms. Koch. Absolutely. One of the areas that we are
currently exploring and have been for a long time is the vents
region off the west coast. One of the things that we looked at
there is what is the contribution to warming of the ocean to
ocean currents from those ocean vents. That kind of exploration
topic would certainly be relevant to what we are continuing to
do.
The purpose of going into deep trenches where we have never
been before is to understand what is there and, therefore, to
be able to develop hypotheses for reasons to go back, again,
with our partners.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Navy's collaboration with you, is that
pure science, pure nonhypothesis perspective? Is that partly
science, partly understanding for defensive maneuvers or
training or hiding a submarine somewhere or whatever?
Ms. Koch. One area that we plan to pursue is ocean
acoustics, and clearly the Navy has extremely sophisticated
technologies that we will want to take advantage of, for
example, as you mentioned earlier, the SOSUS array. So we will
be building on the Navy's acoustical understanding when we try
to explore further ocean acoustics.
In the ocean's heritage, shipwrecks would be one area that
we would be interested in. Obviously, wherever it is a military
shipwreck, they would be very interested in joining us for
naval history, for example.
Mr. Gilchrest. How much money would this specific program--
Ms. Koch. There is a $4 million appropriation in this
fiscal year, and we are asking for an additional $10 million in
2002, for a total program of $14 million.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is just NOAA's contribution to this?
The Navy adds another appropriation to this?
Ms. Koch. The Navy does not have an appropriation
explicitly for ocean exploration. However, they have other
funds for ocean science, and we collaborate with them.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood. Can I ask a follow-up?
Mr. Gilchrest. Certainly, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Koch, is it?
Ms. Koch. Yes.
Mr. Underwood. I know from the previous work, I remember
when we went to Monterey and the President had an unveiling of
national oceanographic efforts, that he had indicated that they
Navy had released lots of documents that had been previously
classified. Is that correct? There is that level of cooperation
with the Navy?
Ms. Koch. There is substantial cooperation with the Navy.
And in fact, I was just talking to the researchers that we have
off the west coast where they used the Navy's acoustic array to
find an eruption that happened about 3 weeks ago. And they were
actually able to target the SOSUS array at the spot they were
interested in, in order to find out how much underwater
turbulence there was.
So there is a high degree of cooperation there. Obviously,
there are some Navy programs that are so sensitive that that
limits the--
Mr. Underwood. How does this increase-funded program differ
from the activities that are ongoing in NOPP and NURP?
Ms. Koch. NURP is a very strong current partner. In fact,
Barbara Moore, the director of NURP, was a very key leader in
bringing this ocean exploration effort to fruition. And NURP is
actually going to be involved in leading the signature mission
this year, so they have a very strong and integral role.
We have not yet determined the role of NOPP in ocean
exploration. Clearly, NOPP is an excellent forum to bring NSF
and Navy and other agencies that are interested in ocean issues
to the table. We are exploring exactly how the relationship
with NOPP would work.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Something a little closer to home, and not as exciting, I
guess, Mr. Hogarth, could you comment on the ballast water
program in the Chesapeake Bay and the fact that it was zeroed
out in Fiscal Year 2002? I think your response is already
noted.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Koch. I am sorry, sir, but actually that program is
within NOAA research, and, therefore, Bill Hogarth is not to
blame for that.
[Laughter.]
It is an important program. We actually do have a $3
million aquatic nuisance species effort within Sea Grant. We
are very interested in the Chesapeake Bay program, and it was
crowded out of the budget due to other priorities, but it is
something that we are very supportive of.
Mr. Gilchrest. The $800,000 was--
Ms. Koch. The $800,000 program was eliminated. There
remains a $3 million program within Sea Grant.
Mr. Gilchrest. So Sea Grant can pursue the ballast water
issue?
Ms. Koch. Yes, Sea Grant can pursue the ballast water
issue. However, the $3 million is spread across the 29 Sea
Grant programs, and, therefore, Chesapeake Bay would only be
one target. But it is a very important target for that effort.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you tell us, of that $3 million, how
much might be spent for ballast water research in the
Chesapeake Bay?
Ms. Koch. I will have to get back to you on that.
[NOAA's response follows:]
Sea Grant's invasive species funds are distributed competitively
and the final distribution of funds for FY 2001 and FY 2002 will not be
determined until mid-summer. For reference, in FY 2000, about $263,000
of Sea Grant funds supported research on the ballast water issue
(including $150,000 awarded through the Small Business Innovation
Research Program). None of the funds went to the Chesapeake Bay or for
Ballast Water in Chesapeake Bay.
______
Ms. Koch. But I can tell you, since that is a continuation
of a program ongoing in 2001, how much is being allocated to
Maryland, to the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Gilchrest. From Sea Grant?
Ms. Koch. From Sea Grant, yes, sir, in addition to the
$800,000, obviously.
Mr. Gilchrest. Not too have you stand too much longer; I do
have a question for Bill.
Under your jurisdiction comes oyster disease? Is that
something you--
Ms. Koch. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sea Grant?
Ms. Koch. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess this would be a topic of another
hearing. But if I understand the nature of ballast water and
MSX or dermo, would you say there is or there absolutely isn't
any connection there?
Ms. Koch. I am sorry that I don't--
Mr. Gilchrest. I shouldn't ask absolutes of scientists.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Koch. I don't have a good answer for you on that. I
would be happy to get back to you with a detailed response on
the record.
[NOAA's response follows:]
NOAA has sponsored some research to look at transport of pathogens
into Chesapeake Bay through ballast water, but this was a general look
at pathogens, not specific to oyster pathogens. Recent findings have
verified the presence of pathogens in ballast tanks of some ships that
have entered Chesapeake Bay, but the question of whether or not the
pathogens can survive long enough once they are released into the Bay
to have an impact has not yet been addressed.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. We would like to work with you to pursue,
certainly, oyster disease but also the critical problems based
on the nature of the Chesapeake Bay and just the way it is--
ballast water, the lack of flushing, the problems of anoxia,
the nature of the inland port, the distance these ships travel.
We would like to work with Sea Grant and your office with
finding what we can do about ballast water.
Ms. Koch. And we would very much like to work with you. It
is a major topic, coming out of the Great Lakes region, the
Gulf of Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay. It is all over the
country, and it is not something that we are adequately
addressing now.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Bill, the $2.5 million for the Chesapeake Bay studies
program that has been requested, is that a total amount that
would come to Chesapeake Bay studies? That includes the
Chesapeake Bay office?
Dr. Hogarth That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So it is $2.5 million for Chesapeake Bay
studies. That is the total amount coming to the Chesapeake Bay?
Dr. Hogarth The FY 2002 request for Chesapeake Bay related
items is about $3.6 million for 2002.
Mr. Gilchrest. $3.6 million?
Dr. Hogarth $3.6 million.
Mr. Gilchrest. We have this $2.5 million--
Dr. Hogarth The $2.5 million is for the office itself.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Dr. Hogarth And there is $3.6 million in total for fishery
activities. There is $200,000 for marine education, programs at
the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. For the first time,
it includes funding for species, including $500,00 for blue
crabs and $850,000 for the Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery
program.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you could sort of reemphasize from your
position, we will certainly do it from our position, the strong
collaborative effort with the private sector, the state and the
Federal Government, and a great exchange of information on an
ongoing basis about the critical nature of ocean recovery and
the problems with oysters and blue crabs in the bay, both on
the Virginian and our side.
Ms. Davidson, the study level the 2002 budget request
includes the electronic navigation charts for less than 1
percent of the EEZ that have been determined to be crucial for
navigation. Is that an acceptable percentage of the EEZ? And
what is the status of that study?
Ms. Davidson. First of all, Mr. Chairman, this actually
represents the first time that we have had a specific line in
the President's budget for electronic navigational charts
(ENCs), so we are really pleased with that.
At that rate, you are correct that it would take a while to
complete requirements. We are, actually, sitting down and
working with the Coast Guard and the Navy as well, to talk
about how best to implement that effort. In fact, we actually
have started a test pilot effort in the current year with about
$250,000 to sort of get us a little bit ahead in terms of our
planning horizon, in terms of collaborating with those
agencies.
And we are also discussing with the Navy the data-
management requirements. The Navy is interested in us becoming
more of a data archive for not only our electronic navigational
charts and how we can get that information in real time to a
bridge of a vessel, but also how we make those kinds of data
available in other ways.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have some idea on the length of time
it would take to complete about 1 percent of the EEZ for that
type of charting?
Ms. Davidson. I don't have that specific information. I can
get back to you with that. I believe the number is, with that
level of funding, that we will be able to actually convert
about 60 to 70 charts to electronic navigational charts, with
that rate of funding.
[NOAA's response follows:]
Responsible for over 3.4 million square nautical miles of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), NOAA has prioritized the EEZ to maximize
the efficiency of resources available for hydrographic survey data.
Many areas portrayed on nautical charts have never been adequately
surveyed, and nearly half the depths on current charts were acquired
before 1940 using leadline techniques. NOAA has identified
approximately 550,000 square nautical miles as navigationally
significant, which are further prioritized by threat of hazard to
surface navigation. The critical survey backlog addresses the 43,000
square nautical miles, or approximately 1.3% of NOAA's charting
responsibility, considered most important to safe navigation. The
highest priority are those critical waterways that have high commercial
traffic volumes (cargo, fishing vessels, cruise ships, ferries, etc.),
extensive petroleum or hazardous material transport, compelling
requests from users, and/or transiting vessels with low underkeel
clearance over the seafloor. Over half of the critical backlog area
exists in Alaskan waters. At current funding levels, it will take about
20 years to eliminate the 43,000 square nautical miles critical survey
backlog.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. So are there specific areas of the EEZ that
you are targeting first?
Ms. Davidson. I would have to check with the folks in Coast
Survey. Our priorities would continue to be the major ports and
the approach channels.
We actually have a listing of the 200 ENCs that would be
required to cover the 40 major port areas, but it does not
identify for me what the actual priority would be. But we do
have them identified in terms of which ones we are trying to
cover.
[NOAA's response follows:]
NOAA proposes to first provide coverage for the 40 major U.S. ports
and harbors. The fiscal year 2002 request for a $3.6 million increase
will enable NOAA to enhance, build and maintain the suite of 200 ENCs
needed for the 40 major ports and harbors. These ports and harbors are
listed below. The prioritization of the top 40 major U.S. ports and
harbors for commercial navigation was determined by analyzing data
ranking U.S. ports by cargo tonnage. This model includes major ports of
call visited by the cruise line industry, and coordinates with planned
NOAA hydrographic surveying activity for the most current hydrographic
data.
NOAA will build 65 new ENCs in fiscal year 2002, as well as enhance
existing ENCs, to complete the suite of 200. The ENCs will then be
continually maintained with new data and updates as part of NOAA's
nautical charting database.
Below is the listing of the ports which have or are scheduled for
ENCs. Please note that one port name might cover a number of port
cities. For example, Port Everglades in Florida includes Miami, Palm
Beach and Fort Lauderdale.
Baltimore Pascagoula
Boston Philadelphia
Brunswick Port Hueneme
Charleston Port of South Louisiana
Charlotte Amalie Port Everglades
Chicago Port of NY/NJ
Christiansted Portland, ME
Cleveland Portland, OR
Corpus Christi Richmond, VA
Detroit Richmond, CA
Duluth/Superior San Juan
Honolulu San Diego
Houston Savannah
Jacksonville Seattle
Lake Charles St. Clair
Long Beach Tampa
Lorain Toledo
Mobile Valdez
Nikiski Wilmington, NC
Norfolk
------
The current estimate of full ENC coverage for U.S. waters,
including specialized charts NOAA now produces in paper format, is
1000. A total of 660 ENCs would be required to provide minimum full
contiguous coverage for U.S. waters, in order to connect coastal waters
between U.S. ports for safe navigation. These steps are not included in
the President's request for fiscal year 2002.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Does charting 1 percent of the EEZ represent
the basic need? Will there be charting beyond the 1 percent
once that is completed?
Ms. Davidson. We certainly would hope so. With an upgrade
of resources, we could of course accelerate the rate of
conversion to electronic nautical charts.
Mr. Gilchrest. Okay. I just have one last question. I am
not sure who from NOAA can answer it.
About a year or two or three ago, we worked with a number
countries from around the world with the intent to reduce the
slaughter of right whales. Can someone tell me what the status
of that is? Is it ongoing? Is it successful? Have we reduced
the deaths of right whales?
Dr. Hogarth I know it has continued to work, but right
whales still have ways to go.
[NOAA's response follows:]
NOAA works through several international fora, bi-lateral
cooperation (with Canada), and ongoing research to help protect right
whales. The following is a list of recent and ongoing international
activities by NOAA to protect right whales:
International Whaling Commission (IWC)
NOAA scientists serve on the International Whaling Commission's
(IWC) Scientific Committee (SC). The past US Commissioner was NOAA's
Undersecretary for Oceans. The SC develops and provides recommendations
to the IWC which in turn recommends protective measures for whales,
globally. . Right whales have been a primary focus of this group and
recent actions are no exception. For example, working through this
group, NOAA scientists helped expose illegal hunting of right whales
and data falsification by whalers from the former Soviet Union.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
NOAA works actively with the IMO, the primary international body
regulating shipping activities, to raise awareness of the international
shipping community to the plight of right whales.
LThe IMO receives regular updates on right whales from the
US delegation (including NOAA reps) at its annual and various committee
meetings.
LNOAA staff helped Canada submit a proposal to the IMO on
ship routing measures in Canadian waters to reduce the risk of ship
strikes.
Mandatory Ship Reporting System
In a collaborative effort by NOAA, the US Coast Guard, and Marine
Mammal Commission, the US submitted a proposal to the IMO to establish
a Mandatory Ship Reporting system in U.S. east coast waters to reduce
the likelihood of ship strikes. It was endorsed by the IMO. As planned,
the system began operation in July 1999 and is functioning on a daily
basis. The system affects all commercial vessels (over 300 gross tons)
entering US ports, including foreign flag vessels.
Management Options for Reducing Ship Strikes
NOAA is studying various management options to reduce ship strikes
and the legal authority needed to implement them. NOAA is working
closely with the shipping industry, economists, and analysts to provide
recommendations. The recommendations are due in September and will
certainly affect foreign flag vessels and will almost certainly include
recommendations on increasing international mariner awareness about
right whales.
Navigational Aids
NOAA provides information to regularly update publications by the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Notice to Mariners and Sailing
Directions, which are essential documents for U.S. pilots entering
foreign waters.
Collaboration with Canada
NOAA has regular bi-lateral meetings with Canada to facilitate
collaboration on right whale (and other marine mammal) protective
measures. Such collaboration includes:
Lensuring Canadian and US fishing gear restrictions are
compatible, to the extent practicable, and collaboration on determining
the types of fishing gear involved in whale entanglements
Lright whale field studies in Canadian waters
LNOAA staff provides supporting documentation,
information, and expertise for vessel traffic separation regimes and
other measures taken in Canadian waters to reduce ship strikes of right
whales
LNOAA scientists provide advice and expertise on
permitting requirements for scientific research in on right whales in
Canadian waters
North Pacific Right Whales
LNOAA scientists are currently engaged, with National
Marine Fisheries Service funding, to conduct boat and aircraft surveys
throughout the Bering Sea to assess abundance and distribution of North
Pacific right whales. These studies include biopsy sampling (for
genetic studies), individual photoidentification studies (to study
demographics, population size, and assess types and extent of human
impacts), and photogrammetry studies (to assess size distributions and
assess health).
LNOAA scientists recently helped identify the existence
of, helped quantify the size of, and are working to reduce human
impacts to, a North Pacific right whale population found along the
eastern North Pacific rim, in Russian and Asian waters.
LNOAA scientists recently published a paper on every known
(historic) take or death of a North Pacific right whale, including all
known causes due to human activities.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Bill.
My last comment, I guess, before I yield to Mr. Underwood.
About the piping plover, when I see Mr. Ortiz--just for
frame of reference purposes, a neutral suggestion, for
migrating shore birds, would be to read the book ``Sea of
Slaughter,'' by Farley Mowat. Just for frame of reference on
what we have left and what we need to do.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, and thank you for this hearing,
again.
And I just wanted to ask one last question on fisheries
research and data collection, for Mr. Hogarth, and ask about
managing fisheries based on all the insufficient data.
This year, the agency requested a $13 million increase for
stock assessment work. Is this amount sufficient to deal with
the backlog in stock assessments? What would be an amount that
would be sufficient?
Dr. Hogarth I think this will get us to a point where we
will be able to respond to the level of stock assessments now
sort of on the back burner because we haven't been able to do
them.
If you look through the budget, there is also money for
increased surveys. And I think that total package is what we
are looking at to give us the increased data. The quality
research of the industry will help get improved data also. And
the requested stock assessment funding will enable us to hire
some new stock assessment people, some who need to look at
ecosystem management, some new thinking to look at modelling,
to look at climatic conditions in the ecosystem as a whole.
So this will be a continuing effort, and it is not just a
one-time, in my opinion, but it is a long-term, continuing
level of funding that we need.
Mr. Underwood. Do you have a dollar amount that would
satisfy the backlog?
Dr. Hogarth I will think about it.
[NOAA's response follows:]
NOAA has two documents that define requirements for both expanding
and improving stock assessments and their underlying fisheries data
collection programs. The NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP)
has projected the requirements to attain the goal of Tier Three stock
assessments, which is a new term for the next generation of ecosystem
assessments requiring substantial new or expanded data collection and
research. There is a progression of improving the quality and quantity
of assessment advice from Tier One to Tier Three.
Tier One status, closest to being achieved if the President's
fiscal year 2002 requested increase of $13.3 million is funded,
requires minimal new data collection. Currently, 23 percent of the U.S.
stocks included in the annual report to Congress are being assessed at
least at the Tier One level. With the requested increase in days-at-sea
and the addition of more staff to process samples, manage and quality
control data, and derive and interpret assessment models, we can mine
existing data resources and assess some of the unknown stocks, or more
frequently assess known stocks, using relatively basic single species
models. Total costs for Tier One are $15.5 million per year.
Tier Two would elevate all stocks to a nationally-acceptable
minimum standard of quality and frequency as identified by the regional
councils and NMFS and consistent with National Research Council
recommendations, but requires substantial amounts of new data in
addition to more staff. Currently, 16 percent of U.S. stocks are being
assessed at least at the Tier Two level. Funding Tier Two completely
would achieve baseline monitoring for all federally-managed species,
and upgrade core fishery management plan species to annual assessments
using aggregated stock production models. Tier Two costs are estimated
at $38 million per year.
Tier Three advances the state-of-the-art in stock assessment by
incorporating multi-species, environmental, and spatial data into
seasonal ecosystem analyses. Significant data and basic research
investments are required to attain Tier Three status. The long term
goal upon completion of the SAIP is for all managed species to have, at
a minimum, a scientific application of a surplus production stock
assessment model (level 3, on a one to five scale), with all core
species assessed at a higher level (4 or 5), which incorporates
ecosystem and environmental parameters into the models. An estimated
$46 million would be needed to completely fund Tier Three's approach.
Tier Three is a long-term objective because considerable research is
required and new time series of consistent data collection must be
initiated.
The different Tiers of stock assessment excellence provide useful
benchmarks for monitoring performance improvements in the scientific
knowledge base upon which management policies are developed. NOAA's
strategy reflected in the fiscal year 2002 President's request is to
seek a combination of Tier One and Tier Two improvements to reflect the
priority species of NMFS and the regional councils. This investment
will improve NOAA's scientific and technology competencies to collect
and process the additional data into sound policy advice, and
communicate it effectively to managers and the industry.
______
Mr. Underwood. Maybe some hypothesis-driven research.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Hogarth One of the problems we have, to be honest with
you, is people. There are just not enough people coming out of
the universities to do stock assessments. So we are trying to
work with the universities to develop programs to get people
trained in stock assessment work. They are just not currently
available and it is hard to find.
It is a total program, I think, of the modernization of the
ships, to get improved data collection, to get improved stock
assessments, social and economic data. It is all part of the
big package to allow us to be more responsive to the issues and
better data collection. Year 2001 started the process; 2002
will definitely continue it.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
I have one last question. Actually, two last yes or no
questions for Ms. Davidson from Mr. Young.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does NOAA intend to complete the site
characterization work on Pribilof Islands this year?
Ms. Davidson. I think that we are intending to make
substantial headway on the site characterization.
As we explained in a recent briefing with some of Mr.
Young's staff, we have almost fully characterized about 60 to
70 percent of the known sites. It is a fairly complex activity,
because you don't always fully appreciate the extent of
contamination until you get in and begin to do the site
characterization work. But it would be our goal.
We just finished contracting with an outside company to
review our on-site characterization to date, and they generally
concurred with our conclusions to date and our estimates of
likely requirements.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is a tentative ``yes.''
[Laughter.]
Ms. Davidson. Yes.
[Laughter.]
It is, but with the understanding that cleanup is a complex
issue.
Mr. Gilchrest. A tentative ``yes'' with the understanding
that it is difficult.
With that in mind--apparently there is a two-party
agreement, as far as the cost of all this--when will you have
some idea of cost for the final cleanup?
Ms. Davidson. Of course, that relates to the answer to the
first question, Mr. Chairman.
So we hope, with this next season, which is now, I am told,
November, that we not only have a better feeling for the extent
of the contamination as well as the complete cost requirements.
We would be happy to get back to you at the end of the
current season with the information.
Mr. Gilchrest. The end of the current season, that would
be?
Ms. Davidson. Well, cleanups can only really proceed from
about May to November in that particular geography. After that,
there are certain types of weather constraints.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you would like to wait until November to
answer this question?
Ms. Davidson. Well, I think that would be appropriate. I
could probably more fully answer the question for you. You
asked for a tentative answer, and I presume you would like--
Mr. Gilchrest. I didn't ask for a tentative answer. I think
Mr. Young wanted a--
[Laughter.]
But I will pass along what you said.
Ms. Davidson. Thank you, sir.
[NOAA's response follows:]
NOAA will make every effort to complete remaining site
characterization field work during the 2001 work season on the Pribilof
Islands. Once necessary field work is done, contractors will prepare
reports of the results of their work, and then NOAA will need to review
and evaluate those reports, and develop either risk assessments and/or
corrective action plans for the newly characterized sites.
Once corrective action plans for all sites are available, NOAA will
be able to develop an overall estimate of the cost to complete the
Pribilofs cleanup. Based on site characterization and related work in
past years, it is likely that NOAA's evaluation of contractors'
reports, and preparation of corrective action plans, will take 4-8
months after the end of the field season, or until the late Spring of
2002.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Davidson.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance. Your
testimony was very useful for all of us, and we would like to
continue to work with you on these issues in the coming months.
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
fish and wildlife service - budget hearing may 3, 2001
questions for the record
Question 1. What is the rationale for the proposed cap on how the
agency may spend ESA listing funds to comply with court orders or legal
settlements? What is the practical effect of this funding restriction?
Answer 1: The revised appropriations language continues a provision
recommended by the previous Administration, and enacted by Congress in
fiscal years 1998 through 2001, limiting the amount of the resource
management account that can be used for completing listings and
critical habitat designations to the amount intended to be provided by
Congress, as identified in accompanying legislative reports. That is,
the effect of the language is to prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service
from reprogramming funds from other programs to the listing program.
However, because some Courts have concluded that they have little or no
discretion to give the Service relief from certain underlying mandatory
deadlines in the ESA, even when limited listing funds do not allow the
Service to meet all of the ESA listing requirements, the President's
proposal also includes language clarifying that the Service may expend
its listing resources in fiscal year 2002 only to comply with existing
court orders or according to a priority system developed by the
Service. It is our intention that the priority system be biologically
based and issued only after public review and comment.
The Service listing program has a substantial backlog of work that
is needed to meet statutory requirements. Because of this backlog, the
Service needs a mechanism to allow for the orderly management of the
listing program that allows the Service to address the species most in
need. The Service also must be able to efficiently plan its work for
the year, without having to abruptly stop and start work and shift
resources from one Region to another in response to new court orders
throughout the year.
The proposed language would preclude the Service from spending
funds to comply with court orders to complete additional work in Fiscal
Year 2002 as a result of past failure to meet the required deadlines
identified in the ESA. The vast majority of deadlines we have missed,
and the associated litigation, is related to our failure in the past to
designate critical habitat at the time we listed the species. However,
courts may find other appropriate remedies--for example, by ordering us
to complete a critical habitat determination in fiscal year 2003. Also,
the proposed language would not affect citizens'' rights to sue over
the merits of any listing decision, or the remedies available to
Federal courts in such cases.
Question 2. On November 22, 2000, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service announced a listing freeze on threatened or endangered species
because of court order or settlement agreements. Please update the
Subcommittee on the number of pending court cases and settlement
agreements?
Answer 2: The Service did not announce a listing freeze. We stated
that we have allocated all of our fiscal year 2001 funding to meet
court-ordered deadlines and there are no additional resources to spend
this year on discretionary listing activities. Regretfully this notice
was interpreted by some as a listing ``freeze''.
We currently have 78 active lawsuits. This includes 45 cases that
we have not yet settled or are awaiting a court ruling. The remaining
33 cases have had an initial ruling or settlement agreement, but either
we are considering additional legal recourse (e.g., an appeal), or we
remain in litigation concerning the plaintiffs'' claim for attorney
fees.
Under an agreement announced August 28, 2001, with the Center for
Biological Diversity the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, and
the California Native Plant Society, the Service will issue final
listing decisions for 14 species and propose 8 more species for
listing. The Service will also be able to take action on four citizen
petitions to list species under the Act. The Service and the
organizations have agreed to extend deadlines for either other critical
habitat designations, thereby making funds available for these actions.
This agreement was filed with the U.S. District Court on September 28,
2001.
The species covered by the agreement face significant threats. For
example, the Service will consider emergency listing the Tumbling Creek
cave snail, which declined precipitously in the single cave in Missouri
where it is found, and Columbia Basin distinct population segment of
pigmy rabbits in Washington, which has declined to fewer that 50
individuals. The Service will also make final determinations for the
showy stickseed, the rarest plant in the State of Washington, with a
single population of fewer than 300 individuals; and the Mississippi
gopher frog, which is known from only one site in Harrison County,
Mississippi.
Under the agreement, the deadlines for final critical habitat
designations for five species and proposed and final critical habitat
designations for three others will be extended into this fiscal year.
The Service is using the funds that would have been spent on these
actions in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 to list new species, propose new
listings, work on other critical habitat designations, and respond to
petitions.
Question 3. How many endangered species were not listed because of
lawsuits and court ordered settlements?
Answer 3: It is impossible to determine exactly how many species
were not added to the lists of endangered or threatened species as
result of litigation. Unquestionably, the need to address critical
habitat designations required by court order and settlement agreement
have severely affected our ability to list species. For example, just
looking at our recent track record for fiscal year 1997 - fiscal year
2000, it is clear that we typically listed many more species during
that time frame than we will in fiscal year 2001. Final listing
determinations ranged from 157 species in fiscal year 1997 to 39
species in fiscal year 2000, with a median of 48 final listing
determinations per fiscal year. We completed 14 final listing
determinations in fiscal year 2001.
In addition, we presently have 236 species which we have placed on
the ``candidate'' list, all of which we have determined may warrant
listing. However, we have been precluded from acting on these species
due to the need to address the critical habitat issue described above.
Question 4. How much money did the federal government spend in
these lawsuits and how much did the litigants receive for their legal
efforts?
Answer 4: The Department of Justice estimates that the federal
government has paid approximately $1.25 million dollars in attorneys'
fees and costs since January 1995 for missed deadline cases and
defending determinations that designation of critical habitat was not
prudent.
While we do not have readily available figures for the costs
relating to defending against these lawsuits, we budget approximately
$800,000 in the listing program for litigation support. It is important
to note that it is not the costs litigation support alone that is the
primary problem for management of the endangered species listing
program. It is rather that the costs of complying with the various
court orders and attempting to meet the deadlines imposed by the courts
have in recent years consumed, and in some cases threatened to exceed,
the funds appropriated for these purposes.
Question 5. With the maintenance backlog at our National Wildlife
Refuge System now exceeding $830 million, how is an increase of only $8
million going to make any real difference in reducing this staggering
level?
Answer 5: All funding increases for maintenance projects help to
address the maintenance backlog and benefit the Refuge System. The
Refuge System has prioritized its maintenance needs in the DOI Five-
Year Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Plan, which uses a
standard scoring and ranking process to identify highest priority
maintenance needs for the budget year and the subsequent four years,
with highest priority given to health and safety. Any increase in
Deferred Maintenance funding will complete high priority projects
within that plan. Additionally, the fiscal year 2002 budget request
included an increase of $1.9 million in annual maintenance funding for
maintenance workers who will take care of small cyclical maintenance
needs and keep them from being added to the backlog.
The rate of increase of the maintenance backlog has been steadily
slowing down in recent years as a result of increases in both annual
maintenance and deferred maintenance funding. Refuge maintenance needs
are also supported by the following appropriations: Construction,
Operations and Maintenance of Quarters, BLM Wildland Fire Management,
and Federal Aid - Highways.
Question 6. How much money is required for nutria eradication at
the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 1902?
Answer 6: The cost to continue research on nutria population
control and ecology at Blackwater NWR is $498,000, currently split
between Refuges ($299K) and Ecological Services ($199K). Since the
program is conducted both on and off the refuge, and involves other
federal agencies, private landowners and the state, the Service is
working with these partners to identify other sources of funds to
initiate monitoring nutria-associated tidal marsh and wetland damage,
wetland restoration experiments and outreach programs. This will
adequately meet the highest objectives.
Question 7. What is the status of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Centennial Commission? When will the membership of this
Commission be announced?
Answer 7: On March 15, 2001, the Service sent a memorandum to the
Secretary of Interior with a listing of potential candidates for the
commission. At this time, the Secretary has made her appointments to
the Commission, and we are in discussion with the Congressional ex
officio members as to the best time to announce them. The charter for
the commission has been prepared and is being reviewed within the
Department.
Question 8. How many new refuges will be created in 2001?
Answer 8: At the time the budget was submitted, we projected the
creation of 11 new National Wildlife Refuges (NWR's) in Fiscal Year
2001. Eight were actually established: Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA,
North and South Dakota; Assabet River NWR, Massachusetts; Caddo Lake
NWR, Texas; Oahu Forest NWR, Hawaii; Vieques NWR, Puerto Rico; and
Palmyra Atoll NWR and Kingman Reef NWR in the Pacific.
Question 9. Why has the acquisition of 1,100 acres for the St.
Marks NWR in Florida merited the top of the Service's LAPS list?
Answer 9: The Service's Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS) for
ranking Land and Water Conservation Fund projects was first used in the
preparation of the Fiscal Year 1989 Budget Estimate. These criteria
remained substantially unchanged until 1998 when a major revision of
the criteria was undertaken. The revised criteria were first used in
the development of the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Estimate and include
four Components and a Project Summary. Each component can have a
maximum score of 200 points and the Project Summary an additional 50
points. The component questions are tied to Service trust
responsibilities. The criteria are used to rank the resources of the
project as a whole, not just the lands to be acquired. The overall
score for St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, Florida was 683 points,
the highest score of the 133 projects on the list. The average project
score for the 133 projects was 448.
The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Component addresses: (1) the
status and trends of aquatic populations; (2) species diversity for
trust resources; (3) critical or essential habitats including
watersheds and free-flowing rivers; (4) wetland types and trends
status; and (5) wetland losses by percent of historic wetland base by
state. St. Marks NWR scored 147 points on this component; the average
component score was 110.
The Endangered and Threatened Species Component: (1) is recovery-
oriented; (2) considers habitat and biological community integrity as
well as species occurrences; and (3) focuses on actual habitat use. St.
Marks NWR was one of 19 projects which scored the maximum, 200 points,
on this component.
The Bird Conservation Component consists of: (1) regionally-
developed lists of 70 species of concern for each region, as well as
Hawaii and Puerto Rico; (2) a population importance index; and (3) an
avian diversity index. Special emphasis is given to Non-game Species of
Management Concern and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Priority Waterfowl Species. St. Marks NWR scored 120 points on this
component; the average component score was 112.
The Ecosystem Conservation Component addresses: (1) bio-diversity
through distribution and abundance of rare communities; (2) ecosystem
decline and protection of native diversity of threatened ecosystems:
(3) landscape conservation by preserving large, intact habitats through
partnerships; and (4) contributions to national plans and designations.
St. Marks NWR scored 191 out of 200 possible points on this component.
Only three of the 133 projects scored higher.
Question 10. I understand that a new visitors center is being built
at the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge in Newburyport,
Massachusetts. What is the cost of constructing that facility? How much
has been appropriated for that headquarters complex? (A total of $3.4
million in fiscal year 1900 and fiscal year 1901) How will the
additional money be raised? Is the public being asked to contribute
and, if yes, is that a normal course of business?
Answer 10-1: The estimated cost to construct the facility is
$7,217,294, including estimated private contributions of $1,950,000.
Although the Service will complete the project with available funds,
other federal funds are being sought to provide for other portions of
the project.
Answer 10-2: Refer to the appropriation history provided below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2133.002
Answer 10-3: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is expected to
contribute $1,000,000 for construction of the complex. The remaining
$950,000 in non-federal funding is to be raised by local support
groups, although these groups have not yet been able to meet this
target.
Answer 10-4: The public is being asked to contribute and this is
not an unusual practice. The remaining $950,000 in non-federal funding
was to be raised by local support groups. Activities in support of fish
and wildlife conservation are funded from unsolicited contributions to
the Service from other governments, private organizations, and
individuals. Donations for Visitor Centers are collected in special
projects within Contributed Funds. Congress has stipulated that the
cost of new Visitor Centers at sites such as Bear River NWR, Parker
River NWR, and Chincoteague NWR will be split, with 50 percent of the
public use portion of the project coming from private groups and other
contributions, and 50 percent from federal funds.
Question 11. What is the cost to acquire the Kingman Island
National Wildlife Refuge lands? Isn't the Service being sued by
Americans who believe they have a legal title to Kingman Island? What
is the status of this case and will this property be paid for with LWCF
or Migratory Bird funding?
Answer 11: There was no cost to acquire the Kingman Reef National
Wildlife Refuge lands. The FWS was delegated administrative
jurisdiction and control of Kingman Reef through the Secretary of the
Interior on January 18, 2001. The Office of Insular Affairs previously
had administrative jurisdiction and control of the area.
A suit has been filed by the Fullard-Leo family against the FWS
regarding their alleged ownership of Kingman Reef. A pre-trial
conference was held between the magistrate and the attorneys on May 21,
2001, as the first step towards setting the time schedule for the rest
of the proceedings. More specific information was not available as of
the date of this report.
The United States Government has long held that Kingman Reef is
federally-owned property and thus there is no to purchase the property
with either LWCF nor Migratory Bird funds.
Question 12. The President's budget request included $6.705 million
for the highly successful National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This
is some $519,000 less than the Foundation received in the current
fiscal year. Why did the Foundation not receive at least level funding
for fiscal year 1902? In your opinion, could the Foundation effectively
use additional resources? I am troubled by this request because of the
fact that the Foundation grows every federal dollar it receives by at
least one and in most cases three to one. It appears that this is the
kind of program that we need to fund more often and to the maximum
extent possible. Do you agree?
Answer 12: The Administration's budget request focused on core
operating programs within the Service and funded the NFWF at historic
funding levels. The Foundation has a proven track record of effectively
leveraging Federal funding, and could probably use additional resources
. . . but so too could many of the core Service programs. The budget
request funds the highest priority Service needs.
Question 13. In fiscal year 1900, the Foundation received some $15
million from the Department of the Interior and some $10.5 million from
the Fish and Wildlife Service alone. With all of the leveraging
capability of the Foundation, what did this figure grow to during that
year?
Answer 13: In fiscal year 2000, the Foundation received
approximately $10.5 million through the FWS appropriation. These funds
were matched by an additional $25 million in non-federal contributions
generated by both the Foundation and its grantees, for a total
conservation investment of $35.5 million. In general, for every federal
dollar appropriated to the Foundation through the FWS in fiscal year
2000, $3.4 was invested in on-the-ground conservation.
Question 14. Why has the Administration not recommend either full
funding or at least an increase for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
Answer 14: Units of local government receive annual payments from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to offset tax losses from the
purchase of fee title lands in accordance with the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s). The Act requires the Service to deposit
net receipts into the National Wildlife Refuge Fund to make annual
payments to counties; if net receipts are not sufficient, the Service
may request additional appropriations from Congress. The fiscal year
2002 budget requests $11,414,000 in appropriations for the National
Wildlife Refuge Fund to supplement the estimated net receipts of
$4,283,000 to make payments to counties and boroughs. The fiscal year
2002 request balances Revenue Sharing needs with other Service
priorities within a limited budget.
However, the Service continues to provide other benefits to its
county partners besides the annual Revenue Sharing payment. Using a
substantial share of refuge and construction dollars for visitor
services and facilities brings visitors to refuges and thus increases
economic benefits to the local communities. For example, those who seek
recreation on refuges (birdwatching, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.)
also circulate money into the local economies by staying in hotels,
eating in restaurants, and buying recreational supplies. Having Service
lands in the area provides both recreational and economic benefits to
the local communities.
Question 15. The growth and expansion of invasive species is a
growing problem within our refuge system. I understand the backlog for
invasive species projects is at least $140 million. How much is being
proposed for the elimination of invasive species in fiscal year 1902?
Answer 15: The Service will continue to spend at least $3 million
on invasive species on national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2002.
Invasive species pose a great threat to habitats and wildlife not only
on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but throughout the
nation.
Question 16. What is the status of the Invasive Species Council?
Has the Council met and have they issued any recommendations?
Answer 16: The National Invasive Species Council (Council) was
established by Executive Order 13112 to provide national leadership
regarding invasive species. The Council held its first meeting in July
1999. The specific focus of the Council is to ensure that Federal
agency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated,
complementary, cost-efficient, and effective. The Council includes the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture,
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Administrator of
the Agency for International Development, and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (the last 2 joined recently). The Council is Co-
Chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture,
and the Secretary of Commerce. [The Council has met 3 times over the
last two years--the most recent meeting occurred January 2001. UPDATE]
The Executive Order called for the Council to produce and update
biennially a National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan). The
first edition of the Plan, entitled ``Meeting the Invasive Species
Challenge,'' was approved by the Council on January 18, 2001. It
identifies nine priority areas for addressing invasive species
problems. It also recommends actions that the Council will undertake in
coordination and partnership with other stakeholders as appropriate.
The Executive Order also required the establishment of an Invasive
Species Advisory Committee which consists of qualified representatives
from outside of the Federal government. Their role is to provide
stakeholder input to help the Council achieve the goals and objectives
outlined in the Executive Order. The 32-member Advisory Committee was
established in 1999, and it held its first meeting in January 2000. The
Advisory Committee has met 5 times and provided significant input on
the Plan and other Council initiatives.
Question 17. What is the current maintenance backlog at our
National Fish Hatchery System? How would you describe the general
condition of our hatcheries? For instance, how many hatcheries are
older than 50 years old, 40 years old, 30 years or 20 years?
Answer 17: The current maintenance backlog at our 87 National Fish
Hatchery System (NFHS) facilities consists of 1,341 projects totaling
$280 million. This amounts to 31% of the $890 million replacement value
of our field facilities, a ratio known as the Facility Condition Index.
Ratios in excess of 10% indicate facilities in poor condition. Half of
the backlog projects involve the rehabilitation of critical water
supplies essential to fulfilling the station's mission. Effects on the
NFHS's mission are already being felt due to the deteriorating water
supplies at our National Fish Hatcheries, which average over 60 years
old. Of the 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 41 are over 50 years old, 14
are between the age of 40 and 50 years, 9 are between the age of 30 and
40 years, 2 are between the age of 20 and 30 years, and only 4 are
under 20 years old. Due to the aged and deteriorating state of water
delivery and control systems, incidents of fish losses (some involving
listed species) have occurred. Fortunately, the hatchery system
received $4.0 million in Title VIII maintenance in fiscal year 2001, to
help meet some of these needs. And, the Service continues to prioritize
construction needs within available funding. For example, $7.4 million
was appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and the Administration has
requested $6.6 million in fiscal year 2002 for hatchery construction
requests.
Question 18. What is the rationale for cutting funding for hatchery
maintenance by $5 million dollars?
Answer 18: The funding referred to in the question was pass-through
funding that Congress provided for fiscal year 2001 for the Washington
State Hatchery Improvement Project. The fiscal year 2002 budget request
proposed to discontinue this pass-through funding because of high
priority needs within the Service. This funding was used by the state
hatchery system, the Long Live the Kings project, and the Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission to initiate state-led reforms of salmon and
steelhead hatcheries in Puget Sound and the marine coast of Washington
State. Approximately $200,000 was available to the Service for these
activities.
The Administration, however, is continuing to fund the Pacific
Coast Salmon Recovery Fund in fiscal year 2002, which provides
financial assistance to Pacific Northwest State, local and tribal
governments to conduct activities, such as those under the Washington
Hatchery Improvement Project, to restore Pacific salmon. The Recovery
Fund is included in the Department of Commerce budget proposal.
Question 19. Why is the production of both hatchery fish and fish
eggs down so significantly in fiscal year 02?
Answer 19: The Service's 70 National Fish Hatcheries produce fish
and fish eggs to recover and restore troubled aquatic species, to help
mitigate the deleterious effects of federal water projects, to meet
tribal trust responsibilities, and help provide recreational
opportunities for the Nation's 50 million licensed anglers.
Between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2000, the number of fish
and fish eggs produced by National Fish Hatcheries has been reduced by
8% and 16%, respectively, as shown in the following table. In fiscal
year 2001 this trend is expected to continue with the number of fish
and fish eggs decreasing by 1.4% and 2.5%, respectively. The Fisheries
Program has recently increased its focus on recovery and restoration
programs, which require fewer fish propagated under more rigorous
scientific controls. Because of this, some production from on-going
restoration and recovery programs may be reduced to incorporate better
science and technology. The Service intends to produce a better quality
fish that will have a greater chance of survival in the wild which will
enhance the recovery and restoration of aquatic species.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2133.003
Question 20. Why are private hatcheries prohibited by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service from producing species like American sturgeon?
Answer 20: The Fish and Wildlife Service does not prohibit private
hatcheries from holding or producing sturgeon, unless the species is
listed under the Endangered Species Act, in which case a special permit
is required. The Service has no other jurisdiction over commercial
sturgeon production.
The Service's Southeast Region has recommended that the rearing of
non-indigenous sturgeon species be avoided within watersheds that
contain populations of native sturgeon, due to the potential for
introduction of new diseases and the potential for competition or
hybridization with native species. There are currently at least ten
commercial producers of non-indigenous sturgeon in Florida alone. Best
management practices have been developed by the State of Florida to
minimize the chances for escapement. However, the effectiveness of
these practices is unknown.
Commercial production of native species, such as the Atlantic
sturgeon, presents risks to wild populations. New markets and increased
demand for native sturgeon increases the potential for poaching wild
fish. Additionally, native species bred for desirable aquaculture
traits, such as fast growth, may not retain the genetic diversity
needed to optimize survival in the wild. Escapement of aquaculture fish
could thereby lead to a ``swamping'' of wild gene pools with fish of
limited genetic diversity. The Service's Southeast Region has
recommended that genetic guidelines, similar to those established by
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, be followed for
commercial production of native Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon and that
best management practices necessary to minimize chances for escapement
be monitored and enforced.
The Fish and Wildlife Service does regulate trade of several
sturgeon species for commercial purposes (e.g. caviar or flesh produced
for international markets) under the Convention on International Trade
of Endangered Species (CITES), but that does not affect production and
sale within the U.S.
Question 21. What is the status of the Mescalero National Fish
Hatchery in New Mexico?
Answer 21: Operations at the Mescalero NFH were suspended in
November 2000 as a result of chronic physical problems at the facility
including: radon levels in the hatchery building that at times greatly
exceed OSHA allowable levels for human safety; high nitrogen levels in
the water; hard water that creates kidney stones in older fish; and
cracking raceways and buildings caused by unstable soil. In 1999 muddy,
debris-laden water caused by a forest fire above the hatchery flooded
the hatchery killing all 230,000 rainbow trout and burying Carrillo
Spring, one of the hatchery's two main springs. In fiscal year 2000,
the hatchery was flooded again, killing 70,000 rainbow trout and
burying Carrillo Spring again. The Service recognized that without
correcting the above problems, future fish production would be tenuous
as best and decided to terminate operations. The Mescalero Tribal
Council has passed a resolution supporting our decision to suspend
operations. The Service has met with the other tribes that receive fish
from Mescalero NFH, and is working closely with them to find a viable
solution to this problem.
The Service is looking to replace the lost production at Mescalero
by utilizing other National Fish Hatcheries.
Question 22. Last year, Congress provided $400,000 to fund grants
to states for the portion of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act. When this Subcommittee extended that Act two years
ago, the Service stated that this was a priority and that your need was
$3.5 million and $4.5 million for state grants. Why does the Service
refuse to ask for funding increases for this program?
Answer 22: The Service, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the
eight states in the Great Lakes have made progress in addressing the
goals of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act and
implementing the recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources
Restoration Study. The Service has balanced this funding need against
all other National funding priorities.
In fiscal year 2000, the Service's Fisheries Program reported
accomplishing 112 projects in seven of the eight Great Lake states
totaling $3.5 million to restore fishery resources and combat invasive
species. Since fiscal year 1998, the maximum amount that the Service
has requested under its authority in the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act is $1,278,000. The remaining funds are requested under
other Service authorities. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Service
has provided $75,000 each year to fund restoration grants, as shown in
the table below. In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, Congress
provided an additional $400,000 under the restoration grant authority.
The Service has maximized the use of available funds to finance 27
recommended projects.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2133.004
Question 23. This Subcommittee was involved with passing the
Fisheries Mitigation and Irrigation Partnership Act. Why did the
Service fail to ask for new funds under the authorities of the new Act?
If this is a priority for the Service, are you going to ask for funds
in fiscal year 1903? If Congress appropriated funds for this Act, how
would you spend the money?
Answer 23: The Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act
was signed into law in November 2000, after unfunded operational needs
were identified and prioritized in the Fisheries Operational Needs
System (FONS) and after fiscal year 2002 budget development. The
Service will identify regional priorities this summer. The priorities
can be used in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, depending on
availability of funding.
If the additional funding were available, the Service would
implement fish screening projects that provide major benefits in
proportion to their costs and time requirements (table below). In
partnership with state, tribal, and local governments, initial efforts
would focus on known projects that can be undertaken without complex
planning and engineering and using existing implementation processes.
As the projects move forward, the Service would work with the Northwest
states, tribes, and other partners to systematically identify other
high priority projects by: (1) developing a regional inventory and a
prioritization and review process; (2) entering into cooperative
agreements with regional governments; (3) providing technical support;
(4) implementing projects, and; (5) monitoring progress and
accomplishments. Service administrative costs are limited to no more
than six percent of the overall funding level of the program. The
Service has not determined the direct costs for program implementation.
Generally, the Service would use 75 percent of the funding for
screening and passage facilities construction, equipment procurement,
or modifications to existing structures. No more than 25 percent of
available funds would be spent on coordination, planning and design.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2133.005
Question 24. The Service testified last year before this
Subcommittee on the importance and continued need for restoring striped
bass during the oversight hearing on the Striped Bass Act. Why does the
Service fail to request full funding for this Act?
Answer 24: The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act authorizes a
maximum amount of $250,000 for the Service. The Service's Fisheries
Program utilizes a higher amount of general program funds to restore
and manage striped bass. In fiscal year 2000, the Service reported
accomplishing 23 anadromous striped bass projects in 7 states totaling
$948,000 along the Atlantic Coast.
The Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Atlantic Coast States have
restored most of the Atlantic coast striped bass stocks under the
jurisdiction of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. The Service
will continue to work with our partners to help properly manage these
stocks. In other places, striped bass stocks remain below restoration
goals, and the Service will continue to participate in appropriate
restoration efforts.
Question 25. This Subcommittee intends to examine the Anadromous
Fish Conservation Act. Please provide us with a detailed list of
projects funded in the past and the amount of funding provided for
these efforts.
Answer 25: The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act authorizes the
Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to enter into cooperative
agreements with states and other non-federal interests for the
conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous fish,
including those in the Great Lakes, and to contribute up to 50 percent
as the federal share of the cost of carrying out such agreements. The
Act authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct investigations,
engineering and biological surveys, research, stream clearance, and
construction, maintenance and operations of hatcheries and devices and
structures for improving movement, feeding and spawning conditions.
Enacted in 1965, the Act allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service to
work with states and others to rebuild the nation's anadromous fish
resources, which were then at extremely low levels. For example,
through a coordinated program among the Service, other federal
agencies, states, and private interests, the decline of Atlantic Coast
striped bass was reversed and stocks were restored to self-sustaining
status.
Between 1966 and 1992, the Fish and Wildlife Service contributed
nearly $55 million to fund over one thousand projects under the Act.
The table below provides 23 examples, representative of projects funded
through fiscal year 1991. However, no funds have been appropriated
under the Act since 1992.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2133.006
Question 26. How is the Service fulfilling its responsibilities to
assist State and Interstate Commissions in conserving coastal and
anadromous fishery resources?
Answer 26: The Service assists the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commissions, which encompass 23 member states.
In October 2000, the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commissions approved a joint resolution recognizing Service
contributions, including management assistance for coastal fisheries,
cooperative conservation programs for anadromous species, conservation
and enhancement of coastal fisheries habitat, and research to provide
information for state and federal agencies to secure the public trust
in coastal fishery resources. The resolution called for strengthening
the Service's policies and programs that support the states.
In compliance with the Atlantic Coastal Act, the Service supports
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in collecting,
managing, and analyzing fishery data; law enforcement; habitat
conservation; fishery research; and fishery management planning. The
Service has official representation on ASMFC's Policy Board, Management
Boards, Technical Committees and Plan Review Teams. We assist ASMFC in
planning and implementing the Atlantic States Cooperative Statistics
Program. The Service's Fisheries Program also maintains the striped
bass tagging database, which is relied upon by the ASMFC to manage the
economically important striped bass fishery.
The Service has three current Memoranda of Understanding with the
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), encompassing Federal
Aid in Sport Fish Restoration administrative funding, co-location and
administration support for the Service's Gulf Coast Fisheries
Coordination Office, and a study on the restoration of striped bass in
three Gulf of Mexico river systems. National Fish Hatcheries in the
southeast and southwest produce Gulf striped bass in support of GSMFC
restoration efforts. The Service participates in the development and
implementation of the Fisheries Information Network (FIN) to improve
the collection, management and dissemination of recreational and
commercial fisheries statistics in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout
the Southeast and Caribbean. GSMFC is an ex officio member of the
national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, which Service co-
chairs, and is a member of the ANS Task Force's Gulf of Mexico Regional
Panel, which addresses prevention and control of aquatic invasive
species.
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is working
to designate the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a Wild and
Scenic River to be managed by the Service. The Service assists PSMFC in
developing and maintaining a coordinated marking and mark recovery
program for west coast salmon and steelhead populations. The Service
provides financial support for the Regional Mark Processing Center,
provides tag release and recovery information to the PSMFC Regional
Mark Processing Committee, and serves as a Committee member. The
Service participates in the development and implementation of the PSMFC
Streamnet database to improve collection, management, and dissemination
of fishery resource data for western and Pacific Coast states. The
Service also works with the PSMFC to prevent the spread of invasive
species through dissemination of outreach material.
Activities of the Service's National Wildlife Refuge System,
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and Coastal Program support the
Commissions'' plans through habitat protection and restoration. Under
the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act, Service Law Enforcement
personnel routinely assist states in protecting various anadromous fish
and mollusk species. They work on task forces with the states and
National Marine Fisheries Service agents to protect both saltwater and
freshwater species around the country. The Service also provides
funding from the Sport Fish Restoration Fund to state marine fishery
agencies to support restoration of recreational fisheries, many of
which are also harvested commercially. Each Commission receives
$200,000 annually in Sport Fish Restoration Funds. Additionally, the
PSMFC received $200,000 to support the Regional Mark Processing Center
and $200,000 to manage the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a
Wild and Scenic River.
Question 27. What is the outlook for restoring lake trout in the
Great Lakes in view of the 2000 Consent Decree in the treaty rights
litigation U.S. v Michigan and the Service's request for increased
funding to implement the Decree?
Answer 27: The outlook is very optimistic, provided the parties to
the consent decree are able to match their intentions with solid
funding commitments. The August, 2000 Consent Decree provides an
unprecedented opportunity to advance lake trout restoration in Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron and to maintain success achieved in eastern
Lake Superior. For decades, efforts to restore lake trout have been
impeded by uncoordinated harvest management and controversy between
anglers and tribal treaty fishers, as well as exotic species and the
degraded environment of the Great Lakes. The 20-year Consent Decree
makes lake trout restoration a joint focus of tribal governments and
the State of Michigan, who share the harvest and management of
fisheries in 19,000 square miles of treaty waters. Public support for
lake trout restoration has never been greater. The Michigan United
Conservation Clubs, representing 500 affiliated clubs and nearly
100,000 members, participated in negotiations leading to the Decree and
expressed strong support for the settlement, especially the priority
placed on lake trout restoration.
Successful implementation will depend on efforts by all parties to
the settlement. The tribes and State of Michigan are required to
closely manage lake trout harvest. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
responsible for assessing lake trout populations, monitoring fisheries,
providing third party technical consultation and advice, and expanding
annual lake trout production by about one million yearlings. The
Service's National Fish Hatcheries have reared and stocked over 15
million quality lake trout yearlings into restoration zones during the
past five years, a strategy that has proved successful in restoration
of lake trout in Lake Superior. Stocked lake trout in restoration zones
of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are nearing abundance levels where
reproduction could begin on historically important spawning reefs. The
Decree also recognizes the need for effective control of the parasitic
sea lamprey, especially in the St. Mary's River, where newly developed
control methods have markedly reduced lake trout mortality. Parties to
the Consent Decree also agree that research is needed to identify other
factors limiting lake trout reproduction.
The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes $1.2
million for the Great Lakes Consent Decree. Funds will be administered
through the Fisheries Program and will allow the Service to comply with
the objectives outlined in the Consent Decree. Funding for the Hatchery
system will enhance the lake trout rehabilitation program by increasing
propagation and hatchery product evaluation in order to meet aggressive
production goals for restoration of native lake trout. Funding for the
Management Assistance Program will support stock assessment, lake trout
stocking and biological and management assistance to tribal and state
partners. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 construction request
includes $940,000: $200,000 for the planning and design phase to
replace the M/V Togue lake trout stocking vessel and $740,000 for Iron
River NFH to replace the domes at the Schacte Creek with a structurally
supported building. Full follow-on funding to complete these projects
is included in the five-year plan: $2.46 million for Iron River NFH in
fiscal year 2003 and $4.3 million in fiscal year 2004 for replacing the
M/V Togue. This will provide a total of $7.7 million in construction.
Question 28. What are the prospects for recovery of listed fish
species that have been the subject of long-term recovery efforts such
as Apache trout, Gila trout and greenback cutthroat trout?
Answer 28: Prospects for recovery of the Apache trout, Gila trout,
and greenback cutthroat trout are excellent. Due to the long-term
recovery efforts, these species are on the brink of de-listing or down-
listing. Coordinated recovery actions, including habitat restoration,
removal of non-natives, and establishment of new populations through
captive propagation have proven to be an effective formula for
successful recovery of healthy, self-sustaining wild populations.
Continued progress towards recovery, however, depends upon continued
support and funding for recovery activities.
The Gila trout Recovery Team has recently recommended down-listing
the Gila trout from endangered to threatened, and the Service expects
to propose this action in late 2001. Recovery goals, including
protecting and replicating the four known non-hybridized lineages, have
been met. Habitat destruction and interbreeding with non-native rainbow
trout, the main causes of the decline, have been remedied through
removal of non-natives, construction of stream barriers to exclude non-
natives, and the ``seeding'' of genetically appropriate new populations
through captive propagation. Moving fish into ``emergency refugia,''
has also been important in the recovery process, thereby saving remnant
or newly replicated populations from catastrophic conditions and
speeding recovery. Criteria for de-listing have been developed as part
of the revised recovery plan.
A proposal to de-list the Apache trout is expected by December
2003. Recovery of the species requires replication of at least 13
lineages, comprising 30 populations. To date, five lineages have been
replicated and 24 populations have been established. Eight populations
remain to be replicated, along with the construction of five stream
barriers (21 are now in place), which will result in 32 self-sustaining
populations. The Fish & Wildlife Service, Forest Service, State of
Arizona, and White Mountain Apache Tribe have made great strides toward
the removal of threats (non-native trout and habitat destruction) and
the de-listing of the Apache trout.
The greenback cutthroat trout is within two populations of the
recovery criterion of 20 stable reproducing populations. Eighteen
populations have been established, representing the Arkansas River and
South Platte River drainages. Removal of non-native fish and
introduction of captive propagated fish have been key to progress
towards recovery. It is expected to take approximately five years to
establish and document long-term persistence of the two remaining
populations. A coordinated, long range management plan and cooperative
agreement must also be completed prior to de-listing. Competition and
interbreeding with non-native brook and brown trout were the primary
factors in the decline of the species.
Question 29. Why is the Refuge Program trying to ban tournament
fishing from all National Wildlife Refuges and recreational fishing
from other units?
Answer 29: The Service is not trying to ban tournament fishing from
all National Wildlife Refuges and recreational fishing from other
units. We published the proposed Recreational Fishing chapter (605 FW
3.1) and several other chapters relating to Refuge System management in
the Federal Register on January 16, 2001. Section 3.13(I) of the
proposal states that tournament fishing would be allowed if the ``event
builds appreciation for and an understanding of fish and wildlife
resources, does not reasonably interfere with other refuge visitors,
and if prizes of only nominal value are awarded.'' Similar wording was
used in the proposed Appropriate Uses Chapter (603 FW 1) published for
comment at the same time.
The Service has received substantial comment on the proposed
change. We will review all comments and will make necessary changes to
the policy to ensure it provides the best possible guidance to our
managers. The Service has already entered into discussions with major
fishing organizations, including those which support tournaments, in
order to craft a revision which will meet the need fishing public and
sound refuge management.
The Service continues to strongly support recreational fishing as
an appropriate and wholesome form of outdoor recreation. Over 300
National Wildlife Refuges are open to fishing, and that number
increases each year. The Refuge System offers visitors some of the
greatest opportunities available to get out and go fishing and our
policy will ensure that tradition continues.
Question 30. Describe the goals of the Landowner Incentive Program?
When will authorizing legislation be submitted to Congress?
Answer 30: The new $50 million Landowner Incentive Program under
the Land and Water Conservation Fund will increase the capability of
states, the District of Columbia, territories, and tribes to provide
technical and financial assistance to private landowners through the
establishment of a matching grants program. This assistance will
establish or supplement existing landowner incentives programs to
protect and manage habitat for federally listed, proposed, or candidate
species, or other at-risk species, while continuing to engage in
traditional land use practices.
The President's budget included appropriations language to provide
authority for the appropriation of funds for these programs, but we
look forward to working with the authorizing Committees to fully
develop this program in future years.
Question 31. Describe the intent of the Private Stewardship Grant
Program? Isn't this a new unauthorized program?
Answer 31: The purpose of the Private Stewardship Grant Program is
to establish a nationally competitive grants process that will provide
funding and other assistance to individuals and groups engaged in
private conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed,
or candidate species, or other at-risk species. The President's budget
includes recommended language to provide authority for the
appropriation of funds for this program. Again, however, look forward
to working with you to fully develop this program in future years.
Question 32. How many acres will be conserved in fiscal year 1902
under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act?
Answer 32: The fiscal year 2002 request for the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act is $14,912,000. These funds will benefit an
estimated 409,000 acres.
Question 33. What is the rationale for the huge increase in the
amount of excise taxes that will be allocated to the Sport Fish
Restoration Account in fiscal year 1902?
Answer 33: The large difference that exists between the Sport Fish
Restoration (SFR) interest of $41.884 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and
the revised interest estimate of $83 million (The fiscal year 2001
interest estimate has recently been revised from $88 million to $83
million to more accurately reflect the lower yields caused by declining
interest rates.) in Fiscal Year 2001 for the following two reasons:
1. LSome investments matured on Saturday, September 30, 2000, the
last day of fiscal year 2000. This timing meant the interest earned
from these investments could not be credited to the SFR Account until
the next business day, Monday, October 2, 2000 which falls in fiscal
year 2001. Since interest earned is treated using the cash basis method
and not the accrual method of accounting, approximately $18 million in
interest was not credited until Fiscal Year 2001. This caused a
decrease in the fiscal year 2000 interest amount while increasing the
fiscal year 2001 interest amount. If this had not occurred, the
interest earned in fiscal year 2000 would have been $59.828 million.
2. LFor fiscal year 2001, approximately $1.0 billion of SFR funds
will be invested through the Aquatic Resource Trust Fund. The
investment term, developed in coordination with Service partners
involved in SFR funds management, is expected to yield approximately
$65 million in interest for fiscal year 2001. This amount plus the $18
million which accrued in fiscal year 2000 and was credited to fiscal
year 2001 totals the interest estimate of $83 million. Thus, if the $18
million had not been credited to fiscal year 2001, the fiscal year 2001
interest estimate of $65 million would have been approximately $5
million higher than the amount earned in fiscal year 2000 ($59.828
million).
Question 34. When will an Assistant Director be named for the
Federal Aid Program as required by the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program Improvement Act of 2000?
Answer 34: An Assistant Director for Migratory Birds and State
Programs was established and filled by the Director in July, 2000,
prior to enactment of the new Federal Aid legislation. This Assistant
Director is responsible for the administration, management, and
oversight of the Federal Assistance Program for State Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Question 35. When will the Department allocate the Multi-state
Conservation Grant money to the states for the current fiscal year?
Answer 35: As directed by the Fish and Wildlife Programs
Improvement Act of 2000, the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies delivered a list of projects for funding under the
Multi-state Conservation Grant Program. The Service Director approved
the list of projects and the Division of Federal Aid obtained the
information necessary to process the grants from the recipients. The
Division of Federal Aid then completed processing the 14 project
grants. Federal Aid has finalized the grant agreements and made
available the proper funding for electronic transfer of funds to the
recipients using the Department of Health and Human Service's Smartlink
processing software in their Payment Management System. The Division of
Federal Aid is working with each recipient to implement each grant.
Question 36. What is the status of the additional $7.5 million that
was authorized in fiscal year 1901 for Firearm and Bow Hunter Education
and Safety Program grants?
Answer 36: The funds were apportioned to the states, commonwealths,
and Territories as defined in the Act and are now available for
obligation to Hunter Education Program grants.
In concert with states, non-governmental organizations, and Federal
Aid staff, the Service developed interim policy for the use of these
funds. A set of questions and answers was developed to deal with the
complex issues brought up by use of these funds. The policy addresses
appropriate use, obligations, deobligations, and reapportionment of
these funds in future years. We plan to see how this policy resolves
issues this year and, under the direction of a confirmed Service
Director, develop permanent policy in the form of changes to the
appropriate FWS Manual chapter next year.
Question 37. What type of projects are likely to be initially
approved under the Great Ape Conservation Fund?
Answer 37: The Service has received more than 50 proposals for
great ape conservation projects under the Great Ape Conservation Fund.
Priority consideration will be given to those proposals that enhance
the conservation of great apes by addressing human-great ape conflict;
strengthening compliance with CITES or other applicable laws;
implementing conservation education; and developing sound scientific
information on, or methods for monitoring great ape habitat,
populations and trends, or current and projected threats to habitat or
populations. The Service recently awarded its first grant under this
Fund for orangutan conservation in Gunung Palulng National Park,
Indonesia. This grant will provide assistant to establish conservation
education programs and build capacity of local community and government
staff to protect the park from illegal logging and hunting.
Question 38. Why did the Administration not request any funding for
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account?
Answer 38: The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request provides
adequate funding, given the overall priorities and resources available,
to fund the highest priority projects that qualify for funding under
the Multinational Species Conservation Funds.
Question 39. What is the status of the proposed regulations on
Light Geese, Double-Crested Cormorants and Resident Canada Geese?
Answer 39-1 (Light Geese): The Service is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of a range
of long-term solutions to the impacts of light goose over-population on
the human environment. Light geese include greater snow geese, lesser
snow geese, and Ross' geese. In May 1999, the Service announced its
intent to prepare an EIS on light goose management. The public scoping
phase was completed in November 1999 and a draft EIS was made available
for public review and comment in October 2001. Following review of the
public's comments, a final EIS document will be completed in 2002.
Answer 39-2 (Double-crested Cormorants): In dealing with cormorant
conflicts, the Service cooperates with state agencies, private
individuals, and USDA's Wildlife Services program to implement
appropriate control measures where warranted. The Service has released
for public comment a draft EIS that: (1) evaluates the extent of
cormorant impacts to fisheries and other natural resources; (2)
analyzes the environmental effects of alternative management actions;
and, (3) re-examines current cormorant depredation policy. After
publishing a notice of intent announcing the EIS in the Federal
Register in November 1999, the Service held public scoping meetings at
12 locations around the country that generated more than 1,400 comments
regarding issues and concerns related to cormorant management.
Following public review and comment, a final EIS document will be
completed in the Spring of 2002.
Answer 39-3 (Resident Canada Geese): A draft EIS and proposed rule
will be available for public review in late July, 2001. Following
public review and comment, a final EIS document will be completed in
December, 2001. Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within
the U.S. have increased exponentially and are increasingly coming into
conflict with human activities. Overall, complaints related to personal
and public property, agricultural damage, concerns related to human
health and safety, and other public conflicts are increasing. New and
innovative approaches and strategies for dealing with bird/human
conflicts will be needed because of the unique locations where these
geese nest, feed, and reside. The Service, with the full assistance and
cooperation of the Flyway Councils and Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (APHIS/WS), will develop a long-
term strategy for the management of these birds. The result of this
approach should provide states with more management flexibility and
authority to deal with resident Canada geese while increasing the
commitment to establish population goals and objectives, management
planning, and population monitoring.
Question 40. Does the Service anticipate any additional auctions of
surplus products from the National Wildlife Property Repository in
Denver in fiscal year 2002?
Answer 40: No. The Service does not plan to auction any surplus
wildlife products from the National Wildlife Property Repository in
fiscal year 2002. The items auctioned in 1999 represented a 10-year
accumulation of common commercial products, such as boots and belts,
that were made from species that could lawfully be sold and that were
not needed or appropriate for conservation education.
Question 41. On May 5, 1999, a group of Americans living outside of
Chicago, Illinois, were ``raided'' by special agents of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for alleged violations of U.S. wildlife laws. At
this point, nearly two years later, no one has been indicted in this
case. However, two of those Americans who were ``raided'' killed
themselves. Several of those Americans allege that their constitutional
rights were denied. For example, search warrants apparently were not
served, legal representation was denied and personal property,
including phone logs and unrelated wildlife trophies, were removed and
have not been returned. What is the status of this case? What is the
truth about these allegations and what steps are taken to ensure that
the rights of all Americans are protected? Why was it necessary to
conduct this raid at 6:30 in the morning? Is it normal procedure to
retain citizens incommunicado in their homes, while law enforcement
agents search for alleged wildlife violations? Is it legal to harvest
captive bred lions and generic tigers which are not protected under the
Endangered Species Act? If it is illegal, then please cite the
appropriate legislative statues that prohibit the harvest of these
animals.
Answer 41: We recently received complaints concerning the execution
of a search warrant by Service special agents at a location near
Chicago, Illinois, on May 5, 1999. The Service found nothing to
substantiate any of the allegations of misconduct made against our
agents. We are, however, cooperating fully with the Department of the
Interior Office of Inspector General (OIG), which is conducting an
independent investigation into the complaints concerning this search.
At the request of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the
prosecution of the Chicago subjects investigated by the Service for
wildlife violations, the OIG has delayed its administrative
investigation into the allegations of misconduct until completion of
the criminal proceedings. No information is thus available from the OIG
review, and we cannot comment further on any of the specific
allegations made by the complainants.
The search in question was conducted in connection with a Service
investigation into the illegal take and commercialization of endangered
species, primarily big cats including tigers, leopards, and jaguars.
That investigation also remains open at this time. Evidence compiled by
Service special agents has been submitted to various U.S. Attorney's
offices. One individual in western Michigan has been found guilty of a
felony Lacey Act violation related to the sale of three tiger skins,
and prosecution efforts are underway in several other judicial
districts.
The major U.S. wildlife laws enforced by the Service, including the
Endangered Species Act, authorize Service officers to obtain and serve
search warrants in the process of investigating possible wildlife
violations. To obtain a search warrant, officers must show a federal
judge or U.S. magistrate that there is probable cause to believe that
evidence of a violation of federal law will be found at the premises. A
federal search warrant describes the objects that officers may search
for and seize; property not described in the warrant may also be seized
if it constitutes evidence of other illegal activity.
Unless otherwise directed by the issuing judge or magistrate,
federal search warrants may be served anytime between 6 a.m. and 10
p.m. Search warrants are often served in the morning to increase the
likelihood that the search can be completed during daytime hours and
that someone occupying the premises will be present and aware of the
search. Individuals present during the execution of a search warrant
may freely leave the premises.
Tigers are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act at
the species level. All tigers, including those commonly referred to as
``generic,'' are thus protected under this law, which generally
prohibits the killing of listed animals, even if they were bred in
captivity. Although the Service has relaxed registration requirements
for those breeding generic tigers, take of these and other protected
captive-bred animals is only permissible if it enhances the propagation
or survival of the species. While euthanizing an ill or aged animal
would be legal, hunting generic tigers or ``harvesting'' them for the
subsequent interstate or international sale of their skins or parts is
a violation of the Endangered Species Act.
African lions are not protected under the Endangered Species Act.
These big cats are, however, regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, a
federal law administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. State
or local statutes may also regulate the possession and treatment of
lions, including specimens bred in captivity.
Question 42. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the
Department of the Interior received $50 million to distribute to the
States for non-game grants. What is the status of those grants?
Answer 42: The fiscal year 2001Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act (Public Law 106-553), provided $50 million
to fund states, wildlife conservation, wildlife conservation education,
and wildlife-associated recreation projects, with a focus on species
with the greatest conservation need. The Act created a subaccount under
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act for a Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration Program (WCRP), a formula-based apportionment to the 56
states and territories. There has been considerable communication and
cooperation among the Service, the states, and the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies during the implementation of
this new Program.
One new requirement established by the Act was for states to submit
a Comprehensive Plan (Plan) for approval prior to being eligible to
receive grants under the Act. Of the 56 states and territories, 29 had
submitted their Plans by April 16, and all but one had submitted their
Plans by May 2. Submission of a Plan by a state constitutes a
commitment to develop and begin implementing, within 5 years, a
Wildlife Conservation Strategy that will facilitate the identification
of the state's greatest wildlife conservation needs. Each Plan must
substantiate the authority and capability of the state to implement the
WCRP and indicate public input and participation.
The Service has facilitated the delivery of these new funds to the
states through three significant actions. It has: (1) developed and
distributed WCRP implementation guidelines that make program
requirements and planning clearer, (2) sponsored three regional
workshops in cooperation with and for state and regional Federal Aid
partners to promote implementation, and (3) established a WCRP Plan
Eligibility Determination Team (with Federal and State members), which
has met three times and forwarded recommendations to the Director to
approve 51 of the 55 Comp Plans submitted to date.
The Team anticipates completion of its review and recommendations
for all 56 state and territory WCRP Comp Plans by the end of June 2001.
Two states have already submitted grants for specific projects to
Service Federal Aid Regional Offices.
Question 43. The Act also required that the $50 million be invested
and that the interest on that investment be made available to the North
American Wetlands Office for the purchase of critical habitat. Were
those funds invested? How were they invested----- daily securities or
monthly securities? How much interest money was obtained from this
investment?
Answer 43: The funding appropriated for Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration was invested on March 21, 2001. The funds are invested in a
combination of Treasury one-day and monthly securities. As of April 30,
2001, $216,696 is interest had been earned. As of May 31, 2001, the
estimated earnings from these investments will be approximately
$396,000.
Question 44. The Wild Bird Conservation Act was passed in 1992 to
stem the trade in wild-caught birds perceived as unsustainable by the
Congress. The Act set about to regulate the import of wild birds into
the United States by prohibiting unsustainable import. The law provided
that exceptions could be made through the issuance of permits for
personal pets, zoological display, scientific research and for
cooperative breeding programs. Congress also mandated that the Act be
implemented in such a manner as to assist wild bird conservation and
management programs in foreign countries, and encourage and promote
captive breeding in the United States. Regulations for permits were
finalized in 1993, but aviculturists have complained that the permit
process, under which Congress had intended to allow birds clubs and
groups to import birds for cooperative breeding projects, was not
working as promised, and target times of 60-90 days for approval were
not being met. Also a problem was the Service's tardiness in completing
regulation allowing imports of birds from foreign captive breeding
facilities, and for birds sustainably harvested from the wild. In
September 1995 a hearing was held by this Subcommittee to address these
and other problems in the WBCA implementation.
At that hearing, Mr. Marshall Jones, then Deputy Director for
International Affairs for the USFWS, testified that regulation for
imports of sustainably taken birds from foreign countries was to be
implemented by the end of the year. He further testified that the
regulations providing for approval of foreign captive breeding
facilities would be finalized by ``early next year''. Please clarify
for the Subcommittee the following questions:
Question 44-1. When were these final rules published? If they were
not published in the time frames projected by Mr. Marshall Jones, why
not?
Answer 44-1: The regulations for approving sustainable-use
management plans under the WBCA, which would allow the import of wild-
caught birds sustainably taken in foreign countries, were published in
final form on January 24, 1996. The regulations for approving foreign
captive-breeding facilities are still pending, and under review by the
Department.
Question 44-2. How many ``sustainably taken'' birds have been
imported into the United States since the oversight hearing was held in
September of 1995?
Answer 44-2: To date, we have only received one completed
application to develop a sustainable use management plan for an exotic
species within a range State. The Service obtained public comment on
the application and is currently finalizing a proposed rule on the
Argentina sustainable use management plan for blue-fronted amazon
parrots (Amazona aestiva). Approval of this program will result in the
first import of wild ``sustainably taken'' birds permitted under this
program.
Question 44-3. How many foreign captive breeding facilities have
been approved under the WBCA?
Answer 44-3: No foreign captive-breeding facilities have been
approved because the regulations for this activity are still pending
(see response to 1).
Question 44-4. How many cooperative breeding group applications
have been submitted since 1993? Please list those that have been
approved. Please list those that have been denied. Please list the
times required for a decision to be made on each application submitted,
and the time required for each first import to be made under permit?
Answer 44-4: The Service has received 26 complete applications for
cooperative breeding programs since 1993. Following are the currently
approved cooperative breeding programs:
LThe Peregrine Fund, Inc (CB003); Species: harpy eagle.
LDan L. Pike (CB004); Species: European sparrowhawk,
European goshawk, red-napped shaheen, two non-native subspecies of
Aplomado falcon.
LNorthern Plains Breeding Co-op(CB005); Species: European
goshawk, European sparrowhawk, Spanish peregrine falcon, European
peregrine falcon, Australian peregrine falcon, South American peregrine
falcon.
LToucan Preservation Center (CB006); Species: keel-billed
toucan, red-breasted toucan, saffron toucanet, chestnut-eared aracari,
spot-billed toucanet, ariel toucan, channel-billed toucan, toco toucan.
LHill Country Aviaries, L.L.C. (CB009); Species: fiery-
shouldered conure, Hoffman's conure, white-eared conure, green-cheeked
conure, blue mutation, pearly conure, crimson-bellied conure painted
conure, and rose-crowned conure.
LAFA Red Siskin Recovery Project (CB012); Species: red
siskin.
LThe Lory and Hanging Parrot Breeding Consortium (CB013);
Species: Papuan lory, fairy lorikeet, whiskered lorikeet, Duyvenbode's
lory, Philippine hanging parrot.
LNorthern Kentucky Falconers Association Breeding
Cooperative (CB014); Species: saker falcon, sooty falcon, red-headed
falcon, Bonelli's eagle, greater spotted eagle.
LSolomon Islands Consortium (CB016); Species: cardinal
lory, yellow-bibbed lory, coconut (massena's) lorikeet, palm lorikeet,
duchess lorikeet, Ducorp's cockatoo.
LMonk Parakeet Breeding Consortium (CB017); Species: Monk,
or Quaker parakeet (captive-bred specimens only).
LCooperative Breeding Program for Gracula religiosa
(CB018); Species: Javan hill mynah, Sumatran hill mynah, greater Indian
hill mynah.
LTuraco Cooperative Breeding Program (CB019); Species:
great blue turaco, grey plantain-eater, Ross's plantain-eater,
violacous plantain-eater, red-crested turaco, Fischer's turaco,
Hartlaub's turaco, white-cheeked turaco, white-crested turaco,
Livingston's turaco, green-crested turaco, violet-crested turaco,
Schalow's turaco.
LUtah Falconers Cooperative Breeding Program (CB020);
Species: European goshawk, European sparrowhawk, black sparrowhawk,
English peregrine, Cassini peregrine, black shaheen, saker falcon, red-
headed falcon.
LCoastal Carolina Conure Breeding Program (CB022);
Species: fiery-shouldered conure, rose-crowned conure, rose-fronted
conure.
LCardinal Cooperative Breeding Program (CB023); Species:
red-crested cardinal, yellow-billed cardinal.
LCrowned Pigeon Cooperative Breeding Program (CB024);
Species: blue crowned pigeon, lesser blue crowned pigeon, Scheepmaker's
crowned pigeon, Sclater's crowned pigeon, Victoria crowned pigeon,
Beccari crowned pigeon.
LFig Parrot Consortium (CB025); Species: orange-breasted
fig parrot, double-eyed fig parrot, Desmarest's fig parrot, Edwards''
fig parrot, Salvadori's fig parrot.
LBlue Headed Macaw Cooperative Breeding Program (CB026);
Species: blue-headed macaw.
LLove Bird Cooperative Breeding Program (CB028);Species:
Abyssinian lovebird, black-cheeked lovebird, Madagascar lovebird, nyasa
lovebird, red-faced lovebird.
LCut-throat Finch, North American Cooperative Breeding
Program (CB029); Species: East African Cut-throat Finch, color
mutations.
The following cooperative breeding program applications were
denied:
LWorld Center for Exotic Birds (CB001); Species: various
species of parrots, raptors and miscellaneous non-endangered species.
LWilliam A. McClure (CB002); Species: yellow-crowned
amazon parrot.
LInternational Aviculturists Society (CB007): Species:
hyacinth macaw.
LJerry Blocker (CB011); Species: Eurasian eagle owl,
Lanner falcon, saker falcon, tawny eagle.
LRichard Cusick (CB021); Species: green-cheeked conure
(blue mutation), painted conure, rose-crowned conure, blue-throated
conure.
LCOM USA, Inc. (CB027); Species: red siskin.
We received the first cooperative breeding program application in
February 1994. The applicant requested approval for a cooperative
breeding program to include various parrot and raptor species as well
as several non-endangered species. We corresponded with the applicant
for over a year in order to obtain the necessary information to
complete the application. We required approximately six months to make
a determination on that completed application. In reviewing an
application, we must publish a Federal Register notice and open a 30-
day comment period. In many cases we must also consult with the range
state(s) for the species - often a prolonged process. The approval
process for cooperative breeding programs has been a learning
experience, and reviewing an application has often required more time
than we would have liked. The process is, however, improving. For the
three applications received in 2000, one applicant required three and a
half months to provide adequate information to complete the application
and two of the applications were complete upon receipt. We required
almost five months to make a determination on one of these applications
and the other two took our office approximately two months each. We
feel confident that the timely review of future cooperative breeding
program applications will continue.
Once a cooperative breeding program is approved, members of the
program must submit an application for the actual importation of birds.
Of the 20 programs that have been approved, only 15 have requested and
received permits to import birds. For the first import application from
an approved cooperative breeding program, the permits are issued on
average within 45 days.
Question 44-5. Please list all funds collected from fines and
penalties under the WBCA. Please indicate the amounts from these fines
which were allocated to the Wild Bird Conservation Fund, as directed by
the Congress. Please list the disposition of any funds from these
sources which were not turned over to the Wild Bird Conservation Fund.
Answer 44-5: The Service has collected $7,450 in fines and $1,600
in penalties specifically under the authority of Section 114 of the
Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA). Funds of $200 were allocated to the
Special Victim Witness Fund and $250 was allocated to the Lacey Act
Reward Account. The remainder of these funds was allocated to the
General Treasury and tracked internally as collected under the WBCA
since the Wild Bird Conservation Fund has not yet been established.
Once the fund is established, we are committed to working with Treasury
to transfer the funds. Because the WBCA does not have any provisions
for forfeiture of wildlife or associated property, most violations are
charged under other statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and the
Lacey Act. Fines for violations of these two Acts are deposited into
another account used by the Service for the care and handling of seized
and forfeited wildlife. Fines and penalties under the WBCA, therefore,
are limited.
Since January 1995, the Service has collected $6,000 in fines and
$60,910 in penalties under the Endangered Species Act for violations
involving live birds subject to the WBCA. The Service collected $600 in
fines and $5,750 in penalties under the Lacey Act for violations
involving live birds subject to the WBCA. The Service collected $400 in
fines and $1,800 in penalties under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for
violations involving birds subject to the WBCA, and $1,392 in penalties
for violations under other federal and state laws involving birds
subject to the WBCA. In order to determine if any of these fines or
penalties should be deposited into the Wild Bird Conservation Fund once
it is established, we would be required to conduct a detailed review of
each case.
Question 44-6. Please list the bird conservation and management
projects the USFWS has supported in range countries, the name and
address of the project manager, and all sums expended thereunder, or
assistance of any kind provided.
Answer 44-6: Although the Service has not funded any projects under
the Wild Bird Conservation Fund, our Winged Ambassadors initiative has
more than 18 years of cooperative projects for conserving migratory
birds throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. This initiative comes
under the auspices of the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife
Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Under the Winged Ambassadors
initiative, the Service has worked with over a dozen Caribbean Islands
to develop local pride in native and migratory birds, conduct outreach
campaigns, and conserve vulnerable species, such as the West Indian
whistling duck and a number of endemic parrots. It has assisted in
Mexico to develop self-sustaining eco-tourism enterprises in rural
communities and is active in South America to reverse the intensive
destruction of North American migratory species such as osprey,
Swainson's hawk, Dick Cissel, the latter species being slaughtered by
the hundreds of thousand each year on its wintering grounds.
Question 44-7. Please list the amounts of money the Administration
has requested each year since 1992 for implementation of the Wild Bird
Conservation Act?
Answer 44-7: The Service received an allocation of $500,000 in
fiscal year 1993 for implementation of the WBCA. That increase was
subsequently included in the base funding for the International
Wildlife Trade subactivity and serves as the funding necessary to
continue to implement the WBCA. No funds have been requested for the
grant component of the WBCA.
-