[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3937, H.R. 4882, H.R. 4883, H.R. 4966, AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
THE NATIONAL COASTAL AND OCEAN SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT; THE NATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT; AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT.
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 16, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-118
__________
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
79-659 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
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
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 16, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 3937.......................... 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, Prepared statement of............. 17
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, Prepared statement of....................... 19
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam,
Prepared statement of...................................... 16
Statement of Witnesses:
Dokter, Frank, President, Walter's Camp, Inc................. 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 3937.......................... 30
Ellis, Mitchell R., Chief, Branch of Wildlife Resources,
National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 3937.......................... 28
Gudes, Scott, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere/Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 2
Prepared statement on NOAA Discussion Draft Bills........ 8
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3937, A BILL TO REVOKE A PUBLIC LAND ORDER
WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PROPERTY ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE CIBOLA
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN CALIFORNIA; H.R. 4882, THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ACT OF 2002; H.R.
4883, THE HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2002;
H.R. 4966, THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT; AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE NATIONAL COASTAL AND
OCEAN SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT; THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
AUTHORIZATION ACT; AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT.
----------
Thursday, May 16, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.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 afternoon, everyone. The Committee will
come to order. When Mr. Hunter comes in, we will probably--the
order of the hearing was going to be Mr. Hunter and the issue
dealing with California. Then we were going to go to the NOAA
programs, but Mr. Hunter has been delayed, so we will start
with you, Scott, and I will just submit my statement for the
record and say that we look forward to your testimony, the
myriad of programs that NOAA has under its jurisdiction. We are
offering a legislative draft to sort of tighten that up a
little bit and we would like your response to that as we move
this through the process. We appreciate your attendance here
this afternoon. I tried to put the word honorable in front of
your name, but I guess I didn't get here in time.
Mr. Gudes. I saw a letter like that once.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thanks for coming this afternoon, Scott.
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Today we will be hearing from witnesses regarding legislation to
authorize National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, and
H.R. 3937, a bill to resolve a boundary dispute involving the Cibola
National Wildlife Refuge.
The House Resources Committee has jurisdiction over many National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs, including the
agency's navigation services, fishery and coastal zone management, and
oceanography programs. Some of these programs are authorized under
program specific statutes, for instance, the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act. Other programs rely on more general authorizations. No
comprehensive authorization for these programs has been enacted since
1992. The 1992 authorizations have expired and administrative
reorganization plan under which the agency was established in 1970 has
become outdated.
The NOAA bills before the subcommittee today authorize agency
programs under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee that do not
have other specific authorizations; reauthorize the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act; and update the statutory framework for NOAA's
administrative structure, and for the NOAA Commissioned Officers Corps.
I look forward to hearing the agency's views on this draft.
The second part of our hearing is on H. R. 3937, a bill introduced
by our colleague Duncan Hunter of California to resolve a boundary
dispute involving the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge was
created to conserve migratory waterfowl and a variety of different
types of habitat along the lower Colorado River.
Specifically, H. R. 3937 will revoke a small portion of the Public
Land Order that originally created Cibola in 1964. While the refuge is
more than 17,000 acres, there is a small component of the refuge known
as ``Walter's Camp''. This camp has provided recreational opportunities
for thousands of visitors for over forty years. The concessionaire who
operates this camp has consistently obtained the necessary concession
permits from the Bureau of Land Management. The fundamental goals of
this legislation are to remove 140 acres of land from the refuge, to
end the confusion as to whom should have title to this property and to
reaffirm that the management of the concession is the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management. It is my understanding that both
agencies strongly support this long overdue modification.
______
STATEMENT OF SCOTT GUDES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE/ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Gudes. On behalf of Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher
and the 12,500 men and women at NOAA working across the
country, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
Subcommittee for inviting me to speak today on the draft
legislation that reauthorizes many of NOAA's ocean and coastal
programs, in fact a good part of the agency. And, as always,
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank you again, the
Subcommittee, your staff, John Rayfield, Dave Jansen, for your
very, very strong support of NOAA and our programs. It is
something that I think those men and women across the country
are very aware of and very appreciative and the expertise that
is here on this Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, as you can appreciate, there are 6, I think,
separate bills that are before the Subcommittee today and I
will speak to each briefly. But before I do that, I would like
to mention 2 organizational and programmatic reviews of NOAA
that are ongoing.
First, coming to NOAA, our new administrator, Vice Admiral
Conrad Lautenbacher, called for a bottom-up fundamental review
of NOAA programs to be conducted by the agency called the NOAA
Program Review, to take a look at our strengths and
opportunities for improvement. He actually started off this
process in a noble way by going out to all NOAA employees,
asking them for their ideas, and then he asked me to put
together a group of 16 NOAA executives that represented every
part of the agency to work over 3 months and take a look at
these different suggestions, add some of our own. We are really
at a point where we are about to report back to the
administrator or what we call the ``NOAA Executive Council,''
which represents the senior leadership, and then they will
decide which ideas have merit and go forward and go to Commerce
leadership, and then we would like to come back through OMB and
to you, to show you the results or what we think would make
good ideas to build a better NOAA. This is about where NOAA
should be to remain the premier science and service and
stewardship agency in 5 years and in 10 years and in 20 years
to be what we really can be and continue to be as good as we
want to be.
Also, of course, as you know, there is the President's
Ocean Commission, which continues to examine NOAA in part in
terms of its reviews and, in fact, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher is
not here today. He is actually out in the Pacific where he just
testified to the Ocean Commission.
Now I will address the 6 bills.
First of all, the NOAA Act of 2002 updates the
administrative structure of NOAA and authorizes 5 line offices,
including OAMO, Aircraft Operations, officer corps that
operates on NOAA ships and aircraft. The general bill
authorizes--
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gudes, I think what we will do so we
don't split your testimony and give you plenty of time so you
don't feel like you are rushed, I think we will yield now to
Congressman Hunter, and then we will come back to your
testimony. Thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Front and center. You have the floor,
Congressman Hunter. We appreciate you coming to the
Subcommittee to testify on behalf of your legislation and your
constituents, and I am supposed to ask you before you begin,
did you give that fishing pole back that somebody lent you a
couple of years ago?
Mr. Hunter. Actually, Mr. Chairman, it was taken from me as
I was leaving the Eastern Shore, Maryland. Actually somebody
did steal my golf clubs out of my car, but they discovered, I
am sure, when they got them that there is not a single club
that matches another one. But that fishing pole is a very high
class fishing pole and it will be returned.
Mr. Gilchrest. But that is a sign of a good golfer.
Mr. Hunter. I appreciate the kayak rescue also.H.R. 3937
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank
Mr. Saxton, too, also, and staff for being here to listen to
our request. I want to thank you for holding the hearing on
H.R. 3937 and also want to thank my constituent, Mr. Frank
Dokter, who is right here behind me. Mr. Dokter, if you could
let them know who you are here, because he has made a long
journey from California to testify today.
And this legislation is necessary to right a past error
that the Department of Interior made in designating one of our
great refuges in California, the Cibola National Wildlife
Refuge. Mr. Dokter and his family operate an area called
Walter's Camp which is a BLM concession on land that is right
next to the Lower Colorado River in Imperial County,
California, and it is now within, as a result of the mistake,
within the Cibola refuge, and it provides visitors with a very
family friendly outdoors experience, including camping, hiking,
canoeing, fishing, bird watching and rockhounding, not unlike
your family residence on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I guess
the only thing you don't have is rockhounding, Mr. Chairman.
In an increasingly crowded southern California, Mr. Dokter
and his family have provided a welcome diversion from city life
for a lot of our folks who are outdoor enthusiasts.
Walter's Camp--and it was named after BLM was serving many
years ago and it was a little piece of land, I guess, that
initially had been homesteaded by a gentleman named Walter and
they called it Walter's camp. It was first authorized in 1962.
In August 1964, Public Land Order 3442 withdrew 16,000-plus
acres along the Colorado River to create the Cibola Wildlife
Refuge. The withdrawal erroneously included this 140.32 acre,
Walter's Camp. But neither BLM nor Fish and Wildlife
immediately recognized they made a mistake, and BLM continued
to renew the original permit allowing the recreational
concession use to continue unbroken until the present day. But
because they have now discovered this mistake, BLM doesn't have
the authority to continue to issue the concession contracts to
Walter's Camp until this is pulled back out of the refuge. And
the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM agree that the land has,
and I quote them, insignificant, if any, existing or potential
wildlife habitat value. So in terms of this 16,000-acre refuge,
it is not an important aspect of that refuge. And that is
stated in a Department of Interior memo. And as a result of
that, I introduced this legislation to correct this mistake and
allow BLM to continue to operate to issue contracts to Walter's
Camp.
So I want to thank you on behalf of my constituent, Mr.
Dokter, and also all the folks in southern California who
have--find it tougher and tougher to kind of get away from the
crowd. And, as you know, we have a huge population in the L.A.
Basin and the so-called Inland Empire now and in the San Diego
region. And this is one of the few places you can get away from
the city and from the population centers. It has got nice
recreational vehicle areas that--where you can put in for the
night with your RV and you can camp and has fishing obviously
right there on the river. It is just a grand place for folks
who like the outdoors. And this is becoming kind of a
disappearing resource in southern California, as you now know.
There is a lot of competition now on the river, so it makes
sense to restore this area that has been so heavily used by
Californians in the past.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee
members for holding this important hearing on H.R. 3937. I would also
like to express my appreciation for my constituent, Mr. Frank Dokter,
who made the long trip out here from California to testify today. This
legislation is necessary to right a past error by the Department of
Interior in designating the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Dokter and his family operate Walter's Camp, a Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) concession on land near the lower Colorado River in
Imperial County, California, near and within the Cibola Refuge. The
facility provides visitors with a family-friendly outdoors experience,
which includes camping, hiking, canoeing, fishing, birdwatching and
rock-hounding. In an increasingly crowded Southern California, Mr.
Dokter and his family have provided a welcome diversion from city life
to many of the region's outdoors enthusiasts.
Walter's Camp was first authorized in 1962, and in August 1964,
Public Land Order 3442 withdrew 16,627 acres along the Colorado River
to create the Refuge. The withdrawal erroneously included the 140.32
acre Walter's Camp, but neither the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife
Service immediately recognized the mistake. The BLM continued to renew
the original permit, allowing the recreational concession use to
continue unbroken until the present time. However, given the discovery
of the past mistake, the BLM does not have the authority to continue
issuing the concession contracts to Walter's Camp.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM agree that the land has
``insignificant, if any, existing...or potential...wildlife habitat
value,'' as stated in a Department of Interior memo. Therefor, I have
introduced H.R. 3937 to correct this mistake and allow the BLM to
continue to issue contracts to Walter's Camp.
Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I offer my
sincere recommendation that this land be taken out of the Cibola
National Wildlife Refuge, and that Mr. Dokter's family be allowed to
continue such a valuable and productive service to our region.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, and we appreciate the
information you have given us here this afternoon, and I am
sure your constituent appreciates the representation you have
given him. And I think we would be wise to work with you to
help facilitate this transfer for someone that loves the land
such as yourself and the outdoors, and I am sure Mr. Dokter is
the same way and would like to bring people to a better level
of understanding about the beauty of nature and how to protect
it, and what better place than at the doorstep of one of
America's finest refuges. So thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that fishing pole
will be returned shortly.
Mr. Gilchrest. Actually, it is probably something that I
broke later.
Mr. Hunter. I never lost it and it was a long time ago.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am not sure if anybody else has questions
for Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Saxton. I don't have any questions. I would just like
to note it appears to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service
supports this transfer, and there is some language here in our
notes that indicates all the reasons why they support Mr.
Hunter's bill. So this should not be a problem.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Always a pleasure to have the gentleman
from California to testify before our Committee. Once we settle
the Crusader issue, I will be pleased.
Mr. Hunter. Unlike Crusader, I don't have to explain the
memo that I had the day before saying I liked it and now the
memo I have got saying I don't like it.
Mr. Gilchrest. And I think at this point we will bring up
Mr. Gudes from NOAA and then, Mr. Dokter, we will be with you
in just a short time. Thank you.
You may begin again.
Mr. Gudes. I will pick up where I started talking about the
6 bills, Mr. Chairman.
The first act, the NOAA Act of 2002, updates the
administrative structure of NOAA and authorizes our 5 line
offices, including the Office of Marine Aviation Operations,
which oversees NOAA's commissioned officer corps and operates
our ships and aircraft. This general bill authorizes our
ability to use cooperative agreements, grants, contracts to
move funds which enable partnerships with other sectors to
conduct research monitoring assessments.
You have heard me say many times, and members of the
Subcommittee, how important it is that at NOAA we believe so
much in our partnerships and how much we work with universities
and State and local governments and outside groups which is
very key to our work.
As you know, I think, members of the Subcommittee know,
education is a big priority for us. And I believe very strongly
that our mission includes creating the next generation of
marine biologists, of meteorologists, of oceanographers, social
scientists, coastal managers, ocean explorers. And NOAA
supports, especially at our regional offices all over the
country and local offices, we support the education outreach
efforts. And I think there really does remain a need for an
agencywide authority in education to develop an integrated and
coordinated education strategy that will really help
environmental literacy and really help us make a difference.
And in the bills that are put forward today, I think in the
research bill, there actually is an education authorization,
and I would ask the Subcommittee to consider whether it could
put an overall education authorization in the overall NOAA bill
because I think it pertains to all of our components. I could
give you great examples that work, National Weather Service,
Fisheries Service.
The second bill, National Coastal and Ocean Service
Authorization Act, renames the National Ocean Service to give
equal credit to our coastal management mission. This bill
proposes to advance efforts to integrate existing and planned
regional and coastal monitoring and observation systems into
one national coastal marine observing system. NOAA is a full
participant in the National Ocean Research Leadership Council
and in the overall National Oceanographic Partnership Program,
or NOPP, which will approve an interagency report for this
ocean-observing system, ocean and coastal-observing system.
Very supportive of these efforts. But I would like to defer
comments on the actual organization of the observing system
until this report has been considered by the administration and
delivered to Congress.
Third, or related to that, NOAA appreciates the
Subcommittee's suggestion to specifically authorize the Coastal
America Partnership Program. I think that Coastal America is an
excellent example of NOAA coming together and working with
other agencies and with the private sector to really
effectively do habitat restoration and environmental work.
Next, we appreciate the Subcommittee's reauthorization of
the Hydrographic Service Improvements Act Amendments of 2002
which allow NOAA to continue providing data that promotes safe,
efficient maritime commerce and port security and represents
the underpinnings, the real structure underneath our maritime
transportation system.
I think I have been before this Subcommittee a number of
times and relayed to you the appreciation we have for the
leadership that you have shown to really try to get NOAA to
step up and do the job it should do in terms of reducing the
backlog of hydrographic surveys and the products we provide for
ports.
There is one issue that I should raise to your attention,
which has to do with slight changes to the quality assurance
provisions. The way the bill is currently drafted, it would
require NOAA to certify all hydrographic survey products. This
raises issues of liability and impingement on the
responsibilities of the U.S. Coast Guard with regard to
navigational products. We have concern about litigation, I
think, as this Subcommittee knows, in the fisheries and natural
resource area. It seems sometimes like there is not much we can
do without being in litigation and we wouldn't want to really
look to our hydrographic work to be similar to that.
Next, we appreciate the Subcommittee's enactment of the
NOAA Commissioned Officers Act of 2002, which updates and
consolidates the NOAA Corps. This legislation maintains the
NOAA corps officers on an updated parity with the officers of
other commissioned uniformed services. I think that the NOAA
Corps, as I have said many times in front of our officers, is
the Nation's smallest uniformed service, but I am extremely
proud of them, and I often say they are the best of our
uniformed services. They are all scientists. They work very
hard. They are very dedicated. In fact, we are reminded each
summer these are the individuals who fly into hurricanes, take
our P3s. I had the opportunity last year to fly into Hurricane
Michelle with Captain Tennison out of Tampa, and the dedication
of these people is overwhelming.
Tomorrow night we are, in fact, celebrating the 85th
anniversary of Coast and Geodetic Survey which became actually
the corps which led to finally in 1970 the NOAA Corps. Very
proud of this.
Finally, another bill, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research Services Act--I said there were 6 in the beginning. I
think I had that right--which would strengthen the ability of
NOAA research, our Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
to perform its vital role in oceanic and atmospheric sciences,
including climate, to benefit the Nation.
The overall issue of science in NOAA, as well as the chief
scientist of NOAA, the NOAA Science Advisory Board, will be
among the areas that the program review that I talked about in
the beginning we will be looking at and will be coming forward
to our administrator.
The Subcommittee's bill also updates and modernizes the
authorization of climate research, a very topical area. This
legislation establishes a formal Office of Climate Research
that will support NOAA's sustained observing and monitoring
capabilities to maintain our role as a leading science agency
in climate research and services.
I understand that the NOAA climate change report will be
reviewed by the Science Committee within the next week as
requested and we intend to try to get that up here to Members
of Congress.
Last, NOAA would like to work with the Subcommittee to
ensure that the National Marine Fisheries Services
Establishment Act enables NOAA to comprehensibly manage the
Nation's living marine resources. In addition, of course, the
managing commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries in a
sustainable manner. It is very important to stipulate our--as I
say, fiduciary responsibilities to protect its species to
marine mammals, endangered and threatened species like sea
turtles, for example, and to manage and conserve and restore
habitat, very big issue to us, as you know, Mr. Chairman, as
you know on the Eastern Shore and the work we have done in
habitat restoration.
NOAA appreciates this opportunity to provide initial
comments on draft legislation. As I said at the beginning to
all the members of the Subcommittee and the staff, we really do
on behalf of all the men and women, on behalf of Vice Admiral
Conrad Lautenbacher, we very much appreciate your interest in
the agency and support for the agency and leadership on these
issues. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Statement of Scott Gudes, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
I. INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to appear before you to testify on this draft legislation
reauthorizing many of the ocean and coastal programs of the Department
of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA appreciates your continued support and interest in ensuring that
it has the appropriate authorities and organization to address its
ocean and coastal missions and responsibilities. In recent years, these
programs have been the subject of many hearings before this
Subcommittee. We note that the draft bills would authorize the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and four of its line offices,
the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National
Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the Office Marine and Aircraft
Operations (OMAO), and the National Ocean Service (NOS), as well as the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. These draft bills are being
reviewed by the Department and the Department would appreciate the
opportunity to provide written views on them prior to the markup.
One apparent goal of the legislation is to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of four NOAA line offices that have ocean and coastal
responsibilities'the National Ocean Service, the Office of Marine and
Aircraft Operations, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The thrust of the
legislation is to better integrate existing activities and capabilities
versus creating new programs, and to improve the scientific basis for
decision-making. The Department and NOAA will continue working with the
Subcommittee to ensure that the different bills appropriately address
authorizations for each NOAA line office.
The Administration is implementing the Oceans Act of 2000. The
President appointed the Commission on Ocean Policy last summer.
Currently, the Commission is in the midst of a series of nine regional
fact-finding meetings. In fact, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher is presently
testifying at an Oceans Commission Field Hearing. Commission Chairman,
Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret), has indicated his intent to
complete the Commission's work and produce a final report on schedule a
year from now.
The Administration shares your interest in the relationship among
these programs. Upon coming to NOAA, our Administrator, Vice Admiral
Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret.), called for a bottom-up,
fundamental ``NOAA Program Review'' to examine the Agency's strengths
and opportunities for improvement. In February, the Vice Admiral gave
all NOAA employees an opportunity to suggest organizational, resource
and business process changes. Since that time, I have been serving as
chair of the NOAA Program Review Team, a group of sixteen NOAA
Executives representing each line and staff office, supported by a
staff of executive leadership candidates, and a contract facilitator.
This team has discussed and debated a number of programmatic and
organizational issues, employee suggestions and has put forward their
own ideas for building a better NOAA to serve the American people.
As you know, most of the new leadership for NOAA has now come on
board. At this time, we are drafting the Program Review Team (PRT)
report and will soon present this to the Administrator, Deputy
Administrator and senior NOAA and Department of Commerce leadership for
their consideration. While I cannot discuss the report prior to its
review, approval and release, I should note that we have considered
some of the issues raised by this Subcommittee and this legislation.
NOAA leadership will, of course, return to discuss with you and the
Committee staff relevant issues after the Administration has considered
the PRT report. I hope that we can work with you on any reforms and
legislative changes that may be required.
I will provide some comments on the draft legislation here today.
But, in part because of the review we are finalizing, I would also like
to reserve the right to provide subsequent suggestions. I will keep the
Subcommittee updated on the Administration's efforts and look forward
to working with you as a bill is finalized. NOAA will continue working
with the Subcommittee to ensure that authorizations for each NOAA
office are appropriately addressed and are consistent with the
President's Budget.
II. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION
Generally NOAA supports the provisions in Title I, Section 101,
outlining the activities NOAA is authorized to undertake in pursuit of
its missions. As you know, NOAA's mission is twofold: to describe and
predict changes in the earth's environment, and to conserve and manage
wisely the Nation's coastal and marine resources and to provide
sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA will also work with the
Subcommittee to be sure we have the necessary funding authorities for
grants, contracts, and other agreements. As these authorities are the
tools we need to do our job, it is important that this section provides
the necessary flexibility and efficiency.
III. THE NATIONAL COASTAL AND OCEAN SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT
The National Coastal and Ocean Service Authorization Act renames
NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) the National Coastal and Ocean
Service--a change which better reflects the scope of NOS programs. NOS'
mission is to be our principal line office for coastal stewardship
through partnerships at all levels. NOS works to support and provide
the science, information, management, and leadership necessary to
balance the environmental and economic well-being of the Nation's
coastal resources and communities. Programs like our NOS Coastal
Services Center integrate NOAA programs and focus on program delivery
for our customers--America's coastal managers and communities.
Section 3. National Coastal and Ocean Service
As Section 3(b) indicates, NOS relies on a variety of underlying
statutory authorities. Among these authorities are the Coastal Zone
Management Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, both of which
support NOS' mission of managing and conserving the coastal and ocean
resources upon which our Nation depends. Explicit in these management
programs is the need for interagency cooperation and partnerships. NOS
uses, promotes and relies upon partnerships with other agencies,
States, local authorities, nongovernmental organizations, Federally
recognized Indian tribes, academia and the private sector. Section 3(d)
of the draft bill is intended to promote this partnership-based
approach by providing the authority to use a variety of agreements,
grants and other cooperative tools; however, we believe the section, as
drafted, may require technical revision, and the Department will work
with the Subcommittee on this language. NOAA suggests that the bill
provide explicit authority for the Coastal America Partnership Program
in this section of the bill. NOAA will continue to work with the
Subcommittee to ensure that the grants and agreements language provides
both the flexibility and the efficiency to carry out its work.
Section 4. Coastal Monitoring, Assessment, Observation, and Forecasting
Throughout the Federal Government, as well as at the State and
local level and academia, people are engaged in a wide variety of
coastal monitoring and related activities. Much of the monitoring is
regional and often is conducted or supported by a variety of Federal
agencies ranging from NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Coast
Guard to the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Navy. Data is
gathered to meet the program requirements or the needs of a specific
group of users.
Currently there are efforts underway to coordinate these various
systems into an Integrated and Sustained Coastal Ocean Observing
System. This effort is part of the larger effort to develop the U.S.
contribution to the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), which is
international in scope. NOAA is a full participant in these efforts,
which are being led by the National Ocean Research Leadership Council
(NORLC) of which NOAA is a member. In March, a meeting was held in
Virginia to further develop an implementation plan for the U.S.
contributions to GOOS. The meeting was held in order to help coordinate
a response to a Congressional request for various agencies to develop a
plan for an ocean observing system. A paper is being prepared and
should be presented to the NORLC for approval at the semiannual meeting
on May 23. The Council intends to forward it to the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for its final review before
delivery to Congress.
While supportive of the objectives of Section 4, I would like to
defer comments on the specific organization of the coastal observing
system until the OSTP/NORLC report is delivered to Congress.
Section 5: Coastal and Navigation Services
This section on technical assistance provides the authority to
train, educate and assist others through the transfer of technology and
expertise in areas relating to ocean and coastal resource management.
Section 6: State of the Coast Report
A periodic assessment would help identify new challenges and help
monitor and assess the success of ongoing research and management
efforts. NOAA will work with the Committee to determine the most
effective means for achieving this objective.
IV. HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS
Overview
The Administration supports reauthorization of the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act (HSIA) of 1998. NOAA's hydrographic services
provide data that promote safe, efficient maritime commerce and port
security. We do have several comments on some elements of the draft
bill under consideration by the Subcommittee, relating to the
implementation of a product quality assurance program, discussing the
program mission, creating a permanent advisory panel, repealing of the
Act of 1947 and authorizing appropriations.
Section 3: Quality Assurance Program
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, Section 303
(a)(3) directs NOAA to promulgate standards for hydrographic services
provided by the Administration. Under Section 304, the Administrator
then may, at his or her discretion, certify hydrographic products
produced by non-Federal entities that meet those standards. Some
examples of standards NOAA has promulgated or is promulgating include:
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) S-44 Standards for
Hydrographic Surveys, the NOAA Hydrographic Manual and survey
specifications in contracts for hydrographic surveys; Tide and Current
Table production standards; the Nautical Charting Manual and IHO chart
specifications; and recommended Standards for Electronic Chart Systems.
The Quality Assurance section of the HSIA (Sec. 304) states that
NOAA may develop and implement a quality assurance program to certify
``hydrographic products,'' which the HSIA defines as ``any publicly or
commercially available product produced by a non-Federal entity that
includes or displays hydrographic data.'' The draft bill changes the
term ``may'' to ``shall.'' The draft bill would require the Secretary
to implement such a program within 2 years. For the following reasons,
NOAA opposes this change.
The language raises questions of liability. The proposed amendment
would require NOAA certify any and all products on a basis that is
equally available to all interested parties. Certification would imply
that NOAA authorizes products for a specific use, i.e., for navigation.
Therefore, if enacted and implemented, the Federal Government would
likely be named as a party to litigation stemming from marine accidents
in which one or more of the parties used a privately produced product
that had been certified by NOAA. The HSIA attempts to limit exposure to
liability at Section 304(c), which says the Federal Government shall
``not be liable for any negligence by a person that produces''
certified products. But, parties could bring other causes of action
against NOAA by claiming that NOAA itself was negligent by failing to
discover the negligence of the party producing the hydrographic product
prior to issuing a certification. NOAA's certification obligations are
also unclear under the new language. NOAA may be under an obligation to
identify all producers of hydrographic products and review them for
accuracy prior to certifying them. This creates a potential litigation
threat and could raise legal costs for the Department of Commerce.
It may impinge on responsibilities of the U.S. Coast Guard. As
noted, certification by NOAA would imply Federal approval of the
product for use in navigation. This could lead to confusion because the
Coast Guard, not NOAA, has responsibility for certifying aids to
navigation (including NOAA charts) as meeting legal carriage
requirements as established under international law and agreements.
NOAA would coordinate the certification requirement very closely with
the U.S. Coast Guard. NOAA recommends a thorough Coast Guard review of
the quality assurance provisions before enactment.
The HSIA at Section 304(b)(2) says NOAA can charge a fee for
certification and that the fee can be set to cover the complete cost of
the certification process, including administration. The proposed
amendment states that implementation is ``subject to the availability
of appropriations.'' It is unclear whether the program should be self
sufficient or not. If mandated to implement the quality assurance
program, the program should not be subsidized by taxpayers.
Section 4(a).--Mission
In the mission statement, NOAA recommends including language to
enable NOAA to support port security efforts. NOAA disagrees with the
Subcommittee's proposed amendment which would permit the Administrator
to use funds directly in support of two other NOAA missions, coastal
and fishery management. As drafted, this could potentially divert
resources from navigation requirements, such as reducing the survey
backlog. Instead, NOAA recommends language that would direct the Agency
to aggressively seek such ancillary uses of hydrographic data.
Section 5--Creating a Permanent Advisory Panel
The creation of permanent advisory panels can provide some benefits
for pressing public matters that require ongoing, frequent interaction
among all interests. In this case, alternatives, such as studies by the
National Research Council/National Academies of Science and routine
outreach activities could be used to achieve similar results. Also,
NOAA currently is an active participant in the interagency effort on
the Marine Transportation System (MTS), which already has an advisory
group. The MTS National Advisory Committee could create a working group
to address issues related to hydrographic services. This may be better
option because a working group could look beyond NOAA and examine all
Federal agencies with navigation information responsibilities,
including the Navy, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), the
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Coast Guard.
Section 4(b)(2)--Repeal of the Act of 1947
The draft bill repeals the 55 year old organic authority for NOAA's
navigation and positioning programs, including surveying, mapping,
charting, tides, currents and related activities. The goal of merging
the 1947 Act and the HSIA has merit but, as proposed, the 1947 Act's
permanent authorization for these programs is not sustained. The
Administration understands that limiting authorizations of
appropriations to a set number of years provides an impetus for
Congress to maintain its oversight responsibilities. Programs relating
directly to public safety, however, should not be subjected to the
potential uncertainty that is created when such authorizations lapse.
The Administration recommends that the following language be inserted
at the end of Section 7:
``(5) If this Act is not reauthorized before Fiscal Year 2009,
such sums as necessary may be appropriated for the activities
authorized under this Act for each subsequent fiscal year
beginning in Fiscal Year 2009.''
Section 7: Authorization of Appropriations
The proposed section authorizing appropriations should be
consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request.
V. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONED
OFFICERS ACT OF 2002
The availability of commissioned officers within this agency, in
numbers sufficient to satisfy our operational requirements, is a matter
of growing importance as we face new challenges. The Corps has proven
its usefulness and I believe it has a continuing role to play as NOAA
strives to reach its fullest potential in service to the Nation. The
administration supports better alignment of the substance of current
NOAA Corps personnel authorities and practices with similar authorities
and practices, as now reflected in the revised and modernized Title 10
of the United States Code. Much of the existing language for the NOAA
Corps has as its source the Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned
Officers Act of 1948, which served to provide parity with the other
commissioned services. Little substantive modernization has occurred in
the existing language over the years. Consolidation into one
comprehensive Act of existing statutory language related to the NOAA
Corps, language that is now scattered in the United States Code, would
be helpful. We are reviewing the draft bill, including the statutory
roles assigned to the President, and will provide written views as soon
as the review is complete.
VI. THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH SERVICE ACT
I would like to next address the portion of the bill entitled, A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Service Act,@ which
authorizes changes in what is now NOAA's Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR) or A NOAA Research@ as it is often called.
As an important and integral component of NOAA, NOAA Research explores
the earth and atmosphere from the surface of the sun to the depths of
the ocean. The NOAA Research role within the agency's larger mission is
to provide research for products and services that describe and predict
changes in the environment. Our results allow decision makers to make
effective judgments in order to prevent the loss of human life and
conserve and manage natural resources. The office conducts research in
three major areas: atmosphere, climate, and ocean and coastal
resources.
Section 4. Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
and Chief Scientist
This draft bill establishes the current NOAA OAR as the A National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Service@ within NOAA. The bill
provides that the Assistant Administrator of the Service will serve an
additional role as the Chief Scientist of NOAA. The section authorizes
the outreach and education functions of the Service and provides a
legislative mandate for the Office of Weather and Air Quality, an
Office of Climate Research, and an Office of Oceanographic Research,
Exploration, and Extension. It authorizes the National Undersea
Research Program as well as authorizes the Assistant Administrator to
oversee the National Sea Grant College Program. In respect to Sea
Grant, the Administration recommends that the legislation be amended to
be consistent with the President's Budget. The legislation formalizes
the existing partnerships between NOAA Research and our university
partners in 11 Joint Institutes. In addition, the legislation mandates
that the Assistant Administrator/Chief Scientist will be selected for
the position by virtue of education and scientific credentials and
shall be the principal science advisor to the NOAA Administrator.
Current legislative mandates for NOAA Research programs include the
National Weather Service Organic Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C. ' 313), which
provides a non-expiring authority for NOAA to monitor and record
climatic conditions, and the 1990 Global Change Research Act (15 U.S.C.
' 2921), which establishes the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) aimed at understanding climate variability and predictability.
The Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
provides authority through 2002 for NOAA to fund research, prevention
and control activities that relate to aquatic nuisance species. The
National Sea Grant College Program Re-authorization Act of 1998
authorizes the National Sea Grant College Program, the Knauss Fellows
program, and research on invasive species, oyster disease, and harmful
algal blooms through 2003. The Sea Grant program was originally
authorized in 1966.
Science and research at NOAA is one of the areas that has been
discussed by the NOAA Program Review Team (PRT). The issue of NOAA
research and science in support of our oceanic and atmospheric missions
as well as the role of the Chief Scientist and the NOAA Science
Advisory Board will be one of the areas that the PRT report will cover.
As I noted earlier in my testimony, these are issues that will be
discussed with the Administrator, Deputy Administrator and the senior
leadership team in NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
Section 5. Office of Climate Research
As you are aware, NOAA is well established as a leading science
agency in climate research. Our research in this area has led to key
accomplishments such as helping to identify the cause of the ozone hole
in the Antarctic and providing a six-month warning on El Nino in 1997.
The agency hears from stakeholders that the need is greater than ever
for delivery of reliable climate information for enhanced planning and
decision making. Providing reliable climate information is becoming
increasingly important to the health, safety and vitality of the
American people and to the national and global economies. The Federal
Government should play a strong role in providing climate information
that is crucial in helping our stakeholders manage their lives and
businesses.
To respond to the need for a coordinated Federal research effort
and reliable climate information, the Administration has proposed
restructuring climate programs within the Federal Government to better
enable them to answer scientific questions that ultimately influence
policy. Therefore, the White House has proposed that the government's
climate change research be coordinated through two new offices, a
Climate Change Science Program Office and a Climate Change Technology
Program Office. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere will be designated to head the Climate Change Science
Office. The Administration is seeking to address the concerns that the
current U.S. Global Change Research Program overseen by seven Federal
agencies may not be wide enough in scope to meet the constantly
changing needs of climate research and may not provide sufficient
accountability. Under the Administration proposal, a cabinet-level
Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration will
make recommendations to the President on climate change issues. It is
anticipated that NOAA will play a significant role in supporting this
effort. We look forward to working with the Congress toward achieving
our common goals in delivery of the world's best climate research.
Section 6. Office of Weather and Air Quality Research
We are very appreciative of the support from Congress on the recent
passage of the amendment to the energy legislation as passed in H.R. 4
which provides NOAA with authority to issue air quality forecasts and
regional warnings as a mission of the agency. Providing a mandate for
NOAA's air quality research will be beneficial to the American public.
The 1990 Clean Air Amendments define NOAA's role in providing the
atmospheric chemistry and transport research that supports the efforts
of the interagency National Acid Rain Precipitation Program. We look
forward to working with the Committee to develop language that properly
clarifies NOAA's role in air quality forecasting research.
Section 7 - 10. Oceanographic Research, Exploration, and Extension,
Ocean Exploration Program, and the National Undersea Research
Program
The current version of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research Act establishes an Office of Oceanographic Research, Education
and Extension and an Office of Ocean Exploration and the National
Undersea Research Program (NURP). NOAA Research and NOAA Ocean Service
manage an Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) that has a mission of
searching and investigating the oceans for the purpose of discovery and
the advancement of knowledge of the ocean's physical, chemical and
biological environments, processes, characteristics, and resources. OE
accomplishes this through interdisciplinary expeditions to unknown, or
poorly known regions and through innovative experiments. The program
advocates discovery-based science and collaboration between multiple
partners and disciplines.
As proposed, the authorization bill mandates an outreach and
education function within NOAA Research. Education is an important
component of NOAA's mission and of ensuring that future generations are
prepared for the science needs of tomorrow. An education focus has been
provided for some specific NOAA programs, but it would be preferable to
have the agency-wide authority to develop an integrated and coordinated
education strategy and program. To deliver information about our
research effectively, a strong communications function is critical to
success. If we are to promote scientific literacy and foster the next
generation of world-class scientists to lead us into the 21st century,
we need to strengthen our outreach and education capabilities and fully
integrate communications into the management structure of the agency.
We look forward to working with the Committee meet these objectives.
An important feature of the authorization is that it supports the
longstanding relationships NOAA has with university partners through
the Joint Institutes. We believe that these partnerships are critical
to achieving NOAA's research goals and that the relationships have been
key to our successful track record in environmental research. We look
forward to further solidifying those partnerships through a legislative
mandate.
VII. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICES ESTABLISHMENT ACT
NOAA appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts to formally authorize
the National Marine Fisheries Service through this draft bill. It is
important to note that this authorization would supplement NOAA's
existing authority to manage the Nation's additional living marine
resources, such as marine mammals and endangered or threatened species,
among others. NOAA serves a significant role in protecting and managing
these resources through its authority under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. These resources also
include managing the effects to marine or anadromous species due to
hydropower projects, and preservation of essential fish habitats. NOAA
would also suggest that section 3(b)(1) be changed to reflect NOAA's
present work which includes resources in state and international
waters, such as marine mammals. For these resources, NOAA partners with
states and other countries to ensure that the resources are managed in
a comprehensive manner. NOAA would like to work with the Subcommittee
to ensure these important authorities that will enable NOAA to
comprehensively manage the Nation's living marine resources.
VIII. CONCLUSION
NOAA appreciates this opportunity to provide initial comments on
this draft legislation. NOAA commends the Subcommittee for recognizing
the need to facilitate the integration of ongoing research and
management programs and to focus national monitoring and observation
efforts on meeting diverse national needs and requirements. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee as this legislation is
introduced and makes its way through the legislative process.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gudes. The bottom-up review
that is being conducted by your agency now, is there a general
timeframe when that will be concluded so that it will
correspond to the movement of this authorization before it hits
the House Floor so we can adopt some of those suggestions,
changes?
Mr. Gudes. What I can tell you is that the review has been
completed, that we have been--we use some of our executive--it
was an internal NOAA staff effort, leadership and staff, ideas
that came from the people who work across the agency, across
the country. I chaired it. We are moving forward next week to
the Admiral and to the leadership panel. He is the boss. He
works things as a corporate board. We are a bureau of the
Department of Commerce. The next stage would be to go to the
Secretary of Commerce level, and I would assume the Office of
Management and Budget. I know the Admiral's disposition would
be to have us come up and brief the Committee staff and the
Committee. Unfortunately, I really can only tell you from the
first part of my statement that I know when it is going to the
NOAA board. I don't know how long it will take and how many
issues will have to be reviewed. I don't know how long it will
be able to bring it to you.
Mr. Gilchrest. We would like to stay in touch with you on
that so as you go through that process in the next, let us say,
week or two, we might have some estimate as to the length of
time that you can come to some conclusions and recommendations,
so that perhaps in the process of--before we mark it up, I
think it would be the best time in the Subcommittee, but any
time it hits the House Floor. We would like to mark this bill
up and get it signed this session and not wait another year on
that. So any recommendations you can give us would be very
helpful.
Mr. Gudes, you mentioned a specific authorization for
education. Would you have some language as to the direction
that that would take? Is that the Ph.D. Level, undergraduate,
graduate degree, public schools? How do you envision that?
Mr. Gudes. In certain parts of NOAA like the marine
sanctuary program, there are specific authorizations that say
that education is part of our mission. As an agency we have
gone far beyond that and we very much take to heart the
effective way to do environmental education. There are specific
programs, University of Maryland - Eastern Shore, we have
worked on. I think where we are sort of lacking is an overall
direction in terms of an organic act in terms of Congress that
says what I said, that what our mission includes education as
we interpret it, as we believe it. I think that all the above
that you mentioned are true.
We work at the university level very much and I find some
of the most uplifting, impressive things that people in the
agency do are with K through 12 at the local level. I could sit
here and talk about a lot of these efforts.
Mr. Gilchrest. So this is something that is being reviewed
with that bottom-up review.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, education is one of the areas we looked at.
A lot of our employees had a lot of comments about it and it is
something that I think most people across NOAA share. My new
boss came from the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education. He is a big believer in educational outreach and
what we can do, as I said, to help the next generation. It is
an important issue for the country and an important issue for
the agency in terms of where our workforce will come from.
Mr. Gilchrest. In that bottom-up review, is there a good
amount of time being spent with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the kinds of--all of the issues surrounding their
relationship with the council's overcapitalization, ecosystem,
management plans, the education of--a consortium with the
industry to gather data to use their boats for data, those
kinds of things?
Mr. Gudes. We haven't had a number of those efforts
ongoing. I know we are dealing with performance measures and
workshops. We have been getting together with different
constituents in terms of fisheries to look at some of the very
issues you raised. You tend to look more corporately at NOAA
overall in issues like science in NOAA that I mentioned before
and that would relate to fisheries as it would to a number of
areas where we conduct research. We didn't address as much some
of the specific line office issues.
Mr. Gilchrest. Just the basic structure of NOAA.
Mr. Gudes. The admiral asked 3 basic questions and sent it
out to the NOAA employees, and they kind of go like: ``Are we
aligned correctly for our mission now and in the future?''
Mr. Gilchrest. Just taking that one question as an example,
coastal ocean-observing program, how is that aligned with the
NMFS community to gather information to give to the councils to
make their allocation decisions?
Mr. Gudes. Well--
Mr. Gilchrest. Or is that something --
Mr. Gudes. We might address an issue like how many parts of
NOAA do ocean observing, what sort of programs do they run,
does that current structure make sense. Fisheries--as you know,
biological and fishery observing centers like FOCI would be one
of the types of systems that one would consider.
As far as getting the second part of the question, getting
the data to the council, I don't think that would be the type
of issue that would be addressed.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, just to make sure I finished.
There were 3 fundamental questions the admiral asked the NOAA
employees in the program review. One was, ``Are we aligned for
our mission now and in the future?''
Second, ``Are we resourced correctly?''
And, third, ``Are our--this is my paraphrasing--our
business processes as good as they could be? Are we doing
business as efficiently as we could?'' And it is those sort of
general parameters.
And generally, NOAA corporate, if you will, if that--
Mr. Gilchrest. And that is very good and we would like to--
as you come through with that kind of information, we would be
very happy to participate in that process before we come up
with our bills, especially the collaborative end of that, how
do you synthesize all of that information, what is NOAA's
mission, for example, it is a myriad of things. And there is
climate studies going on out there that are going to impact and
the specific purpose for the climate studies. Some of them, at
any rate, is to see how they impact the fisheries. And there
are observing tools out there for ocean currents and maybe a
classic book could be written by an employee of NOAA as ocean
currents and scallop larvae would be a best seller, I think.
But to understand that ocean currents--where they carry the
phytoplankton and where the larvae is carried pretty much
determines how much fish you are going to have in a particular
place.
So if all of that information that is absorbed by the
various entities of NOAA, that data is pulled together and
synthesized along with the climate variabilities, we up here
can get a better picture and determine policy. I just look
forward to working with you on that bottom-up review.
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
submit my opening statement for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, a Delegate in Congress
from Guam
Thank you Mr. Chairman. The programs and activities of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are of paramount interest to the
members of this subcommittee.
In this regard, I always welcome new opportunities to have
representatives from NOAA come before the subcommittee to further
enlighten us about NOAA's essential role as the Federal Government's
principal steward of our Nation's living ocean and coastal resources.
But as much as I enjoy hearing from NOAA, I must say that I find it
odd to convene a legislative oversight hearing on several draft NOAA
bills and fail to invite any witnesses other than NOAA to testify.
Rest assured, I am confident that we will hear only the unvarnished
truth from NOAA about the merits or faults of these bills. But I cannot
believe the we would not benefit from the views and comments of
interested parties outside of the agency.
In addition, it remains uncertain to me why this subcommittee, or
the Congress in general, should be considering at this time organic
legislation to authorize the administration and organizational
structure of NOAA.
At present, two separate panels--the National Commission of Ocean
Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission--are in the midst of comprehensive
reviews of U.S. domestic ocean policy, governance and resource
management. Both commissions are likely to produce valuable insights
and comprehensive recommendations that could be pivotal in determining
how best to reorganize not only NOAA, but also how to reshape the
entire Federal Government as it applies to our future interaction as a
society with the ocean environment.
By these comments, it is not my intent to insinuate that the ideas
contained in these draft bills are without merit. Nothing could be
further from the truth. In fact, ideas such as re-authorizing the
Hydrographic Survey Act, or authorizing an entirely new integrated
coastal monitoring program, are laudable and worth pursuing.
Rather, I am simply saying that we may be acting prematurely. If we
do decide to move organic authorizing legislation for NOAA, I strongly
suggest that we will need a more thorough vetting of these ideas to
ensure that the subcommittee has all the facts in hand before
proceeding.
As always, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working cooperatively
and in a bipartisan fashion with you, and with the other members of
this subcommittee, to ensure that NOAA remains the Federal Government's
pre-eminent authority on ocean and coastal matters. Thank you.
______
Mr. Underwood. I thought you might object.
Mr. Gilchrest. I was thinking about objecting.
Mr. Underwood. I want to submit Mr. Pallone's statement for
the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, I have strong concerns about the draft
reauthorization measure for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) because it does not include adequate authorizing
text for the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). Instead, there
is inclusion of a new mandate to authorize the Ocean Exploration
program, a new program that duplicates the NURP mission in many
respects. It was a shock to me that NURP did not receive much in the
way of support in this bill.
NURP has a long record of accomplishment that includes science-
based programs resulting in information used to form national policy on
deep sea disposal, fisheries management and shoreline protection. NURP
has been in existence for over 20 years but has never received formal
reauthorization, and instead has relied on Congress to support it
through the budget process. The six regional undersea centers
comprising the NURP perform a major role in the nation's research
effort, promoting the sustainable development of aquatic resources,
global environmental change and ocean technology.
The National Undersea Research Center for the Middle Atlantic Bight
region is located in my district at Rutgers University. The Center,
which was created in 1992, has focused on establishing Long-term
Ecosystem Observatories that enable multi-disciplinary science using in
situ observations and manipulations. A key strength of NURP is its
partnerships with scientists and resource managers from academia,
private research institutions and Federal, state and local agencies.
The language that has been created for the authorization measure
for NURP is simple and has been approved by both NOAA and the 6
regional NURP centers. I would like an explanation for why NOAA did not
move forward on text that was already agreed upon by all NURP regional
centers and NOAA itself.
In addition, formal language is needed that promotes partnering
between NURP and the Ocean Exploration program since NOAA can save
money if the two programs work together. The new Ocean Exploration
program possesses several unique objectives that can complement the
NURP mission and long record of achievement. By working more closely
together, both programs can become a more efficient and effective asset
for NOAA research.
______
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Gudes, you know the National Undersea
Research Program, NURP, was agreed upon last year by all 6 NURP
centers and NOAA itself, that you know it was going to receive
some attention and some priority. Don't you think it should be
included in the reauthorization of NOAA specifically?
Mr. Gudes. I think the bill before the Subcommittee--you
have addressed it under ocean exploration as a generic term, if
I understand it, which relates both to--I believe this is what
the Subcommittee has proposed--both the ocean exploration
program, undersea research program and actually, I think, some
of the related programs like JASON. That is the Subcommittee's
judgment, I think, on whether there should be subelements to
that.
Mr. Underwood. I appreciate that, but I am asking for what
you think and what NOAA thinks about specifically identifying
the NURP program.
Mr. Gudes. I think NURP is an excellent undersea research
program being conducted at 6 centers and has been going on
since the late 1970's, early 1980's timeframe. I think the
ocean exploration program that this Subcommittee helped get
going 2 years ago--the NURP program were both complementary
programs. I probably see the similarities between undersea
research and ocean exploration maybe more than the two programs
do. And I think that they are, in fact, slightly different.
I think when we talked last year, we talked about
nonhypothesis-driven research.
Mr. Underwood. Just seems like yesterday.
Mr. Gudes. You had said that you didn't quite understand
that, and I almost said back to you I don't quite understand
it, either, but I couldn't say that. I think there are ways of
doing undersea research and exploration in doing the right kind
of things that NOAA needs to do and the country needs to do,
and there are slightly different ways of doing it. Ocean
exploration is a little bit oriented toward going to areas to
see what is there, but also a little bit different in terms of
who competes. It is bringing more partnerships into the
program. It is bringing new undersea exploration partners into
the program.
In the NURP program we have been funding the infrastructure
at 6 centers. They are very solid--I can go through them, if
you want, and I think that that helps provide the
infrastructure and underpinning and, in fact, just to show you
back what I said, there are a number of these initiatives and
competitions run under the ocean exploration program which NURP
centers are competing for and winning.
So, for example, we will be conducting research in the
Arctic area of Alaska and in the Gulf of Alaska and the
University of Alaska NURP program will likely be a member of
that and a part of that.
We conducted exploration missions along the East Coast last
year. University of Connecticut, Avery Point NURP Center,
Rutgers, New Jersey NURP Center, and University of North
Carolina-Wilmington were all part of that exploration mission.
So I really do see them as interrelated programs.
Mr. Underwood. Just to understand--you know, I know that
NOAA's currently undergoing this bottom-up review. And also in
the current environment, there is also the National Commission
of Ocean Policy and the Pew Ocean Commission are also
conducting in the midst of comprehensive reviews of U.S.
Domestic policy, ocean policy governance and resource
management. How are those efforts different or how do they
complement yours, and how is it, in your mind, do you think we
can make the best use of all of those efforts in the
Subcommittee?
Mr. Gudes. I think all of these things, first of all, are
very positive. I think Admiral Lautenbacher said last year when
I saw him at the Ocean Policy Commission, we do this once every
30 years, Stratton Commission, the new commission, a good
fundamental review, Federal-wide what we are doing, nationwide
what we are doing. Again the Pew effort. I think this is all
positive. It is all about the year of the oceans, it is all
about the sort of efforts that you all have been advocating. A
number of these are external groups of which they are looking
in part at NOAA and telling us what they think we do well or
don't do well or how we fit.
The internal review--the program review is an internal
review. It is NOAA employees coming forward and taking a look
how we--and it goes beyond just ocean programs, all NOAA
atmospheric ocean programs from solar forecasting to undersea
research, how we think we fit together as an organization
internally and a little bit looking out. So it is two sides of
some of the same issues.
I don't think these other groups will be looking at
business practices, for example, which we are within NOAA,
things like human resources.
I talked about education. Human resources, how are we going
to attract the kind of work force that NOAA is going to need to
attract to be the premier scientific agency, research and
service agency, stewardship agency in 5 years, 10 years, 20
years as the workforce is declining. Those are the kind of
issues that we are taking about. Probably these other
commissions are not. So they are all related.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit
my statement for the record as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you to the witnesses for taking the time to be here today. I am pleased
this hearing is being held to discuss a number of draft bills,
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act of
2002.
I would like to express my concern however, with one provision of
this bill. The current draft does not include adequate authorizing text
for the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). In fact, the draft
bill does not adequately provide for this program, which is a hallmark
for the nation's undersea research, education, and technology
development efforts.
Of particular concern is the inclusion of a new mandate to
authorize the Ocean Exploration program, a mandate that duplicates the
NURP mission in many respects. NOAA and the Council of NURP Center
Directors drafted authorization text for NURP last year. I respectfully
request you consider this modification as a substitute for the current
language in the draft bill.
In addition, collaboration between the NURP and Ocean Exploration
programs needs to be improved. NURP has many strengths that can be
brought to bear on the emerging Ocean Exploration program. I have long
been a strong supporter of the NURP program, and look forward to
working with the Chairman and the other members of the subcommittee to
address the concerns I have with this bill, as it is currently written.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
______
Mr. Saxton. And I would also like to say there are others
who share Mr. Underwood's concern that the current draft does
not include adequate authorizing text for the National Undersea
Research Program, and I have discussed this with staff,
including John Rayfield who is sitting next to me. And my
opening statement discusses this issue in detail. I am
satisfied that we will be able to work this out between now and
markup, so--
Mr. Gilchrest. I would--I will be glad to work it out with
Mr. Underwood, Mr. Saxton, and certainly NOAA. National
undersea research and ocean exploration programs to me are
extremely critical into finding out what we don't know. We
can't set a program and create status and standards until you
get out there to see what is out there. And I think part of
that phenomenon is finding out about those thermal vents where
you have these creatures that don't use sunlight to survive.
Some extraordinary things we can find out in this--what was
that--we can end this Congress. Congress is a human
institution, so we have some strange phenomenon happening here
on a regular basis, but that is to be expected, I think,
sometimes enjoy.
But the ocean exploration, Mr. Saxton, I want to assure you
that I am not sure $14 million dollars that is authorized for
that is enough. So if we can pursue that and make sure that--
the discussion we had 2 years ago was a good discussion, Mr.
Gudes. I would certainly urge you to ensure in that bottom-up
review that the Members of Congress at least in this Committee
are urging you to continue that with all deliberate speed and
all the curiosity and ingenuity that you can muster. So we will
work with Mr. Saxton in developing the language.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a little
deaf. I was trying to figure, did you say nurd center or nerve
center?
I do want to echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Saxton
about the consolidation and whatever efforts that NOAA is
trying to do here.
I do have some questions to Mr. Gudes. I think I have
introduced a bill about something to do with tsunami warning
and wanted to see if NOAA--I know there is a tsunami center
that has been built or constructed in Hawaii. But it provides
only with reference to coastal States. But leaving out the
ancillary areas--and I wanted to ask Mr. Gudes if this was
intentional or is this an oversight? Can we be a little more
inclusive in terms of the programs out of the tsunami program
that is currently being implemented?
Mr. Gudes. Congressman Faleomavaega, we run 2 tsunami
warning centers. They are actually under the weather service
part of NOAA. One is in Palmer, Alaska, and one is in I think
Eva Beach in Hawaii. I believe that we do, in fact, present an
international structure and provide tsunami warnings to the
islands of the Pacific, just like the weather service very
strongly works on providing weather services across the
Pacific, but I will get back to you if I am incorrect on that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would appreciate. There has also been
consideration--and here again I am pleading ignorance about the
global warming research, if NOAA is actively engaged in this.
You know, my good friend from California, a distinguished
Member of Congress who happens to chair one of the Science
Subcommittees, described global warming as global baloney. And
I sincerely hope that this is not NOAA's position in terms of
the seriousness of this phenomenon or this issue and that we
will be getting accurate scientific data to support the
concerns about this issue. And I wanted to ask you if this is
an ongoing program as well with NOAA.
Mr. Gudes. Absolutely, Congressman, global change and
climate research are among the most important programs run in
the agency. We spend some $305 million or so on climate
services and climate research in NOAA. It is an area where when
people talk about atmospheric NOAA and oceanic NOAA, you can't
make that distinction because the oceans are the drivers of the
world's climate. And this is an area that we have been stepping
up to for some period of time. The TAO Array across the Pacific
by which we know El Nino, for example, started in the early
1980's and it is something that really showed the way, if you
will, for what can be done on a worldwide ocean-observing
system such as the Committee is talking about.
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is also taking sentiments expressed
by Congressman Underwood and which I am very interested in the
fact that probably the 2 deepest areas in the world, one is
called the Marianas Trench and also the Tallin Trench. And I
wanted to ask if NOAA is seriously proactive in terms of doing
as much exploratory research. And I think if I am correct, and
please correct me if I am wrong, these are the 2 deepest areas
of the ocean floor. It is in the Marianas near Guam and one
near my district in Tonga.
Mr. Gudes. On the civil side, I believe this is correct. We
don't have submersibles that would go that deep. I think the
Japanese do. But Ocean Exploration and National Undersea
Research Program are programs that are not just within the US
EEZ. They are also looking at international areas. There is
actually a mission going on now in the Galapagos area off of
South America taking a look at some seafloor spreading vents,
as the Chairman was talking about. And I must say that for me,
I am a major advocate of NOAA playing its role and the United
States playing its role in ocean exploration.
I was down at the Aquarius habitat, undersea habitat in the
Keys where men and women work undersea. It is part of the NURP
program we were talking about, and I am absolutely supportive
of the comments that have been made here today.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We had a joint hearing sometime last
year, and one of the things I came to understand and we got
this 900-pound gorilla, It is called the U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory that sits somewhere on the West Coast and probably
have some here on the East Coast. And a lot of times when we do
the research in dealing with the oceans, marine life, all of a
sudden, it says classified. It is security. Something of this
nature. How extensive is NOAA's efforts to make sure that
information and knowledge or data that we get is for public
information that is not going to compromise our national
security? When we talk to the Navy, they don't say much about
it.
Mr. Gudes. Well, we wouldn't compromise national security,
but we are an agency that works very much in an unclassified
format. If you turn to our web site, NOAA.gov, you will see how
much we try to get our information out to the public, schools
and kids. We work through ocean partnership, research,
leadership and on a day-to-day basis with the U.S. Navy. Your
staff on the Committee here came down to the Monitor Marine
Sanctuary in North Carolina. Great example of U.S. Navy and
NOAA working together to recover parts of the USS Monitor which
sank off of Cape Hatteras in about 1863 or 1862, and part of
the marine sanctuary. The Navy brought in their salvage divers
and a saturation environment and really a successful effort. We
do work very closely with NAVOCEANO and Bay St. Louis, and I
think it is a great example of what can be done when Federal
agencies work together.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would you say we are not as advanced as
Japan and other nations as far as ocean exploration is
concerned?
Mr. Gudes. I don't know the answer to that. I think on the
civil side, one of the positive events that happened in the
last few years was this Commission on Ocean Exploration--
President's Commission on Ocean Exploration and taking a look
at what we needed to do. Certainly in NOAA I think it woke us
up to do more, and I think that in terms of submersibles it is
probably significant that most of the submersibles we are using
were built in the 1960's.
I was out on Pisces 4 with the University of Hawaii and
went to 1,200 feet off of Hawaii to do an exploration mission.
And many of these submersibles are 30 years old. Now they have
been renovated, but the country really hasn't been investing in
technology. The Aquarius habitat that I talked about again I
think is probably 20-year-old technology and it is something we
are taking a look a look at internally within our NURP program,
ocean exploration program.
[Information submitted for the record follows:]
Question for Scott Gudes from Rep. Faleomavaega
Question: Would you say we are not as advanced as Japan and other
nations as far as ocean exploration is concerned?
Answer: While the U.S. is not as advanced as other nations, we are
making good progress in ocean exploration-related efforts.
``Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean
Exploration,'' written in 2000 by the President's Panel on Ocean
Exploration, described some of the issues facing ocean exploration. The
Report described some of the challenges facing U.S. ocean exploration
efforts compared to other nations. For example:
LJapan, France, and Russia have submersibles that are
newer than U.S. vessels and which can also dive to deeper depths.
LJapan is the only nation with a full ocean-depth remotely
operated vehicle (ROV) that can reach the deepest depths of the ocean.
LOur premier deep diving submersible, Alvin was built in
1964. Although it is regularly overhauled and completely safe, its
maximum depth of 4,500 meters is shallower than that of several foreign
submersibles.
LIreland has mapped a larger percentage of its Exclusive
Economic Zone than the U.S.
The U.S. has been making progress in improving its ocean
exploration efforts. In fiscal year 2001, we initiated a new program in
Ocean Exploration in NOAA with an appropriation of $4 million. The
Administration requested an increase in fiscal year 2002 to $14
million, which Congress enacted. The Office of Ocean Exploration, in
cooperation with its many partners, has been working to address the
recommendations of the President's Panel. For example, the Panel
recommended that ``The Program should include a coordinated effort to
improve and promote ocean science education.'' One product that
addresses this goal is the Ocean Exploration website, which presently
attracts over 1.5 million hits per month from people of all
backgrounds. The Office also develops lesson plans that teachers use in
the classroom to promote a better understanding and appreciation of
ocean science. The Office of Ocean Exploration is working presently
with other partners from across government, industry, and academia to
address the other recommendations found in ``Discovering Earth's Final
Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration.''
______
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think we need to increase the
authorization for deep sea research like the submersibles? If
you're saying we are 30 years behind, that means we are really
behind. I remember the Cook Islands government had to solicit
the expertise of a Norwegian research group to find out that
there is approximately a little over $200 billion worth of
manganese nodules in the Cook Islands and not one American firm
or no corporate ingenuity--I thought we were a high tech
country, but apparently we are not. And I am wanting to know
that maybe we are not focusing properly on these kinds of
priorities that we ought to look at.
Mr. Gudes. The House Ocean Caucus has been very much an
advocate of ocean research and education. I agree with all your
comments. Every time one of these missions comes back, going
back to the Chairman's comment, they find some new life form,
some type of squid, coral or octopus we have not seen. When we
go to other planets looking for life forms, on this planet we
know there is a lot of life forms that we haven't found yet and
I think it is exciting. Our budget actually provides for in
NOAA about 30 some odd million, what I would call this package
of programs, which is submersibles. I would include in that the
ocean exploration line which is 14 million, the national
undersea research line, which is 13; The JASON which is about
getting out work--Bob Ballard's work and others. The vents
program off of the West Coast; the sustainable seas
expeditions, which is under our ocean service with Sylvia Earle
and National Geographic. You put all that package together,
they are doing similar type of work, which is about exploration
and discovery.
The last point I would like to make, what I said about
education, part and parcel, big part of these programs is
getting this information out to schools, out to kids, getting
the youth of the country to take part in these missions and to
follow these missions and create explorers of the future. I
think that is absolutely critical.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
patience, and Mr. Gudes, for your patience. I say here we are
and we are ready to go to Mars and we can't even get under the
depths of the ocean to find out what is down there. It is
amazing.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would agree with your comments and I think
all of us on this Committee would prefer to quadruple the
budget to NOAA for all its responsibilities.
Mr. Gudes, I would like to ask just 2 brief questions. One
is in this bottom-up review, is NOAA evaluating the value of
manned submersibles versus unmanned submersibles and where--
likely I would guess you are going to come up with some
combination of the 2, but where the emphasis will be on over
the next number of years?
Mr. Gudes. To answer your question, no, I can say that as
the Chairman--and there wasn't--that that wasn't addressed in
the bottom-up review.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that an ongoing question for NOAA?
Mr. Gudes. Yes. I had the great opportunity to sit with Dr.
Robert Ballard and Dr. Sylvia Earle who are on two sides of the
spectrum to solicit a debate on this issue a few years ago and
I think it is sort of a bit like our space program. You can do
a lot of things remotely very well. ROVs, AUVs are a big part
of the equation, but there is something about capturing the
imagination and getting people actually into the issue of
discovery that happens with submersibles. It is really quite
exciting. And, you know, we run a space station in NOAA along
with the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. It is called
the Aquarius. It is 3 miles off of Key Largo. It is in 60-
something feet and people live and work.
Going back to the Congressman, we have NASA astronauts
doing missions this summer to train in the Aquarius to really
get the first space station work. And on next Monday I will be
at the Kennedy Space Center taking part in the Link symposium
to talk about NASA and NOAA working together using space
exploration and robotics and technology and ocean exploration.
So it is an exciting area, and I do not know where it comes up.
I think both are part of the equation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the Chairman yield? I just wanted
to ask Mr. Gudes, am I correct to presume that the Navy does
have the most modern up-to-date submersibles now in service?
Mr. Gudes. I would like to get back to you on that with one
of our experts like Craig McLean, the head of Ocean
Exploration, to give you a better assessment. There was a
national undersea civil side assessment done a few years ago
which I can provide the Subcommittee. I don't know in the
unclassified world in the Navy how that compares.
[Information submitted for the record follows:]
Question for Scott Gudes from Rep. Faleomavaega
Question: Mr. Gudes, am I correct to presume that the Navy does
have the most modern up-to-date submersibles now in service?
Answer:
LThe Navy operates submersibles that can be used for
undersea research. These include the nuclear powered NR-1 and the USS
Dolphin (AGSS 555) a diesel-electric submarine. Their maximum operating
depths are 2,375 feet (724 meters) and 3,000 feet (915 meters),
respectively. These submersibles are used for both civilian and
military research activities.
LThe deepest diving research submersible owned by the
Navy, and operated by WHOI, is the DSV Alvin that has a depth
capability of 14,765 feet (4,500 meters) and conducts approximately 100
dives/year on mostly non-military related projects. Studies are
underway to extend the Alvin depth to 21,325 feet (6,500 meters). The
Navy retired the DSV Turtle and DSV Sea Cliff several years ago.
LWhile these submersibles were originally launched decades
ago, they have been overhauled and retrofitted many times with up-to-
date equipment and devices for conducting undersea operations. France,
Japan, and Russia operate submersibles that have a deeper depth
capability than Alvin, and their deep sea research capability, other
than for depth, approaches that of the Navy deep submergence vehicles.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. The other question--and I appreciate that
response and certainly, given the budget constraints, the most
effective use of those dollars for manned and unmanned
submersibles, maybe the unmanned would be the data gathered for
better understanding of the currents and the various aspects of
the ecosystems for the purpose of understanding the fisheries
and the pure exploration for the wonder and the vision that
humans can supply would be the manned submersibles.
The other question, Scott, is a plan for the U.S. portion
of global ocean observing system. We would like to move forward
with that, but we really don't want to move forward unattached
to your ideas. So if you could give us some idea when your plan
would be vetted so that we can incorporate it into our
legislation, we would really appreciate it.
Mr. Gudes. I think that is a good tie-together, Mr.
Chairman, as you talk about the ecosystems. It isn't just about
the submersible work we talked about. It is about the overall
ocean observing systems, really understanding the whole
ecosystem. And I probably should have focused on that as much
as I did about actually looking at ROVs and submersibles. We
are in the process of generating--both looking at coastal-
observing systems, ocean-observing systems, global ocean-
observing systems. It is an interagency effort. A draft of the
plan should be out by mid-June and is scheduled, I am told, to
be by the end of this summer. It will lay out a preliminary
architecture of what a system would look like. I believe this
goes back to the science advisor to provide to--I know a bit
about it. It is really talking about the things we need to
measure, the type of measurements we need to get both in the
coastal regime as well as the deep oceans, and there is a
difference in the products and uses and the type of
technologies and some sense of how dense those observing
systems should be. And that is, I think, an excellent effort.
Mr. Gilchrest. And then synthesize all the data.
Mr. Gudes. Data is in all of our programs, I think. Whether
we are talking satellite systems, NOAA has come to realize you
got to do end-to-end planning, that getting that data,
understanding how you are going to use it and store it and get
it out to the users is absolutely critical, has to be on the
front end.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Did you have a follow-
up question, Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on the
question--on the issue raised by the Chairman on the global
ocean-observing system implementation plan and the integrated
coastal ocean observation system. Of course, it goes without
saying that I am hoping that the islands of the Pacific is
given adequate attention in that effort.
Mr. Gudes. Absolutely, Congressman. Absolutely, we take our
responsibilities in our programs in the Western Pacific very
seriously.
I should have mentioned earlier, this is normally looked
upon as a Science Committee issue, but I talk sometimes here
about satellites. We are actually going to be activating and
moving one of our geostationary satellites to the west to cover
Guam and Japan because there are some issues with Japanese GMS
satellite coverage. It is what we call our GOES-9 satellite,
and we are going to be working with the Japanese building a
GOES receiver in Alaska. So we will actually be moving to help
them provide that coverage, because usually in Guam and Japan
and East Asia, it would be the Japanese user system.
But we absolutely do take that very seriously in all of our
programs.
Mr. Underwood. And when you do then, maybe you can talk to
the house into adapting its BlackBerry system so I can access
the BlackBerry in Guam, too, because, you know, I feel like the
whole House is discriminating against me, because everyone else
can access their BlackBerry in their home district.
I have just one more point--
Mr. Gilchrest. We don't have a BlackBerry system on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland. My BlackBerry has never been turned
on. It sits on my desk upstairs, and it doesn't work over there
on the Eastern Shore.
Mr. Underwood. Just last on the--this is out of scope of
the Subcommittee, but on the National Weather Service, on the
planes going into hurricanes, you know, it is my sincere hope
that those planes go into typhoons once in a while. We get 60
to 70 storms per year on the other side of the dateline, and
almost all of them pass in or around Guam, the Northern
Marianas or the Federated States.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, sir. We are always looking at--actually,
that is one of the things I do in my job as Deputy Under
Secretary, fleet allocation; and I can tell you there are
always more demands on the two P-3s we have in G-4 than--but I
was here when you were talking to the Admiral, and I understand
that issue very well of the Western Pacific, and I will
continue to look into that, sir.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
And we will probably put into one of these undersea
research programs a line about how to use that research and
expiration to eliminate the brown tree snake in Guam. There
must be some connection there with that.
Mr. Gudes. Drown them.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Encourage those typhoons to hit Guam
more often. You can strike that for the record. Whoever is
typing that down, though, it is not a good thing to say.
We appreciate your ongoing effort, Mr. Gudes, and we look
forward to working with you over the next couple of weeks, and
perhaps when the draft is ready, we can take a look at it and
model some of our language after your draft plans. But we look
forward to working with you.
Mr. Gudes. Us, too, Mr. Chairman. And let me just thank
this Subcommittee again for your leadership and your interest
in our programs; and on behalf of the country, we and--all of
our NOAA employees, we really do appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good luck. Thank you.
We will now go back to the--we are on Panel III: Mr.
Mitchell Ellis, Chief of the Branch, Wildlife Resources,
National Wildlife Refuge System; and Mr. Frank Dokter,
President, Walter's Camp, Inc.
Mr. Ellis, is anybody here from BLM that would like to sit
up at the table?
Mr. Ellis. Yes, there is actually.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you. We appreciate you
traveling across the continent to visit with us today.
STATEMENT OF MITCHELL R. ELLIS, CHIEF OF THE BRANCH OF WILDLIFE
RESOURCES, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Gilchrest. And, Mr. Ellis, welcome. You begin.
Mr. Ellis. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Mitchell Ellis, Chief of the Branch of
Wildlife Resources for the National Wildlife Refuge System. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R.
3937, which will revoke a small portion of Public Land Order
3442--let me start over.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of
H.R. 3937, which will revoke a small portion of the original
Public Land Order 3442, dated August 21, 1964. This Public Land
Order withdrew approximately 16,600 acres of public domain
lands along the Colorado River in California and Arizona for
the creation of Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. However, the
withdrawal erroneously included a small area of approximately
140 acres in Imperial County at the southern boundary of the
California portion of the refuge.
Prior to 1964, this property fell under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management, and beginning in 1962, the BLM
had issued a permit for public recreation concession on the
lands now in question. Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the BLM failed to effectively address this mistake
in legal descriptions on the ground, the BLM continued to renew
the original permit, and the recreational concession has
continued unbroken to the present time, although the BLM lease
did expire in April of this year.
The concession and location are commonly known as Walter's
Camp, and it consists of a recreational vehicle park, a small
marina, a store; and the BLM estimates that Walter's Camp
receives about 11,000 visitors per year.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
requires that all uses of refuge lands be compatible with the
purposes for which the refuge was established. Section 4 (a) of
the Act and section 204 (j) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act both prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from
revoking withdrawals of land from National Wildlife Refuges.
For this reason, congressional action is required to remove
these lands from the refuge system.
Given the fact that the concession is not directly related
to wildlife, it is highly unlikely that the service could find
it to be compatible with refuge purposes. Absent legislative
action, we would most likely be forced to evict the
concessionary should these lands remain in the refuge. The
Department has been exploring alternatives to address this
issue since the error was discovered in 1999.
Since the inclusion of these lands in the Public Land Order
was certainly a mistake, due to the prior existence of a
concession, we believe the most equitable solution is removal
of the lands from the refuge. There are no threatened or
endangered species inhabiting the 140 acres, and the area in
question is, at best, marginal wildlife habitat. Removal of the
140 acres of land from the refuge would allow for the
continuation of the recreational concession, while still
affording more than adequate protection for the nearest
significant wildlife habitat feature, Three Fingers Lake.
We believe that withdrawal of these lands will benefit all
parties involved--the concessionary, the service, the BLM and,
ultimately, the public. For this reason, we support the bill
and urge prompt action on enactment of H.R. 3937.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
Statement of Mitch Ellis, Chief, Branch of Wildlife Resources, National
Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mitch Ellis,
Chief of the Branch of Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife Refuge
System. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of
H.R. 3937, which will revoke a small portion of Public Land Order 3442,
dated August 21, 1964. This Public Land Order withdrew approximately
16,600 acres of public domain lands along the Colorado River in
California and Arizona for the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. The
withdrawal erroneously included a small area of approximately 140 acres
in Imperial County at the southern boundary of the California portion
of refuge.
Prior to 1964, this property fell under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, beginning in 1962, the BLM issued
a permit for a public recreation concession on the lands now in
question. Because neither the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
nor the BLM recognized the mistake in legal descriptions on the ground,
the BLM continued to renew the original permit and the recreational
concession use has continued, unbroken, to the present time, although
the BLM lease did expire in April 2002. The concession and location are
commonly know as ``Walter's Camp,'' which consists of a recreational
vehicle park, a small marina, and a store, and the BLM estimates that
Walter's Camp receives 11,000 visitors per year.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Act)
requires that all uses of refuge lands be compatible with the purpose
for which the refuge was established. Section 4(a) of the Act and
section 204(j) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act both
prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revoking withdrawals of
land within National Wildlife Refuges. For this reason, congressional
action is required to remove these lands from the Refuge System.
Given the fact that the concession is not directly related to
wildlife, it is highly unlikely that the Service could find it to be
compatible with refuge purposes. Absent legislative action, we will
most likely be forced to evict the concessionaire should these lands
remain in the refuge. The Department has been exploring alternatives to
addressing this issue since the error was discovered in 1999.
Since the inclusion of these lands in the Public Land Order was
certainly a mistake, due to the prior existence of the concession, we
believe the most equitable solution is removal of the lands from the
refuge. There are no listed species inhabiting the 140 acres and the
area in question is, at best, marginal wildlife habitat. Removal of the
140 acres of land from the refuge would free-up the area necessary for
the continuation of the recreational concession, while still affording
more than adequate protection for the nearest significant wildlife
habitat feature, Three Fingers Lake.
We believe that withdrawal of these lands will benefit all parties
involved--the concessionaire, the Service, the BLM and, ultimately, the
public. For this reason, we support the bill and urge prompt action on
enactment of H.R.3937.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer
any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Dokter.
STATEMENT OF FRANK DOKTER, PRESIDENT, WALTERS CAMP, INC.
Mr. Dokter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am kind of awed
by all of this. This is my first time in Washington, D.C. so I
am just going to make this statement, and I will probably just
read it, because I am a little bit nervous.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is fine, Mr. Dokter. You are doing very
well for your first time here.
Mr. Dokter. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this hearing on this very important
matter and please allow me to introduce myself. My name is
Frank Dokter, and I represent Walter's Camp. It is a small mom-
and-pop campground and RV park, owned and operated by my
family, and we are located on the California side of the
Colorado River. And although Walter's Camp has been here since
the early 1920's and operated as a business since 1962, my
family began operating this business in 1978; and we operate on
a BLM concession which we have--I left a copy for you for your
review.
I would just kind of like to tell you a little bit about
what we do. We offer a safe and fun atmosphere for people of
all ages, and each is welcome to enjoy hunting and fishing and
camping and rock-hounding and bird-watching, canoeing and
boating. It is all on the Colorado River. It is an excellent
place to raise kids, and we do a lot of fun stuff, and all of
that while we enjoy some of the most beautiful scenery God ever
created. It is just a beautiful place.
We provide all services, including backup for our local law
enforcement; and when needed, the U.S. Marines are kind enough
to provide us with the personnel and the helicopter for
evacuation of injured persons or something like that. And it is
really great to be able to work with the Marines on those
situations. And due to our remote location, we are the only
source of food and fuel and drink 40 miles upriver, about 40
miles downriver. So we are kind of out in the toolies.
Although it has been hard work to bring Walter's Camp where
it is today, my family and I have had many rewards, including
watching many small children grow up into fine young people.
And I have seen the satisfaction in families that can--the
satisfaction that can only be gained from experiencing some of
America's great outdoors and wild places. And the personal
relationships that I have developed over the years are
invaluable. I have more godchildren than I have children, and
these families have kind of grown up with me over the years
that I have been there.
Walter's Camp was first authorized in 1962, but in 1964,
the Public Land Order that--3442 that we discussed for the
Cibola Wildlife Refuge, that happened. It was like 16,000
acres. And the problem is that when they did that, they
accidentally included this Walter's Camp property into that
refuge, and the area was not recognized at the time by the BLM
or the Fish and Wildlife Service; and therefore, the BLM
continued to renew my concession contract.
And this land was thought to have been withdrawn from the
refuge many years ago and the former refuge manager even placed
a fence around the refuge boundary and physically excluded
Walter's Camp. However, the problem only came to light in
recent months, and now the BLM cannot continue to renew my
permit to operate until the matter is corrected.
Both the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service agree that
Walter's Camp was erroneously included in the refuge, but say a
legislative fix is needed to enable my family to continue
renewing our permit and to remain in business.
Several months ago, I asked help from Congressman Duncan
Hunter, and after hearing about my situation, he agreed to
pass--help pass this bill correcting Public Land Order 3442 by
withdrawing the 140 acres from Walter's Camp--withdrawing the
140 acres of Walter's Camp from the public Cibola National
Wildlife Refuge.
And from what I understand, the Fish and Wildlife Service
and BLM says that Walter's Camp has little or no habitat or
wildlife value, and I would like to call to your attention,
there are 78 private residences that border this property, and
there are development plans for a 60 to 80 more of the same
such residences, and some of those are now in the construction
stages in Imperial Valley. They are right next to Walter's
Camp.
And, Mr. Chairman, we provide many services that will be
lost without the passage of H.R. 3937. Local residents and
government agencies need these services, and all agree that we
do not harm any of the wildlife habitat, and we are great
stewards of this land that we operate on; and we would like to
continue doing so--or doing what we have done for many, many
years, and that is introducing many families to outdoor life.
And now I would like to take this opportunity to thank
Congressman Duncan Hunter for all of his time and energy and
work. I appreciate him introducing this bill that we all need
so very much.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing, and thanks to the Committee for all of your attention.
And I hope that when all is said and done, you can all come and
go fishing or hunting with me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dokter follows:]
Statement of Frank Dokter, President, Walter's Camp, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding
this hearing on this important matter. Please allow me to introduce
myself. My name is Frank Dokter. I represent Walter's Camp, Inc., a
small ``mom and pop'' campground and r.v. park owned and operated by my
family on the California side of the Colorado River. Although Walter's
Camp has been here since the early 1920's, and operated as a business
since 1962, my family began operating the business in 1978. I operate
on B.L.M. concession contract CAAZCA 6637, which I have included a copy
of for your review.
We offer a safe and fun atmosphere for people of all ages. All are
welcome to enjoy fishing, hunting, water-skiing, rock-hounding, hiking,
birdwatching, canoeing and boating, all while enjoying some of the most
beautiful scenery God ever created. We provide all services, including
back-up for law enforcement. When needed, the U.S. Marines are kind
enough to provide rescue personnel and a helicopter. Due to our remote
location, we are the only source of fuel, food, and drink for more than
40 miles up river or down river.
Although it has been hard work to bring Walter's Camp to where it
is today, my family and I have had many rewards, including watching
many small children grow into fine young people over the years. I have
seen the satisfaction in families that can only be gained from
experiencing some of America's great wild places. The personal
relationships I have developed over the years have been invaluable.
Believe it or not, I now have more God children than I have children.
Walter's Camp was first authorized in 1962, but in 1964 Public Land
Order 3442 established the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge by
withdrawing more than 16,000 acres along the Colorado River. The
problem is that when they did that they accidentally included Walter's
Camp in the Refuge. The error was not recognized at that time by the
B.L.M. or the Fish and Wildlife Service, and therefore, the B.L.M.
continued to renew my concession contract. This land was thought to
have been withdrawn from the Refuge many years ago, and the former
refuge manager even placed a fence around the refuge boundary about 13
years ago, physically excluding Walter's Camp from the Refuge.
However, the problem only came to light in recent months, and now
the B.L.M. cannot continue to renew my permit to operate until the
matter is corrected. Both the B.L.M. and Fish and Wildlife Service
agree that Walter's Camp was erroneously included in the Refuge, but
say a legislative fix is needed to enable my family to continue
renewing our permit and remain in business.
Several months ago, I asked for helping from my Congressman, Duncan
Hunter. After hearing about my situation, he agreed to help pass a
bill, correcting Public Land Order 3442 by withdrawing the 140.32 acre
Walter's' Camp from the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge.
From what I understand, the Fish and Wildlife Service and B.L.M.
says that Walter's Camp has little or no habitat or wildlife value.
There are 78 private residences bordering this property with
development plans for 60 to 80 more, some of which are now in
construction stages. Mr. Chairman, we provide many services that will
be lost without passage of H.R. 3937. Local residents and government
agencies need these services, and all agree we do not harm any wildlife
or habitat. We are great stewards of what land we operate on, and would
like to continue doing what we have done for many years, introducing
many families to outdoor life.
I would like to take this time to thank Congressman Duncan Hunter
for all his time, energy and work. I appreciate him introducing this
bill that we all need very much.
Finally, thank you again for having this hearing Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to the Committee members for your attention. I hope when all is
said and done with this, you can all find time to come visit Walter's
Camp when you get a chance.
[An attachment to Mr. Dokter's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79659.001
------
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Dokter. We will take a ride
on the canoe down the Colorado River and buy a sandwich at your
spot.
Mr. Dokter. Great.
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman from BLM, is there any comment
you would like to make while you are here?
What is your name, sir?
Mr. Larson. Lee Larson, I am here in our Washington office,
working concessions and permits for BLM.
We just wanted to say that we are in support of the bill,
and we have had a good relationship with Mr. Dokter; and that
is why we have had a long-term lease with him and look forward
to--if passage of this, we would be able to give him another
long-term lease.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was there any specific reason that when the
fence was put up, the fence excluded--the fence around the
wildlife refuge excluded this camp, Mr. Dokter's camp?
Mr. Ellis. Well, Mr. Chairman, the record is a little fuzzy
on that matter. There were some--
Mr. Gilchrest. Was it an understanding that that was
actually BLM land as opposed to part of the Fish and Wildlife
Refuge?
Mr. Ellis. For all of those years, it was actually thought
that the boundary was north of Walter's Camp, and so that was
probably why the fence was put there.
Mr. Gilchrest. And the need for the legislation is that
Fish and Wildlife can't issue the type of permit on their land
that BLM can issue on their land? That is the fundamental issue
here?
Mr. Ellis. That is correct. Our regulations wouldn't allow
us to find that type of a concession compatible with the
purposes for that particular--
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Ellis. Our compatibility standards are not only based
against the mission of the refuge system, but also the
individual purposes for each refuge. And so looking at Cibola's
purpose statement--it is strictly for wildlife--it would be
very difficult to pass a compatibility test; and we feel it
would be best all around to simply transfer the land back.
Mr. Gilchrest. How long has this area been--there is about
17,000 aches in the wildlife refuge?
Mr. Ellis. The refuge was established in 1964.
Mr. Gilchrest. And prior to that, was it BLM land?
Mr. Ellis. Yes, it was, although portions of the area along
the Colorado were withdrawn for reclamation purposes by the
Bureau of Reclamation for the Water Storage Act in that area.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. How much land in that vicinity is BLM
land?
Mr. Ellis. I would have to defer to my colleague here.
Mr. Larson. Just the acreages that we had the leases on,
that is all that really came back to BLM. Basically, the Bureau
of Reclamation gave up their leases that were already occupied,
to us, and we have been managing those leases--
Mr. Gilchrest. So other than Mr. Dokter's camp--or Walter's
Camp, BLM doesn't have--or own much other land out there?
Mr. Larson. No, not in that area. Basically, anything
that--through a withdraw program that the Bureau of Land
Management has, if the purpose of the withdrawal is no longer
needed, then through the withdrawal program, that comes back to
BLM.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Larson. Comes back to the public domain.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who takes title of the property once the
transfer takes place?
Mr. Ellis. Title of the property, of course, will remain in
the United States of America, but will be administered by the
Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked most of
the questions I was going to ask, but--
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sorry.
Mr. Underwood. That is OK.
Mr. Dokter, how long has your family been there?
Mr. Dokter. We have been there since early 1978.
Mr. Underwood. Early 1978?
Mr. Dokter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Underwood. And how many people visit the camp on an
annual basis?
Mr. Dokter. Well, I guess it depends on who you are talking
to, but we will go with 11- to 20,000. It is kind of hard to
say, because sometimes we have some of the schools, Boy Scouts
of America and that, that come in in busloads. So it is kind of
hard to count heads.
You know, they put little counters out there on the road
sometimes, and so, you know, I wouldn't butt heads with anybody
as to the total amount, but I would say anywhere from 11- to
30,000 a year.
Mr. Underwood. And how much would you say you have--your
family has invested in terms of the area? What have you--
Mr. Dokter. Actually, I have invested my lifetime there.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I know.
Mr. Dokter. Probably upwards of a million dollars.
Mr. Underwood. Maybe this is a question, Mr. Larson, for
BLM. Is this kind of an unusual arrangement, or is this fairly
typical for BLM?
Mr. Larson. Well, I wouldn't want to say it was unusual. We
don't want to say that we made too many errors with the survey,
things of legal descriptions, but--so unusual. But basically
this bill has an opportunity to make it right and get it back
the way it ought to be and the way it should have been.
Mr. Underwood. And I certainly appreciate that sentiment.
Now, if the bill passes, the property is still owned by the
government. Do you undergo periodic reviews as to how this
property is going to be utilized? Is Mr. Dokter going to have--
you know, he has invested his lifetime in it. Is he just going
to use that as leverage?
Mr. Larson. Yes. What happens is that when a lease is up, a
process begins at least a year ahead of that time period to
renew that lease and to see if the conditions have changed and
see if there is expansion needed or whatever, those kinds of
things; and the need for these things are continually addressed
through our land use planning process.
Mr. Underwood. And how long is the current lease for?
Mr. Larson. The current one that they had was 20 years, and
we have just been giving 1-year extensions until this gets
resolved.
Mr. Underwood. So it is a 1-year lease?
Mr. Larson. It is on a 1-year lease, yes.
Mr. Underwood. And what are the conditions on it? What
would Mr. Dokter have to do to lose that lease?
Mr. Larson. To lose it?
Mr. Underwood. Yeah.
Mr. Larson. Basically, there is a--
Mr. Underwood. Not that he would do anything to lose it. I
am just asking in a hypothetical way.
Mr. Larson. As a contract, there are a number of
stipulations that he has to conform to that have to do with
taking care of the land and public health and safety, those
kinds of things.
If some of those kinds of trust things are broken, then we
would have to seriously consider whether or not we want to
renew that and let it go to someone else. And usually the
flagrant situations involve something to do with hazards. It is
safety and public health and those kinds of things.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Ellis, the access road to the camp area,
does that go through Fish and Wildlife or BLM, and is there any
thought as to how that would be altered by this legislation?
Mr. Ellis. The access road, it will continue to go across
refuge property; however, we don't anticipate that being a
problem. We actually use that access road to reach the Three
Fingers area, which is part of the refuge. We have regulations
in place that prohibit off-roading, and have been fairly
successful in enforcing those. So I don't think the road would
be a problem.
Mr. Underwood. Do people--Mr. Dokter, do people like to go
off-roading in the area?
Mr. Dokter. Yes, sir. Actually, you know, because there is
a declining portion of our country that you can do that
anymore, there is a big call for it, yes, there is. But not in
that area. There are specific roads that you can take, and they
are pretty much outlined by either BLM or Fish and Wildlife
Service. And for the most part, people that do come out there
conform to those things. They are not--you know, we don't get a
whole lot of renegades out there.
Mr. Underwood. I see. Now, about what is the total acreage
that the camp currently utilizes?
Mr. Dokter. We occupy about 34 acres right now. And there
is a need for expansion.
Mr. Underwood. So the bill calls for 140 acres. Is that
correct? Am I correct in that?
Mr. Larson. That is correct.
Mr. Underwood. So that is to cover anticipated growth?
Mr. Dokter. We haven't discussed that with the Office of
the BLM yet. That would be a portion of it that we would like
to use.
Mr. Underwood. I see. OK. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Dokter, Mr.
Ellis and Mr. Larson--especially Mr. Dokter.
Well, good luck with your careers with the Federal
Government, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Larson--
Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make one thing
clear. Before, when you asked me about, did we have any other
lands around there, I was speaking of the withdrawals of a
reclamation. But you probably already know that BLM does have a
lot of land in that area. Just so you know, it is not like an
isolated parcel; it would be joined by BLM land.
Mr. Gilchrest. And BLM land in that area surrounds the
refuge?
Mr. Larson. That's correct, yes. All around the area there
is--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have an estimate as to the number of
acres in that--
Mr. Larson. No, I don't, but it is something we can get for
you if you need it.
Mr. Gilchrest. A thousand, 500?
Mr. Larson. Probably more.
Mr. Gilchrest. More. So Walter's Camp is not about to be
marginalized by Wal-Marts?
Mr. Larson. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Gilchrest. Great. All right.
Thank you all, gentlemen, very much. And I think Mr. Hunter
is going to take Mr. Dokter out for dinner tonight, I would
hope.
Mr. Dokter. Boy. I would like that.
Actually, I did enjoy lunch with Mr. Hunter, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, that is great. Enjoy your stay in
Washington, sir. You did a nice job in your testimony.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-