[Senate Hearing 107-1122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1122
FY 2003 BUDGET AND PROGRAMS OF THE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-349 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 1, 2002......................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Witnesses
Lautenbacher, Jr., Vice Admiral Conrad C., (Retired), USN, NOAA
Administrator and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, Department of Commerce............................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Appendix
Memorandum for William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, dated:
March 22, 2002............................................... 37
April 1, 2002................................................ 43
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to Vice
Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher................................. 37
Written questions submitted to Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Jr., by:
Hon. Max Cleland............................................. 48
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings...................................... 44
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 48
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 46
Hon. John McCain............................................. 49
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 51
FY 2003 BUDGET AND PROGRAMS OF THE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation will come to order. Today's hearing will address
the President's fiscal year 2003 budget and programs for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
First, Admiral Lautenbacher, welcome. We appreciate your
coming this morning. NOAA, a key component of the Department of
Commerce, plays an important role in the everyday lives of our
citizens, with numerous contributions to the country's economic
and environmental health.
It is vital that the Senate continue to fund the important
programs Congress has authorized, as well as to find new ways
to support the Nation's economic and environmental needs. This
Committee has consistently been supportive of NOAA's mission,
but certainly there are a number of concerns that the Committee
has with respect to the President's fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal for the agency.
As Vice Admiral Lautenbacher knows, in January 2000 the
Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast groundfish
fishery a disaster. There is local support from fishers and
environmentalists to get the right number of fishers out there
at the right time catching the right number of fish to make
this industry sustainable.
As you know, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, during your
confirmation hearing last November I introduced legislation to
authorize a buy-back program which would decrease the number of
fishers and boats in the West Coast groundfish industry. I can
find nothing in the budget to support a significant reduction
of fishing capacity in the West Coast groundfish industry, so
please know that the very first question you will get is why is
that the case?
Another concern is with the proliferation of lawsuits
against the National Marine Fisheries Service. What does this
say about NMFS fisheries management, and how do they intend to
handle these costs? In addition, how are these lawsuits
affecting how NMFS is making decisions? The reason the NMFS
whiting decision gives me cause for concern is that NMFS is
allowing the possibility of lawsuits against it to influence
its decisions. This, in my view, is not a sound management
strategy.
Another concern is the dramatic proposal to terminate the
national sea grant college program within NOAA. This raises
concerns not just for the people of Oregon but certainly many
of my colleagues with sea grant programs.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, you are welcome here. While it
is a biological imperative that you read your statement in its
entirety, please know that we are going to place the whole
thing in the record, and somehow if you could be enticed into
summarizing your principal remarks, that would be very helpful.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR.,
(RETIRED), USN, NOAA ADMINISTRATOR AND UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It
is a great pleasure to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to
come before you and to talk about our program and some of the
priorities that I think are very important for our Nation. I am
indeed grateful for your support and the support of this
Committee and all of the staff members that are here today.
Without their support, obviously, NOAA would not be as
prominent in solving some of these problems as they are, and so
again I appreciate this opportunity, and I will submit my
statement for the record if agreed to and will just summarize
it.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, that will be, with
pleasure, so ordered.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. If I could take just 2
minutes to talk about some of the important priorities in our
budget I would be grateful for the time. This is a tight budget
this year. It is roughly the same as last year's budget. It is
a $3.3 billion budget. Given the priorities, the national
priorities that happened after 9/11 and the changes that took
place in this country, I think this is a good budget. It
indicates that there is strong support with the administration
for keeping the level of services and products that NOAA
provides the Nation at the right level. It is a tight budget,
though, and we ask for your support in maintaining these
critical programs.
The NOAA budget support programs which are essentially, I
would call the heart and soul of a lot of our economic
foundation. There is not an individual in here that does not
check the weather report before they go out in the morning.
Many of our industries are totally dependent upon the types of
products that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration produces in the energy area, agriculture,
fishing you mentioned, tourism, construction, the list goes on.
Approximately one-third of our gross domestic product is
based upon decisions that are made because of data and products
that are delivered from NOAA, all the way from weather to
management and development of our coastal zones to management
of endangered species and fisheries, as we have mentioned, and
so I believe this is a very important and critical part of our
budget and needs to be supported.
Within that $3.3 billion there was essentially about $300
million worth of alignments, realignments, $148 million of
that, what I would call program increases, and that is what I
would call a very modest small number, and I would like to ask
for your support for those, which I will talk about in a
minute, and $129 million in what we call base adjustments, or
essentially to allow for inflation and paying our people.
Now, within that $129 million is also an accounting change
where money for retirement accounts was shifted out, or was
shifted from OPM into NOAA's accounts, so that $70 million of
that $129 million is not new programs, it is essentially just
an accounting change within the Government. The rest of that is
absolutely essentially for people, and I want to support the
work that the NOAA folks do.
We are a source of wealth for this country. This is a
storehouse of knowledge and scientific and management expertise
across a large variety of scientific endeavors for observation
of and management of our environment. I ask for your support
for these increases as a number 1 priority.
Of the $149 million that were other program adjustments, a
large portion of those are in the extreme weather and hurricane
research, severe weather. In that group we are asking for $84.3
million in increases. This will improve our severe storm
warnings and protecting the life and safety of Americans. I
think after the incident in La Plata that you saw the other
day, the value of having warning time and being able to predict
some of these events with more accuracy will be quite
invaluable.
Inside of that program is the money for a Clear Skies and
Global Climate change Initiative that President Bush announced
on February 14, and there is roughly $40 million across the
Federal budget. Eighteen million for climate change are
included in the NOAA budget this year. We think these are the
first steps that are needed to put some teeth into the science
that will help support the policies of the future and the
provisions in the Clear Skies and Climate Change Initiative
that the President announced.
Of the other important increases, let me mention homeland
security. There is a $23 million increase for homeland
security. This is a very modest enhancement, probably the
minimum that I would think prudent at this point. It includes
the replacement of some single points of failure in our
satellite and data systems in terms of back-up computing, in
terms of gateway operations, and in terms of security for some
of our downlink stations, as well as increase for surveys, for
ship surveys. There is another $9.9 million to support the
harbor surveys of our critical ports around the Nation.
The other large increase is in the fisheries area, $90
million of increases that I think are extremely important. Half
of that roughly is the second fisheries research and survey
vessel, about $45 million. This is the second of the class. We
are well behind in replacement of our capital assets in our
survey fleet. This is not enough, but it is a start, and I
encourage everyone to support this particular recapitalization.
We have also increased stock assessments by almost $10
million, because that goes into making rulings on time and
ensuring that we have the right data to manage fisheries
correctly. We have increased money for observers, and that is
extremely important as well.
In terms of our coastal conservation activities, that
totals almost $350 million. It is central to environmental
monitoring, and underscores our commitment to coastal,
estuarine and marine ecosystems, coastal zone management,
marine sanctuaries, estuarine research reserves and marine
protected areas, as well as coral reef habitat and other
conservation and restoration programs, as well as the Pacific
Salmon Recovery Fund and Treaty.
This concludes my opening statement. I again thank you and
the Committee for giving me this opportunity, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Lautenbacher
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.,
(Retired), USN, NOAA Administrator and Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for this
opportunity to testify on the President's FY 2003 Budget Request for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Let me begin by saying that this budget supports and enhances the
goals of the President and the Department of Commerce. NOAA has
established itself as one of the world's premier scientific and
environmental agencies. We are an agency that deals with environmental
change. We are an agency whose products form a critical part of the
daily decisions made by Americans across the Nation and have economic
impacts which affect our Nation's Gross Domestic Product. From our
climate predictions that impact farming and financial decisions, to our
hydrological products that affect public utilities and energy
consumption, NOAA is a critical part of our Nation's economic security.
We are experts in climate, with its cooling and warming trends. We
are an agency that manages fluctuating fisheries and marine mammal
populations. We observe, forecast and warn the public about the rapidly
changing atmosphere and especially severe weather. We monitor currents
and tides, and beach erosion. We survey the ocean bottom and provide
mariners with products to maintain safe navigation. We operate the
Nation's most important constellation of earth-observing satellites.
Lastly, we provide all this knowledge and exploration to citizens
everywhere, especially to schools and young people across our Nation
through our website www.noaa.gov. We provide this as a result of our
mission to advance environmental assessment, environmental prediction,
and natural resource stewardship for our great Nation.
This budget supports products that are essential for decision
makers in every part of our economy. NOAA's budget will continue to
fund products that assist in protecting the health and safety of this
Nation's citizens from both routine and severe environmental changes.
This budget supports our research, science and services from the local
weather forecast offices around the Nation to our Fisheries Research
Vessels that ensure sustainable stocks of our Nation's fisheries. It
provides for technology infusion and critical infrastructure protection
to reduce single points of failure for our satellite and weather
prediction programs; continues our special partnerships with
universities, states, and local governments around the Nation; and
invests in education and human resources. This budget also supports our
vast infrastructure, which will allow NOAA to continue its mission in
years to come.
In a period of strongly competing Presidential priorities for our
national defense, and economic security, the President's FY 2003 Budget
Request for NOAA is $3,330.5 million in total budget authority, and
represents a decrease of $45.4 million below the FY 2002 Enacted level.
Within this funding level, NOAA proposes essential realignments that
allow for a total of $148.8 million in program increases, and $129.0
million in base adjustments. NOAA's request highlights critical areas
such as People and Infrastructure, Improving Extreme Weather Warnings
and Forecasts, Climate Services, Modernization of NOAA Fisheries, and
other key NOAA programs such as Energy, Homeland Security, Ocean
Exploration, and Coastal Conservation.
People and Infrastructure: $129.0 million adjustment-to-base
NOAA's people and infrastructure are at the heart of what NOAA is
and does. From our hurricane research center in Miami, FL to NOAA's
weather service office in Barrow, AK, these are the underlying and
interconnecting threads that hold NOAA and its programs together.
Investments in NOAA's scientific and technical workforce as well as
NOAA's facilities and equipment is essential for us to carry out our
mission into the 21st Century. ``People and Infrastructure'' is about
investing in the future, and about maintaining NOAA's infrastructure
that has been built over the last thirty-one years.
Improving Extreme Weather Warnings and Forecasts
Critical to meeting our 21st Century mission is the continuity of
NOAA's Satellites and Severe Weather Forecasts. There are few things
that the Federal Government does that are as critical as issuing severe
storm warnings and protecting the life and safety of Americans. Listed
below is NOAA's request for this $84.3 million endeavor.
Tornado Severe Storm Research: NOAA requests a total of $1.0
million to develop new technologies for forecasting and detecting
tornadoes and other forms of severe weather, and to disseminate this
information to emergency managers, the media, and the general public
for appropriate action. This new technology has the potential to
significantly extend lead times for tornadoes and other forms of severe
and hazardous weather. Coupled with advanced decision support systems,
tornado lead times may double from 10 to 22 minutes using this
technology. The bottom line is that this investment will help save
lives.
U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP): NOAA requests an increase of
$1.0 million for a total of $3.8 million to transition research and
development into operations in order to reach a USWRP goal of improving
forecasts of inland heavy precipitation associated with hurricane
landfalls. This increase will be used to address the improvement of the
forecasts of heavy and frequent, flood-producing rains associated with
hurricanes and tropical storms as they move inland.
Weather & Air Quality Research Laboratories: NOAA requests an
increase of $4.2 million for a total of $48.1 million to recapitalize
the laboratories that conduct weather and air quality research, which
includes funding for ongoing operational scientific activities to
continue operation of the Wind Profiler Network and NOAA's Space
Weather Program.
Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service (AHPS): NOAA requests an
increase of $4.7 million for a total of $6.2 million to accelerate
nationwide implementation of improved flood and river forecasts
services in the Northeast, Middle Atlantic, and Southeast regions of
the U.S., including the states of: New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina. As implemented, AHPS will: (1)
produce new information with better predictions of river height and
flood potential to reduce loss of life and property; (2) deliver high
resolution, visually oriented products to provide partners and
customers with valuable information for life decisions; (3) refresh
aging hydrologic forecasting infrastructure to support rapid infusion
of scientific advances; and (4) leverage NOAA's investments in
observational systems and atmospheric models to enhance accuracy and
resolution of river forecasts.
Weather & Climate Supercomputing: NOAA requests an increase of $6.2
million for a total of $21.2 million to continue operations and
maintenance of the current National Weather Service (NWS)
supercomputer, and to transition the next generation weather and
climate supercomputing system into operations. The NWS supercomputer is
the foundation for all NWS weather and climate forecasts. Operational
transition of the next generation supercomputer will enable the NWS to
improve the resolution and forecast accuracy of the prediction models.
Radiosonde Replacement: NOAA requests an increase of $2.0 million
for a total of $7.0 million to continue replacing and modernizing the
upper air radiosonde network. The radiosonde network provides critical
upper air observations which are a vital component of all weather
forecast models. The current network is obsolete and nearing collapse,
risking widespread loss of data within the next two to three years.
Aviation Weather: NOAA requests a total of $2.5 million to initiate
a 7-year plan to help improve U.S. aviation safety and economic
efficiencies by providing state-of-the-art weather observation and
forecast products responsive to aviation user needs. Weather accounts
for over 70 percent of all air traffic delays, which results in greater
expenditures by both airline customers and the airlines. In addition,
an average of 200 general aviation pilot fatalities per year are caused
by weather-related accidents across the U.S. This initiative will
provide a means for the NWS to improve its aviation weather forecast
services through 3 major components which include: (1) increasing the
number and quality of aviation weather observations; (2) transitioning
successful applied research efforts to operational products; and (3)
developing and implementing new training programs for forecasters,
pilots, and controllers. This initiative has the goal of a 10 percent
reduction in National Airspace System weather-related air traffic
delays, which would save $600 million annually in potential economic
losses, and reduce general aviation weather related fatalities by 25
percent, or 50 lives annually.
Huntsville, AL Weather Forecast Office: NOAA requests a total of
$1.4 million to pay for recurring operations and maintenance costs at
the new Huntsville, Alabama Weather Forecast Office (WFO). The
Huntsville WFO was established in FY 2002 at the University of Alabama
at Huntsville. The $1.4 million requested will provide for NWS employee
salaries, facilities rent and maintenance, and operational equipment
and supplies to operate and maintain weather forecast and warning
services in the Huntsville area.
Polar Orbiting Systems: NOAA requests a net increase of $64.3
million for Polar Orbiting Systems, which are comprised of NOAA Polar
K-N and the National Polar Operational Earth Satellite System. The net
increase requested is described as follows:
NOAA Polar K-N: NOAA requests a decrease of $15.6 million for a
total of $122.9 million for the NOAA Polar K-N. The Polar K-N program
is completing major procurement items and therefore does not need to
continue the funding levels of previous years.
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS): NOAA requests an increase of $79.9 million for a total
request of $237.3 million for the continuation of the tri-agency NPOESS
program that will replace the NOAA POES program after completion of the
current NOAA K-N series of satellites. This request represents NOAA's
share of the converged NOAA/DoD/NASA program. In FY 2003, funds will be
required to continue the development and production of the NPOESS
instruments, including the Visible Infrared Image Radiometer, the
Conical Microwave Imager Sounder, the Cross-track Infrared Sounder, the
Ozone, Mapping and Profiler Suite, the Global Positioning System
Occultation Sensor, and the Space Environmental Sensing Suite. The
continued development of these instruments is critical for their timely
and cost effective delivery to replace both the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program (DMSP) and the NOAA POES spacecraft when needed.
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES): NOAA
requests a decrease of $35.1 million for a total request of $227.4
million to support continued post launch requirements for GOES I-M; the
continued procurement of the GOES-N series satellites, instruments,
ground systems, and systems support necessary to maintain continuity of
Geostationary operations; and planning and development for the GOES-R
series of satellites and instruments. This decrease represents a
program change resulting from the successful launch of GOES M, and the
continued success of the GOES I-M series.
Earth Observing System Data Archive & Access System Enhancement:
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million to ensure that NOAA can fully
utilize the vast amounts of new satellite-based environmental data
becoming available, process and distribute that data in a variety of
formats, provide stewardship for the data, and make the data accessible
to users in a variety of economic, research, government, and public
sectors.
Joint Center for Data Assimilation: NOAA requests an increase of
$2.6 million for a total of $3.4 million for the Joint Center for
Satellite Data Assimilation. NWS, the Office of Atmospheric Research
(OAR), and NASA also provide funding as partners in this coordinated
national effort to more fully realize the potential of the vast
quantities of new satellite data that are becoming available.
Coastal Ocean Remote Sensing: NOAA requests a total of $6.0 million
to develop and deploy a prototype high-resolution imaging sensor to
meet long-standing NOAA requirements. This initiative will allow NOAA
to work with NASA to develop conceptual design and capabilities of this
instrument, which will continuously monitor coastal ocean areas for
harmful algae blooms, coral reef deterioration, pollution changes,
fisheries management, and navigation. This instrument will provide
continuous, high resolution monitoring in unprecedented detail of
terrestrial features such as vegetation changes, flooding, wild fires,
volcanic eruptions, and ash cloud transport.
Satellite Command & Data Acquisition (CDA) Facility: NOAA requests
an increase of $1.0 million for a total of $4.6 million to continue the
Satellite CDA Infrastructure program. Improved facilities reduce the
risk of outages and service disruptions caused by failure of the
supporting buildings, facilities, and infrastructure. This program
minimizes the risk of spacecraft loss and data loss and allows NOAA to
continue supporting worldwide requirements for critical operational
satellite data and services.
Satellite Command and Control: NOAA requests an increase of $4.4
million for a total of $34.8 million for satellite command and control.
This investment supports the operations of the NOAA satellite systems,
the ingesting and processing of satellite data, and the development of
new product applications required for continuity of operations. NOAA
provides satellite command and control services on a 24 hours per day,
365 days per year schedule.
Two critical components of this initiative are:
Protecting Critical Satellite Control Facilities: NOAA requests
$0.3 million to enhance security at the satellite Command and Data
Acquisition ground stations by upgrading and expanding security
lighting.
Satellite Command and Data Acquisition Station Operations: NOAA
requests $2.2 million for the operation of the polar Satellite Command
and Data Acquisition (CDA) ground station. NOAA will use these funds to
obtain the appropriate technical, management, and administrative
contractor support to operate and maintain the acquisition and
throughput of data from NOAA and DoD polar-orbiting satellites to
NOAA's Satellite Operations Control Center, and to National Weather
Centers.
Product Processing and Distribution: NOAA requests an increase of
$6.7 million for a total of $27.7 million to process and analyze data
from NOAA, DoD, and other Earth-observing satellites; supply data,
interpretations, and consulting services to users; and operate and
maintain the Search and Rescue mission control center. This includes
supplying satellite data that makes up approximately 85 percent of the
data used in NWS numerical weather prediction models. NOAA will use the
requested program increase to support the following two mission
critical functions:
Reducing the Risk to Continuity of Critical Operations: NOAA
requests a program increase of $3.1 million to expand on-site
maintenance and staffing levels to ensure that all critical functions
are performed. This ensures vital and timely information to customers
and staff during times of peak workload.
Improved Support for Weather and Hazards: NOAA requests a program
increase of $2.0 million to automate wild fire detection algorithms to
speed up the delivery of information to customers, to integrate the
information into geographic information systems for detailed location
information, and to integrate new fire detection sensors from non-NOAA
satellites.
G-IV Instrumentation: NOAA requests a total of $8.4 million to
begin upgrading instrumentation aboard the G-IV aircraft. Improvements
in NOAA's Gulfstream IV aircraft's remote-sensing systems will enhance
NOAA's hurricane-reconnaissance capability. New technology will use
remote sensors to develop 3-dimensional profiles of hurricanes from
45,000 feet down to the surface and would provide forecasters with
unprecedented real-time information on size and intensity. In addition,
radar-composite maps will provide critical rainfall information that is
crucial to forecasters and to the emergency management community for
preparedness and evacuations.
Climate Services
NOAA maintains a balanced program of focused research, large-scale
observational programs, modeling on seasonal-centennial time scales,
and data management. In addition to its responsibilities in weather
prediction, NOAA has pioneered in the research and operational
prediction of climate variability associated with the El Nino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). With agency and international partners, NOAA has
also been a leader in the assessments of climate change, stratospheric
ozone depletion, and the global carbon cycle. Our confidence in our
recent El Nino prediction is based upon a suite of robust observing
systems that are a critical component in any forecast.
The agency-wide Climate Services activity represents a partnership
that allows NOAA to facilitate the transition of research observing and
data systems, and knowledge into operational systems and products.
During recent years, there has been a growing demand from emergency
managers, the private sector, the research community, and decision-
makers in the United States and international governmental agencies for
timely data and information about climate variability, climate change,
and trends in extreme weather events. The economic and social need for
continuous, reliable climate data and longer-range climate forecasts
has been clearly demonstrated. NOAA's Climate Services Initiative
responds to these needs. The following efforts will be supported by
this initiative:
Climate Change Research Initiative: On February 14, 2002, President
Bush announced the Clear Skies and Global Climate Change initiatives.
The Clear Skies plan aims to cut power plant emissions of three
pollutants (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury) by 70
percent. The new Global Climate Change initiative seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next decade. The
President's proposal supports vital climate change research and ensures
that America's workers and citizens of the developing world are not
unfairly penalized. NOAA's expertise will be extremely important in the
area of climate research. NOAA, along with NASA, Department of Energy,
National Science Foundation, and the Department of Agriculture will
implement a multi-agency Climate Change Research Initiative totaling
$40 million. The following sections detail NOAA's $18.0 million request
to address key priorities of the CCRI.
Climate Modeling Center: NOAA requests $5.0 million to establish a
climate modeling center at Princeton, New Jersey. This center will
focus on model product generation for research, assessment and policy
applications. NOAA has played a central role in climate research,
pioneering stratospheric modeling, seasonal forecasting, ocean modeling
and data assimilation, and hurricane modeling. This core research
capability will be enhanced to enable product generation and policy
related research.
Global Climate Atmospheric Observing System: NOAA requests $4.0
million to work with other countries to reestablish the benchmark
upper-air network. NOAA will emphasize data sparse areas, and place new
Global Atmosphere Watch stations in priority sites to measure pollutant
emissions, aerosols, and ozone, in specific regions.
Global Ocean Observing System: NOAA requests $4.0 million to work
towards the establishment of an ocean observing system that can
accurately document climate scale changes in ocean heat, carbon, and
sea level changes.
Aerosols-Climate Interactions: NOAA requests $2.0 million to
contribute to the interagency National Aerosol-Climate Interactions
Program (joint partnership with NASA, DOE, NSF) currently under
development. Specifically, NOAA will establish new and augment existing
in-situ monitoring sites and conduct focused field campaigns to
establish aerosol chemical and radiative properties.
Carbon Monitoring: NOAA requests $2.0 million to augment carbon
monitoring capabilities in North America as well as observations of
globally relevant parameters in key under-sampled oceanic and
continental regions around the globe.
Regional Integrated Science Assessments Program: NOAA requests $1.0
million for the Regional Integrated Science Assessments Program (RISA).
Working with the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA will augment
its research capability in assessing climate change impacts
vulnerability by utilizing the research on ``Decision Making in the
Face of Uncertainties'' in the framework of the RISA programs, e.g.
Pacific Northwest.
Arctic Research: NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million in support
of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) to improve
monitoring of the elements of the Arctic environment. NOAA's SEARCH
activities are part of a coordinated interagency and international
program, begun in response to evidence of an alarming rate of
environmental change occurring in the Arctic. The SEARCH initiative
will substantially increase understanding of long-term trends in
temperature, precipitation and storminess across the U.S., with
potential improvements in forecasting and planning for energy needs,
growth seasons, hazardous storm seasons and water resources.
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS): NOAA
requests a total of $2.5 million to outsource with UNOLS and other
sources for ships in the Pacific to support long-time series research
for Fisheries-Oceanographic Coordination Investigations (FOCI), VENTS,
Oregon/Washington Groundfish Habitat and maintenance of the Tsunami
moorings in the Gulf of Alaska and Pacific Ocean. The increase will
enable NOAA to continue to meet research requirements in the Pacific
Ocean, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea utilizing time aboard UNOLS and
other vessels.
Climate Monitoring and Ocean Observations: NOAA requests an
increase of $5.4 million for a total of $54.6 million to recapitalize
the laboratories that conduct climate research, which includes $0.6
million for purchasing equipment and improving the scientific
activities that contribute to the long-term observing systems that
directly support the President's CCRI initiative. These observing
systems are the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS); the Global Air
Sampling Network and a gas network at four baseline observatories, and
at Niwot Ridge, CO; and the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array which
is the cornerstone of the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Observing
System and other ocean observing systems.
NOAA requests an increase of $8.3 million for a total of $36.6
million for the Archive, Access, and Assessment programs working in
Climate Services. This continued investment will be used for the
following activities:
Regional Climate Services & Assessments: To develop an improved
climate data and information delivery service. This will allow NOAA to
improve national, regional and state linkages and make national,
regional, state, and local weather and climate observing systems and
data bases more accessible.
Next Generation Environmental Information: To develop a new
generation of World Wide Web accessible climate information and
statistics for primary use by the energy sector of our economy. This
funding will allow NOAA to overhaul the current methods and procedures
for computing climate information such as heating and cooling degree
days, heat indices, wind chills, freezing degree days, and other
related statistics with the goal of making this information more
appropriate and timely for business decision-making and strategic
planning purposes.
World Ocean Database: This investment will be used to update the
World Ocean Database to include new sources of data and to put in place
the analytical and data management infrastructure needed to transition
this activity from the current research mode to a sustained,
operational service mode.
Extending America's Climate Record: NOAA will use the funds to
gather key paleoclimatic records to fill gaps; reconstruct climate
records during pre-instrumental periods; and produce blended data sets
that integrate instrumental, historical, and paleoclimatic data into a
holistic climate record.
Solar X-ray Imager Archive: NOAA will use the SXI archive to derive
new products to help reduce the effects of extreme space weather events
on telecommunications satellites, electrical power services, and health
risks to astronauts.
Modernization of NOAA Fisheries
The FY 2003 President's Budget Request for NOAA, invests in core
programs needed for our National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
meet its mission to manage fisheries, rebuild stocks, and protect
endangered species such as sea turtles and whales. NMFS modernization
funds will be allocated to ensure that existing statutory and
regulatory requirements are met for fisheries and protected species
management programs (including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National
Environmental Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and other statutory requirements). This budget request
continues NOAA's effort to modernize NOAA's Fisheries. The
Modernization of NMFS encompasses a long-term commitment to improve the
NMFS structure, processes, and business approaches. In addition to this
budget request, the Administration will propose that any
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act include authority for fishing quota systems within
regional fisheries, including transferable quotas, where appropriate.
This initiative focuses on improving NMFS' science, management, and
enforcement programs and begins to rebuild its aging infrastructure.
These improvements will result in measurable progress in the biological
and economic sustainability of fisheries and protected resources. To
continue this modernization program, NOAA's FY 2003 President's Budget
Request includes the following program investments in Science,
Management, and Enforcement.
Science: $74.8 Million Increase
Fisheries Research Vessel: NOAA requests an increase of $45.5
million for a total of $50.9 million for NOAA's second Fisheries
Research Vessel (FRV2). This vessel will replace the 39-year old
ALBATROSS IV in the North Atlantic. Costs of maintaining the aging
ALBATROSS IV for the five years needed to construct the replacement FRV
and to allow side-by-side missions for calibration purposes are
escalating. Moreover, replacing the aging fleet is required to provide
research platforms capable of meeting increasingly sophisticated data
requirements for marine resource management.
Modernize Annual Stock Assessments: NOAA requests an increase of
$9.9 million to modernize annual stock assessments. Funding will allow
NMFS to conform to new national stock assessment standards of data
quality, assessment frequency, and advanced modeling. An increase of
$5.1 million is requested to provide for the recruitment and training
of stock assessment biologists and supporting staff to produce annual
stock assessments that meet the new standard for Federally managed
stocks. This request would also add an increment of 260 Fisheries
vessel/charter days at sea toward the balance of 3,000 days identified
in the NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan at a cost of $2.4 million.
The initiative includes $0.9 million for advanced sampling
technologies. This element targets improvements and innovative uses of
existing technologies, including the application of new and advanced
sampling systems and approaches. Also, included in this request is $1.5
million to enhance fisheries oceanography studies, principally, the
Fisheries and the Environment program (FATE).
Endangered Species Act Sea Turtle Research: NOAA requests an
increase of $2.0 million for a total of $6.5 million to continue the
recovery of highly endangered sea turtles. Of the $2.0 million
increase, $1.4 million is to provide the necessary research to recover
highly endangered marine turtles. This program is designed to help us
collect information on biology and habitats and share that information
with other range countries. The remaining $0.6 million is requested to
implement management strategies to reverse population declines,
implementation of multi-lateral international agreements, and building
capacity through domestic and international educational and outreach
programs.
Columbia River Biological Opinion (BiOp) Implementation: NOAA
requests an increase of $12.0 million to provide for the research,
monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) necessary to continue implementation
of measures included in the Columbia River Biological Opinion. The RM&E
program will provide the scientific information necessary to assess
whether BiOp performance measures are being achieved at 2003, 2005, and
2008 check-ins. This funding also provides for the research needed to
address key uncertainties identified in the BiOp in the areas of
estuary and near-shore ocean survival, delayed effects related to dam
passage, and the effects of hatchery programs on the productivity of
naturally spawning fish.
Recovery of Endangered Large Whales: NOAA requests an increase of
$1.0 million to provide resources to scientifically determine whether
two key endangered whales--humpbacks and bowheads--have recovered and
are candidates for delisting. This information will enable NOAA to
detect changes in the status of large whales and prevent any long-term
irreversible damage to these populations.
Socioeconomics: NOAA requests an increase of $1.5 million for a
total of $4.0 million to support the on-going development of a multi-
year comprehensive social sciences program to support NMFS policy
decisions. The approach is 3-tiered, augmenting the integral components
of a successful social sciences program that includes staffing ($0.6
million and 7 FTE); data collection ($0.5 million); and research
activities ($0.4 million). In combination, the funding will be used to
continue addressing shortcomings in economic and social assessments of
policy alternatives by improving the economic and social science staff
capability, and initiation of data and applied research programs.
National Observer Program: NOAA requests an increase of $2.9
million for a total of $17.0 million for the National Observer Program.
Funding will be used to expand the collection of high quality fisheries
and environmental data from commercial and recreational fishing vessels
to assess impacts on marine resources and fishing communities and to
monitor compliance with marine resource laws and regulations. This
request will primarily provide for approximately 4,000 observer sea
days spread over 11 fisheries, most of which are currently unobserved.
Management: $6.4 Million Increase
NMFS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation: NOAA
requests an increase of $3.0 million for a total of $8.0 million to
continue striving to enhance its management of the NEPA process. This
funding will provide NMFS with the necessary resources to continue to
support agency-wide NEPA activities and will allow NMFS to strengthen
its decision-making and documentation process to more fully take
advantage of the decision making tools provided by NEPA.
Regional Fishery Management Councils: NOAA requests an increase of
$1.9 million for a total of $16.0 million for the Regional Fishery
Management Councils. This request will provide needed resources for the
Councils to respond to increased workload in developing, implementing,
and supporting management measures to eliminate overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks; identify and protect essential fish habitats; reduce
fisheries' bycatch to the maximum extent practicable; minimize the
impacts of fishing regulations on fishing communities; and to implement
programs that result from the next reauthorization of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act. These results will be achieved through the development
of amendments to and creation of new Fishery Management Plans and
regulations and corresponding and supporting international management
measures to control fishing activities.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements: NOAA requests an increase of
$1.5 million to provide for thorough, complete, and timely
environmental and economic analyses to NOAA customers and for its
recovery programs. Funds will support personnel in all NMFS regions,
science centers and headquarters to conduct required data gathering,
analysis, and document preparation to assess the impacts of human
activities that affect protected species. These include the range of
Federal actions, including management of marine fisheries. This funding
will also support assessments of the environmental and socioeconomic
impacts, costs and benefits of implementing conservation programs for
protected species.
Enforcement: $9.7 Million Increase
Enforcement and Surveillance: NOAA requests an increase of $4.3
million for a total of $39.3 million to expand and modernize NMFS'
fisheries and protected species enforcement programs. These programs
include Alaska and west coast groundfish enforcement, protected species
enforcement, state and local partnerships, specialized Magnuson-Stevens
investigatory functions, community oriented policing and problem
solving, and swordfish/Patagonian toothfish import investigations.
Vessel Management System (VMS): NOAA requests an increase of $5.4
million for a total of $7.4 million for additional support and
continued modernization and expansion of the vessel management system
(VMS) program. These resources will create a program which will monitor
approximately 1,500 vessels and is readily expandable. VMS technology
is an invaluable tool for modern fisheries management. It provides
outstanding compliance without intrusive at-sea boardings, enhances
safety at sea, and provides new tools to managers for real time catch
reporting.
Other KEY NOAA Programs
NOAA is constantly pursuing areas where the expertise of our
researchers, scientists, and staff can contribute to solving problems.
Therefore, NOAA has other key programs that respond to these
challenges. They are Energy, Homeland Security, Ocean Exploration, and
Coastal Conservation.
Energy
Energy Initiative: NOAA requests a total of $6.1 million to
implement a pilot program that will provide more accurate temperature
and precipitation forecasts, and additional river forecast products to
help the energy industry improve electrical load forecasting and
hydropower facility management. Based on industry estimates, this
investment will result in savings of $10 to $30 million annually in the
pilot region after the second year of the demonstration. Expanding the
pilot nation-wide could generate savings of over $1 billion per year.
Energy Permit Rapid Response: NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million
to support the establishment and implementation of a streamlined energy
permit review process. This proposal responds to an Executive Order
directing Federal agencies to expedite permits and coordinate Federal,
state, and local actions needed for energy-related project approvals on
a national basis and in an environmentally sound manner. The goal of
this request is to reduce, by 25 percent, the time required to adjust
the permits of licensed energy projects/facilities. Currently, re-
licensing of existing facilities takes 6-10 years. It is anticipated
that the combination of regular re-licensing and permit adjustments to
implement the new National Energy Policy will result in thousands of
new actions for NOAA nationally.
Energy Management: NOAA requests a total of $0.6 million for Energy
Management. The requested funds will be used to reduce NOAA's facility
operating costs through actively pursuing energy commodities at
competitive prices, identifying and implementing energy savings
opportunities and applying renewable energy technologies and
sustainable designs at NOAA-managed facilities. Many of the equipment
retrofits that are a part of energy management have enabled facilities
to recover their costs in less than five years.
Homeland Security
On September 11, 2001, the Nation experienced an unprecedented
attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. NOAA immediately
implemented its agency-wide Incident Response Plan, and was able to
rapidly deploy critical assets, capabilities, and expertise to support
response and recovery efforts. NOAA personnel in weather offices,
satellite and remote sensing teams, hazardous materials units, marine
transportation and geodesy offices, and fisheries enforcement teams
provided a wide range of products and services.
NOAA's response to the September 11 attacks was rapid and focused.
However, the attack fundamentally altered the context of NOAA's
incident response planning. The threats resulting from attacks on the
nation may be different in nature, and larger in scale and scope. Thus,
NOAA's Homeland Security efforts are focused on enhancing its response
capabilities and improving internal safety and preparedness. NOAA is
working quickly to improve its ability to coordinate emergency
response, to evaluate its existing capabilities, and to identify
products and services that will meet the challenge of new response
realities. NOAA's Homeland Security activities are dedicated to
advancing the coordinated efforts within the Department of Commerce,
the Office of Homeland Security and assisting NOAA's many federal,
state, and local partners.
In FY 2003, funding is requested to address the most immediately
recognized areas of programmatic vulnerabilities to ensure the
continuity of the most critical of NOAA's services and information
products in the event of natural or man-made emergencies.
Vessel Lease/Time Charter: NOAA requests an increase of $9.9
million for a Vessel Lease/Time Charter. In FY 2003, NOAA will continue
assisting DOD in mapping and charting key port areas. NOAA will
initiate a vessel time charter to expand its hydrographic surveying
capacity. While having the capability to operate throughout America's
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), initial emphasis during FY 2003 will be
in the Gulf of Mexico. Ninety five percent of America's non-NAFTA
economic trade moves through the marine transportation system. Any
interruption in the flow of goods through our nation's marine transport
system yields immediate and dire impact to the national economy. Four
of the top seven port areas are found on the Gulf of Mexico, including:
(1) New Orleans and South Louisiana, (2) Houston/Galveston, (3) Port
Arthur, TX and Lake Charles, LA; and (4) Corpus Christi, TX. The
combination of high traffic, hazardous cargos and vessels operating
close to the ocean bottom make waterways and ports particularly
vulnerable to terrorist activities including those utilizing low
technology mines. Requested funding provides critical survey data to
directly enhance safety of mariners, passengers, and the national
economy from threats both natural or human in origin.
NESDIS Single Point of Failure: NOAA requests a total increase of
$2.8 million to provide backup capability for all critical satellite
products and services. This effort supports the continuity of critical
operational satellite products and services during a catastrophic
outage. In FY 2003, NOAA will begin the first phase of hardware,
software, and telecommunications purchases; and perform initial testing
of all capabilities for this backup system. The requested funding also
supports installing additional communications links to connect the
backup location to the NOAA Science Center in Camp Springs, Maryland.
Satellite Facilities Security: NOAA requests a total of $2.3
million, an increase of $0.3 million, to maintain enhanced security at
the satellite Command and Data Acquisition ground stations. NOAA
requires these funds to enhance the systems that protect these
stations, reducing the risk to satellites and ground systems due to
breaches in security. These satellite stations represent the backbone
of the ground systems that support NOAA spacecraft programs--
commanding, controlling, and acquiring data from on orbit satellites
with an estimated value of $4.5 billion.
NWS Gateway Critical Infrastructure Protection: NOAA requests a
total of $3.0 million for the National Weather Service
Telecommunications Gateway Backup (NWSTG). During FY 2003, this funding
will enable the NWS to complete the establishment of the NWSTG
facility. After scheduled deployment in early FY 2004, the continued
funding level of $3.0M will cover recurring costs for NWSTG backup
communications, system software licenses, systems operations and
maintenance support, facility rent, and cyclical technology
refreshment. This will ensure uninterrupted delivery of critical
meteorological data necessary for the protection of life and property,
and the economic well being of the Nation.
Weather & Climate Supercomputing Backup: NOAA requests a total of
$7.2 million to implement an operational backup system for the NWS
weather and climate supercomputer. The NWS weather and climate
supercomputer is a critical component of NOAA's mission and is
currently a single point of failure as the entire system is located in
a single facility. Many of the data, products and services provided by
and through the Central Computer System (CCS) directly contribute to
the issuance of life saving NWS watches and warnings to the public. The
NWS weather and climate supercomputing backup system is a critical part
of DOC's Homeland Security Initiative and NOAA's comprehensive business
continuity plan, designed to support uninterrupted data and product
delivery to NOAA customers. The National Center for Environmental
Prediction's (NCEP) CCS is currently the only computer system within
NOAA capable of running highly complicated forecasting models in the
required operational (regimented) mode. During FY 2003 the NWS will
acquire the necessary backup system hardware capability, conduct site
selection, and begin installation.
Commercial Remote Sensing Licensing: NOAA requests a total of $1.2
million for the Commercial Remote Sensing Licensing and Enforcement
Program to ensure the timely review and processing of satellite license
applications. This NOAA investment will support staff engaged in the
review of commercial remote sensing licensing applications. NOAA will
also support monitoring and compliance activities, which include the
review of licensee quarterly reports, on-site inspections, audits, and
license violation enforcement. The funds requested in FY 2003 will also
support implementation of shutter control over commercial systems to
ensure that our Nation can respond to commercial remote sensing
security issues in national security and foreign policy crisis
situations.
Ocean and Coastal Programs
NOAA requests a total of $14.2 million for Ocean Exploration, this
includes a small amount for adjustments-to-base. This program seeks to
increase our national understanding of ocean systems and processes
through partnerships in nine major voyages of discovery in FY 2003.
Ocean Exploration is investment in undersea exploration, research, and
technology in both the deep ocean and areas of special concern, such as
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and National Marine Sanctuaries
(NMS).
NOAA's coastal conservation activities total $348.5 million, and
are central to accomplishing the mission of environmental monitoring,
and underscore a commitment to coastal, estuarine, and marine
ecosystems. NOAA's activities include Coastal Zone Management; Marine
Sanctuaries, Estuarine Research Reserves, and Marine Protected Areas;
Coral Reefs, Habitat, and Other Coastal Conservation & Restoration
Programs; and Pacific Salmon recovery Fund and Treaty. Many of these
programs receive adjustments-to-base, and there is an increase for
Cooperative Conservation and Recovery with States. NOAA requests a
total of $1.0 million for Cooperative Conservation and Recovery with
States to provide funds to state partners under the Endangered Species
Act Section 6 cooperative conservation program. These agreements will
provide the means for states and local communities to undertake local
initiatives in the management and recovery of ESA-listed and candidate
species by providing the legal authority to make the decisions about
how best to protect species at risk of extinction. The agreements would
provide funding on a matching basis to accomplish conservation
activities. Funding provided to the states would support local
researchers, non-governmental organizations and volunteers to
accomplish monitoring, restoration, science and conservation
activities.
Financial Management in NOAA
NOAA will continue to improve its core financial management
responsibilities in order to meet the future needs of NOAA and its
stakeholders. NOAA has placed a high priority on the proper execution
and accounting of its resources. Key budgetary and financial management
improvements are centered around three key areas: (1) Improved Funds
Control and Execution through Automation; (2) Improved Budget
Structure; and (3) Improved Outreach and Communications.
Improved Funds Control and Execution through Automation
Included in the FY 2003 request is $16.1 million for NOAA's share
of the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS). CAMS will
contribute to improved financial management in a number of significant
ways, primarily by accounting for NOAA's expenditures and maintaining
NOAA's clean audit opinion. While NOAA has made significant efforts to
retain its clean audit opinion for a third consecutive year, it has
done so with inefficient manual, error-prone business processes that
are labor-intensive. Without significant amounts of overtime and
creative manual resource tracking, NOAA's accounting details would be
non-existent. CAMS will provide financial managers with on-line, real-
time, and accurate financial information and will enable NOAA and DOC
to meet statutory obligations under the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA) and the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act).
Improved Budget Structure
In the FY 2003 budget, legislation is requested to establish a
Business Management Fund (BMF) for corporate centralized services in
NOAA. For decades, NOAA has managed its centralized services through a
funding mechanism supported in its current financial management system,
FIMA, known as indirect costs. The process by which funds were
collected and distributed to support centralized services was
convoluted at best, and fraught with inconsistencies. Three years ago,
NOAA began a comprehensive effort to review its corporate funding
methodologies and work toward moving its headquarters management fund
into a business-like environment. A number of improvements have been
realized already, including stability in corporate charges for three
years in a row, returning unspent corporate costs, and reporting to
customers the status of funds mid-year and at year-end. However, to
complete this effort of truly realizing a business fund operation, NOAA
requires legislation. No current legislation exists for NOAA to operate
this fund, particularly after FIMA is replaced by CAMS. Once
legislation is secured, NOAA will begin to develop budgetary
documentation with the same rigor and reporting as required with
appropriated funds. Already underway, in support of this effort is
NOAA's initiative to implement Activity Based Costing (ABC) across all
of the Office of Finance and Administration's key business lines. ABC
studies are being completed to compute costs for services such as human
resources, grants, and eventually all other support services. The end
result of these studies will be the ability to charge customers a fee
for services, based on actual and estimated usage, and by the specific
services required. This will replace the flat rate, off-the-top
methodology employed today and will allow charges to be tailored to
line offices' specific requirements. NOAA is committed to bringing its
corporate services up to 21st century standards, and the flexibility of
a business management fund is a cornerstone of our plan.
Over the past several years, NOAA has been working to respond to
Congressional concerns regarding its budget structure. NOAA, in
conjunction with both Congressional and Administration assistance,
recently restructured the budget during the FY 2002 Appropriations
process. However, this effort is just a beginning, and NOAA will
continue to work with Congress to ensure that our budget is adapted to
Congressional reporting needs and concerns. For example, in the FY 2003
budget, NOAA has added additional specialty tables that will allow
Congress to track budgetary initiatives that cross multiple programs
and/or NOAA Line Offices, and NOAA has enhanced its base narratives to
be more descriptive. Also, in support of flexible budgetary reporting,
NOAA is developing a budget database that moves its tracking tables
from the current lotus driven environment to a database environment.
This will allow for more accurate tracking, quicker response to
inquires, and allow for greater flexibility in preparing budgetary
charts in response to Congressional and Administrative inquires. In
conjunction with OMB, NOAA has developed a simplified tracking table
that clearly indicates NOAA's primary mission areas.
Finally, NOAA began an effort to conduct a position and FTE
management review. This effort began in FY 2002 and was adopted during
the FY 2002 appropriations process. The FY 2002 efforts focused
developing an accurate baseline of FTEs based on actual usage. The
baseline was completed and has been implemented. In FY 2003, NOAA's
efforts will focus on ensuring that the positions associated with this
new baseline are aligned properly with program requirements.
Sea Grant
I would also like to explain the Administration's proposal to
transfer funding for the Sea Grant College Program to the National
Science Foundation (NSF). The Sea Grant program plays an important role
in marine and coastal research and is a cost-effective way to address
new problems in marine research management. Under the Administration's
proposal, the current Sea Grant structure would be replaced with a
university-based coastal and ocean program modeled after the NSF
centers, with input from researchers, educators and practitioners,
through workshops. NSF will retain the Sea Grant College designation
for qualified centers. The program will be open to all public and
private institutions of higher education through a fully competitive
process. NSF also has a lower matching requirement, so state and local
funds will be freed up to address outreach and extension needs of local
communities. NOAA will have a strong role in setting research
objectives for the program. To ensure the program transfer does not
adversely affect current awardees, NSF will transfer funds to NOAA to
support the current award commitments through the duration of their
grant period.
Several studies of the Sea Grant Program have noted its
effectiveness, as well as its problems. In 1994, the National Research
Council (NRC) found that NOAA's Sea Grant Program has played a
significant role in U.S. marine science, education, and outreach. The
review's recommendations included better defining the roles of the
National Sea Grant Office, the Sea Grant College programs, and the Sea
Grant Review Panel, and streamlining the proposal review and program
evaluation processes. Many of the recommendations of the NRC report
have been adopted by the program and were also incorporated in the 1998
Amendments to the National Sea Grant College Program Act. In a November
2000 study, entitled ``A Mandate to Engage Coastal Users,'' a committee
led by Dr. John Byrne of Oregon State University and the Kellogg
Commission indicated Sea Grant has been effective in facilitating the
Nation's sustainable development of coastal resources by helping
citizens make better informed and wiser decisions. Twenty-two of the 30
state Sea Grant Programs have undergone performance evaluations by
teams of outside reviewers and Sea Grant peers. Sixteen were graded
``excellent'' in achieving significant results. A program was graded
``excellent'' if it produced significant results, connected Sea Grant
with users, and was not found to need improvement in areas such as
long-range planning and management. Sea Grant's 1999 Hammer Award-
winning program in seafood safety training and the national marina
management effort are examples of other successful national programs.
Through the years, a number of successful partnerships have been
established between NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF),
such as the Teacher-at-Sea Program, our partnerships with NSF on the
U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.S. Weather Research
Program, as well as the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)
program. And, NSF supports some applied research programs, such as the
Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer programs.
Conclusion
NOAA's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget request invests in people, climate,
energy, homeland security, infrastructure, and high priority research,
science, and services. This budget maintains NOAA on its course to
realize its full potential as this nation's premier environmental
science agency. NOAA is also doing its part to exercise fiscal
responsibility as stewards of the Nation's trust as well as America's
coastal and ocean resources. And, in the same way that NOAA is
responsible for assessing the Nation's climate, we are responsible for
assessing and improving our management capabilities. NOAA will continue
to respond to key customers and stakeholders, and will continue to
leverage its programs and investments by developing those associations
that most efficiently and economically leverage resources and talent,
and that most effectively provide the means for successfully meeting
mission requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA's
fiscal year 2003 budget.
Senator Wyden. Let me thank you, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher.
Let me start with several issues that are important to my
State. As you know, you all have jurisdiction over West Coast
groundfish, fishery observers, overcapacity and buy-back
disaster money, bycatch, overages, stock assessments--the list
really goes on and on.
Tell me where the administration is first on West Coast
groundfish buy-outs.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Since I came into office, which is
about 4 months now, I asked the National Marine Fisheries
Service to start working on a comprehensive program that would
take a look at some of the alternatives that you and I
discussed the last time we met. We are in the process of doing
that. I am hoping to have some initiatives that will be
available for discussion within the administration for the
fiscal year 2004 budget. I have looked at some of the pilot
programs, if you want to call them that, and our attempts to do
this over the last 4 or 5 years.
We have some history of it. Some of it has worked, some of
it has not worked. There needs to be a better effort to produce
a comprehensive program that will satisfy these needs. I
believe we have got an effort going out to accomplish that,
Senator.
Senator Wyden. I have got to tell you, these people are
bleeding, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, and I do not sense any
kind of urgency at all about the way you are approaching this.
I am sorry, I would like to be diplomatic here, but you just
said we hope to have discussions within the administration for
the 2004 budget. These people are just devastated, and to hear
that somebody in Washington is having some discussions does not
provide much solace to families that are just flat--is there
anything you can do to give some sense that something is going
to happen any time soon?
To these people, this is the longest-running battle since
the Trojan War. I mean, it just kind of goes on and on, and it
looks like, well, the people in Washington are having some
discussions. Well, that is what they do in Washington.
Everybody shows up and has some discussions and they pass
around some paper, then from time to time the paper leads to
some more discussions, and now you have told the U.S. Senate
Committee with jurisdiction over your agency that in your view
we are going to have some discussions within the administration
to see if we can address this in the 2004 budget. It does not
sound like anything is going to help our people any time soon.
Admiral Lautenbacher. I am doing the best that I can with
the time and the assets that I have. I have been there for 3 to
4 months. I agree that this is a significant problem. I have
discussed it with my bosses, and I have initiated action within
our agency to produce plans to help with the problem.
You need to have a good solid idea of something that will
work, of something that enough people can support.
Senator Wyden. Why don't we look at the bipartisan
legislation that Senator Smith and I have? That is a really
good, science-based idea of something that will work.
Admiral Lautenbacher. We will certainly look at that.
Senator Wyden. Is there any reason why you have not looked
at it now? You could use this opportunity to endorse it and say
this is something that makes some sense. This is not something
we just threw together. This is a bipartisan proposal.
Admiral Lautenbacher. And we certainly will do that. I will
certainly take that into consideration. Absolutely we will look
at it.
Senator Wyden. The combination of the groundfish disaster
and the lack of a capacity reduction program has just made
things worse for the fishers, and to provide some relief, I and
others have tried to provide these fishing families with
disaster relief money as well as to continue funding the
successful groundfish disaster outreach programs.
The President's budget zeroes both of those out as well, so
we have got a situation, as far as I can tell, where nothing is
going to happen any time soon on the buy-backs because we are
kind of studying that and the like, and the programs that help
people when they are flat on their back now have been zeroed
out in the budget.
Do you all have any plan for providing relief to these
fishing families during this disaster now?
Admiral Lautenbacher. There is no money I know of available
in the budget to support that right now.
Senator Wyden. Does that bother you? Can you make the case
that that ought to be changed, or in some way dealt with?
Admiral Lautenbacher. As I said, I am trying to produce
plans which will help in the future to solve the problem. I
have no immediate way at my disposal to change that at this
point. The fiscal year 2003 budget has been created and sent
in. It was created before I got there. I was not part of the
decision process that created it, necessarily, although I am
here to support it, and I am trying to support it the best that
I can.
Senator Wyden. How are you going about trying to change it?
I mean, I have asked you about the buy-back program. That is a
program that provided the long-term approach. Now I would just
ask you about two programs, the President's budget zeroes out
the groundfish disaster outreach program, and those programs
that provide critical help today, and you have said you have
been trying to change that. How have you been doing that?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, I think that if we can--we need
to break this ping-pong cycle that we have of earmarks and the
administration taking them out. It does not really matter which
administration does this. This continues back and forth.
I would like to figure out how to work in some of the
critical issues that are represented here today by you, sir, in
the Senate, into the programs we already have so that they can
be incorporated properly and perhaps maintain their presence in
the budget, shall we say, continuously as it goes back and
forth, instead of each year being considered a one-term project
and then eliminated and put back in as a one-time project, and
we continue this game. I think we need to work together more to
incorporate things into the base budget so that they do not
suffer the same fate in the future.
Senator Wyden. Well, I think that is useful. Again, it is
just hard to see how anything is going to happen any time soon.
I mean, the buy-back program is something you are going to
discuss for the 2004 budget. We have zeroed out the disaster
relief programs. Could you make available to me, so I could see
it some of the memoranda or others that you have written trying
to get some changes in this area? I want to see that the point
person is moving with some urgency on these issues, because
that is what I sense is not taking place here.
You are a decent fellow, and we appreciate working with
you, but on both of these issues, the buy-back program and the
programs to help people that have just seen their lives
shattered, I do not get the sense much of anything is going to
happen soon; and if you could get me some of the documents that
you have sent, maybe information that you have transmitted to
Mitch Daniels or others, making the case that these are cuts
that are going to take a toll; I would like to see that,
because I think we want to see that a real effort is underway
to make some changes here.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, Bill Hogarth will be here next
week, and I assure you that he will, I am sure, express my
urgency to you as well, that he is the point man, and he is
working on these things, and he understands that we are serious
about trying to build some solutions that will have bipartisan
support, as well as support within the administration, which is
a very difficult task.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Hogarth is a decent fellow as well, and
I have had some of these conversations with him, as you know,
in recent weeks as well. But my understanding is you are still
the person who runs the shop, and at some point we have got to
see somebody who is really trying to bring about some changes,
because the problems were serious before you were in place, and
they just seem to grow more serious as time goes on, and I just
do not see the level of interest in this, frankly, that is
warranted.
What would you think of the idea of money to fishing
families for relief being triggered when certain management
decisions are made, like the Pacific whiting decision?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I have no philosophical problems with
that at all. I do not think the laws we have today are, shall
we say, compatible with some things that make sense in terms of
balancing the economic realities with a need to conserve and
rebuild sustainable fisheries, so I have no problem with that
personally at all.
Senator Wyden. I pushed very hard for NMFS to do annual
research on West Coast groundfish; and kicking and screaming at
the agency is still not doing that. We found that cooperative
research funding in that area had been zeroed out as well. How
is the administration going to address fisheries research, and
particularly the need for increased stock assessments, and
cooperative research on the West Coast and in Oregon?
Admiral Lautenbacher. We have added $10 million to the
budget for stock assessments, and that is included. A portion,
$1\1/2\ million, roughly, that will be devoted to using the
latest technologies and improving the methods by which we do
stock assessments and bringing in technology, so while there is
not an individual piece, there are places in the budget where
this research will continue at the levels that seem to be
affordable at this point.
Senator Wyden. I am also concerned about the agency's work
in the bycatch area, and NMFS lost in Federal court in its
protection of the bottom fish. Tell us how you are going to go
about addressing this piece of the groundfish management
crisis.
Admiral Lautenbacher. In bycatch I think we have made a
number of improvements. Since we talked last we have at least a
voluntary program in place for bycatch which allows the bycatch
for ships that wish to have observers on board for that bycatch
to be donated either to the poor or to other causes, and not
being wasted and thrown back into the sea, so that is progress
in the right direction.
We have also--when you look at bycatch in general across
the entire industry, there have been a number of improvements
over the last 5 or 6 years that are important. We continue to
keep doing that. For instance, in the shrimping industry,
bycatch has been reduced from a ratio of about 10 to 1 to 4 to
1, based on the turtle exclusion device development and the
ability to put that into broad use in those fisheries.
The tuna fishery, of course, has had great success in
reducing the incidental take of dolphins. That used to be in
the hundreds of thousands 10 years ago. It is now less than
2,000 a year, so there has been incredible gains in some of
these industries, certainly in the Atlantic billfish area. By a
combination of closures and gear devices we are able to reduce
the bycatch by 30 to 40 percent, and the landings have been
maintained at the same level, so there are areas that are
encouraging, and we need to do more, and I assure you that it
has my attention, and we are looking at ways to improve it.
Senator Wyden. The Ranking Member of the Oceans,
Atmosphere, and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Snowe, has
joined us. She has done good work in this area for years, and I
think what I will do is ask you a couple of other questions
that are important to my State for this first round of
questioning, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, and then, after I have
addressed those Oregon issues, I am going to recognize Senator
Snowe, and then in the second round I'll ask you some questions
with respect to programs that are important nationally to
finish up on the Oregon questions.
As you know, there has been great unhappiness about the
whiting decision that essentially blind-sided fishing families.
The law requires NMFS to consider economic impact on fishing
communities in making these management decisions, but neither I
nor, certainly, these fishing communities in my State that I
represent can understand how the agency's decision took
economic impact into account. Does the administration support
considering economic impact on fishing communities when making
management decisions and, if so, what specifically can you
point to that demonstrates this?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I certainly support it, and when you
look at the economic impact you have to look at the long-term
economic impact. If there is no fishery in the future, that
will be a horrendous economic impact, and so if you do not take
the actions that the law requires now, there will be no fishery
and there will be no economy, therefore it is a full-term
picture that has to be looked at, and we do consider that.
Senator Wyden. And how did you do that in this case?
Admiral Lautenbacher. We believe the fishery was in danger,
and this was the right level of stocks to preserve for the
future of that fishery if you are going to make it sustainable,
or for it to remain sustainable.
Senator Wyden. Can you supply to me, then, the evidence
that demonstrates that you took into consideration economic
impact?
Admiral Lautenbacher. We will provide you with whatever you
would like, sir.
Senator Wyden. I would like just what I asked for. I would
like the information that demonstrates that you took into
consideration the economic impact on the fishing families. Is
that what you will supply?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I will try to supply that. I do not
know that I have seen exactly the question as you have posed
it. That data, if it exists, I will bring it in. If it does
not, I will also inform you.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to is contained in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Wyden. One other question. With regard to Oregon,
the release of the draft environmental impact opinion by the
National Marine Fisheries Service from 2002 to 2012, for the
Klamath project operation, has again been delayed. This
biological opinion is going to determine the effects of
projects operation on Klamath River coho salmon. Can you say to
the Committee why this biological opinion has been delayed?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, we were on a very aggressive
schedule to begin with, so I do not view when it is delayed
that it is a delay that probably could be foreseen. We are
trying to get all of this finished so that this year's season,
both for the farmers and the endangered species, would be taken
care of as soon as possible.
Right now, we are in discussions with the Bureau of
Reclamation to ensure that we understand their proposal, and
that our biological opinion takes into account exactly their
proposed method of operating in the Klamath River Valley, and
so I think we are very close to finishing that draft opinion,
and it should be out within a couple of weeks, a week, perhaps.
Senator Wyden. Let me recognize Senator Snowe, who has done
so much good work on these issues over so many years.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
be here this morning. I want to welcome Admiral Lautenbacher.
It is wonderful to have you here, because I know this is your
first hearing since your confirmation as Administrator of NOAA.
We are delighted, given your expertise and experience and
managerial abilities, to have you here today. We know you will
be tremendous in addressing many of the challenges your agency
faces. NOAA certainly has far-reaching and wide-ranging
responsibilities and obligations. We are very pleased that you
are here today to address some of these issues.
Let me first mention the New England groundfish litigation,
which is an issue that has significantly affected the fishing
industry in Maine. This court decision is compounded by all of
the uncertainty, unpredictability, and instability that has
occurred in the industry in recent times. I am most concerned
with the decision that was recently rendered by the D.C.
circuit court last week. What do you envision NOAA will provide
in terms of assistance to the industry in the aftermath of this
decision?
Obviously, the reaction from the fishing industry in my
state has been very negative. Rightfully so, due to the direct
consequences the decision will have on the industry--
particularly when you are talking about reducing the number of
days at sea by at least 20 percent and it is now based on their
average over the last 5 years of fishing. For some people this
is going to be extremely onerous.
I know the decision could have been far worse in terms of
rendering quotas, but nevertheless, this is going to have a
serious impact on the groundfish industry throughout New
England. Do you expect NOAA will provide any assistance, or
could NOAA provide any assistance to minimize the burden that
is going to be felt by the fishing industry as a result of this
decision?
Admiral Lautenbacher. As we were discussing a little
earlier, there is no specific dollars in our budget that allows
for that type of thing at this point. There are provisions, if
the State requests it, to declare the fishery a disaster, which
has been done, I do not know, 16 times or something over the
last 5 or 6 years, and then provisions for special assistance
to be made available, with the agreement of the administration
and Congress. There is nothing special in the budget at this
point for the New England groundfishery, based upon this last
issue we have had with the court.
I will say, we are appealing the court's decision, because
we had an agreement between a large majority of the parties
that were subject to this, the rulings, both environmentalists
and sport fishermen, and the fishing industry, and so it was
very disappointing to us to not get a ruling from the judge
that would allow fishing to continue based on the agreement we
all had. We will appeal that, obviously we will appeal that
judgment. It is our belief the judge went beyond her powers in
the orders that were delivered, and so we will work on that, so
that is the nearest relief that I can offer at this point.
Senator Snowe. Were you surprised by the additional
regulations imposed by the judge in this decision?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, I guess--surprised? Maybe not
surprised. I was hopeful that this would not happen. I guess I
was not surprised, in a sense based on the original ruling that
was made, which I did not agree with, necessarily. I was hoping
that all the good work that went on, and the fact that she
encouraged the mediation and the discussions that have taken
place--and a great deal of effort had gone into this both from
the good folks in the Northeast as well as NMFS to try to bring
it to a conclusion successfully. That was very disappointing. I
will say disappointing, more than surprising.
Senator Snowe. Obviously, this has far-reaching
consequences for the groundfish industry and the fishermen are
going to be suspended in a state of uncertainty for the
duration of the ruling. In the meantime, I understand they are
going to have to respond to this decision. How long is it going
to take for the appeals process?
Admiral Lautenbacher. It will probably take a while, and
that is right, it does ruin the start of the fishing season. We
are trying to put out an emergency rule within 10 days or so of
the amount of time it takes us to do the paperwork, and then by
1 August to abide by the court decision to put a permanent rule
in place, in the meantime appealing it, and so that is the game
plan, and you are right, it could take a while, and it could
foul up part of this fishing season for certain.
Senator Snowe. One of the major concerns that I have had
over the last few years is that, unfortunately, we are
governing the fishing industry by litigation. I know I have
raised this concern with NMFS and I will have the opportunity
next week to talk to Dr. Hogarth about this. NMFS has routinely
acted out of fear of potential litigation rather than being
proactive and designing plans and programs for the industry.
We have court-based litigation that is governing the
industry, which makes it extremely difficult for the people in
this industry. I have seen the hardship in my state first-hand.
They are constantly reeling from one decision to the next, each
one of which is more onerous than the regulations or plans that
were implemented by NMFS in response to potential litigation. I
do not think that is the way we ought to be governing our
industry and I do believe we have to be much more aggressive in
designing plans and programs for the industry, so that we can
preempt any potential for the type of litigation and the types
of decisions that were rendered by the court last week.
Admiral Lautenbacher. I agree with that, and I would like
not to manage by litigation. I think--well, in this budget we
are asking for some more money to help us with the
environmental assessments and some of the things we have done
wrong in our procedure.
We have been attacked on some procedural issues which we
are gradually closing the loopholes to. We are being attacked
on different issues now, which are at least working down into
something substantive, and I believe the best thing is to make
rulings up-front that are in accordance with the law, done up-
front, done with consultation with everyone, and do it without
this fear of retribution and waiting until the last minute, and
that has taken place in the past. I am trying to reverse that.
Part of it is, as to Senator Wyden's question on the
whiting, we have tried to get ahead of that, not as well as we
should, but at least it was a ruling that came out that is in a
position that will not be sued, we will not be sued on that
particular ruling. We need to get to the point where we can do
that with all the fisheries management councils.
Plans come in late to us, and sometimes they are not in
compliance. In the past, people have been shy about saying they
are not in compliance, this is not going to work, and if we do
not change it to match the law, then we are all out of business
for a while, so I would like to get ahead of this. We have
asked for some more money in our budget to help with stock
assessments, to help with some of the admin procedures to make
this work better, and I would appreciate support in that area.
Senator Snowe. Most definitely.
What is NOAA doing to gain a better understanding of the
socioeconomic impact on the communities and the industry? Will
you be taking any steps to better evaluate what the direct
effect is going to be and the consequences as a result of this
decision? I think it is important, irrespective of what happens
in the appeals process, to understand exactly what the
socioeconomic effects are going to be. This requirement was
included in the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization a few years
ago to ensure that we ascertain the impact on the community.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Agree. There is $4 million in this
budget that is specifically directed at increasing our staff,
our expertise in the socioeconomic impact of the rules and
regulations under which we have to deliver and work with, so I
am pushing in that direction and, with those extra resources,
that will certainly help. More is needed.
As I said earlier, I am a fan of trying to balance the
economic and conservation interests that we have and it needs
to be done better than it has in the past, so I will try to
push to make that happen.
Senator Snowe. I appreciate that, and these issues are not
mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, people see one without the
other, and I do not think we can divorce those issues as we
consider the whole picture for the fishing industry and for the
communities involved. I think we can do both.
And finally, I would encourage an examination of the entire
issue of science-based management. Another concern that I have
had over the years is the failure of the agencies to invest in
the kind of cooperative research that is needed to gain a
better understanding of exactly what the problems are with
ecosystems and with the fisheries. I think if we did more in
that regard, the industry would have better confidence in the
ultimate decisions that are made with respect to the stocks of
the particular fisheries.
We do not do enough, and as a result of that insufficient
investment, it really has imposed a hardship to the industry.
Rightfully they are saying how do we know? Where is this
information coming from? On what basis are you making this
decision? They have to reorient their entire livelihood to
respond to decisions that are not based on science and are not
based on data.
I encourage you to do everything that you can in your
leadership position to invest in the kind of science-based
research that will lead to making the best decisions, the most
effective decisions that will yield the best results for the
industry and for the fish stocks.
Admiral Lautenbacher. I understand, and I agree completely.
I am certainly dedicated to doing as you suggest.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
I'd like to thank the Chair for scheduling this very important
hearing on NOAA's FY 2003 budget and programs.
I want to welcome you, Admiral Lautenbacher, to what I believe is
your first hearing before our Committee since your confirmation. You
came to NOAA with solid scientific credentials and extensive management
and leadership skills--all of which made you the perfect candidate for
what I believe is an incredibly important job. I know you are just
getting started, but I think this is an ideal time for us to talk to
you about the NOAA budget request and all of your many programs.
NOAA is a broad-ranging agency which the people of Maine depend on
each and every day. In so many ways, your agency has a direct effect on
their lives. In Maine we count on NOAA for everything from providing
reliable weather predictions to scientifically-based fisheries
management to coastal zone management to better understanding global
climate change.
Of course, these needs are not unique to Maine. More than half of
our country's population lives on the 10 percent of our land designated
as the coastal zone. Our coastal population grows every year, placing
increasing strains on coastal resources and our marine ecosystem. Our
nation is facing unprecedented challenges in managing these resources,
and we look to NOAA to take the lead in this management. And as you
know you have a great many challenges.
Right now in Maine we are faced with a crisis in which groundfish
litigation could potentially and permanently change the coastal
communities and their way of life. This is an example of litigation-
based management at its absolute worst. We need to take fisheries
management out of the courts and instead use better and more
comprehensive science. This will enable us to create sustainable
fisheries management plans that are in compliance with the law and
allow our fishermen to continue to earn an honest living.
I look forward to working with you and Dr. Hogarth in reversing
this destructive trend. I understand that Dr. Hogarth is your point man
for fisheries issues and I look forward to discussing these issues with
him next week at our fisheries management hearing.
As I said we have to ensure that science is the backbone of all of
our decisions. Cooperative research is one area that I believe we can
bring scientists and fisherman together to produce the science we need
to better understand and manage our marine resources. I can't emphasize
more the importance of cooperative research.
I also believe that we need to move forward to a global ocean
observing system which will provide us with critical environmental data
that will be utilized to improve fisheries modeling and management,
coastal planning, and harmful algal blooms management and mitigation.
In conjunction with this, I plan to introduce my Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act reauthorization bill soon
and I look forward to working with you as we continue this extremely
important program. It is clear that this problem is not going away as
algal blooms are still prevalent and the dead zone still occurs each
summer off the Louisiana coast. We need to better understand what
causes these phenomena and how we can better control and eliminate
them.
My questions and concerns today focus on a small subset of NOAA's
overall responsibilities. You know that many of my natural resource
concerns focus on fisheries. Rest assured that I will be diving into
these issues with Dr. Hogarth next week, when we are holding a hearing
on fisheries management. Today I will address overall budget issues,
NOAA performance, and several programs that matter a great deal to
Maine and the rest of the country.
We are all here because we are concerned about NOAA's ability to
succeed in an increasingly complex world. Now more than ever, NOAA
needs to be a leader in science-based management, and we all know that
adequate budgets are a key component of this success.
Thank you for appearing here today, Admiral Lautenbacher. I have
enjoyed working with you in the past and I appreciate your ability to
provide leadership and insight on the inner workings of NOAA. I have
great confidence in your ability to help us better understand how
NOAA's budget affects its ability to meet its missions.
I thank the Chair again for holding this hearing and I look forward
to hearing from you, Admiral Lautenbacher.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague for all of her good
work on these issues over so many years.
Let me turn to some concerns the Committee has with respect
to the budget for the country, and some programs that we do
feel strongly about, and I will start with the national sea
grant college program. The applied nature of national sea grant
research and the success of extension services are just two
aspects that cannot be underestimated. We are proud of their
use in Oregon and certainly around the country.
The President's budget proposes to terminate this program
within NOAA and the Department of Commerce. With all the
positive feedback about sea grant, what are the
administration's reasons for moving the sea grant program,
particularly in light of losing vital pieces of sea grant, such
as the extension services and the applied research aspect?
Admiral Lautenbacher. The administration took a look at
this, and they believe that managing a program such as this,
which includes a great deal of basic research, would be most
efficiently managed if it were included in a large-scale four-
star effort such as the National Science Foundation, where they
manage peer-reviewed research very well and get good grades
from everyone that has looked at their program.
The efficiency of bringing it into that management scheme
and into a peer review process, et cetera, was considered to be
an advantage to this program. Also, it would reduce the
matching requirement, which would allow the States to not have
to contribute as much money to the program, but it would
continue to maintain its character in the sense that the sea
grant areas, sea grant officers could maintain their
certification.
We also from NOAA would work with the National Science
Foundation to ensure that the essential pieces of the program
would continue as much as possible, given that there would be a
shift from the NOAA organization to the National Science
Foundation. For my part, I assure you that we think sea grant
is an outstanding program. It has produced great results over
the years in both education and outreach, or extension, as well
as basic research. I will manage it with those same high ideals
in mind and do my best to ensure that the turnover is done
smoothly.
Senator Wyden. The Mitchell Act hatchery and mass marking
program has consistently been underfunded, and this has
resulted in the inability of hatchery managers to mass-mark the
fish, as well as in the closure of hatcheries. Why has the
administration not allowed the Mitchell Act hatchery and mass-
mark program to function at the level that was intended by the
Congress?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I do not have any detailed
information on that. I would like to take it for the record and
provide it to you, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
Question. Why has the administration not allowed the Mitchell Act
hatchery and mass-marketing program to function at the level that was
intended by the Congress?
Answer. NOAA's FY 2003 request for Mitchell Act hatcheries is $16.5
million. The Mitchell Act funding level set by Congress in
appropriations has been used exclusively for Columbia River hatchery
operations and maintenance, screens and, in recent years, mass marking
to allow recreational and commercial access to hatchery fish when they
occur in fisheries with ESA listed salmonids. NMFS will continue to
fund Columbia River hatcheries at the funding level appropriated by
Congress.
Senator Wyden. That will be fine. I want to go into some
detail with respect to the Clear Skies program, the Clear Skies
and Global Climate Change Initiative program, and frankly your
answers are important here, since it is our understanding that
the U.S. interagency Global Change Research Program has been
placed under your watch in the new Climate Change Science
Program Office to be headed by James Mahoney, your Assistant
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. Is that correct?
Admiral Lautenbacher. That is correct.
Senator Wyden. OK. Now, let me turn to your testimony, if I
could, and I am going to be working from--I guess you do not
number your pages, but I am going to go to the second page of
your Climate Services testimony under Climate Change Research
Initiative and begin by asking you this. You state in the
second paragraph there, the Clear Skies plan aims to cut power
plant emissions of three pollutants, nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide, and mercury, by 70 percent. What about carbon?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Carbon is included in the greenhouse
gas intensity. It is included in the next line, which says 18
percent reduction of intensity, meaning the percentage of
pollutants over the gross domestic product, so that as the
gross domestic product increases, you reduce the amount of
carbon in the air, and that is an 18-percent figure over the
next decade, so carbon is included in that 18 percent number.
Senator Wyden. All right. The next sentence says, the new
Global Climate Change Initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gas
intensity by 18 percent over the next decade. The international
call is far greater than 18 percent, so my question is, how
does this country really hold our head up here, saying we ought
to have an 18-percent reduction on only three pollutants?
Admiral Lautenbacher. That is 18 percent, including the
carbon dioxide, so you have to have that in. I am not the
inventor of this calculation, but let me explain what I know
about it. This comes from CEQ and from the Department of
Energy, but when we looked at, or when I looked at the figures,
this 18 percent goes out 10 years, and if you look at the
production, or the projection, rather, of our gross domestic
product increase, and you look at the reduction in the
pollution in the air, greenhouse gases, when you get to the end
of the 10-year period you are actually better off than you are
under the Kyoto treaty.
Some people will say that the front end is not the same,
but it is close, but over the 10-year period we actually do
better than the Kyoto treaty does.
Senator Wyden. I will tell you that my sense is, is that
your approach means that emissions could actually increase as
GDP rises, is that right?
Admiral Lautenbacher. But the intensity, the percentage
will go down as a function of the economy, and when you look at
the total, by the time you get there you are going to be less
than the Kyoto protocol.
Senator Wyden. Wouldn't the Clear Skies Initiative weaken
and delay reductions on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
mercury emissions from power plants?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I do not believe it would, but then
again, I am not the expert. I am here to testify to the science
that tells you how we make predictions. I am not the author of
these figures or the regulations, so I do not want to pretend
to sit here and be the administration source on these numbers,
or the logic that goes behind these particular numbers.
Senator Wyden. I think what we want is the science behind
the numbers. I do not think there is science to back up the
numbers, and since you all are going to be playing an
increasingly important role in this area, we are just looking
for the science.
Admiral Lautenbacher. And the science is, who has created
the problem? Has man created the problem, or is this the
natural variability which we cannot--nothing we do will make a
difference, and I think there is great differences among
scientists. You can read a number of papers that will tell you
that it is not a problem, or it is a problem. We need better
science on which to base these policies.
What we are trying to do within NOAA and this Climate
Change Research Initiative is to get to the core science and
decide what is right, and what is the carbon cycle, where is it
being sequestered, how much is going into the air, how much of
it is natural, how much is man-made, and where is it coming
from, what countries, what particular parts of the world, how
is it being transported?
Looking at the water cycle, what difference does it make?
Do you actually have a cooling effect from aerosols? If you put
more aerosols into the air, you actually reduce the temperature
of the world.
There are an awful lot of answers, an awful lot of
questions on the basic science on which these policies are
based that need to be answered. That is where our $18 million
is focused, and that is what the program office for climate
change will be involved in.
Senator Wyden. Well, what is your response to those people
who argue nothing is going to make a real difference here? You
said people argue that. What do you say in response to that?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I look at the data that is out there
and I agree that the global average temperature has been
increasing, and I think that the bulk of mainline scientists
that you bring in here will agree to that, so cut out the
fringes on the side who say it is not increasing, so we
believe--at least I believe that the global average temperature
is increasing. It has increased by a small amount, but it has
done it in a relatively short period of time.
One can make a correlation with the increase in greenhouse
gases and say it is due to what man has done to the
environment. One can also look back at records in history and
tree rings and ice core samples, and you can see other changes
that took place many, many years before man showed up on the
scene burning fossil fuels and putting greenhouse gases into
the air that have been equally or much more dramatic than what
we have experienced today, so the issues are to decide and to
find out what the physical processes involved are, and to see
how much man is actually affecting them, because that will
depend a lot on where you want to invest your money.
Do you want to invest your money in reducing greenhouse
gases and ruin the economy, and then find out that it makes no
difference, or do you want to find out that since it is going
to happen anyway, we should invest our money in mitigation, we
should invest our money in planning properly, in what we are
going to do in our coastal zones. What are we going to do in
our coastal zones? What are we going to do when Minnesota
becomes the land of 1,000 wadis and not 1,000 lakes? What will
happen to those regions? We are looking at regional
assessments. We are looking at the effects of what will happen
and who caused it.
Senator Wyden. You say the agency is requesting $2 million
to augment carbon monitoring capabilities in North America, as
well as for observations of globally relevant parameters in key
undersampled oceanic and continental regions around the globe.
That is, I guess, on page 3 of the climate change area.
Again, touching on the carbon question, how come the
President does not have carbon as part of the Clear Skies
Initiative, but you have got $2 million for carbon monitoring?
What is so striking about all of this is that at every step
of the way it just seems that we are missing opportunities,
opportunities to work with the rest of the world to address
these key questions that are doing so much about the climate
problem. You have said that this morning. We are going to have
money to monitor carbon, but we are not going to make it one of
the pollutants we really seek to do something about.
Admiral Lautenbacher. That is not true. Well, first of all,
you should, get another witness here.
Senator Wyden. It is not one of the areas where you are
going to cut power plant emissions. You are going to cut power
plant emissions for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxides, and
mercury. You are not going to do it in the carbon area. That is
a matter of fact. But you are going to set up, or at least try
to, to have a program to monitor carbon, which suggests that it
is kind of a serious problem, so I am trying to sort out the
consistency in those two positions.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Goals are going to be set for
reducing carbon. There is a registry being set up to ensure
that reporting is done. It is going to be tracked. There are
going to be goals set. This registry will be set up so there
will be a provision to allow for trading credits, as has been
done in the past, and acid rain and other programs that we have
had, and it is being initiated by some of the States, for that
matter, right now.
So you are setting up a system in which people's
performance, the industry's performance is going to be
monitored, and how much carbon they are putting in the air, we
are going to determine how much is in the air, and if we are
not meeting the goals for reduction, it is 18 percent
reduction, then we are going to have to have some other
policies put into place, but the object here is to get
voluntary reporting and monitoring going as an initial start,
so it is not that nothing is being done. I think it is a
prudent way to get started on the program.
As far as the worldwide business, I just came from the APEC
conference, and I am a big supporter of global observing
systems. We do not have enough data on the parameters for the
world system, oceans, atmosphere, that are going to allow us to
actually determine what is going on with carbon.
I received a great deal of support from colleague nations
around the Pacific Rim to support getting monitoring stations
in place and joining with the United States in an effort to
build an observing system so we can give accurate data to the
policymakers of the world.
Senator Wyden. I would be curious how you would respond to
the recent NAS report. You know, this was commissioned by the
administration. My understanding is that they concluded that
climate change was occurring and that man-made emissions were
part of the cause. How does the administration's proposal
address these concerns and address them in any way that is
going to get at these problems sometime soon?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, first of all, the
administration's proposal is to stabilize greenhouse gases.
They are rising today, and there is not anything you can do,
short of everybody going to bed for the next 30 years, to stop
them from rising, so the object is to stop the growth of
greenhouse gases. It will stop at some point in the future. If
the President's program is followed, it will stop the rise of
greenhouse gases, so that is the first thing that has to be
done, and there is going to be monitoring and controls in
places, as you have seen on the three gases, and voluntary on
carbon, so if you stop the rise of the greenhouse gases, it
gives you a chance. It gives you a breathing period to start
looking, making sure that the science is correct and that you
are investing in the right parts of your economy.
If more drastic measures need to be taken, I am sure they
will be taken. That is part of the Clear Skies program, is to
review progress and to revamp the policies if necessary, so
first of all you have got to stop the rise of greenhouse gases.
If you follow what is in that program that the President has
listed, you will stop the rise of greenhouse gases and you will
do it without destroying the economies, and it is particularly
important for nations of the world that do not have the money
to invest, in these types of subsistence economies that do not
have the money to invest in environmental improvement.
If you allow them to grow their economies but have some
sort of a set-aside to assure proper conservation of resources.
That is a way to keep development going and to use the
resources and to provide a proper environment for the future.
That is again the balance between economic development and
improving the quality of life and conservation of resources.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask one other question and again cite
carbon as the area where I want to get a sense of the
administration's approach; and by the way, everybody is for the
research. You note that here, and it says something I certainly
agree with. You want the research to be done so workers and
citizens in this country are not unfairly penalized, no
question about that. All of that is very sensible. But I would
like to get your sense, at what point is the administration
going to say, we have studied enough here, we are going to take
some action and support some specific initiatives and start
with carbon?
I asked about this at the Energy Committee. I serve on the
Energy Committee as well, and last year, when the
administration was being pushed by other countries around the
world to act on the carbon issue the response was, we are going
to study it. We are going to look at it. Tell me when you think
that the administration might say, we have studied this enough,
we are actually going to propose some concrete actions on
carbon?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, I guess there is a semantic
difference here. I believe they have taken action by setting
into place a system which requires people to register, and a
reporting system. So there is a reporting system being set up,
and there is a track of reduction targets that are being looked
at for the next 12 years, or the next decade, rather, from 2002
to 2012, and therefore a system is being set up in which there
will be accountability, there will be targets, and we can all
look at it, everyone can look at it and say it is working or it
is not working.
Senator Wyden. If they are not met, there are no
consequences, are there? What are the consequences of not doing
your share? There are none, isn't that correct? Tell me what
the consequences are if you do not do your share.
I think your point about reporting and monitoring and the
like, it is all voluntary. I mean, if you sit it out, if you
decide you are not going to be part of an effort to be
responsible, I do not see any consequences because it is
voluntary. What do you see as the consequences?
Admiral Lautenbacher. The consequences are economic,
because as you start to figure out about how to reinvest in the
next generation of equipment for power plants and energy
distribution and automobiles, and all the things that create
the carbon in the atmosphere, you are going to have to make
some decisions. If the industry continues to make decisions
that do not meet these targets, they know that there will be
penalties. Congress will act, the President will act. There
will be some changes to be made.
So you are looking at a system which hopefully there will
be--given the entrepreneurial system we have in the U.S., there
will be some realization that is going to happen. People will
invest, and if they do not, they are going to start trading
carbon credits, just like we do everything else, so you are
going to be able to see some change in this system so hopefully
there is some self-discipline that is imposed on the system.
Now, if it does not work, everybody can see it. It will be
visible, and then some action should be taken.
Senator Wyden. Well, the world has already seen it, and
that is essentially what the debate is about. We are the person
sitting it out when something like 170 other countries are
saying--you are saying a voluntary system is going to work,
that somehow people are going to see these consequences of
their actions, and I think the country is going to pay dearly
for a system that really in my view has no consequences. That
is the bottom line. It is voluntary. If people are
irresponsible, they will pay no price. There will be no
consequences.
Let me also say that I recognize that some of these issues
go beyond your specific authority, but you play an important
role, because of what we describe with respect to the new
Climate Change Science Program Office, and I hope that in your
capacity there you will be a voice for policies that are going
to do more than study, they are going to lead to some action
and some consequences when people are not willing to be
responsible.
I support voluntary programs. I think we ought to go with
them to the greatest extent possible and give them the widest
possible berth. There is no quarrel there, but when they are
not getting the job done, then there has to be some
consequences and some other systems have got to be in place.
Let me recognize my colleague, if she has any further
questions.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. I have just a few questions to
follow up on the climate change issue so that we can have a
better understanding of how these programs for the short term
and the long term are going to be integrated into this office.
I know the President announced the creation of the Climate
Change Research Initiative in June and designated the Commerce
Department to be the lead agency, but given that we have
declining and static budgets we need to know how the
investments we will make for the short term and the long term
will impact climate change.
The concern of many scientists is, we are doing things on
the short term from 2 to 5 years, but it is not sufficient in
helping us better understand the greater global environmental
issues for the long term. I believe we need to make investments
in the long term with respect to climate change. What are your
views on that?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I agree, we need short term and long
term. My impression has been, from looking at this, is that the
investments that have been so far basically in the Global
Change Research Program (GCRP) area have been mostly long-term
investments. We have not focused on the short term, and really
understanding hard-hitting issues right now, and producing
products that can be used by policymakers to help with some of
the issues that Senator Wyden and I just discussed, so we
need--in my view, there has been too much long term, and not
enough short term, but that being aside, this program office, I
assure you, will be looking at both. We are very interested in
being able to contribute immediately and directly to this
problem, as well as ensuring that there is long-term
improvements and science plans put into place.
Senator Snowe. In conjunction with what the chairman
raised, is the issue of urgency. This is a very compelling
issue and it was the reason back in 1990 the Congress created
the Global Change Research Program, essentially because there
was no success in addressing this issue 12 or 13 years ago. It
seems to me there has to be a level of urgency and a sense of
purpose about the entire issue and the far-reaching
consequences if we fail to address these issues.
I wonder how the work of the GCRP is going to be
coordinated with this new initiative and with what we have done
in the past. We need to make sure that we are not only
examining these issues, but also proposing steps that can be
taken to address the issue of global warming and the climate
changes that have occurred.
Admiral Lautenbacher. The plan that is in place puts it
directly on the burden of--Secretary of Commerce Don Evans is
in charge, directly responsible to the President. It is a
Cabinet-level group that includes all of the Cabinet agencies
that are involved, or have any peripheral responsibilities with
regard to climate change. It has a working group of Deputies,
and then it has these program offices, one for technology and
one for science change, of which Jim Mahoney, my Deputy, has
been put in charge. It will include all of the same offices and
incorporate the GCRP mechanisms that have been in place for 10
years.
And I do not want to be misquoted. I think that program has
produced a great deal of important work. My only point was, it
was more long term than it was of an urgent nature. We have
learned a lot from the GCRP. It has been a good program. I do
not want to sit up here and say that has been wasted. It has
not been. It has been a good investment. What we are trying to
do is take a look beyond the window that was in the GCRP focus.
That program looked at very specific new initiatives. It
did not incorporate all of the things that have been done in
the Government with regard to climate change, and I can give
you an example just from NOAA, and I will let other agencies
speak for their own budget.
We have, for example, $70 million of GCRP money, basically,
listed as climate change. If I go through my budget and look at
it, I can find at least $300 million that are related to doing
climate change kinds of things, or things that will help us to
understand climate change science and help to build policy
documents or policymaking instruments. The same thing goes for
other agencies.
So the first object of this program office is to get
everything together that the Government does and put it in one
place, and let us take a look at the architecture that is
there. Let us take a look at the gaps that we have in science,
if there are any, and start prioritizing what needs to be done.
If we need to move that money into different places, then we
should do it, and they are Cabinet-level agencies with Cabinet
members and Secretary Evans in charge, with OMB involved, and
Dr. Marburger from OSTP. Everyone is on this group. It is a
high-level body that hopefully will have the empowerment to
make something happen.
Senator Snowe. Is every agency that should be involved in
the issue of climate change included with this sort of task
force?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes.
Senator Snowe. Does it replace the Global Change Research
Program?
Admiral Lautenbacher. We are going to try to run it in
parallel right now, because we understand the need to meet the
needs, or meet the legislative requirements of the GCRP, and so
right now we have taken the GCRP organization and kind of
folded it together so that we will not lose any pieces, so the
GCRP steering group, and the Environment and Natural Resources
Council, that structure is being matched to the structure I
just outlined so we ensure we deliver the proper documents to
Congress.
Senator Snowe. Will this be coordinated? Who will be
coordinating the structure?
Admiral Lautenbacher. It is the same people, so the same
people that have been doing--the same policy leaders in each of
these areas that have been working in the GCRP will be in this
program, the steering part of this program office, so we are
not going to discard or eliminate or do anything to downplay
what has been done before. We are going to use it as the base,
essentially, and broaden the scope. That is the idea.
Senator Snowe. How much overall would you estimate is being
spent on the issue of climate change by our Government? Do you
have any idea?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, the figure that CEQ came up
with was something like $4.7 billion. That includes the part
that--the Department of Energy and clean coal and technologies
for alternative fuels, that sort of thing, and so there is a
big chunk. Most of that is in energy. There is about $1.7
billion in the GCRP, and I do not know, but my guess is there
is at least another billion that is in science areas, maybe
even more.
The trouble is, how do you count it, because many of the
things that we do that are useful for climate change, they are
also useful for other things, and so do you take the same
satellite that I use for weather and say, that is climate, too,
and how much of that satellite money counts into climate, which
it certainly will, but it is there to give us day-to-day
weather and to ensure we can carry on our daily economic
activities.
So there are a lot of these things that are dual,
multipurpose, that need to be taken into account. That is the
hard part about giving you the figure.
Senator Snowe. So with this new coordinating structure,
will all of the research be conducted under this umbrella?
Admiral Lautenbacher. That is the idea. The idea is to have
a supercoordinating office to make sure that when each budget
is created, that it is created and it meshes, so when we all
come to you, or when we go to the President and we come to you
on the Hill you can look across this and you can see a logical
program that supports climate change science, and we can
deliver an architecture, which I can sit here, or Rita Caldwell
can come up and say, anybody else can come up here and say,
this is what we are doing, and here is how we fit together. We
for the first time will have real Government coordination and
cooperation.
Senator Snowe. That is going to be positive.
On another issue related to climate change, that is abrupt
climate change, the National Academy of Science issued a report
in December 2001 that said that it is not only possible, but
likely in the future that we could have an abrupt climate
change that could have significant societal consequences. In
fact, the report said, at present there are no plans for
improving our understanding of the issue, no research
priorities have been identified, and no policymaking body is
addressing the many concerns raised by this potential for
abrupt climate change.
I have asked for $6 million in the appropriations process
to address this specific issue regarding climate change. What
are your views? And how will this be addressed? Is it
recognized that this is a serious dimension of climate change?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Certainly I recognize it as a serious
dimension, and I am sure a number of people will join me on
that, and in fact, as I wrote a list yesterday of things we
need to look at, it is on my list for our program office to
coordinate. Abrupt climate change is of genuine concern, and we
need to spend some time looking at it, and I assure you that it
will be on the agenda of this program office.
Senator Snowe. Let's turn to another area, harmful algal
blooms. I am soon going to introduce my reauthorization
legislation with Senator Breaux. I see the administration's
NOAA budget for 2003 appears to eliminate the funding for all
types of hypoxia research.
Admiral Lautenbacher. I will show you--I have it that we
have roughly about the same amount of money. We may be down a
little bit, $700,000 left because of the sea grant going to
NSF, but we have about $13 million, about $13 million in the
various pieces and there is, as you know, a million here, a
million there. It is $13 million that deals with harmful algal
blooms. It is down about $1 million, but it is roughly the same
across the programs that deal with that.
Senator Snowe. Do you think it is about $13 million?
Admiral Lautenbacher. It is about $13 million in this area.
Senator Snowe. I think this is a critical program.
Admiral Lautenbacher. It is.
Senator Snowe. I think that this issue is not going to
disappear any time soon. When you think about the dead zone
that occurs every year off the coast of Louisiana and the types
of mitigation measures that are essential to addressing this
issue, we certainly should be investing in this issue and not
terminating it. Is it your understanding that there will be
static funding?
Admiral Lautenbacher. $13.8 million was enacted in 2002,
and our request is $13.1 million, so that is $.7 million down.
That is the sea grant migration, and so assume that that is in
there, so we are down about $700,000 on a base of $13.8
million. I admit, it is a slight decrease, but the programs are
fairly robustly funded, given the number of priorities we try
to cover, and I agree this is a very important area, and a lot
has been done that is important to investigate toxins and
health and damage to the environment.
Senator Snowe. We created a task force on this issue in
1998. Has it been effective in providing any recommendations
for technical assistance on this issue?
Admiral Lautenbacher. My view--well, there were four task
forces created as a result of this. Three of them have
finished, and have produced, I think, good products that have
been used to help guide the research efforts and support public
knowledge of this issue.
The fourth one will be finished--it is being reviewed in 3
or 4 months, and it is going to cover coastal oceans' reactions
to harmful algal blooms, as well as hypoxia and dead zone
issues in the Gulf of Mexico, so these reports are good, and
the fourth one is almost done. We have completed that work,
essentially.
Senator Snowe. When will that final report be released? I
ask this because we are in the process of introducing the
reauthorization bill. Perhaps we would want to wait to
incorporate any suggestions the reports might provide.
Admiral Lautenbacher. I will make sure you have copies of
the reports.
Senator Snowe. Please provide any suggestions or thoughts
you might have on the reauthorization as well, because it is
important.
Finally, on the national ocean observation system that is
being developed with hopefully a national plan, how will this
system be administered? And as you know, there is an observing
system in the Gulf of Maine that is working very well. It is
sort of a prototype. Do you envision that this type of program
will be incorporated into a national observation system?
Admiral Lautenbacher. My view is that it should be folded
into a national observation system. We have under the NRLC, the
National Research Leadership Council, a group called Ocean.US,
which is a multiagency group kind of at a lower level than the
climate change group that I talked about, but it includes all
the agencies that deal with ocean research and ocean
monitoring.
They recently had a conference among the Government
agencies, also including academia, and all the folks that would
be interested--actually, Gulf of Maine was represented at that
conference--to build an architecture, and that is the critical
part. As you know, to build a partnership between two people is
hard, but to build a partnership between hundreds of people
gets very difficult, but the attempt is being made.
Their report is almost ready to be published, and I spoke
to this group. I think there is a great deal of unanimity that
we need some kind of a national architecture, and backboned, to
which the regional observing systems can tie in, data can be
shared, and we can truly use it for a national purpose both for
climate as well as a number of other things.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Admiral Lautenbacher. I
appreciate you appearing before us today and answering our
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague, and I think you can
see, Admiral Lautenbacher, that there is a lot of concern on
these issues, on the fishing questions, on the climate change
questions, and what I am hoping for, and I think it is very
much along the lines of what Senator Snowe is trying to
address, is we want a new sense of urgency.
There are a number of these questions that just seem to
have been passed on from hand to hand, and office to office,
and what we are hoping is that in a very aggressive way you
will pull together the people on your team and work with us on
a bipartisan basis.
We will have Bill Hogarth here in a few days. I hope that
Dr. Hogarth is going to talk to us very specifically about what
is going to be done about a crisis in our fishing sector.
Senator Snowe, I am sure, is going to have the same sorts of
questions for him on the global climate change. What I think
the Congress wants to do is to see a workable bipartisan plan
that consists of more than study.
We support your research efforts, but at the end of the day
we have got to have a chance to move on those, and in area
after area. We have come up with bipartisan proposals, Senator
Smith and I, in the groundfish area; Senator Craig and I in
terms of carbon sequestration--there are bipartisan proposals
out there that move us beyond the research area, and you can be
a force for doing that, so that is what we hope we will see.
I would like to give you the last word. If there is
anything you want to add, you can feel free to do it at this
time.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here and discuss these issues with you,
and I am delighted that there is this interest, and I assure
you that I have the same sense of urgency. To the limits of my
ability I will certainly work to address these problems. I wish
to work in a bipartisan manner. I do not think the oceans and
the atmosphere are the purview of any one particular part of
our society. I think it is important to all of the entire
Nation and to everyone that we deal with these problems, and I
will continue to work with you in the future in any way that I
can. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Question. Can you produce information that demonstrates that you
took into consideration the economic impact on the fishing families?
Answer. The Pacific Whiting decision was made primarily on the
basis of the biology of the stock and the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (MSA). The MSA gives priority to meeting the biological
requirements of the stock and preventing overfishing. As required by
MSA, economic impacts are taken into account, but are not necessarily
given equal weight to the biology of the stock. Economic considerations
are most commonly taken into account in weighing different alternative
actions that might be necessary to meet the biological requirements of
the MSA, not whether to meet them at all.
The first document is the March 22 Decision Memo for the Emergency
Rule to Establish 2002 Harvest Specifications for Pacific Whiting and
Announcement of Overfished Status of Pacific Whiting. The Finding of No
Significant Impact and the Environmental Assessment for this rulemaking
are attached to the Decision Memo. The memo includes a discussion of
economic impacts (see pages 4-5). Because this was an emergency rule
where notice and comment was waived, it was exempt from the procedures
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The second document is an April 3 memo titled, Alternative
Estimates of Economic Impact Associated with the Emergency Rule for
2002 Pacific Whiting Specifications. This memo responds to economic
concerns expressed by the fishing industry during the public comment
period at the Pacific Fishery Management Councils' March 2002 meeting.
The third document is the emergency rule* published in the Federal
Register on April 15, 2002. The preamble of the rule contains a section
titled Economic Impacts where the issues are defined and summarized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review for the
``Emergency Rule for the Pacific Whiting Allowable Biological Catch and
Optimum Yield Specifications for the 2002 Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery'' has been retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Memorandum for William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service--March 22, 2002
Emergency Rule to Establish 2002 Harvest Specifications for Pacific
Whiting and Announcement of Overfished Status of Pacific
Whiting
I request your approval of an emergency action under authority of
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
requests emergency action under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) to establish 2002 harvest specifications for
Pacific whiting (whiting) before the start of the primary season on
April 1, 2002. For reasons explained below, the Council's action on
2002 annual specifications for whiting were delayed until its March
2002 meeting. The harvest specifications adopted for 2001, which remain
in effect until new specifications are adopted, must be replaced to
prevent overfishing of the whiting stock during 2002.
This action has controversial aspects since it rejects the
Council's recommended alternative for U.S. harvest of whiting of
152,400 mt and instead implements a lower harvest level of 129,600 mt.
Industry participants have expressed concern about the economic impacts
of the reductions in harvest. The environmental community is likely to
be concerned about the low biomass levels and how quickly the stock
will be restored to a sustainable level. In addition, the March 5,
2002, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Midwater Trawlers
Cooperative v. Department of Commerce, which is a challenge to Indian
treaty fishing rights by the fishing industry, could result in
complaints about the allocation of whiting between the tribal and non-
tribal sectors of the fishery.
Background
The FMP requires the Council to develop management specifications
for groundfish species or species groups that it proposes to manage,
each calendar year. The 2002 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery
specifications and management measures for all managed species, except
whiting were published in the Federal Register March 7, 2002 (67 FR
10490).
NMFS and the Council realized that the whiting biomass had
decreased throughout the l990s. In anticipation of a new stock
assessment which was to be available in early 2002 and because only a
small amount of whiting are typically landed under trip limits prior to
the April 1 start of the primary season, the Council chose to delay its
final whiting recommendation until its March 2002 meeting. As a result
of this decision, whiting harvest specifications from 2001 were carried
over into 2002 and remain in place until new specifications are
established through a federal rulemaking.
In late February, the new assessment was complete and made
available for examination by the Council's groundfish assessment review
team (STAR) for whiting. As a result of the new whiting stock
assessment, it has been determined that the stock biomass in 2001 was
0.7 million mt, and that the female spawning biomass was less than 20
percent of the unfished biomass. Because the overfished threshold under
the FMP is 25 percent of the unfished biomass, the whiting stock was
determined to be overfished in 2001 and 2002.
Although a large amount of juvenile fish, spawned in 1999, are
expected to mature and enter the fishery in the near future, the
spawning biomass is not expected to increase above 40 percent of its
unfished biomass level (B40%-the MSY biomass level) for several years.
Any increases in biomass will depend on the vigor of juvenile fish that
mature and enter the fishery as well as the exploitation rates.
At its March 2002 meeting in Sacramento, CA, the Council reviewed
the results of the new stock assessment. The Council was presented with
a range of coastwide harvest levels based on three alternative harvest
rates and three different assumptions about the amount (recruitment
level) of juvenile fish that are expected to become part of the
exploitable biomass in 2002. The three recruitment assumptions included
a low recruitment of 2.11 billion fish (10 percent probability), a
medium recruitment of 2.89 billion fish (80 percent probability), and a
high recruitment of 3.87 billion fish (10 percent probability). At the
time of the 2001 survey, the fish spawned in 1999 had only partially
recruited to the fishery and were not well estimated by the model
resulting in uncertainty about the effect these young fish would have
on the exploitable stock biomass. As fish spawned in 1999 mature, the
whiting biomass is expected to increase in size under each of the three
recruitment assumptions. At the low recruitment level the biomass is
projected to increase to between 25 percent and 28 percent of its
unfished condition by 2003, for the range of 2002 harvest levels
examined. At the high recruitment level the biomass is projected to
increase to between 38 percent and 42 percent of its unfished level by
2003, using the same range of 2002 harvest amounts.
These three recruitment level assumptions represent different
degrees of risk in characterizing the amount of juvenile fish entering
the fishery. A low recruitment assumption is most precautionary and
represents a risk adverse approach, the medium recruitment is risk
neutral, and the high recruitment assumption carries more risk for a
timely stock recovery. The Council's Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) chose to forward all three recruitment assumptions to
the Council, while noting that the medium recruitment assumption was
the risk neutral characterization of the incoming recruits to the
fishery.
The three harvest rate proxies forwarded to the Council were F40%,
F45% and F50%. A rate of F40% can be explained as that which reduces
spawning potential per female to 40 percent of what it would have been
under natural conditions (if there were no mortality due to fishing)
and is therefore a more aggressive harvest strategy than F45% or F50%.
The OYs presented to the Council were based on the ABC associated with
a particular recruitment level and harvest rate as reduced by the 40/10
default harvest policy. When a stock is below B40%, the 40/10 policy is
applied as a precautionary measure and is effectively a default
rebuilding policy.
The allocation of the whiting resources between the U.S. and Canada
is not resolved. The stock assessment was a collaborative effort
between the two nations. However, the results of the new stock
assessment were not available in time to hold formal negotiations with
Canada before the March Council meeting. Consequently, the Council
assumed continuation of the 80 percent share that the U.S. harvest
levels have been set at in recent years. NMFS believes that the F40
harvest rate with a medium recruitment assumption and a 40/10 harvest
policy approach shows adequate precaution. The Council recommended that
the future whiting negotiations between the U.S. and Canada be
scheduled.
Following discussion and public testimony, the Council recommended
adopting a U.S.-Canada Coastwide OY of 190,500 with a U.S. OY of
152,400 mt (80 percent of the coastwide OY) based on a harvest rate of
F40% and assuming a medium-high recruitment scenario. I advise
disapproving the Council's recommendation and recommend approving an
ABC based on the risk neutral medium recruitment scenario. After
consultation with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, I believe
that the risk neutral medium recruitment scenario, instead of the
Council's risk accepting recommendation, is supported by the best
available science. This would result in a U.S.-Canada ABC of 208,000 mt
and a U.S. ABC of 166,000 mt. The U.S.-Canada Coastwide OY (the ABC
with the application of the 40/10 harvest policy) would be 162,000 mt
with a U.S. OY of 129,600 mt.
I believe, that a risk neutral approach, instead of one that
accepts greater risk, is supported by the best available science given
the current biomass estimate and the uncertainty associated with the
estimates of recent year class strength. The 2002 retrospective
analysis of recruitment estimates from the 1998 assessment resulted in
recruitment strengths and biomass estimates being revised downward.
This suggests that future stock assessments also have a reasonable
expectation of revising the estimated strength of the 1999 year class
to a lower value. It should be noted that the two most recent year
classes prior to the 1998 assessment (at an age equivalent to the 1999
year class in the new assessment) were estimated to be about 40 percent
lower in the 2002 assessment than in the 1998 assessment. Relative to
the medium-high recruitment scenario recommended by the Council, the
2002 stock assessment results suggest that a lower 1999 recruitment is
two to three times more likely than a higher 1999 recruitment. The STAR
Panel recognized the high variance associated with forecasting
recruitment and suggested caution in using the projections for
forecasting future biomass levels.. The Council's choice to use a 1999
year class estimate midway between the medium and high estimates is
inconsistent with the STAR Panel recommendation.
The F40% harvest proxy should remain in place for 2002. The
Council's STAR panel recommended moving to a more conservative level of
F45%. The SSC did not make the same recommendation, but noted that the
STAR panel recommendation was a risk-adverse policy and not risk-
neutral advise. The SSC identified the F40% rate as reflecting a risk
neutral policy. While the F45% is by definition more conservative than
the F40%, neither the STAR or SSC were presented with an analysis to
evaluate the suitability of the F45% harvest rate proxy. Such an
analysis was beyond the scope of the assessment. An evaluation of the
harvest rate proxies for whiting should be completed before setting the
2003 harvest level.
Projections indicate that if mean levels of recruitment occurred
annually, an F40% harvest policy adjusted by the 40/10 rule, would
rebuild the spawning stock to B40% within seven to nine years (2009-
2011). However, it must be noted that given the highly skewed nature of
the historical recruitment distribution, there is less than a 50%
likelihood that annual recruitments would average the long-term mean
during this short period.
The U.S. OY recommended by the Council (152,400 mt) represents a 20
percent reduction from the 2001 whiting OY, while the OY which I am
recommending adopting (129,600 mt)represents a 32 percent reduction
from the 2001 whiting OY. In 2001, the ex-vessel value of whiting taken
by all sectors was estimated to be approximately $13,415,000. Under the
OY being adopted by NMFS (129,600 mt) the ex-vessel value of whiting is
expected to be approximately $10,000,000, this is 25 percent less than
the ex-vessel value in 2001. Reduced revenues from production will
likely affect the ability of operations to not only cover their
variable costs, but also their fixed costs. If it is not economically
feasible for some shore-based or at-sea processors to participate in
the fishery, the financial impacts of the reduction may be distributed
disproportionately among recent participants. In the short term, the
reduced OY is expected to have an adverse economic impact on harvesters
and processors, however I believe it is necessary for the long-term
health of the fishery.
Concerns about the impacts on other groundfish fisheries were
considered. Participants in the shore-based whiting fleet have
accounted for roughly 50 percent of the annual harvest of species in
the Dover sole, thornyhead, and sablefish (DTS) species complex as well
as at least 20 percent of the non-Dover sole flatfish species. Many
whiting vessels target flatfish and DTS species after the whiting
season. It is expected that the length of the whiting season would be
reduced proportionally with the OY. Therefore, a drastically reduced OY
would likely result in a shorter whiting season and increased fishing
pressure on already constrained fisheries, this would result in higher
than expected landings, inseason non-whiting reductions in trip limits,
and possibly early closures.
Each year, the whiting OY is allocated between the specific sectors
of the fishery. The Pacific Coast Indian treaty fishing rights,
described at 50 CFR 660.324, allow for the allocation of fish to the
tribes through the annual specification and management process.
Beginning in 1999, NMFS has set the tribal allocation according to
an abundance-based sliding scale allocation method proposed by the
Makah Tribe in 1998. See, 64 F.R. 27928, 27929 (May 29, 1999); 65 FR
221, 247 (January 4, 2000) ; 66 FR 2338, 2370 (January 11, 2001) Under
the sliding scale allocation method, the tribal allocation varies in
relation to the level of the U.S. whiting OY, ranging from a low of 14
percent (or less) of the U.S. OY at OY levels above 250,000 mt, to a
high of 17.5 percent of the U.S. OY at an OY level at or below 145,000
mt. For 2002, the Makah Tribe has requested, and the Pacific Council
has recommended, a tribal allocation of 22,680 mt, using the sliding
scale allocation method. No other tribes have requested allocations for
2002.
The sliding scale allocation method is the subject of two recent
court decisions. In the treaty fishing rights case of U.S. v.
Washington, Case No. C70-92l3, Phase I, sub-proceeding No. 96-2 (W.D.
Wash., April 5, 2001), the Court considered several scientific
affidavits submitted by NMFS and the Makah Tribe, and found that ``the
allocation agreed on by the Secretary is a lawful exercise of his
obligation to comply with the treaties guaranteeing Indian tribes their
aboriginal right to take fish at their usual and accustomed fishing
grounds.'' 143 F. Supp. 2d 1218, at 1224. The Court concluded: ``The
sliding scale allocation method advocated by the Secretary and Makah
shall govern the United States aspect of the Pacific whiting fishery
until the Secretary finds just cause for alteration or abandonment of
the plan, the parties agree to a permissible alternative, or further
order issues from this court.'' Id.
In Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. U.S. Department of Commerce,
___F. 3d.___, 2002 WL 338406 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the tribal treaty right to Pacific whiting, upheld
the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Makah Tribe, and found
that the Makah Tribe is entitled, pursuant to the Treaty of Neah Bay,
``to one-half the harvestable surplus of Pacific whiting that passes
through its usual and accustomed fishing grounds, or that much of the
harvestable surplus as is necessary for tribal subsistence, whichever
is less.'' However, the Court also found that the specific allocation
in 1999 to the Makah Tribe was inconsistent with the scientific
principles set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (which requires that
NMFS base fishery conservation and management measures on the best
scientific information available), because the 1999 Federal Register
notice announcing the 1999 allocation did not provide a scientific
rationale. Accordingly, the Court issued instructions to the District
Court to remand to the agency for more specific findings. On remand,
NMFS will be required ``to either promulgate a new allocation
consistent with the law and based on the best available science, or to
provide further justification for the current allocation that conforms
to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Treaty of Neah
Bay.''
The Midwater Trawlers decision was just issued, and the case has
not yet been formally remanded to the agency by the District Court.
However, prior to the formal remand, NMFS must announce the 2002
Pacific whiting allocations. NMFS has reviewed the science contained in
documents in the administrative record in the Midwater Trawlers case,
and has also reviewed scientific information submitted by NMFS and the
Makah Tribe in U.S. v. Washington, Sub- proceeding 96-2. NMFS has no
additional scientific analysis that alters the existing information on
the distribution and migration pattern of the stock. Therefore, NMFS is
relying on the existing information as the best scientific information
available.
Based on the information referenced above, NMFS concludes that an
allocation of 22,680 mt of Pacific whiting to the Makah Tribe in 2002
is within the tribal treaty right as described by the District Court in
U.S. v. Washington, Sub-proceeding 96-2, and by the Ninth Circuit in
the Midwater Trawlers decision. Since this is the amount requested by
the Tribe, NMFS also concludes that it is sufficient to meet tribal
subsistence needs for 2002, even though it may be less than the full
treaty entitlement. NMFS will deal with these issues in more detail in
its formal response to the Ninth Circuit decision.
The non-tribal commercial OY for whiting is 106,920 mt (the 129,600
mt OY minus the 22,680 mt tribal allocation). Regulations at 50 CFR
660.323(a)(4) divide the commercial OY into separate allocations for
the non-tribal catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors
of the whiting fishery. The catcher/processor sector is composed of
vessels that harvest and process whiting. The mothership sector is
composed of motherships and catcher vessels that harvest whiting for
delivery to motherships. Motherships are vessels that process, but do
not harvest, whiting. The shoreside sector is composed of vessels that
harvest whiting for delivery to shoreside processors. Each sector
receives a portion of the commercial OY, with the catcher/processors
getting 34 percent (36,353 mt), motherships getting 24 percent (25,661
mt), and the shore-based sector getting 42 percent (44,906 mt).
Certification
I certify that this emergency rule is consistent with the national
standards and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
Determinations supporting this finding are attached.
Recommendation
I recommend that you approve this emergency action, sign and send
the decision memorandum to the Under Secretary with the attached
information memorandum to the Secretary, and sign the attached
transmittal to the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of
Commerce.
Determinations
Appropriateness of Emergency Action: The harvest specifications
adopted for 2001, which remain in effect until new specifications are
adopted, must be replaced to prevent overfishing of the whiting stock
during 2002. This action was delayed until March in order to use the
latest science which was not available until late February. Because the
ABC and OY are substantially lower than those adopted for 2001, this
action is necessary to restrict fishing so the fishery stays within its
overall harvest allocation while allowing the various sectors of the
fishery the opportunity to fully harvest their sector's allocation. To
delay the effectiveness of the rule beyond the start of the fishery
could result in some sector allocations being exceeded and possible
early closures for other sectors as a result of excessive harvest in
the early season.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act): This rule is necessary to respond to an emergency
situation and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
National Environmental Policy Act: An environmental assessment (EA)
has been prepared that describes the impact on the environment that
would result from the implementation of this rule. Three different
assumptions about the amount of juvenile fish that are expected to
mature and become part of the spawning biomass were put before the
Council. At the time of the survey, the fish spawned in 1999 had only
partially recruited to the fishery and were not well estimated by the
assessment model. Therefore there is uncertainty about the effect these
young fish have on growth of the spawning stock biomass. Implementing
the more conservative ABC, based on a harvest rate of F40% with a
medium recruitment scenario with an OY adjusted by the 40/10, is
expected to result in substantial impacts to the whiting industry. I
recommend you find that no significant impact on the human environment
will result from its implementation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): This rule is exempt from the
procedures of the RFA, because it is not required to be issued with
prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): The Council determined that
this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of the approved coastal management programs of the
States of Washington, Oregon, and California. This determination was
submitted for review by the responsible State agencies under section
307 of the CZMA on December 14, 2001. No response was received from any
of the states, so consistency is inferred.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): This action does not contain a
collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the PRA.
Endangered Species Act (ESA): NMFS issued Biological Opinions (BOs)
under the Endangered Species Act on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991,
August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15,
1999, pertaining to the effects of the groundfish fishery on chinook
salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper
Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River,
Sacramento River winter, Central Valley, California coastal), coho
salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California
coastal, Oregon coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal, Columbia River),
sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle
and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River,
central California coast, California Central Valley, south-central
California, northern California, and southern California). NMFS has
concluded that implementation of the FMP for the pacific Coast
groundfish fishery is not expected to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species under the
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
NMFS has re-initiated consultation on the Pacific whiting fishery
associated with the (whiting DO) issued on December 15, 1999. During
the 2000 whiting season, the whiting fisheries exceeded the chinook
bycatch amount specified in the whiting BO's incidental take
statement's incidental take estimates, 11,000 fish, by approximately
500 fish. In the 2001 whiting season, however, the whiting fishery's
chinook bycatch was well below the 11,000 fish incidental take
estimates. The re-initiation will focus primarily on additional actions
that the whiting fisheries would take to reduce chinook interception,
such as time/area management. NMFS is gathering data from the 2001
whiting fisheries and expects that the re-initiated whiting DO will be
completed by April 2002. During the reinitiation, fishing under the FMP
is within the scope of the December 15, 1999, whiting BO, so long as
the annual incidental take of chinook stays under the 11,000 fish
bycatch limit.
Marine Mammal Protection Act: I have determined that fishing
activities conducted under this rule will have no adverse impact on
marine mammals.
Administrative Procedure Act: For the reasons described below,
there is good cause to waive the proposed rule requirement under 553
(b)(B). The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP requires that fishery
specifications be evaluated each year using the best scientific
information available. A stock assessment for whiting was prepared in
early 2002, using the most recent survey data. Because of the timing of
the resource survey upon which the assessment is based, it was not
available for use in a stock assessment that could be ready for the
September-November management cycle when the rest of the groundfish
specifications were set. In addition, the survey for this species is
done only every three years. Therefore, the Council and NMFS decided it
was best to delay the adoption of the 2002 ABY and OY in order to use
the newest data, rather than use 4 year old data from the prior survey.
The preliminary indication from survey data was that the biomass had
declined in recent years and the ABC and OY recommended for 2002 would
be substantially lower than 2001. Therefore, for resource conservation
purposes, it was particularly important to delay in order to use the
most recent data. Finally, since the major fishery for whiting does not
start until April 1, there was time to delay the adoption of the new
ABC and OY, until the new information was available in March.
Last year's whiting specifications were carried over in the interim
for 2002 and were announced in a final rule published on March 7, 2002
(67 FR 10490). In the final rule, it was explained that the
specification would be adjusted following the Council's March meeting
and announced in the Federal Register as an emergency rule. This action
has been publicized widely through the Council process. Because the ABC
and OY are substantially lower than those adopted for 2001, this
emergency rule is necessary to restrict fishing so the fishery stays
within its overall harvest allocation while allowing the various
sectors of the fishery the opportunity to fully harvest their sectors
allocations. To delay the rule beyond the start of the fishery could
result in some sector allocations being exceeded and possible early
closures for other sectors as a result of excessive harvest in the
early season.
The reasons described above, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
constitute good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness, so
that this rule may become effective before the fishery begins on April
1, 2002.
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866): Pursuant to the procedures
established to implement section 6 of E.O. 12866, the Office of
Management and Budget has determined that this emergency rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13132 (E.O. 13132): This action does not contain
policies with federalism implications under E.O. 13132.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): This action will affect fishing in
areas designated as EFH by Amendment 11 to the FMP. This action reduces
the whiting OY for 2002 from the 2001 level which is currently in place
for the fishery. The potential effects of these changes are not
currently quantifiable, but the changes are expected to have either no
adverse effect on EFH, or to have a positive effect resulting from
reduced fishing.
______
Memorandum for William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service--April 1, 2002
Finding of No Significant Impact on the Environmental Assessment of the
Pacific Whiting Allowable Biological Catch and Optimum Yield
for the 2002 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
To manage and conserve the whiting resource in the exclusive
economic zone off Washington, Oregon and California, NMFS is
implementing the Pacific whiting (whiting) allowable biological catch
(ABC) and optimum yield (OY) for 2002 by emergency rule. The attached
environmental assessment (EA) analyzed a range of alternatives for
setting the whiting specifications. The alternatives considered in the
EA included the 2001 specifications based on a 1998 assessment and a
range of ABCs and OYs based on a new assessment that was completed in
February 2002. The alternatives based on the new assessment considered
a range of recruitment assumptions and exploitation levels
On March 13, 2002 the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
made a recommendation intermediate to Alternatives 4 and 5 in the EA.
The Council's recommendation was for a U.S.-Canada coastwide whiting OY
of 190,500 mt with a U.S. whiting OY of 152,400 nit (80 percent of the
U.S.-Canada coastwide OY). The Council recommended ABC was to be based
on a F40% harvest rate with a medium-high recruitment scenario.
NMFS is disapproving the Council's recommendation to adopt an ABC
and OY based on F40% with a medium-high recruitment scenario. NMFS will
instead implement Alternative 4, which is an ABC based on F40% with a
medium recruitment scenario and an OY that is adjusted by the 40/10
harvest policy as a precautionary measure (U.S. OY of 129,600 mt). I
believe that the risk neutral medium recruitment scenario, instead of
one that accepts greater risk, is supported by the best available
science given the current biomass estimate and the uncertainty
associated with the estimates of recent year class strength. An
analysis of the expected impact on the human environment from the U.S.
ABC and OY recommended by the Council was prepared and is included in
Appendix A to the EA.
Finding of no Significant Impact
Based on the EA, review of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) criteria for significant effects, and my knowledge of the
expected impacts, I have determined that this action would not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, preparation of an EIS on the final action is not required
under Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA or its implementing regulations.
This determination is based on the following factors:
1. As discussed in section 4.2 of the EA, the preferred
alternative is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of
any target species that may be affected by the action. The
whiting ABC will be based on a risk neutral medium recruitment
scenario instead of one that accepts greater risk. Added
precautionary measures built into the OY are expected to
further reduce the risk of overfishing and allow the whiting
biomass to increase. Incidental catch of species other than
whiting are minor (generally less than 3 percent of the total
catch by weight). The total take of other groundfish species
are expected to be within the 2002 OYs specified. for those
species. As discussed in sections 4.2 and 5.7 of the EA,
incidental take of salmonids are expected to stay within the
threshold in the biological opinions for the whiting fishery.
2. As discussed in section 5.1 of the BA, the preferred
alternative will affect fishing in areas designated as
essential fish habitat by Amendment 11 to the FMP. This action
reduces the whiting OY for 2002 from the 2001 level which is
currently in place for the fishery. The potential effects of
these changes are not currently quantifiable, but the changes
are expected to have either no adverse effect on EFH, or to
have a positive effect resulting from reduced fishing.
3. As discussed in section 4.3 of the EA, the preferred
alternative is not expected to have a substantial effect public
health or safety.
4. As discussed in section 5.7 of the EA, the preferred
alternative will not adversely affect endangered or threatened
species or critical habitat.
5. As stated in section 4.4 of the BA, the preferred
alternative is not expected to result in cumulative adverse
effects that could have a substantial effect on target and non-
target species.
6. As discussed in section 4.2 of the EA, the preferred
alternative is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of
any non-target species. The bycatch of non-target species in
the whiting fishery is expected to be minimal.
7. As discussed in section 4.2 of the EA, the preferred
alternative is not expected to have a substantial impact on
biodiversity and ecosystem function.
8. As discussed in Section 4.3 of this BA, the preferred
alternative is expected to result in significant social or
economic impacts. However, the proposed action is not expected
to result in significant physical or biological impacts.
Therefore, there are no significant social or economic impacts
interrelated with significant natural or physical environmental
impacts.
9. The preferred alternative has controversial aspects since it
rejects the Council's recommended alternative for U.S. harvest
of whiting of 152,400 mt and instead implements a lower harvest
level of 129,600 mt. Industry participants have expressed
concern about the economic impacts of the reductions in
harvest. In addition, the March 5, 2002, Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals opinion in Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. Department
of Commerce, which is a challenge to Indian treaty fishing
rights by the fishing industry, could result in complaints
about the allocation of whiting between the tribal and non-
tribal sectors of the fishery. The environmental community is
likely to be concerned about the low biomass levels and how
quickly the stock will be restored to a sustainable level.
In view of the analysis presented in this document, the proposed
whiting specifications are not expected to significantly affect the
quality of the human environment, with specific reference to the
criteria contained in Section 6.02 of NOAA Administrative Order NAO
216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).. Accordingly, the preparation of a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action is
not necessary.
______
* Response to the remaining written questions to Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Jr. was not available at the time this hearing
went to press.*
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Vulnerability of Protected Resources
The total Administration FY 2003 budget request included $157.2
million for Protected Resources Research and Management Services.
However, almost half of this is spent on Pacific and Atlantic salmon.
Research and management for all other species, including endangered
species such as Steller Sea Lions, Right Whales, some sea turtles, as
well as other marine mammals such as whales, porpoises and pinnipeds
must share the remainder. Most of these other species require
substantial additional research or assessment information to meet
future management and compliance needs according to a recent internal
management review.
Question 1. Why is so little being spent on protected resources
other than salmon?
Question 2. Should funding be given to the Marine Mammal Commission
to conduct the research and assessments that are so critically needed
for future management, and compliance with the MMPA?
Question 3. What would be needed to get sufficient marine mammal
and sea turtle population information to meet our conservation and
management needs?
Question 4. What are the risks of not having such information?
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (NPOESS)
and DoD
In May 1994 the Department submitted a proposal to converge the
Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Commerce (DOC) polar
orbiting environmental satellite systems, to be administered by NOAA
Integrated Program Office (IPO). The reason for the combination was to
control costs and ensure on-time deployment--but the approach is still
experimental.
Question 5. Can you identify any cost savings from this approach?
What are they?
Question 6. The last we heard, the launch of the first NPOESS
satellite will be in December 2008. Are you still on track for that
launch date?
Question 7. What are your contingency plans if there is a launch
failure?
Question 8. I understand that a primary satellite command and
control facility has yet to be identified, but that DOD is urging
selection of a site outside the U.S. In such a time of national
security, don't you think such a decision would be unwise?
Question 9. Can the existing U.S.-based facilities provide the same
or equivalent coverage?
Question 10. We specifically chose NOAA as administrator of this
program. What role is DOD playing in the decisionmaking and
administration?
Shrimper Issues
The U.S. has some of the strictest marine protection laws in the
world. It is important that NOAA and the Department of State continue
to pursue international agreements in order to level the playing field.
With respect to regulation of shrimpers, Congress in 1990 enacted
Section 609 of P.L. 101-162, which restricts the import of shrimp
harvested in a way that harms sea turtles. Under this law, nations must
be certified as having a regulatory program to protect sea turtles in
their shrimp trawl fisheries that is comparable to the U.S. program in
order to obtain access to U.S. shrimp markets. Evidence observed during
an inspection by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the
port of Mazatlan, Mexico, November 13-16, 2001 revealed serious
compliance and enforcement issues with respect to the use of Turtle
Excluder Devices (TEDs).
Question 11. Such TED violations in Mexico come at a time when NMFS
is considering a rule that would impose more stringent regulations on
U.S. shrimpers. Is it justifiable to hold U.S. shrimpers to strict
standards while taking a flexible approach to compliance in Mexico?
The antibiotic, Chloramphenicol, has recently been detected in
shrimp products exported by Thailand, Vietnam and China and from
Southeast Asia to the European Union and Canada, resulting in steps to
severely restrict imports to the EU and Canada from these countries.
Despite these countries being the first, second and fifth largest
exporters of shrimp to the U.S. respectively, the U.S. has taken no
such steps.
Question 12. I understand the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
does not have testing protocols sufficient to detect the levels of
Chloramphenicol found in EU and Canadian imports, yet the U.S.
prohibits this antibiotic in imports. Have you discussed options to
address this shortfall with the USFDA?
Question 13. Have you offered the expert services of your agency to
fill testing gaps for imports?
Question 14. What steps have you taken to level the playing field
for U.S. shrimpers, who's products do not threaten the safety of
citizens?
NOAA Fleet Recapitalization
The 1992 NOAA authorization bill called for a 15-year program to
replace and modernize the NOAA fleet. Approximately $200 million has
been spent thus far for new ships, converting surplus navy ships,
reactivating and modernizing inactive NOAA ships, and modernizing data
collection systems. Another $30 million has been spent for repair
projects to keep NOAA ships reliable. You have previously indicated
sharp support for recapitalizing the fleet.
Question 15. In view of the growing needs of NOAA's ocean
exploration mission, have you considered the advantages of a dedicated
vessel to meet this mission?
Question 16. What is NOAA's plan for modernization and replacement
of the NOAA fleet?
Of the FY 2003 planned ship operating days, NOAA ships are
scheduled for 3776 days of operation, while 4449 days of agency need
will be outsourced to other vessels. In FY 2002 NOAA will spend $59.5
million operating its fleet and $48.6 million outsourcing for ships or
ship collected data.
Question 17. Now that recapitalization of the fleet is underway and
more information in hand on cost of outsourcing, can you identify the
relative costs and benefits of using NOAA assets as opposed to
contractor or outsourced vessels for certain of NOAA missions?
Spending for Pacific Salmon
Total spending for Pacific Salmon restoration and other activities
is provided through the National Marine Fisheries Service, land
management agencies like Fish and Wildlife Service, and water
management agencies like the Bonneville Power Administration and Army
Corps of Engineers (FY 2002 enacted $445.5 million--FY 2003 proposed
$448.6 million). NOAAs pacific salmon funding (FY 2002 enacted $231.3
million--FY 2003 proposal $195.9 million) comes through the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, funds established under the Pacific
Salmon Treaty, and through a number of base funding accounts. To date
there has been very little accounting of how much of these funds have
been spent on research into stock assessments, habitat restoration, or
other mandates under ESA; or what progress has been made with these
expenditures.
Question 18. Can you provide to me an accounting of NOAAs pacific
salmon expenditures? How much of these funds have been spent on ESA
related issues in each affected state?
Question 19. Does the allocation of monies to states under the
Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund match the restoration needs of those
states under ESA?
Question 20. What progress has been made in recovering salmon
stocks with these funds? How is performance measured in relation to the
expenditures to date?
Question 21. I understand that a large portion of funding
appropriated under the NW Forest Plan in the mid 1990s was spent on
Salmon related research and habitat restoration in Northwestern states.
How much was spent in total, in what states, and on what issues? What
have been the results of those expenditures on salmon restoration?
Question 22. Does the agency evaluate hydropower impacts in
determining the potential in recovery of salmon stocks? Has sufficient
progress been made on reducing hydropower impacts to allow restoration
funds to have an effect?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Sea Grant
Established in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program is the
marine version of the research and extension activities at the
country's land grant universities. In 1970, the program was transferred
from the National Science Foundation to NOAA when that agency was
created and placed in the Department of Commerce, where it has since
flourished. Sea Grant's legislative charge is to ``increase the
understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and conservation
of the nation's ocean and coastal and Great Lakes resources by
providing assistance to promote a strong education base, responsive
research and training activities, and broad and prompt dissemination of
knowledge and techniques, and multi disciplinary approaches to
environmental problems.''
The President's FY 2003 budget proposes the program be transferred
to NSF ``to promote more rigorous, merit-based competition among
researchers.'' However, Sea Grant is not merely a science grant
program--it performs a range of services, including outreach and
technical advice to coastal communities.
Question 1. Why did the Administration propose such a transfer when
Congress has repeatedly, and unanimously, authorized its operation
within NOAA?
Question 2. To the best of my understanding NSF does not have the
authority to perform all the functions of Sea Grant, such as the
outreach and extension services? What current Sea Grant activities
would this proposal deny to our coastal communities?
Question 3. In today's hearing you stated that ``NOAA would work
with the National Science Foundation to ensure that the essential
pieces of the program would continue as much as possible'' How would
NOAA assistance be possible considering outreach and extension services
makeup one third of the program and NOAA will no longer be authorized
any appropriations to carry-out these services?
Reducing Capacity
The need for capacity reduction has grown over the last 5 years
just as discretionary funding is shrinking--particularly after 9/11.
The NMFS 2001 Preliminary report, ``Identifying Harvest Capacity and
Over-Capacity in Federally Managed Fisheries'' states that ``over-
capacity exists in more than half (55 percent) of all federally managed
fisheries.'' While this is a striking statistic, it confirms what
countless experts and managers have been telling us since the late
1980s. In 1996 we thought we had addressed the problem by creating a
capacity reduction program under section 312(b) of the Magnuson Act.
However, we cannot identify a single capacity reduction program that
has been implemented pursuant to the process we created. Even now, each
fishery's request requires a trip to Capitol Hill and faces an
extremely uncertain future.
Question 4. Why has the 312(b) process failed--even when fishermen
are willing to bear the burden of paying back federal loans?
Question 5. How could we streamline the process?
Question 6. How would you propose to fund capacity reduction
programs?
Right Whales
With respect to rules aimed at protecting right whales, the
Seasonal Area Management (``SAM'') and the Dynamic Area Management
(``DAM'') rules recently issued by NFS both have serious shortcomings.
The SAM rules allow floating line to be used between traps. The DAM
rule places major burdens on fishermen to remove gear within only 48
hours, and by the time the rule is triggered, the whales may already be
out of the area, or worse, already entangled in gear that was in the
area prior to the rule taking effect.
Question 7. How long will it take for NFS to put into place a gear
modification rule for protecting right whales that would allow one or
more types of approved gear to remain in the water? What are the
chances that NFS could work on an even more expedited basis to
developed an interim rule allowing modified gear to be used in the
areas where the ``Dynamic Area Management'' program is triggered?
Litigation Burden and Crisis Management
Concern has grown over the number of lawsuits being brought against
NOAA fisheries because of the increased workload and resource drain,
impact on management decisions, and the shortfalls highlighted by the
litigation. Initially, when the first lawsuits were filed, it appeared
that NMFS was failing to win cases because of failure to meet
procedural requirements (e.g., NEPA), and understand that efforts are
focused on creating uniform processes to rectify this. However, recent
analysis suggests substantive management decisions may be responsible
for such losses.
Question 8. Has there been a determination of why NMFS has lost
recent cases, on procedural requirements or substantive management
grounds?
Question 9. What steps have been taken to address cases brought on
procedural grounds?
Question 10. What steps have to taken to identify needed changes to
address substantive challenges?
Question 11. How will you, as a senior management official, ensure
that the agency is prepared to meet legal mandates and respond to
litigation requests while carrying on the routine management activities
of the agency?
Question 12. What is the role of the Department of Justice in
decision making, and how would you suggest improving its understanding
of the legal and technical issues involved in fishery management
decision making?
EPA/NOAA Coastal Health Report and Status of Monitoring
The recent EPA/NOAA National Coastal Condition Report represents
the existing knowledge on the condition of the nation's coastal waters,
and further identifies some important and significant regional
differences. No overall assessments were completed for Alaska, Hawaii,
or the island territories.
Question 13. How can we as a nation possibly know where we're going
or take the necessary steps to accomplish our goals, when we don't even
know the current condition of a significant (and economically
important) portion of our coastal environment?
Question 14. What is being done to fill in these gaps in the
existing data sets and to establish some baseline conditions for these
areas?
Question 15. How is NOAA, the nation's civilian ocean agency,
taking the lead and ensuring we get routine and timely coastal trends
information?
Question 16. What plans are in place for the agency to establish
the kind of monitoring program necessary to collect and analyze data in
subsequent years, establish trends, and to feed those results back into
management decisions?
Question 17. How do you see coastal monitoring for trends and
management decision fitting within the ocean and coastal observing
system now being proposed? How does NOAA plan to ensure coordination in
regional systems?
The report's assessment shows the nation's estuaries to be in fair
to poor conditions, with a regional trend of poor condition in the
Northeast to fair condition in the Southeast. I am deeply concerned
that the Northeast scored so poorly both ecologically, with 23 percent
of the sediments having degraded biology and 30 percent of the
estuarine areas having impaired human uses. I'm certain that these
conditions are not assisting with the recovery of the many fish stocks
essential to the economy of this region.
Question 18. With this data in hand, how is the agency adapting its
current programmatic activities in the region to address the identified
conditions?
Fisheries Modernization
The Administration's budget request includes an increase of $90.9
million for its Modernization of NOAA Fisheries Initiative,
representing $74.8 million for science, $6.4 million for management,
and $9.7 million for enforcement. However, a number of important
elements to modernization have not been addressed that could positively
impact monitoring, reporting, management and safety.
Question 19. Is the FY 2003 budget request of $5.4 million for
support and continued modernization and expansion of the vessel
monitoring system (VMS) program sufficient to meet our needs,
particularly after September 11th?
Question 20. Why has the Administration not requested additional
funding for vital modernization of the fleet such as electronic
logbooks, VMS, increases in observer coverage, and bycatch reduction
technologies?
Question 21. How much will it cost to really modernize fisheries
management?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Question 1. I am greatly concerned by the solicitation for mapping
services that was issued by the National Ocean Service (NOS) to map and
survey the benthic habitats of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
(NWHI). Currently, there are only extremely limited data available on
the NWHI for use by resource managers and policy makers during the NWHI
sanctuary designation process. In these times of budgetary crisis, it
is therefore essential that the mapping and surveying products arising
from the solicitation be carefully tailored to meet the needs of the
resource managers. How may we best work together to ensure that the
best product is obtained?
Question 2. The nation has recently reached a much greater
awareness of the unique and irreplaceable treasure that our coral reefs
represent. Because 95 percent of the nation's coral reefs are located
in the main Hawaiian Islands and the NWHI, Hawaii bears an awesome
responsibility of stewardship of these precious resources. Fortunately,
Hawaii is also a center of excellence for marine study, conservation,
and management, where scientific expertise is complemented with a
culture of respect and reverence for nature rooted in the beliefs and
cultural practices of the Native Hawaiians. In light of the
concentration of physical and human coral reef resources in Hawaii,
what steps will the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) take to ensure that the limited funds available will be used for
projects that meet the immediate needs of resource managers, including
vesting more decision making authority to managers of NOAA managers in
the field?
Question 3. Magistrate Judge Facciola of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in Hawaii Longline Association v.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 01-765, issued a report and
recommendations that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
required to allow the Hawaii Longline Association to be allowed to
participate in the generation of a Biological Opinion. How will the
NMFS proceed with its new Hawaii longline biological opinion in light
of this development?
Question 4. The NMFS has long been organized into administrative
``regions.'' The coastal and marine areas of the United States face
unique issues based on geography and culture, and the NMFS regions
emerged as the most effective way to handle this diversity. By vesting
decision-making authority in localities, the NMFS ensures that it can
be responsive to the special needs of those localities. What are your
thoughts on developing a similar structure for the NOS?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Max Cleland to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Question 1. I have been informed by Georgia officials that the
trawl fisheries have been closely monitored for stray turtle catches,
and I support this monitoring. However, also off the coast of Georgia,
I have heard from officials that shark drift gillnet fisheries in
Georgia waters, at the height of the season this year, operated
unmonitored. Why have steps not been taken to protect sea turtles from
shark drift gillnet fishery at a time when Georgia has recorded high
sea turtle mortality rates? Is there a reason that the prohibition was
not evenly applied to both the trawl fisheries as well as the shark
drift gillnet fisheries?
Question 2. What measures are you taking to ensure that
prohibitions are applied across the board?
Question 3. Do you have records of any of the shark drift gillnet
fisheries been documented to take sea turtles in recent months?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Question 1. It was reported in the April 12 edition of Science
Magazine that you and Dr. Marburger of the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy outlined a plan to shift the U.S. Global
Climate Change Research Program from a scientific steering group to the
Department of Commerce. Many researchers fear that this would undermine
the quality of research in the $1.7 billion program. This report is
consistent with discussions the Committee had last year on the
possibility of having a political appointee head the program. Can you
identify the merits of having the program housed within the Department
of Commerce and headed by a political appointee?
Question 1a. Why would the Department of Commerce be a better
choice than NASA, which has over the half the funding for the program?
Question 2. You have mentioned that the President's Global Climate
Change Initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18
percent over the next decade. Can you explain the greenhouse gas
intensity and its importance?
Question 2a. Last year, the President stated that his climate
change policy would be based upon sound science. What is the scientific
basis for the 18 percent reduction?
Question 2b. Will the greenhouse gas intensity eventually make
actual reductions in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Question 3. The Global Climate Change Initiative is a multi-agency
effort between the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Agriculture,
NASA, and the National Science Foundation. Who will have lead agency
responsibilities?
Question 3a. Will the lead agency's responsibility include
budgetary control over the other agencies participation?
Question 3b. How will this effort complement the existing efforts
of the multi-agency U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program?
Question 4. NOAA has requested $5 million each for the Global
Climate Atmospheric Observing System and the Global Ocean Observing
System. The recent Senate-passed Energy Reform Act calls for a plan for
the establishment of a National Climate Service for climate monitoring
and prediction. Will these two programs be considered part of a
National Climate Service?
Question 5. In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the
Administration proposed to move the Sea Grant Program from NOAA to the
National Science Foundation (NSF). The Sea Grant Program was
specifically placed in the Department of Commerce by an act of Congress
after the creation of NOAA in 1970 to pair the applied research
conducted by Sea Grant with regional resource and management needs.
This program has been very successful in bridging the gaps between
research, education, and applied management issues at the local level
and there does not appear to be any compelling reason to move it. There
is wide support throughout Congress for maintaining the existing
structure of the Sea Grant Program within the Department of Commerce.
Can you elaborate on the rationale for moving this program to NSF?
Question 6. According to the President's FY 2003 budget, ``NOAA has
over two-thirds of the Department's congressionally directed earmarks--
74 projects costing over $160 million.'' How does Congressional
earmarking affect NOAA's ability to fund its strategic goals and
priorities?
Question 7. In your statement, you mentioned that without
significant amounts of overtime and creative manual resource tracking,
NOAA's accounting details would be non-existent. For fiscal years 1999,
2000, and 2001, NOAA received an unqualified (or clean) opinion from an
audit of its financial statements. Can you elaborate on NOAA's
achievement despite the problems many other federal agencies are
experiencing?
Question 8. The Department of Commerce spend about 25 percent of
its annual budget for large contracts and other procurement vehicles.
One of the challenges for the Department is to balance the desire to
streamline the acquisition process with the need to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are wisely spent and laws and regulations are
followed. How do you ensure this balance is maintained within NOAA?
Question 9. According to NOAA's plans, the Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) will be phased out and
replaced by the NPOESS starting in 2008. How will this phase-out affect
NOAA operations in Wallops Island, Virginia, and Fairbanks, Alaska?
Question 10. Your written statement mentions the importance of the
scientific and technical workforce to accomplishing your mission. In
terms of workforce needs, what shortages do you have and how do you
plan to address them?
Question 11. We have heard concerns from other parts of the
Department of Commerce on the physical conditions of the federal
facilities. Do you foresee any major future budgetary needs for the
NOAA's facilities?
Question 12. As part of the Administration's Climate Change
Research Initiative, NOAA requests $18 million to improve climate
monitoring and modeling systems. How will this request will improve
NOAA's ability to determine the effects of global warming on the Earth?
Question 13. NOAA has requested $1 million to develop new
technologies for forecasting and detecting tornadoes and other forms of
severe weather. It is hopeful that these technologies will increase the
lead time for tornadoes and hazardous weather. Can you discuss the
impact of additional lead time for the people of La Plata, MD in the
tornadoes of this past weekend?
Question 13a. Which technologies will you be pursuing with this
funding?
Question 14. The Administration has placed an emphasis on
outsourcing and privatizing many functions which the U.S. government
currently performs. How does this emphasis affect the balance between
the prediction services that should be provided by the National Weather
Service and the services that should be provided by commercial weather
services?
Question 15. NOAA has requested $5 million to establish a climate
modeling center in Prince, NJ. Assuming this is for the Geophysical
Fluids Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL), what capabilities would this add to
the laboratory's existing work on climate modeling?
Question 16. Can you discuss the importance of space weather
forecasts to the space industry? Also, are you experiencing an increase
in demand for NOAA's services in this area?
Question 17. Can you elaborate on how improved weather forecasting
leads to reductions in air traffic delays and costs savings for the
airline industry?
Question 18. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS), a multi-agency program, has been making
significant progress over the years. Are they any lessons-learned from
the program that may be applicable to other multi-agency development
programs?
Question 19. You have mentioned the request of $8.4 million to
begin upgrading instrumentation aboard NOAA's Gulfstream IV plane. This
technology will allow for 3 dimensional profiles of hurricanes from
45,000 feet to the surface in real-time. When can we expect to have
such capability and what is the impact of this technology on Nation's
response to these weather events?
Question 20. On NOAA's Energy Permit Rapid Response program, NOAA
has requested $2 million to support the establishment and
implementation of a streamlined energy permit process. Can you
elaborate on NOAA's role in this initiative?
Question 21. Can you discuss any vulnerabilities to the operation
of the NOAA facilities due to a lack of redundancy?
Question 22. NOAA has requested $7.2 million to implement an
operational backup system for the National Weather Service's weather
and climate supercomputer. The current computer is a single point of
failure for the entire system. Are there other single point of failures
in the weather prediction system that needs to be addressed?
Question 23. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) combines programs at the Department of
Commerce, Department of Defense, and NASA. How was this program managed
to address the different operating styles of these three agencies in
order to prevent the traditional ``stovepiping'' problem?
Question 24. NOAA has decided to delay the launch date for the next
generation Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R)
from 2010 to 2012, citing the successful operation of the existing GOES
satellites. What factors did NOAA examine before making this decision?
Question 24a. Will NOAA use this two-year delay to review
alternative system architectures for GOES-R?
Question 25. NOAA has requested $2.0 million in support of the
Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program to improve
monitoring of the Arctic environment. Currently, what are the effects
of global warming upon the Arctic region?
Question 26. Do you have plans for research concerning abrupt
climate change?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Question 1. The Administration's request criticizes the large
number of Congressional earmarks for NOAA. NOAA has over two-thirds of
the Department's earmarks--74 projects costing over $160 million. The
budget request cuts many of these unrequested projects and redirects
funds to core programs. How do earmarks affect NOAA's ability to do its
job? NOAA may have more earmarks than other agencies, but they still
amount to only 0.04 percent of NOAA's overall budget. NOAA has cut many
earmarked programs from its FY 2003 request. If these earmarked
programs are not otherwise funded, does this mean that NOAA's
priorities do not line up with Congress' priorities? How does NOAA
determine which earmarked programs to cut?
Question 2. You only recently assumed your position as the Deputy
Under Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of NOAA. With your
extensive managerial experience, I imagine you are taking a hard look
at NOAA and its organization. We are aware that NOAA is conducting a
comprehensive program review, addressing what the agency is doing and
how they are doing it. This review is scheduled to be finished May
1st--the day of this hearing. What is the scope of topics and issues in
this review? Is NOAA's current organization the best way to meet its
mission and mandates? What can NOAA do better? What can we do to help
NOAA do better? Are their programmatic obstacles that need to be
removed? If the report is not available today, when can we expect the
final report to be released?
Question 3. The current Harmful Algal Blooms Task Force's action
plan to eliminate the Gulf of Mexico dead zone outlined a program that
would cost approximately $1 billion a year. It largely focuses on
regional agricultural activities to limit nutrient runoff. To what
extent has NOAA incorporated the Task Force's recommendations on the
dead zone into its programs and activities? Does action in this area
simply require more funding, or does NOAA need to make other
institutional changes to implement these recommendations? If only a
portion of this dead zone funding were provided, would NOAA implement
any aspects of the action plan? How would it determine priority areas
and issues for action? When it comes to implementing action plans like
this, what do you think is the most effective way to integrate regional
and local stakeholders?
Question 4. As you know, programs throughout NOAA need basic
oceanic data to improve management models. NOAA's FY 2003 budget
request includes $4 million to initiate a global ocean observing
system. While efforts have already begun in some regions, including
through the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observation System, this is the start
of the National Ocean Observation System--a coordinated national
effort. The FY 2002 Senate CJS Appropriations bill included report
language that requires the Administration to submit an ocean
observatories plan with the FY 2003 budget request. What is the status
of this plan? What are the main findings and recommendations of this
plan? How will the National Ocean Observing System be administered--
would it be a part of the inter-agency National Ocean Partnership
Program? If so, would this program continue to be chaired by the Navy?
If it will remain under the Navy's jurisdiction, how can we ensure that
it takes care of NOAA's program goals and needs? As we develop
legislation in support of the National Ocean Observation System, what
can you tell us about funding needs for implementation and maintenance
of the system? Once implemented, what will the long-term cost/benefit
ratio be? What other supportive elements would you like to see in
legislation?
Question 5. The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act provides a valuable source
of funding for U.S. fisheries research and development, but only a
small fraction of this amount seems to have actually gone for this
purpose. For example, S-K funds are estimated to be $79.1 million for
FY 2003, yet NOAA estimates that only $4.1 million of this amount (5.2
percent of the total) will be used for fisheries research. The budget
proposal explains that the remaining $75 million will be used to offset
their Operations, Research, and Facilities account. This follows a
similar trend over at least the last ten years. The budget request
states that, in FY 2003, a portion of S-K grants will go toward
Atlantic salmon conservation and recovery. How much will this amount
to? Is this part of the $4.1 million allocated for research, or is it
part of a separate allocation of S-K funds? How does NOAA make the
decision about what fraction of all S-K funds will go toward research?
In other words, who makes research funding cut-off decisions? What do
they base their decisions on? Once the non-research component of the S-
K funds is transferred to the ORF account, does NOAA track what it is
spent on? If so, what does it fund? For FY 2003, NOAA requests $2.359
billion for their ORF account, and $75 million of this is proposed to
come from the S-K fund. In other words, only 0.03 percent of all ORF
funds are from S-K funds. How else can NOAA work around this
allocation, so that more S-K funds can be freed to be used for their
intended purposes? Other mandated uses of S-K funds include things like
fishing gear modification, fishing community development, and permit
buy-back programs. We clearly have urgent need for these programs, so
shouldn't these be a top priority when allocating S-K funds? If NOAA
could increase the portion of S-K funds that support research, what
could NOAA do to encourage the submission of more high-quality research
proposals?
Question 6. In February 2001, I re-introduced the Coastal Zone
Management reauthorization bill. A hold was put on the bill, due to
concerns related to the oil and gas industry. Since oil and gas
interests are tied to the Department of Interior's development of an
energy policy, NOAA has needed to work with Interior to resolve this
impasse. Resolution of oil and gas concerns will allow the CZMA
reauthorization to proceed. What has NOAA done to resolve this impasse?
Has NOAA been talking to the Dept. of Interior regarding how their
energy policy relates to oil and gas in the coastal zone? What are
NOAA's plans for developing proposed language that can settle this
controversy? What kind of time line is NOAA looking at for this?
Question 7. I have several concerns about the expanded use of
marine protected areas. For example, I'm concerned about the imbalanced
representation on the new MPA Advisory Committee; the overlap with
protected marine environments established in other laws; and NOAA's
continued housing of this program in the National Ocean Service,
considering that many of the protected areas currently in place are
administered by NMFS. In May last year, I outlined these concerns to
Secretary Evans, requesting that they review the effects of the
executive order and that the Advisory Committee fairly represent those
stakeholders most affected by it. What is the status of this review?
What conclusions were reached about expanding the use of MPAs? How has
the proposed membership of the MPA Advisory Council been changed to
fairly reflect those who will be affected by MPAs--specifically the
fishermen? When will this council begin work? How much administrative
overlap will there be between existing protected marine environments
and any new MPAs? NOAA's FY 2003 budget request includes $3 million for
MPAs and houses this program in the National Ocean Service. This was
the same in FY 2002. How well does NOS interface with NMFS, which
already administers many existing MPAs? How will NOAA improve the
coordination between these groups? As you know, MPAs can have many
purposes, and they are often misunderstood by the public. How will poor
public perception affect NOAA's ability to effectively use MPAs? How is
NOAA working to improve public understanding of MPAs?
Question 8. Coral reefs are one of the most biologically productive
ecosystems in the world, but unfortunately they are suffering from a
variety of human-induced and natural threats including storms, tourism,
harvest for the aquaria trade and building materials, destructive
fishing practices, ship damage, diseases, and water quality degradation
impact coral reefs. In FY 2002, NOAA received a total of $28.25 million
for coral reef conservation and the Administration is requesting
approximately the same amount for FY 2003. Knowing the problems our
coral reefs are facing, do you think the amount requested for FY 2003
is sufficient for NOAA to address this issue? What are your plans to
address non-point source pollution and its effects on our coral reefs?
Question 9. Recently a report was released that stated that the
coral reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are some of the most
pristine in the world, while the coral reefs in the Atlantic which
includes Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean are some of the
most in distress. Having said that, your fiscal year 2002 spend plan
allocates 74 percent of the entire coral reef conservation program to
the Pacific and only 34 percent to the Atlantic. Shouldn't we be
spending more of our limited funding in the regions with the greatest
needs?
Question 10. To date, NOAA has dedicated very little funding for
studying the socioeconomics of coral reef damage and rehabilitation--
only 1 percent of the overall budget in FY 2002 and zero percent in FY
2001. Considering that the causes of coral reef decline are
significantly driven by human activities, how can NOAA justify spending
so little on these aspects? How can solutions for coral reefs
protection be developed if the human dimensions are not given adequate
study? What are NOAA's plans to integrate socioeconomics and human
behavior into their overall Coral Reef Conservation Program, both now
and in the long term?
Question 11. I understand that Halter Marine is constructing the
new fisheries research vessel, which will be replacing the ALBATROSS
IV. I also understand that Halter Marine has filed for bankruptcy
protection. Will Halter Marine's bankruptcy proceedings adversely
affect or delay the construction of the new fisheries research vessel?
If so, how will NOAA proceed with vessel construction plans? If
delivery of the new fisheries research vessel is delayed, how may this
affect NOAA's ability to conduct badly-needed fisheries research?