<DOC>
[DOCID: f:2910434.wais]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order.
Depending on if you are running on daylight savings time,
or just standard time, which one of the clocks do you want to
go by?
We like to serve everybody with 10 o'clock according to one
and another one.
Madame Secretary, thank you for coming today as we look at
the budget for the Interior Department and the appropriations
for 2004. While I suspect we will get to a number of topics
today, there is one aspect of the Department's budget request
that really jumps off the page. One does not have to be an
accountant to see that we have real problems. I am talking, of
course, about the Indian trust reform.
It looks like right now, compared to the 2003 enacted
level, the Department's request for programs under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction represents an increase of about
$370 million. Of that total increase, at least $180 million is
for trust reform activities of the Office of Special Trustee in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is to
implement the Department's plan for historical accounting. This
is a remarkable concentration of resources for a single task. I
think you would have to agree with that.
Madame Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made
to the trust reform; both in dollars, and in terms of your
personal attention. I know it has occupied far more time than
you would have imagined, or you would care to even talk about.
But the litigation has taken its toll on the morale and funds
of the Department.
I think all of us here are struggling with the fact that
increasing resources being devoted to trust reform are
resources that might otherwise be spent in improving Indian
schools, maintaining our national parks and public lands, or
working with landowners to eliminate noxious weeds, and
conserve the critical wildlife habitat. We know that it will
take money to fix the trust problem.
Madame Secretary, I think you would agree that over the
years this committee has been very responsive to the
Department's budget request for trust reform. But this year's
request, particularly in respect to the historical accounting,
really forces this committee to ask some tough questions.
On one hand, I do not think any of us want to simply give
up on historical accounting. I hate to condemn the Federal
Government to paying billions of dollars of damages that may or
may not have occurred. On the other hand, can we justify
spending hundreds of millions of dollars to perform a
historical accounting that will, undoubtedly, be disputed in
Indian country?
What will such an accounting ultimately tell us? And what
needs in Indian country will go unfulfilled while we go through
this very expensive process? These are really difficult issues.
And, Madame Secretary, I suspect the line of questioning this
morning will go down that trail.
We also have a problem that I want to raise with you as far
as increased funding in Indian schools, and the community
colleges that are located around our many reservations. We
increased the monies going into that particular program, and to
higher education in Indian country. As it turns out, by some
quirk of the pen, I get a decrease in my monies going for
students in Montana. Rather than being an accross the board
increase for all Indian schools, all of the funding gets
distributed elsewhere.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We will look into this. But I will tell you that you can
look forward to seeing this Senator in that office. I am going
to find out how they do those figures, because I will not allow
this to happen. I do not fight for my State, and I do not fight
for funds for higher education in Indian country, to see it
become concentrated in one place under some quirk of a rule of
titles. We are going to look into that and be very critical of
it. Again, I thank you for coming this morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Satement of Senator Conrad Burns
Welcome Madam Secretary. We appreciate your making the time today
to appear before the committee in support of your fiscal year 2004
budget request.
While I suspect we will get into a number of topics today, there is
one aspect of the Department's budget request that really jumps off the
page. I am talking, of course, about Indian trust reform.
Compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the Department's
request for programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction represents
an increase of about $370 million. Of that total increase, at least
$180 million is for trust reform activities in the Office of Special
Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is
to implement the Department's plan for historical accounting. This is a
remarkable concentration of resources on a single task.
Madam Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made to trust
reform, both in dollars and in terms of your personal attention. I know
it has occupied far more of your time than you ever imagined, and that
the litigation has taken a toll on morale within the Department.
But I think all of us are struggling with the fact that the
increasing resources being devoted to trust reform are resources that
might otherwise be spent improving Indian schools, maintaining our
national parks and public lands, or working with landowners to
eliminate noxious weeds and conserve critical wildlife habitat.
We know that it will take money to fix the trust problem. Madam
Secretary, I think you would agree that over the years this Committee
has been very responsive to the Department's budget requests for trust
reform. But this year's request--particularly with respect to
historical accounting--really forces this committee to ask some tough
questions.
On the one hand, I don't think any of us want simply to give up on
historical accounting. I'd hate to condemn the Federal Government to
paying billions of dollars in damages that may or may not have
occurred. On the other hand, can we justify spending hundreds of
millions of dollars to perform an historical accounting that will
undoubtedly be disputed in Indian country? What will such an accounting
ultimately tell us? And what needs in Indian Country will go
unfulfilled while we go through this very expensive process?
These are difficult issues, Madam Secretary, and we're anxious to
hear your thoughts on them today. Certainly we'll have a lot else to
talk about as well, so I'll conclude my remarks at this time and ask
Senator Dorgan if he has an opening statement.
Senator Burns. It is good this morning to recognize my co-
partner on this committee, Senator Dorgan. It is your turn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. No, no. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to
digest all that you have just said.
I agree with much of what the chairman has said. And,
Madame Secretary, let me say, first of all, that I welcome you
and look forward to working with you on these issues. You know,
perhaps, that today I will ask you about the United Tribes
Technical College and the proposal to de-fund that. I will ask
you about some issues that are not necessarily the purview of
this subcommittee dealing with NAWS funding and some things,
some commitments we have made that the President's budget does
not keep.
I note some things in the budget that I think give us some
heart, taking care of parks. The proposal to increase the
maintenance backlog in national parks, I think, makes a lot of
sense. I mean, we just cannot keep pushing that off. And a
number of administrations have done that. I think there are
some solid recommendations that we will agree on.
The Senator from Montana described the funding issue with
respect to Indian schools. And it is not right and not fair, in
my judgment, to decide we are going to actually decrease the
money that is available to Indian schools. I know that you
probably will argue, ``Well, the funding for last year included
$2 million that was added by the Congress.'' But even at that,
we are dramatically below the per-student support that we
provide to other colleges in this country.
So on that I think you will find that this subcommittee
feels very strongly about Indian education. And the tribal
colleges have been a remarkably effective way to allow people
to escape from poverty, to get educated and move to a payroll,
get a good job as a result of the training and the education
they get at tribal colleges.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So we have a number of things to talk about. You run a very
big agency. It does a lot of different things. Some I think it
does exceptionally well. Some perhaps can well use some
improvement. So I look forward to visiting with you about all
of those issues, Madame Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Madame Secretary, thank you for being here this morning to present
the department's fiscal year 2004 budget request. We understand that
you have many responsibilities and many demands placed on your time,
and so we appreciate your willingness to come before this subcommittee
to answer our questions.
As you know, the services provided by the Department of the
Interior are vitally important to our constituents and reach well
beyond the traditional notion of parks and wildlife refuges. Many North
Dakotans, for example, rely on the programs of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. From education, to community. development, to law enforcement,
to environmental and resource management, the BIA is critical to the
Native American population in my state, and I think in the Chairman's
state, too. Yet, as I look at the administration's budget, I am deeply
concerned with the way the administration has prioritized its scarce
resources. While some agencies and programs have received 3 or 4 or 5
percent increases, total funding for tribal allocations goes up by less
than I percent and funding for tribal colleges is cut by nearly 9
percent. These are serious flaws, Madame Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations, I look forward to hearing
the Secretary's testimony, and I have no doubt that she will put the
best face on a rather dismal situation. Nevertheless, as this process
proceeds, I hope to work with you to rectify what I think are
fundamental mistakes in the way this budget has been arranged.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Stevens.
We are blessed with the chairman of the full committee this
morning.
Senator Stevens. Not for long.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Madame Secretary, I want to invite you--I heard you are
interested in going out to the end of the Aleutian chain. I
would encourage you to do that and tell you that if you do
that, we will get a plane and take a few other people along
with us. It is the forgotten place of World War II. More people
were killed in the Aleutian battle than were killed in the
Battle of the Coral Sea.
The battles took place at approximately the same time. Very
interesting place. We would go to Kiska and Attu and Shemya and
Dutch Harbor. I think it is a wonderful thing if you show some
interest there, because there are many people who would like to
go there, but there are no facilities to do so. We have
prohibited that because of the withdrawals made by your
predecessors.
So I think it would be wonderful if you would just look at
it. I think the World War II veterans, their families, would be
very interested to see some means of access to those areas.
I have a long statement here to make, but let me do this
for the convenience of the committee and for the time factor
that you have. My colleague, Lisa Murkowski, Senator Murkowski,
and I would like to talk to you about the delay in terms of
land conveyances to both the Alaska natives and the State of
Alaska. We would like to set a deadline for getting all that
done, which includes accelerating the surveying.
We would like to talk to you about the proposed regulations
of the Park Service concerning commercial use that put
commercialization within the national parks, as far as those
people who are recognized to have rights to conduct their
business activities within the parks. As you know, we have, I
think, more than 70 percent of the total areas with the
national parks that are in our State. There are two categories,
those that were national park areas before 1980 and those after
1980. The 1980 Act preserved a considerable number of rights
for Alaska native people and other Alaskans with the additions
to the national park system that was created by the 1980 Act.
Those regulations, in our opinion, do not recognize the rights
that were preserved by the 1980 Act. And I would encourage you
to review that. My statement, full statement, deals with some
of those.
Of basic concern, really, is the restriction of access
across the parklands. We accept the fact that the pre-1980
parks and their acreage are not subject to the rights created,
or really preserved in the 1980 Act for the enormous additions.
That Act withdrew over 100 million acres of our State. And
without the rights for access across those lands that were
preserved, the native lands and the State lands that are beyond
them become absolutely inaccessible, unless we build some
really crazy roads that would go north, south, east, and then
west and back north again. It would be impossible to get money
for Federal roads of that type. But I would urge you to take a
look at it with regard to that.
We have also raised the issue of fires on Federal lands. It
is an interesting thing. We burned over 7.1 million acres
nationwide. And there was little attention paid to fires in
Alaska. When a few hundred thousand acres burned around Montana
or Colorado around national parks, they flew Alaska
firefighters down there to fight it.
We think there has to be some standard made in terms of the
regions of Alaska that are going to be given fire protection
because in many instances, those fires rushed across State
lands and Federal lands. And by the time they reached our
lands, they were just out of control. I can show you that right
in Kenai just south of where I live.
Also, we have a problem with--the spruce bark beetles have
killed millions of acres of land. And we know that when fire
starts, the fire goes through the beetle kill area, the dead
timber first. And that, too, with the dry winter we have had,
we feel this 2 million acres in the south-central area alone
have been killed by the birch beetles, most of them on Federal
land. But there is no action being taken. And I understand, in
fact, the people I call extreme environmentalists oppose taking
action on Federal land to remove that dead timber. That dead
timber jeopardizes half of our population. We are not very big
in population, but half of the population of Alaska is still
important. And we are surrounded by that beetle kill.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Mr. Chairman, let me put the whole statement in the
record.
I will send you a copy, Madame Secretary, and save the rest
of the time. Let me take the time to congratulate you on what
you are doing. I think you are a breath of fresh air in being
willing to listen. I am not sure I always agree with you, but
you will listen. And we look forward to working with you. And I
am particularly proud to be a member of this committee so I can
listen to you.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Good morning Madam Secretary. An issue of concern to myself and to
Senator Lisa Murkowski is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management's
Alaska Land Conveyance Program.
As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native
allotments and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood
Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
That task has not been completed.
This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska
and our Native groups from developing their resources and furthering
the economic development of the State.
Language included in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
bill directs the Bureau to develop a plan to ensure that allotments and
conveyances are completed by 2009.
I would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its
obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009.
I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the
BLM in this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.
And I commit to providing the BLM the resources it needs to develop
this plan.
Another issue is the National Park Service's proposed regulations
concerning the issuance and administration of commercial use
authorizations in National Parks.
As expressed to you in a February 6, 2003 letter from Senator
Murkowski, Congressman Don Young and myself, these proposed regulations
fail to comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
of 1980. The 1980 law is the controlling authority on public lands in
Alaska and any Park Service regulations must conform with this law.
I would like your assurance that the Department and the Park
Service are committed to working with the State of Alaska, interested
parties and Alaska Native groups in developing regulations which are
consistent with the 1980 law.
Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its draft
backcountry management plan.
I am concerned that some of the alternatives, if implemented, would
restrict public access to our Parks.
Access to public lands is an issue that I have struggled to protect
first as a solicitor your Department, in the Alaska State House, and in
my 34 years in the Senate.
I will oppose any plan which imposes unnecessary limits on the
public's right to visit their Parks.
I understand that Denali's superintendent and his staff have held
public hearings and meetings on this management plan.
I encourage these efforts in order to ensure that the final plan
balances the protection of our natural resources with the public's
right to access for recreational, economic and social purposes.
I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration has taken
in the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through the healthy
forests initiative.
In recent years we have witnessed catastrophic fires which burned
over 7.1 million acres, affecting several regions in the United States
including Alaska.
In Alaska, we have a particular problem with Spruce Bark beetles
which have decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along
the Kachemak Bay watershed and the Copper River basin near Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and preserve.
The Spruce Bark beetle problem along with an extremely dry winter
season in Alaska raises serious concerns for this coming fire season.
I hope that your efforts in fire prevention and suppression will
include funding to address Alaska's Spruce Bark beetle problem.
As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004 appropriations
process. It has come to my attention that the committee does not have
the most current data for public lands being administered by the
Department of Interior.
In order to appropriately allocate scarce resources towards the
management of our public lands, I request that the Department provide
the committee with statistics on federally owned land by agency in each
State and Territory by acreage and percentage of total State area.
These statistics should also include the total wilderness areas
within each State.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that,
and appreciate you dropping by this morning.
Madame Secretary, again, welcome to the committee. We look
forward to your statement. Your full statement will be made
part of the record, if you want to summarize and hit the high
points of what you would like to tell the committee. Thank you,
and your guests, for coming this morning.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON
Secretary Norton. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to once again address this committee and talk
with you about our budget for fiscal year 2004. I appreciate
the opportunity to highlight a number of our initiatives.
I am accompanied today by Lynn Scarlett, who is our
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, and John
Trezise, who is the Department's Budget Director.
Interior takes pride in its mission to protect and manage
the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage, provide
scientific information about those resources, and honor our
special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives,
and affiliated island communities. Our programs touch the lives
of individuals across the Nation. How well we fulfill our
mission influences whether farmers will have water and people
can turn on the tap, whether our children will enjoy America's
vistas, places in history, and whether we can hike, bird watch,
canoe, or hunt and fish in the great American outdoors.
Our 2004 budget request lays the foundation for us to build
a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities. Our request
for programs under the purview of this subcommittee is $9.8
billion. This is the largest Presidential request in the
Department's history. It is a 28 percent increase over the 2000
budget.
The Department of the Interior is not quite self-
supporting. We bring in $3 for every $4 in expenditures. The
Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion in
revenue in 2004.
TRUST REFORM INITIATIVES
As the chairman noted, our largest increase is in the area
of trust reform initiatives. Fulfilling our trust
responsibilities presents a major challenge. The challenge is
both retrospective and prospective. We inherited a history of
inadequate management of trust accounts. Our budget lays the
groundwork for a better future.
Our budget for Indian trust programs includes $554 million
for trust operations and reform. Our budget proposal reflects
new management concepts that grew out of consultation efforts,
including a reorganization of Interior trust offices to improve
delivery of services. The budget provides an increase of $183.8
million for trust programs, which is an increase of nearly 50
percent over 2003.
We also have a substantial increase for the Office of the
Special Trustee, bringing it to $275 million. Within the Office
of the Special Trustee request is $130 million for the Office
of Historical Trust Accounting, an increase of $114 million
over the 2003 level. These funds will provide a major down
payment toward our plan to complete a historical accounting for
individual Indian money accounts. We submitted a plan to the
district court in the Cobell litigation on January 6 that
outlines the details of how we would do that historical
accounting.
Once this accounting is completed, we should be able to
resolve the disputes about whether the books are off by
billions of dollars or the much smaller amounts that we expect.
We hope to improve our management of our Indian trust program
by consolidating our portfolio. Today we manage interests in
land that are very tiny, as small as .00002 of an 80-acre tract
of land. These areas often provide less than $1 a year in
income to the owners.
Fractionated interests in individual Indian-allotted land
continue to expand exponentially as these small fractions pass
through the generations. The 2004 budget proposes $21 million
for Indian land consolidation, which is an increase of $13
million. These funds will enable us to expand our pilot efforts
to reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership
interest in a nationwide program. This is only a very small
part of what will be needed to accomplish a nationwide
consolidation of these lands. But it gives us an opportunity to
begin tackling this problem seriously.
Our budget also lays the foundations for leaving a legacy
of healthy lands. Our request presents a blueprint for
fulfilling the President's vision of a new environmentalism of
citizen stewards and cooperative conservation. Building
partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Enduring
conservation needs many helping hands on the landscape. It
requires a nation of citizen stewards.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Last year we proposed a cooperative conservation
initiative. This year we are restructuring that program around
our bureau challenge cost-share programs and cooperative
conservation grant programs. It will tap into the tremendous
potential that resides in conservation partnerships. It will
better enable our land managers to join with Americans across
the nation in caring for the land. Thousands of landowners and
organizations remain on waiting lists to participate in our
cooperative conservation grant programs.
The 2004 budget includes $113 million for this initiative,
including an increase of $9 million for the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program. This will allow us to partner with 2,500
landowners and restore wetlands, uplands, and riparian habitats
through voluntary conservation agreements.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
As Senator Dorgan described, the maintenance backlog in the
national parks has been a continuing problem. We need to take
care of these lands. We need to take care of the buildings and
infrastructure through which we serve the millions of visitors
to our parks, refuges, and BLM recreation sites. We are
continuing our commitment to fulfill the President's pledge of
addressing the maintenance backlog, proposing nearly $706
million for national park backlogs.
To date, the National Park Service accomplishments have
been impressive. But we still have more work to do. A key focus
will be to improve park roads. Here, too, we are reaching out
to partners. The Federal Highway Administration has helped us
review our roads program to see how we can operate it more
efficiently. And the budget request for maintenance of park
roads is in the Department of Transportation budget as part of
the Federal Lands Highway bill.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Lands managed by Interior include working landscapes where
ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help ensure
that Americans have food, can warm their homes, and have
shelter for their families. Federally managed lands in onshore
areas supply about a third of the Nation's oil, natural gas,
and coal. Our 2004 budget provides $2 million to support the
development of geothermal energy on public lands, as well as
increased wind and solar energy opportunities. Our renewable
energy program budget is more than five times the 2002 amount.
Our budget also includes increased funding to facilitate
the development of coal bed natural gas reserves, an abundant
clean source of energy.
INDIAN EDUCATION
No task is more important to all of our communities than
educating our children. As we seek to educate our children, the
President has committed to leave no child behind. At Interior,
this commitment centers on the children educated at BIA schools
and educated with Bureau assistance. The 2004 school operations
request is over $529 million. The children also need safe,
functional places to learn. Our budget includes a request to
invest $293 million, including funds to replace at least seven
decaying and dilapidated school facilities.
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Perhaps the closest connection that Americans have with the
Department is through recreation opportunities. With almost 500
million visits to our public lands, Interior provides a wide
array of recreational opportunities. We are seeing a dramatic
increase in visitation to our Bureau of Land Management lands
where we are requesting increased funding to enable BLM to
continue to provide high quality recreational opportunities.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Our Everglades restoration efforts also affirm the power of
partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
Everglades ecosystem, the Department works with a broad team of
Federal, State, and local partners. In 2004, the President's
budget included $112 million for Everglades activities, an
increase of almost $28 million over the 2003 enacted level.
Near these Everglades restoration efforts is Pelican
Island, the Nation's first national wildlife refuge established
100 years ago. We just celebrated the anniversary of the
wildlife refuge system with large events there at Pelican
Island. And our budget builds on last year's historic increases
for refuges with an increase of nearly $34 million for refuge
operations and maintenance, bringing the total to $402 million.
Together, our increases for last year and this year set forth
an additional $82 million increase in our national wildlife
refuges.
OTHER PROGRAM INITIATIVES
The fisheries program is also an important Fish and
Wildlife Service activity. The budget recognizes this and
includes a $7 million increase for the national fish hatchery
system.
The National Resource Challenge is an important component
of the President's commitment to improving natural resource
management in our parks. It strengthens the scientific basis of
knowledge about our national parks. Our budget includes nearly
$9 million to increase this program.
The Land and Water Conservation State Grant program is a
cornerstone of our commitment to involve State governments in
conservation planning. Our budget requests $160 million for the
traditional State grant program, which is a $63 million
increase over the 2003 level enacted by Congress.
The President's budget includes full funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million through a medley of
programs that emphasize achieving LWCF goals through
partnerships. We have two central resource protection goals.
First is to leave a legacy of healthy lands by targeting our
budget toward caring for the vast lands under our stewardship.
Second is to extend our conservation and recreation
achievements through partnerships.
Through a mix of grant programs, we propose to leverage
Federal LWCF dollars. These programs engage States, tribes, and
other partners allowing us to achieve conservation and outdoor
recreation goals across many lands and with many landowners.
Through leveraging using conservation easements and other
agreements, we are able to achieve more conservation than we
would through fee acquisition alone.
WILDLAND FIRE
There are two problems that we need to address in an
ongoing way. And one of those that has attracted a lot of
attention from this committee is the problem of wildland fire.
Last year over 7 million acres of Federal lands went up in
flames during catastrophic wildfires. The President's healthy
forest initiative will help us reduce decades-long buildups of
underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
The budget continues a high level of funding, $186 million,
to reduce the buildup of brush, dead vegetation, and fire-prone
invasive species. This will allow us to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. The best approach for the long run is in
building public-private partnerships. Stewardship contracting
allows us to do that. Thanks to the subcommittee's efforts, we
now have stewardship contracting authority. We are moving
forward with getting that in place, working with the Forest
Service on some joint standards for those programs, and
beginning to get our contracting going.
SECURITY
We are also investing in greater security for our monuments
and for public lands that border Mexico and Canada. The 2004
budget includes $46.8 million for increases in improved
security to protect our visitors, employees, and resources.
Over $10 million of this increase will be targeted to public
lands located along the borders.
An additional $34 million is slated for site security
improvements at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St.
Louis, Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, and
the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument here in
Washington.
SCIENCE
At the foundation of all Interior's efforts is scientific
information, and it is the cornerstone of our research
management activities, providing a basis for decisions about
resource protection, use, recreation, and community-based
programs. The 2004 budget proposes a $17 million increase for
USGS to enhance science support to Interior's bureaus to meet
their high-priority needs and address other high-priority
research needs, including invasive species control.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss our
budget. We are working to better manage through partnerships.
Our ability to leave a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
communities depends on how well we can build those
partnerships. Our budget sets forth the tools through which we
can accomplish those goals.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gale A. Norton
I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies to discuss with you the fiscal year 2004 budget
for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to
highlight a number of important initiatives and to answer questions
that you might have.
As an introduction to our 2004 budget request, I'd like to offer
some observations about the Department's mission. We take a great deal
of pride in our mission to:
--Protect and manage the Nation's natural resources and cultural
heritage;
--Provide scientific information about those resources; and
--Honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska
Natives and affiliated Island Communities.
Our responsibilities touch the lives of each individual across the
Nation. How well we fulfill our mission influences:
--Whether farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap;
--Whether our children will enjoy America's grand vistas, places, and
history;
--Whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish in the
great American outdoors; and
--Whether our landscapes are healthy and our communities are
thriving.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Our 2004 $9.8 billion budget request provides the single clearest
statement of how we plan to honor these commitments in the upcoming
year. It lays the foundation for us to build a legacy of healthy lands
and thriving communities, including:
--Resource Protection--Reflecting the Department's multiple missions,
the budget proposes $2.5 billion to fund programs that improve
the health of landscapes, sustain biological communities, and
protect cultural resources.
--Serving Communities--The budget proposal includes $5.0 billion to
serve communities through fire protection, generation of
scientific information, education investments for American
Indians, and through activities to fulfill responsibilities
toward American Indians, Alaskan natives, and the Nation's
affiliated island communities.
--Resource Use--Interior lands include many working landscapes where
ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help
maintain thriving American communities and a dynamic economy.
The budget includes $728 million to provide access for these
important uses.
--Recreation--$1.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 budget investments
will ensure recreational opportunities for all Americans in the
network of public lands, parks and refuges that the Department
administers.
In total, the 2004 budget is the largest presidential request in
the Department's history. The 2004 request includes $9.8 billion for
programs funded in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, an increase of $369.8 million or 3.9 percent over the 2003 enacted
level. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing
legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an
additional $3.0 billion, for a total 2004 Interior budget of $12.8
billion. The Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion
in receipts in 2004, equivalent to 73 percent of Interior's current
appropriations request.
TRUST PROGRAMS
Over one-half of our $369.8 million increase for 2004 will fund
trust reform initiatives. While the overall budget request is
approximately 3.9 percent over the fiscal year 2003 request, our fiscal
year 2004 Indian trust budget request is almost 50 percent higher than
what was included in the 2003 appropriations act.
Fulfilling our Trust responsibilities remains one of the
Department's greatest challenges. The Department has responsibility for
the management of 100,000 leases for individual Indians and Tribes on a
land trust that encompasses approximately 56 million acres. Leasing,
use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $226 million
per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual Indian
money accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for
approximately 1,400 tribal accounts per year. In addition, the trust
manages approximately $2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in
individual Indian funds.
Interior faces many challenges in reforming the management of its
Indian trust responsibilities. First, the Department has not been well
structured to focus on its trust duties. Second, fractionated interests
in individual Indian allotted land continue to expand exponentially
with each new generation. Today, there are approximately four million
owner interests in the 10 million acres of individually owned trust
lands. These four million interests could expand to 10 million
interests by 2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is
taken. There are now single pieces of property with ownership interests
that are less than 0.000002 of the whole interest.
Third, there are 230,000 open individual Indian money accounts, the
majority of which have balances under $100 and annual transactions of
less than $1,000. Interior maintains thousands of accounts that contain
less than one dollar, and has a responsibility to provide an accounting
to all account holders. Unlike most private trusts, the Federal
Government bears the entire cost of administering the Indian trust. As
a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for
reducing the number of accounts do not apply to the Indian trust.
An increase of $114.1 million for the Office of Historical Trust
accounting will support the Department's plan to conduct a historical
accounting for individual Indian money accounts and to account for
funds in Tribal accounts. On January 6, 2003, the Department presented
a plan to the District Court in Cobell v. Norton for the historical
accounting for about 260,000 IIM accounts. The work described in that
Plan is expected to take five years to complete and is preliminarily
estimated to cost approximately $335 million. The budget includes
$130.0 million for these historical accounting activities. Funds also
will be used to provide for historical accounting activities related to
tribal accounts.
The 2004 budget proposes $21.0 million for Indian land
consolidation, an increase of $13.0 million, to expand pilot efforts to
reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership interests into a
nation-wide program. During 2003, we will establish a national program
office, standardize business practices, and develop a strategic plan to
guide expansion to more tribal reservations.
Interior is reorganizing trust functions in BIA and OST. The new
organization was developed after detailed analysis of the prior
organization and a year-long consultation process with tribal leaders.
In one of the most extensive consultation efforts ever undertaken by
the senior management level at the Department on any issue relating to
Indian Country, over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided detailed
findings and recommendations. The new organization reflects a synthesis
of the views heard during the consultation process. It will meet
fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every level,
and operate with people trained in the principles of trust management.
The 2004 budget provides an increase of $15.0 million to support the
new organization, which together with base funding available in BIA and
OST will provide resources needed for the new organization in 2004.
The proposed $183.8 million increase for trust management reforms
includes funding to help rebuild Bureau of Indian Affairs information
technology infrastructure to support trust and non-trust programs. The
BIA's information infrastructure and security use outmoded hardware and
software that do not meet lifecycle management and systems architecture
principles, and do not comply with the security requirements of OMB
Circular A-130 and the Government Information Security Results Act. The
Department requests IT funding for the significant new investments
needed to address these challenges. The 2004 budget includes increases
of $29.6 million for a ground-up rebuilding of the BIA IT
infrastructure to support trust, as well as non-trust programs, and
$2.5 million for Interior-wide IT security. The proposed rebuilding
will fit within the enterprise architecture and includes full business
cases for proposed investments.
The 2004 budget also proposes an increase of $4.5 million to
accelerate a new strategy to administer, manage, search, retrieve, and
store trust records. Reform efforts to date have improved records
collection and security. However, recent Interior reviews have resulted
in a reassessment of the resource requirements needed to establish
proper records retention schedules, establish and implement record
keeping requirements, safeguard records, implement and maintain
training programs, and meet records-retrieval needs in an effective and
cost-efficient way.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The 2004 budget lays the foundation for a legacy of healthy lands,
presenting a blueprint for fulfilling the President's vision of a new
environmentalism of citizen stewards and cooperative conservation.
Building partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Last year's
budget proposed a Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This year, our
budget again includes a Cooperative Conservation Initiative, structured
around bureau Challenge Cost Share programs and other existing
cooperative conservation grant programs.
The Cooperative Conservation Initiative, funded at $113.2 million,
will empower citizen stewards to conserve and protect natural
resources, while also achieving important community and economic goals.
The Initiative builds on existing conservation partnership programs and
will provide new and expanded opportunities for landowners, land
managers, and others to participate in projects that foster innovation
and create incentives for stewardship. Our budget also provides funds
for a public lands volunteers program.
The 2004 CCI request builds upon Interior's long history of working
collaboratively with others. It builds on existing conservation
partnership programs, including the challenge cost share programs of
the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service, as well as FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program,
Coastal program and Migratory Bird Joint Venture program. This
initiative also funds a program of volunteers to increase public
awareness of, and appreciation for, natural and cultural resource
protection.
The CCI request includes a $9.1 million increase for the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program, the largest increase ever provided to
this program. The Fish and Wildlife Service will partner with 2,500
additional landowners on the program's waiting list. These new
partnerships will restore an additional 19,298 acres of wetlands;
83,601 acres of native grasslands, forest and other uplands; and 241
miles of riparian and in-stream habitat over 2003 levels.
CONSERVATION GRANTS
The Private Stewardship grants and the Landowner Incentive Program
recognize continuing opportunities for conservation of endangered and
threatened species through partnerships with private landowners. The
budget request includes $50.0 million for Private Stewardship grants
and the Landowner Incentive program. Interest in the State portion of
the program is high, with over 80 grant requests totaling $61.0 million
for the program's first year.
The 2004 budget request includes a comprehensive, partnership
approach to meeting the President's commitment for fully funding the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2004 LWCF program includes $662.4
million for the Department. It emphasizes conservation partnerships
with States, Tribes, local communities, and private citizens, including
a strong State grant program, and reduced Federal land acquisition.
This proposal recognizes the costs of adding to the significant land
holdings that are already managed by the Department and our commitment
to take better care of these lands. It also recognizes the value and
cost-effectiveness of partnerships. We can accomplish our conservation
goals by conserving endangered and at risk species through conservation
easements, working with private landowners to enhance habitat for
endangered and at risk species, and other innovative partnership
approaches.
CONSERVING WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
March 14, 2003 marks a milestone in the history of wildlife
conservation in America-the centennial anniversary of the national
wildlife refuge system. Reflecting the importance of this event and the
record of conservation established through this unique system of lands
and resources, the 2004 budget builds on last year's historic $48.4
million budget increase for the national wildlife refuge system by
requesting a total of $402.0 million for refuge operations and
maintenance, an increase of $33.6 million over 2003 appropriation
levels. The total budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service is
$1.3 billion.
The Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries program has played a vital
role in conserving and managing fish and other aquatic resources. The
2004 budget enhances the Federal contribution to aquatic resource
conservation partnerships, by providing $103.6 million for the FWS
fisheries program. The request includes an $3.9 million increase for
operation and maintenance of the national fish hatchery system's
hatcheries, fish health centers, and fish technology centers. Also
included is a $1.0 million increase to combat aquatic nuisance species,
part of the larger, coordinated interdepartmental effort discussed
below.
OTHER PARTNERSHIPS
As stated earlier, the 2004 budget is based on a vision of
partnerships and leaving a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
communities resulting from efforts to work together across landscapes
and across communities. The 2004 budget sets forth the tools through
which these partnerships can flourish and leave a legacy of healthy
lands and thriving communities
The Department's parks, refuges, and public lands host nearly 500
million visitors a year and provide access for economic uses,
activities that fuel the economic engines for communities adjacent to
our Federal lands. Recognizing that the Department's decisions can
greatly impact these gateway communities, the Department is working in
partnership with the people who live on the private lands that border
these areas and developing collaborative approaches to address local
issues.
Everglades.--The Everglades restoration effort also affirms the
power of partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
Everglades ecosystem, the Interior Department works with a broad team
of Federal, State and local partners. In 2004, the President's budget
includes $112.3 million for Interior Everglades activities, an increase
of $27.8 million above 2003 enacted appropriations. The request
includes $40.0 million to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve by
acquiring the Collier family's mineral right holdings.
Exemplifying the partnership approach to this restoration effort,
the Department is building stronger coalitions to implement the
restoration program, including:
--Forming an advisory committee for public input to land managers in
South Florida on a wide range of issues;
--Providing scientific expertise to the State and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan; and
--Taking steps to ensure that appropriate quantities of water are
distributed at the right times and in the right places to
restore the unique Everglades ecosystem.
Invasive Species.--The Department is participating in an
interagency performance budget to promote invasive species management
that is being coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council. The
2004 budget proposes $57.5 million for the Department's portion of this
interagency effort.
At this funding level, Interior will participate in the control and
management of tamarisk and giant salvinia in the southwest; conduct
ballast water research; control and eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake
Bay and in Louisiana; plan early detection and rapid response to
eradicate outbreaks of sudden oak death in eastern hardwood forests of
the central Appalachian Mountains; and develop a marine invasive
species early detection warning system.
Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Clean Streams.--Through partnerships
the Office of Surface Mining is restoring streams impacted by coal
mining. Its Clean Streams program involves State and local groups to
enhance miles of riparian areas. The President's budget request
includes $281.2 million for State and Federal programs to protect the
environment during coal mining, assure prompt reclamation after mining,
and clean up abandoned mine lands. The request will enable OSM to
continue directly administering Federal regulatory and reclamation
programs in States that do not operate their own surface mining
programs as well as on Federal and Indian lands, and to reclaim 6,900
acres of disturbed land and other hazards that threaten human health
and welfare and environmental quality.
Payment of Lieu of Taxes.--The President's proposal calls for
$200.0 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, to compensate States for
Federal lands that cannot be taxed by local governments. The 2004
budget proposes to move the program from the Bureau of Land Management
to the Departmental Management account to reflect the breadth of this
program. The lands on which the payments are made are administered by
the NPS, FWS, and USDA Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land
Management.
WILDLAND FIRE AND HEALTHY FORESTS
Building a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities means
applying a healing hand to the landscape. The Department is advancing
the President's Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce decades-long
build-ups of underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
The budget proposes $698.7 million for wildfire prevention and
suppression and Healthy Forest initiatives in fiscal year 2004. This is
a $48.5 million, or 7.5 percent increase over last year's budget
proposal. The request includes continued funding for a robust fuels
treatment program at $186.2 million, 400 percent above spending in
2000. At this funding level, the Department will treat 307,000 high
priority acres in the wildland-urban interface and an additional
768,000 acres that are not in the wildland-urban interface.
The Department is also taking a number of steps to improve the
productivity and performance of the fuels program that will help the
Department's firefighting bureaus take maximum advantage of the
opportunity for fuels treatment projects at the beginning of the fiscal
year when weather and workload conditions for fuels treatments are
optimal. The Department is accelerating project planning and selection,
issuing policy guidance and proposed legislative language designed to
facilitate and expand contracting in the fuels program, and issuing
policy guidance to expedite the budget allocation process for the fuels
program and individual projects.
The fuels treatment program is key to restoring forests and
rangelands to long-term health and preventing damage caused by
catastrophic wildfires. One approach to improving forest health that
holds promise is stewardship contracting. Stewardship contracts allow
the private sector, non-profit organizations, and local communities to
productively use materials generated from forest thinning.
The 2004 budget proposal also calls for $282.7 million for fire
preparedness, including increased funding for aviation contract costs.
The fire suppression request of $195.3 million reflects a $36.0 million
increase to fund suppression operations at the revised 10-year average.
This funding level will provide resources to respond to an ``average''
fire year without having to rely on emergency borrowing that can be
disruptive to other Interior programs. The Department is also working
to develop new and improved current cost control strategies for
suppression. The budget also includes $24.5 million for rehabilitating
burned areas. Timely stabilization and rehabilitation of severely
burned areas are critical to prevent further damage due to erosion,
loss of soil nutrients, and the introduction and spread of invasive
species. The budget also continues funding for Rural Fire Assistance at
$10.0 million. Frequently, local firefighting departments are the first
responders to wildland fires on public lands and play a vital role in
preventing fires from escaping initial attack and becoming
exponentially more expensive to suppress. In 2002, the Department
assisted 5,349 rural and volunteer fire departments through grants,
technical assistance, training, supplies, equipment, and public
education support.
HELPING TO MEET THE NATION'S ENERGY NEEDS
Interior plays a central role in meeting the Nation's energy needs.
Conservation, renewable energy, and traditional energy sources all play
an intertwined role in helping the Nation meet these needs. The budget
supports the President's and the Department's goal for increasing
domestic energy supplies from a variety of sources, in an
environmentally acceptable manner, with a special emphasis on
developing renewable energy sources on Federal lands.
The 2004 budget request includes an increase of $444,000 for
activities on the North Slope, for a total of $8.4 million. Funding
will support planning for sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska, and, if authorized, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale to be
conducted in ANWR.
The budget requests an increase of $2.0 million for BLM to
strengthen inspection and enforcement activities, targeted primarily to
the Powder River and San Juan basins. The budget also proposes a
$500,000 increase to expand resource monitoring to improve assessment
of the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, especially on
cultural resources and species at risk.
The 2004 budget includes $2.0 million for renewable energy
resources. This includes an increase of $100,000 over 2003 enacted
appropriations to support the development of geothermal, wind, and
solar energy on public land. This is more than five times the 2002
funding level for these programs.
The Outer Continental Shelf is projected to produce over 25 percent
of both the Nation's oil and natural gas in 2003. The Minerals
Management Service is the primary steward of the mineral resources on
the OCS. The MMS appropriations request of $171.3 million includes an
increase of $1.6 million to meet increased workload brought about by
the demand for Outer Continental Shelf program services in the Gulf of
Mexico. The 2004 budget includes a total of $11.6 million, an increase
of $2.9 million over 2003 funding levels for MMS to employ innovative
business processes and advances in electronic technology in the
offshore program. The budget also includes an increase of $300,000 to
investigate the energy resource potential found in methane hydrate
formations. The MMS will also invest an additional $3.0 million to
operate and maintain its minerals revenue management and royalty-in-
kind systems.
The 2004 BIA request includes a $2.0 million increase for grants to
Tribes to evaluate mineral resource potential on tribal trust and
restricted lands. The request also includes $1.0 million to help Tribes
expedite the development of tribal regulations governing mineral
leasing and permitting, and rights-of-way of tribal lands required
under the Energy Policy Act, 2002.
TAKING CARE OF PARKS
Complementing the Department's cooperative conservation commitments
is a continued investment in taking care of National Parks. The
President's budget proposes a $2.4 billion budget for the National Park
Service, an increase of $131.4 million above 2003 appropriations.
This budget continues the Department's commitment to fulfill the
President's pledge of addressing the maintenance backlog in National
Parks, proposing $705.8 million this year toward this effort, an
increase of $54.1 million, nearly an eight percent increase over 2003.
The budget includes an increase of $16.3 million for cyclic
maintenance. This increase will provide additional funds for regular
maintenance activities and will help the NPS keep pace with its
maintenance needs and prevent additional projects from becoming
deferred. It also includes an additional $16.7 million for the repair
and rehabilitation program and a $4.7 million increase for
comprehensive condition assessments at parks. Data collected through
the condition assessments will be used in 2004 to evaluate progress in
eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog, as measured by a facility
condition index.
To date, our accomplishments are impressive. For example, the Many
Glacier Hotel at Glacier National Park was built in 1914. A highly
recognized National Landmark, this facility signifies an important
period in the development of the National Park Service. Due to the
harsh climate and insufficient maintenance in the past, this important
landmark had deteriorated to a stage where emergency stabilization was
necessary. The Department is in the process of stabilizing this
important facility.
But we still have more work to do. A key focus in the 2004 budget
will be to improve park roads. Here, too, the Department is reaching
out to partners. A signed memorandum of agreement with the Federal
Highway Administration will help us achieve our road maintenance goals
efficiently. The Department of Transportation's 2004 budget proposes
$300.0 million in 2004 for Park road repair as part of the
reauthorization of TEA-21, bringing the total park maintenance budget
to over $1 billion.
In the National Park Service, the Natural Resource Challenge helps
Park managers improve resource management by strengthening the
scientific base of knowledge about park resources. Our budget proposes
$76.1 million, an $9.0 million increase over 2003, for the program.
This increase will provide a three-year cumulative total increase of
over $104 million above the 2001 level. The Natural Resource Challenge
is an integral component of President Bush's ongoing commitment to
improving natural resource management in Parks.
INDIAN EDUCATION
No task is more important to the American community than educating
its children. In education, the President has committed to ``leave no
child behind.'' At Interior, this commitment centers on the 48,000
children educated at schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
or by Tribes under BIA grants or contracts.
The budget request for Indian education continues the President's
commitment with a robust $528.5 million school operations budget
request, including funding for teacher pay increases. The budget
includes $3.0 million to establish a separate fund for new
administrative cost grants to encourage more Tribes to exercise their
authority to operate BIA schools by providing full funding for start-up
costs for the first year of tribal operation of bureau-operated
schools.
Children deserve safe, functional places to learn. The 2004 budget
invests $292.6 million in school facilities, including funds to replace
at least seven high priority school facilities and to repair schools
identified in the Indian school maintenance backlog. The President's
goal is to eliminate the backlog by 2006.
RECREATION
With almost 500 million visits each year to the Department's lands,
Interior provides a wide array of recreational opportunities, including
fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, and wildlife viewing. Public lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide recreational venues
for a growing population in the West, hosting over 60 million visitors
annually.
The 2004 budget requests $48.7 million to enable the Bureau of Land
Management to continue to provide quality recreational opportunities.
BLM will address transportation and access needs and challenges, expand
interpretive and other visitor services, and support greater outreach
and consultation efforts to help resolve user conflicts in the face of
growing visitation.
In recreation as in conservation, partnering is central to achieve
our recreation goals. The Department depends on the contributions of
200,000 volunteers, almost three times Interior's Federal workforce, to
help address resource protection and public recreation needs. Over
126,000 volunteers work in parks, the rest work in refuges, public
lands, and other Interior sites across the country. In 2004 volunteers
will assist NPS staff with important park projects including the Lewis
and Clark bicentennial, the Powered Flight centennial, and the
Jamestown 400th anniversary. The budget request proposes to increase
funding by $1.5 million for partnership efforts and volunteer
recruitment and training. A $1.0 million increase is aimed at
bolstering volunteer participation and improving park capacity to
supervise, train, and reward volunteers. An increase of $500,000 will
allow NPS to establish full time volunteer coordinators to manage an
expanding program.
The Department's partnerships include working with States. Today,
the LWCF State grant program is a cornerstone of the Secretary's
commitment to involve State governments in conservation and recreation
activities. This program, enacted in 1965, helps States develop and
maintain high quality recreation areas and stimulate non-Federal
investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation resources
across the United States. Reflecting the President's goals, the
Interior LWCF program seeks to promote cooperative alliances, leave
land on State tax roles, and achieve conservation goals by emphasizing
innovative alternatives to fee simple title purchases, such as
conservation easements and land exchanges. This emphasis also enables
Interior land management agencies to focus more funds on caring for
lands already under their management.
The President's budget fully funds the Land and Water Conservation
Fund at $900.7 million. The LWCF proposal calls for $160.0 million in
State grants, an increase of $62.6 million over the 2003 funding level
enacted by the Congress.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY
The budget requests increases for Interior's law enforcement and
security programs. The funding would be used to hire additional law
enforcement officers, for law enforcement agreements with States and
localities, additional training, and physical hardening of key visitor
sites, all of which will improve security operations Department-wide.
The increase of $46.8 million is earmarked for strengthening law
enforcement and security operations at Interior refuges, parks, and
public lands, including along the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.
Included within this increase is funding for site security improvements
at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St. Louis, Independence
National Historical Park in Philadelphia, and the Jefferson Memorial
and Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.
SCIENCE
All of the Department's efforts require good information.
Scientific information is the cornerstone for Interior's natural
resource management activities, providing a basis for making decisions
about resource protection, resource use, recreation, and community-
based programs. The USGS has the principle responsibility within
Interior to provide its bureaus the earth and natural science
information and research necessary to manage the Nation's natural
resources.
The President's 2004 budget proposes $895.5 million for the USGS.
The budget includes $17.1 million in new program increases above the
2003 conference level for high priority research needs, including
invasive species control and management and increased capability to
address science needs for Interior bureaus.
CONCLUSION
The Interior Department's responsibilities lie at the confluence of
people, land, and water. The 2004 budget funds programs that support
our broad and multiple missions. Leaving a legacy of healthy lands and
thriving communities requires resources, creativity, and, above all,
collaboration. The 2004 budget supports this vision of forging
partnerships.
This concludes my overview of the 2004 budget proposal for the
Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
HISTORICAL TRUST ACCOUNTING
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
We have spent numerous occasions discussing your
inheritance of one of the most frustrating court cases in
recent memory. However, the recently released summary of the
Ernst and Young analysis of the five lead plaintiffs' accounts
raises questions about whether historical accounting is a wise
use of Federal resources. If you could, would you please give
us a quick update on the court's actions over the past few
months, and how those actions impact your 2004 request?
Secretary Norton. We submitted plans to the courts in
January that set forth how we would go about doing an
historical accounting and how we would improve the overall
management of our trust programs to address some specific
deficiencies identified by the court. We are preparing now for
a trial that is set to occur starting in May that will cover
those plans. The court will in essence be looking both at our
plan and the plans that were submitted by the plaintiffs and
evaluating those.
We also have, ongoing, an appeal to the Federal Court of
Appeals from the decision that held myself and the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, Neil McCaleb, in contempt of
court. The oral argument on that will take place on April 24.
Senator Burns. What message should this committee take from
the Ernst and Young report?
Secretary Norton. I think it helps illustrate the
difficulty that we have in trying to resolve these issues. On
the one hand, we have the plaintiffs' attorneys, who are
estimating the damages that the Department and the Federal
Government would owe to individual Indian account holders at
$137 billion. On the other hand, the Ernst and Young report,
which looks at the accounts of specified individuals, found
that there was, in reviewing approximately 2,900 transactions,
a $60 account error. So we have a wide divergence of opinion
about the accuracy of the books that were handled by the
Department of the Interior over time.
In essence, what we are doing through the historical
accounting is verifying our bank ledgers. We have the account
ledgers that say how much was given to individuals, how much
was deposited, and what was received. The question is trying to
find external documents that verify those account records. The
court has asked us to find that external documentation.
We submitted to you all a plan for doing a complete
historical accounting and finding all of the documents that
would support those transactions. That basically would have
cost about $2.4 billion to do all of that accounting. We then
revised that in the report that we gave to you, and the basis
for our budget is to use statistical sampling on smaller
transactions, as opposed to going through transaction by
transaction.
We will still look at all of the transactions over $5,000
individually and in certain other categories of transactions
and account for those in a detailed way. The others we would
propose to use statistical sampling.
Senator Burns. Do you see an end to this?
Secretary Norton. Our plan would basically have us complete
all of that accounting in 5 years. That would basically be a
$335 million project over that time to complete that
accounting. At that point, we would have what we view as a
definitive answer as to how much those books might be off.
Senator Burns. Looking at it from this perspective, we do
not see an end to it. Either that, or we are not getting the
right signals, or I am not smart enough to figure it out.
Probably a combination of the two. It seems to me that this is
something we do not know how we got into, and we have had very
few answers on how to get out of it, until you came into
office. I congratulate you on your commitment to straighten
this out. I hope you have enough time to see it through to its
completion.
INDIAN SCHOOLS
I want to ask you about the situation with the Indian
schools. I know the President cut some funds out of Indian
education. Then the subcommittee put them back in, especially
this past year, we put $1.7 million back into Indian education.
Can I get an answer to why--the enacted 2003 level was
functionally $1.7 million over the 2002 level after an across-
the-board reduction? That sounds confusing, but I guess up here
people can walk their way through that.
Despite the increase, Title I TTCs are faced with an $8-
per-student reduction. The BIA split the reduction as follows:
Approximately 23 percent of the total increase allocated to the
Dine College due to Dine stance as a Title II, which is a
boarding school; this amounted to an increase of approximately
$60 per student. The Title I schools also sought an enrollment
increase of approximately 300 Indian students. As a result, the
remaining, to be put into the formula for Title I schools,
resulted in a decrease of $8 per student in fiscal year 2003.
I would like to know how we come up with those kinds of
figures. Can anyone respond to that? John, can you enlighten
us?
DIFFERENT FUNDING CATEGORIES
Mr. Trezise. Senator Burns, your figures are correct. This
is a situation that arises from the authorizing legislation
which authorizes two categories of colleges, which are funded
on the basis of different formulas. In addition to the colleges
authorized in the TCC Act, we have two colleges which have
traditionally been funded by the Congress outside of the Act,
which are funded on yet other basis. So we have four different
funding levels on a per-student basis.
This is a situation, I think, that does warrant some
consideration. Specifically with respect to 2003, though, your
figures are correct. But I would point out that of the increase
of $1.7 million over the 2003 enacted level, or $3.6 million
over the President's budget, 77 percent was devoted to the
Title I colleges. This is an increase over the President's
budget of about $2.7 to $2.8 million.
The per-student funding went down, despite that increase,
because the number of students which we were expecting, which
we actually have in school this year, in 2003, is higher than
the student level in 2002.
Senator Burns. It sounds like we are going to have to
change the way we fund our colleges. I do not like the idea of
being discriminatory one against the other. And when we try to
do the overall good for everybody, it seems like we have not
attained that degree of fairness.
Senator Dorgan.
Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, anticipating a question
from Senator Dorgan, since this is all on the same topic, we
have had some discussions previously as to the United Tribes
Technical College. I have asked the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, the acting Assistant Secretary, to work with
you all. It may be appropriate to bring that college into the
same funding category, which it is my understanding would
require a statutory change, as well as the Crown Point
Institute of Technology, which is the other one that has
usually been independently funded.
I am not familiar enough with the rest of the differences
in the funding, but this might make sense as a time to try to
wrap all of that into an examination of the authorizing basis
for those appropriations.
Senator Burns. I think you have a point. I am not versed
enough in exactly how those stages are funded, or in what
categories they fall. So I will have to do a little looking
into this. It seems unfair that funds dedicated to community
colleges found on reservations are increased or restored. And
then what we receive per student decreases.
I have an idea that we might have been remiss in not
identifying where those funds were to go. So it seems that the
``haves'' got, and the ``have nots'' got less. I find that
inherently unfair.
Senator Dorgan.
INDIAN EDUCATION
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Again, Secretary Norton, thank you for being here. Let me
start on the point that the chairman finished with; that is,
Indian education. First of all, I think tribal colleges are
remarkably successful. Let me tell you about--since we take a
lot away from these hearings, I want you to take something away
in terms of an anecdotal story about Indian colleges.
There is a young woman in North Dakota named Loretta that I
have known for a good many years. Loretta Delong is her name.
And she lived in a two-room log house on an Indian reservation.
She stuttered. She was painfully shy, wore hand-me-down
clothes. She was called a savage at school. And she wondered,
you know, what it would take to be noticed. She reached the
seventh grade. She got into all kinds of trouble. She dropped
out of school, had a child, was involved in substance abuse.
And she is now a Ph.D. When I see Loretta, I call her Dr.
Delong.
She got her life turned around and is a remarkable
contributor to the Indian reservation on the Turtle Mountain
Reservation. And it happened because of tribal colleges, the
availability and opportunity for people to go to college and
have their extended family be involved in childcare and all the
things that allow somebody to get up and out and do something
for themselves.
There are many other stories. I simply mention Loretta
because she is happy for me to do that, and I am proud of what
she has done.
TRIBAL COLLEGES FUNDING
It just makes no sense to me to be reducing the funding for
tribal colleges at a time when we are already substantially
short of the support per student that exists in the rest of the
country. The Tribal College Act authorizes funding of $6,000
per full-time Indian student. It has currently funded about
$3,900. That is 45 percent below the $7,180 spent by the non-
Indian community colleges. So these colleges are already
underfunded. And this is just a recommendation that we will
have to change, I believe.
With respect to your point about Crown Point and United
Tribes, it would not make much sense to me to put them into the
rest of the tribal colleges, if the other batch is already
underfunded. For almost a quarter of a century, we have
provided funding for Crown Point and United Tribes, which are
unique tribal technical colleges that serve, in the case of
United Tribes, dozens of States' American Indian populations.
So, I mean, the suggestion that we should put them in with
the rest of the tribal colleges does not make sense. What is
suggested here in the budget is let us de-fund United Tribes
and then let us cut the other tribal colleges. My guess is you
will say: ``Well, this is a matter of choice and priorities.''
But would you not agree that this should be a priority, tribal
college funding should and must be a priority, and cutting them
at this point, when they are so far below the support that is
given to non-Indian community colleges, that that is not a fair
recommendation?
Secretary Norton. Senator, if I can point out a few things.
First of all, the tribal college funding has increased by over
62 percent since 1993, while the enrollment has increased by 11
percent. So there is certainly considerably more funding than
there has been in the past. The funding for tribal colleges was
increased by $3.6 million in the 2003 Appropriations Act, but
our budget was formulated before that final congressional
action. So it does not reflect that 2003 increase.
Senator Dorgan. Would you support that increase? If the
budget were formulated now, do you think that would be
included? And would you support that?
Secretary Norton. We have a couple of different things
going on here. One is the base level of funding for that. We
are certainly interested in working with you all for next year
on improvements needed in our funding structure, to work on
that approach with you.
The other issue has been those items that have been
earmarked from outside any authorization. That causes problems
for us and will continue to cause problems, as I have said. It
is much more difficult for us to fund something that does not
have any standards, does not have a program, is simply an add-
on to our other programs. There is no way of evaluating whether
that is treating fairly those particular colleges in comparison
with other colleges.
Senator Dorgan. Yes, but you----
Secretary Norton. We would certainly like to see something,
and we would be very happy to work with you on something that
would look at those on a more across-the-board kind of basis.
Senator Dorgan. But I do not understand that. These are--
for example, United Tribes Technical College is easily
accredited, identified by all as a remarkable institution,
visited by yourself and by the head of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. I mean, I have never heard anyone suggest this is not
worth funding. So I understand your point about ``Let's make
sure that we are always funding things that work,'' but there
has never been a question that I am aware of that this is not,
both this and Crown Point are not, good educational
institutions. So de-funding them just makes no sense to me.
Secretary Norton. It is a question of trying to prioritize
our funding. And, you know, we have increased funding for
elementary and secondary schools. We have a $16 million
increase enacted over there. These are good programs. We do
continue to support the funding of the tribal college programs.
We have had to make some tough choices this year with, as you
all have mentioned, the increased funding that we needed for
historical accounting for Indian trust programs.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
Senator Dorgan. But you know what? In terms of priorities,
I was just looking here, we have $31 million for the wild horse
and burro management program, including Adopt-a-Horse. So $31
million for that and $39 million for all the tribal colleges in
America? I mean, I am not sure I understand that.
In terms of choices, I want us to make good choices and
right choices. And it is not the right choice to de-fund United
Tribes Technical College. And it is not the right choice to
come in with a funding recommendation that is below what the
tribal colleges received last year. There is bipartisan
support. Senator Domenici is not here, but you know he would be
more aggressive than I am even on these issues. And I know the
chairman feels the same way.
So I understand your point about choices, but it is very
important to make the right choices. And I think Indian
education is very important.
Senator Burns. Do you want to switch that money from the
burros over to schools?
Senator Dorgan. Well, I tell you what I am going to do. I
did not even know about the program until I was reading last
evening. I am trying to go through. This is a big agency, as I
said. You have quite a job, a lot of things. And I was not
aware that the wild horse--I knew we had a wild horse and burro
management. I also knew that we had an Adopt-a-Horse program.
But I did not know we spent $31 million on it. And I do not
know how many horses there are, but I am going to divide the
number of horses into the $31 million to find out how much per
horse we are spending. Because I used to raise horses. My dad
used to raise horses. And, in fact, the program in here talking
about gentling horses, I do not think anybody in Montana has
ever uttered that, nor have we in North Dakota. You do not
gentle horses; you break horses. I would like to know what they
are spending on gentling horses, because we have some young men
and women in North Dakota who will do that pretty cheaply and
do it pretty well. And I suppose in Montana you have some as
well.
But at any rate, my point is not to--I love horses. I have
not been around burros much, so I cannot profess any love for
burros. But I do want to find out how much per animal we are
spending here and how we are spending----
Senator Burns. I saw one on your jacket the other day.
Senator Dorgan. Is that right?
They call it donkey where I come from.
Senator Burns. Oh, yes.
NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Senator Dorgan. It would not be fair to you if I did not
mention the NAWS funding. That is not the province of this
subcommittee, but it is in your agency. And you will appear
before another subcommittee of mine on this. But as you know,
the folks in Minot, North Dakota, and northwestern North Dakota
are really upset, and that is a mild way of saying it, upset
about the proposal not to fund NAWS.
We have had the groundbreaking. Construction is under way.
And the proposal is to stop that by, I understand, the Office
of Management and Budget with a new program. It is called PART,
I believe it is. Is it PART? And I am not doing this--what does
PART mean?
Secretary Norton. Program Assessment Rating Tool.
Senator Dorgan. Right. I am involved in a formal program
assessment rating of the Office of Management and Budget. And I
have just a preliminary estimate of that. And it really does
not look good for OMB.
But no one has suggested, for example, that the NAWS
program, which is, as I said, under construction, is anything
other than a stellar program and the continuation of a promise
that was made to the people of North Dakota as a result of
being willing to host a half-a-million-acre flood that came and
stayed. And then just out of the blue we discovered this de-
funding because of PART, I believe, from OMB. So tell me again,
how does OMB justify recommending we not fund this program?
Secretary Norton. There are several factors that went into
their rating tool. One of the things that they looked at was
the difference between the number of people served per million
dollars under this program compared to other Federal agency
programs. They found that the Bureau of Reclamation, on
average, serves 363 people per million dollars, whereas the
USDA program serves almost 1,800 people. EPA serves almost
1,700 people. So that was one of their concerns as to why
Interior's program was different than those other programs.
RURAL WATER PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
We are moving forward to address some of the problems that
were identified in terms of lack of goals and consistency in
the program. We do have underway a legislative proposal being
developed that would establish a reclamation rural water
program with adequate controls and clear guidelines for project
development.
It would provide a two-pronged approach that involves
pursuing new general authority for reviewing, planning,
prioritization, and construction of rural water projects,
combined with administrative measures that would improve the
program. It would eliminate the piecemeal approach that we
currently experience. As we have discussed previously, there is
no overarching rural water program that the Bureau of
Reclamation has through which we have standardized funding or
standardized approaches. That was one of OMB's concerns, that
we try to put that in place instead of doing piecemeal
projects.
This legislative proposal would provide that type of
overarching program. It would allow the Department and the
administration to set priorities and control the process and
would thereby limit the problems that were identified by OMB.
It would also involve other interested parties in the planning,
design, and construction of rural water supply projects.
Although this is still in the formative stages, we will be
happy to work with you on further developing that overarching
program.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me understand this because when a
project is underway or under construction, and the
groundbreaking has taken place and, therefore, we have a
project under construction, it seems to me you stop that
project only if you believe that project is not worthy. Is the
administration suggesting that the NAWS project is not a worthy
project?
Secretary Norton. The evaluation that was done was based on
identification of goals and seeing whether we were meeting the
goals of the project. It is the same kind of evaluation that is
taking place on Federal programs across the board. Based on
that approach, OMB found that this particular program fared
more poorly than other programs. They made the choice to put
the funding into the programs that did better in this kind of
an approach.
Senator Dorgan. But the distinction here is you are using
the word ``program,'' not project. The OMB described this
program as not meeting certain goals. It made no such judgment
about this project. Is that not correct?
Secretary Norton. This was based on, as we said, an overall
assessment of the effectiveness of this rural water project or
several rural water projects. It combines with an evaluation of
those in comparison to other departments' similar programs.
Senator Dorgan. Has Governor Hoven talked to you about this
issue?
Secretary Norton. Yes, he has.
Senator Dorgan. It is interesting to me, if you look at the
map, about where these cuts came. I will talk to you more about
that in the other subcommittee. But I am still not
understanding. I guess you are saying something to me that is
different now than what you said when you testified before the
Energy Committee. I think you are saying----
Secretary Norton. I am saying we have made progress in
getting some of these problems resolved.
Senator Dorgan. At which point would you then recommend
continuing funding of a project that is under construction?
Secretary Norton. Once we get this in place, we would be
focusing on fiscal year 2005 and working with you on getting
legislation put in place and then work on funding things on
that legislation.
Senator Dorgan. So the administration's recommendation is
that even if this project is finally determined to be worthy,
that we should delay it for a year?
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING
Secretary Norton. The findings of the program assessment
rating are that we need to look at those programs that are
working, that are providing what they are supposed to provide,
and to fund the things that are working. And this, by having
come out low on that rating, by not having clearly-defined
goals, means that we are going forward with something that is
not coming out as high on providing value to the taxpayers.
Senator Dorgan. But let me just--Mr. Chairman, I do not
know what your time situation is, but I do want to just finish
this point.
You know, Montana and North Dakota did not rush to
Washington to ask if we could host some floods in reservoirs
and so on. I mean, we did not beg Washington to have a Rhode
Island-sized flood come in North Dakota and stay there forever.
Washington asked us to be the host to a permanent flood of half
a million acres. So they built the dam, and we have a permanent
flood.
They said: ``In exchange for that, we will give you some
benefits.'' And, I mean, we would be crazy to say: ``Well,
bring this flood. And by the way, it will be no cost. We will
just lose half a million acres of land,'' good bottom land, by
the way.
But the Federal Government said: ``No, no. We will give you
some benefits.'' And we said: ``All right. That is a fair
trade,'' except we got the flood but never quite got all the
benefits.
The NAWS program, the Northwest Area Water Supply, program
is part of that. And for anybody to suggest to me that because
there are fewer people in North Dakota that it somehow does not
quite measure up, I mean, I think that is nuts. If that is what
OMB is saying, I am sorry, tell them to go back and read a
little history. We know we do not have as many people as New
York City does, but we know what the promise was. And the
people in North Dakota deserve good quality water.
Here, incidently, is a sample of the water. And some of it
looks like coffee. This is actually a little better looking.
But this is the kind of water we are trying to replace with the
NAWS program. And we do not want to wait another year, and we
are not going to wait another year. And I think what OMB has
done to us is a disaster. I mean, there is no excuse for what
the Office of Management and Budget has done. We want this
funded. We want it funded now. And we do not want to wait a
year. And I do not want somebody telling me they are going to
change the rules after we have already begun construction and
after the promise has been made.
So you and I will have other discussions about it. But you
are probably just required to defend OMB and defend this
budget. But I hope you know that what has happened in this
budget, at least with respect to this project, is fundamentally
wrong. And it is unfair to the people of North Dakota, who have
been told this project is going to help them get a good supply
of quality water.
One additional point--do you want to respond to that?
Secretary Norton. I think we have had a number of
conversations about this. So----
Senator Dorgan. And we will talk again in the other
subcommittee.
OVERHEAD
But one other point: I am very interested in pursuing with
a range of agencies the issue of how much in each agency is
represented by ``overhead.'' And that comes from a 1993
Presidential directive that asks all Federal agencies to
determine what their overhead was. Almost no Federal agencies
have complied with that. And I have been involved with some
others in trying to make sure that we do force Federal agencies
to comply.
The reason is simple. If we have to tighten our belt, and I
believe we do, I believe we are going to have to cut some
Federal spending. If we do that, I would prefer that we begin
to cut where businesses would cut. The first thing they would
cut is some overhead, some travel, some administrative burden.
But the fact is we cannot get at that in any of the Federal
agencies because they do not determine what their overhead is.
I would like, at least in this subcommittee, to ask you to
work with us to try to, for this agency, comply with the
Federal direction of 1993, which has not been complied with.
And I am not blaming your agency, because no agency has
complied with it. But I hope that we can work together to
understand what is the overhead burden, what is the
administrative overhead burden, in these agencies, your agency
and the various component parts of your agency.
I think it is important because, Mr. Chairman, as we begin
taking a look at funding levels, I would much prefer that we
fund critically needed programs such as Indian colleges, rather
than fund overhead that could well be cut in lean or in tough
times.
Secretary Norton. Senator, if I could say, that is a very
good question to ask. And it is something that has, frankly,
been frustrating for us as well. When you come in and say,
``Okay, here is the box of a program. Can't we look within that
box and figure out what is being spent that really does not
need to be spent?'' The way our accounting is currently
operating throughout most of the Department, we really cannot
see how much is actually spent on particular types of things.
ACTIVITY BASED COSTING
We are now moving towards something called activity-based
accounting or activity-based costing that will let us
understand that. And it will require each of the bureaus to say
not just ``We budgeted for this program and we spent it all,''
but ``Here is what we spent on travel. Here is what we spent on
printing. Here is what we spent on litigation,'' all the
different categories of expenditures.
That is something that is currently in place for the Bureau
of Land Management, and we are getting it into place for our
other bureaus. I think that will be very helpful for all of us
in trying to better manage.
We have also just implemented an across-the-board cut in
travel expenditures. So we are addressing some of those things.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Well, Madame Secretary, I am not
perpetually crabby. It is just that I feel very strongly about
tribal colleges, UTTC, about NAWS and some other issues. And I
look forward to working with you on these issues. And can we
work together to find out what we spend per horse and per mule,
just for fun?
Senator Burns. You are not going to like that figure.
Senator Dorgan. Actually more than just for fun. I think we
ought to know that, just as policymakers.
Secretary Norton. We will provide that information for you.
[The information follows:]
Wild Horse and Burro Program
For 2004, the BLM budget proposes $29.4 million to manage a wild
horse and burro population estimated at 57,000. This would represent a
cost-per-animal average of $516 per year. This total population
estimate includes 38,000 on the open range, and 19,000 in what BLM
refers to as the ``National Pipeline'', including 10,155 in
sanctuaries, 4,656 in maintenance facilities, and 4,303 in preparation
facilities. The budget supports such activities as monitoring
populations on the open range, gathers, holding costs, adoption
activities, and compliance checks.
Senator Burns. You are not going to like that horse figure.
I will tell you that. We have been involved in that over in
Montana. As you know, some of those wild horses and burros come
from that part of the country. And I will tell you, it is
something. I have some special projects in Montana.
POWDER RIVER BASIN EIS
We have an 11:15 conference coming up, Madame Secretary.
And I want to make that, I think all of us are involved in this
budget thing. Though, there are a couple of questions I want to
ask. We have been following the multi-year effort by the BLM on
the environmental impact statement in the Powder River Basin.
This has to do with coal bed methane. We want the EIS to be
completed in a comprehensive and responsible way. Could you
update us on the status of that EIS? And when can we expect any
kind of a record of decision?
Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
that is expected to be completed later this month.
Senator Burns. I assume you have all the resources that you
need to complete this and to get it off the board?
Secretary Norton. We have requested increases in this 2004
budget proposal for taking care of that, including inspection
and monitoring.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Burns. Let me also ask you about standardizing the
Forest Service and Department of the Interior stewardship
programs. Will you be using the same book in your procedures,
and everything else in the stewardship contracting? Tell me how
that is coming along.
Secretary Norton. We have had a great working relationship
with the Forest Service throughout our fire program. It is my
understanding that that is nearly completed to get the program
that the Forest Service has already been operating tuned so
that it can also accommodate our Department of the Interior
needs.
Senator Burns. Will you be offering some stewardship
contracts this year?
Secretary Norton. We certainly expect to be doing that very
quickly. In fact, can I let Lynn Scarlett respond to that? She
has been involved very directly in our fire management program.
Senator Burns. Please.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the
Forest Service and all our land management agencies to develop
the operating guidelines and principles for the stewardship
contract. We expect that to be completed this month. That will
give us the basis from which to move forward on contracts right
away. So yes, it is very much in our plans.
Senator Burns. In the areas where you have large
concentrations of forest lands, rather than grazing lands, do
you have any kind of assessment of what kind of fire season you
are looking at? And conditions, how are you looking in that
respect? Give Congress an idea of some of the challenges that
we may have to meet later on this summer.
Ms. Scarlett. Well, I have copies of the recent drought
maps. We get these every week. And I feel very optimistic,
because the drought map in the last couple of weeks has
improved dramatically over where it was in early March.
Unfortunately, in preparation for this hearing, I looked at the
drought map for this year in comparison with the drought map
for last year. We are generally much worse across the western
United States than we were last year. And especially in your
area of Montana, we see a tremendous drought that is now a
multi-year drought. So we are very concerned.
Senator Burns. We are in a different weather pattern up
there. We are hoping that June will bring the normal--where we
have a little more snowpack than we had a year ago, I can tell
you that. Our rains and moisture have been a little bit better
this spring. We just hold our breath and make sure our Junes
turn out the way traditional Junes do, and we will be okay.
ZORTMAN/LANDUSKY MINE RECLAMATION
In another area, I know you are aware of the Zortman/
Landusky Mine reclamation in north-central Montana. The State
of Montana holds approximately $60 million in bond for
reclamation. But the BLM and State DEQ joint SEIS recommends
reclamation exceeding this bond of approximately $33 million
over that bond number. $11 million is still needed to
supplement a trust, ensuring the water treatment facilities. It
can be operated in perpetuity.
It is my understanding that the Montana BLM office
identified this project as a top priority and requested
increased funding in its fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
budget to address these reclamation needs. Additionally, this
committee directed the Bureau to consider the project in the
formulation of the 2004 and 2005 budget requests. Why did the
Department not include this request in its final proposal in
the 2004 budget? And can you identify funding for your current
budget request to support these activities? In other words, are
you going to put some money into this?
Secretary Norton. Let me defer to John Trezise. But I think
we will have to get the detailed answer for you in writing.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, before he answers, I have to
run off to the Energy Committee markup.
Senator Burns. Okay.
Senator Dorgan. So let me thank the Secretary and the
Secretary's staff for being here.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Appreciate it. You can vote for me.
Senator Dorgan. I will do that. Careful what you ask for.
Senator Burns. All right.
Mr. Trezise. Senator Burns, this is a very difficult
problem and obviously one where a great deal of work is needed
to restore the Zortman/Landusky site and address the water
quality problems associated with the site. Work is currently
ongoing, of course, using the bond that was posted by the
mining company. Unfortunately, the bond is not adequate to
cover all costs, especially the long-term costs. The water
monitoring costs we will face for many decades.
As you say, the Montana office did recommend significant
funding in the 2003 and 2004 budgets for this project. We at
the Department and the Bureau headquarters are working with the
Montana State office to look at all the options about how we
can address this issue, both in the short term and, more
importantly, in the long term, which is where the bond money is
really going to be a problem. I think it would be useful for
the Bureau to come up and talk to you later in the spring about
the progress they have made in looking at options.
Senator Burns. Well, we look forward to that visit. Also, I
was talking to the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, and they
want to have a meeting with you. They have not been able to
secure one, Madame Secretary. I would suggest you sit down with
the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, go through some of the
concerns they have. Because they are in that drainage area off
of Zortman, not only on water, but also on land issues. I would
like for you to meet with them, if you possibly could.
Secretary Norton. I will try to make sure that somebody who
is familiar with the issues and can actually perhaps address
them better than I can is able to meet with them.
Senator Burns. I would suggest you sit in on the meeting,
but take your experts with you. That is the way we do things,
just a little hint.
Okay. We have more questions for you, and I am going to put
those in letter form. We would like to have a response.
We are looking at the overall funding. And, of course, we
do not know what is going to finally come out of the budget.
But we hope to have a budget. That is what that conference is
about at 11:15 today. We are going to talk about Going to the
Sun Road in Glacier Park, and also some Forest Service, and
stuff with fuel loads on our forest floors.
There is a reauthorization of the SMCRA activities, Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act. And, of course, surface
mining and State regulatory grants. We will put these in
question form. We will need your response before we finally go
to final markup on the Interior side of this bill.
Secretary Norton. We will be happy to provide you that
information.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. Okay. We appreciate you coming this morning.
And we will leave the record open for questions, from other
committee members.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
SMCRA REAUTHORIZATION
Question. The authority of OSM to collect the abandoned mine
reclamation fee established under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) expires on September 30, 2004. Many states out
West have paid a great deal in these fees which go into the Abandoned
Mine Reclamation fund abut have not received back anywhere near what we
put in. For example, Montana has paid in over $266 million but has only
gotten back about $100 million.
What is the Administration's position with respect to extending the
authority to collect this fee?
Answer. The Administration is seeking to extend fee collections
beyond September 30, 2004. We think that additional funds are necessary
to address the many remaining health and safety problems threatening
our citizens who live and recreate in coal country. OSM hopes to craft
a proposal that will concentrate funding on the highest priority
abandoned mine land problems affecting the largest number of people. We
have been working with our stakeholders (the States and Indian tribes,
as well as environmental groups, industry and members of Congress) to
develop an extension proposal.
Question. If you propose to extend SMCRA, does the Administration
support keeping the fee the same or will you propose increasing it?
Answer. The President's Budget assumed the extension of the fee at
its current rate. However, we continue to refine the proposal.
Question. Will there be anything in the proposal to deal with
states that have paid in a great deal but have not gotten much back?
Answer. The Administration is reviewing several options for paying
out AML funds to the States. States which have certified the completion
of coal mine land reclamation, like Montana, are of particular concern
to us. Our records show that as of September 30, 2002, over $275
million in AML fees has been collected from mining operators for coal
mined in Montana. Under SMCRA, 50 percent of those collections, or over
$137 million, are State Share funds targeted for projects in Montana,
of which $95 million has been distributed to the State of Montana for
grants. The remaining State share balance of $42.5 million is a
concern, and we hope to find ways to provide the payment of such funds
to Montana and to the other certified States.
Question. When will the Administration send its proposal to
Congress?
Answer. We're working diligently to develop recommendations for
Congress. We hope to have something ready by mid-summer.
STATE REGULATORY GRANTS
Question. As you know, the Office of Surface Mining provides grants
to states on a 50/50 cost share basis to regulate mining in their
states. This is a good deal for the Federal government, since if the
states did not regulate surface mining the Federal government would be
required to do it and pay 100 percent of these costs. I see that the
budget request for this activity is $57.6 million but that the states
asked for $64.4 million.
If we don't fund the full amount asked for by the states will it
lead to any serious problems such as legal challenges to state programs
based on their inability to carry out their regulatory requirements?
Answer. The amount requested in the President's Budget is a slight
increase from fiscal year 2003, and OSM believes that the requested
total will be sufficient to assist the States/Tribes. OSM is concerned
about the States and Tribes having adequate funding to meet their
requirements and will work with each individual State and Tribe to
ensure that their program needs are met. OSM will continue to closely
monitor the State programs, and State and Tribal funding requests and
expenditures, to identify and resolve any concerns.
Question. Do you expect that any states will turn the regulatory
program back over to the Federal government due to lack of funding?
Answer. OSM is not currently aware of any specific State or Tribe
seriously considering giving up regulatory primacy due to lack of
funding. We agree that it is possible that if funding were inadequate,
States might pursue this option. As previously mentioned, OSM will
continue to work with each State and Tribe to ensure that their
regulatory program needs are met.
Following the release of the NRC report, the agencies agreed to
form a standing technical team to address issues of mutual concern,
particularly those related to coal slurry impoundments. The group will
focus on NRC report recommendations related to mapping, engineering and
design standards, and monitoring requirements. Additionally, the
agencies have discussed the other recommendations of the NRC committee
and have identified priorities for future work. The standing joint OSM-
MSHA technical committee will begin addressing particular actions
needed to implement the NRC recommendations at its July 2002 meeting.
As these efforts are ongoing, neither OSM nor MSHA have yet developed
any regulatory proposals or guidelines based on the NRC report.
However, as the joint team's work progresses, one or both of the
agencies may develop additional requirements for impoundments.
At the same time, OSM is committed to working with the states and
others on these issues as well. OSM and MSHA plan to host a meeting
between representatives of the two agencies and the states to discuss
their role in developing standards and approaches to implement any new
requirements.
Not only is OSM working with MSHA, the states and other federal
entities, OSM is working on its own to address concerns surrounding the
safety of coal waste impoundments. After the Martin County Coal
Corporation impoundment failure, OSM developed and implemented a
regional plan designed to minimize the potential for future impoundment
breakthroughs into underground mines by:
--evaluating the factors contributing to the Martin County
impoundment breakthrough,
--developing criteria for evaluating existing high-risk impoundments
near underground mines,
--evaluating state program requirements and program implementation
with regard to impoundments, and
--ensuring effective state evaluation of existing high-risk
impoundments through oversight and technical assistance.
As part of its oversight responsibilities, OSM has made
impoundments a priority by initiating ongoing evaluations of state
programs to ensure that they are adequate and that they are effectively
implemented. A part of this effort includes a determination of whether
the states are effectively evaluating existing high-risk impoundments,
identifying problems, and adequately addressing those problems.
In providing technical assistance on this issue, OSM has made
resources available to the states to assist them in their identifying
and evaluating existing impoundments that are of high concern. In
addition, using its impoundment engineering expertise, and with input
from states and MSHA, OSM has developed a technical guidance document
with established criteria that can be used in re-evaluating existing
high-risk impoundments over or adjacent to underground mines. OSMS
provided this document to the states in July 2001.
Finally, OSM has worked to facilitate communication between State
and Federal agencies involved in regulating coal slurry impoundments
and related facilities. Through enhanced communication, coordination
and cooperation, OSM believes that many of the issues related to coal
waste impoundments can be resolved.
MMS ROYALTY-IN-KIND
Question. I see that MMS has greatly expanded its use of the
Royalty-In-Kind authority. Currently, over 80 percent of the oil
production from the Gulf of Mexico is taken ``in kind'' in order to
fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
How long will it take for MMS to fill up the SPR?
Answer. The SPR Fill Initiative is a joint project of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) to
fill the remaining capacity of the SPR utilizing RIK oil from Federal
leases in the Gulf of Mexico. For the majority of RIK oil committed to
the SPR Initiative, the DOI is responsible for supply side logistics of
taking the oil RIK at offshore leases and accomplishing delivery of the
oil to the account of the DOE at onshore market centers. The DOE is
responsible for taking onshore custody of the RIK oil and, through
exchange contracts, accomplishing the actual delivery and physical fill
at the SPR sites. Approximately 10 percent of RIK production is
directly transported from offshore leases to the DOE at an SPR site.
At current RIK delivery rates, the MMS expects to complete the RIK
oil supply side deliveries to the DOE's account by the end of fiscal
year 2005. However, the completion of supply side deliveries could be
delayed somewhat due to interruptions of production caused by
hurricanes and pipeline operation issues or by declines in physical
production at the leases.
Question. After SPR is filled, does the agency plan to continue to
take the bulk of its Gulf of Mexico royalty production ``in kind''
rather than ``in value?''
Answer. The MMS has adopted an asset management strategy in
administering mineral revenues. A key aspect of this strategy is the
strategic utilization of two asset management options--royalty-in-value
or RIK--for the purpose of increasing benefits to the Government. One
of the important determinants in making the decision on which option to
utilize is the opportunity to increase revenues to the Treasury.
Because the oil markets play an important role in the economics of the
decision making process, it is difficult to forecast how much of the
Gulf of Mexico oil royalties will be taken in kind in fiscal year 2006.
However, the MMS will be well positioned to continue to have a
significant RIK program in the Gulf of Mexico that includes small
refiners and competitive sales.
Question. Since taking the royalty ``in kind'' eliminates, for the
most part, questions over how to value the oil, does the agency believe
that expanding the RIK program makes sense over the long term?
Answer. The results of the current RIK program to fill SPR have
been positive from the standpoint of taking oil in kind. However, we
have not traded this oil for value on the open market. Therefore, we
don't know if we can increase revenues to the Treasury. We continue to
evaluate the RIK efforts; if the results continue to be positive, we
believe there is a good future for the RIK program.
OIA/STATUS OF COMPACT NEGOTIATIONS
Question. The current Compact of Free Association between the
United States and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia expires at the end of this fiscal year. Negotiations have
been going on for some time regarding a new Compact between the
parties. Once these negotiations are concluded Congress will need to
pass legislation to put the new Compact into effect. I am concerned
that time is running out to get this legislation through the Congress
by the end of the fiscal year.
When will parties reach agreement on a legislative package that
will be sent to the Congress?
Answer. The State Department has generally reached agreement with
the freely associated states and, in fact, a signing ceremony was
concluded with the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The package has
been transmitted to Congress.
Question. Does the Administration have a plan if there is further
delay and the new Compact can't be enacted by Congress before the end
of the fiscal year?
Answer. While it is not considered a good alternative, the
Administration is prepared to deal with such an eventuality. There is
sufficient budget authority in the President's fiscal year 2004
proposal to work with the Congress on various options. In developing
these options, it is extremely important to the Administration that the
essence of the new agreement, including greater accountability and more
targeted use of U.S. assistance, be incorporated. It is also important
to the Administration that options deal with the problem of impacts to
U.S. insular areas and, finally, that any considered options not be
viewed as a disincentive to the quickest possible implementation of the
new agreements.
FWS/CONSULTATION ON FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS
Question. A critical part of the National Fire Plan is the effort
to reduce hazardous fuels on our forests and rangelands. Many of these
projects require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under
the Endangered Species Act before they can be implemented. In order to
ensure adequate resources to accomplish this work, the Committee gave
the Forest Service and other Interior Department agencies the ability
to transfer fire funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service for
consultations on these projects.
How is this effort proceeding?
Answer. The Service developed a cooperative agreement with the
Bureau of Land Management shortly after passage of the fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill to provide reimbursement for any consultation
support provided to DOI bureaus in support of the National Fire Plan. A
similar agreement was executed with the Forest Service shortly after
passage of Public Law 107-13. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Fish
and Wildlife Service recruited approximately 65 temporary/term
employees to support an anticipated consultation workload increase
associated with the National Fire Plan. The highest priority work for
these new employees is to provide ESA consultation support to the
Forest Service and DOI fire management agencies.
Question. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service put in place adequate
resources to ensure that fuels reduction projects receive their
consultations in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes. The biologists hired in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 to
provide consultation services to the fire management agencies have been
sufficient to respond to the consultation workload generated by
projects supporting the National Fire Plan. We are not aware of any
significant delays to National Fire Plan projects that were caused by
section 7 consultations; however, some non-National Fire Plan projects
may have been delayed as a result of the Service diverting consultation
resources to National Fire Plan projects. On June 5, 2003, we proposed
Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
Regulations to help streamline the National Fire Plan consultation
process and increase the Service's capability to help focus on these
non-National Fire Plan actions (68 Federal Register 33805).
Question. How much money has been transferred to the agency for
this work?
Answer. To date, the USFS has made $7,500,000 available to the
Service, and the BLM, $8,000,000.
GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD
Question. The fiscal year 2003 bill included additional funds for
staff and equipment at Glacier National Park. These funds will
hopefully enable the Park to open the Going-to-the-Sun Road as quickly
and as safely as possible each spring. Can you tell me whether these
additional resources will be in place in time to have an impact on this
year's road opening? Are funds included in the fiscal year 2004 budget
to continue these enhanced operations next year?
Answer. Glacier National Park staff has already begun seven-day-a-
week operations on the west side of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. East
side seven-day-a-week operations began May 10, 2003. In terms of
equipment, Glacier NP has already contracted for an excavator to be
used for snow removal this year. In addition, the park is leasing two
additional pieces of snow removal equipment for this season. As part of
the initiative to assure employee and visitor safety, the park will be
procuring a GIS location system with funds received from Congress this
fiscal year. Finally, this effort at Glacier NP is part of an overall,
ongoing strategy to better manage the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun
Road and the above-stated efforts will continue into fiscal year 2004
and beyond.
Prior to the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 bill, the fiscal
year 2004 request identified a $500,000 operating increase for the
Spring opening of Going-to-the-Sun Road. This recurring funding was
included within the additional park funding provided by Congress for
fiscal year 2003 and continues in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
Question. I know the Administration's budget request projects an
increase for the park roads program to $300 million in fiscal year 2004
as part of the reauthorization of TEA-21. Is it your understanding that
this amount will be sufficient to complete the Going-to-the-Sun Road
rehabilitation in a timely manner?
Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 articulated a
Park Roads and Parkways Program (PRPP) funding level for National Park
Service (NPS) of $300 million in fiscal year 2004, $310 million in
fiscal year 2005, and $320 million annually in fiscal year 2006-2009.
This would nearly double current funding levels of $165 million
annually. Part of President Bush's ``Park Legacy Project'' is to
address the NPS backlog of maintenance needs across the Service. A
significant portion of the backlog is in roads.
The NPS seeks to continue the progress made under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to restore,
build, and reshape its transportation system, by giving priority and
focus to the following categories:
--Category I ($270-$310 million/annually).--Restores the condition of
the existing roads to ``good,'' system wide. Supports President
Bush's commitment to address the NPS deferred maintenance
backlog. Deploys sound asset management strategies to optimize
life cycle cost.
--Category II ($3-$10 million/annually).--Builds the next logical
phase of the Congressionally mandated parkways. Continues
construction of the Foothills Parkway ``missing link'' and
begins the construction of multi-use trails around three urban
areas along the Natchez Trace Parkway.
--Category III ($20 million/annually).--Continues to plan and build
alternative transportation systems. Deploys integrated visitor
transportation systems using a combination of technologies,
facilities, and community transport management strategies.
Historically, these categories are administrative in nature only
and are not legislatively directed to allow maximum flexibility to move
dollars across categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates
and to meet emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities.
Rebuilding the Going-to-the-Sun Highway is a complex multi-million
and multi year-construction event with an identified need of some $150-
$180 million. Much of this need goes beyond bridge and pavement
condition. Latest studies reflect an ambitious schedule that would take
approximately $18-$25 million annually over some eight years.
Category I funds are distributed by formula based on miles,
condition, average daily traffic and traffic accidents. The logic is to
deploy sound asset management strategies to spend the dollars at the
right time and at the right place to get the best return on available
funds. The Service has many parks with large road maintenance needs.
The Administration's proposed $270-$310 million annually means the
Intermountain Region will receive some $60-$70 million annually, an
increase of $30 to $35 million over the current level. Accordingly, the
NPS is challenged with making headway with such large park needs as the
Going-to-the-Sun Highway rehabilitation while balancing the mix of
projects across the Service and Intermountain Region so as to not
compromise President Bush's commitment to address the deferred
maintenance backlog and ensure the system is in ``good'' condition
system wide.
The President's Budget would provide significant funding for the
Going-to-the-Sun Road at a rate about as fast as could be efficiently
obligated. Even at this accelerated rate, however, such an extensive
project would be in all probability pushed past the end of the next
Highway Trust Fund Reauthorization (fiscal year 2009).
Question. Will the Administration's legislative proposal for TEA-21
reauthorization include language that specifically addresses the needs
of large projects like the Going-to-the-Sun Road?
Answer. Currently, the Administration's legislative proposal for
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) reauthorization
has not been completed and formally submitted to Congress. We
understand the package will be forwarded in the middle of May 2003.
The Administration's legislative proposal does not include specific
language for large projects. The funding for the Park Roads and
Parkways Program (PRPP) has historically not been legislatively
identified for a specific area or category to allow flexibility across
categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates and meet
emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities. The PRPP has been
guided by program goals such as keeping the system from further
deteriorating, completing four of the six Congressionally mandated
parkways and completing pilot parks to explore and implement
alternative transportation systems. The NPS has proposed to continue to
focus on these three areas with the dollars made available. Given the
large increases proposed, the PRPP will be able to address the needs of
large projects, like the Going-to-the-Sun Road, without requiring
specific language.
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE
Question. It is my understanding that the Office of Management and
Budget has completed its review of the engineering report for the Ft.
Peck/Dry Prairie water project in Montana.
How soon will the engineering report be transmitted to Congress?
Answer. The Final Engineering Report was transmitted to Congress in
a letter signed by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science on May
6, 2003.
Question. Will the Department be in a position to obligate funds
this year? If not, why not?
Answer. The likelihood is high that funds can be obligated this
fiscal year. Contracts have been negotiated for obligation of funds and
work plans are being developed by Fort Peck Tribe and by Dry Prairie.
Funds may then be obligated for non-construction activities, a process
that may take about a month to complete. Funds for construction
activities may be obligated in August/September of 2003, which is after
the Final Engineering report sits for a mandatory 90 days from the time
it was transmittal to the Congress (May 6, 2003).
Question. Can you tell me why no funds were requested for this
project in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. It has been Reclamation's position, as articulated by the
Commissioner of Reclamation on this and other rural water projects,
that, given limited funding, Reclamation does not support starting
construction of new projects to the detriment of projects already under
construction.
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
Question. Pursuant to the President's Management Agenda, the
Department has been studying whether or not it makes sense to outsource
certain Federal jobs.
Can you tell us where you are in the process?
Answer. DOI has completed review/study of 1,079 FTE as of mid-April
2003. We are in the process of conducting seven full A-76 competitive
sourcing cost comparisons. DOI is on track to complete competitive
sourcing studies on 15 percent (3,041) of the FTE listed in their
fiscal year 2000 FAIR Act Inventory by the end of 2003.
Question. How many positions has the Department decided to study?
Answer. DOI has committed to a cumulative ``soft target'' of 25
percent (5,068) by the end of fiscal year 2004.
Question. When will these studies be completed, and when will
decisions be made about whether to outsource?
Answer. The study results of the remaining 1962 for fiscal year
2003 will be completed by December 2003. The decision to remain in-
house or contract with a private sector source will also be made around
December 2003. The studies for fiscal year 2004 (an additional 2,027
for a total of 5,068 FTE) will begin October 2003 and the results will
be announced in first quarter fiscal year 2005 (October/November 2004).
Question. What has been the cost of the studies throughout the
Department?
Answer. As of June, 2003, the Department's estimate on the cost of
studies and other related costs for fiscal year 2003 was $3.3 million.
This estimate includes the following:
BLM--$886,000 in study costs as of June 2003
OSM--zero as all studies were performed in house
NPS--$1.6 million anticipated costs for 2003 as reflected in a July
11, 2003 reprogramming
BIA--$400,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003)
GS--$160,000 in study costs as of June 2003
MMS--$74,000 in study costs as of June 2003
FWS--$200,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003)
For internal purposes these amounts were reported to appropriations
staff on June 6, 2003.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--CBM EIS FOR MONTANA
Question. I have been following the BLM's multi-year effort in the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River
Region of Montana with a great deal of anticipation and interest. We
have worked with the Department to secure additional funding above past
budget request figures to ensure that adequate environmental studies
would be completed and that the EIS would be done in as responsible a
manner as possible.
Could you update us on the status of the EIS, and when can we
expect a record of decision?
Answer. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Statewide Oil
and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment to the Powder River and Billings
Resource Management Plans was signed on April 30, 2003.
Prior to signing the ROD, the Director of BLM resolved all
protests, including 21 protest letters that addressed issues on the
Montana side, 76 protest letters that addressed issues on the Wyoming
side, and 98 letters that addressed issues in both states.
In order to resolve the protests, the BLM needed to determine the
validity of each protest filed, prepare a written decision, and set
forth the reasons for the decision. The decisions were sent to the
protesting parties by certified mail in April 2003.
In addition, 400 faxes and 18,000 emails were received during the
protest period. Since letters of protest were required to be sent to
the Bureau Director, faxes and emails were not valid protests and did
not require individual responses.
Question. I assume we have completed the need for resource planning
dollars for this specific EIS. Does the current fiscal year 2004 budget
submission include adequate funding in the oil and gas base program to
support development in the Powder River Region of Montana in fiscal
year 2004?
Answer. The proposed funding for fiscal year 2004 will be adequate
based on the number of Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) we have
received so far in 2003 and expect to receive by the end of the fiscal
year. The 2004 budget request also factored in the level of demand for
2004 that was projected at the time the budget was formulated. If
actual demand in 2004 deviates from this projection, BLM will consider
any necessary budgetary adjustments to ensure appropriate support for
development of Coalbed Natural Gas in the Powder River Basin of
Montana.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--MONTANA GAS PERMITTING
Question. Madam Secretary, in the face of natural gas prices
skyrocketing once again to record levels, and questionable domestic
energy security, I applaud your leadership to increase responsible and
reasonable domestic production.
It is my understanding that the funding increases for energy
permitting that your Department has proposed--and this Committee has
supplemented--are resulting in real results on the ground. I am told
the Department is planning on announcing a substantial number of new
gas leases being permitted in eastern Montana as early as this week.
Could you please update us on the status of this increased
permitting activity and give us a sense of whether other regions of the
country are seeing similar results?
Answer. In Montana, BLM expects to process 24 percent more APDs
than in 2002. BLM has already processed 68 percent of the 279 APDs
expected in 2003. The Miles City field office has in the last month
received 99 APDs for coalbed natural gas.
The following table shows the APDs processed in fiscal year 2002
and so far in fiscal year 2003 relative to the fiscal year 2003 goal.
It also gives an estimate of the number of APDs to be processed in
fiscal year 2004 in Montana and other states with APD activity. This
table reflects total oil and gas APDs, not just those associated with
Coalbed Natural Gas.
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
---------------------------------------------------
2003 actual
2002 (as of 6/ 2003 2004
actual 30/03) planned estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.................................................. 149 66 245 260
Colorado.................................................... 264 179 240 275
Montana..................................................... 225 189 279 920
New Mexico.................................................. 1,134 912 1,185 1,335
Utah........................................................ 512 294 450 538
Wyoming..................................................... 1,787 1,043 2,750 3,400
Other states................................................ 564 46 351 272
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 4,635 2,729 5,500 7,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I am told that the Bureau of Land Management is
interested in addressing the concern that some offices are seemingly
much more inefficient than other offices in addressing the backlog of
energy applications.
Can you speak to the Bureau's work to explore methods to increase
efficiency and predictability in the permitting process?
Answer. BLM holds its field managers accountable for annual
workload targets and timeliness of responses to authorization requests
from industry. BLM is using cost management data along with the 2002
customer survey results to pinpoint where APD processing delays are
occurring and to identify how to prevent any further delays. In
addition, the BLM is taking several steps which will improve the APD
processing time frames. On April 14, 2003 the BLM Washington Office
issued 5 Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvement.
These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of
Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1 which specify minimum standards of
performance for oil and gas operators, Comprehensive Strategies, and
revision of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'', a reference book used by oil
and gas operators to comply with surface use standards for oil and gas
operations.
The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003-146) asked the Field
Offices to supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of
approval currently being used. The Washington Office will then develop
standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop
reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval. This will help oil
and gas operators by eliminating inconsistencies across the Bureau.
The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003-147) identifies some ``best
practices'' being used in some Field Offices concerning Cultural
Resources. All Field Offices are instructed to use these ``best
practices'' to help streamline the APD processing time frames.
In July 2003, over 50 percent of pending permit applications were
incomplete. BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003-
151) and the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'' (IM 2003-153), two references
used by oil and gas operators to comply with standards concerning
surface use for oil and gas operations. Clarifying these two references
will make it easier for oil and gas applicants to submit a complete
application, thus reducing APD delays.
The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003-152) outlines some
strategies Field Offices can employ to streamline the APD processing
time. This IM publicizes to all BLM Field Offices some ``best
practices'' for APD processing being used by other BLM Field Offices.
PILT--PROPOSED MOVEMENT FROM BLM TO THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL
Question. Madam Secretary, this year's request includes a proposal
to move funding for PILT out of the BLM account and shift the program
to the Department level.
Setting aside the request's decrease of $18.5 million from the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level, which concerns me greatly, could you
explain the Department's proposal to shift this program to the
Department level?
Answer. PILT payments are principally based on public lands in
local jurisdictions that are Federally-administered by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other
Federal agencies, in addition to the BLM. Funding for PILT is not
singularly attributed to one Department agency. The program is being
consolidated at the Department level in recognition of the fact that
PILT payments are made not only for BLM lands, but also for the lands
of these other Federal agencies, and to ensure that appropriate
emphasis can be directed to this program.
Question. The Interior Appropriations Act has historically capped
the administrative costs for the PILT program at $400,000? Will the
Department be able to live within this cap, or hopefully reduce the
administrative costs further?
Answer. Yes, the Department will be able to continue administration
of the PILT program at the $400,000 level.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--ENERGY AND MINERALS
Question. Madam Secretary, I notice your budget for the BLM
essentially asks for level funding for Energy and Minerals production,
rather than including a substantial increase, as has been the case in
the past two requests.
I whole-heartedly applaud your efforts to increase domestic
production, but I am curious if the lack of increase in this year's
request for Energy and Minerals was based upon budget limitations or
the reality that we are doing everything we can to address the current
permitting backlogs and related activity.
Answer. Funding increases in the last two years have brought BLM's
Energy and Minerals program up to $106 million in 2003, an increase of
34 percent over the 2001 level of $79 million. These increases--which
have been generally in line with the Administration's requests and
reflect the high priority the Administration places on energy
development--have been built into the ``base'' for the fiscal year 2004
request. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BLM's Energy and
Minerals Management program is adequate to reduce the current APD
backlog, based on the estimated number of APDs that the Bureau expects
to receive during 2003 and 2004. The BLM has had indications that some
operators are planning to submit large numbers of APDs in the future,
especially in the Powder River Basin and in other areas with potential
coalbed natural gas development. However, based on past experience, the
BLM cannot count on this increase in activity. It is not uncommon for
an operator to tell the Bureau that plans for the following year
include drilling large numbers of wells, only to have the operator
change his/her priorities the following year, and not drill any of the
wells that were planned. The BLM has planned for a 27 percent increase
in activity over 2003. An increase greater than 27 percent would likely
result in a growing APD backlog, while an increase of less than 27
percent would allow BLM to further reduce the existing backlog beyond
what has been anticipated in 2004. Also, to the extent that some of
BLM's efforts to improve efficiencies are successful, BLM could see
additional reductions in the APD backlog.
Question. Could you detail some of the initiatives that the BLM
will be undertaking in fiscal year 2004 that are designed to increase
domestic energy production while also diversifying our energy
portfolio?
Answer. The National Energy Policy specifically directs BLM to
address several key issues that are vital to the current and future
status of the Nation's energy program. In response, the BLM has
developed a plan that will continue to be implemented in 2004. In
Alaska, BLM will conduct a second biennial lease for oil and gas in the
northeast sector of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). BLM
is also pursuing the expansion of the area offered for lease to include
the northwest and southern section of NPR-A. BLM plans to increase
support for coalbed natural gas development in areas beyond the Powder
River Basin and to continue support for active coal leases to provide
these fuels that are so vital for power generation.
In order to respond to the demand for diverse energy sources, the
BLM plans to process and approve twice the number of geothermal permits
to drill in 2004 that are processed in 2003. Also, the BLM will
concentrate on processing geothermal applications for development on
U.S. Forest Service public lands in California, Oregon, and Washington,
and clear new areas managed by the Bureau for geothermal leasing in
Utah, New Mexico, Idaho, and Arizona. BLM's efforts are expected to
result in a 15 percent increase in geothermal power plants.
In Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, BLM plans to update land use plans and
perform environmental studies needed to respond to applications for
wind energy development. BLM staff will also be responding to demand
for access across BLM lands for transmission lines and pipelines
related to renewable and non-renewable energy development. BLM
recognizes that timely issuance of these right-of-ways is important to
the economic viability of these projects.
BLM is also incorporating in Resource Management Plans the
information contained in a new report titled, ``Opportunities for Near-
Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western United
States''. This report (released in April 2003) identifies 35 ``top
pick'' sites in six western states for near-term development of
geothermal energy for power generation. Of the 35 sites, ten are in
Nevada, nine are in California, seven are in Oregon, and three each are
located in New Mexico, Utah, and Washington. The report was prepared
for the BLM and the Department of Energy by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
Question. In my experience, these initiatives are largely supported
by State and local governments. In your opinion, is the Department
working well with local government entities and are they generally
supportive of these efforts?
Answer. BLM field offices work closely in the development of land
use plans, which provide the framework for managing the exploration and
development of energy. In addition, State governments are often
cooperating agencies in the preparation of major environmental impact
statements (EIS). In the case of the coalbed natural gas development
EISs, both Montana and Wyoming State agencies assisted in the
preparation or review of these important environmental documents. State
agencies with permitting authority, such as Montana's Board of Oil and
Gas Conservation (MBOGC) and Montana's Department of Environmental
Quality, are closely involved in establishing operating requirements
and mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate hazards associated
with coalbed natural gas development. BLM and MBOGC review and approve
Water Management Plans for each project in order to support the goal of
developing coalbed natural gas in an environmentally sound manner.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--FIRE FUNDING
Question. Your budget request includes a $36 million increase for
fire suppression activities. I support your desire to bolster this
account to avoid the inefficient process of routinely borrowing against
other Department accounts to offset suppression costs.
Can you explain the projections the Department used to support this
increase?
Answer. The budget request for suppression operations assumes that
2004 will be an average year for wildland fire activity. The request is
based on the most recent 10-year average cost for fire suppression
operations, as adjusted for inflation. For the 2004 request, the 10-
year period covers the years 1993 through 2002. The actual cost for
fire suppression for each year was converted into 2002-comparable
dollars, using the approved Gross Domestic Product non-Defense
deflators as the basis for the adjustments. The inflation-adjusted
costs were added together, and the sum was divided by ten to calculate
the annual average of $195.3 million.
Question. We have had numerous discussions within this
Subcommittee, and in both the Energy and Natural Resources and Budget
Committees, to address the problem of borrowing against other accounts
to fight fires. This practice functionally crippled the U.S. Forest
Service last year and caused some problems for Interior as well.
Could you explain how the Department was impacted, and what steps
have been taken to minimize the disruption to core programs?
Answer. The impact of borrowing funds from other accounts to pay
for wildland firefighting has not disrupted Interior operating
programs. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to draw on
construction and land acquisition accounts with significant unobligated
balances. Borrowing from these accounts has enabled Interior to avoid
borrowing from operating accounts that could impede or disrupt on-the-
ground operational activities such as resource protection, park and
refuge operations, and BIA school operations.
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are in the process
of developing a large fire cost reduction action plan. The plan will
respond to Congressional direction included with the 2003 appropriation
and will build upon previous reports by the National Academy of Public
Administration and the National Association of State Foresters. It will
address the roles of agency line officers and incident commanders as
well as changes in wildfire situation analyses, financial management,
and operational actions. We expect that the recommendations in the
draft plan will result in operational savings that will result in
savings to the taxpayer and a reduced need to rely on transfers from
other accounts for emergency funding.
TRUST REFORM REORGANIZATION
Question. Last year the Department proposed an organizational
restructuring to handle the Department's Indian Trust responsibilities.
This proposal met with concern by some in the tribal community and a
robust consultation process was the result.
Could you update the subcommittee on your current actions to
organize the Department's trust reform responsibilities and give us a
roadmap of what you feel are the next logical steps to be pursued by
the Department?
Answer. The new organizational structure for the BIA and OST
provides a single executive sponsor for trust reform; enhance
beneficiary services; ensure accountability; and emphasize Economic
Development, Self-Governance and Self-Determination activities.
Both BIA and OST are working aggressively to implement the
reorganization. The Departmental Manual to formalize the reorganization
was issued on April 21, 2003. OST and BIA are determining personnel
selections for key management positions. OST has initiated recruitment
of Trust Officers to be placed in, or in close proximity to, the BIA
agencies with the highest level of trust activities and recurring trust
income. BIA and OST have established a joint implementation
coordination team that meets regularly to discuss issues related to
implementing the reorganization as efficiently and effectively as
possible.
The reorganization focuses on the BIA and OST fiduciary
responsibilities to tribal and individual Indian beneficiaries. The BIA
will retain its responsibilities relating to land and natural resource
management because of its demonstrated expertise in this area of the
trust. OST will retain its financial trust asset management and
statutory oversight duties, and expand its role to provide beneficiary
representation in all aspects of fiduciary operations and oversight.
OST's Trust Officers and Regional Trust Administrators will provide
local presence to support beneficiary services and ensure the proper
management of fiduciary trust assets.
The reorganization of trust functions in the BIA and OST was
developed after detailed analysis of the prior organization and a
yearlong consultation process with tribal leaders. This was, perhaps,
the most extensive consultation effort ever undertaken by the senior
management level at the Department on any issue relating to Indian
Country. Over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided a range of
proposals and recommendations. The new organization reflects a
synthesis of the views heard during the consultation process. It will
meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every
level, and operate with people trained in the principles of fiduciary
trust management.
The Department recently issued a Comprehensive Trust Management
Plan to address trust reform. In addition to work outlined in the Plan
to move forward on trust improvement initiatives, the Department is
also actively engaged in the historical accounting for individual
Indian account holders. Completion of a yearlong project to document
trust business processes provides the Department with the information
necessary to begin a major re-engineering task of these processes. The
re-engineering or ``To-Be'' process as it is known is an integral part
of the Comprehensive Trust management Plan.
Question. Do you have any recent indication from the Court that
moving forward with the reorganization is timely, or adequate to
address the current problems?
Answer. We have not received any response from the Court regarding
the reorganization.
FISH AND WILDLIFE GRANT PROGRAMS
Question. The Department has proposed two new grant programs over
the last two years called the Landowner Incentive Program and the
Private Stewardship Grants Program. There were some difficulties
establishing eligibility requirements and criteria for allocating these
funds.
What is the status of these two programs now? Are funds getting out
the door?
Answer. The Secretary announced the approval of State Landowner
Incentive Program proposals from 42 States in the amount of $34.8
million on February 25, 2003. Funds will be made available through
grants to these States once they submit their complete package of grant
agreement papers and the Service signs them.
Of the 42 States, 39 have programs approved for Tier 1 grants
(emphasis on building a program infrastructure), and 22 are approved
for Tier 2 grants (on-the-ground conservation work). As of May 28, four
Tier 1 LIP grants were signed and are now active in the States of
Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska. A Tier 2 grant is active in
Minnesota.
The Service has received additional grant documentation from eight
other States for Tier 1 grants (Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey,
South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), and two States for
Tier 2 grants (Nebraska and South Carolina). The Service anticipates
these additional 10 programs will be awarded grants in June. Most of
the remaining States are nearing the end of their State fiscal years
(June 30), and the Service expects most will establish grants for their
approved programs later in the summer.
The grant awards for the Private Stewardship Grants Program were
announced on May 28, 2003. More than $9.4 million will be awarded under
this innovative program to individuals and groups to undertake
conservation projects on private lands for endangered, threatened, and
other at-risk species. The Fish and Wildlife Service spent additional
time working with States and potential grant applicants to help them
understand the new program and its requirements. Project proposals were
originally due to the Service's Regional Offices by December 1, 2002,
but after many applicants requested more time, the due date was
extended to January 15, 2003, providing the public more than 100 days
to develop and submit project proposals. We do not anticipate having
such a long application period this year, and anticipate being able to
award grants at an earlier date in the spring of 2004.
Question. How many projects have been funded thus far?
Answer. Of the 42 States approved for Landowner Incentive Program
grants to fund their programs, the States of Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,
and Nebraska have Tier 1 grants in place; Nebraska and South Carolina
have Tier 2 grants. Tier 1 grants are small (up to $180,000), and
emphasize agency infrastructure and capability building. Most on-the-
ground conservation projects will be conducted in the 22 States
approved for the larger Tier 2 grants. The Service will act to award
grants for these approved programs once it receives the State
documents. We awarded approximately $9.4 million to about 113 projects
in some 42 states ranging from Alaska to New York.
Question. Will the Committee have the track record of
accomplishments that we can evaluate how to fund these programs in
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. While some Landowner Incentive Program projects will be
initiated in the States this summer, the Service will not receive the
first annual performance reports for these grants until the summer or
fall of 2004. These reports will describe accomplishments and are due
after the first year of the project period. As a point of interest,
there are 28 States and 6 Territories that did not receive any Tier 2
conservation project funding in fiscal year 2003. Many of these are
eager to gain initial funding to start projects with private landowners
in their jurisdictions.
The Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to provide the Committee
with a list of projects selected for funding through the Private
Stewardship Grants Program including information on the objectives to
be reached through the funding of each project. At a later date, a full
analysis of the accomplishments of implementing these projects under
the Private Stewardship Grants Program can be provided.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
ALASKA CONVEYANCE PROGRAM
Question. An issue of concern to myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski
is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management's Alaska Conveyance
program. As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native
allotments and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood
Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. That
task has not been completed.
This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska
and our Native groups from developing their resources and furthering
the economic development of the State. Language included in the fiscal
year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill directs the Bureau to develop a
plan to ensure that allotments and conveyances are completed by 2009. I
would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its
obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009.
I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the
BLM in this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and I commit to providing the BLM the resources it
needs to develop this plan.
Answer. BLM is developing the plan required in the 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations bill, and is exploring options for improving the
conveyance process. A Senate hearing on this issue is scheduled to take
place in Anchorage on August 6, 2003.
ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT
Question. Another issue is the National Park Service's proposed
regulations concerning the issuance and administration of commercial
use authorizations in national parks. As expressed to you in a February
6, 2003 letter from Senator Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, and
myself, these proposed regulations fail to comply with the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The 1980 law is the
controlling authority on public lands in Alaska and any Park Service
regulations must conform with this law. I would like your assurance
that the Department and the Park Service are committed to working with
the State of Alaska, interested parties, and Alaska Native Groups in
developing regulations that are consistent with the 1980 law.
Answer. The draft regulations were published for comment in the
Federal Register (Volume 67, Number 229) on November 27, 2002 as 36 CFR
Part 52. Though the draft regulations do not reference the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), it has
always been our understanding that they must conform to ANILCA as they
are applied in Alaska. The draft regulations implement Section 418 of
the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of
1998 (16 USC 5901 et seq.). Section 415 (c) of the same law states:
``ANILCA.--Nothing in this title amends, supersedes, or otherwise
affects any provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) relating to revenue-producing
visitor services.''
Comments were received from organized groups, their members,
individual operators, and from within the NPS. The National Park
Service intends to establish a multi-disciplinary work group under the
umbrella of the Secretary's Concession Management Advisory Board
(Board), covered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to review
the comments and develop a second draft rule. The work group will
consist of interagency personnel, representatives of private sector
interested parties including affected commercial operators in Alaska,
and designated officials of the Board. This approach will allow for
consideration of the business need for a predictable, stable platform
while ensuring consistency with the preservation and conservation of
park resources. Recommendations of the work group will roll-up to the
full Advisory Board in a public meeting and this consultation will
occur prior to drafting the next published rule.
DENALI NATIONAL PARK
Question. Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its
draft backcountry management plan. I am concerned that some of the
alternatives, if implemented, would restrict public access to our
parks. Access to public lands is an issue I have struggled to protect
first as a Solicitor in your Department, in the Alaska State House, and
in my 34 years in the Senate. I will oppose any plan which imposes
unnecessary limits on the public's right to visit their parks.
I understand that Denali's Superintendent and his staff have held
public hearings and meetings on this management plan. I encourage these
efforts in order to ensure that the final plan balances the protection
of our natural resources with the public's right to access for
recreational, economic, and social purposes.
Answer. Public enjoyment of Denali National Park and Preserve is
extremely important. The National Park Service emphasizes this point in
the first chapter of the park's Draft Backcountry Management Plan. One
of the primary objectives of the new plan is to: ``provide for the
public's maximum freedom of use and enjoyment of the park's backcountry
and wilderness in a manner that is consistent with park purposes and
the protection of park resources and values.'' Consistent with this
objective, the National Park Service does not intend to impose
unnecessary limits on the public's right to visit or enjoy their park.
Meeting the Congressional direction to provide for enjoyment while
at the same time protecting Denali National Park and Preserve's
resources and values, requires the National Park Service to manage
access and use. This management is not intended to unnecessarily
restrict the public's right of access. Quite the opposite, careful
implementation of the alternatives in the draft plan will provide for
more visitor access, and will accommodate greater numbers of visitors
than are accommodated today under current management strategies. The
National Park Service will carefully evaluate, and appropriately
incorporate, all of the public comments received on the draft plan to
ensure that the final plan balances the protection of our natural
resources with the public's right to access for recreational, economic,
and social purposes.
The alternatives in the Draft Backcountry Management Plan were
developed in collaboration with the public over the past four years.
The National Park Service first held a series of public scoping
meetings in 1999 in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, and
McKinley Village to define issues and impact topics to address in the
plan. Approximately 150 people attended the meetings and the NPS
received 65 written comments. The NPS next sent a preliminary
alternatives newsletter to 2,000 addresses on the park mailing list in
January 2001, outlining ideas for alternatives. This newsletter was
followed up with open house meetings in Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy. After receiving comments
on the newsletter and in the meetings, the NPS continued to meet
frequently and solicit feedback from interest groups representing such
diverse park constituencies as aviation, snow machine users,
mountaineering guides, conservation organizations, and the State of
Alaska. Information from these ongoing contacts shaped the alternatives
in the draft plan printed in February 2003.
After publishing the draft plan, the National Park Service held six
informational workshops in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Wasilla, Talkeetna/
Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy during March 2003 to help the public
understand the draft plan and its implications. These workshops were
followed in April by public hearings in each of those communities and
in Lake Minchumina. In addition, all individuals who had previously
expressed interest were personally notified by mail and telephone of
the draft plan's release.
Opportunities for public comment were available through May 30,
2003 by mail, e-mail, and directly through the park web site as well as
at the public hearings. Park staff will continue contacts with
interested groups and individuals as they produce the final plan.
SPRUCE BARK BEETLES
Question. I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration
has taken in the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through
the Healthy Forests Initiative. In recent years, we have witnessed
catastrophic fires, which burned over 7.1 million acres, affecting
several regions in the United States, including Alaska.
In Alaska, we have a particular problem with spruce bark beetles,
which have decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along
the Kachemak Bay Watershed and the Copper River Basin near Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and Preserve. The spruce bark beetle problem along
with an extremely dry winter season in Alaska raises serious concerns
for this coming fire season. I hope that your efforts in fire
prevention and suppression will include funding to address Alaska's
spruce bark beetle problem.
Answer. The State of Alaska is currently undergoing one of the
largest spruce bark beetle infestations ever observed. As much as four
million acres of forestlands, across all ownerships, have been affected
during the last 15 years, of which only 100,000 acres are managed by
the BLM. Only 10,000 acres of the infested lands managed by the BLM are
accessible and could be harvested with timber sales. Although some of
this infected timber has been offered for sale by BLM, the sales have
not sold due to poor market conditions. The majority of the timber has
deteriorated to the point where it has no value as a commercial
product.
The Bureau recognizes that the dry winter and the build-up of fuels
resulting from this beetle outbreak creates some formidable challenges
for this fire season and for years to come. The Bureau and its partners
are prepared to meet this challenge and protect the communities and
resources in Alaska. The BLM is currently working with rural
communities in Alaska to reduce the threat of wildfire, including
providing financial and technical support to the communities and their
fire departments, collaboratively identifying conditions and planning
actions to reduce those threats, and reducing hazardous fuels within
the wildland-urban interface. Where spruce bark beetles have killed
timber in these areas, BLM will continue to try to find markets for the
material as it is removed during fuel reduction treatments.
FEDERALLY-OWNED LAND STATISTICS
Question. As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004
appropriations process. It has come to my attention that the Committee
does not have the most current data for public lands being administered
by the Department of the Interior. In order to appropriately allocate
scarce resources toward the management of the public lands, I request
that the Department provide the Committee with statistics on Federally-
owned land by agency in each State and territory by acreage and
percentage of State total area. These statistics should also include
the total wilderness areas within each State.
Answer. The Department will compile this information and transmit
it to the Subcommittee under separate cover.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
CROWNPOINT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Question. The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is one of
only two tribal vocational-technical schools in the country. CIT plays
a critical role in training Native American students for employment.
The school has a successful program in which an average of 87 percent
of its students is placed in jobs upon graduation. A successful post-
secondary vocational-technical school such as CIT is a tremendous
resource for Native Americans.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request does
not include specific funding for CIT.
Given the important and specific roles the two vocational/technical
schools play on educating young Native Americans, why has specific
funding for CIT been deleted?
Answer. One of the Department's strategic goals is to support
development of quality communities for tribes by improving education.
An important component of this goal is supporting higher education to
provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to become
successfully employed. The Bureau currently operates two fully
accredited post-secondary schools, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University, and provides
funding for 25 Tribally controlled colleges and universities.
CIT is not bureau operated nor is it eligible for funding under the
authority of the Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities
Assistance Act, as amended. CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl
D. Perkins Act, as amended, and receives funding under authority of the
Act through a grant program administered by the Department of
Education. The Department of Education provided $6.955 million under
this authority to post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which
CIT received $3.8 million.
Question. What considerations would you take into account when
determining funding allocations for schools like CIT?
Answer. The Bureau takes into consideration education funding
priorities for the existing K-12 programs, eligible TCCCs, and Bureau
post-secondary schools. While CIT is meeting an important and unique
need for those students who attend it, the Bureau takes into
consideration authorizing legislation. Currently, there is no statutory
authorization for the Bureau to fund schools like CIT, which is neither
Bureau operated nor eligible for funding under the authority of the
Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities Assistance Act,
as amended (Public Law 95-471.). Public Law 95-471 permits each Tribe
to apply for operating grants for a single TCCC. CIT is a Navajo
school. CIT is ineligible for TCCC funding because another Navajo
school, Dine College, currently receives funding under authority of
Public Law 95-471.
CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl D. Perkins Act, as
amended, and receives funding under authority of the Act through a
grant program administered by the Department of Education. The
Department of Education provided $6.955 million under this authority to
post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which CIT received $3.8
million.
INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Question. Secure, modern, and pleasant school facilities are
critical to the education of all students. To that end, I am pleased to
see that President Bush sustains the current level of commitment to
replace deteriorated BIA schools through new construction with his
request of $292.6 million. These funds are critically needed to
continue to address the backlog for repairs, renovation, and
replacement for all federally owned and operated BIA elementary and
secondary schools.
While I am pleased with the overall request, I am concerned that
the $131.4 million proposed for the replacement of schools does not
specify the dollar amount going to each project. New Mexico has five
schools on the replacement list for fiscal year 2004--Isleta Elementary
School; Mescalero Apache Elementary School; Pueblo Pintado Community
School; Navajo Prep School, Phase II; and Wingate High School, Phase
II.
Specifically, could you address my concerns that the failure to
delineate specific funds for the listed schools may lead to unnecessary
confusion, delay, and at worst, failure to provide adequate funding for
the projects?
Answer. During formulation of the 2004 Budget, the Administration
began using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to identify
strengths and weaknesses of programs and to inform budget, management,
and policy activities regarding recommendations. The process generated
extensive information on program effectiveness and accountability
including the need for additional performance measures. One of the
principal PART findings for Indian School Construction program was that
it had limited flexibility to adjust funds appropriated to a specific
project when there are delays or changes due to planning or design
which impact the original cost estimate for the project. The fiscal
year 2004 President's Budget reflects a policy change to no longer
provide cost estimates for individual projects for replacement schools
or facilities improvement and repair until the planning documents and
design for the projects are developed to the point where adequate
information is available to make a reasonably accurate cost estimate.
This will greatly improve accountability for program funding.
Question. Generally, would you please describe the efforts of the
Department of the Interior to replace aging structures that pose a
health and safety threat and make learning difficult?
Answer. The Bureau has undertaken an intense effort on the
President's commitment to reduce the maintenance backlog and has
developed a five-year Maintenance and Construction Plan to address
aging structures. Each fiscal year plan includes the projects of
greatest need in priority order with special focus first on critical
health and safety. The Bureau has also developed a Facilities
Management Information System (FMIS) to improve the management of
deferred maintenance, major facilities improvement and repair, and
replacement school construction projects. The system effectively tracks
improvements and facility conditions associated with health, safety,
disability access, classroom size, computer, and communications
technology space. The data in FMIS is used to determine funding for the
highest priority items in the maintenance backlog of health and safety
deficiencies.
SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING
Question. The President requested, and the Congress approved, $23.2
million for Santa Fe Indian School in fiscal year 2002, and another
$15.3 million in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the Santa Fe Indian
School requires $9.2 million to complete its replacement project. There
was to be a phase 3 to the project that included a gym and health
facility, an administrative building, and site modifications. The Santa
Fe Indian School was notified that phase 3 would not be funded and that
no funding would be in the fiscal year 2004 budget as anticipated.
Considering the stated goals of the President's Indian Education
Initiative and No Child Left Behind programs, could you explain why the
budget request did not include funding to complete the Santa Fe Indian
School replacement project as planned?
Answer. Schools compete for ranking on the BIA priority list for
replacement school construction. Higher rankings are given to schools
with critical health and safety needs and for which current facility
program space is insufficient for current approved education program
offerings.
When evaluating the Santa Fe Indian School Phase 3 construction
project proposal, it was determined that Santa Fe Indian School is
located within walking distance of a U.S. Indian Public Health Service
hospital, an administrative building exists on site, the status of the
current gym does not warrant complete replacement, and the needed site
work was for sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements. Based on this
assessment, other schools more effectively competed for school
replacement construction funds.
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE (SIPI)
Question. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico is a national vocational-technical school that
enrolls approximately 750 students representing 100 Indian tribes from
across the nation. SIPI provides Indian students with post-secondary
educational opportunities and technical job skills.
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5.593
million for the post-secondary schools of SIPI and the Haskell Indian
Nations University in Kansas does not reflect the funding needed to
implement the new funding formula that would bring parity in funding to
the two institutions. SIPI and Haskell collaborated on the new formula,
which was enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year
2000. The formula language was again included in the 2001
Appropriations Act to direct the allocation of increased operating
funds for the unmet needs identified for both SIPI and Haskell.
The BIA has now adopted the SIPI/Haskell funding formula as its
model for all post-secondary school funding proposals, yet it has never
been implemented. SIPI would require a total of $10.641 million in
fiscal year 2004 to implement the new funding formula. There are
concerns that without this funding the SIPI will be unable to fill key
faculty positions, update its library, maintain the college's
information infrastructure system, meet new educational demands, and
strengthen student support services.
Why has the BIA-adopted funding formula not been fully funded?
Answer. To meet the needs of each of the post-secondary
institutions, BIA has allocated funds proportional to their enrollment.
The formula that was developed by SIPI and Haskell was to be applied to
any increases in funding levels.
Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior is faced with making
difficult choices in setting priorities for funding for the post-
secondary institutions. Funding has been relatively flat for the past
several years. One of the Department's strategic goals is to support
development of quality communities for tribes by improving education.
In the 2004 budget, funding increases were targeted to the primary and
secondary education levels--areas of higher priority to the Tribes on a
nationwide basis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
OIL AND GAS PERMITTING ON FEDERAL LANDS
Question. A recent report by the Independent Petroleum Association
of Mountain States shows that companies looking for oil and gas on
Federal leases contend with increasing uncertainties and, in many
cases, extreme delays in trying to acquire the necessary permits to
conduct activities. Using BLM's own data, the average APD now takes on
average 137 days to be approved and in some cases have taken over 365
days to approve.
If the statute states that a typical APD should be approved within
30 days, and the average approval time is 107 days beyond that, please
identify the primary obstacles that exist in approving an APD in a
timely manner.
Answer. There is no statutory requirement that BLM approve an APD
within 30 days. APD processing times are prescribed in BLM's own
regulations (43CFR 3162 and Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 issued under
43CFR 3164). The BLM has promulgated regulations that state:
``III D. Processing Time Frames. The following table summarizes the
major time frames involved in processing most APD's:
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL OPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action item Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite inspection................ Within 15 days after receipt of the
APD.
Requirements to be imposed when Developed onsite, or within 5 working
APD is approved. days thereafter.
Complete processing of APD....... Within 30 days of the APD's receipt,
provided that it is technically and
administratively complete at the end
of the 30-day period (includes the
above 15-day and 5-day periods).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF STAKING OPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action items Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite inspection................ Within 15 days after receipt of the
NOS.
Requirements for inclusion in APD Furnished onsite or within 5 working
days thereafter.
Complete processing of APD....... Within 10 days of the APD's receipt,
provided that it is technically and
administratively complete at the end
of the 10-day period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above time frames, together, comprise the total period during
which the BLM anticipates it will be able to process approximately 90
percent of all APD's. However, the 30 days may not run consecutively .
. . .''
BLM has self imposed a 30 day time frame for the processing of most
APDs. As stated in BLM's Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1, these 30 days may
not be consecutive. If an incomplete APD is received, the Bureau must
wait to complete the processing of the permit until the operator
submits all required information. The BLM does not include the days
between the initial receipt of the application and the day when all
required information is submitted in the 30 day processing time frame,
according to Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1. Since fiscal year 2000, the
Bureau has approved 38 percent of the APDs within the 30 day time
frame. Although the BLM is not currently meeting its objective of 90
percent, it continues to explore alternatives for increasing this
percentage.
The BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 to clarify the
requirements of a complete application. This clarification should
reduce the number of incomplete APDs submitted and decrease overall
processing times.
Other factors that may extend the processing times beyond the 30
days include the need to: (1) complete any supplemental NEPA analysis,
(2) consult with other surface managing agencies (primarily Forest
Service), (3) obtain any necessary cultural clearances, and (4)
maintain staffing support for ADP processing.
Applications for oil and gas development that are proposed over
large acreages may require the development of an Environmental Impact
Statement to fulfill National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
For example, the Bureau spent two years completing the EIS that
examines the impacts of coalbed natural gas development in the Powder
River Basin. Some BLM Field Offices had not been accepting any new APDs
for coalbed natural gas, due to the existing large backlog of APDs. Now
that the Powder River Basin EIS is completed, Field Offices will be
able to begin processing the backlogged APDs and accept new
applications. The processing of APDs will be extended any time a major
field development EIS is required.
In situations where BLM is required to approve surface disturbance
for another surface-management agency, such as the Forest Service,
additional time may be needed to allow BLM to coordinate with the other
agency. BLM is working with other surface-management agencies to
improve coordination and consistency and reduce the time it takes to
complete the APD process on non-BLM lands.
Cultural clearances can also extend time frame for APD processing.
If a cultural clearance is required, and a cultural clearance report
has not been completed prior to submission of the APD, delays can be
expected. It typically takes a minimum of 30 days from submission of a
cultural clearance report to the State Historic Preservation Officer to
get concurrence that historic and cultural resources are being
protected. Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 encourages operators to check
with the BLM at least 15 days before submitting an APD or NOS to
determine if a cultural clearance will be required.
The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 requires
BLM to post all APDs for at least 30 days prior to approval. The
process could be extended as a result of this requirement.
Due to unanticipated changes in demand in the last few years,
staffing has not kept pace with workload in some BLM Field Offices.
Additional funding provided in 2002 and 2003 budgets and continued in
the President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 funds increased staffing.
Question. What steps can be taken administratively to improve this
process? What realistic legislative remedies might exist that would
provide additional resources to improving the permitting process?
Answer. The BLM is taking several steps to improve the APD
processing time frames. On April 14, 2003, the BLM Washington Office
issued five Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvements.
These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of
Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1, Comprehensive Strategies, and revision
of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book''.
The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003-146) directed BLM field
offices to supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of
approval currently being used. The Washington Office is developing
standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop
reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval.
The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003-147) identifies some ``best
practices'' being used in some BLM field offices concerning cultural
resources. All field offices are instructed to use these ``best
practices'' to help streamline the APD processing time frames.
The IM on Revision of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003-151)
and the IM on Revision of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'' (IM 2003-153)
initiates the rewriting of two references used by oil and gas operators
on standards concerning surface use for oil and gas operations. These
revisions will provide oil and gas applicants with improved direction
on application requirements.
The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003-152) outlines ``best
practices'' strategies that field offices can implement to streamline
the APD processing time.
Currently, the BLM does not require any legislative remedies to
improve APD processing. As the BLM progresses with APD streamlining
efforts, Congress will be notified if new legislation is determined to
be necessary.
Question. Finally, please provide the Committee with a recommended
funding level that would be expected in order to bring the fiscal
resources in line with the demands in the field.
Answer. The 2004 President's Budget request includes an increase of
$350,000 to bring the fiscal resources in line with current APD demands
and $2.5 million for inspections, enforcement, and monitoring
associated with this level of energy development.
FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT
Question. A pilot project has been suggested as a means of helping
to streamline the Federal permit process for energy related projects.
While it does not specifically address APD backlogs, it is my
understanding that a pilot project has been included in the Senate
Energy Committee's proposed energy bill.
Please comment on the proposed pilot program to streamline federal
permit processing currently under consideration before Congress.
Answer. The proposed program in Section 122 of the Senate Energy
Bill would establish a Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. This
proposal has also been known as the ``Tiger Team Proposal''. Section
122 calls for Federal agencies to assign on a non-reimbursable basis
employees to serve under BLM Field Managers in six offices. These six
teams would work on proposed energy projects, planning and
environmental analyses. We have several comments on this section.
Governors should be encouraged to support pilot projects in their
respective States by signing the Memorandum of Understanding that
defines the arrangement in the pilot States.
Currently, the Energy Bill proposes that six offices participate in
the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. The Bureau recommends
that the pilot project be implemented in only one office, Buffalo,
Wyoming. This team would work on reducing the backlog in the Powder
River Basin. Once the team has completed that task, it would then work
in other offices to reduce the APD backlog.
Interagency teams should include personnel from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other agencies
within the Department of Interior, and the USDA Forest Service, that
the BLM is required to contact as part of the NEPA process for oil and
gas operations.
Question. What impact, if any, might this pilot program have upon
addressing the issue of the APD backlog?
Answer. Initially this pilot program will have little effect on
handling the existing APD backlog, because most of the backlog of
permit processing was caused by issues that are currently being
addressed (e.g. Powder River Basin EIS), or are due to the submission
of incomplete applications by operators. In the future, the pilot
program could resolve or prevent backlogs from occurring.
Question. Please comment on the feasibility of developing a similar
pilot program specifically for Federal oil and gas permitting within
BLM to address APD permit backlogs.
Answer. The BLM has been looking into the idea of a pilot program
where a team of specialists within the BLM would be available to Field
Offices to assist with processing oil and gas operations backlogs
related to Federal permitting. The team could be centrally located, or
could be dispersed in several field offices, but when a Field Office
requires assistance, the team would be temporarily relocated to that
office. It is believed that this approach would enable the BLM to
accelerate the processing time of APDs and other related oil and gas
applications.
Question. Would such a program be effective in reducing the
backlog, and providing greater predictability in the permitting
process? Is it feasible that such a program might be put together in a
timely manner and begin to take effect within weeks of being funded by
Congress?
Answer. Yes, it is believed that such an approach could reduce or
eliminate the present backlog of APDs within two years, though the
effects of new demand during that two-year period cannot be estimated.
Question. Has BLM taken steps to develop a ``best practices''
program for BLM Field Offices to share information, processes, and
expertise in the permitting process? If so, what is the status of the
program?
Answer. BLM has been using ``best practices'' of Field Offices to
improve BLM management of the public lands nationwide. In the past, the
BLM did not effectively highlight ``best practices'' to other Field
Offices. The BLM is working to improve the dissemination of information
concerning ``best practices''.
MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE
Question. The recent GAO report regarding the efforts to recover
the Mojave desert tortoise stated that at least $100 million has been
spent since its first listing. However, the GAO was unable to identify
any Fish and Wildlife Service documentation regarding its population
trends or whether any of that money has been effective in recovering
the species.
What is the Department's response to the report and what is being
done to provide some direction to this extraordinary amount that is
being spent on the species' recovery?
Anwer. The Department concurs with the recommendations in GAO's
final report, Research Strategy and Long-term Monitoring Needed for the
Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program. Expenditures for the desert
tortoise include those for habitat acquisition, research, surveys, plan
development, habitat enhancement, and agency staff time. Habitat
acquisition, the largest expenditure category, has contributed
significantly to the protection of biologically important areas
necessary to achieve recovery objectives. Although recovery actions
have been implemented, tortoise habitat and populations may not respond
in a measurable way for several to many years afterward. We acknowledge
that information on the status of tortoise populations and habitats
affected by land management actions is limited; however, collection of
population trend data is in progress under the direction and oversight
of the Service. We have been working with many partners and
stakeholders to establish a collaborative process for implementing
recovery actions through a science-based adaptive management approach
that all interested parties can embrace. The Desert Management
Oversight Group provides a structure for the implementation of recovery
and research priorities, and the Service has completed a more effective
expenditures reporting system for the next fiscal year.
Question. Many restrictions have arisen as a result of the desert
tortoise, including grazing reductions and development restrictions.
This is a burden that falls heavily upon the local communities.
Answer. The Service and other federal agencies have employed
several tools to implement the Endangered Species Act while
accommodating existing land use practices as much as possible. Regional
habitat conservation plans have been implemented in Nevada and Utah to
allow development and facilitate recovery of the species with active
community involvement. Federal agencies have purchased cattle grazing
allotments from willing sellers and worked with local groups to reduce
the impacts of activities on lands with tortoise habitat. We are
assessing further options to conserve the desert tortoise while
minimizing economic impacts. In January 2003, the Service appointed the
Recovery Plan Assessment Committee and initiated reassessment of the
1994 Recovery Plan. During the reassessment process, we will evaluate
new information on the status and conservation needs of the tortoise,
and ensure that research is applied towards management needs as
recommended by the GAO.
Question. What is being done on the federal end by the Service to
set goals and track the population trends and recovery of the species
so that at some point in the future the species might recover and be
[de]listed?
Answer. The Service recently met with stakeholder groups and
federal, state, and local partners to discuss development of a recovery
strategy and direction for the revised desert tortoise recovery plan.
Workshops are being held to address issues such as disease, predation,
and population monitoring. The Recovery Plan Assessment Committee will
evaluate the delisting criteria and consider the appropriateness of
designating the existing recovery units as distinct population
segments. If designated as such, any given distinct population segments
may be delisted independently by achieving its stated recovery
objectives. Development of a statistically valid monitoring program for
a wide-ranging species that occurs underground most of the year has
proved to be challenging. However, we are pursuing implementation of a
line distance sampling technique to obtain statistically valid
population data and track population trends across the range of the
species.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Question. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes program (PILT) is $200 million. This
amount is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, a cut
of 8.5 percent. Why has the administration sought to cut this program?
What was the Department's request for the PILT program to the Office of
Management and Budget? How much will North Dakota receive under the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5 million? How much would North
Dakota receive under the President's budget request of $200 million?
Answer. Although the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request
for PILT of $200 million is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003
enacted level, it is $35 million more than the fiscal year 2003 request
of $165 million. The Department's request to OMB is part of the
Administration's pre-decisional budget process and is therefore not
subject to release. Under the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5
million, North Dakota will receive an estimated $1 million in PILT
payments. Under the President's budget request of $200 million, North
Dakota would receive an estimated $800,000.
Question. The Department of the Interior has indicated that an
additional $2 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 to pay for court-
ordered endangered species listing actions. While the Department has
provided the Committee with documentation of the shortfall in listing
funding, no formal request has been made to bridge this gap. Does the
Department have a solution to this problem?
Answer. The White House formally requested that the Congress adopt
a technical amendment to raise the cap for listing from $9 million to
$11 million and the sub-cap for critical habitat from $6 million to $8
million. If this is approved, the Department intends to ask the
Committee's approval for a reprogramming of $2 million in funds from
other endangered species program elements to listing. This will fund
our fiscal year 2003 listing shortfall. In addition, the President's
budget contains an increase in the listing budget of about $3.3
million--which includes an increase of $3.8 million for critical
habitat for already listed species and a decrease for other listing
activities of $600,000.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May
22, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from
the Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary, Department of Energy.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, April 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
May 22.]