[Senate Hearing 109-145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-145
LIMBAUGH AND WEIMER NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MARK A. LIMBAUGH TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, AND R. THOMAS WEIMER TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
__________
JULY 14, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-785 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado................... 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Limbaugh, Mark A., Nominee to Be Assistant Secretary of Water and
Science, Department of the Interior............................ 5
Weimer, R. Thomas, Nominee to Be Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior.............. 5
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 13
LIMBAUGH AND WEIMER NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The committee will please come to order.
We're here this morning to consider the following nominations
for positions within the Department of the Interior: Mark A.
Limbaugh to be Assistant Secretary, Water and Science; and R.
Thomas Weimer--is that it?
Mr. Weimer. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. To be Assistant Secretary for Policy
Management and Budget. And Senator Craig wants to introduce Mr.
Limbaugh, and Senator Allard wants to introduce Mr. Weimer.
I welcome both of you to the committee. The positions to
which the two of you are to be nominated have within them the
purview for many issues that are extremely important to a
number of the States represented by Senators on this committee,
and obviously many others.
Many of us, therefore, take a very personal interest in
specific issues you must address that sometimes transcend our
border concerns that you are effectively administering within
the Department's programs. Therefore, I am pleased that
individuals of your high caliber have agreed to assume these
responsibilities, and look forward to working with you when you
are confirmed.
If any of you have members of your family present, please
introduce them if you would like now.
Mr. Limbaugh.
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman.
I'd like to introduce my wife, Cindy, and my daughter, Allison,
and thank you for the opportunity to introduce them.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Weimer.
Mr. Weimer. No family here today, just friends and
acquaintances. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now we're going to ask Senator Craig if he
would make his remarks regarding Mr. Limbaugh and then we'll
move right quick to you, Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, let me thank
you for an opportunity to introduce a friend and an important
constituent to me in Idaho from the town of Fruitland. The
great news is that Mark is doing extremely well and has a
tremendous opportunity to serve us in a new capacity here in
Washington. The bad news is that he reminds me that I once
remembered him when he was a small boy, which would suggest to
me, Mr. Chairman, that I grow older. But then maybe Mark does
too.
Mark currently serves as Deputy Commissioner for the
Department's Bureau of Reclamation. He is here today with his
wife and daughter who he has introduced. Mr. Chairman, as
Deputy Commissioner, Mark Limbaugh has worked vigorously to
draft and implement administration initiatives, including his
recent work on the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton's
Water 2025 initiative, which as you know is extremely important
as a program for the nation, and particularly for the arid
west.
His contributions to the Department prompted Secretary
Norton during a May 10 press release to express her confidence
in Mr. Limbaugh's nomination, stating, ``With Mark's continued
leadership, I have extreme confidence that Americans will
continue to be well served by the Interior's work on both water
and science issues.''
As a native of southwestern Idaho, Mark has continued his
service at both the regional and national levels. After
graduating cum laude from the University of Idaho in 1978 with
a B.S. in accounting, Mark worked for a number of years for the
CPA firm of Deloitte & Touche, located in Boise. Since 1979, he
has remained a licensed CPA although he no longer practices.
As a private businessman for well over 10 years, Mark owned
and operated nearly 800 acres of commercial farming operation
in Idaho. In addition, Mark has served as president and
director of the Family Farm Alliance, a grassroots water
resource association representing water users in the West on
national water issues, as well as serving as a board member of
the U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, whose main
objective is to improve water management for irrigation
drainage and flood control purposes.
Mr. Chairman, as I hope I've made clear, Mark is an
outstanding citizen, a devoted family man, a highly qualified
candidate for the job of Assistant Secretary of the Department
of the Interior for Water and Science. He will reflect well on
the agency and clearly be an asset to this committee as we can
rely on him. I'm confident he'll be back when we need him to
discuss those important issues that we put high priority on. I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is my privilege to introduce
Mark Limbaugh to the committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Good morning, Chairman Domenici, and also
to my other colleagues on the committee, Senator Bingaman and
my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar. Chairman Domenici
and Senator Bingaman, I appreciate that you have provided me
with the opportunity to introduce my fellow Coloradan, Tom
Weimer, to the committee. I'd like to speak for just a moment
on Mr. Weimer's background and the experience that qualifies
him to serve in the position of Assistant Secretary of Policy
Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior.
As you may be aware, Mr. Weimer spent 4 years as chief of
staff for your fellow New Mexican, Manuel Lujan, Jr., when he
was Secretary of the Interior. In that capacity, he was
involved in management and policy development spanning a wide
array of natural resources and environmental issues. For the
past 4 years, he's been the principal deputy in the
Department's Water and Science Office, and for the last 7
months, he has served as the Acting Assistant Secretary. In his
capacities there, he has overseen the work of the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey.
In addition to his experience in the executive branch, Mr.
Weimer has over 10 years of experience as a staff member and
staff director on two House of Representatives committees
working on energy, science and technology policy and budgets. I
urge the committee to give Tom Weimer a full consideration and
move his nomination forward expeditiously.
I thank you again for the opportunity to introduce Mr.
Weimer and your consideration on this most important matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator. Now, the two
Senators who did the introducing are free at this point, unless
some Senator has a question of them. This is your chance if you
want to interrogate Senator Craig, Senator Burns. No, he's
leaving. You can't do that today.
Let me ask before we proceed to the swearing in and
testimony, any Senator--thank you, Larry. Any Senator have any
opening remarks they'd like to make?
Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having the hearing. I strongly support both of these nominees.
I think they're extremely well qualified for these positions. I
would just mention one issue that I know Mr. Limbaugh's bound
to be talking to both of us and others on the committee about
in the coming months, and that is the whole issue of how to
resolve some of the Indian water rights claims that we have a
lot of in our State and throughout the West. That's got to be a
priority, and it's one that you've worked hard on, Mr.
Chairman, and I have as well. And we look forward to working
cooperatively with the Department to get those issues resolved.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. You're absolutely right, Senator, and they
are very, very difficult problems.
Senator Bingaman. I will have a few other questions I'll
put in the record for both of the nominees. Thank you.
The Chairman. Anything else, Senators? All right. The rules
of the committee which apply to the nominees require that they
be sworn in connection with their testimony, so would both of
you rise and raise your right hands, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
give to the Senator Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Weimer. I do.
Mr. Limbaugh. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated. Now, before you begin the
statements, I'm going to ask you three questions which we ask
of all nominees. Each of you will please respond separately to
each question.
First, will you be available to appear before this
committee and other congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the
Congress, Mr. Limbaugh?
Mr. Limbaugh. I will.
The Chairman. Mr. Weimer?
Mr. Weimer. I will.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict or
create the appearance of a conflict of interest should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President, Mr. Limbaugh?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal
holdings, and other interests have been reviewed by both myself
and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal
Government. I have taken the appropriate action to avoid any
conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or
appearances thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Mr. Weimer?
Mr. Weimer. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal
holdings, and other interests have also been reviewed, both by
myself and by the appropriate ethic counselors within the
Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid
any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest
or appearances thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now each of you may now
make a brief statement. I encourage you to summarize your
statements. The rest of the statement in its totality will be
made a part of the record. After you have finished, the
Senators will have questions. Mr. Limbaugh, will you be begin,
to be followed by Mr. Weimer.
Let me suggest to the Senators something I would like to
do. We're going to be involved in a series of votes. I would
nonetheless like to complete these hearings today. I'd like to
do it in the following manner if it's satisfactory, Senator
Bingaman. The vote is up, as I understand it, and it will be
followed by a succession of votes. I would like to leave the
hearing open, ask the witnesses to stay, and whenever a Senator
desires, come and ask questions if he so desires, finish their
questions, we'll leave it open if another one comes and we'll
follow in sequence until we are finished. And let's say for
everybody's concern that timeframe will be from now until
11:30. Is that fair enough? Anybody that has questions will
find their way back here by 11:30.
Now, do we have time now? Let's start and see what happens.
I forgot one question my staff tells me. The third of my
questions was--if you'd answer it each of you--are you involved
with or do you have any assets held in blind trust?
Mr. Limbaugh?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, no, I don't.
The Chairman. Mr. Weimer?
Mr. Weimer. No.
The Chairman. Now, would you proceed? You start, Mr.
Limbaugh, and then we'll proceed with Mr. Weimer.
TESTIMONY OF MARK A. LIMBAUGH, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman,
and members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you
today as the President's nominee to serve as Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the
Interior. I am humbled to be selected by the President and
Secretary Norton and promise that if confirmed by the Senate, I
will uphold the trust placed in me through the attributes of
honesty, integrity, and hard work.
Growing up in the arid Western State of Idaho and in a
family farming operation that depended so heavily on irrigation
water for their livelihood, I have come to understand the
importance of certainty in water supplies for irrigated
agriculture, growing communities, and environmental needs.
I have worked as a certified public accountant, a farmer
and rancher, a State water master, an executive director of a
water user organization, president of the Family Farm Alliance,
and most recently as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation here in Washington, D.C. My experiences in managing
water at the local, State, and Federal levels have instilled in
me the importance of a modern and well-maintained water and
power infrastructure, and respect for the role of the Western
States in allocating and managing the water resources entrusted
to them at statehood.
Secretary Norton has attained many accomplishments through
her four C's philosophy of communication, cooperation, and
consultation, all in the service of conservation. I
wholeheartedly subscribe to this philosophy. I used it to
resolve water issues in the Payette River Basin in Idaho and in
dealing with many challenging water issues during my current
tenure as Deputy Commissioner.
The Secretary's Water 2025 initiative managed through the
Bureau has focused Federal resources on resolving water
problems proactively in areas of the West where conflict can be
predicted and possibly prevented. I believe in this initiative,
and if confirmed, will work with this committee and the
Congress to continue its implementation and communicate its
successes.
If confirmed, I will continue to work with this committee
and the Bureau of Reclamation in addressing financing for
modernization of aging infrastructure, obtaining congressional
authorization for a rural water program, and preventing crises
and conflict over water in the West through permanent
authorization of the Water 2025 grants and cooperative
agreements authority.
I will also work to assess and implement organizational and
management improvements within Reclamation in order to improve
efficiencies and reduce costs.
Western communities, farmers and ranchers, tribes and the
States, and the Congress all deserve a focused, efficient, and
fiscally transparent Bureau of Reclamation. If confirmed, I
intend to work diligently to continue efforts to address these
issues.
Also, if confirmed, I will embrace the opportunity to work
with the U.S. Geological Survey in bringing sound science and
information to decisionmakers in the public. The USGS is the
premiere natural resources science agency for this Nation, and
I will work to protect the integrity of this role. I have
always been an advocate for scientifically based
decisionmaking. Objective, credible, peer-reviewed science
plays a key role in managing our natural resources in a
balanced manner.
In closing, again, I am honored to sit before you today as
the President's nominee. If confirmed, I will work in a
bipartisan, cooperative manner with the full Senate and with
this committee and the House of Representatives and with your
constituents as I have these past few years. I have committed
to collaboratively searching out fair and balanced solutions to
complex water and natural resource issues, and believe these
solutions should respect the States, private property rights,
the environment, and tribal trust responsibilities of the
Department.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today,
and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Limbaugh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark A. Limbaugh, Nominee to Be Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and Members of the Committee, I am
honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee to serve
as Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the
Interior. I am humbled to have been selected by President Bush and
Secretary Norton and promise that, if confirmed by the Senate, I will
uphold the trust placed in me through the attributes of honesty,
integrity, and hard work.
I was raised on a family farm in Fruitland, Idaho, producing apples
and other permanent fruit crops, as well as forage crops and cattle, on
about 800 acres. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation has played an
important role in our family for many generations, as the promise of
federally developed irrigation water brought my family from Missouri to
the western United States early in the 20th century. Growing up in a
dry State in a family that depended so heavily on a constant water
supply, I have come to understand the importance of certainty in water
supplies, the need for modern and well-maintained infrastructure, and
respect for the role of the western States in allocating and managing
the water resources entrusted to them at statehood. I have worked as a
Certified Public Accountant, a farmer and rancher, a state water
master, the executive director of a water user organization, president
of the Family Farm Alliance and, most recently, as Deputy Commissioner
for the Bureau of Reclamation here in Washington, D.C. In all of my
professional and personal experiences, I have steadfastly held myself
to high moral and ethical standards; and if confirmed, will bring these
qualities to the office of Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
Secretary Norton's goals at the Department of the Interior include
protecting and enhancing the health and vitality of our Nation's many
communities and their environment. She has many accomplishments through
her 4Cs philosophy of communication, consultation, and cooperation, all
in the service of conservation. I wholeheartedly subscribe to this
philosophy. I have used it to resolve water issues in the Payette River
Basin in Idaho as well as the many challenging issues during my current
tenure as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
During the Klamath Basin crisis shortly after her arrival,
Secretary Norton commissioned the development of a program designed to
address water issues well in advance of crisis. Her Water 2025
initiative, managed through the Bureau of Reclamation, has focused
Federal resources on resolving water problems proactively in areas of
the West where conflict can be predicted and often prevented. I believe
in this initiative; and if confirmed, I will work with the Congress and
this Committee to continue its implementation and communicate its
successes.
If confirmed, I will continue to work with this Committee and the
Bureau of Reclamation in addressing financing for the modernization of
aging water infrastructure, obtaining Congressional authorization for a
rural water program, and preventing crises and conflict over water in
the West through permanent authorization for Water 2025 grants and
cooperative agreements. I also will work to assess and implement
organizational and managerial improvements in the design, construction,
rehabilitation, operation, and maintenance of Bureau of Reclamation
water supply facilities in order to improve efficiencies and reduce
costs. Our current Federal budgetary constraints will pose many
challenges in the future; priorities must be set and adhered to in
order to achieve success in these areas. But western communities,
farmers and ranchers, tribes and States, and the environment all
deserve a focused, efficient, and fiscally transparent Bureau of
Reclamation. If confirmed, I intend to work diligently to continue our
efforts to address these issues.
If confirmed, I also will embrace the opportunity to work with the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) in bringing sound science and
information to decision makers and the public. The USGS is the premier
natural resources science agency for this Nation, and I will work to
protect the integrity of this role. I have always been an advocate for
scientifically based decision making. Objective, credible, peer-
reviewed science is key to managing our natural resources in a balanced
manner.
Our Nation has always dealt with natural and man-made hazards
either by advance preparation or managing the aftermaths. The USGS
plays a critical role in measuring and assessing earthquakes and
tsunamis, volcanic activity, landslides and floods, as well as
communicating and mitigating the effects of such hazards through
research and applied knowledge. This function has saved lives and
property in the past, and it should continue to evolve and become even
more effective in the future
In closing, again, I am honored to sit before you today as
President Bush's nominee for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
If confirmed, I will work in a bipartisan and cooperative manner with
this Committee, with the full Senate and House of Representatives, and
with your constituents, just as I have with many of you and your staff
during the past few years. I understand the importance of the Congress
and the Constitutional roles and responsibilities of the Executive
Branch. I also understand the expectation of the American people that
the branches of their Federal Government should work together in
bringing useful and valuable services to the public as efficiently and
effectively as possible. I am committed to collaboratively searching
out fair and balanced solutions to complex natural resource issues, and
I believe these solutions should respect the States, private property
rights, the environment, and the tribal trust responsibilities of the
Department.
It is also my commitment, if confirmed, to work with Secretary
Norton as a part of her management team in overseeing the activities of
the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS, managing, conserving, and
protecting the many resources entrusted to the Department of the
Interior.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Well, we're down to just a few minutes, so
let me do this. First let me say to you, Mr. Weimer, I recall
your past performance here and obviously I remember Manny
Lujan, and you know he's doing quite well after having had a
couple of minor heart attacks, and he has frequently told me
what an important right-hand man you were, so I have nothing
but great confidence in you.
I think since we're going to be in a state of flux that I
would like to ask you if you would agree now to put your
statement in the record. If we do that, we'll accomplish that
before we leave.
Mr. Weimer. Absolutely.
The Chairman. So your statement in its totality is in the
record. So is yours.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weimer follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. Thomas Weimer, Nominee to Be Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and Members of the Committee, it is
a privilege and great honor to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior. President Bush
and Secretary Norton have paid me the highest compliment by
recommending me for this position.
By way of my background, I was born in Wyoming and raised in
Colorado (which I still consider to be my home State); and I have lived
and worked in several other western States. While I began my career as
an engineer, since first moving to Washington over 20 years ago, I have
worked principally on natural resource, energy, and science and
technology policy issues. For over a decade, I worked for former
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr., first as a professional
staff member and staff director on his committee staffs in the House of
Representatives, and then as his Chief of Staff at the Interior
Department. In that capacity, I was afforded the opportunity to observe
all of the operations of the Interior Department and I learned to
appreciate the immense breadth of responsibilities which Departmental
executives must collectively administer in providing service to
America's citizens. For the past four years, I have served as the
Principal Deputy in the Department's Water and Science Office,
providing management oversight and policy guidance to the Bureau of
Reclamation and to the U.S. Geological Survey.
During her tenure, Secretary Norton has led Interior with her
vision of achieving healthy lands and waters, thriving communities, and
a dynamic economy. Three themes underlie her efforts to accomplish
these goals: partnered problem solving, an emphasis on balance, and
management excellence. Secretary Norton has established a management
framework which all of us on her team operate within, working to
accomplish the many diverse missions of the Department and its eight
bureaus. She has charged us with executing our responsibilities using
collaborative and consultative processes with an emphasis on
communicating with the Department's many stakeholders. I share the
Secretary's vision and management style, and I feel that the two
bureaus with which I have worked over the past four years have
accomplished a great deal utilizing these principles.
I am deeply honored that President Bush has nominated me for a
position that, should the Senate confirm my nomination, will again
afford me the opportunity to work on a wide range of Interior's
activities in policy, management, and budget arenas that span the
Department and its eight bureaus. In policy, we will continue to
develop and implement programs to advance resource protection and use,
enhance recreational opportunities, and better serve Interior's many
communities--including those in Indian Country and in and in the
Insular areas. In advancing the President's Management Agenda, we must
place an emphasis on investments that will help Interior work smarter,
more efficiently, and more effectively. We will work to improve our
budget and performance integration, which lies at the heart of ensuring
both the strategic allocation and efficient use of funds. We must
continue to improve our financial performance to link planning and
budgeting with performance results. We will work to improve our
information technology (IT) environment by pursuing an E-government
strategy to move from Bureau legacy systems to governmentwide and
Departmental solutions. We must continue our efforts in the management
of human capital as changing public needs, new technologies, and an
aging workforce combine to create new business requirements. We will
keep looking at competitive sourcing opportunities to evaluate business
practices and develop more effective ways to deliver services. And of
course, in the area of budgeting, we will be challenged to accomplish
our mission using fiscal constraint. Identifying and funding those
activities and programs linked to core Departmental responsibilities
affords us the best way to continue to deliver our essential services.
If confirmed, I will work in a bipartisan and cooperative manner
with this committee and with all members of the Senate and House. My
ten years of service on Committee staffs of the U.S. House of
Representatives have given me a deep appreciation for the
Constitutional roles and responsibilities of the Legislative Branch,
and I respect the need for open dialogue with the Congress to
facilitate fulfilling our responsibilities to the American people.
If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget, it is my commitment to work with Secretary Norton and her
management team to ensure the highest standards in stewardship for our
lands, waters, and people.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I would be
pleased to try to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. With that, I believe we're going to recess
because we're going to be open, which is very different. I'll
yield to Senator Craig for a moment or two and then we will
depart and leave you here informally. You can meander around
until a Senator comes.
I have a series of questions which I'm going to submit for
you to answer in writing to each of you. And with that, we will
leave the hearing open pursuant to the discussion that I have
had as to what rules apply.
[Recess.]
Senator Salazar. Let me just first say both to you, Mark
and Tom, congratulations on your appointments. I know many
people who know both of you and they have high accolades for
your work, including someone whom you know, and that's Bennett
Raley, who is a great friend and one of the best water people
that I have ever known in the West. And he says you're the
right persons for the jobs, so I intend to be voting for you
and I expect that you're going to get good bipartisan support
for your confirmation. And congratulations to your families as
well and I look forward to working with you.
Let me ask some questions of you. First of all, on some
water issues that are very important to all of us in the
Southwest and all of us, the seven States who share the
Colorado River and who live by the compact that was negotiated
by the seven States and ultimately approved by the Congress and
signed by the President. I have significant concerns about what
is happening with respect to the allocation of water that is
really driven by the continuing outflows of water from Lake
Powell that have caused a continuing decline of water. And I
know that we don't control the climate in the Southwest and
we've gone through one of the most severe droughts of our
Nation's history in that part of the country.
But I do believe that the amount of water that currently is
being allowed to flow out from Lake Powell for the lower basin
States is not the way that we ought to be going and that we
ought to find a way of rolling that amount back. I understand
at least when they last studied this issue a few months ago,
the amount of water that we were actually releasing from Lake
Powell was some 8.23 million acre feet. It seems to me that
with the declines in the water levels at Lake Powell that what
we ought to be doing with the Bureau of Reclamation, with the
Department of the Interior, with the Secretary as the master of
the Colorado River, is to roll that back to 7.5 million acre
feet until we can restore balance and equilibrium.
Now, I understand that what happened here is that the
Secretary of the Interior decided to basically punt the
decision for the later time and to have the States continue to
try to work through that issue over the next several months. I
would like your thoughts, Tom, as well as--especially from Tom
as the Assistant--the nominee for Water and Science on how we
might proceed on that Colorado River water allocation issue.
Mr. Weimer. Actually, Senator, Mark is the nominee for
Water and Science. I'm for Policy Management and Budget. I'm
acting in the Water and Science job right now and I'd be happy
to begin to answer your question and then perhaps Mark can as
well.
Senator Salazar. I would like both of you to respond.
Mr. Weimer. Senator, as you correctly pointed out, the
Secretary, in making her decision on the mid-year annual
operating plan this year, took a number of things into
consideration. Certainly the upper basin I think was
disappointed that she was unwilling to lower the amount of
water going out of Lake Powell. But in looking at the actual
hydrological facts of this year, where we had, as you're well
aware, in the upper basin a better than normal year. Projected
increases in Lake Powell, at the time she made her decision,
were that it was going to come up 45 feet, and in fact it is
now projected to come up well over 50, almost 60 feet.
So her decisions were narrowly drawn on the facts at that
time, but her decision had four parts. The first part was not
to change the 8.23 this year, but the second part of her
decision was to assert her authority to do that, because you're
probably well aware that there are those, particularly in the
lower basin, that have said that she does not have that
authority, but she disagreed with that and asserted that she
does.
The third part of her decision then was to direct
Reclamation in the development of next year's annual operating
plan to include another mid-year review. So I think when you
take parts two and three of her decision together, you could
see she clearly signaled that she is willing to, if necessary,
and if the hydrology changes, to make a decision to lower the
8.23.
In the last part of her decision, and perhaps as important
as the first three parts, was her direction to Reclamation to
over the next 30 months develop shortage criteria and
conjunctive management of the two lakes, Mead and Powell. And
that process has just begun. It will be a cooperative process
with the seven basin States. And I think it's really--we look
to that process as being the one that we hope will allow us to
end up with a regime for operating the river in drought
situations, which can take into account many of the
considerations you laid out in your remarks.
Senator Salazar. So, Tom, the essence of where you believe
Interior then will be going with the shortage criteria will be
to engage in this process that will take us over a 30-month
period to the point where the Secretary can then analyze a set
of criteria with respect to how to handle shortages on the
Colorado?
Mr. Weimer. That's correct. And it's analogous to the
interim surplus guideline process that Secretary Babbitt had
commissioned when he was there--in a process way--but so that's
what Secretary Norton is looking at, that's correct.
Senator Salazar. Let me--I think somebody just said I had a
minute, so let me find out. I have a series of five stacked
votes on the floor, so that's what's causing all this, but I
wanted to make sure that I had an opportunity to spend a little
bit of time with you.
This obviously is an important issue for me and it's
something that I want to work with both of you on. And I would
ask both of you to keep my office involved as you move forward
with the development of the criteria and as you work with the
seven states.
There are many other issues that will involve both you,
Tom, and Mark that are important to me in Colorado that we need
to make sure we don't look sight of. And let me just name them,
you don't have to respond to them for me right now. But first
the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program, that's
been a major success relative to how we have dealt with
endangered species in the West that's allowed development to
take place, as well as to recovery efforts. Every year we get
into a funding issue with respect to the recovery program. I
want to work with you to continue to make sure that that
program continues to be a successful program.
Next, the South Platte River Recovery Program. We have the
recovery agreements in place, but that obviously still has a
long ways to go with respect to its implementation, and it's
going to be important that you know that from a Colorado
perspective that remains a very important initiative of ours,
because unless we're able to make sure that that implementation
plan actually works, we could create havoc for water users in
my state as well as in the other states. So I would ask you to
continue to put a focus on that.
Fourth, the Arkansas River, a whole set of issues on the
Arkansas River, including the Preferred Storage Options
Project, which is coming forth from the water conservancy
districts. And finally the Arkansas River Conduit, on which
Senator Allard and I are having a meeting down in Rocky Ford on
Saturday afternoon. And I look forward to working with Interior
on all of those issues.
And the last thing, and I just want a simple yes from both
of you on this, this committee voted out an energy bill that
came out 23 to 1, we passed it in the Senate 85 to 12, it
showed what can happen when you have a group of people that
come together in a bipartisan spirit. It was a great staff that
allowed that to happen and helped us make that happen. But I
want your commitment that you'll work with Democrats and
Republicans alike and treat them equal in terms of your
outreach and your work with them. Can I just have a yes from
both of you on that?
Mr. Weimer. Yes.
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much and best of luck to
you.
Mr. Weimer. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Mark Limbaugh to Questions From Senator Domenici
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Question 1. As a former farmer and Watermaster of Idaho's Payette
River Basin, as well as in your current capacity as Deputy Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, you have had the unique experience of
observing the Bureau's operations from a variety of different
perspectives.
Based on these experiences, what is the extent of the aging
infrastructure problem?
Answer. Reclamation's infrastructure has been built over the past
100 years, and the median age of a typical facility is about 50 years
old. In my experience in the Payette River Basin, I have observed
Reclamation infrastructure that, although generally well preserved due
to preventive maintenance policies, is in need of modernization and
rehabilitation in order to meet the water needs of today. For instance,
opportunities exist for the addition of remote operation and automation
equipment that can both save money and water in the operation and
management of aging water infrastructure. I have also noted that
extraordinary maintenance has, at some facilities, become much more
expensive due to additional precautions that need to be taken to be in
compliance with environmental laws and regulations. At one facility,
the cost of simply repainting the inside of a penstock was estimated to
be significantly higher than expected due to the prior use of red lead-
based paint, which had to be removed, placed in barrels, and hauled to
an environmental landfill for processing before repainting could occur.
In this particular case, if these costs were treated as an annual O&M
expense, the District would have to double its annual water charges to
its farmers in one year. These are but a few examples of the challenges
our aging Federal infrastructure will present in the future to water
contractors and Reclamation.
Question 2. How can we best address the growing need to
rehabilitate the Bureau's aging infrastructure?
Answer. First, we must ensure that the condition of Reclamation's
water and power infrastructure is continually reviewed and reliability
routinely assessed. For those water and power facilities where
Reclamation is directly responsible for OM&R, Reclamation should
evaluate the need to continue with preventive maintenance and repair
activities or alternatively evaluate the need to undertake major
rehabilitation and replacement efforts. When water and power users
share in the OM&R costs for such rehabilitation and replacement
activities, Reclamation should involve the users well in advance
regarding issues surrounding the need, timing, costs, and funding
arrangements specific to the proposed work activity.
I will ensure that Reclamation continues its proactive approach to
facility reviews, condition assessments, preventive maintenance, and
efficiency modifications, with a view toward assuring the reliability
and viability of its facilities.
When a District is called upon to fund these major projects as
OM&R, their reserve funds typically may not be sufficient to meet the
total amount required for major rehabilitations or replacements, and a
long-term loan might be necessary. Due to the Federal ownership of
these facilities and with little collateral to borrow against, these
loans could be difficult for a District to obtain. Reclamation is
currently analyzing other innovative financing mechanisms, such as a
loan guarantee program, that could help with long-term financing for
Districts funding major rehabilitations or replacements at Reclamation
facilities.
WATER TECHNOLOGY R&D
Question 3. Recent drought and population growth in the western
U.S. requires that we make more efficient use of water and develop
technologies to make use of previously impaired or unusable water.
During the 1960's, the federal government funded extensive research in
water technology which resulted in new technologies such as reverse
osmosis.
I believe that the federal government should renew its investment
in water treatment technology. Toward this end, I have funded
construction of a Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development
center in New Mexico. Also, I have funded the development of new
technologies through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill.
What do you believe is the federal government's role in water
technology research?
Answer. I believe that determining the appropriate Federal role in
water technology research requires high level interagency consultation
and coordination. Currently, under the leadership of the Executive
Office of the President, the Administration is evaluating federal
research and development efforts in desalination in order to clearly
establish long-term goals and ensure that our efforts are carried out
in accordance with the Administration's Research and Development
Investment Criteria, and that these efforts represent the best
investment of federal resources.
Question 4. As you are aware, the authority for the BOR's Water
Desalination Research and Development Act of 1996 expires this year. Do
you believe that this program should be reauthorized and with what
changes?
Answer. Yes, the Water Desalination Act of 1996 should be
reauthorized. The Act allows Reclamation to participate in external
desalination research. I believe that this research is important and
while I am unaware of any substantive changes needed, I would be happy
to work with Congress to develop appropriate legislation.
RURAL WATER LEGISLATION
Question 5. As you are aware, my staff has been working with you
and the minority staff to develop legislation to aid small and rural
communities to meet their often extensive water needs. Many western
communities rely on aquifers for water that will be depleted within the
next decade. This fact makes the situation especially desperate.
There are also rural water programs within several other agencies.
However, they are not as broad is scope and not of the scale that would
allow many communities to make use of them. Furthermore, it is my
belief that the BOR has the technical expertise to undertake such a
project.
Is a rural water program a new authority that you feel would be
appropriate for the BOR to undertake?
Answer. Yes, I believe Reclamation should have authority to manage
a comprehensive rural water program. Currently, rural water projects
are authorized on an ad hoc basis without much agency involvement in
the planning and design phases. This has created many problems as
Reclamation begins its process of managing the construction and
implementation phases of these individually authorized projects. In
many cases, this has included the need to secure funding for the
operation, maintenance and replacement (O,M&R) of these projects into
the future since, for some projects, the O,M&R costs have fallen to the
Federal government to pay.
I believe the Secretary should have authority to set forth
eligibility criteria that should be met by future projects during the
initial planning process, both at the appraisal and feasibility levels,
before they move forward to design and construction phases. Early
Federal involvement in planning and designing rural water delivery
systems can save money by utilizing Reclamation's previous experience
in constructing water projects and operating and maintaining water
systems across the West. Projects recommended as feasible for
construction under these criteria can ensure the most efficient and
effective use of our limited Federal dollars, and would prioritize the
best projects for funding construction.
Question 6. What form do you see this program taking? Do you feel
that the loan guarantee program in the bill is a viable mechanism to
aid rural communities?
Answer. I see this program setting criteria for both appraisal and
feasibility analysis in planning and designing future rural water
projects. Involving Reclamation technical experts ``up front'' in the
planning and design phase can save money in the construction process.
Also, determining the appropriate level of local cost share for
repayment of construction costs and 100% of the project O,M&R at the
local level will assess a community's capability to pay such costs in
the long run, ensuring a sustainable, long-term project that will meet
the rural community's needs.
While the Administration continues to assess the benefits and
financial impacts of a loan guarantee program for Reclamation, there
could be advantages to using Federal guarantees that would be helpful
in developing rural water projects. First, a loan guarantee program
could be used to finance part of the local portion of project
construction, maximizing a community's capability to cost share a
portion of the project costs. Second, using private financing through
loan guarantees can help leverage limited Federal dollars in funding
construction of such projects, because only a small portion of the
guaranteed loan amount is backed by appropriated funds in order to
cover expected losses in the future. Finally, the success of the Rural
Utilities Service loan guarantee program within the USDA has shown
these financing tools can work and are generally accepted by both
municipalities and private banking institutions.
Question 7. How do you plan to coordinate with other agencies that
have rural water programs to ensure that the federal government does
not duplicate efforts?
Answer. Authorizing a formal rural water program within Reclamation
would enable the agency to coordinate with other rural water programs
throughout government. Currently, Reclamation cannot easily coordinate
with these other agencies due to the lack of formal program
authorities. Coordination of Federal rural water programs would be a
high priority of Reclamation's in implementing any formal program in
the future.
Question 8. The USGS maintains numerous river and stream gauges
throughout the United States that are relied on to determine compliance
with interstate compacts and treaty obligations. However, some of these
gauges have fallen into a state of disrepair, calling into question
their accuracy. An example of this is when the Red Bluff gauge, which
we rely on to determine if New Mexico is meeting its compact deliveries
to Texas, was washed-out last year. That instance has called into
question if NM was in compliance with the Pecos River Compact last
year.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that our most important
gauges are in good repair so that they provide accurate data?
Answer. As a former water manager, I recognize the importance and
value of reliable streamflow information. If confirmed, I will continue
to support the USGS National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP)
within the Administration's priorities and available resources.
Question 9. What will you do to ensure that an event such as the
one at Red Bluff does not occur again?
Answer. The USGS NSIP plan is designed to provide a stable,
modernized streamgaging network that addresses core Federal and
cooperator needs. I believe in this program and, while unforeseen
problems may arise in the future, I will work with the USGS to maintain
the integrity of the stream gage system.
WESTERN WATER SUPPLY
Question 10. The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 to
help develop and settle the arid West through irrigation and multi-
purpose projects. Over 100 years later, the West is largely settled and
its population is booming. Agriculture, urban, and environmental needs
now compete for a limited and sometimes over-allocated water supply.
Several participants in the Committee's Water Conference in April
said that these changes are placing intense pressure on existing
Western water supplies, construction of new water storage facilities
should be a key component of federal water resources policy.
Do you agree that expansion of existing water supplies should be an
important component of any strategy for meeting the long-term water
needs of the West?
Answer. I believe that expanding existing water supplies should be
a component of long-term water strategies to meet future Western needs.
This can be done in a number of ways.
Question 11. If so, what should be the role of the federal
government in the development of new supplies?
Answer. The Federal role should include at least three strategies.
First, expansion of existing supplies by helping to stretch water
supplies to meet unmet needs, as well as current uses, can be
accomplished through improvements in water conservation, water use
efficiencies, and the use of water markets. The implementation of new
water management technology, such as automation, canal lining, and
other infrastructure improvements can help accomplish this goal.
Second, researching new, more cost-effective water treatment
technologies could eventually help add to future usable water supplies
in areas where brackish groundwater exists but cannot be utilized
economically today. Finally, new water storage capacity may be needed
in some areas in order to meet emerging needs for water in the long-
term. An appropriate Federal role in these efforts could include
planning and technical assistance, but must include a major role for
non-Federal partners in developing and financing such projects.
Question 12. What are the primary institutional, financial, and
regulatory impediments to development of new water supplies, and how
can they be overcome?
Answer. The States have the authority to allocate waters within
their boundaries. Water rights would have to be issued in priority with
state allocation systems by the States themselves for any new storage
projects. A regulatory hurdle could also include environmental
permitting issues at the local, State, and Federal levels. Funding
limitations at the Federal, State and local level could impede
financing such projects. In attempting to overcome these impediments,
it would be prudent to implement strategic goals one step at a time,
looking to conservation, efficiencies, and markets, new technology, and
other mechanisms that can address water supply problems today, while
longer-term strategies for developing new water supplies are studied,
environmental impacts are identified, and financial impediments are
addressed.
Question 13. What is the Administration's position on alternative
funding mechanisms such as a loan guarantee program or a water trust
fund?
Answer. The Administration is actively analyzing the possible
benefits and financial impacts to Reclamation of a loan guarantee
program, but has not taken an official position as of yet. Water trust
funds have not yet been discussed in detail within the Administration
as a viable alternative funding mechanism.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
Question 14. The Lower Colorado River basin states of Arizona,
Nevada and California are committed to a strategy to minimize over-
deliveries of water to Mexico and thereby maximize preservation of the
storage capacity in Lake Mead. The elements of this strategy include:
Lining of the All American Canal and construction of
regulatory storage reservoirs adjacent to the All American
canal;
Removal of silt from Laguna Dam;
Placing the Yuma Desalting Plant into full-capacity
operation as soon as possible;
Reinstituting studies and discussions looking toward
augmentation of the water supply in the full Colorado River
Basin.
What do you believe the Administration's position should be on
preserving storage in Lake Mead by eliminating or minimizing over-
deliveries of water to Mexico?
Answer. I believe the Bureau of Reclamation should continue to work
hard to ensure that water deliveries to all water users in the Lower
Basin are made as efficiently as possible. I also believe Reclamation
should minimize over-delivery to Mexico. With regard to losses that
occur because of floods on Lower Basin tributaries, Reclamation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have coordinated water supply and flood
control operations to ensure capture of most of the flood water.
Reclamation estimates that Lake Mead is nearly 30 feet higher now than
projected in October 2004 because of these coordinated operations.
Furthermore, Reclamation is working with Lower Basin water users to
identify options for developing additional regulatory storage
facilities that could conserve up to 40,000-50,000 acre feet of water
annually that would otherwise constitute over-deliveries to Mexico.
Question 15. What is the Administration's position on each of these
four elements?
Answer. In regard to lining the All American Canal, the Imperial
Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority and Reclamation
are continuing work on designing the canal features. It is expected
that construction will begin in early 2006.
Reclamation has received several letters from various organizations
within the United States and Mexico alleging violations of law
regarding the proposed lining project. Included among the alleged
violations are issues associated with potential impacts of the canal
lining project within the Republic of Mexico. Reclamation and the
Department of the Interior are working with the State Department and
the International Boundary and Water Commission regarding these issues.
In regard to construction of regulatory storage reservoirs adjacent
to the All American Canal, Reclamation is working on a Preliminary
Study of the Lower Colorado River Water Storage Alternatives. These
alternatives include reservoirs along Drop 2 of the All American Canal,
Expansion of the Laguna Reservoir, and Rehabilitation of Senator Wash
Reservoir. Among other actions, further feasibility level analysis
should be completed before construction of the reservoirs can begin.
The Preliminary Study of the Lower Colorado River Water Storage
Alternatives included the removal of silt behind Laguna Dam as one of
the three final alternatives for obtaining additional regulatory
storage on the Lower Colorado River. Additional analysis and compliance
review must be completed before the project could begin.
Reclamation is addressing the Yuma Desalting Plant issue in three
ways. First, while the Plant is being maintained in a ready-reserve
status, design deficiencies that must be corrected prior to Plant
operation are being resolved to the extent funding allows. Second,
Reclamation plans a demonstration program to evaluate the viability of
Colorado River water users voluntarily forbearing the use of water by
fallowing land in exchange for cash payment. The water saved by
fallowing could serve as a replacement supply for the bypassed drain
water. Third, Reclamation plans to initiate a public planning process
to identify, analyze, and evaluate alternative ways of replacing or
recovering bypassed flows that are required to meet water quality
standards under the Mexico treaty. Our current approach, then, is to
improve the readiness of the Plant to operate while pursuing options to
replace or recover bypassed drain water that may be available at a
lower cost and may avoid negative environmental impacts.
Finally, augmentation of the water supply of the Colorado River
Basin is a topic the Department is willing to discuss with the Basin
States and others.
WATER 2025
Question 16. In 2003, the Bureau of Reclamation administratively
created its Water 2025 grant program. The House Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, however, has routinely zeroed out funding
for this program, citing a lack of Congressional authorization. In my
role as Chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee, I have added an authorization in the appropriations bill.
Do you believe that a Congressional authorization for Water 2025 is
not necessary? If so, how do you plan to respond to the House attempts
to kill the program's funding?
Answer. The FY 2004 and FY 2005 appropriations acts provided
specific language that was a great help in implementing the grant
program. Language included in the Senate-passed version of the FY 2006
Energy & Water Appropriations bill would enable Reclamation to continue
effective implementation of the grant program in the future.
I am advised that specific authorization for grants and cooperative
agreements through Reclamation for Water 2025 is necessary. The House
has been highly supportive of Water 2025 the last several years-not
just in the final appropriations bill, but in the House-passed versions
of the FY 2004 and FY 2005 Appropriations. In the FY 2006 House-passed
version of Energy & Water, the House expressed its continued support
for Water 2025, but provided no funding-citing the lack of a permanent
authorization. In response, the Administration sent a Statement of
Administration Position to the House expressing its support for
continued funding and authorization for the Water 2025 program. The
Senate-passed version of the FY 2006 Energy & Water Appropriations bill
provides $20 million for the program.
Question 17. If you do believe Congressional authorization is
needed, will you work with us to accomplish that?
Answer. Yes, I will work with you on securing permanent authority.
TITLE XVI RECYCLING AND REUSE
Question 18. Every year, Congress supports the authorization of new
Title XVI recycling and reuse projects, despite the Administration's
stated objections to the program. Last Congress, Commissioner Keys
appeared before this Committee and testified that the program has a 15-
year funding backlog.
As a result, Senate staff has been working with their counterparts
in the House to address the Title XVI program. It is our hope to
introduce legislation this Congress to reform the program.
What is your position on reforming or revamping the Title XVI
program?
Answer. I believe that the Title XVI Program has successfully
demonstrated that water reclamation and reuse can help increase both
the availability and reliability of local water supplies in the Western
states. Water treatment technology such as desalination is an effective
way to support water recycling and reuse in the West. I would be happy
to work with Congress on the Title XVI Program, while not diminishing
Reclamation's core mission of meeting its contractual commitments of
delivering water and power to Reclamation customers.
Question 19. What is the appropriate role for the Bureau in M&I
water supply?
Answer. Reclamation's appropriate role in M&I water supply is
first, to meet the explicit M&I components of individual Acts of
Congress authorizing Reclamation projects and, second, to manage water
storage and delivery in large basins such as the Colorado River in a
manner consistent with State water law, multi-State agreements, and
other legal obligations where ultimate water users are sometimes
municipal and industrial.
Question 20. Will you commit to work with Staff as we explore
options on Title XVI?
Answer. Yes.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ESA COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM
Question 21. Several years ago, I established the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Collaborative Program to help protect the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. I have
been working with BOR and numerous other stakeholders to develop
legislation that would articulate roles for both the Corps of Engineers
and BOR.
Despite good run-off this year, water in storage in the Rio Grande
Basin is still far below capacity. Meeting the Biological Opinion
requires providing water to meet minimum flow requirements.
Do you feel comfortable with the role given to the Bureau of
Reclamation in the proposed legislation to provide water to meet the
Biological Opinion flow requirements?
Answer. While I realize legislation may not yet be in its final
form, I am confident that Reclamation and I will be able to work with
your Committee and the Congress to develop a program that will succeed
in meeting ESA requirements under the Biological Opinion. We look
forward to the opportunity to cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and other agencies in continuing the Collaborative Program
and Reclamation's active participation in Program activities, including
providing water to meet Biological Opinion flow requirements.
Question 22. Where does the BOR anticipate it will get water from
in future drought years in order to meet regulatory requirements?
Answer. We anticipate acquiring water from multiple short-and long-
term sources to meet the flow requirements in the Biological Opinion.
We will continue to enter into short-term water leases with willing San
Juan-Chama Project contractors to provide water to benefit endangered
species. To meet long-term needs, we will work with the State of New
Mexico and others to evaluate potential sources of water, develop a
long-term water acquisition plan, and implement it. Water banking and
other potential sources would be considered.
MINNOW SANCTUARIES
Question 23. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives specified in
the 2003 Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion on the Rio
Grande Silvery Minnow required the construction of two minnow refugia.
In order to comply with this mandate, I have been working with the BOR
Albuquerque Area Office to construct a minnow sanctuary.
What is the status of the pre-construction activities underway?
Answer. Design and environmental compliance activities are
continuing on schedule. We will be ready to begin construction in
October 2005.
Question 24. How long will it take to begin construction and
ultimately complete the project?
Answer. Contingent on FY 2006 appropriations, we are prepared to
begin construction in October 2005. Construction should be completed in
the summer of 2006.
Question 25. Do I have your assurance that you will make
construction of the refugia a priority?
Answer. Yes.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PUEBLO WATER DELIVERY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Question 26. Pursuant to a 1982 agreement, the BOR is responsible
for delivering water to meet ``prior and paramount'' rights of the 6
Middle Rio Grande Pueblos. The BIA was also given authority to ensure
that these obligations were met. The six Pueblos rely upon the delivery
of the water they hold rights to for the irrigation of over 8,000 acres
of land. The Pueblos question if the BOR is delivering water consistent
with the 1982 agreement and if the BIA is fulfilling its trust
responsibility.
Furthermore, the Pueblos rely on the BOR for irrigation
infrastructure which has fallen into a state of disrepair and needs to
be upgraded.
How does your department plan to resolve the conflict that has
arisen between the BIA, BOR and Pueblos?
Answer. The Department has formed a team of engineers from
Reclamation, BIA, and USGS, who are working with the Pueblos regarding
some of the calculations and interpretation of the 1981 agreement.
Although BIA is the agency responsible for supporting infrastructure on
the Pueblo lands, Reclamation has provided and will continue to provide
technical assistance to the Pueblos in supporting their infrastructure.
It is my intention to ensure that these complimentary roles continue to
be honored within the Department.
Question 27. How does the BOR plan to upgrade and maintain the
Pueblo water delivery infrastructure? Is funding available for these
purposes through Water 2025 or other grants? How do you plan to meet
these trust responsibilities?
Answer. There are two types of facilities on Pueblo lands: Middle
Rio Grande Project facilities that deliver water to a Pueblo as a whole
and those facilities which are specifically tribal that deliver water
to individual farms. While Reclamation has no authority to rehabilitate
Pueblo ditches, Reclamation, through such programs as Water 2025, can
work on Reclamation Projects that lie on Pueblo lands. BIA has
responsibility and authority to work on non-Reclamation Project systems
on Pueblo lands. Portions of the six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos
irrigation infrastructure fall within the boundaries of the Middle Rio
Grande Project and can be served by Reclamation. The Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District has received about $3 million under Water 2025 for
water conservation and infrastructure improvements. This funding can be
used throughout the District, including those portions of the six
Middle Rio Grande Pueblos facilities within the Middle Rio Grande
Project. Reclamation has funded a variety of small infrastructure
improvement projects for Pueblos in New Mexico through its Native
American Program. This Program does not have the authority to cover
significant rehabilitation projects of Pueblo facilities. If confirmed,
I will ask Reclamation to continue to examine authorities and funding
availability to upgrade Pueblo facilities.
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT
Question 28. The Animas-La Plata project will provide water to
communities of Northwestern New Mexico and Colorado and settles the
water rights claims of the Ute Mountain and Southern Ute tribes.
Despite past claims of mismanagement and poor planning and oversight,
the A-LP project is now proceeding at an acceptable rate.
What precautions are being taken to ensure that there are not
further cost overruns with the project?
Answer. The ALP Construction Office is responsible for all matters
pertaining to the construction of the project. This office is managed
by a Project Construction Engineer who reports directly to the Regional
Director of the Upper Colorado Region in Salt Lake City, Utah. The
construction office continually evaluates ways to reduce costs while
maintaining the project features. Cost tracking procedures implemented
in 2004 now relate all project costs to the construction cost estimate
(indexed for inflation) for early detection of problems. This cost
information is shared with the Project Sponsors on a monthly basis.
Finally, we have refined and streamlined reporting within Reclamation
for the ALP.
Question 29. Will project be completed on budget even with
increased construction costs?
Answer. Reclamation believes the project can be completed within
the 2003 construction cost estimate (indexed for inflation) and is
working diligently to make that happen. The recent increases seen
nationally in the construction industry for fuel, cement, and steel
have been felt at ALP. However, most of the large contracts have now
been awarded and are fixed price contracts. Currently the project is
nearly 25% complete and is on track within the indexed construction
cost estimate.
Question 30. How is the BOR addressing recent environmental
challenges?
Answer. Funding for the completion of the cultural and
environmental mitigation features of the project has been given a high
priority within the ALP project budget. Although construction of
project facilities has been faced with many environmental challenges,
ranging from controlling extreme flood events to protection of nesting
golden eagles, these challenges have been resolved in a timely fashion.
All environmental compliance and mitigation obligations are currently
either being met or are on schedule to be completed concurrent with
project facility construction.
TULAROSA
Question 31. Recent drought and population growth in the western
U.S. requires that we make more efficient use of water and develop
technologies to make use of previously impaired or unusable water.
During the 1960's, the federal government funded extensive research in
water technology which resulted new technologies such as reverse
osmosis.
I believe that the federal government should renew its investment
in water treatment technology. Toward this end, I have funded
construction of a Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development
center in New Mexico. Also, I have funded the development of new
technologies through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill.
How is construction of the Tularosa facility proceeding?
Answer. Construction of Tularosa is moving forward with Schedule 4
of the contract to be awarded in early August. Schedule 4 covers the
construction and equipping of the central research facility, a 16,000
square foot building. The project is on track for completion in FY
2006. Reclamation is currently developing a strategic plan which will
be the basis for operating the research facility. Using this plan, we
will competitively select a vendor to operate and maintain the facility
under the direction of Reclamation. Also, the Office of Naval
Research's Expeditionary Unit Water Purification (EUWP) system is
currently being tested at the site by teams of Reclamation operators.
THE CALFED PROGRAM
Question 32. Last year, Congress enacted the long-awaited
authorization for the CALFED program. Part of the urgency was because
without federal authorization, the state-created CALFED Authority would
dissolve. However, problems with state funding have led to speculation
that California will abandon the program.
What is the status of California's participation in the CALFED
program?
Answer. The State of California continues to be an active partner
in the CALFED program. The recently passed 2005-2006 State budget
includes $145 million for CALFED related activities. At the request of
the Governor, the program is currently in the process of an internal
review. This review will look at expenditures to date, future budget
requirements, project prioritization, and provide an evaluation of the
existing CALFED program structure. The purpose of the internal review
is to assess the effectiveness of the program to date, identify
potential areas of improvement, and set the course for efficient
program implementation of the highest priority actions. Although future
funding for the program is a serious challenge, the likely increase in
Federal funds for the program combined with new sources of revenue
being pursued by the State should be sufficient to make considerable
progress toward the implementation of the highest priority actions.
Question 33. What is the status of the federal implementation of
the CALFED program?
Answer. The federal implementation of the activities outlined in
the CALFED Record of Decision continues to be a high priority. The
recently enacted legislation reauthorizing federal participation in the
CALFED program provides a framework for federal implementation of the
ROD and also requires that several reports be submitted to Congress on
various aspects of the program. The federal agencies are committed to
working with the State to follow this framework and to provide Congress
the reports called for in the legislation. Specific priority activities
include pelagic fish studies and habitat restoration projects to
address the ecosystem in the Delta, ongoing water storage feasibility
studies and the South Delta Improvement Plan to address critical water
supply needs dependent on the Delta, aggressive drainage management
measures to improve the quality of water that flows into the Delta, and
a levee risk assessment initiated to identify the most critical areas
in need repair to ensure the Delta is protected from serious flood
damage.
DROUGHT
Question 34. The Southwestern United States has been experiencing
drought conditions since 2000. the Pacific Northwest is also experience
significant water supply shortages.
What is the status of the Department of the Interior's efforts to
develop a voluntary protocol among the Colorado River basin states to
deal with water shortages?
Answer. Reclamation published a Federal Register notice on June 15,
2005 soliciting comments from the public on the development of
operational and management strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
Two public discussion meetings are scheduled for late July. It is the
Department's intent to have operational guidelines for Reclamation to
apply in its annual operations by December 2007.
Representatives from the seven Colorado River Basin States have
been meeting regularly since March 2004 with the goal of developing
consensus recommendations on the operation of the Colorado River
reservoirs under drought and low reservoir conditions. At the request
of the States, the Department and Reclamation have been participating
in some of these meetings. Reclamation has been providing technical
support to the States, performing river simulation modeling to analyze
the various operating strategies developed by the States. Given recent
discussions, the Department remains hopeful that the Basin States will
advance a consensus recommendation within the next few months.
Question 35. What is the extent of the Bureau's involvement in on
the Columbia and Snake Rivers and how, if at all, will that be impacted
by Judge Redden's recent decision to allow more spills and higher flows
this summer?
Answer. Reclamation operates 31 projects in the Columbia River
Basin with over 40 dams. Two Reclamation dams with power generation
capacity, Grand Coulee Dam on the mainstem Columbia River in Washington
State, and Hungry Horse Dam on the South Fork Flathead River in western
Montana, were included with 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
dams in the consultation resulting in the 2004 NOAA Fisheries
Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS).
Other Reclamation projects were consulted on separately, either in the
Upper Snake River Biological Opinion (11 projects and over 20 dams) or
in other individual Biological Opinions.
Environmental plaintiffs requested a Preliminary Injunction (PI)
wherein the USACE and Reclamation would increase both spill and flows
in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Judge Redden granted the
plaintiffs' request for increased summer spill for juvenile fish
passage at five USACE projects in the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers.
This decision does not directly affect the operation of any Reclamation
project in the Basin. Judge Redden denied the plaintiffs' requests to
require more flow in the river which could have impacted operations at
Reclamation's Grand Coulee, Hungry Horse, and Upper Snake River
Projects.
Responses of Mark Limbaugh to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 36a. This committee has been working for some time on
developing a national energy policy-where we hope to commit significant
resources to address our future energy supply challenges. I think we
also need a comprehensive strategy to address our future water supply
challenges. Both USGS and Reclamation have important roles to play in
this effort. I was therefore disappointed with the President's 2006
budget request which calls for a 6.7% cut in Reclamation's budget and a
3.3% cut in USGS's water program.
What do you think should be the focus of the federal government's
strategy to help our nation meet its future water supply challenges?
Answer. I believe the Federal government should focus on practical,
proactive means of providing certainty for water users in the West
through consultation, collaboration, and communication for the benefit
of water conservation. This must occur between the Federal government
and the States, Tribes, local communities, and water users, as well as
among the Federal agencies. Current examples of this focus include
Reclamation's efforts to help the Colorado river Basin States,
including New Mexico, develop criteria to be used in preparing for
future shortages in the Basin, as well as the Upper Colorado and San
Juan endangered species recovery programs and the Multi-species
Conservation Program, both partnerships among federal agencies, the
States, the public, and water users, committing resources and ingenuity
in meeting Endangered Species Act requirements while providing
certainty to water users that their current and future needs can be
met. Federal strategies should also include a focus on preparing our
aging Federal water infrastructure for 21st Century challenges, and
facilitating the use of new technologies to improve the management,
conservation, and supply of water for the emerging needs of a healthy
environment and a growing Western economy. I am proud that this has
become Reclamation's focus during the past four years and I look
forward to learning more about how the Geological Survey embraces this
same focus.
Question 36b. Will you be an advocate within the Administration to
supply the funding needed to implement that strategy?
Answer. Yes, while working closely with my Administration
colleagues.
Question 37a. One area critical to New Mexico's ability to
effectively manage its water resources is the resolution of Indian
water rights claims. As you are probably aware, we have 3 separate
negotiations that could result in settlements in the near future. If
these negotiations are to be successful, the federal government will
need to invest large sums of money. Although we hope to spread this
investment over a number of years, both BIA and Reclamation's budget
would be affected.
Do you believe that the best way to address the issue of Indian
water rights claims is through negotiated settlements or should they
simply be litigated?
Answer. I believe the Department of the Interior's long-standing
policy of favoring negotiated settlement when possible over litigation
is a sound policy.
Question 37b. Are you committed to working with myself and Senator
Domenici to actively work on finalizing settlements and to try and find
ways to fund them?
Answer. Yes.
Question 38a. I believe that the Title XVI water reuse and
reclamation program can provide important water resources for the
water-short West. In response to questions that we submitted on the
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, the Department responded that
the program had met its primary mission.
What do you see as the future for this program?
Answer. I would like to see the Title XVI program focus its efforts
on research and development of improved water treatment technology,
particularly desalination.
Question 38b. Will you support making this program a budget
priority?
Answer. I believe that the Title XVI Program has successfully
demonstrated that water reclamation and reuse can help increase both
the availability and reliability of local water supplies in the Western
states. Water treatment technology such as desalination is an effective
way to support water recycling and reuse in the West. I would be happy
to work with Congress on the Title XVI Program, while not diminishing
Reclamation's core mission of meeting its contractual commitments of
delivering water and power to Reclamation customers.
Question 39. Many parts of the West have been experiencing a record
drought. The Bureau of Reclamation currently has authority to undertake
drought relief measures pursuant to the Reclamation States Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1991. I understand that this authority allows
temporary emergency construction assistance and planning activities.
Would additional drought response authority be useful? If so, would
you work with us on that issue?
Answer. I believe the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991 provides sufficient authority to address temporary
construction, emergency water management, and drought planning
activities. I stand ready to work with the Committee to reauthorize
this statute.
Question 40. What initiatives do you expect to undertake as
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science?
Answer. As I stated in my statement to the Committee during my
confirmation hearing, the Secretary launched her Water 2025 initiative
a couple of years ago. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing the
implementation of Water 2025 during my tenure as Assistant Secretary.
Preventing conflict and crises over water in the West, especially in
areas where we can logically predict such problems in advance, is a
high priority for this Administration. Promoting the use of existing
tools, such as conservation and efficiency, water markets, and new
technology, can alleviate the pressures of conflicting and competing
uses for finite water supplies. Along these same lines, I am very
interested in preparing our existing Federal water infrastructure for
the challenges of the future in a manner that protects the Federal
investment, while recognizing Federal budget constraints as well as the
financial health of project beneficiaries. We must find new, innovative
ways to finance the rehabilitation and modernization of our aging water
facilities in order to deal with emerging needs for water in the West
while not jeopardizing traditional water users in the process. Our
existing water storage and delivery infrastructure is the foundation
for the future of the West, and we must operate and maintain these
facilities in a cost-effective manner. Finally, I intend to focus on
ensuring the Bureau of Reclamation is prepared to meet these future
challenges by reviewing, both externally and internally, the agency's
management structure. I believe the West and the Nation are best served
by a focused, efficient, and fiscally transparent Bureau of Reclamation
that can provide cost effective, value added products and services.
With respect to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), I look
forward to continuing the critical mission of this agency to provide
reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth;
minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage
water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and
protect our quality of life. If confirmed, I will work with the USGS in
completing its current reorganization efforts in order to ensure our
Nation continues to receive the timely, relevant and impartial science
that this country has come to depend on and trust. I look forward to
working with you and the Committee in these efforts.
Question 41. What actions will you take to carry out Interior's
trust responsibilities to Indian tribes?
Answer. The United States government has a unique legal
relationship with federally recognized American Indian Tribes. This
trust responsibility emanates from treaties, statutes, judicial
decisions and agreements with tribal governments. I intend for my
office and the agencies that report to me to do our part to protect and
honor the rights reserved or granted to Indian Tribes or Indian
individuals. If I am confirmed, I assure you that I will continue to
work with and consult with tribal members and leaders to resolve issues
which fall within the jurisdiction of the office of the Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science. Specifically, I will ensure that water
rights negotiations are handled with the utmost respect for all parties
involved.
Question 42a. There have been a number of concerns raised by
entities participating in the Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative
Program about the inefficient process by which the Bureau of
Reclamation enters into contracts or cooperative agreements to expend
money in support of the program.
Can you describe the contracting process in detail?
Answer. Reclamation uses a negotiated procurement process to award
funding for Collaborative Program projects. This contracting process
can result in a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, interagency
agreement, or Indian Self Determination Act (P.L. 93-638) contract.
Reclamation's process for similar projects takes five months from
advertising the Request for Proposals to award. The process with the
Collaborative Program currently takes 10 to 11 months because of the
need to work with the stakeholders and reach consensus on which
proposals are to be funded.
The following steps are included in the contracting process:
1. Development of statement of work by the Collaborative Program.
2. Prepare solicitation documents and have them reviewed by the
Collaborative Program.
3. Electronically advertise the Request for Proposals via e-
Government web site.
4. Accept proposals and review them to ensure all mandatory
information is included.
5. Technical evaluation of the proposals by the Collaborative
Program.
6. Cost evaluation of the proposals by the Reclamation cost analyst
and the Collaborative Program.
7. Preparation of additional technical and cost-related questions
for the proposers.
8. Accept answers and final proposals and have them reviewed by
Reclamation and the Collaborative Program.
9. Reclamation holds negotiations with proposers.
10. Collaborative Program makes funding recommendations to
Reclamation.
11. Reclamation prepares award instruments for legal review.
12. Award instruments are accepted by Grantee and Reclamation.
Question 42b. Can the process be improved, and if so, is there any
ongoing effort underway within Reclamation to implement those
improvements?
Answer. We are currently identifying major issues and formulating
possible solutions. The goal is to identify a process which will be
more efficient and effective, resulting in improved program
performance.
It is essential that the Collaborative Program provide the
technical expertise to identify intended accomplishments, prioritize
activities, and propose the best methodology to achieve their
objectives. Reclamation must administer the contracting processes in
accordance with federal regulations; however, we believe the
contracting process for the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program can
be streamlined and improved. Such improvements should help focus on
results for the program rather than on administrative processes.
Question 43a. I have a bill (S. 214) entitled the ``United States-
Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act'', which is intended to
develop a strong scientific understanding of groundwater resources
shared between the U.S. and Mexico. The bill would help inform water
management decisions at the state and local level and help avoid
conflicts between the United States and Mexico. The bill has strong
bipartisan support and will hopefully be enacted into law in the 109th
Congress.
Do you agree that conflicts over water might be avoided by
developing a better understanding of the resource involved?
Answer. Yes. It is crucial to understand the resources involved in
order to resolve conflicts among competing interests.
Question 43b. Will you support the initiative that would be put in
place by S. 214?
Answer. If enacted, I would support the underlying initiative. It
is my understanding that Interior could support this effort if it were
closely coordinated with and supported by the States of New Mexico,
Texas, Arizona, and California.
Question 44. There is a need for improving the efficiency of water
conveyance infrastructure in the Middle Rio Grande to promote the
conservation of water and to help address issues involving competing
demands for water? One area that seems to have received little
attention is improving the efficiency of infrastructure for the benefit
of the six Middle Rio Grande pueblos.
Is there any ongoing efforts to assist the Pueblos with efficiency
improvements? If not, would you support such efforts?
Answer. Over the last two years, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District has received about $3 million under the Water 2025 program for
water conservation and infrastructure improvements. This funding can be
used throughout the District, including those portions of the six
Middle Rio Grande Pueblos facilities within the Middle Rio Grande
Project. Reclamation has funded a variety of small infrastructure
improvement projects for Pueblos in New Mexico through its Native
American Program. However, this Program does not have the authority to
cover major rehabilitation projects on Pueblo facilities. I will ask
Reclamation to continue to examine authorities and funding availability
to upgrade Pueblo facilities.
Responses of Mark Limbaugh to Questions From Senator Smith
Question 45a. The Bureau of Reclamation markets irrigation water
from the Fern Ridge Reservoir, which is an Army Corps of Engineers
facility. The dam is undergoing major repairs this year, because it was
in imminent danger of catastrophic failure. I am working to ensure that
the irrigators are not forced to pay a disproportionate share of these
repairs, and are not faced with huge increases in their water rates in
the future. There is legislative language on pp. 65-66 of the Senate-
passed Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill (H.R. 2419,
with strikeouts, Report No. 109-84) to ensure that the repayment
obligations and financial exposure of the irrigators who get their
water from this facility is limited.
Can you provide me with the Department's assessment of the
repayment obligations of the irrigators as a result of this language?
For example, will they be responsible for 15 percent of the total cost
of the repairs, or for 15 percent of that percentage of project
benefits that is allocated to irrigation?
Answer. The legislative language in question provides:
Sec. 124. The Chief of Engineers shall define the repairs
made at Fern Ridge Dam as a dam safety project and costs shall
be recovered in accordance with Section 1203 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986: Provided, That costs
assigned to irrigation will be recovered in accordance with
Public Law 98-404.
It is our understanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has allocated 46% of the cost of Fern Ridge Dam to irrigation.
Therefore, the legislative language will result in the irrigators being
responsible for repayment of 46% of 15% of the total cost of the dam
safety work on Fern Ridge Dam.
Question 45b. What is the repayment period?
Answer. Safety of dams repair costs on USACE facilities allocated
to irrigation are repaid in accordance with the Reclamation Safety of
Dams Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-404). While Section 2(c)(2)
provides a maximum repayment period of 50 years for safety of dams
costs by irrigators, the actual period may be shorter. The repayment
period for the repairs of Fern Ridge will be determined following
further review of a number of financial factors by Reclamation.
Question 45c. What is the estimated total financial obligation of
the irrigators under this legislative language?
Answer. We understand that the USACE has estimated the repair cost
to be $22,300,000. Pursuant to the proposed legislation, 15% of this
cost, or $3,345,000, would be allocated to the authorized purposes of
the dam in accordance with the existing cost allocation. Accordingly,
46% of this amount, or $1,538,700, would be allocated to the irrigation
purpose for reimbursement. Using the historic practice agreed upon
between Reclamation and the USACE for assigning and recovering
construction and operation and maintenance costs for the water
marketing program for the Willamette Basin Project, the impact of the
proposed legislation would be a one-time $1.00 per acre-foot surcharge
to the contract rate, which is presently $8.00 per acre-foot. The
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-404)
provides for a repayment period of up to 50 years in consideration of
the irrigators' ability-to-pay. In consideration of prior analyses of
ability-to-pay completed for irrigators in other areas of Oregon, we
believe the estimated $1.00 per acre-foot surcharge would be within the
irrigators' ability to pay.
Absent the legislation, 44.9% of the repair costs, or $10,012,700,
under the USACE O&M program would be allocable to irrigation and a one-
time $6.29 per acre-foot surcharge to the contract rate would be
required.
Due to the significant amount of uncontracted storage,
approximately 97% in the Willamette Basin Project, reimbursement of a
majority of the repair costs allocable under either the Safety of Dams
or O&M programs would be deferred until such time as the water may be
contracted.
The USACE may have additional perspectives on Fern Ridge Dam.
Question 46. The Grants Pass Irrigation District is facing court
imposed deadlines as a result of the consent decree it entered into, to
which the Justice Department also agreed. What is Reclamation's
timeline for completion of the pump station to replace Savage Rapids
Dam? What is Reclamation's current estimate of the funds that will be
needed in each of the fiscal years to complete this project in a timely
manner?
Answer. Reclamation is completing final design of the pumping plant
and currently anticipates that construction of the pumping plant could
begin in June 2006 and be completed in April 2008, with dam removal
activities completed 2009. However, this is an ambitious schedule and
any delays could postpone project completion up to one year given the
limited in-water work period. Partial removal of the dam will start
following completion of the pumping plant.
Cost estimates are being refined through the final design process.
Reclamation currently estimates that completion of the project on this
ambitious schedule would require the following funding:
[$ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thru FY
05 FY 06\1\ FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 TEC\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3 2.0 13.0 10.7 1.5 0.5 30.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's Request in FY2006 is $1.0 million, which was the
estimated maximum capability at the time. Current information now
estimates Reclamation capability at $2.0 million.
\2\ Includes 3.0 million in non-federal cost share.
The current total estimated cost (TEC) for Savage Rapids Dam
Removal is approximately $30 million (October 2004 dollars). The State
of Oregon has committed $3 million towards dam removal leaving the
Federal share of the Project at about $27 million.
Question 47. Please provide me with a list and the status of any
studies being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey pertaining to the
Klamath River Basin.
Answer.
1. Source and Dynamics of Internal Phosphorus Loading in Upper
Klamath Lake--This new project is focused on understanding internal
loading of phosphorous from bottom sediments in Upper Klamath Lake.
Understanding the sources of sediment phosphorous contributing to
internal loading will inform decision makers on how best to target lake
and watershed restoration activities and provide realistic expectations
for lake recovery. The 2-year project is in the data collection phase
this summer. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
2. Water-Supply Forecast Improvement Efforts--This project, in
collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service, is designed to explore new techniques and new
types of data to help improve water-supply forecasts in the Klamath
Basin. The efforts were met with some success, and a final report is in
preparation for completion by September 2005. USGS Oregon Water Science
Center.
3. Water Bank Review--This review evaluated the Upper Klamath Basin
water bank from a hydrologic perspective. The review document was
completed in May 2005. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
4. Klamath Basin Rangeland Trust (KBRT) Review--The Science Center
reviews monitoring plans and reports each year. The 2004 KBRT
monitoring plan review was completed in April 2005. USGS Oregon Water
Science Center.
5. Klamath Project Diversion and Return Review--This effort focuses
on evaluating historic data and data collection methods for the Bureau
of Reclamation Klamath Project relative to major inflows and outflows.
This review will be completed by September 2005. USGS Oregon Water
Science Center.
6. Review of Refuge Water Use--The Bureau of Reclamation currently
obtains water-use data for refuges in the Klamath Project from USFWS.
USGS was asked to review the data. This review will be completed by
September 2005. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
7. Review of Temperature Models Developed for the Klamath River
System--This effort involves the review of different water-temperature
models that have been developed for the Klamath River. The review will
be completed in early FY 2006. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
8. Monitoring of Water Quality in Upper Klamath Lake--Implemented
this year, the objective of this long-term monitoring program is to
provide researchers and decision makers information needed to support
the goals of the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. This program
will continue advancing the understanding of Upper Klamath Lake
ecosystem functions. The program is ongoing. USGS Oregon Water Science
Center.
9. Development of a Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of Upper
Klamath Lake--This project will improve our understanding of wind-
driven water circulation in Upper Klamath Lake and will evaluate the
extent to which wind conditions determine the varying dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the lake. The project is in its first year. USGS
Oregon Water Science Center.
10. Adaptive Management of Wood River Wetland for Optimized Water
Quality, Water Yield, and Wildlife Habitat, Upper Klamath Basin--This
study was designed to establish baseline conditions and evaluate the
effects of various management scenarios on water quantity, water
quality, and wetland habitat. This 4-year study is expected to be
completed in FY 2006. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
11. Channel processes and morphology, Sprague River--This new
project will provide basic information on how the river channel,
floodplain, and related water features operate and on changes in these
features over the last 100 years or more. It also will identify key
features and sites for restoration of habitat and geomorphological and
hydrological processes. This information will aid in determining
critical locations and processes for which restoration activities may
have substantial beneficial effects. The project will last 3 years.
USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
12. Upper Klamath Basin Ground-Water Investigation--This project is
designed to develop a quantitative understanding of ground water in the
upper Klamath Basin and a ground-water flow model that can be used to
guide water management. This 7-year project is nearing completion with
the computer model in development. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
13. Upper Klamath Basin Conjunctive-Use Optimization--This project
is designed to take the ground-water flow model for the basin currently
in development and couple it with an optimization model. This
information will enable decision makers to optimize ground-water use.
The project is in the early stages and scheduled for completion in
2007. USGS Oregon Water Science Center.
14. Upper Klamath Basin Ground-Water Monitoring--Through this
project, USGS is leading efforts to monitor the response of the ground-
water system to increased pumping that has occurred since 2001, and
help decision makers adaptively manage the resource in the short term.
The USGS Oregon Water Science Center coordinates efforts of several
state and federal agencies. This monitoring is ongoing.
15. The Oregon Water Science Center also operates 9 streamgages in
the Klamath Basin. That work is ongoing and includes the 3 gages that
are used to determine average lake elevation for Upper Klamath Lake.
Lake elevation and Klamath River flow data are critical for management
of water in the basin each year, and specifically for meeting
biological opinion elevations and flows.
16. Klamath River Young-of-the-Year Fish--This project is providing
assessments of juvenile fishes for management of imperiled fishes in
the Klamath River. The study was begun in 2005 and will continue in
2006. USGS Fort Collins Science Center.
17. Wood River Tributary Water Quality Study--This project provides
water quality monitoring support in a tributary of the Klamath River
that influences water quality and water quantity in the Klamath River.
The study was begun in 2005 and will continue in 2006. USGS Fort
Collins Science Center.
18. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Re-licensing Analysis--
This project is conducting simulations of different water management
alternatives that have been developed by a multi-agency group for re-
licensing of three hydropower facilities on the Klamath River. Results
will provide water managers with information to balance water
availability issues for multiple uses in the basin, including
hydropower, irrigation, and fishery resources. The study was begun in
2005 and will continue in 2006. USGS Fort Collins Science Center.
19. System Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) for Iron Gate Dam
Operations--USGS will adapt the SIAM model to predict reservoir release
water quality and identify potential effects on Chinook production in
the Klamath River. The study was begun in 2005 and will continue in
2006. USGS Fort Collins Science Center.
20. Fish Population Assessments--Mark/Recapture Protocols--
Statisticians will use ten years of mark/recapture data from the adult
sucker monitoring program to develop population models for the
synthesis of biological and physical data including hydrologic
information. The study was begun in 2005 and will continue in 2006.
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
21. Bioenergetics--This project will develop bioenergetic models
for adult shortnose and Lost River suckers to predict size, condition,
and survival of fish under different summer conditions. Optimal growing
conditions can be characterized with these types of physical and
biological models, considering variable diet, ration, temperature, and
environmental conditions. The study was begun in 2005 and will continue
in 2006. USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center.
22. Population Dynamics Models--This project will determine the
distribution and general movement patterns of adult Lost River suckers
and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake to determine specific
sucker locations and their association with water depth and selected
water quality variables. The study was begun in 2005 and will continue
in 2006. USGS Western Fisheries Research Center.
23. Fish Health and Disease of Klamath Basin Native Fish--This
project will determine the effects of chronic exposure to selected
water quality parameters under typical summer conditions. Effects on
non-specific immune function and normal blood chemistry in adult Lost
River and shortnose suckers are analyzed in relation to periodic fish
kills in the Klamath Basin. The study was begun in 2005 and will
continue in 2006. USGS Western Fisheries Research Center.
24. Continued and Enhanced Monitoring of Adult Suckers in Upper
Klamath Lake--This monitoring program provides information on the
current status of adult sucker populations with respect to size and
species composition, age and growth, fecundity, and relative health,
and allows for the estimation of key population parameters such as
survival, recruitment, and finite rate of population change by
analyzing mark-recapture data. The study began in 1995 and is ongoing.
USGS Klamath Falls Field Station.
25. Distribution and Spawning Habitat Use by Adult Suckers and
Production of Larval Suckers above Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River--
This project will provide information that will help guide proposed
restoration activities in the Upper Klamath Basin by identifying the
importance of providing adequate spawning and rearing habitat in the
Upper Sprague River. With the proposed removal of Chiloquin Dam on the
Sprague River, the study is providing additional baseline information
to help assess the effects of dam removal on sucker populations. The
study began in 2004 and is ongoing. USGS Klamath Falls Field Station.
26. Distribution and Abundance of Endangered Juvenile Suckers along
Shoreline Habitats in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon--This project is
providing information on the relative importance of habitat types
available to juvenile suckers along shoreline areas to improve
understanding of the importance of vegetation, different substrates,
and other environmental factors for juvenile suckers. This study will
provide information for decision makers with regard to lake-level and
habitat management. The study began in 2002 and is ongoing. USGS
Klamath Falls Field Station.
27. Bioenergetic Requirements of Endangered Juvenile and Adult Lost
River and Shortnose Suckers--This project will determine how diet,
weather, lake elevation, water quality, and other factors influence
fish growth and survival at various life stages. Data from this study
will fill a gap in our understanding of these species and provide
decision makers with information on environmental and hydrologic
conditions favorable to the growth and survival of these fish. The
study began in 2005 and is ongoing. USGS Klamath Falls Field Station.
28. Behavior of Adult Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake with respect to
Water Quality--This study will examine the role of ``water quality
refuge'' areas in the survival of adult suckers in Upper Klamath Lake.
This joint study involves intensive data collection of fish behavior
and movements and water quality monitoring during the spring and summer
months. These data are needed for determining the conditions leading to
periodic fish kills that threaten the survival of two sucker species in
Upper Klamath Lake. The study began in 2002 and is ongoing. USGS
Western Fisheries Research Center, USGS Oregon Water Science Center,
USGS Klamath Falls Field Station.
29. Lower Klamath River Water Quality Investigation--This study
modeled streamflow temperature for Total Maximum Daily Load work being
done by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
report is currently in review. USGS California Water Science Center.
30. The California Water Science Center also operates 29
streamgages in the Klamath River Basin; 21 are used to monitor
streamflow discharge, 3 are used to monitor lake or reservoir elevation
or stage, 10 are used to monitor water chemistry, 11 are used to
monitor water temperature, and 2 are used to monitor sediment. That
work is ongoing.
Question 48. Please describe the data collection and research
activities related to anadromous fish of the USGS Western Fisheries
Research Center, particularly Columbia River Research Laboratory. How
are these activities coordinated with other federal, state, and tribal
agencies with fisheries responsibilities in the basin?
Answer. The U.S. Geological Survey Western Fisheries Research
Center has two major research facilities in the Pacific Northwest with
science activities in Puget Sound and the Columbia River Basin. The
anadromous fish research of the Center is conducted for the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies at the Columbia River
Research Laboratory (CRRL), with up to 50 major anadromous fish
research projects ongoing in the Columbia River Basin. These projects
address the science priorities of the major fishery and water managers
in the region. Anadromous species research focuses on data collection,
behavior, and survival of salmon and steelhead at dams; fish physiology
and condition (e.g., gas bubble disease); predation and competition
(e.g., bioenergetics modeling); water quality effects on habitats and
fish; population dynamics (growth, survival, and recruitment);
evaluation of habitat restorations; thermal stress on fishes; effects
of invasive species; and effects of long-term changes in environmental
quality.
The CRRL is renowned for its expertise in biotelemetry and research
on fish passage at hydropower dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
The CRRL's geospatial group is developing novel decision support
systems to analyze spatial patterns of habitat use by anadromous
fishes, especially juvenile salmon, and their responses to varying
flows and other variable habitat conditions. The CRRL coordinates with
and is funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the
Department of Energy, the states of Washington and Oregon, and Columbia
Basin tribes including the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and
Kootenai.
The U.S. Geological Survey Western Fisheries Research Center
science addresses fish health, fish ecology, and aquatic ecosystems of
anadromous fishes, such as Pacific salmon and steelhead, bull trout and
cutthroat trout, and Pacific lampreys and white sturgeon, in watershed
and coastal habitats. Molecular biology and genetics studies focus on
physiological conditions of anadromous species and hatchery-wild salmon
interactions, with particular attention to threatened and endangered
salmonids or other anadromous species of special concern to DOI and
other fishery managers. Disease ecology studies are focused on the
major viral and bacterial diseases of hatchery-reared salmon and, in
the wild, increasingly on forage fish upon which they feed and that may
be potential disease vectors. Other work is focused on age and growth
of juvenile salmon and their residence in key aquatic habitats (e.g.,
rivers, estuaries, and nearshore marine environments).
USGS anadromous fish research is coordinated with other federal
agencies nationally, including Bonneville Power Administration, the
USACE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation,
and the U.S. Forest Service. The CRRL research is coordinated with the
Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission; Pacific Northwest
Planning Council (provides scientific review for the states to the
Bonneville Power Administration); Technical Management Team (group of
water and fisheries managers in the basin); Fish Passage Advisory
Committee (working group responsible to Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Authority); USACE Studies Review Work Group for the Anadromous
Fish Evaluation Program for Columbia River hydropower system; Fish
Facility Design Review Work Group (working group of federal, state, and
tribal authorities providing advice to USACE); and the Pacific
Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program.
Responses of Mark Limbaugh to Questions From Senator Salazar
ANIMAS LA PLATA
Question 49a. The President's FY 06 budget called for $52 million
for this project--the same level as FY 04 and '05 spending. The Energy
& Water Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2419, has passed the Senate and is
headed to conference. The House provided $56 million for this project,
and the Senate provided $60 million. This amount will fund continued
construction of the project's major features, including Ridges Basin
Dam and the Durango Pumping Plant. While physical construction of these
two features began in FY 03, this level of funding is necessary to keep
current contract commitments, which will keep the project on schedule.
Please provide me with an update on the status of the project, its
expected completion date and about any problems or obstacles that the
Department anticipates.
Answer. Reclamation is making substantial progress on the Project
and it is on schedule and within the construction cost estimate,
accounting for inflation. The entire project is nearly 25 percent
complete. Prior to 2005, essentially four construction contracts had
been completed out of a total of nine contracts awarded to date. This
March, Reclamation awarded its largest contract for Ridges Basin Dam
Completion, for $84.9 million. Cultural resource and environmental
mitigation are on schedule.
The expected completion date of physical features is 2011, with
project closeout in 2012. This completion date is highly dependent upon
funding levels and other risks which come with any large civil works
project. These other risks are related to the potential for unknown
site conditions, significant hydrologic events, surprises in the
cultural resource mitigation work, land acquisition settlements, etc.
We believe we are prepared for these; however, should significant
issues arise, they could lead to delays.
Question 49b. Will the Administration support the Senate funding
level ($60 million) in conference?
Answer. The Administration appreciates the continued support the
Congress has provided for this important effort. As you stated, the
President's request is $52 million, which is adequate to maintain the
current schedule. If Congress provides $60 million in the final action
on the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, the funds
could be used in FY 2006 for construction work underway on Ridges Basin
Dam.
Question 49c. Will you assure me and the people of Colorado that
you will make this project a priority in your role as Assistant
Secretary for Water & Science?
Answer. Yes.
PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY PLAN
Question 50a. As you know, Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming signed a
cooperative agreement with DOI in 1997 to pursue a comprehensive basin-
wide program to address habitat needs of endangered species in the
Central and Lower Platte River basin. The program is designed to
benefit the species by protecting and enhancing their habitat which, in
turn, will obviate the need for ongoing ESA issues affecting hundreds
of existing and planned federal and private irrigation, municipal water
supply and power generation projects throughout the Platte River basin.
The required NEPA and ESA reviews of the proposed program are scheduled
to be completed by October 2005 and a Record of Decision (ROD) is
expected by December 2005 or January 2006.
Please provide me with an update and status of these reviews and
preparation of the ROD.
Answer. Reclamation, as co-lead with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), is
aiming to complete the EIS by the end of September of this year. This
schedule would leave two months for completion of a final Biological
Opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to a Secretarial Record
of Decision in December, 2005.
Question 50b. Once again, the Senate has restored funding for this
essential project in the Interior appropriations bill ($982,000 for FY
06). As Assistant Secretary for Water & Science, you will do everything
you can to ensure that the Fish & Wildlife Service has adequate funding
to complete the required NEPA and ESA reviews and development of the
Platte River Program?
Answer. The budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service is overseen by
the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, not the
Assistant Secretary for Water & Science, but I will certainly
communicate with the responsible officials in the Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding the importance of this project.
Question 50c. Will you likewise ensure that the Bureau of
Reclamation has adequate funding to implement the program in 2006?
Answer. I would recommend that the Bureau of Reclamation carry out
the program at the funding level provided for in the Fiscal Year 2006
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which has already passed both
bodies of Congress and awaits final conference action.
UPPER COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PLAN
Question 51a. This recovery program, established in 1988, continues
to be a success. It has begun its third year of concerted efforts to
manage northern pike and smallmouth bass in certain river reaches where
these nonnative fish species threaten the survival of the endangered
humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker.
Please provide me with an update and status of the program.
Answer. The Recovery Program is implementing aggressive efforts to
construct fish passages, fish screens, and propagation facilities;
restore habitat; acquire water; enlarge water storage reservoirs;
control nonnative fish; and improve water use efficiency to recover
four listed Colorado River fish species. The non-native fish control
measures that you mentioned are occurring in the Yampa, Green, and
Colorado Rivers. To date, the Program has served as the reasonable and
prudent alternative for water projects while avoiding Endangered
Species Act (ESA) related litigation.
Question 51b. Again, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to restore
funding ($691,000 for FY 06) for the Upper Colorado River fish recovery
project. Will you reaffirm your commitment to the success of this
program?
Answer. I affirm my commitment to the success of this unique
program that allows water development to continue, while realizing
sufficient progress in recovering the endangered species.
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN RECOVERY PROGRAM
Question 52. Like other recovery programs, the purpose of this
program is to help recover the endangered fish while allowing water
development to continue under the Colorado River Compact. The program
recently developed ``Principles for Conducting ESA Section 7
Consultations on Water Development and Water Management Activities
Affecting Endangered Fish Species in the San Juan River Basin.'' These
principles provide certainty for water users with respect to both the
process and the outcome of the Section 7 consultation.
Will you affirm your support, if confirmed, for the necessary
annual appropriations for this program?
Answer. Yes, I affirm my support for this program subject to the
President's annual budget request.
ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT
Question 53. As you know, my bill (S. 1106) would provide an 80/20
cost share by the federal government to build the Arkansas Valley
conduit. The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to
dozens of valley communities and tens-of-thousands of people along the
river. Community leaders continue to explore options for financing
their share of the costs and are working hard to develop the
organization and agreements that will oversee the conduit project.
Will you affirm your support for S. 1106?
Answer. While I have not examined this legislation in great detail,
I am aware of economic challenges relating to the feasibility of this
project. Since the Department has not been asked to testify on S. 1106,
I prefer to reserve judgment until I have had an opportunity for a more
thorough review.
COLORADO RIVER COMPACT SHORTAGE CRITERIA
Question 54a. Will you provide me with an update and status of the
upper and lower basin state negotiations?
Answer. Representatives from the seven Colorado River Basin States
have been meeting regularly since March 2004 with the goal of
developing consensus recommendations on the operation of the Colorado
River reservoirs under drought and low reservoir conditions. At the
request of the States, the Department and Reclamation have been
participating in some of these meetings. Reclamation has been providing
technical support to the States, performing river simulation modeling
to analyze the various operating strategies developed by the States.
Given recent discussions, the Department remains hopeful that the Basin
States will advance a consensus recommendation within the next few
months.
Question 54b. If confirmed, will you affirm the Department's
commitment to developing shortage criteria for Powell in the event the
current drought continues?
Answer. In a May 2005 letter to the Governors of the seven Colorado
River Basin States, Secretary Norton announced that Reclamation would
immediately begin developing additional operational tools and
management strategies to guide future operations of Lake Powell and
Lake Mead, not only during future droughts, but also under low
reservoir conditions. Reclamation has begun to meet this commitment by
holding a public meeting in Henderson, Nevada on May 26, 2005, and
published a Federal Register notice regarding this effort on June 15,
2005. I am committed to following through on the Secretary's direction
on this important effort.
______
Responses of Tom Weimer to Questions From Senator Domenici
The Department plays a critical role in emphasizing responsible
development of energy resources on Federal lands. As you know we are
starting our conference with the House on a comprehensive energy
package. We will be looking to the Department to implement many aspects
of our final bill.
Question 1a. Over the past few years we have pressed for improved
service in the Department energy programs. With the Energy Bill, we are
providing some new tools and streamlining others.
Can you tell us what kind of commitment we can expect in
implementing a National Energy Policy?
Answer. At the outset, I want to thank you for your leadership and
hard work in introducing and passing the National Energy Policy Act of
2005. As you know, the President is deeply committed to facilitating
the development of additional domestic energy resources on public lands
in an environmentally responsible manner. If enacted, we will work
diligently to implement the provisions in the Energy Bill that apply to
the Department of the Interior.
Question 1b. Can we expect that commitment to be reflected in
future budget requests?
Answer. The President's budget prioritizes energy development on
public lands. We anticipate that commitment will continue to be
reflected in future budget requests.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Question 2. OMB is likely to require cuts in the Department
programs over the next few years in an attempt to reduce the deficit.
But cuts in your Energy programs can be described as ``penny wise but
pound foolish''. If DOI has the resources to process drilling permit
applications in a timely fashion, I expect we will see dramatic
increases in receipts due to both increased production as well as from
higher prices.
Do you agree with this expectation, and, if so, will you make a
commitment to make the case to OMB that an investment in processing
drilling permit applications will pay off?
Answer. Yes, I agree that increased domestic energy production and
continued high energy prices should contribute to significant increases
in receipts to the Treasury as the Department is able to permit
increased activities on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf.
Over the last several years, the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Land Management have prioritized the expeditious processing
of applications for permits to drill, and we will continue to do so.
Our budget requests have emphasized the importance of reducing our
dependence on imported energy and the economic benefits of increasing
domestic production, including the significant revenues that will
accrue to the Treasury from comparatively small investments in
Interior's energy management programs.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Question 3. This nation is the ``Saudi Arabia'' of Oil Shale and
the bulk of this resource is on Federal Land. One new program I'm
trying to see funded in the FY2006 Appropriation would initiate an Oil
Shale Leasing Program at BLM.
Can I get a commitment that, if confirmed, you will aggressively
implement such a program?
Answer. Yes. In fact, the BLM's commitment to developing a program
for Oil Shale Leasing is evidenced by very recent action taken pursuant
to the Secretary's existing authority under the Mineral Leasing Act. On
June 9, 2005, the BLM published a new, final oil shale lease form in
the Federal Register, calling for nominations for parcels of public
lands for oil shale research, development, and demonstration
activities. The Federal Register Notice outlined a Research,
Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) leasing program allowing tracts
of Federal land of up to 160 acres to be used to demonstrate the
economic feasibility of today's technologies over a period of up to 10
years. Lessees may, at the time of their nomination, request additional
lands be reserved for a preference right lease on contiguous acreage
which, taken together with the RD&D lease tract, do not exceed 5,120
acres.
The BLM is also looking at what level of commercial leasing
regulations it could propose for comment. These regulations may be
proposed concurrently with the RD&D program. If confirmed, I will work
closely with you and the Committee on this issue.
HOMELAND SECURITY COSTS
Question 4. How much have DOI's costs increased since 2001 as a
result of homeland security requirements, and has there been an
equivalent budget increase to support the effort? If given the
opportunity to change the existing system, how would you budget for and
reimburse bureaus for unexpected homeland security requirements such as
changes from yellow to orange alert status?
Answer. Since 2001, the Department has experienced increased costs
relating to the protection of key dams and monuments; protection of DOI
employees, visitors, and natural and cultural resources; and in
responding to the increased security needs associated with code orange
alerts.
For the National Park Service, since the attacks on September 11,
2001, Congress has appropriated nearly $87.6 million in one-time
funding and over $36.4 million in recurring funding directly related to
homeland security costs. The $87.6 million includes $53.1 million for
construction projects related to homeland security, including $17.8
million for the vehicle barrier at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
The $87.6 million also includes $33.8 million in operational increases
dedicated to security for icon and border parks, which includes $5.1
million for border parks.
The 2006 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation includes $50 million
for site security to ensure the safety and security of critical
infrastructure, an increase of nearly $49 million over 2001.
In total for all Interior agencies, the 2006 budgets for law
enforcement increases by $70.7 million over 2003 levels. A significant
portion of this increase is for homeland security. (The law enforcement
budget has also been increased to address law enforcement reforms,
expanded law enforcement responsibilities and emerging needs such as
BIA detention facilities.)
The Department has budgeted for security needs in order to maintain
operations at Alert Level Yellow status at critical infrastructure and
NPS icon facilities. Because of this, the DOI can now go to orange
alert with little additional cost. The Department continues to work
closely with other security and law enforcement entities and the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that requirements are
anticipated and the budgets of the security and law enforcement
programs adequately address priority needs.
FUNDING FOR PAY INCREASES
Question 5. I have heard that some park units have had to leave
positions unfilled, and eliminate temporary and seasonal employees in
order to find sufficient funds to give full time employees authorized
pay increases and keep up with increasing utility costs. If confirmed,
would you commit to investigating whether this is true, and determining
how many positions have been allowed to lapse and where those positions
are located?
Answer. I am informed that during 2005, the National Park Service
(NPS) will employ well over 20,000 FTEs, continuing a historically high
employment level. To ensure that these personnel resources are
appropriately deployed to provide service to the public, the NPS, on a
regular basis, is undertaking a core mission analysis examining service
levels, changing demands and new responsibilities. If confirmed, I will
work with you and the NPS to identify and address the FTE needs of the
parks to meet their mission requirements.
DRILLING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Question 6. Where does the Department stand on reducing its backlog
on drilling permit applications?
Answer. The Department is committed to the reduction of pending
applications for permits to drill (APDs). In 2004, the BLM processed a
record number of APDs (7,351). This year the BLM is running well ahead
of that record pace in both APDs received as well as those processed.
At the end of FY 2004, BLM had 2,868 APDs pending, of which only 2,214
were pending for more than 60 days. As of July 9, 2005 there were 3,802
APDs pending, of which only 1,916 were pending for more than 60 days.
The table below shows APDs pending at the end of each fiscal year and
the number of APDs received and processed during the fiscal year. The
major challenge in further reducing the number of pending APDs is the
large number of APDs that have been received in the past two years.
This demand has remained high in FY 2005; as of July 9, 2005, BLM has
received 6,230 APDs.
STATUS OF PENDING APDs
[Bureau-Wide]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase
(+) or
Decrease (-
TOTAL APDs APDs TOTAL APDs ) in TOTAL APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal APDs at Fiscal
Year Year Year End of Year
Fiscal
Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 4,033 1,171 2,216 -1,045 2,988
1995 2,988 1,172 1,964 -792 2,196
1996 2,196 1,409 2,129 -720 1,476
1997 1,476 2,645 2,867 -222 1,254
1998 1,254 3,144 2,670 474 1,728
1999 1,728 4,505 2,306 2,199 3,927
2000 3,927 3,977 3,892 85 4,012
2001 4,012 4,819 4,266 553 4,565
2002 4,565 4,585 5,830 -1,245 3,320
2003 3,320 5,063 5,143 -80 3,240
2004 3,240 6,979 7,351 -372 2,868
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARK MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question 7. What progress has the Administration made toward
reducing the maintenance backlog in the national park system?
Answer. The NPS has made significant progress in undertaking
specific maintenance projects throughout the National Park System as
well as in establishing and implementing a new management framework
that will guide the Service's approach to asset management. If enacted,
the President's FY 2006 budget and surface transportation
reauthorization proposal would fulfill the pledge to devote $4.9
billion over five years towards the NPS maintenance backlog.
With the funds appropriated and collected thus far since FY 2002,
the NPS has undertaken over 4,000 projects ranging from road repairs to
historic building stabilization and restroom rehabilitation. In
addition, the NPS has completed the first ever systematic inventory of
its assets and conducted initial condition assessments at all parks.
Comprehensive condition assessments are scheduled to be completed by
the end of FY 2006.
COMPETITIVE SOURCING
Question 8. How many competitive sourcing studies have been
conducted by the DOI during this Administration, in which disciplinary
areas, and what were the findings?
Answer. The Department has completed 90 studies of 3,000 FTEs
during this Administration. In 90 percent of these studies, it was
determined that the Federal Government was the most cost effective
service provider (sometimes referred to as ``Most Efficient
Organization''). It is projected that the development of Most Efficient
Organizations within the Department will result in annual savings of
$5.3 million per year over the next 5 years.
A variety of disciplines have been studied, including
administrative, clerical, archeological, maintenance/custodial,
auditors, guard services, IT services and fire fighting. By far, the
discipline studied the most is maintenance/custodial.
LAW ENFORCEMENT RANGE RETIREMENT
Question 9. The position of law enforcement ranger (GS-0025)
qualifies individuals for retirement after 20 years of service. Some
individuals that performed law enforcement ranger duties have been
denied full retirement benefits. The section of the code that specifies
these retirement benefits is 5 USC 8336(c), commonly referred to as
6(c) retirement benefits. Interpretation of eligibility is determined
by the Firefighter and Law Enforcement Retirement Team (FLERT). It has
come to our attention that there are many concerns as to how these
retirement rulings are being made.
How many people have filed a request for 20-year retirement under
6(c) with FLERT each year since its creation in 1997?
Answer. Since your question asks specifically about the position of
law enforcement ranger (GS-0025), which exists only in the National
Park Service, the following answers pertain only to the NPS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
of
Fiscal Year Initial
Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 97......................................................... 196
FY 98......................................................... 43
FY 99......................................................... 41
FY 00......................................................... 64
FY 01......................................................... 25
FY 02......................................................... 16
FY 03......................................................... 11
FY 04......................................................... 19
FY 05......................................................... 6
---------
Total..................................................... 421
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 9a. How many of these requests have been denied each year
since 1997?
Answer. It is important to note that FLERT does not determine who
is covered, but reviews whether a position that a claimant held is
eligible for coverage and for which periods of service. FLERT does not
maintain a database on all coverage decisions. However, in FY 2004 and
FY 2005, out of 316 NPS claims reviewed, 99 were fully denied, and 121
were partly denied (i.e. particular portions of service were denied),
and 96 were approved.
Question 9b. What would be the cost in retirement pay and benefits
over the next 20 years to cover those denied claims?
Answer. The cost of covering the retirement pay and benefits for
the denied claims over the next 20 years cannot be calculated at this
time. This calculation would require: counting the months of service
denied for coverage for each claimant, determining the percentage of
benefits that would have been paid in by the agency (which varies by
each individual's retirement plan), and other factors.
Question 9c. What is the current backlog of claims awaiting a
ruling by FLERT?
Answer. Individual NPS claims pending as of July 15, 2005, total
139.
Question 9d. What is the current status of benchmark position
descriptions regarding the Law Enforcement Ranger, GS-0025 series and
interpretation of this series as primary law enforcement duties as
reviewed by FLERT?
Answer. There currently exist many benchmark position descriptions
for Law Enforcement Ranger, GS-0025 series, positions within NPS. In
many cases, those benchmark position descriptions are not used as
developed, but are modified, which requires FLERT to review them for
coverage. Additionally, there are a large number of old benchmark
position descriptions that provided coverage under the old case law.
Under current case law and interpretation of ``Law Enforcement'' by the
courts, those positions do not qualify for coverage. A meeting between
NPS representatives, FLERT, and DOI Office of Human Resources
representatives is being scheduled for August to review these old
position descriptions and to determine appropriate coverage under the
new case law. Additionally, the Office of Law Enforcement and Security
is convening a group to develop standardized Law Enforcement Officer
position descriptions for use throughout the Department.
Responses of Tom Weimer to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1a. I recently learned that the BLM is allowing
consultants paid for by the oil & gas industry have been allowed to
work in the Vernal BLM office to process APDs Application for Permit to
Drill).
On July 9th, the Salt Lake Tribune reported ``that a handful of
small oil and gas companies pooled their resources through their trade
group, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, to hire
the consultants through SWCA Environmental Consulting to 'volunteer' in
the Vernal BLM office. The consultants-experts in archaeology,
paleontology, geology and wildlife biology-went to work in mid-February
and committed to work full time for three months.''
Do you understand why this would be alarming for my constituents in
Colorado?
Answer. Yes, without the further explanation which the BLM has
provided below, some stakeholders would find this reporting to suggest
a potential conflict of interest.
Question 1b. What specific actions are taking place to insure
applications are considered in an objective manner in BLM offices with
these consultants?
Answer. The BLM Manual 1114.2.22(C) (Volunteers) states that hosted
workers may provide advisory services, but may not make substantive
recommendations and decisions that are appropriately made by BLM
employees, supervisors, and managers. Accordingly, work assignments for
hosted workers are made by BLM supervisors and managers, not sponsoring
organizations. Prior to the arrival of hosted workers at the Vernal
Office, BLM identified the projects on which hosted workers would be
assigned. Neither the hosted workers nor the consulting firm that
recruited the workers would have any role in setting work priorities.
Hosted workers do not have access to BLM proprietary information and
data. Access to data by volunteers is limited, carefully monitored, and
controlled.
The BLM is currently reviewing its policies in this area to further
ensure that hosted workers are assigned to activities that are
appropriate and in keeping with applicable laws and regulations.
Question 1c. Will you cite the authority under which the Department
is utilizing these consultants as well as any official policies of the
Department regarding using these consultants.
Answer. Section 307(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, as amended, (FLPMA--43 U.S.C. 1737) permits the Secretary
to `` accept contributions or donations of money, services, and
property, real, personal, or mixed, for the management, protection,
development, acquisition, and conveying of the public lands . . .''.
Section 307(d) of 43 U.S.C. 1737 permits: ``The Secretary to accept the
services of individuals contributed without compensation as volunteers
for aiding in or facilitating the activities administered by the
Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management.'' This legal authority
is supplemented by BLM Manual 1114.2.22(C) (Volunteers), which provides
specific guidance of use of hosted workers.
Question 1d. Section 344 of the Senate Energy Bill (H.R. 6) is a
provision creating a pilot project to improve federal permit
coordination in seven BLM field offices. If confirmed, can you assure
me that consultants hired by industry would not be a part of such a
pilot project?
Answer. The BLM would not use hosted workers or volunteers paid by
industry trade associations in the pilot projects envisioned in the
Senate's Energy Bill because the pilot projects described relate to
specific State and Federal workers. I am advised that the BLM views
implementation of the pilot projects as a policy-making exercise which
would make the use of hosted workers or volunteers inappropriate. I can
assure you that I would not approve of using non-Federal workers to
make Federal decisions on policy.
Question 2a. The Administration's budget request proposal to
eliminate the Rural Fire Assistance program is unacceptable to me and
to most members of this Committee. As you know, the Senate
Appropriations Committee has restored funding for this program. In the
arid west, it is absolutely essential to have adequate funding for
wildland fire management activities, particularly in the ``red zone''
adjacent to urban development and other residential areas. As you know,
rural fire departments are often the first responders to fires on
federal lands. They face great risk and incur enormous expense fighting
those fires. The Mason Gulch fire threatened and hundreds of homes in
Colorado. Thankfully, last night the residents of Beulah were finally
allowed to return to their homes. But there is still a great deal of
work to do.
If confirmed, will you work with me to ensure that funding for
these vital programs remains one of the Administration's top
priorities?
Answer. Yes, I recognize the vital role of rural fire departments
in protecting their communities, as well as nearby Federal lands, from
wildfires. The Department of the Interior values its partnerships with
local fire departments, and I will work with you to make sure those
partnerships remain strong.
Interior proposed dedicated funding of $1.9 million in 2006 for
training and equipping rural firefighters who would become what we call
the ready reserve of non-Federal firefighters who could fight less
severe fires around communities without having to call in more costly
Federal or contract crews. I understand that the Department is
aggressively working with States and local governments to develop
community wildfire protection plans and implement hazardous fuel
treatments. Maintaining an effective interagency network of
firefighting forces ready to provide rapid, safe, initial attack will
be a priority for this Administration. I also understand that the
Department has been working with the Forest Service to create an
interagency agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to give
higher priority to wildland fire grants. This agreement will make it
possible for the DHS Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program to take
into account the Nation's wildland firefighting priorities when
awarding grants to fire departments. I am told that agreement has been
reached at the staff level in the three agencies and the agreement is
in the process of final agency approvals.
Question 2b. What other actions is the Department taking to treat
acreage susceptible to wildfires in the ``red zone''?
Answer. I understand that the Department has substantially shifted
the hazardous fuels program toward the wildland-urban interface (WUI)
as a result of our maturing collaborative relationships with our State,
Tribal, and local partners. In 2001, treatments in the WUI totaled only
164,000 acres and accounted for just 23 percent of total acreage
treated. The WUI share of the program rose to 39 percent last year and
accounts for 41 percent of our accomplishments to date this year. As of
July 15th, our bureaus had already treated 364,000 WUI acres, more than
twice as much as they did in all of 2001.
Responses of Tom Weimer to Questions From Senator Smith
Question 1. A permit system for boaters, unlike any other existing
permit system, has been implemented by the Bureau of Land Management on
the lower Deschutes River in Oregon as part of a settlement agreement.
From all reports, that system is utterly failing. Boaters cannot even
access BLM's website to obtain permits. What steps will you take at the
Department to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement--both in
terms of making the permit system work and ensuring fair and adequate
river access? Given that we are at the height of the boating season,
how quickly can my constituents and the professional outfitters who
depend on the river for their livelihoods expect a resolution of this
issue?
Answer. In mid-April 2005, the BLM received a report from the
Department of the Interior Inspector General identifying some potential
security issues with its network and web sites. In response, in
consultation with the Department, all of the BLM web sites, with the
exception of some fire-related sites, have been disconnected, and other
actions have been taken to secure the information while its Information
Resources Management staff works to resolve the issues.
In addition, the BLM is currently involved in a court action in
which the adequacy of information security is an issue. Failing to
demonstrate adequate protections could result in a much longer-term,
mandatory disconnection. As a consequence, it is imperative that all
sites be properly secured and tested before being reconnected.
The BLM web site is an important aspect of customer service, and
the BLM takes seriously its obligation to protect and ensure the
integrity of its internal information systems and the on-line
information provided to its customers. Improving security in the short
term will also allow the BLM to serve its visitors better in the
future.
Because the BLM is a large organization with a great deal of
information and many systems that support its mission, reengineering
the web infrastructure to enhance the manageability and security of
these assets is a complicated effort that will take months to complete.
The BLM is aware of the inconvenience this causes and greatly
appreciates the public's understanding and patience.
Boater passes (including those covered by the limited entry
provisions of the settlement agreement) continue to be available
through all authorized vendors. Additionally, as prescribed in the
Lower Deschutes River Management Plan settlement agreement, a published
toll-free number (1-866-588-PASS (7277)) has been activated to provide
an alternative avenue for public purchase of boater passes. Callers can
receive the pass through the mail, via e-mail address, or by fax.
Effective July 18, 2005, the Prineville BLM Office will be extending
the hours of operation of the 800 number. Sales of boater passes in
these two venues should allow the BLM to comply with the settlement
agreement until security issues with the closed portion of the web site
can be resolved.
Question 2 The Steens Mountain Wilderness and Protection Act of
2000 designated 170,000 acres of wilderness which is being managed by
the Bureau of Land Management in Oregon through the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Area. I remain very concerned
that provisions within the Act guaranteeing access and economic use of
private inholder properties within the Area are not being followed by
the BLM as it develops the management plan for the Steens. What
assurances can you provide that all inholders will retain their full
historic access and use of their properties? If the Management Plan
adopted by the agency in any way limits that usual and historic access
and use, what steps will the agency be taking to resolve this problem
with individual landowners?
Answer. The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection
Act of 2000 (P.L.106-399) (the Steens Act) established both a 500,000-
acre Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) and an
approximately 170,000-acre Wilderness Area, which is wholly contained
within the boundaries of the CMPA.
The Steens Act required the BLM to provide ``reasonable access to
private lands within the boundary of the Wilderness Area.'' The BLM has
been working through the Steens Mountain Advisory Committee (SMAC) to
address the issue of inholder motorized access in the Wilderness Area.
Based on recommendations of the SMAC, the BLM prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) and in June 2004 issued a decision to
permit motorized access from May through November to the Ankle Creek
Route, which is a route that was the subject of considerable
controversy in the scoping process. The decision was appealed to the
Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), which issued a stay preventing
the BLM from implementing its decision. The BLM interprets the stay as
a return to the management practices that precede the EA. Allowable
uses prior to the EA included motorized access to the inholdings along
the Ankle Creek Route at historically established levels.
In April 2005, the BLM also issued the Snowmobile and Berrington
Trail Access Analysis EA. The BLM is analyzing public comment on this
EA and expects to issue a final decision in the near future.
The BLM will continue to work with the SMAC and the inholders to
continue to provide reasonable access to their inholdings.
Responses of Tom Weimer to Questions From Senator Bingaman
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BASIN
Question 1. I have had a recent round of correspondence with
Assistant Secretary Scarlett regarding funding needs for the Middle Rio
Grande Basin in New Mexico. In that correspondence, Ms. Scarlett
indicated that the Department would include an interagency cross-cut
budget in its fiscal 2007 budget request to help address endangered
species and water supply issues in the basin. I believe that commitment
is very important if we are to continue to make progress in improving
the Rio Grande environment while continuing to protect the interest of
water users.
Are you familiar with the correspondence that I'm referring to? If
so, will you help to develop a cross-cut budget for the Middle Rio
Grande if you are confirmed?
Answer. Yes, my office was involved in the preparation of Assistant
Secretary Scarlett's correspondence. I am committed to developing a
cross-cut budget with Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and any other agencies deemed appropriate. The interagency effort to
develop this cross-cut budget has already begun.
Question 2a. I have read that Kane County, Utah has placed many
unauthorized signs within the Grand Staircase--Escalante National
Monument and on other environmentally-sensitive lands administered by
the Bureau of Land Management in Utah, and removed other signs placed
by the BLM. I understand that the Department has referred these issues
to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah to, but that office has yet to
pursue legal action.
Has the Department taken any action on its own to remove the
unauthorized signs placed by the county or to install replacement signs
for those illegally removed by the county? If not, why?
Answer. In a letter sent to Kane County Commissioners on April 26,
2005, BLM Utah State Director Sally Wisely requested Kane County to
remove the unauthorized signs that were placed on BLM lands. While some
signs have been removed by the County, many others remain posted on
Federal lands as the County continues to take unilateral action without
coordination or authorization from the BLM.
All 31 BLM signs that were illegally removed by Kane County in 2003
have been replaced by the BLM.
Question 2b. Can the Department take any other actions to address
this issue, such as imposition of civil fines under the BLM's
regulations, without a referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office?
Answer. The BLM first attempts to work collaboratively to resolve
conflicts such as this. However, under its regulations, the BLM has
some authority to take administrative actions, including assessing
trespass damages. The BLM is conferring with the U.S. Attorney's Office
on the appropriate actions.
Question 3a. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune last week states
that a BLM office in Utah is using consultants paid by the oil and gas
industry to prepare environmental studies for oil and gas drilling
applications.
What steps is the BLM taking to ensure there is no conflict of
interest?
Answer. The BLM Manual (Section 1114.2.22(C)) (Volunteers) states
that hosted workers may provide advisory services, but may not make
substantive recommendations and decisions that are appropriately made
by BLM supervisors, managers, and employees. Accordingly, work
assignments for hosted workers are made by BLM supervisors and
managers, not sponsoring organizations. Prior to the arrival of hosted
workers at the Vernal Office, BLM identified the projects on which
hosted workers would be assigned. Neither the hosted workers nor the
consulting firm that recruited the workers would have any role in
setting work priorities. Hosted workers do not have access to BLM
proprietary information and data. Access to data by volunteers is
limited, carefully monitored, and controlled.
The BLM is currently reviewing its policies in this area to further
ensure that hosted workers are assigned to activities that are
appropriate and in keeping with applicable laws and regulations.
Question 3b. The article also states that other BLM offices in
Wyoming and Nevada have used a ``hosted worker'' program. Please
provide me with all offices that are using, or have recently used
volunteers or other employee resources paid for by companies seeking
BLM approval of an application or permit.
Answer. Based on a survey of its State Offices, the BLM found that
in addition to the Vernal, Utah office, the White River Field Office in
Colorado has one hosted worker who works on oil and gas applications to
drill. No other BLM office uses hosted workers, or volunteers, with
salaries paid for by outside groups, to perform work on oil and gas
applications to drill.
Question 3c. Section 308(e) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from
using any volunteers in ``policymaking processes.''
What specific activities are the consultants paid by the oil and
gas industry performing in the Utah BLM offices, and is it clear that
these are not part of the policymaking process?
Answer. The hosted workers in the Vernal, Utah office, perform
resource input and scientific analysis in subject matters in which they
have expertise. These are biologists, archeologists, and
paleontologists compiling data and conducting analysis necessary to do
environmental analysis in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act. Their work is carefully reviewed and
signed off by BLM subject matter specialists who are in a supervisory
role. These consultants have no decision making authority. All
decisions are made by BLM managers.
Question 4. The Act of August 25, 1916 directs the National Park
Service to manage units of the national park system ``by such means
measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of said parks,
monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery
and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' NPS Management Policy 1.4.3 states ``when there is a
conflict between conserving park resources and values and providing for
the enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant.'' It is my
understanding that this management policy is consistent with the way
Federal courts have interpreted the Organic Act. Recently the Director
of the National Park Service in a written answer submitted to the
Committee stated she took issue with the interpretation that courts
have interpreted that the Organic Act gave priority to the directive to
conserve park resources. I find her response very troubling.
Can I get your assurance that if confirmed, you will oppose
attempts to weaken the National Park Service's policy that resource
conservation its top management priority?
Answer. The NPS Management Policies issued in 2001 are under review
in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks. Resource conservation that provides for unimpaired enjoyment for
present and future generations is clearly stated in the NPS Organic
Act. I will commit to ensuring that the NPS Management Policies are in
accord with the law.
Question 5. Pursuant to instructions in the Presidential
Proclamation establishing the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument
in 2001 the BLM entered into a cooperative management agreement with
the Pueblo de Cochiti. By all the accounts it appears the agreement has
been a great success for all involved and I commend both the BLM and
Pueblo on their work preserving and showcasing this New Mexico natural
resource. Unfortunately, there have been recurring problems with
funding the agreement. Management funds have been inconsistent year-to-
year and, I am informed, even funds designated for the Monument have
been redirected to other uses. This uncertainty and lack of
transparency in management funding for the Monument presents immense
management challenges particularly for the Pueblo which often has to
find monies within their own scarce budget for management of this
public resource. I'd like for you to look into this matter and see if
we can establish some kind of baseline requirement for management funds
for the monument and ensure funds are provided in the President's
budget in such a way that they actually get to where they are needed.
Answer. The agreement between the Pueblo de Cochiti and the BLM for
the management of the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument has
been a great success. We take our cooperative agreement seriously. I am
informed that we are fully funding that agreement and that the BLM is
also working closely with the Pueblo to secure funding from
nongovernmental sources to assist them in meeting additional goals
associated with the management of the monument. If confirmed, I will
monitor the funding for this agreement to ensure its success.
Question 6. I was pleased to hear about the discovery of the
``Snowy River'' cave in my state. This appears to be a significant find
and Senator Domenici and I will be working to protect the cave in
legislation coming before this committee in the near future. I am
somewhat dismayed, however, that there was so little effort on the part
of the BLM to share information on what was being done in the many
months of exploration prior to the announcement of the find. I believe
a more open information exchange would have been far more productive in
this case. I would like your commitment to make sure to involve all the
members of the Congressional Delegation in significant work such as
this and other issues that the Department undertakes in New Mexico.
Answer. There was a significant delay between the discovery of this
important new cave and the announcement to the public. Once the BLM in
New Mexico fully realized the significance of this new discovery, the
BLM then worked to ensure appropriate protective measures were in place
prior to a public announcement. You can be assured that in the future
the BLM will keep you and the entire New Mexico delegation fully
informed of any new developments with this cave and other issues
involving the BLM in New Mexico.
TERRITORIES
Question 7. The territories of the United States look to the
Department of the Interior for assistance and leadership in the proper
consideration, and if possible the resolution, of issues in federal-
territorial relations. Because the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Insular Affairs reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, if confirmed, you will pay a critical role in
federal-island relations. Can you assure the Committee of your
commitment, if confirmed, to respond to the concerns of the islands and
to engage other federal agencies through the White House Interagency
Group on Insular Affairs, as appropriate, to assure proper
consideration of their concerns.
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management
and Budget, I will oversee the work of the Interagency Group on Insular
Areas (IGIA), and will be fully engaged in insular issues. I view the
IGIA as an essential tool for resolving territorial issues that involve
the jurisdictions of multiple Federal agencies. If confirmed, I will
work to respond to the concerns of the Islands and to engage other
Federal agencies through the IGIA, as appropriate, to assure proper
consideration of their concerns. Making full use of IGIA potential will
bolster America's relations with its overseas island areas: American
Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
TAX AND TRADE POLICIES
Question 8. The U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa , and the CNMI
are each facing significant job losses and reductions in their local
revenues in the coming months as a consequence of changes in federal
tax and trade policies. Would you please provide an estimate of these
anticipated revenue losses and describe what actions the Department is
taking to mitigate the impact, including whether the Department is
considering increases in Departmental funding for the islands in order
to assure the continuation of essential services.
Answer. The U.S. Virgin Islands could loose at least $114 million
annually in tax revenue due to Section 937 of the Internal Revenue
Code, which is being implemented as part of the Federal Jobs Creation
Act of 2004. The proposed section would change the residency
requirements for the U.S. Virgin Islands for tax purposes, and it would
also change the rules for determining whether income is sourced in a
territory. The Department, through the Office of Insular Affairs, is
working with the Department of the Treasury to try to mitigate the
impact of the new regulations on the territories.
Phase out of Section 936 of the Internal Revenue code, which has
provided tax benefits to U.S. companies in the territories, could
diminish the fishing industry in American Samoa. Other market factors
could also help diminish the industry as well. Potential revenue lost
is estimated at $45 million per year should the canneries leave the
island. American Samoa currently houses the world's largest tuna
industry, which provides the principle economy of the island, making up
34 percent of the job market, or about half of all the jobs in private
industry. Proposed legislation extending Section 936 for American Samoa
only for the next ten years is pending in Congress.
Free trade arrangements worldwide could diminish the garment trade
in the CNMI. Currently, garment operations in Saipan account for
approximately 38 percent or $80 million of the CNMI's $220 million
annual budget. The CNMI is working on legislation to modify the U.S.
Tariff Code to help the CNMI better compete in the international market
by reducing the local content value-added requirement from 50 percent
to 30 percent for all territories.
ANNUAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REPORT
Question 9. In 2003, the Congress approved extension of the
Compacts of Free Association with the Republic of the Marshal Islands
(RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The new law, Public
Law 108-188, established for more rigorous accountability mechanisms
than had been the case under the previous Compact. One important new
requirement is that the Department is required to report each January
to Congress on the use of the $150 million in annual financial
assistance. Unfortunately, the Department has still not transmitted the
report that was due last January. Can you explain the delay and assure
the Committee that we will have that report within the next 30 days?
Answer. Public Law 108-188 calls for the President to report
annually to the Congress on the implementation of the Compacts of Free
Association. The report for 2004 is the first of such reports. As such,
it required a new template of analysis and review. I am informed that
the report will be completed and sent to the Congress soon.
HAWAII OFFICE
Question 10. A further action taken to improve accountability in
the RMI and FSM was the establishment of an oversight office in Hawaii.
During a recent trip to the islands, however, our joint committee staff
learned that the staff in the new Hawaii office has insufficient funds
to travel to the islands and properly oversee the use of U.S. funds.
Can you please describe what steps the Department is taking to resolve
this problem?
Answer. Travel for Office of Insular Affairs personnel in our
Hawaii office is essential for oversight of Compact implementation in
the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia. The Office of Insular Affairs has resolved the travel fund
shortage for our Hawaii office by making available $30,000 for
additional fiscal year 2005 travel. For FY 2006, the budget proposes a
program increase of $84,000 to provide additional resources, including
travel funds, to the Hawaii office.
INSULAR AREA BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY CONFERENCES
Question 11. The Department has sponsored a series of Insular Area
Business Opportunity Conferences in D.C., California, and in the
Pacific islands. Please provide the Committee with an accounting of the
total cost of these conferences, the source of the funding from within
the OIA budget, and identify specific private investments which have
resulted from the conferences.
Answer. The following chart responds to the first part of your
request.
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
FY Year Description (in $) Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................... 2003 Investment Development 45,000 Technical
Conference-- Washington, DC Assistance
(Costs include event
management and some travel).
2004.................................... 2004 Business Opportunities
Conference (costs broken down
below).
Marketing/Outreach Support..... 74,000 Technical
Assistance
Events Management/Venue Costs.. 83,000 Technical
Assistance
Staff Travel (Including 43,000 General
outreach events). Account
2005.................................... Business Opportunities Mission
to Guam, Saipan, and Palau
(Costs broken down below).
Marketing Outreach Support..... 28,000 Technical
Assistance
Events Management/Logistics 31,000 Technical
Support. Assistance
Staff Travel................... 30,000 Technical
Assistance
-----------
Total ............................. 334,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The 2003 Conference focused on opportunities in the four U.S.-flag jurisdictions only. The 2004 program
was expanded to include the three Freely Associated States. In both cases, however, the agendas depended
heavily on information and contacts developed by the Island Business Fellows program.
Results
a. Outreach: Attendance at both conferences exceeded expectations
by as much as 100%; Attendance in 2003 was 550 (expected 250--300); in
2004, attendance was estimated at 1200 (target 600--800). In both
cases, attendees from the mainland were at the decision maker level for
their respective companies/organizations. Based on the experience in
2003, a private firm was contracted to provide support to the outreach
and recruitment efforts for the 2004 event and also the mission.
Significantly, a majority (nearly two-thirds) of the participants in
the 2005 Mission attended one of the two conferences or had been
previously reached by our outreach efforts.
OIA has built up a significant body of knowledge as a result of its
outreach and other efforts. The contacts database begun in 2003 now
lists over 2500 business and government contacts in the insular areas
and in the 50 States. In addition, a significant body of knowledge on
business opportunities in each of the seven jurisdictions has been
developed; this will be used for outreach on future missions and
conferences. By its nature, this effort is evolutionary, each step and
component feeding the next. The efficacy can be seen in the results of
the recruitment for the 2005 Mission-companies like Fluor, Hilton, and
Unified Western Grocers, as well as some very specific types of
companies, including the operator of a fleet of live-aboard dive boats,
were successfully recruited and participated. Virtually every mission
participant is now pursuing some new business opportunity in one or
more of the three areas visited.
b. Business Opportunities under development by participants in the
Conferences and Mission
Resort hotel development--CNMI
Nurse training program--CNMI\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The mainland participant has already purchased a hotel on
Saipan to house her students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance learning courses (university level)--Guam and CNMI
Housing development--Palau\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The mainland partner is bringing a team of business partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide cellular and satellite communications systems
improvement--Palau
Customs and immigration systems overhaul and development--
Palau, CNMI, and RMI\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These projects involve a growing network of IT and hardware
firms in both the islands and the mainland and is being driven by a
company in American Samoa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep sea mining--CNMI
Resort and attractions development--Palau\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There are several different projects currently under
development, including a hotel and several underwater attractions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live-aboard Dive Boat start-up--Palau and FSM
Homeland security public-private partnership--Guam\4\
Retirement community--CNMI\2\
Sale of interest in shipyard--American Samoa
Plastic bag factory--CNMI or FSM
Airport Commercial Park--Guam\4\
Black pearls cultivation--RMI and FSM