U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–349 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 107–1122

FY 2003 BUDGET AND PROGRAMS OF THE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 1, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held May 1, 2002 ....................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

WITNESSES

Lautenbacher, Jr., Vice Admiral Conrad C., (Retired), USN, NOAA Administrator and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce ........................................................................................ 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

APPENDIX

Memorandum for William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, dated: 

March 22, 2002 ................................................................................................. 37

April 1, 2002 ..................................................................................................... 43

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to Vice Admiral 

Conrad C. Lautenbacher ...................................................................................... 37

Written questions submitted to Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., 

by: 

Hon. Max Cleland ............................................................................................. 48

Hon. Ernest F. Hollings ................................................................................... 44

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 48

Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 46

Hon. John McCain ............................................................................................ 49

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 51

(1)

FY 2003 BUDGET AND PROGRAMS OF THE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m. in room SR–

253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation will come to order. Today’s hearing will address the 

President’s fiscal year 2003 budget and programs for the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

First, Admiral Lautenbacher, welcome. We appreciate your coming this morning. NOAA, a key component of the Department of 

Commerce, plays an important role in the everyday lives of our citizens, with numerous contributions to the country’s economic and 

environmental health. 

It is vital that the Senate continue to fund the important programs Congress has authorized, as well as to find new ways to support the Nation’s economic and environmental needs. This Committee has consistently been supportive of NOAA’s mission, but 

certainly there are a number of concerns that the Committee has 

with respect to the President’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposal for 

the agency. 

As Vice Admiral Lautenbacher knows, in January 2000 the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast groundfish fishery a 

disaster. There is local support from fishers and environmentalists 

to get the right number of fishers out there at the right time catching the right number of fish to make this industry sustainable. 

As you know, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, during your confirmation hearing last November I introduced legislation to authorize a 

buy-back program which would decrease the number of fishers and 

boats in the West Coast groundfish industry. I can find nothing in 

the budget to support a significant reduction of fishing capacity in 

the West Coast groundfish industry, so please know that the very 

first question you will get is why is that the case? 

Another concern is with the proliferation of lawsuits against the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. What does this say about 

NMFS fisheries management, and how do they intend to handle 

2

these costs? In addition, how are these lawsuits affecting how 

NMFS is making decisions? The reason the NMFS whiting decision 

gives me cause for concern is that NMFS is allowing the possibility 

of lawsuits against it to influence its decisions. This, in my view, 

is not a sound management strategy. 

Another concern is the dramatic proposal to terminate the national sea grant college program within NOAA. This raises concerns not just for the people of Oregon but certainly many of my 

colleagues with sea grant programs. 

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, you are welcome here. While it is a 

biological imperative that you read your statement in its entirety, 

please know that we are going to place the whole thing in the 

record, and somehow if you could be enticed into summarizing your 

principal remarks, that would be very helpful. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, 

JR., (RETIRED), USN, NOAA ADMINISTRATOR AND UNDER

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND

ATMOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a great pleasure to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to 

come before you and to talk about our program and some of the priorities that I think are very important for our Nation. I am indeed 

grateful for your support and the support of this Committee and all 

of the staff members that are here today. Without their support, 

obviously, NOAA would not be as prominent in solving some of 

these problems as they are, and so again I appreciate this opportunity, and I will submit my statement for the record if agreed to 

and will just summarize it. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, that will be, with pleasure, so 

ordered. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. If I could take just 2 minutes 

to talk about some of the important priorities in our budget I would 

be grateful for the time. This is a tight budget this year. It is 

roughly the same as last year’s budget. It is a $3.3 billion budget. 

Given the priorities, the national priorities that happened after 9/

11 and the changes that took place in this country, I think this is 

a good budget. It indicates that there is strong support with the administration for keeping the level of services and products that 

NOAA provides the Nation at the right level. It is a tight budget, 

though, and we ask for your support in maintaining these critical 

programs. 

The NOAA budget support programs which are essentially, I 

would call the heart and soul of a lot of our economic foundation. 

There is not an individual in here that does not check the weather 

report before they go out in the morning. Many of our industries 

are totally dependent upon the types of products that the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration produces in the energy 

area, agriculture, fishing you mentioned, tourism, construction, the 

list goes on. 

Approximately one-third of our gross domestic product is based 

upon decisions that are made because of data and products that are 

delivered from NOAA, all the way from weather to management 

and development of our coastal zones to management of endanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
3

gered species and fisheries, as we have mentioned, and so I believe 

this is a very important and critical part of our budget and needs 

to be supported. Within that $3.3 billion there was essentially about $300 million worth of alignments, realignments, $148 million of that, what I 

would call program increases, and that is what I would call a very 

modest small number, and I would like to ask for your support for 

those, which I will talk about in a minute, and $129 million in 

what we call base adjustments, or essentially to allow for inflation 

and paying our people. Now, within that $129 million is also an accounting change 

where money for retirement accounts was shifted out, or was shifted from OPM into NOAA’s accounts, so that $70 million of that 

$129 million is not new programs, it is essentially just an accounting change within the Government. The rest of that is absolutely 

essentially for people, and I want to support the work that the 

NOAA folks do. 

We are a source of wealth for this country. This is a storehouse 

of knowledge and scientific and management expertise across a 

large variety of scientific endeavors for observation of and management of our environment. I ask for your support for these increases 

as a number 1 priority. Of the $149 million that were other program adjustments, a 

large portion of those are in the extreme weather and hurricane research, severe weather. In that group we are asking for $84.3 million in increases. This will improve our severe storm warnings and 

protecting the life and safety of Americans. I think after the incident in La Plata that you saw the other day, the value of having 

warning time and being able to predict some of these events with 

more accuracy will be quite invaluable. 

Inside of that program is the money for a Clear Skies and Global 

Climate change Initiative that President Bush announced on February 14, and there is roughly $40 million across the Federal budget. Eighteen million for climate change are included in the NOAA 

budget this year. We think these are the first steps that are needed 

to put some teeth into the science that will help support the policies of the future and the provisions in the Clear Skies and Climate 

Change Initiative that the President announced. 

Of the other important increases, let me mention homeland security. There is a $23 million increase for homeland security. This is 

a very modest enhancement, probably the minimum that I would 

think prudent at this point. It includes the replacement of some 

single points of failure in our satellite and data systems in terms 

of back-up computing, in terms of gateway operations, and in terms 

of security for some of our downlink stations, as well as increase 

for surveys, for ship surveys. There is another $9.9 million to support the harbor surveys of our critical ports around the Nation. 

The other large increase is in the fisheries area, $90 million of 

increases that I think are extremely important. Half of that roughly is the second fisheries research and survey vessel, about $45 million. This is the second of the class. We are well behind in replacement of our capital assets in our survey fleet. This is not enough, 

but it is a start, and I encourage everyone to support this particular recapitalization. 

4

We have also increased stock assessments by almost $10 million, 

because that goes into making rulings on time and ensuring that 

we have the right data to manage fisheries correctly. We have increased money for observers, and that is extremely important as 

well. 

In terms of our coastal conservation activities, that totals almost 

$350 million. It is central to environmental monitoring, and underscores our commitment to coastal, estuarine and marine ecosystems, coastal zone management, marine sanctuaries, estuarine 

research reserves and marine protected areas, as well as coral reef 

habitat and other conservation and restoration programs, as well 

as the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund and Treaty. 

This concludes my opening statement. I again thank you and the 

Committee for giving me this opportunity, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Lautenbacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., (RETIRED), 

USN, NOAA ADMINISTRATOR AND UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS

AND ATMOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity 

to testify on the President’s FY 2003 Budget Request for the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Let me begin by saying that this budget supports and enhances the goals of the 

President and the Department of Commerce. NOAA has established itself as one of 

the world’s premier scientific and environmental agencies. We are an agency that 

deals with environmental change. We are an agency whose products form a critical 

part of the daily decisions made by Americans across the Nation and have economic 

impacts which affect our Nation’s Gross Domestic Product. From our climate predictions that impact farming and financial decisions, to our hydrological products 

that affect public utilities and energy consumption, NOAA is a critical part of our 

Nation’s economic security. 

We are experts in climate, with its cooling and warming trends. We are an agency 

that manages fluctuating fisheries and marine mammal populations. We observe, 

forecast and warn the public about the rapidly changing atmosphere and especially 

severe weather. We monitor currents and tides, and beach erosion. We survey the 

ocean bottom and provide mariners with products to maintain safe navigation. We 

operate the Nation’s most important constellation of earth-observing satellites. Lastly, we provide all this knowledge and exploration to citizens everywhere, especially 

to schools and young people across our Nation through our website www.noaa.gov. 

We provide this as a result of our mission to advance environmental assessment, 

environmental prediction, and natural resource stewardship for our great Nation. 

This budget supports products that are essential for decision makers in every part 

of our economy. NOAA’s budget will continue to fund products that assist in protecting the health and safety of this Nation’s citizens from both routine and severe 

environmental changes. This budget supports our research, science and services 

from the local weather forecast offices around the Nation to our Fisheries Research 

Vessels that ensure sustainable stocks of our Nation’s fisheries. It provides for technology infusion and critical infrastructure protection to reduce single points of failure for our satellite and weather prediction programs; continues our special partnerships with universities, states, and local governments around the Nation; and invests in education and human resources. This budget also supports our vast infrastructure, which will allow NOAA to continue its mission in years to come. 

In a period of strongly competing Presidential priorities for our national defense, 

and economic security, the President’s FY 2003 Budget Request for NOAA is 

$3,330.5 million in total budget authority, and represents a decrease of $45.4 million 

below the FY 2002 Enacted level. Within this funding level, NOAA proposes essential realignments that allow for a total of $148.8 million in program increases, and 

$129.0 million in base adjustments. NOAA’s request highlights critical areas such 

as People and Infrastructure, Improving Extreme Weather Warnings and Forecasts, 

5

Climate Services, Modernization of NOAA Fisheries, and other key NOAA programs 

such as Energy, Homeland Security, Ocean Exploration, and Coastal Conservation. 

People and Infrastructure: $129.0 million adjustment-to-base 

NOAA’s people and infrastructure are at the heart of what NOAA is and does. 

From our hurricane research center in Miami, FL to NOAA’s weather service office 

in Barrow, AK, these are the underlying and interconnecting threads that hold 

NOAA and its programs together. Investments in NOAA’s scientific and technical 

workforce as well as NOAA’s facilities and equipment is essential for us to carry 

out our mission into the 21st Century. ‘‘People and Infrastructure’’ is about investing in the future, and about maintaining NOAA’s infrastructure that has been built 

over the last thirty-one years. 

Improving Extreme Weather Warnings and Forecasts 

Critical to meeting our 21st Century mission is the continuity of NOAA’s Satellites and Severe Weather Forecasts. There are few things that the Federal Government does that are as critical as issuing severe storm warnings and protecting the 

life and safety of Americans. Listed below is NOAA’s request for this $84.3 million 

endeavor. 

Tornado Severe Storm Research: NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to develop new technologies for forecasting and detecting tornadoes and other forms of 

severe weather, and to disseminate this information to emergency managers, the 

media, and the general public for appropriate action. This new technology has the 

potential to significantly extend lead times for tornadoes and other forms of severe 

and hazardous weather. Coupled with advanced decision support systems, tornado 

lead times may double from 10 to 22 minutes using this technology. The bottom line 

is that this investment will help save lives. 

U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP): NOAA requests an increase of 

$1.0 million for a total of $3.8 million to transition research and development into 

operations in order to reach a USWRP goal of improving forecasts of inland heavy 

precipitation associated with hurricane landfalls. This increase will be used to address the improvement of the forecasts of heavy and frequent, flood-producing rains 

associated with hurricanes and tropical storms as they move inland. 

Weather & Air Quality Research Laboratories: NOAA requests an increase 

of $4.2 million for a total of $48.1 million to recapitalize the laboratories that conduct weather and air quality research, which includes funding for ongoing operational scientific activities to continue operation of the Wind Profiler Network and 

NOAA’s Space Weather Program. 

Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service (AHPS): NOAA requests an increase of $4.7 million for a total of $6.2 million to accelerate nationwide implementation of improved flood and river forecasts services in the Northeast, Middle Atlantic, and Southeast regions of the U.S., including the states of: New Hampshire, 

Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. As implemented, AHPS 

will: (1) produce new information with better predictions of river height and flood 

potential to reduce loss of life and property; (2) deliver high resolution, visually oriented products to provide partners and customers with valuable information for life 

decisions; (3) refresh aging hydrologic forecasting infrastructure to support rapid infusion of scientific advances; and (4) leverage NOAA’s investments in observational 

systems and atmospheric models to enhance accuracy and resolution of river forecasts. 

Weather & Climate Supercomputing: NOAA requests an increase of $6.2 million for a total of $21.2 million to continue operations and maintenance of the current National Weather Service (NWS) supercomputer, and to transition the next 

generation weather and climate supercomputing system into operations. The NWS 

supercomputer is the foundation for all NWS weather and climate forecasts. Operational transition of the next generation supercomputer will enable the NWS to improve the resolution and forecast accuracy of the prediction models. 

Radiosonde Replacement: NOAA requests an increase of $2.0 million for a 

total of $7.0 million to continue replacing and modernizing the upper air radiosonde 

network. The radiosonde network provides critical upper air observations which are 

a vital component of all weather forecast models. The current network is obsolete 

and nearing collapse, risking widespread loss of data within the next two to three 

years. 

Aviation Weather: NOAA requests a total of $2.5 million to initiate a 7-year 

plan to help improve U.S. aviation safety and economic efficiencies by providing 

state-of-the-art weather observation and forecast products responsive to aviation 

user needs. Weather accounts for over 70 percent of all air traffic delays, which results in greater expenditures by both airline customers and the airlines. In addition, 

6

an average of 200 general aviation pilot fatalities per year are caused by weatherrelated accidents across the U.S. This initiative will provide a means for the NWS 

to improve its aviation weather forecast services through 3 major components which 

include: (1) increasing the number and quality of aviation weather observations; (2) 

transitioning successful applied research efforts to operational products; and (3) developing and implementing new training programs for forecasters, pilots, and controllers. This initiative has the goal of a 10 percent reduction in National Airspace 

System weather-related air traffic delays, which would save $600 million annually 

in potential economic losses, and reduce general aviation weather related fatalities 

by 25 percent, or 50 lives annually. 

Huntsville, AL Weather Forecast Office: NOAA requests a total of $1.4 million to pay for recurring operations and maintenance costs at the new Huntsville, 

Alabama Weather Forecast Office (WFO). The Huntsville WFO was established in 

FY 2002 at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The $1.4 million requested will 

provide for NWS employee salaries, facilities rent and maintenance, and operational 

equipment and supplies to operate and maintain weather forecast and warning services in the Huntsville area. 

Polar Orbiting Systems: NOAA requests a net increase of $64.3 million for 

Polar Orbiting Systems, which are comprised of NOAA Polar K–N and the National 

Polar Operational Earth Satellite System. The net increase requested is described 

as follows: 

NOAA Polar K–N: NOAA requests a decrease of $15.6 million for a total of $122.9 million for the NOAA Polar K–N. The Polar K–N program is completing 

major procurement items and therefore does not need to continue the funding levels 

of previous years. 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS): NOAA requests an increase of $79.9 million for a total request of $237.3 

million for the continuation of the tri-agency NPOESS program that will replace the 

NOAA POES program after completion of the current NOAA K–N series of satellites. This request represents NOAA’s share of the converged NOAA/DoD/NASA 

program. In FY 2003, funds will be required to continue the development and production of the NPOESS instruments, including the Visible Infrared Image Radiometer, the Conical Microwave Imager Sounder, the Cross-track Infrared Sounder, the 

Ozone, Mapping and Profiler Suite, the Global Positioning System Occultation Sensor, and the Space Environmental Sensing Suite. The continued development of 

these instruments is critical for their timely and cost effective delivery to replace 

both the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and the NOAA POES 

spacecraft when needed. 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES): NOAA requests a decrease of $35.1 million for a total request of $227.4 million to support 

continued post launch requirements for GOES I–M; the continued procurement of 

the GOES–N series satellites, instruments, ground systems, and systems support 

necessary to maintain continuity of Geostationary operations; and planning and development for the GOES–R series of satellites and instruments. This decrease represents a program change resulting from the successful launch of GOES M, and the 

continued success of the GOES I–M series. 

Earth Observing System Data Archive & Access System Enhancement:

NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million to ensure that NOAA can fully utilize the 

vast amounts of new satellite-based environmental data becoming available, process 

and distribute that data in a variety of formats, provide stewardship for the data, 

and make the data accessible to users in a variety of economic, research, government, and public sectors. 

Joint Center for Data Assimilation: NOAA requests an increase of $2.6 million 

for a total of $3.4 million for the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation. NWS, 

the Office of Atmospheric Research (OAR), and NASA also provide funding as partners in this coordinated national effort to more fully realize the potential of the vast 

quantities of new satellite data that are becoming available. 

Coastal Ocean Remote Sensing: NOAA requests a total of $6.0 million to develop and deploy a prototype high-resolution imaging sensor to meet long-standing 

NOAA requirements. This initiative will allow NOAA to work with NASA to develop 

conceptual design and capabilities of this instrument, which will continuously monitor coastal ocean areas for harmful algae blooms, coral reef deterioration, pollution 

changes, fisheries management, and navigation. This instrument will provide continuous, high resolution monitoring in unprecedented detail of terrestrial features 

such as vegetation changes, flooding, wild fires, volcanic eruptions, and ash cloud 

transport. 

Satellite Command & Data Acquisition (CDA) Facility: NOAA requests an 

increase of $1.0 million for a total of $4.6 million to continue the Satellite CDA InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
7

frastructure program. Improved facilities reduce the risk of outages and service disruptions caused by failure of the supporting buildings, facilities, and infrastructure. 

This program minimizes the risk of spacecraft loss and data loss and allows NOAA 

to continue supporting worldwide requirements for critical operational satellite data 

and services. 

Satellite Command and Control: NOAA requests an increase of $4.4 million 

for a total of $34.8 million for satellite command and control. This investment supports the operations of the NOAA satellite systems, the ingesting and processing of 

satellite data, and the development of new product applications required for continuity of operations. NOAA provides satellite command and control services on a 

24 hours per day, 365 days per year schedule. 

Two critical components of this initiative are: 

Protecting Critical Satellite Control Facilities: NOAA requests $0.3 million 

to enhance security at the satellite Command and Data Acquisition ground stations 

by upgrading and expanding security lighting. 

Satellite Command and Data Acquisition Station Operations: NOAA requests $2.2 million for the operation of the polar Satellite Command and Data Acquisition (CDA) ground station. NOAA will use these funds to obtain the appropriate technical, management, and administrative contractor support to operate and 

maintain the acquisition and throughput of data from NOAA and DoD polar-orbiting 

satellites to NOAA’s Satellite Operations Control Center, and to National Weather 

Centers. 

Product Processing and Distribution: NOAA requests an increase of $6.7 million for a total of $27.7 million to process and analyze data from NOAA, DoD, and 

other Earth-observing satellites; supply data, interpretations, and consulting services to users; and operate and maintain the Search and Rescue mission control center. This includes supplying satellite data that makes up approximately 85 percent 

of the data used in NWS numerical weather prediction models. NOAA will use the 

requested program increase to support the following two mission critical functions: 

Reducing the Risk to Continuity of Critical Operations: NOAA requests a 

program increase of $3.1 million to expand on-site maintenance and staffing levels 

to ensure that all critical functions are performed. This ensures vital and timely information to customers and staff during times of peak workload. 

Improved Support for Weather and Hazards: NOAA requests a program increase of $2.0 million to automate wild fire detection algorithms to speed up the delivery of information to customers, to integrate the information into geographic information systems for detailed location information, and to integrate new fire detection sensors from non-NOAA satellites. 

G–IV Instrumentation: NOAA requests a total of $8.4 million to begin upgrading instrumentation aboard the G–IV aircraft. Improvements in NOAA’s Gulfstream 

IV aircraft’s remote-sensing systems will enhance NOAA’s hurricane-reconnaissance 

capability. New technology will use remote sensors to develop 3-dimensional profiles 

of hurricanes from 45,000 feet down to the surface and would provide forecasters 

with unprecedented real-time information on size and intensity. In addition, radarcomposite maps will provide critical rainfall information that is crucial to forecasters 

and to the emergency management community for preparedness and evacuations. 

Climate Services 

NOAA maintains a balanced program of focused research, large-scale observational programs, modeling on seasonal-centennial time scales, and data management. In addition to its responsibilities in weather prediction, NOAA has pioneered 

in the research and operational prediction of climate variability associated with the 

El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation (ENSO). With agency and international partners, 

NOAA has also been a leader in the assessments of climate change, stratospheric 

ozone depletion, and the global carbon cycle. Our confidence in our recent El Nin ̃ o 

prediction is based upon a suite of robust observing systems that are a critical component in any forecast. 

The agency-wide Climate Services activity represents a partnership that allows 

NOAA to facilitate the transition of research observing and data systems, and 

knowledge into operational systems and products. During recent years, there has 

been a growing demand from emergency managers, the private sector, the research 

community, and decision-makers in the United States and international governmental agencies for timely data and information about climate variability, climate 

change, and trends in extreme weather events. The economic and social need for 

continuous, reliable climate data and longer-range climate forecasts has been clearly 

demonstrated. NOAA’s Climate Services Initiative responds to these needs. The following efforts will be supported by this initiative: 

8

Climate Change Research Initiative: On February 14, 2002, President Bush 

announced the Clear Skies and Global Climate Change initiatives. The Clear Skies 

plan aims to cut power plant emissions of three pollutants (nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, and mercury) by 70 percent. The new Global Climate Change initiative 

seeks to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next decade. The 

President’s proposal supports vital climate change research and ensures that America’s workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized. 

NOAA’s expertise will be extremely important in the area of climate research. 

NOAA, along with NASA, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and 

the Department of Agriculture will implement a multi-agency Climate Change Research Initiative totaling $40 million. The following sections detail NOAA’s $18.0 

million request to address key priorities of the CCRI. 

Climate Modeling Center: NOAA requests $5.0 million to establish a climate 

modeling center at Princeton, New Jersey. This center will focus on model product 

generation for research, assessment and policy applications. NOAA has played a 

central role in climate research, pioneering stratospheric modeling, seasonal forecasting, ocean modeling and data assimilation, and hurricane modeling. This core 

research capability will be enhanced to enable product generation and policy related 

research. 

Global Climate Atmospheric Observing System: NOAA requests $4.0 million 

to work with other countries to reestablish the benchmark upper-air network. 

NOAA will emphasize data sparse areas, and place new Global Atmosphere Watch 

stations in priority sites to measure pollutant emissions, aerosols, and ozone, in specific regions. 

Global Ocean Observing System: NOAA requests $4.0 million to work towards 

the establishment of an ocean observing system that can accurately document climate scale changes in ocean heat, carbon, and sea level changes. 

Aerosols-Climate Interactions: NOAA requests $2.0 million to contribute to the 

interagency National Aerosol-Climate Interactions Program (joint partnership with 

NASA, DOE, NSF) currently under development. Specifically, NOAA will establish 

new and augment existing in-situ monitoring sites and conduct focused field campaigns to establish aerosol chemical and radiative properties. 

Carbon Monitoring: NOAA requests $2.0 million to augment carbon monitoring 

capabilities in North America as well as observations of globally relevant parameters in key under-sampled oceanic and continental regions around the globe. 

Regional Integrated Science Assessments Program: NOAA requests $1.0 

million for the Regional Integrated Science Assessments Program (RISA). Working 

with the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA will augment its research capability in assessing climate change impacts vulnerability by utilizing the research on 

‘‘Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainties’’ in the framework of the RISA programs, e.g. Pacific Northwest. 

Arctic Research: NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million in support of the Study 

of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) to improve monitoring of the elements 

of the Arctic environment. NOAA’s SEARCH activities are part of a coordinated 

interagency and international program, begun in response to evidence of an alarming rate of environmental change occurring in the Arctic. The SEARCH initiative 

will substantially increase understanding of long-term trends in temperature, precipitation and storminess across the U.S., with potential improvements in forecasting and planning for energy needs, growth seasons, hazardous storm seasons 

and water resources. 

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS): NOAA 

requests a total of $2.5 million to outsource with UNOLS and other sources for ships 

in the Pacific to support long-time series research for Fisheries-Oceanographic Coordination Investigations (FOCI), VENTS, Oregon/Washington Groundfish Habitat 

and maintenance of the Tsunami moorings in the Gulf of Alaska and Pacific Ocean. 

The increase will enable NOAA to continue to meet research requirements in the 

Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea utilizing time aboard UNOLS and 

other vessels. 

Climate Monitoring and Ocean Observations: NOAA requests an increase of 

$5.4 million for a total of $54.6 million to recapitalize the laboratories that conduct 

climate research, which includes $0.6 million for purchasing equipment and improving the scientific activities that contribute to the long-term observing systems that 

directly support the President’s CCRI initiative. These observing systems are the 

Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS); the Global Air Sampling Network and a 

gas network at four baseline observatories, and at Niwot Ridge, CO; and the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array which is the cornerstone of the El Nin ̃ o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Observing System and other ocean observing systems. 

9

NOAA requests an increase of $8.3 million for a total of $36.6 million for the Archive, Access, and Assessment programs working in Climate Services. This continued investment will be used for the following activities: 

Regional Climate Services & Assessments: To develop an improved climate 

data and information delivery service. This will allow NOAA to improve national, 

regional and state linkages and make national, regional, state, and local weather 

and climate observing systems and data bases more accessible. 

Next Generation Environmental Information: To develop a new generation 

of World Wide Web accessible climate information and statistics for primary use by 

the energy sector of our economy. This funding will allow NOAA to overhaul the 

current methods and procedures for computing climate information such as heating 

and cooling degree days, heat indices, wind chills, freezing degree days, and other 

related statistics with the goal of making this information more appropriate and 

timely for business decision-making and strategic planning purposes. 

World Ocean Database: This investment will be used to update the World 

Ocean Database to include new sources of data and to put in place the analytical 

and data management infrastructure needed to transition this activity from the current research mode to a sustained, operational service mode. 

Extending America’s Climate Record: NOAA will use the funds to gather key 

paleoclimatic records to fill gaps; reconstruct climate records during pre-instrumental periods; and produce blended data sets that integrate instrumental, historical, and paleoclimatic data into a holistic climate record. 

Solar X-ray Imager Archive: NOAA will use the SXI archive to derive new 

products to help reduce the effects of extreme space weather events on telecommunications satellites, electrical power services, and health risks to astronauts. 

Modernization of NOAA Fisheries 

The FY 2003 President’s Budget Request for NOAA, invests in core programs 

needed for our National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to meet its mission to 

manage fisheries, rebuild stocks, and protect endangered species such as sea turtles 

and whales. NMFS modernization funds will be allocated to ensure that existing 

statutory and regulatory requirements are met for fisheries and protected species 

management programs (including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Environmental Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

and other statutory requirements). This budget request continues NOAA’s effort to 

modernize NOAA’s Fisheries. The Modernization of NMFS encompasses a long-term 

commitment to improve the NMFS structure, processes, and business approaches. 

In addition to this budget request, the Administration will propose that any reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act 

include authority for fishing quota systems within regional fisheries, including 

transferable quotas, where appropriate. This initiative focuses on improving NMFS’ 

science, management, and enforcement programs and begins to rebuild its aging infrastructure. These improvements will result in measurable progress in the biological and economic sustainability of fisheries and protected resources. To continue this 

modernization program, NOAA’s FY 2003 President’s Budget Request includes the 

following program investments in Science, Management, and Enforcement. 

Science: $74.8 Million Increase 

Fisheries Research Vessel: NOAA requests an increase of $45.5 million for a 

total of $50.9 million for NOAA’s second Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV2). This vessel will replace the 39-year old ALBATROSS IV in the North Atlantic. Costs of 

maintaining the aging ALBATROSS IV for the five years needed to construct the 

replacement FRV and to allow side-by-side missions for calibration purposes are escalating. Moreover, replacing the aging fleet is required to provide research platforms capable of meeting increasingly sophisticated data requirements for marine 

resource management. 

Modernize Annual Stock Assessments: NOAA requests an increase of $9.9 

million to modernize annual stock assessments. Funding will allow NMFS to conform to new national stock assessment standards of data quality, assessment frequency, and advanced modeling. An increase of $5.1 million is requested to provide 

for the recruitment and training of stock assessment biologists and supporting staff 

to produce annual stock assessments that meet the new standard for Federally managed stocks. This request would also add an increment of 260 Fisheries vessel/charter days at sea toward the balance of 3,000 days identified in the NOAA Fisheries 

Data Acquisition Plan at a cost of $2.4 million. The initiative includes $0.9 million 

for advanced sampling technologies. This element targets improvements and innovative uses of existing technologies, including the application of new and advanced 

sampling systems and approaches. Also, included in this request is $1.5 million to 

10

enhance fisheries oceanography studies, principally, the Fisheries and the Environment program (FATE). 

Endangered Species Act Sea Turtle Research: NOAA requests an increase of 

$2.0 million for a total of $6.5 million to continue the recovery of highly endangered 

sea turtles. Of the $2.0 million increase, $1.4 million is to provide the necessary research to recover highly endangered marine turtles. This program is designed to 

help us collect information on biology and habitats and share that information with 

other range countries. The remaining $0.6 million is requested to implement management strategies to reverse population declines, implementation of multi-lateral 

international agreements, and building capacity through domestic and international 

educational and outreach programs. 

Columbia River Biological Opinion (BiOp) Implementation: NOAA requests 

an increase of $12.0 million to provide for the research, monitoring, and evaluation 

(RM&E) necessary to continue implementation of measures included in the Columbia River Biological Opinion. The RM&E program will provide the scientific information necessary to assess whether BiOp performance measures are being achieved 

at 2003, 2005, and 2008 check-ins. This funding also provides for the research needed to address key uncertainties identified in the BiOp in the areas of estuary and 

near-shore ocean survival, delayed effects related to dam passage, and the effects 

of hatchery programs on the productivity of naturally spawning fish. 

Recovery of Endangered Large Whales: NOAA requests an increase of $1.0 

million to provide resources to scientifically determine whether two key endangered 

whales—humpbacks and bowheads—have recovered and are candidates for 

delisting. This information will enable NOAA to detect changes in the status of 

large whales and prevent any long-term irreversible damage to these populations. 

Socioeconomics: NOAA requests an increase of $1.5 million for a total of $4.0 

million to support the on-going development of a multi-year comprehensive social 

sciences program to support NMFS policy decisions. The approach is 3-tiered, augmenting the integral components of a successful social sciences program that includes staffing ($0.6 million and 7 FTE); data collection ($0.5 million); and research 

activities ($0.4 million). In combination, the funding will be used to continue addressing shortcomings in economic and social assessments of policy alternatives by 

improving the economic and social science staff capability, and initiation of data and 

applied research programs. 

National Observer Program: NOAA requests an increase of $2.9 million for a 

total of $17.0 million for the National Observer Program. Funding will be used to 

expand the collection of high quality fisheries and environmental data from commercial and recreational fishing vessels to assess impacts on marine resources and fishing communities and to monitor compliance with marine resource laws and regulations. This request will primarily provide for approximately 4,000 observer sea days 

spread over 11 fisheries, most of which are currently unobserved. 

Management: $6.4 Million Increase 

NMFS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation: NOAA 

requests an increase of $3.0 million for a total of $8.0 million to continue striving 

to enhance its management of the NEPA process. This funding will provide NMFS 

with the necessary resources to continue to support agency-wide NEPA activities 

and will allow NMFS to strengthen its decision-making and documentation process 

to more fully take advantage of the decision making tools provided by NEPA. 

Regional Fishery Management Councils: NOAA requests an increase of $1.9 

million for a total of $16.0 million for the Regional Fishery Management Councils. 

This request will provide needed resources for the Councils to respond to increased 

workload in developing, implementing, and supporting management measures to 

eliminate overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; identify and protect essential 

fish habitats; reduce fisheries’ bycatch to the maximum extent practicable; minimize 

the impacts of fishing regulations on fishing communities; and to implement programs that result from the next reauthorization of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. 

These results will be achieved through the development of amendments to and creation of new Fishery Management Plans and regulations and corresponding and 

supporting international management measures to control fishing activities. 

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements: NOAA requests an increase of $1.5 

million to provide for thorough, complete, and timely environmental and economic 

analyses to NOAA customers and for its recovery programs. Funds will support personnel in all NMFS regions, science centers and headquarters to conduct required 

data gathering, analysis, and document preparation to assess the impacts of human 

activities that affect protected species. These include the range of Federal actions, 

including management of marine fisheries. This funding will also support assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
11

ments of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts, costs and benefits of implementing conservation programs for protected species. 

Enforcement: $9.7 Million Increase 

Enforcement and Surveillance: NOAA requests an increase of $4.3 million for a total of $39.3 million to expand and modernize NMFS’ fisheries and protected species enforcement programs. These programs include Alaska and west coast groundfish enforcement, protected species enforcement, state and local partnerships, specialized Magnuson-Stevens investigatory functions, community oriented policing and 

problem solving, and swordfish/Patagonian toothfish import investigations. 

Vessel Management System (VMS): NOAA requests an increase of $5.4 million for a total of $7.4 million for additional support and continued modernization and 

expansion of the vessel management system (VMS) program. These resources will 

create a program which will monitor approximately 1,500 vessels and is readily expandable. VMS technology is an invaluable tool for modern fisheries management. 

It provides outstanding compliance without intrusive at-sea boardings, enhances 

safety at sea, and provides new tools to managers for real time catch reporting. 

Other KEY NOAA Programs 

NOAA is constantly pursuing areas where the expertise of our researchers, scientists, and staff can contribute to solving problems. Therefore, NOAA has other key 

programs that respond to these challenges. They are Energy, Homeland Security, 

Ocean Exploration, and Coastal Conservation. 

Energy 

Energy Initiative: NOAA requests a total of $6.1 million to implement a pilot 

program that will provide more accurate temperature and precipitation forecasts, 

and additional river forecast products to help the energy industry improve electrical 

load forecasting and hydropower facility management. Based on industry estimates, 

this investment will result in savings of $10 to $30 million annually in the pilot region after the second year of the demonstration. Expanding the pilot nation-wide 

could generate savings of over $1 billion per year. 

Energy Permit Rapid Response: NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million to support the establishment and implementation of a streamlined energy permit review 

process. This proposal responds to an Executive Order directing Federal agencies to 

expedite permits and coordinate Federal, state, and local actions needed for energyrelated project approvals on a national basis and in an environmentally sound manner. The goal of this request is to reduce, by 25 percent, the time required to adjust 

the permits of licensed energy projects/facilities. Currently, re-licensing of existing 

facilities takes 6–10 years. It is anticipated that the combination of regular re-licensing and permit adjustments to implement the new National Energy Policy will 

result in thousands of new actions for NOAA nationally. 

Energy Management: NOAA requests a total of $0.6 million for Energy Management. The requested funds will be used to reduce NOAA’s facility operating costs 

through actively pursuing energy commodities at competitive prices, identifying and 

implementing energy savings opportunities and applying renewable energy technologies and sustainable designs at NOAA-managed facilities. Many of the equipment retrofits that are a part of energy management have enabled facilities to recover their costs in less than five years. 

Homeland Security 

On September 11, 2001, the Nation experienced an unprecedented attack on the 

World Trade Center and the Pentagon. NOAA immediately implemented its agencywide Incident Response Plan, and was able to rapidly deploy critical assets, capabilities, and expertise to support response and recovery efforts. NOAA personnel in 

weather offices, satellite and remote sensing teams, hazardous materials units, marine transportation and geodesy offices, and fisheries enforcement teams provided 

a wide range of products and services. 

NOAA’s response to the September 11 attacks was rapid and focused. However, 

the attack fundamentally altered the context of NOAA’s incident response planning. 

The threats resulting from attacks on the nation may be different in nature, and 

larger in scale and scope. Thus, NOAA’s Homeland Security efforts are focused on 

enhancing its response capabilities and improving internal safety and preparedness. 

NOAA is working quickly to improve its ability to coordinate emergency response, 

to evaluate its existing capabilities, and to identify products and services that will 

meet the challenge of new response realities. NOAA’s Homeland Security activities 

are dedicated to advancing the coordinated efforts within the Department of Commerce, the Office of Homeland Security and assisting NOAA’s many federal, state, 

and local partners. 

12

In FY 2003, funding is requested to address the most immediately recognized 

areas of programmatic vulnerabilities to ensure the continuity of the most critical 

of NOAA’s services and information products in the event of natural or man-made 

emergencies. 

Vessel Lease/Time Charter: NOAA requests an increase of $9.9 million for a 

Vessel Lease/Time Charter. In FY 2003, NOAA will continue assisting DOD in mapping and charting key port areas. NOAA will initiate a vessel time charter to expand its hydrographic surveying capacity. While having the capability to operate 

throughout America’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), initial emphasis during FY 

2003 will be in the Gulf of Mexico. Ninety five percent of America’s non-NAFTA economic trade moves through the marine transportation system. Any interruption in 

the flow of goods through our nation’s marine transport system yields immediate 

and dire impact to the national economy. Four of the top seven port areas are found 

on the Gulf of Mexico, including: (1) New Orleans and South Louisiana, (2) Houston/

Galveston, (3) Port Arthur, TX and Lake Charles, LA; and (4) Corpus Christi, TX. 

The combination of high traffic, hazardous cargos and vessels operating close to the 

ocean bottom make waterways and ports particularly vulnerable to terrorist activities including those utilizing low technology mines. Requested funding provides critical survey data to directly enhance safety of mariners, passengers, and the national 

economy from threats both natural or human in origin. 

NESDIS Single Point of Failure: NOAA requests a total increase of $2.8 million to provide backup capability for all critical satellite products and services. This 

effort supports the continuity of critical operational satellite products and services 

during a catastrophic outage. In FY 2003, NOAA will begin the first phase of hardware, software, and telecommunications purchases; and perform initial testing of all 

capabilities for this backup system. The requested funding also supports installing 

additional communications links to connect the backup location to the NOAA 

Science Center in Camp Springs, Maryland. 

Satellite Facilities Security: NOAA requests a total of $2.3 million, an increase 

of $0.3 million, to maintain enhanced security at the satellite Command and Data 

Acquisition ground stations. NOAA requires these funds to enhance the systems 

that protect these stations, reducing the risk to satellites and ground systems due 

to breaches in security. These satellite stations represent the backbone of the 

ground systems that support NOAA spacecraft programs—commanding, controlling, 

and acquiring data from on orbit satellites with an estimated value of $4.5 billion. 

NWS Gateway Critical Infrastructure Protection: NOAA requests a total of 

$3.0 million for the National Weather Service Telecommunications Gateway Backup 

(NWSTG). During FY 2003, this funding will enable the NWS to complete the establishment of the NWSTG facility. After scheduled deployment in early FY 2004, the 

continued funding level of $3.0M will cover recurring costs for NWSTG backup communications, system software licenses, systems operations and maintenance support, facility rent, and cyclical technology refreshment. This will ensure uninterrupted delivery of critical meteorological data necessary for the protection of life and 

property, and the economic well being of the Nation. 

Weather & Climate Supercomputing Backup: NOAA requests a total of $7.2 

million to implement an operational backup system for the NWS weather and climate supercomputer. The NWS weather and climate supercomputer is a critical 

component of NOAA’s mission and is currently a single point of failure as the entire 

system is located in a single facility. Many of the data, products and services provided by and through the Central Computer System (CCS) directly contribute to the 

issuance of life saving NWS watches and warnings to the public. The NWS weather 

and climate supercomputing backup system is a critical part of DOC’s Homeland Security Initiative and NOAA’s comprehensive business continuity plan, designed to 

support uninterrupted data and product delivery to NOAA customers. The National 

Center for Environmental Prediction’s (NCEP) CCS is currently the only computer 

system within NOAA capable of running highly complicated forecasting models in 

the required operational (regimented) mode. During FY 2003 the NWS will acquire 

the necessary backup system hardware capability, conduct site selection, and begin 

installation. 

Commercial Remote Sensing Licensing: NOAA requests a total of $1.2 million 

for the Commercial Remote Sensing Licensing and Enforcement Program to ensure 

the timely review and processing of satellite license applications. This NOAA investment will support staff engaged in the review of commercial remote sensing licensing applications. NOAA will also support monitoring and compliance activities, 

which include the review of licensee quarterly reports, on-site inspections, audits, 

and license violation enforcement. The funds requested in FY 2003 will also support 

implementation of shutter control over commercial systems to ensure that our NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
13

tion can respond to commercial remote sensing security issues in national security 

and foreign policy crisis situations. 

Ocean and Coastal Programs 

NOAA requests a total of $14.2 million for Ocean Exploration, this includes a 

small amount for adjustments-to-base. This program seeks to increase our national 

understanding of ocean systems and processes through partnerships in nine major 

voyages of discovery in FY 2003. Ocean Exploration is investment in undersea exploration, research, and technology in both the deep ocean and areas of special concern, such as the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS). 

NOAA’s coastal conservation activities total $348.5 million, and are central to accomplishing the mission of environmental monitoring, and underscore a commitment to coastal, estuarine, and marine ecosystems. NOAA’s activities include Coastal Zone Management; Marine Sanctuaries, Estuarine Research Reserves, and Marine Protected Areas; Coral Reefs, Habitat, and Other Coastal Conservation & Restoration Programs; and Pacific Salmon recovery Fund and Treaty. Many of these 

programs receive adjustments-to-base, and there is an increase for Cooperative Conservation and Recovery with States. NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million for Cooperative Conservation and Recovery with States to provide funds to state partners 

under the Endangered Species Act Section 6 cooperative conservation program. 

These agreements will provide the means for states and local communities to undertake local initiatives in the management and recovery of ESA-listed and candidate 

species by providing the legal authority to make the decisions about how best to protect species at risk of extinction. The agreements would provide funding on a matching basis to accomplish conservation activities. Funding provided to the states would 

support local researchers, non-governmental organizations and volunteers to accomplish monitoring, restoration, science and conservation activities. 

Financial Management in NOAA 

NOAA will continue to improve its core financial management responsibilities in 

order to meet the future needs of NOAA and its stakeholders. NOAA has placed a 

high priority on the proper execution and accounting of its resources. Key budgetary 

and financial management improvements are centered around three key areas: (1) 

Improved Funds Control and Execution through Automation; (2) Improved Budget 

Structure; and (3) Improved Outreach and Communications. 

Improved Funds Control and Execution through Automation 

Included in the FY 2003 request is $16.1 million for NOAA’s share of the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS). CAMS will contribute to improved financial management in a number of significant ways, primarily by accounting for NOAA’s expenditures and maintaining NOAA’s clean audit opinion. While 

NOAA has made significant efforts to retain its clean audit opinion for a third consecutive year, it has done so with inefficient manual, error-prone business processes 

that are labor-intensive. Without significant amounts of overtime and creative manual resource tracking, NOAA’s accounting details would be non-existent. CAMS will 

provide financial managers with on-line, real-time, and accurate financial information and will enable NOAA and DOC to meet statutory obligations under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and the Chief Financial Officers Act 

(CFO Act). 

Improved Budget Structure 

In the FY 2003 budget, legislation is requested to establish a Business Management Fund (BMF) for corporate centralized services in NOAA. For decades, NOAA 

has managed its centralized services through a funding mechanism supported in its 

current financial management system, FIMA, known as indirect costs. The process 

by which funds were collected and distributed to support centralized services was 

convoluted at best, and fraught with inconsistencies. Three years ago, NOAA began 

a comprehensive effort to review its corporate funding methodologies and work toward moving its headquarters management fund into a business-like environment. 

A number of improvements have been realized already, including stability in corporate charges for three years in a row, returning unspent corporate costs, and reporting to customers the status of funds mid-year and at year-end. However, to complete this effort of truly realizing a business fund operation, NOAA requires legislation. No current legislation exists for NOAA to operate this fund, particularly after 

FIMA is replaced by CAMS. Once legislation is secured, NOAA will begin to develop 

budgetary documentation with the same rigor and reporting as required with appropriated funds. Already underway, in support of this effort is NOAA’s initiative to 

implement Activity Based Costing (ABC) across all of the Office of Finance and AdVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
14

ministration’s key business lines. ABC studies are being completed to compute costs 

for services such as human resources, grants, and eventually all other support services. The end result of these studies will be the ability to charge customers a fee 

for services, based on actual and estimated usage, and by the specific services required. This will replace the flat rate, off-the-top methodology employed today and 

will allow charges to be tailored to line offices’ specific requirements. NOAA is committed to bringing its corporate services up to 21st century standards, and the flexibility of a business management fund is a cornerstone of our plan. 

Over the past several years, NOAA has been working to respond to Congressional 

concerns regarding its budget structure. NOAA, in conjunction with both Congressional and Administration assistance, recently restructured the budget during the 

FY 2002 Appropriations process. However, this effort is just a beginning, and NOAA 

will continue to work with Congress to ensure that our budget is adapted to Congressional reporting needs and concerns. For example, in the FY 2003 budget, 

NOAA has added additional specialty tables that will allow Congress to track budgetary initiatives that cross multiple programs and/or NOAA Line Offices, and NOAA 

has enhanced its base narratives to be more descriptive. Also, in support of flexible 

budgetary reporting, NOAA is developing a budget database that moves its tracking 

tables from the current lotus driven environment to a database environment. This 

will allow for more accurate tracking, quicker response to inquires, and allow for 

greater flexibility in preparing budgetary charts in response to Congressional and 

Administrative inquires. In conjunction with OMB, NOAA has developed a simplified tracking table that clearly indicates NOAA’s primary mission areas. 

Finally, NOAA began an effort to conduct a position and FTE management review. This effort began in FY 2002 and was adopted during the FY 2002 appropriations process. The FY 2002 efforts focused developing an accurate baseline of FTEs 

based on actual usage. The baseline was completed and has been implemented. In 

FY 2003, NOAA’s efforts will focus on ensuring that the positions associated with 

this new baseline are aligned properly with program requirements. 

Sea Grant 

I would also like to explain the Administration’s proposal to transfer funding for 

the Sea Grant College Program to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Sea 

Grant program plays an important role in marine and coastal research and is a costeffective way to address new problems in marine research management. Under the 

Administration’s proposal, the current Sea Grant structure would be replaced with 

a university-based coastal and ocean program modeled after the NSF centers, with 

input from researchers, educators and practitioners, through workshops. NSF will 

retain the Sea Grant College designation for qualified centers. The program will be 

open to all public and private institutions of higher education through a fully competitive process. NSF also has a lower matching requirement, so state and local 

funds will be freed up to address outreach and extension needs of local communities. 

NOAA will have a strong role in setting research objectives for the program. To ensure the program transfer does not adversely affect current awardees, NSF will 

transfer funds to NOAA to support the current award commitments through the duration of their grant period. 

Several studies of the Sea Grant Program have noted its effectiveness, as well as 

its problems. In 1994, the National Research Council (NRC) found that NOAA’s Sea 

Grant Program has played a significant role in U.S. marine science, education, and 

outreach. The review’s recommendations included better defining the roles of the 

National Sea Grant Office, the Sea Grant College programs, and the Sea Grant Review Panel, and streamlining the proposal review and program evaluation processes. 

Many of the recommendations of the NRC report have been adopted by the program 

and were also incorporated in the 1998 Amendments to the National Sea Grant College Program Act. In a November 2000 study, entitled ‘‘A Mandate to Engage Coastal Users,’’ a committee led by Dr. John Byrne of Oregon State University and the 

Kellogg Commission indicated Sea Grant has been effective in facilitating the Nation’s sustainable development of coastal resources by helping citizens make better 

informed and wiser decisions. Twenty-two of the 30 state Sea Grant Programs have 

undergone performance evaluations by teams of outside reviewers and Sea Grant 

peers. Sixteen were graded ‘‘excellent’’ in achieving significant results. A program 

was graded ‘‘excellent’’ if it produced significant results, connected Sea Grant with 

users, and was not found to need improvement in areas such as long-range planning 

and management. Sea Grant’s 1999 Hammer Award-winning program in seafood 

safety training and the national marina management effort are examples of other 

successful national programs. 

Through the years, a number of successful partnerships have been established between NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), such as the Teacher-atVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
15

Sea Program, our partnerships with NSF on the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.S. Weather Research Program, as well as the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program. And, NSF supports some applied research programs, such as the Small Business Innovation Research and Technology 

Transfer programs. 

Conclusion 

NOAA’s Fiscal Year 2003 Budget request invests in people, climate, energy, homeland security, infrastructure, and high priority research, science, and services. This 

budget maintains NOAA on its course to realize its full potential as this nation’s 

premier environmental science agency. NOAA is also doing its part to exercise fiscal 

responsibility as stewards of the Nation’s trust as well as America’s coastal and 

ocean resources. And, in the same way that NOAA is responsible for assessing the 

Nation’s climate, we are responsible for assessing and improving our management 

capabilities. NOAA will continue to respond to key customers and stakeholders, and 

will continue to leverage its programs and investments by developing those associations that most efficiently and economically leverage resources and talent, and that 

most effectively provide the means for successfully meeting mission requirements. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA’s fiscal year 2003 budget.

Senator WYDEN. Let me thank you, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. 

Let me start with several issues that are important to my State. 

As you know, you all have jurisdiction over West Coast groundfish, 

fishery observers, overcapacity and buy-back disaster money, bycatch, overages, stock assessments—the list really goes on and on. 

Tell me where the administration is first on West Coast groundfish buy-outs. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Since I came into office, which is about 

4 months now, I asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to 

start working on a comprehensive program that would take a look 

at some of the alternatives that you and I discussed the last time 

we met. We are in the process of doing that. I am hoping to have 

some initiatives that will be available for discussion within the administration for the fiscal year 2004 budget. I have looked at some 

of the pilot programs, if you want to call them that, and our attempts to do this over the last 4 or 5 years. 

We have some history of it. Some of it has worked, some of it has 

not worked. There needs to be a better effort to produce a comprehensive program that will satisfy these needs. I believe we have 

got an effort going out to accomplish that, Senator. 

Senator WYDEN. I have got to tell you, these people are bleeding, 

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, and I do not sense any kind of urgency 

at all about the way you are approaching this. I am sorry, I would 

like to be diplomatic here, but you just said we hope to have discussions within the administration for the 2004 budget. These people 

are just devastated, and to hear that somebody in Washington is 

having some discussions does not provide much solace to families 

that are just flat—is there anything you can do to give some sense 

that something is going to happen any time soon? 

To these people, this is the longest-running battle since the Trojan War. I mean, it just kind of goes on and on, and it looks like, 

well, the people in Washington are having some discussions. Well, 

that is what they do in Washington. Everybody shows up and has 

some discussions and they pass around some paper, then from time 

to time the paper leads to some more discussions, and now you 

have told the U.S. Senate Committee with jurisdiction over your 

agency that in your view we are going to have some discussions 

within the administration to see if we can address this in the 2004 

16

budget. It does not sound like anything is going to help our people 

any time soon. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I am doing the best that I can with the 

time and the assets that I have. I have been there for 3 to 4 

months. I agree that this is a significant problem. I have discussed 

it with my bosses, and I have initiated action within our agency to 

produce plans to help with the problem. 

You need to have a good solid idea of something that will work, 

of something that enough people can support. 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t we look at the bipartisan legislation 

that Senator Smith and I have? That is a really good, science-based 

idea of something that will work. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We will certainly look at that. 

Senator WYDEN. Is there any reason why you have not looked at 

it now? You could use this opportunity to endorse it and say this 

is something that makes some sense. This is not something we just 

threw together. This is a bipartisan proposal. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. And we certainly will do that. I will certainly take that into consideration. Absolutely we will look at it. 

Senator WYDEN. The combination of the groundfish disaster and 

the lack of a capacity reduction program has just made things 

worse for the fishers, and to provide some relief, I and others have 

tried to provide these fishing families with disaster relief money as 

well as to continue funding the successful groundfish disaster outreach programs. 

The President’s budget zeroes both of those out as well, so we 

have got a situation, as far as I can tell, where nothing is going 

to happen any time soon on the buy-backs because we are kind of 

studying that and the like, and the programs that help people 

when they are flat on their back now have been zeroed out in the 

budget. 

Do you all have any plan for providing relief to these fishing families during this disaster now? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. There is no money I know of available 

in the budget to support that right now. 

Senator WYDEN. Does that bother you? Can you make the case 

that that ought to be changed, or in some way dealt with? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. As I said, I am trying to produce plans 

which will help in the future to solve the problem. I have no immediate way at my disposal to change that at this point. The fiscal 

year 2003 budget has been created and sent in. It was created before I got there. I was not part of the decision process that created 

it, necessarily, although I am here to support it, and I am trying 

to support it the best that I can. 

Senator WYDEN. How are you going about trying to change it? I 

mean, I have asked you about the buy-back program. That is a program that provided the long-term approach. Now I would just ask 

you about two programs, the President’s budget zeroes out the 

groundfish disaster outreach program, and those programs that 

provide critical help today, and you have said you have been trying 

to change that. How have you been doing that? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, I think that if we can—we need 

to break this ping-pong cycle that we have of earmarks and the adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
17

ministration taking them out. It does not really matter which administration does this. This continues back and forth. 

I would like to figure out how to work in some of the critical 

issues that are represented here today by you, sir, in the Senate, 

into the programs we already have so that they can be incorporated 

properly and perhaps maintain their presence in the budget, shall 

we say, continuously as it goes back and forth, instead of each year 

being considered a one-term project and then eliminated and put 

back in as a one-time project, and we continue this game. I think 

we need to work together more to incorporate things into the base 

budget so that they do not suffer the same fate in the future. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I think that is useful. Again, it is just 

hard to see how anything is going to happen any time soon. I 

mean, the buy-back program is something you are going to discuss 

for the 2004 budget. We have zeroed out the disaster relief programs. Could you make available to me, so I could see it some of 

the memoranda or others that you have written trying to get some 

changes in this area? I want to see that the point person is moving 

with some urgency on these issues, because that is what I sense 

is not taking place here. 

You are a decent fellow, and we appreciate working with you, but 

on both of these issues, the buy-back program and the programs to 

help people that have just seen their lives shattered, I do not get 

the sense much of anything is going to happen soon; and if you 

could get me some of the documents that you have sent, maybe information that you have transmitted to Mitch Daniels or others, 

making the case that these are cuts that are going to take a toll; 

I would like to see that, because I think we want to see that a real 

effort is underway to make some changes here. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, Bill Hogarth will be here next 

week, and I assure you that he will, I am sure, express my urgency 

to you as well, that he is the point man, and he is working on these 

things, and he understands that we are serious about trying to 

build some solutions that will have bipartisan support, as well as 

support within the administration, which is a very difficult task. 

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Hogarth is a decent fellow as well, and I 

have had some of these conversations with him, as you know, in 

recent weeks as well. But my understanding is you are still the 

person who runs the shop, and at some point we have got to see 

somebody who is really trying to bring about some changes, because the problems were serious before you were in place, and they 

just seem to grow more serious as time goes on, and I just do not 

see the level of interest in this, frankly, that is warranted. 

What would you think of the idea of money to fishing families 

for relief being triggered when certain management decisions are 

made, like the Pacific whiting decision? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I have no philosophical problems with 

that at all. I do not think the laws we have today are, shall we say, 

compatible with some things that make sense in terms of balancing 

the economic realities with a need to conserve and rebuild sustainable fisheries, so I have no problem with that personally at all. 

Senator WYDEN. I pushed very hard for NMFS to do annual research on West Coast groundfish; and kicking and screaming at the 

agency is still not doing that. We found that cooperative research 

18

funding in that area had been zeroed out as well. How is the administration going to address fisheries research, and particularly 

the need for increased stock assessments, and cooperative research 

on the West Coast and in Oregon? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have added $10 million to the budg- et for stock assessments, and that is included. A portion, $11⁄2 million, roughly, that will be devoted to using the latest technologies 

and improving the methods by which we do stock assessments and 

bringing in technology, so while there is not an individual piece, 

there are places in the budget where this research will continue at 

the levels that seem to be affordable at this point. 

Senator WYDEN. I am also concerned about the agency’s work in 

the bycatch area, and NMFS lost in Federal court in its protection 

of the bottom fish. Tell us how you are going to go about addressing this piece of the groundfish management crisis. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. In bycatch I think we have made a 

number of improvements. Since we talked last we have at least a 

voluntary program in place for bycatch which allows the bycatch 

for ships that wish to have observers on board for that bycatch to 

be donated either to the poor or to other causes, and not being 

wasted and thrown back into the sea, so that is progress in the 

right direction. 

We have also—when you look at bycatch in general across the 

entire industry, there have been a number of improvements over 

the last 5 or 6 years that are important. We continue to keep doing 

that. For instance, in the shrimping industry, bycatch has been reduced from a ratio of about 10 to 1 to 4 to 1, based on the turtle 

exclusion device development and the ability to put that into broad 

use in those fisheries. 

The tuna fishery, of course, has had great success in reducing the 

incidental take of dolphins. That used to be in the hundreds of 

thousands 10 years ago. It is now less than 2,000 a year, so there 

has been incredible gains in some of these industries, certainly in 

the Atlantic billfish area. By a combination of closures and gear devices we are able to reduce the bycatch by 30 to 40 percent, and 

the landings have been maintained at the same level, so there are 

areas that are encouraging, and we need to do more, and I assure 

you that it has my attention, and we are looking at ways to improve it. 

Senator WYDEN. The Ranking Member of the Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Snowe, has joined us. 

She has done good work in this area for years, and I think what 

I will do is ask you a couple of other questions that are important 

to my State for this first round of questioning, Vice Admiral 

Lautenbacher, and then, after I have addressed those Oregon 

issues, I am going to recognize Senator Snowe, and then in the second round I’ll ask you some questions with respect to programs 

that are important nationally to finish up on the Oregon questions. 

As you know, there has been great unhappiness about the whiting decision that essentially blind-sided fishing families. The law 

requires NMFS to consider economic impact on fishing communities in making these management decisions, but neither I nor, 

certainly, these fishing communities in my State that I represent 

can understand how the agency’s decision took economic impact 

19

* The information referred to is contained in the Appendix. 

into account. Does the administration support considering economic 

impact on fishing communities when making management decisions and, if so, what specifically can you point to that demonstrates this? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I certainly support it, and when you 

look at the economic impact you have to look at the long-term economic impact. If there is no fishery in the future, that will be a 

horrendous economic impact, and so if you do not take the actions 

that the law requires now, there will be no fishery and there will 

be no economy, therefore it is a full-term picture that has to be 

looked at, and we do consider that. 

Senator WYDEN. And how did you do that in this case? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We believe the fishery was in danger, 

and this was the right level of stocks to preserve for the future of 

that fishery if you are going to make it sustainable, or for it to remain sustainable. 

Senator WYDEN. Can you supply to me, then, the evidence that 

demonstrates that you took into consideration economic impact? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We will provide you with whatever you 

would like, sir. 

Senator WYDEN. I would like just what I asked for. I would like 

the information that demonstrates that you took into consideration 

the economic impact on the fishing families. Is that what you will 

supply? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I will try to supply that. I do not know 

that I have seen exactly the question as you have posed it. That 

data, if it exists, I will bring it in. If it does not, I will also inform 

you.*

Senator WYDEN. One other question. With regard to Oregon, the 

release of the draft environmental impact opinion by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service from 2002 to 2012, for the Klamath 

project operation, has again been delayed. This biological opinion 

is going to determine the effects of projects operation on Klamath 

River coho salmon. Can you say to the Committee why this biological opinion has been delayed? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, we were on a very aggressive 

schedule to begin with, so I do not view when it is delayed that it 

is a delay that probably could be foreseen. We are trying to get all 

of this finished so that this year’s season, both for the farmers and 

the endangered species, would be taken care of as soon as possible. 

Right now, we are in discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation 

to ensure that we understand their proposal, and that our biological opinion takes into account exactly their proposed method of operating in the Klamath River Valley, and so I think we are very 

close to finishing that draft opinion, and it should be out within a 

couple of weeks, a week, perhaps. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me recognize Senator Snowe, who has done 

so much good work on these issues over so many years. 

20

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be 

here this morning. I want to welcome Admiral Lautenbacher. It is 

wonderful to have you here, because I know this is your first hearing since your confirmation as Administrator of NOAA. We are delighted, given your expertise and experience and managerial abilities, to have you here today. We know you will be tremendous in 

addressing many of the challenges your agency faces. NOAA certainly has far-reaching and wide-ranging responsibilities and obligations. We are very pleased that you are here today to address 

some of these issues. 

Let me first mention the New England groundfish litigation, 

which is an issue that has significantly affected the fishing industry in Maine. This court decision is compounded by all of the uncertainty, unpredictability, and instability that has occurred in the industry in recent times. I am most concerned with the decision that 

was recently rendered by the D.C. circuit court last week. What do 

you envision NOAA will provide in terms of assistance to the industry in the aftermath of this decision? 

Obviously, the reaction from the fishing industry in my state has 

been very negative. Rightfully so, due to the direct consequences 

the decision will have on the industry—particularly when you are 

talking about reducing the number of days at sea by at least 20 

percent and it is now based on their average over the last 5 years 

of fishing. For some people this is going to be extremely onerous. 

I know the decision could have been far worse in terms of rendering quotas, but nevertheless, this is going to have a serious impact on the groundfish industry throughout New England. Do you 

expect NOAA will provide any assistance, or could NOAA provide 

any assistance to minimize the burden that is going to be felt by 

the fishing industry as a result of this decision? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. As we were discussing a little earlier, 

there is no specific dollars in our budget that allows for that type 

of thing at this point. There are provisions, if the State requests 

it, to declare the fishery a disaster, which has been done, I do not 

know, 16 times or something over the last 5 or 6 years, and then 

provisions for special assistance to be made available, with the 

agreement of the administration and Congress. There is nothing 

special in the budget at this point for the New England 

groundfishery, based upon this last issue we have had with the 

court. 

I will say, we are appealing the court’s decision, because we had 

an agreement between a large majority of the parties that were 

subject to this, the rulings, both environmentalists and sport fishermen, and the fishing industry, and so it was very disappointing 

to us to not get a ruling from the judge that would allow fishing 

to continue based on the agreement we all had. We will appeal 

that, obviously we will appeal that judgment. It is our belief the 

judge went beyond her powers in the orders that were delivered, 

and so we will work on that, so that is the nearest relief that I can 

offer at this point. 

Senator SNOWE. Were you surprised by the additional regulations imposed by the judge in this decision? 

21

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, I guess—surprised? Maybe not 

surprised. I was hopeful that this would not happen. I guess I was 

not surprised, in a sense based on the original ruling that was 

made, which I did not agree with, necessarily. I was hoping that 

all the good work that went on, and the fact that she encouraged 

the mediation and the discussions that have taken place—and a 

great deal of effort had gone into this both from the good folks in 

the Northeast as well as NMFS to try to bring it to a conclusion 

successfully. That was very disappointing. I will say disappointing, 

more than surprising. 

Senator SNOWE. Obviously, this has far-reaching consequences 

for the groundfish industry and the fishermen are going to be suspended in a state of uncertainty for the duration of the ruling. In 

the meantime, I understand they are going to have to respond to 

this decision. How long is it going to take for the appeals process? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. It will probably take a while, and that 

is right, it does ruin the start of the fishing season. We are trying 

to put out an emergency rule within 10 days or so of the amount 

of time it takes us to do the paperwork, and then by 1 August to 

abide by the court decision to put a permanent rule in place, in the 

meantime appealing it, and so that is the game plan, and you are 

right, it could take a while, and it could foul up part of this fishing 

season for certain. 

Senator SNOWE. One of the major concerns that I have had over 

the last few years is that, unfortunately, we are governing the fishing industry by litigation. I know I have raised this concern with 

NMFS and I will have the opportunity next week to talk to Dr. Hogarth about this. NMFS has routinely acted out of fear of potential 

litigation rather than being proactive and designing plans and programs for the industry. 

We have court-based litigation that is governing the industry, 

which makes it extremely difficult for the people in this industry. 

I have seen the hardship in my state first-hand. They are constantly reeling from one decision to the next, each one of which is 

more onerous than the regulations or plans that were implemented 

by NMFS in response to potential litigation. I do not think that is 

the way we ought to be governing our industry and I do believe we 

have to be much more aggressive in designing plans and programs 

for the industry, so that we can preempt any potential for the type 

of litigation and the types of decisions that were rendered by the 

court last week. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I agree with that, and I would like not 

to manage by litigation. I think—well, in this budget we are asking 

for some more money to help us with the environmental assessments and some of the things we have done wrong in our procedure. 

We have been attacked on some procedural issues which we are 

gradually closing the loopholes to. We are being attacked on different issues now, which are at least working down into something 

substantive, and I believe the best thing is to make rulings upfront that are in accordance with the law, done up-front, done with 

consultation with everyone, and do it without this fear of retribution and waiting until the last minute, and that has taken place 

in the past. I am trying to reverse that. 

22

Part of it is, as to Senator Wyden’s question on the whiting, we 

have tried to get ahead of that, not as well as we should, but at 

least it was a ruling that came out that is in a position that will 

not be sued, we will not be sued on that particular ruling. We need 

to get to the point where we can do that with all the fisheries management councils. 

Plans come in late to us, and sometimes they are not in compliance. In the past, people have been shy about saying they are not 

in compliance, this is not going to work, and if we do not change 

it to match the law, then we are all out of business for a while, 

so I would like to get ahead of this. We have asked for some more 

money in our budget to help with stock assessments, to help with 

some of the admin procedures to make this work better, and I 

would appreciate support in that area. 

Senator SNOWE. Most definitely. 

What is NOAA doing to gain a better understanding of the socioeconomic impact on the communities and the industry? Will you be 

taking any steps to better evaluate what the direct effect is going 

to be and the consequences as a result of this decision? I think it 

is important, irrespective of what happens in the appeals process, 

to understand exactly what the socioeconomic effects are going to 

be. This requirement was included in the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization a few years ago to ensure that we ascertain the impact 

on the community. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Agree. There is $4 million in this budget that is specifically directed at increasing our staff, our expertise 

in the socioeconomic impact of the rules and regulations under 

which we have to deliver and work with, so I am pushing in that 

direction and, with those extra resources, that will certainly help. 

More is needed. 

As I said earlier, I am a fan of trying to balance the economic 

and conservation interests that we have and it needs to be done 

better than it has in the past, so I will try to push to make that 

happen. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that, and these issues are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, people see one without the other, 

and I do not think we can divorce those issues as we consider the 

whole picture for the fishing industry and for the communities involved. I think we can do both. 

And finally, I would encourage an examination of the entire issue 

of science-based management. Another concern that I have had 

over the years is the failure of the agencies to invest in the kind 

of cooperative research that is needed to gain a better understanding of exactly what the problems are with ecosystems and 

with the fisheries. I think if we did more in that regard, the industry would have better confidence in the ultimate decisions that are 

made with respect to the stocks of the particular fisheries. 

We do not do enough, and as a result of that insufficient investment, it really has imposed a hardship to the industry. Rightfully 

they are saying how do we know? Where is this information coming 

from? On what basis are you making this decision? They have to 

reorient their entire livelihood to respond to decisions that are not 

based on science and are not based on data. 

23

I encourage you to do everything that you can in your leadership 

position to invest in the kind of science-based research that will 

lead to making the best decisions, the most effective decisions that 

will yield the best results for the industry and for the fish stocks. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I understand, and I agree completely. I 

am certainly dedicated to doing as you suggest. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

I’d like to thank the Chair for scheduling this very important hearing on NOAA’s 

FY 2003 budget and programs. 

I want to welcome you, Admiral Lautenbacher, to what I believe is your first hearing before our Committee since your confirmation. You came to NOAA with solid 

scientific credentials and extensive management and leadership skills—all of which 

made you the perfect candidate for what I believe is an incredibly important job. 

I know you are just getting started, but I think this is an ideal time for us to talk 

to you about the NOAA budget request and all of your many programs. 

NOAA is a broad-ranging agency which the people of Maine depend on each and 

every day. In so many ways, your agency has a direct effect on their lives. In Maine 

we count on NOAA for everything from providing reliable weather predictions to scientifically-based fisheries management to coastal zone management to better understanding global climate change. 

Of course, these needs are not unique to Maine. More than half of our country’s 

population lives on the 10 percent of our land designated as the coastal zone. Our 

coastal population grows every year, placing increasing strains on coastal resources 

and our marine ecosystem. Our nation is facing unprecedented challenges in managing these resources, and we look to NOAA to take the lead in this management. 

And as you know you have a great many challenges. 

Right now in Maine we are faced with a crisis in which groundfish litigation could 

potentially and permanently change the coastal communities and their way of life. 

This is an example of litigation-based management at its absolute worst. We need 

to take fisheries management out of the courts and instead use better and more 

comprehensive science. This will enable us to create sustainable fisheries management plans that are in compliance with the law and allow our fishermen to continue 

to earn an honest living. 

I look forward to working with you and Dr. Hogarth in reversing this destructive 

trend. I understand that Dr. Hogarth is your point man for fisheries issues and I 

look forward to discussing these issues with him next week at our fisheries management hearing. 

As I said we have to ensure that science is the backbone of all of our decisions. 

Cooperative research is one area that I believe we can bring scientists and fisherman together to produce the science we need to better understand and manage our 

marine resources. I can’t emphasize more the importance of cooperative research. 

I also believe that we need to move forward to a global ocean observing system 

which will provide us with critical environmental data that will be utilized to improve fisheries modeling and management, coastal planning, and harmful algal 

blooms management and mitigation. 

In conjunction with this, I plan to introduce my Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act reauthorization bill soon and I look forward to 

working with you as we continue this extremely important program. It is clear that 

this problem is not going away as algal blooms are still prevalent and the dead zone 

still occurs each summer off the Louisiana coast. We need to better understand 

what causes these phenomena and how we can better control and eliminate them. 

My questions and concerns today focus on a small subset of NOAA’s overall responsibilities. You know that many of my natural resource concerns focus on fisheries. Rest assured that I will be diving into these issues with Dr. Hogarth next 

week, when we are holding a hearing on fisheries management. Today I will address 

overall budget issues, NOAA performance, and several programs that matter a great 

deal to Maine and the rest of the country. 

We are all here because we are concerned about NOAA’s ability to succeed in an 

increasingly complex world. Now more than ever, NOAA needs to be a leader in 

science-based management, and we all know that adequate budgets are a key component of this success. 

24

Thank you for appearing here today, Admiral Lautenbacher. I have enjoyed working with you in the past and I appreciate your ability to provide leadership and insight on the inner workings of NOAA. I have great confidence in your ability to help 

us better understand how NOAA’s budget affects its ability to meet its missions. 

I thank the Chair again for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing 

from you, Admiral Lautenbacher.

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague for all of her good work 

on these issues over so many years. 

Let me turn to some concerns the Committee has with respect 

to the budget for the country, and some programs that we do feel 

strongly about, and I will start with the national sea grant college 

program. The applied nature of national sea grant research and the 

success of extension services are just two aspects that cannot be 

underestimated. We are proud of their use in Oregon and certainly 

around the country. 

The President’s budget proposes to terminate this program within NOAA and the Department of Commerce. With all the positive 

feedback about sea grant, what are the administration’s reasons for 

moving the sea grant program, particularly in light of losing vital 

pieces of sea grant, such as the extension services and the applied 

research aspect? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The administration took a look at this, 

and they believe that managing a program such as this, which includes a great deal of basic research, would be most efficiently 

managed if it were included in a large-scale four-star effort such 

as the National Science Foundation, where they manage peer-reviewed research very well and get good grades from everyone that 

has looked at their program. 

The efficiency of bringing it into that management scheme and 

into a peer review process, et cetera, was considered to be an advantage to this program. Also, it would reduce the matching requirement, which would allow the States to not have to contribute 

as much money to the program, but it would continue to maintain 

its character in the sense that the sea grant areas, sea grant officers could maintain their certification. 

We also from NOAA would work with the National Science Foundation to ensure that the essential pieces of the program would 

continue as much as possible, given that there would be a shift 

from the NOAA organization to the National Science Foundation. 

For my part, I assure you that we think sea grant is an outstanding program. It has produced great results over the years in 

both education and outreach, or extension, as well as basic research. I will manage it with those same high ideals in mind and 

do my best to ensure that the turnover is done smoothly. 

Senator WYDEN. The Mitchell Act hatchery and mass marking 

program has consistently been underfunded, and this has resulted 

in the inability of hatchery managers to mass-mark the fish, as 

well as in the closure of hatcheries. Why has the administration 

not allowed the Mitchell Act hatchery and mass-mark program to 

function at the level that was intended by the Congress? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I do not have any detailed information 

on that. I would like to take it for the record and provide it to you, 

Senator. 

[The information referred to follows:]

25

Question. Why has the administration not allowed the Mitchell Act hatchery and 

mass-marketing program to function at the level that was intended by the Congress? 

Answer. NOAA’s FY 2003 request for Mitchell Act hatcheries is $16.5 million. The 

Mitchell Act funding level set by Congress in appropriations has been used exclusively for Columbia River hatchery operations and maintenance, screens and, in recent years, mass marking to allow recreational and commercial access to hatchery 

fish when they occur in fisheries with ESA listed salmonids. NMFS will continue 

to fund Columbia River hatcheries at the funding level appropriated by Congress.

Senator WYDEN. That will be fine. I want to go into some detail 

with respect to the Clear Skies program, the Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiative program, and frankly your answers 

are important here, since it is our understanding that the U.S. 

interagency Global Change Research Program has been placed 

under your watch in the new Climate Change Science Program Office to be headed by James Mahoney, your Assistant Secretary for 

Oceans and Atmosphere. Is that correct? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. That is correct. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Now, let me turn to your testimony, if I 

could, and I am going to be working from—I guess you do not number your pages, but I am going to go to the second page of your 

Climate Services testimony under Climate Change Research Initiative and begin by asking you this. You state in the second paragraph there, the Clear Skies plan aims to cut power plant emissions of three pollutants, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury, by 70 percent. What about carbon? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Carbon is included in the greenhouse 

gas intensity. It is included in the next line, which says 18 percent 

reduction of intensity, meaning the percentage of pollutants over 

the gross domestic product, so that as the gross domestic product 

increases, you reduce the amount of carbon in the air, and that is 

an 18-percent figure over the next decade, so carbon is included in 

that 18 percent number. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. The next sentence says, the new Global Climate Change Initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next decade. The international call is 

far greater than 18 percent, so my question is, how does this country really hold our head up here, saying we ought to have an 18-

percent reduction on only three pollutants? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. That is 18 percent, including the carbon 

dioxide, so you have to have that in. I am not the inventor of this 

calculation, but let me explain what I know about it. This comes 

from CEQ and from the Department of Energy, but when we 

looked at, or when I looked at the figures, this 18 percent goes out 

10 years, and if you look at the production, or the projection, rather, of our gross domestic product increase, and you look at the reduction in the pollution in the air, greenhouse gases, when you get 

to the end of the 10-year period you are actually better off than you 

are under the Kyoto treaty. 

Some people will say that the front end is not the same, but it 

is close, but over the 10-year period we actually do better than the 

Kyoto treaty does. 

Senator WYDEN. I will tell you that my sense is, is that your approach means that emissions could actually increase as GDP rises, 

is that right? 

26

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. But the intensity, the percentage will 

go down as a function of the economy, and when you look at the 

total, by the time you get there you are going to be less than the 

Kyoto protocol. 

Senator WYDEN. Wouldn’t the Clear Skies Initiative weaken and 

delay reductions on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury 

emissions from power plants? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I do not believe it would, but then 

again, I am not the expert. I am here to testify to the science that 

tells you how we make predictions. I am not the author of these 

figures or the regulations, so I do not want to pretend to sit here 

and be the administration source on these numbers, or the logic 

that goes behind these particular numbers. 

Senator WYDEN. I think what we want is the science behind the 

numbers. I do not think there is science to back up the numbers, 

and since you all are going to be playing an increasingly important 

role in this area, we are just looking for the science. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. And the science is, who has created the 

problem? Has man created the problem, or is this the natural variability which we cannot—nothing we do will make a difference, and 

I think there is great differences among scientists. You can read a 

number of papers that will tell you that it is not a problem, or it 

is a problem. We need better science on which to base these policies. 

What we are trying to do within NOAA and this Climate Change 

Research Initiative is to get to the core science and decide what is 

right, and what is the carbon cycle, where is it being sequestered, 

how much is going into the air, how much of it is natural, how 

much is man-made, and where is it coming from, what countries, 

what particular parts of the world, how is it being transported? 

Looking at the water cycle, what difference does it make? Do you 

actually have a cooling effect from aerosols? If you put more 

aerosols into the air, you actually reduce the temperature of the 

world. 

There are an awful lot of answers, an awful lot of questions on 

the basic science on which these policies are based that need to be 

answered. That is where our $18 million is focused, and that is 

what the program office for climate change will be involved in. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, what is your response to those people who 

argue nothing is going to make a real difference here? You said 

people argue that. What do you say in response to that? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I look at the data that is out there and 

I agree that the global average temperature has been increasing, 

and I think that the bulk of mainline scientists that you bring in 

here will agree to that, so cut out the fringes on the side who say 

it is not increasing, so we believe—at least I believe that the global 

average temperature is increasing. It has increased by a small 

amount, but it has done it in a relatively short period of time. 

One can make a correlation with the increase in greenhouse 

gases and say it is due to what man has done to the environment. 

One can also look back at records in history and tree rings and ice 

core samples, and you can see other changes that took place many, 

many years before man showed up on the scene burning fossil fuels 

and putting greenhouse gases into the air that have been equally 

27

or much more dramatic than what we have experienced today, so 

the issues are to decide and to find out what the physical processes 

involved are, and to see how much man is actually affecting them, 

because that will depend a lot on where you want to invest your 

money. 

Do you want to invest your money in reducing greenhouse gases 

and ruin the economy, and then find out that it makes no difference, or do you want to find out that since it is going to happen 

anyway, we should invest our money in mitigation, we should invest our money in planning properly, in what we are going to do 

in our coastal zones. What are we going to do in our coastal zones? 

What are we going to do when Minnesota becomes the land of 

1,000 wadis and not 1,000 lakes? What will happen to those regions? We are looking at regional assessments. We are looking at 

the effects of what will happen and who caused it. 

Senator WYDEN. You say the agency is requesting $2 million to 

augment carbon monitoring capabilities in North America, as well 

as for observations of globally relevant parameters in key undersampled oceanic and continental regions around the globe. That is, 

I guess, on page 3 of the climate change area. 

Again, touching on the carbon question, how come the President 

does not have carbon as part of the Clear Skies Initiative, but you 

have got $2 million for carbon monitoring? 

What is so striking about all of this is that at every step of the 

way it just seems that we are missing opportunities, opportunities 

to work with the rest of the world to address these key questions 

that are doing so much about the climate problem. You have said 

that this morning. We are going to have money to monitor carbon, 

but we are not going to make it one of the pollutants we really seek 

to do something about. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. That is not true. Well, first of all, you 

should, get another witness here. 

Senator WYDEN. It is not one of the areas where you are going 

to cut power plant emissions. You are going to cut power plant 

emissions for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxides, and mercury. You are 

not going to do it in the carbon area. That is a matter of fact. But 

you are going to set up, or at least try to, to have a program to 

monitor carbon, which suggests that it is kind of a serious problem, 

so I am trying to sort out the consistency in those two positions. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Goals are going to be set for reducing 

carbon. There is a registry being set up to ensure that reporting 

is done. It is going to be tracked. There are going to be goals set. 

This registry will be set up so there will be a provision to allow for 

trading credits, as has been done in the past, and acid rain and 

other programs that we have had, and it is being initiated by some 

of the States, for that matter, right now. 

So you are setting up a system in which people’s performance, 

the industry’s performance is going to be monitored, and how much 

carbon they are putting in the air, we are going to determine how 

much is in the air, and if we are not meeting the goals for reduction, it is 18 percent reduction, then we are going to have to have 

some other policies put into place, but the object here is to get voluntary reporting and monitoring going as an initial start, so it is 

28

not that nothing is being done. I think it is a prudent way to get 

started on the program. 

As far as the worldwide business, I just came from the APEC 

conference, and I am a big supporter of global observing systems. 

We do not have enough data on the parameters for the world system, oceans, atmosphere, that are going to allow us to actually determine what is going on with carbon. 

I received a great deal of support from colleague nations around 

the Pacific Rim to support getting monitoring stations in place and 

joining with the United States in an effort to build an observing 

system so we can give accurate data to the policymakers of the 

world. 

Senator WYDEN. I would be curious how you would respond to 

the recent NAS report. You know, this was commissioned by the 

administration. My understanding is that they concluded that climate change was occurring and that man-made emissions were 

part of the cause. How does the administration’s proposal address 

these concerns and address them in any way that is going to get 

at these problems sometime soon? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, first of all, the administration’s 

proposal is to stabilize greenhouse gases. They are rising today, 

and there is not anything you can do, short of everybody going to 

bed for the next 30 years, to stop them from rising, so the object 

is to stop the growth of greenhouse gases. It will stop at some point 

in the future. If the President’s program is followed, it will stop the 

rise of greenhouse gases, so that is the first thing that has to be 

done, and there is going to be monitoring and controls in places, 

as you have seen on the three gases, and voluntary on carbon, so 

if you stop the rise of the greenhouse gases, it gives you a chance. 

It gives you a breathing period to start looking, making sure that 

the science is correct and that you are investing in the right parts 

of your economy. 

If more drastic measures need to be taken, I am sure they will 

be taken. That is part of the Clear Skies program, is to review 

progress and to revamp the policies if necessary, so first of all you 

have got to stop the rise of greenhouse gases. If you follow what 

is in that program that the President has listed, you will stop the 

rise of greenhouse gases and you will do it without destroying the 

economies, and it is particularly important for nations of the world 

that do not have the money to invest, in these types of subsistence 

economies that do not have the money to invest in environmental 

improvement. 

If you allow them to grow their economies but have some sort of 

a set-aside to assure proper conservation of resources. That is a 

way to keep development going and to use the resources and to 

provide a proper environment for the future. That is again the balance between economic development and improving the quality of 

life and conservation of resources. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me ask one other question and again cite 

carbon as the area where I want to get a sense of the administration’s approach; and by the way, everybody is for the research. You 

note that here, and it says something I certainly agree with. You 

want the research to be done so workers and citizens in this country are not unfairly penalized, no question about that. All of that 

29

is very sensible. But I would like to get your sense, at what point 

is the administration going to say, we have studied enough here, 

we are going to take some action and support some specific initiatives and start with carbon? 

I asked about this at the Energy Committee. I serve on the Energy Committee as well, and last year, when the administration 

was being pushed by other countries around the world to act on the 

carbon issue the response was, we are going to study it. We are 

going to look at it. Tell me when you think that the administration 

might say, we have studied this enough, we are actually going to 

propose some concrete actions on carbon? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, I guess there is a semantic difference here. I believe they have taken action by setting into place 

a system which requires people to register, and a reporting system. 

So there is a reporting system being set up, and there is a track 

of reduction targets that are being looked at for the next 12 years, 

or the next decade, rather, from 2002 to 2012, and therefore a system is being set up in which there will be accountability, there will 

be targets, and we can all look at it, everyone can look at it and 

say it is working or it is not working. 

Senator WYDEN. If they are not met, there are no consequences, 

are there? What are the consequences of not doing your share? 

There are none, isn’t that correct? Tell me what the consequences 

are if you do not do your share. 

I think your point about reporting and monitoring and the like, 

it is all voluntary. I mean, if you sit it out, if you decide you are 

not going to be part of an effort to be responsible, I do not see any 

consequences because it is voluntary. What do you see as the consequences? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The consequences are economic, because as you start to figure out about how to reinvest in the next 

generation of equipment for power plants and energy distribution 

and automobiles, and all the things that create the carbon in the 

atmosphere, you are going to have to make some decisions. If the 

industry continues to make decisions that do not meet these targets, they know that there will be penalties. Congress will act, the 

President will act. There will be some changes to be made. 

So you are looking at a system which hopefully there will be—

given the entrepreneurial system we have in the U.S., there will 

be some realization that is going to happen. People will invest, and 

if they do not, they are going to start trading carbon credits, just 

like we do everything else, so you are going to be able to see some 

change in this system so hopefully there is some self-discipline that 

is imposed on the system. Now, if it does not work, everybody can 

see it. It will be visible, and then some action should be taken. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, the world has already seen it, and that is 

essentially what the debate is about. We are the person sitting it 

out when something like 170 other countries are saying—you are 

saying a voluntary system is going to work, that somehow people 

are going to see these consequences of their actions, and I think the 

country is going to pay dearly for a system that really in my view 

has no consequences. That is the bottom line. It is voluntary. If 

people are irresponsible, they will pay no price. There will be no 

consequences. 

30

Let me also say that I recognize that some of these issues go beyond your specific authority, but you play an important role, because of what we describe with respect to the new Climate Change 

Science Program Office, and I hope that in your capacity there you 

will be a voice for policies that are going to do more than study, 

they are going to lead to some action and some consequences when 

people are not willing to be responsible. 

I support voluntary programs. I think we ought to go with them 

to the greatest extent possible and give them the widest possible 

berth. There is no quarrel there, but when they are not getting the 

job done, then there has to be some consequences and some other 

systems have got to be in place. 

Let me recognize my colleague, if she has any further questions. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. I have just a few questions to follow 

up on the climate change issue so that we can have a better understanding of how these programs for the short term and the long 

term are going to be integrated into this office. I know the President announced the creation of the Climate Change Research Initiative in June and designated the Commerce Department to be the 

lead agency, but given that we have declining and static budgets 

we need to know how the investments we will make for the short 

term and the long term will impact climate change. 

The concern of many scientists is, we are doing things on the 

short term from 2 to 5 years, but it is not sufficient in helping us 

better understand the greater global environmental issues for the 

long term. I believe we need to make investments in the long term 

with respect to climate change. What are your views on that? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I agree, we need short term and long 

term. My impression has been, from looking at this, is that the investments that have been so far basically in the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) area have been mostly long-term investments. We have not focused on the short term, and really understanding hard-hitting issues right now, and producing products 

that can be used by policymakers to help with some of the issues 

that Senator Wyden and I just discussed, so we need—in my view, 

there has been too much long term, and not enough short term, but 

that being aside, this program office, I assure you, will be looking 

at both. We are very interested in being able to contribute immediately and directly to this problem, as well as ensuring that there 

is long-term improvements and science plans put into place. 

Senator SNOWE. In conjunction with what the chairman raised, 

is the issue of urgency. This is a very compelling issue and it was 

the reason back in 1990 the Congress created the Global Change 

Research Program, essentially because there was no success in addressing this issue 12 or 13 years ago. It seems to me there has 

to be a level of urgency and a sense of purpose about the entire 

issue and the far-reaching consequences if we fail to address these 

issues. 

I wonder how the work of the GCRP is going to be coordinated 

with this new initiative and with what we have done in the past. 

We need to make sure that we are not only examining these issues, 

but also proposing steps that can be taken to address the issue of 

global warming and the climate changes that have occurred. 

31

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The plan that is in place puts it directly 

on the burden of—Secretary of Commerce Don Evans is in charge, 

directly responsible to the President. It is a Cabinet-level group 

that includes all of the Cabinet agencies that are involved, or have 

any peripheral responsibilities with regard to climate change. It 

has a working group of Deputies, and then it has these program 

offices, one for technology and one for science change, of which Jim 

Mahoney, my Deputy, has been put in charge. It will include all 

of the same offices and incorporate the GCRP mechanisms that 

have been in place for 10 years. 

And I do not want to be misquoted. I think that program has 

produced a great deal of important work. My only point was, it was 

more long term than it was of an urgent nature. We have learned 

a lot from the GCRP. It has been a good program. I do not want 

to sit up here and say that has been wasted. It has not been. It 

has been a good investment. What we are trying to do is take a 

look beyond the window that was in the GCRP focus. 

That program looked at very specific new initiatives. It did not 

incorporate all of the things that have been done in the Government with regard to climate change, and I can give you an example 

just from NOAA, and I will let other agencies speak for their own 

budget. 

We have, for example, $70 million of GCRP money, basically, listed as climate change. If I go through my budget and look at it, I 

can find at least $300 million that are related to doing climate 

change kinds of things, or things that will help us to understand 

climate change science and help to build policy documents or policymaking instruments. The same thing goes for other agencies. 

So the first object of this program office is to get everything together that the Government does and put it in one place, and let 

us take a look at the architecture that is there. Let us take a look 

at the gaps that we have in science, if there are any, and start 

prioritizing what needs to be done. If we need to move that money 

into different places, then we should do it, and they are Cabinetlevel agencies with Cabinet members and Secretary Evans in 

charge, with OMB involved, and Dr. Marburger from OSTP. Everyone is on this group. It is a high-level body that hopefully will have 

the empowerment to make something happen. 

Senator SNOWE. Is every agency that should be involved in the 

issue of climate change included with this sort of task force? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes. 

Senator SNOWE. Does it replace the Global Change Research Program? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We are going to try to run it in parallel 

right now, because we understand the need to meet the needs, or 

meet the legislative requirements of the GCRP, and so right now 

we have taken the GCRP organization and kind of folded it together so that we will not lose any pieces, so the GCRP steering 

group, and the Environment and Natural Resources Council, that 

structure is being matched to the structure I just outlined so we 

ensure we deliver the proper documents to Congress. 

Senator SNOWE. Will this be coordinated? Who will be coordinating the structure? 

32

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. It is the same people, so the same people that have been doing—the same policy leaders in each of these 

areas that have been working in the GCRP will be in this program, 

the steering part of this program office, so we are not going to discard or eliminate or do anything to downplay what has been done 

before. We are going to use it as the base, essentially, and broaden 

the scope. That is the idea. 

Senator SNOWE. How much overall would you estimate is being 

spent on the issue of climate change by our Government? Do you 

have any idea? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, the figure that CEQ came up with 

was something like $4.7 billion. That includes the part that—the 

Department of Energy and clean coal and technologies for alternative fuels, that sort of thing, and so there is a big chunk. Most 

of that is in energy. There is about $1.7 billion in the GCRP, and 

I do not know, but my guess is there is at least another billion that 

is in science areas, maybe even more. 

The trouble is, how do you count it, because many of the things 

that we do that are useful for climate change, they are also useful 

for other things, and so do you take the same satellite that I use 

for weather and say, that is climate, too, and how much of that satellite money counts into climate, which it certainly will, but it is 

there to give us day-to-day weather and to ensure we can carry on 

our daily economic activities. 

So there are a lot of these things that are dual, multipurpose, 

that need to be taken into account. That is the hard part about giving you the figure. 

Senator SNOWE. So with this new coordinating structure, will all 

of the research be conducted under this umbrella? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. That is the idea. The idea is to have a 

supercoordinating office to make sure that when each budget is created, that it is created and it meshes, so when we all come to you, 

or when we go to the President and we come to you on the Hill you 

can look across this and you can see a logical program that supports climate change science, and we can deliver an architecture, 

which I can sit here, or Rita Caldwell can come up and say, anybody else can come up here and say, this is what we are doing, and 

here is how we fit together. We for the first time will have real 

Government coordination and cooperation. 

Senator SNOWE. That is going to be positive. 

On another issue related to climate change, that is abrupt climate change, the National Academy of Science issued a report in 

December 2001 that said that it is not only possible, but likely in 

the future that we could have an abrupt climate change that could 

have significant societal consequences. In fact, the report said, at 

present there are no plans for improving our understanding of the 

issue, no research priorities have been identified, and no policymaking body is addressing the many concerns raised by this potential for abrupt climate change. 

I have asked for $6 million in the appropriations process to address this specific issue regarding climate change. What are your 

views? And how will this be addressed? Is it recognized that this 

is a serious dimension of climate change? 

33

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Certainly I recognize it as a serious dimension, and I am sure a number of people will join me on that, 

and in fact, as I wrote a list yesterday of things we need to look 

at, it is on my list for our program office to coordinate. Abrupt climate change is of genuine concern, and we need to spend some 

time looking at it, and I assure you that it will be on the agenda 

of this program office. 

Senator SNOWE. Let’s turn to another area, harmful algal blooms. 

I am soon going to introduce my reauthorization legislation with 

Senator Breaux. I see the administration’s NOAA budget for 2003 

appears to eliminate the funding for all types of hypoxia research. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I will show you—I have it that we have 

roughly about the same amount of money. We may be down a little 

bit, $700,000 left because of the sea grant going to NSF, but we 

have about $13 million, about $13 million in the various pieces and 

there is, as you know, a million here, a million there. It is $13 million that deals with harmful algal blooms. It is down about $1 million, but it is roughly the same across the programs that deal with 

that. 

Senator SNOWE. Do you think it is about $13 million? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. It is about $13 million in this area. 

Senator SNOWE. I think this is a critical program. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. It is. 

Senator SNOWE. I think that this issue is not going to disappear 

any time soon. When you think about the dead zone that occurs 

every year off the coast of Louisiana and the types of mitigation 

measures that are essential to addressing this issue, we certainly 

should be investing in this issue and not terminating it. Is it your 

understanding that there will be static funding? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. $13.8 million was enacted in 2002, and 

our request is $13.1 million, so that is $.7 million down. That is 

the sea grant migration, and so assume that that is in there, so we 

are down about $700,000 on a base of $13.8 million. I admit, it is 

a slight decrease, but the programs are fairly robustly funded, 

given the number of priorities we try to cover, and I agree this is 

a very important area, and a lot has been done that is important 

to investigate toxins and health and damage to the environment. 

Senator SNOWE. We created a task force on this issue in 1998. 

Has it been effective in providing any recommendations for technical assistance on this issue? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. My view—well, there were four task 

forces created as a result of this. Three of them have finished, and 

have produced, I think, good products that have been used to help 

guide the research efforts and support public knowledge of this 

issue. 

The fourth one will be finished—it is being reviewed in 3 or 4 

months, and it is going to cover coastal oceans’ reactions to harmful 

algal blooms, as well as hypoxia and dead zone issues in the Gulf 

of Mexico, so these reports are good, and the fourth one is almost 

done. We have completed that work, essentially. 

Senator SNOWE. When will that final report be released? I ask 

this because we are in the process of introducing the reauthorization bill. Perhaps we would want to wait to incorporate any suggestions the reports might provide. 

34

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I will make sure you have copies of the 

reports. 

Senator SNOWE. Please provide any suggestions or thoughts you 

might have on the reauthorization as well, because it is important. 

Finally, on the national ocean observation system that is being 

developed with hopefully a national plan, how will this system be 

administered? And as you know, there is an observing system in 

the Gulf of Maine that is working very well. It is sort of a prototype. Do you envision that this type of program will be incorporated into a national observation system? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. My view is that it should be folded into 

a national observation system. We have under the NRLC, the National Research Leadership Council, a group called Ocean.US, 

which is a multiagency group kind of at a lower level than the climate change group that I talked about, but it includes all the agencies that deal with ocean research and ocean monitoring. 

They recently had a conference among the Government agencies, 

also including academia, and all the folks that would be interested—actually, Gulf of Maine was represented at that conference—to build an architecture, and that is the critical part. As 

you know, to build a partnership between two people is hard, but 

to build a partnership between hundreds of people gets very difficult, but the attempt is being made. 

Their report is almost ready to be published, and I spoke to this 

group. I think there is a great deal of unanimity that we need some 

kind of a national architecture, and backboned, to which the regional observing systems can tie in, data can be shared, and we can 

truly use it for a national purpose both for climate as well as a 

number of other things. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Admiral Lautenbacher. I appreciate 

you appearing before us today and answering our questions. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I think you can see, 

Admiral Lautenbacher, that there is a lot of concern on these 

issues, on the fishing questions, on the climate change questions, 

and what I am hoping for, and I think it is very much along the 

lines of what Senator Snowe is trying to address, is we want a new 

sense of urgency. 

There are a number of these questions that just seem to have 

been passed on from hand to hand, and office to office, and what 

we are hoping is that in a very aggressive way you will pull together the people on your team and work with us on a bipartisan 

basis. 

We will have Bill Hogarth here in a few days. I hope that Dr. 

Hogarth is going to talk to us very specifically about what is going 

to be done about a crisis in our fishing sector. Senator Snowe, I am 

sure, is going to have the same sorts of questions for him on the 

global climate change. What I think the Congress wants to do is 

to see a workable bipartisan plan that consists of more than study. 

We support your research efforts, but at the end of the day we 

have got to have a chance to move on those, and in area after area. 

We have come up with bipartisan proposals, Senator Smith and I, 

in the groundfish area; Senator Craig and I in terms of carbon sequestration—there are bipartisan proposals out there that move us 

35

beyond the research area, and you can be a force for doing that, 

so that is what we hope we will see. 

I would like to give you the last word. If there is anything you 

want to add, you can feel free to do it at this time. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here and discuss these issues with you, and 

I am delighted that there is this interest, and I assure you that I 

have the same sense of urgency. To the limits of my ability I will 

certainly work to address these problems. I wish to work in a bipartisan manner. I do not think the oceans and the atmosphere are 

the purview of any one particular part of our society. I think it is 

important to all of the entire Nation and to everyone that we deal 

with these problems, and I will continue to work with you in the 

future in any way that I can. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee adjourned.] 

(37)

* The Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review for the ‘‘Emergency Rule for 

the Pacific Whiting Allowable Biological Catch and Optimum Yield Specifications for the 2002 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery’’ has been retained in Committee files. 

APPENDIX

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RON WYDEN TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question. Can you produce information that demonstrates that you took into consideration the economic impact on the fishing families? 

Answer. The Pacific Whiting decision was made primarily on the basis of the biology of the stock and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). The 

MSA gives priority to meeting the biological requirements of the stock and preventing overfishing. As required by MSA, economic impacts are taken into account, 

but are not necessarily given equal weight to the biology of the stock. Economic considerations are most commonly taken into account in weighing different alternative 

actions that might be necessary to meet the biological requirements of the MSA, not 

whether to meet them at all. 

The first document is the March 22 Decision Memo for the Emergency Rule to 

Establish 2002 Harvest Specifications for Pacific Whiting and Announcement of 

Overfished Status of Pacific Whiting. The Finding of No Significant Impact and the 

Environmental Assessment for this rulemaking are attached to the Decision Memo. 

The memo includes a discussion of economic impacts (see pages 4–5). Because this 

was an emergency rule where notice and comment was waived, it was exempt from 

the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The second document is an April 3 memo titled, Alternative Estimates of Economic Impact Associated with the Emergency Rule for 2002 Pacific Whiting Specifications. This memo responds to economic concerns expressed by the fishing industry during the public comment period at the Pacific Fishery Management Councils’ 

March 2002 meeting. 

The third document is the emergency rule* published in the Federal Register on 

April 15, 2002. The preamble of the rule contains a section titled Economic Impacts 

where the issues are defined and summarized. 

MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR

FISHERIES, FROM D. ROBERT LOHN, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE

FISHERIES SERVICE—MARCH 22, 2002

Emergency Rule to Establish 2002 Harvest Specifications for Pacific

Whiting and Announcement of Overfished Status of Pacific Whiting 

I request your approval of an emergency action under authority of section 305(c) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) requests emergency action under the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to establish 2002 harvest specifications for Pacific whiting (whiting) before the start of the primary season on April 

1, 2002. For reasons explained below, the Council’s action on 2002 annual specifications for whiting were delayed until its March 2002 meeting. The harvest specifications adopted for 2001, which remain in effect until new specifications are adopted, 

must be replaced to prevent overfishing of the whiting stock during 2002. 

This action has controversial aspects since it rejects the Council’s recommended 

alternative for U.S. harvest of whiting of 152,400 mt and instead implements a 

lower harvest level of 129,600 mt. Industry participants have expressed concern 

about the economic impacts of the reductions in harvest. The environmental community is likely to be concerned about the low biomass levels and how quickly the stock 

will be restored to a sustainable level. In addition, the March 5, 2002, Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals opinion in Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. Department of Commerce, which is a challenge to Indian treaty fishing rights by the fishing industry, 

38

could result in complaints about the allocation of whiting between the tribal and 

non-tribal sectors of the fishery. 

Background 

The FMP requires the Council to develop management specifications for groundfish species or species groups that it proposes to manage, each calendar year. The 

2002 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures for 

all managed species, except whiting were published in the Federal Register March 

7, 2002 (67 FR 10490). 

NMFS and the Council realized that the whiting biomass had decreased throughout the l990s. In anticipation of a new stock assessment which was to be available 

in early 2002 and because only a small amount of whiting are typically landed 

under trip limits prior to the April 1 start of the primary season, the Council chose 

to delay its final whiting recommendation until its March 2002 meeting. As a result 

of this decision, whiting harvest specifications from 2001 were carried over into 2002 

and remain in place until new specifications are established through a federal rulemaking. 

In late February, the new assessment was complete and made available for examination by the Council’s groundfish assessment review team (STAR) for whiting. As 

a result of the new whiting stock assessment, it has been determined that the stock 

biomass in 2001 was 0.7 million mt, and that the female spawning biomass was less 

than 20 percent of the unfished biomass. Because the overfished threshold under 

the FMP is 25 percent of the unfished biomass, the whiting stock was determined 

to be overfished in 2001 and 2002. 

Although a large amount of juvenile fish, spawned in 1999, are expected to mature and enter the fishery in the near future, the spawning biomass is not expected 

to increase above 40 percent of its unfished biomass level (B40%¥the MSY biomass 

level) for several years. Any increases in biomass will depend on the vigor of juvenile fish that mature and enter the fishery as well as the exploitation rates. 

At its March 2002 meeting in Sacramento, CA, the Council reviewed the results 

of the new stock assessment. The Council was presented with a range of coastwide 

harvest levels based on three alternative harvest rates and three different assumptions about the amount (recruitment level) of juvenile fish that are expected to become part of the exploitable biomass in 2002. The three recruitment assumptions 

included a low recruitment of 2.11 billion fish (10 percent probability), a medium 

recruitment of 2.89 billion fish (80 percent probability), and a high recruitment of 

3.87 billion fish (10 percent probability). At the time of the 2001 survey, the fish 

spawned in 1999 had only partially recruited to the fishery and were not well estimated by the model resulting in uncertainty about the effect these young fish would 

have on the exploitable stock biomass. As fish spawned in 1999 mature, the whiting 

biomass is expected to increase in size under each of the three recruitment assumptions. At the low recruitment level the biomass is projected to increase to between 

25 percent and 28 percent of its unfished condition by 2003, for the range of 2002 

harvest levels examined. At the high recruitment level the biomass is projected to 

increase to between 38 percent and 42 percent of its unfished level by 2003, using 

the same range of 2002 harvest amounts. 

These three recruitment level assumptions represent different degrees of risk in 

characterizing the amount of juvenile fish entering the fishery. A low recruitment 

assumption is most precautionary and represents a risk adverse approach, the medium recruitment is risk neutral, and the high recruitment assumption carries more 

risk for a timely stock recovery. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) chose to forward all three recruitment assumptions to the Council, while noting that the medium recruitment assumption was the risk neutral characterization 

of the incoming recruits to the fishery. 

The three harvest rate proxies forwarded to the Council were F40%, F45% and 

F50%. A rate of F40% can be explained as that which reduces spawning potential 

per female to 40 percent of what it would have been under natural conditions (if 

there were no mortality due to fishing) and is therefore a more aggressive harvest 

strategy than F45% or F50%. The OYs presented to the Council were based on the 

ABC associated with a particular recruitment level and harvest rate as reduced by 

the 40/10 default harvest policy. When a stock is below B40%, the 40/10 policy is 

applied as a precautionary measure and is effectively a default rebuilding policy. 

The allocation of the whiting resources between the U.S. and Canada is not resolved. The stock assessment was a collaborative effort between the two nations. 

However, the results of the new stock assessment were not available in time to hold 

formal negotiations with Canada before the March Council meeting. Consequently, 

the Council assumed continuation of the 80 percent share that the U.S. harvest levels have been set at in recent years. NMFS believes that the F40 harvest rate with 

39

a medium recruitment assumption and a 40/10 harvest policy approach shows adequate precaution. The Council recommended that the future whiting negotiations 

between the U.S. and Canada be scheduled. 

Following discussion and public testimony, the Council recommended adopting a 

U.S.-Canada Coastwide OY of 190,500 with a U.S. OY of 152,400 mt (80 percent 

of the coastwide OY) based on a harvest rate of F40% and assuming a medium-high 

recruitment scenario. I advise disapproving the Council’s recommendation and recommend approving an ABC based on the risk neutral medium recruitment scenario. 

After consultation with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, I believe that the 

risk neutral medium recruitment scenario, instead of the Council’s risk accepting 

recommendation, is supported by the best available science. This would result in a 

U.S.-Canada ABC of 208,000 mt and a U.S. ABC of 166,000 mt. The U.S.-Canada 

Coastwide OY (the ABC with the application of the 40/10 harvest policy) would be 

162,000 mt with a U.S. OY of 129,600 mt. 

I believe, that a risk neutral approach, instead of one that accepts greater risk, 

is supported by the best available science given the current biomass estimate and 

the uncertainty associated with the estimates of recent year class strength. The 

2002 retrospective analysis of recruitment estimates from the 1998 assessment resulted in recruitment strengths and biomass estimates being revised downward. 

This suggests that future stock assessments also have a reasonable expectation of 

revising the estimated strength of the 1999 year class to a lower value. It should 

be noted that the two most recent year classes prior to the 1998 assessment (at an 

age equivalent to the 1999 year class in the new assessment) were estimated to be 

about 40 percent lower in the 2002 assessment than in the 1998 assessment. Relative to the medium-high recruitment scenario recommended by the Council, the 

2002 stock assessment results suggest that a lower 1999 recruitment is two to three 

times more likely than a higher 1999 recruitment. The STAR Panel recognized the 

high variance associated with forecasting recruitment and suggested caution in 

using the projections for forecasting future biomass levels.. The Council’s choice to 

use a 1999 year class estimate midway between the medium and high estimates is 

inconsistent with the STAR Panel recommendation. 

The F40% harvest proxy should remain in place for 2002. The Council’s STAR 

panel recommended moving to a more conservative level of F45%. The SSC did not 

make the same recommendation, but noted that the STAR panel recommendation 

was a risk-adverse policy and not risk-neutral advise. The SSC identified the F40% 

rate as reflecting a risk neutral policy. While the F45% is by definition more conservative than the F40%, neither the STAR or SSC were presented with an analysis 

to evaluate the suitability of the F45% harvest rate proxy. Such an analysis was 

beyond the scope of the assessment. An evaluation of the harvest rate proxies for 

whiting should be completed before setting the 2003 harvest level. 

Projections indicate that if mean levels of recruitment occurred annually, an F40% 

harvest policy adjusted by the 40/10 rule, would rebuild the spawning stock to B40% 

within seven to nine years (2009–2011). However, it must be noted that given the 

highly skewed nature of the historical recruitment distribution, there is less than 

a 50% likelihood that annual recruitments would average the long-term mean during this short period. 

The U.S. OY recommended by the Council (152,400 mt) represents a 20 percent 

reduction from the 2001 whiting OY, while the OY which I am recommending adopting (129,600 mt)represents a 32 percent reduction from the 2001 whiting OY. In 

2001, the ex-vessel value of whiting taken by all sectors was estimated to be approximately $13,415,000. Under the OY being adopted by NMFS (129,600 mt) the 

ex-vessel value of whiting is expected to be approximately $10,000,000, this is 25 

percent less than the ex-vessel value in 2001. Reduced revenues from production 

will likely affect the ability of operations to not only cover their variable costs, but 

also their fixed costs. If it is not economically feasible for some shore-based or atsea processors to participate in the fishery, the financial impacts of the reduction 

may be distributed disproportionately among recent participants. In the short term, 

the reduced OY is expected to have an adverse economic impact on harvesters and 

processors, however I believe it is necessary for the long-term health of the fishery. 

Concerns about the impacts on other groundfish fisheries were considered. Participants in the shore-based whiting fleet have accounted for roughly 50 percent of the 

annual harvest of species in the Dover sole, thornyhead, and sablefish (DTS) species 

complex as well as at least 20 percent of the non-Dover sole flatfish species. Many 

whiting vessels target flatfish and DTS species after the whiting season. It is expected that the length of the whiting season would be reduced proportionally with 

the OY. Therefore, a drastically reduced OY would likely result in a shorter whiting 

season and increased fishing pressure on already constrained fisheries, this would 

40

result in higher than expected landings, inseason non-whiting reductions in trip limits, and possibly early closures. 

Each year, the whiting OY is allocated between the specific sectors of the fishery. 

The Pacific Coast Indian treaty fishing rights, described at 50 CFR 660.324, allow 

for the allocation of fish to the tribes through the annual specification and management process. 

Beginning in 1999, NMFS has set the tribal allocation according to an abundancebased sliding scale allocation method proposed by the Makah Tribe in 1998. See, 

64 F.R. 27928, 27929 (May 29, 1999); 65 FR 221, 247 (January 4, 2000) ; 66 FR 

2338, 2370 (January 11, 2001) Under the sliding scale allocation method, the tribal 

allocation varies in relation to the level of the U.S. whiting OY, ranging from a low 

of 14 percent (or less) of the U.S. OY at OY levels above 250,000 mt, to a high of 

17.5 percent of the U.S. OY at an OY level at or below 145,000 mt. For 2002, the 

Makah Tribe has requested, and the Pacific Council has recommended, a tribal allocation of 22,680 mt, using the sliding scale allocation method. No other tribes have 

requested allocations for 2002. 

The sliding scale allocation method is the subject of two recent court decisions. 

In the treaty fishing rights case of U.S. v. Washington, Case No. C70–92l3, Phase 

I, sub-proceeding No. 96–2 (W.D. Wash., April 5, 2001), the Court considered several 

scientific affidavits submitted by NMFS and the Makah Tribe, and found that ‘‘the 

allocation agreed on by the Secretary is a lawful exercise of his obligation to comply 

with the treaties guaranteeing Indian tribes their aboriginal right to take fish at 

their usual and accustomed fishing grounds.’’ 143 F. Supp. 2d 1218, at 1224. The 

Court concluded: ‘‘The sliding scale allocation method advocated by the Secretary 

and Makah shall govern the United States aspect of the Pacific whiting fishery until 

the Secretary finds just cause for alteration or abandonment of the plan, the parties 

agree to a permissible alternative, or further order issues from this court.’’ Id.

In Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. U.S. Department of Commerce, lllF. 

3d.lll, 2002 WL 338406 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

upheld the tribal treaty right to Pacific whiting, upheld the usual and accustomed 

fishing area of the Makah Tribe, and found that the Makah Tribe is entitled, pursuant to the Treaty of Neah Bay, ‘‘to one-half the harvestable surplus of Pacific whiting that passes through its usual and accustomed fishing grounds, or that much of 

the harvestable surplus as is necessary for tribal subsistence, whichever is less.’’ 

However, the Court also found that the specific allocation in 1999 to the Makah 

Tribe was inconsistent with the scientific principles set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (which requires that NMFS base fishery conservation and management 

measures on the best scientific information available), because the 1999 Federal 

Register notice announcing the 1999 allocation did not provide a scientific rationale. 

Accordingly, the Court issued instructions to the District Court to remand to the 

agency for more specific findings. On remand, NMFS will be required ‘‘to either promulgate a new allocation consistent with the law and based on the best available 

science, or to provide further justification for the current allocation that conforms 

to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Treaty of Neah Bay.’’

The Midwater Trawlers decision was just issued, and the case has not yet been 

formally remanded to the agency by the District Court. However, prior to the formal 

remand, NMFS must announce the 2002 Pacific whiting allocations. NMFS has reviewed the science contained in documents in the administrative record in the 

Midwater Trawlers case, and has also reviewed scientific information submitted by 

NMFS and the Makah Tribe in U.S. v. Washington, Sub- proceeding 96–2. NMFS 

has no additional scientific analysis that alters the existing information on the distribution and migration pattern of the stock. Therefore, NMFS is relying on the existing information as the best scientific information available. 

Based on the information referenced above, NMFS concludes that an allocation of 

22,680 mt of Pacific whiting to the Makah Tribe in 2002 is within the tribal treaty 

right as described by the District Court in U.S. v. Washington, Sub-proceeding 96–

2, and by the Ninth Circuit in the Midwater Trawlers decision. Since this is the 

amount requested by the Tribe, NMFS also concludes that it is sufficient to meet 

tribal subsistence needs for 2002, even though it may be less than the full treaty 

entitlement. NMFS will deal with these issues in more detail in its formal response 

to the Ninth Circuit decision. 

The non-tribal commercial OY for whiting is 106,920 mt (the 129,600 mt OY 

minus the 22,680 mt tribal allocation). Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4) divide 

the commercial OY into separate allocations for the non-tribal catcher/processor, 

mothership, and shore-based sectors of the whiting fishery. The catcher/processor 

sector is composed of vessels that harvest and process whiting. The mothership sector is composed of motherships and catcher vessels that harvest whiting for delivery 

to motherships. Motherships are vessels that process, but do not harvest, whiting. 

41

The shoreside sector is composed of vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to 

shoreside processors. Each sector receives a portion of the commercial OY, with the 

catcher/processors getting 34 percent (36,353 mt), motherships getting 24 percent 

(25,661 mt), and the shore-based sector getting 42 percent (44,906 mt). 

Certification 

I certify that this emergency rule is consistent with the national standards and 

other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act and other applicable laws. 

Determinations supporting this finding are attached. 

Recommendation 

I recommend that you approve this emergency action, sign and send the decision 

memorandum to the Under Secretary with the attached information memorandum 

to the Secretary, and sign the attached transmittal to the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce. 

Determinations 

Appropriateness of Emergency Action: The harvest specifications adopted for 

2001, which remain in effect until new specifications are adopted, must be replaced 

to prevent overfishing of the whiting stock during 2002. This action was delayed 

until March in order to use the latest science which was not available until late February. Because the ABC and OY are substantially lower than those adopted for 

2001, this action is necessary to restrict fishing so the fishery stays within its overall harvest allocation while allowing the various sectors of the fishery the opportunity to fully harvest their sector’s allocation. To delay the effectiveness of the rule 

beyond the start of the fishery could result in some sector allocations being exceeded 

and possible early closures for other sectors as a result of excessive harvest in the 

early season. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act): This rule is necessary to respond to an emergency situation and 

is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

National Environmental Policy Act: An environmental assessment (EA) has 

been prepared that describes the impact on the environment that would result from 

the implementation of this rule. Three different assumptions about the amount of 

juvenile fish that are expected to mature and become part of the spawning biomass 

were put before the Council. At the time of the survey, the fish spawned in 1999 

had only partially recruited to the fishery and were not well estimated by the assessment model. Therefore there is uncertainty about the effect these young fish 

have on growth of the spawning stock biomass. Implementing the more conservative 

ABC, based on a harvest rate of F40% with a medium recruitment scenario with 

an OY adjusted by the 40/10, is expected to result in substantial impacts to the 

whiting industry. I recommend you find that no significant impact on the human 

environment will result from its implementation. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): This rule is exempt from the procedures of 

the RFA, because it is not required to be issued with prior notice and opportunity 

for public comment. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): The Council determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the approved coastal management programs of the States of Washington, Oregon, 

and California. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible 

State agencies under section 307 of the CZMA on December 14, 2001. No response 

was received from any of the states, so consistency is inferred. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): This action does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for purposes of the PRA. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA): NMFS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) under 

the Endangered Species Act on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 

1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999, pertaining to the 

effects of the groundfish fishery on chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River 

spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia 

River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley, California 

coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal, Oregon coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal, Columbia River), sockeye 

salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south-central California, northern California, and southern 

California). NMFS has concluded that implementation of the FMP for the pacific 

Coast groundfish fishery is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

42

endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

NMFS has re-initiated consultation on the Pacific whiting fishery associated with 

the (whiting DO) issued on December 15, 1999. During the 2000 whiting season, the 

whiting fisheries exceeded the chinook bycatch amount specified in the whiting BO’s 

incidental take statement’s incidental take estimates, 11,000 fish, by approximately 

500 fish. In the 2001 whiting season, however, the whiting fishery’s chinook bycatch 

was well below the 11,000 fish incidental take estimates. The re-initiation will focus 

primarily on additional actions that the whiting fisheries would take to reduce chinook interception, such as time/area management. NMFS is gathering data from the 

2001 whiting fisheries and expects that the re-initiated whiting DO will be completed by April 2002. During the reinitiation, fishing under the FMP is within the 

scope of the December 15, 1999, whiting BO, so long as the annual incidental take 

of chinook stays under the 11,000 fish bycatch limit. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act: I have determined that fishing activities conducted under this rule will have no adverse impact on marine mammals. 

Administrative Procedure Act: For the reasons described below, there is good 

cause to waive the proposed rule requirement under 553 (b)(B). The Pacific Coast 

Groundfish FMP requires that fishery specifications be evaluated each year using 

the best scientific information available. A stock assessment for whiting was prepared in early 2002, using the most recent survey data. Because of the timing of 

the resource survey upon which the assessment is based, it was not available for 

use in a stock assessment that could be ready for the September-November management cycle when the rest of the groundfish specifications were set. In addition, the 

survey for this species is done only every three years. Therefore, the Council and 

NMFS decided it was best to delay the adoption of the 2002 ABY and OY in order 

to use the newest data, rather than use 4 year old data from the prior survey. The 

preliminary indication from survey data was that the biomass had declined in recent years and the ABC and OY recommended for 2002 would be substantially lower 

than 2001. Therefore, for resource conservation purposes, it was particularly important to delay in order to use the most recent data. Finally, since the major fishery 

for whiting does not start until April 1, there was time to delay the adoption of the 

new ABC and OY, until the new information was available in March. 

Last year’s whiting specifications were carried over in the interim for 2002 and 

were announced in a final rule published on March 7, 2002 (67 FR 10490). In the 

final rule, it was explained that the specification would be adjusted following the 

Council’s March meeting and announced in the Federal Register as an emergency 

rule. This action has been publicized widely through the Council process. Because 

the ABC and OY are substantially lower than those adopted for 2001, this emergency rule is necessary to restrict fishing so the fishery stays within its overall harvest allocation while allowing the various sectors of the fishery the opportunity to 

fully harvest their sectors allocations. To delay the rule beyond the start of the fishery could result in some sector allocations being exceeded and possible early closures 

for other sectors as a result of excessive harvest in the early season. 

The reasons described above, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), constitute good cause 

to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness, so that this rule may become effective 

before the fishery begins on April 1, 2002. 

Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866): Pursuant to the procedures established to 

implement section 6 of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this emergency rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13132 (E.O. 13132): This action does not contain policies with 

federalism implications under E.O. 13132. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): This action will affect fishing in areas designated as EFH by Amendment 11 to the FMP. This action reduces the whiting OY 

for 2002 from the 2001 level which is currently in place for the fishery. The potential effects of these changes are not currently quantifiable, but the changes are expected to have either no adverse effect on EFH, or to have a positive effect resulting 

from reduced fishing. 

43

MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR

FISHERIES, FROM D. ROBERT LOHN, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE

FISHERIES SERVICE—APRIL 1, 2002

Finding of No Significant Impact on the Environmental Assessment of the 

Pacific Whiting Allowable Biological Catch and Optimum Yield for the 

2002 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

To manage and conserve the whiting resource in the exclusive economic zone off 

Washington, Oregon and California, NMFS is implementing the Pacific whiting 

(whiting) allowable biological catch (ABC) and optimum yield (OY) for 2002 by emergency rule. The attached environmental assessment (EA) analyzed a range of alternatives for setting the whiting specifications. The alternatives considered in the EA 

included the 2001 specifications based on a 1998 assessment and a range of ABCs 

and OYs based on a new assessment that was completed in February 2002. The alternatives based on the new assessment considered a range of recruitment assumptions and exploitation levels 

On March 13, 2002 the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) made a recommendation intermediate to Alternatives 4 and 5 in the EA. The Council’s recommendation was for a U.S.-Canada coastwide whiting OY of 190,500 mt with a 

U.S. whiting OY of 152,400 nit (80 percent of the U.S.-Canada coastwide OY). The 

Council recommended ABC was to be based on a F40% harvest rate with a mediumhigh recruitment scenario. 

NMFS is disapproving the Council’s recommendation to adopt an ABC and OY 

based on F40% with a medium-high recruitment scenario. NMFS will instead implement Alternative 4, which is an ABC based on F40% with a medium recruitment 

scenario and an OY that is adjusted by the 40/10 harvest policy as a precautionary 

measure (U.S. OY of 129,600 mt). I believe that the risk neutral medium recruitment scenario, instead of one that accepts greater risk, is supported by the best 

available science given the current biomass estimate and the uncertainty associated 

with the estimates of recent year class strength. An analysis of the expected impact 

on the human environment from the U.S. ABC and OY recommended by the Council 

was prepared and is included in Appendix A to the EA. 

Finding of no Significant Impact 

Based on the EA, review of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) criteria for significant effects, and my knowledge of the expected impacts, I have determined that this action would not have a significant effect upon the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore, preparation of an EIS on the final action is not required under Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA or its implementing regulations. This 

determination is based on the following factors:

1. As discussed in section 4.2 of the EA, the preferred alternative is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any target species that may be affected 

by the action. The whiting ABC will be based on a risk neutral medium recruitment scenario instead of one that accepts greater risk. Added precautionary 

measures built into the OY are expected to further reduce the risk of overfishing and allow the whiting biomass to increase. Incidental catch of species 

other than whiting are minor (generally less than 3 percent of the total catch 

by weight). The total take of other groundfish species are expected to be within 

the 2002 OYs specified. for those species. As discussed in sections 4.2 and 5.7 

of the EA, incidental take of salmonids are expected to stay within the threshold in the biological opinions for the whiting fishery.

2. As discussed in section 5.1 of the BA, the preferred alternative will affect 

fishing in areas designated as essential fish habitat by Amendment 11 to the 

FMP. This action reduces the whiting OY for 2002 from the 2001 level which 

is currently in place for the fishery. The potential effects of these changes are 

not currently quantifiable, but the changes are expected to have either no adverse effect on EFH, or to have a positive effect resulting from reduced fishing.

3. As discussed in section 4.3 of the EA, the preferred alternative is not expected to have a substantial effect public health or safety.

4. As discussed in section 5.7 of the EA, the preferred alternative will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat.

5. As stated in section 4.4 of the BA, the preferred alternative is not expected 

to result in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on 

target and non-target species.

44

6. As discussed in section 4.2 of the EA, the preferred alternative is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any non-target species. The bycatch of 

non-target species in the whiting fishery is expected to be minimal.

7. As discussed in section 4.2 of the EA, the preferred alternative is not expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function.

8. As discussed in Section 4.3 of this BA, the preferred alternative is expected 

to result in significant social or economic impacts. However, the proposed action 

is not expected to result in significant physical or biological impacts. Therefore, 

there are no significant social or economic impacts interrelated with significant 

natural or physical environmental impacts.

9. The preferred alternative has controversial aspects since it rejects the Council’s recommended alternative for U.S. harvest of whiting of 152,400 mt and instead implements a lower harvest level of 129,600 mt. Industry participants 

have expressed concern about the economic impacts of the reductions in harvest. In addition, the March 5, 2002, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in 

Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. Department of Commerce, which is a challenge to Indian treaty fishing rights by the fishing industry, could result in complaints about the allocation of whiting between the tribal and non-tribal sectors 

of the fishery. The environmental community is likely to be concerned about the 

low biomass levels and how quickly the stock will be restored to a sustainable 

level.

In view of the analysis presented in this document, the proposed whiting specifications are not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment, with specific reference to the criteria contained in Section 6.02 of NOAA Administrative Order NAO 216–6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).. Accordingly, the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action is 

not necessary. 

* Response to the remaining written questions to Vice Admiral Conrad C. 

Lautenbacher, Jr. was not available at the time this hearing went to 

press.*

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Vulnerability of Protected Resources 

The total Administration FY 2003 budget request included $157.2 million for Protected Resources Research and Management Services. However, almost half of this 

is spent on Pacific and Atlantic salmon. Research and management for all other species, including endangered species such as Steller Sea Lions, Right Whales, some 

sea turtles, as well as other marine mammals such as whales, porpoises and 

pinnipeds must share the remainder. Most of these other species require substantial 

additional research or assessment information to meet future management and compliance needs according to a recent internal management review.

Question 1. Why is so little being spent on protected resources other than salmon?

Question 2. Should funding be given to the Marine Mammal Commission to conduct the research and assessments that are so critically needed for future management, and compliance with the MMPA?

Question 3. What would be needed to get sufficient marine mammal and sea turtle population information to meet our conservation and management needs?

Question 4. What are the risks of not having such information? 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (NPOESS) 

and DoD 

In May 1994 the Department submitted a proposal to converge the Department 

of Defense (DoD) and Department of Commerce (DOC) polar orbiting environmental 

satellite systems, to be administered by NOAA Integrated Program Office (IPO). 

The reason for the combination was to control costs and ensure on-time deployment—but the approach is still experimental.

Question 5. Can you identify any cost savings from this approach? What are they?

Question 6. The last we heard, the launch of the first NPOESS satellite will be 

in December 2008. Are you still on track for that launch date?

Question 7. What are your contingency plans if there is a launch failure?

45

Question 8. I understand that a primary satellite command and control facility 

has yet to be identified, but that DOD is urging selection of a site outside the U.S. 

In such a time of national security, don’t you think such a decision would be unwise?

Question 9. Can the existing U.S.-based facilities provide the same or equivalent 

coverage?

Question 10. We specifically chose NOAA as administrator of this program. What 

role is DOD playing in the decisionmaking and administration? 

Shrimper Issues 

The U.S. has some of the strictest marine protection laws in the world. It is important that NOAA and the Department of State continue to pursue international 

agreements in order to level the playing field. 

With respect to regulation of shrimpers, Congress in 1990 enacted Section 609 of 

P.L. 101–162, which restricts the import of shrimp harvested in a way that harms 

sea turtles. Under this law, nations must be certified as having a regulatory program to protect sea turtles in their shrimp trawl fisheries that is comparable to the 

U.S. program in order to obtain access to U.S. shrimp markets. Evidence observed 

during an inspection by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the port 

of Mazatlan, Mexico, November 13–16, 2001 revealed serious compliance and enforcement issues with respect to the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs).

Question 11. Such TED violations in Mexico come at a time when NMFS is considering a rule that would impose more stringent regulations on U.S. shrimpers. Is it 

justifiable to hold U.S. shrimpers to strict standards while taking a flexible approach to compliance in Mexico?

The antibiotic, Chloramphenicol, has recently been detected in shrimp products 

exported by Thailand, Vietnam and China and from Southeast Asia to the European 

Union and Canada, resulting in steps to severely restrict imports to the EU and 

Canada from these countries. Despite these countries being the first, second and 

fifth largest exporters of shrimp to the U.S. respectively, the U.S. has taken no such 

steps.

Question 12. I understand the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not have 

testing protocols sufficient to detect the levels of Chloramphenicol found in EU and 

Canadian imports, yet the U.S. prohibits this antibiotic in imports. Have you discussed options to address this shortfall with the USFDA?

Question 13. Have you offered the expert services of your agency to fill testing 

gaps for imports?

Question 14. What steps have you taken to level the playing field for U.S. 

shrimpers, who’s products do not threaten the safety of citizens? 

NOAA Fleet Recapitalization 

The 1992 NOAA authorization bill called for a 15-year program to replace and modernize the NOAA fleet. Approximately $200 million has been spent thus far for 

new ships, converting surplus navy ships, reactivating and modernizing inactive 

NOAA ships, and modernizing data collection systems. Another $30 million has 

been spent for repair projects to keep NOAA ships reliable. You have previously indicated sharp support for recapitalizing the fleet.

Question 15. In view of the growing needs of NOAA’s ocean exploration mission, 

have you considered the advantages of a dedicated vessel to meet this mission?

Question 16. What is NOAA’s plan for modernization and replacement of the 

NOAA fleet?

Of the FY 2003 planned ship operating days, NOAA ships are scheduled for 3776 

days of operation, while 4449 days of agency need will be outsourced to other vessels. In FY 2002 NOAA will spend $59.5 million operating its fleet and $48.6 million 

outsourcing for ships or ship collected data.

Question 17. Now that recapitalization of the fleet is underway and more information in hand on cost of outsourcing, can you identify the relative costs and benefits 

of using NOAA assets as opposed to contractor or outsourced vessels for certain of 

NOAA missions? 

Spending for Pacific Salmon 

Total spending for Pacific Salmon restoration and other activities is provided 

through the National Marine Fisheries Service, land management agencies like Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and water management agencies like the Bonneville Power Administration and Army Corps of Engineers (FY 2002 enacted $445.5 million—FY 

2003 proposed $448.6 million). NOAAs pacific salmon funding (FY 2002 enacted 

46

$231.3 million—FY 2003 proposal $195.9 million) comes through the Pacific Coastal 

Salmon Recovery Fund, funds established under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and 

through a number of base funding accounts. To date there has been very little accounting of how much of these funds have been spent on research into stock assessments, habitat restoration, or other mandates under ESA; or what progress has 

been made with these expenditures.

Question 18. Can you provide to me an accounting of NOAAs pacific salmon expenditures? How much of these funds have been spent on ESA related issues in 

each affected state?

Question 19. Does the allocation of monies to states under the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund match the restoration needs of those states under ESA?

Question 20. What progress has been made in recovering salmon stocks with these 

funds? How is performance measured in relation to the expenditures to date?

Question 21. I understand that a large portion of funding appropriated under the 

NW Forest Plan in the mid 1990s was spent on Salmon related research and habitat 

restoration in Northwestern states. How much was spent in total, in what states, 

and on what issues? What have been the results of those expenditures on salmon 

restoration?

Question 22. Does the agency evaluate hydropower impacts in determining the potential in recovery of salmon stocks? Has sufficient progress been made on reducing 

hydropower impacts to allow restoration funds to have an effect? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Sea Grant 

Established in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program is the marine 

version of the research and extension activities at the country’s land grant universities. In 1970, the program was transferred from the National Science Foundation 

to NOAA when that agency was created and placed in the Department of Commerce, where it has since flourished. Sea Grant’s legislative charge is to ‘‘increase 

the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of the 

nation’s ocean and coastal and Great Lakes resources by providing assistance to promote a strong education base, responsive research and training activities, and broad 

and prompt dissemination of knowledge and techniques, and multi disciplinary approaches to environmental problems.’’

The President’s FY 2003 budget proposes the program be transferred to NSF ‘‘to 

promote more rigorous, merit-based competition among researchers.’’ However, Sea 

Grant is not merely a science grant program—it performs a range of services, including outreach and technical advice to coastal communities.

Question 1. Why did the Administration propose such a transfer when Congress 

has repeatedly, and unanimously, authorized its operation within NOAA?

Question 2. To the best of my understanding NSF does not have the authority to 

perform all the functions of Sea Grant, such as the outreach and extension services? 

What current Sea Grant activities would this proposal deny to our coastal communities?

Question 3. In today’s hearing you stated that ‘‘NOAA would work with the National Science Foundation to ensure that the essential pieces of the program would 

continue as much as possible’’ How would NOAA assistance be possible considering 

outreach and extension services makeup one third of the program and NOAA will 

no longer be authorized any appropriations to carry-out these services? 

Reducing Capacity 

The need for capacity reduction has grown over the last 5 years just as discretionary funding is shrinking—particularly after 9/11. The NMFS 2001 Preliminary 

report, ‘‘Identifying Harvest Capacity and Over-Capacity in Federally Managed 

Fisheries’’ states that ‘‘over-capacity exists in more than half (55 percent) of all federally managed fisheries.’’ While this is a striking statistic, it confirms what countless 

experts and managers have been telling us since the late 1980s. In 1996 we thought 

we had addressed the problem by creating a capacity reduction program under section 312(b) of the Magnuson Act. However, we cannot identify a single capacity reduction program that has been implemented pursuant to the process we created. 

Even now, each fishery’s request requires a trip to Capitol Hill and faces an extremely uncertain future.

47

Question 4. Why has the 312(b) process failed—even when fishermen are willing 

to bear the burden of paying back federal loans?

Question 5. How could we streamline the process?

Question 6. How would you propose to fund capacity reduction programs? 

Right Whales 

With respect to rules aimed at protecting right whales, the Seasonal Area Management (‘‘SAM’’) and the Dynamic Area Management (‘‘DAM’’) rules recently issued 

by NFS both have serious shortcomings. The SAM rules allow floating line to be 

used between traps. The DAM rule places major burdens on fishermen to remove 

gear within only 48 hours, and by the time the rule is triggered, the whales may 

already be out of the area, or worse, already entangled in gear that was in the area 

prior to the rule taking effect.

Question 7. How long will it take for NFS to put into place a gear modification 

rule for protecting right whales that would allow one or more types of approved gear 

to remain in the water? What are the chances that NFS could work on an even more 

expedited basis to developed an interim rule allowing modified gear to be used in 

the areas where the ‘‘Dynamic Area Management’’ program is triggered? 

Litigation Burden and Crisis Management 

Concern has grown over the number of lawsuits being brought against NOAA 

fisheries because of the increased workload and resource drain, impact on management decisions, and the shortfalls highlighted by the litigation. Initially, when the 

first lawsuits were filed, it appeared that NMFS was failing to win cases because 

of failure to meet procedural requirements (e.g., NEPA), and understand that efforts 

are focused on creating uniform processes to rectify this. However, recent analysis 

suggests substantive management decisions may be responsible for such losses.

Question 8. Has there been a determination of why NMFS has lost recent cases, 

on procedural requirements or substantive management grounds?

Question 9. What steps have been taken to address cases brought on procedural 

grounds?

Question 10. What steps have to taken to identify needed changes to address substantive challenges?

Question 11. How will you, as a senior management official, ensure that the agency is prepared to meet legal mandates and respond to litigation requests while carrying on the routine management activities of the agency?

Question 12. What is the role of the Department of Justice in decision making, 

and how would you suggest improving its understanding of the legal and technical 

issues involved in fishery management decision making? 

EPA/NOAA Coastal Health Report and Status of Monitoring 

The recent EPA/NOAA National Coastal Condition Report represents the existing 

knowledge on the condition of the nation’s coastal waters, and further identifies 

some important and significant regional differences. No overall assessments were 

completed for Alaska, Hawaii, or the island territories.

Question 13. How can we as a nation possibly know where we’re going or take 

the necessary steps to accomplish our goals, when we don’t even know the current 

condition of a significant (and economically important) portion of our coastal environment?

Question 14. What is being done to fill in these gaps in the existing data sets and 

to establish some baseline conditions for these areas?

Question 15. How is NOAA, the nation’s civilian ocean agency, taking the lead 

and ensuring we get routine and timely coastal trends information?

Question 16. What plans are in place for the agency to establish the kind of monitoring program necessary to collect and analyze data in subsequent years, establish 

trends, and to feed those results back into management decisions?

Question 17. How do you see coastal monitoring for trends and management decision fitting within the ocean and coastal observing system now being proposed? How 

does NOAA plan to ensure coordination in regional systems?

The report’s assessment shows the nation’s estuaries to be in fair to poor conditions, with a regional trend of poor condition in the Northeast to fair condition in 

the Southeast. I am deeply concerned that the Northeast scored so poorly both ecologically, with 23 percent of the sediments having degraded biology and 30 percent 

of the estuarine areas having impaired human uses. I’m certain that these condiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:30 May 03, 2005 Jkt 093349 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\93349.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
48

tions are not assisting with the recovery of the many fish stocks essential to the 

economy of this region.

Question 18. With this data in hand, how is the agency adapting its current programmatic activities in the region to address the identified conditions? 

Fisheries Modernization 

The Administration’s budget request includes an increase of $90.9 million for its Modernization of NOAA Fisheries Initiative, representing $74.8 million for science, 

$6.4 million for management, and $9.7 million for enforcement. However, a number 

of important elements to modernization have not been addressed that could positively impact monitoring, reporting, management and safety.

Question 19. Is the FY 2003 budget request of $5.4 million for support and continued modernization and expansion of the vessel monitoring system (VMS) program 

sufficient to meet our needs, particularly after September 11th?

Question 20. Why has the Administration not requested additional funding for 

vital modernization of the fleet such as electronic logbooks, VMS, increases in observer coverage, and bycatch reduction technologies?

Question 21. How much will it cost to really modernize fisheries management? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1. I am greatly concerned by the solicitation for mapping services that 

was issued by the National Ocean Service (NOS) to map and survey the benthic 

habitats of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). Currently, there are only 

extremely limited data available on the NWHI for use by resource managers and 

policy makers during the NWHI sanctuary designation process. In these times of 

budgetary crisis, it is therefore essential that the mapping and surveying products 

arising from the solicitation be carefully tailored to meet the needs of the resource 

managers. How may we best work together to ensure that the best product is obtained?

Question 2. The nation has recently reached a much greater awareness of the 

unique and irreplaceable treasure that our coral reefs represent. Because 95 percent 

of the nation’s coral reefs are located in the main Hawaiian Islands and the NWHI, 

Hawaii bears an awesome responsibility of stewardship of these precious resources. 

Fortunately, Hawaii is also a center of excellence for marine study, conservation, 

and management, where scientific expertise is complemented with a culture of respect and reverence for nature rooted in the beliefs and cultural practices of the Native Hawaiians. In light of the concentration of physical and human coral reef resources in Hawaii, what steps will the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) take to ensure that the limited funds available will be used for 

projects that meet the immediate needs of resource managers, including vesting 

more decision making authority to managers of NOAA managers in the field?

Question 3. Magistrate Judge Facciola of the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in Hawaii Longline Association v. The National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 01–765, issued a report and recommendations that the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required to allow the Hawaii Longline Association to be allowed to participate in the generation of a Biological Opinion. How will 

the NMFS proceed with its new Hawaii longline biological opinion in light of this 

development?

Question 4. The NMFS has long been organized into administrative ‘‘regions.’’ The 

coastal and marine areas of the United States face unique issues based on geography and culture, and the NMFS regions emerged as the most effective way to 

handle this diversity. By vesting decision-making authority in localities, the NMFS 

ensures that it can be responsive to the special needs of those localities. What are 

your thoughts on developing a similar structure for the NOS? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAX CLELAND TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1. I have been informed by Georgia officials that the trawl fisheries have 

been closely monitored for stray turtle catches, and I support this monitoring. However, also off the coast of Georgia, I have heard from officials that shark drift gillnet 

fisheries in Georgia waters, at the height of the season this year, operated 

unmonitored. Why have steps not been taken to protect sea turtles from shark drift 

49

gillnet fishery at a time when Georgia has recorded high sea turtle mortality rates? 

Is there a reason that the prohibition was not evenly applied to both the trawl fisheries as well as the shark drift gillnet fisheries?

Question 2. What measures are you taking to ensure that prohibitions are applied 

across the board?

Question 3. Do you have records of any of the shark drift gillnet fisheries been 

documented to take sea turtles in recent months? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1. It was reported in the April 12 edition of Science Magazine that you 

and Dr. Marburger of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy outlined a plan to shift the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program from a scientific steering group to the Department of Commerce. Many researchers fear that 

this would undermine the quality of research in the $1.7 billion program. This report is consistent with discussions the Committee had last year on the possibility 

of having a political appointee head the program. Can you identify the merits of 

having the program housed within the Department of Commerce and headed by a 

political appointee?

Question 1a. Why would the Department of Commerce be a better choice than 

NASA, which has over the half the funding for the program?

Question 2. You have mentioned that the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next decade. 

Can you explain the greenhouse gas intensity and its importance?

Question 2a. Last year, the President stated that his climate change policy would 

be based upon sound science. What is the scientific basis for the 18 percent reduction?

Question 2b. Will the greenhouse gas intensity eventually make actual reductions 

in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Question 3. The Global Climate Change Initiative is a multi-agency effort between 

the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Agriculture, NASA, and the National 

Science Foundation. Who will have lead agency responsibilities? 

Question 3a. Will the lead agency’s responsibility include budgetary control over 

the other agencies participation?

Question 3b. How will this effort complement the existing efforts of the multiagency U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program?

Question 4. NOAA has requested $5 million each for the Global Climate Atmospheric Observing System and the Global Ocean Observing System. The recent Senate-passed Energy Reform Act calls for a plan for the establishment of a National 

Climate Service for climate monitoring and prediction. Will these two programs be 

considered part of a National Climate Service?

Question 5. In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Administration proposed 

to move the Sea Grant Program from NOAA to the National Science Foundation 

(NSF). The Sea Grant Program was specifically placed in the Department of Commerce by an act of Congress after the creation of NOAA in 1970 to pair the applied 

research conducted by Sea Grant with regional resource and management needs. 

This program has been very successful in bridging the gaps between research, education, and applied management issues at the local level and there does not appear 

to be any compelling reason to move it. There is wide support throughout Congress 

for maintaining the existing structure of the Sea Grant Program within the Department of Commerce. Can you elaborate on the rationale for moving this program to 

NSF?

Question 6. According to the President’s FY 2003 budget, ‘‘NOAA has over twothirds of the Department’s congressionally directed earmarks—74 projects costing 

over $160 million.’’ How does Congressional earmarking affect NOAA’s ability to 

fund its strategic goals and priorities?

Question 7. In your statement, you mentioned that without significant amounts 

of overtime and creative manual resource tracking, NOAA’s accounting details 

would be non-existent. For fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, NOAA received an unqualified (or clean) opinion from an audit of its financial statements. Can you elaborate on NOAA’s achievement despite the problems many other federal agencies are 

experiencing?

50

Question 8. The Department of Commerce spend about 25 percent of its annual 

budget for large contracts and other procurement vehicles. One of the challenges for 

the Department is to balance the desire to streamline the acquisition process with 

the need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are wisely spent and laws and regulations 

are followed. How do you ensure this balance is maintained within NOAA?

Question 9. According to NOAA’s plans, the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) will be phased out and replaced by the NPOESS starting 

in 2008. How will this phase-out affect NOAA operations in Wallops Island, Virginia, and Fairbanks, Alaska?

Question 10. Your written statement mentions the importance of the scientific and 

technical workforce to accomplishing your mission. In terms of workforce needs, 

what shortages do you have and how do you plan to address them?

Question 11. We have heard concerns from other parts of the Department of Commerce on the physical conditions of the federal facilities. Do you foresee any major 

future budgetary needs for the NOAA’s facilities?

Question 12. As part of the Administration’s Climate Change Research Initiative, 

NOAA requests $18 million to improve climate monitoring and modeling systems. 

How will this request will improve NOAA’s ability to determine the effects of global 

warming on the Earth?

Question 13. NOAA has requested $1 million to develop new technologies for forecasting and detecting tornadoes and other forms of severe weather. It is hopeful that 

these technologies will increase the lead time for tornadoes and hazardous weather. 

Can you discuss the impact of additional lead time for the people of La Plata, MD 

in the tornadoes of this past weekend?

Question 13a. Which technologies will you be pursuing with this funding?

Question 14. The Administration has placed an emphasis on outsourcing and 

privatizing many functions which the U.S. government currently performs. How 

does this emphasis affect the balance between the prediction services that should 

be provided by the National Weather Service and the services that should be provided by commercial weather services?

Question 15. NOAA has requested $5 million to establish a climate modeling center in Prince, NJ. Assuming this is for the Geophysical Fluids Dynamic Laboratory 

(GFDL), what capabilities would this add to the laboratory’s existing work on climate modeling?

Question 16. Can you discuss the importance of space weather forecasts to the 

space industry? Also, are you experiencing an increase in demand for NOAA’s services in this area?

Question 17. Can you elaborate on how improved weather forecasting leads to reductions in air traffic delays and costs savings for the airline industry?

Question 18. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System (NPOESS), a multi-agency program, has been making significant progress 

over the years. Are they any lessons-learned from the program that may be applicable to other multi-agency development programs?

Question 19. You have mentioned the request of $8.4 million to begin upgrading 

instrumentation aboard NOAA’s Gulfstream IV plane. This technology will allow for 

3 dimensional profiles of hurricanes from 45,000 feet to the surface in real-time. 

When can we expect to have such capability and what is the impact of this technology on Nation’s response to these weather events?

Question 20. On NOAA’s Energy Permit Rapid Response program, NOAA has requested $2 million to support the establishment and implementation of a streamlined energy permit process. Can you elaborate on NOAA’s role in this initiative?

Question 21. Can you discuss any vulnerabilities to the operation of the NOAA 

facilities due to a lack of redundancy?

Question 22. NOAA has requested $7.2 million to implement an operational 

backup system for the National Weather Service’s weather and climate supercomputer. The current computer is a single point of failure for the entire system. Are 

there other single point of failures in the weather prediction system that needs to 

be addressed?

Question 23. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System (NPOESS) combines programs at the Department of Commerce, Department 

of Defense, and NASA. How was this program managed to address the different operating styles of these three agencies in order to prevent the traditional 

‘‘stovepiping’’ problem?

51

Question 24. NOAA has decided to delay the launch date for the next generation 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES–R) from 2010 to 2012, 

citing the successful operation of the existing GOES satellites. What factors did 

NOAA examine before making this decision?

Question 24a. Will NOAA use this two-year delay to review alternative system architectures for GOES–R?

Question 25. NOAA has requested $2.0 million in support of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program to improve monitoring of the Arctic environment. Currently, what are the effects of global warming upon the Arctic region?

Question 26. Do you have plans for research concerning abrupt climate change? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1. The Administration’s request criticizes the large number of Congressional earmarks for NOAA. NOAA has over two-thirds of the Department’s earmarks—74 projects costing over $160 million. The budget request cuts many of 

these unrequested projects and redirects funds to core programs. How do earmarks 

affect NOAA’s ability to do its job? NOAA may have more earmarks than other 

agencies, but they still amount to only 0.04 percent of NOAA’s overall budget. 

NOAA has cut many earmarked programs from its FY 2003 request. If these earmarked programs are not otherwise funded, does this mean that NOAA’s priorities 

do not line up with Congress’ priorities? How does NOAA determine which earmarked programs to cut?

Question 2. You only recently assumed your position as the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of NOAA. With your extensive managerial 

experience, I imagine you are taking a hard look at NOAA and its organization. We 

are aware that NOAA is conducting a comprehensive program review, addressing 

what the agency is doing and how they are doing it. This review is scheduled to 

be finished May 1st—the day of this hearing. What is the scope of topics and issues 

in this review? Is NOAA’s current organization the best way to meet its mission and 

mandates? What can NOAA do better? What can we do to help NOAA do better? 

Are their programmatic obstacles that need to be removed? If the report is not available today, when can we expect the final report to be released?

Question 3. The current Harmful Algal Blooms Task Force’s action plan to eliminate the Gulf of Mexico dead zone outlined a program that would cost approximately $1 billion a year. It largely focuses on regional agricultural activities to limit 

nutrient runoff. To what extent has NOAA incorporated the Task Force’s recommendations on the dead zone into its programs and activities? Does action in this 

area simply require more funding, or does NOAA need to make other institutional 

changes to implement these recommendations? If only a portion of this dead zone 

funding were provided, would NOAA implement any aspects of the action plan? How 

would it determine priority areas and issues for action? When it comes to implementing action plans like this, what do you think is the most effective way to integrate regional and local stakeholders?

Question 4. As you know, programs throughout NOAA need basic oceanic data to 

improve management models. NOAA’s FY 2003 budget request includes $4 million 

to initiate a global ocean observing system. While efforts have already begun in 

some regions, including through the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observation System, this 

is the start of the National Ocean Observation System—a coordinated national effort. The FY 2002 Senate CJS Appropriations bill included report language that requires the Administration to submit an ocean observatories plan with the FY 2003 

budget request. What is the status of this plan? What are the main findings and 

recommendations of this plan? How will the National Ocean Observing System be 

administered—would it be a part of the inter-agency National Ocean Partnership 

Program? If so, would this program continue to be chaired by the Navy? If it will 

remain under the Navy’s jurisdiction, how can we ensure that it takes care of 

NOAA’s program goals and needs? As we develop legislation in support of the National Ocean Observation System, what can you tell us about funding needs for implementation and maintenance of the system? Once implemented, what will the 

long-term cost/benefit ratio be? What other supportive elements would you like to 

see in legislation?

Question 5. The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act provides a valuable source of funding for 

U.S. fisheries research and development, but only a small fraction of this amount 

seems to have actually gone for this purpose. For example, S–K funds are estimated 

52

to be $79.1 million for FY 2003, yet NOAA estimates that only $4.1 million of this 

amount (5.2 percent of the total) will be used for fisheries research. The budget proposal explains that the remaining $75 million will be used to offset their Operations, 

Research, and Facilities account. This follows a similar trend over at least the last 

ten years. The budget request states that, in FY 2003, a portion of S–K grants will 

go toward Atlantic salmon conservation and recovery. How much will this amount 

to? Is this part of the $4.1 million allocated for research, or is it part of a separate 

allocation of S–K funds? How does NOAA make the decision about what fraction of 

all S–K funds will go toward research? In other words, who makes research funding 

cut-off decisions? What do they base their decisions on? Once the non-research component of the S–K funds is transferred to the ORF account, does NOAA track what 

it is spent on? If so, what does it fund? For FY 2003, NOAA requests $2.359 billion 

for their ORF account, and $75 million of this is proposed to come from the S–K 

fund. In other words, only 0.03 percent of all ORF funds are from S–K funds. How 

else can NOAA work around this allocation, so that more S–K funds can be freed 

to be used for their intended purposes? Other mandated uses of S–K funds include 

things like fishing gear modification, fishing community development, and permit 

buy-back programs. We clearly have urgent need for these programs, so shouldn’t 

these be a top priority when allocating S–K funds? If NOAA could increase the portion of S–K funds that support research, what could NOAA do to encourage the submission of more high-quality research proposals?

Question 6. In February 2001, I re-introduced the Coastal Zone Management reauthorization bill. A hold was put on the bill, due to concerns related to the oil and 

gas industry. Since oil and gas interests are tied to the Department of Interior’s development of an energy policy, NOAA has needed to work with Interior to resolve 

this impasse. Resolution of oil and gas concerns will allow the CZMA reauthorization to proceed. What has NOAA done to resolve this impasse? Has NOAA been 

talking to the Dept. of Interior regarding how their energy policy relates to oil and 

gas in the coastal zone? What are NOAA’s plans for developing proposed language 

that can settle this controversy? What kind of time line is NOAA looking at for this?

Question 7. I have several concerns about the expanded use of marine protected 

areas. For example, I’m concerned about the imbalanced representation on the new 

MPA Advisory Committee; the overlap with protected marine environments established in other laws; and NOAA’s continued housing of this program in the National 

Ocean Service, considering that many of the protected areas currently in place are 

administered by NMFS. In May last year, I outlined these concerns to Secretary 

Evans, requesting that they review the effects of the executive order and that the 

Advisory Committee fairly represent those stakeholders most affected by it. What 

is the status of this review? What conclusions were reached about expanding the 

use of MPAs? How has the proposed membership of the MPA Advisory Council been 

changed to fairly reflect those who will be affected by MPAs—specifically the fishermen? When will this council begin work? How much administrative overlap will 

there be between existing protected marine environments and any new MPAs? 

NOAA’s FY 2003 budget request includes $3 million for MPAs and houses this program in the National Ocean Service. This was the same in FY 2002. How well does 

NOS interface with NMFS, which already administers many existing MPAs? How 

will NOAA improve the coordination between these groups? As you know, MPAs can 

have many purposes, and they are often misunderstood by the public. How will poor 

public perception affect NOAA’s ability to effectively use MPAs? How is NOAA 

working to improve public understanding of MPAs?

Question 8. Coral reefs are one of the most biologically productive ecosystems in 

the world, but unfortunately they are suffering from a variety of human-induced 

and natural threats including storms, tourism, harvest for the aquaria trade and 

building materials, destructive fishing practices, ship damage, diseases, and water 

quality degradation impact coral reefs. In FY 2002, NOAA received a total of $28.25 

million for coral reef conservation and the Administration is requesting approximately the same amount for FY 2003. Knowing the problems our coral reefs are facing, do you think the amount requested for FY 2003 is sufficient for NOAA to address this issue? What are your plans to address non-point source pollution and its 

effects on our coral reefs?

Question 9. Recently a report was released that stated that the coral reefs in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are some of the most pristine in the world, while 

the coral reefs in the Atlantic which includes Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 

Caribbean are some of the most in distress. Having said that, your fiscal year 2002 

spend plan allocates 74 percent of the entire coral reef conservation program to the 

Pacific and only 34 percent to the Atlantic. Shouldn’t we be spending more of our 

limited funding in the regions with the greatest needs?

53

Question 10. To date, NOAA has dedicated very little funding for studying the 

socioeconomics of coral reef damage and rehabilitation—only 1 percent of the overall 

budget in FY 2002 and zero percent in FY 2001. Considering that the causes of coral 

reef decline are significantly driven by human activities, how can NOAA justify 

spending so little on these aspects? How can solutions for coral reefs protection be 

developed if the human dimensions are not given adequate study? What are NOAA’s 

plans to integrate socioeconomics and human behavior into their overall Coral Reef 

Conservation Program, both now and in the long term?

Question 11. I understand that Halter Marine is constructing the new fisheries 

research vessel, which will be replacing the ALBATROSS IV. I also understand that 

Halter Marine has filed for bankruptcy protection. Will Halter Marine’s bankruptcy 

proceedings adversely affect or delay the construction of the new fisheries research 

vessel? If so, how will NOAA proceed with vessel construction plans? If delivery of 

the new fisheries research vessel is delayed, how may this affect NOAA’s ability to 

conduct badly-needed fisheries research?

Æ