U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

55–815 u WASHINGTON : 1999

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUESTS OF THE

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, THE OFFICE OF

SURFACE MINING, THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE AND THE ENERGY AND MINERALS PROGRAM OF THE BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND MINERAL RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 25, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–12

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, CHAIRMAN

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

JAY INSLEE, Washington

——— ———

BILL CONDIT, Professional Staff

MIKE HENRY, Professional Staff

DEBORAH LANZONE, Professional Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held February 25, 1999 ............................................................................ 1

Statements of Members:

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wyoming ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Rahall, II, Hon. Nick J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Underwood, Hon. Robert, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory

of Guam ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statements of witnesses:

Groat, Charles, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of

the Interior .................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Hatfield, Nina, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Karpan, Kathy, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Responses to questions from Mr. Rahall ................................................. 69

Kitsos, Thomas, Acting Director, Minerals Management Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Additional material supplied:

Bolognese, Kerry D., Asst. Director–Federal Relations, NASULGC, Washington, DC, prepared statement of .............................................................. 51

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2000

BUDGET REQUESTS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, THE OFFICE OF SURFACE

MINING, THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

SERVICE AND THE ENERGY AND MINERALS

PROGRAM OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

MINERAL RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Cubin

[chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mrs. CUBIN. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will please come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the Fiscal Year 2000 budget request of the USGS, the Office of Surface

Mining, the Minerals Management Service, and the energy and

minerals programs of the BLM. Under rule 4(G) of the Committee

rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the

Ranking Majority Member and the Chairman, but we are going to

expand that today to any other members that want to give an

opening statement.

So I am skipping all that, Bill.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 budget request of the four Interior

Department agencies within our jurisdiction. First, we have the

U.S. Geological Survey, which ‘‘provides the nation with reliable,

impartial information to describe and understand the Earth.’’ At

least that is what their webpage says they do and I think they do.

[Laughter.]

Then we have three bureaus which are regulatory in nature: the

Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management,

and the Office of Service Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

The MMS and the BLM’s energy and minerals programs are the

keepers of federally owned mineral rights. That is, the two agencies

2

administer the laws governing the disposition of our public land

and the Outer Continental Shelf mineral endowment. I often wish

that there was more disposing of and less keeping of public lands

minerals in order to enlarge the revenues that are derived from

this endowment, but that is a debate for another day.

Unique among the Subcommittee’s agencies is the Office of Surface Mining, which administers the Federal law governing the surface impacts of all coal mined in the United States, whether it is

on public land or private.

Today we are pleased to have before us the new director of the

U.S. Geological Survey, Dr. Charles Groat, a first-time witness before this Subcommittee. We would like to welcome you. Followed by

Ms. Kathy Karpan of Rock Springs, Wyoming, the director of the

Office of Surface Mining and a friend of mine. We’ve known each

other in Wyoming for a long time and I have always enjoyed with

Ms. Karpan and continue to do so. And we have the acting director

of the Minerals Management Service, Dr. Tom Kitsos. And, lastly,

Ms. Nina Hatfield, a deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF WYOMING

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the Administration’s

Fiscal Year 2000 budget request of the four Interior Department agencies within our

jurisdiction. First, we have the U.S. Geological Survey, which ‘‘provides the Nation

with reliable, impartial information to describe and understand the Earth’’—at least

that’s what their webpage reads. Then we have three bureaus which are regulatory

in nature: the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and

the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation & Enforcement.

The MMS and the BLM’s energy & minerals program are the ‘‘keepers’’ of federally owned mineral rights. That is, the two agencies administer the laws governing

the disposition of our public land and outer continental shelf mineral endowment.

I often wish there was more ‘‘disposing’’ and less ‘‘keeping’’ of public lands minerals

in order to enlarge the revenues derived from this endowment, but that’s a debate

for another day.

Unique among the Subcommittee’s agencies is the Office of Surface Mining, which

administers the Federal law governing the surface impacts of all coal mined in the

U.S. whether it be public land or private.

Today, we are pleased to have before us the new Director of the U.S. Geological

Survey, Dr. Charles Groat, a first-time witness before the Subcommittee; followed

by Ms. Kathy Karpan, of Rock Springs, Wyoming, Director of OSM; then the Acting

Director of the Minerals Management Service, Dr. Tom Kitsos; and lastly, Ms. Nina

Hatfield, a Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Mrs. CUBIN. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority

Member for any opening statement that he might have.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN

CONGRESS FROM GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Today we

welcome witnesses from the Bureau of Land Management, Office of

Surface Mining, Minerals Management Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey to discuss their proposed budget requests for Fiscal

Year 2000.

The DOI’s Fiscal Year 2000 budget request represents an increase of $832 million, or 10.6 percent, over the 1999 appropriations. The DOI request of $8.7 billion underscores President Clinton’s commitment to conserving the nation’s natural and cultural

3

resources. The budget request focuses on priority initiatives, such

as President Clinton’s Land Legacy Initiative, which is designed to

protect and revitalize America’s public land resources.

Within the purview of the Energy Subcommittee, the DOI budget

includes $25 million to increase reclamation of abandoned coal mining by 15 percent, as part of the administration’s Clean Water Action Plan. An additional highlight of the request is the President’s

budget request of $838.5 million for the U.S. Geological Survey.

The request includes $18.5 million in new funding to support

science priorities that will address resource management issues

and challenges to maintain diverse and healthy ecosystems.

Another feature of this request is the MMS budget of $240 million for managing the nation’s offshore mineral resources. This is

about $16.2 million above the 1999 level. Wisely, MMS proposes to

assign the increased funds to updating their computerized royalty

management program. Management of the Outer Continental Shelf

plays a significant role in the nation’s energy picture. Revenues collected by the MMS Federal offshore oil and gas program will support President Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative or one of the legislative proposals now pending before the Resources Committee to

dedicate OCS receipts to various conservation programs.

The BLM’s Fiscal Year 2000 budget request is $1,268,700,000. Of

that amount, they request $72 million for the energy and minerals

program. This is an increase of 3.3 percent above the Fiscal Year

1999 enacted level of funding, which will be used to fund employee

pay raises.

Energy and mineral resources generate the highest commercial

values amongst the various uses of public land. Of the $1.1 billion

in annual revenues from public lands, energy and mineral development generated nearly $1 billion through rents, royalties, bonuses,

sales, and fees. The public lands produce 33 percent of the nation’s

coal, 11 percent of its natural gas, and 5 percent of its oil. These

lands also produce a large portion of the nation’s fertilizer minerals, mineral materials, gold, silver, and other metals. During

1998, BLM administered 370 coal leases; 46,000 oil and gas leases,

although only 20,000 are actually in production.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses on these

important matters. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

TERRITORY OF GUAM

Today, we welcome witnesses from the Bureau of Land Management, Office of

Surface Mining, Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Geological Survey to

discuss their proposed budget requests for Fiscal Year 2000.

The Department of the Interior’s FY 2000 budget request represents an increase

of $832 million, or 10.6 percent over the 1999 appropriations. The DOI request of

$8.7 billion underscores President Clinton’s commitment to conserving the nation’s

natural and cultural resources. The DOI’s FY 2000 budget request focuses on priority initiatives such as President Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative, which is designed to protect and revitalize America’s public land resources.

Within the purview of the Energy Subcommittee, the DOI budget includes $25

million to increase reclamation of abandoned coal mining by 15 percent, as part of

the Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan. An additional highlight of the request is the President’s budget request of $838.5 million for the U.S. Geological Survey. The request includes $18.5 million in new funding to support science priorities

4

that will address resource management issues and challenges to maintain diverse

and healthy ecosystems.

Another feature of this FY 2000 request is the MMS budget of $240.2 million for

managing the nation’s offshore mineral resources. This is about $16.2 million above

the 1999 level. Wisely, MMS proposes to assign the increased funds to updating

their computerized royalty management program. Management of the Outer Continental Shelf plays a significant role in the nation’s energy picture. Revenues collected by the MMS Federal offshore oil and gas program will support President

Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative—or one of the legislative proposals now pending

before the Resources Committee to dedicate OCS receipts to various conservation

programs.

The BLM’s 2000 Budget request is $1,268,700,000. Of that amount, they request

$72,230,000 for the energy and minerals program. This is an increase of $2,286,000,

or 3.3 percent above the FY 1999 enacted level of funding which will be used to fund

employee pay raises. Energy and mineral resources generate the highest commercial

values among the various uses of public lands. Of the $1.1 billion in annual revenues from the public lands, energy and mineral development generated nearly $1

billion though rents, royalties, bonuses, sales and fees. The public lands produce 33

percent of the Nations coal, 11 percent of its natural gas and 5 percent of its oil.

These lands also produce a large portion of the Nation’s fertilizer minerals, mineral

materials, gold, silver, and other metals. During 1998, BLM administered 370 coal

leases, 46,000 oil and gas leases—although only 20,000 are actually in production.

During that time, BLM also oversaw production of more than 15 million cubic yards

of sand, gravel and other mineral materials. Of particular note in this area, is the

effort to revise the outdated surface management rules for hard rock mining.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses on this important subject.

Mrs. CUBIN. Congressman Walden, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. WALDEN. No, thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Congressman Rahall?

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your making

the exception and allowing me to give an opening statement.

While the budgets and programs of all four of the agencies that

we are reviewing today are important, I wanted to take just a moment to make a few comments on matters involving the Office of

Surface Mining.

This has been a very troubling year in the coal fields of southern

West Virginia. With mountaintop removal mining operations becoming increasingly larger—perhaps more so than the law ever

originally envisioned—both OSM and the Corps of Engineers,

which issues section 404 permits, were unprepared and unable to

cope with the regulatory demands operations of this nature placed

upon them. OSM’s oversight of the State regulatory program in

this area was found to be non-existent.

Post-mining land uses were being permitted that were a violation

of the letter or, if not that, certainly the intent of section 515(c) of

SMCRA and OSM by perhaps every account other than its own

failed to provide adequate guidance on one of the most critical reclamation standards of the law, and that is: What constitutes approximate original contour?

While OSM avoided being the subject of a major lawsuit on these

matters, litigation against the State regulatory authority and the

Corps of Engineers has resulted in a Justice Department brokered

settlement agreement. As a result, the EPA, Fish and Wildlife

Service, the Corps, and OSM are now working to implement an imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:22 Sep 27, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\55815 pfrm08 PsN: 55815
5

proved regulatory program, focusing in West Virginia and then

Kentucky.

Over the years, I have been OSM’s most staunch supporters in

the Congress. But I have also been one of its critics as well when

it has dropped the ball on major issues such as this one. For her

part, Director Karpan inherited the problems, which were made

public last year. And I appreciate her leadership, know that she

has had experience here on the Hill working for a good colleague

of ours on this Committee, Representative Teno Roncalio. And her

background is extensive and well-placed. It is now, however, incumbent upon Director Karpan, in my opinion, to display the type

of leadership necessary to swiftly correct deficiencies in the mountaintop removal mining regulatory program.

This is no laughing matter in the hills and hollows of the State

that I represent. While the regulatory program remains unsettled,

citizens lives and homes are being disrupted, miners face the possibility of layoff, and the economy in places like Logan, Mingo, and

Boone Counties, which is so dependent on coal, swings in the balance.

Our dream when enacting section 515(c) of the Act was to leave

people in the coal fields with viable economic development opportunities, once the coal ran out, as a trade-off for allowing a variance

for mountaintop removal mining. And I recall well working my first

year in the Congress on this Committee and in the conference committee and working through these trade-offs. SMCRA is more than

an environmental law; it is also social legislation.

I have not given up hope for this dream and will not. But for it

to become a reality, it is incumbent upon agencies like OSM to do

the job that Congress has entrusted it with. The eyes of Appalachia, Director Karpan, are upon you and your agency. Thank you,

Madam Chair.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

While the budgets and programs of the four agencies we are reviewing today are

all important, I wanted to take this opportunity to make a few comments on a matter involving the Office of Surface Mining.

This has been a very troubling year in the coalfields of southern West Virginia.

With mountaintop removal mining operations becoming increasingly larger, both

OSM and the Corps of Engineers, which issues section 404 permits, were unprepared and unable to cope with the regulatory demands operations of this nature

placed on them.

OSM’s oversight of the State regulatory program in this area was found to be nonexistent.

Post-mining land uses were being permitted that were a violation of the letter,

or if not that, certainly the intent of section 515(c) of SMCRA and OSM by perhaps

every account but its own failed to provide adequate guidance on one of the most

critical reclamation standards of the law; what constitutes approximate original contour.

While OSM avoided being the subject of a major lawsuit on these matters, litigation against the State regulatory authority and the Corps of Engineers has resulted

in a Justice Department brokered settlement agreement.

As a result, the EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps and OSM are now

working to implement an improved regulatory program focusing in West Virginia

and then Kentucky.

Over the years, I have been OSM’s most staunchest supporter in the Congress.

But I have also been one of its critics as well when it has dropped the ball on major

issues such as this one.

6

For her part, Director Karpan inherited the problems which were made public last

year. It is now, however, incumbent upon her to display the type of leadership necessary to swiftly correct deficiencies in the mountaintop removal mining regulatory

program.

This is no laughing matter in the hills and hollows of West Virginia. While the

regulatory program remains unsettled, citizens lives and homes are being disrupted,

miners face the possibility of layoff, and the economy in places like Logan, Mingo

and Boone Counties which is so dependent on coal swings in the balance.

Our dream when enacting section 515(c) of the Act was to leave people in the coalfields with viable economic development opportunities once the coal ran out as a

trade-off for allowing a variance for mountaintop removal mining.

SMCRA is more than an environmental law; it is also social legislation.

I have not given up hope for this dream, and will not.

But for it to become a reality is it incumbent upon agencies like the Office of Surface Mining to do the job Congress has entrusted with it. The eyes of Appalachia,

Director Karpan, are upon you.

Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Certainly. Before I recognize Dr. Groat for his testimony, let me remind the witnesses that, under our Committee

rules, your entire testimony will be submitted in the record, but we

ask that you keep your oral testimony to five minutes. So, with

that—excuse me, the boss just said they gave—it is 10. So, Dr.

Groat, if you could please stay within 10 minutes in your oral testimony.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES GROAT, DIRECTOR, U.S.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Dr. GROAT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will shoot for five.

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am going

to just give you a brief overview of my written testimony and hit

a few highlights. You are correct; I am brand-new at this. My previous experience as a state person, a colleague and a client of the

USGS has kind of turned the tables, so I am happy to be here to

present what the U.S. Geological Survey sees as a couple of its success stories from the past year that are guiding our budget submittal for the Year 2000.

I want to highlight three or four things that we feel are significant accomplishments that give you some indication of not only

where we have been, but where we are going in Fiscal Year 2000.

One of our highest priorities is reducing the effects of natural disasters and then mitigating those effects once they have occurred.

And I am sure you will all remember the torrential El Nin ̃o rains

we had in 1998 and the fact that they caused, in many cases, flooding and landsliding. Back in 1982, we had a significant El Nin ̃

o

event as well. Landsliding and flooding occurred then, but in the

case of 1982, we had 25 deaths from landsliding. In the intervening

years, as part of its hazards program, USGS increased its ability

to map landslides and also to predict where landslides would occur

and to give advance warning. As a result of that, in the 1998 El

Nin ̃os, there were no deaths from landslides in the San Francisco

Bay area. We don’t claim all the credit for that, but certainly some

of our technology had an impact on that effect.

Another thing that I think is significant that you all would be

interested in—and I was, particularly coming from the Southwest,

having come to this job from El Paso where water is an extremely

valuable and diminishing resource—was our five-year report on

water consumption in the United States, which many managers

7

use to predict use in the future. We found out, in our report for

1995, that actual per capita water consumption from 1990 had actually decreased, despite the fact that our economy is booming and

the fact that our population is growing, which is an encouraging

sign that conservation efforts to encourage Americans across the

country to use less water are having some effect, not only as individuals, but as industries. And this is information that I think is

both encouraging and useful.

We are also concerned, as is everyone across the country, about

how the American population is expanding into areas that have

been used for other purposes. Not only in urban areas that we are

familiar with in the East and in the Midwest, but in Western lands

as well where town are seeing ranchette developments spring up

and non-rural people move into rural settings. The ability to predict that and determine what the impacts are going to be on agriculture, on forestry, on grazing, and on the other uses of the land

are extremely important, not only on Federal lands, but on private

lands as well.

We have been able to map and describe with our base inventory

of information—100-year archive of historic maps and 30-year archive of satellite data—where these things not only have occurred,

but where the projection are that they will occur. And this is another case where planners have advanced warning of expansion

that they need to be concerned about.

And, finally, as an accomplishment, I would like to point out that

some of the models and data that we provide for the Forest Service,

for the BLM, and the Park Service have been used to develop a watershed-based strategy to clean up abandoned mine lands, particularly in the West. One of the concerns that the mining industry

faces, and those that manage the lands that they are on, is how

we remediate areas where there have been problems.

One of the things we have been able to help understand is the

relative severity of those problems and what is commonly misunderstood is that many of those areas had natural contributions

of mineral matter anyway, before there was any mining. This baseline information is extremely important in understanding what

kind of remediation is appropriate and necessary. And we think we

have assisted those other bureaus in the Department of the Interior and other partners in understanding that and in developing

sound restoration strategies based on our scientific understanding

of what is going on there. Those are just a few examples, Madam

Chairman and Members, where I think we have been helpful.

In the Fiscal Year 2000 budget, we are requesting $838.5 million,

an increase of about 5 percent, over our budget for 1999. And we

hope that this budget, as in the past, will allow us to deliver relevant products, not only regarding hazards, but regarding resources and applications of science that are useful to all of our customers in the year 2000.

We work very closely, historically, with the Park Service, with

BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Interior bureaus in

providing scientific information that they can use in their land and

resource management responsibilities. In fact, over 20 percent of

our budget goes to those purposes.

8

In the year 2000, we are adding and requesting $15 million of

additional money to bring integrated science to their service.

Through direct consultation with them, we will develop science

strategies that involve geology, biology, land imagery information,

as well as water resource information, to meet more integrated

science needs. That is a new feature of our budget request for the

year 2000 and we and the other agencies are working very closely

to identify what the needs are.

We are also requesting an increase in our ability to deal with

natural disasters. Fifty billion dollars a year is the neighborhood

cost for the impact of natural disasters on this country. Clearly, usable scientific information to warn people of disasters and then to

deal with their effects is of increasing value as we urbanize and as

we seem to gather our populations in areas where natural disasters

are more prevalent.

The fact that we had three devastating hurricanes in 1998—

Bonnie, George, and Mitch—gave us an excellent opportunity to see

where we were in dealing with those disasters and where we could

improve. Sticking to Hurricane Mitch, we were able to deliver significant information in support of other Federal agencies assisting

Central America that could be used to mitigate the disasters, which

has many applications in this country as well as in Central America.

We learned in that process that putting information together

with all of the technology we have these days is not the big challenge. It is putting the information in a form where it can be used.

And so we learned that we need protocols and data standards before it can be used in decisionmaking. So, in the year 2000, we are

requesting additional money, $8 million, to develop and further refine a disaster information system that will allow that kind of information to be useful not only in predicting disasters, but also in

dealing with the effects of those disasters. We are also requesting $5.5 million to upgrade our ability to anticipate natural disasters, to improve our stream gauging network,

and to improve our seismic monitoring network so that we can

warn and inform before disasters occur.

And, finally, in this vein, information is the name of the value

we provide to communities and agencies that need to predict and

deal with the disasters. There is a $10 million request in our budget through the Community and Federal Information Partnership to

improve our ability to give this information to local communities,

to State agencies, and others. Two-thirds of that will go out of the

Bureau in grants and contracts to those organizations to make our

information and that of other agencies available to them. It will

create their resource-related data bases that they need for that.

That is part of the $39.5 million administration effort in the whole

partnership program.

I want to conclude with some comments on restructuring. Our

budget has been modified in the year 2000 to make a truer representation of what money is going for science and programs and

what money is being used for administrative purposes, such as facilities and science support costs. So if you look at our budget, you

will see many program lines that look like they have been decreased. The fact is that in most of those lines the science money

9

remains the same; the money that has been taken out has been put

in lines to identify what it is is used for: administrative monies and

facilities monies.

So now you will see what you are getting. We will have a clearness in budgeting program that we think will serve not only those

of you that have to look at our programs, but also those who we

are dependent as partners and customers as they work with us and

have some true feel for where their money is being invested. We

think this is a significant step, along with our ability to integrate

our science to better serve our customers.

We are also looking forward, Madam Chairman, to working with

this Subcommittee as we deal with adjustments to the National

Geologic Mapping Act, which we think is a great success story in

our partnership with the States, to make sure that the States continue to receive the appropriate funding for their efforts. We are

also looking forward to working with your colleagues on the House

Science Subcommittee to reauthorize the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Act, which is authorized through 1999, but

which needs reauthorization after that.

So, with those comments, Madam Chairman, I will close and let

the others go ahead and be, of course, willing to answer questions

when my turn comes.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Groat may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Groat. The Chair recognizes Nina Hatfield for her testimony.

STATEMENT OF NINA HATFIELD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Ms. HATFIELD. Thank you, Madam. Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear

before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for

the Bureau of Land Management energy and minerals programs.

I would like to share with you some examples of how the BLM continues to try to improve its minerals programs so that we can provide better service to producers who operate on the public land,

while ensuring that environmentally sound recovery of mineral resources takes place.

To support these goals, the President’s Fiscal Year budget proposes about $1.2 billion for the BLM, including funds for the operation of the Bureau, payments in lieu of taxes, construction and facilities maintenance, land acquisition, as well as hazardous materials and firefighting activities across the entire Department of the

Interior. Of that $1.2 billion, $107 million of it are devoted to energy and mineral activity.

Our workload is considerable and continues to grow. At the end

of 1998, there were over 20,000 producing oil and gas leases; 128

producing coal leases; and about 768 leases of other mineral resources. From these activities, the States received revenues totaling about $550 million in 1998. Federal royalties from these mineral activities are projected to increase in the year 2000, totaling

about $1.2 million, which would result in payments to the States

of over $600 million.

10

I would like to highlight just several of the programs and activities that we are focusing on. In December, the BLM proposed comprehensive oil and gas regulations to consolidate and streamline

our current BLM oil and gas regulations. These regulations had the

effect, we believe, of giving operators greater flexibility in meeting

certain agency requirements and ensuring that appropriate bond

amounts covered costs such as reclamation. In response to public

requests and to allow an optimal time to analyze and comment on

the proposed regulation, the comment period has recently been extended to June 4 of 1999.

On February 9, BLM published its proposed hard rock mining

surface management or 3809 regulations. These are intended to

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public land resources

by mining operations and improve the clarity and organization of

BLM’s existing 3809 surface mining regulations. A series of public

hearings are planned throughout the West and in Washington, DC,

to gather comment on the rules. No final regulations will be published before October 1, 1999, in accordance with congressional

mandates.

In BLM, we expect that exploration for coalbed methane will increase greatly over the next few years, especially in Wyoming and

the Rocky Mountain States. Operators in BLM are awaiting the

Supreme Court’s decision about whether the ownership of coalbed

methane gas adheres to the ownership of the coal, rather than to

the ownership of the oil and gas. We are working diligently within

BLM towards trying to develop solutions to handle the flood of applications for permits to drill that we are expecting that will follow

the court’s decision.

Recognizing that oil prices are as low as they have been since

1975 and that operators were threatened with not being able to

continue production on properties with low production, BLM has

implemented a two-year policy of granting a suspension on leases

with stripper oil properties, those being properties that average 15

barrels or less of production per day. In addition, our existing regulations will allow us to make a case-by-case determination about

whether to grant a suspension for other operators.

We continue to pursue measures that would increase our efficiency, as well as promoting environmentally sound recovery of

mineral resources. And we look forward to continuing to work with

members of the Subcommittee, the public, the States, and the industry to improve our program. And I would look forward to answering any questions that the Committee might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hatfield may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Dr.

Kitsos.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS KITSOS, ACTING DIRECTOR, MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Dr. KITSOS. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I want to submit for the record, through your Committee clerk, a copy of a report entitled, ‘‘A Road Map to the 21st

Century.’’ This report discusses in some detail the Bureau’s rationVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:22 Sep 27, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\55815 pfrm08 PsN: 55815
11

ale for and approach to reengineering our royalty management program, which is one of our top priorities for Fiscal Year 2000.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Dr. KITSOS. As you know, Madam Chairman, the Minerals Management Service really has important missions for managing our

nation’s OCS in an environmentally sound manner and collecting,

verifying, and distributing mineral revenues in a timely manner,

revenues generated from Federal leases onshore and offshore in Indian lands.

In carrying out this mission, MMS programs account for about

27 percent of the natural gas produced in the United States and

about 20 percent of the oil produced in the United States. From an

economic standpoint, in Fiscal Year 2000, MMS, we estimate, will

collect about $4 billion in Federal mineral receipts. And of that $4

billion, the distribution goes something like this: $611 million in

mineral revenue payments to onshore States; $106 million in

shared OCS oil and gas receipts with coastal States; $150 million

to Indian tribes and individual mineral owners, Indian mineral

owners; $897 million transferred to the Land and Water Conservation Fund; $479 million to the Reclamation Fund; and the remainder, about $1.9 billion, to be deposited in miscellaneous receipts in

the Federal Treasury.

In the last five years, MMS, we think, has had a very sound

record. We have streamlined our operations. We have reduced overall personnel by 12 percent and supervisory positions by 23 percent. We have reengineered many of our operations. We have received the Vice President’s Hammer Award twice and numerous

other environmental awards. We have held 14 offshore lease sales,

including three record-breaking sales in the Gulf. We have grossed

over $4 billion in bonus bids for the Federal Government.

We are conducting pilots on Royalty-in-Kind in Wyoming and for

oil and royalty offshore gas in Texas. We have built a consensus

on offshore leasing issues, making it possible to consider a lease

sale in one controversial area, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and to

actually hold a lease sale in another, the Cook Inlet in Alaska. We

have worked hard on settling royalty claim disputes. We have fulfilled our trust responsibility to Indian tribes by working closely

with BIA and BLM on a joint laboratory in Farmington, New Mexico, creating more cooperative programs and internships with Indian tribes and resolving a number of long-festering policy disputes.

We have also assisted in the passage of legislation important to

our programs. Most of that legislation came out of this Subcommittee and this Committee: the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act;

the Royalty Fairness and Simplification; amendments to the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990. We have worked with the Senate on ratification of the U.S.-Mexico boundary treaty, which affects deep water

tracts in the Gulf of Mexico. And, in the 105th Congress, the Small

Refiner Ratification Act.

We have collected, in the last 5 years, through audit and compliance collections, as much as we had collected in the first 11 years

of MMS’s existence, about $1 billion.

While we are proud of these accomplishments, we are not without remaining challenges. These challenges include: implementing

12

the substantial pending effort to reengineer royalty management;

studying the likely consequences of continued low natural gas and

oil prices; gaining a better understanding to respond intelligently

to the challenges presented by deep water OCS operations; regulating an industry that is complex and has become increasingly

global in scope; and supporting increasing needs by States, localities, and other agencies for access to OCS sand and gravel for

beach restoration and shoreline protection projects.

With respect to our budget for Fiscal Year 2000, we are asking for $240.2 million to carry out our responsibilities. This is $16.2

million above the 1999 enacted level. However, the requested increase is covered by raising the cap on offsetting receipts from $100

million to $124 million. Because we are able to fund part of our operating budget—actually more than half—with offsetting receipts

and because of programmatic reductions in several areas, MMS’s

request for direct appropriations is $116.2 million, or a decrease, of

direct appropriation of $7.8 million from the Fiscal Year 1999 level.

The investments we are proposing in 2000 will be directed into

three primary areas. By investments, I mean increases over the enacted Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation. We are asking for an additional $10 million for the royalty reengineering effort; $1.4 million

to support Gulf of Mexico activities; and $250,000 for our international organization activities.

I would like to briefly discuss each one of these. The royalty

management program’s reengineering effort was first funded in

Fiscal Year 1999 at $5 million and continues to be MMS’s number

one priority in Fiscal Year 2000. The initial reengineering effort actually began in 1997, and it is designed to prepare the royalty

management program for the challenges of today and the future.

This new system will be organized around two core business

processes: the ‘‘financial management’’ process, which will focus on

financial accounting and the receipt and distribution of revenues,

and the ‘‘compliance and asset management’’ process, which will

focus on the entire realm of activities related to producing properties. Although the effort will take several years to fully implement, it is necessary because of new legislative mandates, changing

energy markets, the need for more cost-effective operations, and

outdated computer systems.

We believe that this initiative is an excellent investment for several reasons: (1) because it will improve the timeliness and accuracy of payments to States and tribes; (2) it will save the minerals

industry millions in operating and administrative costs by streamlining reporting requirements by 40 percent; (3) shorten the compliance cycle from 6 years to 3 years, aligning the processes more

closely with industry’s processes; and (4) it will improve information access and sharing capabilities. We also feel that, when we are

fully implemented in our reengineering program, we will have reduced our administrative costs by about $3.5 million.

The offshore program in the Gulf of Mexico remains active, despite low oil prices. We are asking for an increase of $1.4 million

in this category. In these times of declining oil prices and cutbacks

in the oil and gas industry, it may seem unusual to ask for increased funding for the Gulf. However, the fact is that the Gulf of

Mexico workload continues to grow. In the past few years alone,

13

MMS has issued over 4,400 leases, which not only represents a

substantial number of new leases to industry’s inventory, but a

dramatic increase in MMS responsibility.

Industry appears committed to continue exploration and development activities in the Gulf, with continued industry interest in exploring and developing sub-salt areas in the shallow waters of the

OCS and, especially, in deep water OCS areas where there have

been over 125 wells drilled in the past year. There is an increase

in demand on MMS to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities in a

timely manner. We are currently responsible for regulating and inspecting nearly 8,000 leases, about 3,900 platforms, and over

20,000 miles of pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. The tremendous benefits of the OCS program justify, we believe, the request for a slight

increase in funding Gulf activities, and it will be an excellent investment in our future.

Finally, let me just note that, to ensure that the United States

is a factor at the international table, we need to vigorously pursue

involvement and participation in international organizations that

oversee mineral exploration/development. This will support U.S.

policy objectives and provide assistance for U.S. industry interests

and also continue to advance our commitment to safe and environmentally sound offshore oil and gas management.

Currently, we are involved with a number of countries in developing cooperative information sharing arrangements, such as Norway and the United Kingdom. We are providing some technical assistance to countries interested in developing the Caspian Sea. We

are working with Kazahkstan and Turkmenistan on regulatory regimes. We believe that this work is very important not only internationally, but for our domestic industry so that we have a level

playing field with respect to their investment overseas. So we are

asking for an increase of $250,000 in that category.

This concludes my opening remarks. I will be happy to answer

any questions, Madam Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kitsos may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. Ms. Karpan.

STATEMENT OF KATHY KARPAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Ms. KARPAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Nice

to see you again and renew a longstanding friendship and working

relationship.

We have submitted testimony for the record and I will be very

brief in highlighting what is in our budget, since there is very little

that has changed from Fiscal Year 1999. For Fiscal Year 2000, we

are asking for $305,824,000 with 640 full-time total employees.

That represents $27 million more than we requested and received

in 1999.

Two million dollars of that goes to uncontrollables in both the

Abandoned Mine Land program in Title 5—and I should stop and

say for members of the Committee that may not be as familiar with

our program. Basically our agency administers one Act, the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, and it operates under

14

two titles. Title 5 has to do with active mining. Title 4 has to do

with the reclamation of sites that were mined and then abandoned

prior to the passage of the Act.

The one remarkable thing in our budget request this year is the

$25 million increase in money for abandoned mine land funding.

And I remember, Madam Chairwoman, you offered and last year

did send word to the House Appropriations Committee or your support for more funding. I know that Congressman Rahall has supported increased funding and as have other members of the Committee, and we appreciate it very much.

But even more important than this significant increase, which is

10 times the increase we had last time, is that the administration

is going on record in this budget as saying it wants to build up in

its budget request to the point where in 2003 we would have what

would be called ‘‘full funding.’’ That is, the amount of our request

would equal the revenue from the abandoned mine land fees. And

that is a goal that has been fervently sought for many years by the

States and tribes and we are very excited about it because we believe that this will accelerate the important clean up work that is

going on in literally hundreds of sites around the country.

If I could, Madam Chairwoman, with the balance of my time, I

would like to respond, albeit too briefly, to Congressman Rahall’s

comments, which I take very much to heart. Congressman, you

have been a very good friend to our agency over the years. We appreciate that and we hope that we will merit your support in the

future.

You know, when I worked for Congressman Roncalio, I didn’t last

long enough to see SMCRA passed, which tells you how many

years that struggle went on. But I remember when our office was

right down the hall in room 1315. We realized there were all kinds

of trade-offs involved in the passage of that statute and, as the

years go on, the way you weigh and balance those trade-offs

changes. And I believe that the public has come to demand more

and more of us in the mine regulation business.

And I have asked myself, how is it that the mountaintop mining

issue seemed to explode on the scene as it did and, unfortunately,

right as I took over the helm at the Office of Surface Mining? And

we went back and looked and it is not because we have had big

equipment in the hills of West Virginia only recently. Some of the

biggest equipment at the Hobet Mine has been there since 1983.

But what we saw happen is, in the last three or four years, a

dramatic spike upward in the amount of acreage that has been affected by mountaintop removal mining. And I think that is a function of the Clean Air Act encouraging companies to go after lowsulphur coal and the economies of scale caused by companies wanting to save money at a time when coal prices are declining. But

what has happened is that the public is seeing these large valley

fills and, in addition to all the other impacts of mining, has begun

to ask questions of us about ‘‘how big is too big?’’ ‘‘Do you understand all of the impacts on terrestrial life and aquatic life?’’ And

I believe that the public has rightly asked us to lift the bar, to raise

the bar, in the level of scrutiny and the degree of regulation that

we apply to these issues.

15

We immediately began discussions with West Virginia, more

than a year ago, and we have been working to remediate many of

the problems that you have identified. We have talked with other

Federal agencies and had discussions underway to conduct an environmental impact statement, even in advance of this past July,

when, of course, we had the litigation commence in West Virginia

where the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy sued, not us, but

sued the State of West Virginia DEP and the Corps of Engineers

on two sets of issues: one, on the Clean Water Act questions; one

on the SMCRA questions.

We have seen a partial settlement of that litigation, the Clean

Water Act part, but the SMCRA issues have yet to be settled. And

we will work with the State. We think there is more to be done

there.

Two things we want to tell you about what is coming out of the

settlement. First, in terms of righting the regulations, of correcting

where correction is needed. This programmatic environmental impact statement will involve four Federal agencies, as well as the

State of West Virginia. We will have our agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Fish and Wildlife Service, and

the Corps of Engineers. What we want to do is to understand how

the Clean Water Act, SMCRA, the permitting of the Corps, the Endangered Species Act and other acts can be best coordinated to

achieve better protection and better regulation.

At the end of that period of time, we may be coming to you for

additional authorities. We may have regulatory changes to make.

But we will have the science there to make those decisions.

In the interim, we are in the process of negotiating a memorandum of understanding to deal with another question you raised,

and that is the coal miners in West Virginia who are worried about

being put out of work while these regulatory issues are being sorted out. The memorandum of understanding will set, if not exactly

a bright line, a line where, if you have a permit that is in the pipeline process that involves a watershed with 250 acres or less, then,

generally speaking, that is going to be allowed to be permitted by

the Corps of Engineers, as it has traditionally been done, with a

general permit. If it is above that size, then there will be an individual Corps permit required unless the company wishes to negotiate and downsize the size of that operation.

We have 38 permits in the pipeline right now. Sixteen of them

can go forward with a general permit. Six are smaller scale, but

there are some questions being raised so they have got to be

worked on. And 16 will require individual permits, though, as we

say, the coal companies are working on them.

Finally, I want to say that we have produced for the Congress,

at the request of the House Appropriations Committee, a report on

mountaintop mining that has been subject to extensive comment.

And I believe it could be summarized, briefly, in this way: We

agree with you in two general areas of concern. Approximate original contour was not being enforced as it should be. We have a formula that we have discussed with not only West Virginia, but the

States of Kentucky and Virginia that we believe will give us a sitespecific, statutory-based way of making sure that the size of the

16

valley fills is minimized by maximizing the amount of excess soil

that must go back on the mountaintop, consistent with the statute.

As for the post-mining land uses, we have had some unauthorized uses that may have been approved and we are reviewing

those. We believe additional guidance is necessary and that is work

is underway. And, in fact, in our report, we do have an action plan

that will specify that in great detail.

But, in conclusion, Madam Chairman, I want to assure the Committee that this subject has been at the top of my agenda throughout my tenure. We are working on it. We believe we are making

real progress. And we would be glad to come up and brief you and

discuss this issue at any time. And I thank you and I will welcome

additional questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Karpan may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. I will begin the questioning

with Ms. Hatfield. I want to talk about coalbed methane a little bit.

As you referred to, coalbed methane development in the Powder

River Basin in Wyoming will increase significantly over the next

five years. In fact, there are approximately 1,500 applications,

APDs, to be filed with the BLM each year. And, due to staff limitations in 1998, Buffalo, Wyoming’s resource office only approved

about 350 out of 450 applications received. So there is a backlog

for 1998 already. The BLM is scheduled to complete an EIS for this

southeastern portion of the Powder River Basin in the summer of

1999. And once that is done, there will be another huge number of

APDs that will be filed. Does your Fiscal Year 2000 budget contain

additional resources to cover this huge increase?

Ms. HATFIELD. No, it does not. We recognize that there is a tremendous potential here for a huge workload that we are trying to

deal with. Currently we are trying to use our existing resources in

terms of trying to move people to where the APDs are going to

need to be reviewed and issued. And we anticipate that, given our

current staffing level, we could probably do as many as 400 APDs

in this year.

But we also have a problem in the fact that issuing each one of

those APDs really has some downstream costs for us and we are

trying to make sure that the environmental requirements are met,

that we can do the appropriate review once they are in operation.

So it is not just a one-year issue for us. We are looking at this influx probably coming over five years with additional downstream

costs there.

In terms of our Fiscal Year 2000 budget we are really trying to

make decisions about priorities. We are also looking at an increase

in grazing permits that we have to issue and making adjustments

to our wild horse and burro program. We have not made significant

progress in meeting our AMLs there. So we really are just trying

to look at how we can adjust priorities.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, what absolutely does not compute to me is

that coalbed methane could mean a big boon to the Federal Treasury, in which case we could afford to hire the people that we need

in years to come for monitoring and whatnot. And I can’t understand why not one extra person has been sent to Wyoming to deal

with 1,500 applications a year when you even project yourself you

17

can only do 400 in a year and that is more than you did in 1998.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Ms. HATFIELD. Well, we would anticipate that we would probably need as much as $2.5 million in each year of the next 5 years to

accommodate this number of APDs.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, why did you not ask for that?

Ms. HATFIELD. As I say, it is really just a matter of trying to deal

with our workload. In every single program that we have, our

budget has been flat. We have reduced our number of FTE about

10 percent over the last 5 years in an effort to try to move as much

resource as we can to actual on-the-ground work. But in every single program we have, we are suffering with an increased workload,

increased visitation to the public lands and it just really is a matter of trying to make the dollars that are available to us stretch

over our many responsibilities.

Mrs. CUBIN. But you have to understand that, maybe, investing

where income could come back to you ought to be a priority. But

I am going to tell you that the longer I have served on this Committee, the more convinced I am that Federal land managers do not

have enough money to do the job that they—they do not have the

resources that they are required by statute to do. And I am currently looking at alternative ways to fund management of Federal

lands. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund now

can only be used for land acquisition. And I can’t understand why

we would want to continue to acquire and acquire when we can’t

afford to manage what we have. So maybe we should consider

using some of that money to help with land management as well.

I want to follow up on these. Oh, gosh, I have too many questions, but are you going to change any staff allocations to help deal

with this huge influx of permits? I mean, it just is not a tenable

situation. We have to do something, whether it is hire contract people to come in to help those folks get those permits processed or

something. We have to do something and I would just like your

guidance on it. If we have to look at your budget and take it out

of someplace else, then you need to tell me where to take it from.

But we have to deal with this. And, you know, I think it is kind

of cowardly—not your fault—but to not acknowledge that, to just

leave it up to us to go ahead and put the money in there.

Ms. HATFIELD. Well, I am trying not to be cowardly.

Mrs. CUBIN. Fine.

Ms. HATFIELD. I am trying to recognize the fact that we do, as

you say—I would agree with you—that the job that we have in

terms of managing the public lands on what has really been a flat

budget over a number of years and trying to just struggle with uncontrollable increases as you deal with the management, that we

are, as I say, trying to deal as best we can with competing priorities.

Now, certainly, with the coalbed methane, we recognize that we

have a serious problem to try to deal with. We are trying to shift

some resources there. But we have to shift those resources within

the appropriated dollars we get.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, I just hear you saying you keep trying but I

don’t see any evidence of it either in your budget or in reallocation

of resources, so, you know, I don’t want to be argumentative and

18

my time is up, but if the Committee will indulge me, I have one

more question, either for you or for Dr. Kitsos. I am looking at the

mineral revenue payments to the States projections. The actual, for

Wyoming in 1998, is $236,883—I mean, million, excuse me. And

then the estimate in 1999 is up to $254,392,000. And in 2000,

$263,168,000.

Now since the price of oil is down, the price of coal is down, the

price of trona is down, the price of gas is down, I wonder what

these rosy—I would love to believe it since Wyoming, you know,

really benefits. But I just wonder what these projections are based

on. Is it based on larger production of gas over in Sublette County

or where do these projections come from?

Ms. HATFIELD. I think that we are just looking at the fact that

in the last few sales we have gotten an increased return on what

has been put out there to be leased. So it is more of that kind of

a projection, rather than the fact that the prices, in some cases, are

going down, have gone down. But in terms of the recoveries that

we have made in leases and projected royalties, we think it is going

to go up slightly. It will not go up a great deal, but it may go up

slightly.

Mrs. CUBIN. I am really not sure that——

Ms. HATFIELD. We would be glad to share—I would be glad to

provide you some more details for the records, if that would help.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes, I do have other questions that I will submit

and, hopefully, you can get the answers to us by March 5 because

we are going to be doing our budgeting and I absolutely think we

need more resources to do that coalbed methane.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Ms. HATFIELD. Certainly.

Mrs. CUBIN. I really don’t understand how you can base projections without considering the prices down but that is it, for another

day. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much. Dr. Groat, I am very interested in your testimony where you talk about being a resource

for sound science and you discuss a program called DOI Science

Priorities, where you are going to provide sound impartial scientific

information. This reminds me of I guess a series of issues that pertain to Guam, but it also pertains to many areas where there may

be areas, as you well understand, where scientists disagree about

the information and come to very different conclusions. But, in our

case, we had the Biological Service at one time basically conclude

that we had some endangered species on Guam as the result of an

alien predator and the response was to declare a critical habitat

and declare a wildlife refuge on our island.

And I think this actual scientific information, in that instance,

was ignored. And I think it was not utilized. I think that the intent

all along was to acquire some Federal control over the property

and, admittedly, there may be some evidence pointing in that direction, but it was not originally a problem of critical habitat. It was

simply a problem of an alien predator.

So my question to you is how do you propose to deal with issues

like this when the scientific information, perhaps, points in one diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:22 Sep 27, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\55815 pfrm08 PsN: 55815
19

rection, but some of the agency subunits that you are servicing

want to go in another direction?

Dr. GROAT. Mr. Underwood, that is a question that the scientific

community has to deal with often and it is a very harsh reality

sometimes to learn that, while we may think the science is what

should govern and direct the question—not only the question, but

the answer—that there are many other pressures involved in the

decision that go beyond science, whether it is economics, politics,

morals, or whatever it happens to be. And we do find, at times,

that what we consider good scientific information doesn’t guide a

decision in the direction we might think the science would take it.

So our response to that is, particularly through the DOI Science

Initiative, is to work closely with those agencies that we are providing that science to and receive agreement that this is science

they need and that they want to use so that we are all together

from the beginning, not only on the science itself, but how it is

going to be used. But, in many cases where we do make scientific

studies and, while they are peer-reviewed by the scientific community, when they enter the decision process, then they do end up

pushed aside, perhaps, in favor of either other views of the science

or of other conditions. And it sounds like you have a case of that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, I think we have a clear case of that and

it is very regrettable because we have had a series of policy problems that seem quite intractable as a result of that basic decision,

which was to ignore the science, which was how to deal with an

alien predator.

Which brings me to my next question. In this particular instance,

we had a problem with the brown tree snake and, yet, some of the

research money that is being now devoted—and I don’t know how

strongly your agency is involved in it. Much of the money that is

being devoted to the brown tree snake is actually designed to do

research on how to keep it on Guam, as opposed to going to Hawaii

or other places with senators. So my question is what kind of resources are you devoting? And I am hoping to push you in the direction of actually trying to find ways to eradicate the snake.

Dr. GROAT. Mr. Underwood, I can’t give you specific numbers as

to what we are still putting into the brown tree snake problem. I

sympathize with a control strategy that intends to keep it one place

rather than keeping it from spreading another place. And, certainly, the whole issue of invasive species, whether it be brown tree

snakes in Guam or cheat grass in the Great Basin, we have got a

tremendous problem to deal with. And we are faced all the time

with where our limited resources for these kinds of purposes get

spent. I would be happy to get back to you, for the record, on what

amounts of money we are still spending on that problem, but we

certainly haven’t abandoned the general problem of invasive species.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Please do. I would certainly like it for the

record. I would certainly like to see what we can do in that regard

and move towards the issue of trying to find a way to eradicate the

snake.

Lastly, what is your agency doing in terms of deep seabed mining? Are there any plans or——

20

Dr. GROAT. To be honest with you, Mr. Underwood, deep seabed

mining is not a terribly high priority within our minerals program

at this time, largely as a result of the economics—the near-term economics—of whether those resources would be developed. As you

probably know, we have had a long history in the resource assessment process and in the geology of deep sea areas to look at those

resources. But I would have to say, at this time, it is not as high

a priority as it was in years past.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, well we would like to take another look

at that and, hopefully, with the cooperation of the Chair, we will

be able to take a closer look at that and, hopefully, have a hearing

on it. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Now if the Ranking Member wants it, I bet he will

get it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Kitsos, in

your written statement, you mentioned three pilot programs involving RIK related programs. It seems to me you might add a fourth

and that is the recent announcement where part of our royalty oil

from offshore in the Gulf is going to be used to begin to replenish

the oil which has been sold out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Can you tell me how the administration looks upon that decision

and its affect on the budget? How have you worked that through

OMB? How does it count it? Does that affect your budget or the

General Treasury?

Dr. KITSOS. Well, it will affect the budget of the General Treasury. We expect that we will be taking royalty oil in both Fiscal

Year 1999—because we expect to start fairly soon—and then, of

course, in Fiscal Year 2000. The President’s budget estimates that

we will forego $170 million in Fiscal Year 1999 and $200 million

in royalty payments in Fiscal Year 2000. Presumably, when that

oil is sold sometime in the future, that will be recouped, but there

will be a reduction.

Mr. THORNBERRY. And what price of oil is the basis for that? Do

you have that in front of you?

Dr. KITSOS. My understanding is the price figures are $12.39 a

barrel in Fiscal Year 1999, going up to $14.12 a barrel in Fiscal

Year 2000.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I hope it gets to $14 a barrel. It is nowhere

close to $12 in my neck of the woods right now.

Another of your pilot programs is you talk about the Texas 8(g)

gas and, as a matter of fact, I understand that some of that gas,

which is worked through the General Service Administration, actually heats the building that we are in now. The land commissioner

in Texas has recently made a proposal of greatly expanding the

amount of gas which the State would exchange for electricity,

which would then be used to heat schools and government buildings. Have you all looked at something along that line, where Federal gas can be expanded and used for whatever, military installations or other government facilities, which can get you a better return on the gas and cheaper power prices?

Dr. KITSOS. Yes. As you know, we have a cooperative agreement

with the Texas GLO and that office, of course, has a long experiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:22 Sep 27, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\55815 pfrm08 PsN: 55815
21

ence in taking natural gas from their State leases. They create

value for the State by supplying State agencies with RIK gas. And

we have worked with them and we are able to learn more about

what they are doing. We are using the Texas model in partnership

with the GSA and we will transfer RIK gas to GSA who will then,

in turn, distribute it to Federal agencies to create value for the

Federal Government. We are working with the Texas GLO to look

for additional opportunities to expand this pilot.

Mr. THORNBERRY. But are you looking to expand it beyond just

the gas you get from Texas and don’t you think there is a potentially broader application for the Federal Government?

Dr. KITSOS. Well, we are also beginning the early planning

stages for a large gas pilot project in the Gulf of Mexico and that

will certainly look beyond the scope of the Texas project.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Let me ask you about something that has been

in the papers a fair amount recently. There have been all sorts of

articles about how the Department, not necessarily MMS, but the

Department of the Interior is no longer even wanting to talk to the

industry about oil valuation problems. Number one, is that true?

Are you all not even able to talk anymore? Number two, you are

a new person in the job, kind of, hopefully, a fresh approach. Do

you think is ever going to be worked out or is this going to be a

standoff where we call each other names in the paper and say ugly

things about each other, as has happened recently?

Dr. KITSOS. Well, I remain optimistic, Mr. Thornberry, that we

are going to be able to work this out. The position of the Secretary

is this: If the industry has some new ideas to resolve the three or

four issues that still separate the Department and the oil and gas

industry—new ideas that we haven’t considered before—and can

provide us some specific information in writing, we will take that

under advisement, and we will explore the opportunity to pursue

that. If those ideas are consistent with the requirements of the Department to obtain the best value for the American taxpayer, we

would be happy to talk about that. And, in fact, I have put that

in writing to members of the industry. I have talked with them on

the phone. We are waiting for a reply. I believe that they are working on that.

The Secretary has also made it clear that he does not want any

of us to rehash the old issues, to revisit what has been discussed

over the three years. And so that is sort of the dividing line. The

door is not closed. We still think we have an opportunity. The issue

is we don’t want to go back and reinvent all those old arguments.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, it doesn’t seem to me to be particularly

helpful if you say everything we have argued about over the past,

we are not going to discuss anymore. Now if you want something

new to argue about, you can bring that, but nothing else we will

talk about. And I have to say—and, again, this is not directed to

you personally at all—but to have the kinds of comments, inflammatory comments, really, made in the press as have been made recently does not help anybody solve this problem. It only increases

antagonism and that is too bad. Because when you start fighting

with each other, we really lose sight of the taxpayers and what this

is all supposed to be about. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry. Mr. Rahall.

22

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hatfield, let me first

congratulate BLM on issuing the proposed 3809 rules, despite all

the roadblocks that Congress keeps throwing in your way and trying to prevent you from doing it. My personal view is that these

regulations will accomplish much of the environmental title of my

mining reform legislation. I just would like you to know that we

will continue along with our friends, some of our friends, on both

sides of the aisle in the Appropriations Committee to continue to

resist riders to appropriations bills on this particular issue.

Ms. HATFIELD. Thank you. We certainly think that it is an opportunity to try to update rules that were originally passed in 1980s

to address current needs. We are certainly interested in the public

comment. The public comment period is going on right now. We

look forward to providing better public protection for the environment.

Mr. RAHALL. And you have until October, did you say, of this

year on those?

Ms. HATFIELD. Right. Under the present mandate, we could not

issue those regulations until after September 30. We are in the

comment period now which is going to run until May. We would

expect that we will have some significant public comments and a

lot of comments to try to deal with in that intervening period.

Mr. RAHALL. Okay. Keep up the good work.

Ms. HATFIELD. Thank you.

Mr. RAHALL. Director Groat, let me also express appreciation for

all that you do at the Survey. For the benefit and, perhaps, the

amusement of the Chair as I told you before we started the hearings, I would like to note that the Association of American State

Geologists have selected me to be this year’s recipient of their pick

and gavel award for my support of the geosciences in public policy.

Mrs. CUBIN. I thought maybe you needed some dental fillings or

something there.

[Laughter.]

Mr. RAHALL. We did spend a considerable amount of time on

these issues when I was the subcommittee chair and it is nice to

know that someone still remembers those struggles. I am sure you

don’t, Bill.

[Laughter.]

Director Karpan, OSM is proposing an increase in AML funding,

as you have noted, and I know you have probably had to do much

battle with the Office of Meddling and Bumbling to get it approved.

[Laughter.]

So I just wanted to congratulate you. Otherwise known as OMB.

But, anyway, prior to the hearing, I submitted a number of questions to you and you were kind enough and fully respond to those

in writing and I would ask that they be made a part of the record

at this point.

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. RAHALL. I only have one follow-up question to those questions, Director Karpan. As you know, I am deeply concerned with

how the approximate original contour reclamation standard was

being construed within the context of mountain removal mining

and you did touch upon this in your opening statement. Could you

23

provide us with perhaps a bit more detail of what was in your written response on just exactly what this pilot AOC formula, to which

you refer, consists of?

Ms. KARPAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rahall. We asked a gentleman named Mike Castle who, for 15 years, had mined in West

Virginia, who has a degree in mining engineering as well as a law

degree, to go back and take a look at the legislative history, including some of the very first versions of SMCRA. And what he came

out with is, if you will, starting out with the whole mountain and

saying, we will take the coal out and then we will have spoil and

it will swell for a certain amount. And now we have got to figure

out how much of that spoil, under the statute, should go back up

on the hill.

And it would be very site specific. Because, for example, to assure the stability of the slope, you might have a certain kind of

configuration in one setting and a different in another, but that

would be a key factor in how much, because you couldn’t just put

it all back steep. It would have to be in a way that would be stable,

would not be subject to landslide or runoff and siltation in the

streams. Then you would take a look at how much spoil would be

needed for drainage, to construct your drainage; how much spoil

would be needed for access and maintenance.

The idea behind it would be that you would walk through each

of these areas where the statute would indicate that you could dispose of your spoil in a certain way. And, up-front in the permitting

process, before—you see, I think the problem in the past was, once

they are out there reclaiming in a certain way, we could never enforce any actions. The judge would say it is too late. I think the

beauty of this is you will run the numbers up-front. You will do the

computer calculations up-front and then the company will know

how small that bill has to be.

Now we have not yet put it to the test. That is happening right

now. But in our preliminary discussions with engineers in West

Virginia, Kentucky, and in Virginia, they seem to think this could

work. And I would like to give it a try. It will be very site specific

and I think it will provide some structure to evaluation that in the

past has been, frankly, somewhat subjective.

Mr. RAHALL. I think that sounds very good and I commend you

for that. It is a little different then how I heard the story of one

of our State DEP officials describing his definition of AOC before

a judge. Looks at his knuckles and those that are leveled off, that

is approximate original contour.

On a separate issue, Director Karpan, one final comment, as I

conclude. I do remain deeply concerned with the so-called AML enhancement rule. And we have discussed this in my office. I do not

share your level of comfort that surface coal mining can be conducted outside of the auspices of Title 5 of the Act. Nor do I believe

that OSM oversight will ensure that abuses do not occur. The only

thing I can say at this point is that thank God we had the citizen’s

suit provisions of SMCRA. I have concluded my comments.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, Mr. Rahall, I just wanted to offer my support

in working with you on keeping riders off the appropriations bill

and I know you will want to support resisting that minerals patent

rider moratorium. So I would love to work with you on that.

24

Mr. RAHALL. I am sure we will be working together.

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes, I am sure we will.

[Laughter.]

I am sure we will be working at the same time, anyway, won’t

we? I also ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a statement from the National Association of State Universities and Land

Grant Colleges for this hearing.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mrs. CUBIN. I just want to follow up Representative Thornberry’s

question. This is to Dr. Kitsos, of course, and we talked about this

somewhat yesterday, but I do want to have it on the record. It

doesn’t make any sense to me that, as Mr. Thornberry said, that

the Secretary says: Okay, I am not going to talk to you about this.

That you have to come up with all the new ideas. This is to the

oil companies regarding mineral valuation. You have to come up

with something new or I am not going to talk to you. I mean, basically it seems to me that the Secretary’s position is oil companies

cook the books and I am not going to talk to them about it.

We can have this game of who can outlast who, because I believe

we can get a moratorium on implementing those regulations for as

long as he is the Secretary of Interior. But that is not productive.

That isn’t what any of us want, because we all know we have a

problem and we all want to solve it. So I implore you to pass on

to the Secretary that I would really appreciate it if he would come

back to the table with the companies.

If I can in any way help facilitate that or contribute to that process, I would love to do that. I know any of my colleagues would.

Mr. Rahall would. This is a problem that I don’t think we can just

slam the door and say I am not talking to you unless you do it my

view. I am taking my ball and going home. This country is too

great for that. So if you would just pass that on, I would appreciate

it.

Dr. KITSOS. I will. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. And I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony

and please feel free to stay in touch with me, the Committee staff,

if there is anything that comes up that we need to know or anything that we could do to help you do your job better. And certainly

anything you could tell us to help us do ours. Oh, and one last

thing, I will be sending written questions. If you would please respond to those, we will have the date on there. Thank you very

much.

The Subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

25

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES G. GROAT, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here

today to present our overview of the U.S. Geological Survey’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. While this is my first oversight hearing as the USGS Director, I hope

to bring to this process an understanding from a customer’s perspective having been

a customer of and having worked with the USGS for many years.

Today, I will tell you about recent successes and our highest-priority research

areas for FY 2000 and explain how this research fits into the larger picture of

science needs for the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Nation. With extensive capabilities in natural science, the USGS is uniquely able to provide its customers with reliable and impartial scientific information on a wide range of issues.

The challenge for the USGS in the 21st century will be to deliver relevant products

and services to our customers in an efficient and timely manner.

But before I move into the details of our budget request, I’d like to share with

you what I feel are some very exciting recent results coming from USGS science

that have had a direct effect on the lives of many American citizens.

I’ll start with last year’s torrential rains of El Nin ̃o. While they affected much of

the Nation, they hammered the West coast where they brought not only flooding,

but the life-threatening hazard of landslides. The results of a similar battle with El

Nin ̃o in 1982 caused 25 deaths in the 10-county San Francisco Bay region. In 1998,

I am pleased to report that not one single death was caused by landslides in the

same 10-county region, in part because of the landslide hazard area maps and realtime warnings of increased landslide risk that the USGS was able to provide the

region’s emergency workers.

Another very exciting result from last year comes out of USGS’ National Water

Use Program. We provide 5-year reports on national water use which water resource

managers and planners nation-wide depend on to make critical planning decisions.

The most recent survey, released last year, showed some excellent news—per capita

water use has declined since 1990 in spite of continued population growth. This suggests that water conservation efforts across the Nation are succeeding in a significant way. Of course, we would have not been able to know this without the USGS’

continuous collection and analysis of key natural science information.

Population growth influences another area of USGS science—understanding the

impacts of urban growth. The majority of Americans now live in or near expanding

urban areas which is creating new pressures on the Nation’s transportation systems

and regional infrastructure. A critical question for local and regional planners is

where will this growth spread to next? USGS science can help answer this question

based on its 100-year archive of historic topographic maps and its 30-year archive

of satellite image data.

The USGS and university collaborators have already provided urban growth patterns in the San Francisco-Sacramento and Baltimore-Washington areas to local

and regional officials. The USGS is currently working in the Greater New York;

Philadelphia-Wilmington; Chicago-Milwaukee; and the Portland-Vancouver urban

areas to provide this key information based on the Survey’s long term databases.

My last example takes us from urban growth to abandoned mine lands on or adjacent to the public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS). The USGS is working closely

with these land management agencies in developing a watershed-based strategy to

provide the scientific information needed for efficient and cost-effective cleanup of

abandoned mine lands. This multidisciplinary effort is producing solid results by

identifying both the largest sources of contamination and those that do not need attention. This enables efficient targeting of cleanup activities. USGS is also determining environmental conditions that existed before mining began in order to establish realistic cleanup goals. This activity will continue to be of increasing value as

additional and more complete information is obtained.

These recent results of USGS science are only a few examples of the continuing

and direct contributions made to the daily lives of the American public. They also

demonstrate how the FY 2000 USGS budget, $838.5 million as requested by the

President, will fund research to provide crucial scientific information for the Department’s land managers along with other Federal, State and local decisionmakers, and

for disaster mitigation and recovery efforts throughout government and private organizations.

Our FY 2000 budget requests a $40.6 million net increase over FY 1999 enacted

funding to expand USGS efforts to increase science support for informed land and

resource management, improve hazard warning capability, and increase availability

and accessibility of USGS data. The request continues to reflect the USGS’s commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:22 Sep 27, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55815 pfrm08 PsN: 55815
26

ment to integrating our scientific disciplines into a unified approach for gathering

information, analyzing data, and delivering scientific information to our customers.

As the Department’s science agency, the USGS works directly with NPS, BLM,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Interior bureaus to address their highest priority research needs. In FY 2000, the USGS is consolidating $15 million in

current DOI support activities with a requested $15 million increase to focus science

resources on the most urgent research priorities of these bureaus. This $30 million

in DOI Science Priorities proposal brings the total USGS funding that directly supports Interior bureaus’ science needs to well over 20 percent of our annually-appropriated budget.

The DOI Science Priorities request will enable more high-priority multidisciplinary research to help DOI agencies address increasingly complex issues from a

foundation of sound impartial scientific information. For example, for NPS, this initiative will focus an additional $2 million in science support as well as an additional

$3 million on the Natural Resource Preservation Program. It will also complement

the biologically-oriented support that will continue to be provided by our Biological

Resources Division.

American communities need environmental and natural resources data to ensure

a high quality of life and sustained economic growth. Two-thirds of the proposed $10

million Community/Federal Information Partnership would go to local communities

through a competitive matching grant program. This will help them create and use

geospatial data and associated technologies. The remaining funding proposed will

allow USGS to improve public access to geospatial data through the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. This proposal is part of the Administration’s $39.5 million

Community/Federal Information Partnership within the comprehensive ‘‘Livability

Agenda.’’

Understanding complex ecological problems also requires long-term data. Because

amphibians are considered good indicators of ecosystem health due to their sensitivity to many kinds of environmental stress, there is an urgent need to evaluate

the severity and scope of their decline. The USGS is requesting an increase of $5.6

million for amphibian monitoring and research to determine the causes and scope

of the amphibian population decline.

Day in and day out, USGS streamgages, earthquake sensors, and other warning

equipment are at work monitoring natural hazards to protect life and property

throughout the Nation. As good as they are, with the passage of time, they need

to be modernized to properly maintain their vigil. We are requesting a $5.5 million

increase to accelerate the upgrade of our Nation’s natural hazards networks and expand our real-time warning capabilities. This increase will also improve our ability

to measure changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, an area crucial to today’s high

dependency on electronic communications.

Since 1992, natural disasters have cost this country an average of $50 billion a

year. Useable, timely scientific information helps relief organizations and local governments save lives and reduce the costs of natural disasters. During the past year,

the USGS provided its crucial scientific data for the Nation’s response to three devastating hurricanes—Bonnie, Georges and Mitch. Providing our data in such a

rapid-response mode aided the search and rescue efforts associated with these disasters, particularly Hurricane Mitch. These experiences have demonstrated the urgent

need to deliver crucial information early and often to agencies responding to disasters in the U.S. and abroad. These disasters have also demonstrated an urgent need

to establish protocols for collecting and sharing hazard data so that this information

is available for decision making before disasters strike. The USGS has requested $8

million to contribute to an interagency effort to create a Disaster Information Network with common data standards and protocols capable of providing critical information when and where it is needed.

Additional FY 2000 increases include: $1 million for coral reef research; $1.1 million to study hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and for the study of native species in

Hawaii; $1 million to begin next-generation work on the National Biological Information Infrastructure; $1.5 million for deferred maintenance of our many facilities,

particularly those with health and safety problems of highest priority; and $2.5 million to expand our satellite data archive capacity for data from Landsat 7 which is

scheduled for launch this April.

Along with the budget highlights just mentioned, please note that our FY 2000

proposal takes a key step toward restructuring our budget to more clearly delineate

science from the functions that support science. This restructuring consolidates appropriated facilities costs into an expanded Facilities line item, and all bureau-level

administrative costs are consolidated into an expanded general administrative line

item called Science Support. While it may appear that some programs have received

27

a decrease in funding through this budget restructuring, most programs simply have

had their administrative costs re-categorized, leaving the research funding intact.

The restructure also establishes a new budget activity—Integrated Science—which

brings a more unified scientific response to critical and emerging resource management issues and challenges. It includes $30 million for the previously-discussed DOI

Science Priorities and a total $17.7 million for place-based studies in South Florida,

Chesapeake Bay and Watershed, Great Lakes, Platte River, Greater Yellowstone

Area, San Francisco Bay/Delta, Mojave Desert and Salton Sea. Funding for placebased studies includes a requested increase of $2.4 million over FY 1999.

Emergency supplemental funding provided by the Congress to DOI in FY 1999 will allow the USGS to use $15 million to ensure that our computer systems, including those providing critical scientific data, will be Y2K compliant.

In addition to these budget matters, we look forward to working with you on adjustments to the National Geologic Mapping Act to ensure that the States continue

to receive appropriate funding for cooperative geologic mapping activities; and with

your colleagues on the House Science subcommittee to reauthorize the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program which currently authorizes appropriations

through FY 1999 for our earthquake program.

In closing, Madam Chairman, the USGS is striving to ensure that our customers

get the science information they need, when they need it, in a form they can use.

Thank you for your continued support and interest in the work of USGS to provide

science for a changing world. I would be pleased to answer your questions.

STATEMENT OF NINA ROSE HATFIELD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request

for energy and minerals programs administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Budget Overview

The President’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget proposes $1,268,700,000 for the BLM—

including funds for operation of the Bureau, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, construction and facilities maintenance, land acquisition, as well as hazardous materials and

firefighting activities across the Department of the Interior. Of the $641,100,000 requested in the Management of Lands and Resources Appropriation, the request for

energy and minerals activities is $72,230,000. This is an increase of $2,286,000 or

3.3 percent above the FY 1999 enacted level of funding. The programmatic increase

amounts to $450,000 or .6 percent over the 1999 enacted funding level after allowing for costs resulting from principally employee pay raises. The President’s Budget

also requests $33,529,000 for the administration of mining claims under the Mining

Law of 1872. These costs are offset by the collection of mining claim maintenance

fees. There is also a request for $2,147,000 for the assessment of mineral resources

on Federal lands in Alaska.

Funding for the major program activities within energy and minerals management are as follows:

• $55,326,000 for oil and gas management, which provides for the competitive

and non-competitive leasing of oil and gas resources and for inspection and enforcement of active leases;

• $7,527,000 for leasing and management of coal leases; and

• $9,377,000 for other minerals management activities, which include leasing

and management of potash, phosphate, sodium, geothermal and other mineral

resources, including mineral materials.

The energy and mineral resources of the public lands contribute enormously to

the Nation’s economic and social development. The public lands produce about 47

percent of the Nation’s geothermal resources, 33 percent of its coal, 11 percent of

its natural gas, and 5 percent of its oil. Today, BLM manages the resources on about

264 million acres of public land, and more than 500 million acres of federally-owned

subsurface mineral estate. The BLM also provides technical assistance for management of minerals on Tribal and alloted lands. The scope and importance of BLM’s

management of energy and mineral resources is reflected by these statistics:

• At the end of FY 1998, there were over 46,000 oil and gas leases in effect on

33 million acres, with 20,000 of those leases in producing status, and 3,900 producing leases managed by the BLM on Tribal lands;

• In 2000, BLM expects to issue about 3,150 oil and gas leases covering about

3.9 million acres;

28

• At the end of 1998, there were 128 producing coal leases, producing 348 million tons, there were also about 289,000 mining claim of record;

• Also, at the end of 1998, there were a total of 768 leases of other mineral resources (such as phosphate, potash, sodium, geothermal and trona);

• And last year, the BLM managed the disposal of over 15 million cubic yards

of sand, gravel and other mineral materials. From these activities, the states received revenues totaling $550,000,000 in 1998.

With the increased filing of applications for permits to drill for oil, natural gas and

coalbed methane, revenues from activities on Federal lands are projected to increase

in 2000 with Federal royalties from these mineral activities totaling almost

$1,200,000,000. Resulting payments to the states will total $611,000,000. A prime

example of the vast amount of revenues generated from mineral activity on public

land is the competitive coal lease sale held in Wyoming in October 1998. That sale

brought a bonus bid of $158,000,000, of which $79,000,000 goes to the State of Wyoming. Royalties generated by the tract will be used for a variety of public benefits

including highway construction, public schools, the University of Wyoming and local

governments.

Within the minerals division, we have continued to focus on programs and activities that best serve the public interest while maintaining a balanced approach to

the management of public lands. Allow me to highlight several of those areas:

Revitalization of Indian Country

The ‘‘Revitalization of Indian Country’’ budget proposal will be used to work with

tribes to increase the effectiveness of their mineral development programs and to

ensure a fair economic return to Indian mineral owners. Funding for this initiative

totals $450,000 ($150,000 each for the oil and gas management, coal management

and other minerals management subactivities) which would be used to initiate new

contracts with additional tribes under the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-

638) and new agreements under Federal Oil and Gas Resource Management Act.

The Indian Self Determination Act allows tribes to assume responsibility over their

respective portions of the BLM’s minerals programs. By law, the Secretary’s trust

responsibility is not diminished by contracting these functions out to the Tribes and,

under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the BLM must continue to provide oversight of the contracted function. While the BLM believes these contracts and agreements will further its effort to meet its trust repsonsibility, budgetary concerns remain. The law provides that the Federal Government fund not only the direct costs

associated with the contracted program, but also indirect and support costs, as well

as startup costs. Contracting under the Act will allow BLM to assist tribes with

their move towards self-sufficiency and management of their mineral resources with

the potential to generate significant revenue increases for certain tribes through

more diligent inspections and enforcement.

Comprehensive Oil and Gas Regulations

In December 1998, the BLM published its proposed comprehensive oil and gas

regulations aimed at consolidating and streamlining current BLM oil and gas regulations, giving operators greater flexibility in meeting certain agency requirements,

ensuring appropriate bond amounts cover costs such as reclamation, and simplifying

the classification of regulatory violations. Originally, the proposed regulations carried a 120 day comment period, however, in response to public input and to allow

optimum time to analyze and comment on the proposed regulations, that comment

period was recently extended for an additional 60 days with a closing date of June

4, 1999. The BLM will hold a series of public hearings in areas convenient to the

public.

3809 Regulations

On February 9, 1999, the BLM published its proposed hardrock mining surface

management or ‘‘3809’’ regulations. The proposed rule is intended to prevent ‘‘unnecessary or undue degradation’’ of public land resources by mining operations and

improve the clarity and organization of the BLM’s existing 3809 surface mining regulations. To gather comments on the proposed rule, a series of public hearings is

planned throughout the West and in Washington, DC. The Bureau is awaiting the

congressionally directed National Academy of Sciences study, due on July 31, 1999,

which will determine the adequacy of existing regulations and, in accordance with

Congressional mandates, no final regulations will be published before October 1,

1999.

Coalbed Methane

Exploration for coalbed methane is expected to increase greatly over the next few

years, especially in Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain States. In the most recent

29

court decision in the matter of Southern Ute v. Amoco. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the appeals court decided ownership of the coalbed methane gas adheres to

the ownership of the coal, rather than the ownership of the oil and gas. In order

to provide an interim solution, Congress passed a measure (P.L. 105-277) which

grandfathers in existing leases with respect to ownership of coalbed methane.

Suspension of Operations and Production Policy

With oil prices as low as they have been since 1975, operators are threatened with

not being able to continue production on properties with low production. The BLM

has implemented a two-year policy of granting a suspension on leases with stripper

oil properties which are qualified to receive or have already qualified for a stripper

royalty rate reduction. Such properties are defined as those averaging 15 barrels or

less of production per day. Allowing a suspension will enable operators to hold the

lease and avoid premature abandonment of producible wells. Further, for those

leases without properties that qualify for a stripper royalty rate reduction, we will

determine on a case-by-case basis qualification for a suspension as authorized by existing regulations.

Other Initiatives

Ensuring environmentally sound mineral exploration and production and reducing

environmental effects of past mining practices will continue to be of primary concern

to the BLM. Abandoned hardrock mine sites may impact public health and the environment due to releases of hazardous substances from waste materials and acid

drainage. In accordance with the Department’s Clean Water and Watershed Restoration initiative, BLM will continue to address abandoned mine land (AML) sites

which are adversely affecting water quality. BLM coordinates its AML program with

State reclamation agencies, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Environmental

Protection Agency through an interagency agreement. During FY 1997, BLM and

USFS commenced two pilot AML cleanup programs in Colorado and Montana. A

third pilot was launched in Utah in FY 1998. In 1999, with additional funds appropriated by Congress, BLM will build on the success of the pilots by addressing water

quality at AML sites in 12 states and 26 watersheds. BLM plans to continue its

water quality based AML site cleanup activities during FY 2000.

As we continue to pursue measures which increase efficiencies as well as promote

environmentally sound recovery of mineral resources, we will continue to work with

members of this Subcommittee, the public, states and industry to improve the

BLM’s programs. This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer questions.

STATEMENT OF KATHY KARPAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION & ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Madam Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before you today to present the fiscal year (FY) 2000 budget request of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).

When I appeared before the Subcommittee last year, I shared with you my vision

for making OSM a model agency. We are now building on that vision. To better

serve the States and Tribes, the coal industry, and most importantly, the citizens

of the coal fields, OSM pledges to continue to strive for better Abandoned Mine

Lands (AML) reclamation, better environmental protection, better customer service,

and better program operations. Before I discuss the specifics of our FY 2000 budget

request, I would like to share with you some reflections on these strategic goals.

Better Environmental Restoration

Our goal is to repair, reclaim and restore as much land and water as possible that

was degraded by past mining to provide America with cleaner and safer land and

water and to provide employment and economic opportunities in depressed coal regions.

Therefore, I am very excited to state this Administration’s commitment to restoring the environment by aggressively accelerating the cleanup of abandoned mine

lands resulting from past coal mining practices. To this end, we are proposing to

implement a multi-year effort to fund the AML program at a level commensurate

with receipts by 2003. This commitment will enable us to address the $2.5 billion

of priority one and two sites that threaten the public health and safety of coalfield

citizens and the $1.7 billion of priority three sites that are serious environmental

hazards.

In our FY 2000 budget, we are requesting a $25 million increase to reclaim abandoned mine sites that pose significant threats to human safety and the environment.

30

Of this sum, OSM will direct $22 million to State and Tribal AML reclamation

grants that support the President’s Clean Water Action Plan. The remaining $3 million increase will provide additional funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative to accelerate the cleanup of streams polluted with acid mine drainage caused

by past coal mining practices.

The AML reclamation program is one of the Nation’s most successful environmental improvement programs. OSM carries out the AML program in a cooperative

manner with the States and Tribes. While the States and Tribes have the lead responsibility for on-the-ground reclamation, OSM supports their programs by providing technical assistance and by conducting cooperative performance reviews of

their programs. OSM also conducts the reclamation and the emergency programs for

States and Tribes that do not operate their own programs. In FY 2000, the AML

program will reclaim over 9,200 acres of abandoned mine sites. Additionally, the

program will abate over 400 emergency hazards.

Given the size of the AML problem, OSM recognizes the need to assure that resources are used in an optimal manner. Leveraging our funds is the very essence

of the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative. This initiative now has approximately

80 State and Federal agencies, local soil and water conservation districts, national

conservation organizations, and private foundations working together formally to

clean up acid mine drainage and to improve the aquatic environment and the quality of life for coal field citizens. In FY 2000, OSM will have more than double the

number of newly begun cooperative projects since the program’s inception in 1997.

Further, the percentage of funds from outside sources for the initiative will exceed

60 percent.

Additionally, our Enhanced AML Reclamation Initiative is now complete. This

rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999, and will

be effective March 15, 1999. This will establish a mechanism to provide for the reclamation of abandoned mines that otherwise would not likely be reclaimed. For sites

targeted by this rule, we expect that AML contractors will incorporate the anticipated sale of coal at the AML-eligible site in their lowered project bids. The lowered

project bid will reduce the government’s share of the total project cost. As a result,

less public funding will be required for these sites to accomplish the same level of

AML reclamation. Under this rule, the AML fund saves money, the contractor

makes a profit, and additional sites are reclaimed.

Better Environmental Protection

Our goal is to improve the regulatory program for protecting the environment,

people, and property during current mining operations and subsequent reclamation

through cooperative results-oriented oversight and evaluation of State programs in

safeguarding people and the environment.

OSM works cooperatively with the States to assure that the environment is protected during coal mining and that operators adequately reclaim disturbed land

after mining is completed. In addressing our protection goal, OSM strongly supports

State primacy. OSM provides grants to the 24 primacy States to enable them to operate their own programs to regulate coal mining operations. We believe that the

States have unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their

borders. As the States’ programs have matured, OSM’s oversight role has evolved.

We are acting less like an overseer or supervisor and more as a dedicated resource

to enable the States to properly fulfill their responsibilities. However, we stand firm

as the regulator of last resort to assure that the citizens of the coal fields and the

environment are properly protected during the mining process.

We now focus on whether the public protection requirements and environmental

protection standards in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)

are achieved by focusing on the on-the-ground success of States in meeting environmental protection goals. This strategy has resulted in a more positive attitude and

spirit of cooperation with the States, while still assuring operator compliance. An

OSM team recently completed a report based on interviews with about 100 OSM

inspectors and field staff involved in oversight. The team found the current oversight approach is taking hold and is providing an opportunity to work cooperatively

to improve State program performance.

This program achieves results. For FY 2000, the program will increase the percentage of sites that are free of off-site impacts to protect the environment and public from current mining to 94 percent. Additionally, to show the progression of permitted acreage being successfully reclaimed, the program will release over 250,000

acres from certain performance bonding requirements.

I would like to briefly touch on an issue that has received much attention recently—mountain top mining. We have heard and recognize the concerns expressed

by coal field citizens, particularly in the State of West Virginia. We are working in

31

a close cooperative manner with State officials and other Federal agencies in a review of mountain top mining practices. OSM, the Environmental Protection Agency,

the Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and Wildlife Service are actively involved in

multi-agency scientific studies and administrative discussions. By doing this, we can

effectively carry out our respective responsibilities to protect the environment and

provide quality service to coal field residents and the coal industry.

Better Service

Our goal is to strengthen the capabilities of States, Tribes, and OSM staff to enforce the mining law effectively by improving service to OSM customers, partners,

and stakeholders through open communications, technical assistance, and the transfer of technology.

We view our role as providing the States and Tribes the tools necessary for them

to implement SMCRA requirements effectively and efficiently. We provide technical

assistance, technical training, and technology transfer. I would like to briefly discuss

some of the more widely used tools that our stakeholders employ in implementing

their regulatory and reclamation programs.

Our nationwide technical training program is a prime example of how we are

seeking to provide better service and technical assistance to the States. The training

program seeks to develop and update the technical skills and professionalism of

State, Tribal and Federal personnel. Our courses are developed to respond to customer needs. During FY 2000 OSM expects to offer about 50 courses and train about

900 students and to attain an 89 percent customer satisfaction rate.

Another important tool OSM uses to assist the States and Tribes is the Technical

Information Processing System (TIPS). Among other uses, TIPS assists in mine permit reviews, the design of abandoned mine land projects, and the preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. It is also a key element in the implementation of the OSM Electronic Permitting Initiative on Federal

and Tribal lands and in the States. For FY 2000, OSM expects to attain an 87 percent customer satisfaction rate among TIPS users.

The Applicant Violator System (AVS) provides the State regulatory authorities

with a tool to evaluate whether an applicant for a permit is eligible to receive the

permit, or is blocked because of outstanding SMCRA violations. The States rely extensively on this system. During the 11 years of AVS operations, almost 57,000 permit applications or AML contractor recommendation requests have been acted upon.

OSM recently attained a 97 percent customer service rate in the quality and timeliness of AVS provided services, thus already exceeding our FY 2000 goal of 86 percent.

The ownership and control regulations support the AVS. As you know, the U.S.

Court of Appeals invalidated OSM’s prior ownership and control regulations on January 31, 1997. With extensive public outreach and much stakeholder input, OSM

proposed rules to redesign the basis of permit eligibility decisions on coal mine operators. The revised rule was published on December 21, 1998.

Better Operations

Our goal is to improve OSM operations through a more effective and efficient

management of human and fiscal resources to facilitate the reclamation of abandoned mine lands to protect the environment, people, and property both during and

after mining.

OSM implements its financial management responsibilities through the fee compliance, revenue management, and grants management functions. I believe we do

an excellent job in these areas. I am proud to say that we achieved record highs

with a 99.4 percent compliance rate with over $273 million in total collections. Additionally, the Office of the Inspector General gave our financial statements an unqualified opinion for the eighth straight year. This means that the data we report

is accurate in all material aspects and that we are safeguarding the taxpayers’

money appropriately.

Similarly, we are investing in our human resources. To deal with the large number of employees eligible to retire within the next 5 to 10 years, as many as 50 percent, we are developing a succession planning effort. This effort will assist us in determining what types of employees and skill levels needed for our future.

Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request

To meet the goals I have just outlined, I would like to present some highlights

of our FY 2000 budget proposal. For Fiscal Year 2000, OSM is requesting

$305,824,000 and 640 full-time equivalent positions, an increase of $27.1 million

over the FY 1999 enacted level. In addition, OSM is requesting $105 million to provide health benefits to retired coal miners, who worked for companies that have

gone bankrupt or no longer exist, and their dependents. Of this sum, $63 million

32

is required by permanent authority under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As a result

of a recent Supreme Court decision, the Administration is requesting legislative authority to provide the remaining $42 million so that the United Mine Workers of

America Combined Benefit Fund may reimburse premiums paid by companies for

beneficiaries who become redesignated by the Social Security Administration as unassigned to any specific company.

As I previously discussed, I believe the singular highlight of the FY 2000 President’s Budget is the Administration’s proposal to implement a multi-year effort to

fund the AML program at a level commensurate to fee receipts by 2003. This gradual, but significant, increase in project funding will result in a concurrent increase

in reclaimed acreage over the next several years and will also provide a major beneficial impact to the citizens of the coal fields and the lands and waters in their communities.

As I mentioned, we are requesting a $25 million increase in FY 2000 to reclaim

abandoned mine sites that pose significant threats to human safety and the environment. Of this sum, we will target $22 million to State and Tribal grants that support the President’s Clean Water Action Plan. The increase will be directed to those

States and Tribes that are using AMI, funds to address environmental problems

caused by historic abandoned coal and other mine sites. The increase will also focus

on those States and Tribes that obligate all their AMI, funds. This will result in

a State grant total approaching $170 million. The remaining $3 million increase will

provide additional funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative to accelerate the cleanup of streams polluted by acid mine drainage resulting from past coal

mining practices. We will now be funding the initiative at $10 million.

This increase in AML funding directly supports our strategic goal of better reclamation. The increase in grant funding will result in approximately 1,200 acres

more being reclaimed than otherwise would be the case. The increase for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative will result in 42 new projects and will also result

in funds leveraging such that 60 percent of funding will come from other sources.

OSM’s overall FY 2000 request includes $94.7 million for the Regulation and

Technology appropriation and $211.1 million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation

Fund appropriation. This request provides a $27.1 million increase over FY 1999.

As I have previously discussed, the preponderance of this increase—$25 million—

will be directly translated into on-the-ground reclamation efforts. The remaining

$2.1 million increase will cover uncontrollable increases in our fixed costs.

This request will enable OSM to provide financial support for 24 State regulatory

programs, and for the AML programs implemented by 23 States and three Tribes.

It will also enable OSM to continue to directly administer Federal regulatory and

reclamation programs in States that do not operate their own programs and on Federal and Tribal lands.

Most of the funding appropriated to OSM is passed on to the States and Tribes

in the form of regulation and reclamation grants. For FY 2000, our request includes

$169.3 million for reclamation grants and $50.6 million for regulatory grants. These

grants, coupled with emergency and high priority AML project funding, account for

nearly 80 percent of OSM’s budget. The remaining portion of the budget provides

funding for OSM’s internal operations including technical training and other forms

of technical assistance to the States and Tribes.

Let me now address the other component to our budget—the annual transfer payment to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund. This transfer, funded from interest on the AML fund, provides health benefits for certain retired coal miners and their dependents, when an employing company is no longer

in business. For FY 2000 OSM is requesting $105 million in two components. Of

this sum $63 million will be transferred to the Combined Benefit Fund for unassigned beneficiaries as required by the permanent authority of the Energy Policy

Act of 1992. In addition, OSM is requesting a one-time increase of up to $42 million

to help defray the costs associated with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, and related decisions. This Supreme Court decision stated

that Eastern should not have been responsible for paying these health benefits.

Thus, certain beneficiaries that were previously assigned to Eastern and similarly

situated companies are now being redesignated as unassigned.

Government Performance and Results Act

OSM recognizes the importance that both the Administration and the Congress

have placed on implementing the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA). OSM’s FY 2000 budget request fully addresses GPRA requirements. OSM

established strategic goals and associated performance measures to justify its resource requirements. OSM first identified its major functions, or Business Lines.

OSM then developed a Strategic Plan to carry out its mission, vision, and goals and

33

implemented a new budget structure that allows OSM to relate resource requests

to strategic goals in a more understandable way. OSM developed a business-line

based accounting system to determine the cost of each program activity better, provide a mechanism for linking costs to performance outputs, and enhance OSM’s

management decision-making process.

OSM’s Business Lines are:

• Environmental Restoration.

• Environmental Protection.

•Technology Development and Transfer.

•Financial Management.

• Executive Direction and Administration.

Because OSM’s new budget structure links directly to its strategic goals and

measures, OSM has fully integrated its FY 2000 Annual Plan into its Budget Justifications to Congress.

Proposed Appropriation Language

OSM is also proposing certain appropriation language changes in its FY 2000

budget proposal. These changes will allow OSM to:

• Specify that the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative will be funded from the

Federal expenses share of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund;

•Target the $22 million increase for State and Tribal reclamation grants to

those States and Tribes that use AML funds to address problems caused by historic abandoned coal and other mine sites and obligate to grants all of their distributed portion of the FY 1999 AML appropriation.

In closing, I thank the Subcommittee for providing this opportunity to present

OSM’s FY 2000 budget request and to summarize our recent accomplishments and

to outline our vision for OSM’s future. I believe this is a sound, fiscally responsible

budget proposal that contains the resources necessary for OSM and the States and

Tribes to implement SMCRA requirements effectively. I will now be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82