FlSCAL YEAR 1995 BUDGET FOR ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RFSOURCE PROGRAMS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AXD }HXERAL RESO-CRCES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 1995 BUDGET REQUEST FOR BLM, OSM, 

USGS, MMS, AND BUREAU OF MINES 

81--896 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

FEBRUARY 23, 1994 

Serial No. 103-67 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Supcrinlen<lent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-044773-9 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT Mc lNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada, 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania Ranking Republican Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon RICHARD POMBO, California 

SAM FARR, California 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

DEBORAH VON HOFFMANN LANZONE, Staff Director 

CANDICE BROWN, Clerk 

WILLIAM CONDIT, Republican Consultant on Energy and Mineral Resources 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: February 23, 1994 . ..... .. .. .. ... .... .... ........ ............. .. ..... .. .. ....... .... .. .. ..... 1 

Member statements: 

Hon. Richard H. Lehman ....... ..... .... .. .... ........... .... ... ... ....... .. ..... .... ....... .. .. .. ....... 1 

Hon. Nick Joe Rahall II .. . .. ..... .... .. .... ... .... .... .... .. . .... ... ... . . ........ .. .. ..... .... .. .. .. .. ... 2 

Hon. Wayne Allard .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. ... . ... ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Witness statements: 

Panel consisting of: 

Bob Armstrong, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior .... ....... .... .... ..... .. .......... ... .. .. .. .. .... ... .. . 4 

Debra S. Knopman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Robert 

Hirsch, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey, and Dr. Hermann 

Enzer, Acting Director, Bureau of Mines ............................................. 35 

APPENDIX 

FEBRUARY 23, 1994 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Hon. Richard H. Lehman, chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources: 

1. Letter from Chairman Lehman to Bob Armstrong, Assistant Secretary, Land and Mineral Resources, Department of the Interior, dated February 28, 1994, enclosing additional questions .. ... .......... ... 67 

2. Letter from Mr. Armstrong dated March 22, 1994, in response 

to Chairman Lehman's letter of February 28 ..... ........ ...... ....... .. ... ...... 70 

3. Letter from Chairman Lehman to Deborah Knopman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Water and Science, Department of the Interior, 

dated February 28, 1994, enclosing additional questions .................. 79 

4. Letter dated March 23, 1994, in response to Chairman Lehman's 

letter of February 28 to Ms. Knopman ................................................ 81 

(III) 

THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 1995 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR BLM, OSM, USGS, MMS, AND 

BUREAU OF MINES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard H. Lehman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

Mr. LEHMAN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to conduct an oversight hearing on the President's proposed budgets for the energy and mineral 

resource programs of the Bureau of Land Management, Office of 

Surface Mining, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey, and Bureau of Mines, all within the Department of the Interior. 

Pursuant to the requirements of section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget and lmpoundment Act of 1974, we are required to 

submit Views and Estimates of the Committee on Natural Resources regarding the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 1995. This 

Budget Committee has asked us to submit our report by Friday of 

this week. 

Therefore, I am pleased to welcome Assistant Secretary Bob 

Armstrong and Deputy Assistant Secretary Knopman-welcometo discuss the energy and mineral resource programs at the Department of the Interior under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

The President's 1995 budget for the energy and mineral programs appears to address Federal budget constraints while recognizing the need to adequately support our domestic energy and 

mineral leasing programs. I am particularly pleased to note the increase requested for the royalty management program of the Minerals Management program. And I am pleased to note the budget 

request supports Mining Law reform. 

I look forward to discussing these proposals in detail with the 

witnesses. 

At this point, Mrs. Vucanovich is on the way, I am told. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from West Virginia. 

(1) 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK JOE RAHALL II 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, as we begin our review of the budget request for 

a number of bureaus within the Department of the Interior, I must 

take this opportunity to express my very deep concerns over the 

situation at the Office of Surf ace Mining. 

In my view, the Office of Surface Mining today is a rudderless 

ship floating aimlessly on a sea dominated by western concerns and 

interests within the Department of the Interior. 

Over a year into the Clinton administration, there is not yet a 

confirmed OSM Director, although I understand that Senate confirmation could come this week. 

Meanwhile, the director-designee is an unknown quantity to 

those who represent the Apfalachian region. To those of us who 

represent that area, as wel as many others, the area with the 

greatest stake in OSM decisions is, of course, the Appalachian region. 

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman. We stand at a very 

crucial crossroads in the administration of the Surf ace Mining Act. 

Important rulemakings to implement the amendments to the Act 

that I sponsored in 1990 and 1992 have not yet been implemented. 

Morale within the ranks of OSM inspectors and throughout the 

field operations continues to suffer. At every turn, it appears that 

the bureau is gripped by indecision bordering on paralysis. 

Yet, acid mine drainage continues to seep into our rivers and 

streams. Subsidence continues to threaten people's homes. Many of 

the legacies of past mining practices, the burning refuse piles and 

landslides, continue unabated. 

And for its part, the regulatory stability so necessary to the coal 

industry remains an elusive goal. 

The question remains: Will this Administration, this Interior Department, treat the Office of Surface Mining as a poor stepchild 

within the agency-as have the past two Administrations-or will 

it move in a forthright fashion to revitalize the bureau to carry out 

its mandate from the Congress and from coalfield citizens across 

the Nation? 

In effect, to have within the Interior Department not just an Office of Surface Mining, but an Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement. Let us address the pressing issues of the day before the Department of the Interior involving grazing fees, our crumbling park infrastructure, ecosystem management, the reform of the Mining 

Law, of which I am the chief proponent. But let us not forget, let 

us not forget the need to implement and enforce an effective and 

responsive surf ace coal mining program. 

This, then, I believe is the challenge I believe the Department's 

leadership faces. And it is my hope that they will rise to the occasion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Allard. 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any prepared remarks that I want to share with the 

committee and the individuals that are here this morning for this 

hearing. But I would just like to share a thought or two that I have 

just off the top of my head. 

First of all, in the past, the Department of the Interior has been 

a Department that has been willing to work with a lot of the resource people in the western part of the United States. This is a 

very sensitive part of our country as far as resource management 

is concerned. 

I think the western States have always felt that they had a 

friend in the Interior Department with their interests in mind, and 

were able to balance those interests with the public interest and 

what their responsibilities were as a Department in administering 

the laws that have been passed by this Congress. As in more recent 

history, that cordial relationship between resource individuals in 

the West and the Department has deteriorated, and I think that 

it is time for us to reevaluate what the Department is doing and 

what we can to create a better relationship between businesses and 

citizens of the West, with the Department. 

I also serve on the Budget Committee and I will be looking very 

critically at the Department of the Interior on that committee, as 

well as the Department of Agriculture. 

I am looking at areas where there can be a sharing of resources, 

with the idea that we can make this a more user-friendly operation 

as far as citizens in the western part of the country. My remarks 

have been rather brief. I just want to share those concerns with 

you. 

You do have some great individuals in Colorado. It is the State 

that I represent, and with those people that work in that office I 

feel I have a good relationship, and I just for the record would 

make that note. But I think we have got some tremendous challenges ahead, both for this committee as well as the Department 

of the Interior, and I would predict there are going to be some 

changes that are going to happen, no matter what. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mcinnis. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, outside of agreeing with my respected colleague 

out of the State of Colorado, I have no further remarks. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

And with that, we will move to the witnesses. 

Mr. Armstrong, we will put your testimony in, and we will put 

Ms. Knopman's testimony in the record in its entirety and ask you 

to proceed at this time. 
4 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BOB ARMSTRONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND DEBRA S. KNOPMAN, DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT 

HIRSCH, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, AND 

DR. HERMANN ENZER, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

MINES 

STATEMENT OF BOB ARMSTRONG 

Mr. .ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here and present the proposed budget for BLM, MMS and OSM. I have with me today the 

budget directors from each of the respective groups, and they are 

available for detailed questions in the event that I am not able to 

answer everything. 

I have been entrusted with a great responsibility, to manage our 

Nation's public lands, and the natural resources that are within 

them and which they produce. I hope that my presence here today 

along with my comments demonstrate the commitment that Secretary Babbitt and I, and each of the bureau directors and the 

nearly 14,000 employees have to this awesome responsibility. Our 

1995 requested budgets have successfully addressed Federal budget 

restraints set by the President and Congress through careful examination of priorities and making hard choices. The budget expands 

the President's investment in natural resource protection and development, and supports the recommendations of the National Performance Review. 

I would like to briefly address some major issues that this budget 

cycle will fund: reform of mining; grazing practices on public lands; 

all phases of the management of the Outer Continental Shelf; land 

acquisition, with an emphasis on land exchanges; improving the 

performance of the Office of Surface Mining in accomplishing its 

mission; as well as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. 

Regarding mining reform, I would like to commend the Chairman and the members of his subcommittee and Mr. Rahall for 

leadership in passing H.R. 322. Mining Law reform is a controversial and difficult subject. We are committed to continue working 

with the Congress. As a place holder, let me stress place holder, for the purpose of 

estimating receipts, the budget assumes an 8 percent royalty and 

:permanent mine claim maintenance fees. An estimated increase of 

$12.4 million from mine claim maintenance fees will enhance activities such as inspection enforcement of mining operations. 

Natural gas and oil produced from the Outer Continental Shelf 

is a vital part of our Nation's energy supply. In 1993 we produced 

4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 350 million barrels of oil. 

The income was just under $4 billion as a result of this production. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service will 

continue to stress safe and responsible development of OCS, especially in the natural gas area. 

Development of OCS has been controversial in certain areas. Efforts have begun to start a new, more positive dialogue with States 

like California, North Carolina and Florida to try to educate us as 
5 

to what they want and for us to try to educate them as to what 

our responsibilities and goals are. We have found that this has removed a great deal of the prior emotional barriers, and we think 

that local involvement is very important to us to try to figure out 

what is appropriate in the MMS development of the future. 

OSM has been, as you point out, Mr. Rahall, short of a director. 

But we are attempting to cure that, and Bob Uram was cleared by 

the Senate committee today. So we think that he will come in as 

soon as Wednesday of next week. And in the meantime, let me say 

that we have put together a task force which you may be familiar 

with, which is the best people we could find who have gone into 

the Office of Surface Mining, interviewed, brought new and sophisticated management techniques to the questions of the people who 

were there. 

This operation has been conducted over the last month to six 

weeks, with we think very dramatic results. The people at the 

agency have been very receptive to the fact that we came in. 

We sent the best people we could find out of the entire Department to work on this so that we could have a seamless transition 

to the new director, and I think that the people both in the Department and the people in the States that have worked with this have 

been very appreciative of what has gone on. And I think it is going 

to be, and you will find it to be, a very positive occurrence to have 

convened this task force and put them to work on a mission statement and a performance capability that we hope everybody is going 

to be proud of, which will make Mr. Uram's job easier. 

Rangeland reform of 1994 has been, as all of you know, much on 

the plate for us. I spent, starting Sunday evening, time in Denver 

and Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Bums, Oregon, and Reno. 

I was back in Washington Thursday. So we have not been unmindful of the West, and we have spent a lot of time listening, 

principally on range reform, although part of that trip involved 

hard-rock mining. The Secretary and I, as you know, have been working in a lot 

of the roundtables that have been conducted in Colorado, and we 

believe that the kind of input that we have gotten has been very 

helpful. It has changed the Secretary's mind, quite frankly, on 

many of the issues, and I think that we are going to have a better 

work product out this week or soon thereafter as a result of this. 

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System has been the subject of a lot 

of controversy, particularly in Chairman Dingell's, and to some degree, Chairman Miller's committee. We have spent a good deal of 

this year beginning to really look into the future of that pipeline 

and to correct some of the problems that have been hinted at or 

suggested, but never really looked at and dealt with in the past. 

The Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Department of the Interior are both recused from dealing with this because of some prior 

representation in the legal business. So it falls upon me to deal 

with it and we have had good luck, we think, in contracts with 

some excellent systems management people, and have a real commitment to correct the problems that are there. 

We have also done a lot of work on the ground with the Joint 

Pipeline Committee and other people so that TAPS will be some-
6 

thing that we can all have some confidence in as far as its safety, 

its capability of delivery of the oil, and its future spill-free and environmentally sound capability. 

Land exchanges are probably the most important thing, in my 

judgment, that we could accomplish if we were going to try to get 

us into a situation where we own what we need to own and deal 

with and maybe let some other people own some other parts of the 

lands that we have. And so consequently, we will direct some major 

effort toward the reconfiguration of parts of the land that might be 

more beneficial, both to the people that will trade with us and for 

the land that we get in those trades. 

The money, I am sure you .have before you in your synopsis, so 

I won't go through it. Basically, what we are doing is increasing 

modestly at BLM and at MMS, and OSM has a minor decrease of 

$23.5 million. 

At this point, my remarks are concluded, and I would like to answer questions as soon as you have heard from Debra, unless you 

want to do me first and then take her separately. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I think we will let Ms. Knopman go ahead and proceed at this point to take her testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:] 
7 

STATEMENT 

BOB ARMSTRONG - ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT 

Before Natural Resources Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources hearing on the proposed budgets for BLM, MMS, and OSM. 

Accompanying me today are the budget directors of the bureaus. 

As Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the United States 

Department of Interior, President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt have entrusted me with a 

great responsibility of overseeing the management of the public lands and natural 

resources owned by the citizens of the United States. I take this responsibility most 

seriously and I hope my presence here today, along with my comments and answers t9 

your questions, demonstrate my commitment, as well as that of Secretary Babbitt, each of 

the bureau directors and the nearly 14,000 employees of the BLM, MMS and OSM have 

to the awesome responsibility given us. 

Before I provide you with an overview of each bureau's budget, I would like to devote a 

few minutes today to giving you some specific comments about issues I have identified for 

my office to focus on during the budget cycle being discussed. Many of these issues are 

not new, in fact they have been discussed on numerous occasions within this 

subcommittee and other committees in Congress. Regardless of how often they are 
8 

discussed, until they are resolved to the betterment of the public as whole, they will 

remain important, significant and deserving of the attention and effortS from me and 

those that work with me at the BLM, MMS and OSM. 

In formulation of the 1995 budget, the Department has successfully addressed Federal 

budget restraints set by the President and Congress after conducting a careful internal 

examination of priorities and making very difficult choices. The requested budget meets 

the Administration's commitment to wisely manage the Nation's public lands and natural 

resources, while fulfilling the Department's trust responsibilities. The budget request also 

expands the President's investment in natural resource protection and development. 

Finally, the budget supportS the recommendations of Vice President Gore's National 

Performance Review. In my specific area of responsibility, this budget wllf allow 

continued progress towards our goals -- which include the reform of grazing and mining 

practices on public lands; improvement in all phases of the management of the Outer 

Continental Sheff; land acquisition with an emphasis on land exchanges; Improving the 

performance of the Office of Surface Mining in accomplishing its mission, as set forth in 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act; and Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

improvement. 

Mining Law Reform 

2 
9 

3 

Initially, I want to mention that Chairman Lehman and the members of this subcommittee 

deserve the thanks of the American public for the leadership you have exhibited in passing 

H.R. 322, to reform the 1872 Mining Law. 

I need not tell you that the subject of Mining Law Reform is a controversial and difficult 

subject. The Department is committed to continuing to work with the Congress on 

comprehensive reform of the 1872 Mining Law. As a place holder, and for the purpose 

of estimating receipts, the 1995 budget assumes an 8 percent royalty on hardrock 

minerals as proposed in H.R. 322 and permanent mine claim maintenance fees. The 

1995 budget assumes a $ I 00 annual fee for established claims and a $200 annual fee 

for new claims, plus a onetime $25 location fee at the time of filing. 

An estimated increase of $12.4 mlllion -- funded from mine claim maintenance fees-· 

will enable the BLM to enhance activities such as inspection and enforcement of mining 

operations, including those using cyanide. The additional funding will also be used for 

implementing mining reform legislation. 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

Nawral gas and oil produced on the OCS are vital components of the nation's energy 

supply. In 1993, the OCS yielded 4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 350 million 
10 

barrels of oil -- about 2 7 percent of the natural gas and I 3 percent of the crude oil 

produced in the U. S. 

Looking to the future, with one-third of all the recoverable natural gas and oil remaining 

to be discovered in the U. S., OCS resources will continue to play an important role in 

meeting domestic energy needs, advancing the long-term productivity of the U. S. 

economy and contributing to the quality of the environment. 

4 

As reHected in the Department's budget request, we will continue to stress the responsible 

development of the Nation's offshore energy resources, especially natural gas. The 

production of natural gas poses little risk to the environment and its consumption provides 

air quality benefits compared to other fossil fuels. 

Development of the OCS has been extremely controversial in certain coastal areas. The 

perception among many coastal officials and citizens is that the federal government has 

attempted to dictate the terms of OCS development off their coasts without adequate 

consultation and in spite of their protest. Efforts have begun to start a new and more 

positive dialogue with the states over OCS issues. For example, in California, MMS and 

local and state agencies have instituted an MMS/Tri County Forum that periodically 

convenes staff-level representatives to discuss and resolve critical issues concerning existing 

offshore leases. This coordination and close working association has engendered trust 

among the parties and has removed many of the emotional barriers that contributed to 
11 

past conflicts. Local involvement is extremely important to the success of the OCS 

program. 

Improving OSM's Performance 

5 

It is the Department's hope that Mr. Robert Uram will shortly be confinned by the 

Senate as the new Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM). During the past three months OSM has been under the Direction of Acting 

Director Anne Shields and an Interim Management Team appointed by Secretary Babbitt. 

The Team has been conducting a management and policies review of OSM, which has 

involved OSM personnel, state regulatory agencies, the coal industry, and representatives 

of citizens' organizations. The Team will develop a series of recommendations for the 

new Director on how to improve OSM's accomplishment of its mission, In an effort to 

achieve a seamless transition when the new Director comes on board. This year's budget 

request for OSM calls for an appropriation of $278.4 million, compared to last year's 

budget of $254.9 million. 

Rangeland Reform '94 

The Department of the Interior is working with Congress, Western Governors, the 

livestock industry, conservation groups, and other interested parties on the issue of 

Rangeland Refonn. The SecreL1ry and I have been listening to the concerns raised by 
12 

6 

interested parties at a series of roundtables and town meetings conducted throughout the 

West in recent months. The Department will propose grazing regulations in early March; 

we expect final regulations to be issued in the fall. The 1995 Budget Request includes a 

$ I 4. 5 million increase to support range reform efforts. 

The increase will be used for allotment evaluations and categorizations, development of 

standards and guidelines, ecosystem planning, and expanded allotment monitoring. 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) 

Responding to public and Congressional concerns, in mid- I 993, the BLM undertook 

actions to uncover and rectify problems in operations of the TAPS. Those activities 

included: contracting for an overhaul of the Joint Pipeline Office (JPO) and Its monitoring 

and inspection program, hiring new inspectors and other support personnel, increased 

audit activity, contracting for swdies of the operational and management problems and an 

outline of recommended solutions, contracts to build a quality program for the operator, 

contracting for provision of engineering expertise for the JPO, and development of a 

Federal-State Memorandum of Understanding to assure integrated operations and support 

of )PO by parent agencies. 

Repair of hardware and some management problems has begun and will continue for a 

year. Corrective actions for pipeline management and regulation are in the development 
13 

stage and should be implemented starting in summer I 994 and completed later in the 

year. It will take additional time to assure that operations under new arrangements and 

procedures are consistently yielding the desired results. 

7 

In the case of TAPS, I am the acting Secretary of Interior, and I have been intimately and 

fully involved in the progress of the Depanment's review and response to the concerns 

identified by the contract audit team. It Is our intention to remain vigilant and to provide 

the Congress and the citizens of Alaska and the U.S. the assurances they deserve that 

TAPS is environmentally and structurally sound. 

Land Exchanges 

The BLM's proposed budget includes increases for land acquisition, recreation 

management, facilities maintenance, cultural resources management, wildlife and 

endangered species and wilderness management. Given current budget constraints, land 

exchanges will be emphasized in BLM's acquisition effons. The focus will be on exchanges 

to facilitate the protection of critical habitat, particularly in the range of the desert 

tortoise in California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. 

I will give you a brief overview of the proposed FY 95 budget proposals for the BLM, 

MMS and OSM: 

81-896 - 94 - 2 
14 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

The totJI 1995 budget level for the BLM is estimated at $1.2 billion, an increase of 

about $43 million from the FY 1994 level. In many ways, the BLM's budget reflects 

dramatically the managerial issues that confront the BLM. Our budget has two major 

thrusts: 

8 

• First, several initiatives that directly contribute to ensuring sustJinable development. 

Of these "on the ground issues", the most prominent are implementJtion of the 

President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, Rangeland Refonn and Mining Law 

Refonn. 

• Second are initiatives to streamline and re-engineer processes and implement new 

approaches -- such as those proposed in the National Perionnance Review -- that 

will reduce administrative costs, achieve greater efficiencies in managing our 

workforce, and enable the BLM to progress faster in achieving its resource mission. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 

For FY 1995, the Minerals Management Service is requesting $201.2 million for its 

operations, an increase of $2. 7 million over FY 1994. This request is contained in two 

appropriations, the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management appropriation and the Oil 

Spill Research appropriation. 
15 

9 

The MMS continues to stress the responsible development of the Nations's offshore 

energy resources. The FY 199 5 request provides for an increase in the funding of 

$3.3 million to the environmental studies program to assure that decisions are based 

upon good science. In addition, the MMS continues to place top priority on the accurate 

and timely processing of mineral revenues on behalf of Indian Tribes, allottees, States and 

the U.S. Treasury. And, lastly, due to MMS' expanded authority and responsibility from 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1 990, a net increase in funds in the Oil Spill Research accounts 

will provide for inspections and oil spill plan reviews for operations in State coastal waters, 

as well as increased review of financial records to ensure operators in State coastal waters 

meet new bonding requirements. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

OSM's FY 1995 budget request is $278.4 million, which represents a decrease of $23.5 

million from the 1994 enacted level. This decrease is primarily the result of a $ I 0.0 

million reduction in funding for state reclamation program grants and elimination of 

funding for the $13.2 million Rural Abandoned Mine Program. The budget is fiscally 

sound and meets the spending constraints and deficit reduction goals set forth by the 

White House. 
16 

10 

OSM's FY 1995 budget focuses on meeting the President's goals for reinventing 

government and streamlining the federal government, while ensuring that the agency will 

have a solid budgetary foundation for the challenges it will face in the I 990's. 

This concludes my statement. I and the budget directors for the three bureaus will be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
17 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995 BUDGET 

REQUESTED BY THE ENERGY AND MINERALS RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Energy and Minerals program 

consists of three program areas: Fluid Minerals, Solid Minerals, 

and Mining Law Administra tion. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The Fluid minerals program includes leasing of oil, gas and 

geothermal resources underlying Federal lands, operational 

oversight of Federal and Native American leases, supervision of 

drilling, and inspection and enforcement, including production 

verification. In 1993 , there were about 56,000 onshore Federal 

oil and gas leases and 450 geothermal leases. About 19,000 

Federal oil and gas leases are in producing status. In addition, 

there are about 4,200 producing oil and gas leases on Indian 

lands. Revenues generated by Federal oil and gas leases are 

expected to be over $100 million in 1995. 

Our 1995 fluid minerals budget request is $54.3 million, a 

decrease of $1.1 million from 1994. The decrease is associated 

with our phasing down efforts in the drainage program. We are 

able to do this because the drainage review component of our oil 

and gas program has been successful in significantly reducing the 

backlog that approached 25 ,000 cases 5-years ago. At our 
18 

requested funding level, the drainage backlog should be about 

3,000 cases by the end of 1995. This represents a working 

inventory and will not affect royalty collections. 

We have made significant improvements in our fluid minerals 

inspection and enforcement program, which may allow it to be 

removed from the list of high risk areas by the end of 1995. 

Solid Minerals Management 

2 

The solid minerals program includes leasing of all solid minerals 

and mineral compounds such as coal, sodium, phosphate, lead-zinc 

and potash. The BLM manages about 33 percent of all coal 

resources in the United States. About 60 percent of Western 

coal is Federally owned. As of September 30, 1993, there were 

431 Federal coal leases in force, 131 of which were producing. 

Production from these leases amounted to 245,993,000 tons and 

generated $257.7 million in Federal royalties in 1993. 

our 1995 solid minerals budget request is $14.1 million, a 

decrease of $1.3 million from 1994. The reduction will be 

applied through all components of the noncoal solid mineral 

leasing program, which is generally of lower priority than 

either coal or mineral materials. It should have little 

impact on the Bureau's ability to process noncoal solid mineral 

applications and lease adjustments. This requested funding level 
19 

will allow us to continue to process coal lease applications, to 

avoid the bypass of Federal coal. At the requested funding 

level, our ability to conduct inspections on continuing 

operations will n ot be impaired. Program emphasis will continue 

to be placed on environmentally sound mineral extraction on 

Federal lands. 

Mining Law Administration 

There are currently an estimated 330,000 actively maintained 

mining claims on public land. These claims are filed under 

provisions of the General Mining Law of 1872. The Administration 

is actively working with congress to achieve comprehensive reform 

of this old law. Our 1995 budget request for mining law 

administration is $27.7 million, an increase of $12.4 million 

from 1994. This program is supported by revenue generated from 

mining claim fees. 

The 1995 budget assumes congress will enact mining law reform 

legislation during 199 4 , embodying the principles of H.R. 322. 

This includes payment of an annual maintenance fee, payment of a 

production based royalty, end of patenting, suitability reviews, 

and increased environmental protection. Passage of the reform 

legislation would r esult in a major workload in 1995, as the BLM 

wou l d write new regulations, possibly prepare an environmental 

impact statement, and design a program to implement the royalty 
20 

provisions. A major part of the proposed increase would be used 

to enhance on-the-ground management, including inspection and 

enforcement of mining operations. 

Budget Restructuring 

The President's budget proposes a major restructuring of the 

BLM's appropriations structure and management. 

4 

The BLM's budget structure needs to be revised. It is too costly 

to administer. It requires too much time by too many people to 

track too much information. It is not sufficiently flexible to 

allow meeting rapidly changing demands. It involves too many 

individual pots of money, and it focuses too much on individual 

programs at the expense of the larger, more significant, 

interrelated resource management issues. 

Field managers are finding that these shortcomings make it 

increasingly difficult to synchronize all the different pots of 

money to achieve effective local management. 

We are proposing a broader activity and subactivity structure 

within the new appropriation that will enable us to better 

measure the ultimate outcome of our efforts. We believe fund 

control -- the level at wnich we are held accountable by the 

appropriations committees -- should be established at the 
21 

5 

activity level rather than at the subactivity level. Overall our 

proposal will reduce the number of fund categories that we must 

separately manage from 45 to 16. 

The proposed changes in the Energy and Minerals program involve 

two components: 

o Creation of a new "Fluid Minerals Management" 

subactivity that includes the former Oil and Gas 

subactivity, as well as the Geothermal portion of the 

former Other Mineral Resources subactivity. 

o Creation of a new "Solid Minerals Management" 

subactivity that includes the former Coal subactivity, 

as well as the Leasable Solid and Salable Mineral 

portions of the former Other Mineral Resources 

subactivity. 

These changes will reduce costs and improve performance. They 

will: 

o reduce the amount of time and effort devoted to budget 

tracking and monitoring and increase time available for 

field activities; 
22 

o enable field managers to address rapidly changing 

program needs without unnecessary constraints from the 

budget structure; 

o support implementation of sustainable development and 

biodiversity; and 

o facilitate implementation of performance-based 

accountability. 

6 
23 

Statement for the Record 

Minerals Management Service 

Department of the Interior 

Before The 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

February 23, 1994 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) appreciates the opportunity 

to present testimony for the record in support of its budget proposal 

tor Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 .' 

The Minerals Management Service has two major responsibilities: the 

timely and accurate collection, accounting, auditing, and distribution of 

revenues owed by holders of mineral leases on Federal onshore and 

offshore and Indian lands; and the management of energy and mineral 

resources on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The MMS 

strives to fulfill it responsibilities through the general guiding principles 

of: ( 1) being responsive to the public's concerns and interests by 

maintaining a dialogue with all potentially affected parties; and (2) 

carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans through economic development and 

environmental protection. 

In FY 1995, the Bureau will account for an estimated $5.0 billion in 

Federal receipts, including $3 .9 billion from OCS rents, bonuses, 
24 

royalties and escrow payout and interest and $1. 1 billion in onshore 

receipts . 

At this point, I would like to give an overview of MMS's current status 

and, then, highlight the major initiatives of our FY 1995 budget 

proposal. 

Overview 

The Royalty Management Program (RMP) continues to place top 

priority on the efficient, accurate and timely processing of mineral 

revenues on behalf of Indian Tribes, allottees, States and the U.S. 

Treasury . Because RMP has ongoing strategic planning efforts to 

expand and improve the collection of mineral revenues, it was chosen 

to be included in several National Performance Review (NPR) activities 

such as the royalty reinvention laboratory to simplify and streamline 

the royalty collection process. 

The MMS is committed to the safe and environmentally-sound 

development of our Nation's offshore mineral resources ultimately 

resulting in an enhanced quality of life for all Americans and fair 

compensation for the use of those resources . In this process, the OCS 

contributes significantly to the use of natural gas as the 

environmentally and economically preferred fuel. Natural gas from the 

Federal OCS represents approximately 27 percent of U.S. production, 

and natural gas production in FY 1 995 will provide almost 33 percent 

2 
25 

of total MMS revenue receipts for all mineral production onshore and 

offshore . 

The MMS Offshore program is also involved in NPR reinvention efforts. 

The Secretary's Performance Agreement with the President designates 

MMS as a pilot for opinion research initiatives. The Public Information 

Function in the Gulf of Mexico Region, Offshore Minerals Management, 

has been selected to carry out the pilot to define who their customers 

are and to develop service standards that are equal to the best in the 

business. 

Highlights of FY 1995 Budget 

For FY 1995, the Minerals Management Service is requesting $201 .2 

million for its operations, an increase of $2. 7 million over FY 1994. 

This request is contained in two appropriations, the Royalty and 

Offshore Minerals Management appropriation and the Oil Spill Research 

appropriation. In addition, the Minerals Management Service will 

administer three permanent appropriations providing States' their 

statutory shares of mineral leasing revenues generated on Federal 

lands. These permanent accounts total $519.6 million . 

Through appropriation language, the MMS is seeking increased 

authority of $2.4 million (for a total of $7.4 million) to be credited to 

the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management account from additions 

to current preset receipts and additional fee collections relating to OCS 

3 
26 

administrative activities performed by the MMS. To date, the only 

category of preset receipts which have been raised are OCS rental 

rates which have been increased from $3 /acre/ year to $5 / acre/ 

year. These receipts will support the Technical Information 

Management System (TIMS) effort. This effort will provide the MMS 

offshore program with the necessary \automated tools to better carry 

out its mission in an environmentally sound manner and insuring proper 

monetary return to the U.S. Government for leased resources. 

Major Initiatives 

4 

The net increase of $2.7 million included in our operating accounts is 

built on four basic initiatives for FY 1995. These initiatives are listed in 

detail below. 

Enhanced Revenue Collections 

Several efforts to improve Royalty Management Program revenue 

collections are expected to provide very positive returns. An increase 

of $3.4 million and 29 FTE is requested for the auditing of contract 

settlements. This effort is estimated to generate $252 million in 

additional revenues from 1 994 through 1 999, including an estimated 

$82 million in FY 1995. 

A proposed increase of $2 million and 25 FTE will provide start-up 

costs to collect information, create a data base, and enhance the 
27 

current accounting systems to account for production and royalty 

payments collected from hardrock mining conducted on Federal lands. 

This increase request is based on our current analysis of the pending 

House bill (HR 322) proposing to amend the General Mining Law of 

1872 with the assumption that royalties will be due on 1,300 

producing mines (300 high producing mines with 75 claims each and 

1,000 low producing mines with 5 claims each). 

Finally, an increase of $0. 7 million and 11 FTE will provide increased 

revenue enhancements in the Royalty Management Program. These 

enhancements are projected to provide add-i-tional revenues of $5.5 

million per year primarily through expanded processing of exceptions 

identified by the automated royalty programs. 

Environmental Studies Program 

The proposed funding will provide an additional $3.3 million to support 

quality science in MMS operations. This increase will be applied to the 

Environmental Studies program element to allow full funding of Coastal 

Marine Institutes and University initiatives with various States, 

including Alaska, California, and Louisiana; the continuation of ongoing 

research; and the initiation of critical studies in the Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico and other areas. This increase will restore funds reduced in the 

FY 1 994 Appropriations process. This restoration will allow the MMS 

to realign and leverage funding with State institutions, to the maximum 

5 
28 

extent possible, to ensure that decisions are rooted in a strong 

scientific framework that is defendable, logical, and credible. 

Downsize Offshore Program 

The proposed decrease of $4.6 million and 59 FTE in various programs 

reflects the continued downsizing of the Offshore Program consistent 

with the smaller and more focused 5-Year Comprehensive Program for 

1 992-1997, redirection of funding to the Environmental Studies 

Program, implementation of National Performance Review 

recommendations, and significant reductions in the Headquarters and 

Alaska offices. 

Oil Spill Research 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 has expanded various OCS program 

activities into State coastal waters. The 1995 request for this 

appropriation includes an increase of $1 .2 million and 16 FTE. This 

increase will provide for inspections and oil spill plan reviews for 

operations in State coastal waters, as well as increased review of 

financial records to ensure that operators in State and Federal offshore 

waters meet new financial responsibility requirements. 

Administrative Streamlining and Cost Reductions 

A net decrease of $3.3 million and 82 FTE in the various programs is 

related to increased rental costs, pay increases offset by decreases for 

streamlining initiatives and FTE reductions called for in Executive 

Orders. 
29 

Statement for the Record 

regarding the FY 1995 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Budget Request 

before the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

February 23 , 1994 

It is important to outline the specifics of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement's (OSM) Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 budget request and highlight a few issues that 

deserve some attention. 

Interim Management Team 

On November 15, 1993, Secretary Babbitt introduced a team intended to manage and 

evaluate the agency during the interim before OSM's new director is confirmed. The 

Secretary gave his mandate and blessing to the Interim Management Team (Team) to 

implement any changes which may need to take place in OSM. The Team has conducted a 

bottom-up review of the agency. The initial survey of field offices, support centers, and 

headquarters is complete and has given fresh insight into what changes need to be enacted to 

make OSM run more effectively. Interviews with State officials, coal industry 

representatives, interested citizens, and environmental groups have also yielded insights and 

helpful suggestions. Many of the comments mirror the findings in the House Appropriations 

Committee investigative report on OSM practices. The management team's 

recommendations will include changes which, along with those already being implemented, 

correct the policy and management problems that have been identified in OSM. With the 

confirmation of a new Director expected in the near future, full implementation will proceed 

expeditiously. However. the primary concern is to ensure a smooth and seamless transition 

to the new Directorship. 

Any recommendations that are made to the new OSM Director will follow the guidance set 

out by the Vice President in the National Performance Review (NPR). The NPR calls for 

the elimina tion of regulatory overlcill in government and places a special emphasis on 

empowerment of government workers at the lowest level, expedited and streamlined reviews, 

and negotiated rulemaking. 

81-896 - 94 - 3 
]() 

OS [,,1 has e:idured a great amoun t of criucism and numerous pendulum swings of poise, 

pt~irnl arly over the last twelve years. To sa) that OSM does not have problems tha t •11,1s: 

te addressed would be misleading. On the other hand, OSM has done some thi ngs wcr . 

'P ,rce of these success stories are the Applicant/Violator System , the finan ce and Acco1•11t i: 

fl irc:ctor.i.te , and the Technical Information Processing System . 

(h,e uf the goals of Surface Mining Control and Reclarnat:on Act 1,t 1977 (SMCRA.i i,, , ,_ , 

c•·,s~ r,: that all operators play by the same hasic •·ulc s. S\lCRA 's provisions barrin0 pc:,1,,t 

aP1)'. 1c:ants with outstanding violations from gc:u ng new ;.>c'm•ts is rrobabl y the most pr;,, t,c.,: 

;,1,d ,me of the strongest enforcement mechanisms of an y environmental law. A couri on.kr 

r :sulre'1 in the development of the Applicant/\'iolator System (A VS) in I 987 and the c r<'<: lic>n 

c1: tile Applicant/Violator System Office (AVS O) rn 1990. OSlvt now has a system in ;Ji.ic•: 

tc en,ure permits are not improvidently issued ,me' •he A\·, has bec0me one oi the 111;,_j, ,:-

,.xc,, .plishmcnts of OSM. 

OSI, ! ;, continually trying to improve the system . The A \IS software has been redesigr,ui 

and c'!!hanced to provide less costly, more accurate results in a fraction of the time once 

t>;·.c11.:red. The AVSO has also improvcxl relationships with the State regulatory autront:cs. 

hv providing technical assistance to all state users and appointing contacts to each state :,: 

-,, ,irk directly with state staff and local mine oxrators. A committee comprised mainly ,,f 

1·.1te ~sers enables AVSO to solicit technical input from the state staffs and build improved 

n:l ationships with them. By increasing cooperation. with states and sharing data with oth.,r 

(;S I\! oifices, the A VSO has increased revenue by identifying with greater acc uracy opc r1iors 

;,.!10 iail to pay AML fees. The improvements made rn the AVSO in recent years have 

r~,u lted in a more effective implementation of SMCRA and improved the overall compil«•a•f 

1,, t~e coal mining industry. 

i..illiJ1:ce and Accounting 

,'.:.ut!i cr success story at OSM is in the finance aui \,c,,unung area. In I 985 , OSM ' ; 

~::u.,,_ ,nting was in a state of disarray. Under ihc direuion of Secretary Watt in the f:rst 1n1s 

(,f :he: Reagan Administration, the OSM was s .1bJecte'1 to intensive deregulation. The 

,;u:11bc r of field offices was reduce;:! from 42 hJ 22 and the duties of the agency were gre1t', 

ri: ;ir:( >citized. The collection of civil penalties fell by the wayside. Thirty thousand Not h:(' , 

c,f \iolation (NOVs) issued between 1979-198 \ went unprocessed. All these NOVs haw 

s n,:e been processed and presently onlv I ) I 'l out ,tandi n; accounts receivable are on 1hc 

'ic•, ,k, . Eleven million dollars was col lected . S;:ic,· 1h;:c :rnK OS~1·s finance and accoJr 

,::.'tern has come a long way. In fact. in 1992. th,_: DS;Vl ,_,..a_..., thl? only agency in DOT i\.-;t;i~d 

C1 'c ;c-~n opinion, " by the Inspector Gtnerai. -~·h !s 1\ !ht·- h;ghest mark JX>SSib!c in accuT:· r;_: 

i:e•,i. cgc:ncies in all of government ever attain J,:s :ltanJar:' . 
31 

Technical lnfounation Processing System 

Another computer system which has inc reased cooperation between the State Regulatory 

Authorities and OSM is the Technical Information Processing System ( rIPS). TIPS is used 

by both OSM and the states to carry out technical regulatory responsibilities under SMCRA. 

It can assist with conducting reviews of permits, performing cumul ative hydrologic impact 

assessments, quantifying potential effects of coal mining, quantifyi ng rcvegetation success, 

designing abandoned mine land reclamation projects, and preparing environmental 

assessments and environmental impact statements. 

These th ree progrnms are ones OSM is justifiably proud of. But perhaps the proudest 

accomplishments are in the number of lives and homes saved , the number of emergencies 

prevented, the amount of land reclaimed to its natural state. Th is is what OSM is really 

abou t and the people at USM consider these sometimes hard-to-measure statistics as the most 

important justification for 0ur continued eff,,rts. 

S1ate,Federal Rel a tions 

Secretary Babbitt has charged OSM with improving relation ships with the States. An 

antagonistic relationship between the States and OSM results in lost lime fighti ng with each 

other instead of doing the job of enforcing the law . It certainly is no secret that there is 

rcx,m fo r improvement hne. and this is a top priority. However, it must he recognized that 

the scheme of state primacy wi th federal oversight provided for in the Surface Mining 

Control and RcclamJtion /\. ct of 1977 (SMCRA) is always goi ng to produce a certa in amount 

of tension . A state i.\ always goi ng to want to rc..td ''primacy" a~ ''cx(:lusivlty. whik at the 

fcdcrai level, "oversight" will never be interpreted to mean "overlook. ·· 

OS/\1 is ready to sit down with all the intere sted parties in order to explore va1ious routes to 

finding some com mon ground. Citizens arc not satisfied with the response of the sta tes to 

their complaints. and have inc reasingly come to OSM to resolve the ir concerns, demonstrated 

1hroug l• increased numh,.:rs of Ten Day Notices (T ON ) and 1nfonna l appca.ls based on citi ze n 

con:pl;iim:;. H·, tin,e to c:xpio rc what' s blocking channel\ cf communication betwe«;!n the 

states and citi?cns. tf th~ citizens had more con fidence 1n th<.· :;1..1 tes· v, .. illin;:ness to treat 

them fairl y·. OSM -.1,,ouid recei ve fey1.'er request s from them t0 l1:1 cr\cnc- in cnforceme.n t, 

:>~r;~! :tt ini~- and orher l,snc;_ 

0 ~!'-. 1·:~ -=- ~!<• ' i ~ ... ru t''.\tatd 1s1 . i:ons1stcnt r;:gula:ory po!icy a• t k ~:1.L1....-d~~.; ~,;.:;·.., , ,~hi-::.!°i -.,;,,jlj he 

implcnicm.cci ir :h;" f!.cld \.Vin ie OSM is prepared to agt!rC"i'\i vc-l~ q~c ilS sta tu tory tools Qf 

tnf0r1.:eml:! nt, ever: cFfnn u,:Jll he rn1de to use these 1.001s mtirt: ( 1.)•i-;1:-.i e 11tly 5,c, that the states 

:F1d indu ~'t')' w1.,r:·t hti\•(; 11.' deal wi\fl. ;;~ con stantly chctngin g Tt-i_: 1.ilarnr:~ cnvlrunmcnt. ()S M 

,.,;!/! purs:.!12 a l'r,:;,--. ·;:)1.1· i.'..'. ,y:·• st:on ;: , fa: r cn ft~rcement ti,: i. -,~ :\:·:.c:. r\·:~siv,: nutreach to the 

··_.: ('.~: ;1.'tanic ,_,_:1 r;-: i ni s1 r:1; 1t1n 
32 

Specific highlights of the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Request follow: 

Fiscal Year l995 Budget Request 

OSM's FY 1995 budget request is $278.4 million, which represents a decrease of $23.5 

million from the 1994 enacted level. This decrease is primarily the result of a $10.0 million 

reduction funding for state reclamation program grants and elimination of funding for the 

$13.2 million Rural Abandoned Mine Program. The budget is fiscally sound and meets the 

spending constraints and deficit reduction goals set forth by the White House. 

OSM's FY 1995 budget focuses on meeting the President's goals for reinventing 

government and streamlining the federal government en~uring that the agency will have a 

solid budgetary foundation for the challenges it will face in the 1990's. 

Regulation and Technology 

The FY 1995 request for the Regulation and Technology appropriation is $111.4 million, a 

decrease of $348 thousand from the FY 1994 enacted level. Also included in this request is 

$1.2 million in indefinite appropriations for post-Act reclamation. 

In FY 1995, OSM is requesting $51.6 million for state regulatory program grants. This is 

no change from the level of funding for State regulatory grants in FY 1994. These grants 

fund up to 50% of the States' cost of administering their regulatory programs, including 

participation in the Applicant/Violator System (A VS). 

Funding of Regulatory Program Operations is proposed at $23.1 million, an increase of $1.3 

million over FY 1994. The increase is composed of uncontrollable cost changes and a 

request for $1.5 million in funding so that OSM can invest in restructuring the agency. The 

funds would be used to address concerns raised by the National Performance Review and the 

House Appropriations Committee investigative report. OSM views this as an increase that 

will yield savings in the outyears by increasing operating efficiencies and by reducing 

staffing and associated costs. 

The request for Technical Services, Training and Research is $14.4 million, an increase of 

$515,000. This reflects various uncontrollable cost changes, a reduction of $100,000 for 

research,and an increase of $753,000 for the restructuring initiative. 

The Assessments and Collections subactivity request is $7. 8 million for FY 1995. This is a 

decrease of $1.5 million. Most of the reduction is due to administrative streamlining savings 

related to reduced computer expenses and a one time increase for the Applicant/Violator 

System in FY '94. 
33 

Dual Appropriation 

General Administration is divided into three subactivities: Executive Direction, 

Administrative Support, and General Services. The total request for these three areas is $19 

million, a decrease of $1 million divided between the Regulation and Technology and 

Abandoned Mine Lands appropriations. The majority of the decrease is due to reductions in 

uncontrollable and related costs such as rental payments and centralized charges for OSM's 

operations, and for OSM's share of the savings resulting from a streamlining of the 

Department's personnel operations. 

Abandoned Mine Land Fund 

$166.9 million is requested for Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation . This is a decrease of 

$23.1 millior, from FY 1994. Most of the decrease, $13 .2 million, reflects the elimination 

of the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP). The rest of the decrease, $10 million, is 

for State Reclamation Program Grants. 

The request includes $125 million for State Reclamation grants. This is a $10 million 

decrease from FY 1994. States continue to carry over, from year to year, large amounts of 

funds deobligated from prior grants and funds awarded but not yet used. In FY 1993, $67 

million was carried into FY 1994. Both the carryover and recovered funds, when combined 

with the requested new funding , will allow States to address their reclamation needs. 

The proposed funding of the Fee Compliance subactivity at $6.5 million will allow OSM to 

continue its program of auditing coal companies to ensure prompt and accurate payment of 

AML fees. A slight decrease of $36,000 reflects uncontrollable cost changes for such things 

as fewer paid work days in FY 1995. 

The request for Federal Reclamation Program Operations is $27. 1 million , an increase of 

$533,000 over FY 1994. This increase reflects uncontrollable cost changes and funding of 

$792,000 for the OSM restructuring initiative and a decrease of $250,000 for high priority 

projects. 

As in previous years, the Administration is proposing phasing out the Rural Abandoned Mine 

Program (RAMP) administered by the Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation 

Service. This year, the Administration is requesting zero funding for RAMP. The 

Administration believes that this program's duplicative delivery system must be eliminated in 

an effort to streamline the federal government. 
34 

Funding of the Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP) at the requested $1.8 million 

level reflects no change from FY 1994. The request, combined with an anticipated $1.6 

million in carryover funds, will allow for continued assistance to small operators in meeting 

data requirements for new mining permits. 

This concludes the discussion of the Office of Surface Mining's Fiscal Year 1995 budget. 

This budget provides an appropriate funding level to accomplish the goals set forth in the 

Surface M:;;ing Act. 
3i:: ;) 

STATEMENT OF DEBRA S. KNOPMA.,'\/ 

Mr. L EHMAN. And you may begin. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. 

I am very pleased to have the opportunity here to present an 

overview of the fiscal year 1995 budget for the Bureau of Mines 

and the Geological Survey. Accompanying me here today are Bob 

Hirsch, the Acting Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. and Dr. 

Hermann Enzer, Acting Director of the Bureau of Mines, in addition to our budget people from both bureaus. 

I wanted to bring these two individuals to the attention of the 

subcommittee because they have done an extraordinary job over 

this last year, parts of last year and this year, to fill very tall orders of running these bureaus while we are waiting for political appointees to assume their place. 

I will add that Dr. Gordon Eaton, the nominee for t he Director 

of the Geological Survey, cleared the Senate Energy Committee 

this morning and so presumably his nomination will be brought to 

the Senate Floor sometime next week. 

A.s you know, both of these bureaus, in addition to the National 

Biological Survey, constitute the core scientific research activity in 

DOI. They represent a very important pa rt of this Department's 

plans now for ca rrying on our land management responsibilities 

with a sound scientific basis. 

Let me just give you a few highlights. In this past year, the Geological Survey has played a prominent role in the response to the 

Mississippi River floods, documenting the extraordinary stream 

flows, responding rapidly with maps and other information that 

have been vital to the States affected in the region. 

We are proud of the work that the Survey has done and is continuing to do in that area. This year, 1994, the Geological Survey 

began work in 20 new study areas for the National Water (~uality 

Assessment program, which affects 36 States. 

This is the second phase of the NAWQA program, as we call it. 

In 1995, work will continue in 15 of these a reas. Complete execution of NAWQA will provide the first nat ional in-depth analysis of 

water quality conditions and t rends to hei p us manage and protect 

our water resources better. 

We have also inciuded in the USGS 1995 budget an increase of 

$1 million for cooperative work with the Bureau of Reclamation on 

the development of computer-based water management models. 

We think this is important to the Burea u of Reclamation , which 

goes through another subcommittee, but the work between the two 

bureaus is important, we think, in getting the Bureau into the direction of water management. The USGS also responded to the information needs related to the Northridge earthquake near Los An -

geles, and studi es, investigations, are continuing to identify the 

faults responsible for the main shock and aftershocks. 

The close communications with other Federal agencies, the 

States and other research institutes and other organizations are 

continuing. An important component of this 1995 budget is a new 

item which we ca ll "critical ecosystems research and assessments." 

And this includes a budget request level of $11.8 million. 
36 

This will support a multidisciplinary scientific response to the 

Nation's resource management problems such as research in south 

Florida, the San Francisco Bay and Delta areas, and the Columbia 

and Klamath/Trinity River basins in the Pacific Northwest. We 

think this is an exciting idea where the scientists of the three primary operating divisions of the Geological Survey will be working 

in concert with others in Interior to address these major resource 

problem areas. 

As part of our new initiatives in 1995, USGS is taking the lead 

for the Federal Government in developing the framework for the 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, known as NSDI, under the 

aegis of the Federal Geographic Data Committee. To underscore 

the importance the Department places on this activity, Secretary 

Babbitt has chosen to chair the Federal Geographic Data Committee and it has made a very big difference in the attention and cooperation we are getting from other Federal agencies to improve 

access to and use of accurate and current spatial data for a wide 

variety of environmental, economic and social purposes. 

The 1995 budget will also include a new assessment of our Nation's undiscovered oil and gas resources. This will be completed in 

1995. Plans are being made to expand our coal environmental activities to improve understanding of the regional geologic factors 

that affect acid drainage due to coal mining. 

In 1994, USGS will be completing national plans for the energy 

resource surveys and marine and coastal geologic programs as requested by Congress. Several programs have been refocused on increased environmental studies of resource and hazardous materials. 

To accomplish these investments, USGS had to make some hard 

choices among several budget items. Working effectively within a 

flat budget to fund new initiatives meant giving up some other 

things. It was necessary to eliminate support of the Water Resources Research Institutes due to these budget constraints. 

This program had provided annual support of $5.8 million at 54 

land grant universities. The Institutes have been very successful in 

developing other sources of governmental and private funding, 

however. 

Although this is certainly not a complete listing, this does represent some of the most significant initiatives of the USGS 1995 

budget and those which I believe the subcommittee may have an 

interest in. 

Let me now turn to the Bureau of Mines. In the past year, the 

Bureau of Mines has made a major effort to respond to the directions outlined in the Vice President's National Performance Review, by nearing completion of an internal program review. This 

was a thorough review of programs, facilities, organization, operational policies and procedures, to determine directions and opportunities for the future. 

The review has been sent out for comment to all employees, congressional committees and delegations, industry, labor and environmental groups. Many comments were received. 

The Bureau of Mines is in the process of revising the original 

document and the Department will soon thereafter conduct its final 

review. We hope to complete this process within the next several 
37 

weeks. Based on this program review, the Bureau proposes to 

strengthen its core capabilities by restructuring its ongoing activities into three program areas: environment, health and safety, and 

mineral information. The Administration strongly supports the Bureau of Mines' 

reinvention effort. We want it to succeed to prepare the Bureau for 

the next century. I am going to repeat that statement, because I 

don't say it lightly. We want this effort to succeed. We are trying to bring about constructive change. The consequences of not doing so are a continuing 

degradation of programs across the board, cuts that hurt the strong 

programs as well as the weaker programs, and a continuing decline 

in employee morale as they watch their institution remain static as 

the world around them changes. 

Even if the budget were higher for the Bureau of Mines, we 

would still be here proposing essentially the same change in direction. I think that is an important point. The increased emphasis in 

the Bureau of Mines budget in 1995 on the development of environmental technology reflects the high priority the Administration has 

placed on cleaning up past mining sites. 

The traditional strengths of the Bureau are in extraction and 

separation technologies for very large but very dilute systems. 

Building on these strengths, the Bureau is now developing the 

basis for technology to extract metal contaminants from mining 

waste and other hazardous waste sites. 

We think the Bureau of Mines has an important role to play in 

achieving the Administration's objectives in these areas. At the 

same time, we think the Bureau needs to move toward a partnership arrangement with the industry through cost-sharing and other 

creative means to continue to address industry's highest research 

priorities. 

In conformance with the National Performance Review goals and 

anticipated budget reductions, the draft program review recommends the creation of Centers of Excellence, each specializing in 

solving a specific set of problems in defined areas of expertise. 

I would be happy to answer further questions on that, but at this 

time, the Bureau is recommending and the Department will be reviewing the formation of four Centers of Excellence. And there 

would be satellites that we are identifying, satellite centers that 

would feed into these Centers of Excellence. 

The criteria for the proposed locations for the Centers of Excellence were the quality of the physical structure, the geography, 

transportation routes and technical capabilities currently at the location. We envision at this time that the transition to Centers of 

Excellence would take about five years. 

We think this is important for a number of reasons: Fewer centers will result in greater economies of scale, with less overhead 

and more funds to do our work. As many of you may know, we 

have 14 different facilities in the Bureau of Mines. 

Resources are spread rather thinly among them. We simply can't 

continue to support that kind of infrastructure on the program dollars that we have. We also believe that the Centers of Excellence 

would encourage a multidisciplinary approach more than is cur-
rently going on. We also believe the customers will be better 

served. 

A.s a first step in this direction, the Bureau proposes to close the 

Alaska Field Operation Centers in both Anchorage and Juneau, 

Alaska, and Research Centers located in Rolla, Missouri, and Tus- caloosa, Alabama, at the beginning of fiscal year 1995. ln addition, Denver operations including the Intermountain Field 

Operations Center, the Minerals Availability Field Office, and the 

Denver Research Center will be consolidated . At least one management layer will be eliminated in the field and in headquarters. 

We believe there is substantial trimming that the Bureau of 

Mines could stand in administrative services throughout the organization as well. Internal and external review committees will be 

established. 

The Bureau will strengthen its research efforts through increased partnerships and contracting and better integrating the 

Minerals Institute's program with the Bureau of Mines research 

program. We will also be implementing the National Performance 

Review recommendations for helium. There are some things we can 

do now, but we will be awaiting congressional action on the debt 

i.$SU e. 

[ think I will conclude my comments at this time. I would be 

happy to t ake any further questions. I Prepared statement of Ms. Knop man follows:] 
39 

Statement of 

Debra S. Knopman 

Deputy Assistant Secretary -- Water and Science 

House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources 

February 23. 1994 

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman : 

My name is Debra Knopman. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water 

and Science. I am pleased to be here today to present to the Subcommittee an 

overview of the FY 1995 budget requests for the US Geological Survey (U SGS) and 

the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM). 

U.S Geological Survey 

FY 1993 was a productive year !or USGS and FY 1994 will be equally 

challenging. USGS is concentrating its eHorts on activities and programs that will 

enhance the safety and well-being of all Americans With regard to water resources, 

we are completing the work that we star1eo ,n the summer of 1993 documenting the 

hydrological aspects of the Mississ1pp1 River floods. USGS has documented recorded 

all-time high streamf!ows at 42 USGS stream gaging stations on 33 streams in 7 midwestern States. High concentrations of the herbicide atrazine were observed during 

these peak flows at many locations. In FY 1994_ USGS began work in 20 new study 

areas impacting 36 States for the second phase of the NAWOA program. In FY 1995, 

work will continue in 15 of these areas Complete execution of NAWQA will provide 

the first national, in-depth analysis of water quality conditions and trends to help us 

manage and protect our water resources oener Also included in the budget is an 

increase of $1 miiiion for cooperat,ve work w,th the Bureau of Reclamation on the 

development of computer based water rranagement models. This increase will 

support the development, testing and ,mp1ementat1on of models and fully integrated 

data management systems that w ,11 he1p wa:er managers. policy oHicials , and users to 

achieve improved water managemer''. 

USGS responded to informat.on 0eeos related to the magnitude 6.8 Northridge 

Earthquake near Los Angeles . USGS ,s cont,nu1ng post-earthquake investigations to 

identify the faults responsible for the ma,n shock and aftershocks. Close 

communication with FEMA, the State of Ca1,torn,a. the Southern California Earthquake 

Center, the Earthquake Engineering Research lnst;tute and other organizations is 

occurring to coordinate mitigation a'lcJ rr,cn,1onng activities 
40 

The FY 1995 budget request for USGS totals $583.7 million, a $1 million 

decrease from the enacted FY 1994 level. Within the total, USGS has significantly 

redirected resources in program areas to provide the funding for the Survey·s 

scientists to address projects that are most critical in importance to the Department 

and to the Nation. To this end, USGS has redirected budgetary resources in FY 1995 

to establish a new budget activity entitled Critical Ecosystems Research and 

Assessments. This program includes a budget request level of $11.8 million for FY 

1995 and will support a multidisciplinary, scientific response to the nation's resource 

management problems, such as research in South Florida, the San Francisco Bay and 

Delta areas, and the Columbia and Klamath/ Trinity River basins in the Pacific 

Northwest. Projects will build on available knowledge of these ecosystems and will 

permit the Survey to focus much needed expertise toward a timely response to the 

natural resource and environmental problems that occur in these areas of concern to 

the Department of the Interior and the Nation. 

As part of our new initiatives in FY 1995, USGS is taking the lead in developing 

the framework for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), under the aegis of 

the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The NSDI is a cross agency coordination 

effort to improve access to, and use of, accurate and current spatial data for a wide 

variety of environmental, economic and social purposes. The NSDI will foster 

cooperative agreements among Federal , state, and local agencies, and industry, to 

produce data and technologies for finding, sharing, and using geospatial data. The 

USGS budget in FY95 contains a S6 million increase for NSDI. 

In FY 1995, a new assessment of our Nation's undiscovered oil and gas 

resources will be completed. Plans are being made to expand our coal environmental 

activities to improve our understanding of the regional geologic factors that affect acid 

drainage due to coal mining. In FY 1994, USGS will complete national plans for the 

Energy Resource Surveys and Marine and Coastal Geologic programs as requested 

'Jy Congress. Several programs have been refocused on increased environmental 

studies of resource and hazardous matenals. 

To accomplish these investments, USGS had to make hard choices among 

several budget items. It was necessary to eliminate support of the Water Resources 

Research Institutes due to budget constraints. This program had provided annual 

support of S5.8 million at the 54 land grant universities. The Institutes have been very 

successful in developing other sources of governmental and private funding , however. 

Although certainly not a complete listing, these represent some of the most 

significant initiatives of the USGS FY95 budget and those in which I believe the 

subcommittee may have an interest. 

2 
41 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

In the past year, USBM has made a major effort to respond to the directions 

outlined in the Vice President's National Performance Review (NPR) by nearing 

completion of an internal Program Review, which included a review of its programs, 

facilities, organization, and operational policies and procedures to determine directions 

and opportunities for the future. The review was sent out for comment to all 

employees, Congressional committees and delegations, industry, labor and 

environmental groups. Many comments were received. The Bureau of Mines and the 

Department are in the process of revising the original document. We hope to 

complete this process within the next several weeks. 

Based on this program review, the Bureau proposes to strengthen its core 

capabilities by restructuring its ongoing activities into three program areas: 

Environment: develop waste remediation technologies, demonstrate them on 

public lands, and develop clean technologies for pollution prevention and 

control. 

Health and Safety: focus on accident prevention, ri sk reductions, and develop 

technologies that result in safer mining systems. 

Mineral Information: concentrate on major minerals, countries and issues. 

The Administration strongly supports the USBM reinvention effort. We want it to 

succeed to prepare USBM for the next century. The increased emphasis on the 

development of environmental technology reflects the high priority the Administration 

has placed on cleaning up past mining sites. The traditional strengths of the USBM 

are in extraction and separation technologies for very large but very dilute systems. 

Building on these strengths, the Bureau is now developing the basis for technology to 

extract metal contaminants from mining waste and other hazardous waste sites, 

thereby allowing permanent cleanup of the sites. Thus, USBM can play an important 

role in achieving the Administration's objectives in these areas. At the same time, the 

USBM, in partnership and through cost-sharing with industry, can also continue to 

address industry's highest research priorities. 

In conformance with the NPR goals and anticipated budget reductions, the draft 

program review recommends the creation of Centers of Excellence, each specializing 

in solving a specific set of problems in defined areas of expertise. The draft program 

review originally proposed five Centers of Excellence. However, we have concluded 

that the information programs, unlike research, need not be concentrated in a single 

location. Consequently, we are recommending that four Centers of Excellence be 

created and complementary data collection and analytic services be provided at 

headquarters and in the field. 

3 
42 

The proposed locations for the Centers of Excellence were chosen based on 

rne quality of the physical structure current y at these locations, geography, 

transportation routes, and the technical capabilities currently at the location. Those 

research locations not designated as a future Center of Excellence would become 

sateli1tes to one of the Centers. 

The transition to centers of Excellence is envisioned to take about five year·; 

C:•eation of the Centers and consol,dation of the satellites are needed for a nurnber 

reasons Fewer centers will result in greater economies of scale, with less overhead 

ar-,d more funds to do our work. Complex environmental problems require multipie 

d,sc,p!ines to solve them. If economists. botanists, geologists, biotechnologists, 

hydrologists, mining engineers and perhaps even lawyers are in a Center of 

Excellence, it will be much easier to form teams to solve problems in that mission 

area. The possibility of duplication between centers is reduced since each has a 

u,,,que mission. Our customers would be better served since they can get al' 

,,-,orrnation on solving a problem from one Center of Excellence 

As proIects are finished in a satellite new work would be started in the 

(Jesignated Center of Excellence. In some cases, a block of projects may be 

transferred as a unit to the Center of Excel ence, Within budget constraints. ind1virJua1s 

at satellites may be transferred to their Center of Excellence on a competitive basis t, 

s,rrnlar method would be used for work now located in an unrelated Center of 

Excellence. The projects would either be phased out or transferred to the appropI·,ate 

Center of Excellence. Out-placement service for USBM employees who do not ,, ,:,h t,:J 

rnove would be provided. New project starts would occur only at a Center of 

E Y,cel!ence. 

As tr,e first step in this direction. the Bu0eau proposes to close the AlaskEI Fieid 

Uoerations Center (Anchorage and Juneau. Alaska) and Research Centers !oca,ed ii~, 

hJi!a Missouri and Tuscaloosa, Alabama at the beginning ot FY 1995. In addition 

Denver operations, including the lntermountain Field Operations Center, the Minerals 

A\ailability Field Office and the Denver Research Center will be consolidated. At least 

one management layer will be eliminated ir the field and in headquarters. lnter,.,a1 and 

e,:ternal review committees will be established. USBM will strengthen its resea,c:; 

eHo,,s through increased partnerships and contracting, better integrating the M':·ers 1'c 

,,,,3t:tutes program within the USBM research program. and implementing m,n, 

r,, 1,t ·Jnal Performance Review recornrnendctions for helium 

The President's Budget requests $150.7 million for the Bureau of Mines a 

dec~rease of $19.7 million from the FY 1994 appropriation. The request ior inforrr,cti:Jr1 

2,~,d analysis activities totals $30.1 million w1d reflects various reductions and 

rej;r-ections The commodities and international mineral programs will focus rncre on 

rnapr commodities and producer countries to increase program efficiency. Mineral 

assessments used in routine planning by land management agencies wii' tis 
43 

discontinued although funds remain to respond to special analytical requirements. 

Work will continue to be performed on a reimbursable basis. The request for the 

research program totals $96.4 million. The budget requests a $3.8 million increase for 

environmental research which will enhance the Mines' hazardous waste treatment 

technology program. 

The request for the health, safety and mining technology program is a $5.9 

million decrease below the FY 1994 appropriation. This decrease is based in part on 

recommendations from the program review to concentrate on the highest priority, 

long-term solutions rather than scattering funds over a number of problems with a 

multitude of small projects. Consistent with the Administration's proposal of earlier this 

year, $6.5 million is requested for the Mineral Institute program with a view to phasing 

out the program in FY 1998. 

This completes my testimony . Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present 

the FY 1995 budget request to the committee today. I would now be pleased to 

answer your questions. 

5 
44 

U.S. Bureau of Mines FY 1995 Budget 

Statement for the Record 

Before the House Natural Resources subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources 

The President's 

$149,488,000, a Appropriation. 

February 23, 1994 

request 

decrease 

for 

of 

the 

$19.9 

U.S. Bureau 

million from 

FY 1995 U.S. Bureau of Mines Directions 

of Min es 

the FY 

is 

1994 

The Bureau has responded to the directions outlined in the Vice 

President's National Performance Review and is completing its own 

interna l Program Review which is i ntended to max im ize its r elevance 

to Administration and Dep artmental prioritie s; develop programs to 

solve national problems; improve programs by project redirection, 

c ost sharing, or cancellation; and formalize internal and external 

peer rev iews. Th e Bure au proposes to strengthen its core capa -

bilities by r estructuring its o ngoing activities into three 

program areas. The three areas are : 

Environment 

• Develop waste remediation technologies and demonstrate 

them on public lands 

• Develop clean t echnologi es for pollut i on preventi on and 

control 

Health and Safety 

• Focus on accident prevention and risk reduction 

• Develop technol ogies t hat result i n safer mi n ing systems 

Mineral Information 

• Concentrate on major minerals, countries and issues . 

Along with this program restructuring, the Bu reau will reduce its 

FY 1995 budget and staff, as r equested in its budget justifications. In acco rdance with the proposed Prog ram Review, over a 

multi-year transition p eriod, four Centers of Excel lence, al ong 

with minerals information activities, would ult i mately repla ce the 

Bureau's current field organization of three Field Opera t ions 

Centers, one Minerals Ava i labil ity Field Office, and nine Re sea r ch 

Centers. Each Center would hav e a ~ peci f ic expertise rel ated to 

the program areas referenced above . The minerals informat ion 

components would be consolidated into two locations. The areas o f 

expertise of the four Centers of Excel l ence fo r research would be 

as follows: 
45 

Environmental Remediation 

Pollution Prevention and Control 

Health and Safety 

Materials Research Partnerships 

2 

Centers of Excellence are intended to be preeminent authorities on 

particular minerals techniques, technology developments, and 

information that is useful to the Nation, DOI and other USBM 

customers. 

Centers of Excellence and consolidation are needed for a number of 

reasons. Fewer centers will result in greater economies of scale, 

with less overhead and more funds to do our work. Complex 

environmental problems require multiple disciplines to solve. If 

economists, botanists, geologists, biotechnologists, hydrologists, 

mining engineers and perhaps even lawyers are in a Center of 

Excellence, it will be much easier to form teams to solve the 

complex problems in a reasonable timeframe. Each center will have 

a unique mission and resources will be committed to solving 

problems in that mission area. The possibility of duplication 

between centers is reduced since each has a unique mission. Our 

customers will be better served since they can get all information 

on solving a problem from one Center of Excellence. 

As the first step in this direction, the Bureau proposes to close 

the Alaska Field Operations Center (Anchorage and Juneau, AK), and 

Research Centers located in Rolla, MO, and Tuscaloosa, AL at the 

beginning of FY 1995. In addition, Denver operations, including 

the Intermountain Field Operations Center, the Minerals Availability Field Office, and the Denver Research Center will be 

consolidated beginning in FY 1995. Concurrently, the Bureau will 

be eliminating at least one management layer each in the field and 

headquarters, establishing internal and external review committees, 

strengthening its research efforts through increased partnerships 

and contracting, integrating the Miner a 1 Institutes within USBM 

research, and implementing several of the National Performance 

Review recommendations for Helium. 

Once finalized by the Department, the Program Review will provide the vision tor the future direction of the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

including a multi-year transition period. The Bureau, which has 

the support of the Administration, will work with affected members 

of Congress and public customers to begin to build a consensus on 

the Bureau's mission. The Department and the Administration hope 

that in the future the U.S. Bureau of Mines can focus its attention on solving National environmental and waste problems, as well as 

those health and safety problems that still endanger the Nation's 

miners. 
46 

3 

PROGRAM REDIRECTIONS 

Redirections and reductions totalling $19. 9 million from the FY 

1994 enacted appropri ation will be achieved in the following areas: 

Information and Analysis 

The Information and Analysis program will be reduced by $10.5 

million and 150 FTE by r edu ci ng the Mineral Land Assessment, 

Minerals Availability, St ate Mineral Ac tivities, International 

Mineral Studies, Commodities a nd Materials, and Statistics and 

Information Services programs. 

The Mineral Land Assessment program provides information on the 

mineral potential of Federal l ands. Most of this work is done in 

support of routine land planning efforts by the Bureau of Land 

Management and the U.S. Forest Service . Some is done for other 

Federal agencies in response to specific policy issues, such as the 

d e termination of criti ca l habitat areas for endangered or 

threatened species, or for estimating the economi c potential of 

mineral resources on public lands. Mineral assessme nt work will be 

continued when the work addresses a major Departme ntal policy 

issue, or when it is mutual1y agreed to and fund ed by a reimbursement to USBM. Assessments used in routine planning by the land 

management agencies will be discontinued and funding will be 

reduced by $4.6 million. The Alaska Field Operations Center will 

be closed and the Intermou nt a in Field Operations Center will be 

consolidated with other facilities in Denve r. 

The Minerals Availability ac t iv ity consists of cost evaluations of 

the major domestic and foreign mi neral deposits. The data and 

information used in ma king these estimates as well as the results 

of the engineering a nd eco nomic evaluations are ma int a ined in a 

data base which is u sed in a va riety of policy studies. Changing 

domestic and world conditions required a reeva luation of these 

activities. A small e r and more clearly focus ed act ivity will be 

achieved by concentra ting on key commodities and by eliminating all 

work on coal reserves. Funds will be reduced by $1 . 8 million and 

the Minerals Availability Field Office will be cons olidated with 

related activities. 

State Minerals Ac tiv itie s are a component of the Land & Mineral 

Resources program. The Bureau has stationed personnel in several 

fi e ld locations to col l ect mineral data and in fo r ma tion from each 

of the 50 States. Th e USBM wi l l continue to collect a nd publish 

statistics on mi neral commodities produced in the States; howeve r, 

the State Mineral Officer positions will no longer be funded and 

the reporting of other non -statistical informa tion will be 

discontinued. Most of the information published in the state 

reports will still be ava il ab le from other sources . A savings of 

$1.4 million will result. 
47 

Mineral Env ironment a l Studi es wi l l be expa nd e d and f unding 

increased by $ 1 .0 mill i o n to co nd uct add i tio na l abando ne d mi ned 

lands inventory and s ite charac t e rization effo rts in suppor t o f the 

Bureau of Land Man agement , the National Park Serv ice , and the U.S. 

Forest Service. 

The Commodities and Materials progr am provide s da ta and an a lys es on 

material flows in the U.S. economy from extraction t o ultimate 

disposal or reuse. By focusing o n key commodities the number and 

frequenc y of basi c commodity reports and special s tudi es will be 

reduced. All advanced mater i a 1 analyses and reports w i 11 be 

eliminated. A s av ings of $1 .2 mi llion will be r e al ized. 

The International Mineral Stud ies program provides expertise on the 

mineral-producing and consuming countries of the world. Countr y 

specialists co l lect, eva luate , interpret, and report countryspecific minera l s and materials data worldwide and p r ovide adv isory 

services in their specialties to government and industry. In the 

future, the Bureau wil l concentrate its data collection and 

dissemination acti vi ti es on major mine ral producing and consuming 

countries, while reducing coverage of minor countries. Support for 

international trade policy ana l ysi s will continue, but funding for 

Internationa l Mine r als Availability studies will be eliminated , 

saving $0.9 mi llion. 

Statistics and Information Services support the Minera l commoditi es 

and International Minera ls programs. Fund i ng for the compu t e rrelated support activiti es, such a s maintenance of the l oc a l-area 

network will be conti nued; howeve r changes to other activities 

paralleling the r eductions i n Commodit ies a nd Interna tiona l 

Minerals will enabl e savings of $1 . 6 million . 

Research 

Redirecti o n and research redu c tions of $8. 8 mi l l ion and 142 FTE 

from the FY 1994 enacted appropriation are proposed . Some o f thes e 

reductions will b e realized by conso lidating the Denve r Re s e a rch 

Center with other facil ities. Minerals and Materials Sc ience 

reduc tions t o t al $5 . 0 million a nd 58 FTE; s ome will be r e a li zed by 

closing the Rolla and Tuscal o osa Resea r ch Centers. En v iro nme nta l 

Technology researc h will be i nc r eased by $ J.8 mi llion. Minera l 

Institute research grant fu nding will be reduced by $ 1 . 6 mi l l ion. 

Envi r onmental Technology rese a rch seeks t o mitigate or eliminate 

liquid and solid wast e problems a s sociated with minerals p r oduction . USBM also a ddress es haz a rdous waste trea tment t e chnology, 

which seeks to assist in the remediation of a re a s that h a ve been 

affected by mine r als-related activities. An examp l e would be the 

cleanup of soils contami nated by lead. The Burea u a l so addresses 

environment a l problems assoc i ated with aband oned coa l mines. These 

efforts support the programs c a rri e d out by Prima cy states and the 

Offi c e of Surface Mining. Th e Bureau will expa nd i ts progr ams with 
48 

an increa sed empha sis on waste r ened iat ion . 

demonstrated at specifi c s ites se l ected 

agencies. 

s 

Tec h no l ogies will be 

with l a nd ma nagemen t 

Increased emphasis on remediation technology resea rch by the USBM 

has l ed the Department o f the In t e r i o r and many othe r Government 

Agencies to recognize the USBM c a pa b i l i t i es and e xpertise in this 

area. The Environmental Protec t i on Ag ency, the Na tional Park 

Service, the Bureau of Indian Af fairs , the U. S. fore s t Serv ice, the 

Department of Energy and the Depa rtments of Navy and Army have 

established agreements to utilize the Bureau ' s expert techn i cal 

resources . Increased funding in Ha z a rdous Waste Treatment allows 

USBM to further our cooperative efforts with our government 

partners in developing and demonstrating effective, cost-efficient 

treatment technologies for remediation of contaminated sites. In 

addition it will help in characterizing and determining effective 

remediation/reclamation options. 

Health, Safety and Mining Technology r esearch addresses short-te rm 

probl ems in health and safety in several program areas, as wel l as 

seeking long-term solutions by develop i ng technologies that result 

in safer mining systems. The Bureau be lieves that the long-term 

programs are funded at appropriat e leve ls . It is not evident that 

committing additional resources now wou l d sign i fica ntl y reduce the 

time until breakthrough technol ogies, such as fully automated 

equipment, become commercial l y available. Concentrating on the 

highest priority efforts and elin ina t i ng lower priority research 

will save $2.7 million . 

The research seeking short-term solutions is scattered over a 

number of problems and a multitude of s mall projects. We bel ieve 

the research efforts would be mo re effective if they were 

concentrated on larger projects addr essing maj o r health and safety 

problems . By focusing the work o n ma j or proj e cts wi th long-term 

objectives, savi ng s of $3.3 mil l i o n c an be achieved. S ignificant 

problems that existed 20 years ago have l argel y been sol ved, or at 

least mitigated. Many pro b lens tha t r e na in are caused by huma n 

error and human behavior, and c a n best be addresse d by be tter 

training, education, and en for ceme nt, rather than new resear c h. 

Other problems r elated to equipment and supp li e s should be resolved 

by equipment manufacturers and supp l i e rs of such products as 

explosives through more tho roug h p r oduct testing. Th e USBM wil l 

continue to have a rol e wo rk i ng with regula tory agencies and 

industry in developing speci a l .i zecl equipment suc h a s c onti nu o us 

dust monitors or systems for fir e su ppression. 

The USBM wi ll concentrate on being no r e responsive to its customers, such as the Mine Safety and Hea lth Admi nistration (MSHA) . It 

will work with MSHA to develop a n e xpanded accident prevent i on 

program and help e nsure, through its research, that unsafe 

equipment and supplies are not introd uced into mine s and processing 
49 

G 

facilities. The USBM wi l l take t he lead in form i ng partnerships 

with industry, l abor, and MSHA to solve the rema.ining hea lth and 

safety problems. 

Min era ls and Materi als Science includes Minerals Research , which 

focuses on characterization a nd separation of the components of 

large , dilute systems such as ore bodies, waste sites, or scrap 

heaps; and Materi als Research, which focuse s on conservation of 

natural resources through increasing the service - li f e of materials 

or finding substitutes f or materials that are haz a rdous to the 

environment. Much of the technological core of the current 

Environmental Technology program has been developed over the yea rs 

under the Minerals Resea r c h program. 

In the Minerals Research program, commodity-spec ifi c research wi ll 

either be cost-shared with industry or redirected toward pollution 

prevention and control in the future. Materials Research which is 

not cost-shared with industry will also be r e directed into 

pollution prevention and control . The r ema ining cost-shared 

research will be conducted at a single center, allowing the closure 

of several smaller res ea rch facilities thus increasing e fficiency . 

The Mineral Institutes program supports resea rch grants at seven 

Generic Mineral Technology Centers . As recommended in the 

Government Reform and Savings Act, these grants will c ontinue at a 

reduced level, but will be phased out by the end of FY 199 8. 

Uncontrollable Costs 

Within the amounts discussed above , the Bureau will fund fi xed cost 

increases totaling about $0. 7 million. These costs include a 

minimum 1.6 percent gove rnme nt-wide pay raise expected in January 

199 5, additional CSRS /FERS retirement and hea lth insurance costs, 

an increase in GSA r e nt, and various other costs . These increases 

will be offset by the s avings achieved by a dministrative 

streamlining and sta ffing efficiencies as require d by Executive 

Orders 12837 and 1283 9 , and due to there being one less workday in 

1995 than in 1994. An additional offset is the $686 ,000 budgeted 

in 1994 to fund SES retirement costs. If the r etirements occur in 

1994 as expected, these funds will not be needed in 1995. 

Considering all of these increases and decreases, the Bure a u's net 

fixed cost requir ement will d ecrease by $2,458, 000 , excluding the 

cost of annualizing the loca lity pay implemented in January 1994, 

which will be abso rbed . 
50 

U.S. Geological Survey FY 1995 Budget 

Statement for the Record 

Before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

February 23, 1994 

FY 1993 was an exciting and productive year for USGS, and FY 1994 has 

started out to be equally challenging. We are continuing the work that we started in FY 1993 documenting the hydrological aspects of the Mississippi 

River floods. We have already documented that new all time high streamflows were recorded at 42 USGS stream gaging stations on 33 streams in 7 States, and 

surprisingly high concentrations of the herbicide "atrazine" were found at 

peak flood stages in numerou s locations along the river. Also in FY 1994, we have designated and begun work in 20 new study areas in 36 States for the 

second pha se of the National Water Quality Assessment, (NAWQA} . When fully implemented, NAWQA will provide the first national , indepth water resource and 

environmental management informati on needed to better manage and protect our water resources. 

Just a few weeks ago, we responded to information needs related to the 

magnitude 6.8 Northridge Earthquake near Los Angeles. We are continuing post- ea rthquake investigations of the failure of the area's energy and 

communication infrastructure. We are also working to identify the faults 

responsible for the main shock and aftershocks. Close communication with 

FEMA, NIST, NSF, the State of California, the Southern California Earthquake 

Ce nter, and the Earthquake Engineering Research Jnstit~te is occurring to coordinate mitigation and monitoring act i vities. 

In FY 1994, we are developing the framework for the National Spatial 

Data Infra structure (NSDI) , under the aegis of the Federal Geographic Data 

Comm ittee. The NSDI is an umbrella of policies, standards, procedures, and 

part ners hips intended to facilitate better use of high quality digital spatial 

data for making maps, improving public access to data through creation of a clearinghouse, and creating thematic data sets of national importance. 

USGS has been designated as a world data center for land remotely sensed 

data by the International Council of Scientific Unions, and EPA recognized the 

USGS Coal Data Base as the basis for setting standards related to emissions of 

toxins from coal combustion facilities (the source for primary trace metals 

i nformation to be used in Clean Air Act policy determinations) . We completed a wide variety of scientific reports for use by land and water managers 

ranging from indoor radon pot ential to water contaminants in the Potomac River 

Basi n. 

1 
51 

In an interagency cooperative effort with the National Sc ience 

Foundation and t he Un iversity of Colorado, we dedicated a new National ice core repository at our regional center near Denver, Colorado, the second 

largest such fa cili ty in the world. We began constructi on on a major addition 

to the Eros Data Cen t er (EDC) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota to expand the 

archive capability fer satellite data in support of NASA's Earth Observing 

System (EDS) and for data that will be produced by future Landsat satellites. 

In fY 1995, a new asse ssment of our Nation' s undiscovered oil and gas r esources will be comp leted. Plans are being made to expand our coal 

environment al act iv ities to improve our understanding of the regional geo logic 

factors that affect acid drainage due to coal mining. In FY 1994, we will comp lete na tional plans for th e Energy Resource Surveys and Marine and Coastal 

Geologic programs as requested by Congress. 

The FY 1995 budget request for USGS totals S583.7 million, a SI mill i on decrease from th e en acted FY 1994 l evel. Wit hin the total, however, we have 

significantly redi rected resources in a number of program areas to provide the ne cessa ry funding for the Survey's scientists to address projects that are most critical in import ance to th e Department and to the Nation . Over the 

past several years, USGS has redirected significant amounts in budget resources fron a va,·iety of areas to enable the Survey to provide funding that 

supports ne~ progrimi to better meet the Nation 's current earth sc ience needs. 

To th is end, we have redirected budgetary resources in FY 1995 to 

establish a new budget activ i ty entitl ed Critical Ecosystems Research and 

Asse2Jments. This program includes a budget request leve1 of Sll.8 million 

fo r FY 1995 and is in,e nded to suppo rt a multidisciplinary, scien t ific 

response to emerging Department of the Interior land management pro blems. In 

FY 1995, USGS proposes to increase research in Sout h Flor ida, the San Francisco Bay and Delta are as , and the Columbia and Klamath/Trin ity River 

basin s in the Pacific northwe st. Projects will build on expertise already 

available within the organization in hydrology , geology, geography, and 

cartography and will permit the Survey to focus much ne eded expertise t oward a ti mely respon se to these areas of concern to the Department of the Interior 

and the Na tion. 

Continuing the Survey's focus on the high est priority issues of nat ional conce rn, the FY 1995 budget redirects S6 million to continue the 

implementation of the National Water Quality Asse ssment. This program 

represents the Nation's first comprehensive analysis of the quality of water 

in a variety of different environments. When fully implemented, NAWQA will 

include 60 study areas that will cover approximately 60 -7 0 percent of the 

Nation's wat er use, include parts of all 50 States, and address a broad 

spectrum of land use, climati c, and hydrologi c settings. To ensure communication among all level s of involvement, liaison committees are established for each st udy unit. Currently, there are 1500 members of liaison committees providing other Federal agencies and St ate and local Interests an opportunity to have input to the USGS. To keep funding and staff requirements 

at the lowe st po ssible levels, NAWQA studies are phased so that only 20 study 

2 
52 

units are collecting data intensively during each fiscal year. When fully 

implemented, we believe NAWQA will provide most of the information needed to conserve and maintain the quality of one of our Nation's most valuable 

resources, its water. 

Environmental mineral assessments is a newly idded component to the 

Mineral Resource Surveys program. These assessments will focus on predicting 

the potential environmental hazards of undiscovered deposits and will be a 

part of the routine mineral assessment studies. An increased focus will be 

placed on studies of abandoned mine land s that will benefit from the 

application of data from our existing data based on mineral deposits and 

geochemistry. Pilot environmental mineral assessments and abandoned mine land 

studies have been made, in cooperation with land management bureaus, in areas of Colorado, such as the Summittville mine. These pilot studies will serve to 

guide the further development of these capabilities to assure they meet the 

needs of these bureaus. 

The FY 1995 budget also redirects $12 million to support the growing 

need for computer produced data and information to support the spatial data 

needs of Federal, State, and local resource and land planning and management 

agencies for use in map revision. In FY 1995, a total of $12 million has been 

redirected to support these high priority information and data programs. One 

initiative is the investment of $6 million to begin work on the National 

Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI} . USGS has moved funds into this high 

priority Department of the Interior initiative to support the Vice President's 

National Performance Review recommendation to expand beyond the Federal sector 

and to fo ster nationwide involvement in this information infrastructure 

initiative. 

The S6 million increase in the USGS budget will: (1) help establish a national geospatial data clearinghou se; (2) develop data standards; (3) 

support regional coordination ; and (4) develop a framework data set for the 

Nation. The NSDI initiative will provide for expanded use of Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) technology to assist land planners and managers at 

all levels of government and in the private sector, and will enable increased use of digital data in the preparation and revision of base maps. USGS 

believes this to be an exceedingly valuable cooperative effort that will 

provide long term benefits to the nation and ultimately make data available to a much broader commun ity of users at a significantly reduced unit cost. 

The Na ti onal Geologic Mapping program is expanding its effort to develop 

procedures and standards for digital geologic maps and the national geologic 

mapping data base. The availability of digital geologic information is 

critical for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. 

Related to the NSDI initiative is the increase of $6 million for 

intensified efforts in the production of digital cartographic data. The 

foundation for any information sharing and use system is always to develop 

first the data base needed by the user community. In this case we are talking 

not only about the Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies, but 

also the agencies involved in State and local land planning and management . 

3 
53 

There is an enormous need for up-to-date base map data to which individual users can then apply their specific data sets such as transportation, sources of pollution, species diversity and count, habitat type, hazardous waste 

sites, and many others. This increase will enable USGS to add significantly 

to the available base of this digital map data and make it available to all users. 

Also included in the budget is an increase of $1 million for cooperative 

work with the Bureau of Reclamation on the development of computer based water 

management and use models. Management of our Nation's water resources is 

exceedingly complex and, in the western U.S. in particular, competition for 

water is intense. To deal successfully with these complexities, a new generation of highly flexible water models and support data is needed. This 

increase will support the development, testing and implementation of models 

and fully integrated data management systems that will help water managers, 

policy officials, and users to achieve improved management of water resources. 

In addition to the increases in the USGS budget, several programs have 

been proposed for reduction, and in two cases, for elimination. Because of 

the need to reduce the Federal budget deficit and to remain within the funding 

targets of the Department, difficult decisions had to be made and funding for 

certain programs have had to be proposed for decrease. The budget proposes 

decreases totalling Sil million in mapping related activities, $9.7 million in 

water resource programs, and $4.1 million in geological research. Also, $6.6 

million is absorbed in the budget related to administrative savings, staff 

reductions, and other adjustments associated with the increased cost of 

operations. Among the reductions proposed, we will mention only the programs 

that have the greatest impact. We are prepared, however, to address any of 

the proposed reductions about which you would like more detail. 

USGS annually devotes considerable thought and analysis to the process 

of developing the budget proposal that ultimately results in the budget 

request to the Congress. In that process, we consider national priorities, 

the Department's most immediate needs, results from previous funding support 

to programs and projects, and a variety of related scientific and management 

issues. Our decisions and those of the Department reflect consideration of 

all these issues and include the following: 

(!} The decision to fund NAWQA, our highest priority water resources program, at $58.2 million, a $6 million increase, but $6 million below 

the planned level of $64 million. The funding level will permit us to 

continue work on 42 of the 47 studies that were intended to be in the 

appropriate cycle in FY 1995. However, limited budgetary resources and 

the need to redirect funds from within the USGS base to accommodate 

additional increases, led us to this decision. 

4 
54 

(2) Elimination of the Water Re sources Res earch Institutes (-$5.8 

million ) is proposed by USGS solely on the basis of budget constraints. 

Th is program has supported both grad uat e student training and limited resea rch at 54 land grant colleges and un iv ersities throughout the 

Nati on. However, the need to continue support of other programs within 

limited funding resources resulted in the deci sion to terminate support 

for th is program at the end of FY 1994. 

(3) In National Mapping, $8 million is proposed to be redirected from 

Advanced Cartographic Systems to support the data production and NSDI 

initiatives. This reduction will delay acquisition and implementation of map revision workstations and related high performance equipment. We 

will need to revise the timeline s for implementation of full operating 

capac ity for the system and delay devel opment of computer models related 

to map production. 

(4) In Geo logy, a redu ction is proposed in Min eral Res ource Ass essments (-S2 million) in Alaska . While there is con siderable assessment work 

that could still be done in Ala ska, the budget decrease is focused on Ala ska work due to the lower priority currently placed on mineral assessmen t information in Ala ska by la nd manag ement agencies. 

(5) Dec reases of about SI milli on each are proposed for the National 

Geol ogi c Mapping and the Global Change and Cli ma te History programs. 

5 
55 

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, thank you very much and thank each of you 

for cooperating with the committee today and for your testimony. Let me just first ask a few questions of Mr. Armstrong. 

The President's budget proposes no budget authority for the 

Rural Abandoned Mines program. That concerns, to use my word, 

several members of this subcommittee, including Mr. Rahall and 

Mr. Barlow. Given the fact that at the end of 1995 there is going to be an 

unappropriated balance in there of about $1 billion, how can you 

justify decreasing that program, especially when in addition to 

doing the work that needs to be done, those funds would create 

jobs? 

Mr . .ARMSTRONG. Well, basically that has been, as you know, a 

continuing tug every year. We, as I understand it historically, and 

I wasn't here, have not funded it. We have thought that perhaps 

it ought to be handled either at another agency, such as Agriculture, or separate and apart from OSM. I think each year you 

put it back in; am I correct about that? 

And so we go ahead and put out that money. I am unfamiliar 

with the history of why this continues to be a problem. We just 

think that it is more appropriate for it not to be in our budget and 

be elsewhere, if that would be appropriate. It is true that we have 

the additional money and you could put it in the Agriculture budget. 

Mr. LEHMAN. The money is paid in by the coal industry? 

Mr . .ARMSTRONG. That is correct. 

Mr. LEHMAN. And so what you are proposing in the budget is we 

just pile it up there and not use it, I guess. But what I kind of hear 

you saying is that you don't expect that would be what we do anyway. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is kind of what you might hear me say, 

yes. 

Mr. LEHM . .\..3⁄4'. Okay. In a recent article in Oil Daily, Tom Fry, the 

Director of MMS, is quoted as saying that he is in absolute agree- ment of the principle of providing royalty reductions for offshore oil 

and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico to encourage deep water exploration. Do you agree with that position? And if so, why? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG . I would qualify that answer by saying that if 

our studies show that by using this method we would get the production in deep water of more of the resource and that that was 

not creating a windfall for the people who were looking for that resource, then we would give that our consideration in a lease-sale 

at some future date. 

Mr. LEHMAN. So if it is a good idea, you are for it; but is it a 

good idea? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. But it depends on whether or not it creates a 

windfall. But I think-carefully-I would say, yes, it is a good idea. 

But only with the restraint or rather constraint that it produces 

more hydrocarbons and if they would not be otherwise produced 

without that "royalty holiday," as that tenn is used, until you get 

your costs back. And I think it is very important that we clearly understand what 

those costs are going to be, and it will only be in certain fields, as 

far as we can tell from our analyses. There are going to be some 
56 

fields where they would prefer to have that, but it could be economically feasible without that benefit being conferred upon them. Mr. LEHMAN. Do you have any data to support a position? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, we do. 

Mr. LEHMAN. And that is? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That data has come from MMS. We can show 

you the areas where we think it is economically feasible to drill 

without the royalty holiday, but in those where it might not be economical without it, then we would be willing to look at it. It will 

be very limited. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Is MMS considering using its own authority to reduce the royalties or theMr. ARMSTRONG. I believe that Senator Johnston has a bill that 

would do that. And I have always considered that what we were 

saying was testimony in favor of his bill as opposed to us just doing 

it unilaterally or just on our authority. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Without any fear of stealing Mr. Young's thunder, 

let me ask a couple questions about Alaska then, since he is getting 

itchy over here. The five-year OCS plan that DOI inherited from 

the Bush administration, included six OCS sales in Alaska coastal 

waters, about 82 million acres. After review of those sales, has the 

Department made any changes in schedule or specific areas included in the proposed sales? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We have an ongoing review of that five-year 

program, and it has resulted in some changes. We consider, when 

we review, some of the areas that the people who are likely to drill 

consider to be productive or consider to be something they want. 

And in some instances, we have found, for example, in the Shelikof 

Strait area, that they have pulled back their request or they are 

not as interested in it as they might have been at another time. 

So what we have before us right now is a cautious, ongoing development of offshore Alaska, particularly in the Cook Inlet area and 

particularly on the North Slope. 

The plan is still in effect, but basically we are making decisions 

on a case-by-case basis. We will have a sale. We have slipped them 

occasionally for a year or two, but that seems to be the prudent 

thing to do and it seems to be something that industry has accepted. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. You are also making cutbacks in the Anchorage office. Given the fact that is one of the few offices that is actually engaged in supervising active leasing, how do you justify that? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, we think that there is still work to do, but 

that most of the work that office has done in the past is very helpful to us. It is in the bag, so to speak, and we don't have to add 

to it. We think we can be efficient and do the job that we need to 

do given the interest in that area with a reduced work force. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Young. We will let the gentlelady from Nevada 

go, if he would like to yield to you. Mr. YOUNG. You know, I am not going to get excited, Mr. Chairman, we have got two people who have been employed by this Administration, your Administration, and I understand what they are 

doing. They will be there for three years more and then you will 

be gone. But, you know, I would like to mention Alaska. And by 
57 

the way, you have the charge of this Congress to review and catalog all mineral potential on lands under ANLCA. 

Now, how are you going to do that if you move the Bureau of 

Mines office? Who is going to do that work for us? I mean, whoanybody? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I will handle the question. And I will ask the Acting Director of the Bureau of Mines to fill in for me. 

A good bit of that work has proceeded. As I am sure you know, 

the Geological Survey has a role to play as well in mineral assessment in the State, and their presence will continue in Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. How? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. We are proposing a $2 million decrease in the Geological Survey budget in Alaska in mineral assessment work specifically. In the Bureau of Mines, we are proposing the closure of 

Juneau and Anchorage field offices. We believe the work that needs 

to continue to go on there can be carried out from Spokane and 

other offices. 

Mr. YOUNG. But what is in Spokane and Washington? They have 

nothing of any value there. Why are you moving to Spokane, Washington? 

We have got the minerals; we have got the land; we have got 

more land mass than all the rest of your agencies have in the United States that haven't been catalogued. I mean, what drove this decision? That is really what I am looking for. 

What little minion down there said we will get rid of Alaska's offices? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. Well, it doesn't work that way at all, sir. What 

drove this was a step back to look at what the Bureau of Mines 

is doing with the resources that Congress has given it over the 

years. This is a Bureau that has been spread rather thinly over a 

number of years-it has 14 facilities right now, on a $170 million 

budget. 

It is in the current situation of not doing anything all that well. 

There are enormously talented people in the Bureau of Mines. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Let me leave that. 

Why didn't you shut down the Spokane office and move it to 

Alaska where it actually is and where you have a charged responsibility by this Congress? I mean, what made that decision? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. Well, as you know, we have proposed several closures in the 1995 budget, and we anticipate a several-year transition for Mines to bring it down in the overall number of facilities. 

Mr. YOUNG. It couldn't be that wasn't Tom Foley's district; was 

it? It couldn't be that was the reason? Please say no. 

All right. I have people, of course-you are closing down the Anchorage office; you are closing down the Juneau office-people that 

are Federal employees. Now what are you going to do with my Federal employees? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. Excuse me, what are \Ve going--

Mr. YOUNG. What are you going to do with those Federal employees? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. Well, we will try to relocate as many as we can, 

given the resources that we have, but we won't be able to do that 

for everybody. This is a situation--
58 

Mr. YOUNG. I am not happy with your decision. I think it is a 

terrible decision. It doesn't surprise me at all as far as the Administration goes. But, you know, this is where the action is. This is 

the State that has the minerals and has the land mass, federally 

controlled, by the way. And, you know, you are proposing to shut 

these offices down to go to Spokane, which has nothing, absolutely-tell me what minerals they have in Washington available 

on Federal lands. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. The location of the facilities of the Bureau of 

Mines in the past has been driven by regional interests. We are 

trying to move away from that. There happens to be two facilities 

in Spokane, a research center as well as a field office. And out of 

that office, staff serve a large part of the Pacific Northwest, including Alaska. Just as an example, I had some folks in yesterday who spoke 

about the work going on by the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. 

They came to talk to me because they wanted me to k..,ow about 

the fine work being done by the Bureau of Mines in their area. And 

I asked them where these Bureau of Mines employees were based. 

And they said the Twin Cities Research Center in Minnesota. 

They are not working with the folks in Alaska who actually are located there. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, then, again, I am going to ask you this now. 

Did you ask them why they weren't working with the people in 

Alaska? It is the same agency. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I did ask. Mr. YOUNG. What did they say? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. The technical expertise in the Bureau of Mines 

that they were looking for in advanced technology for coal-mining 

in permafrost zones, resided in the Twin Cities facility. 

Mr. YOUNG. I understand that, but Minnesota is a coal-mining 

State. I agree with that. But what is in Spokane? I mean, I am beating this to death, Mr. 

Chairman. I am just going to suggest, why? That is sort of like my 

brother used to work for Richard Nixon, and they had the Farmers 

Home Administration in Berkeley, California. 

Now you show me a farmer in Berkeley that is not growing that 

little weed. I will show you what is going on. I mean, it just doesn't 

make sense to me. If you are looking at the economics of it, you 

know, why didn't you take the Spokane office and move it to Alaska where the action-there is no action in Washington State. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I take your point. We are proposing consolidation 

of the two facilities in Spokane. We are trying to move the Bureau 

of Mines away from the regional focus. And the point that we are 

trying to make is that the Bureau of Mines should be focused on 

research of national interest, which can be transferred and utilized 

anywhere in the country. 

The Geological Survey does the mineral assessment work that we 

believe needs to continue. The kind of mineral assessment work 

that the Bureau of Mines is doing in Alaska is of a much more detailed nature and is the kind of work that routinely is done by the 

private sector. And we have asked ourselves the question: Why is 

the Bureau of Mines carrying out that work? 
59 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. The other thing, though, one of the reasons 

it has to be carried out is, if I am not mistaken, the private sector, 

after they do their work, has to go through the Bureau of Mines 

if it is on Federal lands, for permits, the EPA, Corps of Engineers, 

et cetera, et cetera. And my biggest argument has been all along, 

every time we have somebody who wants to do something in the 

private sector, after they do it, they have to go through the hoops 

of the Federal Government. 

And if that person isn't on site, we live through this. Oh, they 

are in Seattle, Region 10, you know, and it is very cumbersometype operation. Now, if I can have the assurance from you that if 

I have activity, that I get immediate response from Spokane, I 

would be probably less concerned, other than for the workers of 

Alaska. That bothered me. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. You have my assurance, you have our assurance 

on that. Mr. YOUNG. Again, I think you made the wrong decision. I don't 

think you made it; that is one reason I am not terribly upset with 

you. I think someone else made that decision, and we will live by 

it for a period of time, until we get to the appropriation process, 

and we might change that a little bit. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. Let me just mention, the Bureau of Mines has no 

regulatory responsibilities. Mr. YOUNG. Oh, I understand that. But they also have to have 

a clearance. If I am not mistaken, from the private sector, when 

they go and apply for permits, it does go through the Bureau of 

Mines. Now, they may not have to stop or go, but it has to be 

cleared. Now if that is mistaken, someone has been misusing the 

representation. Ms. KNOPMAN. I am unfamiliar with that activity of the Bureau 

of Mines. Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I was nice today, I wasn't real mean. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. You were on good behavior. 

Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Armstrong, I want to commend you for discussing the Office 

of Surface Mining as you have, and you spoke of a seamless t_ransition. I only want to say to you, I hope that it is not a seamless continuity of what has been occurring at OSM. 

I hope that you will make decisions, that you will implement 

rulemakings, and I hope that the work of the team of specialists 

will lead OSM in that direction rather than just a seamless continuity of what has been occurring. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I recognize the difference. 

Mr. RAHALL. Let me continue, if I might, on the question started 

by our chairman when he asked you about the Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation program. If we enact the Department's proposed fiscal 

year 1995 budget, at the end of that fiscal year the unappropriated 

balance in the AML Fund is estimated at being over $1 billion. Now, this is $1 billion worth of construction jobs; it is $1 billion 

worth of badly needed environmental restoration work; and it 

means that further threats to the health and safety of coalfield citi-
60 

zens will go unabated. So I must advise you as the chairman has, 

that the Congress did not impose this fee on the coal industry for 

the money just to sit idle in some government trust fund . My question is, how can you possibly justify allowing this unappropriated balance in the AML fund to skyrocket to the levels that 

it would if this budget were enacted? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I think the answer-and I wondered 

about this the first time I looked at that balance-is that we have 

had some difficulty in getting the money out rapidly. We give that 

money to the States, and at the present time we have the following 

dollars out: 

The States have unliquidated obligations for reclamation work of 

$259 million at the end of fiscal year 1993. In addition, $138 million in grants have been awarded, but not obligated at the end of 

fiscal year 1993. 

The States have also carried over $65 million at the end of 1993, 

and have recovered funds totaling $34 million. In addition, there 

is $135 million in new budget authority for the State Reclamation 

Grants, which was made available at the beginning of this year, 

fiscal 1994. And so the problem is that we could appropriate more 

money, but they can't get it out fast enough. And, therefore, that 

causes the backlog. 

I think that if we got more capability into their hands or if the 

States were willing to get that money out, then this number that 

we request would be a higher figure . But I share your enthusiasm 

for using the money that we get from the coal companies to do reclamation, which you intend it to do. It is just that so far we haven't 

been able to figure out a way to get that money out as fast as it 

has been coming in. 

Mr. RAHALL. Those figures you were just quoting, where do they 

come from? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. They came from the OSM office in answer to 

my request. Those are unobligated balances. Mr. RAHALL. I am looking at figures that don't completely jive 

with yours that come from the Office of the Secretary of Interior, 

written in December, to Chairman Byrd on the Senate Interior Appropriations Subommittee, that show close to a 90 percent obligation rate. Total grant amount of $185 million; obligations to date, 

$161 million, an 86.9 percent obligation rate, and showing an unobligated balance of under $25 million. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think we are both right. The money I am talking about is obligated, but not outlaid. It hasn't been spent. It has 

been obligated, but it hasn't been spent and won't be spent quickly. 

And therefore, we could appropriate more and it would be obligated 

but un-outlaid. 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, you know, we are in a situation I think here 

that is very similar to the Highway Trust Fund. The AML Fund 

is the Department of Interior's version of that Highway Trust 

Fund. The money is obligated and the dirt flies except, in this instance, a project involves stabilizing a landslide or refuse pile rather than constructing a road or a bridge. 

So it is partially within this context that the need for job creation 

in the coalfields is most imminent. I can find no justification for 
61 

your proposed reduction in the State grants, the zeroing out of the 

RAMP program, to which the chairman referred as well. 

In this regard, your budget states that the proposed reduction in 

AML State grants is not a problem. The carryover funds will maintain the program. But this is what is in the budget. In reality, at 

the end of fiscal year 1993, just last September, over 90 percent of 

these AML construction grants had been obligated by the States. 

I would like to ask where you believe there is a sufficient amount 

of carryover funds that exist in order to maintain the program. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I would like the ability to check this, if 

I could, and come back to you. Certainly if they are capable of getting the money out faster and we didn't have these backlogs, so to 

speak, of this money that has not been outlaid, then we would consider the appropriateness of asking for either more or trying to get 

that balance down. Mr. RAHALL. All right. Let me ask you with respect to RAMP. 

SMCRA provides for a statutory earmark, as you are aware, of the 

AML fee collection for the program to the tune of 10 percent that 

comes out of that Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. That 10 percent is of the Secretary's 50 percent share of the total fund. RAMP 

also receives 20 percent of all interest that accrues to the Fund, unless beginning in fiscal year 1996, some of the interest is needed 

for the UMW A Combined Benefit Fund. 

Not seeking an appropriation for RAMP does not change the situation. Its share of fee collections will continue to accrue. Is it then 

the Department's intention to simply allow this earmarked RAMP 

money to continue to accrue and never be spent? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I have to ask about that. I am advised that part 

of the NPR proposals has been to eliminate the RAMP money. 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, I hope those within the Department will understand that there are certainly distinct differences between the 

AML State Grant Program and the RAMP program. They are not 

one and the same. I hope there is that understanding. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I realize that. Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Vucanovich. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have been concerned about the apparent mineral 

patent moratorium that has occurred since Secretary Babbitt's 

order of March 2, 1993. And he has assured me right here in this 

room that this order would not be an illegal moratorium. And as 

you know, a mining company operating in my district has had to 

sue the Secretary to get any subsequent action on their applications. And now the BLM's budget justification states that BLM received 130 new patent applications in 1993, and I have . all this 

backup on that, and then issued 28 patents for 362 claims. 

Can you tell me if any of these patents were issued during the 

Clinton administration portion of fiscal year 1993? I can't recall 

Secretary Babbitt doing so, but I am just checking to see if you 

know of any. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I signed 3 yesterday. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Oh, tell us about those. Tell us about them. 
62 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And they were at the first stage. They were still 

having to be checked on. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. What does that mean? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, it goes in two stages. 

Mrs. VuCANOVICH. Well, let's have a description of that. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. After we find it is there, then our on-the-ground 

people go out and check and make a final recommendation and the 

patent is issued. The numbers are that in the prior Administrations, the average, from 1980 through 1993, run from a low of 26 

to a high of 94, although the 94 was in 1987, and it was a pretty 

high, unusual number. For example, in 1991, we issued 26 patents. 

In 1992, we issued 28 patents. In 1993, there were 9 issued. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Any under the Clinton administration? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And I understand that 7 of those 9, I believe, 

were-and I am not sure-I think before the Secretary took them 

under his control the 9 were issued. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Would you like to give me that backup, particularly on 1993? But I am very interested in these 3, that even 

though they got to the first stage, would you tell me what those 

are or where they are, these patents that you said you signed yesterday? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would like to get that exact information, but 

it is the first 3 that came across the desk. Most of the applications 

that we have take anywhere from 2-3 years, from beginning to 

end. That is why you have a fairly large backlog. But I think that 

you also had a considerable number of people who applied for patents, I think, in anticipation of the fact that the law might change. 

So we had a pretty good flood of applications as it began to be apparent that there might be a change in the Mining Law. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Well, I would be very interested in having 

that information. One other question for you, Mr. Secretary. 

Since Congress imposed the maintenance fee provisions on mining claimants in the fiscal year 1993 spending bill, how much 

money has ELM collected from miners and how much has been 

spent on the administration of the 1872 Mining Law? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am going to have to look, but if my memory 

serves me, we have gotten in $53 million as a result of that change. 

They tell me my memory is correct. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Well, if those numbers are correct, it just 

seems to me that mining claimants subsidize other Interior Department programs, not the other way around, as so many people have 

us believe, if those numbers are accurate. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. What happened as a result of the change in 

that fee is that our number of claims reduced from some 900,000 

to about 750,000. Then that in turn with the October collection reduced down into the 300,000 area. This indicates to us that there 

were people who were speculating and betting and holding claims 

just because it was cheap to do so. And that after the fee was 

raised, they stopped speculation and really picked the ones they 

thought might have some potential and held them. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Well, that may be accurate. I am not sure 

that that is. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that is a very 

possible thing that could have happened. 
63 

I would like to ask Ms. Knopman a question about the Bureau 

of Mines. The Bureau of Mines seems to be taking a particularly 

deep cut compared to other Interior bureaus, and I suspect that 

many of the past programs are out of favor now. But I know that 

the Reno facility, for example, has scientists doing research on mineral waste stream processing, and those are certainly skills that we 

think would be good for the future. 

Can you tell me more about the Centers of Excellence proposal 

for the outyears? In other words, will you be planning to close other 

research and field offices in fiscal year 1996? And if you know, 

which ones they would be. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I can't say what we would be proposing to close 

in 1996 or the outyears. We do, in the long run, want to move to 

a smaller number of facilities. The Bureau of Mines will be submitting recommendations to the Department on where these Centers 

of Excellence would be located. 

They have sent out notices to employees to at least give them a 

heads up that the ones that are under consideration for centers 

would be in Twin Cities, Minnesota; Albany, Oregon, (there is a 

Materials Research Center there); Pittsburgh Research Center; and 

Salt Lake City Center, which is the Bureau of Mines newest facility, built in 1980. Each would be designated as a Center of Excellence, with Reno proposed as a satellite. 

The Department has not made any final judgments on these. We 

need to do so soon so that we can proceed with the plans for the 

1995 budget and give employees the best chance of making plans 

for their future. 

We recognize the work and the talent residing in Reno. There are 

similar kinds of work going on in several other bureaus, which is 

one of our reasons for wanting to move toward a consolidation so 

that we get to a more critical mass of research capability and facilities. But at this time we have no proposal in the outyears for when 

those closures would be occurring in these satellites. 

I should say also that in the 1995 budget where we are proposing 

the closure of Tuscaloosa and Rolla, Missouri Research Centers, we 

are working closely with the universities. Both of those centers are 

located on university campuses. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. They work together, they certainly do in my 

State, and it works well, I think, if that can be pursued. 

Well, along the same lines, talking about the USGS, my understanding is the Geological Division is staffed with many scientists 

currently able to retire, with or without the buyout incentive; but 

working for the Survey, a lot of people don't want to leave. So what 

is likely to happen personnel-wise in the Survey if this budget is 

adopted and retirements don't occur? 

I hope we are not going to be looking at these people doing National Biological Survey functions. But do you have any plans about 

what you would do if these people stay? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I will just say you are looking at someone who left 

the Geological Survey after nine years. I am a hydrologist by training, and I know it is a wonderful place to work. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Apparently it is. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I don't have a good answer for you at this point 

because I am not sure what we will do. We have a new director 
64 

coming on board, we hope, in a week or so, Dr. Gordon Eaton. He 

is formerly from the Geologic Division. He has been in other places 

since leaving the Geological Survey a number of years ago. And he 

will need to be making some very tough decisions about how to restructure the Survey where appropriate. 

He is very interested, I know, and the Secretary is as well, in 

making sure that the Survey is a place where young researchers 

can come into and have productive careers. We are quite cognizant 

of the demographics, particularly in the Geologic Division, and 

know we have to deal with it. We don't have specific plans at this 

time for these individuals to work for the National Biological Survey. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you. 

I would like to ask the chairman to hold the record open for sub- mission of written questions because there may be more that will 

come as a result of this hearing. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Without objection, we will keep the record open for 

all Members to submit questions. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, both. _ Mr. LEHMAN. I have just a couple more questions. I want to address one to Ms. Knopman here. 

In reading the budget, it says an increase of $1 million is proposed for the Watershed Modeling program, designed to bring together USGS capabilities and the capabilities of the Bureau of Reclamation. Can you be more specific about how that is going to be 

spent? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. I would actually like, if I could, to refer to the 

Acting Director, Bob Hirsch, who has been personally involved in 

that program. 

Mr. HIRSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking about that 

program. 

We are very excited about it. We have been engaging, on a pilot 

basis, in a partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation under our 

Global Change Research program, to look at some new approaches 

to watershed modeling to allow decision-makers-in this case, 

those in the Bureau of Reclamation-to look at alternative ways of 

managing a river system to deal with change, be that climate 

change, land-use change, water-rights changes, regulations for endangered species, et cetera. The Geological Survey's part in this is dealing with the precipitation, the accumulation of snow, the melting of snow and some of 

those processes that occur on the landscape. And the Bureau of 

Reclamation's part deals more with the canals, reservoirs, et 

cetera, and operations. And we have developed a partnership. 

We would like to pursue this more to develop both the science 

and the computer software to enable them to do that. 

Mr. LEHMAN. So that money is going to be spent-it says modeling. Are you trying to more accurately determine how a watershed 

is going to act? 

Mr. HIRSCH. Exactly: really to enable managers to do the "what 

if' analyses of changes in policies, changes in land use, changes in 

climate, et cetera, and to look at the consequences that might come 

about by any number of changes in the environment or in their 

management practices. 
65 

Mr. LEHMAN. How much does the Bureau have in their budget 

for that? Do you know? I can find out. 

Ms. KNOPMAN. They have $1 million in 1995 for this activity, and 

the appropriation in 1994 was $1 million. But the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Betsy Rieke, has taken a particular 

interest in this, and Dan Beard, the Commissioner, wants to support this activity. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. There again, what you are trying to do is to 

learn more about the behavior of the watershed so that the Bureau 

can act on better information--

Mr. HIRSCH. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. --in implementing whatever it is they are implementing? Okay, thank you. · I think on that, Ms. Knopman, the Administration is proposing 

eliminating the Water Resources Research Institutes program. Can 

you just tell me why? 

Ms. KNoPMAN. It is with great reluctance, sir. It is a good program. The budget constraint was severe enough this year that we 

simply could not find the money out of existing Survey programs. 

Any new initiatives that we wanted to fund, such as watershed 

modeling, the ecosystem restoration, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, all of that had to come out of the Geological Survey's 

base, and something had to give. As you--

Mr. LEHMAN. How much money was this? This was just $5 million or $6 million; right? 

Ms. KNOPMAN. The level of expenditure has been $5.8 million 

when that program has been funded. What that means is you get 

about $100,000 per Institute per year. You may recall, in 1983, 

Congress reauthorized the Water Resources Research Act, and at 

that time the intent was to move the Research Institutes off of the 

Federal dollar as much as possible. There was a ramping down of 

Federal support. To a great extent that has been very successful. 

In fact, the overall institute program produces $10.00 of nonFederal support for $1.00, Federal dollar. So it is our view that 

they have been very successful in supporting themselves. Not all 

Institutes have been. And it is possible that one-third of them may 

not survive if this budget cut were to hold. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. Well, I am sure we will be reviewing that. 

Mr. Armstrong, you have the DOI budget includes $6.5 million 

increase for oil spill research. This increase is certainly good, although that is probably, in my view, not enough. One of the more 

controversial items related to OPA-90 involves the regulations for 

financial responsibility of offshore permit operators. They are upset 

that the law requires them to have $150 million bond or financial 

backing. Is it true then that you don't have the discretion to lower 

that limit? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We have held hearings throughout the United 

States about OPA-90, and this is the lead question that we are 

asked at each of those hearings. Because there is a general feeling 

that there is not enough insurance in the world for all of the operators everywhere that are covered by the Act to have $150 million 

worth of coverage. 

Now, we have our solicitor looking at this. We have been urged 

by some of the attorneys for the oil companies and attorneys for 
66 

people who are just in the petroleum business generally, not necessarily oil field drillers, to see if there is some way that the regs 

can recognize that this fact exists. Someone has suggested all the 

way to a person who sells motorboat oil on a marina in a lake. 

Does that qualify as transporting oil across water within the contemplation of the Act, and then do they need $150 million worth 

of insurance? 

Mr. LEHMAN. That is the question. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Obviously, that wasn't the intent. So the comment period is open the remaining days of this month to see if anyone could come up with a good idea, to be innovative, short of having to go back and ask for a change in the legislation, which no one 

seems to want to do. So we are trying to eliminate the onerous 

parts of the regulations, which would require something that perhaps the Congress didn't intend, and we have our people working 

on that full-time. 

Mr. LEHMAN. So where it has been extended to navigable waters, 

I guess, is the issue? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct. And if you use the old navigable 

waters from section 404 permits, which apparently was borrowed, 

you might get into an area that you didn't intend to. It was obvious 

that the legislation was passed in some part because of what had 

happened with Exxon Valdez and with a recognition that we wanted to do something about that. But it was, I think, broader than 

perhaps the intention. And we are trying to figure out how to do 

the regs so that they make some sense, if that is possible. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. So you are trying to work through it without 

asking us to fix something? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Appreciate that. Keep us informed. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We certainly will. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. Well, that ends my questions. 

Thank you both very much. I appreciate your testimony today 

and look forward to working with you closely in the future. 

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
Ct OR(;t '-'•Llff\. c.-.uromw,. cw,m MAN .... 'IJf' A SM AAr . t .. O<ANA 

HtWMIO J .. , - ,(, M •~- - "'~" 

A U~!I .. J M 1IAf'H>. f'f °'t, lV·IA 

.. ,c. JO{,V.MAO l ... W("I Vlll,,•NIA 

l!lllll<.f f v(f< IO .,,N-.(SOI• 

f' A IWl<llA"'S .. ONI ANA 

AO o< c.cl0(,O,Vl"{,.,. 0SlAAID" 

~• " G(JO(NSQN CQtddCIKUI ,.,c11.uo ., , , .. ...,.., ,,.,.,.,~,.,,. ,,u. 11 10 ,,.~oso .. NIW ... l <t(L· 

rn,,.,_u,,-.z,u Okt CC"< 

(NO' N fACf (l ... AYAI( ' " "" '"": A N S~M•.) A 

rn, JOt<N ~ON, ~UW1H 0 H 0 1 A 

,._,..,....,.V"-0<'<::0, ,0A>< O 

Nlll AJHIIC~O" U•l , " ""'"" CAI.VOi• M l)()Ol(Y,C.-llFOH NI A 

CA"'"~ """ ' " U <SANCtcO ruuno ~ (C 

VflAMf NG-'S" A~ IZO N • 

" A"CkS"(""(flOUIAt, 

MA I MAN O(A<.(;!QAf.l A 

.. IUIAl(tO. H,tj(:"'l> .NtW ~C,C~ 

<lOBUU 4 UHOl:-000 Gu•" 

t<OWAAD L•o"'•" C....."o""'" l.>.Hf(VAN$ , llll°'O,S 

f'.A J SY 1 M IHO..""W""' 

1-..sJ •Afllt'lw m ,; (Ofluc,;, 

TNQt,(AS 1,1 l"-AA(f'l". W!SCONS•'< 

APPENDIX 

FEBRUARY 23, 1994 

~l.~. :If)ousc of :l&cprcscntatil.lcs 

l!Committcr on 

1lnturnl Resources 

mas!Jitt!lto n, l!i)([ 2os 1s---(,201 

Fe brua r y 28 , 1995 

Ho norabl e Bob Armstrong, Assistant Secretary 

La nd and Mineral Resources 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Wash ington, o.c. 20240 

Dea r Mr. Armstrong: 

llON '1' 0(J NG. "'lA5 1'.:I\ 

J ,.n;NO( ING R~rouu,u..:,v1 M f M IJ(A 

" "'"""""' ' VVCAN;)v,c,,_,.(v•u.- l llON(;.., 1, c;1~ ,.o.u•o-, .. l'UU!RT r S"'l1H OA!GON 

( ,V,,C,htQ .. A ~ W< O ... ,-.,, 

JO,.N J . DIJNr,MIJ• I I NfllSSII 

JOO. .. ~ll(V.(01.0AA00 

Jo1<..- 1 000,n,11 r•ufOli N•• w.o.v,., ,.. , .. 110.cn,0M1>0 ~l(HUn 11, JA,(R, lOu,:; , .... A 

U ,. CAl Vl•T.C•lll UR NI A 

SCOTT ... ~•-1r.,r01.o""'(lO 

'l<C~ ARO W r <l .. Y<l ,CALlf<) flN,,._ 

J H n K".~•¥. An,A~ ~,A., 

JQHN1 .. W<.t NC! 

S U ,ff O•~t"CIOR 

AICHAAO .. ~t ill" 

(;(HtAAl COUN~H 

0 ..... l( L VAl U SN 

111.l"l/euc. ..... s ••FOO•R(CTO'l 

Enc l osed pleas e f ind additional questions from last week's 

h earing relating to the Preside nt's Fiscal Year 1995 budget 

request for the energy and mine ral resource programs under y our 

jurisdiction. 

You r p r ompt a tte ntion to these inquiries will b e most 

appreciated . 

Enclosure 

~~.~ RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

Chairman , Subcommittee on 

Energy a nd Minera l Resources 

(67) 
68 

Acco r ding to a 1993 House Appropriations Committee report, 

only ~%° of the OSM workforce are inspe ctors and the y receive 

only 6% of OSM' s Budget. 

How does the OSM's FY95 budget request address this · 

imbalance in the use of resources? 

Recently States have raised the issue of "unfunded mandates" 

in other matters. However, when it comes to mine 

regulation, states actively volunteer to run programs. 

Further, if their recent rule-making efforts are any 

i ndication, they want a larger share of total mine 

r egulation responsibility. Most of OSM's budget goes to 

funding state programs. Some state programs receive more 

than 75% federal funding. 

When do you think the states will take on a greater and 

fairer share for the funding of their own state programs, 

and what steps are you taking to encourage them to do so? 

Some states have state programs even though they don't have 

a ny mining, for example Mississippi i s sche duled to receive 

$68,930 for FY95. Eleven states produce d less than 10 

million tons of coal per year. Of these , eight have primacy 

(Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Missouri, 

Louisiana, Maryland) at a proposed cost of $2,950, 040. Add 

in Mississippi, and that's over $3,000,000. That could fund 

a lot of inspe ctors. In Oklahoma, OSM is planning to take 

over the state program unde r Section 733 of the Act because 

of citizen's complaints and defects: in the program. 

What other s teps are you taking to encourage small producing 

stat es to give up their primacy? 

Congress established a spending cap on state-by-state basis on the emergency AML rec lamation program. 

What effect has that cap had on OSM's ability to react to 

and adequately abate emergency situations in each state? 

If Congress lifts the cap on funding for the emergency AML 

program, what assurances can you give us that the program 

will continue to be effectively managed? 

Do you feel the emergency AML spending cap has b een a 

benefit or a problem with the respect to the state grant 

programs? 

Congress appropriated $15 million for emergency AML in the 

last fiscal year. 
69 

Was that amount spent on reclamation projects and, if not, 

what was the unspent portion used for? 

Navajo citizens requested at a meeting last March with OSM 

that staffing on the reservation be increased. Former 

acting director, Hord Tipton, acknowledged that OSM's 

funding was inadequate for Navajo Nation staff to oversee 

the large mining operations. Tipton promised increased 

funding would be provided in this budget cycle. Over the 

past couple of months, numerous problems have arisen with 

mine sites on Navajo lands. 

Has this promise been kept in the FY 95 budget? 

The OSM budget indicates a $100,000 decrease in spending for 

applied research. Citizens have requested and OSM has 

agreed to (and in some cases, undertaken) research on 

problems such as "cast-blasting" (where huge explosive 

charges are used to excavate strip mine pits), acid mine 

drainage prevention, and preservation of prime farm lands. 

Does this decline in applied research funding mean that OSM 

has completed its studies of these problems and is ready to 

take action? 
70 

United Scates Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

MAR 2 2_ 1994 

Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

Enclosed please find responses to the questions you submitted following the oversight 

hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources on February 23, 1994, regarding the Fiscal Year 1995 budget 

request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the Committee. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

Bob Armstrong 

Assistmt Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management 
71 

1. Question: According to a 1993 House Appropriations Committee report, only 

9% of the OSM workforce are inspectors and they receive only 6% of the OSM's 

Budget. 

How does the OSM's FY95 budget request address fuis imbalance in the use of 

resources? 

Answer: The OSM's inspectors are vital to the program. They provide an important 

oversight and enforcement function, and are available to train state inspectors, serve 

as OSM's eyes and ears for anticipating furure problems and provide a cont.act point 

for St.ates, citizens and coal companies. 1 understand that OSM informed the House 

Appropriations Committee in its April 1993 initial response to the investigative report 

that inspectors acrually accounted for 14 percent of OSM's workforce. I am informed 

that as of December 1993, there were 155 inspectors in OSM constituting 15 .1 

percent of the total workforce, and that for Fiscal Year 1993 OSM's field operations 

directorate received 27 percent of the agency's overall operating resources. Ongoing 

studies will review whether OSM has the right number of inspectors and whether they 

are in the proper locations. 

(Edit.or ' s note. --Rcsponsc to Questi on 2 was not suanitb'.'d at the, turc of 

prlnLi.ng ) 
72 

3. Question: Some states have state programs even though they don't have any 

mining, for example Mississippi is scheduled to receive $68,930 for FY95. Eleven 

states produced less than 10 million tons of coal per year. Of these, eight have 

primacy (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Missouri, Louisiana, 

Maryland) at a proposed cost of $2 ,950,040. Add in Mississippi, and that's over 

$3,000,000. That could fund a lot of inspectors. In Oklahoma, OSM is planning to 

take over the state program under Section 733 of the Act because of citizen's 

complaints and defects in the program. 

What Jl!mr steps are you taking to encourage small producing states to give up their 

primacy? 

Answer: OSM is not encouraging any State to relinquish primacy. The Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) provides that States may 

have exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamatior 

operations without regard to coal production . Many of the States with low productio 

have a number of sites that are in stages of reclamation which require inspection . In 

the case of Oklahoma, OSM has taken action under 30 CFR 733 to require 

deficiencies in the State program to be corrected. If the deficiencies are corrected in 

a timely manner as we expect them to be; OSM will not withdraw the program from 

the State. Mississippi has been revising its regulatory program to be as effective as 

the Federal regulations. In Fiscal Year 1995, OSM will be funding the State only tc 

monitor a small amount of lignite production. 
73 

4. Question: Congress established a spending cap on state-by-state basis on the 

emergency AML reclamation program. 

What effect has that cap had on OSM's abiiiry to react to and adequately abate 

emergency situations in each state? 

Answer: OSM has reached the limits imposed by the cap in Kentucky in two of the 

past three years. This year, approximately $4 million of the $5 million available for 

Kentucky has already been used. Several large dollar subsidence emergencies were 

funded this year in Pennsylvania, leaving approximately S2 million available for the 

remainder of the year. 

In Kentucky, OSM has abated a number of landslides, caused by sudden failure of 

unstable material on abandoned mine benches in steep slope areas, threatening or 

actually damaging homes. This is the predominant emergency situation experienced 

in Kentucky and stabilization needed to abate the problem averages over $100,000. 

This cost addresses only the immediate emergency condition; OSM refers the 

remaining problem to the state for priority consideration under the regular grant 

program. With this process OSM has been able to effectively address those 

emergency situations funded within the Jjmits imposed by the cap in Kentucky. 

In the FY95 budget, the Administration has proposed the removal of the State-byState cap on the emergency AML reclamation .program. Such a spending cap creates 

inefficiencies in manging the emergency program. 
74 

S. Question: If Congress lifts the cap on funding for the emergency AML 

program, what assurances can you give us that the program will continue to be 

effectively managed? 

Answer: OSM will continue to manage emergency abatement under the guidelines 

reaffirmed in 1991 in response to concerns of OSM management and Congress. 

These guidelines include: 

o Assuring the proper declaration of emergencies. The OSM official 

declaring the emergency must ensure that there is a sudden danger or 

impairment that presents a high probability of substantial physical 

harm to the health, safety, or general welfare of people before the 

danger can be abated under nonnal program operation procedures. 

o Assuring the proper response to emergencies. Reclamation should be 

limited to that amount of reclamation necessary to stabilize the 

emergency aspects of the problem by eliminating the immediate danger 

to public health, safety, and general welfare. Any remaining work 

should be referred to the program States for consideration as a high 

priority problem in either their current or next fiscal year construction 

grant. 

o Assuring that the potential to become an emergency problem is a factor 

in the State/Tribe Project Selection process. This includes sites which 

are referred to OSM as emergencies but are not declared such and 

those sites which could deteriorate into an emerengcy situation. 
75 

6. Question: Do you feel the emergency AML spending cap has been a benefi t 

or a problem wirh rhe respect to the state grant programs? 

Answer: The Administration has proposed the elimination of rhe emergency funding 

cap language from the appropriations language. A cap on funding for abatement of 

emergencies impedes rhe efficient management of this program. 
76 

7. Question: Congress appropriated $15 million for emergency AML in the last 

fiscal year. 

Was that amount spent on reclamation projects and, if not, what was the unsp~nt 

por;tion used for? 

Answer: Congress appropriated a total of $21 . 8 million for emergency projects in 

the FY 1993. Of that amount, $6,940,500 was appropriated for grants to States 

and $14,872,500 to OSM to abate emergencies in States without their own emergency 

programs and on Federal and Tribal lands (activity 23). 

In Fiscal Year 1993, OSM obligated $10,362,262 and the States obligated 

$6 ,426,462. With Congressional approval, OSM reprogrammed $1,940,850 to States 

that took over the running of their emergency programs in Fiscal Year 1993 . 

Ten States currently run their own emergency programs (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, 

Illinois, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia). Funds 

that were not spent in FY 1993 were carried forward into Fiscal Year 1994 and are 

currently available to the States and OSM to spend on emergency projects in Fiscal 

Year 1994 (within the restrictions imposed by the emergency funding cap). The 

amounts carried forward are as follows: 

Grants 

OSM Emergencies 

Total 

$ 514,038 

$2,569,388 

$3,083,426 
77 

8. Question: Navajo citizens requested at a meeting last March with OSM that 

staffing on the reservation be increased. Former acting director, Hord Tipton, 

acknowledged that OSM's funding was inadequate for Navajo Nation staff to oversee 

the large mining operations. Tipton promised increased funding would be provided in 

this budget cycle. Over the past couple of months, numerous problems have arisen 

with mine sites on Navajo lands. 

Has this promise been kept in the FY 95 budget? 

Aoswer: OSM is the regulatory authority on Navajo lands. There are sufficient 

funds in the FY95 budget to address any regulatory problems with mine sites on 

Navajo lands. OSM monitors the workload facing its staff in the field. If 

circumstances justify such actions, it reassigns staff temporarily to areas where there 

is the most urgent need for them. Therefore, no additional funds were requested for 

this purpose. 
78 

9. .Question: The OSM budget indicates a $100,000 decrease in spending for 

applied research . Citizens have requested and OSM has agreed to (and in some 

cases, undertaken) research on problems such as "cast-blasting" (where huge 

explosive charges are used to excavate strip mine pits), acid mine drainage 

pr~vention, and preservation of prime farm lands. ' 

Does th.is decline in applied research funding mean that OSM has completed its 

studies of these problems and is ready to take action? 

Answer: The Secretary has emphasized increasing interagency suppon · for addressing 

technical issues facing the Departmen_t. OSM is involved with the Bureau of Mines 

(BOM) and the U.S . Geclogical Survey (USGS) in coordinating the effons of the 

respective agencies so as to apply state-of-the-an scientific expertise needed to solve 

complex technical problems. Acid mine drainage prevention is an example of an 

issue that currently is being addressed through this interagency cooperation. 

The applied research program is entering a new phase with future research to be 

handled by the National Biological Survey and coordinated with other Bureaus, as 

appropriate. In addition, inforrnation needs in OSM will be addressed by in house 

task forces and resources. As a result of this transition, no new research projects 

through outside contracts have been funded in Fiscal Year 1994. 

OSM has formed a task force to study methods of dealing with acid mine drainage. 

The task force will focus on acid or toxic materials handling plans. Also, OSM is 

preparing handbooks for addressing acid or toxic materials handling for Tennessee. 

In the West, OSM is conducting a staff study to identify and describe acid soils and 

plant community ecosystems to further our understanding of acid forming material in 

the West and its potential for identification and reclamation. 

In Fiscal Year 1990 and Fiscal Year 1991 , OSM began evaluati ng a large number of 

citizens' complaints near Evansville, Indiana, based on the contention that blasting 

had caused damage to their homes. Ongoing technical studies initiated in 

Fiscal Year 1992 are being conducted by OSM through interagency agreements with 

BOM, USGS, and the Corps of Engineers (COE) to determine if there is evidence 

linking blasting to the reported structural damages. 

OSM continues to work on these and other technical stud ies. 
C.E0fl(,( M l l lER (;.AU, 0'1NtA. CI-IAIUMAN 

~<Rrl' ~ . S><AflP. O><OIAHA 

fO WAOIO J .... U~l•. M A~~ACt< U~(TTS 

A<J~ Ht< J McJRrt<•. ~("'<~¥I V" " '" NtCA.Xl(RAHAll,.,WfSTVoA( iNI,&. 

11Av<:( • vono _.,,,.,.(S,Jt.o. 

PATWIU!AMS . ... O NUI<" 

OIO 'I.,. LUGO, V,A<;tN IS\A.NOS ~t~tt~~;:.-,.o, .. , .... 11 ... c .. o..o{',f. MAWAII 

CA!.V1N"' OO()ll"V. CA<,<'OOIH•A. 

c.-JllOS AOMi Ol<).8 .. AC(l O , PUI ATO H.CO 

V,"""' ENGUSl< ,A•tl0 "A 

O,AO<SHfP t<[R(),UUM 

NATKAl<ou.t._ C";[Q"l;!A 

"""'-"l!CEO. M•H.CHtV NlWvo, .. 

-fOIT "- UNot-000 l,UAU 

MOWAIICI l . ll(ftMAH. C-"LlfOAA1.t, 

l>J'tE(YANS_ILUNQ IS 

P,US•J _UjNO..IUW,t,11 

~ ! 1111"~:~ ~•w~!~~~;: ' 

79 

'ill.~. J!Jousc of l\cprcscntntillcs 

QI:0111mittcc on 

Jlaturnl l,csourccs 

Ma~IJington, :lil\1 205 15...(,201 

February 28 , 1995 

Ms . Deborah Knopman, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Wate r and Science 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Washington, o.c. 20240 

De ar Ms. Knopma n: 

OON YOUNG. AV,~ l(A 

f\ANl(!NG ll(l'U8l 1CA N MtM!J [ fl 

JA"'lS V. !<ANS fN lJ!"" 

... ~IIA<IAf. VUONOVt<: ~ . .. , v ... o .. ll10NG .. llff,lV, C .. L1'0fl .. 1A 

AVll lAT r_ s ... ,H,, OIICClO'< 

(1\1',IGTHOMAS,WVO,,o"Q 

J(l., NJO<.J CAN , J • . • • .... ·+. JOU " H<•'<.COl<)'l.0,00 

J0t<lif.000Ull<.!,(; ... " 0 "NtA 

WA,.,(AU,0,<W. COl0"'-"00 

l<1C.,AflOH. flAIClll, \ OVIS1,. .. 4 

o.lO( CAl VfRT, CAlorOl<N,,o 

scon """"''" ~ COI.0""-00 "-CH .. ~O W l'"OMIIO. C"llfiJ<l ~.,o 

J"YO TY."llk"NS"S 

.JO+• N VW~l NC( 

S 1 .Vf01Rt("1 0 11; 

RICHJOJIO .. Hllt" C-.UIIAAI.COUNSH 

DM< l(lVoll. lO:OS N 

Rlf><J!!UCANSU.,1<01 .. E(TOII 

Enclosed please find additional questions from last week's 

hearing relating to the President ' s Fiscal Year 1995 budget 

request for the energy and mineral resource p r ograms under your 

juris diction. 

Your prompt att e ntion to these inq4iries will be most 

appreciated. 

Enc losure 

f2[J~ 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources 
80 

Ms . Knopman, the budget r e quest for the Bureau of Mines proposes compre he ns ive c ha nges in how a nd where the Bu rea u 

of Mines operates . 

What are the obj ect i v es of comprehensive r eform? 

What are the rules or guidelines to be used to make reforms 

and to ensure "change" is a constructive process? 

The Bureau of Mines proposes to establish Ce nters of 

Excellence for research functions. 

How will these be established? 

Will there be Bureau-wide pe rsonnel changes? 

How will operational changes be .made? 

Ms. Knopman, last year, in writing the report to accompany 

comprehensive mining law reforms made by H.R. 322, this 

Subcommittee noted that the Bureau of Mines has pre pared a 

standard form and handbook to identify abandoned mine sites 

on federal land. 

What provisions have b een made in the budget request to 

support such needs? 

What is the scope of research responsibility for the Center 

of Excellence for Pollution Prevention and Control? 

The largest research component of the Bureau's budget has 

be en directed to the health and sat'ety of miners. 

How would this change? 

Has the Bureau of Mines made changes in its program reforms 

upon receiving comments from employees and customers? 
81 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF MINES 

OFTIC[ or lltE l)IRECTOll. 

Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

Chairman , Subcommittee on 

WASHIN GTON , DC 20241-0()02 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natu ral Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Lehman: 

• TAICI- • 1'111)(11- AMEIIICA=== 

·---. March 23. I 994 

Enclosed are responses to additional, written questions addressed to Ms. Deborah Koopman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, in your letter of February 28, 1994. The 

questions pertain to the fiscal year 1995 budget request for the U.S. Bureau of Mines and 

follow your Subcommittee's February 23 , I 994, oversight hearing on this budget request 

The responses to you r post-hearing questi ons have been approved by the Department of th e 

Interior. 

Sincerely , 

Acti::.r.3. 

Enclosure 
82 

United States Department of the Interior 

omo: OF TIIE DlRl-:.CTOR 

Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

BUREAU OF MINES 

WASHINGTO'J, DC 20241-()()02 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Lehman: 

·- -. March 23, I 994 

Enclosed are responses to additional, written questions addressed to Ms. Deborah Knopman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, in your letter of February 28, 1994. The 

questions pertain to the fiscal year I 995 budget request for the U.S. Bureau of Mines and 

follow your Subcommittee's February 23, 1994, oversight hearing on this budget request. 

The responses to your post-hearing questions have been approved by the Department of the 

Interior. 

Sincerely, 

i,<.:. ~ in& Director 

Enclosure 
83 

Q. Ms. Knopman, the budget request for the Bureau of Mines proposes comprehensive 

changes in how and where the Bureau of Mines operates. 

What are the objectives of comprehensive reform? 

A. In a December 6, 1993, memorandum sent to all employees of the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines (USBM), Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Betsy Ricke set forth the 

following expectations using guidance from the Nati onal Performance Review: 

The USBM scientific and technical expertise is well regarded by 

those in and outside of government. During my tenure as 

Assistant Secretary, however, I have discovered there is a 

common perception that USBM research and other activities 

have not been responsive to the changing public needs and, as a 

result, should largely be done by the private sector. At this 

point, 1 believe it is critical for the Bureau to take acti ve steps to 

ensure that its analytical and scientific capabilities are used in 

ways that best serve the Nation in the years to come. In 

part icular, it needs to transition to an agency which is known 

and identified for its contributions to the solution of broadbased , mineral-related problems. I believe that the objectives 

outl ined in the program review report provide a vision and a 

framework which will enable the Bureau to play a stronger, 

more effective role in Departmental and Administration efforts 

to solve the most important mineral-related problems in the 

coming years. 

Using this guidance and the assumption that future budget requests would be unlikely 

to exceed the level proposed in fiscal year (f-Y) 1995, four specific objectives became 

apparent to the USRM: 

o Maximi ze program relevance lo the Department of the Interior and redcral 

customers. 

o Develop problem-solving programs to address research priorities that would be 

conducted at Centers of Excell ence. 

o Identify programs that should be directed into higher priori ty areas or phased 

out. 

o r:ormali zc program development procedures to intlude inrut from identified 

customers and ex ternal as well as internal peer reviews. 
84 

2 

Q. What are the rules or guidelines to be used to make reforms and to ensure "change" is 

a constructive process? 

A. To achieve the intended objectives and make the necessary program adjustments in a 

constructive manner, the USBM recommends that the following rules, guidelines, and 

accountability mechanisms should be used: 

o Programs should be structured to solve explicit problems within a specified 

period of time. 

o Joint efforts with other agencies and cooperative cost-sharing partnerships 

should be encouraged. 

o Each program should be developed in cooperation with customers. 

o Each program should be subject to formal outside peer review and have a 

sunset provision. 

o A permanent Program Management Council chaired by the Director should be 

established. 

o An external advisory committee should be established to advise the Director on 

policies and programs for the USBM. 

o Visiting committees and internal peer review committees should be established 

to review all programs periodically. 

Q. The Bureau of Mines proposes to establish Centers of Excellence for research 

functions. How will these be established? 

A. The USBM recommends that Centers of Excellence be established as preeminent 

authorities on particular minerals techniques, technological developments, or 

information that is useful to the Nation, Department of the Interior and other USBM 

customers. Each Center of Excellence would specialize in solving a specific set of 

problems in a defined area of expertise. The areas of expertise of the proposed 

Centers of Excellence are: 

o Environmental Remediation 

o Pollution Prevention and Control 

o Health and Safety 

o Materials Research Partnerships 
85 

Q. Will there be Bureau-wide personnel changes? 

A. Yes. The Bureau intends to eliminate at least one management layer each in the field 

and at headquarters. Concurrent with the closure of two facilities in Alaska, one in 

Alabama, and one in Missouri will be staff consolidation to implement program 

adjustments and the President's goal of staff reductions. Overall, we anticipate a staff 

reduction of 21 I positions, almost 10 percent, will be required in FY 1995. All field 

facilities and headquarters will be affected. 

Q. How will operational changes be made? 

A. An Implementation Team made up of USBM employees will be recommending the 

specific details of what needs to be done to achieve goals. Change should be 

implemented in ways that will minimize its adverse impact on USBM employees and 

enhance their future professional opportunities. 

Initially, there would be program activities in a designated Center of Excellence that 

would support another Center of Excellence. The current Environmental Technology 

program, for example, is conducted at all nine research centers and one field office. 

Such activities would be transferred to the appropriate Center of Excellence within a 

5-year timeframe. 

The locations for the proposed Centers of Excellence were chosen based on the 

quality of the physical structure currently at these locations, geography, transportation 

routes, and the technical capabilities currently at the location. Those research 

locations that are not designated as a future Center of Excellence would become 

satellites to one of the Centers. 

Q. Ms. Koopman, last year, in writing the report to accompany comprehensive mining 

law reforms made by H.R. 322, this Subcommittee noted that the Bureau of Mines 

has prepared a standard form and handbook to identify abandoned mine sites on 

federal land. 

What provisions have been made in the budget request to support such needs? 

A. Because of the increasing need for inventory and evaluation of abandoned mined lands 

managed by the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies, funding for 

these studies will be increased by transferring some funding from mineral land 

assessment and international minerals availability functions. f'icld evaluation and 

prioritization of abandoned mineral sites started in FY I 994 will be completed. 

Additional studies will be determined by priority needs of the Forest Service and the 
86 

Bureau of Land tv1anagcmcnt. Work will continue on the integration of abandoned 

mine information in the Greater Yellowstone Area and other priority planning areas. 

The USBM's mineral history data base, with over 200,000 records, is a 

comprehensive profile of mining and mineral-related sites. A USBM screening 

methodology is used to assess a site's relative potential for public health and safety 

hazards and/or environmental problems. Using this methodology and information 

gathered from current and past Mineral Land Assessment studies, the USBM is 

assisting land managing agencies with their inventory requirements. 

Site characterization, which determines the volume, toxicity, and mobility of 

pollutants, is essential to efficient, cost-effective remediation. Because of their size 

and complex mineral nature, mining sites can be difficult to evaluate. The USBM 

expertise in mineral exploration and engineering methods has been combined with 

other disciplines, such as biology, to form teams of scientists and engineers. These 

teams conduct characterization studies for f'ederal agencies on abandoned mining and 

mineral-processing sites. 

4 

Q. What is the scope of research responsibility for the Center of Excellence for Pollution 

Prevention and Control? 

The Administration has designated pollution prevention as one of its highest research 

priorities, calling for accelerated investment in methods to prevent pollution and 

minimize resource waste. The USBM research capabilities in these areas will be 

consolidated at the proposed Center of Excellence for Pollution Prevention and 

Control. Although cleaning up the damage caused by past industrial processing is 

vital, the long-term, cost-effective solution is to prevent damage by fixing the source 

of pollutants and wastes. Wastes can be further reduced through recycling. 

Large amounts of solid and liquid wastes arc generated at various stages of the 

materials cycle--from extraction, to refining, to use. These wastes are often 

contaminated with toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury. This program 

will develop the science and technology required to modify pollutant sources to 

minimize wastes and prevent environmental problems. 

Q. The largest research component of the Bureau's budget has been directed to the health 

and safety of miners. How would th1S change'! 

A. Health and safety research will continue to be a major part of the future U.S. Bureau 

of Mines. However, the past success of the program could not be overlooked in 

determining how the program fits in a strategic plan for the USBM. The results of 

USBM research have helped reduce fatalities significantly. In coal, for instance, 
87 

there was a 79 percent decrease in fatalities per 200,000 employee-hours exposure 

from 1965 to I 990. Recent fatalities for all types of mining have been less than 100 

per year. 

s 

Mining, however, is still a hazardous occupation, and we need to continue to develop 

safer technologies to reduce or eliminate injuries and fatalities. Some technical 

problems with mining safety have not been solved. Underground coal mining, for 

instance, still has a disproportionate number of injuries. This sector still needs 

research to bring its injury rates in line with other industries. Industry often has little 

incentive to develop new technologies to accomplish this since increased regulations 

or potential liability questions can be involved. The Federal Government works to 

ensure that technology can be made available to meet current or proposed regulations 

and improve technology that can be used to strengthen regulations to provide a safer 

working environment. 

The proposed health and safety reductions were selective. They reflect an 

examination of each element and major problems that can be solved. The proposed 

reductions in funding attempt to prioritize the health and safety needs along with a 

push toward defining research problems more concisely. 

Q. Has the Bureau of ~1incs made changes in its program reforms upon receiving 

comments from employees and customers0 

A. Yes. Many constructive comments were received. The most significant change 

occurred in the area of information and analysis. The program review originally 

proposed five Centers of Excellence. The comments received suggest that 

information programs, unlike research, need not be concentrated in a single location 

to achieve excellence. On the contrary, information programs benefit from 

complementary data collection at several field locations and headquarters. 

Consequently, the USBM recommends reducing the number of Centers of Excellence 

from five to four, all of which would be associated with a specialized field of 

research. Complementary data collection and analytic services provided at 

headquarters and some field locations will continue. The quantity and quality of 

information activities will be continually reviewed by the same standards of excellence 

and with the same budget considerations as for research. 

0 

81-896 (96) 




ISBN 0-16-044773-9 

90000