Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir, I believe that. I think another big part of our problem is process. We do not follow our processes very well in NEPA, which was brought up by Senator Hollings. So we have those two issues to deal with, yes, sir.

Senator REED. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HOLLINGS. Admiral, two things in thanking you. On that climate change initiative, I think, overall, with respect to the Government, we appropriate some $4.5 billion. In NOAA, you have only $110 million of the $4.5 million, and I am looking and finding a majority of that money is over there in Energy, and it is just political appointments over there and they use it politically. They were into the CAFE standards adversely just recently on last week's debate and everything else. It is sort of frustrating that you are given the responsibility and you are limited in money, and then politics holds you so that you cannot develop a good policy in global climate change protocols.

Remember when you get a chance at the higher levels of Government mentioning this so that we start straightening that out, and otherwise, watch that Kennedy fund.

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLINGS. We only get $4.5 million and one big $5 million grant was given to a good colleague of ours to get a vote with respect to trade promotion authority. Let us bring back-you are of high integrity, so let us get some integrity back into the Kennedy program.

Are there any further questions?

[No response.]

Senator HOLLINGS. We thank you very, very much for what you are doing over there. We are lucky to get you.

Senator GREGG. Let me just echo that. We are very appreciative of your taking this job on. It is a superb agency and we look forward to continuing to strongly support it.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Senator Hollings, thank you and the distinguished members of the committee very much. It has been a pleasure to be here today. I look forward to working with you. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

NOAA ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

Question. Admiral, is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) organized appropriately to successfully fulfill its mission? Do you think NOAA headquarters is organized and staffed appropriately to analyze and transfer information up and down the chain of command accurately and efficiently? If not, how would you change things?

Answer. As I have only been on board at NOAA for a few months, I haven't determined if NOAA is organized appropriately to successfully fulfill its mission. As I mentioned during the hearing, I am conducting an internal review of all of NOAA management processes. I hope that at the end of this review, I will be able to better assess NOAA's organizational structure and implement changes if necessary.

Question. Please provide an organizational chart of NOAA headquarters broken out to the lowest level of organization. For each box include the office's budget in fiscal year 2002 dollars, and the number and description of the various positions (include all positions: FTE, detail, contractor, fellow, or otherwise). Additionally, in a table format please provide the same information for years fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003. (Use the President's budget for 2003.)

Answer. See attached organizational chart and Attachment A for the NOAA headquarters breakouts for fiscal years 1998-2003.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
(Dollars in Thousands)

NOAA ENERGY INITIATIVE

Question. In your House Hearing, you claimed that the energy initiative in the Northeast was "not logical". Please explain. Additionally, please explain why it makes sense to initiate a pilot program in one region and terminate that program before it is taken operational, in order to initiate a similar operational program in another region. Have the two energy programs initiated in fiscal year 2002 been well-received by the community? Are these programs successful? What level of funding would be required to take the two energy programs in the northeast operational? Which NOAA programs would be most appropriate to receive these funds to make these programs operational?

Answer. NOAA responds to the energy needs of society by pursuing research, development and implementation of programs that will lead to better weather and climate forecasts, safer and more efficient energy transportation and expedite energy permitting. The Northeast pilot program begun in fiscal year 2002 was a research program designed to evaluate the potential use of air quality and improved temperature forecasts to increase the efficiency of energy, production, dispatching, and distribution. The funding will support research and development of an innovative temperature and air quality forecast systems during fiscal year 2002. An external economic evaluation of the program will produce a final report in fiscal year 2003, and will be the basis for further studies of the use of environmental information in the energy sector in the Northeast.

The Energy Security Program requested in fiscal year 2003 is an operational program that will be used to improve the accuracy and reliability of forecast models of hydrology (e.g., precipitation and water flow), weather and climate conditions. Improvements in the forecast models will be used to increase the efficiency of energy production, dispatching and distribution. The focus of this program is the Southeastern United States where unlike the Northeast, there is greater reliance on hydropower and an opportunity to test and evaluate potential improvements in river flow forecasts that will improve the efficiency of water management and hydropower generation. Air Quality forecasting studies will not be conducted in this program. The preliminary results of the fiscal year 2002 pilot program will help determine the appropriate implementation of the observing network in the Southeast.

Additionally, the southeast was identified through NOAA's internal process as the target region. The decision was based on both need and opportunity as expressed by industry stakeholders nationwide who were consulted in the development of the pilot program. The information gained from conducting the fiscal year 2002 pilot program will benefit the fiscal year 2003 program and is applicable to all regions of the country. The long-term goal is to expand the program nationwide.

The programs for fiscal year 2002 have been well-received by the research community. However, it is too early to determine the level of success of the programs because the operating plan was finalized recently and research has just begun.

An evaluation of the funding levels required to take the fiscal year 2002 pilot program operational has not been completed. The results of this evaluation will help us determine the scope of future costs required to make the pilot operational and to expand the program beyond the pilot region. NOAA's Energy Security Program is a collaborative effort between Office of Atmospheric Research (OAR) and National Weather Service (NWS). This program is coordinated by OAR, and NOAA's fiscal year 2003 President's Budget requests funding in the amount of $6.1 million in fiscal year 2003 for OAR to coordinate this program.

NEW ENGLAND GROUNDFISH LAWSUIT

Question. As you know, a lawsuit filed by the Conservation Law Foundation and others found that the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration violated_federal laws when they failed to prevent overfishing and bycatch in the New England groundfish fisheries. The U.S. District Court is currently reviewing options for a remedy. Did you include an analysis of the social and economic consequences of the remedy you provided to the court? Why or why not? Is it true that if your proposed remedy is accepted, the average income of New Hampshire's fisherman could be cut by almost 45 percent? If your remedy or a more aggressive remedy is ordered by the court, what will you do to ensure that the fishing industry remains a vital industry in New Hampshire?

Answer. On March 1, 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed to the Court, on behalf of the Secretary, to bring the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) into full compliance with the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and all other applicable law as quickly as possible by way of three separate actions: a Secretarial interim action under authority of section 305(c)

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to be implemented by May 1, 2002, which would be effective for 180 days; a Secretarial amendment to the FMP, under authority of section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to be implemented before the Secretarial interim action expires in October 2002; and Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, to be completed by NMFS and the New England Fishery Management Council and implemented by August 2003.

The Secretarial interim action, the first part of this approach, will put in place important measures to reduce overfishing on major groundfish stocks in the Northeast, particularly for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, and will monitor and assess bycatch. NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment for this action, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which analyzes the expected biological, social, and economic impacts of a range of alternatives. The remedy proposed to the Court on March 1, 2002, did not contain the analysis in the Environmental Assessment, because the Environmental Assessment was still under revision. A summary of the economic and social impacts of the interim action was provided to the Court in a Declaration by Pat Kurkul filed on April 1, 2002.

The analysis indicates that for the preferred alternative, the relative distribution of impacts is greatest for New Hampshire vessels, with 50 percent of all New Hampshire vessels having an estimated loss in gross fishing income of 21.4 percent or greater. One-quarter of all New Hampshire vessels would lose at least one-third of vessel income, and 10 percent of vessels would lose 43.6 percent of their May-October fishing income. The estimated adverse impacts on Maine and Massachusetts vessels were comparatively lower than they were for New Hampshire vessels, but they are significant just the same, especially considering the fact that there are twice as many Maine vessels than New Hampshire vessels, and Massachusetts vessels outnumber New Hampshire vessels by more than 8:1. Thus, while New Hampshire vessels fare relatively worse than Maine and Massachusetts vessels, the overall impact on the state of New Hampshire is likely to be less than that on Maine and Massachusetts. Across all of these states, 84 vessels will have an estimated loss in May-October income of at least 30 percent or greater. Under the Non-Preferred Alternative, which relies on expanded area closures in the GOM to achieve the necessary mortality objectives for GOM cod, New Hampshire vessels would be more adversely affected at all percentiles (except the 90th) than they would be under the Preferred Alternative.

Depending on what the Court orders for May 1, 2002, the Agency will, provided the Court allows, develop and analyze a range of alternatives, as has been done for the interim action, to determine what alternative meets the goals and objectives of the Court Order and that has the least social and economic impacts to the fishing industry. Given the outcome of this lawsuit, it is likely that the adverse short-term impacts will be felt broadly across the Northeast and across all industry sectors. We will do everything possible to spread the impacts fairly and to ensure that the benefits that accrue from rebuilt stocks will also be shared equitably.

Question. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration submitted the agency's proposed remedy for the New England groundfish violations to the court in early March. Weeks later, the agency announced new scientific findings regarding the fisheries in question. Why didn't the agency conclude its scientific investigation and announce its findings prior to the submission of their remedy to the court? Will these new scientific conclusions undermine the credibility of the agency's proposed remedy? Does the public announcement of these new findings on the day all comments are due to the court, undermine the ability of the intervening parties to consider the best available science when submitting their comments to the court?

Answer. The reevaluation of the biological reference points (biomass at maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy), fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy)) for all of the groundfish stocks regulated under Amendment 9 was deemed necessary to provide information to the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) for preparation of Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan. It was based on a reevaluation of biological reference points for the GOM cod stock, completed in the spring and summer of 2001. In re-evaluating the Bmsy and Fmsy values for that stock (33rd Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW), September 2001), the peer review scientific panel noted that the biological reference points for the GOM cod stock contained in Amendment 9 were inappropriately estimated, using incorrect models. The 33rd SAW proposed new revised values of Bmsy and Fmsy based on models deemed to be more scientifically valid. The revised values of Bmsy and Fmsy reported by the 33rd SAW for GOM cod are essentially the same as those proposed in a final report entitled the "Working Group on Re-Evaluation of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish", prepared by a scientific working group in which NMFS' scientists met with outside scientists on February 12-14, 2002.