FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

DOI - 122 - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council - Statutory (Congress Created)

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council	Agency Name	Department of the Interior
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	122
Original Establishment Date	6/24/1974	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL	http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	21
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Manager, Adaptive Management Water Quality Division
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Current Charter Date	8/29/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Kathleen
Date Of Renewal Charter	8/29/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Callister
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority	43 U.S.C. 1594	Designated Federal Officer Phone*	801-524-3781
Establishment Authority*	Statutory (Congress Created)	Designated Federal Officer Fax*
Specific Establishment Authority*	43 U.S.C. 1594	Designated Federal Officer Email*	kcallister@usbr.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	6/24/1974
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	Not Applicable
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	The Council plans to hold two meetings a year in the spring and fall, and it may call for more if needed. During its fall meeting, the Council reviews the achievements of federal agencies and offers suggestions for next salinity control initiatives. During its spring meeting, the Council considers and decides on suitable steps for the Basin States Program, the Basinwide Program, and other matters under its purview. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the Council also independently ascertains what Federal measures are required to be consistent with the Plan of Implementation included in the evaluation of the Water Quality Standards. Within financial restrictions, every agency works hard to fund projects as advised, settle disputes, and implement other suggested activities. The Council also reviews the cost sharing allocations between the Basin States and recommends any needed adjustments. These recommendations are captured in the annual report.
How is membership balanced?*	The membership is balanced in that the Council is made up of no more than three members from each of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by the respective Governors. Members are normally representatives from the State water resources planning agency and the agency charged with water quality control in each State. These offices are those charged with maintaining salinity standards and administering pollution control activities within the State.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The Council meets approximately twice a year, and at such other times as designated by the Designated Federal Officer. The spring meeting allows the Council to respond to the responses received from the Federal agencies regarding the recommendations made by the Council in its Annual Report. The Federal agencies provide a mid-year report to the Council on their salinity control activities. The fall meeting is held after the end of the fiscal year and the Council receives reports from the Federal agencies on their salinity control accomplishments during the year. The Council makes recommendations to the Federal agencies on how to improve salinity control activities in the new year. The recommendations are memorialized in the Council's Annual Report.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	The Council serves as a mechanism by which the representatives of the States can discuss the salinity problem among themselves and with the Federal agencies. These discussions are valuable in arriving at a common view of the problem and creating a coordinated effort toward solving that problem. Consideration was not given to fulfilling the Council's responsibilities through another existing committee nor by the Bureau of Reclamation because legislative language precluded such considerations. It would be difficult for the Federal agencies to gain this input from the separate views of each State. The Council, through its semiannual meetings, provides a unique opportunity for private citizens to discuss their concern, criticisms, and questions regarding the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Why close or partially close meetings?	All meetings are open to the public.
Recommendation Remarks	Up to three members from each of the seven Basin States (Arizona, Colorado, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) are appointed to the Council by the Governors of each State. Members serve at the discretion of the Governors of the state that appointed them. At the end of each calendar year the Council prepares an Annual Report for that year and provides it to the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, usually by February or March. The recommendations from the Council will not be final until the end of 2024 as this is an annual year report not a fiscal year report.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	Yes	Action Reorganize Priorities*	Yes
Outcome Trust In Government	Yes	Action Reallocate Resources	Yes
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	No	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	No
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	Yes	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	Yes	Action Comment	NA
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	Yes	Grants Review*	No
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	0
Outcome Comment	The Council with its members from a variety of disciplines provides valuable guidance to the Federal agencies in meeting the goals of the salinity control program as established by the Salinity Control Act	Number Of Grants Recommended	0
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$0.00
Cost Savings Comment	NA	Grants Review Comment	NA
Number Of Recommendations*	814	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	The Council made the following thirty-five recommendations in the Annual 2023 report (completed in FY 2024), that were submitted to the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, and the Administrator of EPA for consideration. Bureau of Reclamation: 1. The Council recognizes that it is difficult, given Reclamation’s budget cycle, to make funding recommendations that can influence Reclamation’s budget request for the next two fiscal years. The Council is very concerned with recent reductions in funding to the Basinwide Program. The Council recognizes the efforts of Reclamation staff to smoothly and efficiently implement the Basinwide Program despite yo-yoing appropriations. The Council also recognizes and commends Reclamation’s efforts to acquire year-end and other funds to make up for initial appropriation shortfalls. a. The Council again requests that Secretarial and Reclamation leadership do everything within their power to seek adequate and consistent funding levels. The Council recommends that Reclamation seek ways to restore funding in FY-2024 and beyond in accordance with the amounts shown in Table 1. Though the Council is very appreciative of Reclamation’s efforts to “find” additional funds not initially appropriated to the Program, it would very much prefer an initial request of $10.7 million in the President’s Budget each year. Reclamation is requested to give a detailed report on its efforts to secure additional funding at the next Advisory Council meeting. 2. The Council appreciates Reclamation’s patience, insight and assistance in resolving the funding shortfalls in the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. It specifically recognizes Reclamation’s willingness to be part of the solution through greater participation in the O&M expenses of older units. a. The Council asks that Reclamation remain fully engaged in the efforts as the solution works its way through Congressional authorization including providing supporting briefings and other information as may be requested by Congressional committees and staff. 3. The Council specifically expresses appreciation to Reclamation for its efforts to track expenditures under the Basinwide Program and Basin States Program and to keep Council and Forum members informed on funding status. The Council simply requests that Reclamation keep up the good work in this regard. 4. The Council also recognizes Reclamation’s efforts in the past year to work with the Forum’s Work Group and identify a method for better forecasting LCRBDF salinity revenues. a. The Council requests that Reclamation continue to implement the agreed-to methodology with updates every six months. b. It also requests that Reclamation consider even further potential fund forecasting improvements through dynamic inclusion of planned conservation projects even as or before they are finalized. 5. Lastly, relative to Program funding, the Council recognizes Reclamation’s efforts to continue to budget sufficient funds for required operation and maintenance of constructed units and for plan formulation, including the PVU alternatives studies and EIS effort. The Council has noted that in the past, while the project was not operating, O&M expenditures were on par with those during full operations. The Council has expressed concern over these high expenditures during periods of non-operation. a. Just to be clear, the Council welcomes the opportunity to cost share in and partner with Reclamation in Paradox operations – it just wants to do so when salinity control is being achieved. 6. The Council also recognizes that Reclamation receives an appropriation to its Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program. While this program is outside of the Title II funding, there is meaningful overlap and benefits between the two efforts, including supporting staff and maintaining stream gaging and monitoring activities. The salinity efforts also benefit from Reclamation’s development of the CE-QUAL-W2 modeling capabilities. a. Therefore, the Council requests that Reclamation support the funding of this line item so that it does not draw dollars away from implementation efforts under the Title II program. b. The Council requests that Reclamation continue to support and improve its short- term CE-QUAL-W2 modeling and provide semi-annual reports at the Forum meetings. c. Also, the Council affirms its prior requests that Reclamation continue to budget sufficient dollars, independent of the Basinwide Program funding, for O&M activities, planning, operations, and administration of the Program. 7. The Council appreciates Reclamation’s efforts with prior FOA s (now NOFOs) and looks forward to the implementation of the projects selected under future NOFOs. The Council specifically recognizes and appreciates Reclamation’s efforts to find a solution to the unprecedented pipe price increases which were experienced during COVID which allowed projects and salinity control implementation to continue forward. a. Once this effort is completed and all projects are moving ahead, the Council would appreciate a short report on the policies and methods employed, the costs, and the accomplishments which were achieved through providing one-time pipe price increase modifications to the Basinwide Program projects. Included should be a report on lessons learned and policies or positions developed for the future. 8. The Council has observed over the years Reclamation’s efforts to adapt and be even more effective in administering the FOAs. The 2023 NOFO was no exception. That said, the Council was disappointed in the early reporting of applicant participation in the 2023 NOFO and it wonders if there are items which can be changed to the applications which would make the process more accessible and appealing to potential applicants. The Council appreciates Reclamation’s efforts to work with applicants prior to submission of applications so as to create the best projects. The Council asks that Reclamation continue to adapt the NOFO by listening to the needs and views of the applying entities. In particular, it notes the increasing opportunities to leverage different funding sources to create broader and more effective projects that benefit the larger community and watershed goals. a. Between now and the next NOFO, the Council requests that Reclamation work with water users and the states to determine if there are changes which can be implemented to the NOFO process which would improve the applicant participation rate. The Council and Forum stand ready to participate in such an effort. 9. The past salt disposal at PVU has been very important to the Colorado River System for improving water quality (by 9-10 mg/L) and reducing economic damages (estimated at $24 million annually) in the Lower Basin. The Council applauds Reclamation’s efforts to continue injection, even if on a more limited basis, while alternatives are considered. The PVU EIS did not identify a viable salt disposal alternative. Nonetheless, given the value and singular importance of this project, the Council is not ready to give up on finding a workable alternative. The Council recognizes and appreciates Reclamation’s efforts to issue an RFI and to continue to seek an acceptable alternative. a. Until a viable salt disposal alternative is successfully identified, the Council urges Reclamation to continue to apply focused efforts and resources identifying options and resolving any identified issues. 10. The Council notes that Reclamation has brought together a capable staff to effectively administer the Program. The Council notes that important to the overall efforts in the past has been a staff engineering position. The Council appreciates Reclamation filling this position and requests that this engineer be given full latitude and resources to support the current program as well as explore opportunities for improving Program salinity control activities and seeking new opportunities for the future. 11. The Council appreciates Reclamation’s significant efforts to update the Salinity Economic Impact Model (SEIM) for quantifying economic damages from salinity in the lower Colorado River System. The Council requests that Reclamation work with the Forum’s Work Group to identify the next steps in improving our understanding and ability to quantify impacts of salinity levels. 12. Each fall Reclamation seeks input from the involved federal agencies and prepares a Federal Accomplishments Report (FAR), which report is sent to the Advisory Council before its fall meeting. The efforts of Reclamation to bring together the FAR each year in advance of the fall meetings is very helpful in the Council’s review and evaluation of the Program, and the Council expresses appreciation for Reclamation’s and other agencies’ efforts in this regard and requests that this report continue to be provided each fall. 13. The Council continues to observe the value of the role played by the Science Team. The Council urges Reclamation to continue to convene and staff the Science Team. BLM: 14. Specifically, the Council recognizes the efforts of BLM’s salinity liaison, attached to headquarters with national resources, policy ties and program funding, and BLM’s experienced salinity coordinator attached to the NOC with technical resources and the ability to coordinate with state and field offices. The combination is leading to strong support and resources for the program, and BLM’s leadership is seen by participation in meetings, responses to inquiries, dedication of staff time and funding, commitment to studies, understanding and reporting, and the willingness to think outside the box in regard to integrating salinity control into other BLM programs and objectives. The Council has also witnessed BLM’s recent efforts to train state and field offices, coordinate activities and include them in salinity meetings. All has enhanced understanding and consciousness of salinity control objectives. The Council’s request is that BLM continue in this effective vein. 15. The Council appreciates BLM’s ability to maintain the program funding and it recommends that BLM continue to expend at least $2.0 million for implementation of specific salinity control activities on public lands within the Basin. The Council also recognizes, appreciates, and requests that BLM also continue to use other non-specific salinity dollars for efforts to study and improve the water quality in the Colorado River Basin. In particular, the Council notes BLM’s efforts to leverage other dollars with salinity control projects to increase the number of projects which can be funded and their effectiveness. The Council notes BLM’s recent emphasis to use salinity funding for implementation of projects. 16. The Council notes BLM’s recent emphasis to use salinity funding for implementation of projects. It also recognizes and appreciates BLM’s increased efforts and effectiveness in reporting expenditure of funds and project implementation to the Council and the Forum and to provide them with an opportunity to see proposed activities before they are implemented. The Council asks that BLM continue to do so and to work with other federal partners, the Forum, or its Work Group, to develop a method for reporting salinity improvements associated with such activities. It specifically asks that BLM work with the Forum’s Work Group to determine a defensible way to quantify and report both qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of such control efforts. 17. The Council appreciates BLM’s efforts to create a better understanding of salt mobilization on public lands, including being involved in a number of studies. The Council asks that BLM work with the Science Team and the Forum’s Work Group to report the results of these studies as they become available. The Council reaffirms its request that BLM coordinate with the Work Group to know where studies have been reported (i.e., journals, etc.) and report the results of these efforts including the Texas A&M study to document and model salt transport on public lands. 18. The Council recognizes the desire to improve the options for the replacement of wildlife values foregone. It appreciates BLM’s efforts to find and participate in the establishment of such replacement, especially on federally administered lands where long-term maintenance and management can occur. The Council requests that BLM continue to be engaged with Reclamation, NRCS and the USFWS in seeking out and establishing such wildlife areas.” 19. The Council has heard reports on the potential to be involved in projects to study methods and the potential effectiveness of watershed enhancements on water quality and water quantity. It is probable that should such study efforts be implemented, they would involve BLM administered land. The Council appreciates BLM’s participation and leadership in these discussions and asks that BLM continue to provide leadership and technical support as options are explored. 20. The heart of Reclamation’s salinity control program is aimed at reducing seepage, with its resulting salt leaching, from old earthen canals, ditches and laterals. Many of these ditches and canals are located on BLM administered lands and have grandfathered easements or rights-of-way. In implementing improvements under Reclamation’s Basinwide Program, at times, greater efficiencies and cost savings can be achieved if there is a realignment of the new features outside of the old easements. The Program is exploring if requiring participants to vacate grandfathered easements for permitted ones is creating a hinderance to their participation in the Program. The Council appreciates BLM’s insights and discussion in the matter thus far and simply asks that BLM continue to stay engaged as theses explorations continue. USGS: 21. The Council wishes to thank USGS for the priority it gives to funding the basic stream gaging program on the Colorado River. The Council encourages and supports USGS in their efforts to maintain the 20-gage network. It has been noted that not all of the gages in this network receive USGS’ A classification. The Council, therefore, asks that USGS work with the Forum and the Work Group to identify what needs to occur to make the 20-gage network as robust and serviceable as possible. 22. The Council has previously commented on and recognized USGS’s initiation of the study of the long-term salinity trends in the Upper Basin and appreciates the support thus far. This is a big deal to the overall Program. The Council is anxious to receive a full report on the study findings and understand what such findings mean to the overall Program efforts now and into the future. Therefore, the Council requests that USGS include the Work Group in a detailed review of preliminary study findings, and when appropriate, provide a detailed report to the Forum and Council. 23. The Council has given its support to detailed investigative efforts by USGS of the Pah Tempe Springs. The Council appreciates USGS’s efforts and insight in proposing the final study to finish characterizing the fault zone which leads to brine discharge to the Virgin River. The Council appreciates USGS’ efforts and now requests that USGS move forward in a timely manner with the data analysis and report writing. USFWS: 24. The Council recognizes that many of its recommendations to the USFWS are on a continuing basis and do not change significantly from year to year. It appreciates USFWS’s role in finding, reviewing, and supporting viable wildlife replacement projects and the service that USFWS provides in reviewing and tabulating replacement by areas and as requested. The Council recommends that USFWS continue these activities and proactively assist the other agencies in moving the Program forward. The Council also recognizes the important role of the USFWS salinity coordinator. 25. As noted in prior years, the Council again expresses its appreciation for the tables provided by USFWS in the FAR. It also appreciates the efforts of the Service to review the M&E reports. The Council appreciates USFWS’s efforts to review and approve off-site replacement efforts and concurs with USFWS that such efforts are better than receiving no replacement. The Council finds the review and tabulations of wildlife values foregone replacement efforts most helpful and requests that the Council continue to be informed each year in the FAR as to the effectiveness and current status of these efforts. The Council recognizes that the wildlife training opportunity has not yet occurred and so it requests that, when organized, the FWS participate in such training presentation to the Work Group on how wildlife values are determined and tabulated. 26. In the past few years USFWS has participated with other agencies in seeking and reviewing potentially larger, more permanent mitigation opportunities, including ones on federally administered lands. In the past the Council has recognized the USFWS’s role in the successful larger wildlife projects. The Council appreciated the Services report that it has been looking for mitigation banking options and opportunities. The Council asks that USFWS continue to not only be a participant in these activities, but that it be proactive and a leader in seeking out wildlife replacement opportunities which will provide lasting wildlife enhancement, and which will fit within the Program opportunities and mandates, including construction of such projects on public lands. NRCS 27. The Council appreciates the level of funding made available to the salinity control effort through EQIP. Traditionally, on-farm salinity control has been some of the most cost effective salinity efforts available. While much of the less expensive salinity control has now been accomplished and there has been an increase in on-farm salinity control costs in the last couple of years, cost-effective salinity control opportunities still exist. Continued funding is needed to meet the goals identified now in the 2023 Review for the Department of Agriculture. The Council requests the three State Conservationists, and their staff continue to develop a Three-Year Funding Plan and that NRCS program managers continue to allocate salinity EQIP funds to the state offices consistent with such plan. It also requests that NRCS look for opportunities to fund on-farm salinity control activities in the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico. As Reclamation completes the San Juan Dineh Project it is hoped that there will be on-farm opportunities. 28. During the past several years several factors have made it more difficult for producers to fully participate in on-farm salinity control activities as evidenced by reduced sign-ups and increased contract deferrals and cancellations. The Council asks that NRCS, working through their district and area offices, identify impediments to full Program implementation and report back to the Council. It is requested that the report include the identification of opportunities to overcome the identified impediments. 29. Key to NRCS’ prior successes has been an engaged and capable salinity coordinator who has had full ability to work with NRCS offices throughout the Colorado River Basin. Several years ago, NRCS determined to move to a staffing model with two salinity coordinators but who also had other responsibilities. One of these has now retired. The Council urges NRCS to quickly fill that position with a capable and dedicated individual who is afforded at least fifty percent of his or her time to coordinating and implementing salinity control efforts and that that individual is afforded sufficient time and resources to effectively lead NRCS’multi-million-dollar salinity control efforts. 30. The Council also continues to recognize that much of NRCS’s past success in implementing salinity control comes from efforts beyond simply servicing EQIP contracts. It comes from talented staff working with producers in properly operating and managing on-farm improvements. A USGS study of NRCS data over a number of years in the Grand Valley shows a wide range in effectiveness derived from implementation and maintenance of the same practices, confirming the importance of the continual need for training and assisting producers. It has come to the Council’s attention that occasionally the limitation in implementation of the Program is tied not to lack of available funding, but to lack of available staff to service needed contracts. The Council requests that NRCS continue to evaluate Program limitations and, if needed, make adjustments so as to provide sufficient staffing to meet Program objectives. 31. The Council believes that it is the dedication, coupled with effective and hard work of NRCS personnel, which has made the NRCS salinity control program such a success. The Council appreciates the attentiveness of NRCS Washington staff in the Program’s success. The Council also recognizes and appreciates the dedicated attention that the three State Conservationists have given the Program, and it invites them to continue to frequently participate in Program meetings, discussions and activities and provide input, expertise and guidance as we move the overall Program forward. The Council simply requests that NRCS continues to remain an engaged and proactive partner as it has in the past. 32. The Council notes NRCS’ improved reporting of implementation of salinity contracts and requests that NRCS continue to provide such information to the Work Group. It also requests that NRCS continue to provide the annual M&E reports and that it review the information gathered from the project areas with the Work Group. 33. The Council expresses appreciation to NRCS for bringing to the states creative approaches to using other tools such as RCPP, PL566 and WME to meet Program goals and objectives. It requests that NRCS continue in this collaborative vein as we seek to improve the water quality of the Colorado River System. The Council asks that NRCS continue pursuing these types of opportunities and report frequently to the Forum and Work Group. EPA: 34. The Council expresses appreciation to EPA for its involvement in, and assistance with the Forum’s triennial review process to review and update its Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (2023 Review) including providing to the Forum a list of EPA administered NPDES permits. With this review now complete, it asks that EPA help shepherd the state standards through to approval and seek ways, if possible, to streamline the process. The Council requests that updates be given each year by EPA on the status of its efforts to approve such standards. 35. The Council also appreciates the involvement of EPA in water quality control efforts by the Tribes in the Colorado River Basin as they set water quality standards. The Council requests that EPA continue to provide updates on the number of tribes which have received Treatment as a State (TAS) designation and if they have adopted the Forum’s policies into their NPDES rules. Anything else on implementation of water quality standards by the Tribes would be helpful. The Advisory Council has been in existence since the mid-1970s, approximately 50+ years, making recommendations to Federal agencies with direct responsibility for salinity control in the Colorado River: Reclamation, BLM, and NRCS; and to the supporting Federal agencies: FWS, EPA, USGS. Detailed information about the Council's recommendations can be found in the 2023 Annual Report.	Access Agency Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	75.00%	Access Committee Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	75% of recommendations have been fully implemented.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	25.00%	Access Publications	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	Some recommendations will take a long time before being fully implemented. The ability of the Federal Government to more timely implement the Council's recommendations would require an increase of the appropriated funds directed at these issues.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Each of the Federal agencies sends a letter to the Council in response to the recommendations made by the Council in the Annual Report. The Federal agencies respond that they have completed the recommendation, how they will complete it, or why they cannot comply with the recommendation.	Narrative Description*	The Council makes program recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency through its Annual Report. The Annual Report specifically recommends funding levels for the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Council also independently determines what Federal actions are needed to be consistent with the Plan of Implementation contained in the review of the Water Quality Standards in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Council also reviews the cost sharing allocations between the Basin States and recommends any needed adjustments. These recommendations are captured in the Annual Report.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/19/2025 10:49 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Agriculture Agriculture Applied Science Engineering Basic Science Chemistry Business Industry Computer Technology Applications Energy Natural Resources Environment Environmental Issues Government Federal Government State Government Land Land Management and Use Water Rivers Water Use

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports