[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FY 2013 BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-148 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Paul Tonko, NY
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Mark Amodei, NV
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Jarvis, Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``FY 2013 BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT.''
----------
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Rivera, Tipton, Amodei;
Grijalva, Holt, and Sarbanes.
Also Present: Representative Pallone.
Mr. Bishop. Apologies for being late. The hearing will come
to order. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is
meeting today.
Under the Rules, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and the Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous
consent to include any other Member's opening statement in the
hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by the close of
business today, and hearing no objections, that will be so
ordered.
Mr. Bishop. I want to thank the two witnesses that we will
be having here today, Jon Jarvis, who is the Director of the
National Park Service, and Bob Abbey, who is Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, who have agreed to testify.
Gentlemen, if you would like to come and take a seat at the
table, we would be more than happy to do that right now.
I ask unanimous consent to allow members of the Full
Committee to be allowed to join us on the dais. Without
objection, so ordered.
I do want to know how Representative Amodei made it up here
so quickly. I was in the elevator as it closed and you were
still walking. How did you get here this fast?
Mr. Amodei. I have nothing to add at this time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. All right. Fine.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Today, we are here to discuss the President's
Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for the National Park Service
and Bureau of Land Management.
While the President's 2013 NPS and BLM requests are nearly
level with 2012, 2012 was still an exaggerated, bloated budget
that was not sustainable and will destroy the country. Other
than that, it was just fine.
It is a budget that is asking for $237 million over the
2008 level for the Park Service and $116 million more than they
received for the BLM in 2008.
The proposed budget of these two bureaus also includes a
number of what I believe to be misplaced priorities,
unrealistic offsets and some things that I hope are definite
non-starters.
The President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for the
National Park Service and BLM is a clear indication of what I
see as election year politics, placating special interest
groups, that cannot be more important than what I hope would be
rational and responsible management of our public lands.
The Administration continues to place a higher priority on
acquisition of even more land instead of caring for the vast
properties that are already in the national portfolio.
The Park Service has and continues to have a maintenance
backlog that has been estimated between $9 billion and $11
billion, and BLM has a deferred maintenance backlog estimated
at $1 million for every one of those 245 million acres they are
responsible for managing.
Despite this, this election year budget advances priorities
that will significantly expand the Federal estate and reduce or
eliminate multiple use policies that provide a reasonable
economic return for the land.
BLM should be emphasizing sound scientific multiple use--
again, multiple use--so the American people can get the full
range of benefits from our vast system of public lands.
Only with well managed multiple use can our conservation,
recreation, energy, mineral, food and other resources needs be
met.
The BLM's multiple use mandate is under duress. It appears
that special interest groups' litigation and conceived
settlements, sometimes done in secret, are having more
influence over land use decisions instead of consideration of
the law or appropriate consultation with impacted agencies and
stakeholders.
For example, the BLM is proposing to charge an
administrative fee of $1 per AUM to assist in processing the
grazing permits. Currently by law, the BLM charges a $1.35 fee
per AUM for grazing permits.
This proposal is a 75 percent increase in fees out of
pocket for those who graze, for those ranchers who have those
permits.
If the true intent was to recoup actual costs and assist in
the processing of grazing fees, why is the $1 per AUM not $1
per permit or per application?
Why also does the Interior budget say the fee will be used
to mitigate proposed reductions in Rangeland Management
Programs?
This is almost like looking at those information
commercials in which a product that costs $150 is going to be
sold at $19.95 as long as you pay shipping and handling
charges, which are around $130.
It is wrong. It is wrong, and needs to be re-looked at.
Last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a
settlement agreement with the Center of Biological Diversity
and the Wild Earth Guardians regarding the Endangered Species
Act that expedited the time frame for consideration of listing
the greater sage-grouse.
As a result of this secretly constructed settlement, the
BLM decided to develop an interim management strategy that will
subordinate nearly all other uses of public lands in preference
for greater sage-grouse habitat conservation.
Finally, while the wild lands title may have disappeared
from BLM talking points, and I thank you for that, a recent
notice for the Carson City, Nevada District Resource Management
Plan emphasized the BLM is seeking nominations for areas of
critical environmental concern, and information on lands that
may possess wilderness characteristics.
On February 6, 2012, the Federal BLM issued a notice in the
Federal Register affecting 2.4 million acres of public lands in
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, that BLM wanted to take a fresh
look at land use plans in the aforementioned states dealing
with oil shale and tar sand leases.
Even though these announcements deal with energy related
leases, the BLM will consider the wilderness characteristics in
determining any future disposition of public lands in the
affected areas.
Is the Department of the Interior and BLM resurrecting wild
land policies with these notices?
I guess we now know why this Administration continues to
request increased resource management planning. A $4.4 million
increase over last year will certainly help accelerate special
interest groups' goals of creating de facto wilderness through
administrative fees.
Those are all concerns that we have.
With that, I thank our witnesses for being here. I look
forward, kind of, to hearing the testimony, and look forward to
the questions that will be asked, and with that, I now
recognize our Ranking Member for his opening remarks, if he
would like to make any at this time.
Do you want to make some?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, sure.
Mr. Bishop. Do you want to re-think that?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. No. I just wanted to welcome Director Jarvis
and Director Abbey. Welcome back. I want to thank you for being
here and for all the thought, time and energy that you and your
staff have put into this year's proposal.
We understood from Secretary Salazar's testimony that the
Department had to make some very difficult choices in an
attempt to create a very challenging balance to the Interior
Department.
I want to point out that these cuts and reductions that we
will be talking about today, also the cuts and reductions that
will be proposed in this additional budget, these cuts to
preservation, conservation, and land management to a great
degree have nothing to do with the budget challenges that we
face, and everything to do with persistent and pervasive anti-
environmental politics that are part of the discussion and part
of the work of this Subcommittee and the Full Committee.
We are talking today about starving popular Federal
agencies, not by circumstance, but by design.
We are talking today about letting public land go unmanaged
because some of my colleagues do not believe government has a
role to play in the management and multi-use mandate for our
public lands.
I think that is why we are here. I do not want there to be
any confusion as to why we are here on some of the cuts and
suggestions that you will see.
The prevailing thought has been to look not at the multi-
use mandate or a balanced approach to our public land, but to
view our public lands as a cash cow, and in doing so, forego
preservation, conservation, and the right balance to the
mandate.
I support the investments that you are proposing in science
and research, support the National Landscape Conservation
System, and the proposal to acquire key lands for the Ironwood
Forest Monument in Arizona.
The reduced funding for the National Heritage Areas and
construction programs are disappointing yet understandable.
I look forward to hearing from you today, discussing your
plans for this year, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Good Morning.
Director Jarvis and Director Abbey, welcome back to our
Subcommittee.
I want to thank you for joining us today to discuss your agency's
budget.
I applaud the thought, time and energy that you and your staff have
put into this year's proposal.
I understand from Secretary Salazar's testimony that the Department
made very difficult decisions regarding spending.
I commend you for being realistic about the budget situation while
still remaining true to your missions.
I support the investment in science and research, the support of
the National Landscape Conservation System, and the proposal to acquire
key lands for the Ironwood Forest National Monument in Arizona.
Reduced funding for National Heritage Areas and construction
programs are disappointing but understandable.
I look forward to hearing from you today as we discuss your plans
for this year.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. We appreciate once
again our guests being here. Do you have a preference on who
goes first? We will do this alphabetically, Mr. Abbey from BLM,
if you would first speak to us.
Obviously, your written statements are part of the record,
adding anything to this in an oral statement, you know the
drill, with the five minutes that are in front of you, and
after Mr. Abbey, Mr. Jarvis.
If you would proceed. Welcome. Thank you. The time is
yours.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ABBEY, DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Grijalva. It is always a pleasure to appear before the
Subcommittee and talk about issues that I care very deeply
about, and that is public lands and the uses that are occurring
on these public lands.
Today, we are here to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
2013 budget request for the Bureau of Land Management.
As many of you know, the Bureau of Land Management is
responsible for managing 245 million acres of public lands,
primarily in the 12 Western States, as well as approximately
700 million acres of on-shore subsurface mineral estate
nationwide.
BLM's unique multiple use management of public lands
includes activities as varied as energy production, mineral
development, livestock grazing, outdoor recreation, and
conservation of key national, historical, cultural and other
important resources.
The BLM is one of a handful of Federal agencies that
generates more revenue than it spends. BLM's management of
public land resources and protection of public land values
results in extraordinary economic benefits to local communities
and to this nation.
It is estimated that in 2011, BLM's management of public
lands contributed more than $120 billion to the national
economy and supported more than 550,000 American jobs.
BLM's total Fiscal Year 2013 budget request is $1.1
billion, $500,000 below the 2012 enacted budget.
The budget proposal reflects the Administration's efforts
to maximize public benefits while recognizing the reality of
the current fiscal situation.
The proposed BLM budget makes strategic investments in
support of important Administration and Secretarial initiatives
which will reap benefits for years to come.
I would like to highlight just a couple of those
investments. First, the America's Great Outdoors initiative
promotes BLM's multiple use mission by expanding opportunities
for recreation, including hunting, fishing, and off highway
vehicle use, while enhancing the conservation and protection of
BLM managed lands and resources.
The BLM's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request calls for a $6.3
million increase to support this initiative, and includes funds
for managing national monuments, national conservation areas,
national scenic and historic trails, wild and scenic rivers, as
well as off highway vehicle use.
The New Energy Frontier initiative recognizes the value of
environmentally sound and scientifically grounded development
of both conventional and renewable energy resources on public
lands.
Conventional energy resources on these lands continue to
play a critical role in meeting the nation's energy needs.
During 2011, the BLM held 32 on-shore oil and gas lease
sales, which generated around $256 million in revenue. On-shore
mineral revenues are estimated to be $4.4 billion in 2013.
The 2013 budget strengthens the BLM's oil and gas
inspection capability through a proposed fee on oil and gas
producers. This will generate an estimated $48 million in funds
to improve safety and production inspections for oil and gas
operations.
In addition, the budget also proposes $13 million in
increased funding to continue to implement leasing reform
efforts.
President Obama, Secretary Salazar, and the Congress have
stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to the
nation's energy security and long-term economic development,
and to the protection of the environment.
To date, Secretary Salazar has approved 29 commercial scale
renewable energy projects on public lands, including 16 solar,
five wind, and eight geothermal projects that represent more
than 6,500 megawatts and 12,500 jobs.
BLM intends to reach its goal of permitting 11,000
megawatts in 2013. That is two years ahead of the congressional
mandate.
BLM's 2013 budget proposal proposes a $5 million increase
for these efforts. Our budget proposes an increase of $15
million to implement broad scale sage-grouse conservation
activities to ensure the long-term sustainability of sage-
grouse, and to help prevent the future listing of this species
for protection under the Endangered Species Act, which will
allow multiple use activities to continue on BLM managed lands.
Reforming the wild horse and burro program to make it
fiscally sustainable is also one of our top priorities. To that
end, the proposed 2013 budget includes $2 million for efforts
to research and improve herd fertility control.
The National Academy of Science report assessing BLM's
management of wild horses and burro's is expected to be
completed in 2013.
Finally, the budget proposes legislative initiatives to
reform hard rock mining, remediate abandoned mines, and
encourage diligent development of non-producing oil and gas
leases.
Our 2013 budget request provides funding for the agency's
highest priority initiatives, maximizes public benefits, and
reflects difficult choices.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robert Abbey follows:]
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget
request for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The BLM, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), is
responsible for managing our National System of Public Lands, which are
located primarily in 11 western States. The BLM administers over 245
million surface acres, more than any other Federal agency. The BLM also
manages approximately 700 million acres of onshore subsurface mineral
estate throughout the Nation. The BLM's unique multiple-use management
of public lands includes activities as varied as energy production,
mineral development, livestock grazing, outdoor recreation, and the
conservation of natural, historical, cultural, and other important
resources. The BLM is one of a handful of Federal agencies that
generates more revenue than it spends.
Providing For Our Nation's Needs
The BLM's multiple-use management and protection of public land
resources results in extraordinary economic and other benefits to local
communities and to the Nation. The economic output associated with the
public lands is considerable. Commodity, recreation, and conservation
uses on the public lands generated an estimated combined economic
output of more than $120 billion nationwide and supported more than
550,000 American full and part-time jobs, according to the Department
of the Interior Economic Contributions report of June 21, 2011.
One element of these economic benefits is the BLM's contribution to
America's energy portfolio. During calendar year 2011, the BLM held 32
onshore oil and gas lease sales--covering nearly 4.4 million acres--
which generated about $256 million in revenue for American taxpayers.
Onshore mineral leasing revenues are estimated to be $4.4 billion in
2013. The 2011 lease sale revenues are 20 percent higher than those in
calendar year 2010. There are currently over 38 million acres of oil
and gas under lease, and since only about 32 percent of that acreage is
currently in production, the BLM is working to provide greater
incentives for lessees to make production a priority. In FY 2011, the
Department of the Interior collected royalties on more than 97 million
barrels of oil produced from onshore Federal minerals. Moreover, the
production of nearly 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas made it one
of the most productive years on record. BLM-managed Federal coal
leases, meanwhile, power more than 20 percent of the electricity
generated in the United States.
The BLM also is leading the Nation on the new energy frontier,
actively promoting solar, wind, and geothermal energy development.
Under Secretary Salazar, BLM has approved permits for 29 commercial-
scale renewable energy projects on public lands or the transmission
associated with them since 2009. This includes 16 solar, five wind, and
eight geothermal projects. Together, these projects represent more than
6,500 megawatts and 12,500 jobs, and when built will power about 1.3
million homes. In addition, the Department has identified more than
3,000 miles of transmission lines for expedited review. Enhanced
development of wind power is a key component of our Nation's energy
strategy for the future. There are currently 437 megawatts (MW) of
installed wind power capacity on BLM-managed public lands, but there
are 20 million acres of public lands with wind potential. Additionally,
nearly half of U.S. geothermal energy production capacity is from
Federal leases. The 2013 budget reflects a goal of permitting a total
of 11,000 MW of clean renewable energy by the end of 2013.
The BLM contributes to local communities and the national economy
in many ways other than energy production. The Department estimates
that more than $5 billion in annual economic benefits are estimated to
result from timber- and grazing-related activities and non-energy
mineral production from BLM-managed forest, range, and mineral estate
lands. Conservation lands, meanwhile, are valued for their outstanding
recreational opportunities as well as for their important scientific,
cultural, and historic contributions. Protecting these places preserves
the careful balance in management mandated by law, a balance that we
need on our public lands. Public land recreational activities also
provide major economic benefits to economies in nearby communities.
Nearly 58 million recreational visits took place on BLM-managed lands
in 2011 alone. In 2010, recreation on BLM lands supported an estimated
59,000 jobs and resulted in about $7.4 billion in economic output.
Recreational hunters, off-road vehicle enthusiasts, mountain bikers,
backpackers, anglers, and photographers discover endless opportunities
on BLM-managed lands. These and many other recreational opportunities
are vital to the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the
increasingly urbanized western states, as well as national and
international visitors.
FY 2013 Budget Overview
The BLM's budget makes significant investments in America's
economy, while making difficult choices to offset priority funding
increases. Investments in this budget will promote America's energy
production at home and grow America's outdoor economy. The budget
request allows the BLM to advance a number of important initiatives,
including America's Great Outdoors and the New Energy Frontier, and to
implement a number of BLM priorities such as restoring landscapes and
conserving habitat for sage grouse, expanding research into population
controls for wild horses, and reforming hardrock mining on public
lands.
The total FY 2013 BLM budget request is $1.1 billion in current
authority, which is essentially level with the 2012 enacted level. The
budget proposes $952.0 million for the Management of Lands and
Resources appropriation and $112.0 million for the Oregon and
California Grant Lands appropriation, the BLM's two main operating
accounts. The budget makes strategic funding shifts to target high-
priority initiatives, scales back on lower-priority programs, and
sustains and expands energy program activities. The budget also
includes several important legislative proposals linked to the uses of
lands and resources, including proposals to fund the remediation of
abandoned hardrock mines; to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from
the production of several hardrock minerals on Federal lands; to
encourage diligent development of oil and gas leases; to repeal a
prohibition on charging oil and gas permitting fees along with
associated mandatory funds; and to reauthorize the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act.
A crucial factor in the BLM's ability to fulfill its diverse
mission and many responsibilities continues to be strong engagement
with partner organizations and volunteers in the management of the
public lands. Reciprocal partnerships and volunteer contributions are
critical. Through partnerships with organizations and local
communities, and through the generosity of volunteers, the BLM
effectively leverages external resources, and expands its ability to
meet public land management goals. Partnerships also foster an enhanced
sense of stewardship and community for the people most closely
connected to those lands.
Growing Our Outdoor Economy & Protecting Special Places--America's
Great Outdoors
In the rapidly urbanizing west, over 40 million Americans living in
more than 4,000 nearby cities and communities can access BLM-managed
public lands right in their own backyards. Within a day's drive of 16
major urban areas there are over 100 million acres of BLM-managed
public lands. Given the proximity of the public lands to these
population centers, the BLM is in a unique position to contribute
significantly in advancing the President's initiative to reconnect
Americans and our youth to the great outdoors. The America's Great
Outdoors (AGO) Initiative promotes the BLM's multiple-use mission by
expanding opportunities for recreational activities--including hunting,
fishing, and off-road vehicle use--while enhancing the conservation and
protection of BLM-managed lands and resources. All of these activities
have a place at the multiple-use table and strengthen the BLM's
connection to western communities and to visitors to the public lands.
The BLM's FY 2013 budget request includes $6.3 million in program
increases for various AGO-related programs in BLM's operating accounts.
The 2013 budget also includes increases for programs funded through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, a vital component of the America's
Great Outdoors initiative. The BLM's total 2013 budget request for the
LWCF land acquisition program is $33.6 million, an increase of $11.2
million over the 2012 enacted-funding level.
National Landscape Conservation System--Acts of Congress and/or
Presidential proclamations have designated more than 27 million acres
of public land into the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS). These areas are managed to conserve, protect, and restore the
conservation values for which they are designated, while allowing for
appropriate multiple uses. National Monuments and National Conservation
Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails are all included as
NLCS units. These areas are amazingly diverse, ranging from broad
Alaskan tundra to red-rock deserts and from deep river canyons to
rugged ocean coastlines. While some of these special places are
surprisingly accessible, many others remain remote and wild.
The NLCS units include over 2,700 recreation sites and 22 visitor
centers that serve some 13 million visitors annually. Approximately
one-fourth of recreation use of BLM lands occurs within units of the
NLCS. Thus, the NLCS contributes to the sustainability of economies in
local communities in a variety of ways. Near Las Vegas, Nevada, for
example, the extremely popular Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area is visited by over 1 million people each year. In FY 2011,
visitors to this NCA generated nearly $2 million in recreation fees
that were re-invested in the area, directly contributing to the
regional tourist economy and supporting 50 private-sector jobs. The BLM
also emphasizes the creation of recreation facilities in nearby
communities outside of NLCS units. Finally, in addition to recreation,
the NLCS supports opportunities for scientific research, the protection
of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, and the
protection of nationally-significant cultural resources.
The BLM's 2013 proposed budget includes a $3.0 million increase for
National Monuments and National Conservation Areas. The increase will
allow the BLM to increase a variety of activities, including enhancing
law enforcement, enhancing visitor safety and experiences, and
expanding interpretation programs and products.
Recreation Management--Visitors to BLM-managed lands enjoy a broad
range of recreation opportunities such as hunting, camping, fishing,
hiking, horseback riding and shooting sports; many motorized activities
such as boating and OHV riding; as well as extreme sports and special
events. These activities are essential components of western
communities' economies and quality of life. The BLM manages more than
600 Special Recreation Management Areas, along with 3,500 recreation
sites, campgrounds, day-use areas and other facilities, and 40 major
visitor centers and visitor contact stations. In addition, the agency
provides recreation opportunities and protection of resource values on
more than 10,000 miles of BLM-administered waterways, including over
2,400 miles in 69 designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. The BLM also
manages 15,000 miles of recreation-use trails and another 98,000 miles
of Back Country-Scenic Byways and public access roads and routes, and
oversees 3,400 commercial and competitive use permits and concessions,
supporting thousands of businesses and communities across the West.
Most BLM-managed lands and recreational areas (over 95 percent) are
free to the public.
In FY 2013, an increase of $2.2 million in the Recreation Resources
Management program is proposed to allow the BLM to continue to develop
and implement more travel management plans ($1.1 million) and also
strengthen management of the National Scenic and Historic Trails
($700,000) and the Wild and Scenic Rivers ($400,000).
Cultural Resource Management--The FY 2013 budget proposes an
increase of $1.1 million for the inventory, protection, and
interpretation of places of special meaning to the diverse communities
of the American West, and will allow the BLM to conduct regional ethno-
geographic landscape assessments; engage underrepresented groups in
heritage resource stewardship; repatriate to Native Americans human
remains and cultural items held in BLM collections; and implement the
Paleontological Resources Preservation subtitle of the Omnibus Public
Lands Act of 2009.
Land Acquisition--The 2013 Federal Land Acquisition program builds
on efforts started in 2011 and 2012 to strategically invest in
interagency landscape-scale conservation projects while continuing to
meet agency-specific programmatic needs. The Department of the Interior
and the U.S. Forest Service collaborated extensively to develop a
process to more effectively coordinate land acquisitions with
government and local community partners to achieve the highest priority
shared conservation goals.
A portion of the funding allocated from the LWCF to each of the
bureaus targets a collaborative effort to focus acquisition projects
from each bureau in high-priority landscapes. This effort leverages
acquisition funding for larger-scale goals of collaborative landscape
management. The proposed budget funds two collaborative acquisition
projects within the Department's high-priority landscape areas. The
BLM's core acquisition program is aligned with the larger Departmental
collaborative initiative; 97 percent of BLM's acquisitions in its core
program in 2013 will occur in the Department-designated collaborative
priority landscapes with two projects located in two of the three high-
priority ecosystems. The budget funds 10 high-priority core land
acquisition projects in seven states and includes $2.5 million for
acquisition of lands or interest in lands for hunting and fishing
access on BLM lands. These projects will provide access to public
lands; improve river and riparian conservation and restoration;
conserve or protect wildlife habitat; preserve open spaces; provide for
historic and cultural resources preservation; and create opportunities
for public recreation at landscape or ecosystem levels.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization--The
President's budget also includes a legislative proposal to reauthorize
the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), which expired in
July of 2011. Under the FLTFA, the BLM was able to sell public lands
identified for disposal through the land use planning process prior to
July 2000, and retain the proceeds from those sales in a special
account in the Treasury. The BLM then used those funds to acquire, from
willing sellers, environmentally sensitive land inholdings with
exceptional resources. During FLTFA's 11-year history, the BLM sold
approximately 27,000 acres under this authority and acquired
approximately 18,000 acres of remarkable landscapes.
The 2013 budget includes a proposal to reinstate the FLTFA and
allow lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use
plans to be sold using the FLTFA authority. FLTFA sales revenues would
continue to be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive lands and the administrative costs associated with conducting
sales. The Department strongly urges the Congress to reauthorize this
important tool which provides for a rational process of land disposal
that is anchored in public participation and sound land use planning,
while providing for land acquisition to strengthen our Nation's most
special places.
Promoting American Energy Production at Home
The Secretary's New Energy Frontier Initiative emphasizes the value
of scientifically-based, environmentally-sound development of both
renewable and conventional energy resources on the Nation's public
lands. The BLM's proposed FY 2013 budget advances the goals of the
initiative by including priority funding for both renewable and
conventional energy development on public lands.
Renewable Energy--President Obama, Secretary Salazar, and the
Congress have stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to
the future of the United States. Success in attaining the Nation's
goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and
protect the global environment relies on sustained efforts to develop
renewable energy resources. Renewable energy production is vital to our
Nation's long-term economic development and energy security. The
development of renewable energy creates American jobs and promotes
innovation in the United States while reducing the country's reliance
on fossil fuels.
The BLM continues to make significant progress in promoting
renewable energy development on the public lands in 2012, including
working to approve additional large-scale solar energy projects and
complete a draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to
provide for landscape-scale siting of solar energy projects on public
lands. The agency is working on wind development mitigation strategies
with wind energy applicants and other Federal agencies, and is
currently reviewing over 45 wind energy applications. Additionally, the
transmission infrastructure required to deliver renewable energy from
production facilities to major markets relies on corridors across BLM-
managed lands.
The 2013 budget request includes a total program increase of $7.0
million in the Renewable Energy Management program, including $5.0
million in new funding. This will support additional environmental
studies to accelerate the identification of prime areas for utility-
scale renewable energy project development. It will also enable the BLM
to continue ongoing program management responsibilities associated with
geothermal energy development by replacing mandatory funding previously
provided by the Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund, for which new
deposits have ceased. The remaining $2.0 million increase is a transfer
of geothermal funds from the oil and gas management program to the
BLM's renewable energy program.
Conventional Energy--Secretary Salazar has emphasized that
conventional energy resources on BLM-managed lands continue to play a
critical role in meeting the Nation's energy needs. Conventional energy
development from public lands produces 41 percent of the Nation's coal,
13 percent of the natural gas, and 5 percent of the domestically-
produced oil. The Department's balanced approach to responsible
conventional energy development combines onshore oil and gas policy
reforms with effective budgeting to provide appropriate planning and
support for conventional energy development.
The President's FY 2013 budget proposes $13.0 million in oil and
gas program increases to provide industry with timely access to Federal
oil and gas resources, backed by the certainty of defensible
environmental analysis. Of that increase, a $5.0 million program
increase will restore the BLM's leasing and oversight capacity to the
2011 enacted level. An additional $3.0 million will be used for large,
regional-scale studies and environmental impact statements for oil and
gas leasing and development issues. Finally, an additional $5.0 million
programmatic increase will allow the BLM to fully implement its leasing
reform strategy without sacrificing other important program goals.
An additional $10 million, to be offset by new industry fees, is
requested to ensure that oil and gas production is carried out in a
responsible manner as a primary BLM commitment. The BLM conducts
inspections to confirm that lessees meet environmental, safety, and
production reporting requirements. The BLM recently initiated a program
using a risk-based inspection protocol for production inspections,
based on production levels and histories. Success realized in this
program will support expansion of this risk-based strategy to the other
types of inspections the BLM performs. The risk-based strategy will
maximize the use of inspection staff to better meet BLM inspection
goals and requirements in the future.
The 2013 budget proposes to expand and strengthen the BLM's oil and
gas inspection capability through new fee collections from industry,
similar to the fees now charged for offshore inspections. The fee
schedule included in the budget is estimated to generate $48.0 million
in collections, which would offset a proposed reduction of $38.0
million in BLM's appropriated funds, while providing for a net increase
of $10.0 million in funds available for this critical BLM management
responsibility. The increased funding is aimed at correcting
deficiencies identified by the Government Accountability Office in its
February 2011 report, which designated Federal management of oil and
gas resources including production and revenue collection as high risk.
The $10.0 million increase will help BLM achieve the high priority goal
of increasing the completion of inspections of Federal and Indian high
risk oil and gas cases by nine percent over 2011 levels. The BLM will
also complete more environmental inspections to ensure environmental
requirements are being followed in all phases of development. Fee
levels will be based on the number of oil and gas wells per lease so
that costs are shared equitably across the industry.
To encourage diligent development of new oil and gas leases, the
Administration is proposing a per-acre fee on each nonproducing lease
issued after enactment of the proposal. The $4-per-acre fee on non-
producing Federal leases (onshore and offshore) would provide a
financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either put their
leases into production or relinquish them so that tracts can be re-
leased and developed by new parties.
Sage-Grouse Conservation
The 2013 BLM budget proposal includes an increase of $15.0 million
to implement broad-scale sage-grouse conservation activities to ensure
the long-term sustainability of sage-grouse and to help prevent the
future listing of this species for protection under the Endangered
Species Act. The BLM--which manages more habitat for the Greater sage-
grouse than any other Federal agency--has been working proactively on
this issue on a number of fronts, including issuing guidance to its
field offices that calls for expanding the use of new science and
mapping technologies to improve land-use planning. With the increase,
the BLM will strengthen its regulatory mechanisms for managing the sage
grouse habitat. The increase will also support monitoring and
restoration efforts. To better focus its sage-grouse habitat
conservation efforts, BLM has partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the
Agricultural Research Service, and State fish and wildlife agencies to
share information and develop better management strategies.
Two-thirds ($10.0 million) of the requested increase will support
regulatory certainty for future land-use planning. Through 2015, the
BLM will put in place the necessary mechanisms, through the agency's
land-use planning process, to address conservation of sage-grouse. This
will require the incorporation of conservation measures into as many as
98 land use plans in 68 planning areas within the range of sage-grouse
to designate priority sage-grouse habitat. Within these priority areas,
the BLM will set disturbance thresholds for energy and mineral
development, develop and implement specific best management practices
for livestock grazing, establish restrictions for OHV use and other
recreational activities, and implement aggressive fire suppression and
post-fire restoration tactics. Amending these land use plans will
provide the regulatory certainty requested by the FWS and will involve
the following actions: land-use plan amendments ($6.5 million);
landscape-level project environmental assessments ($2.0 million);
travel management planning ($1.0 million); and candidate conservation
agreement development ($500,000), for a total of $10.0 million. The
remaining $5.0 million would be spent in the following manner: $2.5
million for habitat restoration and improvement projects and $2.5
million for habitat mapping, assessment, and monitoring. The BLM will
implement monitoring activities to ascertain the effectiveness of
habitat management and the effect of various land-use authorizations.
This new broad-scale monitoring effort will fill critical data and
information gaps necessary for sage-grouse habitat protection and
restoration. Conservation efforts implemented on BLM-managed land will
be of limited benefit if conservation practices are not monitored and
applied uniformly across jurisdictional boundaries.
Managing Across Landscapes--Cooperative Landscape Conservation
Initiative
Unprecedented, widespread environmental and human influences are
shaping ecological conditions across the public lands. Major large
scale stressors include the effects of climate change, catastrophic
wildland fire, invasive species, population growth, and conventional
and renewable energy development. The Secretary recognizes the need to
understand the changing conditions of BLM-managed landscapes on a broad
level and continues to promote the Cooperative Landscape Conservation
initiative. Working with State, Federal, and non-governmental partners,
the BLM is developing a landscape approach to better understand these
challenges and support balanced stewardship of the public lands. The
BLM is coordinating its efforts with other DOI bureaus and partners
through its participation in the network of Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCCs).
The BLM's FY 2013 budget request of $17.5 million, while unchanged
from the 2012 enacted level, continues to support the work of its
resource managers through the LCCs. Funding will enable managers to
conduct additional eco-regional assessments to provide a better
understanding of adverse impacts to the health of BLM lands and the
larger western landscapes of which they are a part, and to implement
various land health treatments to help combat the effects of these
impacts. A landscape approach fosters broader understanding of the
environment to inform, focus, and integrate the BLM's national and
local resource management efforts. This offers a framework for
integrating science with management; for coordinating management
efforts and directing resources where they are most needed; and for
adapting management strategies and actions to changing conditions and
new information. It also provides an important foundation for
developing coordinated management strategies with partner agencies,
stakeholders, and American Indian Tribes.
Other Priority Increases
Wild Horse & Burro Program--Reforming BLM's Wild Horse and Burro
Management program to make it fiscally sustainable is one of Secretary
Salazar's and the BLM's top priorities. To that end, the 2013 budget
includes a program increase of $2.0 million over the 2012 enacted level
for efforts to research and improve herd fertility control. The goal of
the research will be to develop additional methods to minimize wild
horse population growth and maintain herd health. The increase, a
result of the tough choices made in the 2013 budget, invests in R&D to
protect the health and environment of the Nation.
In FY 2013, the BLM intends to remove 7,600 animals from the range,
consistent with FY 2012, and to continue to pursue public-private
partnerships to hold excess horses gathered from Western public
rangelands. The current strategy also aims to significantly increase
the number of mares treated with fertility control, from 500 in 2009 to
a target of 2,000 in 2012 and in 2013, and to remove additional mares
to adjust herd sex ratios in favor of males. The long-term goal is to
slow the annual population growth rate for wild horses, while at the
same time maintaining herd health, in order to decrease or eliminate
the need to remove excess animals. The BLM is awaiting the results of a
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review previous wild
horse management studies and make recommendations on how the BLM should
proceed in light of the latest scientific research. The NAS expects to
provide its report in early 2013. Congress has asked the BLM to find
ways to manage these much-loved symbols of the West in a cost-
effective, humane manner, and the Bureau is committed to accomplishing
this goal.
Resource Management Planning--The BLM's FY 2013 budget proposal
includes an increase of $4.4 million to support high-priority land-use
planning efforts, including the initiation of several new plan
revisions in 2013. The planning process encourages collaboration and
partnerships which help the BLM determine how to manage public lands to
balance the needs of adjacent communities with the needs of the nation.
Secretary's Western Oregon Strategy--The 2013 budget proposal also
includes an increase of $1.5 million in the O&C Forest Management
program to increase the volume of timber offered for sale through
support of timber sale planning, layout and design, engineering, and
sale appraisal; support key resource management planning objectives;
increase surveying for rare, uncommon, or endangered species; provide
for landscape-level timber sale project environmental analysis; and
facilitate joint development and implementation of a revised recovery
plan for the northern spotted owl.
Abandoned Mine Lands & Hardrock Mining Reform Proposals
The budget includes legislative proposals to address abandoned mine
land (AML) hazards on both public and private lands and to provide a
fair return to the taxpayer from hardrock production on Federal lands.
The first component addresses abandoned hardrock mines across the
country through a new AML fee on hardrock production. Just as the coal
industry is held responsible for abandoned coal sites, the
Administration proposes to hold the hardrock mining industry
responsible for abandoned hardrock mines. The proposal will levy an AML
fee on all uranium and metallic mines on both public and private lands
that will be charged on the volume of material displaced after January
1, 2013. The receipts will be distributed by BLM through a competitive
grant program to restore the Nation's most hazardous hardrock AML sites
on both public and private lands using an advisory council comprising
of representatives of Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and non-
government organizations. The advisory council will recommend objective
criteria to rank AML projects to allocate funds for remediation to the
sites with the most urgent environmental and safety hazards. The
proposed hardrock AML fee and reclamation program would operate in
parallel to the coal AML reclamation program, as two parts of a larger
effort to ensure that the Nation's most dangerous coal and hardrock AML
sites are addressed by the industries that created the problems.
The budget also includes a legislative proposal to institute a
leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain
minerals (gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum)
currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. After enactment,
mining for these metals on Federal lands would be governed by a leasing
process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less
than five percent of gross proceeds. Half of the royalty receipts would
be distributed to the states in which the leases are located and the
remaining half would be deposited in the Treasury. Pre-existing mining
claims would be exempt from the change to a leasing system, but would
be subject to increases in the annual maintenance fees under the
General Mining Law of 1872. However, holders of pre-existing mining
claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to
leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue in the Department of
the Interior will collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock
royalty receipts.
Grazing Administrative Processing Fee
The Budget includes proposed appropriations bill language
authorizing a three-year pilot project to allow BLM to recover some of
the costs of issuing grazing permits/leases on BLM lands. BLM would
charge a fee of $1 per animal unit month, which would be collected
along with current grazing fees. The budget estimates the fee will
generate $6.5 million in 2013, and that it will assist the BLM in
processing pending applications for grazing permit renewals. During the
period of the pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating
regulations for the continuation of the grazing administrative fee as a
cost recovery fee after the pilot expires.
Reductions
The BLM's FY 2013 budget proposal reflects many difficult choices
in order to support priority initiatives and needs. The following are
among the program reductions in the proposed budget:
Rangeland Management Program--A $15.8 million
decrease in funding is proposed to be partially offset by a 3-
year pilot program to recover some of the costs of issuing
grazing permits/leases permit and lease renewals through a $1
per animal unit month administrative processing fee levied upon
grazing permittees.
Alaska Land Conveyance Program--A reduction of $12.4
million is proposed in an effort to reevaluate and streamline
the Alaska land conveyance process. Interim or final conveyance
is complete for approximately 96 percent of the original 150
million acres, and the BLM continues to explore opportunities
to further streamline the program and to focus applicable
resources on completing the final transfers.
Public Domain Forestry--A general program decrease of
$3.3 million would reduce lower-priority activities and an
additional reduction of $150,000 is proposed for healthy
landscapes restoration projects in lower priority public domain
forested areas.
O&C Reforestation--A general program decrease of $1.2
million would reduce lower priority forest vegetation
inventories, reforestation treatments, stand maintenance and
improvement treatments, monitoring, and inventory for the
presence of noxious or invasive weed species. The reduction
would not affect the Secretary's Western Oregon Strategy for
forest management.
Abandoned Mine Lands--In 2013, the BLM is requesting
a decrease of $2.0 million for its abandoned mine lands
program. The BLM will continue to fund the highest priority
sites, as determined through its ongoing ranking process. Red
Devil Mine reclamation activities remain a high priority.
Conclusion
The BLM's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request provides funding for the
bureau's highest priority initiatives, and reflects the need to make
tough choices at a time when Federal spending must be restrained. Our
public lands and resources play an important role in American lives,
economies, and communities and include some of our Nation's greatest
assets. Under this budget proposal, the BLM is targeting investments to
advance the bureau's mission of protecting these lands for multiple
uses, including recreation, conservation, and safe and responsible
energy development.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on the
proposed FY 2013 BLM budget.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Jarvis?
STATEMENT OF JON JARVIS, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about the Fiscal 2013 budget request for the National Park
Service. My full testimony is submitted for the record.
We appreciate this committee's support for the work that we
do as stewards of our nation's most cherished natural and
cultural resources, and we look forward to working with you as
the National Park Service prepares for our second century of
stewardship beginning in 2016.
National parks are best known for their incredible beauty
and preservation of America's historical legacy, but they are
also significant economic engines for local communities and our
nation. They stimulate both spending and job creation.
Today, I am pleased to announce the release of our new
economic impact report that shows that visitor spending in
national parks in 2010 generated more than $31 billion in sales
and supported 258,000 jobs in the U.S. economy.
This job generation extends beyond our own organization. We
have recently hired Andrew Goodrich, a six year veteran of the
United States Marine Corps and a wounded warrior, who comes to
us through the Operation War Fighter Program.
Andrew is assisting the National Park Service in developing
a program designed to transition and hire more young returning
veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Fiscal 2013 budget supports continued stewardship of
our nation's most cherished resources through the
Administration's America's Great Outdoors initiative, through
partnerships with states and others, AGO is a landmark
investment and engaging people and expanding opportunities for
recreation and for conservation of our nation's natural and
cultural heritage.
The NPS will continue to carry on its stewardship of these
resources and to provide enriching experiences and enjoyment
for all visitors.
In addition, NPS has begun a strategic approach to prepare
for our centennial. Our initiative is called ``A Call to
Action,'' and is a re-commitment to the exemplary stewardship
and public enjoyment of our national parks for our first 100
years.
It calls upon our employees and partners to commit to
specific actions that will advance the service toward a shared
vision in 2016 and beyond.
The Fiscal 2013 budget request contains limited strategic
increases along with necessary selective reductions that were
proposed only after serious and careful deliberation.
For discretionary appropriations, there is a net decrease
of $1 million below Fiscal 2012 to $2.6 billion. For mandatory
appropriations, primarily the revenue from fees, there is an
estimated increase of $3.5 million.
The Fiscal 2013 budget proposes $2.3 billion for operations
of the NPS, a net increase of $13.5 million.
Within the total requested, there are specific increases,
mostly fixed costs, and offsetting decreases, including a
decrease of $21.6 million for operations at parks.
That will undoubtedly have impact on the level of services
provided to visitors and the level of operational maintenance
at parks, but by ensuring flexibility in the implementation of
reductions, park managers will be able to develop cost saving
measures that minimize the impacts to our visitors.
The request proposes $119 million for Federal land
acquisition and state conservation grants, a net increase of
$17.5 million above Fiscal 2012.
Of that amount, $59.4 million is proposed for land
acquisition projects and administration, including $9 million
to provide grants to protect Civil War battlefield sites
outside of the NPS.
Land acquisition projects requested for national park units
will result in over 27,100 acres of the highest priority lands
within authorized park boundaries.
Beginning in 2011, the Department instituted a coordinated
process for prioritizing Federal land acquisition projects
among the three departmental land management bureaus and the
U.S. Forest Service.
The cross bureau criteria emphasize opportunities to
jointly conserve important large scale landscapes. The National
Park Service has proposed two acquisitions in this
collaborative landscape planning list.
We also propose $60 million for state conservation grants
and administration. $36.5 million for traditional state
conservation grants to be apportioned in the states in
accordance with a long-standing formula, and a $20 million
competitive grant program that would target community parks,
green spaces, landscape level conservation, and recreational
waterways.
The competitive grants component was developed to more
specifically address the public's concern about the lack of
open space in outdoor recreation areas.
The national recreation preservation appropriation funds
that support local and community efforts to preserve natural
and cultural resources, these programs will be reduced by $7.8
million below the Fiscal 2012 levels.
The Historic Preservation Fund appropriation supports HPFs
in states, territories and tribal lands, and it is proposed at
the same level of Fiscal 2012 at $55.9 million.
For conservation construction appropriation, the request
proposes a funding level of $131 million, a reduction of $24
million below Fiscal 2012. Within that amount, $52 million is
proposed for line item construction, and there is a list of
projects that are focused on critical life, health, safety and
emergency projects.
In formulating the 2013 budget, the NPS used a variety of
tools to evaluate spending and to incorporate performance
results into decision making.
Given the far reaching responsibilities in the NPS, we must
support the efforts of the entire Federal Government to regain
a balanced budget while strategically focusing our efforts and
resources on those functions critical to the protection of
resources and visitors and employees, and on the experience at
the core of every visit.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be glad to take any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jon Jarvis follows:]
Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today at this hearing on the 2013
President's budget request for the National Park Service (NPS).
Introduction
The 2013 President's budget request proposes total discretionary
appropriations of $2.6 billion for the NPS. This is a net decrease of
$1.0 million below 2012 enacted discretionary appropriations. The
request fully funds $27.0 million in fixed costs and provides increases
totaling $39.2 million to fund essential programs and emerging
operational needs. Reflecting the President's call for fiscal
discipline and sustainability, the budget also includes $67.2 million
in strategic reductions in park and program operations, construction,
and heritage partnership programs. The request also includes $407.5
million in mandatory appropriations, an estimated net increase of $3.5
million. In total, the request includes total budget authority of $3.0
billion, $2.5 million over 2012.
The 2013 budget supports continued stewardship of the Nation's most
cherished resources through the Administration's America's Great
Outdoors initiative. Through partnerships with States and others,
America's Great Outdoors is a landmark investment in engaging people in
the outdoors and expanding opportunities for recreation and
conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural heritage. The NPS
will continue to carry on its stewardship of these resources of
national significance and to provide enriching experiences and
enjoyment for all visitors.
Sustaining funding for park operations is a key component of this
initiative. In these tough economic times we recognize the value the
397 national parks provide all Americans--as places of introspection
and recreation and as economic engines that create jobs and help our
gateway communities thrive. Today, I am pleased to announce the release
of a new economic impact report that shows visitor spending in national
parks in 2010 generated more than $31 billion of sales which supported
more than 258,000 jobs in the U.S. economy. The people and business
owners near national parks have always known their economic value. In
many communities, especially in small, rural communities, national
parks are the clean, green fuel for the engine that drives the economy.
The President's budget will ensure that national parks continue to
serve the 281 million visitors who come every year to relax and
recreate in America's great outdoors and learn about the people and
places that make up America's story.
In addition to this important initiative, the NPS has begun a
strategic approach to prepare for our Centennial year in 2016. The
National Park Service's ``A Call to Action'' is a recommitment to the
exemplary stewardship and public enjoyment of our national parks,
calling upon NPS employees and partners to commit to actions that
advance the Service toward a shared vision for strengthening our parks
through 2016 and into our second century.
Budget Summary
The 2013 President's budget requests increases or maintains funding
for programs that support the President's America's Great Outdoors
initiative.
The Operation of the National Park System, which is a key component
to America's Great Outdoors and funds the operations of our 397 parks
and related programs, is proposed to be funded at $2.3 billion, a $13.5
million increase over 2012.
A total of $119.4 million is requested for Land Acquisition and
State Assistance, critical to achieving the goals inherent in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965. This is an increase of
$17.5 million over 2012. The budget includes $59.4 million for Federal
land acquisition and administration, which would be used to acquire
high-priority lands from willing sellers within national parks, and
leverage other Federal resources, along with those of non-Federal
partners, to achieve shared conservation outcome goals in high-priority
landscapes. The budget also includes $60.0 million for the State
Conservation Grants program and its administration, of which $20.0
million would be targeted at a competitive matching grants program for
States to carry out more strategic and larger-scale outdoor recreation
and conservation projects.
The budget sustains funding for the Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program at the 2012 level, which will
help communities promote their own vision of livability,
sustainability, and responsibility and assist partners in successfully
utilizing the array of resources and tools available through Federal
agencies and nongovernmental groups. RTCA helps promote the values of
health, conservation, and enjoyment of our Nation's resources with a
valuable return on investment through on-the-ground projects, such as
river restoration and the creation of walking and biking trails.
Funding is also sustained for American Battlefield Protection Program
Assistance Grants, which assist partners with the preservation of non-
Federal historic battlefields at the local level, and for the Historic
Preservation Fund, which supports Historic Preservation Offices in
States, Territories, and tribal lands for the preservation of
historically and culturally significant sites and other
responsibilities defined under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Operation of the National Park System
The 2013 budget proposes $2.3 billion for the Operation of the
National Park System, an increase of $13.5 million from 2012. The
request for operations funds increased fixed costs of $26.0 million and
$12.2 million in program increases. These increases are offset with
$24.8 million in strategic program reductions to park operations and
servicewide programs.
Of the program reductions, park base operations are reduced by
$21.6 million and servicewide programs are reduced by $1.0 million.
These reductions would be applied strategically to minimize the impact
on the visitor experience and park resources. This reduction would have
impacts on the level of services provided to visitors and the level of
operational maintenance parks are able to achieve; however, by ensuring
flexibility in the implementation of reductions, park managers would be
able to develop cost saving measures that minimize the impact of these
reductions on park visitors to ensure their safety and that of our
employees and the protection of park resources. All specific reductions
in budgetary resources and the areas of reduction would be determined
based on a park's mission, goals, and operational realities.
Strategic increases proposed include $2.0 million for U.S. Park
Police operations. This includes $600,000 for the United States Park
Police (USPP) to provide for additional patrols at national icons in
Washington, D.C. and New York City and enhance USPP administrative
support, and $1.4 million for USPP visitor and resource protection
activities associated with the 2013 Presidential Inauguration. A
separate increase of $1.2 million for National Capital area parks,
particularly the National Mall, also would support visitor services and
related activities associated with the Presidential Inauguration. Also
included is a $610,000 increase for the Challenge Cost Share program,
an important component of the America's Great Outdoors initiative which
provides matching funds to qualified partners for projects that
preserve and improve NPS natural, cultural, and recreational resources.
An increase of $250,000 is also proposed to build on past and current
Administration efforts to strengthen ocean and resource stewardship in
the Nation's 74 ocean and Great Lakes parks.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
The 2013 budget proposes $119.4 million for Federal Land
Acquisition and State Conservation Grants, an increase of $17.5 million
from the 2012 enacted level. This includes $144,000 for increased fixed
costs and $17.4 million in programmatic increases.
Of the total amount, $59.4 million is proposed to be available for
Federal land acquisition projects and administration, including $9.0
million to provide grants to States and communities to preserve and
protect threatened Civil War battlefield sites outside the national
park system through American Battlefield Protection Program land
acquisition grants. This amount also included $31.5 million for NPS
Federal land acquisition projects, of which $20.2 million is for
mission specific core land acquisition priority projects, and $11.3
million is for land acquisition projects identified as part of an
ongoing collaborative landscape planning process to achieve the highest
priority shared conservation goals among the three departmental land
management bureaus and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service,
per Congressional direction. The cross-bureau criteria emphasize
opportunities to jointly conserve important large-scale landscapes,
especially river and riparian areas, wildlife habitat, urban areas that
provide needed recreational opportunities, and areas containing
important cultural and historical assets. Additional criteria for these
projects include the ability to leverage partner funds, the degree of
involvement with other Interior bureaus for the project, and the
urgency for project completion. The 2013 land acquisition project
request totals over 27,100 acres of the highest priority acquisitions.
As required by law, the proposed tracts are located within authorized
park boundaries.
The budget also proposes $60.0 million for State Conservation
Grants and administration. Of this total, $36.5 million is proposed for
traditional State Conservation Grants, to be apportioned to the States
in accordance with the long-standing formula. An additional $20.0
million would be allocated to States based on a competitive process
targeting priority projects that support the America's Great Outdoors
initiative. This component would promote projects that support both
outdoor recreation and conservation in urban areas where access to open
space is limited; protect, restore, and connect natural landscapes,
including wildlife corridors; and provide access to rivers and
waterways. The competitive grants component was developed to more
specifically address the public's concern about the lack of open space
and outdoor recreational areas in certain urban, rural, and other
areas--an idea that was frequently conveyed during listening sessions
for the America's Great Outdoors initiative.
National Recreation and Preservation
The National Recreation and Preservation appropriation funds
programs that support local and community efforts to preserve natural
and cultural resources. The 2013 includes $52.1 million, reflecting
increased fixed costs of $0.3 million and a programmatic reduction of
$8.1 million for funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs), for a
total net change of $7.8 million below 2012. The proposed reduction
supports the directive in the 2010 Interior Appropriations Act for the
more established NHAs to work toward becoming more self-sufficient, yet
still promotes the long-term sustainability of NHAs and the continued
importance of Federal seed money for less mature areas.
The budget sustains funding for the Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance Program, which assists and empowers communities
to protect their own special places and enhance local outdoor
recreation opportunities; and American Battlefield Protection Program
Assistance Grants, which provide grants to assist partners with the
preservation of threatened historic battlefields not on NPS lands. Both
programs are key components of the America's Great Outdoors initiative.
Historic Preservation Fund
The Historic Preservation Fund appropriation supports Historic
Preservation Offices in States, Territories, and tribal lands for the
preservation of historically and culturally significant sites and to
carry out other responsibilities under the National Historic
Preservation Act. For 2013, the budget requests $55.9 million, with no
change from 2012 levels. This provides $46.9 million for Grants-in-Aid
to States and Territories, and nearly $9.0 million for Grants-in-Aid to
Tribes.
Construction
The budget proposes $131.2 million for Construction, reflecting
increased fixed costs of $0.5 million and programmatic reductions of
$24.7 million, for a total net change of $24.2 million below 2012
levels.
Line item construction is requested at $52.4 million, and includes
only the highest priority construction projects to address critical
life, health, safety, resource protection, and emergency needs, and
does not propose funding any new facility construction. The request
funds ten projects including continuation of ecosystem restoration at
Olympic and Everglades National Parks and critical new repair projects
at parks such as Yellowstone, Dry Tortugas, and Denali. Consistent with
the Administration's Campaign to Cut Waste, the budget proposes funding
for demolition and removal of unoccupied, excess structures at Blue
Ridge Parkway.
Performance Integration
In formulating the 2013 budget request, the NPS used a variety of
tools to incorporate performance results and other information into the
decision-making process. These tools include the Budget Cost Projection
Module, the Business Planning Initiative, and the NPS Scorecard, as
well as continued program evaluations. These tools are used to develop
a more consistent approach to integrating budget and performance across
the NPS, as well as to support further accountability for budget
performance integration at all levels of the organization. We also
continue to exercise strict controls on travel costs as we improve
oversight over our limited budgetary resources. Given the far-reaching
responsibilities of the NPS, we must support the efforts of the entire
Federal government to regain a balanced budget while strategically
focusing our efforts and resources on those functions critical to the
protection of resources, visitors, and employees, and on the experience
at the core of every visit.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary of the 2013 budget request
for the National Park Service. We would be pleased to answer any
questions you or the other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, both of you, for your presentations
here, your written testimony. Just for the record, at the end
of this, if there are still questions that are required, we
will send those to you in writing and we would ask for a prompt
response.
I am going to go last as far as the questions here, so I
will start on our side by turning the time to Mr. Tipton if he
has any concerns or questions for these gentlemen.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
Mr. Jarvis and Director Abbey for being here.
Mr. Jarvis, I would like to ask if you have been aware that
the National Park Service proposed rules for a wilderness and
back country management plan in regard to the Black Canyon of
Gunnison. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. I am.
Mr. Tipton. Were you aware that your agency admitted in
that plan that the guides who provide these services would
experience long-term reductions in revenues associated with
those services provided in the Black Canyon and likely lose
their jobs in the community?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I have just come up to speed on this
issue, that there has been a proposal in the draft--it is not
final, so there is no final decision here--there is a proposal
by the Park to eliminate commercial guiding services within
Black Canyon.
I know it is very controversial within the climbing
community. We are not at a final decision on that. I would be
glad to come up and talk to your office about your concerns on
that.
Mr. Tipton. That is my home area, a largely rural area. We
have been devastated by unemployment and the impact of losing
even more jobs in our area when it comes to the Black Canyon.
I would like to have just a little bit of the thought
process. People have the freedom to go in and climb without a
guide now. Why would you want to restrict the option for
citizens to be able to have a professional guide?
Mr. Jarvis. I really do not know the background on this
issue and why the Park has concluded that this is in the draft.
I do plan to investigate it and understand why they are making
this proposal, and I would be glad to come up and talk to you
about it once I find out.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that. I know both of our Senators
as well as myself have written you a letter, and we will look
forward to your correspondence on that. We do want to work with
you. We want to be able to protect our jobs in that particular
area.
Director Abbey, according to the BLM's February 13 press
release, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget would reduce funding for
the public domain forest management programs by $3.5 million.
That is almost a 40 percent reduction in funding for forest
management at a time when the agency is increasing spending on
further land acquisition.
What effects would this 40 percent reduction have on the
numbers of forest management personnel, the volume of timber
sold, number and size of stewardship contracts, number of
firewood permits for personal use, and businesses and jobs in
rural communities?
Mr. Abbey. That is a good question, Congressman Tipton. As
you know, any reduction does have adverse effects on the
programs that we have been managing for a number of years and
the public domain forestry program is no exception.
There will be some reductions in forest relative to the
number of personnel that would be lost as a result of that
proposed reduction.
We would intend to absorb those reductions through
attrition, which means through retirements or other people
leaving.
We would continue to offer timber materials through
stewardship contracting. We believe we could continue to
maintain the status quo of the number of stewardship contracts
that could be offered, working very closely with other partners
to make those materials available.
We would also continue to look toward some of the hazardous
fuels reductions money that we have in the fire program to help
us achieve some of our forestry objectives out there.
Mr. Tipton. Given the bark beetle epidemic, and I am sure
you are well aware of that, particularly in Colorado, this has
devastated entire forests, is this really the time to be making
cuts in those areas?
Mr. Abbey. It would certainly be a priority for us to look
at those types of areas for fuels reductions and to alleviate
some of the risk associated with wild land fires.
Mr. Tipton. Do you know exactly--not exactly--a guess of
how many acres are affected on BLM land in Colorado by the bark
beetle?
Mr. Abbey. I do not know specifically, but we can certainly
provide that information to you.
Mr. Tipton. I think that is going to be very important. We
have a tremendous concern in Colorado in terms of fire hazard.
We have had light snow pack this year. It is not typically a
question of if but when that catches fire, the impacts on our
watersheds going through the areas, the devastation for all of
our economies throughout the entire West will be greatly
impacted.
Have you evaluated the potential for increasing public
domain timber sale programs in order to ramp up the response to
the beetle kill?
Mr. Abbey. Our priorities certainly would be based upon
demand. As you probably have heard or assessed through your own
reviews of our programs, the public domain forestry program
provides little timber for commercial purposes.
It provides a good source for firewood and other type of
biofuels commodities, but it does not necessarily provide a lot
to the commercial timber industry.
Mr. Tipton. If I may, just a little bit--I guess we are
done.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, you are out of time. We will have other
rounds. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jarvis, the National Heritage Areas, they are key
partners for historic areas across this country. Communities
continually come to Members of Congress as they begin to put
their collaborative's together for designations.
The shortfall from the budget you are recommending, and
quite frankly, also the continued challenges with congressional
re-authorizations on the issue, how do you see this program,
very popular across the country, continuing in the future?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you for that question. I really
appreciate it because I am a big fan of the Heritage Areas. I
think they do an extraordinary job in leveraging what little
Federal funding they do get to assist communities in preserving
their lifestyle, promoting their heritage, and drawing
visitors.
I think it is a new concept, a relatively new concept,
about two decades old, and some of them are facing the loss of
funding.
I believe there needs to be enabling legislation, organic
legislation, for the Heritage Areas so they can have some long-
term sustainability rather than each year having to come in for
an appropriation.
We had to make hard budgetary decisions this year, in that
the focus was on our base operations in the parks, and
unfortunately, the Heritage Areas fall in a lower priority for
us in terms of those hard decisions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Director Abbey, the BLM estimates
that 20 million people visited the conservation system in 2010.
If funding were to be cut from this system, how would this
affect visitorship and resource safety?
Mr. Abbey. It would certainly adversely affect our
abilities to provide the services that the public are expecting
and demanding within the units of the national landscape and
conservation system.
Congressman Grijalva, as you know, we are asking for a
slight increase for the management of the units within the
national landscape conservation system, and I think they are
deserving of that increase.
The American public are rediscovering their public lands
and they are rediscovering their lands for purposes other than
just commodity extraction. They are using these lands for
conservation and for recreation, and they are looking to make
sure they continue to have access to their lands.
Again, any reduction in any of our programs, as I mentioned
to Congressman Tipton, would have adverse effects on the
abilities for the Bureau of Land Management to continue to
deliver the services that the public expects and are demanding
and quite frankly deserve.
Our hope is that Congress will look at our budgetary
proposal and will provide us the funding that we are requesting
in this particular program activity.
Mr. Grijalva. For both of you gentlemen, can you both
discuss your individual Land and Water Conservation Fund, land
acquisition plans, and how you came about these priorities?
Mr. Abbey. Jon, would you like for me to start?
Mr. Jarvis. Go ahead.
Mr. Abbey. Congressman Grijalva, again, there is quite a
bit of competition because there are so many deserving
projects, and again, our projects are based upon willing
sellers.
For the Bureau of Land Management, our acquisition projects
occur within or adjacent to nationally designated areas, like
our national monuments, national conservation areas,
wilderness, national scenic trails, national historic trails,
and wild and scenic rivers, as well as some of the special
recreation management areas that we also manage.
We do have criteria that we use to evaluate each of the
proposals that we receive from our field offices. We rank those
proposals based upon that established set of criteria that we
have been using for a number of years.
At the end of the day, based upon the rankings, we compete
with other bureaus within the Department of the Interior, as
well as the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of
Agriculture for the limited dollars that are being requested
for land acquisitions.
Mr. Jarvis. For Fiscal 2013 for the National Park Service,
there are two components to our LWCF program. One is the
Federal side and one is the state side.
Very similar to Director Abbey, we have a set of criteria
that we go through. Of course, with the National Park Service,
we are limited on the Federal side of acquiring lands to only
within authorized park boundaries, which Congress has granted
us that authority.
We focus on hardships or top priority acquisitions of
willing sellers within park boundaries.
We do have some grant making that goes outside,
specifically to Civil War battlefield sites.
On the state side, we are asking for something a little
different this year than in the past, and that is the authority
to use $20 million for a competitive grant program that would
be transferred directly to the states and local governments for
acquisition of open space, access to waterways, and urban parks
in particular.
It is a little bit different than in the past. The only
significant increase that we are asking for over 2012 is on the
state side of the program.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Amodei?
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jarvis, we have
not met. I just have one request. Your folks administer the
Devils Hole pupfish area in my state.
In a recent conversation with the State Engineer's Office--
and I do not know if this is true, if it is not, I look forward
to talking to you about it, that is kind of the subject of the
request, to meet with you later.
The State Engineer's Office indicated that some of the
folks in management there have been in the process of using the
state water rights' process and its protest abilities to
represent to people if they purchase three times the water that
they need for their proposed use and dedicate two times what
they purchased to the Park Service there, they will not protest
their water rights' application.
I want to stress I do not know if that is true, but I would
appreciate the opportunity to interact with the appropriate
person on your staff to ascertain whether that is or not, and
if so, to discuss the issues related to that, and if it is not,
it will be a short conversation, and I look forward to having
it in your office, if that is acceptable.
Mr. Jarvis. We will set that up. I do not know whether that
is true.
Mr. Amodei. I would not expect you would. Thank you very
much.
Good to see you, Bob. I want to thank you and your folks in
Nevada for their reception of me. Amy Ludders has been great in
the five-and-a-half months I have been there. I have been to
all your district offices in the state. I really appreciate the
professional welcome. We have had some great discussions on a
lot of topics.
I want to cover a couple of things if I could, Bob.
Mr. Abbey. OK.
Mr. Amodei. The per yard fee on mining proposed in the
budget, tell me what I am missing there. When you are attaching
a fee per yard, it sounds to me like an assault on surface
mining.
What did I miss there? The more dirt you move, the more it
costs? It sounds like a surface miner's nightmare.
Mr. Abbey. Well, it is not intended to be. Congressman, as
you are well aware, being from Nevada, and with the number of
abandoned mine sites located in Nevada, nationally, we do have
an issue, a safety issue.
We have identified some 37,000 abandoned mine sites with
over 74,000 features, such as open entryways and piles of
contaminated materials and other physical hazards.
The whole purpose of the fee that we are proposing to
assess existing mining operations would be to--I think it is
like 14 cents per ton of materials that would be moved from the
location, the mining operations.
The intent is to use those fees that would be collected to
reclaim the abandoned mines.
Mr. Amodei. I get that. I appreciate that. As you are aware
from your time in Nevada, you have a pretty good program in
that state through the State Minerals Office and the Mining
Association, which has gone out and done--I do not know how it
compares to other states--some pretty good work.
When I see a proposal that although there is a little bit
of mention about coordination, it is like hey, if they have a
good method there that is working, creating a Federal program
to duplicate that, and I do not know if it duplicates it or
works in conjunction, but I would appreciate the opportunity to
maybe have a little more discourse on that.
I want to move, if I could, to the sage-grouse stuff. I
appreciate the Secretary's presentation earlier and yours.
When I look at $15 million and I talk about--I know these
things are necessary. Science, mapping, technology, regulatory
mechanisms, managing/monitoring information to develop
management strategies.
In discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Service, all of
this is for agriculture, mining, OHV, all the things, the major
danger to the sage-grouse is fire.
When I look at the fire budget and I look at this and I see
no fuels--maybe I missed it. Maybe it is just buried in the
nomenclatures. There is nothing in here to say we are going to
manage--we are going to do fuels management around those areas.
We are going to do something that is aggressive--unless I
have been talking to the wrong people--when you talk to your
folks in the state, when you talk to the State Director of Fish
and Wildlife, we are burning the habitat up.
I am not saying that is anybody's fault. The history is
clearly the threat to the habitat is wild land fire. I look at
this and I do not see a lot of wild land fire stuff in here.
Have I missed it? Tell me what I have missed or how do we--
I see the challenge for the sage-grouse, at least part of it,
we can regulate all the manmade activities, but wild land fires
is what burned that habitat up, and I see a very light stroke
on that in terms of what is being proposed in this budget.
Mr. Abbey. You have missed it a little bit, Congressman.
You are absolutely correct. The biggest threat to sage-grouse
is habitat fragmentation. The biggest threat to habitat
fragmentation is wild land fire, especially in the Great Basin
states.
As we look toward to the actions that we are taking on the
ground, we are not only going through the process of amending
68 land use plans based upon input from the state gaming and
fish agencies as well as other public land stakeholders and
members of the public, to help us identify best management
practices across the full spectrum of multiple use management
and incorporate those into our land use plans, so that we can
protect those core sage-grouse habitats similar to what the
State of Wyoming has already done at the state level.
As it relates to wild fire, we are not only highlighting
and prioritizing fuels reduction, but we are also highlighting
and prioritizing suppression activities around those core
habitat areas.
By that, I mean during the fire season, we will be pre-
positioning fire crews near those core areas so that if a fire
does break out, we can respond immediately and try to control
the spread of that fire.
Mr. Bishop. OK, Mr Abbey. Mr. Holt?
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Abbey and
Mr. Jarvis for all the important work that your agencies do.
Let me follow on the question of Mr. Grijalva about the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I cannot emphasize too strongly how important this is for
the irreplaceable lands in New Jersey and across the nation.
You know how hard I have worked to try to find ways to stop
this siphoning off of the LWCF's $900 million in annual
revenues.
How does this year's budget fit into the Department's and
the President's declared goal of fully funding LWCF by 2014? It
sounds to me like this is----
Mr. Jarvis. An incremental step toward that, I would say.
Recognizing the economic situation of the country and that full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in this
economic decline was probably unreasonable or not achievable.
What we have done is looked to work together, the Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service
and the Forest Service to figure out how we can leverage our
LWCF investments and create the best effect both for the
American public in terms of recreation as well as conservation
on the ground.
That has been our focus.
Dr. Holt. Mr. Abbey, I wanted to turn to the Mining Act and
R.S. 2477. I do not need to go through how we got here and how
grandfathered road use is determined.
I wanted to point to the real challenges, legal challenges,
that are being mounted now. I would like to know whether the
Bureau intends to vigorously defend against this attack.
Anti-wilderness folks have said roads are the anecdote to
wilderness, as if wilderness is something to be stamped out.
Believe me, roads are a pretty effective way of degrading
wilderness.
Will the Bureau vigorously defend preservation of the
wilderness areas?
Mr. Abbey. We intend to do so. As you know, there have been
several lawsuits that have been filed, primarily in the State
of Utah, regarding R.S. 2477 roads.
At the same time, we are working very closely with the
State of Utah and with county governments in that particular
state, as well as other counties across the Western United
States to try to provide for legitimate roads that exist, to
make sure the public has access to the areas they want access
to.
Certainly, where we have proposals on trails within
designated wilderness areas, we have already declared those are
not roads or they would never have been designated as
wilderness study areas or designated as wilderness.
As we continue to defend in a court of law our position, we
are also seeking alternative approaches to authorize under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act right-of-ways that would
provide for that type of access to the areas that the public
would like to have access to, and to accommodate
transportation----
Dr. Holt. Let me just say, please be vigorous. Mr. Jarvis,
there are a number of really important Civil War battlefield
sites that have been preserved. It is very important to our
heritage.
If we provide you the authorization, can we expect the same
kind of vigorous attention to battlefields of the Revolution
and the War of 1812?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. The biggest threat to all of our
battlefields is that they get developed and you lose that sense
of place. Obviously, since we are right now in the middle of
the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War, we had a lot of focus on
that, but the War of 1812 recognition is coming up very quickly
as well, and we have had some focus on that and are putting
some specific funding into it, but we would appreciate your
support for the recognition of these very important historical
components.
Dr. Holt. Let me also just add a comment to Mr. Grijalva's
question. I do think the reduction in the Heritage Areas'
program funding is a serious problem. These are really
shoestring operations in so many cases and so valuable, the
Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey is just
getting on its feet. It is terribly important, I think, for our
heritage, our history, our education, not to mention local
tourism.
I hope we can find a way to restore that funding and have a
commitment of vigorous defense of those programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Holt. Maybe if you can help me
get my access, I can help you get your battlefields.
Dr. Holt. Noted.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
gentlemen for being here today.
I am going to start with Mr. Abbey. I recently read in
Florida Trend Magazine that the Department was claiming
ownership of uninhabited Wisteria Island in Key West Harbor.
The article stated that the Monroe County Property
Appraisers' records say a private company has owned the Island
since 1967.
I have also been informed that your agency is the one that
has put in this claim. If this is accurate, I would like to
request at least a briefing by your staff either here in
Washington or in South Florida, to better familiarize myself
with that matter, if that would be all right.
Mr. Abbey. You bet. Let me just say initial adjudication of
the records performed by our employees in the Eastern State's
Office located in Springfield, Virginia indicated there were
some title issues down there.
I have yet to be briefed myself. I have asked them to
provide me background and what facts they have to come to that
type of conclusion.
We would be happy to provide that briefing to you after I
receive it.
Mr. Rivera. I appreciate that very much.
Also, almost four months ago, I asked that you and
Secretary Salazar provide a list of all foreign government
owned energy companies, foreign government owned energy
companies incorporated in the United States, that hold leases
on Federal lands and the OCS.
I am still waiting for that list. I think the fact that it
has taken this long to produce the list highlights that we have
a problem of easily identifying what foreign governments are
operating on our public lands, which could be a matter of
national security.
Again, I would reiterate I would like to have that list as
soon as possible.
Mr. Abbey. We will get that to you.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you. Mr. Jarvis, with respect to
Everglades restoration, I know it is important to you, and as
you know, it is important to Florida and to the United States.
I want to thank you for the leadership that you provided on
this issue.
On the image you see on the screen, this is a part of my
congressional district. The orange line is the boundary of
Everglades National Park. The Tamiami Trail Bridge, the green
in the image, which is expected to be finished soon, and the
other Public Works being built to restore more natural flows to
the Everglades, need a 7.5 mile swath of Florida Power and
Light or FPL owned land that runs through the middle of
Everglades National Park, and that would be the pink line that
you see there.
The FPL swath is about as wide as a football field side
line to side line.
The Park Service and Congress both know this, and in 2009
Congress passed bipartisan legislation that enabled a land
exchange between the Park and Florida Power and Light.
Florida Power and Light would receive those lands where the
blue line touches the orange on the eastern edge of the Park,
and the net gain to the Park was an additional 60 acres of
land, and FPL would have a corridor to put power lines outside
of that Park.
I am sure you share my concern about all the taxpayer
dollars spent, and it simply is not working because of a hold
up with this land exchange.
The schedule the Park Service itself publicly posted for
the project shows the agency publishing a draft environmental
impact study or EIS last month. That did not happen.
I am wondering when we can expect that.
Mr. Jarvis. The team in Florida is working very diligently
to get this done. We were briefed on it just in the last week
or so that to facilitate the exchange and to move the power
line corridor to the eastern boundary, there will be some
environmental concerns. However, I think they can be identified
and managed and, certainly, we need the current FPL corridor in
order to allow overflow easements when the water begins to flow
under the Tamiami Bridge Project.
We see it as an essential component, and we are working
very, very hard on it.
I do not know off the top of my head when we will get it to
you, but I will get that right to you.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much. I hope you will expedite
that.
Speaking of the project, is there any funding requested in
the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget for bridging or related
work on the Tamiami Trail?
Mr. Jarvis. There is $8 million requested in the Fiscal
2013 in our construction program, but that is inadequate to do
the next phase of the Tamiami Trail.
Mr. Rivera. $8 million?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
Director Jarvis, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions.
You mentioned a moment ago the bicentennial celebration that is
coming up on the War of 1812, and it will not surprise you to
learn I am very focused on that myself right now.
The first question relates to the Star Spangled Banner
National Historic Trail. I know the Park Service is currently
reviewing a comprehensive management plan for that Trail.
I wanted to know if you are confident that this review will
happen with all deliberate speed so that the plan is done and
the Trail is ready to go and be accessed as we head into the
bicentennial celebration?
You are going to have thousands of visitors, obviously,
coming through the area and the region who are going to want to
follow along the points of that Trail.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. I just made a point to travel over to
the office on the Chesapeake Bay where we manage both the
Chesapeake, Captain John Smith, and the Star Spangled Banner
Trail activities, as well as conversations with the Northeast
Region.
I do believe it is on track. I think it is very exciting. I
know the communities along the route are looking very much
forward to this, so I think it is coming along quite well.
We just hired a new coordinator for the War of 1812
celebrations as well.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. I will apologize now for being a
pest in the coming months on this, as we kind of keep checking
in with you to make sure that is staying on track.
The second thing, obviously, Fort McHenry is going to be
really at the center of this celebration over the next two
years. I know the budget is largely flat for the foreseeable
future.
I am concerned that there is going to be this huge influx
of visitors. We expect this to happen not just from within the
region, but from across the country and even international
visitors coming, as we celebrate this bicentennial event.
I wondered if you could speak to whether the Park Service
is kind of leaning into the bicentennial and thinking about how
maybe some additional resources can be marshaled toward Fort
McHenry to make sure the Fort Visitor Center and everything
that goes with it is well positioned to handle this significant
increase in interest and tourism?
Mr. Jarvis. We appreciate your attention to this. I think
the Park will be ready. We have identified about $750,000 out
of recreation 20 percent fee funds and repair/rehab to complete
the exhibits at the Visitors Center.
We are ensuring that the staff is ready for the
celebration.
As I mentioned, we put together a team on this, and
Gavitsky, who you know well, has been leading that for the
Northeast Region. We have just again hired a new coordinator. I
think things are coming together quite well, and I think the
Park will be ready and looking spiffy.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great. We look forward to working with you on
this as it comes to past. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Pallone, do you have questions?
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Grijalva, also for letting me join you.
I just wanted to say my question is to Director Jarvis. I
know that in difficult economic times, families all over the
Nation are relying on our national parks for family vacations,
daily recreation, and education.
I think it is important that these natural wonders be
accessible to everyone.
In my district, we have Sandy Hook, part of the Gateway
National Recreation area, and one of the important attractions
that the public has access to at Sandy Hook is the beaches.
While many of the surrounding beaches remain prohibitively
expensive for families, Sandy Hook remains an affordable
location.
However, the National Park Service has proposed raising the
fees 100 percent for vehicles going to the beach. I think this
is going to be put access to Sandy Hook's beaches out of reach
for many families struggling during these difficult economic
times. I just do not want that to happen.
You know, Director Jarvis, I have had dialogue with you
about these proposed fee increases at Sandy Hook, and you have
been willing to keep an open mind.
You also know, I think, that I am very strongly opposed to
it. We are talking daily now for a vehicle is $10. It goes to
$20 for two days, but a lot of people just come for the day.
That is double.
Season pass goes from $50 per vehicle to $100 per vehicle,
over sized from $25 to $50.
My question is have you made any determination as to
whether these fee increases at Sandy Hook will be implemented,
and if not, when can we expect that decision?
Mr. Jarvis. We are still in continuous dialogue with the
staff in the Northeast Region about these fee proposed
increases. They do have to come in for approval here in
Washington. For any of the fee increases we are taking them
case by case. They have to make their case that it is not
deterring the public, and it is reasonable and justified, and
particularly in the amount of the increase, as you indicated.
This is a doubling of the existing fees.
We are still in the process. We do not have a final
decision.
Mr. Pallone. You do not have a time line at this point?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Pallone. As I said, I know I am being repetitive and
you have heard me before, but it is tough times. Some of the
people at the Park Service--we had a hearing, and I appreciated
the fact that you had a hearing--came in and said well, this is
comparable to area beaches.
The problem is a lot of people cannot afford the area
beaches. This was the cheap alternative for a day.
I hope this notion that because other beaches are more
expensive that means we should be more expensive does not
influence your opinion too much.
My understanding also is that part of the reason that the
Service is proposing a fee increase at Sandy Hook is because
they have some difficulty funding operations and maintenance at
the Park.
Where in the Park Service budget could Congress ensure that
adequate funds are included so that the financial burden is not
put on the middle class?
In other words, can we do something so that we can avoid
the fee increases by providing more money for certain things,
if possible?
Mr. Jarvis. The operations of any park come directly from
the Federal appropriations process. The interesting thing about
the Federal budget for the National Park Service is that every
park in the system is identified for its base operations. You
would be able to find Gateway and Golden Gate, any park in the
system exactly.
As we have proposed for Fiscal 2013, there is actually a
reduction of about 1.5 percent to the operating budgets of the
park system across the system, and that will impact their
ability to do maintenance, to provide basic services.
Increasingly, we have to rely on our fee program to provide
basic services, particularly on the maintenance side of the
program.
Mr. Pallone. Let me just say that I want to mention Fort
Hancock. The buildings that make up Fort Hancock require a lot
of investment. There was a private developer who basically was
a failure. I do not want to see that repeated.
I would like to see some funds dedicated for historic
preservation at Fort Hancock, and that be prioritized, because
then the need for additional private developers or private
development is less so.
I am just hoping I can get an assurance from you that we
will work together to try to get some of these buildings
preserved through the Federal Government if possible.
Mr. Jarvis. The key to Fort Hancock, I think, as we found
in many of these things, is to find the right partner and then
couple our investment in the infrastructure with their
investment in creating some sort of viable opportunity there.
If you time that perfectly, I think you can have a success.
That is what we are looking for.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I
think that we can get some individual non-profits and other
groups that would come there and fix up some of the buildings,
but we are going to need some Federal help as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. That is OK. Everyone has gone over so far, so
you can complete the circle.
Let me ask a couple of questions. May I start with you, Mr.
Abbey. Let's go back to the sage-grouse that Mr. Amodei
started.
Obviously, the Center for Biological Diversity and Wild
Earth Guardians recently made a settlement agreement with the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Were you personally consulted about the terms of that
settlement prior to the agreement?
Mr. Abbey. I was not.
Mr. Bishop. Was anyone from BLM present or consulted prior
to the terms of that agreement?
Mr. Abbey. I am not aware of anyone from BLM participating
in that negotiation. I do know there is information that we
have shared relative to the number of acres that we manage that
are considered to be sage-grouse habitat.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have personally within BLM any
preliminary economic analysis or estimate of the cost or the
impact of this settlement?
Mr. Abbey. I do not.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have any information as to what counties
may lose revenue with the impact of this settlement?
Mr. Abbey. I do not.
Mr. Bishop. What is the statutory authority for saying that
grouse creek surface habitat trumps legal mineral rights in
these areas?
Mr. Abbey. First, the species is not listed, as you are
well aware.
Mr. Bishop. One of the concepts was that the surface rights
will trump the legal mineral rights. Is there statutory
authority for that?
Mr. Abbey. I am not familiar with what you are quoting,
what document you are referencing, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. Is there statutory authority for saying the
surface rights will trump mineral rights?
Mr. Abbey. No.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Is there any authority that says surface
rights would trump mineral rights?
Mr. Abbey. No, what we would try to do is mitigate any
impacts to the core sage-grouse habitats through our actions.
Mr. Bishop. We do not have any analysis of that yet?
Mr. Abbey. We would do the analysis through NEPA.
Mr. Bishop. OK. If and when that actually happens, if you
would share that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Abbey. You bet.
Mr. Bishop. I do want to say one thing. I feel sorry for
you as far as the wild horse and burro issue.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. What Congress has done in all sincerity is
really hamper you and tie your hands in many areas. How are you
going to be able to reduce the herd with an inadequate habitat
that is available for the numbers that are there?
Mr. Abbey. It is going to be a challenge. That is the
reason why we contracted out with the National Academy of
Sciences to try to help us use the best available information
in science that is out there so that we can incorporate
different actions because the status quo is not working.
Mr. Bishop. I wish you well on that. I hope that works well
for you.
Mr. Jarvis, can I go through a couple of quick questions
with you at the same time? Can you give me the status on the
upkeep of the work at the Jimmy Carter Historic Site? Is the
Park Service still mowing the lawns and doing the pool service?
Mr. Jarvis. I cannot give you an update. I was not briefed
on that, so I do not know. I will find out for you.
Mr. Bishop. That is one of the questions. What about the
Presidio Trust that was supposed to be self sufficient? Are
they going to be able to meet the 2012 deadline for being self
sufficient?
Mr. Jarvis. I think they are.
Mr. Bishop. Has any Heritage Area, if we can hit on that
for a second, shown the ability to become self sufficient?
Mr. Jarvis. We have done some economic evaluations, reviews
of them, and I think some of them actually are economically
self sufficient. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Currently?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Can you give me a list of those that are?
Mr. Jarvis. I can get that to you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You are budgeting $9 million for
Heritage Areas. How many seasonable employees would that hire?
Mr. Jarvis. I am not very good at that kind of math. A
seasonable employee for the National Park Service, about 800.
Mr. Bishop. 800? Thank you.
The Coburn Amendment over in the Senate, Mr. Jarvis, still
implemented with regards to the Second Amendment rights on Park
Service land. Have you seen any increase in gun violence or
poaching attributable to that law change?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. We have not.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, let me ask one question
for Mr. Tipton. He wanted to ask if the BLM has done any cost/
benefit analysis on grazing. Have you placed any value on the
contribution grazing makes to management of these lands?
Especially as we are talking about sage-grouse with wild fire.
Mr. Abbey. We have. We went back last year because of the
criticism that was provided to us or presented to us by the
industry itself regarding what they perceived to be a slight in
our economic analysis.
We went back based upon the information they were able to
provide us, which we validated, and changed those figures.
Mr. Bishop. Great. I appreciate that. I have questions
about the grazing but my time is about up, and I am going to
beat the clock and yield back. I will wait for the next round.
Mr. Grijalva, do you have more questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple. Mr.
Abbey, the point that Mr. Holt brought up about the claims and
R.S. 2477, let me ask specifically about law enforcement in the
areas where these claims have been placed.
They have been thrust into the spotlight as a consequence
of those claims, so are you seeing a greater need for
protection, a greater need for rangers' presence as a
consequence of the whole discussion about the claims?
Mr. Abbey. No, we really are not, Congressman. Again, our
law enforcement folks within the Bureau of Land Management work
very well for the most part with local law enforcement
officials.
We are not seeing really any increase in incidents as a
result of some of the contentious issues related to R.S. 2477
claims.
As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, we are working very
closely with county governments to resolve some of these
issues.
Our hope is that they would accept right-of-ways that would
be issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, and avoid pursuing litigation, asserting R.S.
2477 jurisdiction.
We are not totally successful along those lines.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. For both of you gentlemen, how
will the re-authorization of the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act help your particular agencies?
Mr. Abbey. Let me take that one, Jon. First, we really are
big proponents of seeing that Act re-introduced and passed.
As you know, Congressman Grijalva, it expired in July of
2011. What this Act has allowed us to do is under the decisions
that we reached through a very public land use planning process
and where we have identified public lands for disposal, we have
been able to dispose of those public lands and use the revenues
that are generated from the sales of those lands for the
acquisitions of environmentally sensitive lands for not only
the Bureau of Land Management but the U.S. Forest Service, Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Prior to the expiration of the Act in July, we had sold
27,000 acres of public lands and acquired 18,000 acres of
remarkable landscapes.
Mr. Grijalva. Sir?
Mr. Jarvis. I would agree. The Bureau of Land Management
and Director Abbey have been excellent to work with in the
collaborative approach to application of the FLTFA funds to
acquire critically sensitive lands, and the Park Service has
benefitted from that.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. The Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 is significant for people that
appreciate history and appreciate the preservation of that
history.
Have the violations of this Act increased with the economic
hardships that we are seeing out there, and what is being done
to protect some of those? There are many in my district, many
in Arizona, of these very important archeological sites.
Mr. Jarvis. I think archeological resources continues to be
a concern on all public lands, national parks, and BLM lands as
well. We work collaboratively with state enforcement as well to
try to protect these sites.
These are big areas, difficult, remote in many cases. I
cannot say that I have seen a growth in the activity, but
certainly it continues to be a law enforcement concern.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Amodei? I will note you also had
a surplus from the last time we had a hearing as far as your
time is concerned.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you for your accounting courtesies, Mr.
Chairman.
Bob, you had referenced this plan about the sage-grouse
stuff, so I would appreciate a copy of that, which I am
assuming shows the areas, reduces fuels around those, talks
about assets pre-positioned.
Is there an element of that plan that also talks about
sheep grass and PJ, or is that a different document, or is that
to be generated? How does that work?
Mr. Abbey. That type of information will be generated and
included as part of our land use plan amendments.
Invasive species in the Great Basin, especially sheep
grass, destroys core sage-grouse habitats, and it continues to
be a problem and it becomes an increasing problem every time we
have large scale fires.
Mr. Amodei. I guess a pretty important ingredient in terms
of fire management, obviously.
Mr. Abbey. Definitely.
Mr. Amodei. That would be great. The other things already
exist in the plan or did I misunderstand you?
Mr. Abbey. As far as our fire suppression tactics and
strategies, that already exists. We have incorporated that into
our annual fire plans, where we are giving priorities to
protecting those types of core areas.
Mr. Amodei. That exists at the state level or the district
level?
Mr. Abbey. It would exist at the state level.
Mr. Amodei. I will get that from Amy. Thank you.
Also, I was wondering if there was an analysis on the
relation of material move to cost to remediate abandoned sites
in Nevada. You have picked this management technique.
Knowing the permitting process that people go through with
your agency, with the state DEP, how many of those areas are in
areas that were previously disturbed or formerly abandoned
because you go to where the mineral is?
I would like to see if this has some sort of direct
relation to where those sites are, where permits are being
issued, and what the mission is, if you will, in Nevada versus
the number of tons that are expected to be moved, if that sort
of analysis exists, please.
Mr. Abbey. We have used USGS information to identify the
volumes, the estimated volumes of materials that are used.
As you may know, a similar program exists in the Coal
Program, where coal mines are actually paying a fee to the
Office of Surface Management to reclaim abandoned coal mines.
What we are trying to propose and implement would be a
program that is currently in place for coal with hard rock
mines.
Mr. Amodei. OK. If there is a connection there, that is
fine. I would just like to see the data that backs it up.
In coming up with this, did you coordinate with Minerals in
DEP in Nevada, with the state folks? Were folks in that
district consulted? Is this something that came strictly from
the Federal level?
Mr. Abbey. This is the same proposal that we included in
last year's budget request, so it is not new. It is the second
year in a row that we have requested this.
Let me just say, Congressman, any fee that would be
collected under this proposal would not only be available to
clean up abandoned mines on Federally managed lands, but also
private lands and state managed lands.
Mr. Amodei. I get that. The answer to my question of was it
coordinated with the state folks who are already doing this in
Nevada is?
Mr. Abbey. I did not reach out to them, no.
Mr. Amodei. OK. Thank you. Finally, on the grazing fee
increase, we are cutting $15 million. We are imposing a fee
that generates half that. What my take-away from that in terms
of--by the way, we are going to increase service in that area.
It looks to me like a net reduction of 50 percent, and that
is only because you have a fee increase.
If you could, and because Mr. Bishop adds and subtracts
very well, just give me the short version, please. I would like
to do one more.
Mr. Abbey. The issue with the grazing fee and one of the
rationales behind our proposal is that the Bureau of Land
Management spends around $38 million each year evaluating
rangeland health and monitoring permits and the uses that are
occurring under the permits.
We collected around $12.4 million in revenue. That revenue
is then distributed 50 percent to state and local governments
with 50 percent going into the Range Improvement Plan or Range
Improvement Fund.
We really are not offsetting the administrative costs of
administering grazing permits on these public lands.
There are benefits. There are benefits to grazing on public
lands. We recognize those benefits.
Mr. Amodei. If I could, Bob, I am not trying to cut you
off, but I will get with you to take that off line. Final one.
Gross proceeds, tax, minerals extractions on gross proceeds
instead of net. Why gross? What was the deal, not to take into
account cost of production?
Mr. Abbey. Well, it was rationale that we have used and it
was one of the proposals that had been considered both by the
Bureau of Land Management and others within the Department of
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget.
I think it has a lot to do with it is an easier way to
account for the revenue.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Let me follow up, start with the grazing fees
again. If indeed this $1 is to assist in recouping actual
costs, why is it not per permit or application? Why is it per
AUM?
Mr. Abbey. Let me begin by explaining what is the potential
impact of a grazing permittee. Congressman, as you may know, 83
percent of the permittees on public lands graze 1,000 AUMs or
less.
The actual impact to a permittee at the end of the year is
probably going to be $1,000 or less on their permit.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Let's go back to the question. If this is
administrative costs, why is it not per permit instead of per
AUM?
Mr. Abbey. We could issue--we could do per permit. It would
not be $1 per permit. It would be much more.
Mr. Bishop. That would be intellectually honest anyway. The
same thing, if the fee is for administrative costs, why are you
connecting it to the Rangeland Management Program?
That is probably a rhetorical question. If you are putting
that fee money into the Rangeland Management Program, it is
obviously not just administrative costs that is there.
What is the specific statutory authority you have to
actually administer that fee?
Mr. Abbey. It would be cost recovery for the implementation
of the work that is done in support of that program.
Mr. Bishop. But you do not have an one to one relationship
with that. Our staff has asked repeatedly for specific
references in statute to where you have that authority.
Will you provide that to them?
Mr. Abbey. We would be happy to provide that. I can tell
you right now that we believe we have the authority under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act to do this.
Mr. Bishop. I need the specifics of that, and once again,
if it is going to be true, I need to have an one to one
correlation between the assessment of that fee versus the cost
to you to manage that process, and not being stripped off and
going into another one of your funds here.
Otherwise, that simply is a raising of the revenue, but the
staff has repeatedly asked the BLM Office to do that and we
have yet to receive that specific statutory authority.
I also would like you to see what kind of analysis you have
done to see what impact that raising of the fee would be on
grazing.
It goes back to what Mr. Amodei was talking about when it
comes simply to sheep grass. All grazing specifically helps
sheep grass suppression, which helps in fire prevention.
If this fee is going to have a negative impact on the
overall grazing, and there are groups out there that want that,
then it is going to have an impact on the wildlife, on the
sheep grass, on the fire suppression, and everything else that
takes place.
I specifically want the authority in great detail. We have
some problems with this going forward, specific problems going
forward.
I will reiterate, once again, rhetorically, when some of
that fee is used to mitigate a proposed reduction in the
Rangeland Management Fund, it destroys your argument that this
is an administrative cost.
I have some other questions, too. In the Federal Registry,
it states ``BLM will also seek nomination of areas of critical
environmental concern and information on the lands that may
possess wilderness characteristics.''
My concern is that is almost verbatim of the language you
used when you came up with the wild lands proposal, which I
thought was going to go away.
The question I have, and I am going to ask you to
specifically notify my staff every time this request is made in
the context of a proposed RMP revision, mandate or other, BLM
publicly or privately seeking this type of information.
Can I make that request of you?
Mr. Abbey. You can make the request.
Mr. Bishop. Will you honor that request if I make it?
Mr. Abbey. We will look into your request and respond
accordingly.
Mr. Bishop. Not quite the same thing as what I was
requesting, but I will take that for where we are going from
here.
Mr. Jarvis, can I ask you very simply how much it cost you
to clean up from the Occupy Wall Street?
Mr. Jarvis. You mean Occupy D.C.?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Jarvis. The clean up we anticipate will be $8,000 in
terms of re-sodding at McPherson.
Mr. Bishop. What about manpower, trash pick-up and the
other stuff?
Mr. Jarvis. The total cost to date that we have accumulated
is around $900,000, for all of the operations, law enforcement,
clean up, trash pick-up. A few U.S. Park Police and our Mall
operations staff.
Mr. Bishop. I asked Mr. Salazar the question the other time
he was here if you are raising the $10 overnight camping fee in
that special recreation management area in Colorado, if those
people were to object to that fee and occupy it under their
First Amendment rights, would you still charge them the fee,
and Mr. Salazar said yes.
If they were to occupy that area under their First
Amendment rights, can you give Mr. Abbey some advice on how he
could handle that?
Mr. Jarvis. I do not have any advice for Director Abbey on
how to deal with it. I would say the National Park Service has
learned a lot in this process about dealing with this basically
unprecedented approach to the First Amendment.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I went over. I apologize. Mr.
Grijalva, do you have more?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, just a couple of quick ones. Mr. Abbey,
let's try to put something in perspective on grazing fees.
State fees are per AUM on state lands, and let me see if
these sound accurate. $13.10 per AUM in Utah. $13 in Nevada.
$15.30 in Colorado. $9 in Arizona. $14.50 in Idaho. $13 in New
Mexico.
Do those sound somewhat accurate?
Mr. Abbey. I do not have the list in front of me,
Congressman Grijalva, but I will say that sounds similar to
what I have seen that is being charged on private lands within
those states; yes.
Mr. Grijalva. It is good we are not talking about a double
standard. It is always good to clarify that.
Go through some fee structures that mining claims pay on
public lands.
Mr. Abbey. Mining claims, they pay a per claim fee every
time they record their claims each year. Nationally, we have
over 400,000 mining claims that have been filed on public lands
that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management as well as
the U.S. Forest Service.
They do pay a filing fee.
Mr. Grijalva. How much is that?
Mr. Abbey. I am sorry?
Mr. Grijalva. How much is that filing fee?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman, could we get back with you on that
particular fee?
Mr. Grijalva. Sure. One other question. My colleague from
Colorado asked about factoring in for reclamation--the
reclamation fee factoring in the cost of production in a mining
operation.
Is there any factoring in on the value of the product on
public land?
Mr. Abbey. No. As you know, there are no royalties that are
collected from any kind of extraction of minerals under the
1872 mining law.
Mr. Grijalva. Value is not a consequence of any evaluation?
Mr. Abbey. No. It would be based upon the tonnage of
materials that are used or removed.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Abbey. Congressman, I do have that figure now. It is
$140 per claim.
Mr. Grijalva. One last and then I will yield back. The
costs with the reclamation fee we were talking about, can you
give me an average?
Let's say there is an abandoned claim that then goes under,
extraction has been done, the mining operation closes, leaves,
still on public land, that converts back to you. What is the
average cost of doing reclamation or safety adjustments
regarding an abandoned claim or abandoned mine operation? Is
there an average?
Mr. Jarvis. Are you addressing me?
Mr. Grijalva. Either one.
Mr. Jarvis. In the National Park Service, we have some
abandoned mines. They are legacy mines because we do not have
much active mining except in a few places. It can be hundreds
of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars to do
restoration.
Mr. Abbey. It can be millions of dollars to clean up
abandoned mines. Again, we are talking about legacy mines that
were built years and years ago. We are not necessarily talking
about modern mining today because they are fully covered
through bonds.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. I have one Member who is jogging over here as
we speak. We will see if I can stretch one question out long
enough to see if he can make it or not, unless you have other
questions, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. No.
Mr. Bishop. Let me try this one, and it is probably for Mr.
Abbey.
A couple of weeks ago, the National Park Service objected
to a planned coal mine that was on BLM property over a dozen
miles from Bryce Canyon. It was outside the boundaries of the
Park Service.
At the same time, I read in the L.A. Times there was a
solar project that was authorized within 18 months, and it
covered 3,000 acres including desert tortoise habitat that the
National Park Service gave its strongest complaints against
because of the scale of it. That was done at the same time that
Utah's oil shale was being rejected because the National Park
Service objected, and that was the rationale that was used.
As I look at what was happening down by Bryce, in Eastern
Utah, and then down with the solar project, what is the policy
of the BLM toward the Park Service when it has complaints that
reach outside its statutory boundaries?
How do you handle that?
Mr. Abbey. We take their concerns to heart. Again, they
were a cooperating agency relative to the NEPA process, along
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and also the local and
state government.
We have received several concerns that have been expressed
as part of the public comment period. We are taking those
comments. We are doing further analysis to see what actions we
could approve that would mitigate the concerns that have been
expressed by all parties who have provided those types of
criticisms.
At the end of the day, we will make a decision based upon
the best information that is available.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have a specific policy on how you do
that matrix or is that on a case by case basis?
Mr. Abbey. It is based upon the specific project and on a
case by case basis.
Mr. Bishop. I hope you can understand at least why I look
at some of the case by case basis especially when I see the
solar project in California that there were strongest
complaints against versus other ones. I recognize this seems to
be a policy or a practice or decision making concept that is
not necessarily the same in each one of those situations.
It presents a great deal of concerns.
Mr. Abbey. The process is the same. It is the matter of
whether or not we can mitigate the concerns that have been
expressed.
Mr. Bishop. I just need you to make better decisions. Is
that what you are saying?
Mr. Abbey. A lot of people are saying that.
Mr. Bishop. Amen. All right. With that, I am going to have
to tell my colleague that he did not make it over here in time.
We do appreciate very much your willingness to be here and
going over the budget requests. We will be talking about this
obviously at length as time goes on here.
As I said earlier, there are Members, and indeed, I have
some questions, that we will submit in writing. Your responses
would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Abbey, for your time, as well as
for your efforts. I do appreciate it, even though I do not say
that very often, we do appreciate what you are doing.
With that, unless Mr. Grijalva has something else before he
runs away, this committee meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]