[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Leahy, Tim Johnson, Tester,
Landrieu, Murkowski, Alexander, Cochran, Collins, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY
PAMELA K. HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET, FINANCE,
PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order and on
behalf of the members of the subcommittee I'd like to welcome
the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Secretary, thank you very
much for taking time to be with us this morning and to talk
about the fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the
Interior.
I would also like to take a moment to thank you for all the
time that you spent in our States during the past year visiting
our shared priorities. I very much appreciated your trip to
Rhode Island last summer and your support to create the John H.
Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historic Park.
I am also grateful for your participation, you and your
staff, along with Senator Murkowski, for our very interesting
and informative trip to Alaska. And I would also like to thank
Senator Murkowski not only for her gracious hospitality in
Alaska, but for her extraordinary efforts last year on a
bipartisan basis to bring forward an Interior bill which I
think was a good one. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski,
for your great work and for the work of your staff.
Mr. Secretary, I also want to thank you for your intense
interest in all these issues and for your accessibility and
collaboration with us throughout the process last year, and we
look forward to the same collaboration going forward this year.
Turning to the budget, it appears that the administration
is seeking $10.4 billion for Interior programs under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is an increase of $139
million, or about 1 percent more than the equivalent fiscal
year 2012 enacted level.
Within that amount, funding for the operations of our
national parks, refuges, and other public lands is essentially
flat at $4.56 billion. Tribal programs are also flat-funded at
approximately $2.53 billion.
The budget request does include a few new investments,
including a $115 million increase for the Interior Department's
Land and Water Conservation (LWCF) programs, for a total of
$332 million. That amount is a 53-percent increase more than
the fiscal year 2012 level and includes a new emphasis on
landscape-scale projects in Montana, Wyoming, and Florida.
I look forward to discussing how this proposal fits in with
other land acquisition priorities particularly since I notice
that there are no projects in some of our States, Rhode Island
included, with respect to land acquisition. And it is very
important, I think you recognize this, for urban parks and
refuges and also for the whole country that we have an active
acquisition process going forward.
The budget request also includes $222 million for the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), a 13-
percent increase for inspections and enforcement. I understand
the Department intends this funding increase to continue the
transformation of its offshore energy program.
The request also proposes substantial increases in science,
including a 3-percent increase in the U.S. Geological Survey's
(USGS) budget for a total of $1.102 billion. Within that amount
is $18.5 million for hydraulic fracturing research to support a
multi-agency research effort to address environmental questions
related to energy development.
Of course, as is often the case during these fiscally
difficult times, the administration's budget request also
contains reductions to other important programs, including a
19-percent cut to land management agency construction programs
and an additional 14-percent cut to the construction of tribal
schools. And finally, it requires yet another round of belt-
tightening by the Department's Bureaus to produce $80 million
in administrative savings.
As we discuss the details of this request, it is very
important to note that, for decades, resources provided to the
Department through the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill have created jobs by enabling oil
and gas development, supporting outdoor recreation, and
building facilities, roads, and trails on our public lands.
The Department now has the opportunity to spur economic
growth through new sectors like renewable energy, and that fact
makes it even more important that the right resources and
policies are in place to permit these projects to proceed
quickly and responsibly.
In particular, I would like to have a conversation about
the role of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in
permitting new offshore wind projects, which have the ability
to create hundreds of new assembly and manufacturing jobs all
across our coastal areas, but in particular at Quonset Point,
Rhode Island. I think some of my colleagues also have some
interest in those projects.
We have worked in Rhode Island and in adjacent States, but
particularly Rhode Island, to develop an ocean special area
management plan (SAMP), first in the Nation effort to
streamline the planning process for the siting of these
facilities. And despite all this work, I am concerned that
BOEM's environmental assessment and planning process for Rhode
Island is falling behind schedule, that we are not keeping pace
with other areas of development.
And finally, I would also expect to discuss how the
Department's budget request will support and expand other types
of energy development. The subcommittee has been very involved
in the reorganization of offshore oil and gas programs, and I
am anxious to hear a progress report from the Secretary
regarding how the Department's three new Bureaus are addressing
their management challenges.
I anticipate that we will also discuss the changes the
Department is proposing to its onshore energy development
budget, including a proposal for a new inspection fee for oil
and gas development on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands,
and I look forward to a good conversation on all of these
important issues.
And now, Mr. Secretary and colleagues, I would like to turn
to the ranking member for any of her comments.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
the panel.
We had the opportunity yesterday to have Secretary Salazar,
Assistant Secretary Hayes, and Ms. Haze before the Energy
Committee. So I had a chance to do some warm-up questions then,
but it is good to welcome you back to this subcommittee.
And Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the trip that we took to
Alaska this summer. I, too, want to thank the Secretary and
thank you and your staff. Peter Kiefhaber, who is no longer
with the subcommittee, but did a great job with us as we worked
that Interior package last year. So thank you not only for the
time that you took to look at some issues that are very
important to my State and to the country, but also for the good
work of your staff as we built that bill last year.
This morning, Mr. Chairman, I think we recognize that this
is just the first of several of our subcommittee hearings that
we will engage in an oversight role we exercise during these
hearings. It is especially critical in this challenging fiscal
climate where we are forced to make some very difficult
decisions, difficult choices between many worthy programs that
are funded by this bill and by others.
It is imperative that we work with the executive branch to
improve the efficiency and the quality of the programs that are
administered by all of the agencies that are under our
jurisdiction. I think we all recognize that in this time we are
all having to figure out how we do more with less.
As you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, the Department's
budget request is essentially flat at $10.4 billion. But before
I describe some of the concerns that I might have, I want to
applaud you, Mr. Secretary, for including the full amount of
contract support costs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
request.
These funds are absolutely, absolutely critical for the
delivery of so many programs to Native Alaskans. As you know,
this is a top priority for me, and I hope that we can encourage
Indian Health Services to adopt your approach in future
requests. So I thank you for that.
There are a number of concerns that I have with the
Department's budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. Similar to
last year, it does propose to increase by 39 percent the amount
for LWCF programs while at the same time we are cutting the
construction accounts for all of the land management agencies
and BIA.
I think it is somewhat shortsighted to continue
underfunding essential construction and maintenance programs
while at the same time we are increasing the operational
demands on the Department by expanding the amount of land under
its jurisdiction. That was something that I had noted
yesterday.
I do find it curious that at the same time that the budget
proposes to dramatically expand Federal land acquisition that
it eliminates the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which
compensates States and localities for the loss of tax revenue
due to Federal ownership.
And while the budget proposes to extend mandatory Payments
in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) that expire this fiscal year by just 1
additional year, it doesn't provide for offsets. I think that
before we commit funds to additional land acquisitions that we
should make sure that we have got a definitive way to honor our
existing commitments to States and counties that already have a
large Federal land base which is not subject to property taxes.
I was in Ketchikan on Friday. It is the southernmost
community in southeastern Alaska, sits in the middle of the
Tongass National Forest. I was reminded that in Ketchikan, only
1/30th of 1 percent of the Ketchikan borough is taxable, is
subject to any taxation, 1/30th of 1 percent.
So when we cut back on PILT, when we cut back on Secure
Rural Schools program funding, there is no way to expand their
tax base. They are sitting in the middle of a national forest.
So it was a good reminder to me of the importance of some of
these mandatory payments.
Also, a number of troubling proposals in the request for
new fees that would raise the cost of domestic energy
production, mining, and livestock grazing. I am concerned with
what I would describe as a budget gimmick, and this relates to
the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP).
There is an offset of current discretionary programs by
rescinding the $200 million within CIAP. This was established
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in recognition of the direct
impacts that are caused by Federal offshore Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) development on our OCS-producing States.
Alaska, for instance, would lose $16 million of the
remaining $45 million that it is entitled to under the program
for environmental mitigation and infrastructure improvements.
This is an unacceptable situation in my opinion, particularly
in light of the fact that we have yet to enact legislation that
would provide for State revenue sharing for OCS-producing
States so that the projects that are currently supported by
CIAP would continue to have a funding source.
On a positive note, and as I said yesterday, you can't have
conversations like this without--and being critical in areas
without recognizing where we truly have made significant gains,
and I thanked you for the contract support. But I would also
like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and the Department for the
approval of Shell's Arctic spill prevention plan on the 17th of
this month. I am very, very hopeful that after a number of
false starts on this exploration of both the Beaufort and the
Chukchi Seas that we can actually begin this summer.
And again, Mr. Hayes, I thank you for your very personal
efforts. You have been engaged at a level at the Secretary's
request that I think has helped to facilitate this process.
I am also very optimistic that language that was included
in last year's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriation bill that transfers the authority over air
quality issues in Arctic OCS from the Environmental Protection
Agency to the Department of the Interior will finally provide
some much-needed regulatory certainty for the environmentally
safe and timely development of our resource.
So I thank you for your assistance in many of these areas.
Look forward to furthering our conversation today.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Secretary, while we anticipate your testimony, I would
like to give my colleagues present here an opportunity to make
a brief statement before you begin.
Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me say how much I look forward to
working with you and the ranking member this year in crafting
this important appropriations bill. And of course, it is always
a pleasure to welcome back to the subcommittee our former
colleague Secretary Salazar. I told Secretary Salazar this
morning that he was my favorite Cabinet member, to which my
colleague Senator Alexander quickly replied that I tell all the
Cabinet members that.
Senator Collins. But truly, we do have a special
relationship from having served together. I also want to thank
the Secretary for traveling to Maine last August to see the
exciting new deepwater offshore wind technology that is being
developed there.
While I have looked forward to learning more about the
broad range of activities included in the Department's budget
request, I am particularly interested in discussing the BOEM's
efforts with regard to leasing and permitting deepwater
offshore wind, an issue that I know is of great interest to the
chairman of this subcommittee as well. Specifically, I look
forward to discussing BOEM's efforts in Maine, including the
Renewable Energy Task Force and Statoil's unsolicited lease
application.
I know that you share my interest in streamlining the
development of our offshore wind resources permitting so that
we do not lose the global race in the development of this
abundant, renewable energy source.
In addition to advancing our goal to responsibly develop
our energy resources, partnerships are paramount for striking
the right balance in meeting our shared conservation goals. On
that foundation, our open spaces, recreation, and working lands
can continue to coexist for the benefit of future generations.
One of the most important Federal programs to assist in the
preservation of recreational and environmental resources is the
LWCF. Secretary Salazar, you have been such a leader in this
area, and I know you well recall how hard we worked together in
this area to increase funding during your time in the Senate. I
appreciate the administration's continued commitment to LWCF,
which has funded the acquisition of key parcels within Maine's
treasured Acadia National Park and strategic forest legacy
projects.
In addition, I am pleased to see partnerships highlighted
in the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, including two
community-led signature projects in Maine, the Keeping Maine's
Forests and the Penobscot River Restoration Project. The
Penobscot River Restoration Project is the largest river
restoration project ever undertaken in the eastern part of the
United States. It has been a true private-public partnership.
I look forward to working together, particularly
considering the challenging budget constraints, to ensure that
the Department continues to provide technical assistance and
seed money to help match the considerable private funding that
has been raised to complete these flagship projects.
These are just some of the issues I hope to touch on today,
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to give an
opening statement.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Are there any other colleagues that wish to give an opening
statement? Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. I will be brief. I want to thank you,
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding this
hearing.
And I want to thank Secretary Salazar, flanked by the two
``Hay-zes'' here today. I appreciate the work you have done.
I just want to look back. I think we had an incredibly
successful year last year with wolf delisting, with the Cobell
settlement, with the Crow water settlement. And I think that
the ground-up strategy that you folks have used for land
management, I think, is critically, critically important, and I
applaud you on that.
As we flesh out this budget, I think we need to continue to
work to make things as good as we can for your Department and
for the Federal lands around the country.
So thank you very, very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
And I am going to try to abide by the early bird rule with
one exception. Senator Leahy has asked that he be recognized in
the proper democratic order when he arrives, and I will do that
and wanted to let my democratic colleagues know that.
And with no----
Senator Alexander. Wait. Could I make a brief statement?
Senator Reed. Absolutely. Senator Alexander, please.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in the
welcome of Secretary Salazar, who is well known and well loved
here in our--in the Senate and thank him for his travels,
including to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, where he
appeared with, among others, Dolly Parton, rendering everybody
else who was present unimportant.
But, one, I want to remind the Secretary and this
subcommittee of the disparity in funding of our great national
parks. The Great Smokies is the only park, only big park, that
was actually given to the United States. It wasn't carved out
of Federal land. And as a result of that, we don't collect a
fee on people who come into the Great Smoky Mountain Park. So
we have about one-half as much money to spend and two or three
times as many visitors as even the big western parks in the
Great Smokies.
Last year, $35 million for Yellowstone National Park, $29
million for Yosemite National Park, 19 million Federal dollars
for the Smokies. And the people in the area have worked hard
to--and of course, at Yellowstone National Park and Yosemite
National Park, you have the fees on top of that. And at
Smokies, you don't.
Now we make up for that with a lot of volunteer work on the
trails and efficient management. But I would hope, Mr.
Secretary, you would look for ways to recognize the Smokies
doing so much for itself, and you and I have talked about the
joint curatorial collection facility there that would benefit
five national park properties, which is competing for
construction funds, which I know are diminishing, but a place
to put important papers from the area, including President
Andrew Johnson's papers.
And we hope it has a priority and maybe a little equity
since the park is not as well funded as others, even though it
has two or three times as many visitors as other parks.
The second thing I will be asking you about are fish
hatcheries, which supply--one of which supplies the whole
country. And I learned a long time ago that there are probably
more people with hunting and fishing licenses in Tennessee than
who vote. And so, this is serious business for us, and I will
be asking you if you will give me some assurance you will not
close the two fish hatcheries in Tennessee until we find a
funding solution.
We are working with the Corps of Engineers (COE), the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), to try to find a solution to
this. We understand you will have to reduce some Federal
funding. But if they close before we find a solution, that will
be very, very disappointing.
So I welcome you, and I look forward to my opportunity to
ask questions at a later time.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary before you begin, I want to
again recognize Deputy Secretary Hayes and Deputy Assistant
Secretary Haze.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF KEN SALAZAR
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed, and
thank you for the recognition of my colleagues, members of the
subcommittee, Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes and Pamela K.
Haze, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
Performance, and Acquisition.
Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, Senator
Alexander, Senator Johnson, and Senator Tester, as I appear
before you this morning--and I hope I am your favorite
Secretary, Senator Collins--I can only tell you that when I
look at the five of you, six of you, you are some of my
favorite Senators.
Secretary Salazar. I think if the rest of the U.S. Senate
were like the six of you who are here today, I think we could
solve every problem in the world. So I just wish there were
more of you, both Democrats and Republicans.
Let me also just acknowledge the great work of your staff.
Rachael, congratulations on your appointment. We will miss
Peter, but we know you will carry on and do a great job, and
the great bipartisan relationship that you also have on the
subcommittee reflects back on the staff. It has been great
working with you as well and the staff on both sides.
Let me say in this position as Secretary, I am very, very
honored to be able to be the custodian of America's natural
resources and the custodian of America's heritage. From the
Crown of the Continent in Montana to the Great Smoky Mountains,
to Mount Rushmore and the Dakota Grasslands to Acadia and the
Penobscot River, to Mount Denali and the North Slope down to
the Blackstone National Heritage Area, you reflect much of my
job in the work you all do on behalf of your States. I very
much have enjoyed visits to your States and spending time with
you, working on solving problems because I think all of you and
I are committed to doing that.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
Let me just spend a few minutes talking about the budget
proposed for fiscal year 2013. It is a squeeze budget. It is a
tough choices and painful cuts budget. Senator Reed made the
statement that it is a basically a flat budget, but there are
also some very significant cuts to make the budget balance.
It is a budget that cuts Government and asks us to do more
with less. That is what the President has directed us, and as
we all deal with these tough fiscal times, that is just a
reality we have to face. It is a budget that supports huge job
creation in energy, both in conventional energy, oil and gas,
as well as renewable energy, where we have all made some major
strides.
It is a budget that supports conservation and tourism and
the major dollars that are brought into each of your States
from the conservation and outdoor recreation program, including
all those hunters and anglers, bikers and hikers, and wildlife
watchers. It is a budget that also does as much as we possibly
can to honor the principle of our responsibility on the trust
relationship with Native Americans.
Now look at this budget in context. It is 3-percent less
than where we were in fiscal year 2011. That is 3-percent less
than. As Senator Reed remarked, it is about flat with where we
were in fiscal year 2012. I want to spend a few minutes on some
of the key points of this budget.
CUTS AND EFFICIENCIES
The first are cuts and efficiencies in Government. This
budget, as it has been presented, will result in a reduction of
the Federal workforce at Interior by 591 full-time equivalents
(FTE). We continue to look at how we do the job assigned to us
by this Congress over the years and to do it in the right way
with, frankly, fewer people. We are asking a lot of our people.
We also move forward with some program terminations and
downsizing. Some of these cuts are painful cuts and they end up
reflecting a $517 million cut.
In administrative efficiencies, we have taken a hard look
at how we are doing information technology, procurement, and
other functions of the Department, and there is a total of $207
million of administrative efficiencies that are also set forth
in this budget. Cuts and efficiency in Government, we are going
to be doing more. We are going to be doing it with less.
OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
On jobs, with respect to energy, it is one of the hottest
issues here in the Capitol these days. We continue to move
forward with onshore oil and gas production, as well as
offshore oil and gas production. The President has directed us
and we are implementing the program to move forward with the
program that produces America's domestic energy.
ENERGY
The budget reflects $662 million for conventional energy
resources. We are moving forward with a number of initiatives
in the Gulf of Mexico. As Senator Murkowski said, we may be
moving forward with some programs also in the Beaufort and the
Chukchi Seas in Alaska and onshore in Alaska in places like the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which had basically not been
developed, and we are moving forward there as well. We have an
aggressive program for oil and gas development, both onshore as
well as offshore.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
The renewable energy effort contemplates $86 million, which
is really only about 1/10th of what we are putting in the
conventional energy area, but still there. Our high priorities
are to move forward with both offshore wind energy, as well as
onshore solar, geothermal, and wind energy. By the end of this
year, we expect to be at more than 10,000 megawatts permitted
onshore in the United States of America. The 2005 energy bill
that I worked with you all on had a goal of less than that, and
we actually will be surpassing the goals that were set forth in
the act.
TOURISM
Let me finally just say outdoor recreation and tourism, it
is important for all of you to note that wherever I have gone
around the country, including with Senator Collins as we stood
there at L.L. Bean, we spoke about the importance of tourism
and conservation and job creation. Independent studies have
indicated tourism and conservation, outdoor recreation, and
historic preservation bring in about 8 million jobs to this
country every year.
A report from McKinsey International indicates we can grow
the economy from where it is today with an additional 2.1 to
3.3 million jobs over the next 10 years by investments in
conservation and outdoor recreation. Hence, the request we have
for LWCF and other investments in conservation.
INDIAN COUNTRY
Let me finally just say on tribal homelands, I am proud of
the work we have done there. I think Assistant Secretary Larry
Echo Hawk and his team have led the effort to make some of the
most dramatic changes. Senator Tester spoke about some of the
achievements just in the State of Montana. That has swept the
country, and the Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, has been
involved in many of those initiatives.
It is a new beginning in our relationship with Indian
country. The 566 tribes of the United States recognize that. We
recognize we have a lot more work to do. But when you look at
programs like the beginning of the Navajo water supply pipeline
that will bring for the first time potable water to the 70,000
Navajos on the reservation, we are making significant progress
there. I am very proud of the work that we have done there.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished friends and
members of this subcommittee, this is a tight budget. It is a
squeeze budget. There are painful cuts included.
I don't like many of them, frankly. I would rather be doing
a lot more if we had that luxury. But it is a budget that is
balanced, and it invests in job creation through energy,
conservation--not just in this subcommittee, but also in other
committees on the water side. We are doing a lot with water,
tribal homelands, and I appreciate all the great work that all
of you did in getting a fiscal year 2012 budget that allowed us
to move forward with the plans for 2012.
So thank you all very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Salazar
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to present the details of the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for the Department of the Interior. I want to thank the members
of this subcommittee for your efforts to enact a fiscal year 2012
appropriation. The fiscal year 2012 appropriations process was
challenging for the Congress and the agencies--it required a coming
together of diverse philosophies and views. We appreciate the support
of this subcommittee for our priorities including the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, which enhances our efforts to be responsible
stewards of the Nation's lands and resources, expanded responsible
development of domestic energy sources with reforms in the oil and gas
programs, high levels of youth hiring and education in all of our
programs, and support for improved living and economic conditions for
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Last, I appreciate the ongoing
support of this subcommittee and your strong interest in our programs.
Although we may not always share the same views, we have been able to
accomplish a lot in these last 3 years.
The fiscal year 2013 budget builds on this strong foundation with
$11.5 billion requested in the President's budget for the Department of
the Interior. This includes $10.5 billion for programs under the
jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee and included in the Interior bill. The budget for current
appropriations is $140.3 million or 1 percent more than the fiscal year
2012 level. The request includes reductions and savings of $516.8
million. We made difficult choices in this budget, sacrificing in many
areas, deferring projects, and programming savings for efficiencies in
order to maintain funding for key priorities and investments that will
contribute to strengthening the economic vitality and well-being of the
Nation.
As the President has detailed in his ``Blueprint for an America
Built to Last'', the budget proposes investments in an economy that
works for everyone. Our budget request supports responsible domestic
energy development, advances an America's Great Outdoors Initiative to
maintain our legacy and stimulate new opportunities, applies science to
address the most formidable natural resource challenges, and invests in
self-determination and economic development to strengthen tribal
nations. This subcommittee has been an active partner in advancing
these priorities. I look forward to our continued collaboration during
the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and
manage the responsible use of America's natural resources, support our
cultural heritage, and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Interior's people and programs impact all Americans. According to a
Department study, in 2010, Interior programs and activities supported
more than 2 million jobs and approximately $363 billion in economic
activity. The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's
lands. Interior manages the resources of the national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and public lands and assists States, tribes, and
others in the management of natural and cultural resources.
Interior manages many of the Nation's natural resources, including
those that are essential for America's industry--oil and gas, coal, and
minerals such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), Interior provides access for renewable and
conventional energy development and manages the protection and
restoration of surface mined lands. The Department of the Interior
oversees the responsible development of 24 percent of America's
domestic oil and gas supplies, while striving to ensure safety and
environmental protection and the effective collection of revenue from
this development. We estimate that energy and minerals development on
Federal lands supported 1.3 million jobs and $246 billion in economic
activity in 2010.
The Department is also the largest supplier and manager of water in
the 17 Western States, promotes and assists others to conserve water
and extend water supplies, and provides hydropower resources used to
power much of the Country. The Department estimates that the use of
water, timber, and other resources produced from Federal lands
supported about 370,000 jobs and $48 billion in economic activity.
Interior works to ensure that America's spectacular landscapes,
unique natural life, and cultural resources and icons endure for future
generations, tells and preserves the American story, and maintains the
special places that enable the shared American experience. In 2012,
visitors made 476 million visits to Interior-managed lands and
supported an estimated $47 billion in economic activity.
Interior manages and delivers water, arbitrates long-standing
conflicts in water allocation and use, and actively promotes water
conservation. As one of the Nation's primary natural and cultural
resource stewards, the Department makes decisions regarding potential
development on the public lands and offshore coastal areas that can
greatly impact the Nation's energy future and economic strength.
Factored into this balance is the Department's unique responsibility to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Department supports cutting-
edge research in the earth sciences--geology, hydrology, and biology--
to inform resource management decisions at Interior and organizations
across the world and in earthquake, volcano, and other hazards to
protect communities across the Nation. Maintaining and building the
capacity to carry out these responsibilities on behalf of the American
people is Interior's primary focus.
POWERING AMERICA'S ECONOMY
Stewardship of America's lands and natural resources is at the
heart of the national spirit and the economy--from the responsible
management and development of natural resources and increasingly, the
economic power of outdoor recreation.
In 2011, the Department of the Interior generated a total of $13.2
billion in receipts benefiting the U.S. Treasury--from a combination of
fees, royalties, rents and bonuses from mineral, timber, and other
natural resource development. The Department estimates that
conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters
results in about $230 billion in economic benefits each year. In 2011,
of the total receipts generated by the Interior, $11.3 billion was
collected from energy production on public lands, tribal lands, and
Federal offshore areas--a $2 billion increase more than the previous
year--with receipts disbursed and revenues shared among Federal, State,
and tribal governments.
Since 2008, oil production from the Federal OCS has increased by 30
percent, from 450 million barrels to more than 589 million barrels in
2010. Balancing the need for safety and environmental enforcement,
Interior currently manages 35 million acres of the OCS under active
lease. A recently proposed 5-year oil and gas leasing program would
make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil
and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.
Onshore, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held 32 onshore oil
and gas lease sales in 2011. BLM offered 1,755 parcels of land covering
nearly 4.4 million acres. Nearly three-quarters or 1,296 of those
parcels of land offered were leased, generating about $256 million in
revenue for American taxpayers. This was a 20-percent increase in lease
sale revenue more than 2010, following a strong year in which leasing
reform helped to lower protests and increase revenue from onshore oil
and gas lease sales on public lands. BLM recently has seen a 50-percent
jump in industry proposals to lease for oil and gas exploration. Oil
and gas companies nominated nearly 4.5 million acres of public minerals
for leasing in 2011, up from just under 3 million acres the year
before. Industry nominations are the first step in the BLM leasing
process. After evaluating the parcels, BLM may offer them at auction.
Successful bidders can then apply to drill for oil and gas.
Interior is moving aggressively to put the President's energy
strategy, ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'', into action and
expand secure energy supplies for the Nation--a strategy that includes
the responsible development of renewable energy sources on the public
lands. At the start of this administration, there were no solar energy
facilities sited on the public lands, and wind energy development was
relatively limited compared to development on private lands. Since
March 2009, 29 onshore projects that increased approved capacity for
production and transmission of power have been approved including the
first ever utility-scale solar project, five wind projects, and eight
geothermal projects. The Cape Wind Energy Project, approved for
construction and operation, is the first ever offshore commercial wind
operation. The 2013 budget reflects an expansion of these
accomplishments with the goal of permitting 11,000 megawatts by the end
of 2013.
The President's ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'' recognizes
the economic potential of renewable energy development. The economic
benefits could be particularly significant in America's remote and
rural places near public lands. The Department's 2010 estimates
identified nearly $5.5 billion in economic impacts associated with
renewable energy activities, a growing economic sector that supports
high-paying jobs.
GROWING THE ECONOMY OUTDOORS
Interior is at the forefront of the administration's comprehensive
effort to spur job creation by making the United States the world's top
travel and tourism destination. In a recent statement, President Obama
cited Department of Commerce figures showing that in 2010,
international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports.
International travel to the United States is the Nation's largest
service export industry, with 7 percent of total exports and 24 percent
of service exports. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates
that every additional 65 international visitors to the United States
can generate enough exports to support an additional travel and
tourism-related job. According to the travel industry and BEA,
international travel is particularly important as overseas or ``long-
haul'' travelers spend on average $4,000 on each visit.
President Obama has asked me to co-chair an interagency task force
with Commerce Secretary John Bryson to develop a National Travel and
Tourism Strategy to expand job creation by promoting domestic and
international travel opportunities throughout the United States. A
particular focus of the task force will be on strategies for increasing
tourism and recreation jobs by promoting visits to the Nation's
national treasures. The Department of the Interior manages iconic
destinations in the national parks, wildlife refuges, cultural and
historic sites, monuments, and other public lands that attract
travelers from around the country and the globe. According to a
Departmental study, in 2010, 437 million visits were made by American
and international travelers to these lands, contributing $47.9 billion
in economic activity and 388,000 jobs. Eco-tourism and outdoor
recreation also have an impact on rural economies, particularly in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon,
Utah, and Wyoming.
Interior is working to maximize the benefit of the outdoors for the
millions of Americans at home. Hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation
contribute an estimated $730 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
More than 12 million Americans hunt; more than 30 million Americans
fish; and 3 out of 4 Americans engage in some kind of healthy outdoor
activity. One in 20 U.S. jobs is in the recreation economy.
Through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the administration
continues to expand opportunities for recreation--through partnerships
with States and others and the promotion of America's parks, refuges,
and public lands. The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $5.1 billion in
support of this initiative, a $145.6 million increase compared to
fiscal year 2012. Funding is focused on programs supported through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) land management operations, and
other grant and technical assistance programs that promote conservation
and improve recreational access.
By encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across the
Nation, the administration is expanding access to rivers and trails,
creating wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation while working
to protect historic uses of the land including ranching, farming, and
forestry. As part of the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, Interior
is supporting 101 signature projects in all States across the Country
to make parks accessible for children, create great urban parks and
community green spaces, restore rivers, and create recreational
blueways to power economic revitalization. Projects were selected in
concert with Governors, tribal leaders, private landowners, and other
stakeholders, and were evaluated based on the level of local support,
the ability of States and communities to leverage resources, and the
potential to conserve important lands and promote recreation.
An example of a multi-State partnership project is the Blackstone
River Valley Greenway. This project, completed in partnership with
Rhode Island and Massachusetts, will create a 50-mile blueway and
greenway trail along the Blackstone River and the historic Blackstone
Canal, connecting Providence, Rhode Island and Worcester,
Massachusetts, and 12 cities and towns in between. Visitors and
residents will experience the history of the American industrial
revolution, enjoy nature and take advantage of numerous outdoor
recreation options, including bicycling, walking, and canoeing. The
project will celebrate and preserve what makes the Blackstone River
Valley National Heritage Corridor a special place to live, work, and
visit.
A key component of nearly all of the 101 projects is to increase
access to the outdoors for the public. In Alaska, the Kachemak Bay
Water Trail is proposed as a 125-mile designated water route, a key
component of which is to maintain access to the bay. For the
communities near Kachemak Bay, the water trail is envisioned as a new
and sustainable economic driver. The trail would provide a logical
route for boaters to explore the bay, promoting outdoor recreation,
connecting people along the Bay, and expanding a culture of marine
stewardship.
The America's Great Outdoors Initiative is being implemented in
partnership with communities and stakeholders across the Country. In
January of this year, I accepted the first donation of land in south-
central Florida to officially establish the Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area--conserving one of the
last remaining grassland and longleaf pine savannah landscapes in
Eastern North America. The new refuge and conservation area--the 556th
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System--was established with the
support of local ranchers, farmers, and landowners who are working
cooperatively with Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
conserve the wildlife values on their lands while retaining their right
to raise livestock or crops, an approach championed by the Obama
administration.
The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area is one example of the new parks and refuges Interior has recently
established to protect key natural and cultural resources for future
generations. In addition to 650 miles of new national trails,
designation of several national natural and historic landmarks,
Interior welcomes the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington,
DC; the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in New Jersey;
the Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia; the Dakota Grassland
Conservation Area in North and South Dakota; New Mexico's first urban
national wildlife refuge, the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife
Refuge in Albuquerque; and a signature America's Great Outdoors project
in the Crown of the Continent Conservation Area in Montana. Interior
launched significant efforts to protect America's enduring icons
including upgrading the Statue of Liberty, initiating repairs to
earthquake damage at the Washington Monument, and withdrawal of more
than 1 million acres in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon from
additional uranium and hardrock mining, to protect and preserve the
natural beauty of the Grand Canyon.
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget request for appropriations from
the LWCF includes a total of $450 million for Interior and United
States Forest Service (USFS) program. The budget requests $212 million
for Federal land acquisition within national parks, national wildlife
refuges, and BLM public land boundaries, including $83.6 million for a
collaborative program to support landscape-scale conservation projects
developed in a collaborative process conducted by the USFS and Interior
land management bureaus. Investments in ecologically important
landscapes will be coordinated with State and local efforts to maximize
ecosystem benefits, support at-risk species, and create wildlife
corridors. The request includes $128.4 million for acquisition to
facilitate protection of parks, refuges, and BLM designated areas based
on bureau mission-specific priorities.
The 2013 Federal land acquisition budget for BLM includes funding
to will improve access for hunters and anglers to the public lands.
Often these sportsmen and women are frustrated by complicated
``checkerboard'' land ownership and are unable to access BLM lands that
provide recreation opportunities. The budget includes $2.5 million that
will be used to purchase easements to alleviate these challenges and
provide improved access for public recreation.
An additional $120 million is proposed for key grant programs
supported by the LWCF, including $60 million each for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund program and State LWCF grants.
SPURRING GROWTH AND INNOVATION THROUGH SCIENCE
Investments in research and development promote economic growth and
innovation, ensure American competitiveness in a global market, and are
critical to achieving the mission of the Department of the Interior.
Investments in Interior's research and development will improve
management of U.S. strategic energy and mineral supplies, water use and
availability, and natural hazard preparedness. Sustainable stewardship
of natural resources requires strong investments in research and
development in the natural sciences.
Research and development funding is increased by nearly $60 million
in the fiscal year 2013 budget, with research and development funding
increases among all of the Interior bureaus, and particularly the
United States Geological Survey, FWS, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), BLM, and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
With these investments, Interior will support research that addresses
critical challenges in energy production and the management of
ecosystems, invasive species, public lands, and water.
Recent technology and operational improvements have led to
increased use of hydraulic fracturing in developing natural gas
resources. To ensure the prudent and sustainable development of this
important source of domestic energy, economic development, and job
creation, the fiscal year 2013 budget invests in research and
development that proactively addresses concerns about the potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air, water, ecosystems, and
earthquakes. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports a $45 million
interagency research and development initiative by the USGS, the
Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
aimed at understanding and minimizing potential environmental, health,
and safety impacts of shale gas development and production through
hydraulic fracturing.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is working with the
University of Texas and a team of arctic researchers on a 5-year
comprehensive study of the Hanna Shoal ecosystem in the Chukchi Sea off
Alaska's northwest coast. Past studies have identified this area as an
important biological ecosystem, which supports a high concentration of
marine life. Valuable data on physical and biological processes in the
area obtained from this research effort will be combined with the
results of previously conducted studies. The resulting information will
be used by industry, as well as by BOEM in decisions regarding energy
development in this region, and will be included in future National
Environmental Policy Act analyses.
In 2011, USGS used cutting-edge technology to complete the genome
sequencing of the fungus that causes the skin infection that is a
hallmark of the white-nose syndrome, which is decimating bat
populations across the country. This sequencing will support further
research that is necessary to develop management strategies to mitigate
the spread of the syndrome among bats. Recognizing the impact of this
is not limited to wildlife health, USGS and university partners
produced a study which determined that bats contribute $3.7 billion to
the agricultural economy by eating pests that are harmful to
agricultural and forest commodities. The fiscal year 2013 budget
provides $1.8 million for USGS to conduct further research and
development to address this critical issue.
In fiscal year 2013, the budget requests a $2 million increase in
the BLM wild horse and burro program to fund research on contraception/
population control. Research may include topics such as studies on herd
genetics, animal behavior, and overall rangeland use as it relates to
sterilization and other population growth suppression techniques. The
goal of the research will be to develop additional methods to minimize
wild horse population growth and maintain herd health.
DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE GROWTH THROUGH WATER
Although BOR is within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee, it plays a critical role in addressing the
Nation's water challenges which are of interest to the subcommittee.
BOR maintains 476 dams and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store
245 million acre-feet of water. BOR manages water for agricultural,
municipal and industrial use, and provides flood control and recreation
for millions of people. BOR's activities, including recreation,
generate estimated economic benefits of more than $55 billion and
support nearly 416,000 jobs.
These facilities deliver water to 1 in every 5 western farmers to
irrigate about 10 million acres of land, and provide water to more than
31 million people for municipal and industrial uses and other
nonagricultural uses. The water managed by Interior irrigates an
estimated 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables each year. BOR
facilities also reduce flood damages in communities where they are
located and thereby create an economic benefit by sparing these
communities the cost of rebuilding or replacing property damaged or
destroyed by flood events.
WaterSMART, established in 2010, has assisted communities in
improving conservation, increasing water availability, restoring
watersheds, resolving long-standing water conflicts, addressing the
challenges of climate change, and implementing water rights
settlements. The program has provided more than $85 million in funding
to non-Federal partners, including tribes, water districts, and
universities, including $33 million in 2011 for 82 WaterSMART grant
projects. In December, Interior released a report on the effectiveness
of the WaterSMART program, which demonstrates the importance of this
work to the sustainability of resources in the Colorado River Basin.
Another example of Interior's efforts to stretch water resources is
the Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona. BOR recently completed a year-long
pilot operation of the plant in collaboration with California, Arizona,
and Nevada water agencies. The pilot demonstrated the capability of the
plant to augment Lower Colorado River supplies and produced sufficient
water for use by about 116,000 people in a year. BOR and the regional
water agencies are reviewing the results of this effort to evaluate the
potential for long-term and sustained operation of the desalting plant.
ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND HONORING TRUST
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives, which is upheld by Interior's support for a robust
Government-to-government relationship as demonstrated by a new
comprehensive and transparent consultation policy that ensures there is
a strong, meaningful role for tribal governments. The Department and
the President hosted the third White House Tribal Nations Conference in
December 2011, bringing together tribal leaders from across the United
States and enabling tribal leaders to interact directly with
administration representatives and identify priority actions for
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In 2011, Interior began planning to implement the landmark $3.4
billion settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and appointed a
Secretarial Commission on Trust Administration and Reform to oversee
implementation of the settlement agreement. The commission is
undertaking a forward looking, comprehensive evaluation of Interior's
management of nearly $4 billion in American Indian and tribal trust
funds--with the goal of making trust administration more transparent,
responsive, customer focused, and accountable.
The Department held regional consultations across the Country to
set the framework for the Cobell land consolidation program. The
settlement establishes a $1.9 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back
and consolidation of fractionated land interests to provide individual
American Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for
divided land interests and consolidate holdings for economic and other
uses, a significant benefit for tribal communities. Almost 4 million
individually owned interests involving nearly 9 million acres have been
identified as part of this effort.
To further encourage and speed up economic development in Indian
country, the Department took a significant step forward announcing the
sweeping reform of antiquated, ``one-size-fits-all'' Federal leasing
regulations for the 56 million surface acres the Federal Government
holds in trust for tribes and individual Indians. The proposed rule
identifies specific processes--with enforceable timelines--through
which the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) must review leases. The
regulation establishes separate, simplified processes for residential,
business, and renewable energy development, so that, for example, a
lease for a single family home is distinguished from a large solar
energy project. The proposed regulation incorporates many changes
requested by tribal leaders during extensive consultations this past
year to better meet the goals of facilitating and expediting the
leasing process for trust lands. During the initial consultation period
more than 2,300 comments were received from more than 70 tribes as well
as several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and
Urban Development, and Agriculture, and the Internal Revenue Service.
The BIA regulatory drafting workgroup is expected to review the
comments and publish the final rule in 2012.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 settled the Cobell lawsuit and
four settlements that will provide permanent water supplies and
economic security for the five New Mexico Pueblos of Taos, the Crow
Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. The
agreements will enable construction and improvement of reservation
water systems, irrigation projects, a regional multi-pueblo water
system, and codify water-sharing arrangements between Indian and
neighboring communities. The primary responsibility for constructing
water systems associated with the settlements was given to the BOR and
BIA is responsible for the majority of the trust funds.
BOR is requesting $21.5 million in fiscal year 2013 for the
continued implementation of these four settlements and $25 million for
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In total, the BIA budget
includes $36.3 million for ongoing Indian land and water settlements,
which includes $9.5 million for the seventh and final payment for the
Nez Perce/Snake River Water Rights Settlement.
A key responsibility for BIA is ensuring and improving the safety
of Indian communities. Some Indian reservations experience violent
crime rates that are twice the national average. The high crime rates
are a key issue for tribal leaders as they degrade the quality of life
for residents, attract organized crime, and are a real disincentive for
businesses to consider these communities for economic development.
Fiscal year 2011 was the second year of a 2-year pilot at four
reservations to conduct expanded community policing, equip and train
the law enforcement cadre, partner with the communities to organize
youth groups and after school programs, and closely monitor results.
The results exceeded expectations with a 35-percent overall decrease in
violent crime in the four communities. Information about the four
reservations is being analyzed and the program will be expanded in 2013
to an additional two communities. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$353.9 million for public safety and justice programs, a program
increase of $8.5 million to support this expansion and other public
safety activities.
INTERIOR'S BUDGET IN CONTEXT
President Obama has challenged agencies to encourage American
innovation, employ and educate young people, rebuild America, and
promote economic development. Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget
invests in areas that are responsive to these challenges and more. This
budget continues funding for important programs that will protect the
Nation's significant natural resources and cultural heritage, makes
strategic investments in energy development, advances partnerships to
leverage resources, and seeks improved outcomes for Indian communities.
At the same time, this budget recognizes the need for fiscal
responsibility. The priority programs that are level funded with fiscal
year 2012 and limited strategic investments proposed in fiscal year
2013 are balanced by reductions in lower-priority programs, deferrals,
and planning efficiencies.
Taking Fiscal Responsibility.--Interior made its fiscal year 2013
budget decisions in the context of the challenging fiscal environment.
The fiscal year 2013 budget of $11.5 billion, including BOR, eliminates
and reduces lower-priority programs, defers project start-ups, reduces
duplication, streamlines operations, and captures savings. The fiscal
year 2013 request is $97.9 million, essentially level with fiscal year
2012 enacted and $280.4 million less than 2011.
The fiscal year 2013 budget contains $516.8 million in program
terminations, reductions, and savings from administrative efficiencies.
Staffing reductions of 591 full-time equivalents (FTEs) are planned for
fiscal year 2013, a reduction of 741 FTEs from fiscal year 2011 levels.
These personnel reductions are focused on areas where there are funding
reductions. Staffing reductions will be achieved through attrition and
buy-outs in order to minimize the need to conduct reductions in force
to the greatest extent possible.
This budget is responsible, with strategic investments in a few,
targeted areas, and maintains the core functions that are vital to
uphold stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The
budget also continues efforts to shift program costs to industry where
appropriate. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress results in
an additional $6 billion, for $17.5 billion in total budget authority
for Interior in fiscal year 2013.
Administrative Savings.--As part of the administration's Campaign
to Cut Waste, the Department will achieve additional administrative
efficiencies that result in cumulative savings of $207 million from
fiscal year 2010 to 2013. These reductions are being implemented
throughout Interior and result from changes in how the Department
manages travel, employee relocation, acquisition of supplies and
printing services, and the use of advisory services. The proposed
savings in administrative functions will not have an impact on
programmatic performance, and to the greatest extent possible savings
will be redirected into priority programmatic areas.
The Department's 2013 budget reflects a freeze on Federal salaries
for fiscal year 2012 and a 0.5 percent pay increase in 2013. The budget
fully funds fixed costs for the civilian pay increase, anticipated
changes in the Federal contributions to health benefits, rent
increases, changes in workers and unemployment compensation costs,
programs financed through the Working Capital Fund, and specific
contract requirements for Public Law 93-638 agreements with tribes.
Cost Recovery.--Significant portions of Interior's budget are
funded by cost recovery, offsetting collections, and discrete fees
linked to uses of lands and resources. The budget proposes to increase
cost recovery to offset the cost of some resource development
activities that provide clear benefits to customers. The proposed fees
on oil and gas inspections are consistent with the recommendations of
the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling. The Commission's report stated the oil and gas
industry should be ``required to pay for its regulators'' so that the
costs of regulation ``would no longer be funded by taxpayers but
instead by the industry that is permitted to have access to a publicly
owned resource.''
The budget includes $48 million from new inspection fees to be paid
by onshore oil and gas producers. Instituting these fees will allow for
a $10 million program increase to be used to strengthen the BLM
inspection program, along with a $38 million decrease in current
appropriations for BLM as a whole. Similar fees were proposed in fiscal
year 2012, but not adopted due to concerns about impacts on the
producers. The fees would be on average, 0.2 percent of the annual
income collected by the producers. In addition to the proposed onshore
inspection fees, estimated fee collections from the offshore oil and
gas inspections instituted in fiscal year 2012 are slightly increased
in fiscal year 2013 to $65 million. This fee-based funding is critical
to maintaining the administration's aggressive implementation of a
robust offshore safety program.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a new grazing administrative
fee of $1 per animal unit month (AUM) on a 3-year pilot basis. The fee
is estimated to generate $6.5 million in 2013 and will be used to
assist BLM in processing grazing permits. During the period of the
pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations
for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost-recovery fee after
the pilot expires.
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues an offsetting collection
initiated in 2012, allowing the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to
retain coal mine permit application and renewal fees for the work
performed as a service to the coal industry. An estimated $3.4 million
will be collected in 2013.
MAJOR CHANGES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUEST
The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $11.5
billion in current authority including $10.5 billion for programs
funded by the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012. This is $140.3 million, or 1.4
percent more than the fiscal year 2012 level. The fiscal year 2013
request for BOR including the Central Utah Project Completion Act,
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2012, is
$1 billion in current appropriations, $42.4 million or 3.9 percent less
than the fiscal year 2012 level.
Interior continues to generate more revenue for the U.S. Treasury
than its annual appropriation. In fiscal year 2013, Interior will
generate receipts of approximately $13.9 billion and propose mandatory
legislation with a total net savings of roughly $2.5 billion over 10
years.
Bureau of Land Management.--The fiscal year 2013 request is $1.1
billion, essentially level with the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget.
This includes a decrease of $8.2 million for BLM's two operating
accounts, an increase of $11.2 million for land acquisition, and a
reduction of $3.6 million that eliminates the construction account.
To advance the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the request
includes $6.3 million in programmatic increases for recreation,
cultural resources, and the National Landscape Conservation System for
BLM to expand and improve opportunities for recreation, education, and
scientific activities while enhancing the conservation and protection
of BLM-managed lands and resources.
BLM will continue to promote and facilitate the development of
renewable energy on public lands, as part of the New Energy Frontier
Initiative. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a program increase of
$7 million for renewable energy to support wind, solar, and geothermal
energy. An additional $13 million in program increases are requested to
maintain and strengthen management of the oil and gas program, along
with a requested $10 million increase in mandatory funding specifically
focused on strengthening BLM's oil and gas inspection program. These
increases would be more than offset by $48 million in proposed
inspection fees to shift the cost of the oil and gas inspection and
enforcement activity from taxpayers to the oil and gas industry.
The other major program increase is $15 million to implement sage
grouse conservation and restoration measures to help prevent the future
listing of the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
BLM will use $10 million of the requested increase to incorporate the
necessary protections into BLM's land use plans to address conservation
of the sage grouse. These plans will guide energy development,
transportation, and other uses and ensure conservation of sage grouse
habitat. The remaining $5 million funds on-the-ground projects to
restore and improve sage grouse habitat and additional inventory,
monitoring, and mapping efforts to delineate areas of highest-priority
habitat in the range of the sage grouse. Other program increases in the
BLM budget include $1.5 million for the Secretary's Western Oregon
Strategy, $2 million for research and development on population control
in the Wild Horse and Burro Management program, and $4.4 million in the
Resource Management Planning program to support high-priority planning
efforts.
A $15.8 million program decrease is proposed in the Rangeland
Management program, however, the impact of this funding decrease will
be mitigated by a new grazing administrative processing fee of $1 per
AUM that BLM proposes to implement on a pilot basis through
appropriations language, estimated to raise $6.5 million in 2013. The
fiscal year 2013 budget reduces programmatic funding for the Alaska
Conveyance program by $12.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 level.
Interior will explore opportunities to further streamline the program.
A $3.5 million program reduction is proposed in the Public Domain
Forest Management program.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The fiscal year 2013 operating
request is $164.1 million, including $62.7 million in current
appropriations and $101.4 million in offsetting collections. This is an
increase of $3.3 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes program increases of $2
million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for activities to
promote offshore conventional and renewable energy development that is
safe and environmentally responsible. Increased funding will be used to
develop baseline characterization and monitoring capabilities in the
Gulf of Mexico that are required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
incident, as well as to support renewable energy lease auctions.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The fiscal year
2013 operating request is $222.2 million, including $96.3 million in
current appropriations and $125.9 million in offsetting collections.
This is an increase of $24.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. The $4.8 million increase for offsetting collections
includes an estimated $3 million increase in inspection fee
collections.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funds to increase operational
safety capabilities, develop the National Offshore Training and
Learning Center for inspectors, and conduct research and development
activities on critical safety systems associated with offshore oil and
gas development.
Office of Surface Mining.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request is
$140.7 million, a decrease of $9.5 million from the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. The reduction reflects decreases in grants to States and
tribes to encourage regulatory programs to recover costs from fees
charged to the coal industry and finalize the transition of abandoned
mine land reclamation from discretionary to mandatory funding.
I signed a Secretarial Order on October 26, 2011, to review certain
functions of OSM and BLM for potential consolidation. As part of this
effort, I asked the Directors of OSM and BLM and other Interior
officials to report by February 15, 2012 , on the results of
discussions with the BLM's employees, congressional committees, and
interested parties, such as tribes, State regulatory officials,
industry representatives, and representatives of communities affected
by coal mining. Our efforts in consolidation will respect existing law
and identify actions that will strengthen these two bureaus.
United States Geological Survey.--The USGS budget request is $1.1
billion, $34.5 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The President's budget supports science, monitoring, and assessment
activities that are critical to understanding and managing the
ecological, mineral, and energy resources that underlie the prosperity
and well-being of the Nation. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
program increase of $51 million to fund research and development
priorities in disaster response, hydraulic fracturing, coastal and
ocean stewardship, and ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports
the Secretary's initiatives in responsible energy development and
further resolution of water challenges with funding more than the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The USGS budget also includes investments in important science
programs to help meet societal needs. A program increase of $13 million
more than fiscal year 2012 for the WaterSMART Program will be used to
conduct research on predictive models on regional water availability,
explore methods of integrating and disseminating data through science
platforms, and establish a National Groundwater Monitoring Network.
A program increase of $8.6 million is requested to improve rapid
disaster response to natural disasters. Funding will be used to improve
capacity to provide timely and effective science and information
products to decisionmakers, in order to minimize the risks hazards pose
to human and natural systems. Funding will be invested in capability
improvements to the USGS monitoring networks for rapid response to
earthquakes, volcanoes, volcanic ash, debris flow, tsunamis, floods,
hurricanes, and other potential threats to populations and
infrastructure.
The budget includes a program increase of $13 million to support
the hydraulic fracturing research and development effort with the
Department of Energy and EPA to understand and minimize potential
adverse environmental, health, and safety impacts of shale gas
development through hydraulic fracturing. New work will build on
existing efforts and address issues such as water quality and quantity,
ecosystem impacts, and induced seismicity.
With a program increase of $16.2 million, USGS will conduct science
in support of ecosystem management for priority ecosystems such as the
Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Columbia River, Everglades, Puget
Sound, Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and the Klamath Basin.
With an increase of $2 million, the USGS will address overarching
ecosystem issues related to the invasive brown tree snake, white-nose
syndrome in bats, and coral reef health. These increases will provide
information management and synthesis and land change science support
for these ecosystem activities. Included in the total above is $500,000
identified for research efforts through the Department of the Interior
Climate Science Centers to enhance work with tribes to understand the
impacts of climate change on tribal lands. Funding increases will also
support priorities in sustaining our national environmental capital,
including development of the first coordinated multi-departmental
effort of its kind to develop a standardized ecosystem services
framework.
The fiscal year 2013 budget also provides a program increase of
$6.8 million to sustain and enhance existing activities and for a new
initiative on Science for Coastal and Ocean Stewardship that supports
priority objectives of the National Ocean Policy in the areas of marine
and coastal science, resource and vulnerability assessments, ecosystem-
based management, and providing science based tools to inform policy
and management. The USGS will work with partners to provide access to
comprehensive maps and assessments of seabed and coastal conditions and
vulnerability. The increase will improve the integrated science needed
to inform development of resources while conserving the Nation's
coastal and marine ecosystems.
Fish and Wildlife Service.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$1.5 billion, an increase of $72 million more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. In addition, the budget includes a $200 million
cancellation of prior year unobligated balances in the Coastal Impact
Assistance program. The budget includes America's Great Outdoors
Initiative increases of $20.9 million in the Resource Management
account and $52.3 million for land acquisition. There is a $3.9 million
increase in the North American Wetlands grants program, a component of
the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. State and Tribal Grants are
funded at $61.3 million, level with fiscal year 2012. Funding for the
construction account is reduced by $3.9 million.
The budget proposes a program increase of $4 million for activities
associated with energy development. This enables FWS to participate
fully in priority landscape level planning and assist industry and
State fish and wildlife agencies as they plan for renewable energy
projects and transmission corridor infrastructure. The fiscal year 2013
budget continues the commitment to ecosystem restoration by including
$13.5 million for the Everglades, an increase of $3 million; $4.9
million for California's Bay-Delta, level with fiscal year 2012; $10.2
million for the gulf coast, level with fiscal year 2012; $10.3 million
for the Chesapeake Bay, a program increase of $145,000; and $47.8
million for the Great Lakes, a program increase of $2.9 million.
Funding for the Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science
activity is $33.1 million, an increase of $856,000. This funding
supports the operation of 14 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
The budget includes $994.7 million available under permanent
appropriations, most of which will be provided in grants to States for
fish and wildlife restoration and conservation.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a reduction of $14 million to
eliminate the discretionary contribution to the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund payments to counties to offset local tax loss due to
Federal land ownership. An estimated $8 million in mandatory receipts
collected and allocated under the program would remain. Payments
collected by counties can be used for nonconservation purposes and as
such, this Fund does not provide the high-priority conservation
benefits delivered by other FWS programs. The budget also proposes the
cancellation of $200 million in prior year balances within the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program.
National Park Service.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.6
billion, $1 million less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Within the total available for National Park Service in 2013, $2.4
billion is for programs that support the goals of the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative. The budget proposes strategic increases to advance
the goals of the initiative, including increases of $13.5 million for
park operations and $17.5 million for land acquisition and State
assistance. The budget proposes reductions of $7.8 million in the
national recreation and preservation account from the National Heritage
Areas program, and $24.2 million from construction. The request for the
Historic Preservation Fund is level with fiscal year 2012--grants to
States and tribes are continued at the fiscal year 2012 level of $55.9
million.
Select programmatic increases in the park operations account
include $5 million for Climate Change Adaptive Management tools, $2
million for U.S. Park Police operations including $1.4 million in
support of the Presidential Inauguration, $1.2 million for National
Capital Area parks in support of the Presidential Inauguration, and
$610,000 for the Challenge Cost Share program. These increases are
offset with strategic reductions of $24.8 million to park operations
and service-wide programs.
Funding for land acquisition and State assistance totals $119.4
million and includes a programmatic increase of $2.5 million for
Federal land acquisition. The land acquisition proposal includes $9
million for matching grants to States and local entities to preserve
and protect Civil War battlefield sites outside the National Park
System. The budget also requests a programmatic increase of $15.1
million for the State Assistance Grant program. The $60 million request
for State Grants includes $20 million for competitive grants that
support urban parks and green spaces, blueways, and landscape-level
conservation projects in communities that need them the most.
Funding for construction includes a programmatic reduction of $25.3
million for line-item construction projects, however, the budget
proposes funding for the most critical health and safety projects in
the National Park System. It also includes programmatic reductions of
$1.5 million from construction program management and planning,
$760,000 from the housing improvement program, $443,000 from
construction planning, $450,000 from management planning, and $228,000
from equipment replacement.
Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$2.5 billion for BIA programs, a decrease of $4.6 million from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This includes an increase of $11.7
million for Operation of Indian Programs and a decrease of $17.7
million in the construction account. The budget includes an increase of
$3.5 million in Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and a decrease
of $2.1 million in the Indian Guaranteed Loan program.
In fiscal year 2013, the largest increase, $8.8 million, is in
Contract Support Costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, both
high priorities for tribes. Public safety and justice activities
receive a program increase of $8.5 million to support additional police
officers and detention corrections staff.
The budget proposes program increases of $7.8 million for the Trust
Natural Resources programs and $7 million for Trust Real Estate
Services programs. Funding increases for Trust Land Management programs
are proposed to assist tribes in the management, development, and
protection of Indian trust land and natural resources. The budget
proposes a $2.5 million program increase to support increasing
enrollment at tribal colleges.
The fiscal year 2013 request reflects a reduction of $19.7 million
as the Bureau will undergo a consolidation in 2013 to streamline and
improve oversight operations. The BIA will engage in extensive
consultation with tribes to identify strategies that will ensure tribal
needs and priorities are addressed. Following consultation, BIA will
construct an implementation plan for a streamlined, cost-effective
organization. The budget also includes $13.9 million in administrative
savings from reductions to fleet, travel, contractors, and awards.
Departmental Offices and Departmentwide Programs.--The fiscal year
2013 request for the Office of the Secretary is $261.6 million, a
reduction of $266,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Of this,
$119.6 million is for Office of Natural Resources Revenue including a
program increase of $1.2 million to complete termination of the
Royalty-in-Kind program and a program decrease of $2.3 million for
completed information management system upgrades. The budget for the
Office of the Secretary includes a program increase of $1.6 million for
minerals receipts modeling development to improve revenue estimation
and reporting capabilities and a program increase of $2 million for
facilities rent necessitated by the delay in the Main Interior Building
modernization project. Other changes include a general program
reduction of $3.7 million and the transfer of the Indian Arts and
Crafts Board from the Office of the Secretary to BIA resulting in a
reduction of $1.3 million.
The Department's fiscal year 2013 request for the Working Capital
Fund appropriation is $70.6 million, an increase of $8.7 million from
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Within this request is $62.1
million to continue deployment of the Financial and Business Management
System including implementation of the acquisition and financial
assistance functionality as recommended by an independent assessment of
the program. The budget proposes an increase of $3.5 million to improve
Interior's stewardship of its cultural and scientific collections and
an increase of $2.5 million to expand collaboration similar to the
Service First to improve delivery and operating costs. Proposed
reductions include $5 million to reflect the shift of the Department's
Information Technology Transformation initiative from appropriated
funds to the Departmental Working Capital fund and $2.5 million for
completion of the Department's Acquisition Improvement Initiative.
Major changes in other Departmental programs include an increase of
$243 million in the Wildland Fire Management program. The net increase
is comprised of a program increase of $195.8 million that fully funds
the 10-year suppression average and a program reduction of $39 million
in the Hazardous Fuels Reduction program reflecting a refocusing of the
program toward treatments in the wildland-urban interface.
The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $88
million, a decrease of $16.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. The budget includes $5 million to mitigate the impacts and costs
of Compact migration and $3 million to implement energy projects
identified by the territories' sustainable energy strategies. Funding
of $13.1 million for the Palau Compact is not requested for 2013 as it
is expected the Compact will be authorized in 2012.
The Office of the Special Trustee request is $146 million, $6.1
million less than the 2012 enacted level. The fiscal year 2013 request
includes a program increase of $3 million for the Office of Trust
Review and Audit to conduct compliance audit reviews for Interior
bureaus. The budget includes program decreases of $9.9 million for
streamlining, administrative savings, and the completion of certain
trust reform activities.
MANDATORY PROPOSALS
In fiscal year 2013, Interior will collect $13.9 billion in
receipts and distribute $6 billion in permanent funding without further
appropriation for a variety of purposes, under current law. The budget
includes 13 legislative proposals that will be submitted to the
Congress to collect a fair return to the American taxpayer for the sale
of Federal resources, to reduce unnecessary spending, and to extend
beneficial authorities of law. Together these proposals will save a net
total of approximately $2.5 billion over the next decade.
Reform Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation.--The administration
proposes to reform the coal Abandoned Mine Lands program to reduce
unnecessary spending and ensure the Nation's highest-priority sites are
reclaimed. First, the budget proposes to terminate the unrestricted
payments to States and tribes that have been certified for completing
their coal reclamation work because these payments do not contribute to
abandoned coal mine lands reclamation. Second, the budget proposes to
reform the distribution process for the remaining funding to
competitively allocate available resources to the highest-priority coal
abandoned mine lands sites. Through a competitive grant program, a new
Abandoned Mine Lands Advisory Council will review and rank the
abandoned coal mine lands sites, so OSM can distribute grants to
reclaim the highest-priority coal sites each year. These reforms will
focus available coal fees to better address the Nation's most dangerous
abandoned coal mines while saving taxpayers $1.1 billion over the next
10 years.
Create a Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.--To address the
legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the United States, the
administration will propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned
Mine Lands program for abandoned hardrock sites. Hardrock reclamation
would be financed by a new abandoned mine lands fee on the production
of hardrock minerals on both public and private lands. BLM would
distribute the funds through a competitive grant program to reclaim the
highest-priority hardrock abandoned sites on Federal, State, tribal,
and private lands. This proposal will hold hardrock mining companies
accountable for cleaning up the hazards left by their predecessors
while generating $500 million in savings over 10 years.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--The administration will
submit a legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer
from hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative proposal
would institute a leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
for certain hardrock minerals including 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 the new leasing process and subject to
annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than 5 percent of
gross proceeds. One-half of the receipts would be distributed to the
States in which the leases are located and the remaining half would be
deposited in the Treasury. 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. Holders
of existing mining claims for these minerals could, however,
voluntarily convert claims to leases. ONRR will collect, account for,
and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts. The proposal is projected
to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $80 million over 10 years.
Fee on Nonproducing Oil and Gas Leases.--The administration will
submit a legislative proposal to encourage energy production on lands
and waters leased for development. A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing
Federal leases on lands and waters would provide a financial incentive
for oil and gas companies to either get their leases into production or
relinquish them so the tracts can be leased to and developed by new
parties. The proposed $4 per-acre fee would apply to all new leases and
would be indexed annually. In October 2008, the Government
Accountability Office issued a report critical of past efforts by
Interior to ensure companies diligently develop their Federal leases.
Although the report focused on administrative actions the Department
could undertake, this proposal requires legislative action. This
proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee proposals considered by
the Congress in the last several years. The fee is projected to
generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13 million in fiscal year
2013 and $783 million over 10 years.
Net Receipts Sharing for Energy Minerals.--The administration
proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing the cost
to administer energy and minerals receipts, beginning in 2014. Under
current law, States receiving significant payments from mineral revenue
development on Federal lands also share in the costs of administering
the Federal mineral leases from which the revenue is generated. In
fiscal year 2013, this net receipts sharing deduction from mineral
revenue payments to States would be implemented as an offset to the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2012, consistent with identical provisions included
in the act since 2008. Permanent implementation of net receipts sharing
is expected to result in savings of $44 million in 2014 and $449
million over 10 years.
Repeal Oil and Gas Fee Prohibition and Mandatory Permit Funds.--The
administration proposes to repeal portions of section 365 of the Energy
Policy Act, beginning in 2014. Section 365 diverted mineral leasing
receipts from the U.S. Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement
Fund and also prohibited BLM from establishing cost recovery fees for
processing applications for oil and gas permits to drill. The Congress
has implemented permit fees through appropriations language for the
last several years and the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to continue
this practice. Upon elimination of the fee prohibition, BLM will
promulgate regulations to establish fees for applications for permits
to drill administratively, with fees starting in 2014. In combination
with normal discretionary appropriations, these cost recovery fees will
then replace the applications for permits to drill fees currently set
annually through appropriations language and the mandatory permit fund,
which would also be repealed starting in 2014. Savings from terminating
this mandatory funding are estimated at $18 million in 2014 and $36
million over 2 years.
Geothermal Energy Receipts.--The administration proposes to repeal
section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prior to passage of
this legislation, geothermal revenues were split between the Federal
Government and States with 50 percent directed to States, and 50
percent to the Treasury. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed this
distribution beginning in 2006 to direct 50 percent to States, 25
percent to counties, and for a period of 5 years, 25 percent to a new
BLM Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund. The allocations to the
new BLM geothermal fund were discontinued a year early through a
provision in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010. The repeal of section 224(b) will permanently
discontinue payments to counties and restore the disposition of Federal
geothermal leasing revenues to the historical formula of 50 percent to
the States and 50 percent to the Treasury. This results in savings of
$4 million in 2013 and $50 million over 10 years.
Deep Gas and Deepwater Incentives.--The administration proposes to
repeal section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 344
mandated royalty incentives for certain ``deep gas'' production on the
OCS. This change will help ensure Americans receive fair value for
federally owned mineral resources. Based on current oil and gas price
projections, the budget does not assume savings from this change;
however, the proposal could generate savings to the Treasury if future
natural gas prices drop below current projections.
Repeal of Authorities To Accept Royalty Payments in Kind.--The
administration proposes to solidify a recent Departmental reform
terminating the Royalty-in-Kind program by repealing all Interior
authorities to accept future royalties through this program. This
change will help increase confidence that royalty payments will be
properly accounted for in the future. The budget does not assume
savings from this change because the administration does not anticipate
restarting the program; however, if enacted, this proposal would
provide additional certainty that a new Royalty-in-Kind program could
not be initiated at some point in the future.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The administration
proposes to reauthorize this act that expired July 25, 2011, and allow
lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans to
be sold using the act's authority. The sales revenues would continue to
be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and
to cover the administrative costs associated with conducting sales.
Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.--Federal
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known as Duck
Stamps, were originally created in 1934 as the annual Federal license
required for hunting migratory waterfowl. Today, 98 percent of the
receipts generated from the sale of these $15 stamps are used to
acquire important migratory bird areas for migration, breeding, and
wintering. The price of the Duck Stamp has not increased since 1991,
while the cost of land and water has increased significantly. The
administration proposes to increase these fees to $25 per stamp per
year, beginning in 2013. Increasing the cost of Duck Stamps will bring
the estimate for the migratory bird conservation account to
approximately $58 million. With these increased receipts, the
Department anticipates additional acquisition of approximately 7,000
acres in fee and approximately 10,000 acres in conservation easement in
2013. Total acres acquired for 2013 would then be approximately 28,000
acres in fee title and 47,000 acres in perpetual conservation
easements.
Compact of Free Association.--On September 3, 2010, the United
States and the Republic of Palau successfully concluded the review of
the Compact of Free Association and signed a 15-year agreement that
includes a package of assistance through 2024. Under the agreement,
Palau committed to undertake economic, legislative, financial, and
management reforms. The conclusion of the agreement reaffirms the close
partnership between the United States and the Republic of Palau.
Permanent and indefinite funding for the Compact expired at the end of
2009. The fiscal year 2013 budget seeks to authorize permanent funding
for the Compact as it strengthens the foundations for economic
development by developing public infrastructure and improving
healthcare and education. Compact funding will also support one or more
infrastructure projects designed to support Palau's economic
development efforts. The Republic of Palau has a strong track record of
supporting the United States and its location is strategically linked
to Guam and United States operations in Kwajalein Atoll. The cost for
this proposal for 2013-2022 is $184 million.
Extension of Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) payments are currently authorized only through fiscal year 2012.
The budget proposes a 1-year extension of mandatory PILT payments at
the current authorization levels in fiscal year 2013. These payments
support local government services in counties that have significant
Federal lands within their boundaries. The administration looks forward
to working with the Congress to develop a longer-term strategy for
providing sustainable levels of funding for PILT payments, in light of
overall constrained budgets and the need for appropriate offsets for
new mandatory spending. This extension utilizes the current PILT
payment formula that is prescribed by law and based on population,
certain receipt sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within
an affected county. The cost for this proposal in fiscal year 2013 is
estimated at $398 million.
OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS AND FEES
The budget includes several proposals to increase cost recovery
fees, so that industries share some of the cost of regulation.
Fee Increase for Offshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the administration proposes to continue the
current offshore inspection fee levels authorized by the Congress in
fiscal year 2012. These fees are estimated to generate $65 million in
fiscal year 2013, up from $62 million in fiscal year 2012, from
operators with offshore oil and gas drilling facilities that are
subject to inspection by BSEE. The increased fees will fund an expanded
inspection program, and as enacted for fiscal year 2012, operators will
now be charged for the inspection of drilling rigs in addition to
production platforms. These inspections are intended to increase
production accountability, human safety, and environmental protection.
New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the administration proposes to implement an
inspection fee in fiscal year 2013 for onshore oil and gas drilling
activities that are subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed
inspection fee is expected to generate an estimated $48 million in
fiscal year 2013, $10 million more than the corresponding $38 million
reduction in requested BLM appropriations, thereby expanding the
capacity of BLM's oil and gas inspection program. The fee would support
Federal efforts to increase production accountability, human safety,
and environmental protection.
Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
budget proposes to continue a fee for processing drilling permits
through appropriations language, an approach taken by the Congress in
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. A
fee of $6,500 per drilling permit was authorized in fiscal year 2010,
and if continued, would generate an estimated $32.5 million in
offsetting collections in fiscal year 2013.
Grazing Administrative Fee.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
new grazing administrative fee of $1 per AUM. BLM proposes to implement
the fee through appropriations language on a 3-year pilot basis. The
budget estimates the fee will generate $6.5 million in funds that will
assist the BLM in processing grazing permits. During the period of the
pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations
for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost-recovery fee after
the pilot expires.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
budget continues an offsetting collection initiated in fiscal year
2012, allowing OSM to retain coal mine permit application and renewal
fees for the work performed as a service to the coal industry. The fee
will help ensure the efficient processing, review, and enforcement of
the permits issued, while recovering some of the regulatory operations
costs from the industry that benefits from this service. The fee,
authorized by section 507 of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, would apply to mining permits on lands where regulatory
jurisdiction has not been delegated to the States. The permit fee will
generate an estimated $3.4 million in offsetting collections in fiscal
year 2013.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget request for the Department of the Interior. We have a
tremendous opportunity to invest in America's energy independence and
economic growth. This budget balances forward looking investments with
fiscal restraint. For America to be at its best, we need lands that are
healthy, waters that are clean, and an expanded range of energy options
to power our economy. I thank you again for your continued support of
the Department's mission. I look forward to working with you to
implement this budget. This concludes my written statement. I am happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
We will take 6-minute rounds, and I fully anticipate at
least two rounds. But I am prepared to stay as long as my
colleagues are here asking questions.
OFFSHORE WIND
Let me begin with a topic that both Senator Collins and I
touched upon. That is development of offshore wind power. Mr.
Secretary, you started with your Smart from the Start
Initiative, a very aggressive approach to thoughtfully and
carefully beginning the process of leasing these sites so that
we can develop power offshore and create jobs onshore.
My concern is that in Rhode Island we are really falling
behind in the timing of the environmental assessment while the
Mid-Atlantic region seems to be going forward rapidly. And that
is troubling to me in one particular aspect. It seems as if we
have done so much preliminary work over the last 5-7 years in
terms of the ocean SAMP, where we have, I believe, a much
better scientific basis with respect to tidal conditions,
fishing practices, and the whole geographic and geological
areas, we seem to be not at the front of the line. We seem to
be in the back of the line.
So I would ask you, could you commit to help us expedite
this timeframe, get the environmental assessment done in the
same sort of period that Mid-Atlantic States are, and then move
forward to leasing? Can you help us with that?
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely, Senator Reed. Because I know
many of you, you and Senator Collins in particular, are very
interested in Atlantic wind, if I may take just a few minutes
to speak about the effort in general?
Senator Reed. Of course.
Secretary Salazar. I have, from day one as Secretary of the
Interior, thought that Atlantic wind was one of the most
promising renewable energy programs for the United States of
America for the ease of transmission because of the high
quality of the wind, because of the topography off the
Atlantic.
Our Smart from the Start Initiative is intended to stand up
offshore wind in the Atlantic. The President has been very
supportive and has been leading the effort in making sure we do
everything we can. We have set up task forces in each of the
States, and they are moving with us to make sure we are
deconflicting the uses of the ocean that we can stand up
offshore wind in a real way.
With respect to Rhode Island, just last week I think the
Deputy Secretary and BOEM's Director and others announced what
we have done in terms of marking those areas, more than 200,000
acres, which are ready offshore to be developed. We are moving
forward with the environmental assessment, and we hope to be
able to publish that this summer in the State of Rhode Island,
and we will do everything we can to get it done.
The State of Maine, the disappointing news from Statoil was
that they were perhaps planning on not moving forward with
their deepwater application. I have asked my staff to have a
meeting with me and Statoil to see whether we can keep up their
interest in the deepwater because I think what Maine has done
at its center with Senator Collins's leadership has been
extraordinary, and I think the future for that project is very
bright. I would be delighted to work with Senator Collins on
that effort.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
An ancillary question. As you know, we have two major
projects, one in Federal waters and one in State waters off of
Block Island. The Department of the Interior and COE and others
have to give us approval for a transmission line from the State
project, Block Island essentially to the mainland. Would you
also commit to helping us expedite from Interior and BOEM's
position those approvals?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is absolutely yes. I would
like David Hayes to speak a little bit to the Rhode Island
issue because he has been working very closely with BOEM to
make sure we are moving as fast as we can and we are cutting
down the permitting time on what we are doing, both in Rhode
Island as well as in other States.
Senator Reed. Thank you. And I want to thank Deputy
Secretary Hayes for his great work in this effort. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
I think the Secretary really said it all. We are very eager
to move forward with Rhode Island and also with the deepwater
work in Maine. With regard to Rhode Island, I will just comment
that the SAMP work the State has done and you have encouraged,
will absolutely pay dividends in terms of the schedule for
getting steel in the water off Rhode Island.
We expect the environmental assessment process to move
forward much more quickly because of the groundwork that has
been done, the good science done by the State. Certainly, once
we get an application in, every applicant is going to be able
to do an environmental impact statement more quickly and more
solidly because of that terrific work the State has done with
your leadership and support.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY
Very quickly, Mr. Secretary, turning to the Blackstone
Valley Park, as you know, last year the National Park System
put out a tentative approval, and we are waiting for the final
version. And can we get some indication of when the final study
from NPS will be released? Because without that, it is
difficult for us to seek the kind of authorization that is
necessary.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, I will do everything to
get the study sprung. It is essentially completed, and there is
a process underway. There is no doubt the center that founded
the Industrial Revolution of America and all the history you
have in the Blackstone area, the support of your Governor, both
Senators, the support of Massachusetts as well, all that is in
our calculus. I think it would be a great addition to our
National Park System.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in my comments my appreciation
for the funding in the budget for contract support costs within
BIA's budget. You are--it is estimated at full funding to cover
the costs, and again, I thank you for that.
But the same account for IHS, which provides for the
administrative cost to healthcare, is severely underfunded. So
we are looking at this and saying, okay, we are making good
headway on Department of the Interior's side through BIA, but
through IHS we are not seeing things sync up.
Can you tell me whether or not there is any coordination
between BIA--your Department and on IHS to deal with this as we
seek to conduct the tribal consultation? And if there is not,
if there is some way that we could look at this to see if we
might be able to line some things up better?
Secretary Salazar. We would be happy to do so, and you and
the President have attended some of these conferences. Every
year we brought Nations from the country together. On law
enforcement, Attorney General Eric Holder and I have an ongoing
conversation about what we are doing on law enforcement issues
in Indian country, on health issues as well with Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius.
Now the specifics in terms of our budget on the BIA and
health services at HHS maybe Pam will be able to answer those
questions, or I will get some additional information to you.
But at the end of the day, our approach, Senator Murkowski, has
been to bring the whole of Government to deal with some of the
most significant issues facing Indian country.
Certainly, the healthcare issue that is faced almost in
every Indian reservation is one of the biggest challenges we
face. It is important we have the whole Government behind it.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and as we talk about tribal
consultation, it makes sense to have that consultation with all
of the affected agencies. So if we could just try to better
understand how this coordinates because on paper it doesn't
look like it is working as efficiently as we should.
477 PROGRAM
On another issue as it relates to tribal funding, last year
in the Interior bill, we had placed language that would require
the existing program within the 477 program. You will recall
that this is the program for Indian employment for training and
related services. There was a new requirement for auditing that
really lacked a level of flexibility, lacked any effort with
consultation with the tribes.
So, in last year's appropriations bill, we included
language that stated that consultation with the tribes must
occur before any changes to the 477 program moved forward. Do
you have any updates in terms of how that consultation is
coming along, whether or not we can expect some kind of
agreement with the tribes through this process that will help
with the program accountability?
Secretary Salazar. According to my Budget Director and my
Deputy Secretary, we have workgroups meeting every week on this
issue, and we hope to get to some good resolution.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. So we will await an update from
you or from your staff. I thank you for that.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Let us move over to the energy side here. In the Interior
budget, you are seeking a $13 million increase to USGS to
support hydraulic fracturing research. But in looking through
the rest of the President's budget, we see that within the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Fuel, they are also
proposing an increase in that very limited fossil fuel budget
to study hydraulic fracking on the impacts of water quality.
And apparently, also within the EPA budget, there are
additional monies devoted to fracking research.
And I guess the question is, as we are looking to eliminate
redundancies within the budget, can you explain the need for at
least three different agencies now to be devoting extra money
in a very tight budget year to seemingly be doing the same
research?
If it is not the same research, I would be curious to know
where we are going with it. But can you fill me in on that?
Secretary Salazar. We have a very good working relationship
in the cross-cutting budget that OMB approved for DOE, as well
as EPA and Interior, relating to hydraulic fracking. All the
efforts on research from all of the agencies--the USGS, DOE,
and EPA--will be coordinated so we have a comprehensive look at
the issues of hydraulic fracking.
Senator Murkowski, I have often said in places around the
country and in my meetings with the oil and gas industry and
other stakeholders, that the President has been very strong on
supporting the future of natural gas. It is an abundant
domestic resource. We have a 100-year supply.
As you will recall, even in 2009, we were very strong in
supporting the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. We are still
working on it, and hopefully, some of that will happen.
But as we look at the bright future of natural gas, it is
my view as Secretary, where through the BLM we oversee about
700 million acres of the mineral estate of the country, that
unless we are able to bring about the confidence of the
American people in hydraulic fracking, it could be the Achilles
heel for the promising energy resource we see. The rules we are
in the process of putting together in their final stages will
require three things.
First, it will require disclosure so everybody knows what
is being injected into the Earth. So we don't have the kind of
reaction that essentially has a potential for stopping natural
gas development as we have seen happening in some of the
States.
Second, well bore integrity. Each member of this
subcommittee I have had conversations with at different times
about the Deepwater Horizon and the Macondo oil spill. Well,
the well integrity issues were part of what was going on there.
We need to ensure well integrity with respect to hydraulic
fracking so we don't have contamination of water supplies. It
seems to me is common sense.
Third, every time you frack a well, you inject the fluids
into the well, and you have flowback water and materials come
back from the well. Our proposed rule will actually address the
monitoring of what happens with flowback water so it is not
contaminating our streams.
When I have spoken to members of the industry, including
the leading oil and gas companies, when I speak to them one-on-
one, they are supportive of those kinds of common sense rules.
If you look at what has happened in the State of Wyoming and in
the State of Colorado now, in the State of Texas, there are
rules on the books in those States that will allow that to move
forward.
So hydraulic fracking I know will be an issue here in this
Senate in the days ahead. Our intention is to move forward with
the kind of a program at the Department of the Interior,
knowing that, at the end of the day, the North Star guiding us
and I know guiding you, Senator Murkowski, is that we need to
make sure we are fully using the great promise we see in
natural gas here in the United States.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I thank you for that, and I would
just, again, urge that we ensure that we don't have duplication
of efforts across the agencies at a time when we have got tough
budgets. I would concur with you. We need to get this right. We
need to make sure that it is right, and your agencies are
charged with that.
But just from a budget perspective, let us look carefully
at whether we have got overlap. But I am sure you are looking
at that.
Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to my good friend Secretary Salazar for being
here today. And welcome Deputy Secretary Hayes and Ms. Haze.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Though I have some concerns about parts of the budget
request, I do appreciate the administration's recognition of
the value of conservation, tourism, hunting, and fishing to our
Nation's economy. I especially appreciate the boost in funding
for the LWCF and also note that the LWCF from the Department of
the Interior is responsible for Wind Cave National Park being
able to complete acquisition of the 5,500-acre Casey Ranch that
will provide access to a historic buffalo jump and preserve a
valuable natural resource.
AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE
I also note that you, Secretary Salazar, have also
identified the Blood Run site in South Dakota and the Dakota
Grasslands Conservation Area as priority projects in the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
As you well know, we have been long making the piece for
better investment in infrastructure projects like rural water
systems. While the budget request for rural water is much
better this year than last, we are still losing ground to
inflation in projects like Lewis and Clark.
RURAL WATER
In the 2006 Rural Water Supply Act, the Congress directed
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a report
assessing the status of authorized rural water supply projects
like Lewis and Clark and the plan for completion. When can we
expect to see this report, and what can you tell us about the
long-term plans to complete these vital projects?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Johnson, first, thank you for
your Herculean efforts on behalf of the people of South Dakota,
and thank you for your support of the LWCF. I think the
projects you speak about are very huge economic generators for
the State of South Dakota from the Wind Caves National Park to
Blood Run to the Dakota Grasslands.
As I travel around the country and I speak to both the
business community and the conservation community, I often use
those projects as great examples of how job creation and
conservation go hand-in-hand. And certainly, the Dakota
Grasslands are the duck factory of the United States of
America. Fifty percent of the migratory birds go through that
area, and it would be, frankly, 50 years from now a major
setback for conservation in our world if we are not able to
join you and your leadership in your efforts in protecting the
Dakota Grasslands.
On rural water, it is a hugely important issue for us. I
wish we could do more on the Lewis and Clark project. We have
put in, I think, $4.5 million, more or less, into next year.
Obviously, we could put a lot more in if we had the money.
But again, Senator Johnson, this is one of those tough choices
and painful budgets, and I believe in the rural water supply
arena alone we could use probably 100 times the amount of money
made available. We are having to make some really, really tough
choices where we put the money.
South Dakota, Lewis and Clark, a multi-State project is a
great example where we should have the money because the
States' local water users have already put up their share of
the money for the project. But we don't have the money on the
Federal side to be able to complete it. We are trying to do as
much as we can to move the project forward.
INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
Senator Johnson. I would also like to touch on the Indian
School Equalization Program (ISEP). According to the last
census, Indians younger than the age of 18 had a spike in
population in my home State of South Dakota. How do you explain
that from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013 more than 60
percent of the BIE's schools in South Dakota received a
decrease in their ISEP funds? Does the ISEP formula need
review?
Secretary Salazar. First, let me say the President,
Secretary Duncan--and Keith Moore--the Director of the Bureau
of Indian Education, have been working very hard with the
tribes to make sure we are moving forward with reforms that,
hopefully, will address the very painful and difficult
circumstance we face in Indian schools around the country. We
hope to be able to have some reform efforts that will help us
get there.
In terms of the money itself, my understanding is that the
formula that funds the equalization is driven by enrollment,
and I think in those schools that you mention, there has been a
significant decline in enrollment. But I would be happy to look
into this issue further and to supplement my answer to you and
your staff.
Senator Johnson. Please do.
Senator Johnson. I yield back.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OFFSHORE WIND
First, Mr. Secretary, I know that you were very impressed
when you came to the University of Maine and saw the cutting-
edge lab that has been developed to test composite wind
turbines that can withstand the heavier, more persistent
offshore winds and all the work that is being done with the
consortium that is supported by private companies, the State,
the university system, other States as well, and the Federal
Government.
And I think that is the kind of partnership that we need to
ensure that the United States wins the race to develop offshore
deepwater wind energy. And I would point out that race also
includes thousands of manufacturing jobs to make the new
composite wind turbines that are going to be necessary. So it
is very important not only from an energy perspective, but an
American manufacturing jobs perspective as well.
I look at what other countries are doing to foster the
development of offshore wind, and I can't help but ask whether
we should be doing more. For example, the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Portugal have all established test sites for ocean
energy. They have funded the environmental permitting studies
and provided electrical infrastructure, including underseas
cabling and grid interconnection for these test sites.
Then private industry in those countries, working with the
research institutions, have then access to these sites that are
all ready for them to build and test advanced offshore wind
turbines and other ocean-energy-harvesting devices. And that is
for still further commercial development.
So my question is, what potential role do you see for the
Interior Department to develop plans similar to those that are
being pursued in other countries, in our competitor countries,
to work with States to actually establish the national offshore
wind test sites? Do you, for example, envision a role for the
Department in helping to provide the critical funding necessary
to construct the grid interconnection for these national test
sites?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, we are doing everything
we can on Atlantic offshore wind and are actually now
processing an application on transmission for the Mid-Atlantic
States called the Atlantic Connection. We will do everything we
can because it is highest priority for the President of the
United States and for me to move forward.
We control, obviously, the land base and have a partnership
arrangement, memorandum of understanding, with DOE as well in
terms of some of the research efforts that are going on. If
there is anything we can do that we are not doing within the
resources we currently have, I would be delighted to have those
conversations with you and members of the subcommittee because
we are doing everything we can.
I would note your eloquence in your statement. It seems to
me that if the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Denmark could move
forward with these kinds of efforts, there is no reason why we
in the United States should not. This is part of the race we
cannot cede to the rest of the world.
I think, especially when you look at the Atlantic, when you
look at Maine, and you look at the attributes you have there,
it is an opportunity we ought not to let pass from us.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.
NORTH WOODS NATIONAL PARK PROPOSAL
I also want to take this opportunity to give you an update
on a very controversial issue in Maine with which you are very
familiar, and that is a proposal to establish a North Woods
National Park.
Since your visit to Maine in August, the proponents have
been trying hard to gain support for the completion of a
feasibility or reconnaissance study. But I will tell you that
the harder they have pushed, the stronger the resistance has
become. Statewide, the Maine legislature passed a joint
resolution opposing the creation of a national park in Maine's
North Woods. Locally, the Millinocket town council approve a
resolution in opposition.
East Millinocket actually had a vote, and the voters
overwhelmingly opposed a feasibility study for this proposed
national park. And the proposal is now opposed by the Maine
Forest Products Council, the Maine Snowmobile Association, the
Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, Great Northern Paper Company,
the United Steelworkers Local 137, and many of the smaller
communities, as well as the two principal, three principal
communities in the area.
So I would also point out that the National Park Regional
Citizen Evaluation Committee, which had supported the park, has
recently become inactive, reflecting the dwindling support for
this plan.
What we have found in Maine works best is working with
private owners to ensure public access, and we have been very
fortunate over the centuries in Maine--Maine is the most
heavily forested State in the Nation--to have that kind of
public-private partnership without having Federal control and
Federal ownership.
So I wanted to give you that update since your visit that
the support that may have existed, which was always a minority
level of support, has declined significantly. And I am hoping
that you will assure me that NPS, which has so many demands on
its funds, will not be looking into funding a reconnaissance
study for this region.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, first, let me say we
have no plans to move forward on a reconnaissance study on the
proposal from Ms. Quimby on the national park. There is no
effort underway to do any of that.
When we look at the two projects that are part of the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which I have identified as
2 per State and 1 for the District of Columbia--101 projects--
the 2 in Maine reflect the approach you have been advocating to
me for a number of years, and that is grounds-up.
If you look at the Penobscot River, as you so eloquently
stated, it is one of the most significant river restoration
projects in the world, and we are getting close to getting that
done. You look at the State project which is moving forward in
part through your support and our advocacy on Keeping Maine's
Forests, that is also a grounds-up kind of approach there.
I hope to visit those America's Great Outdoors Initiative
projects with you soon. But on your point with respect to the
Roxanne Quimby proposal, we are not moving forward with a
reconnaissance study of any kind.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Senator Collins, thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will be as quick as I can getting to it. Welcome,
Secretary Salazar.
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
The funding for the BIE's construction program was at $140
million in fiscal year 2011, down to $71 million in fiscal year
2012, and now $52 million in fiscal year 2013. The schools, at
least in Montana, are in dire need of repair. Dilapidated might
be a word that comes to mind.
I know you have put forth a budget that is--has a lot of
cuts in it, and as you said in your opening remarks, painful
cuts in many, many cases. I want to bring that to your
attention, and I want to get your response very quickly on it
if I could.
Secretary Salazar. I wish we had the money to work on all
these schools. We put significant amount of money from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into the construction
projects. We have made significant progress from where we were
in 2009, and more than 60 percent of the BIE schools are now
rated in good condition. Well, that is not enough because that
means 40 percent are in poor condition.
Senator Tester. That is right. Yes.
Secretary Salazar. It is just a matter, Senator Tester, of,
frankly, not having the money to be able to move forward.
Senator Tester. Okay. We will look for opportunities as it
goes forward together on this.
AUTOMATED STANDARD APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS PROGRAM
The Automated Standard Application for Payments program,
which I think you are familiar with. I hope I am calling it the
right thing, A-S-A-P. It is an online reimbursement program
designed for Government payments to go to corporations,
nonprofits, universities--a paperless reimbursement.
The program was not designed for private land owners. It is
kind of a one-size-fits-all policy, which treats family farms
and ranches the same as large corporations when it comes to
reimbursement. You, being an agricultural guy yourself,
understand that, well, I mean, in most cases, we do have access
to the Internet. But a lot of times, we are a little bit
suspicious when it comes to transferring money online, and so,
it is a deterrent.
Is there any ability to put some flexibility in that?
Because from my perspective, the land owners' buy-in is the
most important part of this equation.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, I absolutely agree with
you, and I have asked Director Ashe from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to work with Pam Haze to see whether we can come
up with some kind of a resolution. There are now 29 States with
ranching organizations for conservation, much like you have in
the Crown of the Continent, and I believe we need to do
everything to encourage that kind of ``working lands
conservation'' approach to conservation.
Senator Tester. Okay. Good.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
I want to just touch on the fracking thing just to
reinforce what you already know. And we have got a big play
with the Bakken in eastern Montana. It is creating jobs. It is
creating energy security. It is doing a lot of good things.
But hydraulic fracking is something I hear about when I
come home all the time, and folks want to know if we have
adequate inspectors to determine whether that case, the
cementing that is going on in the casing is actually going to
keep what is going on 2 or 3 miles down out of our groundwater.
Can you say with any kind of certainty that we have
adequate inspections to make sure that that cement is done in a
proper way to assure that we are not going to be polluting our
drinking water?
Secretary Salazar. Our rule will so require, and I am going
to have David, the Deputy Secretary, speak to the inspector
issue.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, certainly on our public lands, we are
prioritizing inspections to deal with potential high-risk
issues, and that includes ensuring well construction is done
with the appropriate integrity. The proposed rule the Secretary
is referring to will require an additional certification by the
operators to ensure they are using the proper cementing and, as
you say, walling off the well from lower aquifers.
Senator Tester. And we have got adequate people on the
ground to make sure that happens, or is it a self-inspection
reporting?
Mr. Hayes. It is both. We are giving a lot of attention to
the inspector issue. We could use more inspectors, but BLM does
do an enormous number of inspections a year. We want to
supplement it with the certification by the operator.
HUNTING AND FISHING ACCESS
Senator Tester. Okay. When I return to Montana, I also hear
from sportsmen and women about access. It is the number-one
issue amongst our sportsmen out there--access to go fishing,
access to go hunting. Because of that input, I adopt--drafted a
bill that sets aside 1.5 percent of land and water conservation
funding to secure access for existing public lands.
Not to put you on the spot, but I will. Would you support
this effort?
Secretary Salazar. We have money. It is $2.5 million with
BLM to try to provide public access. I think the concept makes
tremendous sense and would be happy to work with you on it.
Senator Tester. Okay. I appreciate that very much.
OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
With that, I would just like to say when I talked to you, I
guess it has been a bit ago, about the offshore spill and what
all transpired on there, I know you were under a lot of
pressure. Probably lost a few follicles of hair that you
couldn't afford to lose.
But the bottom line is, is that as we talk about opening up
offshore production again, which we all want to be energy
independent and we all want to make sure that this--that we
develop the resources appropriately here at home, are you
confident that what happened with the spill in the gulf won't
happen again?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, first, let me say from
those days, I think I did lose follicles of hair for that
reason and probably many other reasons as well. I am proud of
the fact we have weathered that storm. Now, there are 60
permits issued in the Gulf of Mexico just in the last 12
months; the rigs are up and working, and we have led the
greatest overhaul in the Nation's history in terms of offshore
oil and gas production in America's oceans.
We are doing more to make sure prevention is prioritized so
we don't see a Macondo well oil spill again. It means we have
worked with industry and several corporations that have been
set up, the Helix Corporation and Marine Well Containment
Company, to make sure if something like that were to happen,
there would be a quick response. Third, we have overhauled the
efforts in terms of dealing with oil spill response as well.
Now to your question, because I think that is an important
question to all the members of this subcommittee, including
Senator Landrieu, who sees so much of the energy production of
the United States coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Can we be
100-percent safe that something is not going to happen? No.
We can do as much as we can to minimize the risk, and we
certainly have done that, I believe, in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is important, if I may, Senator Reed, and I know I
probably am taking a little more time than I should here. It is
important when you look at the map of the Gulf of Mexico to
also recognize that between the United States and Mexico, we
probably have about 98 percent of the land mass. We can control
what happens in United States waters, but we can't, frankly,
control what happens on the Mexican side of the border.
So, when you think about the huge potential for oil and gas
resources, and Mexico is moving very aggressively into the
deepwater, it is important we have the kind of relationship
with them where they also learn the lessons and have the kind
of system we have here in the United States.
Secretary Clinton and I signed an agreement with our
counterparts in Mexico last Monday that will usher in this era
of cooperation and resolve longstanding issues in the Gulf of
Mexico. We are making significant progress, and I know probably
Senator Murkowski, who is on top of these things in the Arctic,
is also very cautious in terms of how we are moving forward
with the most cautious program that has ever been put together
in terms of any exploration.
Senator Tester. Well, I want to thank you once again, Mr.
Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thanks, Senator Tester.
Senator Alexander, please.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
JOINT CURATORIAL COLLECTION FACILITY
I mentioned earlier and we have talked before that these
great national parks, Yellowstone National Park gets $35
million, Yosemite National Park $29 million, the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park $19 million, counting all funding,
including fees. Yet the Great Smoky Mountain National Park has
three times as many visitors. I say that in a way of suggesting
that a point in favor of the joint curatorial collection
facility, which would benefit the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park and four other national parks by holding hundreds of
thousands of artifacts and archival records, that could be a
point in its favor.
I don't expect an answer from you on that right now, but I
simply want to raise the importance of it. I appreciate your
considering, the Department's considering it, and it is a sound
project.
FISH HATCHERIES
I have two areas of question. One has to do with fish
hatcheries. And I mentioned a little earlier that at one point
I noticed that the number of Tennesseans who have hunting and
fishing licenses exceeded the number who voted in the last
election. So this is serious business for us.
The Erwin National Fish Hatchery provides eggs for
hatcheries all over the country, and Dale Hollow produces 60
percent of the trout stocked in Tennessee. In your tight
budget, you are having to cut from $3.2 million from mitigation
hatcheries, which would, if left alone, would close those
hatcheries with very serious consequences for Americans.
My question is, well, we are working with TVA and with COE
to help share in the funding of those hatcheries so that you
will be able to keep them open. So my question is, can you
assure me the hatcheries won't close until we have an
opportunity to try to secure joint funding for them?
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely, Senator Alexander. I look
forward to working with you and TVA and COE to see how we can
keep these hatcheries open. They are, as you say, very
important to the anglers of Tennessee and beyond Tennessee. I
am happy to work with you on that.
JOINT CURATORIAL COLLECTION FACILITY
Just a quick note on the curatorial effort, I have asked
NPS to see what we can do, and I do know, as we have
communicated, the plan is done. I think nearly $1 million of
the $4 million is already in the bank, and we will turn over
every stone to see how we can figure out a way of making the
difference.
Senator Alexander. I thank you for that. And you are
exactly right. The five parks have worked together to try to
squeeze every $1 they can to minimize the money that is
responded, and $2 million is what is left.
ENERGY
Now I would like to ask you a question about equal
treatment for different forms of technology, which the
administration is moving toward. The President is talking about
all of the above, and I think increasingly those of us who deal
with energy and environment are saying we ought to treat all
our different forms of energy as equally as possible.
For example, you propose to raise fees on oil and gas
production in this budget. Do you intend to raise fees on wind
and solar energy production at the same time and by the same
amount?
Or let us take a second area. Let us take birds. In reading
about Teddy Roosevelt, I was reminded that his whole
conservation career began with birds and the protection of
birds. And we have in our law a law that says if you kill
eagles, you can go to jail. And then we have the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, if you kill migratory birds, you can go to jail.
And in 2009, Exxon Mobil killed 85 birds that had come into
contact with crude oil in uncovered tanks or wastewater
facilities, and they paid $600,000 in fines and fees. Well, I
noticed the other day the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
denied plans for a 48-turbine wind farm because of concerns
about birds, bats, and bald eagles. And we all know that these
big wind turbines have become sort of Cuisinarts in the sky for
birds, especially golden eagles in California.
And I understand that that wind farm has even applied to
the Department of the Interior, to the FWS for a ``taking
permit''. So they can take a certain number of birds when the
turbines start to roll.
So am I to understand that if you are going to treat forms
of energy production equally that Exxon Mobil ought to be
applying for taking permits for the next golden eagles it
kills? Or if not, why would you not apply to wind turbines and
other forms of energy the same rules you apply to oil and gas
production?
So my question on this is equal treatment for forms of
energy production. If you are going to raise fees on production
of oil and gas, will you do the same for wind and solar? And
will you apply to wind turbines the same laws that exist for
killing birds that you apply to oil and gas production?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Alexander, first, on the revenue
side for renewable energy projects, we have moved forward with
rules and in our right-of-ways, which is what we grant to
renewable energy projects onshore as well as in the offshore,
to make sure the principle of a fair return to the taxpayers is
adhered to, and that is the same principle we have with respect
to oil and gas production, both onshore as well as offshore.
On your second concern relative to wind energy projects and
birds, we are working on developing a set of guidelines from
FWS to deconflict the wind projects that are being proposed
around the country with the avian issues we care so much about
at the Department of the Interior.
Many of the projects, which were built 20, 30 years ago,
including the one you cite in California, were projects that,
first of all, didn't have the technology we have today. The
technology being used now for wind blades and wind turbines is
much better than the ones in place then. In fact, some of the
projects in California have already turned over into the new
technology because they recognize the issues, the lethality of
their projects on avian populations.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, what we are working
on with FWS is to try to identify those corridors which we know
are of high use for avian populations so, in those areas, we
would not be permitting wind projects. We are in the process of
trying to come up with a plan to deconflict our mandate for
conservation, which is a legal one, as you say, under the law,
and at the same time honoring the priority to develop
alternative sources of energy.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
If I can prove to you we have lots of birds in the Great
Smoky Mountains, will you keep the wind turbines out?
Secretary Salazar. I can guarantee you, Senator Alexander,
that there will never be a wind farm built in the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
I want to recognize Senator Leahy, but I also want to thank
Senator Landrieu. Because of Senator Leahy's schedule, he asked
to be recognized when he arrived.
Senator Leahy, please.
Senator Leahy. I apologize, and I do thank Senator Landrieu
also.
I also want to thank Senator Reed for holding this
important hearing. I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, that
Secretary Salazar is a rock star in Vermont. People still talk
about his visit up there, and I appreciate that.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
But I am hoping that today's hearing doesn't simply focus
on energy issues related to drilling and permits, and Senator
Alexander has obviously related one. I would like to see us
refocus our attention on LWCF, the bipartisan promise we made
to land conservation in 1965 to allow us to invest in our
natural areas in historic preservation.
Some of our country's most treasured places have been
acquired using the LWCF, including the Grand Canyon National
Park, Denali National Park, many historic Civil and
Revolutionary War battlefields, the Appalachia National Scenic
Trail, which runs through Vermont as well as States of three
other subcommittee members--from Georgia, through Tennessee and
Maryland, Vermont, ending in Maine. In fact, our four States
make up 35 percent of it.
SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LAND ACQUISITION
I worry that if we don't use it right, we could lose
natural resources forever, and I was concerned in hearing about
the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge that they
have a number of resources that are ready to be acquired with
the $6.5 million that was in the President's fiscal year 2012
request and the $1.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
Now I know you don't want to draw out too long some of
these acquisitions. But I challenge the claims that have been
made the Conte refuge is not able to spend the entire request
that was made by the President last year.
They span four States. They encompass the entire 7.2
million acre Connecticut River watershed. Conservation in this
area is essential. A Vermont Fish and Wildlife survey yesterday
detected four or five Canadian lynx in the Nulhegan Basin of
the Conte refuge. Now this is an endangered species and almost
never seen, and they are coming back.
So, Mr. Secretary, can you explain the difference between
what I am hearing on the ground in Vermont and throughout the
Conte refuge regarding the number and cost of tracks of land
available for acquisition with the $6.5 million in your fiscal
year 2012 request and what I am seeing in your reprogramming
request?
I mention that because it is a critical part of the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative. It crosses four States. It
is an area under enormous pressure from developers. Is it a
case where we have the money, and now the money is being taken
away?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Leahy, first, let me thank you
and Marcelle for the wonderful welcome that you always give me,
including into the great State of Vermont just last summer. I
hope to be up there again. Vermont is one of the great States
in terms of hunting and fishing and environmental education.
Two, I support your efforts and applaud your leadership as
well on the LWCF. The true needs of it, even though there will
be debate, I am sure, in this subcommittee, are probably more
in the neighborhood of $5 billion a year. So, when we look even
at our request at $450 million in the fiscal year 2013 budget,
it is not meeting the needs that are out there for conservation
programs. And every one of our areas around the country from
the Grand Tetons National Park to Yellowstone National Park to
Silvio O. Conte National Park have needs.
What we have done with the Silvio O. Conte National Park
area, and it is such a great wildlife refuge, and in the
connectors that we are working on through the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, there are $4 million in acquisitions ready
to go. We will make those acquisitions in the fiscal year 2012
budget.
Now the delta between the $4 million and the $6.5 million
and our reprogramming request before this subcommittee comes as
a result of the fact there were significant cuts that were made
to LWCF in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The budget we had put
forward had a request of $900 million, which was full funding
for the LWCF.
When it came out of the fiscal year 2012 process, it was
down to approximately $300 million, and we have had to make
some realignments. But recognizing the importance of Silvio O.
Conte National Park, Senator Leahy, what we have done is we are
ready to go for the $4.5 million, and we have the other $1.5
million requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
Senator Leahy. We may have to have further discussions on
it. I fought like mad to get that money in the budget, and I
would hate to have it go right back out. So we will have some
more discussions, I will with the chair, on questions of
reprogramming.
STREAMGAGES
And I will put for the record, and I really want answers on
this, to give--our floods we had in Vermont, and we had an
important Interior Department tool that both we and New York
used. Those were the gages the USGS had, the river and lake
gages.
I think we would have lost a lot more property, a lot more
lives if we had not had those. So I will have questions. I will
have questions on that, and I will thank you again on putting
in money for white-nose syndrome among bats.
When I first started raising this question, people thought
I was referring to a movie character that I have some
familiarity with. But this is decimating, the loss of these
bats are hurting agriculture throughout many, many, many
States. And so, it is important that we keep working on this,
and I applaud you for that.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
I am going to recognize Senator Cochran--we are going back
and forth--and then Senator Landrieu. Excuse me again, Senator
Landrieu.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is good to see you and to be
here to congratulate you on your fine job as Secretary of the
Interior. We have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with
you on a number of programs for wildlife habitat protection,
NPS, LWCF programs, all very important in our State.
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
One in particular, though, has come in for substantial
reduction or deletion of funds that we had seen recommended for
this agency is in the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP).
This is particularly important in the Gulf of Mexico. We have
been through a lot of challenges in that area, as everybody
knows. And it just seems to me to assume a savings of $200
million by rescinding unspent balances in the CIAP gave me
pause when I saw that as kind of the lead description of this
request.
Is there any way to reconsider that? How locked in are you
to reducing the funding for that program at this critical point
in the gulf's history?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Cochran, let me say that I
appreciate your leadership on conservation and your work on the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and our meetings every
couple of months in that effort.
On CIAP, you may recall I was one of those supporters for
CIAP when I was a U.S. Senator working with all of you. It is a
very important program. It was not functioning well under the
former Minerals Management Service. I moved it over to the FWS,
and we are getting the money out in very significant amounts.
The monies are going to the States.
In terms of the budget itself, it will take congressional
action to adopt the proposal in the budget. It is one of those
times where the whole budget is being combed for places where
we can find some money to be able to balance the budgets. As I
said in my opening remarks, Senator Cochran, it is painful to
think we are having to do some of these things.
Senator Cochran. Well, you wouldn't urge the President to
veto the bill if we added some of that money back in the
budget, would you?
Secretary Salazar. I think it is a long way from today
until we get to the point where we have a budget, an
appropriations bill presented to the President. The Gulf of
Mexico and coastal impacts and the restoration of the Gulf of
Mexico, Senator Cochran, are an area where I would say it is
probably the single most important conservation initiative on
where I spend my time, at least in the last 3 years.
Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your service, and you
have been very generous in allocating some of your travel time
to come to our State and to reassure us of the attention that
the national leadership of the Department is giving to
challenges that we face in the Deep South.
And I want to thank you for mentioning the wildlife
programs where you and I both have served as Members of
Congress. It has been a great pleasure working with you over
the years, and we look forward to a continuation of that good
relationship.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Landrieu, and again, thank you for your patience.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Senator Reed, Mr. Chairman
Reed, just one comment to Senator Cochran?
Senator Reed. Yes.
Secretary Salazar. One, I very much appreciate your help
and leadership on the fiscal year 2012 budget, as well as
members of this subcommittee, because we did make a huge
difference on that. And number two, Sam Hamilton was a Hercules
of wildlife and conservation and a great advocate for hunting
and fishing. We appreciate your leadership in having a national
wildlife refuge named in his honor, a bill which the President
has now signed.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for that mention, and
particularly remembering Sam Hamilton. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
I wanted to ask, Mr. Secretary, the total amount of your
budget before us today is about $11 billion. Is that correct?
Secretary Salazar. That is, approximately.
Senator Landrieu. What was the amount of money collected
from oil and gas severances, both onshore and offshore, last
year? Do you have those numbers, Ms. Haze?
Secretary Salazar. I think I may. Off the top of my head,
they were in the $9 billion range.
Senator Landrieu. So it is fair to say that the production
of oil and gas in this country and the severances that are
collected, the severance taxes--not the corporate income tax
that is paid, not the payroll tax that is paid, not the
indirect sales tax that is paid--literally funds the entire
Interior Department of the United States? Is that roughly
correct?
Secretary Salazar. It is roughly correct.
Senator Landrieu. Do you know where 80 percent of the
offshore funding comes from, off the shores of what three
States would those be?
Secretary Salazar. Most of our offshore energy production,
as you well know, Senator Landrieu, is in the Gulf of Mexico.
Senator Landrieu. And what States exactly are those
offshore?
Secretary Salazar. Well, the five States of the gulf--
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
Senator Landrieu. Well, it is not off of Florida, and it is
Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi. Very little off the
Alabama coast and none off the Florida coast because it is off
limits except for the section 181 that we had to struggle to
open.
My point being that a large chunk, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Murkowski, of the money that goes to fund this entire
budget comes from Senator Cochran's shore and my shore. So you
can imagine my horror when I pick up the budget and just read
through the pages, starting here, page F1, this is the LWCF,
land acquisition. These are all the States that I see--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah.
Let us flip the page. Wildlife and fisheries--California,
Florida, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, Dakota, Upper
Mississippi River. Not a penny for the lower Mississippi River.
Let us go to land acquisition. Arizona, California,
Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. I don't know how long this
subcommittee expects me to be a cooperative member. I really
don't know how long this administration expects me to continue
to try to be supportive. I cannot express anymore that we have
had enough.
The second point I want to make is that when you said you
did the greatest overhaul of oil and gas drilling in this
country, you most certainly did. I guess the incident required
it. But there was a tremendous amount of pain from Senator
Cochran's State and my State that was contributed to that
overhaul. For the record, I want to read it in. A study was
just released.
This is not Exxon. This is not Mobil. This is not BP. These
are the 2,000 independent oil and gas producers in my State
alone. I am sorry I don't have the numbers for Mississippi,
Secretary Salazar. And I want to tell you what they reported to
an independent administration.
Forty-one percent of these businesses are no longer making
a profit. Seventy-six percent have lost their cash reserves.
Forty-six percent have moved away from the gulf coast, and 82
percent of these business owners have lost personal savings
trying to live through the overhaul of this Interior
Department.
So, on two points--and you are my friend, and I respect you
personally--I strongly disagree with the policies of this
administration. One, for underchanging the region of the
country that contributes most to your entire budget. Where is
Mississippi listed in this budget? Where is Louisiana listed in
this budget?
And following up on what Senator Cochran said, the place we
are listed, you are taking $200 million away from us. That is
not going to happen. The CIAP money, which you know because you
voted for it, was my bill. I fought like a tiger to get the
money, and we got it.
The first, the first money that the gulf coast has ever
gotten to do restoration, and we shared it with Alaska. We
shared it with California. And we shared it with Florida, even
though they don't produce one barrel of oil. Mr. Chairman, that
money cannot leave the gulf coast.
And I want to say just one more thing. In 1965, the LWCF
was created using the severance taxes that come out of oil and
gas drilling offshore, not onshore. The bill was passed by
Senators Mark and Tom Udall's family that served here.
They said let us take the oil and gas resources, put them
together, and create great conservation land for the country.
We support that. What we cannot support is taking that money
off the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, saving
everyone else while we are literally drowning.
Do you all remember the water, how high it was for Katrina?
Do I have to explain to anyone on this subcommittee that south
Louisiana is going underwater? Can I find one dime in this
budget?
I have had it. I don't know what I am going to do, but I am
going to use all the power that I can to stop any funding for
any programs as long as the money is coming off the coast of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. You all can go find the
money elsewhere.
Go get it from Wyoming. Go get it from the interior States.
Wyoming yesterday--I want to correct this, and I am going to
finish. Wyoming, they have plenty money. They have 500,000
people. I have 4.5 million, 1 million of them lost their homes
and went underwater. I don't remember anyone losing their home
in Wyoming.
Mr. Chairman, last year they kept from their revenue
sharing $971 million Wyoming put in their general fund. There
are no restrictions as to how that money is spent. They can do
anything with it. The law does not allow them--gives them all
freedom.
They can spend it on education. They can reduce taxes. I
can't get one penny of the $6 billion that we send off the
coast of Louisiana to fund this entire budget. And when I ask
for it, it is given reluctantly. It is given with all kinds of
``Oh, my gosh, we can't keep giving those people down there
money.''
My city has gone underwater. My State is underwater. We
have lost more land than any State in this country, and it has
got to stop.
So go get your money, Mr. Secretary, from the West. They
have plenty of it, and just let us use our money to save
ourselves.
Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. May I respond? First, let me say there
is no doubt everyone here in this subcommittee and everyone in
the administration recognizes the passion that my good friend
Senator Mary L. Landrieu has for Louisiana and for the Gulf
States.
GULF STATES FUNDING
And I can tell you that with respect to the gulf States
that include all the five States of the gulf, we have put
significant resources into both our national parks and our
wildlife refuges. There are more than 40 of them in that part
of the country. They have some of the most incredible extensive
wildlife habitat, as Senator Cochran knows from his service on
the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. And we will
continue to make sure those investments, which create jobs in
New Orleans and other places, are investments we continue to
make.
Specific to Louisiana, one of the projects which Senator
Landrieu has long championed is Lake Pontchartrain and the
restoration efforts there. We are working very hard to make
that project a reality. We have prioritized an urban water
initiative in New Orleans that will connect up the downtown. We
are working very hard to try to make sure we are taking care of
the Gulf States.
OIL AND GAS
The other point I would make is I disagree very much with
my friend Senator Landrieu in terms of the overhaul on the oil
and gas industry in America's oceans. Without the overhaul that
we have undertaken, we wouldn't be able to say there are 60
permits that have been granted just in the last year in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Senator Landrieu lived through the horror of the Macondo
spill. I was with her and Senator Murkowski and Senator
Bingaman and others as we flew over on C-130s over the Gulf of
Mexico. That was a national crisis, and our oil and gas
industry offshore is doing very well today.
We are producing significant amounts of oil and gas, and it
is less than 2 years from the date when the Macondo well blew
up. We have continued to move forward in a cautious way, as
Senator Murkowski knows, to try to put the resources in place
for two seas in the Arctic, which she has been an advocate of
for a long time.
So I would only say that President Obama and I are very
serious about moving forward with an ``all-of-the-above''
energy strategy, and it does, in fact, include oil and gas, and
it includes oil and gas in America's oceans. Now I will say
this to Senator Landrieu's point that I think is an important
one to note.
When she argued very hard for the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act legislation which I helped pass in the Senate, she
was making the point about the impacts of oil and gas
production on the Gulf Coast States, and that is a policy
debate which will go on in this chamber and the U.S. Senate. My
hope is when we work our way through the issues in front of us,
including the litigation we now are involved in, in the Gulf of
Mexico against those responsible for the oil spill, we will see
the most significant ecosystem restoration project in the Gulf
of Mexico we have ever seen.
So your part of the country is near and dear to my heart,
even though I know that you are mad.
Senator Reed. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Welcome.
Secretary Salazar. Governor.
STREAM BUFFER ZONE RULE
Senator Hoeven. I would like to talk to you about the
stream buffer zone rule, which the Department of the Interior
is promulgating and implementing, as I understand it. I believe
that this is a rule that you are developing and implementing as
a result of some conditions in the Appalachian region of the
country. But I am concerned that you are also implementing it
in our part of the world as well, and obviously, the coal
mining is different throughout the country.
And so, I am concerned that the stream buffer zone rule
will require additional monitoring requirements on the part of
our companies, tougher reclamation procedures, and also it
provides a broader definition of streams and damage. So I guess
my first question is how many existing American jobs does the
Department of the Interior expect will be eliminated as a
result of this?
Well, let me step back. First, why are we kind of using
this one-size-fits-all? In other words, if you are trying to
address an issue in one region of the country, in the
Appalachian region, why are you implementing the same approach
in North Dakota, for example, where the coal is different and
the mining procedures are different?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Hoeven, Governor Hoeven, thank
you for your service to the country and to North Dakota.
Let me just say we still do not have a rule. It is still in
the process of being formulated, and the economic analysis will
certainly be a part of that rule. The Deputy Secretary has been
working with Office of Surface Mining (OSM), Joe Pizarchik, the
Director of the OSM, and I would like him to comment on the
substance of the rule and the concerns you raised.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator, I would just like to emphasize we do not have a
proposal on the street. We are hearing your concerns and the
concerns of others, and we are still doing the evaluation, both
economic and environmental. We want to work with you, and
certainly before a rule comes out, we will want to sit down and
talk to you about it.
A new rule is not imminent. A new proposed rule is not
imminent. When the proposal comes out, there will be an active
comment period. This process is extremely important to your
State and to many other States and to the Department. I can
assure you that we will work with you on it.
Senator Hoeven. Where are you in the process?
Mr. Hayes. We are continuing to prepare the environmental
impact statement associated with the proposed rule. That is
ongoing right now. We do not have a proposal over to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review yet. So we are not even
at the stage where we are engaged with OMB, which is, of
course, the office we work through before we can put a proposed
rule on the street.
Senator Hoeven. What is your intent? What do you intend to
do?
Mr. Hayes. We are still internally evaluating the
environmental impact statement and the proposed rule. We have
not made a decision as to when we will go to OMB with a
proposal. If we do go, it typically takes an extended period of
time of discussion back and forth before a proposed rule hits
the street.
Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to have either you, Mr.
Secretary, or your designee come out to my State and actually
take a look on the ground at the situation and talk to some of
our companies before you proceed?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Hoeven, I am happy to do that
and, in fact, I spent a good deal of time with your Governor
just two nights ago, speaking about a number of North Dakota
issues, including the Bakken formation where we have been very
pleased to work with you, when you were Governor, and with the
State in terms of the USGS information that has been provided
on the Bakken.
I also noted to the Governor that it is the only place in
the country where we actually have enhanced oil recovery
through CO2 capture.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Secretary Salazar. And so, North Dakota is a very important
State. A number of issues there to be addressed. I hope to be
out there, and when I am out there, we can certainly have a
meeting around the coal issues as well.
Senator Hoeven. I do want to say that you have been very
good about coming to our State. Very good both just on these
types of issues, but also when we have had flooding and some
emergencies, and you have been out there a number of times. And
we really appreciate it. So I do want to commend you for that
and thank you for that.
On this rule, I am asking, again, that you or your designee
come out and meet with us and look through this before you
determine how best to proceed. I mean, again, this is
information. This is fact finding, and hopefully, it will be
beneficial both to you and to the companies out in our part of
the country that do mining.
We are number one in the country in land reclamation. We
are number one in terms of how we handle the water. We meet all
ambient air quality requirements. So we believe in producing
energy, but we believe in taking care of the environment, too.
So let us try to work together on this, and this is an
opportunity to do so. And----
Secretary Salazar. That is a fair request, and we will be
happy to do that.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
And then, I am pleased to hear that you were talking with
Governor Dalrymple. Undoubtedly, he brought up the fracking
issue to you. Obviously, it is a hot topic around the country.
It is an important topic.
We want to do it safely and well. We want good
transparency. We want people to understand it and be
comfortable with it. But we are producing an incredible amount
of oil and gas and more energy not just in North Dakota, but
around this country. And we can do so much more with good
environmental stewardship. But we have to understand business
practices and how they work.
So for you to bring forward a rule that says that--excuse
me, Mr. Chairman, I will try to wrap up here. But for you to
bring forward a rule that says, okay, that the exact
specifications in every frack job have to be submitted to you
30 days before that is done, and then they can't make any
changes whatsoever to that frack fluid mix when they undertake
fracking, that is the kind of thing that does not work for
business.
So, again, full transparency. We have no problem requiring
that our companies provide what is in that frack fluid so that
people know and it is fully transparent. You can go on the Web
and find it. That is the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission (OIGCC) model that we developed. But the idea that
they can't change that once they have submitted the exact
specifications to you 30 days after when they are out on a well
site, trying to produce a well, and the conditions change as
they develop that well--I know you understand this--that has to
be taken into account.
So, again, it is about regulation that is understandable,
straightforward, protects the environment, but that empowers
businesses and investors and so forth to do the--undertake the
development, but do it right. And so, this is an example of
where we are going to have to do more work on your frack
regulation.
And again, from the point of understanding, let us make it
workable. Sure, let us know what is going into the ground, but
let us make sure it is a workable regulation.
Secretary Salazar. We very much agree with you, Senator
Hoeven. It has to be a workable regulation. In fact, much of
the time over the last year has been spent on gathering
information, including a meeting I had with oil and gas
industry and other experts at the Department of the Interior
over a year ago, hearings that BLM has had, including the one
in North Dakota, to get input.
When the rule does come out that will address the issue of
transparency to disclosure and the other matters I spoke about
earlier here in this subcommittee, it still will only be a
proposed rule. It needs to work.
I think this is one area where I do hope we can transcend
the hot politics of the time and say we agree that our North
Star here has to be to use the abundant resource of natural
gas, which is an American resource, and that in order to do so,
we need to make sure we are providing confidence to the
American people that we are doing it right.
Most of the companies I deal with, Senator, come and talk
to me about the requirements we are talking about on
disclosure, well integrity, and flowback water, are in
agreement that we are moving in the right direction. But we
will continue to listen to you, as well as to industry, as well
as to other stakeholders before any rule is finalized.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And we can help you with that. Cost-benefit needs to be
part of it. But we can work together on this and I think get it
right. And so, we appreciate your willingness to work with us
on it and look forward to it.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
OFFSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Mr. Secretary, if I may, there has been some discussion of
offshore production of oil and gas. You have taken significant
efforts to reform the inspection process, the leasing process,
et cetera. One of those was the result of last year's budget,
we increased inspection fees $62 million.
Will you realize the full $62 million increase this year?
Is that your expectation?
Secretary Salazar. Yes. And let me say thank you, thank
you, thank you to you and Senator Murkowski and the members of
this subcommittee for making sure we get the additional
resources to be able to do the job right. We are pushing hard
on the hiring of the inspectors and moving forward with the
program that you have enabled us to implement.
Senator Reed. And as you suggest, Mr. Secretary, 50 percent
of these new fees are required to be used to improve permit
reviews and related oversight activity. So there is a direct
correlation between the increased fees and we hope the
effectiveness of the inspections and the oversights, which
after the Macondo spill, clearly, we need a more effective
system. And your goal is to implement this effort?
Secretary Salazar. Yes, Senator.
Senator Reed. And you had indicated also, that your budget
reflects a cut in personnel to the Department of the Interior,
but you are actually hiring more inspectors because of the
increase in fees for the offshore production?
Secretary Salazar. The offshore oil and gas programs will
see increases in the number of FTEs. Just a quick reminder, no
increase from I think 1981, 1982 until what we have done in the
last several years. It is necessary, and it is such an
important part of our economy that we need to keep investing in
that program.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
Senator Reed. And just a technical point, I believe, that
all of the proceeds from production--from the gulf, from the
Chukchi, from Bering, from Beaufort--all of those go to the
Treasury of the United States. They do not go to the Department
of the Interior?
Secretary Salazar. That is correct.
Senator Reed. And they fund a range of efforts. You do not
have a restricted receipt account where the Department gets all
the proceeds?
Secretary Salazar. I wish we did. It would make it easier.
Senator Reed. It would make it simpler. It would make it
much more simple for this subcommittee. This could be a very
short hearing, Mr. Secretary.
ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Turning now from offshore to onshore. One of the proposals
that we discussed quite seriously in the appropriations process
last year, was an onshore inspection fee, that the BLM would be
able to charge, an increase in fees, for that effect. That fee
would be to increase their ability to inspect, to permit, in
fact, to provide the kind of certainty and responsiveness that
the business community really should have.
That was not successful, but I think, in the context
particularly of the emphasis on making sure we get these
fracking regulations done right and not just the regulations
and the reporting, but the inspections, my feeling is that this
fee increase would be appropriate and would be used for the
same purpose. That purpose would be to facilitate both the
exploration and recovery of these resources, while doing it
safely so that we don't have contaminated water and don't have
unexpected consequences. Is that your view also?
Secretary Salazar. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. And would you be supportive of the proposal
in the budget to increase the fees on land-based as well as
offshore?
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Let me just turn quickly to the LWCF because it has been
mentioned before. It seems that the increases are focused in
several specific areas--Montana, Wyoming, and in Florida. And
the question really has been raised by a number of my
colleagues, that this is a national program, and we understand
that certain projects have particular needs and appeal and
urgency. But there has to be, I believe, a much more even-
handed or a comprehensive approach to try to fund projects
across the country.
I could pick out urban projects in a number of places in
the country. I could pick out projects that are east coast,
south coast, et cetera. How can we help you provide a more
comprehensive approach, based on merit, of course, than what
seems to be appearing in the first cut of this budget?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, Chairman Reed, let me say
the way in which we could move forward with the true
conservation agenda that fulfills the dreams of many in the
conservation world would be to have enough money to be able to
do many more of these landscapes. At the end of the day, this
is about landscape-level planning.
When we look at the Crown of the Continent, from
Yellowstone National Park up to Glacier and all of the work
going on at three now national conservation areas there, we
believe that with a collaborative effort, as opposed to
operating in the silos of the agencies--the United States
Forest Service, FWS, the BLM, and NPS--we can actually get that
done.
The same thing is true with the longleaf pine in Georgia
and Florida. And the same thing, frankly, would be true in a
number of other landscapes that we would like to do the same
thing with.
When I make the pitch, and it is not so in Senator
Murkowski's case in Alaska, because Alaska is a world unto
itself, very different situation than when you look at the
lower 48. But there are landscapes, including many of those in
the Northeast, which could benefit from this kind of investment
and this kind of collaborative planning.
Criticism from some about investments in the LWCF, I will
just say he is not on this subcommittee, but Senator Barrasso
and Senator Enzi from Wyoming are great beneficiaries of the
LWCF because the Grand Teton National Park alone would swallow
up several hundred millions of dollars just to be able to buy
out the in-holdings within Grand Teton National Park.
The need is tremendous, and the big problem we struggle
with is how can we be most effective in implementing a
conservation agenda that protects these landscapes of America
and do it in a way that is going to be done in a timely manner?
So the Dakota Grasslands, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the
Silvio O. Conte Connecticut River areas, all those are
tremendous areas where there is just a huge need. I would hope,
with the leadership of this subcommittee, that we can see some
august, robust support for the LWCF.
GRAZING ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
Senator Reed. Just a final question. The budget includes a
proposed increase in grazing fees on BLM lands of $1 from $1.35
per horse to $2.35--or per animal, I should say to be accurate,
per animal to $2.35. Even with such an increase, my presumption
from what I have seen, would only cover a fraction of the BLM's
cost to maintain this facility. I would also assume that
comparative or relative to leasing private grazing property,
even with this increase, there would be a very, very small
charge. Is that a fair estimate, based on your analysis?
Secretary Salazar. That is very accurate, Chairman Reed.
The fact of the matter is, and I know ranchers, including in my
family, who rent lands for probably $10, $11 an Animal Unit
Month (AUM), $12 in the State of Colorado. So when you think
about the public lands being leased out at $1.35 an AUM, adding
the $1 administrative fee at $2.35 still gives a tremendous
benefit and advantage to part of the heritage of this country,
which is the ranching heritage of America.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OFFSHORE INSPECTION FEE
I just have a small handful of questions remaining here.
But I want to follow on the chairman's questions about the
increased fees that were placed in last year's appropriations
bill, 50 percent of which to fund the personnel and the
mission-related costs. You have indicated that you are pushing
to get additional personnel brought on. We greatly appreciate
that.
With that, are you seeing that the amount of time that it
takes to approve the plans, the approvals, are they moving
forward as you are able to add more on? Are we seeing any
noticeable gains yet in that?
Secretary Salazar. If you look back just at the last year
from today to February this day a year ago, we have seen a
number of exploration plans approved. We have seen permits
issued, including I think more than 130 in the shallow water in
the gulf and 60 in the deepwater. We are moving forward with
that effort.
On the hiring part, we are putting a lot of emphasis on it.
In fact, we were having a conversation this morning about how
Admiral Watson and Tommy P. Boudreau will make sure we are
expediting the hiring of these people, and the flexibility you
gave us in the budget to be able to pay 25 percent more for
petroleum geologists and others who have the expertise will
help us get the job done.
Senator Murkowski. So you are still working to get there,
is what you are saying?
Secretary Salazar. We are on the case, but it is not
stopping us from moving forward.
Senator Murkowski. All right. Thank you.
ONSHORE ROYALTY RATE
Yesterday, in the Energy Committee, I asked a couple
questions about the onshore leases and the increase in the
royalties, and the chairman has alluded to that in his
question, et al. You mentioned that yesterday you were looking
at several studies and mentioned the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study, I guess it was. But you said you were going
to be taking that all into account.
And I left the hearing thinking, well, wait a minute. If
you are going to be taking into account these various studies
that are out there, but yet the budget makes very clear that
you are going to be raising the rates 50 percent for all
onshore oil and gas production, it seems like you have already
made up your mind on doing this.
So I guess I have a question in terms of why are you going
back and doing the studies now if you have already made the
decision that you are going to move forward, or is that still
in flux, the decision as to whether or not you bump up the fees
an additional 50 percent?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, it is still in flux
in the sense there is additional information and study to be
done. As you know, when you put a budget together, you are
forecasting what may be happening, and that is what OMB did in
this particular case.
At the end of the day, North Dakota just increased its
royalty rates on State lands I think more than 18 percent. We
know the numbers out of Texas and Wyoming, and I think the GAO
was correct in making its finding at the 12.5-percent royalty
rate, which has been in place since 1920, that the American
taxpayer was not getting a fair return.
I believe we need to make sure we honor that principle of
getting a fair return.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we all want a fair return. But I
would again urge you to make sure that we are taking into
account what we are paid for those initial leases, to make sure
that is factored in because that, clearly, is a return that
comes to the taxpayers. And again, to ensure that where we are
not going to be in a situation where we are not competitive.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND
I wanted to ask you about the National Wildlife Refuge
Fund. I mentioned it in my opening statement. Apparently, the
mandatory portion of this fund is going to continue to go to
the local counties, but you are proposing to eliminate the
discretionary portion of the program.
And again, I will take you back to my rhetorical question,
I guess, in my opening, which was what do you do for States
like Alaska where we really are very limited in terms of our
options? You have got the PILT payments coming. You are
suggesting that it is going to be a 1-year continuation.
Offsets haven't been identified. How do we deal with this, and
can you tell me why you have chosen to eliminate the
discretionary side from the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, we still will have I
think it is $8 million set aside for the payments to the
counties, which are a form of PILT, as you mentioned.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Secretary Salazar. In terms of the other $14 million cut
for the refuge fund that is in the budget, I will only say
that, again, as one of those cuts which is a painful cut to
take, I wish we didn't have to do it. At the end of the day,
the concerns some of you have with the cuts proposed in this
budget, they will all sort out relative to how the United
States, the Congress, the President move forward with respect
to dealing with some of the debt, deficit, and revenue issues
needed to fund the Government.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will continue to talk about
that one. We have got to figure out a good path forward. I
appreciate the budget constraints that you are dealing with.
I have got a couple questions about wood bison in Alaska
and Unimak Island that relates to the caribou, but I will give
you those in written format.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEYING OF AFGHANISTAN
Senator Murkowski. But I do have one. I think this is
really quite interesting. Apparently, in September of last
year, USGS issued a press release that described the process
that had been made in the geological surveying of Afghanistan,
and they used some hyperspectral imaging and indicated in the
release that more than 96 percent of Afghanistan is now mapped
using this advanced technology.
And I mean, that is all good, and clearly, the work is
important. But we also have great opportunities with our own
resources here in this country, certainly in Alaska. And of
course, we all have to figure out, well, how do you pay for
this type of mapping?
In comparison to the 96 percent of Afghanistan that
according to USGS has been geologically surveyed using these
technologies, we are told that only 5 percent of the United
States has been mapped using the same technologies. I don't
know if this is true. I don't know if you can give me this
answer today.
But if it true, if you really do have this very stark
difference between what we know about mineral-related
investments that this administration is making in Afghanistan
versus Alaska, do we know whether in this budget we have
sufficient funding to start focusing on the United States
mapping? I don't know if it is in there.
But this is, again, one of those interesting data points
that you say, well, gosh, if we can afford to be mapping
Afghanistan, we would assume that this country is mapped, and I
know for a fact that it is not. So can you help me out with
that one?
Secretary Salazar. On Afghanistan, obviously, because there
has been huge investment both by the Bush administration and by
President Obama's administration in Afghanistan, those were all
reimbursable costs, as I understand, to the USGS.
I will note, Senator Murkowski, the USGS just developed a
study that looked at shale gas in Alaska, including the
important areas of the North Slope, which you care so much
about. I take your comment seriously, and one of the things I
will do is I will talk to Dr. McNutt and to Bob Abbey to see
whether there are some ways in which the technology that has
been developed with efforts here in the United States, we have
a good foundation from which to start.
But maybe even taking the lessons from Afghanistan to be
able to deal with some of the other mapping and surveying
issues which you have talked about. Let me take that under
consideration, see whether there is something we might be able
to do.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I would recommend you start
alphabetically with the States.
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
Senator Murkowski. We got a lot that we can cover up North.
And then, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, what do you think
about the proposal to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) from the Department of Commerce to the
Department of the Interior?
Secretary Salazar. Well, Senator Murkowski, first, the
President was very clear in asking for the authority to be able
to reorganize the Government. That is first and foremost
because with that authority, there are probably other areas in
Government that do need to be consolidated. We still have much
of our Government which was created 100 years ago and really
hasn't caught up to the 21st century.
President Ronald Reagan had the authority to do
reorganizations and consolidations. I think it is a simple
request from the President.
On the question of NOAA and the Department of the Interior,
there are synergies that could be developed if there was such a
consolidation. But we are not at this point looking at it until
we get the authority from the Congress to move forward.
Senator Murkowski. So you really haven't invested any time
or effort to see how those synergies might come together?
Secretary Salazar. I have seen studies from outside groups
that indicate it would be a good idea, but any reorganization
undertaken is always a difficult one and takes time to do it
right. I tried to do a little consolidation with OSM and BLM,
and we know what happened with that.
Secretary Salazar. A reorganization of the kind that would
bring NOAA and the Interior together, it would be an effort
that would take a significant amount of time to do it right.
Where the President is on this issue and where I am and my
colleague Secretary Bryson are is we are supportive of giving
the President the authority.
It doesn't make sense for us to engage in any kind of study
on any of these reorganizations until we have that authority.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just might point out that if fisheries were
under the Secretary's jurisdiction here, we could probably
ensure better salmon dinners, and we will work with you on
that.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, and your colleagues,
for your testimony today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We will leave the record open until next Wednesday if there
are additional statements or questions by any of my colleagues,
and would ask you, Mr. Secretary, you and your staff to respond
as quickly as possible.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
OFFSHORE WIND
Question. Rhode Island has been helping lead the way on offshore
wind in developing its ``pilot-scale'' offshore wind project in the
State waters off Block Island, which will provide important engineering
and environmental expertise for these new technologies in the water.
How will the Department of the Interior (DOI) partner with Rhode Island
on these efforts?
Answer. Rhode Island continues to be a valuable partner at the
forefront of offshore renewable energy development with DOI. Rhode
Island's work in developing its Special Area Management Plan provided
essential information to support DOI's decisions. The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) Rhode Island OCS Renewable Energy Taskforce
continues to be an effective means of expanding this partnership at the
Federal, State, local, and tribal levels. Through its Environmental
Studies Program, BOEM is addressing issues and concerns identified by
Rhode Island. For example, BOEM is partnering with the University of
Rhode Island to develop protocols and modeling tools to support
offshore wind development. Ongoing and future studies funded by BOEM
through the Environmental Studies Program will investigate changes to
recreation and tourism activities that may result from offshore wind
energy development. BOEM is also conducting a study of best management
practices to foster compatible development of offshore energy with
fishing activities. BOEM also engages routinely with the Rhode Island
Fishery Advisory Board and Habitat Advisory Board. Finally, to ensure
an efficient and responsible environmental review, BOEM is combining
its review of the transmission cable system with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's (COE) review of the pilot project under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and required consultations under
Federal law.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that the commitment you made
in the hearing to expedite BOEM's efforts to process right-of-way
applications for the transmission line between Block Island and the
Rhode Island mainland. Would you also make a similar commitment to
expedite the consultation of any agency within DOI, such as the
National Park Service (NPS), with other Federal agencies including COE
that would have a role in the siting and approval of the State water
project?
Answer. Yes. The President has directed that all Federal agencies,
including NPS and COE, do everything that can be done to expedite
consultation and to be supportive in siting and approving projects in
State waters. In these times of fiscal restraint, partnering between
Federal agencies ensures that resources are spent more efficiently and
are directed to those areas of greatest concern. Partnering also
ensures the maximum use of collaboration between all stakeholders at
the Federal, State, and local levels. In keeping with our ``Smart from
the Start'' Initiative, I am committed to accelerating the leasing
process changes in order to build a robust and environmentally
responsible offshore renewable energy program that also creates jobs
here at home.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
CADIZ
Question. Last November the Interior Department's Solicitors office
issued a memorandum known as the ``M Opinion'' which stated that
railroad companies lack authority to permit activities along their
right-of-way unless the projects directly benefit railroad operations.
The proposed Cadiz water project in the Mojave Desert has proposed
using the Arizona & California Railroad's Right of Way to construct a
43-mile long pipeline connecting their project site with the Colorado
River Aqueduct. The project's Draft Environmental IR suggests that the
water pipeline would benefit the railroad because it would allow them
to place fire hydrants along the route for fire suppression. Can you
tell me are fire hydrants typically placed along the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) granted-railroad right-of-ways?
Answer. We are not aware of any hydrants placed on BLM-granted
railroad rights-of-way. We would need to review each authorization to
determine if hydrants are present.
Question. Do they exist along any railroad right-of-way in the
desert southwest?
Answer. We can only speak to those railroad right-of-way grants
that we approved. We do not know if other railroad grants involve
hydrants. The Federal Railroad Administration or Surface Transportation
Board may be able to clarify this.
Question. What steps has the Department of the Interior to taken to
assess Cadiz' proposed use of the right-of-way as it relates to the ``M
Opinion'' or assert its jurisdiction to regulate the use of the Right
of Way for nonrailroad purposes?
Answer. BLM is currently in the process of assessing Cadiz'
proposed use of the right-of-way as it relates to the ``M Opinion.'' As
part of that assessment, the BLM California State Office has taken the
following steps:
On January 10, 2012, the BLM California State Office sent a letter
to all railroad companies with rights-of-way authorized under the
authority of the 1875 Railroad Act in California, including the Arizona
& California Railroad, which has entered into a lease for a pipeline
for the Cadiz project. The letter requested the companies to disclose
agreements for third-party easements within 30 days. The Arizona &
California Railroad (ARZC) responded to this request on February 15,
2012, requesting additional information about specific ROWs and the
areas for which BLM is interested.
On February 13, 2012, BLM's California State Director sent a letter
commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the
Santa Margarita Water District and Cadiz, to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The comment letter requested copies of the
plan related to water conveyance along the railroad, the Longitudinal
Lease Agreement between Cadiz and ARZC and all other supporting
documentation. BLM received a response letter from the Santa Margarita
Water District which included copies of the Longitudinal Lease
Agreement, an amendment to this agreement and correspondence between
the Railroad and Cadiz.
On May 4, 2012, BLM sent a letter to ARZC, along with a copy of the
Longitudinal Lease Agreement between ARZC and Cadiz requesting the
company provide more information on how the proposed pipeline described
in the Agreement furthers railroad purposes, and whether these design
features are consistent with standard railroad industry practices.
On May 22, 2012, ARZC provided a response letter to BLM's May 4th
request describing the ``proposed water pipeline as a unique
opportunity to bring fire suppression resources to ARZC's critical rail
improvements in an efficient and cost-effective manner, as well as
providing collateral rail operating benefits.'' It also asserts that
``with respect to hydrants, fire suppression capability is a chronic
and historical challenge in the rail industry, most particularly on
rural lines with trestles and bridges.'' BLM is currently coordinating
with FRA to understand the feasibility of these water features, and
whether they meet the objective of furthering railroad purposes.
PRIVATE LANDS PERMITTING
Question. Secretary Salazar, I am concerned that the permitting of
renewable energy projects on disturbed private lands remains more
difficult than the process for permitting a similar project on pristine
public land. The Conference Report accompanying the Department of the
Interior's fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation asked you to
address this, stating:
``In order to facilitate better species protection and stewardship
of public resources, the conferees expect that (the new Renewable
Energy Permitting Office in the Fish and Wildlife Service) will develop
permitting policies that make it less difficult and time-consuming to
permit projects on disturbed private lands than on pristine public
lands . . . . The conferees . . . support efforts by the Service to
establish a pilot fee program using the Service's existing
authorities.''
Please describe how the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
implemented this congressional directive to date, and please describe
the Interior Department's strategy to address this matter during fiscal
year 2013.
Answer. FWS has met this congressional directive by realigning
support for renewable energy work in the Carlsbad, Ventura, and Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Offices (FWOs). FWS opened an office in Palm Springs
in August 2011, which is closer to where many renewable energy projects
are located. The office covers southwestern San Bernardino County, and
all of Riverside and Imperial counties. The Palm Springs FWO works on
renewable energy projects in the desert area, including the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). FWS has two offices working
on renewable energy permitting in Nevada, one in Reno and one in Las
Vegas. The Secretary of the Interior recently signed an agreement to
finish the DRECP by 2013. FWS is developing the DRECP to address
private lands impacts and to serve as the programmatic permitting
mechanism for renewable energy projects in the desert in California
while sustaining the conservation of listed species.
To help us be more responsive to renewable energy projects on
private lands, the Service recently finalized a package of template
documents and instructions that can be used by local FWS offices to
establish reimbursable agreements with non-Federal entities that would
provide additional funding. The additional funding can then be used to
hire additional staff so that the Service can provide more timely
environmental reviews of the projects.
GAMING
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am deeply disappointed that the
Department was delinquent in responding to this subcommittee about the
two controversial casinos that were approved in California last
September. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 provided a 60-day
window to respond; this deadline was missed by more than 2 weeks.
The Committee report language gave your Department an opportunity
to verify the claim of strong local support for these projects, despite
the fact that only 3 of 33 elected officials or public entities
expressed support for the casinos. I find it hard to believe that three
support letters constitute ``strong local support'' as your document
claims, particularly when Yuba County voters expressed opposition to
one of the casinos in an advisory measure.
Since Californians continue to be puzzled by the claim of ``strong
local support'' for these casinos, I would like to follow up on the
Committee Report.
Of the 33 elected officials and bodies that you are required to
consult with, how many have expressed support, in writing, for the
casino projects?
Answer. The Department received six express declarations of support
from local units of government, with respect to the Enterprise
Rancheria's application for a Secretarial Determination under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. These statements of support were
discussed in the Department's September 1, 2011, decision at page 25.
It is important to note that these supportive comments were submitted
by the City of Marysville and Yuba County, in which the Enterprise
Rancheria's proposed gaming facility would be located. These local
units of government would experience the most significant impact of the
tribe's proposed gaming facility. The Department previously provided
the subcommittee with a copy of the September 1, 2011, Secretarial
Determination for the Enterprise Rancheria on March 8, 2012, as an
appendix to our response to House Conference Report No. 112-331
Directive.
The Department received seven express declarations of support from
local units of government, with respect to the North Fork Rancheria's
application for a Secretarial Determination under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. These statements of support were discussed in the
Department's September 1, 2011, decision at pages 43-45. It is
important to note that these supportive comments were submitted by the
City of Madera and Madera County, in which the North Fork Rancheria's
proposed gaming facility would be located. These local units of
government would experience the most significant impact of the tribe's
proposed gaming facility. The Department provided the subcommittee with
a copy of the September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the
North Fork Rancheria on March 8, 2012, as an appendix to our response
to House Conference Report No. 112-331 Directive.
Question. How many have expressed opposition?
Answer. The Department received three express declarations of
opposition from local units of government, with respect to the
Enterprise Rancheria's application. These statements of opposition were
discussed in the September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination at pages
26-27.
The Department received two express declarations of opposition from
local units of government, with respect to the North Fork Rancheria's
application. These statements of opposition were discussed in the
September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination at page 44.
It is important to note that the Department provided a meaningful
opportunity for local units of government to comment on the tribes'
applications, pursuant to our regulations at 25 CFR part 292. A
majority of those local units of government declined to submit comments
to the Department on the tribes' applications.
Question. How much weight was given to Yuba County Measure G, the
advisory vote rejecting the proposed casino in Yuba County?
Answer. The Secretarial Determination issued on September 1, 2011
for the Enterprise Rancheria contains a discussion of how the
Department considered Measure G in reviewing the tribe's application at
page 25.
Question. What needs to be done to ensure that county voters and
residents can have their voices heard in this process?
Answer. On June 13, 2011, the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
issued a memorandum explaining how the Department would consider tribal
applications for Secretarial Determinations under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. In that memorandum, the Assistant Secretary noted ``In
my view, IGRA and the Department's regulations, at 25 C.F.R. Parts 151
and 292, adequately account for the legal requirements and policy
considerations that must be addressed prior to approving fee-to-trust
applications, including those made pursuant to the ``off-reservation''
exception. Specifically, the recently enacted part 292 regulations
require exacting review of requests for off-reservation gaming.''
Part 292 regulations were promulgated pursuant to IGRA and other
statutory authorities. Under the IGRA's ``off-reservation'' exception,
a tribe may conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988
only if:
``The Secretary, after consultation with the [applicant] Tribe and
appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other
nearby Indian Tribes, determines that a gaming establishment on newly
acquired land would be in the best interest of the Indian Tribe and its
members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.''
The Department continues to believe that existing law and
regulations ensure a careful review of tribal applications for
Secretarial Determinations under IGRA, which will allow for a
meaningful opportunity for local communities to participate. It is
important to note that Secretarial Determinations issued pursuant to
IGRA are subject to the concurrence of the Governor of the State in
which tribal gaming activities would occur.
Question. Some of the most vocal opposition to these casinos has
been from tribes, especially those who believe that new casinos should
be built on the tribe's aboriginal lands--not in the most profitable
location. This is consistent with the position of the National Indian
Gaming Association. To what extent did you engage in consultation with
these tribes and how did you respond to their concerns?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary's June 13, 2011 Memorandum on
processing tribal applications under IGRA's Secretarial Determination
Exception was issued after thorough consultation with tribal leaders
throughout the United States over a period of 3 months. Similarly, the
Department's regulations at 25 CFR part 292 were promulgated in 2008
after years of tribal consultation, as well as after a period of public
notice and comment.
With respect to the applications of the Enterprise Rancheria and
the North Fork Rancheria, the Department adhered to the requirements
set forth in governing regulations. In an effort to be transparent and
inclusive, the Department even considered comments submitted by tribes
outside the scope of what is required by our regulations. The September
1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the Enterprise Rancheria
contains a discussion of comments submitted by other tribes at page 27.
The September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the North Fork
Rancheria contains a discussion of comments submitted by other tribes
at page 45.
Question. Are the proposed casino sites on land that is within the
undisputed aboriginal territory of the appropriate tribe?
Answer. Neither IGRA nor the Department's regulations, at 25 CFR
part 292, require a tribe's proposed gaming facility be located within
its ``aboriginal territory.'' Nevertheless, the Department's
regulations require us to evaluate the existence and extent of a
tribe's ``significant historical connection'' to a proposed gaming site
when making a Secretarial Determination under IGRA. The September 1,
2011, Secretarial Determinations for both the Enterprise Rancheria and
the North Fork Rancheria concluded that both tribes established a
``significant historical connection'' to their respective proposed
gaming sites.
The September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the Enterprise
Rancheria contains a discussion of the tribe's significant historical
connection to the proposed gaming site at pages 13-14. The September 1,
2011, Secretarial Determination for the North Fork Rancheria contains a
discussion of the tribe's significant historical connection to the
proposed gaming site at pages 11-17.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SOLAR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Question. Last October, BLM issued its Draft Supplemental Solar
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which includes
large amounts of ``variance'' lands outside the solar zones. It is my
understanding that while applicants are strongly encouraged to pursue
projects within the identified solar zones, BLM will also consider
permitting development in these ``variance'' areas. While some
flexibility to consider lands beyond the zones may be necessary, I find
it highly problematic that an estimated 50,000 acres of land that were
donated or purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars have
been included in the variance lands. Given that these lands were
intended to be preserved in perpetuity, I do not believe they should be
open for development. Can you tell me what is the process by which the
BLM will consider and grant permission for solar projects to be
constructed on ``variance'' lands?
Answer. The process for considering solar projects on ``variance''
lands has been delineated in the Supplemental Draft Solar PEIS in
detail. However, no final decision has been made. In addition, there
might be market, technological, or site-specific factors that make a
project appropriate in a non-solar energy zone area. BLM will consider
variance applications on a case-by-case basis based on environmental
considerations; consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, and tribes; and public outreach. All variance applications
that the BLM determines to be appropriate for continued processing will
subsequently be required to comply with National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies at
the applicant`s expense. Applicants applying for a variance must assume
all risk associated with their application and understand that their
financial commitments in connection with their applications will not be
a determinative factor in BLM's evaluation process.
Question. Why have donated and LWCF-acquired lands been included
among the ``variance'' lands and what steps are being taken to avoid
their development?
Answer. Comments received on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS
have requested that donated and LWCF-acquired lands be identified as
exclusion areas for utility-scale solar energy development. BLM is
currently considering this request, but no decision has been made yet.
We would be available to brief your office directly in more detail at
your request.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Question. Last week the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) released its
initial water allocations for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users.
Given the low precipitation and Sierra snowpack we have experienced in
California, the 30-percent water allocation for agricultural service
contractors is disconcerting, but not altogether surprising.
Significant carry-over storage appears to have helped boost reservoir
supplies, but it is unclear whether those supplies are sufficient to
provide all the water necessary to meet the needs of farms and
communities for the remainder of the year. Can you tell me:
If there is not significant additional precipitation in the
remaining weeks of the wet season, how will this affect future water
allocations for the remainder of the water year?
Answer. The initial 30-percent allocation to agricultural water
service contractors in February 2012, was due to very dry hydrologic
conditions. December, typically one of the wettest months in
California, ended up being one of the driest on record. The dry pattern
continued through mid-March. Since mid-March, improved precipitation in
the Sacramento Valley and improved snowpack in the Northern Sierra
resulted in increases to the allocation for CVP San Joaquin Exchange
and Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, wildlife refuges,
agricultural, and municipal and industrial water service contractors in
April. As of May, the allocation for north of delta agricultural water
service contracts was 100 percent, but the allocation south of delta
agricultural water service contractors remained lower at 40 percent.
The lower allocation south of the delta is a reflection of constraints
on exports from the Delta and the loss of pumping windows during the
winter when conditions were much drier. In the San Joaquin Valley,
precipitation did not improve as significantly as it did in the
Sacramento Valley. The initial allocation to Friant Class I contractors
was 35 percent which increased to 55 percent as of May 24. The Friant
Class II allocation remains zero.
Question. What administrative actions can BOR take to help ensure
adequate water supplies to San Joaquin and Sacramento farmers this
year?
Answer. BOR developed a series of actions in the CVP Water Plan
2012 to help support water management efforts this year. The plan,
available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/pa/water, identifies actions
related to Joint Point of Diversion, Exchange Contractors' transfers,
and California Aqueduct/Delta-Mendota Canal Intertie operations. BOR
also worked with the water community to identify opportunities for
transfers and administrative actions to better manage available
supplies.
YUROK FUNDING
Question. Secretary Salazar, Yurok Chairman O'Rourke recently wrote
to your Department seeking assistance with the historic and continued
under-funding for Yurok tribal government, law enforcement and
transportation needs. I share his concerns and hope that your staff
will give his request for additional funding all due consideration.
To help clarify some outstanding questions raised by Chairman
O'Rourke, I hope that you can provide me with answers to the following
questions.
Has your Department reviewed and analyzed the Yurok Tribe
Justification and Request for Increased Base Funding, which was
provided to the Regional Office and conveyed to the Assistant Secretary
earlier this month?
Answer. The Department received and reviewed the ``Yurok Tribe
Justification and Request for Increased Base Funding.'' The Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) has examined the request, and we hope that our
explanation of the issues raised by the tribe are addressed in the
explanation of Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) which are below.
Question. Do you agree with the conclusions reached in this
document, particularly that the tribe is disproportionately
underfunded?
Answer. In general, the distribution of TPA funds is sound. Tribes
with historically larger populations and/or larger reservations receive
proportionately larger shares of TPA funds. Adjustments reflecting
treaties, court decisions, executive policy decisions, and
congressional acts are also factored into the distributions.
The allocation of resources among the regions and tribes is based
on a complex set of historical, geographical, demographic, political
and programmatic factors. Today, ``base funding'' identifies the basic
contract amount of services on which a tribe can rely from 1 year to
the next--the base amount from which budget increases or decreases are
calculated. The base funding amount is the result of years of
legislation, appropriations, and BIA administrative polices.
At various times, especially in the past several decades, the
Federal Government has emphasized the development of certain natural
resources and provided additional funding for those programs.
Additional funds were provided only to tribes owning such resources,
and those funds were made part of the tribe's recurring TPA base
funding. On the other hand, several programs were removed from tribal
recurring bases, as well. These programs included the Housing
Improvement Program and Road Maintenance program; many tribes had
ranked these programs as top priorities and had allocated a substantial
amount of their funding for them. When these funds were reduced or
eliminated from the TPA base, tribes that had these programs listed as
top priorities lost significant portions of their base funding.
At various times, the BIA has emphasized certain programs, such as
Human Services. At those times, the BIA has requested additional
funding for those programs. Tribes with higher populations received a
high proportion of these funds, which were then made part of their
recurring TPA base to meet ongoing needs. However, increased tribal
enrollment, whether through changes in membership criteria, or natural
population growth, has not been considered a factor in distributing
additional funds for TPA programs. Migration to and from reservations,
particularly as economic opportunities change, has not been accounted
for in any calculations of TPA funding.
As a result of treaties, court decisions, executive policy
decisions, and congressional acts, the legal obligations and funding
for particular tribes have resulted in unique recurring funding levels
for those tribes. Additionally, these funds were incorporated into
various tribes' bases to address the prospect of litigation from these
tribes against the Federal Government for failure to support certain
activities required by treaty, statute, or the Government's trust
responsibility.
Question. What is the minimum per-capita funding that a rural,
nongaming tribe should receive?
Answer. The BIA does not establish a minimum per-capita funding
level for any tribe, regardless of locality or gaming status. However,
the Small Tribes Initiative was established to address a funding
allocation process that consistently failed to take into consideration
the basic funding needs of small tribes. These tribes have small
memberships and most have little or no land or natural resources. The
initiative attempts to ensure that all tribes, regardless of population
size, land base, or natural resources, will receive a recurring base of
$160,000 for tribes in the continental United States. The base funding
amount is considered sufficient to enable small tribes to put in place
and maintain the management systems necessary to account for funds and
ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The funding
also permits tribes to establish and maintain administrative mechanisms
sufficient to establish viable tribal office operations and service
delivery systems.
Question. If a per-capita formula is inappropriate, please explain
what formula your Department does use any why it is the more
appropriate funding mechanism.
Answer. A per capita formula is inappropriate to use. At one time,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) developed an analysis of the
TPA base funding per tribe. Their analysis showed that there is
considerable variation in per capita funding between regions and
tribes. For example, in the comparison between regions, GAO found the
average TPA funding per capita Nationwide was $601; however, in Eastern
Oklahoma TPA per capita was $121 and in Northwest TPA per capita was
$1,020. This level of analysis, though, ignores that the Eastern
Oklahoma Tribes tend to have small land bases while the Northwest
Region Tribes have both reservations and significant natural resources
held in trust.
The only funding formula that the Department uses for the
distribution of base funding is the TPA process. Many difficulties
arise in any effort to develop an allocation system that takes into
account the relative means of the tribes. Determining the type, extent,
and magnitude of tribal revenues is the first difficulty. In an era
when the BIA had a continuous presence on the reservation and managed
an Indian Tribe's affairs, BIA personnel knew about all tribal business
activities. In the current era of Self-Determination and Self-
Governance, the BIA often does not know the extent of tribal
businesses. There is no assurance that the financial statements and
reports even exist for all tribal business. Even if they exist, there
is no assurance the format and content of the statements and reports
may be readily compared or that the tribes would give BIA the
information.
The current TPA process is the most appropriate due to the efforts
of the BIA in consulting with tribes and tribal leaders in the early
development stages of the TPA process.
Question. As a small and needy tribe, what supplemental funding can
be identified to address this shortfall?
Answer. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a valuable
resource because it identifies programs which identify tribal
governments as eligible applicants. These programs are available and
the BIA has seen increased outreach efforts by a number of Federal
agencies, which is an indicator that tribal participation in these
other programs may show steady increases and a bridged gap in
shortfalls.
SAN LUIS REY WATER SETTLEMENT
Question. In 1988, the Congress passed the San Luis Rey Indian
Water Rights Settlement Act which provided a framework for resolving
the decades old water dispute in Northern San Diego County. Within the
last 2 years the five Indian Bands and the cities of Escondido and
Vista have reached an agreement on how to proceed, however the
Department of the Interior--as the bands' trustee--has yet to approve
the deal.
What are the primary unresolved issues which prohibit you from
approving this settlement?
Answer. The Department of the Interior believes that the proposed
settlement agreement drafted by the Bands and the local entities is
inconsistent with the 1988 San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement
Act (``Settlement Act'') and contemplates obligations for the United
States which exceed the authority and intent of the Act. The
Department's position on the core issue in dispute, discussed below,
was conveyed to the Bands as early as 2004, and has been reiterated
multiple times across at least two administrations.
The central point of contention concerns the scope and effect of
the Settlement Act. The Department believes that the Settlement Act
fully and finally quantified and resolved all of the Bands' Federal
reserved water rights. The Department believes this position is fully
supported by both the plain language of the Settlement Act and the
congressional record behind the enacted legislation. In full settlement
of the Bands' reserved water rights claims and to satisfy the
obligations of the United States to the Bands as trustee, the
Settlement Act established a $30 million trust fund and also required
the Secretary to acquire and deliver 16,000 acre-feet per year of
imported water to the Bands. The Bands and local entities disagree with
this interpretation and rely on language from, and the legislative
history behind, prior unenacted bills to assert that, in addition to
the 16,000 acre-feet per year of imported water identified in the
Settlement Act, the Bands retain claims to reserved water rights in
waters originating within the San Luis Rey River basin.
Question. What is the timeline for you to resolve these issues?
Answer. The Department is committed to the expeditious development
of a settlement agreement consistent with the Settlement Act, should
the parties wish to pursue such an agreement. The Department has
engaged in dozens of settlement discussions with the parties over the
last several years and has offered multiple approaches to fashioning an
agreement which would make the benefits of the Settlement Act available
to the Bands. The Department views the quantity of water together with
the specific exchange authority provided by the Settlement Act as an
exceptional asset that holds the potential to provide the Bands with a
permanent and reliable water supply unobtainable through any other
means. If the parties are willing to pursue an agreement based upon the
benefits explicitly set forth in the Settlement Act, the Department is
hopeful that a final agreement could be developed this year.
Question. Does the 16,000 acre/feet of water provided by the
Settlement have federally reserved status?
Answer. The Congress directed the United States, through the
Secretary of the Interior, to acquire and deliver 16,000 acre-feet of
water to the Bands in settlement of the Bands' reserved water rights
claims. This water cannot be forfeited or abandoned and is federally
protected water that, in the Department's view, constitutes a trust
asset.
Question. Under your interpretation of the Settlement Act, does it
preclude tribes from using existing ground and surface water on their
reservations?
Answer. No. All five Bands have historically used either local
surface water, ground water through domestic or community wells, or
some combination of both. These uses have never been challenged. There
is no reason that these uses could not continue following
implementation of the Settlement Act.
Question. Does this water have federally reserved status?
Answer. The purpose of the Settlement Act is ``to provide for the
settlement of the reserved water rights claims of the la Jolla, Rincon,
San Pasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians'' by providing the
Bands with 16,000 acre-feet per year of supplemental water and a $30
million trust fund. Against the backdrop of this congressional intent,
the United States would not assert Federal reserved water rights on
behalf of the Bands to local water sources.
Question. The Settlement Act provides the authority to exchange
settlement water for water from other sources. Once this exchange
occurs, is the federally reserved status of the water maintained?
Answer. The Settlement Act resolved the Federal reserved water
rights claims of the five Bands by directing the Secretary to acquire
and deliver 16,000 acre-feet of water imported annually to supplement
the waters under dispute in the basin. The Department takes the
position that this water is a trust asset to which the obligations of
the United States attach. The Congress further authorized specific and
limited authority for exchanges of the imported water for water from
other sources for use on the Bands' reservations. If the water provided
by the United States is exchanged consistent with the authority of the
statute for water from another source, the Department believes that the
trust asset character of the water can follow the exchange and be
applied to this new source and that the Bands' use of water from this
source could be protected as such.
FEE TO TRUST PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS
Question. One of the most common concerns I hear expressed by
tribes in California is the length of time it takes the Department to
make decisions on fee to trust applications.
In some cases I believe the Department acts responsibly in
conducting a deliberative process, especially when gaming is involved.
But in other cases, I believe the Department could and should move more
quickly. This will require a more open, transparent process, and better
communication with local interests.
How many trust applications are pending in California? How many are
for gaming?
Answer. California has 134 applications pending, of which 13 are
for gaming.
Question. What has been the average length of time it takes to
process a trust application for a California tribe in the last 10
years?
Answer. The time it takes complete an application varies depending
upon a number of factors, including the stated purpose of the
acquisition, comments from interested parties, environmental concerns,
and concerns stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v.
Salazar. Some applications can be completed in less than 2 years, while
others have taken up to 5 years.
Question. On average, how long does it take the Department to
notify the local interests of a new trust application in their area?
What steps are you taking to improve notifications?
Answer. On average, it takes the Department 6 months to notify the
local interests. Actions that have been taken to improve the
notification process include the development of a national policy
identifying timeframes associated with the process, revising the Fee-
to-Trust Handbook, implementing guidance to process mandatory
acquisitions, replacing the Fee-to-Trust tracking system with an
improved collaborative system, and developing performance measures for
senior executives to process applications.
Question. To what extent do gaming acquisitions slow the process of
trust land approvals in general?
Answer. Gaming applications require more work/information/approval
levels and require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
rather than an Environmental Assessment. The tribe must coordinate
processing with the State and local governments and applications
generally receive more scrutiny for compliance with NEPA, IGRA, and
applicable gaming and land acquisition regulations.
Question. Do the same staff analyze both gaming and nongaming
applications? Does this create a situation where nongaming trust
applications receive less staff time because of the more intensive
process required for gaming acquisitions?
Answer. Yes, staff does perform work on both gaming and nongaming
applications. The nongaming applications do compete for staff time as
the gaming acquisitions are labor intensive.
Question. Is it possible for a parcel taken into trust using the
nongaming procedure to ever be used for gaming activities?
Answer. Yes, in some circumstances. Section 20 of IGRA provides
that for lands that are within reservation boundaries or contiguous
thereto, BIA has the authority to take land into trust that can
subsequently be used by a tribe for gaming purposes. Requests for
gaming must still be approved using section 20 of IGRA, whether the
land is being taken into trust for that purpose or it is in existing
trust status.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Secretary Salazar, an important Interior Department tool
that Vermont and many other States, including New York, used during the
floods caused by Hurricane Irene were the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
river and lake gauges. These gauges helped our first responders save
lives and property by providing real-time information as the waters
rose. In addition, the gauges also provide a long-term value by helping
track changes in our rivers and lakes for ongoing water quality control
monitoring and improvements. Nonetheless the USGS has flagged 18 river
and lake gauges in the Champlain watershed of Vermont and New York to
be discontinued for lack of funding.
Do you agree with the assessment that the USGS river and lake
gauging network in the United States represents one of the greatest
return-on-investments of any dollar spent by your Department? Can you
tell me what is needed to avoid any further damage to this critical
network in Vermont and nationwide?
Answer. Yes, the USGS streamgaging network provides a great return
on the American taxpayer's dollar. Information on the flow of water in
America's rivers and streams is fundamental to national and local
economic well-being, the protection of life and property, and the
efficient and effective management of the Nation's water resources.
According to the National Research Council (2004), ``streamflow
information has many of the properties of a public good, because
everyone benefits whether they pay or not, and benefits to additional
users come at no additional cost.'' There are many uses of streamflow
information including:
--water resource appraisal and allocations;
--managing interstate agreements and court decrees;
--engineering design of bridges, culverts, and treatment facilities;
--the operation of reservoirs, powerplants, and locks and dams;
--evaluating changes in streamflow due to climate and land-use
change;
--flood forecasting (warning) and flood plain mapping (planning);
--support of water quality evaluations; and
--assessing in-stream conditions for habitat assessments and
recreational safety and enjoyment.
For many of the uses of streamflow information, it is difficult or
impossible to assign an economic benefit to the information, though in
many cases the benefits are evident. The National Weather Service (NWS)
is one agency that reports an economic benefit on the use of streamflow
data. NWS reports that over the last 30 years, there has been, on
average, 94 deaths and $7.8 billion in damages in personal and public
property per year due to flooding on the Nation's rivers. Without
streamflow information to calibrate and verify NWS forecast models, NWS
would be ``flying blind'' in making flood forecasts, implying that the
number of deaths and magnitude of loses to property would be much
higher.
Question. The National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), as
authorized in the SECURE Water Act of 2009, was designed to provide
stability to the national streamgage network by providing a federally
funded ``backbone'' network of streamgages to meet Federal needs for
streamflow information. This backbone is supplemented with streamgages
that are funded through partnerships to more fully meet State, tribal,
and local needs for streamflow information. The enacted funding level
for fiscal year 2012 for the NSIP is $29.4 million and the proposed
funding level for fiscal year 2013 is $32.5 million. This increase
during a time of fiscal constraints represents a commitment to
increasing funding for the Nation's streamgages and greater
implementation of the NSIP as described in the SECURE Water Act.
Has the Department's Climate Change Response Council, which you
chair, analyzed the impact of these gauge closures in the face of
potential climate change impacts which are likely to bring about new
and greater flood risks?
Answer. Yes, the Department takes the issue of climate change very
seriously with respect to water and other natural resources and
hazards.
The effects of climate change in any given area are often widely
debated. It is likely that certain areas of our Nation will be at
greater risk of floods, while other areas are at greater risk of
droughts, and some may see no change at all. Some of the first
scientific work demonstrating the occurrence and consequences of
climate change was produced through analysis of long-term streamflow
information. For example, it was demonstrated that in the Northeast,
river flows were getting higher earlier in the year as a consequence of
snow pack melting sooner, and late summer flows were getting lower,
while there was no discernible change in the average or peak flows. In
other areas, such as the Southwest, it appears that stream flows are
decreasing. Without an adequate number of streamgages located in
optimal locations and providing comparable high-quality data, it will
be increasingly difficult to detect and predict the consequences of
climate change on water supply and hydrologic extreme hazards.
Question. With regard to white nose syndrome (WNS), which is still
spreading across the country at a fast rate and has the potential to
cost our Nation's farmers and consumers billions of dollars, can you
tell me how the Department's request to reduce the Endangered Species
Recovery account by more than $1 million will impact the work being
done on white nose syndrome and other important endangered species
recovery work?
Answer. While our fiscal year 2013 budget request seeks a net
overall reduction of $1.59 million, the decreases are specifically
targeted at discontinuing the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program
and reducing funding for the State of the Birds activities in fiscal
year 2013 in order to fund higher-priority conservation activities
elsewhere in the budget request, such as the Cooperative Recovery
Initiative. Through the Cooperative Recovery Initiative, the Service is
requesting $5.35 million to support a cross-programmatic partnership
approach to complete planning, restoration, and management actions
addressing current threats to endangered species on and around National
Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the Service is continuing to place a
high priority on addressing white nose syndrome (WNS) and bat
conservation. In fiscal year 2012, the Service will allocate $995,000
in State and Tribal Wildlife Grants for WNS research and monitoring by
the States. In addition, $485,000 in Refuge Inventory and Monitoring is
estimated to be spent on work related to WNS monitoring and control on
Refuges. The total amount being spent by the Service in fiscal year
2012 for WNS research and response activities will be at least
$4,855,000. Additional funding may also come from Cooperative
Endangered Species Section 6 Grants or Adaptive Science competitive
grants, if projects addressing WNS are chosen to be funded.
Question. In August, you announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) would take full responsibility for sea lamprey control on
Lake Champlain. In this context, can you explain when we will see the
funding required to implement the program become a part of the
President's budget request so that your Department's commitment can be
entirely fulfilled?
Answer. FWS funds a wide array of aquatic invasive species control,
management, and prevention responsibilities across the country.
Protecting the health and vitality of Lake Champlain and the
significant fisheries resources, economic benefits, and jobs it
provides is a high priority for FWS. The fiscal year 2013 President's
budget includes $380,000 in base funding for Sea Lamprey in Region 5
which supports 3.5 FWS base-funded full-time equivalents (FTEs) and
four temporary/term FTEs based in the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Resources Office in Essex Junction, Vermont. Through a reimbursable
agreement, FWS currently works with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
which receives funding from the State Department, to administer the Sea
Lamprey control program.
Question. The White River National Fish Hatchery remains the best
cold water National Fish Hatchery in New England and the Northeast.
White River is the lynch-pin to Federal fishery restoration work from
Lake Ontario all the way to Maine, but it is currently out of
commission and requires approximately $5 million in repairs as a result
of damage caused by Hurricane Irene.
Can you confirm that repairs to the White River Hatchery will be a
priority? Are sufficient funds requested in your budget proposal, and
programmed, as needed, for the repairs to this hatchery to proceed
without delay?
Answer. The White River National Fish Hatchery sustained
approximately $5.2 million in damages resulting from Hurricane Irene.
Repairing the White River National Fish Hatchery will be among the
highest priorities for the Fisheries Program. Emergency clean-up
operations have already been completed. Additionally, the Northeast
Region immediately redirected approximately $620,000 in fiscal year
2011 deferred maintenance funding to initiate emergency mission-
critical repairs. The President's fiscal year 2013 proposed budget
includes $1.9 million to reconstruct the water infiltration gallery and
to demolish and reconstruct the fish-tagging building. Upon completion
of the aforementioned projects, 100 percent of fish-rearing capacity
and operational capacity will be restored. An additional $2.6 million
in damages to critical support infrastructure (e.g. roads, septic
systems, etc.) will remain, which will need to be addressed through the
application of annual deferred maintenance funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. As you know, both the EROS Data Center, located in my
home State, and the Landsat series of satellites are very important
resources, not only for South Dakota, but for our entire Nation and the
international community. Lead time is required for developing these
satellites, and it's important that we look now at how to proceed
beyond Landsat 8, which is scheduled for launch next year. The budget
request excludes funding for Landsat 9 mission development, which is
very concerning to me. How does the United States Geographical Survey
(USGS) envision the program to function beyond Landsat 8, and what
coordination activities are currently underway with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other agencies in
examining how to continue the Landsat missions program and ensure
mission continuity?
Answer. USGS received $2 million in the 2012 omnibus appropriations
bill to support program development activities for Landsat satellites 9
and 10. In fiscal year 2012, these funds are being used to consider
options to obtain, characterize, manage, maintain, and prioritize land
remote sensing data and to support the evaluation of alternatives for a
Landsat 9 mission and other means for acquiring data. The fiscal year
2013 budget request includes $250,000 to continue these efforts.
USGS is working closely with the Landsat user community, the
Department of the Interior, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and NASA to identify and consider all available
options for maintaining the continuity of moderate-resolution land
observation data for the Nation. USGS recently posted a Request for
Information to solicit information and options for providing a
dependable, long-term source for Landsat-like data to follow Landsat 8.
Mission concepts may include revolutionary ``clean-slate'' technical
approaches, as well as evolutionary upgrade approaches. Approaches may
involve single- or multiple-satellite acquisitions, commercial data buy
arrangements, public/private partnerships, hosted payloads,
international collaboration, small satellites, or architectures
utilizing combinations of space-based sensors. USGS is also supporting
a National Research Council study on programmatic and operational
alternatives for establishing a long-term source of Landsat-like data
for the Nation. These efforts include a ``Meeting of Experts'' to
examine the feasibility of new and emerging technology that might be
applicable for sustaining global land observations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
Question. Secretary Salazar, could you provide an update on the
Platte River Recovery Program?
As you know, Platte River Recovery Implementation is a basin-wide
effort undertaken by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in
partnership with the States of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming to
provide benefits for endangered and threatened species.
I know you've included $8 million for implementation in your
request which I appreciate.
I was serving as Governor in 1997 when Nebraska entered into the
Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Recovery Implementation. A
little more than a decade later we were able to successfully authorize
implementation as part of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act signed
into law in 2008.
I believe the first increment of the program is to last a bit over
a decade--wrapping up in 2019. What's the Department's assessment so
far? What progress are we making and are we on the right track?
Answer. The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program)
continues to be a highly successful collaborative process, and also
continues to receive broad support from water users, environmental and
conservation entities, the States of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming,
as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR).
The Program has made significant and steady progress during the
first 6 years of the 13-year First Increment. The most recent Program
success has been the completion of the Pathfinder Modification Project,
which was declared substantially complete on January 11, 2012. The
Pathfinder Modification Project raised the spillway at Pathfinder Dam
(a BOR facility) by approximately 2.4 feet in order to recover storage
space in Pathfinder Reservoir which had been lost to sedimentation. The
Pathfinder Modification Project is a contribution to the Program by the
State of Wyoming, and no Federal appropriations were required to modify
the spillway at Pathfinder Dam. The Pathfinder Modification Project's
Environmental Account in Pathfinder Reservoir will provide up to
approximately 34,000 acre-feet (AF) of water for the benefit of the
Program's target species.
The Program will implement the Land Plan in order to protect, and
where appropriate, restore 10,000 acres of habitat by no later than the
end of the First Increment. To date, the Program has acquired an
interest in approximately 9,150 acres of land for habitat purposes,
leaving approximately 850 acres left to acquire by the end of the First
Increment.
The Program will implement water projects under the Water Action
Plan capable of providing at least an average of 50,000 AF per year of
shortage reduction to target flows, or for other Program purposes, by
no later than the end of the First Increment. The Program, through an
agreement with the State of Wyoming, has acquired 4,800 AF of water per
year from the Wyoming Account in Pathfinder Reservoir through the
remainder of the First Increment; however, the Program and the State
are still in the process of determining the final yield of the 4,800 AF
for the benefit of the target species at the associated habitat. The
Program is also currently negotiating a water service agreement with
the State of Nebraska (Nebraska) and the Central Nebraska Public Power
& Irrigation District (CNPPID) to acquire water from the proposed J-2
Project. The J-2 Project, if constructed, could have the ability to
retime approximately 40,000 AF of excess flows for the benefit of the
target species. Under the proposed agreement, the 40,000 AF would be
shared 25 percent (approximately 10,000 AF) for Nebraska and 75 percent
(approximately 30,000 AF) for the Program. This agreement is a vital
aspect of achieving the Program's Milestone of providing at least an
average of 50,000 AF per year of shortage reduction to target flows.
The Program continues to be successful, and many of the Program's
Milestones have been achieved. The implementation of the Program and
the achievement of the Milestones provides measures to help recover the
four target species, which in turn provides critical Endangered Species
Act (ESA) compliance for the continued operation of existing water
projects in the Platte River Basin. The Program also provides ESA
compliance for the development of certain new water projects within the
Platte River Basin.
Due to the amount of land that the Program has acquired an interest
in, it is very likely that the Program will achieve the Land Milestone
of 10,000 acres by the end of the First Increment. The one remaining
major Program Milestone to be achieved by the end of the First
Increment is developing water projects capable of providing at least an
average of 50,000 AF per year of annual shortage reduction to target
flows. Significant funding from DOI will need to be contributed to the
Program over the remaining years of the First Increment for the
development of these water projects, including the aforementioned water
service agreement with Nebraska and CNPPID. Adequate funding in the
future for this project and other water projects will be critical in
order to achieve the Program's Water Milestone by the end of the First
Increment.
Question. I am regularly reminded by Nebraska constituents that
additional wind power development will require new investments in the
transmission system along with more efficient and flexible operation of
the grid. I would appreciate your thoughts on ways the Federal
Government may assist in expanding and improving the transmission
system.
Answer. Transmission remains one of the largest barriers to the
development of renewable energy potential in this country. This
administration is taking steps to improve coordination and streamline
processing of Federal permits through interagency agreements to
expedite and simplify permitting on Federal lands. In addition, in
2009, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest
Service (USFS), the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy
issued a final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that
evaluated issues associated with the designation of energy corridors on
Federal lands in 11 Western States. Using this information, the BLM
designated transmission corridors on BLM lands by amending 92 land-use
plans in the Western States. Designation of corridors provides
preferred locations for developers to site major linear facilities
(such as transmission lines) and specifically identifies lands that are
available for that purpose.
BLM will continue to actively coordinate with the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council to ensure their transmission planning
and grid reliability initiatives are in harmony with BLM initiatives
related to land-use planning, designation of utility corridors, policy
development, and timely review and permitting of high-voltage
transmission lines.
BLM's 2009 transmission corridor designations were limited to BLM-
managed lands. BLM manages only 6,354 acres in Nebraska so it was not
practical to designate any corridors in that State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. I see that inspection fees for offshore oil and gas
facilities are being increased from $62 to $65 million. Will this money
be used to provide more personnel for inspections, in order to relieve
delays? If it is not being used to alleviate delays, what will this
increased fee be directed toward?
Answer. The amount of individual inspection fees has not changed.
The $3 million increase in inspection fee collections is the result of
differences in assumptions about the timing of fee collections, not an
increase in the fees themselves. In fiscal year 2012, inspection fees
were assessed for the inspection of drilling rigs for the first time.
The revenue from monthly drilling rig inspections that occur in the
last quarter of the fiscal year may not be received until the following
fiscal year. In fiscal year 2013, actual receipts will include fees
from inspections in the final quarter of fiscal year 2012 and the
Bureau will therefore receive a full year of inspection fee revenue. It
is also important to remember that these are estimates and that actual
fee collections will vary depending on changes in the number of
applicable Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) operations in a given year.
All fee revenue will be used to address important mission-related
priorities. As required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012,
not less than 50 percent of the inspection fees collected by the bureau
will be used to fund personnel and mission-related costs to expand
capacity and expedite the orderly development, subject to environmental
safeguards, of the OCS pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, including the review of applications for permits to drill.
Question. With industry still struggling with slow permitting and
delays in the permit submission process, and in light of the
President's stated desire to increase domestic production, what efforts
are you making to fix the problems with the permit process?
Answer. Respectfully, the Department does not agree that the
industry is struggling with slow permitting and delays in the permit
submission process. As of May 4, 2012, the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) approved 128 new shallow water
permits, 412 deepwater permits requiring subsea containment, and 66
deepwater permits not requiring subsea containment.
BSEE has worked very hard to help industry better understand the
permitting requirements and improve the efficiency of the application
process. Among the steps taken to improve the process, BSEE has:
--Held permit processing workshops for industry, including one in
April 2012, which has improved the quality and thoroughness of
applications;
--Published a permit application completeness checklist to make it
clear to industry what information is required, and to reduce
the frequency with which operators submit incomplete
applications;
--Established priorities for reviewing permit applications--assigning
the highest priority to permits for ongoing operations or
emergency operations;
--Begun to balance workloads for its engineers by taking some permit
applications and reassigning them to different districts;
--Allowed authorized users of BSEE's online permit application system
to track the status of their applications, which provides
operators with greater transparency in the permitting process.
As a result of these steps and the industry's increasing
familiarity with the process, permit review times have decreased
significantly in the past year.
Question. In light of the fact that production on public lands and
waters have decreased and with Federal OCS production dropping 441
million barrels in 2011, down from 588 million in 2010. What is being
done to increase the speed at which permits are reviewed and approved?
Would it be wiser to direct more of the money allocated to Bureau of
Energy Management (BOEM) and BSEE to hire more staff to review permit
applications?
Answer. With respect to production from the Federal OCS, the data
you reference is incomplete. Production data is not required to be
submitted by operators until 45 days after the end of the month of
production, so the spreadsheet on BSEE's Web site presenting production
figures as of January 25, 2012, is missing nearly all the production
from December 2011. Furthermore, production is not included in that
spreadsheet until after the reported production volumes are verified,
which can take several months. The final production numbers for 2011
will be substantially higher than the values you reference.
BSEE intends to hire significantly more personnel with the funding
provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2012, including a significant
number dedicated to reviewing permits. The hiring and training process
takes time, and it will be several years before engineers hired this
year are fully trained to evaluate the breadth of issues required as
part of the full permitting process. However, BSEE is committed to
continuously monitoring and improving its permitting process, while
conducting thorough reviews to ensure that all safety requirements are
met. In the meantime, as indicated by the permit information available
on BSEE's Web site, the Bureau is successfully reviewing permit
applications and doing so in a timely fashion.
Question. I see that a fee of $4 per acre is being proposed on
nonproducing, but leased, Federal lands. I am curious why this fee is
being proposed, when it would appear that the greatest impediment to
production on these lands is the slow pace of permitting. What was the
rationale behind this fee?
Answer. The administration believes this legislative proposal will
encourage energy production on lands and waters leased for development.
A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing Federal leases would provide a
financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either get their
leases into production or relinquish them so that the tracts can be
leased to and developed by new parties. The proposed $4 per-acre fee
would apply to all new leases and would be adjusted for inflation
annually. In October 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report critical of past efforts by the Department of the
Interior to ensure that companies diligently develop their Federal
leases. This proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee proposals
considered by the Congress in the last several years and this fee is
projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13 million in
2013 and $783 million over 10 years.
WILD HORSES
Question. Mr. Secretary, since passage of the Wild Free- Roaming
Horse and Burro Act of 1971, more than 20 million acres of wild horse
habitat has been removed from Herd Management Areas. At least 5 million
of those acres could be suitable for reintroduction of wild horses.
When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is spending more than $40
million per year on wild horse and burro holding costs and continues to
remove almost twice as many animals as it can reasonably adopt each
year, why hasn't the BLM re-evaluated those 20 million acres and
seriously considered reintroducing horses and burros to those areas?
Answer. No specific amount of acreage was set aside for the
exclusive use of wild horses and burros under the 1971 Wild Free-
Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The Act directed the BLM to determine
the areas where horses and burros were found roaming, and then to
consider managing the animals within the boundaries of those areas. Of
the 22.2 million acres no longer managed for wild horse and burro use,
6.7 million acres were never under BLM management. There are a number
of reasons why the BLM has not considered reintroducing wild horses and
burros to the remaining acres. These reasons include:
--48.6 percent (7,522,100 acres) are intermingled (``checkerboard'')
land ownerships or areas where water was not owned or
controlled by the BLM, which made management of wild horses
infeasible;
--13.5 percent (2,091,709 acres) are lands transferred out of the
BLM's ownership to other agencies, both Federal and State,
through legislation or exchange;
--10.6 percent (1,645,758 acres) are lands where there were
substantial conflicts with other resource values;
--9.7 percent (1,512,179 acres) are lands removed from wild horse and
burro use through court decisions, urban expansion, highway
fencing (causing habitat fragmentation), and land withdrawals;
--9.6 percent (1,485,068 acres) are lands where no BLM animals were
present at the time of the passage of the 1971 Act or places
where all animals were claimed as private property. (These
lands should not have been designated as lands where herds were
found roaming and will be removed from the totals in future
land use plans.); and
--8 percent (1,240,894 acres) are lands where a critical habitat
component (such as winter range) was missing, making the land
unsuitable for wild horse and burro use, or areas that had too
few animals to allow for effective management.
Question. Equine geneticists have concluded that a minimum wild
horse herd size to sustain genetic viability is 150-200 adult animals.
Most wild horse herds are less than this minimum level. The BLM budget
request includes an additional $2 million with your stated goal of
maintaining herd health. Can you provide more information about how BLM
intends to address herd health and viability considering herd
populations are lower than recommended by experts?
Answer. The proposed number of animals (150-200) in a genetically
viable wild horse herd is a size that is estimated by some to minimize
genetic loss. Genetic diversity is lost through time in any isolated
population of animals, but is slower in larger populations.
Although some of the herds on BLM lands are smaller than this
recommended size, there are other factors that make these herds
genetically viable. Herds that are associated with or border other
herds experience the exchange of genetic material. Many BLM herds fall
into this category. A small amount of exchange (through a few
individuals) can have a large impact on overall genetic diversity. The
exchange of individuals through management intervention is also
possible should the need arise.
During gather operations, the BLM frequently collects hair samples
from individuals in a herd for genetic testing. The geneticist who does
the testing provides BLM with a report evaluating the level of genetic
diversity and recommending actions that BLM should take, if any,
including when additional genetic monitoring should be conducted. For
instance, should a herd genetics report indicate low genetic diversity,
the BLM can adjust the herd composition by removing and relocating some
of the brothers and/or sisters (genetic redundancy likely to cause
genetic malformities) to keep them from breeding. Depending on herd
population size relevant to appropriate management level within the
herd management area, the BLM may also bring in horses with other
genetics from similar herds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--BACKGROUND
Question. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently denied
plans for a 48 turbine wind farm because of concerns about the impact
on birds, bats, and bald eagles. According to the American Bird
Conservancy, this project was the first ever wind farm project to apply
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for a ``taking'' permit for
bald eagles. Thankfully, there is growing awareness that wind turbines
kill not just migratory birds and bats, but also bald eagles.
If the Department moves forward with plans to allow construction of
wind farms on public land, how do you plan to address this problem?
Answer. FWS has promulgated a regulation at 50 CFR 22.26 (the Eagle
Take Regulation) under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that
authorizes issuance of programmatic eagle take permits to
unintentionally take golden eagles, bald eagles, or both, at sites such
as wind facilities. However, the permits will be issued only if FWS
determines that any take is compatible with the preservation standard
for eagles set in the Act by Congress.
FWS established an approach to ensure that permitted take meets the
preservation standard in our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis for the Eagle Take Rule. Further, FWS has developed Eagle
Conservation Plan Guidance that provides recommendations for wind
developers on how to reduce impacts to eagles by using robust survey
techniques to select project sites, establishing appropriate monitoring
of eagle use areas, employing adaptive management measures, and if
necessary, offsetting impacts to eagles through compensatory
mitigation. FWS believes that using the Guidance and working with the
Service will reduce likely eagle take by wind energy projects to levels
compatible with the preservation standard for eagles set in the Act by
Congress.
Additionally, FWS is developing training on how to evaluate wind
projects in light of FWS guidance and regulations. The training will
initially be targeted at Service staff, but the FWS plans to expand the
training and make it available to industry in the near future. The
draft training outline was provided to private stakeholders for comment
in an effort to ensure it will meet industry's needs.
Question. Will wind farm projects be expected to apply for a permit
to kill bald eagles?
Answer. Take of a bald eagle or a golden eagle without a permit is
a violation of the Act. FWS's Guidance relative to Eagle Take Permits
applies to both species. The Guidance encourages a wind project
developer at a site at which take of bald eagles is predicted to seek
an Eagle Take Permit.
Question. Will wind farm projects be required to submit mitigation
plans to make up for the killing of bald eagles?
Answer. Any wind energy facility that receives a permit from FWS
will be required to work through the mitigation hierarchy as defined
under the FWS's Mitigation Policy. Avoidance and minimization are the
essential components of the Mitigation Policy, while compensatory
mitigation may be appropriate if avoidance and minimization cannot
reduce take to acceptable levels. In order to qualify for a permit, the
new regulations require applicants to demonstrate that they have
avoided and minimized take of eagles to the maximum degree achievable.
In many areas of the country, FWS has determined that some take of bald
eagles can be authorized without risk of violating the preservation
standard set by the Congress. In these locations, additional
compensatory mitigation for take is not mandatory, but in other
locations compensatory mitigation may be required to qualify for an
eagle take permit.
Question. What about other species that might be endangered or
threatened?
Answer. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the take
(which includes killing) of endangered wildlife and that prohibition is
generally extended by regulation to threatened wildlife. Wind farm
projects that are expected to take listed wildlife species would
therefore need to receive an authorization to take listed species.
Information regarding these procedures may be found in Appendix 5
``Procedures for Endangered Species Evaluations and Consultations'' in
the 2003 ``Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts from Wind Turbines.''
Additional information regarding Consultations and Habitat
Conservation Plans may be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
what-we-do/consultations-overview.html and http://www.fws.gov/
endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html respectively.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--BACKGROUND
Question. Tennessee is home to two very important mitigation fish
hatcheries, the Erwin National Fish Hatchery in Erwin, Tennessee and
the Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery in Celina, Tennessee. The Erwin
hatchery provides eggs for hatcheries all across the country, and the
Dale Hollow hatchery produces 60 percent of all the trout stocked in
Tennessee.
The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to cut
$3.2 million from the mitigation hatcheries, and Ed Carter, director of
the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, has said that if these
hatcheries close the impact on Tennessee will be devastating.
Will the Department work with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and
other Federal agencies to continue to fund mitigation hatcheries and
ensure that these critical hatcheries will not be closed until a
funding solution is in place?
Has the Department considered the economic benefits of maintaining
the fish hatcheries?
Answer. FWS's mission-driven priority is to protect and restore
native fish species and habitat. At a time when budgets are tight and
available resources limited, we need to focus our resources on these
high-priority outcomes. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
proposal would move nonreimbursed mitigation activities toward a user-
pay system, similar to the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
proposal. This approach puts all of the mitigation hatcheries on the
same footing, and represents a more efficient use of Federal funds.
Federal water development agencies are the appropriate entities for
mitigating the adverse effects of the projects they operate and the
impact of those projects on recreational fisheries. The Department is
aware of the significant economic benefits of fish hatcheries and will
continue to work with COE, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other
Federal agencies to receive full reimbursement for mitigation
activities. We understand that the fish supplied by these hatcheries
provide important economic opportunities to States and recreational
community, and we support the continuation of mitigation work. Our goal
is to keep our mitigation fish hatcheries open, and to continue to
provide fish as we have in the past in the most efficient and effective
way possible. However, the Service's policy is to move toward a user-
pay system.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS--BACKGROUND
Question. Tennessee experienced record flooding in Nashville and
middle Tennessee in May 2010 and in Memphis and west Tennessee in 2011.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) played a critical role in these
flooding events, and it is welcome news that the Department is
requesting increased funding for USGS to prepare for future disasters.
USGS has doubled the number of monitoring stations in the Nashville
area, and is working closely with local government and other Federal
agencies to ensure the right information gets to emergency managers as
quickly as possible. Other communities in Tennessee, including
Chattanooga and Memphis, hope to work with USGS to improve their flood
management as well.
Question. Could you tell us how the Department plans to use the
additional funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget for the National
Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) provides funds to be invested in
activities that will help protect life and property from hydrologic
hazards, including flooding. These activities include developing and
producing streamgages that can be rapidly, but temporarily, deployed to
locations that are currently or forecast to be in flood or drought
conditions to provide streamflow information over a broader area. This
information would be used by forecasters, flood-management agencies,
and first responders, who must make decisions regarding flood-fighting
and evacuation, and would provide a better understanding of hydrologic
extremes. The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget also provides for
activities related to producing flood inundation maps. These maps show
the extent and depth of flood waters for streams at USGS streamgages
that serve as National Weather Service flood-forecast locations. The
maps will assist home owners, business owners, and first responders to
anticipate and respond to flooding. Since the recent flooding in the
Nashville area, the USGS has been involved in a cooperatively funded
pilot project that developed more than 1,000 flood inundation maps for
that community.
Question. Will funds be available for additional monitoring
stations?
Answer. The proposed NSIP budget for 2013 provides funds for
ecosystem restoration activities in the upper Mississippi and Columbia
River basins that likely will include providing streamflow information
for use in the design and implementation of techniques and processes to
restore ecosystems to more natural conditions.
In addition to these activities the 2013 request includes funding
for the operation and maintenance of about 100 streamgages, which are
part of the Federal backbone needed for flood forecasting. Many
streamgages are currently funded through the Cooperative Water Program
(CWP). Reductions in the budget of the CWP could lead to a net loss of
270 to 300 streamgages nationwide. Proposed funding increases in the
budget for NSIP will help to bring more stable funding to those 100
streamgages.
Question. What steps will the Department be taking to address
earthquake hazards along the New Madrid fault, which impacts Memphis
and west Tennessee?
Answer. USGS supports a seismographic network in the New Madrid
seismic zone in cooperation with the University of Memphis and Saint
Louis University. The location, depth, time, and felt area of all
earthquakes in the region above approximately magnitude 1.7 are
automatically posted to a public USGS Web site in near real time. The
USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps depict the regional elevated hazard
in the region. More detailed earthquake hazard maps are currently
available for the urban areas of Memphis, Tennessee, and Evansville,
Indiana and a map of the St. Louis metropolitan area is nearing
completion. These maps show the amplification of seismic shaking caused
by local geologic deposits. Data from a network of geodetic stations
supported by the USGS shows that there is small but significant slow
ground deformation in the region capable of producing damaging
earthquakes.
OIL AND GAS LEASE REVENUES--BACKGROUND
Question. In 2011, the Department generated $11.3 billion from
energy production on Federal lands--a $2 billion increase more than
2010. Since 2008 oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf has
increased by 30 percent. Despite this progress, gas prices are on the
rise and domestic production is not keeping up.
What steps are being taken to expand oil and gas leases on public
land?
What impact will the Department's proposal to impose new inspection
fees and raise other collection fees have on oil and gas production?
Answer. Facilitating the efficient, responsible development of
domestic oil and gas resources is part of the administration's broad
energy strategy that will protect consumers and help reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
working on a variety of fronts to ensure that development is done
efficiently and responsibly including implementing leasing reforms;
increasing leasing opportunities in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska (NPR-A); adopting new processes to process drilling permits more
quickly; and improving inspection, enforcement, and production
accountability. BLM can only speculate as to why the operators have not
produced more on Federal Lands. Oil and gas drilling and development
are market-driven activities, and the demand for leases is a function
of market conditions. Market drivers include prevailing and anticipated
oil and gas prices, bidder assessments of the quality of the resource
base in a given area, the availability/proximity of necessary
infrastructure, and the proximity of the lease to local, regional, and
national markets and export hubs. The shale formations that currently
have high industry interest for development, such as North Dakota's
Bakken shale, Texas's Eagle Ford shale, and the Marcellus and Utica
shales of the Eastern United States, are primarily in areas with a high
proportion of non-Federal land. These areas have seen increased
development recently due to a favorable mix of the factors noted above.
As drilling priorities shift due to changes in technology or markets,
an operator may choose different areas for development. Further, BLM
lands are primarily gas-prone. Recent national rig counts (by Baker
Hughes) indicate that rigs drilling for gas are at an ``all-time low''
(by percentage) and the gas is selling at ``a record discount to
crude.'' (Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2012).
Approximately 38 million acres of Federal land are leased for oil
and gas development. Not all leases have equal production potential,
and not all leases have optimal transmission capacity where the oil or
gas is being extracted. Approximately 12 million acres are producing
oil and gas, and active exploration is occurring on an additional 4
million acres. We are encouraged by increasing production on Federal
leases. BLM, specifically, has approved approximately 7,000
applications for permit to drill that are not being used by industry.
The proposed new inspection and enforcement fee is consistent with
the principle that users of the public lands should pay for the cost of
both authorizing and oversight activities. These fees are similar to
fees now charged for offshore inspections, and to numerous cost-
recovery fees charged for other uses of Federal lands and resources.
WHITE NOSE SYNDROME--BACKGROUND
Question. In May 2011, FWS unveiled a national plan to address the
growing threat posed by white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has killed
more than 5 million bats since it was discovered in 2006. Since then,
the fungus has spread throughout the bat population and is now reported
in 18 States and Canada, including Tennessee. In 2010, Austin Peay
State University's Center of Excellence for Field Biology was tasked by
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to monitor WNS at Land Between the
Lakes, and the Center is currently engaged in a number of research
efforts to combat this disease.
The Department has invested millions to support monitoring,
research, and the development of protocols to reduce transmission.
However, most of this funding has been targeted for northeastern States
where the WNS was first discovered, but funding is not making it to the
States and universities in the South, where WNS is rapidly expanding.
Question. What is the Department doing to help wildlife researchers
in States like Tennessee to reduce the spread of WNS?
Answer. WNS is a disease associated with massive bat mortality in
the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States. Affected hibernating
bats often have white fungal growth on their muzzles, ears, and/or wing
membranes as the result of infection by a newly described species of
fungus (Geomyces destructans), which causes skin erosions and ulcers
and can invade underlying connective tissue. There is no clear
indication of any natural resistance to WNS in the affected bat
populations.
Since first observed at four bat hibernacula (hibernation areas) in
New York in winter 2006-2007, WNS has been detected in 16 States and
four Canadian Provinces. The most recent surveys of hibernacula near
the epicenter of the outbreak show that since 2007, mortality is
approaching 100 percent at some sites. Six cave-hibernating bat
species, including four federally listed species, are directly affected
or at risk from WNS. The fungus causing WNS is responsible for the
death of more than 6 million bats.
During the winter of 2011-2012, USGS conducted video-monitoring of
bats in caves and mines in New York and Tennessee to test whether
fungal skin infection triggers unsustainable energy-consuming behaviors
during hibernation. USGS is working with USFS to conduct detailed
characterizations of fungi associated with bat hibernation sites to
better understand the microbial ecology of WNS.
For fiscal year 2012, USGS has allocated $692,882 for WNS research
studies. Modeling software is being developed by USGS that will help
forecast the consequences of alternative actions for the persistence
and recovery of bats. The USGS fiscal year 2013 budget includes a $1
million increase that would be used to enhance surveillance and
diagnostic capability to detect the continued spread of WNS; bolster
research on environmental factors controlling persistence of the fungus
in the environment; develop management tools, particularly the
development of a vaccine; and conduct research on mechanisms by which
WNS causes mortality in bats, focused on immunology and pathogenesis.
In fiscal year 2012, the Congress directed FWS to spend $4 million
from endangered species recovery funding to combat WNS. FWS has
proposed to reprogram $625,000 of this funding to other critical
endangered species recovery actions, and to utilize funding from the
State and Tribal Wildlife grant program and from the National Wildlife
Refuge program for WNS. Under this proposal FWS will dedicate a minimum
of $4,855,000 for WNS efforts in 2012. The fiscal year 2013 FWS budget
includes $1.9 million (not including any competitive grants that may be
awarded) for work on WNS, including $995,470 to continue funding WNS
coordinator positions, and $901,530 to fund critical WNS research.
WNS continues to spread and is projected to appear in the highly
dense and diverse bat populations in additional Southern and Midwestern
States in the very near future. Predictions for spread to western
States and the affect of WNS on bats there is less certain.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--MAINTENANCE BACKLOG--BACKGROUND
Question. The National Park Service (NPS) budget request for fiscal
year 2013 is $2.6 billion, $1 million less than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. Within this amount, the Department seeks to increase
park operations funding by $13.5 million, but proposes to reduce line
item construction funding by $25.3 million and funding for National
Heritage Areas program by $7.8 million.
Question. National parks are already underfunded by $600 million
each year. What progress is being made to address this issue?
Answer. NPS does not quantify shortfalls in park operations.
Funding for the main operating account of the NPS has stayed fairly
level in nominal dollars since 2010, but there have been unavoidable
cost increases in recent years due to inflation, rise in nonpersonnel
fixed costs, and the added responsibility for five new parks. NPS is
focusing funding on programs that are most central to the NPS mission,
implementing management efficiencies, and undertaking administrative
cost savings to optimize the use of appropriated dollars.
Question. What is being done to address the deferred maintenance
backlog and how long can we continue to ignore the problems facing our
national parks?
Answer. The current backlog of deferred maintenance (DM) associated
with NPS constructed asset components considered critical to their
function, such as roofs, foundations, road surfaces, etc., is
approximately $4.1 billion. The fiscal year 2013 budget request
maintains funding for operational DM at fiscal year 2012 levels. The
request includes $71 million for the highest-priority DM repair and
rehabilitation projects and $96.4 million to prevent additions to the
DM backlog through cyclic maintenance projects. The line-item
construction proposal funds the highest-priority construction projects
to address critical life safety, resource protection, and emergency
needs and does not add any new assets to the NPS asset portfolio. These
projects address long-standing DM needs.
federal interagency council on outdoor recreation--background
Question. According to Tennessee's Commissioner of Tourism, Susan
Whitaker, tourism has a $13 billion impact on Tennessee. Tourism
supports a lot of jobs in Tennessee, and since the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park is our Nation's most visited national park, the
new Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation is welcome news.
It is very encouraging to see the Department of the Interior
working with the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture to boost
tourism and outdoor recreation, but one of the biggest challenges our
international visitors face is getting a visa. If it takes months to
get a visa to come to the United States and only 1 week to get a visa
to go somewhere else, people will go somewhere else.
Is the Department working with the State Department to decrease the
amount of time international visitors have to wait before they can come
visit our national parks?
Answer. In the same Executive order that established the Task Force
on Travel and Competitiveness (which is co-chaired by the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce), the President directed the
Department of State in conjunction with other agencies and White House
offices to take actions to enhance and expedite travel to and arrival
in the United States by foreign nationals, consistent with national
security requirements.
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is the flagship of our national
tourism strategy. More than 60 percent of all travelers to the United
States come under the VWP, generating more than $60 billion in annual
tourism revenue and representing about 60 percent of all tourism-
related expenditures in the United States from overseas travelers.
While VWP remains the largest travel facilitation program, the Obama
administration is also committed to easing travel for the approximately
35 percent of international travelers who currently require visas and
border crossing cards to enter the United States. Building on the
progress made over the past several years and in response to the
President's Executive order, the Obama administration is facilitating
legitimate travel to America while maintaining security by:
Tracking the Increasing Arrivals.--The Department of Homeland
Security continues to monitor the number of arriving travelers.
Comparing the first 6 months of fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year
2011, arrivals of travelers using VWP have increased by 8
percent and arrivals of travelers from China and Brazil have
increased by 33 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Total
nonimmigrant admissions, travelers not including U.S. citizens
and returning residents, have increased by 4.5 percent.
Shortening Visa Interview Wait Times.--Around the world, wait
times for visa interviews are generally short, and have dropped
dramatically in some of the busiest travel markets where demand
for visas has increased. Now, travelers wait just 2 days for an
appointment at United States consulates in China, 2 weeks or
less in Brasilia, Recife, and Rio de Janeiro, and 35 days or
less in Sao Paulo. In anticipation of the summer travel season,
the Department of State is adding staff and streamlining its
operations to continue to reduce wait times.
Streamlining the Visa Process.--Tens of thousands of travelers
want to visit the United States, and a new pilot program is now
underway to streamline processing will help facilitate the
demand by freeing up more interview slots for first-time
applicants. Consular officers may waive in-person interviews
for certain low-risk, qualified individuals, such as those
renewing their visas within 48 months of the expiration of
their previous visas. Consular officers may also waive
interviews for Brazilian applicants younger than the age of 16
and age 66 and older, but retain the authority to interview any
applicant in any category if security or other concerns are
present.
Building Capacity in China and Brazil To Meet Demand.--The
Department of State is doubling the number of diplomats
performing consular work in China and Brazil over the next year
and is investing approximately $40 million in 2012 on existing
facilities in Brazil and $18 million in China--adding interview
windows, expanding consular office space, and improving waiting
areas. On April 9, President Obama announced that the United
States will establish consulates in Belo Horizonte and Porto
Alegre, Brazil, while major expansion projects are underway in
China.
Increasing Consular Staffing and Implementing Innovative Hiring
Programs.--To address immediate growth in demand, the
Department of State is sending consular officers from all over
the world to Brazil and China to adjudicate visa applications.
The Department of State is doubling the number of diplomats
performing consular work in China and Brazil over the next
year, to ensure that the United States can continue to offer
timely visa services to qualified applicants. Similarly, the
first group of newly hired consular adjudicators recently
arrived at United States consulates in Brazil and China. These
adjudicators were hired under a landmark program targeting
recruits who already speak Portuguese or Mandarin.
Additionally, Interior agencies have made it easier for more
partners to become third-party vendors of the ``America the Beautiful''
$80 pass which provides visitor access, including international
visitors, to hundreds of public lands destinations nationwide. They are
actively reaching out and encouraging partners to both sell the pass
online, at trade shows, and in other tourism venues as well as to
develop promotions for buying and using the pass. The goal is to
increase sales to both Americans and international visitors, who will
then have an incentive to visit more destinations and lesser known
locations, and to extend their stays.
Question. How has COE worked with the Department to support the
outdoor recreation initiatives promoted by the interagency council?
Answer. Through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, seven
agencies were identified for inclusion in the Federal Interagency
Council on Outdoor Recreation including:
--COE;
--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Commerce);
--USFS (Agriculture);
--NPS;
--FWS;
--Bureau of Reclamation; and
--BLM (Interior) to coordinate Federal land and water recreation
management efforts.
The Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) has
worked closely with existing Federal Advisory Committee Act bodies that
support recreational activities, including the Wildlife and Hunting
Heritage Conservation Council, the 21st Century Conservation Service
Corps Committee, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, the
First Lady's Let's Move! Initiative, and the President's Council on
Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition to promote better integration and
coordination among the Federal agencies in support of providing outdoor
recreation opportunities for Americans. FICOR has identified two high-
priority actions, including support for the National Travel and Tourism
Strategy to promote domestic and international tourism on Federal lands
and waters, and enhancements to the Federal Interagency Recreation Web
site--recreation.gov.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. States have complained that the length of the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) grant approval process is too long and
cumbersome. For years I have relayed the frustration Mississippi
coastal communities have experienced with this program. Last year, the
administration transferred management to the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) stating that this would lead to a more efficient process and
expeditious delivery of funds. Can you please provide details on the
progress being made in addressing these concerns?
Answer. To address these concerns, FWS began meeting with all of
the affected States starting in May 2011, to discuss the issues and
develop a transition plan to minimize the impact on States and Coastal
Political Subdivision (CPS) operations. As a result of these
discussions, on October 1, 2011, FWS began to encourage submission of
CIAP applications and the obligation of funds. We centralized the grant
administration into the Washington office and hired and trained a
professional grants management team to review and award grants.
Additionally, we have added a technical guidance function in each of
the States to provide a State liaison to work closely with the
recipients of CIAP funds. Five of the six States presently have a State
liaison, with the sixth in the process of being hired. The State
liaisons in the four gulf States are co-located with State staffs. In
California and Alaska, the liaisons are located in local FWS offices in
Sacramento and Anchorage, respectively, to encourage communication and
expeditious handling of technical questions on planning and proposed
project issues. The Washington office staff is responsible for the
technical review, including programmatic and financial aspects that are
integral to the grant award process. The State liaisons are working
with the recipients in the pre-award phase to guide the planning
process, develop project proposals and to help improve the quality of
initial grant application submissions to alleviate the time consuming
process of supplemental information requests during review.
In addition, we have held a national webinar and two national
teleconferences with CIAP applicants. We have completed a CIAP training
session in Alaska and are in the process of scheduling training
workshops for States and CPSs for better CIAP grants management. We
expect to hold these workshops April through August 2012 in the
eligible States.
Question. It is my understanding that the Department of the
Interior has changed the definition of ``obligated funds'' under CIAP.
Why?
Answer. The Department has not changed the definition of obligated
funds.
Question. The administration has been quick to highlight increased
levels of domestic oil and gas production. How much of this is
attributed to production increases on State and private lands as
opposed to Federal lands?
Answer. The Department of the Interior does not administer oil and
gas from State and private lands. However, as reported by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration in its March 2012 report ``Sales of
Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, Fiscal Year 2003
Through Fiscal Year 2011'',production of oil from onshore Federal lands
in fiscal year 2011 was 112 million barrels, an increase more than the
108 million barrels produced in fiscal year 2010. Natural gas
production from Federal lands in fiscal year 2011 was 2,955 billion
cubic feet, nearly level with the 3,068 billion cubic feet produced in
fiscal year 2010. Average oil production from Federal lands from fiscal
year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 was 103 million barrels. Average oil
production increased from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011 to
108 million barrels. Average gas production from Federal lands from
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 was 2,892 billion cubic feet.
Average gas production, too, increased from fiscal year 2009 through
fiscal year 2011 to 3,064 billion cubic feet.
Question. The President has called for an ``all-of-the-above''
approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges, and while I have
always supported energy diversification, it seems to me that this
budget and the proposed offshore oil and gas leasing plan for 2012 to
2017 does not reflect that. Can you speak to what the Department is
doing to explore and develop new energy resources, in the Gulf of
Mexico specifically, that could lower gas prices and strengthen our
energy security?
Answer. When President Obama took office, the United States
imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. The President has put forward
a plan to cut that by one-third by 2025. The administration is taking a
series of steps to execute the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, a
broad effort to protect consumers by producing more oil and gas at home
and reducing our dependence on conventional energy resources by using
cleaner, alternative fuels and improving our energy efficiency. The
Blueprint is a plan that calls for an ``all-of-the-above'' approach.
The administration is moving ahead with a comprehensive energy plan for
the country that is enhancing our energy security, creating jobs, and
improving protections for the environment. In 2011, American oil
production reached its highest level since 2003, and total U.S. natural
gas production reached an all-time high.
The Department of the Interior plays an important role in advancing
domestic production. Last November, I announced a proposed Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 that
would make areas containing more than 75 percent of undiscovered
technically recoverable oil and gas resources estimated in Federal
offshore areas available for exploration and development. The proposed
program focuses on six offshore areas where there are currently active
leases and/or exploration, and where there is known or anticipated
hydrocarbon potential. Three of the six areas are in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is and will remain one of the cornerstones of America's
energy portfolio and is central to our country's energy security. The
gulf, in particular the deepwater areas, already has several world
class producing basins and there have been a number of significant new
discoveries in the last year. We estimate that the Central Gulf of
Mexico holds more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 133.9 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas yet to be discovered. This is nearly double
the estimated technically recoverable resource potential of the Chukchi
Sea. The Western Gulf of Mexico is just behind the Chukchi with more
than 12 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and nearly 70
trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas.
We have been providing incentives to spur efficient oil and gas
development where possible using administrative action. Offshore,
existing authorities make it possible to shorten the base term of
leases, where appropriate, and reward diligent development efforts with
lease extensions, providing industry with an incentive to develop its
existing leases. The proposed 2012-2017 lease sales in the Gulf of
Mexico consider offering all the unleased available acreage, including
the small portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area that is
not under congressional moratorium pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006.
Moving ahead with the ``all-of-the-above'' strategy will reduce
dependence on foreign oil, thereby enhancing energy security and
helping us as we transition to a cleaner energy future. However, it
will not have a direct impact on the price of gasoline, which is
overwhelmingly dictated by the global price of crude oil. There are
other actions that the administration has taken that can have longer-
term impacts on the demand for gasoline, which is why the President set
an ambitious goal that by 2015 we would have 1 million electric
vehicles on the road, becoming the world's leader in advance vehicle
technologies. To help reach this goal, the President is proposing bold
steps to improve the efficiency of all modes of transportation and to
develop alternative fuels. The administration continues to push forward
on fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The President has
proposed to speed the adoption of electric vehicles with new, more
effective tax credits for consumers and support for communities that
create an environment for widespread adoption of these advanced
vehicles in the near term. These actions are already helping to lower
transportation costs by reducing dependence on oil, provide more
transportation choices to the American people, and revitalize the U.S.
manufacturing sector.
Question. I am curious to know if the Historic Preservation Fund
contains any public-private partnership opportunities to fund bricks
and mortar projects, previously carried out by grants from Save
America's Treasures program?
Answer. Development (bricks and mortar) projects are an eligible
activity under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). State and
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices may choose to use their annual
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grants to fund development activities
at National Register listed properties. Additionally, the NHPA requires
that States direct 10 percent of their annual HPF allotment to
Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Each State sets the parameters of
the types of projects CLGs can complete with this funding, and may
choose to allow CLGs to fund development projects.
Most States and tribes, however, currently use the majority of
their HPF grant funds to carry out nondiscretionary activities mandated
by the NHPA, including consultation with Federal agencies on the impact
of Federal undertakings (section 106 compliance), survey and inventory
of historic properties, listing properties in the National Register,
and administering CLGs. After this work has been completed, little
funding generally remains to complete development projects. Similarly,
few States currently choose to include development projects as an
eligible project type for CLGs subgrants, because the amount each State
distributes to CLGs is small. The average CLG subgrant in fiscal year
2011 was $2,600. The projects CLGs complete generally include survey of
historic properties, National Register listings, and educational
resources.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. With that, again, thank you, and the hearing
is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Wednesday, February 29, the
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]